Confounded

While economic growth in the US is extremely weak, national debt continues to rise precipitously, and the the middle east is imploding, Barack Obama has re-re-re-pivoted back to "climate change" as a national issue. Worse than that, he arrogantly ridicules those who suggest that the science is far from "settled," that much of the data used to make the core climate change arguments has been doctored, that existing computer models are ridiculously inaccurate, and the majority of scientists who are always purported to agree that the science is settled, isn't a majority at all.

Of course, Barack Obama has always been the smartest guy in the room, hasn't he? So I suppose we should all simply agree with him. Right?

One of the pivotal arguments of those who are proponent of the climate change religion is that the global ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and that the resulting sea rise will inundate large population centers in the next 100 years.

Today, the MailOnline (U.K.) reports:

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979. In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.

The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

Hmmm. Interesting that Obama's trained media hamsters haven't mentioned this in the USA.

The climate change religion is not about facts, it's about belief. That's perfectly okay for folks who want to get all worked up about unscientific claims of catastrophe. But it's not okay for the man who sets policy for the EPA and other government agencies. It's not okay for the man who tries to influence public opinion, not with solid science, but with hysterical claims and irresponsible ridicule for those who present a cogent counter-argument.