Sea ice around the Antarctic averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) in November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average for November is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles). The arguments from the Climate Change camp all seem to be “no matter what happens, it is still evidence of Global Warming.”
If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science?...
When questioned about the utter lack of warming recorded over the past few years, the Climate Change camp will quietly, grudgingly, admit to a “pause.”...Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax.
An analysis of scholarly literature, found in such august journals as the Geophysical Review Letters, Science and Nature, shows that more than 500 scientists have published articles contradictory to the current Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming theories. Most of the articles produced evidence that a 1,500-year cycle is responsible for more than a dozen “warmings” linking back to the last Ice Age—which Man can have had no impact on, whatsoever.
It is much more reasonable to come to the conclusion that our modern warming is also linked primarily to fluctuations in solar irradiance, just as past warmings always have been.
...Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers."