Radical doomsayer environmentalists refuse to express joy at new NASA report which says Antarctic ice sheet has been gaining ice for decades

Uh oh. The radical doomsayer environmentalists who have been predicting melting ice caps for the past few decades are not going to like this at all – not one bit.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Instead, look for yourself. Read the news. Use whatever search engines you want.

You will not find a single example of celebration from any of the radical environmental doomsayer organizations that have been predicting the melting of the polar ice caps for the past few decades.

On the other hand, to those of us who like to look at things from a logical and rational perspective, this is great news – great news indeed.

NASA reports:


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

October 30, 2015

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.


November 8, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Science.


  1. EDell replied:

    Meanwhile, in the Arctic:

    “Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record (from 1979).”


    So what’s your pointless point?

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      My point is that the radical doomsayer environmentalists are never happy when their predictions of doom and gloom fail to come true.

    • veni replied:

      You don’t seem too happy about the good news!

  2. EDell replied:

    What are they supposed to be unhappy about? Do you even understand how global climate works on the planet? Picking Antarctica to make a pointless point while excluding the Arctic only intensifies the pointlessness of your pointless point vis-a-vis global climate. The climate people understand how climate works and they understand why what is happening in Antarctica proves nothing against the global affects of climate, which, believe it or not, will not be the same everywhere. So what are they supposed to be unhappy about? And which specific group of people are you referring to, anyway? Seems you don’t know so you throw a blanket on all of them and accuse them all of acting the way you fantasize them as acting.

    • veni replied:

      This calls for a celebration!

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      I am talking about the radical environmental doomsayers who have been predicting for decades that the polar ice caps would melt. Since the ice cap at the south pole git bigger, not smaller, they should be celebrating. But they are not celebrating.

      • EDell replied:

        Who are those “radical environmental doomsayers” specifically, or are they just a figment of your imagination? And the southern ice cap could be getting bigger, but it’s also getting a lot thinner. Why? See if you can figure that one out before you blurt out another unsupportable statement.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        The NASA measurements of increased ice at the south pole are based on tonnage, not square footage.

        Radical environmental doomsayers include, but are not limited to, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, and Paul Ehrlich. Also included are all the scientists whose computer models grossly overstated the amount of global warming that was going to happen. Please see my previous blog entry… Global warming scientists finally admit that their computer models exaggerate the amount of global warming: https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/warming-models-wrong/

  3. CARL CHRISTENSEN replied:

    Since Obama’s entrance into the Presidential DNC Treason Set Up, and the cry of Climate Change (it changes all of the time, the experts were threatened by TV stations, for telling the American Public that there was NO DETRIMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGES) and we keep hearing now, again, the experts in Climatology again….. no amount of money will change anything in the climate, which is the fact that there are approximately 91-93 active volcanoes spewing gases and debris into the Earth’s atmosphere, and also under the Oceans.

  4. HMichaelH replied:

    I recently learned of data about reduced activity on the sun which will have a very cooling effect on earth. The impact of Sun activity is far, far greater than all the behaviors of humans on earth. The Environmentalist had to change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because even they knew the data was no longer supporting their insane position of warming. So now we have “Climate Change” which is exactly what the weather has been doing since time began. Now if they can only figure out how to make money off this condition on the Sun, they will really be happy, even though the earth is going to be much cooler.

    You DO know when climate change is warmer; it is better for the quality of life, right? Very few people vacation at the earth’s poles but many places around the equator are vacation “Hot Spots,” aren’t they? Not much edible grows at the North Pole or in Antarctica, but crops can be found in almost all warm environments. Life is pretty scarce in cold environments, but multiplies with abandon in warmer climates. Life becomes introverted in the winter and extroverted in the summer.

    Money seems to be the bottom line for these crazy people….actually, maybe they’re not so crazy. Algore is a multi-millionaire from his involvement in the Global Warming craze (not to mention the money he must make from having invented the Internet!) Many, many people are profiting from the myth of Global Warming (or Climate Change), and it’s all for nothing. The weather is going to get warmer, and then it’s going to get colder, and then warmer, and then colder, and then warmer, and then colder, ad infinitum. These people obsessed with the weather have simply found a way to make millions of dollars from the fear they have instilled in the populations around the world. And summer continues to be warmer, and winter is colder, with spring and fall being lovely with the changing conditions.

    • EDell replied:

      And summers will continue to get warmer until they get hotter, too hot, and winters will get colder until they become too unbearable, and spring and fall will become wild cards of unpredictability while extreme weather events will continue to increase globally. Mother Nature has to throw up somehow if she’s always being fed bad food by us.

      • HMichaelH replied:

        You seem to have missed my main point. None of those things you say are going to happen are going to happen outside the norm of weather. Not in your lifetime, or mine, or our childrens’, or their children, ad infinitum. The weather has been happening since time began, just as you describe it. But you keep drinking that kool aid, Ed. Be sure to send those organizations who publicize this nonsense as much of your hard earned money as you can scrap together. Maybe they’ll send you a Christmas Card to say “Thanks.” Maybe not, since it will too cold and snowy to deliver it to you. Or maybe too hot, because of the changing climate conditions that are sure to change.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Yes, I am well aware that warm weather is better for the quality of life. I’m also well aware that commercial greenhouses pump in extra carbon dioxide to make the plants grow.

      And I also noticed the doomsayers’ switch from “global warming” to “climate change.” The climate has always been changing, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      As far as Al Gore is concerned… Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy: https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/hitler-gets-mad-at-al-gores-global-warming-hypocrisy/

      • HMichaelH replied:

        LOL. The “Hitler” link is rather funny, isn’t it? As long as you don’t understand German!

  5. veni replied:

    You would think people would be more worried about the global warming effect a nuclear bomb could have on the earth no that Iran has been given a clear path and lotsa cash to keep their promises.

  6. EDell replied:

    So Dan says “scientists whose computer models grossly overstated the amount of global warming that was going to happen” is proof of climate change not happening? If their models have been off, it’s only in degrees of error (besides, who can really predict the future with pinpoint accuracy), not in the fact that climate change exists and the planet is getting warmer and it’s having its effects on weather in measurable and probably even in immeasurable ways. And predictions aren’t meant to be taken verbatim as setting a direction in the right course to try to get things from becoming worse, especially if the trajectory of those predictions point to it, also if off by a degree or two or five or ten. In any case, it’s 1 degree hotter now that it was in 1850-1900, before the industrial age really took off. That may not sound like much where you live, but in the greater scheme of things, the big picture of things, looking at it globally, the impact of that 1 degree, which is halfway to the danger zone of 2 degrees, has been showing to have proven its wallop through all sorts of increasing amounts of extreme weather events.

    As for hMichael, the point you keep missing is the simple fact that never in human history, at least going back 800,000 years, have CO2 levels risen to 400 ppm – it only managed to peak at about 300 ppm over 300,000 years ago, with all other peaks being less than that. So yeah, if a first such as 400 ppm of CO2 can happen in my lifetime after 800,000 years, I guess anything else is possible within my lifetime.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      Global warming is real. It’s just not as big as what had been predicted.

      When dinosaurs were alive, the carbon dioxide level was several times what it is now, and it was so hot that there were no polar ice caps. And life thrived so much that we ended up with the biggest land animals that ever existed.

      Carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain.

      If the carbon dioxide level continues to fall, it will become so low that plants will not be able to live. Perhaps evolution created humans for the purpose of putting the carbon back into the air.

      • EDell replied:

        The fact that global warming is now real is all that was proven by scientists’ predictions. The pesky preciseness of temperatures and conditions needing to match those predictions is not something that can be attained, only the direction of climate’s progress can be ascertained. Since you admit that global warming is real, then that’s all that matters – that it’s real, it exists. Whether it’s .06 degree hotter now or .08 degree is irrelevant – it’s hotter, period. And when it was hotter during the time of the dinosaurs, keep in mind that the planet was still in its post-creation phase and continents were still forming, so there was still a lot of heated geological and climatological activity going on. Things didn’t cool down to “normal” levels until well after the dinosaurs disappeared and man began to appear. And no, man never did used to co-exist with dinosaurs.


      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        Of course man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. Homo sapiens is approximately 200,000 year old. The last dinosaurs died approximately 65 million years ago. Also, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. And humans are related to chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans.

        And if you want reliable electricity that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and you don’t want to cause global warming, nuclear power is the best way to go.

    • HMichaelH replied:

      I always enjoy your observations. I wonder if you could explain to me how the data about the level of Carbon Dioxide was collected and stored from over 800,000 years ago? I think the point you seem to consistently miss is, the data used by your fellow fear-mongering environmentalists is corrupt. I doubt any data used to prove your point which is 800,000, or even 300,000 years old is going to be accurate or even relative. Only those with an ulterior motive would suggest a warm climate and the presence of Carbon Dioxide is a bad thing. The amazing fact is how many scientifically illiterate people believe this nonsense.

      • EDell replied:

        Ice core records are used to determine CO2 levels of 800,000 years ago. Scientists, you know, have a way of figuring these things out from all the evidence that exists and is often buried in the Earth itself. And it’s not about accuracy because there’s no such thing, it’s about determining patterns, which can easily be determined by even inaccurate figures if the patterns prove consistent. The problem with climate revisionists and skeptics is that they all get anal over the nano details in a way to try to prove that the bigger picture is erroneous or false because they can’t prove it through any other way. But the nano details don’t tell the story, the patterns do.


  7. EDell replied:

    Dan blurted out something like “And if you want reliable electricity that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and you don’t want to cause global warming, nuclear power is the best way to go.”

    Nuclear power won’t eliminate global warming. And of course, there’s the pesky little matter of having to always deal with the ever-accumulating spent nuclear fuel that you can never get rid of by recycling it into anything, of which there is now 85,000 metric tons and growing at a rate of almost 2,500 tons per year, and that’s simply with the current number of plants in operation. Add more plants and you significantly increase the amount of radioactive spent fuel that would need to be stored all over the country. One little disaster, like an earthquake where some of the fuel is stored, and you’re looking at real big problems. Not to mention that to build just one new plant can run the government up to $4 billion. Willing to see your taxes increase to pay for that, or would you rather borrow money from China with interest to cover the cost of that?

    There are no magic answers or quick fix solutions.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      France gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power. They recycle some of their nuclear waste. What they don’t recycle now, they save for the future, in the hopes that future technology will allow it to be recycled.

      In France, the number of people who have been killed by protesting against nuclear power, is actually larger than the number of people who have been killed by nuclear power. A guy named Sébastien Briat was killed when he chained himself to the train tracks as a train carrying nuclear waste was approaching. The train conductor slammed on the breaks, but what Briat didn’t know was that it takes a mile for a train to stop. Splat! By comparison, no one in France has ever been killed by nuclear power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: