A so-called time-lapse video of still photos, first published by The Atlantic, then feverishly republished by the Huffington Post, has been making waves around the world.
With the gullible, and the intellectually lax — I can be no more polite than that.
It purports to prove that man-made global warming is real, and getting worse, because “North Pole Melting Leaves Small Lake At The Top Of The World.”
It is a blatant deception.
By the (international banker-owned) media.
How so?
The webcams from which the images were taken are actually located some 350 miles south of the north pole. As exposed by AccuWeather.com:
Did the media just prove North Pole is NOT melting?
UPDATE: I received a reply via email from Roger Anderson, who is one of the webcam scientists at the University of Washington. I had asked him if the media was using the webcams that were NOT at the North Pole, but rather drifting southward. He replied: “Yes, they are. The approximate position of the webcams today (obtained from PAWS Buoy 819920) is 07/25/1500Z 84.773°N 5.415°W.” This is even further south than I had placed the buoy, because the data I had was one week old. This puts the webcam at approximately 350 miles south of the North Pole, closer to Greenland than Santa Claus! So no worries, folks, the North Pole is not melting.
UPDATE: I just found another Atlantic article that quotes one of the webcam scientists, who doesn’t address the location issue but says this is “not the first time scientists have observed a melt pond at the North Pole, nor is it the largest.”
Then there’s the inconvenient truth that the ice sheet in the Arctic is not solid, it is packed ice floes, and that “lakes” and at times, open ocean, have often appeared at the actual North Pole. Indeed, they have been one of the hazards of over-the-ice travel to the North Pole from the beginning of European and American polar exploration. There is lots of photographic proof of this, as far back as the 1960’s (from navsource):
“Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines”
Of course, you can be certain that all those Chicken Littles shrieking and panicking and sharing that oh so scary video, have not once paused to question whether it is truth or fiction.
These people vote.
These people are the international usurers’ best friends.
“Useful idiots”, I believe is the phrase they use.
Barnaby Is Right 
What blatant misinformation for money. And they get away with it. Same as CFC and ozone depletion. Most of Antarctic ozone depleting gases are from a natural source and have been for millions of years. The blatant evidence is there for those who care to look and much of it is well reported.
Another article relaying an inconvenient truth:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/30/science-environment/2013-track-be-one-australias-hottest?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=366362&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=
They just keep coming. But never let the facts get in the way of denial theory.
Mick, I have allowed this comment through for one reason only — as opportunity to remind you of my previous warning.
Your link here is not addressing the subject of the post (North Pole lake “scare”). IMO, it is being argumentative, and obnoxious (“denial theory”) for its own sake.
I do not write this blog in order to waste my time reading everyone’s comments in order to police trolling behaviour. Nor do I write it to give folks a forum to mindlessly throw “argument from authority” (ie, fallacious reasoning) links at each other.
If you agree with what is published here, fine, If not, then please provide only polite, relevant, on-topic, well-thought through comments, or else, if you cannot do that, then please enjoy reading what you want to hear, elsewhere.
I respect a well argued and documented point of view, even if I disagree with it. I hope that I meet my own criteria in my responses. I try. Although not well received your accusations about me are untrue and you are clearly using the old adage about the ‘best form of defence is offence’.
If I am argumentative it is the frustration of dealing with somebody whose point of view borders on propaganda and who offers no credible support for a point of view. Obnoxious? Maybe, but read some of your attacks on me …… the punishment for disagreeing with you. Trolling? I do not troll but only debate to change perceptions. Impolite? Not my style unless attacked repeatedly. Even then I normally hold back.
Whether or not you let comments go through is entirely up to you. Your site.
I have been having reservations about your blogs for a while. You only appear to have very few followers (I wonder why?) and genuine debate is not wanted as all I see (on this topic at least) is propaganda, something I have little tolerance for and even less time for. When the veracity of your claims about climate are supported by somebody who is funded by the oil and gas industry and when you use images from the cover of a populous magazine publication then where is your credibility?
Threatening in order to gain compliance is what bullies do whilst persuasion by reasoned argument is what those who seek enlightenment do. That is why I have generally stuck with you on your economic blogs, even though you refuse to address some issues on which you have made a big call (jubileeus money). Do yourself a big favour, stick to what you understand, stay away from that which you have no understanding of and offer all points up for discussion….not just those which agree with your point of view. It will save you a lot of grief in the long run.
Cheers.
“If I am argumentative it is the frustration of dealing with somebody whose point of view borders on propaganda” … “I have been having reservations about your blogs for a while… all I see (on this topic at least) is propaganda”
No one is forcing you to read this blog, Mick. If you don’t like the content, don’t read it.
“..you refuse to address some issues on which you have made a big call (jubileeus money)”
You have been invited to detail what your criticisms of it are, in the comments section for that essay. You have not done so.
Oh by the way…..perhaps you do not need to publish our personal ‘discussions’ as this serves no useful purpose and they are of course not related to the subject matter in any way.
Mick, I hope you will try to appreciate that what you ask here is rather problematic. Consider please: How am I supposed to know, with any certainty, just what you consider to be “personal discussions” that you do not want published? And, if I do not publish something that you would like a response to, then … ergo … because it is not published, I cannot respond.
As a suggestion, perhaps you would be so kind as to help me out by prefacing each one of your submitted comments with a clear statement, “PRIVATE – DO NOT PUBLISH – I DO NOT REQUIRE A RESPONSE” (or words to that effect), if you simply want to tell me something, but do not want it published, and, do not want a direct response.
And on the other hand, if you do want a comment published, and/or you do want a response, then perhaps you might clearly preface those comments with, “PUBLIC – YOU MAY PUBLISH”, or words to that effect. And if you wish, I will delete that preface to those comments only, so that it reads to others as a normal comment.
Ok?
I live by the law of common sense. My wife often says I am too practical. My point is that if we are having a disagreement or a lean to then this is nothing to do with the blog in question. I think that you would recognise the difference but I will in future add the words PRIVATE ONLY if this helps. Cheers.
Thank you Mick, that would be very helpful.
Just as a quick example to illustrate the practical reason why I suggested this — in some of your (I presume?) “personal discussion” comments that I have not published, you asked questions. That is, you finished certain sentences with a question mark. So, even if I think that a comment is probably “personal discussion”, if you include a question mark somewhere, then this (contrarily) suggests that you actually want a response. You see my dilemma?
In any event, thank you for agreeing to this practical measure.
When you are ready, I look forward to seeing your criticisms of my currency idea at the comments section of that essay — that is, after all, the logical place for them to appear. That way, other readers of that essay can immediately go on to read your views on it.
Cheers.