The poles aren’t melting, new report stabs Al Gore again

Al Gore said in his 2007 Noble Prize acceptance speech that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.”

Can we take back that Prize now…yet again a warmist prediction has failed.

A new report shows that the poles haven’t just not melted they have in fact grown in ice.

Last week, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported:

“The North and South Poles are not melting.” In that report, oceanographer Ted Maksym noted that polar ice “is much more stable than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”

That Woods Hole study was confirmed by today’s NOAA  Arctic radar map which shows the Arctic Ice Cap at more than 4,000,000 square miles, larger than on any December 28 in the past five years. Reaching the North Pole requires either a dog sled or a nuclear sub; Al Gore’s cruise ship will stay in the tropics. At the South Pole,  Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.

NOAA’s Arctic Report Card; Update for 2014 provides similar data for the Earth’s other big ice sheet, Greenland. Data from the GRACE satellite and other sources has shown an annual average Greenland ice loss of more than 300 billion tons until 2013.  That loss has now dropped sharply by 98% to 6 billion annual tons since mid 2013. A loss of 300 billion tons adds about one millimeter to sea level rise.

All this frigid data parallels the 17 year pause in global land and sea surface temperatures as reported by NASA, NOAA, the UK Climate Research Unit, and the University of Alabama Huntsville Remote Sensing Systems program. That pause is occurring despite our annual release of more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide(CO2) from burning fossil fuels, especially coal. Half of that CO2 release stays in the atmosphere. But CO2 remains a trace gas, as the atmosphere weighs several quadrillion tons, and a quadrillion is a million times a billion.

Another prediction that crops would start failing and we would all burn up seems to have failed as well.

[U]nfulfilled dire warnings coming from UN agencies about the effect of CO2 emissions are contributing to public skepticism about global warming. Global warming ranked 19th in a recent Pew Poll list of 20 issues which concerned the public.

In the most recent UN IPCC report, lead author Dr. Mark Howden said,

“There’s increasing evidence that climate change is also impacting on agriculture, particularly on some of the cereal crops such as wheat and maize. The negative impacts are greater and quicker than we previously thought.”

Farmers continue to ignore the IPCC. The US Department of Agriculture notes that world agricultural production set all-time records for all three major cereal crops in 2014, with rice output up 1.1 percent, wheat up 11.2 percent, and corn up a whopping 14.0 percent over 2013.

The science is settled eh?

The only thing being settled is that the predictions were all wrong, the models were all wrong and the Earth doesn’t care one little bit about climate whingers and their alarmism.

We all want a pollution free environment, no problems with that, but stop lying to us about the ever warming planet. It’s crap and we all know it.

Already thought he useful idiots in NZ are claiming the latest el Nino drought is caused by climate change.


– Watts Up with That



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Just a thought …

    It’s not ” climate change ” it’s just ” climate cycle” and it will continue to do this ad infinitum…….

    • WeaselKiss

      For me, I just follow the money.
      A quick look at all this climate change hoo-hah and it’s not long before ‘Oh ohh!!, here is this group of people trying to scam this other group of people out of money.
      ‘So that’s what this is all about eh’.

  • cows4me

    I heard on of these intellectual tossers giving a talk on Red Radio the other night. Apparently there is a lot of heating going on and this can be found in the middle layers of the worlds oceans. Not at the top mind you and not deep down but in the middle. This will cause rapid melting of floating ice at some stage, there’s just no beating these swine they have an answer for everything. No wonder most of these fools are leftys, imagine their success on playing the markets.

    • Cadwallader

      Well those fishing pirates down south ought be given an immediate opportunity to find out how warm the ocean is beneath their ships.

    • Whitey

      Surely the ice floats in the top layer of the ocean where the heating is supposedly not occurring?

    • BloodyOrphan

      Yes this one seems to be the major line the warmists are using these days, especially in the states, the empirical lie they are telling goes along the lines of …

      “The super heated carbon dioxide is dissolved by the oceans and warming the ocean as it gets caught in trans oceanic currents”

      Blah blah blah …. Global Warming!!!

      And the Morons eat up every word of it hook line and sinker, and proceed to regurgitate it ad infinitum.

  • Tom

    “Al Gore’s cruise ship will stay in the tropics”

    Nice dig

  • OT Richter

    But hold on, in today’s Horrid there is an article that states:

    “Scientists say that faster pace of sea level rise is from melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica and shrinking glaciers, triggered by man-made global warming.”

    I’m confused, and no wonder people ignore global warming & climate change when there is so much contradictory info floating around.

    • Randy Thaddeus Prosepon

      It also says the ocean is rising faster on the USA eastern seaboard than elsewhere. Not sure how that works, always thought water in a fixed vessel would more or less rise equally, even if it has the moon sloshing it around from one side to the other very couple of hours…

      • ex-JAFA

        Must be one heck of a saltwater waterfall all along the line between Chile’s southern islands and Antarctica!

  • Nyla

    people or scientists can say what they like, theyre not accountable, they just want more money for research/job

  • Dazza

    Then we are subjected to the CEO of Z Energy declaring on 3 News Monday night that Climate Change is scientifically proven and the evidence is correct and that’s why we are building a plant to make Bio Fuel from meat carcases.
    In other words Z Energy has made a very bad capital investment, a bit like Solid Energy and dived into Bio Fuels and if we can keep the charade going long enough and have enough people sucked in we may at some stage between now and the ice caps melting get a return on investment
    Maybe the Chairman of the Board should be seeking his resignation, Z Energy sells fuel and does a good job of it. Why would he tell the public untruths about climate change undermining their product and then invest in a competing product, clown!!

    • MaryLou

      Although, I will be happy when we are more or less un-reliant on essential products from the Middle East. I just don’t think climate change should be used to push progress along…

    • Cracker1963

      I remember- not too long ago- the Auckland Buses proudly powered by Methanol, LPG etc. All gone now- just like the LPG Tanks that Muldoon promoted & which my Father purchased to run the family Holden- he was mighty upset a few years later that the ‘every petrol station will stock LPG’ mantra didn’t happen, & the price of petrol dropped & he never made the savings promised in all the advertising for LPG. Funny that.

  • Toothbrush76

    Al Gore deserves to be pilloried for his actions leading up to his award in 2007 and I daresay nothing has changed in his plumbing the depths of climate change for his own financial benefit.
    At the time there was a comparison done of the Gore family house and that of Geo. W Bush and his wife. George W. won the eco stakes by a large margin – see “A tale of two houses”.

  • Yeah, right, whatever…

    Ummm, ahhh… What’s the “2007 Noble Prize?” Gore won?

  • twr

    It’s all been a big mistake based on a spelling error. The greenies said the *polls* were melting and we desperately had to so something about it. They don’t give a damn about the poles.

  • Amanda Atkinson

    I was at high school in the late 80’s when all this Global Warming clap trap began. Late 80’s, after the Berlin Wall came down, the world wasn’t under threat from Nuclear war anymore. The scientists whom were receiving millions in research grants up til then, to study (and rightly so) the afftects of Nuclear war, now how had nothing. So instead of studying how humans can ruin the earth with Nuclear weapons, they said, lets study how humans can ruin the earth with cars and factories. Hence we then had ‘global warming’, which got changed to ‘climate change’ once the stats began to show that those predictions from the late 80’s were not looking to ever come true. These idiots got it wrong in the late 80’s, we are 25 years down the road, and none of the things they said would happen, have happened, why should be we believe them now about their predictions for the next 25 years?

    • Cracker1963

      In 1973 (I was 10) our school teacher (a rabid leftwinger- who would continually praise Trade Union Strike Action) was in tears as she informed us the by 1980 there will be a new ice age that would kill half the Worlds Population- the ice age being caused by all the air pollution humans make which would block the Suns rays from warming the land. I bet she is a warmist now. Really- she is anti-human.

      • Cadwallader

        “Anti-human” that is the nub of all of this climate nonsnese.

      • Disinfectant

        And 1973 was the year of arguably New Zealand’s worst drought, followed by an exceptionally cold winter, then the big snowstorm in Canterbury.
        Sounds like normal to me.

      • MaryLou

        Yes, global cooling was the big issue around then…

        • Mythrandir

          Sorry that is false.

          • MaryLou

            Is it? I’ve heard a number of people slightly older than me talk about it, and there are references readily available:




            Plenty of references to the 1970’s theory available

          • Mythrandir

            “Is it?”


            From your own reference above about “global cooling” in the 70’s.

            “This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community”


            “a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.”

            Your reference, not mine. LOL.

          • MaryLou

            In that time frame, you definitely did not go through all those links in popular technology article.

            And why the LOL – are you 12?

            Edit: you distracted me from the point. The point is, regardless of what mainstream scientists thought, the theory existed and many people bought into it.

            No need for name calling.

          • Mythrandir

            Wouldn’t you laugh if someone posted a link supporting the other persons position?

            As for you popular technology article. It links to media not Science. As YOUR reference states – “This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community”.

          • MaryLou

            Edited my reply after you read it, sorry. Got distracted. Edited bit reads:

            The point is, regardless of what mainstream scientists thought, the theory existed and many people bought into it.

          • Mythrandir

            Yep you have a point there. My advice is read actual published Science. Or reputable Science magazines online that distil the published Science to a level where the layman can understand.

            Do not read a blog like WUWT, which is to Science what a hooker is to true love.

          • MaryLou


          • Mythrandir

            The problem with a blog like WUWT is that the take completely
            legitimate data but completely misrepresent it.

            Take Ice levels. They go up and down but we are most concerned about the median value. Last year we had the not so unusual condition where the peak extended above where the median value used to be. Blogs like WUWT disingenuously call it a “recovery” where in fact the median remained 1.5 million square kilometers below.

            This can be very difficult for the layman to pick up on and they are well aware of it and can dupe a lot of people with that type of junk that sounds plausible.

          • Oh please, Alarmists cherry pick the lowest day on record for a year not the median value and when WUWT counters that you try to pretend like your Alarmist friend’s cherry picking never happened.

            WUWT provides much needed balance to Alarmist hysteria.

          • MaryLou

            OK – now I gotta ask… did you just happen onto this site whilst I posted the link? Or…?

            Spooky :)

          • I was notified by the link.

          • MaryLou

            Aah – modern magic. You should visit more often, this topic pops up regularly and always proves to be a doozer!

          • Mythrandir

            Yes, the skeptics need more help :-)

          • Incorrect, WUWT is an excellent science blog that covers science in a way a layman can understand.

          • Mythrandir

            We’ll have to agree to disagree there.

          • Strawman argument, you explicitly said “There was no ice age scare in the 70’s” – over 100 media reports debunk this myth.


          • Mythrandir

            Sorry media doesn’t represent the Scientific view. Media is about sensationalism and selling copy. And even there your list is tiny. Pathetic.

          • You have made this strawman argument already. No kidding the media sensationalizes everything, just like they are now about “global warming” they did in the 1970s about “global cooling”. Over 100 media pieces is not tiny at all.

          • Mythrandir

            Rubbish. If anything the skeptic scientific view is overrepresented in the media.

          • Of course you would feel that way since you prefer censorship so everyone could only here one side of the argument.

          • Mythrandir

            Says the one who published only one side of his argument in cited media article.

          • The argument was whether there was a media scare of global cooling in the 1970s not how you spin it to pretend it did not exist.

          • Mythrandir

            You mean like how you asked MaryLou to delete two of her referenced articles? LOL.

          • That is not censorship, that is a correction.

          • You should be able to edit your post, just delete the Scientific American and Wikipedia links neither site is friendly to skeptics. Otherwise they are going to cherry pick them ignoring anything else.

          • MaryLou

            Thanks – wasn’t so much about whether there was scientific fact about the theory though, just that it was widespread and (some/many) people did believe that we were almost finished. Just like now we have some scientist saying it’s over for us, and some are skeptics, but most people believe it.

            So – I’ll let them stand!

          • Just use my list which is the most comprehensive resource on this issue and don’t let them bully you by twisting the argument to what was published in scientific journals. If something was a “scare” it is going to be done through the media and in this case there was overwhelming evidence of this happening.


          • Mythrandir

            Don’t you think if you were doing a honest “media” comparison you would also reference the articles stating the opposing view or stating warming?

          • Strawman argument, I was doing an honest media representation. I confirmed through overwhelming evidence that there was a global cooling scare in the 1970s. This irrefutable evidence is obviously a big problem for Alarmists and their messaging.

          • Mythrandir

            You confirmed nothing. For all you know the ratio could have been 1000:1 or more representing warming over cooling.


          • If I confirmed nothing, then you should have nothing to worry about as people read the evidence for themselves.


            People will make up their own minds if such a scare existed or not.

          • Mythrandir

            Good point!

          • MaryLou

            Just had a flick through your site – good articles and interesting reader posts. Will use for future reference!

      • Mythrandir

        Your teacher was obviously an idiot. There was no ice age scare in the 70’s. The pollution issue at the time was real though and it was due to emissions of sulfate aerosols from the unscrubbed effluent of coal fired power plants, and nitric oxide particulates from the combustion of gasoline in automobile engines. Since then sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide scrubbers have been introduced as well as low sulfur gasoline.

    • Mythrandir

      Please cite some examples from reputable “Scientific Journals” of the 80’s where predictions have not come true.

      My mind is open.

      Since you claim to me you read all the Science, this should be an easy exercise for you.

  • Curly1952
  • Cadwallader

    It is about 25c in the Manawatu and the rain is thundering down. Reminds me of the old song “I Can Hear The Grass Grow.” Welcome nourishing rainfall.This ought to have been in the drought thread….sorry.

  • The wildman

    Also on wind farms are needing power from the grid to keep them spinning so they dont ice up.lesson,dont build big wind farms.not sure how to get link up from e mail sorry.

  • Guest

    “Al Gore said in his 2007 Noble Prize acceptance speech that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.””

  • Mythrandir

    The misinformation in the WUWT post used for this Whale Oil post is very nicely outlined here.

    But you’re free to keep dreaming that the Science isn’t Settled.

    • Amanda Atkinson

      Not clicking it, not reading it, it’s bunkem, all of it. Go back to the late 80’s and see what was predicted then, none of it has happened.

      • Mythrandir

        “Go back to the late 80’s and see what was predicted then”


        Ocean acidification – Correct
        Warming globe – Correct
        Melting ice caps – Correct
        Sea level rise – Correct
        Habitat migration – Correct
        CO2 fertilization – Correct
        Increased humidity – Correct
        Greater weather extremes – Correct

        The list goes on and on.

        Perhaps you believe the Coal industry propaganda that breathing soot is good for you.

        • Amanda Atkinson

          nope, not a coal supporter. Just prefer to use a bit of logic and open my own eyes. Nope (2) jury is out on all those climate things. Plenty of science to say so. I read science on both sides, you only read it from one side. One word sums up people like you, “irrelevant”. Why? Because your minds are closed. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open. Climate scare mongers only read science that backs their view. Do some homework, don’t be so lazy.

          • Mythrandir

            “Just prefer to use a bit of logic”

            Good, because CO2 reflects heat back to the earth’s surface, and obviously that will heat the earth’s surface. Tell me Amanda, how do you manage to direct additional heat at the earth’s surface without warming it?

            I await your logical reply.

          • Amanda Atkinson

            Better put corks in all the volcanoes then hadn’t we. The volcanoes have been feeding the trees their precious CO2 since the dinosaurs were here. You ever read how much CO2 the volcanoes put out compared to humans? Go to sleep, like your mind. Good lord, you lot are like broken records and parrots. No doubt you will also have to have the last word, just the type of people you lot are. So predictable. Good night. pffft

          • Mythrandir

            “You ever read how much CO2 the volcanoes put out compared to humans?”

            Yes. The U.S. Geological Survey’s website makes the accurate claim that in any given year, all of the worlds volcanoes produce less than 1% of the CO2 that man produces.

            But you already knew that since you read all the Science.

            I still await your profound logic.

          • TreeCrusher

            To follow up on our previous discussion you asked me to point to one prediction that had been made in the past that had now been found to be false. Well maybe you won’t accept anything I cite, but I had a read of the blog link you posted above. The first point made is about how Al was mis-quoted and mis-represented as it was not his prediction that the ice caps could be gone in 7 years, instead he was citing a study published by US navy researchers. Will you accept a study completed by scientists, cited by Al as a prediction that has not come true? As these are the sorts of predictions I was talking about.

          • Mythrandir

            Yes, I accept, fair play TreeCrusher. The Artic is still diminishing however.

          • TreeCrusher

            And as I sadi, no one can argue against observable science, it is when scientists over egg the extrapolations and try and tell us what we should do to “fix” the problem that they are on shaky ground with me.

        • OneTrack

          Where is the sea level rising?

    • twr

      No, what’s outlined there is the hysterical squeakings of someone who claims that people who disagree with him have brains that don’t work, and that everyone is lying except him. Would be much more believable without the ad hominem attacks, spittle flecked rants, and spelling mistakes.

  • Mythrandir

    “stop lying to us about the ever warming planet.”

    There’s no lie to stop lying about. The only way skeptics can find a warming pause is by using satellite data that doesn’t measure surface temperatures, and further, by choosing a starting point just prior or on the second warmest year ever recorded 1998 – dishonestly raising the start of the trend line. Oh, and the time span is over a statistically insignificant period.

    • Oh the irony, skeptics were told that the UAH satellite record was biased and to use the RSS satellite record, so we use RSS and now they say we cannot use satellites at all because they do not support the Alarmist message anymore.

      The Great Pause 18 Years and 2 Months

      • Mythrandir

        You can use any record you like. All show a strong increase in temperature over a statistically significant time span.

        • 18-year pause is statistically significant.

  • Jess

    What a rubbish article. One of the ‘climate scientists’ quoted who makes those claims isn’t actually a scientist at all and has no peer reviewed literature at all.

    These ‘climate sceptics’ are being to look more and more like the anti-vac brigade.

    • Quote where Dr. Peiser is claimed to be a “climate scientist” as I have never heard him referred to as such. And please don’t use such biased sources when you try to smear him as an “anti-vaxxer”.

    • Cadae

      Undeniable facts about growing ice at the poles are rather upsetting to alarmists – it doesn’t fit their models or world views at all. The result is a lot of alarmist special pleading followed by even weaker ad-hominem attacks such as the attack on Dr. Peiser.