Turns out the poles aren’t melting, not that our media or government will say anything

New Zealand sent 18 people to Lima in Peru for a talkfest about doing “SOMETHING, ANYTHING, PLEASE” about global warming. Eighteen people flying across the Pacific ocean to talk about how we can contribute to stopping the poles melting.

It never occurs to these morons that stopping such talk-fests would be a good start.

We are about to likely send even more people to Paris for the next talk-fest, but it turns out the poles don’t need saving, not that you will ever read about in NZ media or hear from our government.

In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.

For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, conducted a study in which he sent an underwater robot into the depths of the Antarctic sea to measure the ice.

His results contradicted previous assumptions made by scientists and showed that the ice is actually much thicker than has been predicted over the last 20 years.

Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), said this latest research adds further proof to the unpredictability of the supposed effects of global warming.

He said: “The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong.

“Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted.”  

He added: “Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not. This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon.”

Separate satellite data released this month showed evidence that at the other end of the globe, the ice in the Arctic sea is also holding up against climate change better than expected.

The data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite suggests that Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 were above the average set over the last five years, and sharply up on the lows recorded in 2011 and 2012.

According to this research, Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November this year averaged at 10,200 cubic kilometres.

This figure is only slightly down on the 2013 average of 10,900 cubic kilometres, yet massively up on the 2011 low of 4,275 cubic kilometres and the 6,000 cubic kilometres recorded in 2012.

Dr Peiser, who believes the threat of global warming has been overstated by climate scientists, described this occurrence as “some kind of rebound” adding that no-one knows what will continue to happen to the poles.

Has anyone heard from Al Gore lately about his “Inconvenient Truth”…it seems those truths were in fact lies and are continuing to be busted on an almost weekly basis now.

I can’t wait for the global fraud trials to begin…if you did in business what these so-called scientists have done you’d be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff or David Ross.


– Daily Express


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.

  • Hard1

    These Heritage conferences need to be preserved. When the whole world is saving money with a host of internet video services that cost next to nothing, it is imperative that our history of generous allotments for experts be maintained. Otherwise, people will lose their jobs in the travel sector. Global something must be addressed face to face to monitor the effects of solar radiation around the pool and the current state of the minibar.

    • MaryLou

      Imagine what will happen to global unemployment levels if the truth “outs”!

      • Andy

        Lots of otherwise unemployable people will be unemployed!

  • Timebandit
    • Will Travers

      A little bit of digging reveals that the climate has been much cooler when CO2 levels were higher than today and vice versa and any combination of the 2 that you wish. AGW proponents are happy to highlight that drilling through the ice cores at the poles reveals the history of CO2 levels, but there have been at least 4 occasions when no ice existed at the poles. They were all without the help of an industrialised world too unless those sneaky dinosaurs had been building factories.

      • colin herbertson

        yea, the ice free antactic evidence is interesting. In the distant past we know that continental drift meant antarctica wasn’t at the pole,but in more recent times it could be that the earths axis may have been differant.Sounds far fetched but ice cores indicate that parts of antarctic may have been ice free just a few thousand years ago,there are medieval maps that show a near accurate image of an ice free antarctic. We didn’t know what was under there until 1950.

  • colin herbertson

    What is never mentioned is that the arctic and antarctic are,as their names suggest, total opposites. One is an icecap on a solid base of stone cold continental rock,insulated by a very deep very wide and very cold ocean. The arctic is an ice cap sitting over a shallow sea closely surrounded by huge land masses and warm ocean currents that heat and cool with the seasons.It is reasonable to expect the size of the northern ice cap to fluctuate over time, we just haven’t been watching close enough for long enough to know what is normal.

  • Murray Smith

    Here was I hoping my house would automatically become beachfront property, even though it’s 30kms inland. Guess I’ll just have to build a pool.

    • Albert Root

      Make sure you don’t use chlorine, as that will contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer

      • Murray Smith

        It can’t be that bad, surely ? They make us drink it in our tap water.

        • Steve (North Shore)

          Try copper sulphate, crystal clear water, don’t tell the pool people

          • kehua

            Right on Steve, used that for years to remedy the duck pooh in troughs, clears the water and kills salmonella greebies all in one hit every 6/7 weeks/

  • Will Travers

    And another thing – Deserts (the hot ones) – no clouds but more or less same amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Huge variations in day and night temperature. Anywhere else you choose – Auckland for instance. When cloudy much smaller variation in day and night temperature. Now tell me which has a bigger influence on retaining heat.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Wait for some denials from communist Norman….

    • Albert Root

      He’s a Marxist, which is far worse.

  • Andy

    I wonder what stunts Greenpeace will pull in Paris. In Peru, they damaged the Nazca lines. In NZ, they nailed the Statoil office door shut in Wellington. Perhaps daub paint on the Mona Lisa? “Taking action’ on climate change is a serious business…

    • Rick H

      I would hope they all get “turned around” at the border.
      They are a bunch of criminals after all.

  • Andy
  • Teletubby

    What gets my goat about this lot is the hypocrisy of swanning around the world in jet planes to discuss what they are going to do about all those evil people that need to have their carbon emissions controlled. Gareth “Carbon Footprint” Hughes is a world standard bearer in this fine art.

    • Cadwallader

      Can all of the 18 NZers who went to Lima please be identified? I wager there are some classic troughers amongst them, maybe even a Kapa Haka troupe or two?

    • Mythrandir

      You get your goat up about strange things. It’s not hypocrisy. There’s no other practical way to get around in a timely fashion.

      • ex-JAFA

        I think the point is that there’s no need for them to “get around” at all. With superfuturistic technologies like the Internet soon to be invented, people will soon be able to communicate in real time with others all over the globe.

      • colin herbertson

        what all 18000 of them?

      • TreeCrusher

        That’s funny, my company has these wiz bang camera thingies that connect to other camera thingies all around the world using some magic called the interweb. But then they’re only a global, fortune 200 company with over 100k employees and would probably learn a thing or two about productivity from these guys.

        Next time I have a meeting with the guys in San Fran I’m telling them they’re doing it wrong and flying me and the team over there, business class of course.

  • mommadog

    Kerry on ZB this morning was interviewing someone about the glacier in the South island on which the ice has currently retreated and so climbers were being helicoptered in. He was saying that the ice had grown years previous and was now retreating as the cycle of Mother Nature. Kerry was trying so hard to get him to say the current ice retreat was due to humans interfering aka global warming and he so politely would not have a bar of it and kept referring back to cycles of nature, nature knew best and this was what happened – natural periods of ice build up and growth then periods where it retreated.. At the end of the interview when the guest had gone all she could say was lets hope the ice starts to build up again in a doomsday kind of voice. If Kerry and those full of it on the left stopped talking that may provide some global warming relief as less hot air being bandied about.

    • jonno1

      I heard that too and was most impressed with the gentleman concerned, he was GM (or something similar) of the Fox and Franz Joseph glaciers. He said they were expanding until 2008 then reversed, as part of a natural cycle. He also explained about el nino etc and how it all works (heavy snow and rainfall in the alps brought down by gravity then freezing almost to sea level), a unique situation in the world.

      When Kerre went on about the cost of flying people in he agreed but said they keep flying hours to a minimum and work with their partners to keep costs down – code for making sure the helicopter operators don’t screw them I guess.

      To be fair, part of Kerre’s job is to probe, but he didn’t fall into her trap. Full marks that man!

    • ex-JAFA

      Had that been me, I like to think I would’ve said “I don’t want to be party to spreading communist lies; there’re enough people in this studio doing that already”.

  • Gaynor

    What would be so wrong with ice free poles? Don’t we need more land for our growing population?

  • Mythrandir


    Except that it turns out the poles are infact melting and it’s just that denialist once again misrepresent the research.

    As an example, the mention of Ted Maksym’s work, which in laymen terms, merely announces that the ice moves and gets jumbled up a lot more than thought, and as a result the ice near the coast and in the interior of the ice pack can get really thick over winter.

    So to address the title of this blog post – That’s why our media and government aren’t saying anything. Because there’s nothing new to say, except for that they aren’t easy dupes of the denialist propaganda machine.

    • Use of the word denier or denialist marks you as one of the religion of gaia…never questioning scientist even when they are wrong.

      The world has warmed for 18 years and still you bang on about it…who is the one in denial?

      • Mythrandir

        Firstly all major datasets covering land and sea produce a warming trend over the last 18 years, including GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT4, Berkeley, and UAH (satellite). Only RSS (satellite) does not.

        Secondly, whether any or all show a warming, pause, or cooling trend over the past 18 years is actually meaningless since the time span is too short to get a 2 sigma level of confidence below the trend itself.

        There is simply too much noise from weather.

        Statistics gives you a trend line, not only with error bars, but also with statistical confidence limits.

        So when you say that there is a trend of 0 after 18 years, the problem is that the time span is so short that the confidence limits in the statistics can really put the trend at anywhere between say 0.2’C and -0.2’C

        This is why climate is defined on 30 year periods or longer, because with typical data sets, robust statistics requires roughly 30 bits of data to get the confidence limits small enough to say anything significant.

        • colin herbertson

          I’ll be interested to hear what you have to say when things are much the same in another 12 years then

          • Mythrandir

            If you want to lose your money then bet on a downward sloping or flat trend line.

      • jaundiced

        i agree. Calling those who disagree a ‘denier’ immediately loses you any credibilty.

        • Mythrandir

          I obviously disagree.

          A warmer globe is a requirement of the basic laws of radiative physics and thermodynamics as atmospheric CO2 is increased.

          It is anyone who denies THIS that loses credibility since the science is supported by a vast web of inter-related findings, both observational, experimental and theoretical, and all of which links back to basic concepts of science that are 200 years old. If those are wrong, then all of science developed over the last 200 years – every shred of it – is also wrong since all of it is based in part or in total on those basic laws of physics.

          So I’m afraid the probability that any major aspect of climate science will be overturned is ZERO, and those who think otherwise are living on planet Delusion.

          • colin herbertson

            wow you do have a bee in your bonnet don’t you?.While you’re right about the effects of co2 the seriousness of it is being wildly overstated,a few years back we were all supposed to be doomed when co2 content reached 400ppm,that was passed a couple of years ago and guess what….. 350ppm, 400ppm the differance amounts to diddly squat. unfortunatly there is such an indutry about this now that fear and guilt distorts the reality.

          • jaundiced

            … and resorting to CAPITALS. Stop shouting, stop name calling, listen to others (you never know, you may learn something), and maybe people will listen to you

          • Mythrandir

            Aha. I put a total of four words in caps. You’re just having a laugh right?

          • TreeCrusher

            I totally agree with the basic physics of the situation and I also agree with a lot of the observational science being conducted in this area. No reasonable person could argue with these facts when presented.

            The problem I have always had, and maybe it is more in the delivery rather than the science, is when the scientists move to predictions. We are constantly bombarded with predictions about what will happen when certain variables reach certain levels. And then scientists do their best to extrapolate observational data to estimate when certain variables will meet those points. It is those extrapolations that have been found wanting on a number of occasions, the latest one being feedback loops. I completely understand the theroy of feedback loops and on the face of it seems reasonable. But extrapolations that have been based on these feedback loops completed in the past are now being shown to not be accurate. This indicates we do not have a full understanding of all the variables in play, but yet we are still expected to make significant, life altering changes based on these extrapolations.

            I beleive this is more politics rather than science, as science is completely ok with not knowing everything. In fact it is a prerequisite. It is political agneders that are trying to force change based on extrapolations that still require maturity, by your own admission. That, I’m sorry, is where I part ways with your opinion and the “science” as I am not confident the extrapolations being made are robust enough for me to make the lifestyle changes being asked of me.

          • Mythrandir

            Hard to comment as you are not being specific as to what you are referring to when you say “shown to not be accurate.”

            What specifically has not been shown to be accurate? Perhaps you are referring to predictions of Climate Models which are often attacked by conservative rags and blogs representing coal and oil interests?

          • TreeCrusher

            There have been many predictions over the years that have been found wanting. You only have to go back through the IPCC reports and look at early predictions and compare them to predictions in the to later reports. And I did give an example, feedback loops. This is the big unknown at the moment and much research is going into this. You must also know about the hypothisis that heat energy is being stored in the deep ocean, something that had not been explored in detail a decade ago.

            You would be a very brave person to stand up and proclaim that we know all there is to know about the climate, we are experts and everything is fitting our past predictions perfectly, and, if that were the case, why are we still spending money on climate science?

            I think the big problem is when politics and science blend. the unfortunate thing is many scientists, however right they are, are marginalising a large proportion of the population due to their slide into advocacy and blending of science and politics.

            Let’s says for a moment that the world will warm by a couple of degrees over the next hundred years and let’s agree that that will have certain impacts on the climate and environment around us, ok that’s science, albeit not observational science, but a hypothesis based on experience and knowledge. It’s when we start getting told what to do with that information that things get tricky. I can think of two basic options; preventive measures taken now, or reactive measures taken at the time. Both are reasonable approaches and the choice should be made in the political arena, not the scientific one. Personally I choose, and would vote for, as is my democratic right, the latter.

          • Mythrandir

            “There have been many predictions over the years that have been found wanting.”

            Such as?

            “And I did give an example”

            No you didn’t. You just state feed back loops (in your opinion) are a big unknown.

            What specific predictions are you referring to?

            “You would be a very brave person to stand up and proclaim that we know all there is to know about the climate”

            Not really.

            The primary cause and effect has long ago been established and quantified.

            Today virtually all of the secondary feed backs are also known and quantified.

            What is left is what the trivial third order and higher effects are.

          • TreeCrusher

            you are either not very well read or an incredibly disingenuous person. Maybe listen to what Neil deGrasse Tyson has to say in the final episode of Cosmos; paraphrasing, every great scientist has made mistakes and science by definition will never know everything. Heck even Albert Einstein died being completly wrong about superposition.

            I will still vote for for dealing with any resulting problem reactively and you my friend have no right to remove my right to vote.

          • Mythrandir

            I would agree with you if we were trying to predict something like the weather decades hence but we are not. Like I said, in the case of climate science, It is like not being able to predict the exact height of the next person entering into a room (weather) but still knowing the average height and distribution (climate).

    • The wildman

      YAWN YAWN YAWN basic science will tell you by far the major influence on climate is the sun and the moon.control them then you control the climate.cant “deny” the evidence.

      • Mythrandir

        Sorry but that is false. We do know however that the sun’s output is changing and it has warmed a little. But only enough to account for up to 20 percent of the observed warming since Industrialization. THAT is what Science tells us.

        • The wildman

          We are not bigger or have more influence over the climate than the sun or moon.can we control the tides? no and thats just the moon.please disprove on this forum.think you mistake basic science for science fiction.

          • Mythrandir

            We can’t control the tides because we can’t alter the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. But we can alter the atmosphere in a way that makes it more opaque to Infrared Radiation by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases e.g. by burning fossil fuels.

    • Gillie

      That’s rich – so it’s the “deniers” that misrepresent research now? Even though the IPCC themselves admit their climate models were wrong – that some scientists deliberately lied so they could secure funding. Thousands of scientists all over the world now agree that humans can’t possibly have influence over the climate.

      As for propaganda have a look at the crap you’ve been reading for the last 30 about man made pollution and climate change…

      • Mythrandir

        That was hilarious.


        • colin herbertson

          i was going to thank you for putting out an opposing point of view and say thanks for the debate but,,,, nah, your smugness and pigheadedness is just too annoying,

          • Mythrandir

            “i was going to thank you”

            I don’t believe you.

  • caochladh

    Can we get a refund?