How on Earth can global warming deniers be using Arctic sea ice as evidence against AGW?

Well, these individuals shop for sites that support their beliefs, and then glom onto data that is given or used out of context, and not understood well if at all. One respondent to this question accused you of being in the "doom and gloom" camp, something I don't understand at all given the question. So the whole process, for some, is selective and tailored to fit what they want to say.

Those with an open mind, who do the research from a multitude of sources, are usually persuaded that whatever is afoot is tied in to human activity. Those of us who've done an above-average amount of research on the topic usually try to share sites and sources, so I'll toss in one that I'm working on currently. I'm reading Brian Fagan's "The Great Warming," where the author shares current research methods such as ice borings, satellite observations and computer modeling to present his case. All of the above methods, when used in Arctic research, would not in any way, shape or form refute the AGW theory of climate change.

I've included a few links that those wanting to do more research on the topic.

The people now repeating the claim here are telling you more effectively than I ever could. The reason is simple. The situation is complicated, as Trevor points out, and by selecting your data you can reduce it to a soundbite that suggests that climate scientists can be ignored, on the grounds that they were wrong in the past. People who buy that argument are not likely to change their minds about it; that would mean admitting their own fallibility. By the time you've explained that (a) they didn't say that, (b) actions taken materially change things, and (c) we have actually learned something since the 1970s, you are beginning to sound defensive, which is all the Singers, Rohrabachers and Inhofes of this world really need. Even so, I don't understand Flossie.She keeps on bringing this up. Early in the 1970s, Lamb thought cooling was a problem. Later, as we all learned more, he changed his mind. Shock, horror! A scientist changing his mind in the face of changing situations and new evidence! Flossie, one gathers, would never do a thing like that! Clean air acts on both sides of the Atlantic reduced global dimming, precisely as expected, and as was certainly necessary (I remember the great London fog of 1952) And one thing that was obviously true in 1970, was that we didn't understand climate well enough, and needed to learn more. Apparently, Eric has a problem with that.

I agree, it is ridiculous, but I have a few problems with some of your specifics:

"Arctic sea ice melt broke the record of 2007 in terms of volume."

I don't know how you could say this so definitively. William Connolley explains the difficulty with measuring sea ice volume here

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/10/sea_ice_thin...

Dana, I seriously think the planet will soon devise a method of eradicating it's cancer (humans). I have no children, yet my husband and I feel ethically and morally obligated to leave the planet inhabitable for future generations of humans. We are appalled by the fact that there are so many people who have no regard for the future AND that so many people foolishly believe the erroneous pseudo-science put forth by the upper echelon of Corporate America, who's motivation of greed will be the downfall of life as we know it.

I think the approach they're taking is that the AGW doomsayers where rather spectacularly wrong about the complete loss of Arctic ice this summer, so you begin to wonder what else are they wrong about.

Actually the ice is thicker than it was at 1979 levels:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

Pinkish purple is 80% concentration and dark purple is 100% concentration.

Also the faster it forms before the main part of the deep freeze occurs in December, January and February the thicker it will be in June, July and August.

I don't know Dana, but I'll bet you $100.00 US, that September 15, 2009 will have more arctic sea ice than September 15, 2008.

Ok Dana:

Your on!

I thought you were going to provide a link of some semi-reputable denier actually, er, denying on those grounds. Instead all you give us is scientific data from a reputable organisation!

Where is the 'debate', where are these deniers? A bunch of troll like folk on YA! adds up to not very much at all. If you are reffering to them then why are you bothering?

Oh gawd this stuff gives me a panick attach! We're all doomed!

The last few years has actually seen the planet's temperature cool.