Is the Arctic Ice Mass Data being manipulated by "Global Warming" believers?

Jello.... you nailed it! What I simply cannot understand is why so many of the world's citizens are falling for this criminal scam.

Unfortunately, the Warmers voices are becoming even more shrill as they frantically claw, beg and grovel for more billions of $$$ in this bad economy of ours.

Hansen & Co. are an embarrassment to science and will eventually be brought to justice once the masses become fed up with the wanton waste of Trillions of $$$ brought on by their lies and perversion of so-called 'science'.

I see them constantly massaging all of the data to fit their conclusions. That's whether it's ice data, temperature data, trend data, CO2 data, wind power efficiency data, electrical grid data, etc.

Since the late 1960's I remember them trying to scare us: "everyone will die of starvation before 1980", with global cooling, global warming, ozone holes, etc. Each time they have been wrong, and somehow people still treat them with respect and deference.

I'm now at the point where anyone of this ilk must be doubted, and assumed to be if not lying, of bending or fogging the truth to fit their political goals. It took me a long time to get here, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I now must assume that they are lying first, and wait for the proof.

The recent missing ice was the last straw for me.

Just prior to that, if an ice flow the 10 miles long and two wide broke off of an ice shelf, it would lead to all kinds of public handwringing, and talk of doom even though it's a normal occurance. They lost a California sized chunk of ice, and barely said a word. They should have been enormously apologetic for making a mistake of this magnitude, but instead blamed "deniers" for making a big deal of it.

I trust scientists. My default opinion now on "climate scientists" is that they are lying.

Like all the eco-Nazis, they are liars. Just a few days ago they had to admit that their ice shrinkage data was 50% off. The GW scam has been exposed, that's why they have changed the term to "climate change". Our climate has "changed" up and down tens of thousands of time. It has been warmer than it is now, and cooler. And there is not a shred of proof that our warming trend ( up .22 degrees F since 1990....WOW!!!) is man-made. Legitimate scientists all over the world have been, and are still dismissing this alamist GW baloney. Another scam on the way out.........

you have ice floating in salt water... of course its going to melt far faster than anyone has predicted.. the less ice, the more salt gets onto the remainder of the ice... and the increase melt... keep in mind that when you have a large amount of ice melting it melts fresh water and that fresh water keeps high concentrated salt water further away

When I began my career as an engineer if you misrepresented your results, manipulated your data or did not honestly quantify your experimental error you were labeled a fraud and shunned by the scientific community. There was no readmission into the realm of legitimate scientific discord.

All citizens reaped the benefits of this ethics system and the field in which I work (aviation) advanced itself with breakthroughs that are unparalleled even today in their impact on everyday life. 100 years ago we traveled airborne at speeds below 100 mph for maximum distances that could be measured in feet. Today we travel at speeds and levels of safety and comfort that were incomprehensible only a generation ago. This progress is a direct result of discipline and adherence to the scientific process. We learned in the early days of aviation that design based on consensus was dangerous and the result was often tragic loss of life.By sticking close to these ethics, countless others benefited outside aviation. Composites became better understood and more widely applied in everyday life, medicine benefited from research that could be carried out in the vacuum of space. All things mechanical became more efficient as aerospace technology advanced better bearing technology. Computer applications designed to evaluate structures and aerodynamic qualities rapidly advanced and became mainstream in the design of non-aerospace everyday products. In short, we all are better off because real, ethical scientists and engineers did not relent to the populist push when their research and observations contradicted the popular view.

Now we are confronted with a different view and a group that believes that research is only legitimate if it supports a predetermined position. Effectively, this approach burns every classical science and engineering text in the classroom. This group can't even live by the most basic scientific convention, that is found in the preface of most science texts. I am refering to the law of significant figures, which states in laymans terms, that it is scientifically improper to state your results and conclusions as having a greater level of certainty than the error in your data. Today the populists believe that saving the planet is paramount, but their premise is not scientific fact and the method to achieve their goal is not based on the scientific process. Ultimately we will most likely find that the price of their misguided pursuit will result in unintended consequences. We are already burning food instead of feeding starving people with it, and we are also turning a blind eye to the problems to be caused by growing food to burn. It is a scientific fact that no other commercial crop depletes the soil of its nutrients or causes more soil run off that corn. Yet in our blind rush to make an immeasurable dent in air quality and temperature, many choose to ignore those hard scientific facts while they cling to fake beliefs.

Yes

Can you imagine all the university funding lost if the research identified that global warming was considered null or if there was no man-made influence identified?

It underscores the importance of the scientific method.

If a researcher tries really hard to find evidence to support their preferred hypothesis, they will invariably find it. It doesn't make for good science though.

Sea ice "extent" is not sea ice thickness.

and the graph would seem to disagree with the one shown about half way down

http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_s...

They're focused on Antarctica now because it's Summer there.

ALL their info is manipulated.