CIA: Russia influenced the election

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's completely expected the Clinton Foundation would have a folder names Pay to Play.
Sheesh.
Or that the hacker might organize what he found.
The revelation hit you yet?

You're so convincing, Denny. You've completely won me over with your careful cogent reasoning.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so is obama?

 

[blue32]

So who is this guy and why the fuck do you think anyone should care about what he says?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

So who is this guy and why the fuck do you think anyone should care about what he says?

why should anyone care what anyone says?

 

[Denny Crane]

OMG

The Truth killed Clinton's campaign. Self inflicted wounds.

Odd that the Butt Hurt crowd doesn't get it.

 

[Denny Crane]

why should anyone care what anyone says?

Maybe we should care what scholars who study the situation, or people who've been on the ground and know people involved, have to say?

 

[blue32]

why should anyone care what anyone says?

Thatta boy! That's the Republican in you!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

so is obama?

Fair enough, but are you following what's happening in Aleppo?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Maybe we should care what scholars who study the situation, or people who've been on the ground and know people involved, have to say?

Careful Denny, that kind of talk will get you blacklisted under our new Orange Overlord.

 

[barfo]

Maybe we should care what scholars who study the situation, or people who've been on the ground and know people involved, have to say?

Says the guy who doesn't care what scholars who study the climate have to say...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Says the guy who doesn't care what scholars who study the climate have to say...

barfo

I care what they say. It doesn't make the right, but they are heard.

I'm waiting for some compelling evidence.

 

[Denny Crane]

hahahahahaha

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

 

[blue32]

hahahahahaha

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

#FAKENEWS DENNY!!!

 

[Denny Crane]

#FAKENEWS DENNY!!!

Fuck CNN, WaPost, and the NY Times.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://nypost.com/2016/12/13/democrats-blaming-russia-need-to-take-a-good-look-in-the-mirror/

Democrats blaming Russia need to take a good look in the mirror

During the presidential debates, moderator Chris Wallace asked candidate Donald Trump a pointed question: Win or lose, will you accept the results of the November election? Trump’s answer: “I’ll keep you in suspense,” later adding he would accept them “if I win.” Naturally, Democrats instantly went ape. “Horrifying,” said Hillary Clinton (who was not asked the same question). “He’s talking down our democracy, and I, for one, am appalled.”

Not that appalled, as things turned out.

In the wake of their shocking loss, Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media have mounted a frantic, and increasingly deracinated, campaign to deny Trump the fruits of his victory in the Electoral College and thus overturn the election by any means necessary, fair or foul.

The recounts failed, so now it’s on to the Russians. Unsourced speculation from “sources” inside the CIA says Russian agents hacked John Podesta’s emails from the Democratic National Committee, according to “bombshell” reports in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Except that was the same “bombshell” that Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security, and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said on the record in October. The same “bombshell” that had Joe Biden acting like John Wayne, saying the US was going to retaliate. “We’re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it. And the message — he’ll know it,” Biden said about Vladimir Putin on “Meet the Press.”

No proof was offered then, or now, that Russia was involved. But it’s not as though voters weren’t aware of the speculation before the election, as some Democrats and columnists claim.

So what’s changed? Now Democrats and their media allies are in panic mode, looking for something, anything, to try to change the results. Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid even said in an interview with the Huffington Post that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians. His proof? He doesn’t have any; just like when he lied about Mitt Romney paying no taxes. He says he’s not sorry for that; after all, he got what he wanted — Mitt lost.

The Times and Washington Post started the “conversation,” Democrat leaders amplify it, and suddenly it’s all cable news is talking about.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/12/free-and-fair-election-seen-as-faulty-by-the-left/

Trying to overturn a free and fair election

The world has turned itself upside down. Only yesterday the liberals and the left (the “progressives,” as they want to be called) regarded the CIA as the locus of evil, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, forever poisoning gentle minds with a diet of conspiracy and tall tale.

In those gloomy days of the Cold War, where every day was seasoned with a sharp wind and a cold rain, it was the Democratic intellectuals who were forever chiding the rest of us that the Soviet Union was not so bad, the Russians just wanted to be understood and maybe deserved an occasional cuddle. It was the Republicans and other conservatives who were mindless rubes who imagined there was a mad Russian under everybody’s bed.

Now the CIA, in the liberal/left’s fevered dreams, is the last bulwark of the republic, the last remaining hope to turn the 2016 election result on its head and deprive Donald Trump of the victory he won. The Russians, it now turns out, are just as bad as the conservatives said they were.

President Obama, who mocked Mitt Romney four years ago for suggesting that Russia and Vladimir Putin was America’s No. 1 enemy, now says it was Mr. Romney who was smart and got it right four years ago. The president himself, in his telling, is the man dumber than a cypress stump.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's fox news, but they're right this time.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...n-hacking-to-delegitimize-trumps-triumph.html

Sore loser Obama turns to Russian hacking to delegitimize Trump's triumph

Make no mistake: it’s payback time. In ordering up a “deep dive” into possible Russian interference in the election of Donald Trump, sore loser Barack Obama wants to delegitimize the real estate magnate’s win. His motive? Punishing Trump for the years the mogul spent publicly questioning whether Obama was an American citizen, which cast doubts on the legitimacy of his presidency. Ah, how sweet the revenge. And how pitiful.

President Obama has searched high and, increasingly, low, for the reasons he and Hillary Clinton lost the election. He has blamed Fox News, insufficient grass-roots campaigning by Hillary, “fake news”, and now has singled out Russian meddling for the loss of 194 of 207 counties that voted for him in either 2008 or 2012.

The suggestion is that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; the liberal media has hinted darkly that the president-elect and his campaign team have “ties” to the Russian head of state.

As most Americans review Trump’s defense and security picks, the notion that the new administration will go easy on our adversaries – including Russia – is laughable. Retired General James Mattis, whom Trump has nominated to head Defense, has described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a “severe” threat, one underestimated by the Obama White House. Mattis is not to be trifled with.

 

[magnifier661]

Fake News

 

[Chris Craig]

Fake News

No shit...its called humor

 

[magnifier661]

No shit...its called humor

Unfortunately, Rasta actually thinks it's real

 

[Denny Crane]

Unfortunately, Rasta actually thinks it's real

Doubt it.

But there are many in the echo chamber who do think it's real.

 

[riverman]

Unfortunately Trump thinks global warming is not real...that's a big problem

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

OMG

The Truth killed Clinton's campaign. Self inflicted wounds.

Odd that the Butt Hurt crowd doesn't get it.

hahahahahaha

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

Fuck CNN, WaPost, and the NY Times.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/13/democrats-blaming-russia-need-to-take-a-good-look-in-the-mirror/

Democrats blaming Russia need to take a good look in the mirror

During the presidential debates, moderator Chris Wallace asked candidate Donald Trump a pointed question: Win or lose, will you accept the results of the November election? Trump’s answer: “I’ll keep you in suspense,” later adding he would accept them “if I win.” Naturally, Democrats instantly went ape. “Horrifying,” said Hillary Clinton (who was not asked the same question). “He’s talking down our democracy, and I, for one, am appalled.”

Not that appalled, as things turned out.

In the wake of their shocking loss, Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media have mounted a frantic, and increasingly deracinated, campaign to deny Trump the fruits of his victory in the Electoral College and thus overturn the election by any means necessary, fair or foul.

The recounts failed, so now it’s on to the Russians. Unsourced speculation from “sources” inside the CIA says Russian agents hacked John Podesta’s emails from the Democratic National Committee, according to “bombshell” reports in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Except that was the same “bombshell” that Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security, and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said on the record in October. The same “bombshell” that had Joe Biden acting like John Wayne, saying the US was going to retaliate. “We’re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it. And the message — he’ll know it,” Biden said about Vladimir Putin on “Meet the Press.”

No proof was offered then, or now, that Russia was involved. But it’s not as though voters weren’t aware of the speculation before the election, as some Democrats and columnists claim.

So what’s changed? Now Democrats and their media allies are in panic mode, looking for something, anything, to try to change the results. Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid even said in an interview with the Huffington Post that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians. His proof? He doesn’t have any; just like when he lied about Mitt Romney paying no taxes. He says he’s not sorry for that; after all, he got what he wanted — Mitt lost.

The Times and Washington Post started the “conversation,” Democrat leaders amplify it, and suddenly it’s all cable news is talking about.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/12/free-and-fair-election-seen-as-faulty-by-the-left/

Trying to overturn a free and fair election

The world has turned itself upside down. Only yesterday the liberals and the left (the “progressives,” as they want to be called) regarded the CIA as the locus of evil, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, forever poisoning gentle minds with a diet of conspiracy and tall tale.

In those gloomy days of the Cold War, where every day was seasoned with a sharp wind and a cold rain, it was the Democratic intellectuals who were forever chiding the rest of us that the Soviet Union was not so bad, the Russians just wanted to be understood and maybe deserved an occasional cuddle. It was the Republicans and other conservatives who were mindless rubes who imagined there was a mad Russian under everybody’s bed.

Now the CIA, in the liberal/left’s fevered dreams, is the last bulwark of the republic, the last remaining hope to turn the 2016 election result on its head and deprive Donald Trump of the victory he won. The Russians, it now turns out, are just as bad as the conservatives said they were.

President Obama, who mocked Mitt Romney four years ago for suggesting that Russia and Vladimir Putin was America’s No. 1 enemy, now says it was Mr. Romney who was smart and got it right four years ago. The president himself, in his telling, is the man dumber than a cypress stump.

It's fox news, but they're right this time.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...n-hacking-to-delegitimize-trumps-triumph.html

Sore loser Obama turns to Russian hacking to delegitimize Trump's triumph

Make no mistake: it’s payback time. In ordering up a “deep dive” into possible Russian interference in the election of Donald Trump, sore loser Barack Obama wants to delegitimize the real estate magnate’s win. His motive? Punishing Trump for the years the mogul spent publicly questioning whether Obama was an American citizen, which cast doubts on the legitimacy of his presidency. Ah, how sweet the revenge. And how pitiful.

President Obama has searched high and, increasingly, low, for the reasons he and Hillary Clinton lost the election. He has blamed Fox News, insufficient grass-roots campaigning by Hillary, “fake news”, and now has singled out Russian meddling for the loss of 194 of 207 counties that voted for him in either 2008 or 2012.

The suggestion is that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; the liberal media has hinted darkly that the president-elect and his campaign team have “ties” to the Russian head of state.

As most Americans review Trump’s defense and security picks, the notion that the new administration will go easy on our adversaries – including Russia – is laughable. Retired General James Mattis, whom Trump has nominated to head Defense, has described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a “severe” threat, one underestimated by the Obama White House. Mattis is not to be trifled with.

Yawn................fart.............resumes snoring.......wake me when we know the actual (and true) facts. Like that will ever really happen.

 

[magnifier661]

Unfortunately Trump thinks global warming is not real...that's a big problem

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...s-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423

5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another reportsaying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA famepredicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know what to make of this, "global warming."

On one hand, fossil fuels will eventually be gone but when? I also believe that we should, as a civilization, find ways to make "renewable energy" cheaper. I just don't want governments to force people to spend more on energy because they feel it is morally imperative. Let the free market decide and incentivizes those that pioneer ways to make energy cheaper.

 

[magnifier661]

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...s-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423

5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another reportsaying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA famepredicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

[magnifier661]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

And 2015 was much higher. The average is the key number since fluctuations obviously change with each and every year