Steele, Steven Goddard was misled by incorrect maps of UI, in relation to ice cover. He acknowledged this when it was drawn to his attention.
What does that have to do with manipulation of data by NOAA,to show non existent warming. You are a master of irrelevance.
You should at least acknowledge that your fraud-backing is not supported by any science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You would then demonstrate a standard of personal honesty approaching the Steven Goddard standard.

Dear Leo,

You have blindly rejected all the science laid in front of you, which is your right, but you have been asked on innumerable occasions what data set would it take to demonstrate to you any measurable effect of human emissions on climate and you have been unable to do so.

I don't think you know yourself.

Your limited understanding of the issue has been there for all to see but you must have some understanding of what makes you tick. Why do you think you have allowed your political stance to completely and utterly befuddle you to such a degree that you are so determinately defensive and recalcitrant about this topic?

My instinct is that you are afflicted by fear. One of the universal human mechanisms of coping with fear is to deny the problem exists. It is indeed a hugely intimidating threat to ours and other species on this planet. You have every right to feel powerless and overwhelmed. The foxhole into which you have bunkered yourself is feeling safe and secure. You have chosen not to hear the approaching rattle of tank tread instead you rock back and forth calling those warning you of the impending danger 'fraudsters'.

Well it is indeed an uncertain future made immeasurably more so by the inaction of various governments around the world. You have not made peace with this threat despite feeling that by electing a man who thinks climate change is crap it would go away. It is still out there and getting bigger rather than smaller by the day.

It is now your choice, are you going to remain cowering and be remembered by your grandchildren as such or are you going to join us at the parapet and do what we can to change this government's path?

Steele, I take your pointless drivel as another evasion of facing the fact that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Here us what a top scientist says” Given that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas (albeit a mild and diminishingly
effective one at currently increasing levels of atmospheric concentration), and that some
human-caused emissions accrue in the atmosphere, the question of dangerous warming was a good one to raise back in the late 1980s. Since then, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into
climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to
identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island
effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.
Twenty-five years on, therefore, we have answered the question, “Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming”, and the answer is “No”; but strangely that answer causes environmental activists and their supporters, including apparently many scientists, to develop the disease known as deaf ear."
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/Bob-Carter-A-Dozen-Global-Warming-Slogans.pdf
cont

cont.
So the required science will identify and measure the human effect on climate. The peer reviewed study of Mclean et al 2009 identified the natural cause of global warming, leaving little room for the alleged effect of human emissions, but you are the fraud backer, so you find the science which supports the fraud, and vindicate your otherwise untenable situation.
You assert that I have “rejected all the science laid in front of you”. What science is that, Steele? You really do talk nonsense. Your next idiocy is “you are afflicted by fear”. What do I fear. I know it is fraudulent nonsense. If you believe it, then the fear is yours, and in your delusional state you project it on to me, along with “completely and utterly befuddle you to such a degree that you are so determinately defensive and recalcitrant about this topic?”. A further self description is” I don't think you know yourself”.

You have now made such a fool of yourself again, that you have no doubt induced a craving for another delusion of victory. You are a complicated mess, Steele, and I am not available for your pathetic self projection.

Here’s a little something for those who might think that the scientific orthodoxy is beyond reproach:

“Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, …it’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma density along the gradient; the varying plasma density in turn affects the path light takes. The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this, this is bad news for them””

The last part bears repeating:
“ The scientists who support [a different proposition] are either unaware of this phenomenon or they do not want you to know about this , this is bad news for them”

Who wrote that ?
One of those dastardly climate deniers –NO!
Dr Edward Dowdye Jr (“a physicist and laser optics engineer ex- NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre …and a member of The American Physics Society).

And, you will find a similar –but separate – indictment in "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin (a theoretical physicist).

And if that wasn’t sufficent reason to carefully audit anything that cites a higher authority as final proof --look at AGW's most vocal proponents –Steelerdux!

To mangle Woody Allen's famous quip : “I'd never join a [cause] that would allow a person like [Steeleredux] to become [its lead apostle].”

SPQR, I had a look at information in relation to Dr Edward Dowdye Jr, and it does appear as though he has given the theory of Relativity a nudge.

On a regular basis I view a site that reviews whats occurring in the Arctic Circle. Somebody on the site commented there must have been a glitch in the instrumentation as a significant amount of ice had disappeared in Hudson Bay. Professor Lesack has mentioned ice disappearing in Hudson Bay in a paper released earlier this year.

A comment from the site I visit:
"Temperatures around Hudson Bay are extreem also. The 33.4 C at Fort Severn might seem to be a glitch in the sensor if it wasn't for the 33.1 recorded at Peawanuck and the 32.6 from Moosonee At James Bay. For our American friends the above temperatures are all in excess of 90 F, not what is expected from polar bear country.

At Churchill:
2014 - 6/28 30.7 C
2013 - 6/23 27.9 C
2012 - 6/25 25.0 C "

These would be surface temperatures and it is interesting as on the same site there is debate about the impact of temperature between surface temperature and temperature measured by satellite taken well above earth. There does not seem to be any consensus on the relationship between surface and satellite temperatures; however, there is much discussion about warm ocean currents, the state of the atmosphere. and incoming highs and lows. We will know in September just how much ice is lost in the Arctic Circle; however, one thing is very clear, the extent and volume will not be increasing significantly.

In relation to Antarctica, sea ice does seem to be increasing; but,there are some huge glaciers that are shedding huge volumes of ice, also. So, it does not automatically indicate that what is happening at the Polar extremes is different.