The Arctic is in a mess, much multi year ice has been lost; the latest forecast suggests much more sea ice can be lost prior to the period of re-freezing begins. For area and extent sea ice is at its second lowest level ever recorded.

http://grist.org/briefly/this-is-what-near-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-looks-like/

The importance of snow and ice is to moderate temperatures down.

Whether the climate is showing natural variation; or, man has an impact, planning and action is necessary.

Ant refuses to climb the ladder to the Ivory towers....good onya ant, feet on the ground!

I don't know why we're not doing something about the Arctic. After all, its going to be ice free by 2013.

Oh wait.....

This Don Aitkin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Aitkin

You're a disgrace to your profession Don. Perhaps Alzheimer's is affecting your critical thinking skills these days because you are well out of your intellectual depth here.

My well-informed intelligent opinion is you're a Sophist. In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments. That's what you're doing Don.

An intentional lack of attention to detail appears to be your current excuse for the pervasive incompetence expressed in this vapid article. Pervasive, meaning ‘permeated’, ‘diffused through’, etc, and vapid as in: insipid, uninspired, feeble, flat, dead, dull, boring, tedious, lifeless and untrue.

Your only field of expertise left appears to be in the manipulative use of logical fallacies including ad hominem, cherry-picking, poisoning the well, false appeals to 'authority' coupled with your total abandonment of the scientific method and the peer-review process.

This is why I question your state of mind in old age given that at one time you seemed to have a positive reputation in academia. There are obvious reasons why that reputation is in tatters now. It's called denying the obvious and denying the scientific rigor replete in the accumulated climate science evidence across decades by over 30,000 scientists in that field.

You know better than this combined human knowledge wisdom do you? Is your other name Jesus Christ perhaps? Or Allah? Or the Wizard of Oz hiding behind the green curtain?

Being full of yourself doesn't rate in 'science' Don.

DA falsely claims: "... but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming"

Don, that's a provable lie. Why are you lying about this?

DA: "First, they make stuff up."

So it's a FAIL Don. With this degree of incompetence in your own 'thinking' your article is worthless. You should have had it peer-reviewed and avoided all the public embarrassment.

Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again Don? The answer is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_py6WbMV1k
-

DA: ".to find as an example of entrenched denial in opposition to pervasive consensus, but there’s no evidence for it here."

Then you must have been living under a rock Don for decades. In fact you promote that denial which raises the question of self-delusions.

DA: "But the ‘cooling’ view does have some scientific support (see, for example, here)."

And then you Ref a SOTT article? Are you serious? This is your version of intelligent 'scientific rigor' is it? Laughable!

It doesn't even link to the actual 'paper' you think so highly of besides the included illogical rubbish on that page. I think you need help Don.

Oh dear surprise it's ref'd on the 'pseudo-journalist' Jo Nova's DENIER website http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/is-a-mini-ice-age-coming-in-2030-and-does-the-sun-have-two-dynamos/

NOVA SAYS: "(With the caveat that this new study is still a MODEL, correlation is not causation, etc.)"

Oh dear Don, wanting to have your cake and eat it to, like all Sophists do. Did you even read the Paper? I have. Tell the TRUTH Don, if you can.

DA: a quote and "So how do we tell when what we are getting is scientific fact or denial?"

Are you really this stupid or just 'acting'? So you cannot tell the difference between science & peer-review versus public debates in a democracy about Policy and the Law? Laughable!

Scientists produce the Science, it is self-referring rigorous. Scientific 'debates' occur via research papers in Journals and Meetings among scientists to establish what is true and what is not, and what might be possible. E=MC2 is a Consensus among scientists.

No 'democracy' required. It's the same in China, Zimbabwe & Australia or it isn't Science, that's where it stops!

In a democracy people/govts debate about things including the 'advice' and 'knowledge' provided by Science. The discussion is about what to do about that Knowledge?

It is NOT a 'scientific debate' it is a policy debate. Non-Scientists have NO RIGHTS within Science to argue or deny anything - NONE.

That's for the "scientists" not incompetent fools!

'The Devil' explains Skepticism vs Denial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pyeRHCpRM

Do FLICC off!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSPLiCvh7xA
-

Well that all proves one thing;
The Warmists really do descend into abuse when somebody probes myths.