the sea ice exent data are noisy.
the sea ice trend since 2006 is greater than the trend before 2006.
the sea ice trend for summer minimum, when the albedo feedback which increases global warming is greatest, is larger than the winter trend.
the sea ice trend is much larger than models predicted – http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017d3da64b2b970c-pi
If models are underestimating melt, why are denialists so confident that the uncertainty in model sensitivity means that the temperature increase will be smaller than projected?

Either Steve Goddard doesn’t know the difference between signal and (cherrypicked) noise, or he’s hoping you don’t know the difference – but now you do.

I treasure Goddard giving me my 15 minutes of fame for suggesting my old friend now deceased, Richard Feynman, would make very short work of the misrepresentations of his structures on truth and science appropriated by unskeptical climate “skeptics”. Their assumption that I could not have known him (Cambridge, Thinking Machines, MIT, about 1985, association through drawing group) allows them to mount a cackle of insults, which would be funny if you all didn’t take it seriously. They also think Galileo and Einstein would side with them.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/feynman-channels-his-thoughts-on-global-warming-through-susan-anderson/

You can see why people lose patience with the ongoing reassertion of false information. If you think these comments are rude, check the comments there. The term CAGW, for example, comes entirely from the denialosphere, and “settled science” is pretty much from there as well. So is the idea that global warming and climate change were separated for effect (well, there was an effort, but it came from Republican strategist Frank Luntz), but in fact warming has to do with increased heat trapping and results in disrupted circulation and more energy in the system, climate change. We have to use words, which are imperfect.

In any case, starting the melt record at 2005 is mildly dishonest. In the climate record, you want to go back as far as you can, not truncate for effect.

PSD: if you want to learn climate science, study climate science. There are online courses available for free from a couple of different universities. Since you’ve got a BS from UEA and “aren’t stupid” I don’t think you’d have any problem taking the courses.

I mean, it isn’t even true what he claims:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Both 2013 and 2014 were higher.
Then again:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Of course Goddard immediately jumped on this…

I propose that you are grappling with acceptance of the consensus position because of your political ideology. Hint: Watts and Heller aren’t going to help you come to terms with the overwhelming evidence.

Thanks
If Anthony Watts and Bil McGibbon can have a congenial face-to-face conversation (as they recently did) then I guess anyone can …. all of us should be able to at least communicate decently online.