Utter rubbish. Bolt is saying that some scientists and associated alarmist spoke of the arctic being ice-free in 2008. He has also spoken of others who talk about it happening in 10 years. There is no one prediction so your claim that the prediction is for 2012 is just as silly as Bolt’s (non-)claim that it was for 2008

No, Herr Professor Bolt only had one source for the failed 2008 prediction, not `some’; which in his weaselly way he then implied was the entire scientific community’s prediction for an ice-free arctic

You’re given credence to predictions of 2012 or later, I assume? I mean you’re obviously informed about the non-crank science when you say there are several estimates…

I’ve made an extended comment in a new post.

The Center has issued a statement regarding that claim, pointing out that while global sea ice extent is about the same as in 1979, arctic sea ice cover has substantially diminished, offset by increase in antarctic cover.

Furthermore it points out that current arctic cover is becoming increasingly thin so overall loss of ice is substantially greater than the decreased cover indicates.

Before some idiot leaps in to claim that if antarctic ice cover is increasing it must mean that the planet is cooling, the matter was further explained here, back in 2005.

I’d call it an oxymoron

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
….
….

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing.

Here is the latest information regarding sea ice extent:

Artic Sea Ice News

In summary:

2008 year in review

Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979. 2008 sea ice also showed well-below-average ice extents throughout the entire year.

The facts on the, er, water don’t really support your position.

I’d call that a tautology.

Of coarse, Bolt talks of this in relation to the fact that sea-ice cover in 2008 bounced back from 2007 levels and returned to more normal levels. By some readings they bounced back to 1979 levels. I noticed that the map in the article here refers to the 2007 sea ice cover..wonder why 2008 was left out? I’m sure it was just an oversight – publishing deadlines and the what.

Hannah’s dad, I’ll catch the links later, but thanks. In one of the articles I linked to it was pointed out that bears, unable to feed on the ice where people can’t see them, are heading for populated areas to scavenge. But alternative food sources are unlikely to help the females who apparently need to roughly double their weight during the late summer/autumn so that they can hole up in a den to birth and then fees the young.

So superficial impressions, and even official attempts to count, can be misleading over what is going on wrt to polar bear numbers and prospects over a period of years.

In a of Attenborough-educated citizenry it’s probably a wise thing to concentrate on the bears to raise public awareness, even if the central issue is the North Pole being killed.

If we want to think short term, summer ice could clear from the Arctic as early as 2012

BTW, Andrew Bolt was peddling a lie that the predictions for an ice-free arctic summer were made for 2008 not 2012–ergo the silly alarmists were going off halfcocked.

I wonder if the git is secretly praying that the prediction, if it comes true, to be closer 2030 than 2012?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/polar-bears-in-churchill-in-ma-3

http://www.keyboard-culture-global-warming.com/2008/03/consequences_of_polar_ice_melting_in_northern_canada_visible_from_tundra_buggy_in_churchill_manitoba.html

Here are the key observations from the second article:
“Up until the 1970’s, when the behavior and ecological importance of polar bears led to a policy of protection, the common practice was to kill any bear which happened into town. Now, the bears are shot, not with a bullet but with a tranquilizer. Then, they are transported out of town so that they can continue to thrive yet not pose a threat to the people of Churchill.

In recent years, two key changes have occurred:

1) The time of year when the bears are visible from the tundra buggy has expanded because they emerge from the Hudson Bay ice earlier in the season; and

2) Average temperatures during the extended periods when the bears wander into town have risen so much that the tranquilized bears must be stored in a special refrigerator until they can be relocated safely.”