Senator James Inhofe in Copenhagen
Copenhagen attendees, I want to turn back the clock to December 2003, when the United Nations convened the “9th Conference of the Parties” in Milan, Italy, to discuss implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. At the time, I was leading the Senate delegation to Milan as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Fast forward to December 2009: the UN is holding its 15th global warming conference-and the delegates are haggling over the same issues that were before them in 2003. I know this because I was there. Recently, with the Copenhagen talks underway, I reread the speech I delivered in Milan. I found that the issues at stake in 2003 are nearly the same as those in 2009. In short, nothing has changed and nothing has been done.
So let’s go back to 2003. In my speech, I told the conference that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. Here’s what I said: “The Senate, by a vote of 95 to 0, approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which warned the President against signing a treaty that would either economically harm the United States or exempt developing countries from participating.” I went on to say this: “Both those conditions then, and still to this day, have not been satisfied. So, it’s worth noting that even if President Bush wanted to submit the treaty to the Senate, it couldn’t be ratified.” That was 2003.
Is that still true today? Of course it is. And yet here we go again: China, India, and other developing countries want nothing to do with absolute, binding emissions cuts. China and India have pledged to reduce the rate of growth, or intensity, of their emissions. But that’s not acceptable to the US Senate. Moreover, China is opposed to a mandatory verification regime to prove it is actually honoring its commitments.
Beyond that, developing countries are demanding billions of dollars from the US and other developed countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. President Obama has offered $1.3 billion in 2010. Developing countries think this isn’t enough; I think it’s too much. In any case, with 10 percent unemployment, American taxpayers won’t be pleased that their tax dollars are going to help China fight global warming. They would probably ask, “We are going to give China $1 billion to fight global warming, and they own $800 billion of our debt? I don’t think so.”
So the Copenhagen talks are stalemated. It’s clear to all that developing countries don’t want burdensome regulations to stifle their economies. I don’t blame them. Well, that’s the way we feel right here in America. That’s why no global warming treaty that causes serious harm to the US economy, or that doesn’t include equal commitments from the likes of China and India, will ever be ratified by the US Senate. In 2003, after mentioning Byrd-Hagel, I talked about the recent vote in the Senate on the McCain-Lieberman bill. Now remember, this was the first time cap-and-trade came to a vote on the Senate floor. What happened? Here’s what I said to UN delegates in Milan: “All told, supporters mustered 44 votes, falling well short of a majority. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. In the U.S. Senate, a senator or group of senators can block legislation through what’s called a filibuster...Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes. As is obvious, McCain-Lieberman supporters, even with a bill full of holes and exemptions-in other words, a pale shadow of its former self-didn’t even come close to crossing that threshold.” They needed 60, they got only 44.
Here we are six years later, and nothing has changed: cap-and-trade failed in 2003, it failed in 2005, and it failed in 2008. As we look ahead, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing. I want to be sure the 191 countries understand this: again, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing.
One of the reasons cap-and-trade is doomed in the Senate has to do with the science. In Milan in 2003, I discussed the so-called “hockey stick” graph. Some may remember this graph: it showed a relatively straight line starting in 1000 AD and then a sharp curve, or blade, shooting upward in 1900. To some, that proved the catastrophic global warming hypothesis. The problem was that, as I pointed out in Milan, the methodology used to create the hockey stick was suspect, to say the least. In any case, after its flaws were exposed, that once-influential work was thoroughly discredited.
Six years later, and the hockey stick is shattered beyond repair. We are talking about it today because of Climategate. Many here are familiar with it; it has dominated the news, and it’s a huge deal. Don’t take my word for it; just do an Internet search and here’s what you’ll find from:
- The Guardian (George Monbiot): “Pretending this is not a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Phil Jones has got to go.”
- The Atlantic Monthly (Clive Crook): “The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”
- UK Telegraph (Christopher Booker): “This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”
- Financial Times (Michael Schrage): “Secrecy is at the rotten heart of this bad behavior.”
This was redeeming to me, because I gave a speech on these very issues four years ago.
But along came Climategate. Emails were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which compiles one of three global temperature data sets-so it’s important, its work is used by the IPCC. These emails apparently show the world’s leading climate scientists manipulating data, violating information disclosure laws, and blocking publication of research contrary to their own. I could go on and on reading the emails, but it would take hours to finish. So here’s one example:
- “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1980 onwards) and form 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” [From Phil Jones]
Of course he means hide the decline in temperatures, which caused another scientist, Kevin Trenberth, to write: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
Again, these are IPCC scientists. Their work provides a principal basis for EPA’s endangerment finding, which EPA announced just last week. Now the credibility of the IPCC and its work-which I have criticized in speeches since 2003-has collapsed.
And here’s how all of this relates to Milan. In 2003, scientists told me the hockey stick was fatally flawed, and I believed they were right. Well, we were right: the hockey stick has been totally debunked. And now Michael Mann-author of the hockey stick-is at the center of the Climategate scandal and under investigation by his employer, Penn State University.
Now this is important for all of you in Copenhagen. Even without Climategate, cap-and-trade will still be soundly defeated.
But because of Climategate, Kyoto’s most ardent supporters are retreating on the science. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, issued a rather confusing statement yesterday. Here’s his take: “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be.” He then went on to say, “What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity.” But then in another nod to the view that the science is uncertain, Blair said the world should act to address global warming “purely as a matter of precaution.” So a cost of $300 to $400 billion a year for the US-this is “purely as a matter of precaution”?
The problem with Blair’s precautionary principle is the massive economic costs involved. This was a topic I raised in my speech in 2003. I noted the economic analysis of Kyoto by Wharton Economic Forecasting Associates. Here’s what Wharton found and what I mentioned in my Milan speech:
- “According to WEFA economists, Kyoto would cost 2.4 million US jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2%, or about $300 billion annually, an amount greater than the total expenditure on primary and secondary education.
- “Because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher food, medical, and housing costs-for food, an increase of 11%, medicine, an increase of 14%, and housing, an increase of 7%. At the same time an average household of four would see its real income drop by $2,700 in 2010, and each year thereafter.
- Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly double, and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents per gallon.”
Today the cost of cap-and-trade bills before the House and Senate bear striking resemblance to those of Kyoto. Take the Waxman-Markey bill, for example. A government study by the Energy Information Administration concluded that the Waxman-Markey bill destroys up to 2.3 million jobs in 2030 and destroys up to 800,000 manufacturing jobs in 2030-and, I should note, those figures include new green jobs, so they are net job losses.
And in September, under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act request, the Obama Administration released a per-household cost estimate of the President’s cap-and-trade program. The cost per family was over $1,700 per year. Again, that would be the largest tax increase in history.
Finally, a top issue in 2003 was the extent to which developing countries-that is China, India, and others-would address global warming. As I noted earlier, the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which the Senate approved 95 to 0, stated that the Senate would not ratify a global warming treaty unless it “mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.” At the time, China and India were adamantly opposed to accepting binding emissions reductions. So what are they saying now?
Well, it’s deja vu all over again. Consider this from India’s Environment Minister, delivered on June 30: “India will not accept any emission-reduction target - period. This is a non-negotiable stand.” China said very much the same thing recently. This is from the spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry: “It is natural for China to have some increase in emissions, so it is not possible for China to accept a binding or compulsory target.”
Now some believe China’s commitment announced a few weeks ago to reduce its greenhouse gas intensity by 40 to 45 and India’s to reduce theirs by 20 to 25 percent was a significant step forward. For example, Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, said, “[China’s and India’s intensity target] shows that international engagement on climate change can produce real results.” Yet the reality is quite different-that’s because China’s, and India’s, emissions would continue to increase on an absolute basis. Just consider China: under their offer, they could increase emissions by 250 percent by 2020.
Todd Stern, President Obama’s top climate negotiator, said on September 2 that China’s intensity reduction is “not an absolute reduction below where they are right now, because they’re not quite at that point to be able to do that. And in that respect, developed and developing countries are different.”
Even if China proposed mandatory reductions, President Obama should not make any pledges or commitments when he goes to Copenhagen. That’s what I believe-and apparently so do some Democrats in the Senate. Senator Webb of Virginia, for example, sent a letter to the President on November 30, in which he wrote: “Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”
I agree with Sen. Webb that the Senate must have a role in ratifying a global warming treaty-or any treaty for that matter. Nevertheless, I don’t think we here in the Senate have much to worry about. There will be no agreement in Copenhagen. It has failed. The intractable issues on the table in Milan in 2003 haven’t been resolved, and they won’t be this week either. So it’s clear that nothing has changed. The Copenhagen party is about over, the caviar is about gone.
And the American people have caught on. Just look at the polls.
According to Rasmussen, after the Climategate scandal broke, 59 percent of Americans say that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Just 26 percent take the opposite view. Or take the Pew Research Center poll this past January. When asked to prioritize a list of 20 public policy issues, respondents put climate change dead last. And the Senate has responded. At most there might be 25 votes in the Senate for a cap-and-trade bill, and they need 60.
My stated reason for attending Copenhagen was to make certain the 191 countries attending COP-15 would not be deceived into thinking the US would pass cap-and-trade legislation. That won’t happen. And for the sake of the American people, and the economic well-being of America, that’s a good thing.
See post here.
By James Graff
With the clock winding down and the hosts of the Copenhagen climate conference reportedly abandoning hope of a deal, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced a possibly game-changing U.S. push to facilitate a $100 billion per year fund to help developing countries pay for measures to mitigate and adapt to global warning. Her remarks threw the spotlight on China and set exhausted negotiators back to work on salvaging a conference still teetering on the edge of failure.
“The U.S. is prepared to work with other countries to jointly mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020,” Clinton told a packed news conference at Copenhagen’s Bella Center. But her offer came with a major caveat: that the recipients of such funds agree to strict and open accounting of how they are spent. China in particular, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has strongly resisted provisions for international review of its progress, and it has considerable support for that position among other developing countries.
“If there isn’t a commitment for transparency of some sort, that would be a deal-breaker,” Clinton said, underlining that the U.S. funding would flow only as part of a complete package that has so far eluded the Copenhagen conference. “In the absence of an operational agreement that meets the requirement that I outlined, there will not be the final commitment that I outlined, at least from the United States,” she said.
The proposal gave a fillip of hope to negotiators who have been unable to bridge yawning gaps between poor countries and the richest ones over how to pay the trillions of dollars in estimated costs to reach the conference’s stated goal of keeping average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. The next 24 hours will reveal whether it is enough to reshuffle the cards and allow government leaders to sign a substantive agreement Friday.
Even if her conditions are fulfilled, Clinton remained intentionally vague on how much U.S. taxpayers would be contributing to any such fund. “We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance,” she said.
Nevertheless, the prospect of any U.S. public funds going into such a fund is sure to further stiffen the spines of Republicans in Congress who don’t even believe there’s any global warming to mitigate. Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla.—already in Copenhagen at the vanguard of what Fox News reports will be 40 members of Congress arriving today and Friday—poured cold water on any chance of an agreement. “Nothing binding will come out of here in my opinion, and if it does, it will be rejected by the American people,” he said.
In a bid to head off the first of those predictions, President Barack Obama will arrive in Copenhagen Friday morning for what he hopes will be a signing ceremony with about 110 other government leaders. But while the 11th-hour U.S. offer may have helped prepare the ground for a substantive deal, there still may be too much digging to do before the conference is set to close Friday. The $100 billion a year offer is 10 times more than developed countries agreed to offer for a ‘“fast-start" fund to be in place next year. It reflects the fact that the richer countries have been brought up short by an unusual unity among the poorest countries, which most scientists agree will suffer the most from warmer temperatures. Their representatives have demanded up to $500 billion per year from the richer countries. As Politico reported, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the conference Wednesday, “If the climate were a bank, [the United States] would have saved it.”
But according to the Guardian, it was Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi—the head of the group of African nations that earlier this week walked out of the conference to dramatize their need for massive aid—who put the $100 billion figure on the table before Clinton arrived. “My proposal dramatically scales back our expectation of the level of funding in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table in the management of such fund,” he said. Many other poor countries are still disposed to reject that figure, but their negotiating strength is limited.
That is not the case for China, however, which is determined to reject any accord that would restrain its largely coal-fueled economic growth. Premier Wen Jiabao, who arrived in Copenhagen Wednesday night, has reiterated promises to reduce the country’s “carbon intensity,” or the carbon footprint of its per capita economic output. But he stressed that “our carbon intensity reduction plans are voluntary and should not be linked with the rich countries’ binding targets.” China fears that international monitoring of its carbon output—a key U.S. demand—would create just such a linkage. If Copenhagen is to yield anything more than a promise to keep working, it could well fall to Wen and Obama to hash that out on Friday, in the final minute of the 11th hour. See post here.
Note: in this poll, 98% said no to Hillary’s commitment.
Posted by Dan McGrath in Coalition, Copenhagen Treaty
Highlights social injustice of proposed climate change policies. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) announced today that they have joined the No Cap and Trade Coalition in the fight against cap-and-trade legislation and the proposed Copenhagen climate treaty. The coalition is comprised of over 30 state and federal public policy groups and think tanks and maintains a website.
Niger Innis, national spokesperson for CORE, will become a spokesperson for the No Cap-and Trade Coalition, helping to spread the message that this dangerous public policy will impede social justice, transfer wealth from the United States to foreign countries and potentially strip the United States of its sovereignty.
CORE’s Niger Innis
“CORE is committed to the coalition’s efforts to stop cap-and-trade as well as the Copenhagen treaty,” said Niger Innis. “This endeavor is a continuation of an almost three year effort that CORE has made in its national energy campaign - CORE believes that access to affordable energy is a civil and human right and will work with the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition to spread this message.”
“The No Cap-and-Trade Coalition is very excited about working with CORE and having Niger Innis as a spokesperson,” said Jeff Davis of Minnesota Majority, the coalition’s organizer. “We believe his message that cap-and-trade schemes will be devastating to all Americans, but with a disproportionate impact on the poor in this country, will resonate with all people, regardless of politics.”
On December 7, 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) began a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark where President Obama intends to consent to an operational agreement with immediate effect if the proposed treaty can’t be agreed upon. The treaty, or any similar executive agreements, could result in a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to third world countries, tax hikes, price inflation, job losses and more damage to the faltering American economy. A draft of the treaty includes establishing a new world government along with a world energy tax. Were such a treaty ratified, it could be a threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
If domestic cap-and-trade legislation were passed, it could result in a loss of 1.9 million American jobs in 2012 and 2.5 million American jobs by 2025. From 2012-2019, the CBO estimates direct government spending at $822 billion with revenue at $845 billion from taxes on energy producers.
The No Cap-and-Trade Coalition has launched a petition on its website and through it, has transmitted over 150,000 citizen messages to the president and Congress in opposition to cap and trade schemes. Member organizations have been independently working in the fight against cap-and-trade and the Copenhagen treaty and some are running advertisements to educate the public.
CORE plans to help the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition work with lawmakers to understand that only through the free-market development of technology and the refinement of conservation endeavors, can the United States achieve a sustainable energy policy for this generation and generations to come.
See post here.
-------------------------
Climate Depot TV Debate in Copenhagen: Warming Professor falsely claims ‘5000 leading climate scientists’ are in UN IPCC
By Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Watch Video of Sky News TV Debate here.
A contentious live global warming debate took place in Copenhagen on UK’s Sky News TV on December 12 between Professor Mark Maslin of the University College London and Climate Depot’s Marc Morano. During the debate, Professor Maslin erroneously asserted there are “5000 leading climate scientists” with the UN IPCC to support the claims of man-made climate fears. “None of the science has been actually changed. If you look at the [UN] IPCC report, 5000 leading climate scientists put together all the leading science together,” Maslin stated. [Professor’s Maslin’s email is: m.maslin@geog.ucl.ac.uk ]
Climate Depot’s Morano countered: “Your idea that [there are] 5000 UN scientists [ you need to apologize and retract that immediately. The biggest number you can come up with if you include [UN bureaucrats] and delegates is 2800.”
Professor Maslin, of the Department of Geography, interjected “Oh, absolute rubbish.” [Editor’s Note: Maslin also recently debated MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen and Maslin claimed in this video clip that “There are very few (skeptics) and none are actually credible."]
A frustrated Maslin also claimed that “every single intelligent person” listens to UN scientists and accepts that man-made global warming is a serious problem. “I have been having this debate for the last 20 years, the key is that every single intelligent person, every key politician in the world, listens to the key scientists, they actually look at the data,” Maslin said. [Editor’s Note: Perhaps Professor Maslin is guilty of this: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears—but educated people are very vulnerable’ - July 6, 2009]
Morano responded: Matt [anchor of Sky News TV], check out the claim of 5000 UN scientists—that is a bald face—error. The professor needs to retract it. There is no 5000 [UN IPCC climate scientists]. And interestingly a few days ago [Professor Maslin] said 4000 [UN scientists]. Why not just say 100,000? You gave it away sir when you said ‘key scientists’. It is a small cadre, only 52 UN scientists signed (a reference to the only 52 scientists who authored the media hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers). Peer-reviewed studies are showing the [man-made climate] scare is ending.
[Editor’s Note: UN IPCC Chair Pachauri Only Claims HUNDREDS of UN IPCC Scientists?: ‘The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide’ - December 8, 2009
Reality Check: Only 60 UN experts ‘explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet’ Numbers racket: ‘Remove the duplications and the total number of UN authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890’ [ Nov. 16, 2009 - National Post. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Claims 2500 scientists
Don’t Miss this Report about UN IPCC Scientists Attacking IPCC’s Credibility and Ethics]. Professor Maslin did not respond to Morano’s call for an immediate withdrawal and apology. Maslin then lashed out at Morano. “Your ideas on the science are wrong, are completely false. You are actually spinning,” Maslin said.
Morano countered: “There are two appeals Professor Maslin has: Appeal to authority—the UN—which Climategate thankfully has exposed. And climate model ‘scares’ of what ‘could,’ ‘might, ‘may’ happen, based on speculative models which again violate the basic principles of forecasting, according to top forecasting experts.”
Professor Maslin also claimed “the science is very strong.” “If you’re Bangladesh and you are faced within the next 50 years of losing 20 percent of your country—imagine losing 20% of the whole of the US due to climate change,” Maslin asserted. Morano countered, offering a head on rebuttal to Maslin’s claims. “What professor Maslin is arguing is that these climate models should scare everyone. The climate models - which violate 71 (actually 72) out of 89 principles of forecasting according to the experts. Climate models that the UN says are not ‘predictions’, but merely ‘emission scenarios’. Climate models that are used to fulfill a political narrative when real world data is failing,” Morano said. (See: Ivy League forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” - January 28, 2009)
“Sea Level is not showing the acceleration. The Royal Netherlands Meteorology Institute said this. One scientist said if sea level is rising due to global warming, no one has bothered to tell sea level,” Morano explained. Maslin claimed that evidence for man-made climate fears was easy to find.
“You could actually take a supertanker from the Atlantic all the way to the Pacific for the first time in human history. Why do you not believe the science? Why suddenly are scientists lying to you?” Maslin asked Morano. Morano responded: “Let’s go one at a time. The [Arctic] sea ice tanker—they used satellite monitoring [to aid direct its path], and they had Russian ice breakers breaking up the ice. [Editor’s note: See: Arctic ships themselves were “ice-hardened” to deal with ice...accompanied for most of the trip so far by one or two Russian nuclear icebreakers...possible because satellite observation of ice cover’] Morano continued: “[Since] 2007, we have now gained the size of one and a half Texas’s in the Arctic in the summer. Antarctic sea ice is at or near record sea ice extent. They had their record summer of sea ice extent [in 2009]. Why isn’t the professor not talking about that?”
Morano added: “Yes, temps have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. That proves nothing. [A study in] the peer-reviewed journal Science had said the 20th century was not anomalously warm. You can’t get away with this professor, Climategate has shown it.”
When asked what he hopes comes out of Copenhagen, Morano responded: “I agree with NASA scientist James Hansen, a friend of Al Gore and one of the loudest promoters of global warming fears. Hansen hopes Copenhagen fails.” Morano added the UN climate “solutions” were dangerous to the developing world’s poor because it meant that the economies of the poorer nations would essentially be managed by the UN and the Western world. “This is a form of neo-colonialism,” Morano said. “The developing world needs carbon based energy,” he added.
----------------------------
Climate science Q&A: Has 40% of all Arctic ice melted?
By Lord Christopher Monckton
Q. The great truth-monger Al Gore claimed yesterday that 40% of the Artic Ice Cap has already disappered, and that the other 60% will be gone in 5, 10, or 15 years. If almost half of the Artic ice has already melted, then why aren’t London, New York, Miami, Venice, Houston, Singapore, etc., under water?
Is this the same type of over-exaggeration that Gore was guilty of practicing when he claimed that the Earth’s core temperature is several millions of degrees? I cannot wait for your debate with the great truth-monger!
A. Even if the entire Arctic ice cap were to disappear altogether, as it did during the summer in the medieval warm period and throughout the year 850,000 years ago, sea level would not rise by as much as a millionth of an inch, because the Arctic polar ice cap is floating. You can demonstrate this for yourself by taking a large glass, placing a big ice-cube in it, then carefully filling up the glass with water until the water is exactly level with the rim. Now let the ice melt. Even when all the ice is gone, the water level remains exactly the same, and not a drop spills over. I recently demonstrated this experiment at lunch after a talk at Lloyds of London. The brokers and underwriters were fascinated.
For a few weeks only, in September 2007 only, the Arctic ice cap lost just over a quarter of the ice extent that it would normally have at its summer minimum, so that there was less ice than there had been in the 28 years since satellites had been able to give us a reasonably reliable measure of it. By September 2008, almost half of the missing ice had returned. By September 2009, nearly all of it had returned. We know that the temporary loss of late-summer sea ice at the minimum in September 2007 was not caused by “global warming” for three reasons. First, the climate of the Arctic is known to be highly volatile: it was actually warmer in the 1930s than it is today. Secondly, a paper by NASA in 2008 attributed the disappearance of the sea ice the previous summer to unusually strong northbound currents and winds from the Tropics that had very little to do with “global warming”. Thirdly, just three weeks after the 28-year Arctic sea-ice minimum, the Antarctic sea ice - which had been growing steadily - reached a 28-year maximum.
Much more here.