- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


January 2009
« Dec   Feb »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic

WITHIN the scientific community it has generally been accepted that as a continent, Antarctica, has been getting colder – or at least not warming.  Those who subscribe to the general consensus that climate change is driven by manmade carbon dioxide emissions, and that the world is generally getting warmer, have claimed this is not inconsistent with their greenhouse gas theory or the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models.  They have explained that Antarctica is a general exception to the global trend because of a loss of ozone in the polar stratosphere.  [1]

When communicating with the general public, however, some high profile scientists, including from the CSIRO, have been so bold as to falsely claim even the Antarctic is warming.  Perhaps because they wanted to avoid appearing inconsistent or having to explain such an annoying exception to the generally accepted global warming trend over the last 100 or so years. [2]

Now the prestigious journal Nature has published an article explaining that the Antarctic has been generally warming and at about the same rate as the rest of the planet.  [3]  This news made the cover of the latest issue of the journal with a dramatic graphic illustration of the new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006.

One of the authors of the new paper, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has explained that he is pleased that the previous inconvenience of a cooling trend in Antarctica can now be dismissed.  Indeed he now has a paper published in the prestigous and peer-reviewed journal Nature claiming as much.    But this does not necessarily make it true.

Dr Mann is famous for managing to falsely recreate past temperatures so they accord with the popular global warming consensus.    Indeed Dr Mann is responsible for the infamous hockey-stick graph that suggested the medieval warm period did not exist.   

In this new study Dr Mann and others have combined incomplete data from both satellites and weather stations with some complicated statistics to generate a model of climate for the continent for the period 1957-2006.  

Bill Kininmonth, formerly of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was interviewed on Australian national radio as part of a segment on the new findings.   Mr Kininmonth explained that there has been no reduction in the cycle of Antarctic sea ice and that he was generally sceptical that the west Antarctic ice sheet was likely to melt – a claim made earlier in the segment by Dr Barry Brook from Adelaide University.  

In apparent contravention of ABC Broadcasting principles, the comment from Mr Kininmonth has been expunged from the transcript and the podcast. [4]

It seems computer models can remove evidence of cooling and editors can remove comment from climate change sceptics – but of course the truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored.


1. Marohasy, J.  Why Isn’t the Antarctic Warming as Much as the Arctic?  January 20, 2006.

2. Marohasy, J.  Graeme Pearman Claims Antarctica is Warming.  April 7, 2008.

3. Steig, E., D. Schneider, S. Rutherford, M. Mann, J.C. Comiso and D.T. Shindell.  2009.  Warming of the Antarctic Ice-Sheet Surface Since The 1957 International Geophysical Year.  Nature.  Vol 457,  January 22, 2009.

4.  Antarctic Cooling Theory Challenged, January 22, 2009, ABC Radio National
Formal complaint lodged by Art Raiche to the ABC:  Program: AM, Program Date: 22 January 2009, ABC Service\Network: Radio National, ABC Recipient: Audience & Consumer Affairs
Subject: post broadcast censorship
Your Comments: On AM this morning, as part of a report on a report that Antarctica was warming, the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, William Kininmonth, was interviewed.  This occurred about 7:20 plus or minus 5 minutes.  He pointed out that there was no evidence of reduction in the cycle of Antarctic sea ice and that it was only around the coastal margins that temperatures exceeded 0C during daytime for about one month of the year – the West Antarctic ice sheet has been in place for millions of years and likely to remain so.  Although broadcast,  this interview was expunged from the transcript and the podcast.  This sort of post-broadcast censorship must surely be a violation of the ABC’s broadcast charter. 

5.  And for more on this topic read Marc Morano here:
Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist’. Comprehensive Data Round Up Debunks New Antarctic ‘Estimate of Temperature Trends’


170 Responses to “Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic”

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All

  1. Comment from: Tim Curtin

    After the kindergarten stuff of the last dozen or so posts here, I would welcome serious responses to my post (#155) at the thread “Valuing Passion Over Wisdom: Hansen Awarded Highest Honour by American Meteorologists”.

  2. Comment from: Luke

    OK – I’ll tell you – essentially it’s a quiescent point in the quasi-biennial oscillation time series which essentially linearises any LOD effects. You realise anything else would have made their analysis non-orthogonal. Are you advocating non-orthogonality Graeme – is that the level of your science matey?

  3. Comment from: Marcus

    I specifically referred to the relegation of CO2 to a minor role by yourself and others, although it was been blamed for all the warming to begin with, proven by the fact, that the new tax is supposed to reduce CO2 emissions.

    As to the debate about the whole AGW and warming in general, I just watch it in amusement.

    I am used to dealing with very small margins in engineering, where it matters, but the minuscule temperature changes, you people are arguing about, leaves me cool and comfortable.

    Oh, it looks terribly impressive on the graphs produced by you and others until one realises the actual values involved and the magnitude of the change.

    I’m more worried about the politicians, of any flavor jumping on the bandwagon and screwing us for more money, under false pretenses.

  4. Comment from: barry moore

    Luke I know I have said this before but you really must enrol in reading comprehension grade one then work your way up. “political rant” there was not one word about politics in the post. I was definitely not appealing to simplistic logic I was accusing IPCC of using it. Your statement “We have a number of interacting natural and a number of anthropogenic climate influences and feedbacks.” Was exactly my point. Far from dismissing radiation physics my point was that the laws of physics should be applied and the IPCC refuse to do so. My knowledge does not come from blogs it has come from reading hundreds of peer reviewed technical papers. If the IPCC have reviewed the same papers why don’t they have a chapter on radiation theory in their reports. I have read the IPCC report and it consists of a massive collection of statistics which do not prove a thing because correlation does not prove causation. It also inculdes 2 of the 11 full chapters devoted to climate models and the rest of the report is an endless stream of references to model results. You can not program a computer with a hypothesis then claim the compute results have proven your hypothesis that is called circular logic. Virtually all the pre-eminent scientists in this field including NASA and NOAA agree that the computer models are interesting but have no intrinsic value. Take all of that out of the IPCC report and all you have left is Mann’s hockey stick and worthless ice core data.

  5. Comment from: Dennis Webb

    This is interesting, comment from the authors on the study:

    The findings are “really consistent with the general warming that we get from greenhouse gases. So we now see that warming is taking place on all seven of the Earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases.”

  6. Comment from: cohenite

    Well done luke, as fine an example of malapropism and amphigory as one could wish for; pseudo-recherche rodomontade at its best; a tad contradictory inas much orthogonal vectors are linearly independent; but it captures the iterative spirit of Mann splendidly; as a reward read this front to back and back to front and then eat it;

  7. Comment from: Tobias Ziegler


    Since you can’t be bothered attempting to seek out any facts for yourself, here’s a response from one of the authors about why 1957 was the start year:

    [There are some data but very few before 1957. 1957 was the International Geophysical Year, when most of the weather stations were put in.–eric]

  8. Comment from: janama

    Actually – most of the weather stations were added after 1980

  9. Comment from: gavin

    I thought about mentioning the 1958 Geo Physical year (again), back in the thread but reckoned everybody here should be well informed by now…

    Its kids stuff today hey

  10. Comment from: janama

    Gavin – since 1980 – 100 AWS have been added and maintained by the University of Wisconsin and school students.

    Kirk Beckendorf, along with researchers from the University of Wisconsin Madison are based at McMurdo Station, Antarctica and traveling around the continent maintaining automatic weather stations. About 300 students from about 13 states joined the event.

    They cover the continent.

  11. Comment from: janama

    Plus there are the aussie stations Cohenite mentioned.

  12. Comment from: Climate Research News » Some Reactions to Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study

    [...] Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic [...]

  13. Comment from: Big Boy

    I did like the article & the rather humorous remark (wrongly) attributed to Prof. Brooke. I would have to side with the ‘deniers’ on the AGW debate as they seem to be the only ones following scientific method.

  14. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic (Part 2)

    [...] 3.  Jennifer Marohasy, Modellers remove evidence of cooling,  January 23, 2009… [...]

  15. Comment from: Louis Hissink

    I have listened to Kinninmonth’s comments.

    The ABC “addition” omits the preceding question, so Kinninmonth’s comments are out of context. It took me a few seconds to work out that Kinninmonth was responding to a question that does not exist in the official archived transcript.

    Lynsenkoism par excellence.

    Well Done Oy Bee Cee and that fundamentalist Fabian Robyn Williams.

  16. Comment from: ConspiracyWatch « Not a Hedgehog

    [...] reflecting that bias. Except when one of the other contributors to the segment had his explanation misreported to the point of silliness – that kind of thing can just be [...]

  17. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » Led Author of ‘Antarctic Warming Paper’ Claims Libel

    [...] 3. My initial response to the Steig et al article can be found as a blog post here:… [...]

  18. Comment from: James P

    “a few disreputable apples like Mann have managed to so spoil the entire barrel”

    It sounds like scientists are in the same boat as economists – they both have their Bernard Madoffs …

  19. Comment from: Matthew Wright

    HA HA .. I can’t believe you are quoting from — in 1998 they were running heaps of editorial against the “anti-tobacco” lobby. They claimed that there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. After one hell of a hefty lawsuit and some outing of internal documents the Tobacco lobby withdrew and gave up.

    We’ve still got Junkscience – sponsored by Right Wind Cato and Heartland institutes and all their exxon mates. THey’ve just reinvented themselves — first they went after legitimate science showing the links between smoking and lung cancer. Now after losing that battle (LOSERS) they are trying to help other corporate interests by going against legitimate scientists ringing the alarm bells on the threat of accelerating global warming. (From huiman caused increases in Greenhouse gasses)

    >Comment from: Chris Schoneveld January 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    >How do the authors of the paper explain the UAH MSU Polar temperature anomaly graph for the >Lower Troposphere?

    >It doesn’t cover al the polar region (like the central part of the Antarctica which unequivocally has >cooled anyway) but it sure is an indication that the southern polar region has been warming >during the satellite era..

  20. Comment from: Climate Change and Global Warming | ClimateSeek

    [...] the fourth author (the study would have been much easier to demonise if he’d been the lead). Some pretended he was anyway, and just for good measure accused him of being a ‘modeller’ as [...]

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All