ABC Journalist Wendy Carlisle: Hatchet Job Exposed

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) repeatedly misrepresents the facts relating to important environmental issues and puts much effort into smearing those it disagrees with. Here is yet another example:

And the ABC is funded by big government.

97 Responses to ABC Journalist Wendy Carlisle: Hatchet Job Exposed

  1. will gray March 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    I think the bears were tranquilized so the researcher could continue his study on seals as they are quite mean. Later he observes drowned bears WTF.
    Here some satire:

    http://youtu.be/yihXYrBrRwA

    Heres the link to the grilling he recieved.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/

  2. Denis Webb March 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Media Watch should investigate Wendy Carlisle and her hatchet job on Mr Monckton. In particular they could find out if she ever apologised and if not, why not. Enough time has passed for Media Watch and the ABC to have properly investigated this one. I hope there is something on this Monday night. A good easy one for Zanthe because most of the work has already been done.

  3. Denis Webb March 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    I apologise for my error in the above comment. Where I wrote ‘Zanthe’, I was in error. I should have written Xanthe Kleinig. Ms Xanthe Kleinig is one of the researchers at Media Watch who should take a close interest in the poor reporting by Wendy Carlisle. Ms Kleinig should get some questions together for Ms Carlisle to answer about her hatchet job on Mr Monckton.

  4. koalabear March 17, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

    You might have to wait a little while. Xanthe is very busy at the moment with another assignment looking at Michael Mann’s interview and encouraging Lateline to have a suitable guest on next week to offer an alternate perspective. You must understand that Xanthe is overworked and thats why she has to cram in all her phone calls on a Friday afternoon at 4pm.

  5. Robert March 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    “Volkswagen’s new Polo TDI is a boy car in a girl-car body. The sweet purr of a diesel engine is the first hint at its ability to turn nasty…All said, it’s not bad for a girl’s car.”

    The above is from a Xanthe Kleinig car review in The Advertiser, 2006.

    She also said, in her summary of the Polo, that she loved the “his and hers interior lights for both sides of the cabin”. (How the car’s electronic system could have provided just a “his light” or just a “hers light” is not explained.)

    If that’s the same Xanthe Kleinig, my only observation is that she writes like a smug and inarticulate oaf – perfect for an ABC or Fairfax gig.

    However, I’d expect Jonathan and the ABC to have their own observations to make. I wonder if Xanthe copped it from Media Watch over that article.

    Come on Jonathan! To borrow a Xantheism, who’s wearing the trousers at MW, ?

  6. cohenite March 17, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    The video says there is no picture of Wendy Carlisle and after some googling I could not find one, although there are several photos on facebook of Wendy Carlisles.

  7. Mark A March 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    Here you are Cohenite courtesy of our friend the Professor
    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/wendys-wonderland-part-ii.html

  8. charles nelson March 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    There is a group of core believers in the ABC who never fail to mention ‘Climate Change’ at every available opportunity. The reason for this is simple over the past 7 or 8 years they have staked their personal reputations on its existence…ie that the drought would continue and the temperatures would rise. This locked them into supporting the preposterous Carbon Tax…unfortunately for them the coolest wettest summer in a generation has punctured their inflatable scary monster…the public are quite rightly asking themselves how despite increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (a heat trapping and amplifying gas) the temperatures are not increasing…nor sea levels rising etc.
    Instead of reconsidering their position and perhaps qualifying their original support for the scare, they are foolishly shrieking louder and longer…and getting nastier and more vicious in their personal attacks on skeptics.
    This may well irritate us but it is ultimately a good sign…the more noise they make the more ridiculous they seem, the more out of touch with public opinion and biased towards the crazed carbon taxing government which supports them and will soon be out of power for a generation!

    Now that the

  9. cohenite March 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Oh yeah, thanks. What a prima donna.

  10. J.H. March 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Excellent video Jennifer…. and looking at Mark A’s photo of “Our” Wendy… She certainly has a nice face for radio. She made a right twit of herself with her hack job on Christopher Monckton. I didn’t realize that activist propagandists could still call themselves journalists…. Must be an ABC thing ‘eh?….;-)

  11. Streetcred March 17, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    Somebody mentioned that Fenton Communications, yes the USA left wing lobby group, are possibly behind Carlisle’s inquisition … first Avaaz (Soros Foundation) interfering with the Finkelstein media ‘inquiry’ and now Fenton Communications coaching the ABC!

    Is the Australian socialist left ceding its identity to the USA socialist left ?

  12. Luke March 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    What a load of noxious crap – ABC might be biased – but some suck video with piccies of Mao and is Ms Carlisle part of some International Cartel (“ooooo”), and foreboding sinister music. What utter rubbish – Monckton BTW has had plenty of debunking. ABC needs to get on point not trivia.

  13. Sean McHugh March 17, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    I think that what needs to happen is that Christopher Monckton demands a very public apology and the retraction of all the smears and false charges Wendy Carlisle made. And not along the lines of, “I’m sorry if I have offended . . . . .” Actually, there needs to be an apology for thew whole segment and its appalling form. Monckton surely has solid grounds here for litigation over the lies and defamation. The ABC can’t be allowed to keep getting away with their dishonesty, political bias and propaganda. My God, what country are we living in?

  14. Sean McHugh March 17, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    The Monnett and Gleason paper, cited in the video, definitely did claim that the bears drowned in the stormy weather. In fact, the storm was very pivotal to the 25% survival projection. I have written a review of that paper; it can be read here:

    http://w11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/topic/7628532/1/

  15. Leo G March 17, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    The ABC’s Wendy Carlisle argues that the IPCC has predicted the complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet in the course of this century, when the prediction was that the rate of ice sheet loss would accelerate after 2100 if IPCC expected warming rates occur- with complete loss possible within tens of thousands of years.

  16. Bunyip March 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Sean, thank you for that link and the wonderful analysis. I blogged a little on it at the time the story broke, mostly because of an interest in Wendy Carlisle’s hatchet job and the noises Stephan Loondowsky was making in Monnett’s defence at The Conversation. But yours is a prosector’s case and iron-tight — a jury would not need to retire.

    This may amuse — an account by the 19th century explorer Isaac Israel hayes, who had a near mystical belief in open water at the North Pole. He didn’t find that, but did encounter a polar bear doing it hard in lumpy seas. Apparently polar bears have been drowning for quite some time.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=maYNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA399&dq=polar+bear+carcass&hl=en&ei=2Us2TqyZKoXhiAKyr-TDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwATiMAQ#v=onepage&q=date%20published&f=false

  17. Robert March 17, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    I understand that the ominous music and pompous voiceover in the video were intended to be satirical of the ABC’s familiar methods of distortion. Likewise, I’m guessing that the “mystery” over no picture of the journo and the leading question about whom she works for are also meant as satire of the ABC’s trashy “in-depth” coverage. Indeed, the ABC now makes the junkiest of the commercial news outlets look sane and mature by comparison.

    However, rather like Monckton with his mockery of Gore’s accent, the video is too focused on sending up and getting square. Also, if you don’t have clever pros to do your satire, it can fall flat, or many obtuse types (ABC viewers?) might miss the satire entirely.

    The maker of the video had important points to make, and a crisper more factual presentation would certainly have interested me. I’d love to know the money trail behind those lamentable falling polar bear ads. When junk science meets bloated beer commercial, you have to wonder where the funds came from.

    Sorry to be less than enthusiastic. Maybe it’s because I’m on a limited satellite connection, and did have to quite half-way. When the points are eventually made, they are very strong ones, and I’d certainly encourage the maker to keep the videos coming.

  18. Luke March 18, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    keep going on the polar bears by all means – the latest research won’t support the sceptic case.

  19. hunter March 18, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    The believer fixation on polar bears is telling.
    It is well documented that polar bear populations are up over the last ~60 years significantly.
    But the AGW fanatics need doom, and polar bears, if you know nothing about them, seem cute and cuddly. IOW a nice victim for big oil caused doom. How many lying misleading papers have worked hard to hide the increasing nature of polar bear populations? A polar bear researcher was even prevented from participating in a conference because he dared to question polar bear doom.

  20. George B March 18, 2012 at 5:27 am #

    I think this just goes to show how our various information outlets have become political propaganda and not information. The media has an obligation to inform people of the uncertainty surrounding things such as the IPCC conclusion that all climate feedbacks to increasing CO2 would be positive and that actual observations have show that to be untrue. They also have an obligation to show that the temperatures rose between 1910 and 1940 for the same duration and by the same amount as from 1975 to 2005, before CO2 increase was any factor.

    The problem with the AGW hypothesis is that it is contradicted by the observational data during the 20th century. It is amplified by the IPCC conclusion that positive feedbacks would amplify CO2 warming by 3x. It just isn’t happening.

  21. John Sayers March 18, 2012 at 6:31 am #

    Robert – the voice over is a computer generated voice.

    I came across an old acquaintance on facebook who works for the ABC – things went fine until I made some remark about being a sceptic! – he immediately cursed me and defriended me immediately. It’s ingrained in the whole ABC community.

  22. Luke March 18, 2012 at 7:14 am #

    The great thing about sceptic bulldust is that it keeps on giving.

    For George B – your whole point is sheer nonsense and indicates you’ve never read anything except what sceptics have told you to. No idea of how CO2 works as a forcing. And the IPCC reports discuss your matter in detail.

    And as you hunter “excluded” person – well – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php ROFL !

    huner bleats ” How many lying misleading papers have worked hard to hide the increasing nature of polar bear populations?” well matey you’re spinning the bulldust – you tell us.

    And nobody except you thinks a very large powerful apex predator is cuddly.

    Gee I wonder where polar bears hunt for food? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/01/10/mb-starving-polar-bears-manitoba.html

    In any case the story of polar bears at their range limits in first climate change affected areas is far from reassuring.
    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/z11-021

  23. cohenite March 18, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    To paraphrase luke the great thing about AGW bulldust is that it keeps on giving:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/csiro-and-bom-state-of-climate-report.html

    That’s the sort of analysis which should be on the ABC; I think I’ll suggest they post it. Can I count on your support luke? You know, in the name of good, honest debate.

  24. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    Seriously Luke?
    Aren’t we still missing the obvious question/s about ‘assumptions’?
    Are these observed changes directly attributable to human produced CO2?
    Are the ‘reported’ claims such as those highlighted here, actually verified when we check the quoted report/s?
    Is it necessary to radically alter human behaviour by creating new taxes?
    Is it necessary to create a ‘state of fear’ through constant references to possible catastrophic climate change?
    What is this hugely expensive PR campaign actually achieving re mitigating ‘climate change’ ?
    And so on . . .

  25. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    Thank you Bunyip for your kind comments. That article resulted from my having a debate with the guy that hosts the Sky Dragon site. I have known him from way back from when we were in on the same side in a discussion group of a very different nature. He was a university lecturer and will characteristically talk to you as if you are the student who needs to be assigned homework. He said, “[L]et’s link to the article itself”, and provided the following link via this impressive sounding title:

    ” Monnett, C; and Gleason, J.S. (2006) Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, in Polar Biology, Vol 29, No 8, pp 681-687.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/

    The trouble is, despite the fulness and formality of the title, it’s just the abstract and introduction. It doesn’t mention any storm and that was one of the criticisms in the interviews. To sell the paper, Monnett and Gleason honed the abstract and introduction to feature the perils of global warming without boring distractions – as you would. In the overall paper though, the storm was the necessary basis of their juvenile storm-survival extrapolations.

    It is my guess that Wendy Carlisle and her ABC people, only read the abstract and introduction.

  26. Neville March 18, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Luke do you dispute that Polar bear numbers today are about 20,000 to 25,000 and sixty years ago the numbers were only about 5,000?

  27. Robert March 18, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    Polar bears were used by the climate alarmists in the same way they were used by the Bundaberg Rum company. To be fair, Bundaberg Rum did not expect to be taken seriously.

    ABC viewers are a lot like people who think a movie is “deep” if there’s some mock-medieval chant on the soundtrack while characters do lots of grimacing and staring. You cannot cure ABC devotees of either a) their snobbery or b) their superficiality. I certainly think this superiority-without-effort is a fine idea for them, but could they not pay for it all themselves?

    Oh, wait. I forgot about the “without-effort” bit.

  28. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    Forgot: Thanks for that link, Bunyip. That page will definitely be going into my files.

  29. Luke March 18, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Good grief Cohenite – we’re now back at Jaworowski – choke cough splutter – http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

    And all the ye olde ruses CO2 temperature cycles and glacial periods.and the great unpublished Salby crappola. Jeez mate I thought you’d gone un-market these days.

    More generic drivel from Debbie – from the universe to a carbon tax in a sentence. Really Debs.

    Yes Neville I do – and citing whole Arctic numbers, confounding hunting, urban foraging, regional variations and not looking at what happens near the edge of their range is stupid. What do you reckon would happen if an animals hunting ground disappeared. Difficult isn’t it. No ice = lack of hunting grounds. A duh. Maybe they’re all going to get little motor boats.

  30. Minister for Truth March 18, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    I guess it doesnt hurt to look at some real data to hazard a guess as to just what sort of strife the Polar Bars are heading into…not much by the looks of things.

    One can also read the whole paper referenced by The Luke..something he rarely does..and realise that possible diminishing ice caused by so called “climate change” is but one of many issues the polar bars have to deal with…..population increase being another

    BTW ANY scientists that uses the fraudulent language of “Climate Change” are themselves being complete frauds, and setting out to deliberately deceive and manipulate the public into believing that all change is a consequence of mans activities

    Those who do that, and call themselves scientists should be treated with contempt.

  31. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 9:14 am #

    Good point Robert,
    It would probably be a good idea if all disciplines of science and all so called ‘intellectuals’ were required to study media and communications and learn about all the different ways we can all be ‘sucked in’ by soundtracks, tone of voice, body language, rhetorical questions, PR spin, colour, juxtaposition, 30 second sound bites, leading questions, connotative language, hyperbole, word association, subtitles and the list goes on and on and on.
    It may have also helped a lot of people recognise the satire that was being employed in this particular production.
    It deliberately over used exactly the same approach to make a definite point about the techniques employed by the ‘Wendy Carlisle’ piece.
    It had very little to do with ‘sceptic bulldust’ as Luke claims and everything to do with ‘media bulldust’.
    The ‘leading questions’ and ‘hyperbole’ used by MW when they attempted to interview Jennifer were another obvious example.

  32. Neville March 18, 2012 at 9:14 am #

    Well Luke I’ll get you to teach the polar bears the trick of operating motor boats, great job for you.

    So what were the numbers 60 years ago and what are the numbers today?

  33. Robert March 18, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Deb, I, for one, get it about assumptions. There’s that Arctic “death-spiral” that’s coming in…2008! It will be almost as bad as that one coming after…1922!

    When Antarctic ice wouldn’t do as it was told, there was a CAGW explanation for that – something about a closed wind system, or some such idiocy. When some ice shelves down there got a bit crumbly they forgot about all the closed system stuff and reverted to good old…

    It’s worse than we thought!

  34. Neville March 18, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    BTW the arctic ice doesn’t seem to be doing too badly at the moment. Afterall it was supposed to be close to gone, gone , gone by 2012-13.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_ice_than_in_the_past_five_years/#commentsmore

  35. Luke March 18, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    “So what were the numbers 60 years ago and what are the numbers today?” who’d know ?

    Robert – don’t bulldust – “When Antarctic ice wouldn’t do as it was told” – cite your source. These memes are just so old … good grief.

    Neville – pigs bum http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Bolty has to spin it – what spending years more than 2 sdevs from the mean – hahahahahahahaha – you guys

  36. Robert March 18, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    So many memes, so few sources cited…Good grief and pig’s botty! Hahahahahaha…

    It’s worse than we thought!

  37. Bob Fernley-Jones (Bob_FJ) March 18, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Luke,
    Your first comment on polar bears was certainly very vague, even putting aside your syntax problems. What is your great wisdom on this nonsense from Ass’ Prof John F Bruno:

    …Polar bears are in fact incredibly well adapted to extreme cold and are indeed sensitive to warm temps. You often see the big males splayed out on the ice trying keep their private parts cool…
    … This behavior is likely adaptative and helps them to thermoregulate. They have a thick coat and blubber to keep warm and they rub their balls on the ice to cool off…

    I Emailed him about it; posing a few issues, but got no response:
    http://bobfjones.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/newly-identified-agw-threat-to-polar-bears/

  38. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    Luke said:

    [quote]‘Robert – don’t bulldust – “When Antarctic ice wouldn’t do as it was told” – cite your source. These memes are just so old … good grief.”‘[/quote]

    Luke, you have made my day without being told to go ahead.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

  39. sp March 18, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Luke:

    “So what were the numbers 60 years ago and what are the numbers today?” who’d know ?

    It seems you dont know if polar bears numbers have increased or decreased, but are concerned about the plight of the bears. Does not make sense – you are talking rubbish …. as usual

  40. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    Luke,
    you are doing a spectacular job of missing the point, avoiding the questions and shooting the messengers.
    You also seem to confuse what you call ‘so old’ with human history repeating itself.
    Otherwise known as ‘same book different page’ or in colloquial terms, ‘same s**t different day’.
    If you can’t verify polar bear numbers then all we have is loudly proclaimed assumptions. They may or may not be correct. That’s why it’s so easy to supply other ‘evidence’ operating from different ‘assumptions’.
    To scoff at the blantantly obvious questions and claim they are just generating sceptic meme, tends to indicate that you still believe this issue is about science.
    If it was about science, or even about the practical application of scientific research, you wouldn’t be hearing from so called ‘sceptics’ like me.
    This has been about PR and politics for quite a while.
    For the ABC to make an obviously deliberate attempt to discredit Jennifer is further ‘evidence’ of that.
    The video at this post is a classic satire on the behaviour and techniques used by the ABC.
    You seemed to have totally missed that because of the subject matter.
    BTW, if the RESULT of all of this is a ‘carbon tax’, then obviously we have traveled from ‘the universe to a carbon tax’ via this political process or an ETS or a ‘price on carbon (02) or whatever, have we not?
    Where do you think it should have traveled?

  41. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    And just for a bit of fun, read this little piece:
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/sceptics-cherrypick-and-redraw-graphs-20120316-1var3.html
    and also…
    how telling to look at this graph from Luke (with standard deviation and using 2006/07):
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    and then this one from Sean (without standard deviation and using 2010/11) BUT…VERY BIG BUT….from exactly the same source!
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
    It seems the comment….’If you torture statistics for long enough they will admit to anything’ or the one quoted in the opinion piece ‘ lies, damned lies and statistics’ is perhaps applying here?

  42. Neville March 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    Luke I think you’ll find that most researchers accept the 20,000 to 25,000 numbers for polar bear pop today and about 5,000 for 60 years ago.

    You may not like it but then you’ve got some fairly goofy ideas most of the time.

    But how did polar bears survive during the much warmer Eemian interglacial? Definitely much higher temps than today, with SLs some 4 to 6 metres higher than today as well.

    Plenty of areas of far northern forests existed during the Eemian that are just ice and tundra today. So we know that there was less ice than today and higher temps and yet the PBs somehow survived.

    Rather stuffs up your argument, but then again facts and the truth are not your strong points.

  43. Bob Fernley-Jones (Bob_FJ) March 18, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    And BTW, quickly IIRC;

    There is substantial evidence that the North Atlantic, and particularly Greenland, was either warmer or similar to that in recent claims, around 1940, such as was co-authored by Jason Box (2004?). Box was also a co-author in the relevant chapter of the 2007 IPCC report (WG1 in AR4) but there is absolutely zero mention of those rather important data in AR4.

    Maybe I’m just a cranky professional engineer, but does anyone find that a BIT STRANGE or even IRRITATING?

  44. jennifer March 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Regarding stats on arctic animals… Quite a bit is known about fluctuations in population numbers (seasonal and across decades) going back to the early 1800s including because trading companies had to report numbers of furs taken back to the colony… see Christian Vibes 1967 (Arctic animals in relation to climatic fluctuations. The Danish Zoogeographical Investigations in Greenland. I bought the book through Amazons).

    The polar bear population numbers quoted by Neville are from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) specialist group meeting reports. Numbers were monitored to see if the ban on hunting introduced in the 1970s would result in a rebound in population numbers of bears and it has.

  45. Luke March 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    Sean – gee I never knew that about Antarctic sea ice ! Wow is that the graph. I’ll be blowed eh. Sigh . Now go back and cite what the science reference was that said Antarctica shouldn’t being doing that. Don’t just throw up sceptic memes as facts.

    Say what Debs? oooo – look a wiggle batman – ooooo (I suppose it least an attempt to reference an argument for a change)

    Neville – really where’s your scepticism of 60 year old bear surveys – pre-modern survey methods. Come on man !

    How’d they survive – motor-boats I guess – really what was the population in geological time – reduced to what relic population levels in past episodes. It’s pretty basic isn’t it – polar bears spend lots of time hunting for seals on ice. No ice …. well difficult isn’t it. And that’s what the science of yo barrs at the edge of their range is saying.

    Hey does anyone remember these Moncker episodes? Golden memories.

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/10/john-abraham-science-civility-and-courage-against-denial-ignorance-and-fear/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham-reply-to-monckton.html

    smack-down

    and of course http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/ a treasure trove of oldies

    I liked this myself – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO-jKksQkM – now ask yourself – is Cohenite this good?

  46. Luke March 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Hey Bob is a power user – how’ed he do that bolding? eh? and where’s our gravatars. How come Jen gets one and we don’t. Must have to be most wanted by the ABC to get one…. humph

  47. jennifer March 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Luke, I don’t know what the story is with the Gravatars. There are a few others who’s image show up. See Larry Fields at this thread http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/the-australian-broadcasting-corporation-two-questions-for-your-federal-parliamentarian/#comments
    And James Mayeau here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/03/watching-her-watching-them-graham-young/#comments
    If I need to make a change to the settings so your gravatar shows, I’m happy to, but someone needs to email me instructions on what change to make.

  48. Robert March 18, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    a) If ice were lessening, it would prove nothing, it would mean nothing.
    b) Ice is not lessening, and that proves nothing and means nothing.

    Why do we have this expensive commentariat to draw factoidal conclusions from other factoids? Couldn’t the money be better spent on extra colours of Smarties, better facilties for Saint George…or just about anything?

  49. Johnathan Wilkes March 18, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

    Jennifer or Luke, gravatars are usually connected to a google, yahoo, hotmail or some other public email address.
    If you use an other address to post from then it usually won’t show. (unless you maybe if you use the user name the gravatar is registered under , but I don’t think so)

  50. Orion March 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Luke for a while you were behaving quite well. Are there two of you or is the moon affecting you?

  51. Luke March 18, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Johnathon – thanks my email is right – but suspect might be because my image was PG – PG is default not G. And Jen told me I couldn’t be a woman. Don’t know why but there you have it. Is the blog biased against cross-dressing trannies? (at gravatar.com Debbie)

  52. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    Luke?
    Wiggle batman?
    Both graphs came from the same source.
    Who’s wiggling?
    And do please illuminate on your comment about what the Antarctic shouldn’t be doing. Why shouldn’t it? Which model says so under which particular assumption? Aren’t they primarily observations?
    That Abraham piece is yet another example of attacking the person or shooting the messenger rather than discussing the actual message.
    I love the wording of the sentiment in the conclusion. How spectacularly transparent. It reads like all those fairy tales with the ‘good versus evil’ theme.
    Pretty much like what the ABC also regularly does.
    Pretty much like how they tried to discredit Jen.
    You know, those evil people who are mysteriously funded daring to stick their necks out to question the noble employee scientists and the ever present political PR campaign.
    It is amazing how defensive they get when they are asked perfectly reasonable questions and presented with different scientific conclusions.
    Straight into ‘shoot the messenger’ mode.

  53. Bob Fernley-Jones (Bob_FJ) March 18, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Luke,
    Whilst we await some responses to some simple direct questions to you, let me meanwhile advise that in common with many websites including Wordrpress as used by Jennifer, that you can use HTML tag coding to enhance your submitted text. I’m not privileged in bolding text or formatting block-quotes etc; everyone can do it.
    As for avatars, I don’t want one, and don’t know.
    You could search for; html tags, or I recall that over at WUWT, Ric Werme has a guide to WUWT, check RH sidebar, which includes html stuff.

  54. Luke March 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    A month Debs. A month. Sheez !

    Here ya go then Debs http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/ It’s damning stuff Debbie.

  55. Mark A March 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Lets see if it works, signed up for a gravatar!

  56. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    Good one Luke!
    Not that I see it as a life threatening problem but . . .
    I have no idea how to use an avatar/gravatar or whatever.
    That was actually very funny.
    Well done!
    You do appreciate satire and irony after all.

  57. jennifer March 18, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    O/T Re. Gravatars.
    I can see Luke, Mark A, and Orion’s gravatar from the backend. I will make some enquires as to why they are not showing to everyone.
    And apologies for dealing with this issue at this thread for those who don’t care about appearances.

  58. Minister forTruth March 18, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    http://sppiblog.org/news/rear-view-monckton-and-abrahams#more-4471

    Devastating indeed

    By all accounts Abrahams got a pasting via the return fire..and retreated to his cubby hole under the stair well.

    Wasnt a good look ..but then, I have to admit I did a Luke,and couldnt be bothered reading the rebuttal of the rebuttal

    Suffice to say Monckton did him over..”damming stuff” my arse.

  59. Debbie March 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    So Luke,
    We’re right back at the start in this amazingly circular argument.
    Who on earth is arguing that the climate isn’t changing?
    Not me, that’s for sure.
    My scepticism has 2 basic questions that so far has no answers.
    1) Are the changes being driven by primarily human produced C02? and. . .
    2) If they are, what is the current agenda actually achieving to mitigate it?
    When I look at the most recent post here from climate 4 you and the more recent ‘real data’, those questions remain unanswered.
    BTW , I was a bit disappointed you didn’t even attempt to answer the main question re the Antarctic.
    What isn’t doing that it’s supposed to be doing according to those cited references?
    I’m nonplussed because I thought they were primarily observations.

  60. Robert March 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Well, Deb, I made the mistake of checking the article about Abraham. The golly-gosh earnestness followed by the Superman Comic ending re saving planets etc says it all. I haven’t been a big Monckton fan till now, but Abraham could get me there.

    Environmentalism has as much to do with Conservation as Marxism had to do with helping workers. Australia’s current attitude to land and water is pretty solidly anti-conservation and pro-waste. There’s something else at work here, and posturing narcissists like Abraham are clearly not worried by CO2, methane and SO2. It’s a global dogma deficit along with mass consumption and widening freedom that has them worried.

    Totalitarianism isn’t dead, just homeless. It now knows where it can find new lodgings, and it’s those good old buddies of the totalitarians, middle class intellectuals, who will be helping it.

  61. Neville March 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Seems the ice was a little thin at the North pole on 17th March 1959. The USS Skate broke through the ice in late winter at the pole but before surfacing at that destination they had also broken through the the ice a number of times in the area.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/submarines-in-the-winter-twilight/#more-59438

    Come on Luke where was all that thick late winter pack ice in 1959? Co2 levels in 1959 would be about 310ppmv, but now 390+.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/submarines-in-the-winter-twilight/#more-59438

  62. Luke March 18, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    “ooooo” a datum point

  63. Neviolle March 18, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    Sorry for the double link above. BTW Robert Gillard and her idiots are clearly not worried about co2 emissions either.

    They’re trying to export as much coal as they can every year. What they will not tolerate is Australians using our own coal, but all the other countries can enjoy cheaper coal and thus reliable 24/7 power.

    We’re left to suffer super expensive,useless, unreliable wind and solar. They are barking mad and boy how much must they hate us, the poor Aussie taxpayer.

  64. Minister for Truth March 18, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    http://sppiblog.org/news/rear-view-monckton-and-abrahams

    http://sppiblog.org/news/rear-view-monckton-and-abrahams#more-4471

    Robert,

    You should have checked a bit further, that reference regarding Abraham.

    He ended up having to back down on many many point,s and came out of it looking pretty ordinary

    “Damming stuff” alright but not as the poster intimated

  65. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Luke asks:

    Sean [humour (I think) snipped] Now go back and cite what the science reference was that said Antarctica shouldn’t being doing that. Don’t just throw up sceptic memes as facts.

    http://www.real-science.com/stooges-travel-antarctica-dont-season

    Gore, Hansen, and Trenberth are travelling to Antarctica (where sea ice has been steadily increasing for 30 years) to showcase melting ice. The leader of Gore’s project thinks it is winter in Antarctica.

    “This winter we will be talking about Antarctica as part of our ‘Living on Thin Ice’ campaign which will focus on how people around the globe are being impacted by the melting of the world’s ice,” Climate Reality Project spokesman Eric Young said. “As part of that effort, we are journeying to Antarctica with our chairman, Vice President Gore, and leading scientists and thinkers to see firsthand how the climate crisis is unfolding.”

    So are Gore, Hansen and Trenberth a sceptical comedy team that employs sarcasm?

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1203.short

    Ice Core Evidence for Antarctic Sea Ice Decline Since the 1950s

    http://edition.cnn.com/EARTH/9707/06/krill.kill/

    Antarctic krill populations decreasing

    Krill feed on algae beneath the ice. During the past 20 years the supply of sea ice has melted as temperatures have risen in Antarctica.

    Many scientists blame global warming, which has been linked to fossil fuel emissions. “Some people view krill as the canary in the coal mine of global warming,” Coale said. “It is certainly a wake-up call for scientists.” Already some penguin populations on Antarctic islands have been reduced by up to 50 percent.

    http://www.scar.org/articles/shrinkingice.html

    Shrinking ice in Antarctic sea ‘exposes global warming’

    Australian scientists have revealed new evidence of global warming, suggesting that sea ice around Antarctica had shrunk by 20% in the past 50 years.

    The research published in the journal Science (14 November 2003) traced the pattern of sea ice in the Southern Ocean as far back as 1840. “Between 1841 and 1950 there was very little change but there is a marked decline in sea ice distribution since 1950 of around 20%,” said the lead author, Mark Curran.

    Scientists see Antarctica as a barometer of climate trends, with many of the indicators pointing towards global warming.

    And, regardless of scientific papers, that last line says it all, in terms of what the public has been fed. Warmists want the benefit of the exaggeration and alarm and none of the cost. One never hears them taking serious issue with any of the wild claims. They just distance themselves from the claims when they don’t pan out and do so with posturing, bluster and derision.

    By the way, Luke; next time try to be less smart and more clear.

  66. Luke March 18, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Pity you don’t actually read the science you post and you’d learn about decadal variation, regional influences and regional differences around Antarctica, and historical context of a centennial decline in sea ice.

    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/21937/ml_399765023148148_pa05_sea20ice_fin__media_090610.pdf

    Dashing through abstracts will always get you into strife !

  67. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Luke said,

    Pity you don’t actually read the science you post and you’d learn about decadal variation, regional influences and regional differences around Antarctica, and historical context of a centennial decline in sea ice.

    Giving the bluster and posturing another shot, Luke? So if I missed the caveats in the complete articles, why didn’t you use them, instead of picking another article that was more modern (2009), one that would be more aware of the failure of the earlier predictions? The ones I chose were from 2003 (x2) and 1997. Their being from earlier in the quasi-religious movement was no accident. Also, why didn’t you quote the relevant bit/s from your 2009 reference? A link is not an argument, even if it comes with sneers. I’ll tell you why you didn’t, because there is only one mention of ‘decadal’ in it and it only talks of large decadal variations in the decline of sea ice. It does not talk about any decadal increases and certainly not three in a row. That’s how long Antarctica has had increasing sea ice.

    And what about Gore, Hansen and Trenberth? Shouldn’t you be telling them about decadal variations and not to waste their time going to the Antarctic to find their dearth of ice?

    In any case, you have changed tack. You first tried to make out that we sceptics were straw-manning in pointing out the failure of the the Antarctic to lose sea ice. You have gone from saying that climate science didn’t predict it, to making excuses for the failure. Your bluster and posturing remains the same though.

  68. Sean McHugh March 18, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    I said,

    I’ll tell you why you didn’t, because there is only one mention of ‘decadal’ in it and it only talks of large decadal variations in the decline of sea ice. It does not talk about any decadal increases and certainly not three in a row. That’s how long Antarctica has had increasing sea ice.

    I will retract that part completely, and apologise for the error. Further on, the 2009 article does say there have been three decades of increase. The rest stands though. The earlier dire failing predictions remain and so does the question. Why has Antarctica been used by the global warming industry as an icon and an example? Why, even now, do we see high profile figures like Gore, Hansen and Trenberth going there to highlight its melting when there have been three decades of sea ice increase?

  69. Luke March 18, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    Tell us when you’ve read your science references instead of ram-raiding and skimming.

    As I said parts are increasing sea ice – other parts are not. And Figure 5 well illustrates the point.

    Are Gore, Hansen and Trenberth relevant to Antarctica research?

    And of course you have failed to report the regional variation which is massive and renders the net Antarctic increase quite small. Trust a sceptic to not give you full information eh?

    Looking at 1979-2007 Annually,
    the total Southern Hemisphere SIE has increased at a rate of
    0.97% dec_1 (p < 0.05). The greatest increase of 2.08%
    dec_1 occurred in the autumn, although this
    trend is not significant as a result of the large inter-annual
    variability of the SIE at this time of year. In this season the
    ABS and Ross Sea areas have the largest dipole of significant
    negative/positive trends.
    In contrast to the Ross Sea, the ABS sector has
    experienced an annual SIE decrease of _6.63% dec_1 (p <
    0.01) with there being a pattern of increasing SIE in the
    Ross Sea sector and decrease in the ABS in all four seasons,
    although the trends are only significant in both sectors
    during autumn.

    from Turner, J., J. C. Comiso, G. J. Marshall,
    T. A. Lachlan-Cope, T. Bracegirdle, T. Maksym, M. P. Meredith,
    Z. Wang, and A. Orr (2009), Non-annular atmospheric circulation
    change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in
    the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
    36, L08502, doi:10.1029/2009GL037524.

    So for a third of the continent there is a major reduction. So this is quite different from the uniformitarian trend that you're asserting and usual shows the disingenuous nature of the faux sceptic technique.

    And the reason for the complex behaviour is the depletion of stratospheric ozone among other factors.

  70. Robert March 18, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    Who knew? You’ve got this vast continent surrounded by vast oceans and you’ve got huge regional and temporal variations. All poorly understood, except the bits they say aren’t poorly understood. Till they admit in a couple of years’ time that their understanding of those bits way back in 2012 was, in fact, poor. Very, very poor, actually. ‘Cause the Antarctic is kind of enormous and kind of stupendously complex. (Y’know, there’s ozone depletion and, ah, some other stuff. Factor stuff.)

    But trust them, because they regularly gang-review one another!

    Nope. It’s easier for Gore and Hansen to just trot down there with hairdryers and scare up some quick warming. Media Watch will look the other way. They’ll be busy picking up spelling mistakes in the Wollongong Mercury. Hell, when you’ve only got eleven staff for a fifteen minute slot, you can’t be everywhere.

  71. Schiller Thurkettle March 19, 2012 at 2:32 am #

    I read with great interest Luke’s detailed explanation of the defects in Ole Humlum’s computations and analyses which show that global climate etc. is insensitive to essentially linear increases in CO2 levels, and how global temperatures and total ice extent are flatlining. Luke was also quite eloquent, and carefully avoided avoided ad hominem remarks.

    Scroll up. You should be able to find it.

  72. John Sayers March 19, 2012 at 5:18 am #

    “Temperatures over land and in the oceans continue to increase rapidly, sea levels are rising and extremely hot days have become more common. But it is the recent period of very wet, cool weather bringing floods to many parts of Australia that has grabbed the most attention in the past few months.

    The Climate Commission’s report on the science behind southeast Australia’s wet, cool summer provides the broader, long-term perspective needed to understand the significance of the big wet.’

    Will Steffen in today’s Australian.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/were-likely-to-be-a-land-of-increasingly-severe-droughts-and-floods/story-e6frgd0x-1226303249377

  73. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 7:10 am #

    We’re likely to be a land of drought and flooding rains?
    You think?
    Talk about stating the bleeding obvious and pretending that it was some sort of revelation.
    When was that NOT the case?
    I thought farmers were often a bit too over obsessed with the weather, but this new obsession is getting more and more ridiculous.
    More intense? Compared to what?

  74. Luke March 19, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    What Steffen has said is probably true if you think about each detailed comment. However it’s what they have not explained and the interaction with climate variability that’s the issue. It’s what is left out. What’s counter-intuitive and why.

    “I read with great interest Luke’s detailed explanation of the defects in Ole Humlum’s computations and analyses” – Schiller – WTF and wrong thread – have you moved to a nursing home since we last spoke?

  75. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    It’s what is left out. What is counter intuitive and why?
    Excuse me?
    That looks like pure obfuscation.
    What is left out?
    What is counter intuitive?

  76. Robert March 19, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    The Climate Commission’s report on the science behind southeast Australia’s wet, cool summer provides the broader, long-term perspective needed to understand the significance of the big wet.’

    Steffen’s tone is so Beijing-1965. The Party will tell the people why its dogma-driven bungles are actually wise interpretation of deeper truths. I suppose that a culture that can produce Media Watch and Flannery will support a Steffen or two.

    One reason these people will be around for a while is that they have finally moved into the shaman niche that is properly theirs. An intellectual leadership primitive and flaky enough to support a Flannery or a Holmes with public monies will certainly fall for vague, unprovable and hence uncontradictable claims of “extremity” and “increasing frequency”.

    Sadly, in the Age of GetUp, the age of posh leftism, spin wins.

  77. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    “This emerging pattern of long-term drying across southern Australia, exacerbated by hot days and weeks and periodically interrupted by very intense rainfall and flooding, comes as no surprise to climate scientists. It is entirely consistent with what we expect from a changing climate.”

    Everything that has happened before is “consistent with” everything that hasn’t.

    Just so you know.

  78. Luke March 19, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    Well Debs – what is actually wrong with what the report said precisely. This could be fun – can Debs string an analytical sentence together.

  79. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    For some more fun,
    Check out this little gem.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/australia-unprepared-for-low-carbon-future-report-says/story-fn7x8me2-1226303584775
    And Luke,
    I’m fairly sure I asked you a rather direct question.
    Can’t you answer it?

  80. John Sayers March 19, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    “Temperatures over land and in the oceans continue to increase rapidly”

    exactly what is true about this statement Luke?

  81. Robert March 19, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    John the quoted statement is not devoid of meaning, but it is devoid of useful sense. A ploy of these people is to demand “analysis” and then to use terms so vague that any interpretation – let alone analysis – is impossible.

    Every society has had its priestly castes. In some periods, you might get more good than bad from such groups. Medieval Europe was probably better off for Cluniac and Cistercian monasticism, which were real advances.

    However, right now I’d rather see a caste of scientists in place of our hopelessly primitive climate-shamanists.

  82. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    I don’t believe I said something was WRONG with the report precisely.
    I pointed out that he stated the bleeding obvious and the report even used a ‘so old’ literary reference (slightly re adjusted).
    And of course no one has ever thought of that or observed that before.
    Certainly not researchers like Jen.
    They apparently say stuff like that because they’re receiving funding from mysterious unnamed vested interests, not because it might be correct.
    Maybe because Steffen has now stated it. . . it must now be true? 🙂
    Still waiting for the answer to my question/s.
    What is left out?
    What is counter intuitive?

  83. John Sayers March 19, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Yeah – that’s a gem Debbie – how about:

    “By contrast France currently has the highest level of clean energy production, ”

    of course it has, it runs on nuclear power!!

  84. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    And how about the inference that Australia, which actually has one of the luckiest living standards in the world, is apparently in danger of falling behind if we don’t get on with placing a price on carbon?
    And yet another stating of the ‘bleeding obvious’ re our coal exports.
    France is ‘better off’ than Australia?
    Seriously?
    Maybe the climate institute should emigrate to France?

  85. Luke March 19, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    John Sayers – concede on that one – that’s one !

  86. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    I’m glad you conceded the point about France being nuclear….
    Like DUH!!!
    The fact that we’re a huge coal exporter is a bit of a no brainer too don’t you think?
    It actually makes Australia a lot of money so I’m struggling to understand why that would contribute to us falling behind….especially if we’re exporting it to other countries.
    Still waiting for that counter intuitive explanation.
    I’m assuming that Steffen must have super human ‘counter intuitive’ power that us mere ‘unscientific’ mortals will have supreme difficulty in grasping?

  87. John Sayers March 19, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Thank you Luke for conceding. This could be a new period in your life.

  88. Sean McHugh March 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Luke said,

    Tell us when you’ve read your science references instead of ram-raiding and skimming.

    Luke, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. With your avatar working, one gets twice the worth.

    Recall that in an earlier similar post, you tried the same bluster:

    Pity you don’t actually read the science you post and you’d learn about decadal variation, regional influences and regional differences around Antarctica, and historical context of a centennial decline in sea ice.

    If you read honestly you would learn about (accept) something called the bottom line. Your reference doesn’t help you and neither do your pleas to decadal and regional variation. The article you cited is modern enough to have to concede to a statistical ‘significant’ sea-ice increase in Antarctic over the last thirty years, despite decadal and regional variations:

    This satellite data record shows that sea ice in the two polar regions has responded to climate change quite differently over the past three decades.In Antarctica however, the changes have been much more subtle and regionally variable, with a net increase of 1% per decade . . . . . . . The net trend is +0.9 ± 0.2% per decade and is statistically significant.

    Just because it is now conceded that this increase is the case, it doesn’t demonstrate that an increase or even a flattening is what was predicted. You also said:

    Dashing through abstracts will always get you into strife !

    Well here is some of what I presented, predictions from earlier in the hysteria:

    http://www.scar.org/articles/shrinkingice.html

    Shrinking ice in Antarctic sea ‘exposes global warming’[2003]

    http://edition.cnn.com/EARTH/9707/06/krill.kill/

    Krill feed on algae beneath the ice. During the past 20 years the supply of sea ice has melted as temperatures have risen in Antarctica.

    Both of these earlier publications imply an overall reduction of sea ice. To deny that is ridiculous. One might be able to access and find in the corresponding papers, where those statements of declining sea ice are watered down or contradicted. It is a trick with abstracts that gets used but it is dishonest. I am not saying they have done that, but your appeals of hypothetical negation in the papers (that you have not produced), inadvertently implies such warmist sleight of hand. You can go for it.

    And what about Gore, Hansen and Trenberth? Shouldn’t you be telling them about decadal variations and not to waste their time going to the Antarctic to find their dearth of ice?

    Are Gore, Hansen and Trenberth relevant to Antarctica research?

    You mean, are Gore, Hansen and Trenberth relevant to Global Warming research? ‘Global’ includes the South Pole. These are your high priests, Luke, the dispensers of the ‘Truth’. Don’t try the, “Please move along; there’s nothing to see here”. It’s too late for that. It’s like a Catholic who argues against an atheist by saying, “So who’s the Pope?”. And anyway, why do think we’re are supposed to your speed on proper AGW apologetics, but not those scientists and global warming gurus? Why don’t you sneer at them and tell them to read the science?

    Dr. Hansen of NASA GISS:

    Hansen 1988 : Antarctic Meltdown

    The map below shows Hansen’s forecast temperature change for a doubling of CO2.

    [http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/capture125.jpg]

    Note that the fastest warming place on the planet is forecast to be Antarctica at 5-8C . . . . . Note that the worst location for ice loss was again supposed to be Antarctica, with as much as 40% loss.

    KEVIN E. TRENBERTH National Center for Atmospheric Research:

    Published in Natural Science, 1997:

    http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-09/ns_ket.html

    “Sea ice is melting in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.”

    Luke continues:

    And of course you have failed to report the regional variation which is massive and renders the net Antarctic increase quite small.

    What’s the bottom line, Luke? There are three decades of sea-ice gain taking ALL the regions into consideration.

    Trust a sceptic to not give you full information eh?

    Full means all. The thirty years of increase applies to Antarctica as a whole. Your logic would have it as dishonest to talk about global population increase, because there would be regions where the population has diminished due to wars, famine, natural disasters or disease. You need to think more, Luke and not in a warm narcissistic way.

    Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth

    The Second Canary: Antarctic Peninsula Sea Ice:

    http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm

    This brings me to the second canary in the coal mine, Antarctica, the largest mass of ice on the planet by far. A friend of mine said in 1978, “If you see the break up of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula, watch out, because that should be seen as an alarm bell for global warming.

    This map shows the poor Peninsular at the left, at about 10 O’clock:

    http://www.real-science.com/antarctic-peninsula-sea-ice-double-normal

    You, and the warming catastrophists are trying to feature regions while we look at the whole of Antarctica and what the sea ice is doing overall. It is the warmists who are guilty of picking cherries. The sceptics are accepting the whole punnet.

    So for a third of the continent there is a major reduction. So this is quite different from the uniformitarian trend that you’re asserting and usual shows the disingenuous nature of the faux sceptic technique.

    Please retract that. I never said that the increase over three decades was uniform (uniformitarian?); I don’t even care about that. You are getting too angry and frustrated to stay rational, Luke. Perhaps exercises in anger control will help. Here is Antarctica’s sea ice again, for the last thirty years. This plot can help you but you need to want to change:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

  89. toby March 21, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Great post sean, sadly in this post moden world facts dont matter. It is what feels righteous that matters and anybody who doesnt believe in CAGW does not care about the environment. I know because media watch has told me that the AEF is evil because they dont believe in CAGW or wind farms etc.
    After all my ( anybody who votes green or left of centre) morals are vastly superior to your greedy motives. Self interest does not govern good peoples beliefs…only bad people like Jen who keep trying to use facts to demolish our new faith……..

  90. Luke March 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm #

    Well Toby looks like Sean has an inability to read. And is reduced to rebutting time series with a datum point. I can see why you’re impressed.

    And back to framing again with “catastrophists” – hmmmmm

    So of course he doesn’t case about the regionality of the trend – as that’s what deniers like to do – blur the issues. And it’s not just a pin spot – it’s about 30%. It’s not “Antarctica as a whole” how utterly dishonest.

    Looking at 1979-2007 Annually,
    the total Southern Hemisphere SIE has increased at a rate of
    0.97% dec_1 (p < 0.05). The greatest increase of 2.08%
    dec_1 occurred in the autumn, although this
    trend is not significant as a result of the large inter-annual
    variability of the SIE at this time of year. In this season the
    ABS and Ross Sea areas have the largest dipole of significant
    negative/positive trends.
    In contrast to the Ross Sea, the ABS sector has
    experienced an annual SIE decrease of _6.63% dec_1 (p <
    0.01) with there being a pattern of increasing SIE in the
    Ross Sea sector and decrease in the ABS in all four seasons,
    although the trends are only significant in both sectors
    during autumn

    Figure 2

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Turner.pdf

  91. hunter March 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    Luke,
    The problem with claiming that regional experience proves AGW is that there is no demonstrated predictive ability in the GCM models.

  92. Luke March 22, 2012 at 9:15 am #

    Gee hunter – that comment is highly intelligent.

  93. Luke March 22, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Then there’s the issue of Antarctica losing mass. ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/ngeo694.pdf

    hmmmm

  94. Robert March 22, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!

  95. Mark A March 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    Luke
    “Antarctica losing mass”

    I’m still reading and getting to grips with it. Don’t want to offer an opinion by just glancing at it.

    From what I read so far I would not be as cocky as you, not because I mistrust the data but because of the interpretation put on it and the way it’s being handled, if you notice the copious use of disclaimers you also would be a bit cautious. Maybe you did not read it as thoroughly as you might?

  96. Sean McHugh March 22, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Luke said:

    Well Toby looks like Sean has an inability to read.

    Luke displays an inability (possibly willful) to understand English. This I will demonstrate – unlike Luke, who just plucks obscure assertions from where they are most unacceptable. Perhaps his logic is that one won’t be able to debate him if his responses doesn’t even pass the Turing test.

    And [Sean] is reduced to rebutting time series with a datum point. I can see why you’re impressed.

    Well Luke, why didn’t you impress Toby by showing how I was rebutting time series with a datum point? Explain to the thread in what way I was rebutting a time series when I cited a time series, the sea-ice anomaly for the last thirty years?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    And what ‘datum point’ did I dastardly present to refute my own argument? Also explain how it did that – I’m most curious. And this time, quote please!

    So of course he doesn’t case about the regionality of the trend – as that’s what deniers like to do – blur the issues. And it’s not just a pin spot – it’s about 30%.

    If the trend of that 30% is negative, then the trend of the other 70% must be positive enough to make overall positive the trend of the whole (the 100%). Like I said, Luke, that is the bottom line.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    Ferrkrissake man! This isn’t difficult stuff.

    It’s not “Antarctica as a whole” how utterly dishonest.

    This is where Luke gives evidence, whether honestly or dishonestly, that he doesn’t understand English. Keeping in mind Luke’s hostility to my saying, “Antarctica as a whole”, here is the context of what I said:

    What’s the bottom line, Luke? There are three decades of sea-ice gain taking ALL the regions into consideration.

    [Luke:] Trust a sceptic to not give you full information eh?

    Full means all. The thirty years of increase applies to Antarctica as a whole. Your logic would have it as dishonest to talk about global population increase, because there would be regions where the population has diminished due to wars, famine, natural disasters or disease.

    He repeatedly twists my comment that Antarctica has had, as a whole, a positive ice trend for 30 years. He twists it into my saying that every part of Antarctica has a positive sea ice trend. That is despite my demonstrating the absurdity of that inference and criticism with the example of global population growth. Not that it is needed for a normal reader, I will now present the same supposedly evil words from climatologist George Taylor. (bold added):

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

    Vyas, et al (2003) used data from several satellite platforms (Nimbus-7, DMSP and
    OCEANSAT-1) to estimate trends in sea ice around Antarctica. They found decreasing sea
    ice in the Weddell Sea, increases in the Ross Sea, and insignificant changes elsewhere. For
    the continent as a whole there has been an increase in sea ice, a “weak but consistent
    increasing trend of approximately 43,000 sq. km. per year.”

    Of course this will only make Luke madder. Luke then goes on to present a couple of technical paragraphs.

    Looking at 1979-2007 Annually, the total Southern Hemisphere SIE has increased at a rate of 0.97% dec_1 (p < 0.05). . . . . . .[big snip]

    Figure 2

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Turner.pdf

    Those paragraphs were cut and pasted and just slightly edited. Luke knows how to indicate a block quote and anyone knows how to use quotation marks. He will argue that there was a URL underneath but a URL under paragraphs does not specify quoted material above, nor can it specify the extent of quoted material. I don’t think he minds.

  97. Luke March 27, 2012 at 7:43 am #

    Isn’t that amazing – a huge tedious rant and Sean hasn’t addressed the fundamental point of a bimodal Antarctica with 30% warming like gangbusters and a small large thin area sea ice in the rest; all reasonably explained by modelling analysis.

Website by 46digital