Quote of the week #8 – Monbiot: "looks like I've boobed"

qotw_cropped

Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”

The Guardian’s George Monbiot suffers (at his own expense) from excessive zeal in trying to disprove a statement by Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker, in his post: How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds

I set the stopwatch running, pasted “National Snow and Ice Data Center” into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Booker’s claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.

But then a couple of hours later, when commenters on his blog point out Monbiot’s own error in his 26 second rebuttal, he admits he’s “boobed”:

Whoops – looks like I’ve boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.

He also confused Global and Polar.

Booker’s article said:(underline mine)

“..the world’s polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.”

Monbiot’s rebuttal said:

“In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.”

Meanwhile in comments for the Monbiot 26 second rebuttal, some people think the picture of the U.S.S Skate nuclear submarine surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, as reported here. is a fake due to the photo being taken in “twilight”.

One commenter points out the official US Navy record:

Now you are trashing the source of the historical photo of the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole on 17 March 1959, claiming that such a surfacing could not have occurred on this date.

Check the OFFICIAL U.S. Navy historical archive on site:

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesmar.htm

Click on MARCH.

Scroll down and you will read for March 17:

1959 – USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaces at North Pole

Proof enough for you?

Apparently not.

The problem with that photo is that it was taken in daylight, whereas the Skate surfaced on March 17, before sunrise at the North Pole. That set off a flurry of troofer factoids trying to turn day into night.

I guess some people don’t understand the period of twilight, how much light would be available, and how B&W long exposure photography works.

Indeed, the discussion has become the Twilight Zone.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Stephen Wilde

Good publicity for what Booker said.
Whenever I point out to people that the Arctic ice has largely recovered and that Antarctic Ice has been above average for some time the standard and unsurprised response is that neither politicians nor media are to be trusted.
A number of recent events have destroyed public confidence in what people have been told on every subject.
We are probably pushing on an open door and quite soon voter power will cause a U turn in political attitudes.

hey hey hey heck, March 17th, sun still not properly risen (that darn twilight) and no ice at the North Pole… there must’ve been a lot of heat around that year or the one before…

…anyway I’ve used that pic already for my Arctic bumper sticker design… Anthony I’ll be in touch soon, I’ve done 30 designs. That pic has gotta be correct or else!

Jeremy

At least it’s obvious now who the real “deniers” are. Whether they’ll admit it or not, it’s looking less and less like those who ask questions are the ones with their heads stuck in the dirt.

Steve Fitzpatrick

Off topic question: I would like to offer a guest post. How can this be arranged?

rbateman

History Erasers work much the same as Pencil Erasers: They both leave telltale smudges.
Twilight in the Arctic and long B&W exposure on March 17th, 4 days before Equinox is highly plausible in the case of the USS Skate photo.
The Navy said it happened, took photos, and the image speaks for itself.
It was a first in an era of “Can Do”.
10 years later we have men walking on the Moon.
We still have “It was faked” conspiracies, and always will.
But in those days, when those events were happening, we had real effort, and real journalists.

timetochooseagain

Steppin’ into the the ~Twilight Zone~

UK Sceptic

How Monbiot proved himself to be a prize ass in 26 seconds!
Is there no end to this man’s obtuse mediocrity?

BarryW

As with most of this stuff, for ideologues if it doesn’t fit their world view it must be wrong, even if it’s true.

Mike Bryant

Monbiot should be applauded for admitting his mistake. There are very few in the public eye these days who do the same.
Mike

Bill Sticker

Revisionism strikes again. If a historical fact doesn’t match your cherished belief – trash it.
What will the ‘troofers’ say about the recorded incidences of the North West Passage being navigable (1903-06 Roald Amundsen) way before ‘global warming’ was supposed to exist? Sheesh.

Richard deSousa

Not only are the AGWers ignorant about the climate, they’re also ignorant about how to use a camera.

Tony

the cryosphere site has not been updated for about ten days. Why not?
REPLY: According to Walt Meier, the server that provides them with raw satellite data is not updating – Anthony

MartinW

I have just come across this news item on ‘Voice of Russia’. Nothing of this on the BBC, naturally! It rather puts the Catlin Caper in perspective.
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=44335&cid=219&p=27.04.2009
Russian motorists drive to North Pole
27.04.2009
Russian motorists have reached the North Pole for the first time in an Arctic expedition. The new record has been set by a team of seven Russians. They set out for the Pole from the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago on two experimental Russian-made YEMELYA cars on the 20th of March, covered over 1,100 kilometres on pack ice, and reached the earth’s northern pole on Sunday, the 26th of April. The jubilant team of seasoned travellers is now receiving congratulations from across Russia.

DaveF

Mr Monbiot also remarked, in the same article, that Mr Booker was in the habit of quoting unsupported figures and that it was perhaps time for the editor of the Telegraph to take him to one side and have a quiet word with him. Perhaps now Mr Monbiot would like to apologise for that personal attack?

kuhnkat

rbateman,
“But in those days, when those events were happening, we had real effort, and real journalists.”
Sorry, if you did in depth research on the Vietnam War and how it was reported you would find that your statement does not correlate with reality. You should also check out the reporting on a book called Silent Spring, the issues involved, and how it was reported. Again, little connection.
Back when the US was created we had something called the Yellow Press. Not much difference between then and now.
The biggest difference in reporting then and now is who was doing it and what their agendas were/are.

Coldplay

Please`don’t be too hard on The Guardian, at least it does not appear to censor posts such as sites like Real Climate, where debate is not even considered unless our Gav can shoot someone down?

a jones

Shock, horror, awe! The Monobot not only makes one mistake, in fact two, but actually admits to one of them. Well I never!
And we all thought he was an infallible disciple of the Great Goracle himself with the little red bobble on the top: that fount of all wisdom and inventor of t’internet.
Bet it never appears in the Grauniad itself though: not that I read it.
Sorry for the British flavoured jokes.
Kindest Regards

MartinGAtkins

The problem with that photo is that it was taken in daylight, whereas the Skate surfaced on March 17, before sunrise at the North Pole. That set off a flurry of troofer factoids trying to turn day into night.
I’m not a photographer but If you look at the picture, the light source is from behind the sub and directly in front of the photographer. I don’t think you would try this without special equipment. Who ever took the picture was making the most of the scattered light. What would you expect from a crack team of mariners?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_at_North_Pole_-_0857806.jpg

So was there a nuclear submarine on the grassy noll?

crosspatch

Looks to me like the North Pole is still frozen solid and the temperatures there are back down to around -10C. It has been pretty cloudy and they got a pretty good snowstorm a couple of days ago that covered the camera lens with snow. It did warm up to -1C there for a while, but went back down after the storm passed.
Looking at the picture, I thought there might have been some open water beyond the wind generator but then realized that those were cloud formations above the horizon. Hard to make things out in that low light.

AdrianS

Certainly contemporary films/ books such as ” Ice Station Zebra” show subs in the 60’s punching through the ice at the North Pole. These were the techno thrillers of the day and would be well researched, and I beleive it was common place for Nuc Subs to punch through the ice in this era. Perhaps some of our submariners from the period could comment? And before we trash them the UK Navy took its top recruits into the Submarine programme, and I would Imagine the US was the same. These sailors would be highly trained committed personnel

Stephen Skinner

If there is contention around how light it is in the North Pole around March then there must be plenty of photos, taken since USS Skate, of around the same time. I think the Catlin expedition started on the ice around the end of Feb.

Hey, Crosspatch.
NO FAIR CHEATING…and doing a LIVE OBSERVATION WITH A WEB CAM.
That takes away all the fun of lying.
Gee, the next thing you know you’ll find some RECORDING of a CIA briefing from 2002 of certain congresspeople.
NASTY things these modern electronic devices. Making it harder and harder to use HUMAN RECOUNTING as a “sine qua non” source of information.
(Actually, seriously, very happy several people have found that NP web cam. Keep up the good work group!)

Re: twilight. The farther one gets from the equator, the longer the twilight.

Richard Sharpe

Robert van der Veeke says:

So was there a nuclear submarine on the grassy knoll? (Spelling corrected, English is a bitch!)

This is the funniest thing I have ever heard. I think that even Senator Arlen Specter would find that amusing.

Steve H

Monbiot’s hubris knows no bounds. I have seen many slipshod supposed “rebuttals” or “refutations” he has issued. He is like an arrogant 17 year old who has just discovered wikipedia.
Good post.

James P

There are several references in the comments to Monbiot’s blog to WUWT, not all entirely complimentary (!) but at least it shows that it’s having an effect. Expect to see your stats keep climbing!

Steve H

As to the Skate surfacing. Is it just me, or isn’t it obvious that merely surfacing prior to dawn doesn’t in any way mean that the photo was taken at the time of surfacing.
After all, the photo was taken from an ice floe OUTSIDE the submarine. This would have required the launching of a dinghy etc. etc. Obviously the photo was taken some hours subsequent to the actual surfacing. Why would there be problem with this. Monbiot’s desperate straw-clutching is becoming downright embarrassing.

Mick J

I posted this in an older blog that was about complete and in the light of the detail here might be considered worth mentioning again as it directly defines the person in question. 🙂
—————–
A. A. Gill is a restaurant critic for the London Times. My attention was drawn to this article due to the title “Environmentalists are just not attractive”. Below is a portion of the statement all forming part of a restaurant critique. Bon appetite. 🙂
The truth is, environmentalists are just not attractive. They’re not winning, engaging, amusing or empathetic. They are ranty, repetitive, patronising, demanding, deaf, weirdly bonkers and smelly. Environmentalists are the nutters with degrees in composting who sit next to you on the bus. But that’s not their real impediment. The real killer thing is the schadenfreude: the naked, transparent, hand-rubbing glee with which they pass on every shame, sadness and terror. No disaster is too appalling or imminent that the green movement can’t caper and keen with a messianic glee. Take George Monbiot, the Malvolio of the green movement, who, as I’ve pointed out before, would be a geography teacher if it weren’t for the amazing good fortune of imminent apocalypse. Every week, he sifts the minute details of demise, like a jolly self-congratulatory Scrooge. Most of us would rather drown with the polar bears and Bangladesh than get in a lifeboat steered by Monbiot.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/eating_out/a_a_gill/article6225761.ece

Paul from MK

Just goes to show that all work (and claims) should be checked and checked again. Mr. Monbiot shows us that some folks, with there own preconceived ideas, are just too keen to read things, which just aren’t there!

Steven Goddard

That could be about 25 seconds more than the usual time spent researching those articles.

David Porter

I think your are all too respectful when you refer to George as Mr Monbiot. Instead you should address him by the nickname given to him by Christopher Booker, which is Moonbat. You can add Mr if you wish, but etiquette wise it is wasted.
REPLY: Name calling and labeling does nothing but lower your own level of discourse, when you have no other facts to present, which is why alarmists often resort to name calling and labeling. I choose not to have that here, so please refrain from further remarks along those lines here. – Anthony

Just The Facts

Well we are working on the Guardian:
In this article Juliette Jowit does a full gymnastics routine in order to confuse readers into thinking Arctic Sea Ice is in rapid decline:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/06/arctic-sea-ice-warning
when in reality Arctic Sea Ice Extent was recovering and is now quite close to average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
and in this one by David Adam plays the “what if” routine with the “collapse” of the West Antarctic ice sheet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/18/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt
when Antarctic Sea Ice, which is supposedly holding the whole thing together, is well above average and now potentially verging on record territory:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Does the Guardian have any environmental journalists or are they all just propagandists?

E.M.Smith

Lucy Skywalker (09:07:56) :…anyway I’ve used that pic already for my Arctic bumper sticker design… Anthony I’ll be in touch soon, I’ve done 30 designs. That pic has gotta be correct or else!
I did an ersatz forensic review of the photo on the prior NP Nuke boat thread and find it credible. Arctic sunrise isn’t like tropical sunrise. 3 days before sunrise the sun would be hanging around just under the horizon with plenty of scattered twilight. I estimated the picture was taken with Tri-X, perhaps push processed a stop. I’ve done street scenes at MIDNIGHT with such a set up in the ’70s (not quite contemporaneous but close enough). Also I found a full color picture done of the Skate from the same time frame, that appears to be the same camera, so we know they had color film and needed the extra speed of a fast Black and White (i.e. it was too dark to use their color film).
Some Excerpts from that prior thread:
arctic-astronomy (08:54:38) : There’s an awful lot of light in the “17 March 1959? north pole picture, given that the sun is still about 1.5o below the horizon and hasn’t yet risen at the north pole on March 17.
Or fast film and a fast lens. The soft focus foreground and slightly soft at the tail of the boat indicate a very open fast lens. Their seems to be a graininess (though hard to tell through the binary translation) that would indicate a fast B&W film. There appears to be slight motion blur to some of the peoples heads that would indicate a shutter speed of about 1/30 to 1/50 second (though again, access to a better image would let me make a more reliable evaluation). The overall flatness of the image implies fast film, pushed processing, or very flat lighting (such as indirect lighting from could diffusion / reflection) or all three.
I would speculate that this is a picture taken on about an ASA 400 film, perhaps a 200 ASA pushed to 800 at most, with an f stop of about F2, and a shutter speed of about 1/30 of a second. I would speculate it was 120 format, since 35mm was still relatively new then, but it could be 35mm as Tri-X was introduced in that format in 1954. If 35mm, the photographer had to have a very steady hand or a stable gunwale to brace against. IIRC, a 2 stop push was well known then and Kodak Tri-X was introduced in the ’40s with an ASA of 200. I don’t remember the 1959 speed. Given that I’ve taken street pictures at night with such settings, diffuse over the horizon sunlight from cloud bounce ought to provide more than enough light. I see nothing in the picture to indicate it is fraudulent.
Compare it with the second picture of the Skate. Much higher contrast with hot spots, sharp edges, greater depth of field, even what looks like a small quantity of cloud detail near the conning tower. Much more light, lens stopped down, shutter faster, less / no push processing, and though the figures are smaller making it harder to determine – they do not seem to show motion blur (even though there is what might be an expectation of motion given the bent posture of the bodies).
Finally, though they are color pictures, the more recent photos such as the Hawkbill show a hard crisp sharpness with great detail and depth of field of a full daylight snow scene consistent with a full sun environment. That is what is missing from the Skate pictures and what you would expect to see if the pictures had been taken in full sun with the sun above the horizon.
Again, access to better copies of the image would allow a more definitive analysis, but these pictures are all consistent with their asserted context.
[…]
Looking at the original here:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg
It’s a bit better image, but not by much. Less flat contrast, but not by enough to change my opinion. Sharpness is better, so I’m less critical of the lens quality. If the image format reflects the film format, it’s closest to 122 film size (also called ‘postcard’) though it doesn’t exactly match anything. Aspect ratio of about 1.66 : 1 where 35mm is 1.5 : 1 and 120 format 6×9 is also 1.5:1 and some odd 120 frame sizes are 1.5x : 1 with postcard at 1.69:1 so I’d guess at this point it was a ‘postcard’ camera in 122 film format or 1.5:1 image with the foreground cropped to remove excess water and raft to fit on a postcard. It is possible it’s a 35mm rangefinder camera (they were around then and would fit easier on a small sub) and if this image is as sharp as it gets, well, even old poor 120 in 6 x 9 had better sharpness than this image. I’d expected the original to be much larger than this and with better resolution. My error of assumption / guessing.
So at this point the only change I’d make is to say I think it’s a 35mm rangefinder with Tri-X in ASA 200, possibly push processed a stop or two, stabilized by resting on the raft gunwale and with the image cropped to remove excess foreground from that ersatz ‘tripod’.
and

Given what GIStemp does with rewriting historical temperatures 100 years in the past and 1500 km away from a station, I would count this picture as a solid gold standard of accuracy in comparison. So toss GIStemp, keep the photo.
FWIW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_(SSN-578)_surfaced_in_Arctic_-_1959.jpg
Shows a full color full sun picture of the Skate from the same period (the wiki story says the surfaced 10 times on their polar run). Notice that it is full color and high resolution.
This tells me that they had nice color film that needed lots of light but could not use it for their polar picture (i.e. it was dark and they needed more than ASA 100 to get any picture at all). Assuming it’s the same camera (reasonable assumption on a small boat, consistent with pictures) we know the lens when stopped down gives very good depth of field and reasonable edge sharpness (confirming prior estimates of camera settings for polar picture as opposed to it just being a bad camera). There is an interesting fuzzy cloud at the stern again. I suspect now that there is a purging of the air systems going on and that is vapor condensation in both pictures. In this picture you can see the open water behind the boat where it surfaced before butting up to the ice to let off a ‘shore party’. This picture IMHO, confirms that the polar picture was taken before significant sun was above the horizon (i.e. indirect light from high cloud) and puts the date at 17, 18, 19th interval. After that, you had sun above the horizon and would have had significantly more light with a harsher side lighting effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_at_North_Pole_-_0857806.jpg
is the same picture as in the WUWT article, but includes a bit of legal reference to the provider and cites the taker of the photo as a navy employee for purposes of public domain copyright (i.e. it’s isn’t photoshopped or someone is on the hook for a copyright violation…)
and the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)
Sites multiple subs making multiple trips to the arctic and pole with multiple surfacings including:
In early March 1959 , she again headed for the Arctic to pioneer operations during the period of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. The submarine steamed 3,900 miles (6,300 km) under pack ice while surfacing through it ten times. On 17 March, she surfaced at the North Pole to commit the ashes of the famed explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins to the Arctic waste. When the submarine returned to port, she was awarded a bronze star in lieu of a second Navy Unit Commendation for demonstrating “… for the first time the ability of submarines to operate in and under the Arctic ice in the dead of winter….” In the fall of 1959 and in 1960, Skate participated in exercises designed to strengthen American antisubmarine defenses.
So you can argue with the Navy about wether or not they awarded a Bronze Star and Unit Commendation based on the truth, or not. Me, I’m of the opinion that Bronze Stars and Unit Commendations are a bit hard to come by and not handed out willy nilly. Might even take some photo documentation…

AKD

Website of the successful Russian expedition can be found here:
http://www.yemelya.ru/index.php
I think it would be great if WUWT could give this team’s accomplishment some more publicity in the West.

Toto

There are twilight calculators on the web. Here is a graphic so you don’t even need to use the calculators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TwilightLength.png
For explanations of the different kinds of twilight see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight

jax

re:Twilight
Here’s a plug for the free planetarium software – Stellarium. Plug in the north pole location, the date mentioned, select ocean for the background, press play and you can get a feel for what the light conditions were.

Steven Goddard

The sun is not a point source of light. It has a diameter which covers about 0.5 degrees of the sky. Between the equinox and solstice, the sun’s position moves 23.5 degrees in 90 days, for an average of 1/4 degree per day. Thus is takes about two days for the sun to fully rise at the North Pole.
The point being that the North Pole starts to receive direct sunshine a couple of days ahead of the equinox. Monboit demonstrates a failure to grasp both the science and the math.

E.M.Smith

MartinGAtkins (10:12:47) : I’m not a photographer but If you look at the picture, the light source is from behind the sub and directly in front of the photographer.
I’m sorry, but I’m a rabid photographer and I don’t get that from the picture. It has generally even and flat lighting over the whole scene. Consistent with diffuse twilight from heavily overcast skies. The only darkening is the corner darkening of the picture which is more consistent with the falloff of lens speed in the corners than with a lighting artifact. I would be hard pressed to pick a direction from which I thought the light was coming, based on the picture, other than “all the overcast everywhere”.
I don’t think you would try this without special equipment.
I’ve taken many pictures into the light source using ordinary equipment. A filter or three can help, but would not be used under these circumstances as they would cut down the light available for the exposure. All you would really need to do is expose for the people and let the background wash out a bit. That is, open the aperture or use a slower shutter speed by about 1 stop (two if higher contrast and strongly backlit).
Who ever took the picture was making the most of the scattered light. What would you expect from a crack team of mariners?
Exactly so. My take on it (especially given the contemporaneous color image from a different surfacing) is that the photographer definitely knew his stuff, but was dealing with a difficult low light flat lighting situation and STILL got a decent picture. Near the limits of the technology of the day, but still ‘good enough’ and something that I could replicate with equipment and materials that I have that are nearly “period correct”. ( I have a couple of 1960’s era mechanical cameras and some “old formula” Tri-X from about 1980? carefully wrapped in lead foil and stored in a freezer… “Why, don’t ask why. Down that path lies insanity and ruin… – emsmith” …)
Addressing why: Kodak changed the film thickness with thinner coating. One of my favorite developers was a two step process where you soaked “part a” into the film, then put it in “part b” and did not need to do any timing (that being set by the amount of “a” that could be held by the coating). It was not clear this would work with the “new formula” so I froze 50 feet? 100 feet? of it (whatever came on a reloading roll…) “Just In Case”.
Well, between using up all the individual rolls I also packed away, and finding other films that worked just fine with my Favorite Developer and figuring out how to use New Tri-X and finding out that I kind of liked the then new Kodac developers too… my archives still sits in the freezer…
So if you know anyone who wants a well preserved roll of “thick emulsion” Tri-X … just send them over to chiefio.worpress.com …

Pierre Gosselin

Steven Goddard
Touche
But I’ll go the last step further and say 26 seconds more than usual.

Aron

Monbiot is the co-founder of the UK political party Respect which is now widely known now for being a far left alliance of Marxists and Islamists. The other co-founder was Saddam’s friend and buddy to all Islamists George Galloway, who remains active as the party’s unofficial leader. Monbiot is also an open advocate for a world government. Monbiot’s interest in environmentalism is purely political.

Lars Kamél

On March 17, there should be enough twilight at the North Pole to take a picture like that of USS Skate. The warmers don’t like facts, of course, and will do anything to put facts into question. By the way, because of the refraction of the atmosphere, the Sun will actually rise at the North Pole slightly before the spring equinox.

E.M.Smith

MartinGAtkins (10:12:47) : I’m not a photographer but If you look at the picture, the light source is from behind the sub and directly in front of the photographer.
I’m sorry, but I’m a rabid photographer and I don’t get that from the picture. It has generally even and flat lighting over the whole scene. Consistent with diffuse twilight from heavily overcast skies. The only darkening is the corner darkening of the picture which is more consistent with the falloff of lens speed in the corners than with a lighting artifact. I would be hard pressed to pick a direction from which I thought the light was coming, based on the picture, other than “all the overcast everywhere”.
I don’t think you would try this without special equipment.
I’ve taken many pictures into the light source using ordinary equipment. A filter or three can help, but would not be used under these circumstances as they would cut down the light available for the exposure. All you would really need to do is expose for the people and let the background wash out a bit. That is, open the aperture or use a slower shutter speed by about 1 stop (two if higher contrast and strongly backlit).
Who ever took the picture was making the most of the scattered light. What would you expect from a crack team of mariners?
Exactly so. My take on it (especially given the contemporaneous color image from a different surfacing) is that the photographer definitely knew his stuff, but was dealing with a difficult low light flat lighting situation and STILL got a decent picture. Near the limits of the technology of the day, but still ‘good enough’ and something that I could replicate with equipment and materials that I have that are nearly “period correct”. ( I have a couple of 1960’s era mechanical cameras and some “old formula” Tri-X from about 1980? carefully wrapped in lead foil and stored in a freezer… “Why, don’t ask why. Down that path lies insanity and ruin… – emsmith” …)
Addressing why: Kodak changed the film thickness with thinner coating. One of my favorite developers was a two step process where you soaked “part a” into the film, then put it in “part b” and did not need to do any timing (that being set by the amount of “a” that could be held by the coating). It was not clear this would work with the “new formula” so I froze 50 feet? 100 feet? of it (whatever came on a reloading roll…) “Just In Case”.
Well, between using up all the individual rolls I also packed away, and finding other films that worked just fine with my Favorite Developer and figuring out how to use New Tri-X and finding out that I kind of liked the then new Kodac developers too… my archives still sits in the freezer…
So if you know anyone who wants a well preserved roll of “thick emulsion” Tri-X …

Meanwhile, here we are a full 2 weeks past May 4th’s NSIDC update on arctic sea-ice and STILL no link for it on their news column on the right side of their homepage.
Every other sea-ice update which gave forth food for alarmist fodder was posted there the day the update was released and immediately picked up by MSM outlets as more proof that we’re headed for an imminent state of inferno. Now that their headline reads “A slow start to the spring melt season” no spot on the front page and no coverage by any media outlet. Simply amazing….

Stephen Wilde (09:02:03) :

Whenever I point out to people that the Arctic ice has largely recovered and that Antarctic Ice has been above average for some time the standard and unsurprised response is that neither politicians nor media are to be trusted.

But the Antarctic is going to cause problems so we need to blow it up with nuclear bombs.
Will Polar Waves Swamp America?
Excerpts…

In other words, according to Brown’s forecast, the weight of ice at the South Pole is going to pull the “wobbling” earth off its present axis. After the globe tilts the North Pole may be found somewhere in the equatorial Pacific, with the South Pole in Africa.

With the shift in the earth’s axis, Brown contends, much of the world will be flooded. Perhaps the only survivors will be the Eskimos” if they can adapt themselves to a sudden switch to the tropics.

Mechanix Illustrated
Jan, 1949
(LINK)
I think Mr. Brown is a relative of Al Gore and James Hansen. 🙂

layne Blanchard

I suppose when he was creating the internet, Gore didn’t realize that data resource would become the undoing of his masterpiece creation that followed…
🙂

geoffchambers

Some background info for non-Brits. Monbiot is the foremost catastrophic AGW journalist in Britain. Booker is the foremost climate sceptic (or, as Monbiot prefers, denialist) journalist. Monbiot writes in the liberal (i.e. socialist) Guardian. Booker writes in the conservative (i.e. socialist) Telegraph. Both would be considered far left in the US. Monbiot recently instituted the Booker Bullshit Award for false (i.e. sceptical) climate journalism. The current favourite to win is the Flint, Michigan journalist John Tomlinson. Monbiot recently claimed to have worked several hundred hours on an article demolishing Tomlinson’s arguments (he failed). Monbiot is bound by the terms of his award to go on crying bullshit to sceptics every week until December, in a newspaper with a proud record of radical journalism going back nearly two centuries. Some of us marxist / watermelon / sceptic / denialists find this somewhat irritating. Hope that’s not too confusing, or ad hominem.

David Porter

David Porter (11:23:41) :
I will inform Christopher Booker, probably one of your greatest admirers, of your distaste for so called name calling. I am sure that Mr Gore would be pleased also now that he will no longer be referred to as the “goreacle” or similar names. All of course are in jest.

Ed Zuiderwijk

The problem with Monbiot is that he is God. How else can one explain that he knows everything about anything? (Look at his writing in general and you know what I mean).
And God, as is widely accepted, is always right.