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.
Graeme Rodaughan at (15:58:48) says: “At least Monbiot apologised..”
For the first mistake, about the comparison period, yes, but not for the second, about confounding Arctic with global ice extent.
This might not matter, except that Monbiot has been accusing Booker of being a bullshitter (his word, not mine) for the past 3 months, in a campaign designed to last until December. Monbiot has promised to use his position in the Guardian, an internationally respected newspaper, to promote the Booker Bullshit Award, to be attributed to the “best” “denialist” article.
Note that Monbiot calls us climate sceptics denialists, and says we’re worse than paedophiles. Note that his first attempt to counter Booker”s arguments head-on resulted in two stupid mistakes in 26 seconds. Note that he intends to use his position in a major (and formerly serious) British newspaper to accuse us sceptics of bullshitting right up to December, when he attributes his Bullshitter Award.
Please excuse this rant. I’ve been banned from commenting at the Guardian, ostensibly for “insulting readers”. I don’t normally use Monbiot’s vocabulary.
And by the way, the ice is doing fine.
I’m curious if a nuclear submarine would carry flares that could light the area.
REPLY: Yes, they are called ICBM’s – Anthony
Thankyou for quickly restoring my faith in your standards of civility, Anthony
So lying on their grassy knoll, the AGW troofers reckon, in the same bizarre tradition as the fake moon landings, that the USS Skate’s Arctic photo’s are fake!
…. Well after observing the Caitlin farce..err, Expedition. No lie or exaggeration is too big for AGW activists.
As for Monbiot. 26 seconds before he abused the truth?….. It’s amazing he lasted that long.
What exactly is an “ice corps”. Frozen soldiers?
If I understand the arguments at play here, or rather THERE, amongst the Moonbat’s comments:
The broad daylight of the photos proves that in 1954, Big Tobacco had a moon base set up to discredit global warming.
Have I got it right?
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. File under “flacid humor”.
Non-Brits may be wondering why so many people (Brits) refer to “The Grauniad”.
The satirical magazine Private Eye used this anagram for the rag to highlight its poor spelling and editing.
I submitted the comment below and it seems to have evaporated, but when I try to resubmit it, wordpress says that I already submitted it, wuwt?
Here is the Guardian’s “Climate change scepticism” page:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism
I was particularly amused by “Monbiot’s royal flush”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers-monbiot-cards?picture=344343776
which is one of today’s “Editors’ picks”.
I was surprised that Anthony didn’t make the cut, but I suspect that after the last couple days there will be plenty more cards to go around…
Regarding the assertionists, or believers, as opposed to the denialists, I am finding myself more and more stating to those who just follow the propaganda:
“But they are lying; the Arctic is not melting; the planet is not warming; the seas are not warming; the Polar bears are not dying (any more than usual)”
What is interesting in this development is that I am reduced to telling people that they are being lied to, as the facts are stark.
I am growing frustrated with this obnoxious and dangerous Lysenkoism. I think I might stop the traffic on the Gardener Expressway. (Note to Ed: Canadian joke)
Jim (16:08:02) : regarding the “dead pixel”:
I look for the “SW” dead pixel often toi calibrate my vision, but could not find it, while the “sunspeck” you talk of could be a diagonal reflection.
The punters in the UK are pretty antsy about their elected politicians at the moment regardless of which mob got their votes. The expenses report has no political affilation.
To preach gorebull warming policies that will destroy the economy will be one of those nail things that get whacked into coffins for most of the expense whores. George will fade too.
Same in Australia. Gorebull warming, the greatest threat to life on earth, is now not as important as, err, other political thingies. Kev wants to save the world from other things now.
“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.”
There was ample light. First sunrise in 1959 according to NOAA was March 21st: “apparent sunrise: 3:04AM 21Mar”
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html
The picture of the Skate appears to show a *reflection* of the sub in varying water/mixed ice, not an actual shadow. Look closely for places the “shadow” is missing from the picture, as in the bottom middle area. Also consider why much of the sub doesn’t cast a shadow or a vague one, yet should were the “shadow” a result of a direct sun at such an angle behind the sub (besides, it’s really foggy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_at_North_Pole_-_0857806.jpg
This is of course a well known phenomena, for example
http://k41.pbase.com/v3/71/558271/2/50074866.PICT0002Large.jpg
http://image61.webshots.com/161/5/42/73/423054273vyHQiG_fs.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4812834-lg.jpg
Rod Smith (17:10:03) :
I’m curious if a nuclear submarine would carry flares that could light the area.
REPLY: Yes, they are called ICBM’s – Anthony
LOL, but just fyi, Skate was not a boomer.
It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average.
This is another confirmation of my gridded ice area post.
As everyone well knows, the USS Skate photo was part of the rollout of the much bigger hoax of man walking on the moon. This was actually a picture of the conning tower of a sub that was made of cardboard and placed on the white sands of New Mexico to look like ice. Once they perfected that technique it made the moon landing hoax pictures much easier to pull off!
/sarc off
It’s quite enjoyable to watch this ediface crumble.
From my earlier claim “The picture of the Skate appears to show a *reflection* of the sub in varying water/mixed ice, not an actual shadow.”
The smoking gun: Look along the water line to see details of the sub reflected in the water/ice mix. The ice on the forward section of the sub just above the water line is reflected (not a shadow). The vertical line of ice below the “7” is reflected. The conning tower reflection is distorted, the outline is mostly blurred and distorted. There are many other give-aways in this picture that reveal the “shadow” to be but a poor reflection in ice slush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_at_North_Pole_-_0857806.jpg
True USS Skate did not carry ICBMs but even back then might well have had other nuclear warheads on board.
As indeed her modern replacements probably do: and as the Royal Navy also probably does on its own hunter/killer nuclear boats.
Not that either navy will confirm or deny that.
And of course a nuclear warhead detonated underwater does not illuminate the sky. But it certainly throws a lot of water into the air: along with any hapless surface vessels which happen to be about.
Kindest Regards
The sub is a diversion — back to Monbiot. Ever wonder who he is?
lots of fascinating info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
and if you don’t like Monbiot you’ll love this:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5479/
The blog on that article was very funny,there was no changing that posters mind,and the funny thing was,his ID was on the fence.He tried to discredit Anthony by saying he published a fake photo,but a couple of readers were on to him,probably posters from here.I followed a link to the photo from a poster in that blog,and on the navy site it had next to the picture thanks to tripod,or something like that,so I don’t know where the photo came from,maybe the photographer kept some for himself. I don’t know why the guy kept arguing,the photo definitely came from the navy site,but he insisted it wasn’t taken on that day because it would have been dark at that time of the year(somehow that made Anthony non credible).There was no argument about what year it was taken.He may have been right about the day,but it was a trivial argument,just to throw dirt at this site.
Just plug the date into google earth and show sunlight. It shows that the terminator was ~16deg south of the north pole.
I apologise for my florid Monbiot rant above Antony, the monkey made me do it!
From national geographic on the Russian expedition which planted a flag on the north pole in August 2007.
“”It took us seven days and seven nights to reach the North Pole,” he says. “The ice was heavy. It was not a simple task.” Near the Pole, Chilingarov’s ships found an opening in the ice, and in went two submersibles, Mir I and Mir II. Chilingarov was in the first one. His goal, the true North Pole, was 14,000 feet below.”
Two interesting statements, first “the ice was heavy” at the time when we were told that the ice was its lowest level in history. Second the fact that there was an opening in the ice near the north pole, same as every year so “an ice free north pole” is just a question of chance.
interesting article but they could not resist and finish on this image.
“Out of the fog, a ten-foot-wide chunk of ice appears—a flash of white, visible for maybe 15 seconds. On it: a polar bear, drifting wherever the ocean wants to take it.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/05/healy/funk-text
How to make a prat of yourself in 26 seconds.
You can see the quality of [Monbiots] research ooze from every line…
An Australian story sort of relevant to ice and earth wobbles
Deep thinking bloke at bar to barman
“Mate, I’m worried”
“Why?”
“Well, all this iron ore we’re shipping to Japan”
“Yes?”
“Well its heavy and what if it causes the earth to wobble”
“Don’t worry mate. It’s balanced by all the Toyotas and Nissans and things we’re bringing back”
(From Funny B’s I’ve Met)
My brother took a wonderful photograph of a cemetery that looked like it was a brilliant sunny day. He took it about around midnight under a full moon with a long exposure.
Monbiot has taken to deliberately twisting facts, mixing global with Arctic and wilfully misrepresenting or ignoring empirical evidence to push his increasingly disproven mindset in direct opposition to the observable and provable facts.
He is suffering from an increasing level of cognitive dissonance which is spiralling into outright delusion.
AGW supporters are now making themselves look utterly foolish.