Gate Du Jour: IPCC gets the boot (cleaned)

WUWT reader “ClimateQuoter” brings this latest IPCC AR 4 reference to our attention. It seems the issue is about preventing footwear borne biological contamination. It appears this has nothing to do with Antarctic climate at all and seems more than a bit of a stretch in the way IPCC cites it.  How does climate change link to the need for boot cleaning? I can understand it by itself, don’t contaminate the local bio environment with spores on your shoes, but linking it to climate change? Even the organization for a similar and very real shoe borne contamination problem, don’t try to link climate change in their shoe cleaning guide here (PDF) or website.

From ClimateQuotes

Evidence of climate change

IPCC cites boot cleaning guide for Antarctica tour operators

No that headline is not a joke. The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Here it is.

The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:

The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”

This is referenced as:

IAATO, 2005: Update on boot and clothing decontamination guidelines and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp.

So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”. That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!

I can’t think of a citation any more pathetic. Read the report , (link to MS Word DOC from IAATO, PDF is available here from WUWT) and tell me if you can find anything.


Maybe the IPCC should take a cue from Calvin and Hobbes

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 1, 2010 5:43 pm
February 1, 2010 5:43 pm

peer-reviewed by ???????

Pamela Gray
February 1, 2010 5:45 pm

Next I fear you will find an IPCC reference to a paper describing the affects of climate change on nose picking!

Leon Brozyna
February 1, 2010 5:46 pm

and now … Bootgate
Which just goes to show – nobody ever really read the report. They read the SPM which was whipped together by bureaucrats with an agenda who were easily impressed by the number of references and citations without ever bothering to check them out. If IPCC survives to issue AR5 it’ll probably be a very slimmed down document without all the NGO fluff propaganda pieces.

February 1, 2010 5:47 pm

to add to the levity:
EDITORIAL: Osama and Obama on global warming
Discredited climate theories make strange bedfellows
The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried…

Craig Moore
February 1, 2010 6:00 pm

It seems a cast of sock puppets inhabit the boot.

February 1, 2010 6:12 pm

The horse has bolted.

February 1, 2010 6:16 pm

(with apologies to the incomparable Terry Pratchett)
A lie can travel round the world before the truth can get it’s boots on.

February 1, 2010 6:16 pm

Somewhat OT, but I just read a faxed copy of an article from Nature written by their Germany based climate correspondent that offers explanations about denialist’s claims of the significance of climategate (or lack there of) and the scientifically correct procedure Mann and Briffa used to cleanse the tree data to create the hockey stick (which he still regards as real). There’s more and its rich. Perhaps someone who has an online subscription might post a link. Its worth a dozen or more posts to debunk the debunking.

Frederick Michael
February 1, 2010 6:17 pm

The report specifically blames the rise in Antarctic tourism on the fall of the soviet union and the resulting availability of ice breakers and other specialty ships. The IPCC is stooping to creative writing on this one.

February 1, 2010 6:18 pm

“JaneHM (17:43:46) :
The Grauniad puts the boot in!”
I wonder why UK newspapers, especially The Guardian, are so serious-minded. We have no counterparts over here……

James Allison
February 1, 2010 6:20 pm

Love this sentence.
Dr. Chris Curry (Australia), not only played a major role in writing these guidelines but he also pioneered a three- year research study to investigate the “the feasibility and efficacy of chemical disinfection of the microbial contamination on visitors’ boots.”
And the result of the three year study is….. wait for it…
…. results of this study recommend that “consideration should be given to including a disinfectant such as Virkon when cleaning the boots of visitors.

February 1, 2010 6:22 pm

The IPCC really stepped in it this time.

D MacKenzie
February 1, 2010 6:28 pm

Maybe “climate change” is in the documents outlining Australia and the IUCN’s concerns?
Why quote the source article when you can quote an intermediate one?
It’s all laughable. Shame the repercussions weren’t so serious.

February 1, 2010 6:29 pm

This doesn’t leave much for April Fools Day.

Lazarus Long
February 1, 2010 6:36 pm

And the fecal matter continues to hit the rotating air movement device:
“Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege”
“It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?
But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body.”
(I hope I’m not behind the curve again….)

Douglas DC
February 1, 2010 6:38 pm

What i’ve seen lately from the IPCC is indeed something I clean off my
Justin cowboy boots-and it’s green too…

February 1, 2010 6:42 pm

Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!
Climate Scientists’ bootlicking AGW funders “warms” and “worsens” the Climate, while boot cleaning tries to erase the DNA evidence?
But as to the more exact importance of shoe and boot fetishes in the interplay between the Climate Scientists, the Warming Models, CO2, and temp., perhaps it is best left to Dr. Pachuri’s new Study of that specific Tribe’s practices to describe it to all the other Tribes.

Frank Kotler
February 1, 2010 6:45 pm

Wouldn’t want any banana or orange seeds tracked in!

February 1, 2010 6:50 pm

Open mouth insert foot.

February 1, 2010 6:56 pm

The boot and clothing cleaning guide probably came into existence because of previous IPCC reports claiming death and destruction due to diseases spreading because of global warming.
So in other words IPCC claims disease spread due to global warming which causes IAATO to issue guidelines which is then cited by IPCC as one of the stresses of climate change.

February 1, 2010 6:56 pm

But that doesn’t discredit all of the good work all the other scientists did on climate change!!!!
One has to wonder. Did anybody read the damned thing in its entirety? I couldn’t stomach it. But, the ones that supposedly believe that tripe, did they read it? If they didn’t, do/did they really believe it, or was it a means to an end? Boot cleaning tied to climate change? Sigh, would someone please take a penguin to the Arctic and let a polar bear eat it so at least some of this could be true!?

Hans Moleman
February 1, 2010 7:04 pm

The third paragraph of Appendix B of the Decontamination Document states: “Resulting from the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop hosted by the Australian Antarctic Division (Hobart, October 1998), this document is intended to address the concern about the potential translocation of diseases by tourists in Antarctica,…”
You can find the Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife workshop report here: On page 13, Section 2.8.2 it reads: “Human activity in Antarctica could be the cause of disease outbreaks by a number of direct and indirect mechanisms. People could act as vectors for infectious agents, either by bringing non-indigenous pathogens into the region or by translocating indigenous pathogens. In addition stress caused by human activity could reduce immunity, increase pathogenicity and could cause the expression of a disease that might otherwise not have revealed itself. Stress may be the result of direct human disturbance, food shortage (perhaps caused by fisheries competing for the same food stocks), exposure to pollutants and possibly, in the longer term, as a result of climate change.”
So, while climate change is not the major reason for the implementation of the decontamination guidelines, it is mentioned as a potential problem. Personally, I wouldn’t have made the reference (or I would’ve at least written the sentence differently), but I hope you’ll at least include all the information in your original post so your visitors will have the whole story and see where the “climate change” part of the story originated.

Robert of Ottawa
February 1, 2010 7:05 pm

Perhaps a mixed metaphor competition. My entry:
Time to clean house and give them the boot.

February 1, 2010 7:06 pm

Well, I put my stinky shoes in the freezer for a couple of days (IN A PLASTIC BAG to prevent cross contamination) to kill the bacteria and get rid of odor. I did not need a 3 year study to prove that this really works. Therefore, my conclusion is that climate change causes stinky feet!

February 1, 2010 7:06 pm

Policyguy, McIntyre(and others, Lucia?) already showed those two clowns(and the world) where they were wrong. If I’m attributing incorrectly, please forgive and correct, please. And so many other issues where they were totally incorrect, I believe we should be calling them the denialists. We just have to be louder.
Another OT and only pertinent to me at the moment, “Beer is proof God wishes us to be happy.”—–Thomas Jefferson Cheers!!

February 1, 2010 7:07 pm

The 2500 top scientists in the world approved this to be in the report?

Robert of Ottawa
February 1, 2010 7:07 pm

Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :

Robert of Ottawa
February 1, 2010 7:09 pm

Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Digital Nasal Cavity Evacuation in a Dryer Climate, Thumb, Finger et al, 2035

February 1, 2010 7:10 pm

I wish somehow Microsoft was involved so we could have Billgate.
(my joke crashed and burned!)

February 1, 2010 7:13 pm

This reminds me of the old Cheech and Chong skit, “Cheborneck”.

February 1, 2010 7:16 pm

I found another alarming citation:

February 1, 2010 7:17 pm

C’mon guys, give them a break. You criticise the IPCC writers for not using ‘peer-reviewed’ sources, then chide one of them for using a legitimate reference to support a probably widely accepted assertion that human activity is likely affecting the Antarctic biosphere.
Other than references to boots, there are only four other references in the whole section. Compare this with references in the three-times larger preceding section concerning the Arctic for which there are many more likely sources of impact. I call that gross imbalance.
But as I read it, the whole section could be criticised because it is completely inadequate; the writer was able only to cite tourism and fishing as likely causes of impact. [The most obvious other source of current impact would be scientist investigators themselves]. The aim of the section is to debate implications for sustainable development. It is a statement of the status quo, not what climate change might have on that. There is no prediction of likely impacts on, say, the illegal fishing operations mentioned. What of whaling? What might be future demands to search for hydrocarbons?
The whole subject needs more effort.

February 1, 2010 7:23 pm

Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Next I fear you will find an IPCC reference to a paper describing the affects of climate change on nose picking!
If you are nosepicking semi-hygienically, kleenex (paper tissues for the Brits) is involved. Obviously the manufacturing of said tissues, whether from recycled materials or not, will generate heat and GHGs. Much better for the environment to place a finger to one nostril and violently expel air (and contents) through the other nostril. The IPCC must have a position on this!

February 1, 2010 7:23 pm

Dr. Bob, uhmm… was so sad that I actually laughed. Thanks!

Keith Minto
February 1, 2010 7:24 pm

I think that it is a reasonable precautionary measure. a quote from the IAATO report ..
Antarctica is vast, isolated and inhospitable. Few studies of the microflora of indigenous species have been undertaken, and still fewer of disease. A small number of mass mortality events have been observed in penguins, both on the continent and on the sub-Antarctic islands.
The link to CC is obscure, but, let us treat the Antarctic and surrounding islands with care and reduce one factor in any future ‘mass mortality event’.

February 1, 2010 7:26 pm

Bryn (19:17:29) :
…..But as I read it, the whole section could be criticised because it is completely inadequate;……….
Yes, but robustly so!!!

Craig Moore
February 1, 2010 7:31 pm

I saw this elsewhere:
Did you hear about the teacher who was helping one of her students put on his carbon boots? He asked for help and she could see why. Even with her pulling and him pushing, the boots still didn’t want to go on. By the time they got the second boot on, she had worked up a sweat.
She almost cried when the student said, “Teacher, they’re on the wrong feet.” She looked, and sure enough, they were. It wasn’t any easier pulling the boots off than it was putting them on. She managed to keep her cool as, together, they worked to get the carbon boots back on, this time on the right feet. He then announced, “These aren’t my boots.”
She bit her tongue, rather than get right in his face and scream, “Why didn’t you say so?”, like she wanted to. Once again she struggled to help him pull the ill-fitting boots off his l feet. No sooner had they gotten the boots off when he said, “They’re my brother Al’s carbon boots. My eco-parents made me wear ’em to reduce my footprint.”
Now she didn’t know if she should laugh or cry. But she mustered up what grace and courage she had left to wrestle the boots on his feet again.
Helping him into his coat, she asked, “Now, where are your gloves?” He said, “I stuffed ’em in the toes of my boots.”
She will be eligible for parole in three years.

D MacKenzie
February 1, 2010 7:33 pm

After googling the reference in the above article for the “Australian concerns” found these paragraphs on page 20 of the following link (131 is most relevant):
“(129) Australia introduced ATCM XXVIII/WP28 Measures to address the unintentional introduction and spread of nonnative biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty Area, recalling that the intent of Article 4 of the Protocol is that unintentional introductions of nonnative species to the Antarctic Treaty Area will be minimised.
(130) This issue had been raised in several papers previously submitted to the CEP, and is one of global concern, as also raised in ATCM XXVIII/IP063 Introduction of Nonnative Species, Parasites and Diseases (IUCN) and ATCM XXVIII/IP097 Update on Boot and Clothing Decontamination Guidelines and the Introduction and Detection of Diseases in Antarctic Wildlife: IAATO’s perspective (IAATO).
(131) Australia highlighted the difficulty and cost of eradicating introduced species and noted that no formal assessment has been undertaken of the risks in the Antarctic context. Increasing visitation to Antarctica, combined with a more benign climate due to global warming, is likely to increase the opportunity for nonnative species to arrive and become established. Australia also emphasised similar concerns regarding transfer of species between Antarctic sites.”
So that seems to be where the link to climate change comes in. So general link is there; but it’s sloppy referencing and it seems like they’re playing Chinese whispers again. Climate change and increased activity have necessitated the protocols, but increase activity has made it a much more sensible thing to do.

February 1, 2010 7:42 pm

From Page 3:
3.1 As far as possible, avoid walking in concentrations of organic material such as guano, seal placenta, seal faeces, in order to avoid moving this material around the landing site
The IPCC should have read that a bit more carefully. They are rolling in seal faeces.

February 1, 2010 7:44 pm

Wait!!!1!one Does this mean if I clean my boots (I wear DMs to work) regularly I can prevent climate change???
Phew… for a minute there I thought we were all headed to Hell in a handcart…
BTW in un-boot-related news, the opposition leader in Australia announces his climate strategy of direct action:

February 1, 2010 7:46 pm

I love Calvin and Hobbes;>

February 1, 2010 7:50 pm

This is all getting too silly. If we make it to AR5 I’ll be submitting ‘The effects of climate change on binge drinking and alcoholism on middle aged men”
I should have plenty of material for a paper by then.

Jeff C.
February 1, 2010 7:53 pm

Hans Moleman
Your argument is not persuasive. AR4 references the IAATO document in this case; it does not reference the “Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife” document. If they meant that document to be the reference, they should have listed it, they didn’t.
Even if one does follow the trail to the “Diseases” document, it is hardly a solid reference. In this 114 page document, “climate change” is mentioned only three times. In all cases, it is clear it is speculation, not an assertion.
Page 13 – Note the use of the word “may”
“Stress may be the result of direct human disturbance, food shortage (perhaps caused by fisheries competing for the same food stocks), exposure to pollutants and possibly, in the longer term, as a result of climate change.”
Page 33 – the word “may” used twice
“These may include large-scale processes such as global climate change that may threaten entire ecosystems or local phenomena such as sewage effluent and contaminants associated with waste disposal.”
Page 46 – “May” yet again
“Indigenous organisms may become pathogenic when animals are subjected to additional environmental stress such as food shortage and human disturbances and perhaps, in the longer time, as a result of climate change.
This is the problem with AR4; it is filled with idle speculation from unqualified sources. The shock is that it took over 2 years for someone to actually check things out. Now that the word is out, a feeding frenzy is taking place in the UK and Indian media. There is much more to come.

February 1, 2010 7:54 pm

I suppose the IPCC will sell it’s brand of shoe goo cleaner, and TERI will have the product ready to roll.
Never mind the rest of your clothing.
Big Al will have you covered.

Jeff C.
February 1, 2010 7:59 pm

Following up on my previous comment to Hans Moleman, the paragraph posted in Han’s comment from page 13 of “Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife” contains the word “could” four times in addition to the word “may”. Not once are any of the contentions stated as anything other than WAGs.

February 1, 2010 8:06 pm

George Monbiot’s Climate Denier cards:
“Monbiot’s royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards ”
Stocking fillers for all Guardian readers’ kids next Christmas?
Too creepy for words.

February 1, 2010 8:28 pm

Ironic that the ad placed on this page is advertising Antarctic travel:
Hey “don’t be evil” Google… didn’t ya read the article? Your ads are killing the planet.

February 1, 2010 8:29 pm

And of course, as usual, no one states the obvious. It’s cold there. Real cold. If it never gets above freezing, 99% of the bacteria, virus’ ect, can’t, don’t and won’t thrive there. It freezes! Yes, I’m aware of a few that do survive, but the odds of people moving a contagion to the region are minimal. (My appeal to authority) I was a U.S. Army medic in Alaska. I can attest that very little thrives in the arctic region except the organisms that seems to have a purpose there. Seeing that it is much colder in most of the Antarctic, I would suspect that the same is true there, also. No peered reviewed studies to offer, just experience. Of course, if it all thaws, all bets are off!!

Hans Moleman
February 1, 2010 8:34 pm

Jeff C. (19:53:14) :
“Hans Moleman
Your argument is not persuasive. ”
I wasn’t arguing anything. I was pointing out where the reference to climate change most likely came from. You also missed the part where I said I wouldn’t have used the reference had I been writing that section.
And thanks for counting all the “mays” and “coulds”, but there’s nothing suspect about those words. As you start to read more scientific papers you’ll notice scientists typically speak in terms of the possibility of a certain outcome.

February 1, 2010 8:40 pm

People, people, need I state the obvious? This report was included because someone at the IPCC heard, or rather misheard, that Pachuri is passionately concerned with boo-tay. (cf. “Shake, Shake, Shake…Shake, Shake, Shake…Shake Your Bootie…yeah!”)

John Wright
February 1, 2010 8:55 pm

“JaneHM (17:43:46) :
The Grauniad puts the boot in!”
Yeah, but they still think the emails were hacked.
But give them time…

Jeff C.
February 1, 2010 9:13 pm

Thanks for the comment. I’m a payload systems engineer and have written plenty of papers myself. When a good writer actually knows what they are talking about (as opposed to CYA when throwing out WAGs), the only legitimate reason to use words such as “may” or “could” are to enforce the idea of uncertainty with the reader. The IPCC itself recommends terms such as “likely” and “highly likely” that have a specific, measurable level of confidence associated with them. The use of weasel words in this report serves no purpose other than to give the author an out if his predictions turn out to be wrong. It’s lazy writing, and isn’t tolerated in fields where customers expect results.

February 1, 2010 9:32 pm

lol, if I may, Jeff and Hans. You’re both correct. Scientists tend to use the words “may” and “could”. Yes, those are CYA words. Engineers tend to use the words “can” and “should”. Those are still CYA words, but they convey the thought that if it doesn’t happen, it’s someone else fault for not letting it happen the way they dreamed it up. Of course, guarantees are hard to come by and typically there is someone else make sure the guarantees happen other than the scientist or engineers when the promises are made.

February 1, 2010 9:57 pm

Which goes back to a point I made earlier. Is and isn’t is a lot different than woulds and coulds and shoulds and cans. Math deals with what is and isn’t. Yes, I know it isn’t perfect, but until someone comes up with a different way a quantifying things it is what we got. Math will tell us if things are warmer or not. If the data and the methodology of the mathematics are correct, then we know. It isn’t abstract. It is what it is. It is as absolute as one can get. The AGW camp never proved their data nor their methods were correct. And, yet, their argument was allowed to be furthered. I don’t understand how universities kept silent when this happened. When compared to binding properties of atoms, the atomic weight and forcing of winds and seas, the reflective and refractive properties of various elements, and many other things beyond us, all working in congruence to cause our climate, math seems to be the first place they would have to PROVE the validity of their supposition. They never did, and in fact were shown to be incorrect in their statistical analysis on a few occasions that I know of. If it were in my abilities, that is where I’d hit them. It just never occurred to me that scientists wouldn’t know basic algebra.

February 2, 2010 12:18 am

I mentioned this last week in the de jour thread but enticed no opinions, so I try again. I found this reference to the New York Times in WGII 14.4.6. Just thought it should be part of the growing record:
The reference reads (Wilgoren and Roane, 1999) and is the source for the following claim:
Unreliable electric power, as in minority neighbourhoods during the New York heatwave of 1999, can amplify concerns about health and environmental justice.
The AR4 reference page can be found here:
It reads:
Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999
That article can be found here:
I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.

February 2, 2010 3:21 am

“John Wright (20:55:39) :
“JaneHM (17:43:46) :
The Grauniad puts the boot in!”
Yeah, but they still think the emails were hacked”
I thought it was a well written article. Certainly could be used as a reference next time someone tries the ‘nothing sinister just scientists talking/all out of context/does not affect the evidence’ line. The guardian reporter has taken the time to link the context, quote from the emails and show what one of the many issues in the emails are. I imagine there will be more reporting like this in the next couple of months as editors read the opinion polls, note that sceptical articles get more hits than pro-agw articles and generally start the follow the public trend of questioning the IPCC.

Hans Moleman
February 2, 2010 4:27 am

galileonardo (00:18:22) :
“I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.”
Not every reference needs to be peer-reviewed. This has been mentioned multiple times (At least in different comments threads)

February 2, 2010 4:54 am

It can’t possibly get weirder. …
… can it?

hotrod ( Larry L )
February 2, 2010 5:32 am

vigilantfish (19:23:13) :
Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Next I fear you will find an IPCC reference to a paper describing the affects of climate change on nose picking!
If you are nosepicking semi-hygienically, kleenex (paper tissues for the Brits) is involved. Obviously the manufacturing of said tissues, whether from recycled materials or not, will generate heat and GHGs. Much better for the environment to place a finger to one nostril and violently expel air (and contents) through the other nostril. The IPCC must have a position on this!

Draft IPCC proposal for control of unnecessary CO2 emissions due to manual booger removal techniques
Diaphragmatic Spasm Induced Differential Pressure Booger Ejection is a serious concern for global warming, as the pneumatic pressure pulse that accelerates the booger out of the nasal cavity is highly enriched in CO2. Thus wide spread use of DSIDPBE should be considered undesirable and should be taxed.
It also carries considerable risk of ballistic contamination of boots with high velocity booger projectiles. Since these projectiles have unknown aerodynamic properties a study is needed to evaluate their typical flight path, probability of impact on foot wear and propensity to go unnoticed by casual examination of the foot wear. Until this critically needed study is completed it is impossible to characterize in a robust fashion the a risk of creating a vector for biological cross contamination by foot wear.

February 2, 2010 7:45 am

Hey IPCC, for future reference let me tell you a lesson I learned in high school:
If you want to add a few pages to a report to make it look better then you should fiddle with the line spacing and margins before you start padding what you have written with meaningless crap.

February 2, 2010 9:07 am

Okay…so ‘human activity’ on Antartica has become an IPCC concern.
Has someone calculated the UHI effect around the only thermometer in antartica used to prove global warming?

February 2, 2010 9:45 am

What does “Gate Du Jour” mean. It is obviously something amusing but I don’t get it.

Buffy Minton
February 2, 2010 10:06 am

MB (09:45:53) :
What does “Gate Du Jour” mean. It is obviously something amusing but I don’t get it.
It's an intelligence test – but I'm sorry to inform you that, even after value added adjustment of the data, you failed.

February 2, 2010 10:56 am

“Frederick Michael (18:17:48) :
The report specifically blames the rise in Antarctic tourism on the fall of the soviet union and the resulting availability of ice breakers and other specialty ships. The IPCC is stooping to creative writing on this one.”
That is actually true. I’ve done an arctic tour on one of the Russian Academy of Science’s ex-research vessels myself. The Academy was so short of cash that they had to lease out the ships. They did Arctic cruises in Summer and Antarctic cruises in Winter (southern Summer) and were excellent for the purpose, being of moderate size and draught, very seaworthy and having fair accommodation and excellent equipment. However I heard recently that the Academy is going to start using them for research again.

February 2, 2010 11:22 am

Correction to my previous comment re. reference to State Theory book in IPCC report, thanks for those who spotted the error.
On Chapter 7 , we have two interesting references:
Jessop, B., 2002: Globalization and the national state. Paradigm Lost: State Theory Reconsidered, S. Aronowitz and P. Bratsis, Eds., University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 185-220.
Book description:
“With increasing globalization, the meaning and role of the nation-state are in flux. At the same time, state theory, which might help to explain such a trend, has fallen victim to the general decline of radical movements, particularly the crisis in Marxism. This volume seeks to enrich and complicate current political debates by bringing state theory back to the fore and assessing its relevance to the social phenomena and thought of our day. Throughout, it becomes clear that, whether confronting the challenges of postmodern and neo-institutionalist theory or the crisis of the welfare state and globalization, state theory still has great analytical and strategic value. ”
(Taken from Amazon description of the book)
Second reference on Chapter 7 of interest is this:
Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp.
Climate Change & the Financial Sector: An Agenda for action
Allianz Group and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have joined forces
to produce a report that will advance the debate in the financial community,
and to propose solutions. The report identifies risks for the sector which are
due to climate change, and develops actions that demonstrate how integrated
financial services companies, such as Allianz Group, can turn these risks
into opportunities.”

Tim Clark
February 2, 2010 11:50 am

Pamela Gray (17:45:27) :
Next I fear you will find an IPCC reference to a paper describing the affects of climate change on nose picking!

Chronic sinus infection thought to be tissue issue, Mayo Clinic scientists show it’s snot.

Gail Combs
February 2, 2010 12:41 pm

pat (17:47:36) :
“to add to the levity:
EDITORIAL: Osama and Obama on global warming
Discredited climate theories make strange bedfellows
The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried…

After reading it, I suspect the editor has been busy reading WUWT to glean all the juicy scandals that came after climategate.

Harold Blue Tooth
February 2, 2010 1:43 pm

Change your light bulbs, inflate your tires, clean your boots; and together we’ll save the world.

hotrod ( Larry L )
February 2, 2010 1:49 pm

MB (09:45:53) :
What does “Gate Du Jour” mean. It is obviously something amusing but I don’t get it.

In some restaurants you will see on the menu a listing for the “Soup Du Jour”, meaning “soup of the day”.
In this context Gate Du Jour roughly translates to “Hoax of the day”,or “unsubstantiated claim of the day”, etc. etc. The implication being that these errors are cropping up on almost a daily basis, sometimes we even get a bonus round and get two for one.

Patrick Davis
February 2, 2010 7:00 pm

Maybe OT, but slightly related. Here in Australia and New Zealand, the authorities are fanatic about organic pollution/contaminantion. Even interstate here in Australia, there are disposal bins for fruit etc, fair enough. We don’t want to spread fruit flies across multiple states.
Australia is, probably, one of the best examples of what not to do with regards to “introducing” a “thing” (Cane toads) to deal with another “thing” (Cane beetles). We now have a massive Cane Toad problem.
But this does seem to be way OTT, but are we really surprised? We have a Ross Gittings, a writer for the SMH, who seems to connect climate change with an ageing population. Go figure, maybe he’s just trying to secure his own pension, like Phil Jones et al?
OT, but funny. Eddie Izzard did a funny scetch about entering New Zealand. He said you could almost walk through MAF with a RPG on your shoulder, but try it with an apple. Sheesh! MAF will have you locked up in no time.

February 2, 2010 9:04 pm

This is not as much of a mystery. Plant seeds and bacteria have contaminated remote southern islands with disastrous consequences. Cleaning every thing, not just boots is mandatory if you go to Heard Island or any on the southern Antarctic islands or even the smaller reserve island off the Australian or New Zealand shores. Its routine so why is it in the IPCC report.
Several reasons.
1) Climate change is assumed to be the cause for grasses appearing in the Antarctic peninsular but the true explanation is simply the increase in scientific traffic and slopy quarantine. By adding the note to the IPCC report they flag the real cause to the insiders without admiting it.
2) Most Antarctic researches genuinely fear a green and pleasant Antarctica. Extinction due to introduced species is a real problem. If the warming was real contamination and pest plant driven extinction will matter. Its one of the few cases of the IPCC citing a real solution.
However there is another pair of false assumptions here.
The first is that Antarctica lacks grasses because its too cold. That may be valid but it may not be true. There are some very hardy plants out there in in the Arctic and alpine environments. Antarctica may have just not got them before. I.e. Climate change is not needed to get an ecological change. However the IPCC dare not admit that.
Alternatively the plants were always there in sheltered nooks but are only detected today because people are looking for them. Plant seeds can get to the Antarctic peninsular in the feathers and crops of birds and may do so in naturally warm climatic cycles. The Warmists can’t admit that because they can’t admit the medieval warm period or solar variability. Any thing found, even fossils, have to be introduced more recently. [They could claim that a fossil is very old from when Antarctica was up near Australia.] We can’t have plant evidence for the MWP.
The Whole issue also goes to something else that the IPCC can’t admit. Rapid adaptability of ecosystems. Ecosystem mobility. The idea that plant systems particularly forests and reefs can move fast enough to adapt to climatic change, natural or otherwise. The IPCC is actively but probably unwittingly trying to prevent a natural shift in the distribution of plant populations.
Yes the inclusion of the boot cleaning documentation distorts the number of Peer reviewed papers. Yet it shows something else. They actually don’t grasp basic ecology or cause and effect in species distribution even where they see it.

%d bloggers like this: