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, suddenoakdeath.org don’t try to link climate change in their shoe cleaning guide here (PDF) or website.
From ClimateQuotes
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. http://www.iaato.org/info.html.
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
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.
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!”)
“JaneHM (17:43:46) :
The Grauniad puts the boot in!”
Yeah, but they still think the emails were hacked.
But give them time…
Hans,
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-4-6.html
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:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-references.html
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:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/08/nyregion/aftermath-heat-wave-neighborhoods-cold-showers-rotting-food-then-lights-then.html?pagewanted=1
I’m not sure who peer reviewed it.
“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.
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)
It can’t possibly get weirder. …
… can it?
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.
Larry
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.
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?
What does “Gate Du Jour” mean. It is obviously something amusing but I don’t get it.
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.
“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.
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:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html
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.
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf
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.”
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.
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-47224.html
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…
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/osama-and-obama-on-global-warming/
After reading it, I suspect the editor has been busy reading WUWT to glean all the juicy scandals that came after climategate.
Change your light bulbs, inflate your tires, clean your boots; and together we’ll save the world.
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.
Larry
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.
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.