IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

From World Climate Report:

Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree.

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic.

In the IPCC AR4 the situation is described like this in Chapter 4, “Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground” (p. 351):

As an example, an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003), spanning the period from November 1978 through December 2005, is shown in Figure 4.8. The annual mean ice extent anomalies are shown. There is a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km2 yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade), whereas the Antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant. The uncertainties represent the 90% confidence interval around the trend estimate and the percentages are based on the 1978 to 2005 mean.

Notice that the IPCC states that the Antarctic increase in sea ice extent from November 1979-December 2005 is “not statistically significant” which seems to give them good reason to play it down. For instance, in the Chapter 4, Executive Summary (p. 339), the sea ice bullet reads:

Satellite data indicate a continuation of the 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978. The decline for summer extent is larger than for winter, with the summer minimum declining at a rate of 7.4 ± 2.4% per decade since 1979. Other data indicate that the summer decline began around 1970. Similar observations in the Antarctic reveal larger interannual variability but no consistent trends.

Which in the AR4 Summary For Policymakers becomes two separate items:

Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with those reported in the TAR. {4.4}


Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}

“Continues to show…no statistically significant average trends”? Continues?

This is what the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), released in 2001, had to say about Antarctic sea ice trends (Chapter 3, p. 125):

Over the period 1979 to 1996, the Antarctic (Cavalieri et al., 1997; Parkinson et al., 1999) shows a weak increase of 1.3 ± 0.2%/decade.

By anyone’s reckoning, that is a statistically significant increase.

In the IPCC TAR Chapter 3 Executive Summary is this bullet point:

…Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.

So, the IPCC AR4’s contention that sea ice trends in Antarctica “continues” to show “no statistically significant average trends” contrasts with what it had concluded in the TAR.

Interestingly, the AR4 did not include references to any previous study that showed that Antarctic sea ice trends were increasing in a statistically significant way. The AR4 did not include the TAR references of either Cavalieri et al., 1997, or Parkinson et al., 1999. Nor did the IPCC AR4 include a reference to Zwally et al., 2002, which found that:

The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. [emphasis added]

and (also from Zwally et al. 2002),

Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper. [emphasis added]

Watkins and Simmonds (2000) was also not cited by the AR4.

So just what did the IPCC AR4 authors cite in support of their “assessment” that Antarctic sea ice extent was not increasing in a statistically significant manner? The answer is “an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003).” And just what is “Comiso (2003)”? A book chapter!

Comiso, J.C., 2003: Large scale characteristics and variability of the global sea ice cover. In: Sea Ice – An Introduction to its Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology [Thomas, D. and G.S. Dieckmann (eds.)]. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 112–142.

And the IPCC didn’t actually even use what was in the book chapter, but instead “an updated version” of the “analysis” that was in the book chapter.

And from this “updated” analysis, the IPCC reported that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent was an insignificant 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade)—a value that was only about one-half of the increase reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

There are a few more things worth considering.

1) Josefino Comiso (the author of the above mentioned book chapter) was a contributing author of the IPCC AR4 Chapter 4, so the coordinating lead authors probably just turned directly to Comiso to provide an unpeer-reviewed update. (how convenient)

and 2) Comiso published a subsequent paper (along with Fumihiko Nishio) in 2008 that added only one additional year to the IPCC analysis (i.e. through 2006 instead of 2005), and once again found a statistically significant increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, with a value very similar to the value reported in the old TAR, that is:

When updated to 2006, the trends in ice extent and area …in the Antarctic remains slight but positive at 0.9 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3% per decade.

These trends are, again, by anyone’s reckoning, statistically significant.

Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).

And just in case further evidence is needed, and recent 2009 paper by Turner et al. (on which Comiso was a co-author), concluded that:

Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec-1 since the late 1970s.

This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).

So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”


Cavalieri, D. J., P. Gloersen, C. L. Parkinson, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1997. Observed hemispheric asymmetry in global sea ice changes. Science, 278, 1104–1106.

Cavalieri, D. J., C. L. Parkinson, P. Gloersen, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1999. Deriving long-term time series of sea ice cover from satellite passivemicrowave multisensor data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 15803–15814.

Comiso, J. C., and F. Nishio, 2008. Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C02S07, doi:10.1029/2007JC004257.

Parkinson, C. L., D. J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, H. J. Zwally, and J. C. Comiso, 1999. Arctic sea ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978– 1996. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 20837–20856.

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

Watkins, A. B., and I. Simmonds, Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology, 2000. Journal of Climate, 13, 4441–4451.

Zwally, H.J., J. C. Comiso, C. L. Parkinson, D. J. Cavalieri, and P. Gloersen, 2002. Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979-1998. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, C53041.

Sponsored IT training links:

Complete set of 000-152 exam questions and NS0-154 dumps to help you get in detail knowledge and pass your 70-667 for the first time.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Patrick Davis

It (The bogus reports from gubmint and the IPCC) is worse than we thought.


This is huge and shows a real bias on the part of the “scientists” who
put this together. They at least did better than the climate.gov website who simply “forgot” to mention the Antarctic at all.

Phillip Bratby



The sad thing is that you didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to spot these inconsistencies. I have pointed these things out to various sources (eg. the climate change advisor in my own company) and have either been ignored or had my view marginalised or been made to feel stupid.
I find it sad that has taken so so long for such observations to be made publically obvious. It is so obvious. If the sea ice around Antarctica is growing (on a decadal trend basis) – which any schoolboy analysis of freely available basic data shows …… what does this tell you about the certainty of global warming ?

John R. Judge

In spite of all the new revelations of massaged data and biased evaluations that just keep on coming, the alarmists, like Peter Liss of CRU, continue to insist that the “overwhelming science still supports AGW”. What “science” are they basing this claim on? The pundits and politicians need to ask them. Is there any evidence for AGW that is not tarnished? It doesn’t seem like it to me.

Do not forget, that the “greenhouse” theory expects the strongest warming in polar regions, since dry air holds only a little of water vapor and increase of CO2 should intensify the “greenhouse” effect very vividly.
Antarctic – no warming
Arctic – cyclic oscillation related to AMO

Patrick Davis

Some coy phrases from Father Jack (Of the TV progran Fatther Ted) come to mind. You should all google “Fathre Ted” TV program. I can tell you from real and family experience, the theme is largely true.
Oi loik cake!

Paul Z.

I think I finally understand why Obama is pushing so hard for carbon trading in the US. Obama was one of the persons responsible for the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange, along with other people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong (involved in UN Oil-for-food scandal). Obama is pushing for a carbon trading bill in the United States because he stands to makes millions if not billions of dollars from this scam, trading in carbon credits (a made-up solution for a non-existent problem). Note how Obama is using the EPA to force through his carbon controlling agenda, even while the carbon trading bill has been stopped for now in the US congress.
Meanwhile, Obama can also scare the masses and control them by blaming CO2 (a harmless gas that plants need for photosynthesis) for being the cause behind global warming. Obama: “CO2 bad, therefore government must take control of CO2 and regulate all CO2-related concerns” — meaning EVERYTHING. Meaning that Obama can control EVERYONE by being in charge of who can use energy and how much energy they can use. If this is not Big Brother, than I don’t know what is. 1984 was off by about 30 years. Let’s see how things turn out in 2014.
In a country like the UK (which no longer has natural resources or manufacturing capability), the only main way for them to make money and stay relevant to the world at large today is to be a player in the various world financial markets. Because the carbon market is expected to be worth trillions in the next 10-20 years, this why Gordon Brown is pushing hard for global carbon trading exchanges, as he wants the UK to get in early and be a player in this market.
As usual, the middle class will end up paying for all of this while a handful of politicians and bankers become megarich. Consider the subprime mess recently where all the greedy banks who caused the crisis were bailed out with taxpayer cash, and still the bank execs were given huge bonuses using the taxpayer’s money.
With the advent of The Internet, it will be harder than ever for the elitist in power to hoodwink the masses, but do not underestimate the influence that these corrupt elitists hold. Look at how they have managed to shut up the mainstream media in regards to the unraveling global warming scam. They may one day find a way to control The Internet, so we all need to be wary. Remember that Al Gore is on the board of advisors for Google. Once we lose The Internet, we will lose our freedom.
A special note on Al Gore: Al Gore is behaving like a jilted lover who wants revenge. Al Gore: “OK, you didn’t want me as your POTUS, so I’ll scam the whole world with my global warming scare. And I’ll make billions of dollars while I’m at it. You’ll see. I’ll have the last laugh. I’LL SHOW YOU.” The thing is, even the people in his own state didn’t vote for him because they know that he is a liar and hypocrite of the highest level. He keeps warning people that mega waves will engulf the coasts of the US; meanwhile he is happily buying and keeping beachfront property. He is such a liar to the extent that he even photoshopped non-existent hurricanes unto his latest book cover. His academy-award winning documentary has been legally declared in the UK to have nine glaring factual errors that mislead people about global warming. Companies that he is involved in regularly get huge million-dollar grants from the federal government, related to his global warming scare. He is a partner in the company behind the Chicago Climate Exchange, which stands to make trillions of dollars in carbon-trading commissions. How is it that some people still believe this charlatan and want to shake his hand?
Be wary of the ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing.


Why did they think that they could get away with it, and why have they actually achieved that for so long? 🙁


The link at the words “was shown to be wrong” doesn’t work.


This is one of the stronger “gates”. No “mere” citation error, no “mistake”. Clear evidence of biased assessment bookended by contrary peer-reviewed science.
Let’s see Gavin spin this away.

Adrian Wingfield

Looks like another classic recipe from the IGCB (InterGovernmental Cookery Book):
Step 1: Take one part good science
Step 2: Stir in three parts of political expediency and an equal measure of pseudo-scientific interpretation
Step 3: Strain out any lumps that don’t look quite right
Step 4: repeat steps 2 and 3 as necessary, simmering gently until thoroughly cooked
Result: Exactly what the politicians need to nourish the hype.

Tom P

“These trends are, again, by anyone’s reckoning, statistically significant.”
Reading their paper, it is obvious that the errors Cosimo and Nishio state in the trend are due to difficulties in an accurate determination of the edge of the ice. They are not the statistical errors calculated by looking at the variability in the data. The latter should be calculated and used in testing the significance of any trend.
It’s not correct to state, as this article does, that the increasing trend in Antarctic ice extent is significant based just on the measurement errors.

Person of Choler

it is recorded that Adam and Eve had only two sons, one of whom killed the other. No daughters of any kind from anywhere achieved mention. Tell that to some Bible thumpers, ask how they think the human race was propagated post-Genesis, and note how that makes them rethink their beliefs.
Now, point out the errors, omissions, and palpable quackery in AGW science to warmies and note that they can dodge reality as easily as the Bible thumpers do.


I think jamesafalk hit it, “This is one of the stronger “gates”. No “mere” citation error, no “mistake”. Clear evidence of biased assessment bookended by contrary peer-reviewed science.”
I thought it would be tagged IPCC
Which brings up a point about collating all these “gate” posts into one post/article with it’s own link. Has such a post been done?

E O'Connor

Anthony and Charles
On 29 December 2009 the site meter hit 30 million.
Today it is over 36 million!
Is there a hockey stick in the room?


Comiso. Comiso mucho. Kiss me and tell me that story of ice once again.

Herman L

It is absolutely incorrect to title this blog post as a “gate Du Jour” — thereby implying there’s some sort of scandal — or for the unnamed authors of the report to refer to an “IPCC Error.” The reason is very simple and straightforward: the article relies on information that was not published at the time of the IPCC’s 4AR. The report cites seven references — two of which are dated after 2007.
Will those who read this and manage these websites update their content and refer to this correctly as an update? I’d post this directly to Worldclimatereport.com, but their site is closed to comments.


Paul Z
I take your main point, but I would counsel you and all other fellow climate sceptics not to make the argument that CO2 is “a harmless gas that plants need for photosynthesis”.
All substances become toxic when they are in the wrong place in too high a concentration. Breathing pure CO2 would kill you. Water is essential for life but if you get too much into your lungs, you drown. Also, what is harmless to us may be harmful to other species.
I think that constant repetition of the point that CO2 is harmless tends to irritate pedantic life scientists like me and make the sceptical arguments look less scientific.
In the concentrations we are currently expereincing in the atmosphere, CO2 is harmless to animal life, and slight increases in concentration may be beneficial to plant growth.


“It’s not correct to state, as this article does, that the increasing trend in Antarctic ice extent is significant based just on the measurement errors.”
I second this.


Ref – Paul Z. (03:49:23) :
“I think I finally understand…”
Me too. Problem for EPA is that they’ve taken on a Kimakazee mission. The folks in charge there now are betting everything –their personal fortunes, their careers, their future livelihood, and their “names”– to convince the country that AGW is real. Problem is they’re out of gas and going down in an empty ocean. They will accomplish nothing but their own, and the EPA’s, destruction.
Ref – Peter (04:37:16) :
“I think jamesafalk hit it, “This is one of the stronger “gates”…”
IPCC-gate is just a little “removed” from most people. They’re sitting on top of the mountain so to speak. But POTUS, Congress, the EPA, NASA, etc., these fools are square in the sights of a lot of angry voters. Angry voters taking aim at a bunch of “out of control” nutcases who need to be shown the real-gate.


No offense, but this is a pretty boring story- statistics, lack of peer-review.
If you want anyone to actually talk about the story, you have to find out who Comiso is, and affix devil horns to his head.
What are the evil motives that drive a scientist to fudge the facts?


Anthony, I mark this as Climategate #24. I am counting from AJ Strata’s three (2/16) and Mark Landsbaum’s summary of twenty (Orange County Register 2/10)
(Imran (03:31:35) : “The sad thing is that you didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to spot these inconsistencies. I have pointed these things out to various sources (eg. the climate change advisor in my own company) and have either been ignored or had my view marginalised or been made to feel stupid.
I find it sad that has taken so so long for such observations to be made publically obvious. ”
Yes, this nonsense truly is sad, given all the mischief it has caused and the billions it has sucked up. It (Climategate Conspiracy Crew — each group for their own reasons — greed, professional (scientific) godhood, or global power) continues to believe it can come back from the near-dead in vampiric fashion and take more blood from us.
The time for sadness is over. Anger, reasoned and swift, is necessary today to take down to the ground the crumbling edifice until not even one foundation stone is left.
What good can come from this “sadness”? Peoples’ education in the science of global warming and cooling — e.g., the more “gentle cycles” we have known for about 150 years; the more extreme cycles of the Holocene (last ~11,000 years), and the real thing, giant ice sheets. People might wake up to the necessity of (real) science, technology, and educating their kids to do their dangest for the future of “warm” living on Earth. How much time do we have? Looking at the charts, historically speaking, we “should” about be at the end of our “interglacial”.
People might come to love CO2 if our use of fossil fuels can delay what seems like the inevitable refrigerator Earth. (At the same time, on this issue I don’t think the science is settled.) People might come to love our corporations, too, (well regulated — no scams — only value added) for their ability to acrue knowledge, expertise, and the collective muscle to address these issues.
Everyone should read Paul Z. 3:49:23. He might not have all the players, but he knows the issues. I would add that everyone invested in cap-and-trade is a loser; they cannot make a profit from competing in the free (well regulated) market. Some examples: GE and the bangsters.
Anger, folks. We need lots of anger and reasoned actions therefrom.

So how long will the lie that the overwhelming science supports the fraudulent conclusions, persist.


Why is it that just about every error from the IPCC has been in their favor? Even the former IPCC head noticed this:
UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
‘Every error exaggerated the impact of change’


Correction: Corporations that cannot add value today (make a profit in the free market) and thus are depending on cap-n-trade: GE and the BANKSTERS


we wrote this email to the NobelPriceCommitee and world wide media:
In 2007 you awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPPC and Albert Arnold Gore for their efforts about the climate protection. Demonstrably, data was manipulated or even falsified.
Don’t you think it is your duty to verify the award of this famous and most honorable prize again? Due to the knowledge that was obtained by the climate gate or by the glacier gate, your reputation would suffer enormously, if you covered it up in silence.
Let the public know, that this award is not arbitrary and therefore unimportant and that the Laureates are most honorable.
Here come the first reactions: NYPost
The other main organ of the climate “consensus” is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report — which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0fk4PeTwC [2]
FTD Financial Times Germany:
Nobel Price Judge going into distance to the IPCC
Cause of HimalayaGate the chief of the royalswedishacademy claims a strict inspection of the gremium and CONSEQUENCES!!!


Person of Choler (04:34:40) :
it is recorded that Adam and Eve had only two sons, one of whom killed the other. No daughters of any kind from anywhere achieved mention. Tell that to some Bible thumpers, ask how they think the human race was propagated post-Genesis, and note how that makes them rethink their beliefs.
Now, point out the errors, omissions, and palpable quackery in AGW science to warmies and note that they can dodge reality as easily as the Bible thumpers do.
Please don’t rely much on what the “Bible” says (a rather incomplete record at best). Nowhere does it say that Adam and Eve had “only” two sons. I can show you additional scripture that says Adam and Eve had multiple sons and multiple daughters, and that they married and had children, grandchildren, and so forth.
That’s one of the reasons why the “Bible” isn’t allowed as a reference in any highschool debate.
But your point is well taken–the Warmers are now the deniers.
We’ve always been the realists.

John Blake

At this point, not one single IPCC assertion has withstood the light of day. Nothing these rampant con-artists put out has any objective, rational validity whatever. Meantime, mass media in the U.S. have yet to mention these ongoing scandals, or even Climategate from last November. Surely there will a compensating tidal wave of long-outdated “news” when the dam of Statist censorship gives way. How long can such complicity in Green Gang and UN scams go on?


Don’t forget
Flooding = Global Warming
Drought = Global Waming
Less Snow = Global Warming
More Snow = Global Warming
So presumably
Less ice in the Arctic = Global Warming
More ice in the Antarctic = Global Warming
Simple really
Not forgetting of course that everywhere and in all circumstances warming is bad. Just because cooling causes people to starve and freeze in large numbers, fall over and die in more crashes, pay more for fuel and cause more animals and plants to die doesn’t mean we mustn’t do all we can to make the world colder and colder.
And as for spin. Well which continent emits the least amount of CO2? Antarctica! And its getting colder there. Nuff said I think. Now if we can only think of a way of making all the other continents more like Antarctica…

Methow Ken

Let’s see if I’ve still got track of the growing gaggle of primary suspects under the Climate-Gate banner. (So far) we now have:
Glacier-Gate (Himalayan variant)
Amazon-Gate (forest fraud variant)
Pachauri-Gate (usual suspect variant)
TERI-Gate (corruption variant)
Hurricane-Gate (gone missing variant)
Disaster-Gate (hype variant)
PeerReview-Gate (bad science variant)
Boot-Gate (comedy variant)
China-Gate (obviously bad temps variant)
Geography-Gate (drowning Dutch variant)
Africa-Gate (ag variant)
SeaIce-Gate (won’t read or do math variant)
IPCC-Gate (pervasive fraud & incompetence variant)
And complex enough to need its own sub-directory:
NGO-Gate – including but not necessarily limited to:
Anthony, it’s gotten so big and diverse and is growing so fast, that we almost need a Climate-Gate directory button on the WUWT top menu bar to keep track, categorize, and summarize them all.
If objective science still has any meaning in a politically-correct and agenda driven world:
Surely the above ”fraternity of gates” has progressed well beyond any usual and customary SNAFU, and has now metastasized into the full-blown FUBAR stage (for those few who don’t know and/or never worked for the military, polite translations are: Situation Normal, All ”Fouled” Up; and ”Fouled” Up Beyond All Repair).
Many in the parasitic & political classes and much of the LSM may still not have recognized it (and/or will continue to deliberately ignore the facts), but IMO we can now say that the tipping-point has been reached on the whole AGW scam:
Enough MSM outlets (especially the Fleet Street mob over in the U.K.) have gotten their teeth into the dysfunctional Climate-Gate family that Reverend Gore and friends will never get the AGW-as-religion genie back in the bottle.
And to those who called US ”deniers”:
Who’s your daddy now ??…


Thomas Friedman over at the NYT claims that Global Warming really should be called Global Weirding (I think he’s been reading the IPCC’s reports too literally–fantasies and all). Should that name stick, Warmists can be called Wierders based on that mindset.
Can any of this get any more laughable? And really, what could be more appropriate?
I’d much rather be called a Climate Realist (or even a Climate Denialist) over being called a Climate Weirder anyday!

Global warrrming!!!

Interested article about IPCC in the Guardian

Cold Lynx

A flat or slightly decreasing average earth temperature is considered by IPCC to be a statistically significant warming only depending on atmospheric CO2 level.
A real increase in Antarctic sea ice is considered by IPCC to be insignificant.
But this time are they wrong.
This is very significant.
Especially for IPCC.

Person of Choler,
Any Bible thumper worth his stuff knows that Genesis says Adam had other sons and daughters… throw in a little excusable early incest and it’s not too hard. Don’t argue with someone by misrepresenting their own data.
As far as the ice goes, I’m waiting to see where this winter peaks and where this summer bottoms. The trouble with the ice stuff is that when it expands you have AGWers saying it’s less density and actually bad, and then when it shrinks you have skeptics saying it’s more dense as actually good. So I don’t know what to make of it. Snowfall amounts seem to be the only uncontroversial measurements these days…


So, if Arctic ice is MELTING, and Antarctic ice is INCREASING… Isn’t that going to make the planet off-balance and start us wobbling??? ZOMG WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!


ILC @ 6:28:19
Thanks for Rich. Soon we’ll be appreciating the irony of the D word label as the world recognizes the economic holocaust we’ve dodged by not pursuing the chimera of CO2 demonization.

Pamela Gray

Here ya go: CO2 is dangerous. If you ever find yourself hyperventilating, do NOT put a bag over your mouth and breathe in your own CO2! According to peer-reviewed science, it will KILL you! Instead, it is much healthier to continue to hyperventilate. While you are still gasping for CO2-less air and turning purple, try to say “ohmmmmmm” while sitting in the lotus position. And kiss a green WWF lapel pin for a blessing. You can rest in peace that this has been peer reviewed. One final step. What would you like your RIP sign to say?

Baa Humbug

Put this forth to the relevant chapter review editor and the response you’ll get is……

“Rejected. The suggestion does not add to clarity or brevity.”

Richard S Courtney would understand…and chuckle behind gritted teeth. 🙂

Stephen Wilde

More ‘evidence’ in support of a proposition that we should immediately abandon all preconceived ideas arising from past data and just start observing what happens in the real world with the benefit of modern satellite based observing systems.
And, please, let’s get away from the perspective of a 5 year old child for whom every daily observation is ‘unprecedented’.
We need a climatological ‘year zero’ starting today.


@I LOVE CO2 (06:28:19)
You may find this funny 😉
Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director:Praise for Gore and IPCC For Nobel Peace Prize – World Leaders Must Follow their Example!:


I especially love how the AGW “proof” is always in far-away places like the arctic ocean or Antartica, or glaciers in the Himalayas. Places that 99.9% of people do not venture or have any prior knowledge. Al Gore can say “Ships are sailing right through the arctic and they should be trapped in ice…that’s proof of Global Warming”. How would anyone know for sure? Most people do not have first person exerience with this. But what people do experience every day does not support AGW. Most people are burning oil right now to stay warm, and shoveling feet of snow every other day. Al Gore and his ilk have to keep the focus on stuff beyond the reach of the average person (like glaciers and arctic sea ice).


I also like to tell folks that I wish for Global Warming so I can stop burning oil in the winter to stay warm.

Stephen Wilde

Breathing pure CO2 causes no harm whtever.
What kills you is the lack of oxygen.
What proportion of the atmosphere as CO2 would deprive us of enough oxygen to be perceptible ?

[Studies on submarines said around 9000ppm. R.T. – mod]


The fact that all of these “innocent” mistakes (up about about 15+ by now ??) are always in favour of AGW is the ultimate proof that this is deliberate fraud.
If these mistakes were innocent, then you should have approx 50-50 for, and against AGW. At most 60%. But we see 100% of the “mistakes” favouring AGW – this is a statistical impossibility, even 70% would be statistically impossible.
I`m suprised more hasn’d been made of this fact.

Steve Oregon

This is another whopper in the collapse of the AGW movement.
Or shall we be kind and call it more infallability?
In total the picture could not be more clear. There’s been a deliberate effort at many levels and locations to doctor, embellish, fabricate and distort the scientific process to reflect an urgent need for policies and actions which benefit an agenda and the activists behind it.
Regarding Gavin Schmidt, I’ve read much of RC over the past few e years and there will be a GavinGate.
Throughout his participation are countless misrepresentations covering essentially every IPCC “error” which surfaces.
His and Romm’s CP effort to cover up and perpetrate even more malfeasence continues.
So it is entirely predictable that a GavinGate and RommGate will be occuring in the not too distant futere.
I am confident that millions of people want, demand, these people to face harsh consequences as ClimateGate fully unravels.
Another leading edge of that unraveling is here.
Texas, US Chamber legally challenge EPA on GHG ruling
Texas challenges EPA ruling on greenhouse gas threat


Don’t worry, they will wheel out the ‘Its the Ozone Hole thats causing the Antarctic to be cold’ theory.

Harold Vance

OT: Texas challenges EPA ruling on greenhouse gas threat
It’s about fracking time.