UPDATE: Perhaps the headline was premature, the latest SITREP from the rescue ship Aurora Australis indicates they are having some trouble getting into open water.
UPDATE2: It seems the cause of getting stuck was nothing more than dawdling while sightseeing.
Since the Guardian reporters shown above probably won’t do anything but complain about beds and lack of milkshakes (that video has now been “disappeared”) while writing glowing reports about the “adventure” of it all, it will be left to others to ask the tough questions. Now that they are on their way to Casey Station in Antarctica, Andrew Bolt starts off with these questions. I have a few of my own.
- Who paid for this expedition?
- How did the expedition team come to include Turney’s wife and two young children?
- How serious was this scientific endeavor?
- Was the choice of ship wise, given it is not an icebreaker?
- How did the ship, in these days of satellite imaging, high quality weather forecasts and radar, come to get stuck in ice?
- How much did the rescue cost?
- Who pays for this rescue?
- Why have the ABC and Fairfax media, so keen at first to announce this expedition was to measure the extent and effects of global warming, since omitted that fact from their reports after the expedition became ice-bound?
- Why have all those reports – and the expedition leader himself – neglected to mention that sea ice around Antarctica has increased over the past three decades – and is greater than the ice cover Douglas Mawson found a century ago?
I have these questions:
- Who pays for the trip back to Australia once they get let off at Casey Station?
- How much damage has this fiasco done to real science expeditions in Antarctica, not only from a delayed logistics standpoint, but also from PR standpoint?
- Why did the stranded ship reach out for weather forecasts and data when they should have been equipped for this in the first place?
- Who will be responsible if the ship ends up being stuck in ice permanently or gets its hull crushed and sinks?
- What will be the duties and fate of the crew left behind?
- Who funded the ARGO ATV’s after Turney’s Indiegogo crowdsourcing campaign failed miserably? Do those people get a refund?
- Why would Turney book this ship when it has only the barest of ratings for sea ice?
UL = Ice strengthening notation of the ship (independent navigation in the Arctic in summer and autumn in light ice conditions and in the non-arctic freezing seas all the year round) More on ratings here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/icebreakers-class.htm
8. Was Turney mislead about the intensity of the ice by his own beliefs that Antarctic sea ice was melting?
9. Did the sightseeing excursion to Mawson’s Huts on December 19th and again on Dec 23rd (apparently to Mertz Glacier, though their blog and “tracker” are unclear on this point) cause delays that caused the ship to be trapped in rapidly changing weather which closed the sea ice around them?
10. Apparently the crew of the Akademik Shokalskiy spoke next to zero English, did this communications barrier contribute to the situation? Was Turney warned that the weather and wind were changing while the second Mawson’s Huts sightseeing tour was in progress, and if he was were those warnings understood/heeded?
11. Why did the ship have a mix of tourists and media when it was pitched as a “scientific expedition”?
5 Nov: ABC Lateline: $1.5 million Australian expedition to Antarctica Professor Chris Turney from the University of NSW is mounting the largest Australian science expeditions to the Antarctic with an 85-person team to try to answer questions about how climate change in the frozen continent might be already shifting weather patterns in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3898858.htm
Related articles
- Expedition On The Cheap? Did Organizers Recklessly, Negligently Put Lives And Property At Risk? (notrickszone.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rod Everson says:
January 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm
______________________________
There’s a YouTube video where that question is answered graphically. The annual melt water is shown flowing into the sea where it immediately freezes in “ice waterfalls”. It’s a great video and displays many of the things we’ve talked about in the threads about this event.
WeatherOrNot says:
January 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm
“We shouldn’t sink to the CAGW advocates’ level and call them fools like they call people deniers. ”
Because of the Holocaust connotations of “fools”, right?
Well, for me it’s hard to fathom that they are indeed stupid enough to belive in their GCM’s so I’d prefer to call them crooks or maybe cronies or rent-seekers anyway; in any case, liars.
Dodgy Geezer says:
January 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm
“If, however, there was BBC funding, or some other grant or university funding, then you can certainly ask questions intended to ascertain whether this was a right and proper use of taxpayer funds, and whether due care and attention was paid to the dangers…”
If it was BBC funded, it was perfect use of the money, because the wasted money will now not be used to produce other propaganda films; and this one just caused a certain blowback for the BBC’s agenda.
Turney says that Australia pays for rescue – here:
http://youtu.be/At0d_rcYljk
If you watch the videos that this turkey Turney has been putting out, it reminds us of those old videos that Steve Irwin used to make where Irwin would chirp away in that Australian accent about how safe his infant baby was, held in his left hand, as he fed a huge hungry saltwater crocodile with his right hand.
ZT says:
January 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Turney says that Australia pays for rescue….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am sure that is going to go over well with the tax payers.
What a fiasco wrapped in ice cold irony. These naive fossil foolers got stuck while on a fossil fueled ship, nearly got rescued by a couple of fossil fueled ice-breakers, got rescued by a fossil fuel powered helicopter and are now cheerily being warmed by fossil fuels. What if the rescuers said that they are indeed listening to their advice on acting now and decided to leave them stuck in freezing sea ice?
These people are a bunch of spoilt, privileged, bastards who have no care in the world about those who risked their lives under harsh conditions to rescue their sorry arses. I do hope they are acting now over the 22 members of crew left behind. Please note that I am toning down the language I had prepared earlier.
Paul Homewood catches out the fibbers. They said all that sea ice was caused by global warming. Yet………………a BBC reporter on the ship was expecting LESS! Why? Was he told to expect less?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/professor-turkey-expected-less-sea-ice-not-more/
Meanwhile the Guardian has all the answers.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/02/antarctic-ship-stranding-delights-climate-change-sceptics
I give them credit for using “Sceptics” as our name; it could be worse.
But it is dumb.
If you want to know why I just take it then my ripostes will have to suffice. My comments will be censored but they might turn up after a few hours,.
See what the other side thinks (or says, at least).
Was the rescue peer-reviewed?
Of course most Americans don’t know that this is a global warming scam gone wrong, yet.
Frozen Out: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission
By Mike Ciandella | January 2, 2014 | 12:43
1262 576 Reddit56 180
A A
Mike Ciandella’s picture
A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers never mentioned climate change.
The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.
In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.
Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a professor of climate change at the University of South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”
Twenty-two crew members stayed with the ship for the time being, as the scientists and researchers were rescued. According to CNN, the ship has enough supplies for “a very long time.”
Three rescue attempts had been thwarted by growing levels of sea ice and weather conditions.
“Outside, blizzard conditions packing an abnormal amount of ice in to the area for this time of the year, summer in the Antarctic,” ABC News Correspondent Gio Benitez reported on “Good Morning America” Dec. 31.
On Jan. 2, all 52 passengers were airlifted to a nearby Australian icebreaker ship which had tried, and failed, to plow through the ice and free the Akademic Shokalskiy, on Dec. 30. “Good Morning America” said on Dec. 30, that “the ice could be as thick as 13 feet.”
According to Fox News, Turney admitted “we’re stuck in our own experiment.” They reported on Dec. 30, that a statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said, “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.”
There was only one news story out of 41 that mentioned climate change. That was CBS “This Morning” Dec. 30. “Despite being frozen at a standstill, the team’s research on climate change and Antarctic wildlife is moving forward,” CBS News Correspondent Don Dahler said. That night, all three evening news programs still failed to make any mention of the group’s climate change research.
The MRC’s Business and Media Institute was unable to view a copy of CBS “Sunday Morning” for Dec. 29, so that broadcast had to be excluded from the tally.
Before their ship got stuck in ice, the researchers were following the trail of the explorer Douglas Mawson, who was stranded in Antarctica for more than a year, beginning in December 1912, according to the website about the expedition.
About the Author
Mike Ciandella is Staff Writer/Analyst for the Business &Media Institute Click here to follow Mike Ciandella on Twitter.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi#ixzz2pHW2FU59
5. What will be the duties and fate of the crew left behind?
If I were a proper journalist I think I’d stay on the ship to report the full story, not run away just as it got interesting.
More generally, clearly when you expect there to be less ice than 100 years ago, you take a ship that’s designed for no ice. Why bother with a more expensive vessel when you won’t need it? I really hope that the crew remain safe and that if the ship is damaged then their rescue will be with the same efforts.
Eric Ellison says:
January 2, 2014 at 11:35 am
Some clarification is needed on my original post @ur momisugly Jo Nova.
Chris Turney does hold shares in Carbonscape…….but appears to have only become officially involved at an administration level in October 2012. The company was registered in 2006.
Their website is: carbonscape.com/
My point about Chris Turney claiming to have been involved in the “setting up” of the company, still stands. Why did it take 6 years for him to become a director, if he was one of the major players?
” To do something positive about climate change, he helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.”
[http://www.spiritofmawson.com/aae-leaders/]
The website has not been updated with details of the two new directors appointed in 2012.
From the Guardian Article: Five basic Antarctic facts for climate change sceptics
“2. It (the Antarctic) is not the same as the Arctic:
The Arctic (around the north pole, doesn’t have penguins, but has polar bears) is very different from the Antarctic (around the south pole, has penguins, but not polar bears).”
——
Well, that explains everything. Apparently wires got crossed and they ended up at the wrong pole. And the reason they were reluctant to re-board the ship was because they were looking for photo ops with the drowning polar bears (Coca Cola being one excursion sponsors).
Thanks Alan…I haven’t watched it all yet, but it’s an interesting video so far. Very high quality too.
Jeff –
Thank you for your kinds words about my post here on Dec 31st. But there’s MORE….:)
When I logged into Climate Depot this AM and saw a story title from No Trick Zone that I thought was interesting because I thought someone was saying the same thing I said yesterday (Jan 1) here at WUWT. I was shocked (and yes I squealed like a school girl) when I clicked on it and found that the story was about my comment and linked back here!
The thread I posted it in got really, REALLY long (way to go Anthony!) so I’m sure it got missed, but I think it answers Anthony’s #9 really well. Reposting it here in it’s entirety so you don’t have to scroll for it. I have no idea how to collect a post number off of it! Hope that’s ok:
********************************
Aphan says:
January 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm
My apologies if someone above has mentioned this. It’s getting to be a chore to scroll through all the activity here! (grins)
From Janet Rice-http://www.janetrice.com.au/?e=98
(After 1 am on December 24)
“The ship is making very slow progress through pack ice. There is a narrow channel that we are inching our way along – it of course is pretty frozen in itself. There are icebergs on either side of us, some kilometres away – hard to tell exactly how far. We oscillate between hardly moving to suddenly being jolted sideways with a crunch as the ship bashes and barges its way through.”
***
“We were out in similar conditions this afternoon. Somewhat brighter – in fact there was blue sky and sunshine for some periods. The weather has been better than the forecast blizzard, so that was good.”
***
“The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro. I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in. As I write we are continuing to make extremely slow progress through what looks like a winter alpine snow field – it’s yet another surreal part of this journey that we are in a ship trying to barge our way through here! I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier. Maybe we would have made it through the worst before it consolidated as much as it has with the very cold south- easterly winds blowing the ice away from the coast, around and behind us as well as ahead.
We’ll see where we are in the morning – it may be a very white Christmas Eve!
PS. 9.30am 24/12. We have moved less than a kilometre over night, and are now stationary in a sea of ice. The word is that we are not stuck, merely waiting for a weather change. It seems to me that we are having the quintessential Antarctic experience.J Stay tuned.”
*******************************************************
THE CAPTAIN and PASSENGERS knew that bad weather and ice were coming on Dec 23-that a “blizzard had been forecast”. The Captain made it clear to them more than once, because he “became rather definite” later that they needed to get OUT of that area ASAP.
As of 1 am on December 24th, they were already progressing through “ice pack” that caused the ship to “bash and barge” it’s way through the ice! Need more evidence of how stupid these people are?
On the 21st, Turney blogged about their trip to the Mawson camp on the 19/20th. Trying to find the LEAST hazardous way to access the Commonwealth Bay area, they decided to move the ship up the coast-farther away, but with access to better ice to drive across. He says this-
“A timely reminder was during the evening we relocated. The Shokalskiy suddenly found it was in a mass breakout of ice. In just half an hour, an extensive area of ice (some of which we had been using for the Hangout on Air earlier that day) had broken up and was moving away from Commonwealth Bay with haste. Large pieces of ice, in the shape of shattered glass fragments – albeit large pieces – surrounded our vessel. There was no danger to the ship but it was a timely reminder how quickly things can change in this environment. You can never take anything for granted in the Antarctic!”
After experiencing the ship being surrounded by breakout ice on the 18th or 18th of December in just HALF AN HOUR, they stayed in that area, moved slightly up the coast and with an incoming blizzard and MORE ice on the way, they went onshore and forced the boat to wait for their return. THEN they got stuck.
For Chris Turney to then go on TELEVISION and act shocked that all this ice just mysteriously appeared and hemmed them in without any warning, is stunning. If the Captain gets sued for damages, I hope he takes every penny Chris Turney and the University of New South Wales will ever have in the future.
***********************************
Going to screen cap both pages now…you never know….
The Rapture Is upon Us:
Harold Camping, Marshall Applewhite, Chris Turney.
Caught up, literally, in one’s own propaganda.
I hope this has been a cold, hard lesson for BBC journalists about how easily it is to be fooled time and time again by others and yourself. I do hope this near death miss is a wake up call on the Great Global Warming Catastrophic Delusion.
I vaguely recall there was less sea ice in the area during Mawson’s time. Did the BBC bother to research this? I vaguely recall that Antarctica has been on a cooling trend since 1979. I vaguely recall that in recent years Antarctic sea ice has been near record extent……….ALL caused by catastrophic global warming of course.
Well, the fools are safe. The ship, not so much.
When there is a “near miss” or accident in the workplace , its Victorian Law (similar in NSW) that Worksafe are called to investigate within 48 hours. Given that these people were working as climate scientists for UNSW, wasn’t crashing into an iceberg (as they now claim) a “near miss”.
Was for Captain Smith of the Titanic!
But he was in darkness not 20 hours a day of daylight, had no radar or modern communications.
Maybe the project leader on this ship of Ice Deniers checked the IPCC projections for ice, ran their projected computer models, emailed Al Gore who said the Antartic could be Ice free by 2015 ….and said “She’ll be right mate!
Now…where’s that Worksafe Inspector?
What amazes me is that we’ve had warmists trying to kayak to the north pole (fail), sail the Northwest Passage this summer (fail) and now warmists studying warming in Antarctica(fail). So far as I know, no deaths from their stupid stunts (yet). God protects fools and little children I guess.
Are they really rescued or are they just bar hopping around the antarctic coast? Was under the impression the Aussie ship was also bound up in the ice. Also heard they opted to be dropped on the beach with the Aussies because the Chinese vessel is a dry ship. /snarc
I remember that, it was classic Steve ‘feed-your-baby-to-the-croc’ Irwin …
I can imagine the conversation between these idiots before they set sail. It will have been along the lines of that “we can show the world that the Antarctic is warming due to mankind’s CO2 emissions, we can demonstrate that fossil fuels should be banned, we need more windmills” etc etc etc.The reality is that their grasp of science was only exceeded by their lack of common sense! Embarrassingly, they managed to get stuck in ice in the height of the Antarctic Summer and only demonstrated that Antarctica now and in the days of Mawson, is not significantly different!
It would have been comical had they not risked other peoples lives who have managed to save theirs (the poor crew are still stuck on board), not caused dreaded carbon emissions in this moronic venture and pollution of this wonderful continent.
I am pleased they have been rescued and have not suffered too much, I will be even more pleased if they will pass on the observations that Antarctica is no different now, than it was in 1911 and that AGW is very bad science.
Somehow I doubt the latter two will happen!!
I wouldn’t’ve let them off till they promised not to mention AGW for one year.