ANTARCTIC expeditioners rescued by an Australian icebreaker have apologised for an operation that could cost taxpayers up to $2.4 million.
Fifty-two passengers rescued from a Russian ship trapped in sea ice have arrived in Hobart aboard the Australian Antarctic vessel Aurora Australis, nearly three weeks after the emergency began.
…
“We’re incredibly grateful to everyone who’s come out to help us,” leader of the privately funded expedition, Professor Chris Turney, told a media conference in Hobart.
“We are terribly sorry for any impact that it might have had on fellow colleagues whose work has been delayed.
“Any experienced Antarctic scientist knows that’s an inherent risk.”
Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) director Dr Tony Fleming said costs were still being determined but could range from $1.8 million to $2.4 million.
…
Costs associated with delays to scientific programs, including a major study of ocean acidification scheduled for next year, were harder to pin down, Dr Fleming said.
“The government will be pursuing all avenues to recover costs and minimise the burden to the Australian taxpayer,” he said.
More at The Australian here
============================================================
Meanwhile Steve McIntyre points out that it is getting harder and harder for them to wiggle out of culpability:
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the University of New South Wales is a signatory to the sub-charter of the Akademik Shokalskiy.
…
I don’t know how liability for rescue costs is allocated. However, the fact that the University of New South Wales is a party to the sub-charter places its potential liability in a new light. However, in most legal proceedings, plaintiffs look for the party with the deepest pockets, which, in this case, would be the University of New South Wales.
In another story, New Details on the Ship of Fools Steve writes:
The precise chronology of the Ship of Fools on December 23 has been a topic of interest on skeptic blogs, including my recent post demonstrating the falsity of Turney’s excuses. However, up to today, this chronology had received zero media coverage, despite several reporters from major media on the Ship of Fools.
Today, there are two stories (BBC and Sydney Morning Herald , both of which contain damning information (especially the latter.) Note embedded link in latter article h/t Bob Koss, with important details not reported in the main article.
…
Turney’s defenders have attempted to transfer blame from the expedition to the Russian captain. However, Mortimer (though not Turney) squarely acknowledged that the delays were the “responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kiselev.”
It looks as if the press is starting to ask questions:
Antarctic cruise routes face scrutiny
Antarctic authorities want more say over where private expeditions venture after revealing a rescue mission this summer could cost Australian taxpayers $2.4 million.
Permits for a group whose chartered Russian ship became trapped in sea ice last month were issued without considering its proposed course.
More: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20931702/rescued-antarctic-passengers-arrive-home/
===========================================
SkyNews has video here: http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=944004&vId=4312511&cId=Top%20Stories
===========================================
UPDATE: This SMH story pretty well nails it. Excerpt:
“Everyone on board was keen to make the journey across the fast ice to the Hodgeman Islands,” said one passenger.
A weather forecast predicted 25-35 knot winds reaching 40 knots late in the day.
“Despite the wind and extreme cold, the scenery on the journey was spectacular – it seemed unreal, as though we were on a movie set,” said the same passenger.
About 2.30pm the weather deteriorated. At the same time Captain Kiselev saw slabs of sea ice moving into the open water channel from which the ship had entered the area. He called for everyone to return.
A passenger standing near Professor Turney overheard the voyage leader, Greg Mortimer, telling him over the radio to bring passengers back to the ship so it can leave.
But minutes later, Professor Turney drove six more passengers into the field.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Costs associated with delays to scientific programs, including a major study of ocean acidification scheduled for next year, were harder to pin down, Dr Fleming said.
“The government will be pursuing all avenues to recover costs and minimise the burden to the Australian taxpayer,” he said.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, now, this is an interesting statement. Does this Dr. Fleming know what he is talking about?
AND failing to answer the calls on his satellite phone from the ship. (AKA turning a deaf ear.)
Here’s as much as is known now:
CaligulaJones says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:37 am
Libs/progressives are only generous with other people’s money, never their own
I was originally told that the ship was chartered by Australian operator ‘Aurora Expeditions’. This may be incorrect and the ship was chartered by New Zealand operator ‘Heritage Expeditions’ ( these companies operate closely together in this area, it can be a little confusing ).
My points about it being a scheduled tourist trip remain.
Interestingly the Akademik is currently returning to the Southern ocean on a similar trip laden with fee-paying tourists. https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?source=embed&ie=UTF8&q=-66.74783,175.67484&ll=-62.186014,177.539063&spn=12.363649,26.367188&z=4&vpsrc=6&oi=map_misc&ct=api_logo
I have been following this story with great interest. I am one of the many people who is not a scientist but who has scientific knowledge (I have A levels in Physics and Chemistry). I was educated at a time when it was being confidently predicted in sensationalist paperbacks that the world would end in ice for reasons to ridiculous to go into. When Global Warming first reared its head in its present form in the 1980’s I assumed the scientists, being actual scientists not the kind of fanatics who believed Amon Ra had arrived on a comet, might well be onto something.
In succeeding years I have watched with horror as the scientists and fanatics have become impossible to distinguish; and the debate about whether or not whatever its called this year might need an economic revolution has intensified to the point were its only real predictive power is to the political orientation of the protagonists.
I had in fact given up the study of science for philosophy and I was even more alarmed when this particular and new branch of “science” exited Popper and paradigm shift methodologies for something that fused models as predictors of reality (or magic to give its proper name) and ideology, in which any reluctance for the facts to fit in with the model or the beliefs resulted in ad hoc re-namings, or post hoc re-modellings very reminiscent of Ptolemys epicycles, or the heresy culture of the early catholic church.
I noticed at the same time that many of my more passionate friends with liberal arts backgrounds had suddenly discovered a surprisingly emotional attachment to increasingly millennial interpretations of the future of the climate. Convictions made even more vehement because they were untroubled by any real knowledge or understanding of the science. Any discussion with them about the basis of their passionate new commitments tended to result in them suggesting I had extreme political views or actively wanted to see the destruction of the ecosphere for selfish reasons.
Suddenly, after 9/11 it seemed to me, the millennial fever surrounding the whole envenomed debate exploded. Various public bodies (especially the BBC) took it up as crusade. Ones children started turning out the lights and agitating for all manner of hairshirt lifestyle adjustments – until you suggested unheating their bedrooms and holidaying in Margate by foot. Maniacs with apparently exalted positions in a new scientific elite appeared everywhere passionately and increasingly violently denouncing scientists and politicians who were trying to function as such. The general population were threatened with hellfire and damnation. Dissent was the subject of electronic mob violence. The noble word sceptical became an insult.
Anyway my point is that this particular story has exposed in a particularly lurid manner the nature of the people involved in this terrible pseudoscientific folly. The mediocrity of their intellects; and suspect nature of their attainments outside a self-referential system. The arrogance. The lack of humour. The belief that restraint and sacrifice were for others not for the priesthood.
Even the wagon circling by the usual suspects is not looking good. The very social media many of these people have used to construct their empires betrays the scurrying of snow shoe shod rats rushing for the lifeboats.
Sorry for the length and apologia like quality and what a great website you run; even btl its on the whole measured and reasonable. I remember when science used to be the same.
Stacey: Hello, I’m a novice when it comes to this stuff. I’m trying to figure out how some studies claim there is a pause in global warming while others, like the one below, say it’s a record year of warmth. Can someone please explain?
Gail Combs: Think of climbing a hill. along the slope you are climbing up the elevation is increasing. The rate of change in your height is increasing. When you get to the top of the hill the rate of change in the elevation is zero but you are still high up.
To add to what Gail Combs said, if you start from the assumption that we have already reached “unprecedented” levels of warming, and that the rate of warming is going upward at unprecedented speed, the real question to ask yourself is why every year isn’t the warmest year on record. If we’re at the top, and it’s warming fast, every year (or nearly every year) should be the warmest on record. However, we never seem to be warmer than 1998.
Another failed AGW quest. The only thing that kept this one from being a complete disaster is a body count or the loss of the ship.
The dolts should pay for it… Not the taxpayer.
rogerknights says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:14 am
I was after a full transcript rather than the bits reported. Still, plenty of time for that to show up in public. I do not think they will be able to keep it under wraps for long.
And from Canada:
http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/01/21/where-icebergs-are-born-getting-schooled-in-the-ways-of-canadas-north-on-an-arctic-cruise/
“We were supposed to visit three or four towns in Nunavut before sailing across the Davis Straight to Greenland, but there was fog, and ice, and we couldn’t get to more than two.
Matthew Swan owns Adventure Canada and was along for the ride on this July sailing aboard the Arctic Explorer. “There’s a reason we call this an expedition and not a cruise,” he says with a smile to the hundred or so of us in the lounge during one of his afternoon talks.”
Mr. Turkey has slipped and slided to get away from being held responsible. Some people on previous threads tried to blame the captain, the only problem is that if a captain asks for everyone to get on board quickly and they don’t, then it’s not the captain’s fault. Look back to Mr. Turkey.
And why didn’t they get away earlier? Only Mr. Turkey has the answers.
The needs to be a government inquiry into this Antarctic farce.
Just as a side note, I wonder how much insurance is carried, in aggregate, by all the passengers and responsible parties.
SMH = Sydney Morning Herald or Shake My Head
Perhaps SMDH
Sadly it will be the taxpayer who is stiffed with this bill – Turkey can’t pay, so his university will pay, and in Australia, universities are mostly funded by taxpayers.
Surely they took out holiday insurance to cover all possible delays etc.
If not send the organiszers an Invoice.
Richard, I am a scientist who studies philosophy as a hobby so I can empathize with your exasperation at the current state of climatology and how the media-supported part has atrophied into a fanatic religion. It’s much worse than Popper’s “pseudoscience” because there are no more observable facts – only “data” from computer models to delude the believers and their media enablers further.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2040209/the-inside-story-of-how-expedition-went-so-wrong/?cs=300
Oops I just coughed some tea over my iPad when I read this:
“The Captain and staff on the bridge did not look very happy’, said a passenger.
Cough, cough, cough ….yes I should think they didn’t .
pat says:
January 22, 2014 at 5:18 am
Pat, I also listened to Leigh Sales impression of giving a member of the clan a hard time but you cut the full explanation to where did all the ice come from:
LEIGH SALES: Your mission has been subject to ridicule in some quarters. This editorial from The Australian pretty well sums up the tenor of it: “We have to feel a touch of sympathy for the global warming scientists and others stuck in impenetrable ice in Antarctica. The mission they so confidently embarked on to establish solid evidence of melting icecaps resulting from climate change, embarrassingly abandoned because the ice is in fact improbably thick.” What’s your response to that kind of commentary?
CHRIS TURNEY: That’s quite interesting. Well, we’ve been living in a bubble for the last couple of months and just talking to people. I had heard there was an editorial. I haven’t read it.
LEIGH SALES: There was quite a bit of commentary along these lines.
CHRIS TURNEY: There’s obviously a – oh, no, there’s obviously misunderstanding with regards the impact of climate environmental change. This was not a climate change issue. It’s clearly a misunderstanding between continental ice and sea ice. This was an issue where the sea ice had broken out from another part of Antarctica and then moved by weather. And we communicated that as soon as we knew that, with satellite information, we’ve put that on the blog. Before the expedition and during the expedition we were communicating daily what we were finding and it seems unusual to draw that conclusion from the information we were providing. Ultimately, I think this actually is a reflection of how as a scientific community we need to engage perhaps more explaining the science method rather than just the results. It sounds a bit like the wonderful quote from Carl Sagan where he said, “If we don’t communicate the science method, how is the public meant to know the difference between pseudo-science and science?”
Full interview and link to video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3930425.htm
Don’t know how the general public re-acted to this but my 8 yr old grand-daughter was rolling about the floor laughing her head off.
{ CHRIS TURNEY: Ultimately, I think this actually is a reflection of how as a scientific community we need to engage perhaps more explaining the science method rather than just the results. }
Hey Buckaroo, tweet that to Mikey Mann. He might learn something.
It’s quite obvious that Mortimer is trying to distance himself from Turney and Fogwell by siding with the Captain of the A.S. It would also seem that some measure of private or public collaboration has occurred between those passengers siding with Mortimer against Turney.
Fortunately for Mortimer, (who has a reputation to protect) details of the truth have already started to emerge. If the Argos were only 20 minutes from the ship and it took several hours after the recall to get underway, Mortimer can rightly argue that he implemented a sound recall strategy; which, unfortunately, was ignored by Mr. Intrepid Science. Likewise, with the Captain of the A.S., as he had no recourse but to wait for the lollygagging passengers to return.
The lawyers must be foaming at the mouth for this one and I’ll bet you five to one we will be able to count the number of people sticking with Turney and Fogwell on one hand when the dust settles. Turney fans needn’t worry, as there always plan B; where Turney tries to convince us to feed entire forests into his microwave ovens.
In the final analysis, assignment of negligence will likely hinge on whether or not the court believes the A.S. would have escaped the ice if Turney had promptly responded to the recall order.
23 Jan: SMH: Andrew Darby: Plan to curb Antarctic expeditions after costly rescue of trapped ship
The Australian government is pushing to rein in private operators in the Antarctic after the multimillion-dollar rescue of a University of NSW expedition that became caught in pack ice.
A new law adopted by Australia, but yet to come into force through the Antarctic Treaty, requires all such expeditions to be fully insured for search and rescue, and have their own emergency plans…
”We’re having discussions with the insurers of the ship and the insurers of University of NSW, which chartered the ship,” Dr Fleming said. ”It’s up to those discussions where we will be pursuing it next.”
He said Australia’s Antarctic program might need to be readjusted or delayed for next season.
The Akademik Shokalskiy rescue costs were also faced by the governments of China, France and the US, which sent ships to help…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plan-to-curb-antarctic-expeditions-after-costly-rescue-of-trapped-ship-20140122-3191c.html
Rob Ricket says: @ur momisugly January 22, 2014 at 12:17 pm
….In the final analysis, assignment of negligence will likely hinge on whether or not the court believes the A.S. would have escaped the ice if Turney had promptly responded to the recall order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ship was able to get under way and move before finally getting trapped so it looks like the delay was critical.
So do the math.
They had 15 people five miles away/25 minutes and two Argos (and two quad bikes) that could haul five or six people. The trip was 45 minutes or say 1 hour round trip. Because Prof Christmas Turkey disregarded the recall taking a load of people out and then stayed out for an hour and a half they lost at least two hours in escaping the ice.
given this has quotes from another australian CAGW hotspot, CSIRO, which came out with the “El Ninos to double” story recently, might as well post this here:
22 Jan: SMH: Peter Hannam: Tipping El Ninos harder as Pacific sensor array output ‘collapses’Floating sensors that have predicted extreme weather events for decades and saved lives in the process have been left to “collapse” amid vandalism and US budget cuts.
The United States and Japan set up the Tropical Pacific Observing System – made up of about 70 buoys – after a large El Nino event in 1982-83 caught forecasters unaware…
But the performance of the moored devices, which take atmospheric readings and monitor conditions down to 500 metres below the sea’s surface, has fallen to about 40 per cent since 2012, according to the the climate observation director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, David Legler…
That is affecting the ability of forecasters and climate modellers, including those in Australia, to predict extreme weather patterns…
“The collapse in the data return from the array has happened very rapidly,” head of CSIRO ocean-observing research Susan Wijffels said. “That has taken the community by surprise.”…
Scientists from around the world will gather at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California next week, to discuss how to sustain or replace the array…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tipping-el-ninos-harder-as-pacific-sensor-array-output-collapses-20140122-318q4.html
“We are terribly sorry for any impact that it might have had on fellow colleagues whose work has been delayed.
“Any experienced Antarctic scientist knows that’s an inherent risk.”
.
Ahh, the non-apology apology….luvvit.