It seems that in practice, IPCC accepted peer review applies only to articles of climate change. This came by email from Climatequotes. Click the headline below for climatequotes site. Jeff Id
Even though Jones was head of a different group, I think this quote is relevant as the pattern occurs throughout the IPCC.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
[Jeff Id – Phil Climategate Jones on Michaels and McKitrick’s demonstration of urban heat island effect email titled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.]
——————
Guest post 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, and tell me if you can find anything.
the Air Vent 
Unbelievable!
It’s an absolute insanity.
Has anyone found them citing the Encyclopedia Britannica yet? Like any good fifth grade report?
It’s evidence of a total contempt on the writer’s part for the intended audience – which is not the public. Writing a professional document is often a truly boring and repetitious task when you’ve written several dozen similar reports that have to use most of the same citations. More interesting is that this contempt is probably not directed at the public but far more probably at the real “consumers” of the report – research directors, upper managers, politicians, etc. The total lack of interest in documented science suggests that the authors themselves are aware that the intended audience will be either disinterested in the science, incapable of, or disinterested in checking original sources, or will limit their reading to the “Management Summary” (in real science that is called the “Abstract” by the way). The attitude of the writers seems to be infected by an assumption that the target audience (which is not the public) has already “set” the content and conclusions leaving no reason to cite legitimate research, especially if there isn’t any. The contempt is directed at people like Al Gore and Mr. Pauchari rather than say Steve McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre’s sin is then simply rocking the boat.
One of the more aggravating aspects of writing technical reports for a bureaucrat audience is the experience of “comments” that observe an “omission” addressed in say the next paragraph, or eight pages of comments that address each instance where one alternative, perfectly correct spelling of a word was used rather than the commenter’s preferred alternate. The more anarchistic writers may slip in obscure puns, jokes, phrases that can be reduced to rude acronyms, and even occasional disinformation that is easily refuted simply to see if anyone really reads what they wrote. As often as not, they don’t. Encountering a reviewer with real, substantive comments that could actually help a report or raise interesting issues is a very rare pleasure when writing for bureaucrats.
The amazing part is that this stuff has been sitting out there for over two years and nobody checked it. Everyone was so busy learning RegEM, reading climate journals, reconstructing hockey sticks and Antarctic temperature trends, because we though these guys were reasonably competent (sneaky and underhanded, but competent). If we had realized what an amateurish operation they had been running, we could have save ourselves a lot of hard work! At least the R skills have come in handy in my job.
GT@3, I glanced through WG1 and didn’t find any Brittanica references, I did, however, find that Chapter 4 references “Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences” in a number of places, Chapter 6 references “Encyclopedia of Ocean
Sciences” and “The Encyclopedia of World Climatology” is referenced in Chapter 11. I didn’t check any of the other WG reports though, so there may still be a Brittanica reference out there.
What’s unbelievable is your criticism of sound Boy Scout policy. This is just Leave No Trace Camping taken to the Antarctic, with documentation up the Limpopo.
I think Air Vent has jumped the shark on this one. Next up, perhaps, you’ll criticize the whiners who left Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl? What’s a little dust in the house, after all?
Seriously, how does this extensive documentation of the danger of biological contamination of the Antarctic, and the procedures to prevent it, provide anything but a complimentary insight to the astounding detail of the IPCC, whose attempts at protecting the environment you so obviously scorn?
I thought it couldn’t get worse, but it did.
I also found a citation of the Encyclopedia of the Arctic. Maybe I’ll compile a list of Encyclopedia references.
#7: E.D.
What is unbelievable is your inability to understand the context of the total picture. So now, the IPCC publishes Boy Scout manuals.
What part of this don’t you get? That this has nothing to do with climate change? That the “everything is peer reviewed – not” list grows larger everywhere you look? This stuff is in there to paint a bigger and scarier picture and the artists who are doing it, like you, just don’t seem to understand just how transparently ridiculous they have become.
Anyway, they left off the part about sound policy for fighting climate change by washing your hands after using the toilet. I could probably find a “peer-reviewed” printed reference for the efficacy of this scientific procedure on the wall of the washroom at the local fast-food place.
7-[snip]. In case you haven’t noticed, the IPCC said that the boot cleaning was necessary because of climate change. Jeff said nothing against cleaning boots, he pointed out how moronic it is to say that this has anything to do with climate change, and that the source is not an actual scientific paper!
Get some brains[snip]
REPLY: I can’t disagree with your point and am occasionally guilty myself but let’s try not to resort to name calling.
Sorry Jeff, I’m a bit of a hot head…
#14, compared to who?
I don’t require an apology BTW, the guy makes me crazy too.
@ Ed Darrell
You miss the point completely Ed. None of us have any problem whatsoever with leaving as little contamination as possible in the Arctic, the Antarctic, or anywhere else for that matter. Cleaning up after oneself and attempting to leave the environment as you found it are common-sense and good practice.
The PROBLEM however, is that the IPCC was attempting to use these boot decontamination procedures as showing a POSITIVE CORRELATION AND EVIDENCE OF climate change/global warming, when climate change and global warming NEVER WERE the reason for the decontamination procedures!
So, please be more careful in your comments. No one here (or anywhere else for that matter) is in favor of intentionally contaminating the Antarctic Environment. We are simply pointing to the error and hypocrisy of linking the decontamination procedure to “climate change” when no such link was ever even hinted at, much less explicitly described.
1) Do you suppose maybe, just maybe, somewhere in the greater Los Angeles area, Ed Begely Jr’s head will actually explode? (Ed, failing to comprehend what has happened, reading a paper in his kitchen, perhaps. Turns to his wife and says (incoherently); ‘Peer reviewed, but it’s all peer reviewed, I don’t understand how you can say it’s not peer reviewed, when everything in the IPCC report is clearly peer revi’ . . . Kaboom. The headless body stumbles around for a momement before collapsing in a heap. (that is maybe a weak attempt at humor, not in any way a threat of physical violence, or shadenfreud in light of death or suffering of and adversary).
At any rate; #7, Ed Darrell; this argument is so far beyond your capacity to understand that maybe you should get comfortable with having those around you understand and make decisions on your behalf. This whole thread really has little to do with the concept of ‘biological contamination of the antarctic’ and a lot to do with the IPCC requirement that all referenced material be peer-reviewed, and the further concept that if you reference an article, it should at least mention the point of your reference; in this case that AGW has caused increased danger of biolog . . . oh forget it, you won’t understand anyways, and I’m getting tired of typing.
Peter B said;
Sure you don’t. That’s why the attack and snark.
I’m sure that, when pressed, under cross examination, you’d confess to not disliking any of the common sense and well documented claims of the IPCC. But, given the chance to get away with a cheap shot, you’ll take one here.
If you don’t have a problem with that section of the IPCC report, say so. Don’t blame me for pointing out that you’re sniping at the Boy Scouts.
The stuff may have been written quickly, but it doesn’t say that at all. The problem is that your claim is nearly complete fiction. Here’s what that very short section says, in total:
Nowhere is there a claim that boot cleaning is required by warming.
However, were you a bit more alert to biology, you’d understand that warming makes the contamination issue much more serious. IPCC doesn’t even allege that.
You’re complaining out of line. You’re complaining to make it appear there is a problem with IPCC’s report, when the problem really is that you didn’t read that part of the report, you don’t understand what it’s about, and tourism economics isn’t your area.
I don’t see a retraction or apology anywhere. I don’t see anybody else here backing away from the erroneous cheap shot.
Ah, there you go again. You claim to like a clean environment and accurate reports about it, but you can’t resist taking a cheap shot at IPCC even if you have to bend and twist their words to do it.
Don’t worry about that yellow trickle on your leg. That’ the color of rain in the Antarctic, you know. You guys told me that, I’m sure.
Yeah, I know you didn’t know that Polar Report is a peer-reviewed journal, that you didn’t bother to check out the footnotes to see what they said, and that you didn’t read the statement of IPCC that tourism stresses the Antarctic as evidenced by the boot decontamination reports. And I doubt you bothered to read the reports, either.
The shots at IPCC are misdirected in this case.
But it’s all you’ve got, right? Better dance with the one who brunged ya.
#20, Are you making the claim that this is a peer reviewed report which has to do with climate change?
In relpy to;
Ed Darrell
February 2, 2010 at 3:34 pm
AR4 WGII, 15.7.2
And I quote;
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).
End quote. (It’s also right above here, in this very article, so I’m not understanding your ability to see that it doesn’t reference PR.)
Reading the referenced material (IAATO,2005), there is not a single mention of climate change or global warming. Not one. So no assertion even needs to be made regarding the validity of the reference as peer reviewed; the referenced document does not say what is claimed in AR4 WGII 15.7.2. Their reference is a flat out falsehood.
As to your point; I did not see any reference to Polar Reports here (maybe I missed it, again), but I do see a clear reference to a paper put out by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. I am unaware of their peer review process, but as I said, it really doesn’t matter, as the paper doesn’t even make the claim that decon. procedures were necessitated by AGW or climate change at large.
I am not sure how you are leaping from that actual reference to IAATO to Polar Reports, but whatever, if you want to believe that the only problems in the IPCC AR4 are a couple of poorly referenced statements about Antarctic Tourism and glaciers in the Himalayas go right ahead, hang your cred’s right up on that shining paradigm of scientific virtue and integrity. Oh yeah, and the know citing problems with the UHI study in (eastern?) China that Jones was clearly aware of . . . and the Briffa proxy problems with regard to deliberate samplings of trees on the Yamal penninsula. Yep, nothing to see here folks, move right along now, AGW is standing tall and looking good; the Future of Climate Science.
Game’s changing my friend, the lights are being turned on as we speak, and there’s no better disinfectant in all of science than a bit of daylight. The Cabal is beginning to disintegrate. Finger pointing will ensue shortly, (already has to some degree).
But go ahead, continue to “dance with the one who brunged ya.”
I’m sure that will work out just fine for you.
It’s a peer reviewed report — peer reviewed much more heavily than almost anything else. No, it doesn’t deal directly with climate change. Read the sentence again. They say that there are multiples stresses, coming from climate change and from tourism. See here, they say: Tourists’ boots are decontaminated to reduce the stress.
As I noted, it’s not written so well as it might be, but it’s not a smoking gun of any error at all. You’ve misread the report in your haste to accuse error on IPCC.
Polar Report is a peer-review journal — you missed that?
Did you read the footnotes? The boot decontamination flyer was necessitated by a request from Australia to prevent contamination, and the method chosen was one published in Polar Report. The report of the tourism people rather painstakingly describes the entire process, including the studies that ended up in the journal article.
So we’ve established that:
1. The IPCC made reference to a document which made reference to the peer reviewed literature. Glad we’ve cleared up their rules on this. If it references the peer reviewed literature, it is able to count. Why not just directly reference the actual literature? No clue.
2. The reference had nothing to do with climate change, was put in a statement which suggests that it does.
Ed has really vindicated them, eh?
Ed,did you actually read the (now twice quoted) section? Please, tell us where the IAATO report lists AGW as a cause for their recommendations.
I think that is all anyone is asking. If the AR4 says you have to clean your boots because of AR4 (referenced as it is), do the simple thing. Show us (I am from Missouri).
Well, yeah, if you misread it, and if you add in some language that says “this really deals with climate change, even though the sentence doesn’t make that claim — it says the Antarctic environment is under stress from several fronts.”
If you’re going to misread the report, you may as well make up what it says, too, don’t you think?
Am I the only one here who ever had to diagram a sentence?
27-It says the environment is under stress from climate change etc. SO clean your boots.
The fact that it says there are multiple stresses doesn’t change that it is saying that climate change is PART OF THE REASON FOR THE PROCEDURES. But it isn’t. I didn’t misread the sentence, I interpreted it in a way that it is clearly meant to be interpreted. This was referenced by the IPCC, the CC stands for climate change, not “environmental stresses including climate change” and more over it does not stand for “environmental stresses that exist +climate change to be mentioned alongside unrelated stresses to easily be confused as part of the problems related to these stresses”.
#23, Ed, I’m going to have to hold my tongue after snipping TTCA’s earlier comments. You really drive me nuts though and are so packed with wrongthink it’s difficult not to apply adjectives.
It’s a recommendation for Boot and Clothing decontamination made by an agency and is decidedly NOT peer reviewed science but worse than that it has NOTHING to do with climate. It doesn’t matter that other articles in the Journal may experience some kind of review, it’s not peer reviewed science!! Period! Hell, it isn’t even science!!
Apparently after your last spanking at tAV you decided to find something and try again. Swing and a miss — again. Normally I like to tease bloggers who make goofy claims about tAV and send ’em some traffic. This time your criticism was so off the wall even I couldn’t do it.
You really are a strange bird.
24) Ed
I feel bad for you, I really do. So I’m gonna try this one more time.
The IPCC WGII 15.7.2 report did not reference PR, they referenced some flier put out by a travel industry trade group about decontamination issues. The IAATO IS NOT PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE. The fact that the IAATO flier referenced PR does not change that simple fact. The IPCC’s own rules indicate they are to reference peer reviewed scientific literature, not publications from trade groups.
Further, the publication referenced (IAATO) says absolutely nothing about climate change or global warming, which makes the reference a flatout falsehood. It’s a fabrication, and furthermore, it has become symptomatic of the nature of WGII’s report in general. That is fraud, and it doesn’t matter if this is standard practice for the boy scouts, antarctic tour operators, the National Guard, the French Foreign Legion, or the bloody Spanish Inquisition. IT IS STILL NOT A VALID REFERENCE BECAUSE THE POINT REFERENCED ISN’T IN THE REFERENCED MATERIAL, AND THAT IS FRAUD.
As I said in an earlier post; maybe there’s someone who can help you with life’s problems and decisions, because this issue really shouldn’t be all that difficult to understand. Maybe you’ve just got to man up to the fact that thinking is hard for you, huh?
As to diagraming sentences, no, I wasn’t very good at it, though I still passed with an A, but I’m astounded that you’ve accomplished so much. Congratulations. I afraid you’ll find logic and epistemology a bit more difficult, but good work on the grammar though.
Now, quit pouting, go and get a nice cup of warm milk and go lie down for a while, you’ll feel better.
Best,
Bob
Jeez, Ed, you’ve got me so p@#%! I completely missed this earlier;
You said;
“Yeah, I know you didn’t know that Polar Report is a peer-reviewed journal, that you didn’t bother to check out the fo” blah blah blah;
It’s Polar Record that is referenced by IAATO, not Polar Report. Specifically vol. 41, no 216 p.39-45, in an article entitled; “IDENTIFICATION OF AN AGENT SUITABLE FOR DISINFECTING BOOTS OF VISITORS TO THE ANTARCTIC.”
Now I ask you; what the H311 does that have to do with climate change? I mean, why even bring it up at all? The IPCC is to be concerned with climate change, more specifically global warming induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is not a small misstep, the point may be minor, but the indictment of the process is huge. They’ve really fouled up what they were supposed to be doing here, but nobody on the warmist side is willing to admit that. Yet. I will bet you there are many many honest academics out there who will look at it and conclude that it’s all rubbish, and worse, it’s rubbish built on a foundation of rubbish. It’s just a matter of time now, really.
But that’s okay; YOU haven’t done anything wrong, other than believe those who are supposed to be believable. They’re in trouble, you’re not. Just step back, take a little while, do some reading as we go along, you’ve really got the hang of it I think, you just need to spend a bit more time thinking about what you’ve read, and add a healthy bit of skepticism to your arsenal, try to weed out the dodgy bits as it were. I think in the end, you’ll do just fine.
Bob, generally I don’t think that evidence is something one needs to leave to professionals, but you’re making a good case that kids shouldn’t try it at home.
IPCC noted the flier as evidence that tourism has impacts in Antarctica. The research supports that.
Regret you missed the entire semester of evidence.
You haven’t done anything seriously wrong, other than contribute to the false claim that IPCC doesn’t cite up the ying-yang every jot and tittle. Generally running with the crowd is no sin. This time, however, it is.
So, I gather you didn’t read the report from the tourism bunch either.
Ed, 32 & 33
You are getting quit ridiculous and I’m beginning to regard you as nothing more than a troll.
Yes, I’ve read both 15.7.2 and the entire IAATO paper, including appendix C, which is the referenced PR exceprt.
Here is what 15.7.2 said;
“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 appears to me, and anybody with fluent reading skills to indicate that IAATO (implied to be peer reviewed lit.) has scientifically proven that climate change and increased human presence has required the use of proper decontamination procedures. Meanwhile, the referenced paper doesn’t say anything at all about climate change, and neither does the referenced PR piece. Further, there is NOTHING in 15.7.2 that SAYS A DAMN THING ABOUT TOURISM, NOW YOU’RE MAKING STUFF UP!!!
FURTHER: There is not one single piece of research regarding tourism’s impact on antarctica, and even if there were, it would have NO PLACE IN IPCC AR4. The PR piece is strictly about bio. contamination issues, primarily relating to penguin rookeries.
You are deliberately obfuscation the entire issue here.
You’re a real hoot, Bob.
Did you notice the chapter that was in?
“Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability”
More detail from the table of contents:
Do you think tourism might be economic activity? Do you think it might be affected?
IPCC’s reports cover a broad range of issues surrounding climate. It’s not the case that the entire book is trying to make a case that warming occurs.
If you’re really interested in the boot issue, be sure to read through the footnotes and the documents readily available there from the IPCC report:
1. Climate in Antarctic is warming:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch15s15-6-3.html
2. Boots: “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) [emphasis added] to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. http://www.iaato.org/info.html. ”
3. The boots poster (actually from a 2007 meeting in Delhi): http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/1000037/1000115/application/pdf/IAATOBootandClothingDecontaminationPoster.pdf
4. Stockholm meeting 2005, section on boots and decontamination: http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/1000037/1000115/application/msword/ATCMXXVIIIIAATODecontamination.doc
Appendix C of that document includes a long excerpt from the paper published in Polar Record.
So, in the chapter discussing effects of warming on industries in the area, two industries are discussed, fishing and tourism. The paper on boots goes directly to the effects of warming on tourism.
It was never intended as evidence of warming, and I cannot imagine how anyone could mistake it for such a paper, coming as it does in the section of the report on effects.
As evidence of impact on tourists and tourism the paper is spot on. For IPCC purposes, it is backed by papers in polar research journals.
No, the chapter, with its notes, does not vouch for the veracity of the Shroud of Turin, nor does it make any claims about the location of Judge Crater nor Amelia Earhart. That’s not what that chapter was intended to do, nor is it reasonable to assume it should.
Neither is it reasonable to assume that all footnotes in the chapter should prove global warming. That’s not the intent, scope or content of the chapter.
uh, yeah, I’m not sure you’re even speaking english at this point.
They referenced the article as a source that climate change, when combined with increased human activity necessitated the decon. procedures.
They’re not using it to prove global warming, but claiming it as a result of, when in fact the referenced source says nothing about climate change or global warming, thus making the reference invalid, nevermind that they’re referencing a paper issued by a tourism industry group.
You don’t get that do you? That their point was that climate change, combined with increased human activity, has necessitated the need for proper decon. techniques, and that point is referenced to said IAATO paper, which doesn’t mention CG or GW as a part of the cause. You don’t comprehend that simple point?
Further, your reference to Polar Record is laughable as a substitute, since THAT paper only regards what should be considered an effective decontamination agent, and NOT increase human effects, or climate change.
This is my last reply, so go ahead, make another inane rebuttal. If you can’t comprehend why this reference has no place in 15.7.2 you are in fact hopeless.
A and B has necessitated C (source citation).
This is the simple logic behind the issue of this post. If Ed doesn’t get this what is the point of even engaging?
Thank God it’s your last reply.
Yeah, I get it well: They’re talking about the effects warming might have on an area, you don’t like the conversation and you wish to portray the authors as evil and stupid, so you insist that they were actually making a foolish reference that they didn’t make, so you can call them foolish, and then point to their failing to make the reference you claim they should have made, in order to claim there’s a conspiracy not to say something, even if it’s something you made up the need to say.
Warming makes it easier for microbes from temperate climes to cause havoc — the report pointed to recent plagues that wiped out penguins in a couple of places, for example — and so, one impact on tourism is that tourists are required to decontaminate their boots. Not just wash them, but decontaminate them.
Which part do you claim is not properly referenced? The penguin deaths? The type of pathogen? The solution for the boot decontamination? The temperatures at which microbes survive longer?
It’s a really obscure point in the paper. You’re engaging in Tobacco Institute Propaganda, and I recognize it well. If IPCC produced a paper that said preventing global warming would prevent cancer, you’d criticize them because they didn’t prove cancers would be cured by preventing global warming, and you’d produce a dozen odd papers with tangential references to global warming which also mention rises in cancer rates, and you’d say that IPCC should have found them, dissected them and provided thorough rebuttals, “unless they have something to hide.” And then, perhaps, like Lord Monckton, you could say “I don’t know who is funding IPCC — perhaps al Quaeda? — but I hope the world’s intelligence agencies are on the issue because there must be funding coming from somewhere!” Not a lie there at all. You could look it up.
It’s enough to make me wonder if our old nemeses at the Tobacco Institute just moved on to global warming.
Ed, 38
You are a maroon. You are flat out making stuff up and obfuscating. The reference is entirely invalid. It’s a reference to something that isn’t peer reviewed and doesn’t even make the implied reference. An instruction on how to decon isn’t an implication that it’s necessitated by AGW.
You are getting quit ridiculous and I’m beginning to regard you as nothing more than a troll.
Yes, I’ve read both 15.7.2 and the entire IAATO paper, including appendix C, which is the referenced PR exceprt.
Here is what 15.7.2 said;
“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 appears to me, and anybody with fluent reading skills to indicate that IAATO (implied to be peer reviewed lit.) has scientifically proven that climate change and increased human presence has required the use of proper decontamination procedures. Meanwhile, the referenced paper doesn’t say anything at all about climate change, and neither does the referenced PR piece. Further, there is NOTHING in 15.7.2 that SAYS A DAMN THING ABOUT TOURISM, NOW YOU’RE MAKING STUFF UP!!!
FURTHER: There is not one single piece of research regarding tourism’s impact on antarctica, and even if there were, it would have NO PLACE IN IPCC AR4. The PR piece is strictly about bio. contamination issues, primarily relating to penguin rookeries.
You are deliberately obfuscation the entire issue here.
And that bit about being my last comment; I did intend it, but then, many moons later returned to the scene of the crime to discover you had impugned me.
In short; you are a turd, and I get the last word.