Antarctic Experiences Record High Sea Ice Level – Within the margin of error.

Just now, from the Earth’s unloved backside, just when you thought the “death spiral” of northern polar sea ice had taken full hold of the public’s mind, the stupid Antarctic hits a new ALL-TIME high sea ice area record.

All time being defined as 34 ish years of course.  Stupid sea ice doesn’t know much about climate science does it!   From cryosphere today, using the very same gridded NSIDC data so often downloaded right here.
UPDATE: I have edited the title per comments below.  Thanks everyone.

UPDATE:A small step closer the absolute max ice area was recorded in 2007  – 16.232 Million Km^2 (per Sunshinehours1).  Without any checking needed, this is way inside sensor error range.

Arctic sea ice is still well below the previous record minimum:

Continue reading “Antarctic Experiences Record High Sea Ice Level – Within the margin of error.”

Lewandowsky to Remove All Blog Based References

Over the past few weeks I have had several communications with Dr. Lewandowsky regarding his wonderful contribution to science very appropriately titled:

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science


Think about that.   Who could reject the truth of “science”?….  It must be one who has such powerful beliefs on something that scientific fact, real proof, even unequivocal evidence has no effect on their opinion.  How much more Orwellian a title could be written?  As we have learned at Climate Audit, from the content of the paper the irony is difficult to overstate.

As you unfortunate victims readers know, I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.   The very title of the Lewandowsky article attacks the open discussion on which science is necessarily based.  A more biased attack on reasoned skepticism is hard to fathom.

The Air Vent blog isn’t exactly a great life achievement in my point of view but it is one of the far too rare science-first blogs skeptical of <b>catastrophic</b> anthropogenic global warming.  I didn’t imagine that a conservative engineer who started a free blog under a pseudonym complaining about political and monetary pollution of climate science would extend to being banned by climate blogs, being outed by the British press, surprise phone calls on Sunday morning,  hacked email drops, being contacted by the anti-terror squads of the British government and then recently being libeled with accusations of being an anti-science denier and advocate of conspiratorial whatever in Psychological Science..

You have to love liberalism in all of its wonderful forms.  Does anyone wonder now why I published under “Jeff Id” ?

Here is what Lewandowsky wrote under the guise of science:

Thus, AIDS denial has been linked to the belief that the U.S. Government created HIV; the tobacco industry viewed lung cancer research as an \oligopolistic cartel,” and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

The article in the references is the lone Internet link of any kind in the references: (Accessed 6 May 2012).  Certainly the post is argumentative but it is about the collusion by Jones and UEA officials to ignore legal freedom of information requests.   Unlike Lewandowsky, it seems obvious that nobody really knew what data was used in CRU ground temperatures at that time.  Now we know even Phil Jones was a bit confused on the matter. Fortunately, after climategate, Dr. Phil became a lot more open to releasing the data and I believe tAV was the first blog to reproduce his results after code became available.

The accusations by Dr. Lewandowsky were allowed by the editorial review of the Journal of Psychology Psychological Science yet claims that I’m a climate change denier and that I believe temperatures were illegitimately adjusted are clearly false.  I wrote first to Lewandowsky regarding the error and received an automated reply about his travel so I wrote to his coauthor.  After some time, I was told that Lewandowsky didn’t believe he was in error using this rather cute bit of sophistry:

I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your  name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part.

So even after telling him of his error, Lewandowsky is still saying that I have accused someone of illegitimate temperature record adjustment for the explicit purpose of exaggerated warming but apparently I’m not a denier.  I have not made either claim of course, however, on a similar vein there are some UHI based embarrassments by the climate change extremist community that I could happily detail for him.  The funny bit is that Lewandowsky proposed to replace the Condon reference for climate change deniers with a “google search” that would include my blog amongst others:

I therefore suggest that I remove the citation “(e.g., Condon, 2009)” and replace it with “(see supplementary material for sources).” The supplementary material can then contain a set of links to 10 or so sites making claims about illegitimate adjustments, presented in an order based on Google-rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations. (Of course, that’s how I got to your post in the first place, so there is no guarantee that your link might not pop up again; I hope you can accept that because I don’t want to re-introduce human selection.)

I told him that listing my blog in any manner as supportive of his claim was clearly false at this point and it would not be acceptable.   I received no more replies from Lewandowsky after that point.

So I contacted the editor of Psychological Science….

Eric Eich didn’t respond at all at first.   So I threw a bit of a fit with him and got the reply that they were looking into the matter and ‘promised’ to get back to me when they had a decision.  I thanked him and provided these examples as to why the claims were false:

Not a denier of climate change:

No claim of illegitimate adjustments to temp records:

The links were sent with a few other details as well, so I waited another week without reply.   I wrote again asking what decision was made and received this a couple of days ago from Eric Eich:

Mr Id: Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

Eric refused to use my last name during any of our communications despite the journal’s reference being to “Condon” and despite me signing all of my correspondence “Condon”.  I even pointed out the discrepancy in name after his first reply to no avail. His repeated inability to use my name, made it quite obvious that that the Editor of the Psychological Science is in no way emotionally detached from this issue.

Now some of the sophistry of the reply is due to the fact that they cannot admit libel even by accident but I found this resolution to be rather humorous.    Lewandowsky is claiming his false claims are not “misleading” but Eric Eich believes that all references to blog post must be removed for some unexplained reason.

Below is a complete list of the references with ALL of the blog references bolded:

Continue reading “Lewandowsky to Remove All Blog Based References”

The Healing Blog

A new election is coming and thankfully nobody is claiming that they will lower the ocean level this time.  My taxes are still insanely high and as a business owner, I’m expecting to be hammered in a very impressive way by the non-paying public for my reprehensible misdeed of trying to make money.  Yes it’s a shame that I’ve worked so hard, but this has turned into a country of the entitled rather than the empowered.  No we did not build our success, our company simply sprung into existence on its own by random chance.

That isn’t what the post is about though.

This post is about blogging on something as stupid as global warming.   I mean, why would someone so driven, so consumed with other avenues in life,  spend time on a subject that draws personal critique on blogs, ridicule in the media, libelous accusations in the journal of Psychology, and global governmental enforcement attention, all  on a matter which should be purely science?

It’s simple – maybe.

First, I know that I am regularly disappointed with the poor quality of thinking from the public.   How can we possibly believe that running a windmill or 100 of ’em can compare to a coal or nuclear plant?   It is beyond my ability to grasp the logic.  Why don’t people understand that we don’t know the real damage from CO2 is, but do know the real damage from lack of energy (e.g. Zimbabwe)?   Why is there no recognition of the opportunity for blatantly obvious health/life/environmental advantage to huge amounts of low cost energy?

Very poor quality thinking in my opinion but it gets worse.

When the Mullers come out with the idea that because they generated a temp curve from the same data as everyone else, that they have somehow proven Co2 warming as well as attribution, it left my jaw in my lap.   They play themselves as scientists yet rational logic does NOT lead from temperature to attribution.  Of all things, attribution of temperature change in climate science is known to be absolutely unknown. Unless you are a Muller or a skydragon. Yet somehow these amazing people make the ridiculous sandwich board claim to know that 100% of the land temperature change is manmade – with unequivocal certainty.  IMO, stupider is now an official word. They get away with it because the left-wing media and government funded scientists want them to.   No reasoned thinker could stand by and accidentally miss how the amazing Mullers solved the attribution dilemma for the IPCC.

But the now enlightened Mullers know truth, and they are happy to tell anyone who will listen that through amazing science they have discovered the truth.  I, and many other skeptics, got the same temperature answers on blogs as the Muller BEST curve — well before they did. It didn’t change any of our opinions on global warming doom to my knowledge.  The answer only affected the Mullers.

No they are not being logical — in case you were still wondering, and that is disappointing.

So when I see a mannian (lowercase) curve, and I recognize that the data is nothing but regressomatic noise, it leaves the same sick feeling in my stomach as those who don’t recognize the future hell our government is intentionally creating in the US.   Just look at the government spending vs income and you should realize it cannot continue. You cannot spend 75% more than you take in for any length of time, yet somehow the question of whether it should continue is a 50-50 proposition in the public’s mind.  You also cannot tax your way out of the problem because we already sport some of the highest taxes in the world and there ain’t enough income left to tax.  Sorry MSNBC.

What kind of world is this when such simple logic cannot be followed?  The Muller stuff is simply more of the same dogmatic nonsense disguised as science that most humans cannot parse. The Muller’s know these facts so I spend time wondering how they rationalize their true intent, until I stop caring.

This all ties together in my mind under the guise of wrongthink.  When people don’t recognize that on average our own nature dictates that tough life choices lead to optimal solutions, we refuse to recognize our very nature.  Living according to what we are is not an easy path.  It’s the same kind of math which drives evolution.  Governments don’t need to hide the weak from tough situations, they need to expose them to the hardship and let the people show the world if they are truly weak.  A driven person is a very hard thing to stop and when exposed to one of these same “weak” people who thinks something needs to be done, I would suggest that you get out of that persons way.  A thinking public would recognize that people need saving from impossible situations, not tough ones, but politicians have long ago figured  out a different self-empowering mathematical balance.

At this point, it is unlikely that I will lose the money war because politicians will eventually need $$ from business again, but I feel very sorry for those who will not be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed.  Our population is impregnated with small beaten down minds filled with CNN redistribution nonsense.  They are left with weak hearts centered on racist or other victimization dogma, and give thanks to uncle Sam for writing tiny checks to them in exchange for jobs they otherwise would have had.  When you vote for a politician in the hopes that you will get a check from them, free health care, welfare without a work requirement, larger pensions, something is horribly wrong.

So it was almost exactly 4 years ago, on a sunny August day just before a presidential election, that I was sitting on the carpet in a nearly unfurnished house,  and wrote my first blog post.   I didn’t know what this blog would turn into but there was a little steam I had to let off.  People were about to vote for a man with a golden tongue who was promising to do his best to change America by giving the poor other peoples money — and voters fell for it.

“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” – Benjamin Franklin

Most people still think old Ben was a smart guy, though there is probably some wrong-think style discussion on the matter, I’m on Ben’s side.

So I started a climate blog, because in my opinion, people needed another scientific conservative who can understand math and is willing to accept the data for what it is. I truly don’t care if the warming from CO2 is worse than the IPCC predicts.  I don’t give one methane filled fart!  If that is the case, it would be nice to know so that we can find a true solution (not carbon exchange nonsense).  If we need a solution, and I’m not at all convinced that we do, then we need one which doesn’t involve the attempted destruction of same the economies which gave us the power to warm the environment in the first place.

I also like puzzles and many climate claims are simply puzzles to be considered.  So far, in my 4 years of puzzling, I’ve found nobody who really knows the answer on the future of climate.  There have been plenty of people who claim to know the answer in all different directions across the whole spectrum from skydragons to Muller with the IPCC awkwardly positioned in between, but when examined closely, these people don’t really know the future either.

So why climate?

I’m not entirely sure but at least in part it is because you can’t spend your life being mad at the world for acting stupid, but you can spend a few cathartic hours pointing out the idiots.

I’m feeling better already.

The Pragmatic Skeptic

I read some of this earlier, and hadn’t intended to post on it but now that I’ve read the complete version of the interview, this is very much worth reading.   Anthony Watts gave an interview to PBS whereby he made  a very accurate case for what makes myself and others climate skeptics.   The reality is nothing like the caricature Lewandowsky, Real Climate, Tamino, Skeptical Science and many other pro-government extremists would express to the world.   He did an excellent job and it is very much worth reading.   Others were involved too in a more complete interview published at WUWT, but like Mullers silly (and unscientific) statement that he somehow knows 100% of the measured  warming is human caused, they just confused the issues involved.    I’m not sure Muller ever really grocked the skeptic position in the first place.

Anyway, here is the link to the Anthony Watts interview.


SKS Behind the Scenes – On Deaf Ears

The below discussion was passed to me by email. It is apparently from the hacked SKS background discussions. I found it revealing to see the kind of thinking which went on behind the scenes during the release of the corrected Antarctic temperature trends.

2011-02-09 04:45:30 Antarctic Temperature Trends
Robert Hey all,There’s a feud going on pertaining to this post on RC by these two by climate audit:’m gonna be honest, this should be a lesson on what NOT to do as a scientist. Steig is refusing to read the criticism of his criticism and is refusing to engage the authors of the paper he is criticizing. In the “Borehole” at RC you can see some examples of comments by the others that are purely technical and include no *snark* that Steig calls snark and put in the Borehole. I know how ravenous the *auditors* can get but this type of non-response is exactly what gives skeptics momentum.
2011-02-09 05:03:09
Julan Sigh, I do not know if i completely agree Robert.  They arebaiting him though– gotta keep those acolytes foaming at the mouth.  It is laughable of McIntyre to accuse Steig of duplicity  Good God is Mcintyre delusional?!  That title alone is reason not to engage– CA are clearly not acting in good faith.I do not blame Eric for not wanting to go to CA, it is a cesspit.  Honestly it is, the mean-spiritedness, vitriol and invective of the posters there is truly something to behold. Also, keep in mind the things that McIntyre have accused mann and Schmidt of– there is good reason for mistrust and a short fuse.That said, the best place to address these technical issues is with the journal with a comments that appear side-by-side– not on blogs, especially not partisan blogs.
2011-02-09 21:06:57 comment
Robert My opinion on the subject is that using grudges as a rationalization is a poor strategy. Non-engagement because in the past Mcintyre and CO have insulted Mann, Steig etc… is not exactly rising above the fray.Pettiness in response to pettiness leaves them both looking like children.No one said that he has to go to CA to engage there, but moderating out some of the comments which were not filled with snark doesn’t make it appear like Steig is ready to have a serious scientific discussion.To be clear in all this, steig is wrong. CA is right in terms of their reconstruction and their subsequent response.They included way too much snark over at CA but that doesn’t detract from them being right statistically.Personally I think that if you are curteous and deal with the guys like Ryan O and Jeff ID properly then they will respect you. I watched the initial response and I remember thinking that some of the comments steig made in response to Ryan O were snarky and belittling. I’m not shocked they fired back, not shocked at all.As scientists aren’t we supposed to take the high ground and just go where the facts lead us?
2011-02-10 06:30:25
Julian “As scientists aren’t we supposed to take the high ground and just go where the facts lead us?”I agree Robert.  That said, one has to keep several things in mind.  In the past, McIntyre et al. have done way more than insult Mann. They have also lied in the past (e.g., concerning the Yamal data). These guys ultimately have no interest in advancing the science– rather, their duty is to cast doubt, fabricate controversy and undermine the scientists’ credibility.  The is likely a no win for Eric– engage them he loses, ignoring them he loses.  They should both take this discussion to the journal and publish comments there, as is the professional thing to do.  These juvenile food fights on blogs are nonsense.As for Eric’s tone, I agree he needs to work on that, and a lot! That said, Eric’s poor people skills do not give permission to McIntyre et al. to engage in slander in a public forum– IMHO, he erred when he wrote his blog post at RC critiquing O’Donnell et al., that was the excuse they were just waiting for.  Then again, Eric has already likely had a cordial exchange and scientific discussion with the authors doing review.  I would also argue that it is not clear yet that the CA crowd have their stats right.  I have had run ins with Condon, and my distinct impression is that he is an ideologue and D-K victim Robert, and plays this game of claiming to be reasonable when he is in fact not.  Read some of his posts on the politics and economics of cutting GHGs….The sad and unfortunate thing about this is that is has all the hallmarks of the HS controversy– a huge debacle over sophisticated statistical techniques, which ultimately do not change the primary conclusion– western Antarctica is warming.  That important fact is what is at risk of being lost here…..and McIntyre et al. know that full well, and will milk this for everything it is worth…mark my words.Eric has promised a response soon…we’ll have to wait and see.
2011-02-10 09:48:54 Comment
Robert Having read Steig’s response I don’t really know what my opinion on the whole matter is. I think realistically both of the children need a time-out.That being said Mcintyre needs to learn to call off the attack dogs. If he wants to work on “bridging” the gap between scientists and skeptics then he has to learn to not act like a child himself. I remembered I had question on something to do with temperature data way back and I sent an email to Gavin Schmidt and one to Steve Mcintyre. I got two responses: One from Gavin with some detailed instructions and two publications to look at and one from Mc stating something like “I’m too busy for this, ask someone else”What I find interesting about that is that if I were steve Mc I would post that exchange on my blog and use it as evidence that the other side was being dismissive… really shows the hypocrisy of it all.Nevertheless I think that O’donnell and Codon and them are probably more right than Steig statistically and I’m a little shocked to learn that Steig et al. made the same principal component mistake that Mann et al 1998 did but nevertheless the statistics in all this aren’t the lesson to be learned.What should be taken from this little issue is that tone is very important. If Steig et al remained curteous (even with the attacks) then for those watching on the sidelines it would be obvious that the science is in good hands. To react somewhat snarky just brings us down to their level. Keep talking the science and stay away from personal stuff and you will win in the hearts and minds.

[edit – my bold and ip removed]

Clearly Robert was understanding what was being said statistically but I don’t get the feeling that even Steig has figured out what was done. Aside from that, Robert is correct about what happened in the discourse.   I don’t miss the meanness of tone which went on publicly during the Steig paper days. In retrospect the tone did move things forward on both sides. In the end, all of the effort still left the climate science community generally confused about the Antarctic because starting with Chladni patterns, the expectation maximization math is too fancy and prone to operator error.  The ZOD and FOD of the IPCC where Steig 09 is still being cited is plenty of evidence to prove that.  One of the engineering-style critiques of the Steig method presented here so often is that if there are simpler methods which do nearly the same thing, those methods are usually better at getting the job done.  In this case, the job was to tell scientists what was actually measured in the Antarctic and for some reason, they still don’t know.

Oddly enough, this conversation from SKS is actually a caricature of the discussion which created the Steig Mess.  Julian, who was apparently unable/unwilling to grock even the Yamal discussion at Climate Audit, refused to express an opinion on the deficiencies of the Steig Antarctic work even after our publication.  When told repeatedly of the S09 statistical errors, instead of addressing the math, he redirected the conversation and referred to me in paraphrase as an incompetent ideologue using my opinions on the fake solutions to GHG presented by the IPCC as an example.  As though it is my fault that biofuels and windmills don’t work!  He even referred to the multiple Yamal problems as ‘lies’,  all the while missing the two points by Robert that Steig09 was wrong and scientists should stay above the fray.  I’m not sure he actually heard one word Robert said.

their duty is to cast doubt, fabricate controversy and undermine the scientists’ credibility.

From the various communications released by these groups, I am regularly astounded that these people think there is some kind of conspiracy or plan to undermine their message.   In 4 years I have had zero communications with other people on what message to send for or against AGW!  Zero.   I have regularly written about the reality of AGW, as well as the fact that Mann’s hockey stick work is a false representation of autocorrelated data.   A scientist with a clearer head will recognize that both situations can exist in the same universe.  Every climate scientist with some objectivity who has taken a serious look at Mann’s work, knows the problems do exist and are in fact severe.  Several recent papers over the past two years have been 100% directed at correcting these variance loss  (non-uniform variance) problems.   Still, to Julian, these issues are a fabrication by the evil skeptics who’s “duty” it is to destroy the scientists credibility.

Errors in a paper don’t destroy credibility guys, it is the denial of those errors in the face of raw facts which does.

Lewandowsky’s Bodge

The term “conspiracy” is one of the most overused words in climate jargon. Just using the word conspiracy with a person has become a popular way to discredit those who question any of the facts presented by an official body. With so much information available there is only enough time to focus on things that interest you. People simply shut their minds off to unfamiliar topics at the mere mention of the word.

A conspiracy in law is a plan by two or more people to break the law in the future – per wikipedia.
A conspiracy as described by definition 1 is an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
But then there is definition 5 – any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

The implication of Lewandowsky’s paper is that you cannot believe in a conspiracy and operate effectively in science. The paper was a blatant political attack to attempt to discredit those who disagree with both Lewandowsky’s childlike economic theory as well as his poor grasp of climate science. So he calls skeptics conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately we see everywhere, evidence of conspiracy per all definitions. Does the IPCC not conspire to expand awareness of their view of free market economics simultaneously with environmentalism. Of course it does, they have a whole section on economic impacts on the environment. Were there meetings between the government paid authors on how these messages should be conveyed? Of course. And if you are one who holds a different view of free market function than these government paid authors, does that planning seem to have a negative impact on the future of the human race and environment? It most certainly does in my opinion. In other words, the multi-author presentation of their preferred, message regarding free-market economics is both planned and negative in consequence.

I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist – or does realist better describe the view?

A second issue though is that I took Lewandowsky’s survey over at WUWT for entertainment and couldn’t mark any of the conspiracies listed as things I believe. Most of them were complete nonsense, some of which I hadn’t even heard of. Others seem plausible but I don’t have enough knowledge on any of them to claim ‘belief’ at any level. In other words, I had straight negatives for all of his “conspiracy” answers. Aside from the now-obvious fake answers that Steve McIntyre and others identified, the types of conspiracy questions seem to give the study a little more credibility. However, due to the leading nature of the non-conspiracy oriented questions, I am certain that I would have dropped the survey part way in simply to avoid supporting the undisguised intent of the questions. In other words, it seems highly unlikely that the survey attracted many thoughtful climate skeptics.

Yesterday though, we found out from Steve McIntyre that the math of the study was bodged so badly that simple analysis REVERSES the conclusions of the paper.

If we weren’t so familiar with this sort of faked result from the catastrophic-warming-so-we-must-shut-down-our-economy advocates, you might not even believe it were true. At this time, I have no belief that Lewandowsky intends to be a scientist on the matter, but lets see if he offers appropriate retractions – starting with the title.

The Lewandowsky Incident

I have avoided critique of Lewandowsky’s paper because I am still awaiting a reply from Lewandowsky on my demand for removal of a false citation. He has agreed in part that the citation was inaccurate but due to some minor sophistry in his reply there is delay in finalizing the issue.

It seems that his attention is now focused on the basic errors in his methodology, which apparently could have been picked up by anyone with even the most rudimentary skills in the field. Odd that in this case his the lack of addressing of the basic sampling problems of an on-line study, singularly biases the study toward a more positive conclusion that skeptics are conspiracy nutters … right?

It has gotten so bad that he has taken to snipping Steve McIntyre’s very reasonable questions at the Lewandowsky “science” blog.

Who would have guessed.

I have been at this for 4 years now and I think we have the cycle down. Why don’t the extremists ever learn how to handle questions?

The Blaze

Anthony Watts and Lucia were cited today at the Blaze for their parts in pressing Lewandowsky to release the hidden data in his study. It is great to see that reasonable people still have some media backing in the face of extremist character attacks. I am beginning to wonder just how far this cycle of global leftism will go before people again realize we have stepped on the tongue of the crocodile.

My guess is that we are no smarter than last time but for the Lewandowsky saga, it is looking like popcorn time again!

May you live in interesting times.

Proof and Genius

I know you guys missed me, Real Climate sure did. Eric Steig has written a letter to “The Guardian” (booming voice) in response to a Nic Lewis letter patiently explaining problems in an article written by yet-another-know-nothing with a keyboard.  Unfortunately for us, the article itself has been updated in response so we can’t read the original.  What is interesting about the exchange is Dr. Steig’s wild reply.

My bold.

Nicholas Lewis (Letters, 28 August) complained that your report (Arctic ice
melt likely to break record, 24 August) gave the impression that typical
temperatures in Antarctica have risen as much as on the Antarctic peninsula.
While he is correct about this, his letter also refers to an outdated study
of his, which argued that previous estimates of overall Antarctic warming
were too high. In fact, the work of Lewis and co-authors has been proven

The relevant paper here is Orsi et al, Geophysical Research Letters, vol.
39, 2012, which shows that the rate of warming in west Antarctica is as
great, or greater, than what we showed in our original work (Steig et al,
Nature, vol. 457, 2009). Moreover, Lewis’s own paper shows there has been
significant warming in west Antarctica and that the average trend over
Antarctica is of warming, not cooling as is often stated.

The reality is that the Antarctic is warming up and is contributing
significantly to sea level rise; and that there is strong potential for a
greater contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica in the future.
Professor Eric Steig
University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Our 2010  study is now outdated???
Seriously!!  This absolutely is the doctor who never learned about matlab.
For those who have not read the history of the Antarctic wars, here is a pictorial summary.

Continue reading “Proof and Genius”