Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”.

September 9, 2013

For the last decade, according to the denial industry, sea ice has been “recovering”. Which is completely correct, if, by “recovering”, you mean there is 75 percent less ice volume than there was 30 years ago.

Over the weekend the ever-reliable Daily Mail came up with another masterpiece of boneheaded backwardness.  As boring and predictable as this  whack-a-mole is, obviously, readers need some handy links when they get the inevitable triumphant “I told you so” from Aunt Teabag and Uncle Dittohead.

Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham explain:

When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend’s Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraphunfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it’s also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we’re not there yet. And while this year’s minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year’s, that’s not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

“Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There’s a principle in statistics known as “regression toward the mean,” which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence ‘regression towards the mean’ told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.

Last year I created an animated graphic called the ‘Arctic Escalator’ that predicted the behavior we’re now seeing from the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph. Every year when the weather acts to preserve more ice than the previous year, we can rely on climate contrarians to claim that Arctic sea ice is “rebounding” or “recovering” and there’s nothing to worry about. Given the likelihood that 2013 would not break the 2012 record, I anticipated that climate contrarians would claim this year as yet another “recovery” year, exactly as the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph have done.

In short, this year’s higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year’s minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming.

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 “plus or minus three years.” Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summersby 2040.

It’s certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer will occur. While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component involved. The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.

Both articles also claimed that “some scientists” are predicting that we’re headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin,whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis’ co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

“What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions?VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”

Both articles also wrongly claimed that global warming has “paused” since 1997. In reality, global surface temperatures have warmed over the past 15 years, albeit more slowly than during the previous 15 years. It is possible to cherry pick a shorter time frame over which global surface temperatures haven’t warmed, as I illustrated in my other animated ‘Escalator’ graphic.

Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Dec ’86, Sep ’87 – Nov ’96, Jun ’97 – Dec ’02, and Nov ’02 – Nov ’12.

However, the opposite is true of the overall warming of the planet –Earth has accumulated more heat over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years.

Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it’s only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis’ research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.

Both articles also claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report is due out in a few weeks, has been forced “to hold a crisis meeting.” This claim made both articles even though Ed Hawkins noted,

“I told David Rose on the phone and by email on Thursday about the IPCC process and lack of ‘crisis’ meeting.”

Unfortunately that didn’t stop Rose from inventing this meeting, or Dixon from repeating Rose’s fictional reporting in the Telegraph.

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals,particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.

Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they’re misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.

112 Responses to “Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”.”


  1. Good to see a swift response to these nonsensical articles. Even better to see Nuccitelli and Abraham’s article at the top of the Google News (Science) section. With any luck it means more people will have seen it than the original drivel.

  2. omnologos Says:

    there are several problems as usual with Nutticelli

    regression towards the mean isn’t a causal phenomenon, as students of statistics and even of Wikipedia should have known by now

    the ocean hiding the heat is Dear Kev’s pet excuse for the travesty, not an established fact

    If Curry doesn’t know attribution, even less of it is known by the cartoonist’s friend and the mechanical guy

    etc etc


    • Technically you may be correct that this isn’t strictly a regression to the mean issue. That would normally apply to, for example, a study in which you increase the sample size to reach the mean and, on the way, have results that lie on either side of the mean with the difference typically decreasing as the sample size increases. Even so, I’m not entirely convinced given that the magnitude of the natural scatter can vary and so if one were to start sampling the Arctic sea ice extent so as to determine the mean you would need to take numerous measurements so as to average out the scatter (hence regression to the mean is not an unreasonable way in which to describe the process).

      You think that the ocean hiding the heat is not an established fact. Strictly maybe true but evidence is strong and consistent with numerous others lines of evidence. Maybe not fact, but close. You have to ignore quite a lot of evidence in order to conclude that the OHC is not increasing.

      If you think there are several problems as usual with Nuccitelli (you call Dana, Nutticelli, and then probably wonder why the debate becomes unpleasant) you’ll presumably then agree that there are an enormous number of issues with David Rose’s article (probably you won’t, but worth a shot).

      • omnologos Says:

        Wotts – we aren’t far. It’s just that regression to the mean isn’t an explanation per se, and the hiding ocean (presumably, to release the hidden heat later on) quite a claim awaiting more extraordinary evidence.

        (were the ocean never to release the hidden heat, we’d have to agree global warming an irrelevant issue…)

        As for the DM when it was publishing fictional journalism about drowning polar bears none of the esteemed scientists cared to correct a total lie, so if now they find themselves at the end of the stick I’ll gorge with schadenfreude.


        • Something you clearly mis-understand is that the deep ocean doesn’t need to release the heat for global warming to continue in the future. The system as a whole (oceans, atmosphere, land) will tend towards an equilibrium. What anthropogenic global warming is doing is trapping energy in the system and driving it towards an equilibrium in which the system (as a whole) has more energy (is hotter if you like). How this is distributed through the system is not the same at all times. Sometimes more energy can go into the oceans and sometimes less (and recent papers suggest that this is indeed the case). As the energy in the oceans increases, the fraction of the excess being absorbed by the oceans will decrease and a larger fraction will heat the land and atmosphere. Over time the whole system will tend towards a new equilibrium. If we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere, however, we are unlikely to actually reach that new equilibrium as the equilibrium value will continue to increase.

          By the way, when was the DM publishing fictional journalism about drowning polar bears? Also, if scientists had to correct all of the “fictional journalism” published in the DM, they’d never get anything else done 🙂


        • Omnologos,

          Of course regression toward the mean isn’t a physical cause. It’s an explanation of why 80% of the scientists at a certain conference would think it likely that sea ice extent would come back up a bit after an extreme low year like 2012. Look at the sea ice extent graph above. Can you find any of the most extreme outliers from the overall trend after which the extent didn’t go back the other direction?

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Right.

          Peer-reviewed evidence that deep oceans are warming and the kcals of warming just coincidentally match the net global energy imbalance – this is a “pet excuse” requiring additional “extraordinary” evidence, while the presence of drowned polar bears is a “total lie”.

          And you wonder why no one here respects your opinion? One of the legion reasons rampant is because you have two standards of evidence – strangely enough, just like every other classic AGW denier cluttering up the intertubes and spewing tawdry accusations.


        • I can only assume you are talking about – Charles Monnett – Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2006) in Polar Biology

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00300-005-0105-2

          “In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned. Average distance from land and pack ice edge for live polar bears swimming in open water in 2004 (n=10) were 8.3±3.0 and 177.4±5.1 km, respectively. We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

          What was the correction for the total lie above? It not like there is a trend with sea ice; it is just a recovery; we are back to pre- 2004 sea ice extent right?


    • But even you are able to make an excel chart plotting the trend from the current data. There is a clear exponential decline in ice cover.

      As for the ocean heat – the data shows us that it is warming – and it should be as 90% of the heat is going into the ocean. The fact that the Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the globe also corresponds well with the melting of the ice.

      • omnologos Says:

        another mystery (one a climate change scientist has refused to explain) is why we can opine about middle ages temperature but Arctic sea ice, only from 1979.

        ultimately the point is that Nutt & co.’s biggest mistake is their unwarranted certitude, something that makes them write obviously flawed pieces, futile attempts at shutting down any debate


        • Refuse?
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000429
          “The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”


        • Well than: Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at
          High Latitudes

          Click to access sap1-2-final-report-all.pdf

          “D’Arrigo et al. (2006) show treering
          evidence from a few North American and
          Eurasian records that imply that summers were
          cooler in the Medieval Warm Period than in the
          late 20th century, although the statistical confidence
          is weak. Tree-ring and treeline studies
          in western Siberia (Esper and Schweingruber,
          2004) and Alas ka (Jacoby and D’Arrigo, 1995)
          suggest that warming since 1970 is has been optimal
          for tree growth and follows a circumpolar
          trend. Hantemirov and Shiyatov (2002) records
          from the Russian Yama l Penisula, well north of
          the Arctic Circle, show that summer temperatures
          of recent decades are the most favorable
          for tree growth within the past 4 millennia.”

          • omnologos Says:

            no need to hurt yourself …has anybody used any of that wrt the DM Arctic ice piece? No. Why not.


          • Opps

            “has anybody used any of that wrt the DM Arctic ice piece? No. Why not.”
            Yes.

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00207426

            “An analysis of spring and summer ice-limit data obtained from Danish Meteorological Institute charts for the period 1901–1956 indicated the presence of heavy ice conditions (i.e., positive ice anomalies) in the Greenland Sea during 1902–1920 and in the late 1940s, and generally negative ice anomalies during the 1920s and 1930s. Only limited evidence of the propagation of Greenland Sea ice anomalies into the Labrador Sea was observed, however, probably because the data were from the ice-melt seasons. On the other hand, several large ice anomalies in the Greenland Sea occurred 2–3 years after large runoffs (in the early 1930s and the late 1940s) from northern Canada into the western Arctic Ocean. Similarly, a large runoff into the Arctic during 1964–1966 preceded the large Greenland Sea ice anomaly of the 1960s. These facts, together with recent evidence of ‘climatic jumps’ in the Northern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation, suggest the existence of an interdecadal self-sustained climate cycle in the Arctic. In the Greenland Sea, this cycle is characterized by a state of large sea-ice extent overlying an upper layer of cool, relatively fresh water that does not convectively overturn, which alternates every 10–15 years with a state of small sea-ice extent and relatively warm saline surface water that frequently overturns.”


        • “has anybody used any of that wrt the DM Arctic ice piece? No. Why not.”

          Yes
          http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2007/00000046/00000001/art00017

          “This study uses older topographic maps made from high-oblique aerial photographs for glacier elevation change studies. We compare the 1936/38 topographic map series of Svalbard (Norwegian Polar Institute) to a modern digital elevation model from 1990. Both systematic and random components of elevation error are examined by analyzing non-glacier elevation difference points. The 1936/38 photographic aerial survey is examined to identify areas with poor data coverage over glaciers. Elevation changes are analyzed for seven regions in Svalbard (∼5000 km2), where significant thinning was found at glacier fronts, and elevation increases in the upper parts of the accumulation areas. All regions experience volume losses and negative geodetic balances, although regional variability exists relating to both climate and topography. Many surges are apparent within the elevation change maps. Estimated volume change for the regions is −1.59±0.07 km3 a−1 (ice equivalent) for a geodetic annual balance of −0.30 ma−1 w.e., and the glaciated area has decreased by 16% in the 54 year time interval. The 1936–90 data are compared to modern elevation change estimates in the southern regions, to show that the rate of thinning has increased dramatically since 1990”


  3. Denial play book for Arctic sea ice.

    Step one: if not record breaking then use “Recovery”, cheery pick for big numbers.

    Step two: if record breaking then use Antarctica Sea ice to divert from the record.

    Step three: if summer time Arctic sea ice completely melts then use winter refreeze as a Recovery.

    Step four: if Arctic sea ice is gone year-round then use paleoclimate to climate it has happen before, and it is all natural cycles.

    If all else fails use statistics; “x” isn’t a causal phenomenon and nothing is happening in the Arctic.

  4. Nick Carter Says:

    Just now reading that there’s speculation that David Rose and Haley Dixon may be one and the same. 😛

  5. ahaveland Says:

    Here’s a couple of updated graphs:
    Arctic Sea Ice Collapse 1979-2013/07

    Sonified Arctic Death Spiral – Evolution to July 2013

  6. Sir Charles Says:

    That’s what climate change deniers are: Deniers => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    People who have lost the connection to reality (if they ever had it).


  7. I’ve simply posted a denier eye test for colour blindness.

    Look at the following chart. If you can see a red dot but not a blue line I recommend remedial reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic – and a darn sight less ‘riggling.


  8. […] Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”. (climatecrocks.com) […]


  9. […] Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”. (climatecrocks.com) […]

  10. omnologos Says:

    quick recaps…

    1. We seem to agree that the reference to ‘regression to the mean’ wasn’t the best part of the Guardian article. I am left with the impression the authors didn’t grasp the meaning of a statistical concept, and shoed it in to ‘explain’ even if it can’t.

    2. Wotts – you can describe any hypothesis you wish. That is not the point regarding the heat hiding in the oceans. The points are (1) Is it happening for real (2) what prevented it from happening in the 1980s and 1990s (3) If it is happening, when and how it will affect anything relevant to the atmosphere (4) What could make it stop happening again, like in the 1980s and 1990s, and so on and so forth.

    The concept is presented, like the regression to the mean, as an ‘explanation’ when in truth it’s just the very beginning of a long long journey of discoveries, all of them needed before the idea becomes established. This in answer to Gingerbaker too.

    3. Barry Bickmore – the measurements either regress to the mean or they don’t. If there is a ‘death spiral’ in act, i.e. the mean is going down, what tells the ice to regress back to what the mean should be even if the mean is itself moving. And amazingly, it is moving linearly!! (Answer: use statistics with extreme care and parsimony)

    4. ACCP – I didn’t ask for a review of the literature on pre-sats Arctic sea ice. I have wondered why nobody involved in the polemic against the Daily Mail (including the Climatic Duo at the Guardian), has cared much about the literature on pre-sats Arctic sea ice. If you can find it, so can they. But inevitably (in this thread as well) we see people talk of the magical year of 1979.

    5. Drowned polar bears – the facts. The Monnet piece is from nine years ago. We all agree Arctic sea ice hasn’t exactly gone to the stratosphere since, so…where are the expected ‘drowning-related deaths of polar bears’? It’s not as if nobody ever visits the Arctic any longer. But then, it was ‘speculation’. That’s a good thing to do as long as there is a basic grasp on what it means.

    6. Drowned polar bears – the fiction. The DM piece was pulled off when I commented about it, but you can still find it on the web. Full story on my blog omnologos.com/polar-bears-has-the-daily-mail-just-pulled-a-deceiving-article (link broken so no lost soul complains). In a few words, in August 2008 a Barry Wigmore took some WWF report and completely fabricated an article about drowning polar bears.

    If scientists allow newspapers to publish that kind of garbage because it supports the cause, they better be wary because the garbage machine won’t ever stop anymore.

    Finally going back to the Nutt and friend article, it reminds me of a boxing match long ago by a guy called Ray Boom-Boom Mancini IIRC. He commandeered the ring and punched the opponent for a long time as if he had machine guns instead of hands. And yet after a few round the opponent appeared just as fine. Poor Ray looked like the loser, even if perhaps still on top from a pure scoring point of view.

    This is to say that if you try to destroy your opponent completely (as attempted by the energy company employee), you better really do it, otherwise all that will be left is a pile of petulant remarks that will convince the already convinced.


    • Omnologos, the heat was going into the oceans in the 80s and 90s. On average about 95% of the excess goes into the oceans, the rest heats the land and atmosphere. Wind driven ocean circulation can however drive currents that influence this fraction (the currents are bringing cool water to the surface and taking warmer water to deeper levels). We’re currently in a phase where a larger fraction goes into the ocean. This will likely reverse and a larger fraction will heat the land and atmosphere. We’re not talking about all of it going into the oceans and then all going into the land and atmosphere. We’re talking about something like 97% going into oceans for a decade or so and then 93% going into oceans for a decade or so (exact values made up, just in case that wasn’t clear). So, to answer your questions

      (1) Yes it is happening for real.

      (2) Heat was going into the oceans in the 80s and 90s (just a slightly smaller fraction than today).

      (3) Energy cannot go into the oceans indefinitely (unless our understanding of basic physics is completely wrong). Eventually, a larger fraction must start heating the land and atmosphere. Probably within 20 years of the start of the “hiatus” period.

      (4) We clearly undergo phases of ocean oscillations (El Nino, La Nina) that influence what fraction of the energy excess goes into the oceans. A complicated problem that may be difficult/impossible to predict exactly. The evidence would suggest, however, that a surface warming “hiatus” will happen again after a period of surface warming.

      • omnologos Says:

        thank you Wotts. I presume from an IPCC point of view the most urgent question would become, how long the “hiatus” would likely be.


        • Actually, I would argue that that isn’t all that relevant. If we’ve under-estimated in the past how much of the excess energy is going into the ocean (and I don’t know if this is the case) then these “hiatuses” could indicate that the transient climate response is a little lower than some estimates indicate (i.e., the temperature when CO2 has doubled will be lower than expected). However, the “hiatuses” should not influence the equilibrium climate sensitivity (i.e., it won’t change the temperature that we will eventually reach) but might indicate that it will take a little longer to get there. So maybe we have more time, but these hiatuses do not indicate that overall warming has stopped.

          • omnologos Says:

            how could a question of time not he relevant? perhaps the hiatus will go on for 800 years, or 8. perhaps the equilibrium temperature will be reached in the year 5113, or 2145. or never.

            perhaps the atmospheric warming is a minor sideshow of large heat exchanges in the deep, thereby guaranteeing large swings both ways.

            time is everything in this. anything beyond human lifespans is a scientific curiosity


          • Okay, I wasn’t implying it had no relevance, just that it wasn’t all that significant. The mean surface warming trend is maybe a factor of 2 to 3 times lower than expected. The picture is that there will be periods where it might be faster than expected. So the influence of the hiatus is unlikely to change the timescale by more than a factor of 2. It really can’t go on for centuries unless our understanding of basic physics is extremely poor. Again, I don’t even know for certain if estimates of the ECS have under-estimated the amount of energy required to bring the oceans to equilibrium. If not, then the hiatus will have very little effect on the long-term warming trend.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            “how could a question of time not he relevant? perhaps the hiatus will go on for 800 years, or 8. perhaps the equilibrium temperature will be reached in the year 5113, or 2145. or never. “

            Perhaps cows will fly. Perhaps the day will come when you stop pulling cavalier disputations out of your ass as if they were legitimate concerns based on the scientific record.

            “Full story on my blog omnologos.com/polar-bears-has-the-daily-mail-just-pulled-a-deceiving-article (link broken so no lost soul complains). In a few words, in August 2008 a Barry Wigmore took some WWF report and completely fabricated an article about drowning polar bears. “

            Thank you for admitting that you drew an equivalence between a peer-reviewed study and an article in the Daily Mail. Your unbiased and keen powers of analysis have proven their value once again.

          • omnologos Says:

            Gingerdumber -you haven’t understood a word of it. Am comparing the DM being the DM then and the DM remaining the DM today.


          • Omnologos, let me get this straight. Your argument is that because scientists didn’t kick up a fuss about a false DM article on polar bears but did about a false article about Arctic sea ice recovery, it invalidates their criticism of the recent DM article. Is that what you’re suggesting? Not an argument about whether or not the DM articles actually are garbage or not? Simply a judgement based on how you think scientists have behaved in their response to different DM articles separated by a number of years?

          • omnologos Says:

            not exactly – my argument is that the scientists should speak out whenever the science is distorted, but they do so only when it’s distorted in a way they don’t like. That’s a naive and partizan approach to the media and only ensures the science is constantly distorted.

          • MorinMoss Says:

            Honestly, I think many of them do.
            But for most, it’s something they don’t want to have to deal with and it would take up all their time arguing with the cooligans than doing research and fieldwork.

            Hansen has said that he doesn’t enjoy public speaking or advocacy but felt that it was something that was necessary.


          • Well the issue I have with that view is that it appears to be based on an interpretation of the behaviour of scientists, rather than an interpretation of the evidence supporting the articles. I also suspect that you’re ignoring many cases where scientists do speak out. Take the recent methane clathrate paper that received much coverage in the media. Many scientists have openly criticised it as being unrealistic and that such a “methane bomb” is never likely to happen. We can always cherry pick some articles that scientists should have criticised but didn’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything. As I mentioned earlier, if scientists were to criticise every bit of garbage published in the DM, they really would get very little else done.


    • LOL!
      All searches on the Daily Mail with polar bears, drowning, and sea ice came down to criticism of Charles Monnett article in Polar Biology. My mistake I should have set the search for nonexistent Daily Mail articles. I will make note of that in the future.

      You are mistaken that we assume any Journalistic integrity for any science articles from supermarket or market tabloid newspapers as a rule they are ignored. The only time I have seen articles from the Daily Mail are as a source from the loons who use it as a primary source.

      There is a bumper sticker (car decal) here in the US that some it up. “Is that true? Or did you hear it on Fox News?” We need one for here. “Is that true? Or did you hear it from Mauri?”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: