Leaked UN report shows global cooling for last 15 years.

Deja vu all over again. :facepalm:

Oopsy is right. I called out a similar fib a week ago. Here we go again.

As I write this, the latest figure (September 7) is 5157344 km^2. This is a 41% increase compared to this time last year (3664531 km^2), and 48% increase compared to the all-time record low of Sept 16, 2012 (3489063 km^2). But this is still far below the averages of the 1980s and 1990s.

This link has today's year-round graph of the ice coverage. While this year is certainly an improvement over last year, that is a really low bar. A record low bar. 'Damned by faint praise'.

 

LOL!

Looks like someone forgot to tell the Arctic ice. The Northeast passage has been open 2011, 2012, and currently in 2013. There is of course no guarantees will be open every year but polar melting and thinning of the sea ice is one of the predictions of the global warming models. The practical effect is to cut weeks off of Asia-Europe sailing.

I'm looking forward to the first Alaskan oil freighter making the trip to the east coast refineries.

Bob Wilson

 

We know, the devil made you do it

 

Has anybody had any better luck than I've had figuring out where the Telegraph gets this stuff?

The article cites the source as "a leaked report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the ~Mail on Sunday~", where the italics are mine and ~...~ bit is a link. But it's not a link to the article in question, just to the current day's home page (not Sunday's) of the Mail. I guess if you're interested in evaluating the source you're welcome to search the Mail for any article that looks as if it might be the one the Telegraph relied on.

Not being from the UK myself, I didn't know what to expect when I got to the Mail, but it's delivered in an enormous home page of countless articles about Angelina's new tattoo, Miley's twerking dwarfs, Britney's under-bum and Joanna's tequila. "Find in page" finds nothing on IPCC, and the 'Archives' link at the bottom does not give me a link for September 8th.

If this way of citing a source were used on Wikipedia, it would get tagged in a heartbeat with at least the full citation needed template. But perhaps I'm asking too much in applying the standards of a free wiki project to an actual newspaper? Do readers just breeze past this 'dare you to find my source' stuff without even noticing?

-Chap

 

The Daily Mail is exactly as you describe. The Telegraph is often referred to as the "Torygraph", and is a right-wing newspaper.

 

Deja vu all over again. Please note the dates:
Arctic sea ice continues rebound | Watts Up With That?

You'll see articles like this for as long as you live.

 

Sure, I could see that, but I was on purpose not trying to say

• right = bad

I was trying to say

• sleazy use of unnamed sources and hide-n-seek citations = bad

I've seen sleazy writing from the left too. This example happens to be from the right.

Jeepers, there are exactly two named sources in the whole piece, with affiliation given for one of them, and the whole rest of the piece is all "some scientists" (who?), "major climate research centers" (which?), "are said to show" (by whom?), "within the academic community" (where?), "other experts" ....

Anybody can learn to write yellow journalism, and anybody can learn to spot it. It's not a left/right thang.

-Chap

 

Never happen...

 

I wouldn't mind if y'all get bored reading the newspapers about this, and just read Tsonis' publications on the subject. He is mentioned in the top-posted piece.