The debunking of the Antarctic warming scare

Debunked again?

In the science blogs there is currently a serious bust up between Eric Steig, author of a paper claiming that the Antarctic was warming (and therefore, in his view, putting the final nail in the sceptics’ coffin) and Ryan O’Donnell, who, with Steve McIntyre, has published a challenging rebuttal. The story is taken up in the UK Spectator this week. The main story is subscription only, but the editorial makes very interesting reading:

In January 2009, Nature magazine ran the a cover story (pictured) conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent – with 90 percent of the world’s ice mass – had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative.

He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here, final version here) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator. It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion. As they say in their cover story:

“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed  it – perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play – The Heretic – at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

They went through 88 pages of correspondence in their battle to have their critique published.

“So has Antarctica been warming? Mostly not – at least not measurably. Retreat of the floating Antarctic ice shelves is a favourite story for the media. But, except in a very few peripheral parts, Antarctica is far too cold to lose ice by surface melting.”

As Lewis & Ridley say in their closing paragraphs:

“Papers that come to lukewarm or sceptical conclusions are published, if at all, only after the insertion of catechistic sentences to assert their adherence to orthodoxy. Last year, a paper in Nature Geosciences concluded heretically that `it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide’ (high sensitivity  underpins the entire IPCC argument), yet presaged this with the (absurd) remark: `Earth’s climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century.’Likewise, a paper In Science last month linking periods of migration in European history with cooler weather stated: `Such historical data may provide a basis for counteracting the recent political and fiscal reluctance to mitigate projected climate change.’ Sceptical climatologist Pat Michaels pointed out that the sentence would make more sense with `counteracting’ removed.

Science as a philosophy is a powerful, but fragile thing. In the case of climate, it is now in conflict with science as an institution.” (source)


  1. Richard Kato says:

    How do you come up with this nonsense so frequently, Simon? [snip]

    • Richard, I tried to email you, but you gave a false email address (why, I wonder?). So I am having to reply via the comments.

      You are of course entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I would be interested to know the basis on which you claim the content of my blog to be nonsense. As The Loaded Dog has pointed out, it is revealed that “Reviewer A” of the paper which critiques Steig’s original paper was none other than Steig himself. Do you think that is acceptable practice in peer-review? Do you see no conflict of interest there? Isn’t it the case that Steig would be likely to seek to dismiss a paper that was critical of his own work rather than acting as a dispassionate and impartial reviewer? Is raising that issue therefore nonsense too? Or is climate science exempted from the usual standards of scientific good practice?

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

    Isn’t this just an ABOMINATION of a movement?

    Conflict of interest is a term apparently alien to them.

    Add Climategate to the above example then ask yourself who the HELL in their right mind could continue to believe what we’re being force fed.

    I’ve said it before and will say it again. You do NOT have to be scientifically literate to smell a dead rat…and the stench of this particular dead rat is overwhelming; leaving those deceived with NO EXCUSE…

  3. Funny how anyone can claim its waming when Antarctic sea ice extent has been INCREASiING for the past 30 years.

  4. Breaking News! The SUN causes warming on Earth and Mars!


  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joe, Simon from Sydney. Simon from Sydney said: The debunking of the Antarctic warming scare: In the science blogs there is currently a serious bust up between … […]

%d bloggers like this: