North Pole Melting? No Problem!

Thu, 2008-07-03 15:26Mitchell Anderson
Mitchell Anderson's picture

North Pole Melting? No Problem!

Want a good laugh? Read this North Pole rant from well-known climate change denier Christopher C. Horner.

Mr. Horner holds forth on how the entire scientific community is apparently mistaken that the planet is warming, that polar warming is somehow related to climate change, or that north pole melting this year for the first time in history is any cause for concern.

Not that Mr. Horner has any credentials as a scientist. If fact he is a lawyer, in the employ of Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Washington, DC-based pro-business think tank.

For the uninitiated, the CEI is one of the more notorious thinks tanks active on the climate change file and sucked up over $2 million from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. In 2006, the company announced that they were finally ending their funding for the group that apparently had become too extreme even for world's biggest oil company.

Back to Mr. Horners hilarious piece, where he deadpans that “the planet as a whole is cooling and is projected to do for decades”. Here’s another knee-slapper: “The Antarctic has 1 million square kilometers more ice than a year ago when it set an ice record.”

The so-called “Antarctic cooling” Horner refers to has been widely discredited by the scientific community, and the author whose work was taken out of context by pulp author Michael Crichton said that his work was “misused ” by Crichton.

In fact scientists this year were alarmed when the massive Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica began to rapidly fall apart into the ocean. Since February, about 400 square kilometers have disintegrated and the remaining 14,000 square kilometers is now held by less than 2.5 km of ice. More alarming still was that this was continuing even in the Antarctic winter.

Scientists also announced this week they were concerned that the iconic Antarctic resident penguins could be imperiled in the near future due largely to climate change.

As for the arctic, look at this recent news coverage about disintegrating ice sheets on the top of the world. A recent study by a research group at Naval Postgraduate School , Monterey, California working with members of NASA and the Institute of Oceanology at the Polish Academy of Sciences estimate that the Arctic sea could be regularly ice-free in the summer as soon as 2013.

The changes that we are now seeing around the world are entirely consistent with climate models except for one important detail – they are happening far sooner and more powerfully than scientists predicted.

Happily, Mr. Horner himself is an endangered species – the so-called “climate skeptic”. For far too long these now these hired guns of the oil lobby have succeeded in bullying the media into the printing shoddy research and disingenuous delivery in an effort to poison the public debate around climate change.

It is telling that his latest rant did not make into the mainstream press.


Hmmm. Where to start?

Why would anyone quote anything from the CEI? It is known as a fringe organization and is not influential on the debate so why is it constantly mentioned? Groups like this have hardly “bullied” the media; they are too small and inconsequential to do so.

Alas, it is true that the Antarctic does have 1,000,000 square kms of ice more then average. And this is thick, multiyear ice. So is the melting of the Wilkins Ice Shelf significant considering it is only 400 square kms? There is a danger of cherry picking only alarming data without the proper context of the massive increase in ice cover at the Antarctica.

Lastly, saying things are “consistent with climate models” may not necessarily be saying much. Which models is it consistent with? One model, some models or almost all models? It is never said. Since the models cover such a diverse and widespread set of outcomes, it is important to know which specific models are actually being matched.

Unfortunately, at the rate things are going, we are going to know who is wrong sooner rather than later. And guess what, Paul - it’s going to be YOU. I wish to high heaven that it was me, because I don’t really want this to be going on.

The polar regions are our canaries. They are being affected first and most dramatically. Not much is going to happen in Port of Spain or any other place close to the equator. The big changes are happening the further you get from it.

It is amusing that the trolls are trying to distance themselves from the CEI. How the mighty have fallen …

Fern Mackenzie

Paul S/G said: “There is a danger of cherry picking only alarming data without the proper context of the massive increase in ice cover at the Antarctica’.

The only person picking cherries is Paul S/G.

GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic lost approximately 152 cubic kilometers of ice in the period 2002 to 2005.

Paul, I have mentioned these reports to you a number of times, but you are a typical denier, ignore data and information which does not agree with your selfish and political views.

Ian Forrester

= GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic lost approximately 152 cubic kilometers of ice in the period 2002 to 2005. =

True Ian. And to place that number in proper context, we need to remember that the Antarctic is over 30,000,000 cubic kms of ice.

Paul S/G now admits that the Antarctic is loosing ice. However, on a number of previous occasions he has said that there is a net gain of ice in the Antarctic.

It is only by constantly challenging liars like Paul S/G that they are forced to admit their lies and accept the truth.

Honest and decent people do not behave in such a manner Paul S/G. I hope you will change your ways and stop telling lies to support your selfish and political views.

And as for your ridiculous comment about the total amount of ice in the Antarctic, we only need to melt a small part of that to cause a major rise in sea level. You are always trying to dodge the truth.

Ian Forrester

00.05 inches is not a “major rise” in sea level Ian.

Do some reading and report back with actual data on “how much” sea level rise is possible.

You are nothing but a fool and unfortunately there are a number of other fools who walk in step with you (Rob, ZOG, Gary et al.).

You may think that you are being smart with all your lies but you are only confirming our impression that you are just a simple fool, a dangerous fool, but a fool none the less.

Ian Forrester

The 00.05 in. sea level rise is actual data (plus or minus margins of error) unlike your hypothetical computer data Ian.

You should read more and try and be a bit more sympathetic to the people who will be harmed if you get your way with your AGW denier nonsense.

You should be ashamed of yourself, is that why you are afraid to post your real name?

Ian Forrester

“…north pole melting this year for the first time in history…”

I have this vision of a pole melting. Must be made of sugar. Nevertheless, I understand what Anderson is trying to say - that open water a the north pole is a unique event. That is a damned LIE. There are years when ice at the pole doesn’t break up and plenty when it does. Just ask some of the goofy “adventurers” who have tried to walk to the pole.

Take a gander at this 1987 photo of three nuclear subs surfaced at the pole, with about 50% open water as far as the eye can see.

The “climate change” debate is usually interesting but, not when people like Anderson try to bolster their argument by just making things up.

“Mr. Horner holds forth on how the entire scientific community is apparently mistaken that the planet is warming”

You’ve outdone yourself when it comes to gross exaggeration. Where before you were only falsely claiming “consensus” among scientists, now you are declaring the entire scientific community buys into your neurosis. Bonus points for being shameless.

“For the uninitiated, the CEI is one of the more notorious thinks tanks active on the climate change file and sucked up over $2 million from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.”

You keep repeating this, as though it bolsters your arguments, when, in fact, it undermines them. Gee, a whole $2 million over eight years! That’s almost $250,000 a year, if you are to be believed (and going by your other preposterous claims, I wouldn’t recommend it).

Compare this paltry sum to what the David Suzuki Foundation declared in revenues for 2007. For the uninitiated, the David Suzuki Foundation is one of the more notorious “think tanks” (actually a political pressure group, masquerading as a charity), active on the climate change file. Their chairman is none other than Jim Hoggan, president of Hoggan & Associates Public Relations Inc., who produce, and pays the salary of Mitchell Anderson to produce … well, PR.

How much did David Suzuki Foundation rake in in 2007?


Let that sink in for a moment, and consider that David Suzuki Foundation is just a little fish, compared to the Global Warming industry giants like Greenpeace and WWF. In just one year, the David Suzuki Foundation sucked in almost twenty-seven times what CEI (Anderson claims) has ever received from Exxon.

Now tell us again who’s got the deep pockets?

I like the ” DC-based pro-business think tank.” Can you imagine that ?

Some of The David Suzuki Foundation’s donors.. EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, (Oil sands? ) ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas and Ontario power Generation with 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants.

Wow, the David Suzuki Foundation had a lot of donors. Boy. In some corners, this is considered a strong argument against climate science (actual science, not the network of the usual arm-chair detractors).

With arguments like this, you know the circus is almost over.

“With arguments like this, you know the circus is almost over.”

Strange that you choose not to make this objection to the article to which I commented!

So it’s okay for Desmogblog (James Hoggan & Associates PR Inc.) to use that argument, but it’s not okay to throw it back in their face?

Just exactly what did Mitchell Anderson make up?
Your 1987 picture is very nice, but now picture it with no ice.
Not 50% open water or 75% open water, but 100% open water with not so much as an ice cube in sight and for weeks at a time.
Now with all that ice gone, what do you think all that nice heat might do?
Perhaps it can work on the permafrost, or maybe it can continue to warm up the Arctic water with all those nice methane cathrates in the sea shelves, or go for the big one…
Greenland, you know the place that’s already melting?
Perhaps the extra warmth will do it all…
What do you think Zog?
Do you think Zog?

“…might do…perhaps…what do you think…perhaps…”

Helllppp! We’re all goning to diiieeee! NSIDC doesn’t support your doomsday reverie but, what do they know? They’re only scientists.

“Greenland, you know the place that’s already melting?”
GRACE satellite data (Rignot indicates that the Greenland ice mass is shrinking but the Danish Geological Survey, which has been doing terrestial measurements for 60 years, still supports the generally accepted view (there’s a decent body of literature) that the mass is more or less static, with thickening at high elevations and thinning on the edges. The jury is still out, and your boorish certitude is somewhat misplaced.

From the 1940s until fairly recently, the U.S. military “conveniently” left numerous markers at high elevations on the ice cap. (They’re called “aeroplanes”). Some of the more recent ones are still visible but others were (until aeroplane buffs started digging them out) burried under several meters of new ice.

It would appear that Dr Carl Boggild of The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, who does the measurements, would disagree with you.
Greenland is losing mass and the melt is accelerating.

Spare us the drama queen bs…”Helllppp! We’re all goning to diiieeee!”

That’s so at odds with the last few years’ results that it’s astonishing if true. I wasted more than half an hour looking for a report but found only a couple of news hits - NYT (the world’s least trustworthy news source) and the BBC. Do you have a link to any recent data?

“…north pole melting this year for the first time in history…”

Paul, you wrote: “Alas, it is true that the Antarctic does have 1,000,000 square kms of ice more then average.” Could you please cite a source in the scientific literature for this claim? Thanks in advance.

… not a scientist, but I get embarrassed for the deniers who supposedly are. When I see every major scientific organization and association put out position statements in agreement, I think “consensus”.
Remember that “side” telling us air pollution was a myth?
dumping chemicals into our water systems wasn’t going to hurt anything? cigarettes don’t cause cancer? and when they couldn’t deny the truths about these issues any longer, we don’t need government regulations? free markets would take care of it?
I’m old enough to remember.
And here we go again.

That was a welcome dose of sense from KMR, especially after the more vocal of the usual suspects all piped in here with their weirdly pejorative propaganda. So much contempt, so little capability.

I do enjoy the deniers’ comments - they’re just so frothy-at-the-mouth that I appreciate their comic value. I’m not sure who they are talking to, though. Each other, I suppose. For instance, should we believe a blog at americanthinker (thanks Rob) instead of the combined science academies of the G8 plus China, India, Brazil and so on? Hmm. That’s a tough one, I’ll go consult Tom Harris for an unbiased dose of reality… or perhaps, if I need more obvious comic relief, I’ll just wait for Zog or Rob to come back with one of their anagrams of previous remarks, or ask Tim Ball, Canada’s “first ph.d. climatologist”. Remember that one?

Even Saudi Arabia, China, and the US government agree with the IPCC position. Probably because it’s the most conservative posture that could still be claimed to be defensible.

For the deniers, the circus IS over. Sorry gang. But in a way, the circus is just beginning. Although the deniers are living in a conspiracy-filled reality of their own construction, they can quite justifiably be proud of their accomplishments to date. Although there is scarcely a scientist on earth who agrees with them, they are winning the policy part of this debate hands-down. And that is not comic relief at all.


So Ball kited his resume. That makes him the flip-side of astronomer and bureaucrat, Jim Hansen who unabashedly pretends to be a climatologist.

At least we deniaralists have the heaviest hitter climate experts like Lindzen, Michaels and Gray on our side. Who, exactly bats for your team? The 130 second stringers who came forward a couple of weeks ago in response to some of our lists?

But let’s not play the lists game. Longer lists (on either side) or endorsements by academic or professional bureaucracies don’t establish individual credibility. Instead, please name two warmist scientists (just two) with impecable climatology qualifications and established international reputations. No stretching now - try hard to think of someone in Lindzen’s leauge.

…are you on?
that’s the only response your post is worthy of.

In other words KMR, you’re stumped, which isn’t surprising.

Warmists have been getting a free ride for years with their “vast majority of scientists” nonsense. Vast majority of mediocrities? Perhaps.

I’ve often wondered why, among my associates, most of whom are scientists or engineers or retirees from the professions, I’ve only been able to identify three who believe that AGM may be important. It dawned on me, a few months ago, that scepticism is actually the norm. (This was recently confirmed by an APEGGA membership poll.)

No matter - as I’ve stated many times in the last few years, scientific truth isn’t determined by a show of hands. However, it would still be nice if the warmists could point to a few really top-drawer scientists in their ranks.

Are you sure that you don’t want to try naming a couple? One?

stupified is the word.

I really enjoyed that.

Keep on smiling, Zog, your joke was a good one.


Or so goes ZOG’s “reasoning”. Seriously, you poor, lost soul, if you continuously fail to detect any of the climate scientists who publish routinely in prestigious journals like Science and Nature, then I’m afraid the fault is entirely yours.

Look harder. Make an effort. If this was an entry-level undergrad class and you came back with such a pitiful remark, you’d fail. Except if your teacher was Canada’s “first ph.d. climatologist”, of course. Then you would get an A+ for sure.

Seriously, why not try to learn about this subject and its many, many contributors? Yes, Michaels, in the 60’s, was still highly regarded, and Lindzen has defended his views in the literature, although he has now been proven wrong on all major points by many independent studies. After making an effort, then, if you still think “we” are all barking up the wrong tree, you might be able to make an argument based on more convincing evidence. As it is, these comments of yours are all just anagrams of one another and constitute little more than repeated vomits of vitriol, insinuations, and propaganda.

I enjoy them anyway.


So, like KMR, you can’t come up with any credible names. I could give you one but, I don’t want to encourage the cult.

BTW, merely having published a few papers doesn’t equate to being internationally recognized as a top scientist, which is what I asked you for. With the plethora of journals out there, getting “peer reviewed” and published isn’t difficult. I know a guy who has published almost 50 papers (I admit that they were mostly in bottom-end publications)and the “consensus” is that he doesn’t know his arse from his armpit.

there’s plenty, plus every major scientific organization, who have as members plenty of those names you asked for.

but seriously, lindzen?

Well his list is full of tabacco causes cancer deniers, CFC’s dont harm the ozone, Global warming isnt happening, and DDT should be a food group, that the great Fred Singer wasnt named as well us shocking. Nothing like listing the for profit deniers. You name the scientific issue, and the same list of people keep turning up. Funny how that is, so anyways yes why not add Fred Singer to your list of discreditied folks there Zoggy

… you aren’t very important, just amusing.

I was trying to keep it constructive with you, but we can just keep it your usual comic relief role just as well. Really, I don’t mind.

BTW, Nature and Science, you know, the journals I mentioned? They’re really hard to get published in. But don’t strain yourself too hard actually doing a trivial amount of fact checking to find out about the subject you like to treat so contemptuously, it might cause a hernia. So, Hansen, who you so contemptuously dismissed, has published quite a number of significant theoretical and empirical contributions in those kinds of fora. But they don’t count, right? Because you decided in advance that no one on the opposite side of your fantasy debate is a good scientist, only the people you agree with? Could you at least try for an argument? It would be so much more _interesting_.

Actually, your usual stuff is fine with me! I really like your comments. Your charming persona keeps things here “fair and balanced”. Anyway, since you don’t actually interact, just toss around recycled ad hominems, I might change the channel and just tune in periodically to see if you did anything different.


“…Hansen, who you so contemptuously dismissed…”

Darn, I didn’t mean to let it show. (Seriously, I never “dismiss” a good con, and Hansen is one of the best - right up there with Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, or he was until he lost political credibility with his goofy comments about prosecuting energy company executives.)

“…Could you at least try for an argument?”

No, no more than I’d try for a serious discussion with 9-11 truthers, Roswell alien hunters, creation scientists or any other hocus pocus “Oh aren’t we scientific” cultists of your ilk. A waste of time, since faith always trumps reason and empirical science in the warmist worldview.

Have a nice evening.

BTW, Nature and Science are generalist journals that aren’t subect to the discipline of specialist mags that have to face thousands of “expert reviewers” every time they publish an issue. Moreover, they both have an unfortunate bandwagon tendency that taints their choice of contraversial material. Not “low end” but not, in my humble opinion, top of the line either.

Not like you’ll be ever publishing in them…..ohh yes thats right, you’re not very scientific. Forgot about that one, you need to at least understand science to practice it. Course ask any scientist what kind of honor it would be to publish in nature. Yes yes bandwagon….right, and all this AGW stuff is just going away, totally debunked, any day now…..any day now

Anyways to the point, ahh yes, denying global warming and whatever associated human causes of it, still gets little to no scientific publications, against the vast majority of papers in support of….so….enjoy that hole you head is sticking in, it must be great to choose paid deniers of all things. Unpossible!

Thanks for your enlightened comment. I’ll definitely have to remember this one of yours about Nature and Science being sort of for the generalists. Have you ever actually opened a copy of either journal? Or published in either? Clearly not or you wouldn’t sound so jealous. Or perhaps just uninformed. Have a look through them some time and see if they sound, how did you put it? “generalist”? Guffaw.

Lovin’ it ZOG, keep it coming, you’re a real asset.

I am happy to have elicited at least an attempt at an argument, even if your argument was an evasion and reference to space alien and whatever that other stuff was. See? I was right about you, your bad behaviour and constant inflammatory remarks are really opportunities for “teachable moments”.

I was a bit disconcerted, however, when I saw what kind of nickname you chose for yourself. I assume you know what the acronym ZOG stands for, among the anti-government terrorists and white supremacists in the USA and elsewhere? Do you think that was really a good and friendly choice for a nickname or were you making, you know, more of a statement of some kind? Unless of course they’re really your initials, in which case… well, yikes.

Just in case you really didn’t know, I’ll point you in the right direction:

In an effort to be helpful, it’s “controversial”.


Always interesting to hear from someone who has race on the brain. If you had been around this site for awhile, you’d be well aware of the origin of my handle. I’ll give you a hint - it was common currency decades before your definition came along. You should take something for your slime-encrusted little mind.

Well good to explain your lack of scientific prowess with senility. Least it explains a thing or two, further to the point when your list of references are those that get paid to deny everything, you’d think one would catch on…and be umm skeptical.

1. ZOG, I’ve been around this site for awhile and I’ve even asked what ZOG represents. This is the first time I’ve found out that it has something to do with currency. But here’s the way I saw it written when I googled Zog + currency: “Albania, Zog I gold 100 franga ar (100 francs)” – but you have all caps….
2. How would you define “Lindzen’s league”? Seriously, I want to know.
3. Did you ever get back to me regarding our acid rain discussion?

Lindzen’s league: “Internationally recognized, and generally acknowledged, within the academic community, to be a leading authority in his field.”

I thought that we completed our acid rain discussion in general agreement, except for the relationship between downwind dispersion and distance from principal source. What did I miss?

The part I think you missed is where I pointed out how anthropogenic acid rain had been denied for a very long time, ignored by many despite excellent theoretical work and observational work, and in fact is still being denied in some corners.

Steve L,

This is purely anecdotal but, all I can say is that I don’t remember any denials in my lifetime.Perhaps there were, as you say, scientists who questioned the existence of acid rain, but the general public was aware of it. When I worked in Sudbury, several years before the Big Stack was built to “share” the pollution with distant recipients, “smoke farming” was a popular cottage industry in communities downwind from the smelters. People would lodge complaints (usually legitimate) about acid damage to their crops, and Inco and Falconbridge would pay them off.

It’s not just as I say. And it’s interesting/informative – which is why I’ve been asking if you checked them out.

JTK, since you were kind enough to correct my spelling flub, I will return the favour by suggesting that you look up “generalist”. The word is not, as you seem to think, pejorative.

And yes, I have stuck my nose into both Nature and Science, but only in a library, when I wanted to check a specific reference.

It’s fun, Zog! You might also find that, when typing ZOG into, say, Google, the common meaning comes up first. That common meaning is the one that many will understand when they trip over one of your anagram insults. Sorry, dude, it’s the first thing on the list. Maybe you could throw a tag line into your messages so others don’t suspect you intended the common meaning but something rather obscure. Still wonder about your judgement in choosing something with this apparently double meaning.

Generalist is not pejorative, it’s just a bizarre misrepresentation. “Widely interesting” might be nearer the mark. I recommend reading their instructions to authors and their own descriptions of what they intend in Science and Nature. and Check em out.

I am just happy I got you to admit they weren’t active conspiracists at those journals, so Hansen, by publishing in them, has actually made a defensible contribution, would you say? Most scientists never manage to publish even once in those journals, a few manage it once and a rare person is able to make several contributions at that level. Hansen is one of the last kind. But if you build them into your conspiracy, then Nature and Science publications are not important, I guess. It’s a self-serving lie, but whatever.

Always a pleasure Zog, keep those contributions coming. I’m learning so much from you! And I do appreciate your humour.


Nothing obscure about “ZOG” except possibly to someone who has never paid any attention to civic affairs or modern history. Does the word “abdication” ring a bell?

I’m surprised that an intellectual giant such as you is so lazy that he relies on Google as his ultimate authority. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised since your reading list is limited to popular science magazines.

In a former post, I mentioned that you are new here. However, your latest belch looks suspiciously like the work of a regular contributor. You wouldn’t a sock puppet for one of Hoggan’s flacks would you JTK? Thought so. That’s bad blog etiquette.

“…so lazy that he relies on Google…”

OOPS! Meant to say “relies on Wikipedia”. Humble apologies to all googlers.

Keep it coming, you’re an awesome contributor. ZOG - since I know how many people would interpret that, I did a simple google search to see what it turned up. Informative. But something sensible like that doesn’t really work with your anagrammatic ad hominems. The only sort of hate-filled stuff you seem to really dig into.

No offense, but Nature and Science are not popular science mags. Your comment there was another good ZOG jest. “Popular Science” is a popular science mag, oddly enough, and so is “Scientific American”. But I do love your sense of humour.

Think of me as a sock puppet if it makes you feel happier and helps your spontaneity. Really, it’s all the same to me, just so long as you stay true to form.


Here’s a list that includes 52 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies.
All of whom trump Lindzy

Sigh. You continue wanting to play the “my list is bigger than your list” game. There are some truly great scholars on the short list (although I almost puked when I saw Paul Ehrlich’s name there) but, where among them are the names of internationally acclaimed climatologists?


High-speed train

Aggressively tackling global warming through better public transportation and increased energy efficiencies could increase global GDP by between $1.8 trillion and $2.6 trillion annually, a new report has found.

Released on Monday, the report by the World Bank and the ClimateWorks Foundation said tackling global warming now would also save as many as 94,000 lives a year from pollution-related diseases and reduce crop losses.

The report —...

read more