I guess NBC is lying too: "Not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study reports." http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environme...
And Discovery: "Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice" http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-w...
Even the Guardian: "Antarctic ice thicker than previously thought, study finds" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
_______________________________________...
By the way, when something is different than "previously thought", then most reasonable people would suggest that it is unexpected and perhaps even surprising.
Apparently, if the article doesn't say 'much thicker than expected', it is a lie to say that it found ice was much thicker than expected. Doesn't occur to them that there is an independent way to determine what is expected, but apparently they have to have every detail verified by the climate high priests.
It is like saying that planetary temperatures are cooler than expected by models. You don't need an article to say what the expected amount is, or specifically say 'cooler than expected' to realize that in fact that is the temperatures we are experiencing now.
The LEGENDS of Y/A (in their own mind) attacking? Is that how we gain respect and treat people with dignity?
There have been many claims that Antarctic Sea Ice was only growing and expanding on the surface.
Isn't it GREAT to know that the Earth remains steadfast and defies scientific theory in certain parts? Even though CO2 levels continue to increase in the Antarctic area (CO2 is growing at the same rate there as it is in Mauna Loa), the ice still grows. A 40% increase in CO2 levels along with a substantial increase of sea ice? I thought CO2 was warming the oceans and the atmosphere?
One would think that Antarctica would be substantially affected by such scientific facts.
"Isn't it proper when making accusations of lying, that you quote the part that you think is a lie, and then provide evidence that it is actually a lie."
Yes I think so. So why did you not do that?
To make a clear distinction with what Ottawa Mike says "Some around here equate "lying" with "I don't like you or what you are saying"", I will say flat out that when I say someone is lying, they are lying. People in here say lots of things that I don't like, but there are few things I say are lies and I can usually back it up with proof.
Since there is no link to what Jeff M said, I don't see how we're supposed to judge, but my guess is that he is more accurate than Watt, who is a propagandist.
The headline uses the term "Much thicker than expected" However nowhere in the article is that term used, nor is the term used in the article that WUWT references or the paper [1] itself. The closest I can find is "Our surveys indicate that the floes are much thicker and more deformed than reported by most drilling and ship-based measurements of Antarctic sea ice."
It may well be thicker than what WUWT expected, but there is no indication that the scientist had any expectations, the fact that they went out to measure it in the way they did, is (I am guessing) because they wanted better data.
The WUWT article only makes the "ice is thicker" claim in it's opening sentence. The source that they're using makes no such claim.
Worse, they conflate "more ice" and "thicker ice" as if the higher than normal expanse of winter ice last winter was thicker, when that "sub" didn't measure the outer ice layer that was new ice for the year.
In that light, the wuwt article is considerably less than honest.
I guess the meaning Watts tries to spin on this is pretty easy to see if you look at his headline and then look at the actual BAS article (of course denier will never admit that)
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_...
the article in fact states this ROV was being used on particular thicker sections of ice as it states,
"but difficulties in getting access to thicker areas of sea ice leaves gaps in the data"
Watts has a pretty long and obvious history of trying to spin science to his agenda, usually finding the true source shows Watts in his true light, but again denier just ignore that, as they have for years.
Having personally read a lot of Watts stuff over the years and with one direct contact, early on, where I innocently thought he might be honest, he showed me directly what he was like.
e.g. I reported an error in one of his weather station site reports, the one for Lake Tahoe, which had a series of photo's of a Stephenson screen that was in a fenced area next to a incinerator, I pointed out to him that one of the photo's showed this was not an active weather station as it had no instruments inside (one of the photo's showed the inside) It was clearly just a screen in storage, what was Watts response, he blocked the username I had used on his forum and deleted just that one photo, the rest of his claimed (bad site report) remains to this day, not long after this he also made it more difficult to access his weather station site.
P.S. the report on the Tahoe site was not one that had been sent to Watts, but one he claimed to have done himself, i.e. he took the photo's, odd then that this (self professed) expert on weather, confused an empty cardboard chart roll and and some general rubbish for weather instruments.
His case was certainly also not helped by his continuing claim of not being funded, when it emerged he was in fact funded to the tunes of at least $30,000, he then tried to switch to the story this was not funding but for a website, given that both his sites are general blog type sites that many people create for free, for nothing more than a registered site address ~$20-40
I think the above gives a pretty good idea on my opinion of how Watts handles "truth"
Personally I don't "hate" Watts I just pity poor deniers who continue to believe his nonsense.
OM
Like Sagebrush, Madd Maxx, JIm Z, ...
But when an article says one thing, and WUTH says it says something else, lets say I don't like what people are saying when watt they are saying is a lie.
edit
I didn't include Ian in the above list,because he just makes up things that he claims realists say and ignores what we actually say.
It says it here in FSM's link, quote
" We suggest that thick ice in the near-coastal and interior pack may be under-represented in existing in situ assessments of Antarctic sea ice and hence, on average, Antarctic sea ice may be thicker than previously thought"
Edit
I think I have proved WUWT did not lie, they might have mixed up their links thats all.
Do you think Jeff M will apologise? I mean he also implied that because I support WUWT I am a lier too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/24/surprise-robot-sub-finds-much-thicker-than-expected-antarctic-sea-ice/
Isn't it proper when making accusations of lying, that you quote the part that you think is a lie, and then provide evidence that it is actually a lie.
Oh, I have stopped taking anything Jeff says as serious. He stinks up this site with his vaporizing, sock puppeting and other dirty tactics. This is the latest movement by the greenies, is to call everyone a liar without proof.
They are losing out so bad that it is pathetic that anyone heeds these liars and thugs.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
These miscreants are just defending their lies. It is an old formula. They are the ones who love the lie. Who adore the self admitted liar Al Gore. Who don't care that 24,000 people died in the UK due to high energy prices that their kind had installed. It just proves that they are not normal people but monsters in the shape of humans. In Jeff's case it is really puzzling that he lives in one of the most beautiful cities in the world yet has such a twisted mind.
Watts could link to an article stating that 2 + 2 = 4 and the first thing they would say is that he's a liar. Somehow Watts linking to any study totally invalidates that study in the eyes of the alarmists.
No. WUWT did not say much. They would have been more honest to have pointed out that the thickness is now known to be greater, which bears no relationship to any CHANGES in the thickness.
i do not find wuwt credible.
