Bizarre ‘Fact Check’ Says it is “Misleading” to Report the Fact That Arctic Summer Sea Ice Has Increased Since 2012

A confused ‘fact-check’ from Agence France-Presse (AFP) claims that the Daily Sceptic published a misleading claim in saying: “Studies of Greenland show climate change is caused by natural factors, not carbon emissions.” We did no such thing. In an article published on October 2nd, we reported on a paper written by three Japanese climatologists commenting specifically on the recent decade-long slowdown of melting on the Greenland ice sheet. We noted the scientists wrote that “frequent occurrence of central Pacific El Niño events have played a key role in the slow-down of Greenland’s warming and possibly Arctic sea ice loss”.

In a crucial finding, possibly missed by the AFP ‘fact-checker’ since it appears in the main body of the paper, there was an additional comment about this spell of Greenland warming dating back to 2012: “This nonuniform Arctic warming can be attributed to natural variability, rather than anthropogenic forcing, although most climate models are unable to reasonably simulate the unforced natural variability over Greenland.”

What we did do, and what seems to have caused misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise on social media and elsewhere, was publish the scientists results and then state: “Of course such findings play havoc with the simplistic ‘settled’ science notion that carbon dioxide produced by humans burning fossil fuel is the main, if not only, driver of global temperature warming – or cooling – a notion that leads many green activists to claim that the climate will stop changing if society signs on to a ‘Net Zero’ agenda.”

Lead author Shinji Matsumura told AFP that we had “misrepresented” his paper. He said he did not agree with our claim that his findings played havoc with the claims around anthropogenic warming. Of course we don’t consider that we misrepresented his findings, not least because we provided a link for readers to check the original source. But we accept that he doesn’t agree with the opinion expressed that it casts doubt on ‘settled’ science anthropogenic warming – even though it shows that the rate of Greenland ice melt is heavily affected by a natural process. What, might be asked, is AFP actually fact-checking here?

In a recent ‘fact-check’ of a Daily Sceptic article, Facebook partner Climate Feedback claimed there had been no natural climate change for almost 200 years. It quoted Professor Timothy Osborn of the University of East Anglia, who said: “The warming from the late 1800s to the present is all due to human-caused climate change, because natural factors have changed little since then.”

As regular readers know, we try to present all sides of the climate argument The role of CO2 in atmospheric warming is currently a subject for considerable debate within science circles, but due to massive political and economic pressure is subject to a rigidly enforced news blackout in the mainstream media. There is no doubt that Dr. Matsumura believes carbon dioxide emissions play a part in climate change, but he is a good enough scientist to look and report on some of the other influences that affect the climate. For almost 20 years, a political ‘settled’ science narrative has been allowed to grow, suggesting that humans are solely responsible for the climate changing. The Daily Sceptic reports the abundant evidence, often embedded within papers that suggest human involvement is substantial, that shows this is simply not true.

Our recent article also went on to note that large changes in temperature have regularly occurred over the last 12,000 years. We noted that geologists have a name for the period when temperatures were much higher – the Holocene Thermal Maximum. We reported on evidence from a Greenland ice core that found Greenland cooled around 8,200 years ago by up to 3.3°C over 20 years, followed by a similar rise over 70 years. AFP contacted the author of the paper, Takuro Kobashi, who claimed we “misunderstood the climate of the Holocene”. AFP said the aim of the author was “to quantify possible impacts about future climate change” from greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. Kobashi says he now thinks that it “may be that global average surface temperature is now the warmest”, a view, of course, that is de rigueur among many state-sponsored scientists.

Finally, AFP claims we made a “misleading sea ice claim”. We noted that the recent recovery of Arctic summer sea ice has been spectacular, with the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reporting that this year’s September minimum was 1.28 million square kilometres higher than the 2012 low point of 3.39 million. The NSIDC said “although there was a wider spread of ice” than in 2012, this year’s reading was below the 1981-2010 average. “The article misrepresents the data,” AFP noted.

Quite how AFP came to the conclusion that our reporting was misleading by comparing one fact – September summer sea ice in 2022  – to another separate one – a 30-year average ending 12 years ago – is a bit of mystery. AFP even accepts that there “was a wider spread of ice” in 2022 than 2012. But according to AFP it is “misleading” to report this inconvenient fact.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Hickling
Bill Hickling
3 years ago

Keep plugging away Chris. By the way your headline needs the word “not”.

For a fist full of roubles

So this scientist is concerned that his funding might dry up as a consequence of what you said.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

And we need to fact check that the scientist actually said what the fact checkers claim.

ebygum
3 years ago

I agree with Bill, keep chipping away..never take part in the lie….

Remember when the ONS and other departments said people were using the data ‘wrong’..if they didn’t come to the same conclusions as them? This is what we live with now…I can’t remember how many Covid studies I have seen where the authors put in all the evidence for one outcome and then state another..the accepted agenda…it’s utterly bizarre, but the reality is that that is where we are now with pretty much everything.

I often wonder what conversations any of these people actually have..”hello Jack shall we talk about sea ice today…no, nothing to say the science is settled.”
Hello susie shall we talk about lack of efficacy (etc) of the 🥕 , no, nothing to say the science is settled.
Hello Bob shall we talk about the history of Ukraine leading up to the current conflict?
No, nothing to say the agenda is settled….etc…

They can’t really have much to discuss with each other can they?

nige.oldfart
3 years ago

Keep them coming Chris, another excellent article. I noticed the un-highlighted referrence to a climate cooling rate being faster than a climates propensity to warm by a the same amount. I read somewhere that a 3 Deg drop could be experienced over a couple of years rather than decades. If such an event did occur then I think that this whole fiasco would be reversed, with every man and dog out with a spade digging for coal.

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

Who exactly is being ‘misled’?

i have been following this scam for 25 years, and I certainly am not misled by the Daily Sceptic article, or the numerous others I have read over the years, particularly the ones insisting global warming/climate change is Manmade.

The problem with the Climageddon Industry is they don’t present any facts for us to check. They keep telling us they have the facts, which they say are so irrefutable they don’t need to be published and discussed because to do so would imply there was some doubt about them.

Neat logic.

RW
RW
3 years ago

Seems a good opportunity to mention this neat little bit of Water shortages due to months of drought (since end of August)! posturing by Thames Water

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/help/water-restrictions
[link to that directly on their front-page]

That this hasn’t been updated for a fortnight strongly suggests that someone is having trouble with finding a few more, arbitrarily chosen averages of something to maintain the fictional story that there’s a water shortage in England.

RW
RW
3 years ago

On its own below the 1981-2010 average means absolutely nothing. Unless they can come up with a compelling justification for choosing this particular period, this strongly smells of cherry-picking, ie, they’ve chosen this particular period because doing so happens to support the claim they wanted to make.

Due to the nature of averages, above or below the average is nothing out of the ordinary. Assuming the average is actually representative of the data, one would expect about half of the real data points to be above average and the other half to be below average. Above or below is only noteworthy if the specific value is significantly outside of the usual variance of individual data points wrt the average, ie, significantly outside of the range average +/- standard deviation. Without this information, above of below the average is a misleading statement, at it suggests that something unusual had happened despite this might not have been the case.

ptor
ptor
3 years ago

Great stuff for agitating ‘fact-checkers/critical-thinking manipulators’ here regarding the natural cycle stuff…
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/22/the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-vii-a-summary-plus-qa/

Pembroke
Pembroke
3 years ago

“In a recent ‘fact-check’ of a Daily Sceptic article, Facebook partner Climate Feedback claimed there had been no natural climate change for almost 200 years. It quoted Professor Timothy Osborn of the University of East Anglia, who said: “The warming from the late 1800s to the present is all due to human-caused climate change, because natural factors have changed little since then.” ”

It will surprise no one to learn that Professor Timothy Osborn is actually part of the ‘Climate Feedback’ team, he’s listed on their site as a reviewer.

https://climatefeedback.org/reviewers/timothy-osborn/

so, it’s actually the professor doing the reviewing of Toby’s piece, Facebook / Climate Feedback are not quoting an independent source.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 years ago

Please don’t refer to the “Holocene Thermal Maximum”.
Until woke climate science took over this period was known as the Holocene Climate Optimum. This says all we need to know about global average temperatures, i.e. warmth is good for humans and life in general. During this period much of the Sahara desert was lush grassland supporting abundant life and a large human population. It was only as the climate started to cool roughly 6,000 years ago that large areas started to turn to desert. Similarly in Scotland tree stumps preserved in peat show that the Caledonian forest reached it’s maximum extent roughly 6,000 years ago and started to decline as the climate became cooler and wetter and lush forest turned to barren bog. These are 2 examples that I’m aware of that show warm periods in the past equalled good times, and I’m sure there’s plenty of other examples from other parts of the world that tell a similar story.