Skip to content

What Emily Shuckburgh Forgot To Tell You

November 30, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


h/t Dave Ward





Booker had a piece in the Mail the other day about how Scott’s and Shackleton’s records showed that sea ice extent around Antarctica then was little different to today.

I did not bother reposting it as I had already covered the topic myself. However, it has elicited a hysterical and misleading reply from Dr Emily Shuckburgh of the British Antarctic Survey. More of that later, but first this is what Booker wrote:





Why should there be so much excitement over the discovery — from the log books of two of Britain’s most famous explorers more than 100 years ago — that there was the same amount of ice floating round Antarctica then as there is today?

To the surprise of academics from the University of Reading, the records kept by the expeditions of Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton in the early years of the last century — which detail the extent of ice cover, the state of the sea and the weather — show there has been remarkably little change in the extent of sea ice at the other end of the world.

Dr Jonathan Day, who led the study, said: ‘The data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice.

‘We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began.

‘Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these findings suggest it may not be anything new.’


Passengers from the Russian ship 'Akademik Shokalskiy' explore the frozen Ross Sea in the Antarctic. Mount Erebus volcano is in the background

Passengers from the Russian ship ‘Akademik Shokalskiy’ explore the frozen Ross Sea in the Antarctic. Mount Erebus volcano is in the background



The relevance of this startling discovery is that it again raises question marks over what has become the single most influential scientific theory shaping our modern world: the belief that the planet is dangerously overheating and we need to take drastic steps to bring it under control.

Those who believe in man-made global warming are passionate in their belief that, thanks to those supposedly soaring temperatures, the mighty polar ice caps are melting rapidly.

If this continues, the theory runs, it could lead to a rise in sea levels so great that it would eventually flood many of the most densely populated regions of the world.

No sequence in the film An Inconvenient Truth — made by the former U.S. Vice President Al Gore — was more chilling than his computer graphics showing how melting ice could cause the oceans to rise by 20 ft, drowning many of the world’s great cities, from Shanghai and San Francisco to New York and London.

It is true that, in the past 37 years since satellite records began, the summer ice at the top of the world, in the Arctic, has been shrinking — though nothing like as far or fast as has been constantly predicted.

But even if all that floating sea ice did melt, it would do no more to raise sea levels than the melting of an ice cube in a gin and tonic raises the level of liquid in the glass — in other words, barely at all, because the volume of the ice is replaced by a similar volume of water.


Potentially much more serious in terms of the planet’s future is the colossal amount of land ice on Antarctica, which contains 90 per cent of all of the ice on the planet.

And it is here that we find what is arguably the single most glaring contradiction in the global warming theory.

Because all the evidence suggests that, far from getting warmer, over the past 50 years Antarctica has, in fact, been getting colder.

The satellite records show sea ice around that mighty continent has been increasing to the point where last year, it reached its greatest extent since Nasa’s observations began in 1979.

Even more significant was another finding reported by Nasa last year, showing that the thickness of ice over most of that vast continent has been making colossal gains — as much as 112 billion tons a year between 1992 and 2001, and an average of 82 billion tons a year between 2003 and 2008.

For years, the global warming zealots remained so convinced of their theory about melting ice that they simply shut their eyes to what is really happening at the bottom of the world.

There was a farcical example in 2013 when an Australian-led ‘scientific expedition’ sailed into the Antarctic Ocean to study how quickly climate change was melting the ice.


As Christmas approached, they ignored their Russian captain’s warning that the ice was closing in so fast that they should escape.

They continued to frolic around on ice thickening around their ship to more than 10 ft while, according to the BBC man, they were still taking measurements ‘to show how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice is disappearing’.

Eventually, they became so dangerously trapped that they had to be helicoptered to a Chinese rescue ship, which, itself, became so stuck that it had to be rescued by an American ice-breaker.

Many attempts have been made by less reckless scientists to persuade the world that Antarctica is warming, though their efforts have focused almost entirely on the one part of that vast continent which has, indeed, become slightly warmer — its western coast.

It is from here we have seen dramatic shots of melting glaciers crashing into the sea.

But more cautious experts have tried to explain this is because of heat rising from a mighty crack in the Earth’s crust buried far beneath the surface.


In 2009, scientific luminaries of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a paper in advance of what was to be the most important climate conference the world had ever seen.

Their sensational study was part of a general bid to whip up climate hysteria before the world’s leaders met in Copenhagen that December to discuss a treaty committing them to every kind of drastic measure to halt global warming.

The paper claimed to show that, far from getting colder, as all previous evidence suggested, Antarctica was getting warmer.

Almost immediately, however, other experts spotted a fatal flaw in the study. It had all hinged on temperatures recorded by a single weather station.

But pictures of this place showed it buried under snow, which would have cocooned its thermometers from the freezing outside air, giving readings distinctly warmer than they should have been.

Of course, the discovery that emerged this week from the records kept by Shackleton and Scott supports what we already knew from modern research — that what is going on at the bottom of the world is the most embarrassing single flaw in the whole global warming theory.

Isn’t the whole point about ‘global warming’ that it is meant to be ‘global’?

So how does that stack up when Antarctica appears to be cooling, its sea ice has been growing so fast there is more of it than at any time since records began and it has been confirmed scientifically that the thickness of its land ice has been increasing by trillions of tons?

And why is all this of much more than just academic interest to the rest of us?

Because it is the widely held belief in human-made climate change that is persuading our politicians to plan the most extraordinary revolution, not just in how we make our electricity, but in our entire way of life.

The next time you are shocked at how fast your energy bills are rising, or you pay an extra £70 tax on an airline ticket thanks to a green levy, or see another row of giant windmills looming over the countryside, you might think of the great puzzle of Antarctica.

And then ask if the theory driving this incredibly costly change is really as foolproof as politicians have been led to believe.


To which Shuckburgh replied:





However, there are certain things that she left out of her account:


1) As she must know, climate change, (by which she means AGW), cannot cause the ocean changes she talks about, as GHG cannot warm up the sea to the depths involved. Perhaps she might like to spend a bit of time finding what has caused it.

2) For some reason, she omits to tell the Mail’s readers that geothermal activity is contributing to glacial melting in West Antarctica.

3) She also forgets to mention that overall the Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. (It took Lyn Jenkins in the other letter to mention this inconvenient fact).

4) Her colleagues at the BAS reported a few months ago that temperatures in West Antarctica have actually been dropping since the late 1990s. Surely she knew that?

5) There has been no rise in Antarctic temperatures in the satellite era, and it has been warmer than now for most of the last 8000 years. 

6) The changes to West Antarctica glaciers reports are nothing new, and scientists and explorers have been aware of them since the 19thC.

7) Professor John Turner of the BAS has stated that the Pine Island glacier seems to be an ongoing retreat that could have been going on for 10,000 years.

8) She claims that ice loss has doubled in six years, but does not tell us that we have only been monitoring these things for a few years, or that such short term trends are utterly meaningless.



If she had bothered to read the paper that Booker referred to, she would have discovered that the findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century .

Getting hysterical about a few years’ of data, whilst ignoring the longer term, is not what serious scientists are supposed to do.

  1. markl permalink
    November 30, 2016 6:42 pm

    Due to the warmists control over the MSM the masses are being separated from the truth. They have effectively mushroomed a good part of the world. Hopefully with the change in America’s government administration coming up soon there will be some enlightenment.

    • Stephen permalink
      December 2, 2016 10:00 am

      I think Donald Trump will instill some truth back into science especially at NASA.

  2. November 30, 2016 7:03 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    My doctoral research was sponsored by the British Antarctic Survey – how very sad to see it descended into a mouthpiece for alarmist climate propaganda. Shame on them.

    • December 1, 2016 9:04 am

      Anything that comes out of the BAS has to be treated with great scepticism. It is one of the BBC’s major ports of call for alarmism.

  3. CheshireRed permalink
    November 30, 2016 7:17 pm

    The gloves are well and truly off now in the climate change debate. Just as with alleged ‘racism’ and Islamophobia’, media and industry suppression of climate dissent has reached its own tipping point and now the people simply aren’t phased by being called a ‘denier’ anymore, or by lurid name-calling. As a result of Trumps election AGW theory is about to come under the most sustained scrutiny in its 28 year life. (Since c1988)

    Not one day too soon. Bring it on.

  4. November 30, 2016 7:46 pm

    She deserves the quite brutal factual hammering, Paul. Good show. The misreporting about PIG is nothing less than astounding.

  5. November 30, 2016 7:59 pm

    Does she get salary/grants from any ‘warmist’ group or government?

    • Joe Public permalink
      November 30, 2016 8:38 pm

      Yup, mugged UK taxpayers.

      From her LinkedIn entry:
      “Department of Energy and Climate Change (sic), British Antarctic Survey, Darwin College, University of Cambridge”

  6. Athelstan permalink
    November 30, 2016 8:10 pm

    Mz Scuttleborough………….

    “misrepresenting the facts”

    you got it in one Emily.

    and on another thing, I’ve gotta be careful here because the bloke at this place knows his stuff but – have you seen this Paul?

    Britain’s main power link to France was partially severed during Storm Angus and will not be fixed until February, National Grid has revealed, exacerbating fears of a power crunch this winter.

    The Interconnexion France-Angleterre (IFA) link between Folkestone and Calais is Britain’s biggest interconnector, allowing it to import up to 2 gigawatts of power from the continent to help keep the lights on when UK supplies run low.

    I think, we are entering a new winter black out ball game and as the Jet stream blows chill, red sunsets galore indicative of a lot of dust up there, sun in quiescence mode, I dunno but………………. I feel deep anxiety……………. over all of this.

    • November 30, 2016 11:33 pm

      A couple of guys mentioned it yesterday on the other thread.
      The key thing is how much of total inter-connector capacity do we normally use ?
      If we have 10GW capacity but only import max 7GW then losing 1GW isn’t a big problem.

      • Athelstan permalink
        November 30, 2016 11:58 pm

        Very true stewgreen,

        I always speculate though and ponder on. Add in, with Merkel cutting the Fatherland’s nuclear umbilical, a cold winter would, will, put enormous strain on EU grid energy demand and supply thereof.
        Now to the rub, on a scale of preferred customers, I do not think that, UK demand rates if at all, very highly for our dear French allies priorities. Thus, irrespective of whether the pipeline sending us that product of glorious French fission, we are and always will be: at the back of the queue – anyway.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        December 2, 2016 5:26 pm

        We were regularly importing 2GW from France, 1GW from the Netherlands and as much surplus wind from Ireland as was available within the capacity of the E-W and Moyle interconnectors. The E-W is also out of action at the moment, and Moyle has only just recovered from a period of operating at half cock because of the need for cable repairs. The risks of damage seem to have been under-estimated when you think of three out of four connections being damaged – and a period of maintenance on the BritNed caused a power price spike back in May.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    November 30, 2016 8:17 pm

    Lyn Jenkins notes that the net ice gain is 82 –112 billion tons per year. By coincidence that averages to 97 billion tons. That is about the same weight as the CO2 “we” have been ordained to capture and store to get us safely back to the 350 ppm of 1987… 50 ppm CO2 weighs ~100 billion metric tons. Convert it “dry ice” and ship it to Antarctica?

  8. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    November 30, 2016 8:25 pm

    When you see a glacier gliding to the sea and calving ice bergs, it could just as well be because a lot of snow is accumulating, and it must in the end travel to the sea.
    If the shelf ices do not break off from time to time, they would reach South America.
    The ice bergs and floating ice islands are a sign that all is working.
    Only when it stops you are in trouble.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 1, 2016 12:52 am

      Any old people like me here who can remember the Flight of the Condor series that looked at the Andes from bottom to top? At the beginning in Tiera Del Fuego there was some wonderful footage of a glacier calving showing that is what they do. Of course global warming hadn’t been invented then.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        December 1, 2016 1:38 pm

        I keep hoping they re-run that some time.
        Superb programme; superb music!

  9. November 30, 2016 8:27 pm

    Trust me I’m an expert seems to apply to anyone who claims doom and despair: any denier by this definition is not an expert and to be ignored.
    What a crazy world we’re living in!

  10. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 30, 2016 9:06 pm

    I do sincerely hope that Emily Shuckburgh is open-minded enough to read this blog – or that someone will point it out to her. That’s because I would like her to know that her hero, Al Gore, is a cheat. In his infamous film, “An Inconvenient Truth” it has been well documented here that he ripped off the opening glacier-calving (CGI)sequence from the fictional film, “The Day After Tomorrow”.

    Together with the other UK court judgments that his film had NINE errors of fact/science should be enough for any rational person – Emily Shuckburgh? – to have cause for doubts for there ‘beliefs’.

    • Theyouk permalink
      December 1, 2016 12:59 am

      Never mind that in his book cover and movie poster for An Inconvenient Truth he had NH hurricanes rotating in the wrong direction. That alone told me all I needed to know about that snake oil salesman’s level of expertise and credibility in Earth Sciences.

  11. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 30, 2016 9:07 pm

    ‘Their’!!! FFS

  12. November 30, 2016 9:24 pm

    She either hasn’t heard of the NASA 2015 report – unlikely – or would prefer not to mention its conclusions, as they don’t fit her narrative.

  13. November 30, 2016 9:59 pm

    Booker makes the point temperature swings are not global, Antarctica being the exception in this case. Ed Hawkins provides a striking display of how variable are the regional climates across the world.

  14. November 30, 2016 10:19 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  15. tom0mason permalink
    November 30, 2016 10:44 pm

    The screaming of ‘the message’ continues apace.
    BUT — —

    Has anyone seen that Algeria, Morocco, and now Saudi Arabia have had snow this month?

    In Saudi Arabia snowfall came when temperatures dropped to -3 ° C in Al-Jawf region, as well as in northern -1 Qurayyat, according to the “Saudi Gazette” newspaper

    Or that Iran’s citrus crop has been destroyed by cold weather?

    Or that totally unseasonal snow has happen in Tokyo this past month?
    I wonder why not?

  16. December 1, 2016 12:18 am

    Hours later she tweets invitation for funding proposals for Twaites Glacier research
    (that’s the one flowing into Pine Island Bay)

    Emily Shuckburgh ‏@emilyshuckburgh 12 hours ago
    Call for proposals from @NERCscience & @NSF to study Thwaites Glacier is open:

    • Dodgy Geezer permalink
      December 1, 2016 11:34 am

      Tell her that the science is settled, so why do we need this research?

  17. December 1, 2016 12:40 am

    The public can see thru that distraction technique now.
    She tries to pull the look at pea under the cup trick
    “Look It’s Antarctica”
    “There you can see it in West Antarctic Ice shelf ice is falling”
    …Public “hey hang on that is a different pea, you were just talking about Antarctica as a whole.

    The style of writing is nowhere near the clear SCIENTIFIC writing style of Prof Bob Carter or Patrick Moore, who would have set out the clear context/perspective instead of trying to pull that distraction trick.
    – They would have started with whole world ice
    … Mentioned recent ice falling in the Arctic, but explaining that’s not great consequence cos it’s floating ice so doesn’t change sea level.
    – Then moved onto the whole Antarctic situation explaining that it being land ice is different. That if it falls it does make sea level rise. But actually it has been steadily growing so taking from sea level.
    – Then explaining that a section the West Antarctic ice shelf is an exception cos it’s ice has been decreasing recently for some as yet uncertain reason.
    And those reasons could be geothermal lake underneath or maybe different sea currents flowing underneath it or combination etc.
    And that there is a theory that such sea flows could undermine the glacier tip and cause it to tumble.

  18. Tom Dowter permalink
    December 1, 2016 4:09 am

    Standard AGW theory predicts that polar regions should warm faster than tropical ones.

    Well, the Arctic plays ball . . . .

    But the Antarctic doesn’r. What a pity!

    • December 1, 2016 8:07 am

      It’s not even the case that the Arctic plays ball. The Arctic merely does its own thing, to wit it ebbs and flows.

  19. Dung permalink
    December 1, 2016 6:39 am

    The politicians are the criminals here and they have their fingers in their ears and are screaming LA LA LA LA.
    It is the politicians who are spraying our taxes around like water, crippling our heavy industries, destroying our power generation assets, refusing to repeal the climate change act, making sure our fossil fuels remain buried forever! It is also the politicians who decide which scientists they will listen to.

  20. December 1, 2016 8:05 am

    For at least the last three decades the British Antarctic Survey has eschewed science in favour of proselytising advocacy.

  21. AlecM permalink
    December 1, 2016 9:53 am

    Shuckburgh is a typical airhead, promoted to prominence to conflate women’s liberation with fake climate science. This winter (central Europe is already 0.5 K lower than normal) will concentrate the minds of even the dizziest bimbos like Shuckburgh, and her masters.

  22. NeilC permalink
    December 1, 2016 10:21 am

    Calling Dr. Emily Chickburgh a scientist is a misnomer. A real scientists would be investigating solar cycles, ocean cycles, Milankovitch cycles to gain better understanding of what is happening in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.

    Settled science, pull the other one.

  23. Dodgy Geezer permalink
    December 1, 2016 11:33 am

    …Getting hysterical about a few years’ of data, whilst ignoring the longer term, is not what serious scientists are supposed to do….

    Yes it is. If they’re serious about getting their next grant….

  24. December 1, 2016 1:05 pm

    As to the Arctic, an interesting topic for some research and a post is: the doomed Lady franklin Bay expedition in the 1800s, which reached a point near the northern tip of Greenland in summer without much difficulty. The relevant records could be checked against, say, the data for 2012 (a low year for ice) to see how the ice situation during the time of the Franklin. Ay expedition compared. I looked at a NOAA image for July 2012 and it looked to my nonexpert eye that the spot so easily reached by the 1800s expedition was quite icy in 2012. But a closer analysis would be needed — eg, what did key accounts of the expedition say about how much ice they saw as they sailed (were they dodging floes?), and what does the 2012 data say about extent of ice in the relevant location (frozen solid; floes; nothing?). In any event, I would think a few hours on this by a person with more scientific/climate background than me would be worthwhile and might lead to a very interesting post, potentially posing the provocative question: if 2012 was a record low year triggered by co2, how were northern Greenland ice conditions less icy for the Franklin Bay expedition in the latter half of the 1800s?

  25. Bitter&twisted permalink
    December 1, 2016 3:51 pm

    BAS ceased to be a scientific research organisation when warmist fanatic, Chris Rapley, took over. He’s moved on but his poisonous legacy remains.

  26. It doesn't add up... permalink
    December 2, 2016 5:32 pm


    Snegurochka, also known as the Snow Maiden or Snowy, is a unique character of Russian folklore and an essential part of Russian New Year’s celebrations. The origins of Snegurochka are contradictory. The roots of this feminine character can be found in Slavic pagan beliefs. According to legend, she is the daughter of Father Frost (Dyadya Moroz) and the Snow Queen.

    However, another Russian fairy-tale tells a story of an old man and woman who had always regretted that they did not have any children. In winter they made a girl out of snow. The snow maiden came alive and became the daughter they never had. They called her Snegurochka. But when the summer sun began to warm the land, the girl became very sad.

    One day she went into the woods with a group of village girls to pick flowers. It began to get dark and the girls made a fire and began playfully jumping over the flames. Snegurochka also jumped, but suddenly she melted and turned into a white cloud.

    In some parts of Russia people still follow the ancient tradition of drowning a straw figure in the river or burning it on the bonfire to dispel the winter. This custom symbolizes the transition from winter to spring.

  27. January 15, 2017 6:02 pm

    “There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting….measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. “The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time,” she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. “It isn’t just one type of measurement. It’s a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust.” ” Source: (

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: