Welcome to Sott.net
Mon, 28 May 2018
The World for People who Think

Bell

"Apocalyptic Climate Predictions" Mislead the Public, Say Experts

Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions.

Ice berg
© unknown
Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.

The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.

In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

Comment: This is a rather lengthy commentary separate from the article itself. It is intended as such to let the reader read the above article as it is written. Then we are going to attempt to practice a little perspicacity, seeing if we can really see what is actually being said through another pair of eyes.

This is a great article. It appears on the face of it to be a call for reasonableness in the climate research field, a rebuke of both scientists and the media for promoting alarmism and the hystericization of the public.

Well think again. Let's take another look at the entire article, top to bottom.
Title: 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
Right off the bat we are lead to believe that experts are calling for some reasonableness in this issue and it must be very important as the public is being misled.
Summary: Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
We are given a hint about what this article is really about.

The undermining of the agenda to control carbon emissions!
Article: Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.
Notice we get the 'Experts' are speaking meme once again and not only are they experts but from a top climate research centre.

Was it really a blistering attack? No. It was 'Dr. Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met office,' speaking and trying to salvage damage to the 'global warming' and 'carbon emissions control' effort.
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
Again, emphasis on the elite nature and authority of who is speaking, 'most prestigious research facilities in the world'! And once again, why they are speaking, which is to shore up the image of the 'carbon emissions control' effort.
In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
The undertone here is that radicalism on both sides of the 'Global Warming' science issue is not doing anyone a service, but especially it is doing a great disservice to the promoters of global warming and the promoters of the control of carbon emissions. It is nice that Dr. Vicky Pope at least includes her side in the rebuke. But I think the reader can get the flavor of where this article is going even in the subtle backhanded way that it accomplishes it.
She adds: "Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically."
Did you grasp that? Radicalism on both sides undermines the foundation of one side of the equation. It undermines the global warming cause. It undermines the efforts to 'control carbon emissions'.

But that is the pro-Global-Warming alarmist side to begin with!

Nothing alarming here!

The implications are profound if super human drastic efforts are not undertaken immediately!
Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues. "You just can't do that. You have to look at the long-term trend and then at the natural variability on top." Dramatic predictions of accelerating temperature rise and sea ice decline, based on a few readings, could backfire when natural variability swings the other way and the trends seem to reverse, he says. "It just confuses people."
Duh!

And why has it taken so many years for the Met and the global warming camp to come out with this? It is the very process of 'Dramatic Predictions' in the global warming camp that brought us Kyoto, that created the political wind and mind signal that man made carbon emissions are going to doom the planet.

But that is the point of this article and Vicky Pope's concern, is it not? To preserve the radical predictions of global warming and to preserve the mind signal that is being broadcast to all, that it is man made carbon emissions which will doom us all.
Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as some reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed by frozen sea water, has collapsed in recent years, with ice extent in September last year 34% lower than the average since satellite measurements began in 1979.
So why didn't Pope speak up when the 'sea ice is melting tipping point' alarmism was foisted on the public tens of thousands of times in multiple waves in the past 4 years? Search Google arctic ice "tipping point".

The Tipping Point Broadcast

Dec 16, 2008
Oct 28, 2008
August 2008
Apr 24, 2008
Dec 12, 2007
Sep 28, 2007
March 2007
May 15, 2006
Sep 16, 2005

And is this really just "as some reports have suggested"? Really? Some reports? What kind of idiots does Pope and the media giant creating this article think the readers are?

Do you feel the signal coming through?

Notice how even though Vicky Pope mentions the sea ice drama, this article then turns around and makes sure the reader knows that sea ice has collapsed in recent years and this past September it was 34% lower than average.

Let's not promote alarmism, but by the way you should be alarmed!

Isn't that a little backhanded? Write an article pronouncing that scientists and media need to stop presenting skewed views and then skew the view in the article that says "play nice".
"The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again over the next few years," she says.

"It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change."
Distorted?

How about "the record breaking losses"? Does Dr. Vicky Pope mention that the record breaking losses in the past two years were accompanied by record rapid recoveries of sea ice extent? Nope! But she finds it necessary to throw a skewness in to the signal being broadcast to the public. Is this a psychological technique of some kind? Or is it just hypocrisy?
"This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off."
It seems that the problem in the global warming camp is that too many people in the wider audience are switching on, waking up, and that is her problem and a threat to the global warming camp.
The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the global warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests. It comes ahead of a key year of political discussions on climate, which climax in December with high-level political negotiations in Copenhagen, when officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
Now the issue of global warming is cast by the media author as the "global warming debate", and the global warming debate is being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests. In literal terms this means the "human caused global warming" due to the "human caused carbon emissions" is a fact that cannot be disputed, that cannot be examined and called into question. That is what the 'Met Office' and Vicky Pope and the media author of this article are saying is at risk. What else is at risk of being hijacked? The science on the threat of global cooling? The science on the threat of climatic catastrophe due to a quiet sun leading to lower ozone levels, negative ocean oscillators and shifting transporters of water vapor to the poles?

What is it that is at the risk of being hijacked? In literal terms "the risk of being hijacked" refers to one thing only; the risk is to the suggestive signal being broadcast to the global populace of "human caused global warming" being due to the "human caused carbon emissions". That is all that the Met and Vicky Pope are talking about.

And this article just shows how those in the positions of power and influence maintain the state of hystericization of the public, in anyway they can, not least through backhanded psychological manipulation.

By the way, where was the voice of Vicky Pope asking for calm and reason in the media and amongst scientists when various global media representatives called for meteorologists to be stripped of their credentials for being critical of "global warming"? Where was Vicky Pope when various global media mouthpieces likened global warming critical analysis to "Holocaust Denial" and called for Nuremberg style trials to bring critics up on charges of crimes against humanity? And where is Vicky Pope's call for reasonableness when James Hansen goes on one of his many tirades calling for petroleum executives to be brought up on charges?

Enforcing the Global Warming Signal

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Nazi Style Silencing of Global Warming Skeptics - Strip Them of Their Credentials
Life Is Convenient When You Define 'Truth'
As Predicted: Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial
CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers
Witch Hunt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
Search "global warming" "holocaust deniers" 43,800 hits
Search "global warming" "crimes against humanity" 118,000 hits

As long as the media serves the enforcement of the signal, as long as it serves the agenda that Vicky Pope broadcasts, it is good. At least as long as they can get away with it.

Perhaps the Met Office and Dr. Vicky Pope are just trying to cover their hind ends for the latest faux pas from the global warming promoters at RealClimate. Read the Steig Paper links for more practice with your perspicacity skills.

The Steig Paper

That famous consensus on global warming
Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery of Error in Study Garners Op-Ed in One Paper
West Antarctica warming data flawed and manipulated
All's Fair in Love, War, and Science

This article and the behaviors displayed by its author and the behavior displayed by Dr. Vicky Pope are excellent examples of what Andrew M. Lobaczewski calls ponerization.
Lobaczewski writes: The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such "bad times" is an exacerbation of society's hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.
Here is a final quote from Vicky Pope from her original article that this article we are examining refers to:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
No bias here? No reinforcing of the "global warming is caused by man" broadcast signal here? No hystericization of society here? No alarmist hysteria here? Is this person, Vicky Pope, really this blind to her own manipulations? Chastising the media and scientists for being dramatic and apocalyptic and then broadcasting the signal that man is the cause, the evidence is overwhelming. Notice how she unequivocally speaks for everyone through the subliminal doublespeak - "scientists like me" - "Our concerns". And the tone is emphatic, there can be no other view, the evidence is indisputable. There can be no dissent.

The global warming agenda has certainly created a mass hystericization of society. The question is who created it and why are there so many examples of it in our current day? We have the "the terrorists are out to get us" hystericization. We have the "Iraq has WMDs" hystericization of society. We have the "Iran are terrorists" and the "Palestinians are terrorists" hystericization of society. We have the "Global Warming - CO2" hystericization of society. We have the "Worldwide Depression" hystericization of society. The one thing it does accomplish is to provide cover for the pathologicals to act while the masses are distracted and traumatized.

Whether Vicky Pope knows it or not, she is part of the problem or at the least, a tool of its implementation. The global warming and carbon emissions control issues long long ago abandoned true science and joined the likes of "the terrorists are out to get us" hystericization.

See Related stories:

The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science
UK Met Office Issues 'Blistering Attack on Scientific Colleagues' For 'Apocalyptic Climate Predictions'


Magnify

Global warming is not our fault ... it's nature

Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.

Next week the former chief executive of the oil and gas firm Talisman, who has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Oxford, will try to convince others that climate change has nothing to do with human activity. During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.

Dr Buckee believes human behaviour has no effect on the climate and the vast sums spent by governments trying to promote renewable energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being wasted. Far from being a key cause of climate change, he says, carbon dioxide emissions have little or no impact. His views are contrary to those held by governments, the Royal Society - an independent science body - the Met Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Sun

The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science

statue Hans Brinker
© unknown

The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.

It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors (some trained as scientists) can no longer avoid the reality that targets for stabilization such as 450 ppm (or even less realistic targets) are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.

The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse. Let me explain.

Comment: It is true that climate policy is in collapse. But it doesn't all just boil down to political realities as the author seems to want paint it.
Climate politics is collapsing because of political realities, and not real or perceived changes in how people see the science.
Baloney!

This is just the political machine going into action to try and control the damage caused by bad science. The promotion of bad science by those who have the power to direct the minds of the public in concert with global media are directly responsible for the hystericization of society and the collapse of anything that can vaguely be called climate policy.

It is obvious that the author of this article, Roger Pielke, Jr., is in total agreement with the promoted science based on carbon (CO2) emissions being the driver of climate. It is not the science that has a problem. It is not the perception of the science as being based on bad data or bad models or biased assumptions. The state of collapse as Pielke puts it, is because of political realities.

There are two problems with what Pielke says.

The first problem is that the science is bad. The models that global warming are based on do not sufficiently take into account things like El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, solar radiation cycles, volcanism and even cosmic forces as related in other scientific disciplines such as impact science (comets and asteroids). Why are these things continually ignored and hidden in favor of CO2 as the critical tripwire to runaway climate catastrophe? These other forces have much better data correlating them to climatic warming and cooling cycles and even climate catastrophe.

Instead of looking at these other research disciplines and trying to bring them together and increase our knowledge and understanding of nature it was decided that carbon emissions (CO2) was the driver, correlator, cause of the heating and cooling of the earth's biosphere. A trace gas comprising less than .04% (four one-hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere was decided on as the controller of the balance between heating and cooling of the earth.

As Roger Pielke, Jr. says, the problem is not the science or how it is perceived. Everyone knows the CO2 foundation for the theory of global warming is sound. Once again - Baloney! Literally thousands of scientists and tenured climate researchers say differently and it is because of the horrible way that the science is selectively ignored and selectively promoted. There is no consensus. There never has been a consensus.

The second problem with Pielke's statement that it is only political realities that are the problem with climate policy is Pielke's overlooking of the role of ponerization in the area of climate science. The hystericization of the public by the global warming promoters in concert with global media has become so incestuous and so overt that it has reached into the depths of science where researchers that never endorsed the political policy yet were not affected by it can no longer stay on the sidelines and maintain their own sanity when their own knowledge is in direct conflict with the reality that is being imposed on the mindset of the world.

From Andrew M. Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology 'A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes'
The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such "bad times" is an exacerbation of society's hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.
The mind signal continuously sent out by the global enforcement machine kept pounding away until it created its own personal little army of fascists, comparing skeptics to holocaust deniers if they did not believe in and worship the signal of the global influencers. Fascists calling for career climate researchers and career meteorologists to lose their jobs and certification because they are not in confluence with the global signal that is being broadcast. Fascists calling for scientists not towing the line to be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity.

Enforcing the Global Warming Signal

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Nazi Style Silencing of Global Warming Skeptics - Strip Them of Their Credentials
Life Is Convenient When You Define 'Truth'
As Predicted: Global Warming Skeptics Linked With Holocaust Denial
CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers
Witch Hunt: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
Search "global warming" "holocaust deniers" 43,800 hits
Search "global warming" "crimes against humanity" 118,000 hits

Is this purely just political realities that is creating this so called collapse of climate policy?

The relationship between some of the so called prestigious scientific institutions and global media is outright deviant. A case in point is the Hadley Center and Vicki Pope in her recent psychologically manipulative attempt to retune the global mind signal and incite even more hysteria in the public over the 'man-made global warming catastrophe.' It is a total disgrace and reveals the depth of the pathology that is endemic at all upper levels of society that are in positions to influence the public mind.

So why is this going on? Is it on purpose that CO2 and carbon emissions were chosen by the global influence machine? Is it all just another distraction to keep us from asking what is going on and to keep us from looking for the answers?

When the answers are already canned and ready to be spoon fed to the masses, no one will look anywhere else.

See related story and commentary on the latest manipulation by Dr. Vicky Pope and the UK Met office:

"Apocalyptic Climate Predictions" Mislead the Public, Say Experts


Hourglass

Life Is Convenient When You Define 'Truth'

If you want to shut down a debate, simply call your opponent a Nazi.

It's quick, easy and requires no thought whatsoever.

Laugh at your opponent without allowing him to speak. Oh, and make a film about your point of view and name it "The Truth."

It's worked well for the global warming bandwagoners - and conservatives can't seem to get out of defensive mode.

"Every time you address the Holocaust, you don't bring somebody in that says it didn't happen. And we're at that stage now. We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference." That was the blunt assessment of Bill McGuire, an earth sciences professor, on ABC's Aug. 30, 2006, 20/20.

But McGuire isn't alone. Al Gore has talked about "global warming deniers." There are journalists who agree, and one of them went so far as to state it publicly.

CBS's Scott Pelley was asked why he refused to include global warming skeptics in his reporting. His response: "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"

Comment: Even though this author's views paint everything as a Liberal versus Conservative issue, it is not. The valid points made by the author regarding the alarmism, the labeling of global warming skeptics as holocaust deniers, the complicity of the media in service to the propaganda, these points are all valid and demonstrate the insanity that has replaced reason.

In effect the Global Warming issue is another example of the ponerization of society at large.


Document

That famous consensus on global warming

Penguins
© unknown

Yet another example of the 'research' masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said:
What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope.
To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, 'interpolate carefully' makes us suck our teeth. And so it has proved. Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig's methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.

Clock

Slippery Slope: Ice Age Cometh in Five Years

It's time for some straight talk. No more beating around the bush. I no longer want to evade an issue around whose edges I've been skirting for 12 years. So I'll come right and say it loud and clear: In all probability, we've come to the end of the line.
Unless I'm grievously mistaken, we are about to go extinct. Soon. In 1997 I warned that we are approaching the onset of a new ice age. I wrote that the record shows that ice ages are preceded by a period of about 20 years, and things get very unpleasant as the end of that period approaches.

Contrary to poor Al Gore's alarmist prediction that the planet is approaching the boiling point, it's getting colder - a lot colder. And it's going to get even colder. Spring and fall will disappear, summers will be short and winters longer and increasingly more frigid.

Info

Northern Ireland environment minister bans climate change ads

Northern Ireland's environment minister came under fire Monday after he banned a climate change ad campaign, saying it was "nonsense" to suggest people could save the world by turning off their lights.

Sammy Wilson, a member of the Democratic Unionist Party which shares power with Sinn Fein in the British-ruled province, believes mankind is not to blame for global warming.

Comment: It's interesting that he does not believe mankind is responsible for global warming. Have you read Climate Change Swindlers and the Political Agenda?

He refused to allow an advertising campaign produced in London, which urges people to use less energy in the home, to be broadcast in Northern Ireland, saying it was simply "propaganda".

He argued the ads gave people "the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40 feet of water", according to the BBC. "That is patent nonsense," Wilson added.

Attention

Global Warming and the Media - Give Us All the Facts

You may have noticed that some of President Obama's most ardent supporters speak of him in almost messianic terms. But there's one public figure who apparently means it literally: James Hansen of NASA.

Hansen, who is the "father" of the global warming movement, recently told the U.K. Guardian that the new President "has only four years to save the world." Unless we implement drastic measures like a "moratorium on new power plants that burn coal" and a hefty "carbon tax," we face an apocalyptic future - "global flooding, wide-spread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns."

Of course, Hansen's warnings made headlines around the world. Not only because "doom and gloom" sells, but because the mainstream media treats any claim about man-made global warming with the utmost credulity.

Newspaper

The "rules" for Middle East reporting

"Israel can do no wrong"

Following are the Twelve Golden And Infallible Truths That The Media Is Obligated To Adopt:
1. In the Middle East, the Arabs always attack first and Israel always defends itself. This defense is called "retaliation."

2. Neither Arabs, Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to kill civilians. This is "terrorism."

3. Israel has the right to kill civilians. This is called "legitimate defense."

4. When Israel massively kills civilians, the Western powers ask it do it with courtesy or politeness. This is called "reaction of the international community."

5. Neither Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to capture Israeli soldiers inside military installations with sentry and combat positions. This has to be called "kidnapping of defenseless civilians."

HAL9000

Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery of Error in Study Garners Op-Ed in One Paper

When University of Washington Professor Eric Steig announced in a news conference and a published paper in the January 22 edition of the journal Nature that he and several colleagues removed one of many thorns in the sides of climate alarmists -- in this case, evidence that Antarctica is cooling -- he received extensive worldwide attention in the mainstream press.

But when a noteworthy error was found in Stieg's research less than two weeks after it's publication, of the mainstream press, only an opinion column in the London Telegraph and a blog associated with the Australian Herald Sun carried the news.

The Stieg paper's release was covered by 27 newspapers, including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle & Los Angeles Times, by CNN, by the Associated Press, by NPR and quite a few others (see reviews of the coverage at the end of this post).

After independent analyst Steve McIntyre discovered a major error in the data, and released his results on his influential blog Climate Audit beginning on February 1, based on a Nexis search I conducted today, none of these outlets chose to inform their readers.

Comment: This is how the propaganda machine works. The release of Steig's paper was truly a grand media event. Everyone in the Manmade Global Warming camp has been waiting for something like this so they could vent and fume and degrade any scientist or media person not in sync with their agenda. Several of the authors of the paper are among the most radical promoters of Manmade Global Warming.

Now here is some perspective on what Steig's paper claims to have found -

The proposed 50 year warming of Western Antarctica is 0.17 degrees Fahrenheit every 10 years.
That is 0.017 degrees each year.
Yes you got it, seventeen one-thousandths of a degree Fahrenheit per year.
Over 5 decades (50 years) this amounts to 0.85 degrees Fahrenheit.
The claim is that this is so significant that it outweighs the Eastern Antarctic cooling.

Let's take a look at how the Anthropogenic Global Warming promoters reacted. In particular let's pay attention to the words they use, the quotes they chose and who they are aimed at.

From the above article:
Ira Flatow in a National Public Radio interview,
called Steig's paper "probably historic."
Seattle Times science reporter Sandi Doughton wrote,
By bringing Antarctica in from the cold, the new study could undermine the small cadre of global-warming skeptics who still argue that the planet is not getting hotter, or that humans are not to blame. Many have used the apparent cooling in Antarctica to attack global climate models and point out perceived weaknesses in the scientific consensus that emissions from automobiles and factories are beginning to change global climate.
New York Times reporter Kenneth Chang, in his piece quoted a scientist saying,
"But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked."
Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press said,
"Antarctica, the only place that had oddly seemed immune from climate change, is warming after all, according to a new study."

Seth Borenstein also included a quote from global warming activist scientist and study co-author Michael Mann, saying the study refuted the views of climate "contrarians."
Thomas H. Maugh II of the Los Angeles Times wrote,
Global-warming skeptics have pointed to the presumed cooling of the continent as evidence that researchers' computer projections of climate change are in error, but the new findings reported Thursday appear to refute their criticisms...
The San Francisco Chronicle Science editor David Perlman told his readers,
"the issue [of Antarctic warming] has apparently been resolved."
Damian Carrington of the Guardian tells his readers,
"Research 'kills off' the climate skeptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 years."
Carrington also quotes Steig,
The issue, which had been highlighted by global warming sceptics, was an annoyance, said Steig, despite the science having been reasonably well understood. "But it has now been killed off," he said.
Carrington adds,
The rapid warming now revealed in the west concerns some scientists.
This is how it works. Big media, big money, big promotion.

AS SOTT mentioned in another article, when errors were found in the Steig paper by Steve McIntyre the reaction was far less than scientific.
When Steve McIntyre revealed this on ClimateAudit, Gavin Schmidt closed comments on the RealClimate blog, and the British Antarctic Survey removed the faulty data from their site without explanation.
Remember Stieg himself is a contributor to the ardently pro-alarmist and environmentalist-supported PR blog RealClimate.

Apparently the data errors were so embarrassing that GISS employee Gavin Schmidt claimed the discovery of the data errors himself when reporting them for correction, causing another embarrassing incident.

The saga is ongoing at this moment. Steve McIntyre's site ClimateAudit is attempting to make sense of the errors and the behaviors.