[Old Professer]

This seems to be like the story the author(s) Stott had published in January concerning old vs new ice in the Arctic; you do know that he and his colleagues are fulltime contributors to the IPCC, don’t you.

In this latest case he has taken some sparse data from the southern polar area and more available northern polar area and run them through several of his models designed to show human influence more than to rule it out.

With no referenced study here I would reserve judgment as a juror before the evidence was corroborated by less-biased peer review.

He is still guessing that calving is increased by general warming events rather than as yet discovered natural forces.

Simple correlation is encouraging but not conclusive, IMO.

Selling a climate tax globally is going to be mighty tough for a while.

[xcamel]

Same bunch who refused out of hand to admit that the vast majority of north polar ice melt has been being caused by a substantial increase in polar undersea volcanic activity... until they brought back thermocline and photographic evidence from several submersible missions...

[cogitator]

you do know that he and his colleagues are fulltime contributors to the IPCC, don’t you.

Hadn't known that but it certainly doesn't surprise me.

and run them through several of his models designed to show human influence more than to rule it out.

I detect a hint of bias in that statement. The models either include human factors or don't. The results either show similarity to the observational data, or don't. That's how human influence is assessed.

With no referenced study here I would reserve judgment as a juror before the evidence was corroborated by less-biased peer review.

That's how science is supposed to work, at least.

Selling a climate tax globally is going to be mighty tough for a while.

Just checked: I still possess a nasal organ on my visage.