However, long-distance swimming appears to have higher energetic demands than moving over sea ice. Our observations suggest long-distance swimming is a behavioral response to declining summer sea-ice conditions.

Well perhaps you could refresh our memories as to just where you provided that empirical observed, undoubted proof that increasing CO2 is the sole reason for creating a warming climate and the claimed CAGW.

And proof please that the recent past increases in temperature are not just a normal natural change in the global climate that has occurred times without number in the life of the planet.

You provided your so called links, none of which had ANY observed empirical evidence that proved that increasing CO2 had raised and was capable of raising global temperatures leading to a CAGW.
Lots of correlation claims but no proof of causation at all from increasing CO2
Lots of arm waving and caveats in those supposed links but nothing in the way of "proven empirically observed proof" for your beliefs in the power of increasing CO2 as the reason for the increased global temperatures..

FAIL once again.

Privacy Commisioner rules that it's essentially a pack of lies.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-claims-debunked-the-australian/

Just another example of "climatescience" strategy: If you can't beat them with data and truth, you just have to silence them by telling lies about them.... Hey - Gleick's a hero now!

If you read the entire article there is a link to the Privacy Commisions report which they cut and pasted into the story PG, so in this case yes I do believe them.

10. Having inspected the documents, I have determined that 10 of the documents, in the form of emails, do not contain threats to kill or threats of harm. These documents contain abuse in the sense that they contain insulting and offensive language.
11. One document, again in the form of an email, contains a recollection of an exchange which occurred during an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other governmental agencies. The ANU responded to the conduct and comments described in the email as a security threat

14. I give separate consideration to the email describing a participant's behaviour and comments at the off-campus event which the ANU regarded as threatening. In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat. In its reasons for decision, the ANU stated that it did not report this incident to the AFP because the incident occurred off-campus and it is incumbent upon people who are directly involved in an incident to make a first person report to the police. The ANU advised that University security encouraged the staff member to report the incident to police. I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.

15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.

Empirical peer reviewed science. WTF? No such thing!

See for example Reykjavik. The Icelandic Met office data is in blue below. Data from thermometers - is empirical according to normal definition. The red is from peer reviewed GISS. (Peer reviewed Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.



Mate - we accept the science. You accept the usual pack of lies.

If there's no such thing as an empirical peer reviewed science paper then ROM's requests for them are a waste of time hey!

( btw, a Google scholar search on empirical science brings up over 3,000,000 hits - better not tell ROM)

p.s. - The word empirical means information gained by experience, observation, or experiment.

Mr Pilgrim ordered that 11 documents turned up through a Freedom of Information request to the Australian National University could, against the wishes of the university, be released to the public.

Mr Pilgrim concluded that 10 of the 11 documents “contain abuse in the sense that they contain insulting and offensive language” but did not contain “threats to kill or threats of harm”.

Climate sceptic commentators and bloggers have taken this decision to mean that climate scientists have not received death threats and, on the face of it, that might seem like a fair conclusion.

Except they’ve ignored two key facts which undermine their conclusion.

The first, is that the FOI request only asked for correspondence covering a six month period from January to June 2011. What’s more, the request only asked for correspondence regarding six ANU academics. The report from the Privacy Commissioner made this clear.

Secondly, the original investigation which sparked the FOI request, published in The Canberra Times, found more than 30 climate scientists had received threats or abuse of one kind or another at universities across Australia and that this campaign had been going on for years. It wasn’t news to some of us. None of the emails I published on my blog were from scientists at ANU.