The Times Comprehensive Atlas gets it wrong 25

The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World simply erased hundreds of huge glaciers from their maps, substituting the white of the ice with the green of a mythical unfrozen shoreline.

The once highly respected Times Atlas got it wrong! How did it happen?

Was it  a result of extremely bad research on the part of a whole team of geographers and cartographers?

Or deliberate fraud? And if so why, when the professional reputation of each one of them was at stake?

It seems they dumbly chose to believe the propaganda put out by the unscientific, thoroughly discredited, “report” (actually fiction) of  the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than find out the truth for themselves. If so, they thoroughly deserve to lose their reputations as scientists.

We quote from an article by Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary-contentions:

A number of researchers are complaining the most recent edition of Britain’s Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World contains misleading information about alleged melting of Greenland’s ice-capped shores. A news release issued by the publishers and echoed in much of the media asserted that the atlas illustrates how Greenland has lost 15 percent of its permanent ice cover. Maps in the atlas show significant portions of the large island’s shores are ice-free. The only problem is, as scientists — who are not warming skeptics– point out, it isn’t true.

The error stems from a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has since been discredited. As the Times reports, for the claim of a 15 percent ice loss to be true that would have already raised sea levels around the world by three to five feet.

In fact, Greenland has only lost one-tenth of one percent of its ice. …

The publishers of the atlas initially claimed they stood by their data but are now said to be studying the problem and thinking about a revision. But their effort to correct this error seems, as the article pointed out, to be as slow as the actual rate of melting in Greenland.

The problem here is not just that a publisher made an error. There is a strong suspicion every time something like this happens it is the result of a deliberate effort to exaggerate the extent of warming so as to scare the public into backing measures that global warming activists support. That was the lesson of the Climategate e-mails. That story revealed the cynical efforts by some in the scientific community to fudge data in order to come up with results that might exploit the public’s fears about warming. Many researchers now understand the tendency by some to hype this issue with implausible and unsubstantiated claims of imminent catastrophe, such as those put forward in Al Gore’s lamentable film “An Inconvenient Truth,” do more to damage the credibility of climate science than anything else.

The scandals indicate that thousands of scientists are more emotionally and intellectually invested in left-wing activism than they are in science.

And that is a chilling thought.

  • [My browser seems to be lost in the “reply to” chain, so I’m starting a new comment thread.  Please take it as following Harold’s reply to me, where he cited the IPCC report as evidence for anthropogenic global warming.]

    There are three difficulties I have with the global warming debate:  (1) I do not fully understand climate science; (2) those whom I might trust as experts have demonstrated their bias; (3) those who challenge them have just as demonstrable an interest in slanting the evidence their way.  I suspect the Earth is getting warmer and that we might have something to do with it.  But given the planet’s history, my hunch is that our effect on climate is less than the GW proponents make it out to be.  Harold, if I follow-up your tip and read the IPCC, will I find clean data?  Will such data be firm enough to drive policy?

    So as to keep from hogging Jillian’s bandwidth with more blathering, I’ll expand this on my own blog (

    • George

      Thanks consvltvs     —and that just about puts it right on target.   There is so much bias in this fiasco and so much corruption as well that people are simply suspicious of the entire debacle. No one can deny that destroying the rainforests , polluting the air, soil and water has an effect on the environment. But the liberals jargon of trying to hoodwink the public into believing that someone driving their SUV or a  business executive flying around in his corporate jet is going to cause the earth to burn up , worldwide drought and starvation ,  and a disapearance  of the South and North pole and vanishing of glaziers will occur is pure  rubbish .   

      • George

        In continuation——One gentleman wrote a book that I want to get and it’s titled —  ” Not by fire but by ice ”  . I heard him on a radio talk show and he was fantastic.  I’m going to purchase the book. 

  • Harold

    In reply to George: “findings are vastly in contrast to what has been presented to us by the mainstream mass media. ”

    Yes, I agree the mainstream mass media is very bad at reporting scientific issues, and all reports must be taken with a large dose of salt.  This is why I would urge you to have a look at the IPCC report. 

    • George

      I’m well aware of that Harold , and I wasn’t  directing my comment toward THAT  in the first place .  Hellllllooo  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Millions of years before humans evolved, the Earth was at one point frozen to the equator and at another point tropical to the poles.  All this climate change happened without human agency.  I wonder what the Times Atlas of the Jurassic would look like?

    • George

      I was reading the link you had on the post when I clicked on ( at first I thought it was spam ). It cited a situation of illegal aliens in Texas and stated that the children of illegals pay taxes every time they go to the gas pump and that the state has no state tax.     Nevertheless the children and their parents are still illegals and they are here against the law in violation of our soverign national law and as such their  presence here is criminal ( at least the parents are ) since the children had no choice in the matter and had no say but they stll do not belong here legally.  
                          This is not a political debate or opinion  , but rather of LAW and the violation of it by the illegal alien parents. Any person crossing the border into the USA without permission of the US government as a visitor or legal immigrant given legal immigration status is indeed an illegal alien and as such is indeed a criminal ( plain and simple ).  If they bring their little children along , yes it can be argued that the children were  forced and no charges should be made upon the kids but all are still here illegally and are NOT citizens of our country and as such DO NOT belong here and are not privy to any rights of our nation because they are NOT citizens.  They should be treated humanely , the adults arrested and then later deported after punishment for the original violation in the first place.

      • No dispute that illegal aliens are illegally here.  It’s just the argument that Texas taxpayers are “subsidizing” their children in state colleges is wrong.  There are plenty of other things to say on the matter, many of which you have said.

        • George

          We need to get control of the overall illegal alien problem in this country .   The Democrats (liberals ) want the illegals here for their votes as they will always vote the Democrats in office for allowing them to be here illegally.  On the other hand , the  Republicans ( conservatives ) want the illegals here for their cheap labor for more profits for their business profiteering to pay the illegals “peanuts”  because they (illegals) certainly aren’t going to complain to the authorities considering that they are here illegally to begin with.  
                              Then the illegals flood into the country and sap our resources, send millions  ( if not billions of dollars back to mexico and other countries ) ,  bankrupt our hospitals with free medical care at American taxpayer expense, free health care , special housing privileges, bi-lingual education at USA taxpayer expense , Mexican trucks  flood into the country  ( many uninspected ) with illegals, drugs, child sex slaves, terrorist cell invaders, weapons & explosives , etc —the list is endless.
                             I don’t see any of the candidates running for office putting this at the top of the list for discussion and as a priority detail if they get elected.  Oh sure , some hint at it now and then but no “teeth” into the matter.  Amazing ! 

    • Harold

      Your facts are true, but you do not draw any conclusion.  Perhaps you are intending to imply that since the climate has changed in the past without human agency, then current changes must also be without human agency.  If so it is clearly a fallacy.  If not, it is an interesting but irrelevent observation.

      • What do you conclude?  And based on what evidence?

        • Harold

          That might be a start for evidence.  It concludes – based on the evidence – that global warming is very likely caused by human activities.

          There is qiuite a lot of evidence included theren.  You may choose to ignore it, but without good reason it puts you on the non-rational side of the argument.  If you do actually have good reason, please post here (as I have asked George) and maybe you will convince me.

      • George

        Harold  your comment toward consvltvs accusing him of being on the non-rational side is in itself irrational.  Excuse me –but can you point out where he ( or I ) rejected any claim that humans don’t contribute any pollution  or any harm whatsoever toward affecting our environment in any sense at all  ( which may lead to a type of effect on certain climate conditions ) ?   No one has said that , inferred such , insinuated such, or implied such or made that claim anywhere here. If so , please point it out to me —maybe I missed that or something.   It appears to me that you’re on this discussion forum now trying to sell us on the GLOBAL WARMING debacle .  If you had read one of my previous posts closely , I clearly stated that we as humans do indeed have an effect on our environment and we do indeed need to change what goes into our atmosphere ( such as pollutants ) in to our rivers, lakes , reservoirs, or the devastation of the rain forrests , soil pollution by industrial wastes, and other affecting agents.   I also later said that both sides of the argument have had an agenda and political motives but the overall corruption , deceit  and scam artists are overwhelmingly on the side of the GLOBAL WARMING exciters and this is a proven fact.    I don’t have time at the moment to go into my files and pull the verified research data documents , but I will indeed look later . What is your point ? Are you trying to say that humans do indeed affect the environment  ? If , so there is NO argument with me on that for sure.   What we are saying Harold , is that the “global warming –SKY IS FALLING ” crowd has conned the general populace and this has been exposed time and time again. This is not mere conjecture but documented research facts.

  • Harold

    I think we can all agree that misrepresentationof the current best understanding of the science is bad.  In this case, the misrepresentation of the IPCC position was made by Harper Collins, and was robustly corrected by the scientists at the Scott Polar Research Institute.  The said institute disgrees with the Times map, which seems to have mistaken the 500m contour for the edge of the icesheet.  The said institute agrees completely with global warming caused by greenhouse gases.  This error indicates that the scientists are quick to correct errors, evemn if they may be seen by some to support their scaremongering agenda. 

    • George

      If I may add  (  or modify ) one thing in  your last sentence Harold, it would read  ;      ”   This error indicates that  ‘SOME’   scientists are quick to correct errors…………”   [ emphasis mine  ].    SOME are known for perpetually covering up what they know isn’t true for the sake of political agendas or  [ money and publicity ].   This didn’t come from me but confirmed by a couple of scientist friends of mine who have admitted it.   SOME also know better but are silent for the sake of their jobs/careers and/or status.

      • Harold

        I don’t know which scientists you are refering to, and you have not provided any actual example.

        My statement is correct as far as this post is concerned.  The Times published an incorrect map, and there was vigorous  protest from the very scientists who contribute to the IPCC.  Any suggestion that this undermines the science behind the IPCC is rubbish.

        The post says “It seems they dumbly chose to believe the propaganda put out by the unscientific, thoroughly discredited, “report” (actually fiction) of  the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”
        This is totally  wrong – the ice extent shown in the Times map did not come from any report in the IPCC.   The IPCC has never said that Greenland has lost 15% of its ice, or anything like it.

        • George

          Harold, I wasn’t challenging anything to do with any 15% figure whatsoever.   I was pointing out how certain political fugures and certain  specific  scientists who have hidden behind this matter and made it agenda driven.  There is indeed corruption within and I have also heard a variety of scientists debate each other on the matter.  Having said that ,  there is indeed an internal scandal going on , and until ALL of this is brought to the forefront,  even the true, accurate and ethical scientists will be discredited . Pundits will clam it’s by default but not necessarily so across the board considering that many sources of information have later been shown to contain flawed data ( on both sides ).   
                          A specific number of dedicated researchers have gone into an in depth study and research and their findings are vastly in contrast to what has been presented to us by the mainstream mass media.

  • Andrew M

    In related news, global warming has experienced a 15% loss in its gilding within the past decade. Reports are indicating that the loss of gilding reveals that below the surface of global warming lies a political corruption of science.

    Studies are also indicating that if the West devoted just one tenth of one percent of its economy towards combating a potential rise in world temperatures, the inventions discovered with this investment would completely negate the effects of global warming. The premier technologies implicated in this recovery include the generation of cool breezes of logic, which combined with rational observation will effectively negate the accumulation of hot air in the atmosphere generated by global warming propagandists. As for acquiring the source of these funds, they could be siphoned away from an existing government body called the Environmental Protection Agency. Rumors on the Internet also indicate that it could be entirely funded by the monetary cost of Al Gore’s carbon footprint.

    More details are to come later from a better-trained generation of meteorologists.

    • George

      Thanks for the post Andrew. Another problem is that the mainstream liberal- left media will censor this information you posted because it refutes their left-wing dubious agenda propaganda.  In the former USSR , the soviet news agency TASS was controlled entirely by the government in what was reported  as well as the soviet newspaper– Pravda  .  Here in the USA we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech but we have an overwhelmingly biased and corrupt news media that promotes THEIR manipulative  propaganda agenda as if it’s unbiased general news reporting.   I have seen propaganda reporting on both the right and left. It’s clear deception and mass manipulation of the general populace. This is why it is imperative that people do independent research  and accept NOTHING on face value .    Question everything  —verify , substantiate and INVESTIGATE .

      • Harold

        Have you seen Fox news?  I don’t see that as liberal -left, but perhaps it depends where you are standing.  However, i agree with your sentiment not to take the media at face value – generally it is pretty dreadful.

        • George

          I actually got ridiculed by a liberal friend of mine for watching FOX news. This by the same guy who watches all the liberal alphabet channels.  He watches ABC, CBS, NBC , CNN, MSNBC and listens to  NPR  radio.  Whenever I try to converse with him , my words go through one ear and out the other–and I find it personally a waste of time.

  • George

    The GREENS are going to pull out all  ‘stops’ to push their GLOBAL WARMING political agenda  .    Their GREEN chief–Obama   and their GREEN prophet — Al Gore have an UNDENIABLE  TRUTH we all know.  Then we have the mass number of mental “puppets” who will believe anything and everything they see, hear and read in the mainstream media.    The mind may be a terrible thing to waste  , but the mind is an easy thing to deceive, hoodwink, bamboozle , con and sham !

    • George

      Pardon all my typos folks.  I have this cheap ISP aircard that kicks me offline if I spend more than a few minutes  w/ inactive browsing. I’m changing services soon. I’ve had to type quickly without a proof-read moment and then I’m still booted off.  I’m upgrading —because you get what you pay for.  My new system will be a vast improvement.   This website is the most informative  source of valuable information I’ve come across. I love talk radio also but they just can’t get beyond the christian proselytizing which burns me up.  Of course it’s a compromise either way.  This website is indeed a breath of fresh air for those of us who are conservative but secular.  As I stated before , it will be conservative secular freethinklers that will bring dignity, respect and a new insight & acceptance regarding secular freethought——- considering the vast harm and negative image that the liberal left secularists have done . 

    • Frank

      And of course GE makes millions from selling its crappy “energy efficient” light bulbs. And all the while paying $0 in taxes as Jeffrey Immelt advises the “community organizer” sitting in the oval office.

      • George

        Yep , and GE —backed by Obama of course wants us to be more  “efficient’ and  Obama tells us to check our vehicle tire pressure to be more efficient in gas mileage .  That’s gonna save our environment and help the economy according to these bozos.