“Watching the Deniers” makes hilarious goof while accusing WUWT of “doctoring” NSIDC images

UPDATE: Mr. Marriott, perhaps fearful of legal action due to his own stupidity on the matter, has dropped the claim of “doctoring” and has also changed the title to remove the “dishonest” claim. Rather than admit he was wrong and published a defamatory article with malicious intent, he’s now using the “Gleick defense” citing his essay as a joke and a “throwaway” comment. All of this defamation was over what could have been a simple request: “Mr. Watts, would you add the NSIDC graph showing standard deviation (in addition to the one sans STD) to the WUWT Sea Ice page ?” I’m happy to do so and have done so. Instead of a simple request, we get ludicrous claims of doctoring images, dishonesty, and now the fallback position of “cherry picking” and the laughable “incomplete context” claim in order to avoid admission of wrongdoing.  I suppose his next complaint will be to NSIDC to claim the “incomplete context” of showing only 2012 and 2013 on the NSIDC graph?

Now he’s modified the original essay, sending it down the memory hole, leaving  late coming readers to believe his defamation never happened, but you can see the screenshot of the original below. There’s no clear apology, no admission that his hatred caused him to screw up the simplest issue and use it for the basis of defamation. Clearly his behavior is proof there’s no integrity with Mr. Mike Marriot, which of course is self evident by the title of his blog “Watching the Deniers”. – Anthony

False accusation that Watts “doctored” sea ice graph

Eric Worrall writes:

An Australian alarmist blog, Watching The Deniers, has just accused Anthony Watts of photoshopping one of the Sea Ice Graphs.

Click here (screencap here)to see the ridiculous accusation.

Note the original NSIDC graph, updated daily, which the the Watching the Deniers blog claimed Anthony Watts fabricated:

[ http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png ]

Somehow WTD thinks that Anthony makes the above image by “doctoring” this one:

[ http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png ]


I have of course lodged a complaint with the Australian Press Council about this lie. I encourage other Australians to complain through official channels about climate lies propagated by alarmists.
=============================================================

Anthony adds:

This may be the dumbest accusation against me, ever. NSIDC used to put the same graph on their front page, in late 2009, without standard deviation bounds. It is the same one we’ve had since about then on our WUWT Sea Ice page. 

By early 2010, NSIDC added one with standard deviation bounds, but keeps updating the original too.

(UPDATE: NSIDC has stopped updating the graph without STD bounds, and replaces any request for it automatically now with one including STD. You can see the NSIDC graph without standard deviation bounds as figure 4 in the Federal register here: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/05/15/E8-11105/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-determination-of-threatened-status-for-the-polar-bear )

It would be quite some feat for me to “doctor” that image with STD bounds everyday and place it in plain view for thousands to see every month and get away with it for three years. Sheesh.

According to the about page for WTD:

Mike Marriott, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm.

I’ve left a comment explaining Mr. Marriott’s absurd misconception and asked for an apology. We’ll see if it passes moderation, and if he lives up to his “professional services” label.

Here is a screencap of the comment:

WTD_watts_comment

In the meantime, you can leave comments here.

The original accusation by Marriott is in the screenshot below:

wtdscreenshot[1]

About these ads

139 thoughts on ““Watching the Deniers” makes hilarious goof while accusing WUWT of “doctoring” NSIDC images

  1. The only word I can use to describe his “finding” is breathless. Or stupid. Well done.

  2. Pretty weak sort of site.
    The owners don’t seem to even have the guts to put their names up anywhere, let alone any sort of qualification.

    Basically a bunch of non-entities !

    John Cook’s boy friend , perhaps ??

  3. Saul Alinksy taught his minions well. This is a alarmist attempt to call you into question and isolate you. Must be pretty right near dead center target for them to start taking pot shots at you from any angle.

  4. A little bit of searching works for some fun,.

    From the Jo Nova site.

    Here’s Mike Hubble-Marriott, co-author of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, talking about his scientific ability in 2010:
    “”I have a confession to make: I am not qualified to discuss the intricate, technical details of climate science.
    It’s beyond my capability.
    I can grasp the essentials, and even make sense of (some) the actual peer reviewed research that I read. However I am very conscious that I have large gaps in my knowledge, and that crucially I am not qualified to critique the work of science.
    In order to have a real understanding I’d need to pursue a Bachelor of Science and post-graduate degrees to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science.”

  5. Anthony,
    Defamation is a crime in Australia. Mike Marriott should know that. (This could be him) He may think that he’s immune, feeling that he’s “on the right side”.

    Technically, we still have Rule of Law in Australia.

    Accusing you of dishonesty in a publically viewable document when the “evidence” exists entirely within his prejudice is IMHO libel. i.e. a form of defamation. Perhaps an Australian lawyer can give you advice as to how to best hold Mike Marriott accountable. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  6. I don’t see your comment on there anymore. Could be me, after comparing your screencap and the site, looks like it has been removed.

  7. Somehow your comment hasn’t made it through the ‘moderator’. Gee, i wonder why that is?

  8. My comment at WTD (in moderation)

    MIke, You need to correct the article and make an apology for defaming Anthony Watts as being dishonest; when it was your own ignorance and prejudice that caused you to construct this article.

  9. Caught red handed using a different link from the same data. I made the mistake trying to find some difference other than statistics in the two graphs.
    The sea ice extent 2-sigma graph shows ytd sea ice within the historical 2-sigma limit. Since I’m not an expert on this global warming stuff, I might infer from the 2-sigma graph that this years’ sea ice extent is not outside historical variation at this time. The graph Anthony links to has no statistics, making the inferences such as I made a bit harder to do. I prefer the graph showing standard deviations, but I fail to see what mortal sin was committed here.

    When I was into charting operating data, I always used 3-sigma control limits, not the less inclusive 2-sigma.

  10. I didn’t go over there, I don’t want to add to their traffic.

    If they are trying to get a general public/follower backlash against Anthony Watts and WUWT, it’s going to backfire on them. Anyone who doesn’t know WUWT might pop in to see what the fuss is about. What they are going to find is science, data and sensible debate, and that ought to be a refreshing change if they’ve only been visiting the pseudo-science sites.

    Don’t give WTD any encouragement. They’ll see their traffic count go through the roof and think such smears are winning them popularity. Then again, if that’s what they are about and decide to continue with false accusations, they’ll show themselves up more clearly.

    Whatever they do, they’re not going to hurt WUWT. The regulars here know better and the newcomers will find WUWT full of valuable information and a wide range of in-depth study. That’s why we keep coming back and that’s why this is the most visited site on the subject of climate.

  11. “I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm”

    Downright scary.

  12. “AndyG55 says:
    July 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    A little bit of searching works for some fun,.

    From the Jo Nova site.

    Here’s Mike Hubble-Marriott, co-author of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, talking about his scientific ability in 2010:
    “”I have a confession to make: I am not qualified to discuss the intricate, technical details of climate science.”

    And of interest:

    John Cook’s incompetent Buddies in Climate Science here in NZ might not be too happy.

    The NZ Govt could cut funding. :-)

    $10m freeze on global warming

    The Government has proposed cutting $10 million in funding for climate change research in a move described as disheartening for New Zealand’s highly capable climate scientists.

    Treasury documents showed that Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy has recommended scaling back funding for Climate Change Research Grants by $2 million in the next financial year, $3.75 million in 2014/15 and $4.25 million in 2015/16.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895428

  13. AndyG55 says:
    July 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    John Cook’s boy friend , perhaps ??

    Naw, he left John Cook for his sock-puppet “john byatt”. Treats him better.

  14. I left the following, because it makes me a little crazy when a claim that’s this far out of whack is defended by the claimiant:
    “I don’t see any misrepresentation of data. The claim is that Watts is not showing current ice extent is below average doesn’t make sense because the “average” (thick solid) line is included in all versions. The stdev zone provides some additional information (i.e., the distribution of observations over time), but the claim made here is not consistent with the example shown. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics by whoever is claiming deception. All versions I’ve seen clearly show if the trend is above or below average; adding or leaving the stdev zone is irrelevant with respect to that.”
    The replies, assuming that the comment survives moderation, will be telling.

  15. I left the following comment: “It would be best if you just admitted that you screwed up. By not admitting that, you are denying truth. You said, ‘no such image exists’. One does. You said it was ‘doctored’. It wasn’t. You said, ‘A Photoshop trick’. That is false. Own up to it. If you don’t, you will be known throughout the world as not just a total hack, but a blatant liar.”

  16. Each of us looks at humanity through the prism of our own nature. What we ourselves are, distorts our view of others. This leads dishonest people to believe that others are as dishonest as they are — and conversely leads honest people to grant good will to those utterly lacking in it. The dishonest never gain any insight into others and act towards all without conscience — but the honest, by hard lessons, do — though the learning curve is generally quite shallow. As they grow older the honest become less trusting. This is one of the great sadnesses of life.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  17. What I find amazing is that they don’t seem to realise that whenever they do stupid things like this and then fail to do the corresponding corrections, they are doing a good service to us, sensible skeptics, not to their “cause”. If third parties without a clear position on the topic see their evident inability to correct their position when they make an obvious mistake, even on simple things like this, they will conclude that, shoudl they be wrong about CAGW, they would never ever admit it. And that makes them much more likely to listen to skeptic arguments to find the truth.

  18. Complaint — i really hate this new small comment box. It is much harder to self-correct

    Eugene WR Gallun

  19. Smear campaigns. They’re what’s for dinner.

    Hold fast, ladies and gentlemen,….

  20. Lewandowsky, John Cook and now Mike Marriot, and embarrisingly enough all my fellow countrymen. Please don’t think that we’re all that dumb downunder..

  21. equally hilarious…CAGW is “past the point of no more change”:

    7 July: News & Observer, NC: Reid Creager: Queens University professor helps tiny Micronesian islands adapt to global warming
    The Micronesian island state of Yap is small and remote, about 21 hours of flying from North Carolina without counting airport stops along the way. “Paradise, if you can find it,” the Los Angeles Times once wrote. But there’s trouble in paradise. Queens University of Charlotte science professor Reed Perkins says global climate change has triggered a domino effect that he has witnessed on Yap, resulting in decreased food supply amid increasing demand…
    Yap is one of four member states of the Federated States of Micronesia, where, according to Perkins, satellite altimetry shows global climate change is forcing sea levels to rise faster than the global average: 5 mm to 10 mm per year (0.2 to 0.4 inches), compared with 3 mm per year since 1993. ..
    In their project – funded by a three-year, $150,000 grant from the U.S. Forest Service – Perkins and Yapese scientific colleagues are trying to find suitable places to relocate the agricultural areas with the help of geospatial analysis (GPS, remote sensing) and geographic information systems…
    Climate change permanent
    The global climate change of which Perkins speaks is a little different from global warming, he says. “The term ‘global climate change’ is typically preferred because it captures all aspects of the changing climate (wind, storms, variability, etc.), not just the warming part.”…
    “Even if the world was somehow able to accomplish zero greenhouse gas emissions, the climate will continue to warm because of the climate change momentum that is happening. It’s really not past the point of no return, but it’s past the point of no more change. The question is, how much.”…
    “Climate change isn’t just an issue facing the Pacific islands,” said Perkins, who plans at least four trips to Yap during the three-year grant period. “It’s impacting the Carolinas, too. Sea levels have risen In North Carolina about a foot over the past 80 years. That rate is expected to increase in the years ahead.”

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/07/3006897/queens-university-professor-helps.html

  22. Lies and more lies and more desperate lies on the y-axis to try to keep the fraud alive. Now there’s a real hockey stick graph Mikey. See what you started.

  23. ColdinOz says:
    Please don’t think that we’re all that dumb down under

    I agree, we down in this land don’t all belong to the no brainers! Sadly, common sense left their residence many year ago. They can’t debate because they have nothing to debate with, not even facts.

  24. This has also brought something else up. Why does NSIDC use 2 sd the ‘normal’ is 3 sd . Also, in order to calculate sd you would need individual measurements otherwise the sd is based on an already normalised data set. For example, you would not consider using sd on a set of averages as it would not give you the true statistical standard deviation. So presumably the sd calculation is based on a set of individual data points and not averages.

    For information
    2 sd =~ 95.2% of data points
    3 sd =~ 99.5% of data points.

    Now, why would they not want to use standard statistical methods of data analysis. Unless they are only 95 percent confident of their data ?

    Can anyone plot this chart with 3 sd on it ? It would look a lot different.

  25. Gregory T wrote this in reply to K largo:

    “To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
    So you are saying that Watts did not make the graph look favourable to himself by using the interactive features available ? Makes one wonder what other changes he makes inorder to look favourable to himself .”

    I just replied to Gregory T:

    “@Gregory T

    As K Largo has provided in his first comment in the comments section:

    Look at the link. It is a .png file. Can you explain what “interactive features” you are talking about?”

    My first comment on the site so it has gone into pre-moderation, but copied here for the record.

  26. I hope Mariott thanks you for the traffic to his site. He will get more traffic in one day from WUWT than he probably gotten in all thw time the site has been launched.

    WUWT, making alarmist dickheads famous, one idiot at a time.

  27. Eugene WR Gallun says:
    July 7, 2013 at 9:31 pm
    “Complaint — i really hate this new small comment box. It is much harder to self-correct

    Second time for such a comment this week!

    Prior to a few months ago I used MS-Word to draft a comment. Now I use LibreOffice Writer. So for me there is no recognition of a “new small comment box.” The “new” box works just like the “old” one apparently, but because I haven’t used the box except to place and insertion point and then “paste” it is a ‘makes no difference’ difference. After pasting, hit an up arrow key.

    You can, if you like, click inside the box and then hit the Enter Key a few times. That will expand the box.

  28. My two penneth – in moderation as well:-

    roymustard says:
    July 8, 2013 at 5:36 am
    So the graph wasn’t Photoshopped, but contextual information was edited out. That is extremely dishonest in my books. That the deniers here think they’ve scored a win out of this post shows how little they currently have going for them.

    Reply
    Doug UK says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 8, 2013 at 5:48 am
    My goodness but you must be brave to post such nonsense.

    “Contextual information was edited out” ?

    The accusation was clear – it was stated that the graph had been altered, photoshopped.

    Unbelievable!

    Reply
    Doug UK says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 8, 2013 at 5:44 am
    I see – so comments after Watts response appear – but Watts is still “in moderation”.

    Not very good at this openness and honesty thing are you?

    Reply

  29. @Unite Against Greenfleecing

    You probably have a point. So far it just looks like never-ending clown dancing as opposed to admitting that the accusation was a false one (whether intentional or not).

    There’s a point at which they’ve had more than enough opportunity to apologise. Beyond that they will just have to face upto whatever legal consequences come their way.

  30. Unite Against Greenfleecing

    I hope Mariott thanks you for the traffic to his site. He will get more traffic in one day from WUWT than he probably gotten in all thw time the site has been launched. WUWT, making alarmist dickheads famous, one idiot at a time.

    If you don’t challenge liars, their lies don’t get challenged. Yes there is an issue of drawing attention to alarmists, but WTD gets a fair bit of attention anyway. Exposing their malice and incompetence to ridicule at least allows people to see them as they truly are.

  31. myrightpenguin says:
    July 7, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    “Gregory T wrote this in reply to K largo:

    “To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
    So you are saying that Watts did not make the graph look favourable to himself by using the interactive features available ? Makes one wonder what other changes he makes inorder to look favourable to himself .””

    Great – alarmists are so insecure now that they consider scaling a graph manipulatiion if not done by an alarmist.

  32. I see he has “allowed” your comment and made some changes to his post. I found the “Rottweiller attacks on a number of your supporters by his tame troll follow the usual pattern, of refusal to address their fault and raise a number of side-issues with which to obfuscate. Thus, in their new version, Anthony, you are guilty of “excluding” the version of the graph which has the “Standard Deviation” paramenters in order to mislead your readers. But I note the Rottweiler refuses to answer any questions and just keeps posting variations of his own in response to any challenge to his rationale. Typical behaviour of the closed mind.

    Equally interesting on that site aer the six reasons for denial. I wonder how he and his supporters feel now that the last one, concerning the economic damage of “Cap and Trade” is beginning to bite in Australia? The recent eviction of Julia Gillard from the Premiership may clip the wings of the Greens there, but I suspect they have already done near fatal damage in their efforts to control the climate.

    REPLY: I’ve asked him to change his headline. If he doesn’t he’ll not leave me much choice. – Anthony

  33. He has not explained how you are able to do your dastardly deed on an image hosted by the NSIDC on their server, and to get away with this charade for years without being caught. I wonder why he claims to be a researcher when it is quite obvious he is not very good at research.

  34. I wouldn’t hold my breathe waiting for a reply. Mike can his various lap-dog regulars live in a parallel universe where they are never wrong and ‘deniers’ are never right. And Mike’s activist approach to comments ensures that anything that shows him or his pals in error is ‘appropriately’ dealt with.

    Two examples from my short time there trying to set them straight:

    John Bryant, the site’s resident dill, made great play of the ‘fact’ that 300 million people a year die from carbon pollution. After I left the comment unchallenged for a few days to see if any of the other geniuses there would pick up the error I finally pointed out that approx 60 mill people die per year world wide from all causes. I was then informed that I’d somehow breached commenting rules by pointing out the error and put on notice.

    A few days later Mike posted that our then Prime Minister needed to be sacked as the only way of defeating Tony Abbott who intended to repeal our CO2 tax. When I pointed out that a mere month early this same Mike had predicted that Abbott would never repeal the CO2 tax, I was promptly informed that I’d again breached commenting protocol, was summarily banned and all references to the brainless inconsistency of the blog owner were instantly removed… and remain so.

    The site is an embarrassment to all Aussies. Hopefully this monumental error will push them into closure or at least a more reasoned approach.

  35. Even with changes the intent to misrepresent WUWT still exists. NOTE:

    …my interpretation remains reasonable.
    The graph presented on WUWT is to my opinion an example of cherry picking. By removing reference to standard deviations in sea-ice extent, crucial and contextual information is excluded. WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change: information is presented and crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.

    So he is still claiming Anthony removed reference to standard deviation and crafting data. Hence, though he has made some edits his apology and retraction still remains disingenuous.

  36. Mike Marriott is co-author, with John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, of the Recursive Fury paper which accuses Anthony Watt and others of conspiracist ideation.

  37. There is also the very first paragraph; This is how you do denial and flagrantly misrepresent data.

    Nothing has been denied, nor has nothing been flagrantly misrepresented.

  38. UPDATE

    Received the following response from the Australian Press Council:-

    Dear Mr Worrall,

    Complaint: Watching the Deniers, WordPress

    Thank you for submitting a Complaint Form to the Australian Press Council today, Monday 8 July 2013.

    We regret to advise we are unable to assist you with your complaint as WordPress is not a member of our organisation.

    A list of our members can be found at the following link:

    http://www.presscouncil.org.au/constituent-bodies/

    As such, we are unable to consider your complaint further.

    You may wish to contact the publisher to pursue the complaint further:

    http://en.wordpress.com/complaints/

    Yours Sincerely,

    Justin

  39. So what is the complaint here? That you removed the error bounds to hide the fact that this years variation is within the 1 std.dev bounds of the entire record while last year was outside.

    Typical of “denierz” huh? They’re so underhanded even when the data shows change is within normal bounds they go out of their way to hide the fact.

  40. For his employers’ sake, let’s hope his information management is better than his disinformation management.

  41. I especially liked this part: “See, if you just remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem.” The pesky piece of information removed being the std dev area – the average is still there. Which means that these people are really, really ignorant.

  42. According to Mr Byatt, we are not just ‘deniers’, we are now retards and losers.

    Of course that comment doesn’t get moderated…:)

  43. Okay… so WTD are deliberately attacking. If that’s the case of it and this is no mistake, presumably they plan on taking this somewhere. Will their next claim will be that they have “proof” that Anthony spreads disinformation? How? Maybe by pointing at this very accusation, as though stating something makes it “fact”, no? (“Someone said it, it’s in writing, must be true”). Or maybe they’ll claim a consensus after taking a vote from amongst all those who don’t like you.

    I’d love to add a sarc tag, but I don’t think I can.

  44. Marriott tries to pull a fast one:

    I’ll leave this comments section and all the criticism posted as testament to transparency and openness. I could have ignored the criticism, or blocked comments. I did not.

    So where’s mine? URL of article previously in moderation and now “binned”.

    Marriott blusters further:

    I could have simply ignored Mr. Watts complaint.

    Indeed. And indeed he could have tried to mount a defence against the indefensible

    Marriott still hasn’t admitted that it was his mistake, brought about by his limited perception fitting the prejudices that he has about “deniers”.

    Marriott’s insistence that Anthony should have included standard deviations is a distraction. The implied normal distribution isn’t necessarily valid. Normal distributions are more typical of human activity where the very same thing is attempted (typically measured or manufactured) again and again; not to variations in nature. I bow to the more diligent John Brignell to explain, beginning with Poisson. The distribution of data has first to be determined before factors depending on the type of distribution are calculated.

    Marriott may well not care how things are measured and how those measurements can go wrong; and often do. (vis pools of water on ice being assessed as “open water”.)

  45. Just commented

    Philip Tomas (@BadScience) says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    July 8, 2013 at 8:33 am

    You inferred that the image was doctored; you did not imply it. I think you should actually apologise, not say “I’ll apologise..” because saying “I will apologise..” could be interpreted as weaselling out of actually saying it. You inferred a nefarious act and that requires an apology that is unequivocal.

  46. At WTD.
    Watching the Deniers says:
    July 8, 2013 at 5:44 am

    Anthony, your comment has been allowed – as requested I’ve addressed your complaints.

    In the interests of fairness I’ve removed that text implying doctoring of the image via “Photoshop”. I’ll apologise for that charge, and withdraw it.

    However, I do firmly believe presenting the data with standard deviations is imperative and provides the necessary context.

    I’ve also allowed most comments made by followers of your blog through, but not all.

    As you can appreciate some of them were very insulting, though I do not hold you personally responsible.
    Reply

  47. Anthony, perhaps it’s time to add a new menu item to WUWT, perhaps called “blog hole digging.” There’s an expression which says that when you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. The successive inchwise retraction of this libellous piece reminds me of Greg Laden’s piece calling Tallbloke a criminal.

    Pointman

  48. I’ve just posted the following on “Watchingthedeniers”

    Given that the North atlantic multidecadal oscillation is approximately a 60 year cycle, any such construction of a standard deviation for Arctic sea ice based on only 30 years of data is just more junk climate science statistical analysis.

  49. An adulterated graphic by Mike Marriott (of WUWT)

    Mike Marriott is not so funny..

    he is behind the anti Semitic smear story about Jo Nova’s husband, that did the rounds amongst the alarmist media a while back (he has since added a pathetic update at the bottom)

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-protocols-of-the-elder-climate-scientists-and-banksters-is-the-media-is-twigging-to-just-how-extreme-some-sceptics-are/

    Mike Marriott is a co-author (with John Cook) of the Recursive Fury (Lewandowsky, Marriott, Cook et al) sceptics suffer from conspiracy ideation, NAMING Anthony, Jo Nova, Steve McIntyre and others in the paper.

    SOMEHOW the UWA have no problems with Prof Lewandowsky using such very ethically conflicted ‘researchers’ like M Marriott, researching sceptics.. I complained, and got told to get lost

    By the way. M Marriott has previous.. labeling WUWT, Athony Watts articles denier, disinformation BS, Dunning Kruger, etc.

    and of course he would know about adulterating of graphics..

    here is a graphic which he has used on more than one occasion. and adulterated graphic of the WUWT article, stamped Verified B*******t

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/

    and yes the article in question was about mine,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    John Cook’s Skeptical Science website endorsed Marriott’s article (because it challenged their beloved 97% consensus soundbite) and yes, I got named in Recursive Fury – Lewandowsky et al, paper aswell.

    somehow Marriott and Cook are deemed perfectly acceptable, neutral not conflicted ethically psychology researchers!!(the paper has been disappeared for a few months now, see comments under the abstract to see why)

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract

  50. It seems a more serious charge has been leveled against Anthony Watts because this comment implies that he is being “paid” by “some entity” for his work on WUWT.
    Clearly, this isn’t referring to website advertising:

    Watching the Deniers says:
    July 8, 2013 at 6:36 am

    Unlike Mr. Watts and other high profile sceptics such as Robert Carter and Andrew Bolt, I receive no salary for my work.
    I do not receive money or funding from any organisation, corporation, government body, institute or think tank. I speak at no think tank sponsored events.

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/anthony-watts-dishonest-misrepresentation-of-sea-ice-graphs-no-surprise-there/#comment-43435

  51. “Watching the Deniers says:
    July 8, 2013 at 6:36 am
    Unlike Mr. Watts and other high profile sceptics such as Robert Carter and Andrew Bolt, I receive no salary for my work.”

    Am I wrong or is this response on “Watching the Deniers” a lie, and slander?

  52. In the post he says, “Unlike Mr. Watts and other high profile sceptics such as Robert Carter and Andrew Bolt, I receive no salary for my work.” So, Anthony, where can I sign up for denialist funding? I keep hearing this claim but I never seen any evidence.

  53. Marriot now thinks that Watts gets a salary for running WUWT. None of my comments at that site has made it past moderation yet so I expect my comment about that falsehood won’t make it either.

    Not all us Aussies are brain dead yet. Well I could be wrong I suppose.

  54. Watching the Deniers says “If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”

    The only problem with his claim is that even without the standard deviation(SD) shown WUWT’s graph still shows the 1981-2010 average line, so unless you are an idiot you can plainly see that the sea ice extent is below average.

    In fact I contend that showing the SD like WTD wants WUWT to do actually makes things look better. With the SD shown you can see that the current extent is within +/-2 SD meaning it is still essentially the average within a 95.45% confidence. While if you don’t have the SD shown you have no reference as to how deviant the current level is.

    So Anthony may want to show the SD graph and let eevryone know things aren’t as bad as we thought.

  55. Steve C says:
    July 8, 2013 at 12:58 am

    For his employers’ sake, let’s hope his information management is better than his disinformation management.
    ***************************************************************************************************
    The problem with stupid people (not you) is that they don’t know they are stupid and therefore stay stupid. So I doubt if he has any value to his employers.

  56. Anthony, with all due respect, I will not assist his metrics by commenting on his site. I suspect that part of his motivation was to bolster his anemic site visitations. And you have supplied him with a bountiful bonanza in that regard.

    Skunks do not change odors just because you call them kitty cats. He will not change. The title of his blog shows all anyone needs to know about both his competence and integrity.

  57. I’m an Aussie – we’re not all alarmists ;-).

    There is a followup to this debacle – Watching the Deniers Mike Marriot thinks his compliance with Anthony’s demand puts him on a par with the Thin Red Line, the 93rd Highland Regiment at the Battle of Balaclava (1854).

    Delusional – well draw your own conclusion.

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/wuwt-attacks-wtd-i-learn-the-only-thing-to-fear-from-the-sceptics-is-your-own-fear/

    And apparently I am to suffer the punishment of a further 3 month ban, for alerting the target of a lie to the publication of the lie. This is to teach me about taking the consequences for my decisions.

    You couldn’t make it up. How did we ever allow these losers to have any influence over our lives?

  58. The guy running that blog is a legend in his own mind and laugh out loud as his “mini me” that is being humiliated there trying to justify it all…. so funny… so brightened up my day…. clowns they are ( in my best yoda voice )

  59. I had a close encounter of the Orwellian kind with WTD back in the days when he was just plain “Mike”.

    It was on the heels of the 10:10 “No Pressure” boomerang. At that time, his “About” page (as you can read on my post) was reasonably honest – albeit misguided and very emotional, which may be why I now see that at some point in the intervening years, he’s changed it!

    His non-responsive rant (which may or may not have been in lieu of a reply to some questions I’d asked) included the following:

    The video is tasteless, but really the response of the “sceptics” has been ALARMIST, over wrought and overly dramatic.

    Even worse, they are disparaging the memory of the Holocaust by claiming some silly Nazi link to this video.

    Which led me to conclude my report of this encounter:

    A guy who is obviously convinced that this is the dawning of the age of “an emerging global catastrophe” calling those who do not share his views “ALARMIST” is ironic and amusing. But a guy who chooses the nym – and dubs his blog – “Watching the deniers” accusing those with whom he disagrees of “disparaging the memory of the Holocaust” is … Amazing. Simply amazing.

  60. The name of the web site just confirms to me it is not worth a minute of my time having a look – what a bunch of cretins.

  61. There is a followup – apparently Mike Mariot thinks that his compliance with Anthony Watts’ demands is comparable to being a member of The Thin Red Line – the 93rd Highland Regiment at the Battle of Balaclava (1854)

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/wuwt-attacks-wtd-i-learn-the-only-thing-to-fear-from-the-sceptics-is-your-own-fear/

    Apparently I am also to be punished for my crime of alerting the target of a falsehood to the publication of the lie – obviously a serious misdemeanour in communities of climate alarmists, at least when the target of the lie is a “denier”.

  62. Yes. And apparently I am to be punished for alerting the target of a falsehood to the publication of that falsehood. Perhaps Lewandowsky could explain why.

  63. Tell us Anthony….how many times do you have to tell them you are not a paid for misinformer?

    John Byatt:
    how can one have respect for a paid for misinformer like watts?

    This John Byatt chap is now accusing you of not updating your graphs;

    I have noticed that sometimes watts does not update the graphs, for what reason i do not know, but sometimes they are left way out of date especially if he has a blog post about how the arctic ice is recovering for the umpteemth time

    Who is this John Byatt chap anyway?

    If you ask me, it’s not us that has a problem with ‘conspiracy theories’, it’s them! Especially this JB twit.

  64. I made my comment and pointed out that if he wants editorial rights on WUWT he ought to buy it first.
    He will have a major blip in traffic today and that will be nice because he will realise that his biggest day is when a crumb falls from WUWT onto his sad little site. From tomorrow he just goes back to his little echo chamber.

  65. Marriotts efforts have drawn my attention to the Arctic sea ice.
    There is more of it this year than last. Whats up with that ?

  66. … then they fight you … then you win.

    BTW, as mentioned earlier using any statistics based on less than 60 years is clearly questionable. Everyone knows about the 60 year PDO cycle so this is not even debatable except when you have less than 60 years of data. I’ll know climate science has become a real science when they start recognizing this fact. I don’t look for that real soon.

    So, a good question is should data on averages and deviations be included with less that 60 years of data? There are lots of fields where using a shorter range than known cycles would get you labeled unscientific.

  67. After ninja editing his post he has the temerity to post this at the bottom. The hypocrisy in his follow on is mind boggling.

    “The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge. ”

    I submitted a comment that I judged him to be neither transparent, open, nor honest. I wonder what the probability that that comment makes it to the blog. ;)

    This guy censors comments for content so its pointless to read or attempt to have a dialogue.

  68. “Mike Marriott, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm.”

    Otherwise known as a “spin doctor”.

    As a lay person, I think that showing the Standard Deviation would support the notion that current levels of sea ice extent as shown in the graph are simply within normal fluctuations, which would support WUWT’s point of view. Leaving it out actually seems to help the scare mongers.

  69. If it were me, and the libel continues, I’d be having a chat with his employers. While he doesn’t name them outright, he is well known enough for the link to his employers to be drawn. If his employers are lawyers, they might not be too happy about having their firm associated with a publically overt libeler. Of couse, they may not care, they may be as deep into the tank as he is and welcome the business he brings. That’s the down side of “all press is good press”. Even useful idoits can bring cash to the table. See? Already a neg spin reflecting to the firm…

  70. Marriot’s latest post compares his bruising encounter with Watts with the Thin Red Line, the 93rd Highland Regiment at the Battle of Balaclava (1854).

    I’m thinking perhaps I should find some utterly inappropriate historic episode of suffering to illustrate my hurt feelings at being banned from his blog, say Spartacus defying the might of Rome. If I was an alarmist like Marriot, I could keep a straight face as I explained the parallel between my exile from a blog and epic historical events.

  71. I left a reply on their blog to the effect that they should put 2SD’S on each line in the graph and see if they all overlapped. The idiots thought I was on their side. Shows how little they know about probabilities.

  72. I couldn’t help but notice that nearly all the comments defending the blog were written by the same person, a chap going by the name of Byatt, is he the only reader or are all the others on holiday in their favourite parallel universe?

  73. According to the about page for WTD:

    Mike Marriott, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm.

    =========================

    judging on his accusations that should be “misinforamtion manager”.

  74. Just posted this onWTD lets see if it gets past moderation!!!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Lets see how “open and honest” you really are
    All this fuss from some who’s has stated

    I have a confession to make: I am not qualified to discuss the intricate, technical details of climate science.
    It’s beyond my capability.
    I can grasp the essentials, and even make sense of (some) the actual peer reviewed research that I read. However I am very conscious that I have large gaps in my knowledge, and that crucially I am not qualified to critique the work of science.
    In order to have a real understanding I’d need to pursue a Bachelor of Science and post-graduate degrees to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science.”
    Mike Marriot 2010

  75. Eric, so he extended your ban because you mentioned his publicly available blog post to the person who was the subject of that blog post?

    Is he a 12 year-old girl?

    No wait that is unfair to 12 year-old girls. Is he a 4 year-old having a temper tantrum?

  76. The alarmists are the smart ones Anthony. We are all flat-earthers or some such. They obviously are correct in any accusations made against you. Therefore obviously you snuck into their headquarters at night and doctored their official release. As all alarmists believe, if there is a possibility it must be fact.

  77. eric Worrals says..
    The thin red line was an epic feat of heroism and victory in the face of overwhelming odds.
    Marriots performance was more like a laughing Hyena skulking away when the lion roared

  78. He updated the post. How is Anthony’s update to the Georgia coast post coming along? Correction anytime soon?

  79. So now it’s “imperative” that climate graphs show SD?
    That’s gonna backfire.

  80. Adding a standard deviation to a graph assumes we know the distribution of the data. Given the short time we have been monitoring polar ice, this seems unlikely. From wikipedia:

    Unbiased sample standard deviation
    For unbiased estimation of standard deviation, there is no formula that works across all distributions, unlike for mean and variance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

  81. He edited the article, replacing some of the embarrassing stuff, but does not identify what was altered. The article seems much longer than it originally was, so it seems that he’s not labeling his alterations well. Perhaps he does not know that “down the memory hole” does not carry positive implications.

  82. In Marriott’s new blog article he opens:

    An interesting day in this small, and for some obscure front of the climate change war.

    As some readers may have noticed, Mr. Watts of the sceptical blog Watts up with that? and I have been engaged in some friendly debate over the nature of sea-ice graphs.

    I believe the matter to be resolved on my part, having replied to Mr. Watts requests.

    It’s interesting that Marriott regards this as a war. Feeling a tad challenged, perchance? Trying to gather “the troops”?

    The “friendly debate” in this case was initiated by Marriott publishing a defamatory article. accusing Anthony of dishonesty and misrepresentation. Indeed of tampering with published data to suit his own purpose.

    Further “having replied to Mr. Watts requests” is a massive distortion. It was no “reply”. Marriott had to accede to Anthony’s demands or risk his @rse being dragged into court for defamation.

    Marriott’s banning of Eric parallels the actions of a petulant child. Just because Eric dobbed him in for writing nasty stuff about Anthony.

    His new article is like a brand new shovel; digging the same hole; only faster.

  83. Eugene WR Gallun says:
    July 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    Each of us looks at humanity through the prism of our own nature…………..

    Eugene WR Gallun says:July 7, 2013 at 9:31 pm
    Complaint — i really hate this new small comment box. It is much harder to self-correct

    Eugene WR Gallun
    ————————————————————–
    I agree with both comments.

    Anthony, I hate to be a pain but is it possible to reduce the width of the page to match the final posted width and add maybe another 2″ in comment box length?
    cn

  84. In Marriott’s new blog article he claims;

    “As some readers may have noticed, Mr. Watts of the sceptical blog Watts up with that? and I have been engaged in some friendly debate over the nature of sea-ice graphs.”

    Yet he issues a 3 month further ban on the person who brought the article to Anthony’s attention, without which there would have been no ‘friendly debate’.

    And if a ‘friendly debate’ were his goal or desire wouldn’t he have forwarded a copy of his original article directly to Anthony to initiate the debate? Which brings us back to why he banned the person who made the ‘friendly debate’ possible.

  85. As has been pointed out multiple times by other commenters, “removing” the SD (which you didn’t do) does not to “lie” about the ice. The STD outline actually shows the ice isn not outside of the norm. This idiot is an embarrassment to the alarmists. Maybe the Aussies should have a law against BWS (Blogging While Stupid).

  86. I’ve updated the post and included the screencap of the original defamation.
    What an idiot.

  87. Eugene WR Gallun says: “Each of us looks at humanity through the prism of our own nature. What we ourselves are, distorts our view of others. This leads dishonest people to believe that others are as dishonest as they are…

    That sums the situation up nicely. It’s projection of the Shadow.

  88. I think WTD post author didn’t read the graph and his misreading led him to jump to the conclusion that the graph as posted at WUWT is designed to help the skeptics. The line that jumped out at me was the following:
    “If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem”

    Note how he says sea ice DECLINE is below average. The graph is labeled sea ice EXTENT. So if the extent looks farther below average (without SD) that would tend to harm the skeptic argument, while including the SD would (as others have mentioned) put the current ice levels within normal bounds. So a correct reading of the graph, coupled with the effect of including/excluding the SD, would mean the WTD author is suggesting that WUWT deliberately didn’t use a graph that helps the skeptic position and instead used one that makes the sea ice loss look even farther below the average.

    Not only is the claim of deliberate misinformation erroneous, even if it were true the end result would be favoring the WTD position and undermining the WUWT position.

  89. Meanwhile they do a very efficient job of ignoring the same type sea ice tracking graph for the Antarctic ice. This is from the same taxpayer-funded source as the Arctic sea ice data chart.

  90. If anything, the old Arctic sea ice chart looked pretty bad, quite a bit below average, but thanks to WTD post, Anthony has now included the one with 2 sd and it looks a lot more normal.

    Thanks to WTD for pointing this out ..

    /sarc

  91. Watching the watchers is a great waste of time and talent unless of course the watchers are key advisers to the government policymakers. In that case the watchers do serve a purpose as indicators that policy is distorted for the benefit of special interest support. And by extension, the dumber and more extreme the watcher, the more distorted the policymaking and the parties involved.

  92. I would be that WtD had record traffic today. I would make a guess that we will see more spite directed at Anthony in particular and WUWT in general from these guys. Let’s not help this guy out with more hits to his website.

    • I would be that WtD had record traffic today. I would make a guess that we will see more spite directed at Anthony in particular and WUWT in general from these guys. Let’s not help this guy out with more hits to his website.

      @TomR – Yep, that is why I did not go there. Anthony printed enough of the page to know what was going on. Feeding the metrics is merely encouraging the trolls.

  93. Oh hum my post didn’t make past the moderation team(mike) it appears he didn’t like my reminding him of this LOL
    “”I have a confession to make: I am not qualified to discuss the intricate, technical details of climate science.
    It’s beyond my capability.
    I can grasp the essentials, and even make sense of (some) the actual peer reviewed research that I read. However I am very conscious that I have large gaps in my knowledge, and that crucially I am not qualified to critique the work of science.
    In order to have a real understanding I’d need to pursue a Bachelor of Science and post-graduate degrees to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science.”
    BIG H/T to AndyG55
    ain’t truth, transparency,& honesty a bitch LOL

  94. Bad day for me!
    1) I followed the link to the WTD site to ‘view’ his new article.
    2) I read through a very vague, accusatory uninformative post by the blog’s owner.
    3) I was irritated enough that I thought I’d add a comment listing MM’s deficiencies and further defamations.
    4) I prefer to read all comments before adding a comment, so I started choking down the bile and nit picking responses by WTD denizen’s avoiding responsibility or education.
    5) After surfacing several time’s gasping for clear air, I finally decided that leaving a comment at that trash heap was not worth the effort. (my best decision of the day).
    6) I’m wondering how much chocolate and bourbon it’s going to take to cleanse my mouth and mind.

    WTD may have removed the egregious libels may have been removed, but instead he has left smaller libels with sneering snark. Maybe an Aussie lawyer visiting WUWT can advise Anthony what if any benefit can be gained by suing. e.g. If Anthony wins, does he get paid back for his trips to Australia to defend his honor?

    “DR says: July 8, 2013 at 6:43 am

    Byatt = sock puppet?”

    Exactly my thought DR, especially since in my mind his replies came across as ventriloquism via the dummy on the lap.

    WTD owner, writer is an Information Manager? And he suggests paint can be used to photoshop a picture? He’s certainly not an Information Manager connected to technology; perhaps as someone else suggested he’s spinning the title of Information Manager up from some other position, say something in the newspaper delivery line…

  95. Mike Marriott appears on the author list of the “Recursive Fury” paper, mentioned by Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods above, as “Michael Marriott – Climate Realities Research, Australia”.

    In his rather petulant non-apology over this issue he says “I do not receive money or funding from any organisation, corporation, government body, institute or think tank. I speak at no think tank sponsored events. I am happily, proudly independent of any political party or organisation.”

    This rather begs the question – who or what is “Climate Realities Research”?

    If it exists as a genuine research organisation – why is he now denying the affiliiation?

    If it doesn’t exist – did he (or someone else) invent it in order to give the false impression that he had some kind of institutional credentials to be an author of an academic paper?

    Climate “science” seems to be somewhat unique in allowing authors of its academic works to invite any passing laymen of sufficiently extreme views to join in.

  96. His argument that you are intentionally trying to lead people astray by showing the graph that you did has a pretty major flaw. When you include the standard deviation shading, it shows that currently the arctic sea ice could be considered to be within expected bounds based on historical variability. But then a couple of charts below you show the NORSEX displays, complete with shading for 1 SD, clearly showing the sea ice to be outside of the presumed variability. In other words, by his reasoning, you hid the data that supports your message, yet left the data that runs counter to your message.

    And Anthony, I just have to add that one of the things that I really appreciate about this blog is that you do display things on the the reference pages from a variety of sources. You also link directly to the source, without any attempt to craft a special graph that meets your perceived needs.

  97. I now see that the version of the graph with 2SD has been included on the Sea Ice page. Why? What is the possible meaning of 2SD calculated on only 30 years of a 60 year cycle?

  98. Jo Nova has a good post on Mikey Marriott:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/lewandowsky-dismisses-bloggers-but-they-are-his-research-team-who-is-mike-hubble-marriott/

    One of the commenters on the post (called mct) notes that Mike is a data info manager for an Aussie law firm:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/lewandowsky-dismisses-bloggers-but-they-are-his-research-team-who-is-mike-hubble-marriott/#comment-1237601

    The company is called Middletons. They seem to specialise in patent enforcement for Big Pharma:

    http://www.ausbiotech.org/directory/details.asp?companyid=%7B1CBC0100-DDF5-4DD9-BB38-CB9A35B3CF17%7D%20=%2Fdirectory%2Fsearch.asp%3Fpg%3D29

    The whole firm has been taken over by a multi-national legal behemoth called K&L Gates:

    http://www.klgates.com/melbourne-australia/#overview

    Perhaps the marketing and PR department of K&L Gates might like someone to send them a quick email informing them of what an idiot one of their employees is making of themselves ;)

  99. son of mulder:

    I now see that the version of the graph with 2SD has been included on the Sea Ice page. Why? What is the possible meaning of 2SD calculated on only 30 years of a 60 year cycle?

    I think you’re missing the point of a data aggregation service. It should be aggregating data from all available sources that is reputable, not just ones that fit some particular groups notion of “acceptable data”.

  100. “This may be the dumbest accusation against me, ever.”

    Agreed. If the chart in question is “dishonest” and “flagrantly misrepresents data” then he should take it up with NSIDC. But of course not showing the STD is neither “dishonest” or “misrepresents data”. The STD is simply data that helps put the current value in context.

    It would be one thing to think the images *may* have been modified if they were actually hosted on Wattsupwiththat.com but they aren’t. It takes just one click to see the original image at its source and of course there are plenty of other sea ice images other than the one in question.

    Ridiculous boarding on the absurd.

  101. @Mycroft -

    You don’t have to be a scientist to be able to see that the AGW meme is falsr. There are plenty of very layman-readable books on this – I’d recommend Steve Goreham’s Climatism! to start.

    As for the producer of this video, I guess you have to be dishonest to know a dishonest person when you see one (it takes one to know one). /sarc

  102. Anthony, look at WTD’s attack on you from the bright side. If, as WTD falsely claims, you “doctored” some data, then in their eyes you must be a “doctor”. How does it feel to be officially recognized by the Alarmist community as a “Doctor?” Probably about the same as Mikey feels about being recognized as a Nobel Prize Winner.

  103. accordionsrule says:
    July 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

    So now it’s “imperative” that climate graphs show SD?
    That’s gonna backfire.

    Clever! (It won’t do the IPCC’s projections any good.)

  104. It’s not much of an apology or correction when the blog post still begins “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”

    So Mr. Marriott believes that displaying a chart from NSIDC is denial and cherry picking?

    Really?

  105. The Magic Gassers who drove real science out of the building have now turned on each other. Go figure.

  106. Rules for Radicals is the playbook for the folks at WTD and the other Aussie warmistas. They will only see this dust up with WUWT as a victory. If circumstances were reversed, it is likely that warmistas would go after the skeptics maybe by finding out who the skeptics employer is and then organizing a boycott of the business where the skeptic worked.

    This has already played out as warmista activists took down Carter and Salby. The only ones I see throwing punches and landing body blows in the fight down under are the radical warmistas and the skeptics just look to be indignant gum flapping punching bags at the moment. How can you see it any other way?

  107. Christopher Hanley says July 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Young Mike works as an “information manager” for a law firm, but he doesn’t have a clue — isn’t that s-o-o-o-o postmodern?

    … just following the “bread crumb trail” he’s fed; think: positive reinforcement supplied by the powers that provide his ‘pay’, e.g. in the case of trained performing chimps, circus dogs, talking parrots, climate scientists – that sort of thing …

    One gets more of the ‘behavior’ that’s rewarded (e.g. grant-money & climatologists on the AGW gravy train).

    .

  108. Eugene WR Gallun says July 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Each of us looks at humanity through the prism of our own nature. What we ourselves are, distorts our view of others. This leads dishonest people to believe that others are as dishonest as they are — and conversely leads honest people to grant good will to those utterly lacking in it.

    Very good points; very erudite post.

    Sum it up this way perhaps: “Never make the assumption of thinking the other bloke thinks and sees things like you think and see them.”

    .

  109. Speaking of incomplete context, why is it so damned hard to see the more relevant, land based ice in the Antarctic on NSIDC’s website, which has increased, while they gush endlessly about the Arctic ice reduction.

    If anything, Anthony’s sea ice page, by virtue of putting all of the data in one place, does a much better job of providing a scientific facts-based perspective than the original.

  110. Anthony, I’ve been visiting WUWT since about 2007.
    I had no idea you made all this stuff up yourself.
    Thanks to some angry Aussie IT nerd, I now know the truth. . I’ll still come though, here just to see what you cook up next. To think all these crafty intellects present here didn’t pick up on it. They’re stupid, you’re clever and we’re all Dnyers.
    I’m so glad that IT dweeb straightened me out.
    (sarc off. Thanks for all you do. You may well go down in History.)

  111. Anthony, the idiot individual, who couldn’t be stuffed to do spend 5 seconds checking the source of your graph, is now demanding an apology because you hurt his feelings by calling him an idiot.

    I think he has a point – even most idiots would have performed a 5 second check of the original source material before hurling defamatory accusations. Perhaps “lazy incompetent” or “careless buffoon” would have been more appropriate descriptions ;-).

    REPLY: I fully plan to ignore him, he’s not worth the time. I stand by my label of “idiot” for him, though your labels would also work. – Anthony

  112. Hey Anthony I think NSIDC solved this problem for you ironically – both links now point to the same chart which includes the standard deviation. So on the sea ice page you now have duplicate graphs shown for both the arctic and antarctic sea ice extent 15% or greater.

    Try it for yourself:

  113. Bill Jamison,

    Thanks for those links. Now let’s look at the other end of the planet [just replace the "N" with "S" in the links above] :

    As we see, total global ice cover remains about the same…

    …actually, total global ice cover appears to be increasing somewhat.

  114. Nice to see that the NSIDC has removed the “dishonest” chart using “cherry picked data” that “flagrantly misrepresents data”.

    I suppose one lesson you could take away from this debacle is that you just need to add a standard deviation to chart in order to avoid “cherry picking data”.
    /sarc

  115. Okay one more comment…in this post from 2008 Anthony talks about a different chart that includes STD. He calls it a “bonus” to have it displayed even though it clearly showed just how far below normal the sea ice extent was in 2007 and 2008:

    ” I’ve spent a lot of time this month looking at the graph of sea ice extent from the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent. However, there is another website that also plots the same satellite derived data, the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center of Bergen Norway, and they have an added bonus: a standard deviation shaded area.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/

    That’s from 2008 which is before NSIDC started generating the chart which includes the 2 STD range.

  116. Wait… An author on a paper claiming skeptics are conspiracy theorists fabricated a claim to say a skeptic doctored an image to lie to people?

  117. In the Sept 19, 2012 edition of Sea Ice News, Anthony included the following chart that shows the NSIDC data for 2012, 2005, and 2005 plotted with the 1979-2000 average and the 2 STD range.

    Not very smart of Anthony to use that chart if he’s trying to hide the fact that recent arctic sea ice extent minimums have been greater than 2 STD low!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-13-2012-arctc-sea-ice-minimum-reached-its-all-gain-from-here/

Comments are closed.