"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]

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alvin

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

Chris B

Confirmation bias on steroids?

AndyG55

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 ??

Bill H

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.

AndyG55

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.”

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?

MJ

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.

I left a comment. AW’s comment is either still in moderation or deleted.

DC Cowboy

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

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.

OldWeirdHarold

That comment section is pretty amazing.

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.

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.

Glenn

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

Marian

“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

Steve in Seattle

trying to get some “traffic” to a worthless blog site …

intrepid_wanders

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.

JohnS

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.

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.”

Eugene WR Gallun

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

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?

Nylo

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.

Eugene WR Gallun

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

David Ball

Smear campaigns. They’re what’s for dinner.
Hold fast, ladies and gentlemen,….

ColdinOz

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..

pat

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

Nik

A “Fail” of Peter Gleick proportions.

philincalifornia

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.

Lil Fella from OZ

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.

Man Bearpig

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.

Man Bearpig

Edit to above … xx.x% of data points would fall with the range..

myrightpenguin

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

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.

John F. Hultquist

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.

Doug UK

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

myrightpenguin

@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.

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.

DirkH

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.

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

dp

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.

Mark

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.

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.

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.

BruceC

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.

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

Greg

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.

Steve C

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

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.

FergalR

Awh, I worked my photoshop skills to the bone and they trashed my comment QQ:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/k9e3q1.jpg

BruceC

According to Mr Byatt, we are not just ‘deniers’, we are now retards and losers.
Of course that comment doesn’t get moderated…:)