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:
In the meantime, you can leave comments here.
The original accusation by Marriott is in the screenshot below:
![wtdscreenshot[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/wtdscreenshot1.gif)
The only word I can use to describe his “finding” is breathless. Or stupid. Well done.
Confirmation bias on steroids?
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 ??
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.
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?
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.
Somehow your comment hasn’t made it through the ‘moderator’. Gee, i wonder why that is?
My comment at WTD (in moderation)
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.
“I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm”
Downright scary.
“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
trying to get some “traffic” to a worthless blog site …
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.
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.”
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?
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.
Complaint — i really hate this new small comment box. It is much harder to self-correct
Eugene WR Gallun
Smear campaigns. They’re what’s for dinner.
Hold fast, ladies and gentlemen,….
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..