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)
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?
… 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).
.
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.”
.
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.
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.)
Anthony, the
idiotindividual, 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
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:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
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] :
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
As we see, total global ice cover remains about the same…
…actually, total global ice cover appears to be increasing somewhat.
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
Well, since that (which wasn’t bothering me) is cleared up, I wonder if the sea ice comparison of 2007/today could be updated for the new low ice point?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=07&fy=2012&sm=07&sd=07&sy=2013
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.
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?
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.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/n_20120916_stddev_timeseries21.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-13-2012-arctc-sea-ice-minimum-reached-its-all-gain-from-here/