Watts Up With The Inconvenient Arctic Hiatus?

Our title for today does of course refer to the inconvenient hiatus caused by the Gremlins currently stealing my comments from under the noses of Anthony Watts’ eagle eyed team of moderators before they can approve them as suitable for public view. Yesterday Mr. Watts published an article under the headline:

Inconvenient: Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth In September

Not a lot of people know that Anthony quotes our old friends at the Global Warming Policy Forum quoting our mutual friend Paul Homewood as follows:

Since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate. Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years. Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987.

and GWPF Science Editor, David Whitehouse, as follows:

As I wrote when looking at last year’s data the declining Arctic ice cover has been one of the most powerful images of climate change and that many who follow the debate don’t look too hard at the data. This results in superficial reporting that does not convey any of the complexities of the situation and as such is poor science communication.

With the data for 2016 now in it is time to look again at the claims of an “ice pause.”

In the spirit of improving science communication I commented as follows on Mr. Watts article, when seven previous comments were visible:

Annual average sea ice was all the rage last year:


You may well be wondering what a graph of annual average Arctic sea ice extent looks like? Take a look:



This morning (UTC) there are 197 comments visible under the WUWT article, but mine is not amongst them. Those Gremlins have a lot to answer for!

You may possibly think my comment was somewhat on the terse side? In part that’s because I’d just had a “debate” of sorts with one or more WUWT moderators who happily admitted to [snip]ping large parts of my side of the “conversation”. I certainly didn’t want to offend them by “taking pot shots” or engaging in “self promotion”. After all they had concluded their remarks by informing me that:

It is settled then …you are mendacious

The SIMPLEST solution is to stop attempting to post comments here. We are not required to carry them.

Needless to say my most recent witty riposte was grabbed by the Gremlins:


Just in case you were wondering what a mendacious moderator might mean:

[men-dey-shuh s]


1. telling lies, especially habitually; dishonest; lying; untruthful:
a mendacious person.

2. false or untrue:
a mendacious report.

13 thoughts on “Watts Up With The Inconvenient Arctic Hiatus?

  1. Do your closing words imply that “mendacity” {or possibly “mend-a-city”} is some kind of urban renewal/regeneration program?

  2. The SIMPLEST solution is to stop attempting to post comments here. We are not required to carry them.

    No, the SIMPLEST solution is to BLOCK the would-be commenter from posting at all.
    What idiots they are over at WUWT.

    1. Most “skeptical” sites do adopt your “simplest solution”. They simply block commenters who politely post “inconvenient truths”. However since Anthony Watts runs the self proclaimed “Top Science Blog” I do sometimes chronicle here the [snip]pings that take place over there.

      As an avid reader of this blog Mr. Watts for some reason best known to himself does on occasion feel the need to do some extremely selective un[snip]ping in a vain endeavour to paint “Snow White” and I in an unfavourable light. Presumably he feels this in some way justifies to his many merry minions his suppression of the actual facts about declining Arctic sea ice?

      1. Presumably he feels this in some way justifies to his many merry minions his suppression of the actual facts about declining Arctic sea ice?

        I’ll just bet he does!
        Thanks, Jim.

      2. Explain to me how any of this equates to the existence of man made global warming……..please. I’m tired of hearing “warmest temperatures in recorded history”. What they mean is warmest temperatures in the ooooh soooo long 135 years of recorded earth surface temps.Why should this mean a thing to anyone with a sane logical mind. 135 years is a grain of sand on a beach compared to how long the earth has existed. Is there not evidence of the earth having multiple ice ages? Wouldn’t an ice age require a steady warming of the globe to end it? How many coal factories and airplanes were around back then when all the ice was melted?hmmmm good question. How about the past 20 years of no temperature rise even though co2 levels have been up lately which will fall again in time. Its all cyclical and to think man is going to change all these normal cycles is just simply unfounded.

        1. Hello David,

          Whilst I suspect that you are not a “policymaker” try reading the IPCC 5th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers:

          Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

          There’s lots of helpful links for you to follow. Here’s some additional data for you:

          No temperature rise.

          It’s all cyclical.

          Perhaps I might also refer you to this comment of Bill’s on the topic of “sane logic”?

          I suppose by extension, the following arguments would also hold water…

          People can die naturally, therefore the crime of murder should be stricken from the statute books

          Fires can start naturally, therefore ditto for the crime of arson

          Electricity can be generated naturally in thunderstorms, therefore power stations don’t exist.

  3. Keep trying!

    I have recently been banned from Breitbart for (I assume) posting facts on James Delingpole’s screeds…

    A badge of honour?

    1. Welcome down the “memory hole” Griff, and I shall! Wear your badge of honour with pride.

      This is not strictly sea ice of course, but it struck me this morning that Mr. Watts coverage of Hurricane Matthew was a trifle tardy:


      Needless to say my gentle admonishment is still invisible to the many merry minions at WUWT.

  4. What exactly are the reasons for the decreasing ice in the Arctic? Is it the mud flats in the Beaufort Sea spewing methane and raising water temperatures above freezing? Is the Gulf Stream pumping more water into the Arctic Ocean rather than it circulating towards Europe? PDO? Solar Cycle minimum? I know, I know, it’s simply the CO2 flow. Is it similar to the 1920s? Do Greenland historical ice core readings or Oxygen isotope core samples indicate similar events in the past?
    I tire of the ad hominem attacks and the neo-orthodoxy that condemns climatologists who dissent on AGW.

  5. What “ad hominem attacks” would those be CJ?

    I’m condemning censorship of those “who dissent” on “AGW skeptic” web sites. Do you approve of that sort of thing?

  6. It seemed a pretty straightforward question you asked there, James.

    One wonders why it’s taking so long to elicit a response.

    Lack of cojones perhaps?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 8 MB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.