A couple of days ago we explained how Christopher Booker explained that blogger Paul Homewood:
Has drawn on official sources.. to uncover what is actually happening [in the Arctic]
Have we got news for you Christopher? That’s not how it works in the cryodenialosphere! Mr. Homewood’s article about Mr. Booker’s article about Mr. Homewood’s previous article(s) is littered with factual errors. This is what happens should you be foolish enough to attempt to correct such errors.
Here is what we typed into the comment section of Mr. Homewood’s blog:
Of course if Mr. Booker were to have considered Arctic sea ice volume he might have thought twice about his “there is even more of it today than in February 2006, and it is also significantly thicker.” remark?
Followed by:
When that failed to make an appearance:
When Ron Clutz sang the praises of MASIE yet again:
Here is what Paul Homewood cherry picked to publish to his loyal readership:
Can you spot the difference? Our juiciest cherries all ended up on Paul’s cutting room floor!
Not a lot of people know that Homewood discourages honesty and facts. The few comments I tried to put in a couple of years ago were permanently “moderated.” My life’s too short to spend writing a comment only to have it go to waste. I’m glad for people like you, Jim, who can clue us in on what’s going on–and what’s *not* going on.
I googled Paul thingy and then randomly clicked links. Immediately I landed in the alternative universe – populated by Booker, Delingpole, Breitbart, The Telegraph…… I lasted 15 minutes and then ran away. OK, so I’m a wimp
Matthew – Discretion is the better part of valour!
Jim – I don’t usually bother with the likes of Homewood et al., but in this case I’m conducting some in depth psychological research over at ex. Prof Judy’s place. More on all that in due course, but here’s an archived taster for you to whet your appetite.
I tend to go with DMI since it uses big thick lines and a blob, which is more accurate, because there is a pretty big margin of error. It is not clear yet if 2017 is hugely divergent for 2016 in extent or volume, but none of it looks too great.
Sorry, I should have said OSI SAF
http://osisaf.met.no/p/new_ice_extent_graphs.php
DMI and OSI SAF are closely related Tommy!
The entire cryodenialosphere may be currently claiming things like Booker’s “extent of sea ice was much the same as it has been at this date ever since 2001”, which is of course nonsense.
However such commentary doesn’t mention Arctic sea ice volume for some strange reason, even when I point it out! The February PIOMAS figures are out. They look like this:
Deniers won’t accept it until they are standing in a metre of water in their house, or a forest fire rages towards it.
I believe yesterday may have been a record for the Antarctic ?
Lowest sea-ice extent on record, and also the latest autumn rebound on record.
(black line = 1991 – previous record latest rebound. )
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209077599112283&set=gm.1185698621529314&type=3&theater
(not sure how to insert an image here)
Just found out, it sounds like 1986 was later to rebound, and 2003. But not by much.
How conveniently you ignore the record high ice extents in Antarctica in the last 30 years – cherry picking is obviously fine when you do it.
Have you seen any Antarctic sea ice extent graphs recently Christopher?
Your article is a load of brainwashed believer’s crap.
Oh no it isn’t!
sounds russian to me