Recursive Fury From David Rose?

Censorship, , ,

There’s accusations flying around the blogosphere in all directions at the moment on the currently very hot topic of “Recursive Fury”, also referred to as “Conspiracist Ideation” in the literature.

By way of a little background, this time last year the learned journal Frontiers in Psychology published a paper called “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”. The lead author is Stephan Lewandowsky who is now Chair in Cognitive Psychology at Bristol University just up the M5 motorway from here. If you click that first link you will note that rather than being able to read the paper you will instead find a note from the editors that reads as follows:

In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.

That form of words has changed recently, because for last twelve months or so it has said instead:

This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints. Given the nature of some of these complaints, Frontiers has provisionally removed the link to the article while these issues are investigated, which is being done as swiftly as possible and which Frontiers management considers the most responsible course of action. The article has not been retracted or withdrawn. Further information will be provided as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.

According to an article in yesterday’s Guardian about the controversy:

Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper. After threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits, a journal will retract an academically sound paper.

Nobody likes being called a conspiracy theorist, and thus climate contrarians really didn’t appreciate Recursive Fury. Very soon after its publication, the journal Frontiers was receiving letters from contrarians threatening libel lawsuits. In late March 2013, the journal decided to “provisionally remove the link to the article while these issues are investigated.” The paper was in limbo for nearly a full year until Frontiers finally caved to these threats.

The University of Western Australia (UWA: Lewandowsky’s university when Recursive Fury was published – he later moved to the University of Bristol) also investigated the matter and found no academic, ethical, or legal problems with the paper. In fact, UWA is so confident in the validity of the paper that they’re hosting it on their own servers.

Click that link if you want read the paper and discover what all the fuss is about. In addition to all the virtual newsprint Stephan Lewandowsky has also released a video telling his side of the story. Here it is:

Stephan Lewandowsky: In Whose Hands the Future? from Peter Sinclair on Vimeo.

At this point you may possibly be wondering what all this has to do with The Great White Con? Well, we’re obviously concerned at the apparent threat to academic freedom posed by “contrarian bullying”, as are lots of other people. However there’s more to it than that from our perspective. Take a look at the section of the video starting at about 2 minutes 40 seconds.  In it you will spot a headline we are extremely familiar with here at GWC Ivory Towers, from the very same Mail on Sunday article by David Rose that persuaded us to launch this humble site last September! As Stephan puts it (at 3:20):

The bottom’s falling out of the Arctic, so we have a serious problem. We have a problem with the planet, but we also have a problem with the fact that in my opinion the public’s right to be informed accurately  is being violated through the injection of disinformation at a time when the clock is ticking and the planet is accumulating energy.

We felt sure Mr. Rose would have some comment to make on such a controversial topic, and we were not disappointed. Over on Twitter once more the following conversation ensued:

Them:

Us:

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

How Many Subs In Santa’s Swimming Pool?

Concentration, , , , , , , , ,

An extract from a  discussion about submarines surfacing at the North Pole, courtesy of Steven Goddard’s “Real Science” blog. One of us must be blind!

Them:

Hey spambot, what is this picture of?

USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole
USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole

Us:

It would seem to be the USS Skate on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole. What is this picture of?

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole area on September 2nd 2013

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole area on September 2nd 2013, derived from bands 1, 4 and 3 of the MODIS sensor on the Terra satellite

Them:

Frozen ice. What is my prize?

And basically yours is just a snipe hunt. Mine disproves your hysteria.

Us:

No prize I’m afraid. The correct answer is vast areas of open ocean. Plenty of room for every submarine on the planet.

Them:

Sorry, there is no open water. Check your picture again. So you are reneging? Typical.

Us:

I have checked again, and I still see lots of open water underneath a thin veil of cloud. Perhaps you should arrange a hasty visit to an optician? Luckily microwaves can see through clouds, even if you cannot. Here’s another satellite image of the North Pole area from September 2nd 2013, this time a University of Hamburg visualisation of data from the AMSR2 sensor on board the Japanese SHIZUKU satellite.

AMSR2 image of the North Pole area on September 2nd 2013

AMSR2 image of the North Pole area on September 2nd 2013

The circle is 85 degrees North. How many subs do you suppose will fit into Santa’s secret summer swimming pool?

Them:

You have X-ray vision? I am sorry! I did not realize you were stuper girl! Want to try again? This time with normal vision.

BTW. for the SLOOOOOW learners. 85 North +/= North pole. The North Pole is WITHIN 85 North. But it is NOT 85 North.

The Skate is at 90 North. The NORTH POLE.

You may have x-ray vision, but you still cannot read a map. neither picture shows open water AT the north pole.

How many submarines are on the planet Snowy? better recheck your figures. They are not tinker toys.

Us:

You’re a hard man to please Phil! Feast your eyes on this picture instead then:

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole area on August 28th 2013, derived from bands 1, 4 and 3 of the MODIS sensor on the Aqua satellite

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of the North Pole area on August 28th 2013, derived from bands 1, 4 and 3 of the MODIS sensor on the Aqua satellite

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

Shock News! “Real Science” Censorship!

Censorship, , , ,

Earlier on this morning a debate about censorship started over on the so called “Real Science” blog. Unfortunately after a couple of attempts it became clear to me that my participation was not welcome.

Them:

A question about censorship is posed on the "Real Science" blog
A question about censorship is posed on the “Real Science” blog

Meanwhile over on Twitter

Us:

Them:

 

Us:

 

Subsequently, back on “Real Science” (and possibly thanks to Dave’s intervention below)

Convincing evidence of censorship at Steve Goddard's "Real Science" blog

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

A Conversation With David Rose

Satire, , , , , , ,

Perhaps “conversation” is somewhat too strong a word? We have somehow managed to engage the Mail on Sunday’s top investigative journalist (AKA David Rose) in a debate about sea ice on Twitter. For some strange reason he tried to change the topic from the Arctic to the Antarctic!

Us:

Them:

 

Us:

Meanwhile we gatecrashed another debate that David Rose was gatecrashing, about a topic we have some experience with.

Them:

Us:


We’ll keep you posted!

Our Guardian’s Sleeping on the Job

Satire, , , ,

Here’s a copy of an email I sent to James Randerson et.al. over at The Guardian shortly after my mail to The Mail earlier this week:

Us:

Shock news about Arctic sea ice!

Hello James,

Further to our telephone conversation just now, here is the latest “shock news” from the Arctic, hot off the presses down here at Ivory Towers:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes/

Particularly in view of the recent inclement weather in this neck of the woods, I thought perhaps you might be interested in taking a closer look at the most recent evidence concerning this “hot topic”?

I hope you enjoy your meeting!

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt
AKA “Snow White”!

Them:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for drawing our attention to the blog. It is not a topic that we’re planning something on imminently, but it is something we are certainly keeping an eye on and will come back to in future.

Many thanks for your interest.

Best wishes,

James

Meanwhile over on Twitter:

Us:

 

Them:
We’ll keep you posted!

The Truth About Arctic Sea Ice Thickness

Thickness, , , ,

Shock News! According to Steven Goddard last week “The Arctic continues to recover“. However some fresh new evidence has been uncovered today:

Them:

ACNFS forecast for Arctic sea ice thickness on March 11th 2014, from the March 3rd model run
ACNFS forecast for Arctic sea ice thickness on March 11th 2014

[Image from the 1/12° Arctic Cap HYCOM/CICE/NCODA archive]

Meanwhile over on Twitter:

Us:

 

 Them:

 

 Us:

PIOMAS gridded Arctic sea ice thickness for February 2014
PIOMAS gridded Arctic sea ice thickness for February 2014
SMOS Arctic sea ice thickness comparison for March 1st 2011-14
SMOS Arctic sea ice thickness comparison for March 1st 2011-14

[Images courtesy of Wipneus on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum]

Some Sceptical Questions

Psychology, , , , , ,

With the able assistance of some of the regular readers of Steve Goddard’s so called “Real Science” blog I have drawn up a checklist of questions to answer should you (or any “sceptics” you may be aware of) be suffering from the delusion that the sea ice in the Arctic is “recovering” or “rebounding”:

Us:

1. Is the NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent number for March 8th 2014 the lowest on record for that day of the year? Yes or No?

2. Is the Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area number for March 8th 2014 the lowest on record for that day of the year? Yes or No?

3. Is the IJIS Arctic sea ice extent number for March 9th 2014 the lowest on record for that day of the year? Yes or No?

4. What credible evidence can you provide to show that “The Arctic is getting colder”?

5. In what way has the NSIDC’s data been “contaminated by Mann”?

6. Where might one find “empirical data that hasn’t been contaminated” if not from the likes of NOAA/NASA/JAXA et. al.

7. How do you define “The Arctic”? [2014-3-12 16:53]

8. How much sea ice do you suppose will be left in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by September? [2014-3-12 20:26]

9. Which version of “the [thickness/volume] truth” do you choose to believe? [2014-3-14 09:30]

10. When was it that the DMI “changed the way they read/interrupt coastal features [which] they incorporated into their extent/area numbers”? [2014-3-15 15:08]

11. Why have we been accused of “a lie” and “put on ignore”? [2014-3-16 15:12]

12. Please be so good as to provide us with a link that describes “the modeling used by NSIDC to ‘create’ these numbers” [2014-3-20 13:00]

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv

No reply to any seven eight nine ten eleven of those questions as yet.

Them:

In answer to question 7 Steve Goddard “says”

NSIDC visualisation of Arctic sea ice daily extent for March 10th 2014
NSIDC visualisation of Arctic sea ice daily extent for March 10th 2014

Then a “Real Scientist” asks a sensible question:

Do NSIDC and DMI define the Arctic differently? If so, by how much?

Us:

We say:

1. Yes Dave.

2. Here’s a clue:

OSI Arctic sea ice concentration for March 11th 2014
OSI-SAF Arctic sea ice concentration for March 11th 2014

We’ll keep you posted!

New Mail for The Mail

Satire, , , , , , , , , ,

Now seems like an entirely appropriate time to bring the latest “Shock News!” from the Arctic to the attention of the “mass media” here in once Great Britain. Here’s a copy of an email I sent to John Wellington over at The Mail earlier today:

Us:

Re: PCC – Global cooling in an ideal world

Hello again John,

Further to our previous correspondence on this controversial topic here is the latest “shock news” from the Arctic, hot off the presses down here at Ivory Towers:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes/

In view of the recent inclement weather in this neck of the woods, perhaps you could forward it on to one of your finest investigative reporters for me?

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

Them:

It’s now March 15th 2014, and this morning I received a “Dear Jim” note from John:

Dear Jim,

Nice to hear from you and I trust you were not hit by the West Country floods, climate-influenced or not.

I have discussed your message with a colleague who is interested in these things and we conclude that March is a little early in the year to be drawing significant conclusions. I have been shown some different graphs that appear to show 2014 is not dissimilar to the last few years. I am attaching these for your information.

Best regards

John

S_stddev_timeseries N_bm_extent cryo_compare_small ssmi1_ice_ext_small

Us:

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind words. We’re situated halfway up Haldon, so we avoided the worst of the inclement weather. The top of the hill took a bit of a battering however.

The entrance to Haldon Forest Park on February 24th 2014
The entrance to Haldon Forest Park on February 24th 2014
Haldon Forest Park on March 8th 2014
Haldon Forest Park on March 8th 2014

Our garden suffered a bit too, but thankfully the house was OK.

A new spring gushes from the side of Haldon Hill on Valentine's day 2014
A new spring gushes from the side of Haldon Hill on Valentine’s Day 2014

Others weren’t quite so fortunate:

http://econnexus.org/the-weather-report-from-soggy-south-west-england/

Regarding your own attachments, perhaps in the first instance you might ask your colleague to explain why he or she chooses to send you a NORSEX Arctic sea ice extent graph rather than one from the NSIDC, which I believe we established last summer is The Mail’s oracle on such matters? Please take a good look at the latest NSIDC equivalent to the Antarctic extent graph you sent me, which I attach for your convenience.

NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent graph for March 13th 2014
NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent graph for March 13th 2014

Whilst you’re at it perhaps you could also ask your colleague to answer at least the first three of these simple questions:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/

You may also wish to pass on to your colleague the shock news that earlier this week the daily atmospheric carbon dioxide readings from Mauna Loa rose above 400 ppm almost 2 months earlier than last year?

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/our-guardians-sleeping-on-the-job/

Best wishes,

Jim

We’ll keep you posted!

How to Upset a Global Warming Sceptic

Satire, ,

We are proud to bring you this blast from Steven Goddard’s past, reprinted with permission from econnexus.org.uk:

In the first of an occasional series under the “Shock News” banner we reveal how to upset a global warming sceptic in three easy stages.

  1. Smell something fishy about a headline that states “New Ice At The North Pole” on July 2nd 2013 and examine “the evidence” from arctic.io presented to substantiate this assertion:
Satellite image of sea ice near the North Pole on July 2nd 2013, courtesy of arctic.io
Satellite image of sea ice near the North Pole on July 2nd 2013, courtesy of arctic.io
  1. Post a link to an alternative view of the same scene from NASA Worldview:
Satellite image of sea ice near the North Pole on July 2nd 2013, courtesy of NASA EOSDIS Worldview
Satellite image of sea ice near the North Pole on July 2nd 2013, courtesy of NASA EOSDIS Worldview
  1. Indulge in a little light hearted banter
A little light hearted banter on July 3rd 2013
A little light hearted banter on July 3rd 2013
  1. QED!
Whoops!
Whoops!
  1. Hence no opportunity to present any “real scientific” evidence about what’s really happening to the Arctic sea ice near the North Pole:
Thermistor temperature profiles for IMB 2012J
Thermistor temperature profiles for IMB 2012J

The Arctic Sea Ice “Recovery” Vanishes

Volume, , ,

It’s highly probable that whatever metric you choose to use the 2014 Arctic sea ice maximum area and extent will occur this month. Consequently the volume of nonsense propagated by the “skeptics” amongst the “mass media” is increasing also. Earlier today yesterday’s sea ice metrics were published and currently both the Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area and NSIDC daily extent are at all time lows for the date. Needless to say that hasn’t stopped the denialosphere prattling on about an “Arctic Ice Recovery” yet again.

First of all, here’s our evidence:

Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area graph, as at March 8th 2014
Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area graph, as at March 8th 2014

[Graph from Cryosphere Today interactive Arctic sea ice chart]

NSIDC daily extent graph for March
NSIDC daily extent graph for March, as at March 8th 2014

[Graph courtesy of BornFromTheVoid at the Arctic Sea Ice Forum]

Now I couldn’t help but notice that yet another reproduction of the Mail on Sunday’s erroneous graphic first printed at the time of the 2013 minimum appeared on Steven Goddard’s “Real Climate” blog  last week. Steve has been using a variety of other graphics in his assorted attempts to persuade his readers that there is in fact an “Arctic Ice Recovery”. Needless to say, we beg to differ!

Them:

Shocking Increase In Arctic Ice Dooms The Planet – How Ice Sheet Grew 533,000 Square Miles in a Year

Us:

Whilst we’re on the subject of cherry picking, it looks a lot like the left hand part of the image dates from August 27th 2012 whereas the right hand part dates from August 15th 2013. If you’re interested in seeing a similar image dating from September 8th 2013, when the original version of the image above was originally published in the Mail on Sunday over here in once Great Britain then please feel free to take a long hard look at:

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/santas-secret-summer-swim/

Credible evidence, or not?

Them:

Arctic Ice Recovery

The dirty little secret of Arctic sea ice, is that it is controlled by winter winds – not temperature. Over the last few years, the older thicker ice has pushed into the Beaufort Sea where it survives the winter and slows summer melt. Thus the Arctic continues to “recover.”

ACNFS forecast for Arctic sea ice thickness on March 11th 2014, from the March 3rd model run
ACNFS forecast for Arctic sea ice thickness on March 11th 2014

[Image from the 1/12° Arctic Cap HYCOM/CICE/NCODA archive]

 Us:

Actually the Arctic doesn’t “continue to recover”. Whilst a bit hard to see on their rather cluttered chart the latest PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume estimates show that the so called “recovery” had almost completely “melted away” by the end of February:

PIOMAS arctic sea ice volume on February 28th from 1979-2014
PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume on February 28th from 1979-2014

 [Image by Chris Reynolds on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog]

Them:

Planet Doomed By Missing Ice Cube In The Barents Sea

NSIDC visualisation of Arctic sea ice daily extent for March 6th 2014
NSIDC visualisation of Arctic sea ice daily extent for March 6th 2014

Us:

Here’s the thing (well, 2 things actually)

1. Steve’s “map” shows the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent, but you make no mention of it. Perhaps that’s because that particular metric is currently at the lowest it has ever been on this day of any year since the satellites started attempting to measure it? How on Earth can he possibly characterize that as any sort of “recovery”?

2. Surely the very title of this thread (“ice cube”) implies a volume, does it not? I believe Steve’s an engineer, and so he is presumably well aware that a square and a cube are completely different kettles of fish (metaphorically speaking)? All that being the case, why on Earth would Steve choose to illustrate his point with a “map” of ice extent instead of a “graph” of ice volume?

For the moment we rest our case, but rest assured that there is plenty more where this lot came from!