Category Archives: Satire

Global Sea Ice “Comeback” Conspiracy

Satire, , , , , , , , ,

Our Twitter feed has suddenly been inundated with messages to the effect that:

Global sea ice makes a strong comeback as El Nino fades.

First up was Professor Judith Curry on April 12th, with:

You will note that we were not the only ones to swiftly conclude that Judy’s assertion was lacking both veracity and verisimilitude! Then this morning came our old friends at the Global Warming Policy Forum with:

You will note that the GWPF adorned their “Tweet” with a graph purporting to show “Global sea ice anomalies”. We can only assume that Benny Peiser hadn’t read this April 11th article of ours, which pointed out that:

NSIDC has suspended daily sea ice extent updates until further notice, due to issues with the satellite data used to produce these images. The problem was initially seen in data for April 5 and all data since then are unreliable, so we have chosen to remove all of April from NSIDC’s archive.

To remedy that (no doubt?) inadvertent oversight on Benny’s part here is a graph we prepared earlier of absolute global sea ice area using reliable data from the AMSR2 instrument on the Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency’s SHIZUKU satellite:

2016-04-12-UH-AMSR2-Area

The GWPF were followed this afternoon by Anthony Watts with:

Both Prof. Curry and non Prof. Watts adorned their “Tweets” with a graph allegedly comparing “global temperature” with “tropical temperature”, but provided no graph of “polar temperature”. To remedy that (no doubt?) inadvertent oversight here is one we prepared earlier:

NCEP-Arctic-T2-DJF

All members of this team of synchronised “Tweeters” provided links to an April 11th article by a certain Paul Dorian entitled, believe it or not:

“Global Sea Ice Makes A Strong Comeback”

Note in particular the part of Paul’s article that states:

In an interesting twist, the recent analysis found that the global ice area remained stable throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, while temperatures climbed suggesting “the global sea ice area is not particularly a function of the global average surface temperature.” [Source: Willis Eschenbach/”Watts Up With That” web site]

We can only assume that Paul Dorian hadn’t read this April 10th article of ours, which pointed out amongst other things that:

One feels compelled to ask why Willis’s global average temperature graph neglects to mention 2015 when he implies that it does?

Here’s an up to date version of one of those that Bill The Frog prepared for us earlier:

HadCRUT-201602

We must further assume that Paul hadn’t read this April 11th article by Mr. Watts either. It stated that:

A few years ago in 2009, I was the first to notice and write about a failure of the instrumentation for one of the satellites used by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) to show Arctic Sea Ice extent. Today, we have what appears to be a similar problem with satellite sea ice measurement.

It seems that Paul Dorian has finally read at least one out of all these informative articles, because the latest revision of his own piece of imaginative fiction now starts:

The source of global sea ice information cited in this posting was NOAA’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They are now reporting issues with the satellite data used to produce these images and this information was not known at the time of the writing of this article.

Do you suppose we can now expect a similarly “fulsome apology” from the other players in this tragi-comic farce, together with all their rebloggers, retweeters, plagiarisers and other assorted acolytes?

DMIGate Skulduggery In a Nutshell

Satire, , , , , ,

With apologies to O’Reilly Media Inc. here’s a brief history of the “DMIGate” story, viewed through Anthony Watts’ distorting spectacle lenses.

0) Here is the February 14th 2016 edition of the Danish Meteorological Institutes’s long “deprecated” 30% concentration threshold Arctic sea ice extent graph in question:

dmi-30-WUWT-20160214-crop

1) On August 14th 2013 Anthony Watts wrote on his “Watts Up With That” blog:

That’s the old DMI plot, which DMI says we should now use this one on this page:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

2) On February 22nd 2016 Anthony Watts wrote on WUWT:

There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results.

3) Anthony Watts refuses to publish any and all comments on his blog pointing out what he himself had confirmed that DMI said in August 2013.

4) Anthony Watts states on Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc.” blog that:

You post off topic or disrupt threads with the sort of unsubstantiated nonsense you post above, and both demand to have these off topic comments heard and then play the “look Watts is censoring me!” game when your comments don’t meet our site comment policy and/or are abusive in nature.

5) Judith Curry deletes the following comment (amongst others) on her “Climate Etc.” blog:

David – Are you suffering from acute snow blindness too, just like poor Paul Homewood? Try reading this if you haven’t already. Try reading it again if you have:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/gross-deception-about-dmis-missing-graph/

In view of the incontrovertible evidence why would anyone believe anything Paul Homewood, Anthony Watts and Judith Curry claim about “Climate Etc.” ever again?

Watts Up With DMI Arctic Sea Ice Extent?

Satire, , , , ,

When I pose that question I’m not referring to the Danish Meteorological Institute’s long “deprecated” 30% concentration threshold Arctic sea ice extent metric so much as the reaction to its demise amongst the more “skeptical” of we cryospheric bloggers. Here once again is the “controversial” graph in question, archived from the start of the year:

DMI-15-2016-01-04

No sooner had Paul Homewood moved on from that topic to finally reproduce on his blog an NSIDC Arctic sea ice graph I first brought to his attention last spring than across the Atlantic in the good ‘ol US of A a certain Mr. Anthony Watts suddenly loudly proclaims that he “tends to agree” with Mr. Homewood’s assertion that:

There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results.

Given the actual facts of the matter this is peculiar enough, but then things get positively surreal. Regular readers will realise that up here in the penthouse suite at the pinnacle of the tallest of the Great White Con Ivory Towers we pride ourselves on our surreal sensibilities. Today though, we are forced to admit that WUWT has beaten us at our own game. Whilst we were conducting a perfectly sane interview with one of the world’s top sea ice scientists Tony was concocting these perfectly formed surrealist fantasies.

In his update 1 to this already nonsensical story Anthony assures us that:

The typical haters, such as Neven Acropolis, are making claims in comments that I see this as some sort of “conspiracy”. I do not and any such claim is false and political in nature.

Mr. Watts is evidently a big fan of William Burroughs, and has used his celebrated “cut-up” technique to transform “Skulduggery going on in the climate establishment” into “magnets cued she got on the inimitably ginger skull” which is obviously not even slightly conspiratorial.

Let’s move swiftly on to update 2, wherein we are told:

DMI has an entire page dedicated to the use of the 30% concentration value that is still operational!

However if you read the small print on Anthony’s accompanying image it says that:

The maps are additionally overlayed with the corresponding multi-year monthly mean of the periods 1978-2014.

and if you click the accompanying link you will discover that there is no way on Earth to persuade the DMI web site to display “operational” data from 2015, let alone 2016.

Whilst we eagerly await the no doubt imminent arrival of What’s up with that Watts DMIgate update 3 we will leave you with some words of wisdom from Dr. Walt Meier of NASA, the aforementioned top sea ice scientist, who informed us earlier today that:

Regarding DMI, the issue seems quite simple. The 30% plot is an older version that they stopped supporting as they transitioned to the 15% plot.

Gross Deception About DMI’s “Missing Graph”

Satire, , , , , , ,

For reasons that will take too long to explain just at the moment I answered a question asked by Ron Clutz over at Paul Homewood’s “Not A Lot Of People Know That” blog. Having done that I had a quick look round and discovered that unlike most of his “skeptical” friends Paul is writing almost as many posts per day about sea ice as I am! Needless to say he’s raking over the coals of his “Gross Deception” article from last year.

Yesterday he published another article on the topic of Arctic sea ice, entitled “DMI’s Missing Graph“, in which he claims:

For the last few months, there has been a widening divergence between the two Arctic sea ice extent graphs produced by DMI…

Now there may be good reasons for this difference, and it must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it…

But the real problem is that DMI has now withdrawn their 30% graph, offering this explanation:

“I have removed the old sea ice extent graphics and the new graphics (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.php) is now our one and only official sea ice extent.

When I introduced the new graphics I also announced that the old graphics would be removed after some time – and now is the time, sorry.

I spend too much time explaining the differences and it was quite confusing for many – so, I decided to remove the old graphics. However, all the data are available here http://osisaf.met.no/p/ if you would like do the plotting your selves.”

The real problem would instead seem to be that Paul Homewood cannot read, and DMI have in fact been offering a good reason to anyone with eyes to see for many months. We explained all this only the other day, but nonetheless here is an example of the DMI’s 15% threshold extent graph from earlier this year, carefully preserved for posterity in a secure archive deep in the ice shelf underneath the Great White Con Ivory Towers:

DMI-15-2016-01-04

For those poor souls amongst us currently afflicted by acute snow blindness it says in bright red lettering, amongst other things:

The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot… The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.

For the moment at least the last word on the matter must come from the Danish Meteorological Institute, who report via the @PolarPortal on Twitter that:

[Edit – February 21st 2016 at 21:30 UTC]

The gross deception increases! Not a lot of people know that all my comments on Paul Homewood’s blog are now hidden from view, on the pretext that I’m a troll. Paul really must be blind if he thinks Snow White resembles a troll in any way shape or form. Here’s what some trolls actually look like:

KBT-Climate-Trolls

The thread about DMI’s deprecated graph has degenerated into a free for all about MASIE, when there’s already a thread over there for the discussion of that thorny topic. More on MASIE in due course, but let’s try and stick with DMI extent here. Unlike Paul Homewood and Ron Clutz, who no doubt welcome the distraction!

Them:

Jaime – With regard to the apparent ‘conundrum’ regarding the significant increase in 30% SIE and the lack of increase 15% SIE. It seems to me – and correct me if my logic is faulty – that the ‘at least 30% concentration’ increase tells us that the area of more consolidated ice has increased relative to previous years. The ‘at least 15% concentration’ lack of increase (or decrease) tells us that the less consolidated ice edge area has not increased significantly compared to previous years and may even be declining.

 

Us:

What “at least 30% concentration increase” would that be then Jaime?

[This is currently visible – mod]

 

Them:

Pethefin – “at least 30 % concentration” = minimum 30 % concentration = ice coverage with concentration equal to or higher than 30 %. Anyone with the slightest ability to think for themselves would be able to figure it out. Trolls however…

 

Us:

2016-02-21_1522-NALOPKT
[This is currently invisible – mod]

 

Them:

Jaime – Jim, that increase shown in comparison with earlier years by the discontinued DMI graph shown above, starting in September and culminating with the large difference notable right up to mid February.

 

Us:

2016-02-21_1735-NALOPKT
[This is currently invisible too – mod]

I’m sure you get the general idea by now. All of which means that not a lot of people know that if you were to follow the sound advice that DMI gave Paul Homewood and “do the plotting yourself” using the open source software and support made freely available on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum you would discover that (surprise, surprise!) 30% threshold Arctic sea ice extent on February 20th 2016 was significantly less than on the same date in 2015.

 

[Edit – February 21st 2016 at 22:30 UTC]

And here’s the coup de grace. Before and after the wielding of the NALOPKT red pencil:

 

Before:

2016-02-21_1811-NALOPKT

 

After:

[SNIP]

Jim

I have already warned you.

You have already posted eight comments on just one article, none of which had the slightest relevance to the original post, not to mention several more.

All you have done is disrupted the comment thread. I am aware that you have attempted to do exactly the same on other blogs. I am not prepared to allow you to do the same here.

If you want an argument, I suggest you decamp to Disqus, or better still go and argue with yourself on that pathetic little blog of yours, which very few people appear to read.

You are on your final chance. If you have any relevant comments to make, they will be welcome. But any more trolling, and you will be banned.

BTW – If you want to slag me off on your own rarely visited site, as you have before, perhaps you might at least have the decency to tell the truth

Paul

2016-02-21_2226-NALOPKT

 

[Edit – February 22nd 2016 at 10:00 UTC]

You will note from the comments below that Lawrence Martin has also now fallen foul of the “Not A Lot Of People Know That” censor red pencil. Next in line looks like it will be Neven Acropolis from the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, who is currently still permitted to valiantly fight the good fight:

Neven:

I’m not interested in why the DMI replaced their 30% SIE graph with a 15% SIE graph, because a switch from 30% to 15% isn’t all that exciting. Perhaps it is for someone who doesn’t understand the difference, but it isn’t for me.

And it’s not like they did it all of a sudden. The graph was replaced months ago, with the announcement that the old graph would be discontinued at some point.

I’m also not interested in why the graph was in error. What’s interesting about that? Why would I want DMI people who have lots of different stuff to do, to spend time and money on something that bears no relevance to anything, except to some guy who thinks it’s a all big conspiracy?

 

Them:

Notice how Neven The Gullible avoids answering or commenting any of these questions.

 

Us:
2016-02-22_0920-NALOPKT[This is also currently invisible – mod] 

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

The Great White Con 2016 “New Einstein” Award

Satire, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our regular reader(s) will be already be all too familiar with the 2015 edition of our annual Great White Con 2016 “New Einstein” Award. The jury has now finished its deliberations in a smoke filled igloo just outside the Great White Con Ivory Towers. I am pleased to be able to announce that the first prize of the loan of a polar bear suit kindly donated by the Daily Telegraph plus a battered big board from Cotty’s quiver has been awarded to none other than Gail Combs with her:

Jim, How does it feel to be morally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people a year?

SurfBear

I’m not quite sure how we’ll get the good news to Gail in time for her to take part in the 2016 Great White Con Arctic Basin Big Wave (Fantasy?) Surfing Competition, since she abused us in her capacity as a regular commenter on “Steve Goddard’s” (un)RealScience blog, where imparting such messages is most certainly a non trivial task. Watch this space!

2016-02-13_1230-Goddard

You will no doubt be overjoyed to learn that we already have a couple of several candidates in the running for our 2016 award, the first of which is in similar vein to Gail’s winning 2015 entry. Here they are:

1) Gary P Jackson, who claims in his Twitter profile to be a “Texan, Palinista, Conservative Activist, DragRacer Editor & Publisher”, with:

2) Anthony Watts, who is the proprietor of what he claims is “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, has of course already “blocked” the message he doesn’t care to hear:

2016-02-27_0904-WUWTwit

Without offering a single shred of evidence for his baseless assertions Anthony had this to say on the “Climate Etc.” blog of Professor Judith Curry:

You two guys are quite the pieces of work. You both operate under multiple identities. Jim Hunt has three I have been able to identify, Lawrence Martin/Martinez has two.

Both of you post off topic or disrupt threads with the sort of unsubstantiated nonsense you post above, and both demand to have these off topic comments heard and then play the “look Watts is censoring me!” game when your comments don’t meet our site comment policy and/or are abusive in nature.

Case in point- here you are making abusive off-topic comments on Dr. Curry’s site.

Plain and simple, if you comment under different identities, post off topic and/or thread disruptive comments you don’t get to participate. Mr. Hunt was warned months ago, yet he still persists in trying to get comments through under other identities such as V2G.

3) Chris Comber, who claims to be a “Mac User, ebay addict, Re-enactor & Designer” and who has of course already “blocked” the message (s)he doesn’t care to hear:

2016-02-13_1230-Comber

Chris is apparently keen on the #Brexit concept, and (s)he blasted out an extended sequence of (comparatively!) mild ad homs culminating in:

4) CatWeazle666, who is an expert emitter of ad hominem attacks on the blog of “Steve Goddard” and it now becomes apparent also on the blog of Roger Helmer MEP, the United Kingdom Independence Party’s spokesman on Energy & Industry. CatWeazle’s entry is a stream of invective which eventually culminated (for the moment at least) in:

2016-02-16_1125-CatWeazle

As you can see, there was no way I was going to take that lying down, and I in all the circumstances I felt compelled to bring the attention of Mr. Helmer and his merry minions to this link:

http://econnexus.org.uk/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/

where many moons ago there appeared a well documented account of how “Steve Goddard” really is “the dumbest man on the internet” when it comes to analysing Arctic sea ice. Either that or he does have some idea of what he’s talking about but is nonetheless more than content to pull the wool over the eyes of his very own band of merry minions.

P.S. In response to my request for considered comment concerning 3 million deaths per annum due to outdoor air pollution CatWeazle666’s reply was:

What a sad little troll you are, Jim.

5) Ben Pile, whose Twitter profile tells us that he is a “Researcher, writer, blogger. Sceptical of environmentalism, environmental policy and the fashion for ‘evidence-based policy’. For science, against scientism”. Inevitably Ben is yet another “blocker” of scientific messages he doesn’t care to hear:

2016-03-12_1417-BenBan

Ben evidently has a high opinion of himself, and thinks he knows more about climate science than IPCC lead author Professor Richard Betts:

He concluded his avalanche of ad homs aimed at yours truly with yet another undeleted expletive:

Unfortunately Ben then departed without offering me a series of swift apologies for his barrage of abuse:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/708361665734156288

6) Gator69, who is yet another expert emitter of ad homs on the blog of Tony Heller (AKA “Steve Goddard”).

Over at (un)Real Climate Science I humbly suggested under an article alleging “More Arctic Fraud From Mark Serreze And NSIDC” that it is difficult to prove that Amundsen “could have gone through [the Northwest Passage] in a few weeks”. Gator’s response?

Jim “could have” helped save 21,000 innocent humans yesterday, but he didn’t did he?

Jim thinks that snuffing out 21,000 innocent humans every day for his agenda is ethical and laudable.

“Could have” is an interesting phrase. How do you intend to justify this genocide Jim?

Please feel free to provide feedback to our 2016 jury in the space provided below.

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con

Satire, , , , , , , , , ,

You may possibly be aware that here in the United Kingdom the charitable status of the so called “Global Warming Policy Foundation” was challenged in 2014. As the BBC reported in 2014:

Lawson’s climate-sceptic group hit by charity status row

The climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation is to relaunch in September, after a complaint about its charitable status.

The Charity Commission has forced it to divide into a charitable educational arm and a separately funded political arm.

The change follows a charge that the main purpose of the foundation is political, not charitable.

The foundation said its new structure would make it even more effective.

It aimed to continue to promote debate about the costs of tackling climate change, it added.

But the complainant had argued that its information was often misleading.

The Charity Commission will issue a formal statement on the changes in the coming weeks, but a spokesman told BBC News: “Some of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s activities breached what is expected of an educational charity, namely that the material lacked balance and promoted a particular line of opinion. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.”

The Charity Commission investigated the Global Warming Policy Foundation following a complaint by Bob Ward, a science communicator who works with Lord Stern’s climate change team at the LSE.

He also complained that the foundation breaches charity rules by “continually disseminating inaccurate and misleading information”.

As a consequence of all that brouhaha yet another organisation with an identical acronym was set up. The Global Warming Policy Forum (or GWPF for short). Would it surprise you to learn that the new “political” GWPF is “disseminating inaccurate and misleading information” about the Arctic? If so then please read on.

In an extract from an article by Ron Clutz dated 28th September 2015 and headlined “Arctic Ice Recovering – MASIE Proves Yearly Arctic Ice Recovering” the GWPF prove nothing of the sort. Mr. Clutz claims that:

You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you:

GWPF-masie-annual

MASIE has very helpfully provided their records for the last ten years. Since stormy weather can affect both maximum and minimum ice extents, emphasis on March and September averages can be misleading. From a climate change perspective, a better metric is the average ice extent over the entire year. By that measure we gain a realistic perspective on the last ten years of Arctic ice fluctuation.

Actually we don’t Ron, for a number of reasons. For example Chris Reynolds summarises your “better metric” as follows:

Claims that there is no ongoing deterioration in Arctic sea ice are totally unfounded, and it is safe to ignore those making such claims as being unreliable due to their lack of grasp of the subject.

whilst “Tamino” points out that:

The data used, from MASIE, doesn’t start until 2006. Which makes it downright bizarre to use this for studying climate, for two reasons. First, we have data (passive microwave from satellites) covering quite a bit more time — starting in late 1978. Second, the MASIE people themselves tell you that their product isn’t the best for climate studies, instead you should use that passive microwave data from satellites.

If you download the data that “MASIE has very helpfully provided” and plot the self same graph so proudly displayed by the GWPF you will see something that looks a lot like this:

GWPF-masie-day-2015365

Amazingly enough this graph is taken from a more recent article by Ron Clutz, also reproduced in part on the Global Warming Policy Forum’s web site. This one is dated 2nd January 2016 and entitled “Happy Arctic Ice Year!“. Ron claims that:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. This year end report shows there is no reason to worry about Arctic ice melting.

For some strange reason the GWPF have thus far not corrected the extract from Ron’s earlier article on their web site, and neither has Mr. Clutz. For some other strange reason he hasn’t gotten around to publishing my comment to his article pointing him and his loyal readers to this graph which is also derived from the MASIE data, and neither have the GWPF:

MASIE-Min

It’s not as though I haven’t tried! See for example:

Selection_608

I’m not the only one to have my constructive criticism censored by Ron Clutz recently. Neven, proprietor of the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, reports over there that:

He’s deleting my comments again (and his own comments to wipe out traces of the fact, which is a cowardly act), so I’m just posting the comments here for reference.

I’ll conclude for the moment with some more words from Chris Reynolds. Someone who, unlike Ron Clutz and the other GWPF Arctic article authors (GWPFAAA for short), has a grasp of physics:

Ice state in the Peripheral Seas region is a critical metric in determining whether the Arctic Ocean’s ice pack is indeed stabilising or recovering.

Here is a plot of compactness for late summer in the Peripheral Seas from 1979 to 2015, where late summer is the seven day average centred on 31 August.

Here’s the accompanying graph:

Nullius in verba, as the GWPF don’t put it.

 

[Edit – February 18th 2016]

I have recently exchanged a few emails about this issue with Dr. Benny Peiser, who is Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. However Benny has suddenly gone strangely silent, so here is a transcript of the “debate” thus far:

Us:

Hello Benny,

Thanks for your time in our telephone conversation just now.

In brief, here are my alter ego’s initial quibbles about the GWPForum’s recent Arctic coverage:

and

Please do not hesitate to ask if you require any additional information!

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I wonder whether you have any comments regarding the latest PIOMAS data which appear to show a pause in the Arctic sea ice melt in recent years?

With best regards

 

Us:

Hello Benny,

All in the fullness of time. First of all though, I am waiting to hear your comment(s) on the points I raised in my original email. Here’s where those “Tweets” finish up:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/

To reiterate, as numerous people pointed out to Mr. Clutz following his first article, MASIE is not fit for the purpose to which he (and hence the GWPF) put it.

To add insult to injury the first MASIE based graph he (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

I still eagerly await your comment(s) on this matter,

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

If I understand you correctly you claim that

1. MASIE is not fit for the purpose to assess Artic sea ice extent, and

2. Arctic sea ice has actually decreased since 2007 — contrary to claims that Arctic ice has not declined in the last 8 years.

I have looked into your first claim and cannot find any information that undermines the reliability of MASIE data for Arctic sea ice analysis.

Regarding your second criticism, the latest PIOMAS data appear to confirm Mr Clutz’s main point, i.e. Arctic ice has remained fairly stable since 2007.

Yours sincerely

 

Us:

Hello again Benny,

Thank you for your swift response to my most recent email. I fear that you totally misunderstand me. Regarding your numbered points:

1) Did your due diligence include reading this section of the NSIDC web site concerning MASIE?

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02186_masie/index.html

Can you see the parts where it says?

MASIE may look like several other sea ice products distributed at NSIDC and elsewhere, but its source data and intended uses are different.

Operational ice charts meet the needs of those going into the ice and provide general situational awareness, such as the extent of fast ice or of ice of any concentration greater than zero percent.

If one is interested in long-term trends in sea ice or how it responds to changing climate forcing, generally, it is best not to use an operational product, but rather one that is consistently produced and retroactively quality controlled.

Do you understand what that means? If not please do not hesitate to ask!

2) Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Here’s what I said once again:

The first MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

To see what I mean all you have to do is compare it to the second MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published.

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I’m afraid you have not addressed my points.

There is nothing wrong with the MASIE data, in particular not when it comes to short-term data sets (although I agree that it should not be used for any trend analysis).

You did not answer the key question: where is the evidence (as suggested in your graph) that Artic sea ice has declined since 2007?

Yours sincerely

 

Us:

Hello Benny,

I’m afraid that in actual fact it is you who have not addressed my points. Let me take you through them slowly once again. Once you’ve understood the first two rest assured there are more.

1 a) According to the NSIDC, MASIE is not a “short-term data set”, it is an “operational ice chart”.

1 b) In addition, please feel free to search the NSIDC web site for any graph based on the Arctic Ice Annual Average of any metric whatsoever, and let me know what you discover

2) Let’s play “Spot the difference” shall we? Please let me know what differences (if any) you can find between this graph:

GWPF-masie-annual

and this one:

GWPF-masie-day-2015365

Thanks in anticipation,

 

[Edit – February 19th 2016]

Us again:

Not having heard from Benny for a while we thought it polite to enquire after his health this morning:

Dear Benny,

I’ve received nothing back from you since your email of 15:22 on the 16th. Are you OK? If there’s anything we can do to help please do get in touch.

We have some interesting news about which we’d love to know your opinion, as soon as you feel up to it of course. First of all, the NSIDC’s global sea ice extent metric fell to the lowest level *ever yesterday:

Global-Extent-2016-02-18

Secondly, are you aware that the February 13th article on the GWPF web site by Pierre Gosselin entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Trend May Have Turned The Corner As Ice Volume Picks Up Over Past 5 Years” currently looks like this?

2016-02-19_1140-GWPF-DMI

Get well soon,

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

Thank you for your latest concern about global sea ice extent

I suggest to monitor global sea ice extent in the next 12 months to see whether the usual recovery fails to materialise (see graph below).

 

Us:

Dear Dr. Peiser,

I’m delighted to discover that you are evidently in fine fetttle!

I am however afraid that your image is invisible at this end, although it appears to emanate from somewhere on the WUWT sea ice page.

First of all can you possibly resend it?

Secondly I highly recommend that you peruse the GWC sea ice resources instead of Mr. Watts’ in future.

Thirdly will you please fix the wide variety of gross inaccuracies concerning Arctic sea ice that still exist on the Global Warming Policy Forum web site, even after they have been brought to your attention on numerous occasions. For your further information please see also:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#comment-213484

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – February 23rd 2016]

Us:

Good day Benny,

I trust that you had a pleasant weekend?

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not corrected even the most egregious of Ron Clutz’s errors republished on the GWPF web site in the following article:

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-recovering/

I further note that you have also now republished this article authored by Paul Homewood:

http://www.thegwpf.com/maisie-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-remaining-stable-in-february/

which amongst other errors contains the following insinuation:

“MAISIE, of course, only goes back to 2006, whereas the sea ice index dates to 1979. It is, however, easy to see why NSIDC are keen to use the latter as a starting point!”

This is of course inaccurate, as I have personally pointed out to Paul on several occasions in the past. The NSIDC themselves have this to say on the matter:

“The Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Arctic- and Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice. It is a source for consistent, up-to-date sea ice extent and concentration images, in PNG format, and data values, in ASCII text files, from November 1978 to the present.

The images and data are produced in a consistent way that makes the Index time-series appropriate for use when looking at long-term trends in sea ice cover.”

When do you suppose the GWPF webmaster will be able to get around to correcting the latest piece of Arctic misinformation to be published on your web site?

Best wishes,

 

Us again:

Good morning Benny,

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not taken on board any of the helpful advice I have proffered over the last few weeks, and has now posted some inaccurate information about “global warming”. Will he or she never learn?

Sticking with our own speciality, please feel free to “print” Snow White’s prediction that CT global sea ice area will post yet another new record of around 14.22 million square kilometers over the next 2 to 3 days.

I followed Ron Clutz’s recent suggestion on Paul Homewood’s blog to “Take it up with Walt Meier”. I interviewed Dr. Meier yesterday and this is what he told me:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/

Perhaps it is now time to hand your current webmaster their cards and hire a new one?

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – March 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

It seems that your new webmaster has yet to republish the latest product of the Clutz/Homewood porky pie production line! Please pass on our congratulations on their perspicacity. However the latest article on The GWPF web site by David Whitehouse has this to say:

“Is the global warming pause over for good — or will it continue once the current El Nino dies down?”

Does Dr. Whitehouse not realise that there was no “pause”?

There is no "pause"!

For your, and Dr. Whitehouse’s, information here is the latest report from the NSIDC on Arctic sea ice extent:

NSIDC February 2016 monthly Arctic sea ice extent

With a new webmaster in charge at The GWPF can we now anticipate an accurate Arctic article appearing on your web site? Please do not hesitate to ask if you would like to republish one of mine.

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – April 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

I hope this finds you well? I have been doing as you suggested! Consequently I could not help but notice that you have not been doing what I suggested, and have instead recently republished a large extract from yet another article by Paul Homewood on the topic of Arctic sea ice:

http://www.thegwpf.com/more-of-the-usual-hype-about-arctic-ice/

Needless to say this one is also downright misleading. For your information, here are the actual facts:

Claim – Arctic Sea Ice Holds Firm?

and

More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Sea Ice

It looks like you’ll have to let another webmaster go, does it not? Don’t forget to tell the new one that my offer of an authoritative Arctic article still stands.

Best wishes,

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

 

Mail Makes 1000% Arctic Mistake

Satire,

We officially complained last week about some egregious errors in a “Daily Mail Comment“. In particular:

The northern ice-cap… is NOT bigger than at any time for decades.

In an official response we were told:

I therefore cannot see that Clause 1(ii) of the Editors’ Code has been breached in any way.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code of Practice here are Clauses 1(i-ii)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

Without telling us,  or as far as I can tell any of their other readers apart from one other complainant, the Daily Mail have changed the wording of the online version of the editorial comment in question. Can you spot the difference? We’ve given you some help!

Online version of the Daily Mail's "Climate change and an inconvenient truth" editorial comment captured on July 24th 2015
Online version of the Daily Mail’s “Climate change and an inconvenient truth” editorial comment captured on July 24th 2015

The Daily Mail evidently have trouble doing basic mathematics, so it seems necessary to point out that one decade is ten years. That is a factor of ten. Using the Mail’s preferred units that makes this a 1000% mistake!

More from us on a variety of other Mail mathematical mistakes shortly. At this juncture however, we cannot help but wonder whether IPSO considers that taking no action whatsoever to rectify a print article that contains an admitted error of at least 1000% satisfies Clause 1(ii) of their Editors’ Code? Here’s clause 2:

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.

We hereby call on the Daily Mail to provide us with a fair opportunity to reply to this egregious inaccuracy and a number of others in the same article.

The Great White Con 2015 “New Einstein” Award

Satire, , , , , , ,

As regular readers will have realised by now, we are subject to a continuing barrage of verbal abuse as we fearlessly pursue our goal of telling the truth about the Arctic whatever the obstacles. Following the latest such episode we have consulted our learned counsel and decided to publish the spiciest episodes here. By the time August 2015 draws to a close a poll of our loyal reader(s) will determine which of our utterers of undeleted expletives will be awarded a wild card entry into the 2015 Great White Con Arctic Basin Big Wave Surfing Contest.

Here are the contestants so far this year:

1) Tony (“Steve Goddard”) Heller, with:

I’m amazed you have the gall to show up around here, after saying I should be jailed for accurately reporting and predicting Arctic ice.

Pathetic and quite psychotic Jim. And the NASA press release said nothing about uncertainty or satellites.

World class wanker

 

2) David (“Climate of Hate“) Rose, with:

3) Roger (“TallBloke”) Tattersall, UKIP’s Yorks and North Lincs Energy and Climate Change spokesman and prospective parliamentary candidate for Pudsey, with:

 

4) Gail Combs, regular commenter at unReal Science amongst other places, with:

Jim, How does it feel to be morally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people a year?


Please feel free to speculate about the ultimate outcome of this exciting new competition in the space provided for such purposes below!

Uncivil Dialog in the Climate World

Satire,

I’ve recently been mud wrestling with pigs again, over at “Watts Up With That” in the comments below an article entitled “Friday Funny: ‘civil dialog in the climate world’”, which begins as follows:

There’s an annoyance in the farce, and his moniker is “And Then There’s Physics” also known as “ATTP”

and continues to “out” ATTP by revealing his real name. Having previously fallen victim to the laser sharp investigative skills of Anthony Watts myself, I couldn’t help but wonder what Mr. Watts meant by:

I’ll have another article in the future about Dr. Ken Rice and his failures.

Perhaps he’s preparing one about the failures of “Snow White” and I as well? I tried to make the case that my alter ego and I are not total failures, but sadly for the two of us almost everything I said ended up on the WUWT cutting room floor. Here’s how the “snipping” operation went:

Us:


 

Them:

Jim Hunt
February 7, 2015 at 4:34 am

Ho, ho, ho! Such an annoying farce!

Anthony – I thought I might take this opportunity to remind you that some of my recent completely and “partially disappeared” comments here on WUWT are still on the cutting room floor!

[Snip. How ironic. ~mod.]

Followed by:

eddiesharpe
February 7, 2015 at 7:19 am

Ken might be a brilliant theoretical Astrophysicist but whit did he ken aboot climate?

 

Us:

Jim Hunt
February 7, 2015 at 8:38 am

The evidence strongly suggests quite a lot more than Anthony Watts. Och aye the noo!

What Physics qualifications does Tony’s CV sport?

 

Them:

dbstealey
February 7, 2015 at 10:12 am

What Physics qualifications does Tony’s CV sport?

I might ask that about Jim Hunt. From his comments, the answer is none.

 

Us:


 

Them:

Jim Hunt
February 7, 2015 at 10:58 am

[Snip. This is the “denialosphere”? You certainly know better than to use that label here. ~mod.]

 

Us:
2015-02-07_2237_WUWT
 

Them:

Jim Hunt
February 7, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Do you self identify with the term “denialosphere” then? I was talking about somewhere else entirely, on the far side of the ocean from these hallowed halls.

 

Us:
2015-02-08_0937_WUWT
 

Them:

That last one still hasn’t seen the light of day.
 

Us:

We’ll keep you posted!

 

A Letter to the Editor of the Mail on Sunday

Satire, ,

CC: @IpsoNews

To whom it may concern,

As you are no doubt aware, I am rather dissatisfied with the responses I have received from you to my assorted enquiries over recent weeks. In such circumstances I took the liberty of attempting to communicate directly with David Rose about the wide variety of inaccurate and/or misleading statements about climate science that your esteemed organ has published over recent weeks. Here is a brief overview of my recent conversations with your leading investigative journalist on Twitter:

 


Do you have any comment to make at this juncture?

Yours sincerely,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

Dear Jim,

I am away at present so only dimly aware of what this is about.

You have sent two links to Twitter events. One appears to show some people talking about climate change. The other is a personal exchange between you and David Rose. You accused him of writing fiction. He told you to go away.

I have no comment about either.

Best regards,

John

 

Us:

Dear John,

I acknowledge receipt of your email.

I also have no further comment to make on yesterday’s article at this time.

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 
Time passes….. Until on February 19th 2015:
 

Hello John,

Perhaps you could pass the latest “shock news” from the Arctic on to David Rose for me?

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/shock-news-ijis-arctic-sea-ice-extent-lowest-ever/

Should we now expect a revealing article on the long term Arctic sea ice trend to be prominently featured in the Mail this coming Sunday?

Thanks in anticipation,

Jim

 

Them:

Dear Jim

Thanks for sending this.

John

 

Us:

My pleasure John,

Does this mean you are finally back at the desk on which the David Rose buck stops? Here is some undeniably “Shock News!” from the Arctic for you both:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/shock-news-massive-calving-of-jakobshavn-isbrae/

Have we missed the deadline for this coming Sunday?

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!