Tag Archives: Ron Clutz

Clutz Clutches at Minimum Extent Straws

Satire, , , , , , , , , ,

On several previous occasions “Snow White” and I have documented Ron Clutz’s misuse of MASIE Arctic sea ice extent data on his “Science Matters” blog. We agree with Ron that science matters, so on several occasions we have attempted to direct his attention to my interview with NASA/NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. Walt’s words of wisdom included:

Year-to-year comparisons and trend estimates will be more accurate in the passive microwave data than in MASIE.

It will probably not surprise you to learn that Ron has not learned anything from our repeated efforts. In his article entitled “2024 Arctic Ice Beats 2007 by Half a Wadham” earlier today Ron proudly displays this graph:

You will note that Ron does not provide details of his data source. However I have recently noted a sudden lack of SSMIS passive microwave data emanating from NOAA. The OSI SAF reported it this way on September 12th:

Dear OSI SAF Sea Ice Concentration User,

Due to missing input data, we have not been able to generate L2 products, corresponding to F-16 / F-17 / F-18 since Sep 11 19:36 UTC.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

The NSIDC’s sea ice home page puts it this way today:

Now day 260 of 2024 is September 16th, so it seems safe to assume that Ron is erroneously using his favourite MASIE metric for year to year comparisons yet again. In his article Ron states that:

SII was reporting deficits as high as 0.5M km2 (half a Wadham) compared to  MASIE early in September.  For some reason, that dataset has not been updated for the last five days.

It appears as though Ron has also not yet learned how to find NSIDC’s sea ice home page on the world wide interweb!

I added this hopefully helpful comment below Ron’s article. For some strange reason it is yet to emerge from his moderation queue:

[Update – September 18th]

Our regular reader(s) will not be surprised to learn that my helpful comment yesterday is no longer in Ron’s moderation queue, but is now languishing underfoot on his cutting room floor.

Ron has written another Arctic article using the graph reproduced above. This one is entitled: “2024 Arctic Ice Abounds at Average Daily Minimum“. In it Ron assures his flock of faithful followers that:

We are close to the annual Arctic ice extent minimum, which typically occurs on or about day 260 (mid September). Some take any year’s slightly lower minimum as proof that Arctic ice is dying, but the image above shows the Arctic heart is beating clear and strong.

Over this decade, the Arctic ice minimum has not declined, but since 2007 looks like fluctuations around a plateau.

Ron has also changed his phraseology regarding the recent SSMIS data outage. This time it reads:

For some reason, apparently data access issues, that dataset has not been updated for the last five days.

“Snow White” felt compelled to leave Ron another helpful comment concerning his new words of Arctic wisdom:

Watch this space!

Facts About the Arctic in March 2024

News, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It looks as though the 2024 Arctic sea ice melting season has begun. For much greater detail see the 2024 maximum extent thread. However, here’s the latest JAXA Arctic sea ice extent graph:

Here too is an animation of sea ice motion on the Atlantic periphery, showing the effect of the passage of several Arctic cyclones through the area over the past 5 weeks or so:

[Update – March 4th]

My usual start of month processing hasn’t gone according to plan. Thanks to Lars Kaleschke at the Alfred Wegener Institute for the following information:

SMOS went into safe mode on 22 February 2024 at 05:10 UTC for reasons that are still under investigation.

The spacecraft has been back in nominal mode since 25 February 2024 and on 27 February 2024, the MIRAS instrument was switched on and is currently performing well.

The reload of the nominal acquisition planning is underway, and if all science data quality checks are positive, nominal data production and dissemination will resume in the coming days.

Continue reading Facts About the Arctic in March 2024 →

Will the AMO Save Arctic Sea Ice?

Skepticism, , , , , , , , ,

According to Michael Mann he coined the name “Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation”:

Two decades ago, in an interview with science journalist Richard Kerr for the journal Science, I coined the term the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” (the “AMO” for short) to describe an internal oscillation in the climate system resulting from interactions between North Atlantic ocean currents and wind patterns. These interactions were thought to lead to alternating decades-long intervals of warming and cooling centered in the extratropical North Atlantic that play out on 40-60 year timescales (hence the name). Think of the purported AMO as a much slower relative of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with a longer timescale of oscillation (multidecadal rather than interannual) and centered in a different region (the North Atlantic rather than the tropical Pacific).

More recently Mann et al. claimed that in actual fact the AMO does not exist.

For several decades the existence of interdecadal and multidecadal internal climate oscillations has been asserted by numerous studies based on analyses of historical observations, paleoclimatic data and climate model simulations. Here we use a combination of observational data and state-of-the-art forced and control climate model simulations to demonstrate the absence of consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that are distinguishable from climatic noise. Only variability in the interannual range associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation is found to be distinguishable from the noise background.


More recently still I discovered the source of Matt’s optimistic, AMO based prediction of Arctic sea ice recovery. Here is the latest edition, courtesy of Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall:

Continue reading Will the AMO Save Arctic Sea Ice? →

Facts About the Arctic in February 2024

News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A change is perhaps even better than a rest? Let’s start February with a reminder that following close behind another recent Arctic cyclone, Storm Ingunn caused red weather warnings for high winds and avalanches in Norway two days ago:

By yesterday evening another long period, storm driven swell was arriving at the sea ice edge in the Fram Strait, and to a lesser extent in the Barents Sea:

By this morning Ingunn had merged with the remnants of the prior cyclone, as revealed in Climate Reanalyzer’s visualisation of the latest GFS model run::

Continue reading Facts About the Arctic in February 2024 →

What’s Up With That Arctic Sea Ice Disinformation

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

A few days ago we posted an article about the recent surge in the amount of disinformation being published about Arctic sea ice. Eventually one of our long list of usual suspects, Anthony Watts, published a copy of an erroneous Arctic article by Paul Homewood.

Now the Watts Up With That Arctic porky pie production line is going into overdrive, so here’s an already long list of its output in the run up to the COP26 conference in Glasgow in a month or so. First up is the aforementioned clone from NALOPKT. Allegedly:

It is very easy to show that Arctic sea ice has stabilised. As their graph itself shows, there have only been three years since 2007 with lower ice extent than that year, and eleven have had higher extents. Also the average of the last ten years is higher than 2007’s extent.

In itself, this is too short a period to make any meaningful judgements. But that is no excuse for the Met Office to publish such a manifest falsehood.

This comment of mine on that article remains invisible at WUWT:

This morning (UTC) I added another comment to Anthony’s moderation queue:

Continue reading What’s Up With That Arctic Sea Ice Disinformation →

Not A Lot Of People Know How Paul Homewood Propagates Fake News About the Arctic!!

Censorship, , , ,

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?

PIOMAS-IceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_20170227

Followed by:

NALOPKT-AliceIsModerated

When that failed to make an appearance:

NALOPKT-Alice-Moderated-20170228

When Ron Clutz sang the praises of MASIE yet again:

NALOPKT-Jim-AutoSnipped-20170227

Here is what Paul Homewood cherry picked to publish to his loyal readership:

NALOPKT-Alice-Snipped-20170228

Can you spot the difference? Our juiciest cherries all ended up on Paul’s cutting room floor!

NSIDC Announce The 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Extent

Extent, , , , , , , , ,

In the latest edition of their “Arctic Sea Ice News” the United States’ National Snow and Ice Data Center have announced that:

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 24, and is now the lowest maximum in the satellite record, replacing last year’s record low. This year’s maximum extent occurred later than average. A late season surge in ice growth is still possible. NSIDC will post a detailed analysis of the 2015 to 2016 winter sea ice conditions in early April.

NSIDC-20160327

On March 24, 2016, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.52 million square kilometers (5.607 million square miles). This year’s maximum ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record, with below-average ice conditions everywhere except in the Labrador Sea, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay. The maximum extent is 1.12 million square kilometers (431,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 13,000 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) below the previous lowest maximum that occurred last year. This year’s maximum occurred twelve days later than the 1981 to 2010 average date of March 12. The date of the maximum has varied considerably over the years, occurring as early as February 24 in 1996 and as late as April 2 in 2010.

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has also made a similar announcement, which includes this video:

The new record low follows record high temperatures in December, January and February around the globe and in the Arctic. The atmospheric warmth probably contributed to this lowest maximum extent, with air temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit above average at the edges of the ice pack where sea ice is thin, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The wind patterns in the Arctic during January and February were also unfavorable to ice growth because they brought warm air from the south and prevented expansion of the ice cover. But ultimately, what will likely play a bigger role in the future trend of Arctic maximum extents is warming ocean waters, Meier said.

“It is likely that we’re going to keep seeing smaller wintertime maximums in the future because in addition to a warmer atmosphere, the ocean has also warmed up. That warmer ocean will not let the ice edge expand as far south as it used to,” Meier said. “Although the maximum reach of the sea ice can vary a lot each year depending on winter weather conditions, we’re seeing a significant downward trend, and that’s ultimately related to the warming atmosphere and oceans.” Since 1979, that trend has led to a loss of 620,000 square miles of winter sea ice cover, an area more than twice the size of Texas.

This year’s record low sea ice maximum extent will not necessarily result in a subsequent record low summertime minimum extent, Meier said. Summer weather conditions have a larger impact than the extent of the winter maximum in the outcome of each year’s melt season; warm temperatures and summer storms make the ice melt fast, while if a summer is cool, the melt slows down.

Neither NASA or the NSIDC comment on one of the striking things about this winter’s NSIDC extent chart, which has effectively “plateaued” during March 2016 following an initial peak of 14.48 million square kilometers on March 2nd, which was only recently exceeded. This is also illustrated by the JAXA Arctic sea ice extent metric, for which the 2016 maximum was 13.96 million square kilometers on February 29th:

JAXA-20160328

Now that the start of 2016 Arctic sea ice melting season has been called, albeit slightly hesitantly, by the experts at the NSIDC let’s also take a look at Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area:

CT-20160327

The preliminary peak which we announced on March 16th has also recently been exceeded, but we now feel supremely confident in predicting that the 2016 CT area maximum will be less than 13 million square kilometers for the first time ever in the satellite record.

Thus begins what promises to be a very interesting 2016 Arctic sea ice melting season! As the NSIDC puts it:

There is little correlation between the maximum winter extent and the minimum summer extent—this low maximum does not ensure that this summer will see record low ice conditions. A key factor is the timing of widespread surface melting in the high Arctic. An earlier melt onset is important to the amount of energy absorbed by the ice cover during the summer. If surface melting starts earlier than average, the snow darkens and exposes the ice below earlier, which in turn increases the solar heat input, allowing more ice to melt. With the likelihood that much of the Arctic cover is somewhat thinner due to the warm winter, early surface melting would favor reduced summer ice cover.

Gross Deception About MASIE and the Sea Ice Index

Extent, , , , , , , ,

Our title for today is a reference back to a 2015 article by Paul Homewood on his “Not A Lot Of People Know That” blog, in which he told a load of old porky pies about the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s graphs of Arctic sea ice extent. Only last week Mr. Homewood cooked up another pile of porky pies concerning the Danish Meteorolical Institute’s Arctic sea ice extent metric. Now he has turned his pie baking skills to the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE for short), which is “a prototype collaborative product of the National Ice Center and NSIDC”.

Mr. Homewood obviously hadn’t done a whole lot of homework on MASIE before firing up his porky pie production line, since he used the self same recipe posted on the so called “Science Matters” blog of Ron Clutz shortly before. In fact he just reprinted the first part of Ron’s article and added a handy link to Ron’s even bigger pile of porky pies beneath it. Hence both Paul and Ron’s web sites currently proudly proclaim that:

Something strange is happening in the reporting of sea ice extents in the Arctic. I am not suggesting that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” That issue about a Danish graph seems to be subsiding, though there are unresolved questions. What if the 30% DMI graph is overestimating and the 15% DMI graph is underestimating?

The MASIE record from NIC shows an average year in progress, with new highs occurring well above the 2015 maximum:

Clutz-masie-2016-to-day-56r

While I am compelled to agree with Ron and Paul that “something strange is happening in the reporting of sea ice extents in the Arctic” we disagree about everything else! One reason for that is because only a few days ago I interviewed NASA scientist Walt Meier following a suggestion by Ron Clutz that I do precisely that. Please read the edited highlights of that interview, and note in addition that Walt assured me that he had not previously been contacted by either of Messrs. Clutz and Homewood. Having never previously contacted Mr. Meier, here’s what Ron Clutz would have his loyal readership believe this weekend:

NOAA Is Losing Arctic Ice

Why the Discrepancy between SII and MASIE?

The issue also concerns Walter Meier who is in charge of SII, and as a true scientist, he is looking to get the best measurements possible. He and several colleagues compared SII and MASIE and published their findings last October. The purpose of the analysis was stated thus:

Our comparison is not meant to be an extensive validation of either product, but to illustrate as guidance for future use how the two products behave in different regimes.

Here is what Dr. Meier’s peer reviewed paper from October last year concluded on the matter:

Operational modelers require timely data that are as accurate as possible to initialize forecast models. In particular, an accurate ice edge is important because of the influence of the interaction of sea ice and water with the overlying atmosphere on the model fluxes. Consistency of data is also desirable for operational models, but is a secondary concern because the models are regularly reinitialized for their synoptic forecasts. Operational observations like MASIE make the most sense for these applications. However, the quality and amount of information used to produce the operational analyses vary.

Climate modelers desire consistent long-term data to minimize model biases and better understand and potentially improve model physics. The passive microwave record is useful, but has limitations. Regions of thin ice are underestimated and if the ice cover is diffuse with low concentration, ice-covered regions may be detected as open water. Even thin ice modifies heat and moisture transfer and thus may affect atmospheric and oceanic coupling. Surface melt results in an underestimation of concentration. This should be considered when evaluating model concentrations with passive microwave data.

and here once again is what he told me a few short days ago:

Since the quantity and quality of [MASIE] data varies the time series will not be consistent over time.

For some strange reasom Mr. Clutz’s article mentions none of this. Needless to say I have attempted to bring this unfortunate oversight to the attention of Ron & Paul:

2016-02-28_1007-RonClutz

Even more unfortunately it seems that their joint acute snow blindness has got even worse over the last few days, since they still haven’t noticed my link to Walt Meier’s words waiting patiently in their WordPress.com “moderation queues”.

Whilst we wish them on their recovery from their painful ailment, here’s an alternative interpretation of the MASIE data:

MASIE-Min

Operational modellers for the use of! Here’s what the NSIDC’s Sea Ice Index currently reveals to climate scientists:

Charctic-20160226

NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent is evidently still currently lowest *ever for the date.

DMI, MASIE and the Sea Ice Index – An Interview With Walt Meier

Extent, , , , , , , , , ,

For some reason best known to himself Anthony Watts has jumped on the “DMIGate” bandwagon started by Paul Homewood over on this side of the Atlantic a few days ago. In his latest article Mr. Watts quotes with approval the “Not A Lot Of People Know That” article which we have already covered in some depth.

Here yet again is one of my comments that recently ended up on the NALOPKT cutting room floor:

2016-02-21_1811-NALOPKT

You will note that I was suggesting that Ron Clutz’s extremely selectively interpretation of some of Walt Meier’s academic papers left a lot to be desired. Particularly given the additional fuel added to the “skulduggery” fire by the Watts Up With That article it seemed sensible to phone up NASA and ask Walt for his views on the second hottest Arctic sea ice topic on the planet at the moment, according to Messrs. Clutz and Homewood at least. That is the relative merits of Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE for short) versus the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s Sea Ice Index (SII for short) for determining Arctic sea ice trends.

According to the NSIDC:

MASIE sea ice products are developed from National Ice Center (NIC for short) data with support from the U.S. Navy and from NOAA. MASIE is hosted by NOAA@NSIDC.

whereas:

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 and data values from November 1978 to the present.

As luck would have I managed to get through to Walt on my second attempt, and he graciously agreed to be interviewed at extremely short notice. He told me that whilst he now worked at NASA he used to be at the NSIDC, and still collaborated with them. Here are the edited highlights of his thoughts on “MASIE v SII”:

MASIE repackages data from the NIC, and incorporates an ice edge hand drawn by analysts working with whatever satellite data they have available at the time. It is an “operational” product designed to produce a “best effort” ice edge each day, based on whatever data may be available at the time.

Visual data is obviously not available in winter, and the ice edge is often obscured by clouds in summer. Synthetic Aperture Radar can “see in the dark” and through clouds, but suffers from different limitations. The whole of the Arctic isn’t covered every day for example. In addition, and unlike the SII, data from different satellite sensors is incorporated which means there are inevitably inconsistencies from day to day and from year to year. There is also an element of “human subjectivity” because different analysts are working with different sources of data from one day to the next. Since the quantity and quality of data varies the time series will not be consistent over time.

On the other hand the SII was designed to use a consistent methodology over a long period of time using a single type of sensor. 100% automatically processed passive microwave data is the “gold standard” when it comes to determining sea ice trends. It is subject to some biases and thus is not necessarily as accurate on a given day as MASIE. However, the biases are consistent over time, so the time series will be consistent over time. This means that year-to-year comparisons and trend estimates will be more accurate in the passive microwave data than in MASIE.

So there you have it. If you’re on the bridge of a vessel sailing in Arctic waters then MASIE is the right tool for the job. If on the other hand you’re sat in front of a computer trying to get the best estimate of trends in Arctic sea ice extent then the Sea Ice Index is what you’ll grab from your toolkit.

Having had a chance to examine the “evidence” of DMI “skulduggery” presented by Messrs. Watts and Homewood, Walt sent me a follow up email. Here is what it says:

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. I don’t know specifically why the 30% plot went awry, but there is generally automatic quality control done to make sure the final results are accurate and consistent. If such QC is not done, a lot of incorrect values can occur. I suspect that since the older version was no longer supported, the QC wasn’t being watched and something went wrong that they didn’t bother to fix (or maybe didn’t even notice) because the new 15% version is the official DMI output.

Not a lot of people know that, because Watts, Homewood et al. have developed the nasty habit of “snipping” comments to that effect as and when the mood takes them, which based on my own experience seems to be remarkably often in this day and age.

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!