Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

Cryosphere => Arctic sea ice => Topic started by: Jim Hunt on September 18, 2013, 01:09:13 AM

Title: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 18, 2013, 01:09:13 AM
Those of you from the UK may well be familiar with David Rose's regular rants in the Mail on Sunday about what he calls the "Great Green Con". Now he's regurgitating what I call the "Great White Con". According to Rose in the Mail last weekend:

Quote
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

and continuing this weekend with:

Quote
Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007

As Neven put it on the blog (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/09/ipcc-crisis-meeting.html):

Quote
As always, Rose's propaganda is full of holes and lies by omission.

As the release of the next IPCC report looms on the horizon, the lies are included this time around. I don't know about you, but I've had enough of the continued barrage of half truths and untruths from Rose and his ilk, so I've complained to the UK's Press Complaints Commission. How far this gets me remains to be seen, but if you so desire you can read all about it on a shiny new web site accessible at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/blog (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/blog)

Following a suggestion by NeilT (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/09/ipcc-crisis-meeting.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff51adf6970b#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff51adf6970b) of this parish, information is also now available on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon) and on Twitter (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GreatWhiteCon). Come along and let us know what you think, and if you approve of this modest little campaign please do tell your friends.

As for that "one million square miles" headline, the NSIDC see things rather differently to the Mail:


Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: pikaia on September 18, 2013, 01:56:14 PM
I see that the Mail report has been greatly altered, and now it is even worse. Now the headline says "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)

"Clarification

An original version of this article sought to make the fairest updated comparison with the 0.2C warming rate stated by the IPCC in 2007.

It drew on the following sentence in the draft 2013 summary: ‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years… of 0.05C per decade is smaller than the trend since 1951, 0.12C per decade.’ This would represent a reduction in the rate of warming by a little under one half.

But critics argued that the 0.2C warming rate in the 2007 report relates only to the previous 15 years whereas the 0.12C figure in the forthcoming report relates to the half-century since 1951. They pointed out that the equivalent figure in the 2007 report was 0.13C.

This amended article compares the 0.05C per decade observed in the past 15 years with the 0.2C per decade observed in the period 1990-2005 and with the prediction that this rate per decade would continue for a further 20 years."

No confidence limits for either figure in the last paragraph, and no reference or quotation of the "prediction", no explanation of why the rate of warming should be constant anyway. More Rose fertiliser.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 18, 2013, 02:44:53 PM
I see that the Mail report has been greatly altered, and now it is even worse.

The article you're referring to is David Rose's second "Great White Con". The first one was published the previous Sunday, and we're still deconstructing the "inaccuracies" in that one. Here's our new music video on the preliminary NSIDC 2013 Arctic ice minimum extent:

The Great White Con - Episode 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb6md3fejA#)

We hope it proves to be music to the ears of David Rose and his ilk!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ivica on September 18, 2013, 03:21:48 PM
Jim, thanks.
"This is a world of trouble
but its mine"

BTW:
Description in video above gives wrong link
Quote
The music is "World of Trouble" by Russian band "Void Void" from the charity compilation album "Water Connects Us":
http://WaterConnectsUs.org (http://WaterConnectsUs.org)
Use: http://water-connects-us.org/ (http://water-connects-us.org/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on September 18, 2013, 03:57:13 PM
Rose ignores:
Foster & Rahmstorf, 2011, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf)
Kaufman et al, Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract)
Kosaka and Xie, Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html)
Cohen et al, 2012, Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050582/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050582/abstract)

The hiatus in GW has been pretty well explained by those four sets of researchers. That Rose whines on about the hiatus in GW shows that he is the sort of idiot who would call out a heating engineer claiming his central heating wasn't working, only for the engineer to find the radiators hot and that Rose has all his windows open.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: domen_ on September 18, 2013, 04:01:22 PM
I'd also add that 60% number is less significant than people think. That is because when SIE is getting smaller, variance will make percentage bigger.

For example: SIE (in August) in year 1995 is 6.68 and 1996 is 8.17. Absolute difference is 1.49, relative difference is 1.22, i.e. 22% increase.

But SIE in 2012 is 4.71 and 2013 is 6.09. Absolute difference is 1.38, relative difference is 1.29, i.e. 29% increase.

So despite absolute increase in 2012-2013 being lower than 1995-1996, relative difference (percentage) is bigger. When we approach zero this relative differences will become even bigger (if variance stays the same, which I think is a reasonable assumption).

So beware of these manipulations with numbers. 60% may not be that much if variation is significant and sea ice was very small in the first place.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: pikaia on September 18, 2013, 07:39:27 PM
Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer, has responded to the "corrected" article.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/climate_change_denier_article_updated_still_riddled_with_errors.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/climate_change_denier_article_updated_still_riddled_with_errors.html)

"I'll note, too, that while the Mail updated their article doubling down (or really, halving down) on warming, they did nothing to change the grievous misquotation of scientist Myles Allen, nor corrected any of the other egregious errors in the article (like propagating the old and long-debunked “Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today before CO2 levels were as high as they are now” gambit). I find it fascinating that they updated the article about one particular error (without actually fixing it) while not correcting the other mistakes."
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 18, 2013, 07:53:22 PM
I'd also add that 60% number is less significant than people think

See also: http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/60-per-cent-of-nothing/ (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/60-per-cent-of-nothing/)

Fixed now Ivica - TVM
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 18, 2013, 09:01:31 PM
A discussion on the Guardian site today on this self same topic, which I felt compelled to contribute to!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/how-fast-is-arctic-sea-ice-melting (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/how-fast-is-arctic-sea-ice-melting)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ivica on September 18, 2013, 09:06:43 PM
Fixed now Ivica - TVM
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmu.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fsmiley-small.jpg&hash=1726b6e4b1798f6fb9440d1c3fdba3c4)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 19, 2013, 02:36:18 PM
Today we're deconstructing the Mail Online's moderation policy:

http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/mail-online-moderation-policy/ (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/mail-online-moderation-policy/)

I've managed to get two comments past the eagle eyed moderators at the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b1a2f64-2048-11e3-9a9a-00144feab7de.html#comment-5361962 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b1a2f64-2048-11e3-9a9a-00144feab7de.html#comment-5361962)

Another two have been "flushed down the memory hole (http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/#comment-32561)" however.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 19, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
There certainly appears to be a lot of misinformation being exploited around sea ice extent minimum this fall. I thought that I would look at this issue and compare the SIE September average extent from 1979 to the present. I've attached a chart for this from 1979 to 2001. This chart seems to indicate a downward trend in September average extent  but, with the uptick in 2000 and 2001, it is easy to see how the denialist community would argue that there is no obvious trend. Variability from year to year has increased since the late 80's.

It is in the years from 2000 on where the argument for sea ice decline rests. I've decided to look at these years more closely and have calculated a year to year comparison of percentage change in September average extent.

In September 2000, the SIE average was 6.3, an increase of .1 or 1.6%. In 2001, there was another increase from 6.3 to 6.8 or 7.9%. I have calculated the year to year percentage change in September average extent in this manner from 2000 until 2013. Since September average extent for 2013 is not yet known, I chose to eyeball a number and have concluded that average extent will be 4.9. The year to year changes from 2000 till 2013 look like this.

2000      +1.6%
2001      +7.9%
2002      -11.7%
2003      +3.3%
2004      -1.6%
2005      -8.2%
2006      +5.4%
2007      -27.1%
2008      +9.3%
2009      +14.9%
2010      -9.3%
2011      -6.1%
2012      -21.7%
2013      +36.1%

2007, with a decline of 27.1% certainly stands out but the following two years saw a rebound. This was followed by a precipitous decline over the next 3 years but the growth in 2013 matches the 3 year decline that precedes it. In fact if you compare the cumulative percentage losses to the cumulative percentage gains from 2000 to 2013 you will find that losses totaled 85.7% while the gains totaled 78.5%. Losses have exceeded gains by a mere 7.2% over a 13 year period or 0.55% per year. Is this such a big deal?    ::)

Can I get a job on a denialist website now?   ;D
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 20, 2013, 01:24:28 AM
The first in a series of "refreeze" video updates from Great White Con. The main idea is to reveal the nonsensity of David Rose's "Unbroken ice sheet", but hopefully they have some modest educational value also:

http://youtu.be/vf7KpwFefwg (http://youtu.be/vf7KpwFefwg)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: pikaia on September 21, 2013, 12:40:24 PM
Some interesting claims about Rose here:

http://tompride.co.uk/2012/11/11/child-abuse-scandal-can-of-worms-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/ (http://tompride.co.uk/2012/11/11/child-abuse-scandal-can-of-worms-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/)

"David Rose seems to be what is known by some people in the trade as a 'fixer'.

'Fixers' obviously 'fix' things - in his case, Rose specialises in 'fixing' tricky problems which are inconveniencing parts of the more conservative parts of the establishment - by using spin, disinformation and pure lies.

In fact, he's been specialising in discrediting victims who have accused establishment figures of child abuse for some years now, as well as trying to discredit child abuse investigations as a whole "

More here:
http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/daily-mail-journalist-david-rose-he-is.html (http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/daily-mail-journalist-david-rose-he-is.html)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 22, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
David Rose seems to be what is known by some people in the trade as a 'fixer'.

He needs to fix his maths (as we call it here in the UK). We can finally reveal how he contrived to come up with his "nearly a million more square miles".

http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/humiliating-mistakes-by-david-rose/ (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/humiliating-mistakes-by-david-rose/)

However we are still none the wiser about where he conjured up his "60%increase" from!

"100 * 2.38 / 4.72 = 50.4%"
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: SCM on September 29, 2013, 12:32:24 AM
Big freighter traverses Northwest Passage for 1st time

By John McGarrity and Henning Gloystein
LONDON | Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:36am EDT
(Reuters) - A large freighter completed a voyage through the hazardous Arctic Northwest Passage for the first time this week, showing the potential for cutting shipment times and costs as global warming opens new routes.

The 75,000 deadweight-ton Nordic Orion, built in 2011 by a Japanese shipyard, left the Canadian Pacific port of Vancouver in early September and is scheduled to arrive in the Finnish port of Pori on October 7, according to AIS shipping data...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 29, 2013, 01:35:31 AM
Big freighter traverses Northwest Passage for 1st time

Actually I got there long before Reuters!

http://econnexus.org/the-northwest-passage-is-open-for-business/ (http://econnexus.org/the-northwest-passage-is-open-for-business/)

What I really came here to say was that we have contrived to persuade The Mail to retract the most outrageous of the headline numbers concerning Arctic sea ice that they published on September 8th.

http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/the-mail-makes-modest-amends/ (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/the-mail-makes-modest-amends/)

Next we'll try and persuade The Telegraph to do likewise. Then of course there's all those other inaccuracies that they both still need to make amends for!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 29, 2013, 10:57:11 PM
Another video update, which covers the Mail's recent "revision" of its headline numbers, along with any number of ways in which the Mail got its Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage stories wrong, amongst other things:

The Great White Con - Update 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBqWMd41i6I#)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 30, 2013, 10:10:56 AM
The Mail's "retraction" yesterday didn't amount to the proverbial hill of beans, so here's our next report on the recent shock news about "And now it’s global COOLING!":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/santas-secret-summer-swim/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/santas-secret-summer-swim/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 05, 2013, 12:31:37 AM
The Telegraph have now followed in The Mail's illustrious footsteps and corrected their ludicrous headline numbers, and published a couple of half-hearted "updates" by way of explanation:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/will-the-telegraph-print-the-truth-in-the-cold-light-of-day/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/will-the-telegraph-print-the-truth-in-the-cold-light-of-day/)

The BBC are now in my "little black book" too.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: pikaia on October 05, 2013, 12:51:14 AM
I have been enjoying watching the Mail group squirm following their attack on the deceased father of Ed Milliband (leader of the Labour party), which has provoked a number of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. Then they went even further, with one reporter gatecrashing the private memorial service of Ed's uncle. I guess it will not be enough to bring them down, as happened with the News Of The World after its underhand methods were revealed, but one can wish!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 05, 2013, 02:09:01 AM
Then they went even further, with one reporter gatecrashing the private memorial service of Ed's uncle.

As luck would have it I called the Mail on Sunday's Managing Editor on Thursday to ask when I might expect a reply to a couple of emails I'd sent him. He informed me that unfortunately it hadn't yet risen to the top of his "to do list", because most of his time was being taken up sorting out another matter (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/09/santas-secret-summer-swim/#comment-59)!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 09, 2013, 07:03:48 PM
A new article detailing The Telegraph's continuing incompetence/intransigence when it comes to reporting the truth about Arctic sea ice:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/russias-northern-shores/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/russias-northern-shores/)

Does this look anything like "an unbroken ice sheet" to you?

http://youtu.be/mxWIiX-jEQo (http://youtu.be/mxWIiX-jEQo)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: bligh8 on October 23, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
Jim....This may be a little off topic as it has nothing to do with Arctic Ice, but does have to do with the Daily Mail's attitude/position on GW and their deceptive publishing practices.

Ted Thornhill is a writer for the Daily Mail and they published his article on 26 March, 2012....updated 26 March 2012


Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?

The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

    Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
    Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
    Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

By Ted Thornhill

PUBLISHED: 07:21 EST, 26 March 2012 | UPDATED: 07:55 EST, 26 March 2

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.


At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a statement by Zunlj Lu the original Author of the mis-quoted report.

Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including theDaily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News.

Zunli Lu:
“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

I'm kinda new around here so I do not know if this has been previously discussed.

Bligh
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 23, 2013, 10:42:45 PM
Hi Bligh,

Thanks for the information, which is certainly news to me. I'm not a regular Daily Mail reader!

As you say, it seems to be yet another article that's "par for the course" when it comes to the Mail's climate change coverage.  This time around David Rose happened to write a load of nonsense about several of my specialist subjects this summer, even before he got on to misrepresenting climate science.

All of which reminds me that I've neglected to mention in here that the Mail on Sunday's Managing Editor has been in touch again after some further badgering from yours truly. Hence I've recently endeavoured to explain to him yet again that "20% to 80%" is not the same as 100%:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-balding-arctic-exposed/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-balding-arctic-exposed/)

Whether he takes any notice remains to be seen, although he did (somewhat grudgingly) previously agree that 29.3% is not the same as 60%. If not then we'll endeavour to discover whether the Press Complaints Commission can tell the difference or not.   

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ggelsrinc on October 24, 2013, 03:38:40 AM
Hi Bligh,

Thanks for the information, which is certainly news to me. I'm not a regular Daily Mail reader!

As you say, it seems to be yet another article that's "par for the course" when it comes to the Mail's climate change coverage.  This time around David Rose happened to write a load of nonsense about several of my specialist subjects this summer, even before he got on to misrepresenting climate science.

All of which reminds me that I've neglected to mention in here that the Mail on Sunday's Managing Editor has been in touch again after some further badgering from yours truly. Hence I've recently endeavoured to explain to him yet again that "20% to 80%" is not the same as 100%:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-balding-arctic-exposed/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-balding-arctic-exposed/)

Whether he takes any notice remains to be seen, although he did (somewhat grudgingly) previously agree that 29.3% is not the same as 60%. If not then we'll endeavour to discover whether the Press Complaints Commission can tell the difference or not.

This son of Adam has been looking for the mother of all those snakes I've heard slithering about, haunting my Garden of Eden for years, with an unbitten apple in his hand. My plan is to use that unbitten apple as a weapon, striking the head of that mother snake, so all those little snakes will slither away and leave my world in peace. A proximity to Rupert Murdoch comes to mind, but I've never accomplished my task. That would be much easier than my idea of collecting the world's worn out shoes and throwing them onto President Bush's Crawford Ranch. I realized they would pile up near the fence and the difficulties involved in necessary catapult designs are something I still haven't accomplished at this date. Other problems, like President Bush seldom visiting his ranch after his presidency and the probability of exacting a direct hit have further delayed my project. Bush after all wasn't what I would consider to be that big of the big snakes causing us our problems. Looking for the media source to find the mother snake is a wise sense of direction!

Bravo! 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: bligh8 on October 24, 2013, 05:09:29 AM
hey Jim......Yea I'm no fan of the daily news I just caught that misquoted and published article on a different forum. Found it hard to believe and did some digging and found the original authors rebuttal.

Anyway....Best pf luck with those phone call's....must be frustrating.

Best,
Bligh
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on November 03, 2013, 11:19:31 PM
Thanks for your kind words ggelsrinc and Bligh.

We have made progress of a sort. The Mail on Sunday have finally sent us some evidence in an attempt to justify their original "Million more square miles" and "Unbroken ice sheet" claims, the latter still uncorrected:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/11/the-mails-concentration-on-sea-ice-extent/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/11/the-mails-concentration-on-sea-ice-extent/)

To say that we are unimpressed is something of an understatement. Press Complaints Commission here we come!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on November 04, 2013, 01:30:40 AM
Rose has a new masterpiece proclaiming that the Arctic sea is already recovering due to the stadium wave. Yes, Curry again features in Rose propaganda piece. She must be so annoyed at being used again by the GWPF tribe. The graph in the article is obviously made by someone at the GWPF. Rose uses those all the time, but never attributes them to GWPF. Why is that, I wonder?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: idunno on November 04, 2013, 08:24:02 AM
Review of Rose on the  stadium wave here:

http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/judith-currys-stadium-wave/ (http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/judith-currys-stadium-wave/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on November 04, 2013, 10:45:06 AM
Rose has a new masterpiece proclaiming that the Arctic sea is already recovering due to the stadium wave.

Whoops. I forgot to mention that bit in here!

Quote
Yes, Curry again features in Rose propaganda piece. She must be so annoyed at being used again by the GWPF tribe. The graph in the article is obviously made by someone at the GWPF. Rose uses those all the time, but never attributes them to GWPF. Why is that, I wonder?

It's very hard to persuade David to reveal his sources, but we have now succeeded in the case of "An unbroken ice sheet". It looks like the time has come to ask the same questions about "Arctic sea ice has already started to recover"!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ggelsrinc on November 04, 2013, 12:59:33 PM
Thanks for your kind words ggelsrinc and Bligh.

We have made progress of a sort. The Mail on Sunday have finally sent us some evidence in an attempt to justify their original "Million more square miles" and "Unbroken ice sheet" claims, the latter still uncorrected:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/11/the-mails-concentration-on-sea-ice-extent/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/11/the-mails-concentration-on-sea-ice-extent/)

To say that we are unimpressed is something of an understatement. Press Complaints Commission here we come!

Those weren't kind words, but simple respect for a man who holds his ground. Do you have information of who is responsible for disinformation in the UK? I can ramble on about how simply smelling sea salt will do a person good, like giving them a sense of real smell, but that's besides the point. Is there easy assess into who owns the media in the UK?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on November 04, 2013, 01:10:24 PM
Is there easy assess into who owns the media in the UK?

In this particular instance see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust)

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre)

and

http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/committee.html (http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/committee.html)

P.S. See also http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/press-self-regulation-leveson-censorship (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/press-self-regulation-leveson-censorship)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on November 04, 2013, 04:49:00 PM
The next installment in this long running saga:

"Has Arctic Sea Ice Already Started to Recover? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/11/has-arctic-sea-ice-already-started-to-recover/)"

In brief, our answer is NO!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: idunno on January 07, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
Hi Jim,

Did you see that the Mail has won a prestigious media award?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/12/30/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-the-dail/197340 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/12/30/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-the-dail/197340)

(Thanks for the ref to Dosbat on Barnes).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 09, 2014, 01:44:06 AM
Did you see that the Mail has won a prestigious media award?

Not until you pointed it out, thanks. Richly deserved!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Andreas T on January 19, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
British readers may appreciate this which isn't directly connected to the topic of this thread.
The BBC recently showed a  repeat of the 2007 "Top Gear" episode where Jeremy Clarkson drove a "SUV" to what many viewers understood to be the North Pole.
Some quick fact checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_north (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_north) shows how far the end point of that stunt (which was accompanied by the usual denialist commentary by that comic book petrolhead) was from a meaningful North Pole.
The irony of this rerun which should be more widely known is that it is unlikely that this trip through the Canadian Archipelago to the 1996 magnetic north pole will be repeated.
The "polar race" which takes this location as its end point has been organized the last time in 2011 as far as I can tell. On their website http://www.polarrace.com/ (http://www.polarrace.com/) there is an entry dated 9 May 2011:
Quote
It was really only after our contestants got to the Pole that the real problems started as after losing a plane through the ice to the bottom of the ocean last year the pilots are understandably more cautious this year. It is a dangerous job and the pilot has the final call.
People here of course know that thick ice will continue to be found in this part of the world, but that it has become too unreliable for landing planes should be a graphic illustration for the people who thought that driving  car to a place which was once called the north pole says something about the state of arctic sea ice.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ghoti on January 19, 2014, 10:18:29 PM
Remember these are the same guys (Top Gear) that test drove a Tesla Roadster and faked it running out of battery charge in their attempt to discredit EVs. So cons are clearly their stock and trade.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on January 20, 2014, 06:55:56 PM
Andreas,

I remember when first seeing that I had a suspicion it wasn't the real pole (only two broken ice fields on the way?) and I think that on one quick shot the lat/lon can be seen, and the lat wasn't 90.

I still like those Top Gear specials, and the pole one is one of my favourites.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jdallen on January 20, 2014, 08:25:53 PM
I still like those Top Gear specials, and the pole one is one of my favourites.

As do I; I think it one needs to keep firmly in mind the obvious bias of the actors, and the notion that it is *entertainment* rather than real (queue: Bear Grylls being caught at a hotel rather than in "the wild" during a supposed trip. I like Grylls, too, but the event highlights the contrived nature of most of those shows...)

On the other hand, that "entertainment" does no one good, when in the name of cynical self interest, it promotes an interpretation of fact 180 degrees out of phase with our general welfare.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on January 20, 2014, 10:18:05 PM
Oh yeah,

I watch it and think 'Clarkson - you w--ker', but it still can be funny. FWIW, I no longer own a car, I only drive when needed to be work - I can hardly lug a stack of kit by bus...

Anyway you can't blame Clarkson and the rest. It's telling that when fossil fuel prices go up the government starts wobbling and talking of rolling back the Greenwash. The more I watch this society from the outside, the more I think of Forster's "The Machine Stops"

If you've not read it - make some time, it's stunningly prescient.
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html)

Quote
"Beware of first- hand ideas!" exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. "First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by live and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element - direct observation.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: TerryM on January 21, 2014, 06:20:50 AM
An interesting read Chris, I fear the music is stopping.
Terry
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on January 21, 2014, 06:25:35 PM
Terry,

As long as it didn't feel like a waste of your time.  :)

Thinking about it today, I guess I'm reading Peak Oil and Twitter (etc) into it.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on January 21, 2014, 06:43:52 PM
Whether it is the "Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con", Governor Christy's web of lies he is spinning, Lance Armstrong's 15+ years of lying, or those being paid by oil and gas interests to lie about climate change.........a couple things are becoming clearer:

1)  Humans have a problem with lying
2)  A lot of OTHER humans have a problem with HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE for the lies
3)  Mankind has to do a LOT better job of #2

The TRUTH never leaves.......it just wait's to be discovered.  The climate deniers can lie, mislead, and distract.....but they can't change the truth.

 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 21, 2014, 11:08:11 PM
Whether it is the "Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con", Governor Christy's web of lies he is spinning, Lance Armstrong's 15+ years of lying, or those being paid by oil and gas interests to lie about climate change.........a couple things are becoming clearer:

1)  Humans have a problem with lying
2)  A lot of OTHER humans have a problem with HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE for the lies
3)  Mankind has to do a LOT better job of #2

The TRUTH never leaves.......it just wait's to be discovered.  The climate deniers can lie, mislead, and distract.....but they can't change the truth.

And the truth shall not set us free. The truth is going to kill us.  :-\
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ritter on January 22, 2014, 05:20:37 PM
And the truth shall not set us free. The truth is going to kill us.  :-\

Well you're a happy one this morning!  ;)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Rubikscube on January 22, 2014, 06:34:49 PM
And the truth shall not set us free. The truth is going to kill us.  :-\

so true...  :(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on January 22, 2014, 06:56:09 PM
Rather than 'truth', the findings of science enable us to make an informed decision. That is all we can ask for.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ghoti on February 12, 2014, 04:58:23 PM
I guess we shouldn't hold our breath for The Mail to report the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date...
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 12, 2014, 10:12:47 PM
I guess not Ghoti! Their headline today reads:

Quote
Blown away! Flood-hit Britain battered by 100mph 'Wild Wednesday' storms (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings/#?tab=map&map=Warnings&zoom=5&lon=-3.50&lat=55.50&fcTime=1392163200) causing travel chaos across road and rail networks.

A Mail headline a couple of weeks ago read:

Quote
Climate change is NOT main cause of floods, say experts: Building on plains and cutting down trees are among the true reasons.

They have however republished an AP article today that states:

Quote
Britain's weather service says it sees the tentacles of climate change in a spate of storms and floods battering the country, but has stopped short of saying warming directly caused the extreme storms.

The latest round of bad weather hit Britain's west coast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26153529) Wednesday with winds gusting at more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) an hour.

The Met Office said in a paper published this week (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods) that "there is no definitive answer" on the role played by climate change in the recent weather and floods. But it said there is "an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense," probably due to a warming world. Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo told the BBC that "all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change."
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 06, 2014, 02:50:32 PM
Somebody mentioned Steven Goddard on the blog, so I foolishly headed over to read about some "Real Science" for the first time in a long time. Lo and behold I discovered that in his infinite wisdom Steve has just republished some of the Mail on Sunday's Arctic Sea Ice nonsense for the umpteenth time. I'm afraid I couldn't resist the temptation to try upsetting a global warming sceptic (http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/) once again.

Here is the record thus far of my alter ego "just having fun"  with Steve and his acolytes:

http://archive.is/stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/shocking-increase-in-arctic-ice-dooms-the-planet/ (http://archive.is/stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/shocking-increase-in-arctic-ice-dooms-the-planet/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on March 06, 2014, 03:21:53 PM
I think the information on "Real Science" is every bit as believable as the news on FOX  :P

All you have to do is (a) suspend any notion of logic, (b) suspend any notion of science and accuracy, and (c) suspend any notion that they are biased.  If you're able to do that....they are believable:)




Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 07, 2014, 04:12:19 PM
Steve doesn't give up easily, so I've invited him for a surf:

http://archive.is/stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/great-lakes-set-another-springtime-record-lake-ontario-up-to-62/ (http://archive.is/stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/great-lakes-set-another-springtime-record-lake-ontario-up-to-62/)

He's now run off to Twitter, where I am in hot pursuit!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon)

At least it gives me an excuse to post some pretty pictures over there!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 09, 2014, 09:16:42 PM
Goddard is still prattling on about an "Arctic Ice Recovery" even as CT area and NSIDC extent hit all time lows for the date.  Consequently I've felt compelled to put pen to virtual paper in this shiny new blog post:

"The Arctic Sea Ice “Recovery” Vanishes (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/03/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes/)"

I have reproduced the efforts of some of the posters here, duly attributed. Please let me know if you're unhappy with my efforts in any way.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 11, 2014, 01:48:33 PM
I've emailed the appropriate editors at The Express, The Guardian, The Independent, The Mail and The Telegraph about the latest "Shock News!" from The Arctic.

I'll let you know what, if anything, they come up with in response.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on March 11, 2014, 02:09:20 PM
I've emailed the appropriate editors at The Express, The Guardian, The Independent, The Mail and The Telegraph about the latest "Shock News!" from The Arctic.

I'll let you know what, if anything, they come up with in response.

Thanks, will you be publishing all responses on the blog?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 11, 2014, 03:09:37 PM
Will you be publishing all responses on the blog?

Now that you come to mention it:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/)

Thanks for the suggestion!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 11, 2014, 08:21:48 PM
No responses as yet. So it goes. I doubt The Mail bother to read their incoming "Tweets", but just in case:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/443463348076945409
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 12, 2014, 01:39:51 PM
It's now lunchtime over on this side of the pond, and still no response from the Great British mass media.

Whilst we twiddle our thumbs and wait, here's some questions I've recently been putting to "Steve Goddard" and his band of merry men:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/)

No answers have been forthcoming as yet, but I live in hope!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 12, 2014, 04:01:35 PM
I can't bear just sitting around and twiddling my thumbs  :(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 13, 2014, 01:28:53 AM
Shock News!

At long last we've managed to elicit a response from Steve Goddard along with one of his merry men. Read all about it at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/#comment-11680 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/#comment-11680)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Anne on March 13, 2014, 02:21:19 AM
Gosh, I think that might be a bit too difficult for him, Jim.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 13, 2014, 12:04:55 PM
He managed to cut and paste a picture, but writing any words to go with it seems to have been beyond him!

One of the merry men managed to pose a relevant question at least.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 14, 2014, 02:53:12 PM
Still no word from The Mail. However after geeing them up via telephone I did get a response out of The Guardian. To say that I was unimpressed would be something of an understatement!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/our-guardians-sleeping-on-the-job/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/our-guardians-sleeping-on-the-job/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 15, 2014, 11:53:41 AM
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:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/a-conversation-with-david-rose/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/a-conversation-with-david-rose/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 15, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
More Shock News!

We've just received a nice note from David Rose's editor at the Mail on Sunday. Needless to say we were less than impressed with the scientific evidence he presented to us. Read all about it at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/#Update-1 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/#Update-1)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: birthmark on March 15, 2014, 06:39:36 PM
"What is the a priori probability that anything Judy Curry says is correct?"
 An excellent and entertaining question! ;D

Thanks for taking on the Mail's nonsense, Jim.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 15, 2014, 08:07:56 PM
Thanks for your kind words birthmark, and it's my pleasure!

In fact I can't begin to express how much of a pleasure it is. ROFLMAO as Steve Goddard would probably "say"!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 16, 2014, 12:25:09 PM
Shock News! There has been some perturbation in the Force!

It seems I have somehow inadvertently managed to upset "Steve Goddard" yet again  :-[

Would anyone else care to play "Spot the difference" with Snow White and I?

http://archive.is/DY4np (http://archive.is/DY4np)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 16, 2014, 01:56:32 PM
Still no sign of any sudden absence of censorship at "Real Science" so.....

2014 max - http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/shock-news-real-science-censorship/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/shock-news-real-science-censorship/)

2013 melt - http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/ (http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 16, 2014, 04:28:22 PM
I was having a hard time keeping up with the Gish Gallop! Thankfully my alter ego and I have now been told (https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/statuses/445214252853231616):

Quote
And with that lie, you are now on ignore.

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/#Q11 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/some-sceptical-questions/#Q11)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 16, 2014, 08:01:48 PM
Sadly it seems that the "ignore" only applied to Twitter.

However after a bit of arm twisting Snow White's voice was eventually permitted to be heard at "Real Science". She's had her final warning though  :)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: TerryM on March 16, 2014, 11:30:10 PM
Probably more than a little OT but Dr. Rood's blog (with a little urging from OLN) seems to have cleaned up their moderation.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=290#commenttop (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=290#commenttop)
Without all the distractions it's now both readable & informative!
Terry
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 19, 2014, 09:09:32 PM
I now realise I'm falling behind here!

The "Real Science" blog eventually published four links to our previous searing indictment of their sadly lax editorial standards:

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

whilst maintaining it was all the fault of the WordPress spam filter. If Steve's blog was hosted on TypePad I might just have believed him!

In related news you may wish to keep an eye on this currently hastily "retracted" article in a learned journal:

"Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation (http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract)"

Should you wish to actually read the paper rather than the "non retraction" you could always try here (http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf) instead!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on March 20, 2014, 06:27:16 AM
Jim Hunt

That last article is actually great reading. I've spent the last 10 minutes cackling to myself.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 20, 2014, 10:50:26 AM
That last article is actually great reading. I've spent the last 10 minutes cackling to myself.

I'm glad you enjoyed it! For some additional background here's the original announcement about the paper on Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html)

In case it's not immediately evident, there's currently something of a furore about the fact that Frontiers in Psychology have "not retracted" the paper under pressure from "Conspiricist Ideationists"!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 20, 2014, 10:56:20 PM
Stephan Lewandowsky,  one of the authors of the "Recursive Fury" paper, has now released a video on the same topic.

Vimeo doesn't seem to embed in here successfully, but here's the URL at least (vimeo.com/89099432) or click the text link below.

Stephan Lewandowskay: In Whose Hands the Future? on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/89099432)

Quote
The video takes viewers on a personal and scientific journey into the murky world of climate denial and the blogs that serve as staging ground for attacks on climate scientists and other scholars and public intellectuals in the climate arena.

The video analyzes the public aspect of the attacks on scientists and presents evidence that the blogosphere’s discourse differs considerably from conventional scholarly discourse. Instead of providing scholarly critique, the discourse in the blogosphere fits many criteria for conspiratorial thinking. The video also reports some of the less visible, subterranean means of attack, such as the attempted intimidation of journal editors and publishers by parties external to the scientific process.

You will note that the Mail on Sunday get a mention!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 21, 2014, 03:16:46 PM
Stephan Lewandowsky has now published a blog post about the "Recursive Fury" controversy:

"Recursive Fury goes recurrent (http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html)"

Quote
Recursive Fury attracted some media attention (e.g., in the New York Times (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/unlocking-the-conspiracy-mindset/)) as well as critique. It should come as little surprise that this critique did not involve a scholarly response, such as submission of a rejoinder for peer review, but that it entailed a barrage of complaints to the University of Western Australia (UWA), where I was based at the time, and the journal Frontiers.

While not retracting the paper, Frontiers removed the article from its website in March 2013. The journal then commenced an arduous process of investigation which has now come to a conclusion.

Frontiers will post (or has posted) the following statement on its website today:

“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.”

In other words, the article is fine but Frontiers does not want to take the legal risk that its restoration on the website might entail.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 21, 2014, 04:54:48 PM
The Guardian has now joined in the fun:

"Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction)"

Quote
It's unfortunate that the Frontiers editors were unwilling to stand behind a study that they admitted was sound from an academic and ethical standpoint, especially since UWA concluded the paper would withstand a legal assault. This series of events should be a wake-up call to editors and publishers that they must remain resilient to organized campaigns by the blogosphere. Academics can no longer be confident that the Frontiers staff will stand behind them if they publish research in the journal and are subjected to similar frivolous attacks. Frontiers may very well be worse off having lost the confidence of the academic community than if they had called the bluffs of the contrarians threatening frivolous lawsuits.

Meanwhile Peter Sinclair's "Crock of the Week" seems to have managed to embed the video successfully at least:

"Stephan Lewandowsky: Confronting the Anti-Science Thought Police (http://climatecrocks.com/2014/03/21/stephen-lewandowsky-in-whose-hands-the-future/)"

Quote
Stealing data, hacking servers, dressing up as “computer technicians” to infiltrate scientific institutions, threatening scientists with death, and intimidation of scientific journals through internet trolling and threats of legal action.  All in a days work for the anti-science movement.

Quick – is this 2014 or 1420?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 22, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
Skeptical Science now has a list of all known coverage of the "Recurrent Recursive Fury" controversy:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=recurrentfury (http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=recurrentfury)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 22, 2014, 10:37:21 PM
Who'd have thought it. Who should I bump into badmouthing Stephan Lewandowsky on Twitter but a certain Mr. David Rose. Here's the resulting article, plus a piccie:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: crandles on March 23, 2014, 01:51:14 AM
Who'd have thought it. Who should I bump into badmouthing Stephan Lewandowsky on Twitter but a certain Mr. David Rose. Here's the resulting article, plus a piccie:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/)

Why is that badmouthing??? Isn't it saying Soviets falsely imprisoned dissidents and Lewandowsky is being treated in a similar way?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jdallen on March 23, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
Who'd have thought it. Who should I bump into badmouthing Stephan Lewandowsky on Twitter but a certain Mr. David Rose. Here's the resulting article, plus a piccie:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/recursive-fury-from-david-rose/)

Why is that badmouthing??? Isn't it saying Soviets falsely imprisoned dissidents and Lewandowsky is being treated in a similar way?

Actually, I believe the good Dr. Lewandowsky is being equated with the soviets ;)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 23, 2014, 11:19:04 AM
Why is that badmouthing??? Isn't it saying Soviets falsely imprisoned dissidents and Lewandowsky is being treated in a similar way?

Whilst sometimes it's hard to be certain, given the limited number of characters permitted in a "Tweet", in the context my interpretation was the same as jdallen's. "dissidents" = "climate change deniers" rather than "dissidents" = "climate scientists".
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 28, 2014, 08:39:35 PM
This was starting to clog up another thread, so to repeat myself somewhat, I now find myself accused of being a "religious True Believer" over in WattsLand:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/)

I was merely endeavouring to point out to all the climate change agnostics over there that even when you look at maximum extent the trend is evidently down:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChasingIce on March 28, 2014, 09:03:46 PM
My apologies for the derailment in the "other thread".

I was just pointing out that (to me) there is little to get excited about in regards to max extent when the minimum extent is the worrisome issue in regards to Arctic Ice.  Any agnostic looking at minimums would have a hard time coming up with anything whatsoever that could be viewed as a positive. 

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 29, 2014, 01:08:05 PM
My apologies for the derailment in the "other thread".

No apologies necessary. I didn't mean to imply I thought you were derailing the other thread. The fault is all mine!

In this case my investigations into some of the falsehoods perpetrated by the denialistas on both sides of the Atlantic  led me to comment about "long term trends" on a WUWT thread about the Arctic sea ice extent maximum. I don't expect to change anybody's mind over there, but in this instance it seemed appropriate to illustrate the glaring omission of such a relevant piece of information (IMHO of course!) from an article on the self styled "world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change".

In general terms, if one were presenting the evidence to someone with a proverbial "open mind" starting with the trend for extent minimum would indeed make more sense. Here's what my hastily constructed spreadsheet reveals on that front:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: crandles on March 30, 2014, 12:42:25 PM
In general terms, if one were presenting the evidence to someone with a proverbial "open mind" starting with the trend for extent minimum would indeed make more sense. Here's what my hastily constructed spreadsheet reveals on that front:

I think the hasty report to an open minded person would show extent, explaining that that is what is easily seen from satellite. However thickness is also falling and this is important:

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png)

Point out trend line for extent falls from 7.5 to 4.7 but for volume it is 15 down to 4.3 less than 30% left instead of 63% left.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 30, 2014, 02:14:29 PM
However thickness is also falling and this is important

Quite so. However sea ice thickness (and hence volume) is trickier to measure from a satellite. PIOMAS volume and ACNFS thickness are both outputs from computer models, and the denialistas don't trust computer models, except when it suits them of course! Would the average "open minded person in the street" be persuaded, particularly if they've already seen vast amounts of anti-model propaganda? See Skeptical Science climate myth #6 for example:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 05, 2014, 06:02:30 PM
According to the March 2014 edition of Arctic Sea Ice News (https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/04/arctic-sea-ice-at-fifth-lowest-annual-maximum/):

Quote
The percentage of the Arctic Ocean consisting of ice at least five years or older remains at only 7%, half of what it was in February 2007. Moreover, a large area of the multiyear ice has drifted to the southern Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea (north of Alaska and the Lena River delta), where warm conditions are likely to exist later in the year.

We thought we'd point out to any interested WUWTers that actually warm conditions have existed in the southern Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea for quite some time now. However it appears as if the powers that be in WattsLand had other ideas:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/whats-up-with-watts-moderation-episode-1/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/whats-up-with-watts-moderation-episode-1/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: pikaia on April 09, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
The IPCC has issued a reply to the Mail on Sunday's claim that there are errors in its latest assessment report:-

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/140406_statement_mail_online_statement.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/140406_statement_mail_online_statement.pdf)



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 09, 2014, 11:15:42 AM
The IPCC has issued a reply to the Mail on Sunday's claim that there are errors in its latest assessment report

David Rose has been "economical with the truth" once again, although in this case not specifically about the Arctic. The Mail on Sunday recently assured us they're not particularly interested in the Arctic (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/) at this time of year, so we're concentrating our attention on sins of omission in other parts of the denialosphere at present:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 09, 2014, 04:14:42 PM
I'm afraid I couldn't resist the temptation to have a little more fun at Watt's expense, particularly whilst he's in the middle of blowing his own trumpet:  http://archive.is/rKvkt (http://archive.is/rKvkt)



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 09, 2014, 07:20:43 PM
I appear to have inadvertently offended a WUWT moderator, simply by mentioning the word "volume"  :'(

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 10, 2014, 01:58:12 AM
Oh frabjous day!

Watts has called me a coward (http://archive.is/eW1st) in public whilst simultaneously posting a link to my sea ice videos and admitting that he really ought to be showing some sea ice volume plots to his loyal readership:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jdallen on April 10, 2014, 09:53:40 AM
Old aphorism from WW2 - you know you've hit your target when it blows up.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: birthmark on April 10, 2014, 02:13:09 PM
Not only do I condemn Watts, I'm willing to throw in some money in the hope that they'll construct a man in his place.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: prometheus on April 10, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
I'm really enjoying your interactions (as you've presented them here) with Watts and friends. I'm glad some people, including you, have the nerve to deal with those guys; I'm positively allergic to them. I have a hard time stomaching just visiting WUWT and other "skeptic" sites like that one, and won't even go near them anymore.

Is it just me, or was that disrespectful for him to call out your real name like that? Even if you have put it out there yourself on other sites, you chose to use a pseudonym on his and he just ignored that (it's a cool name too, btw, "Snow White." Very apropos.)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 10, 2014, 07:21:45 PM
I'm really enjoying your interactions (as you've presented them here) with Watts and friends.

You're very kind Prometheus. In this instance I really don't mind being "called out", disrespectful though it was. Apart from anything else it gives me good cause to discuss the reason for my "subterfuge". See for example my recent conversation with @theresphysics:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/454249457681330176 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/454249457681330176)

If you feel like "doing your bit" please do not hesitate to "retweet" anything that takes your fancy, or "like" the Facebook page, or comment on the blog etc. etc.

In the latest "shock news" from the denialosphere Watts has finally got around to releasing one of my ever helpful messages from his moderation queue. It contains this link:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 11, 2014, 12:09:52 PM
The WUWT spam folder is working overtime this morning:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/454528790598025217
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on April 11, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
Well, at least Monckton has said that the world is getting warmer.: (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image004_thumb1.png)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 11, 2014, 01:24:39 PM
Well, at least Monckton has said that the world is getting warmer.

You haven't actually read some of Monckton@WUWT have you?  :o

I note however that my pithy comment is still invisible to the assembled multitude.

Time for another blog post on censorship in the denialosphere?

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/shock-news-real-science-censorship/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/shock-news-real-science-censorship/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on April 11, 2014, 02:43:52 PM
I've read more of Monckton than I care to admit.

I just found it funny that he's prepared to go so far as to admit that the world has warmed over the past 20 years.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on April 11, 2014, 09:29:40 PM
Is it just me, or was that disrespectful for him to call out your real name like that?

Watts once revealed in which German town was living. I can only assume he was hoping I would run in to some neonazis who believe AGW is a communist hoax. The man's a coward and a hypocrite.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 11, 2014, 09:40:51 PM
It is not worth spending time on those guys.
I stopped giving them attention several years ago, and I think that is the best way to neutralize them.
As long as the opposition is not more serious I am not concerned.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 12, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
It is not worth spending time on those guys.

I know what you mean Espen, but for the moment I'm actually quite enjoying documenting the assorted little subterfuges of Messrs Monckton and Watts. By way of a topical example:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 12, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
As long as you let the marginalized pay a relatively high expense to reduce energy consumption, there will always be a breeding ground for all sorts of arguments.
Already about 15% of the German population can not afford to pay for the "green" transition, and too many do not really care about this huge problem, especially not the "power that be".
Always bear in mind, that an Austrian decorator was elevated to something really bad!
And remember those who have less to loose, also tend to care less!
So the question is who is going to pay, because it is not a free lunch?
And in Europe I believe we already have too many elitist projects going on, so the real problems together with many other issues will be putt on a back burner.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 13, 2014, 01:14:09 AM
Already about 15% of the German population can not afford to pay for the "green" transition

Do you have a reference for that?  That would be over 12,000,000 people. 

I find numbers for Germans having their electricity turned off in the 175,000 to 200,000 household range from reliable sources.  As much as 600,000 from the sorts of places that deny climate change.

And those numbers are for the people who had their electricity turned off for non-payment.  That does not mean that they are living without electricity, they could have experienced a temporary loss due to non-payment and then had it restored.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: JimD on April 13, 2014, 04:16:47 AM
Cannot afford does not mean the same thing as having your electricity shut off though.  For every household which does have that happen there would be many times more households struggling to make payments.  And how many people live in the average household? 

Quote
Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good

...In the near future, an average three-person household will spend about €90 a month for electricity. That's about twice as much as in 2000.

Two-thirds of the price increase is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes. But despite those price hikes, government pensions and social welfare payments have not been adjusted. As a result, every new fee becomes a threat to low-income consumers.
Consumer advocates and aid organizations say the breaking point has already been reached. Today, more than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills. Caritas and other charity groups call it "energy poverty."..

It is only gradually becoming apparent how the renewable energy subsidies redistribute money from the poor to the more affluent, like when someone living in small rental apartment subsidizes a homeowner's roof-mounted solar panels through his electricity bill.

Germany's renewable energy policy is particularly unfair with respect to the economy. About 2,300 businesses have managed to largely exempt themselves from the green energy surcharge by claiming, often with little justification, that they face tough international competition. Companies with less lobbying power, however, are required to pay the surcharge.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2014, 09:41:21 AM
Already about 15% of the German population can not afford to pay for the "green" transition

Do you have a reference for that?  That would be over 12,000,000 people. 

I find numbers for Germans having their electricity turned off in the 175,000 to 200,000 household range from reliable sources.  As much as 600,000 from the sorts of places that deny climate change.

And those numbers are for the people who had their electricity turned off for non-payment.  That does not mean that they are living without electricity, they could have experienced a temporary loss due to non-payment and then had it restored.

It was not meant as a denial argument, but more as a fact of life for many people.
And the denial of this problem, is where the real problem is!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 13, 2014, 10:03:08 AM
It was not meant as a denial argument, but more as a fact of life for many people.
And the denial of this problem, is where the real problem is!

For those from overseas who may not be aware of the genesis of the name, the "Great White Con" title is a parody of David Rose's "Great Green Con" meme, regularly aired with great delight by the Mail on Sunday.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 13, 2014, 06:50:22 PM
It was not meant as a denial argument, but more as a fact of life for many people.
And the denial of this problem, is where the real problem is!


12 million people?

My point was that even the denier sites are using a much lower number.  600 thousand households with 3 people average would be only 1.8 million.

The average monthly electricity bill in the US in 2012 was $110.   €90 is $125.  Not much more than what we pay in the US.



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2014, 07:29:59 PM
It was not meant as a denial argument, but more as a fact of life for many people.
And the denial of this problem, is where the real problem is!


12 million people?

My point was that even the denier sites are using a much lower number.  600 thousand households with 3 people average would be only 1.8 million.

The average monthly electricity bill in the US in 2012 was $110.   €90 is $125.  Not much more than what we pay in the US.

You are comparing oranges and apples, in the US (1402 kWh per capita) there is a very high use of air conditioners in private homes that is not the case in Germany (861 kWh per capita), and the price per KWH is much higher in Germany than most places in the world, I think the only country with higher KWH prices is Denmark (643 kWw per capita), and again due to wind power subsidies. But low income Danes receive a much higher wage in general than their German colleagues, they are not hurt in the same way, yet!

You are talking about how many Germans get their electricity supply cut, I am talking about how many Germans have hard times paying their electricity bills. Germans in general also receive a heating bill on top of that.

That said I don't believe in the wind power strategy, because you still need a CO2 driven back up system, I believe more in wave technology, this technology is not as ugly, noisy and unreliable as wind power.

It would be fair to let consumers pay a extremely high price for KWH used above the average use of the market, but that will never happen, for logical reasons.

From the Welt:
"Zehn bis 15 Prozent der Bevölkerung kämpfen damit, die stetig steigenden Energiekosten zu finanzieren."

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article106236425/Strom-ist-fuer-viele-Deutsche-unbezahlbar-geworden.html (http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article106236425/Strom-ist-fuer-viele-Deutsche-unbezahlbar-geworden.html)

http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh (http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh) 

And then you have Norway, with the highest low income wages in the world, with kWh prices less than US 6 cents per unit (hydro power) and with a very high per capita electric power consumption (2603 kWh per capita) due to heating. But they have on the other hand one of highest prices for gasolin USD 2,30 per liter or USD 8,75 per gallon. And highest per capita use of electric cars.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 13, 2014, 08:19:45 PM
Germans pay only 14% more than Americans for their electricity.  Their kWh rate is higher, but because they have had high rates well before renewables or the decision to close nuclear they are much more efficient in their use of electricity.

A 14% higher electricity cost would not, as far as I can understand, put 12,000,000 people in the dark.  Especially in a country where rents are 15% cheaper and food about 5% cheaper.

$200 per person per month for food = $600 per month for a three person household. Europeans would pay $30 less.

Average rent in the US is $1083.  15% less is $162.

More than makes up for the extra $15 electricity costs.

Monthly bill:monthly bill = apples:apples.

That said I don't believe in the wind power strategy, because you still need a CO2 driven back up system, I believe more in wave technology.

You are free to believe that, but the world does not believe with you.  We have no adequate way to harvest wave power.  And there are times during which wave action drops very low which makes wave a non-100% operating energy source.

All forms of electricity generation need backup.  Right now we use over-capacity, including but not exclusively fossil fuels.  Going forward we will continue to replace fossil fuels with storage and renewable generation.


It would be fair to let consumers pay a extremely high price for KWH used above the average use of the market, but that will never happen, for logical reasons.

Tiered billing based on usage is very common.  Standard practice here in CA.  PG&E has three tiers, 13c, 15c, 32c and 36c/kwh.

And then you have Norway, with the highest low income wages in the world, with kWh prices less than US 10 cents per unit (hydro power) and with a very high per capita electric power consumption due to heating.

You do realize, do you not, that several European countries have long applied taxes to electricity and vehicle fuel as a way to encourage efficiency and conservation?  That's why Europeans tend to drive much more efficient cars than do Americans.

The renewable energy surcharge in Germany is 5.3 euro cents.  There's 8.5c of taxes on each kWh of electricity that goes to the government general funds (VAT, etc.).

Norway is a producer and exported of oil.  The price of a gallon of regular gasoline in Norway (Sep. '13) was $10.08.

BTW EVs, especially the Tesla S, are selling like hotcakes in Norway.  Between being able to dodge taxes and the high price of fuel Norwegians are electrifying.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2014, 08:35:11 PM
The energy prices are not a problem for the average German or American, but German low income earners ,and they are extremely low paid, face the problem. That problem do you not answer!

And average US kWh price 12 cent is 66% less than German average price of 35 cent.

http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh (http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2014, 08:54:47 PM
And a few other of your numbers are apples and orange number.
Rent in the US is for private owned home (70 %) in general, whereas in Germany they are mainly rented (60 %)!
Food I don't believe is cheaper in Germany than the US, but I don't have the figures, it is only based on my personal experiences.

http://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/ (http://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of-the-worlds-lowest-homeownership-rates/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 13, 2014, 11:11:47 PM
And average US kWh price 12 cent is 66% less than German average price of 35 cent.

The important metric is how much it costs per month to keep the lights on.  Since Germans use far less, on average, their higher cost is largely offset.

Food I don't believe is cheaper in Germany than the US

This site disagrees with your impression.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Germany (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Germany)

Rent in the US is for private owned home (70 %) in general, whereas in Germany they are mainly rented (60 %)

People are paying less to rent in Germany.  That's the data.  Paying less for rent (and food) can easily make up for the $15/month utility bill difference.

Additionally, don't you suspect Germany has a stronger safety net than the libertarian "I've got mine, screw you" US?

But enough quibbling over $15 per month.  Where does the 12 million Germans without electricity come from?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 13, 2014, 11:28:58 PM
Personally I'd prefer it if we didn't get into a protracted discussion about the pros and cons of renewable energy here, but I will say this. My business card states that I'm a "smart grid consultant". I'm a member of RegenSW (http://www.regensw.co.uk/), an organisation which states that it "Is a leading centre of sustainable energy expertise and pioneering project delivery". Nonetheless I have actively campaigned against large scale solar PV "farms" on top quality agricultural land in my neck of the woods.

The perverse incentives produced by the renewables "subsidies" here in the UK lead to large sums of money being wasted on subsidised projects that are a total nonsense in terms of "saving the planet". This sort of stuff is grist to the mill of the likes of David Rose and the Mail on Sunday. The truth is bizarre enough, so they have no need to perpetrate falsehoods, which they undoubtedly do in the case of Arctic sea ice. The "Great Green Con" does actually have some basis in fact.

Returning to the topic of mass media misrepresentations about Arctic sea ice (AKA The Great White Con) here's some shock news about our latest counter argument, as recently recommended by Anthony Watts!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/new-arctic-sea-ice-resources/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/new-arctic-sea-ice-resources/)

Constructive criticism welcome! 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on April 14, 2014, 01:17:13 AM
I believe more in wave technology, this technology is not as ugly, noisy and unreliable as wind power.
Do you really think that wave power is a viable alternative to wind?
The only viable renewable energies currently are hydro (fully exploited in Germany), biomass/fuel (not enough land for fuel growth), solar (thermal - Germany is too cold; PV is expensive but possible), wind and geothermal.

The only real short-term renewable options in Germany are Solar and Wind with an option of geothermal in the future (due to longer planning timeframes). The other options either are lacking resources (biomass - land, and hydro - exploitable rivers) or the technology is underdeveloped.

As far as wave energy goes, Germany has it pretty bad.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F21%2FWorld_wave_energy_resource_map.png%2F800px-World_wave_energy_resource_map.png&hash=84909d814ffffcba12fcdcaca46543bf)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Anne on April 14, 2014, 01:24:13 AM
(message redacted for being a stupid question)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 14, 2014, 04:30:23 AM
Bob;

Whatever numbers you and I come up with, there are people struggling to pay their energy bills, and it is a elite view to argue that this is not a problem.  I am not German, but I visit Germany regularly.

Jim,

I know the pro and cons discussions are not that funny, at least not when one have just a little social conscience?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 14, 2014, 08:32:47 AM
Espen,

Personally I think your point is a valid one. As I hope I've made clear I think discussion of "The Great Green Con" versus "The Great White Con" is on topic here. More general pro/anti renewables "debates" are not, and will get in the way of discussing the issue you raise (all IMHO).

In the UK "fuel poverty" is a hot political potato, and both The Mail et al. and The Government are well aware of that fact:

http://econnexus.org/ed-davey-launches-cornwall-together-at-the-eden-project/ (http://econnexus.org/ed-davey-launches-cornwall-together-at-the-eden-project/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on April 14, 2014, 11:18:00 AM
Sorry Jim. I'll keep to the topic at hand.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Espen on April 14, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Jim,

What ever their names is Rose, Watt etc. all they do is knowing they have an audience for many of the reasons mentioned above. I dont mind wind power, s long it is far away from where I live.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 14, 2014, 12:16:49 PM
What ever their names is Rose, Watt etc. all they do is knowing they have an audience for many of the reasons mentioned above.

Quite so Espen. Here's more on local opposition to wind turbines over here in Soggy South West England:

http://econnexus.org/permission-refused-for-the-totnes-community-wind-farm/ (http://econnexus.org/permission-refused-for-the-totnes-community-wind-farm/)

Quote
I dont mind wind power, s long it is far away from where I live.

Do you personally dislike the sight of wind turbines, or the sound, or both? Here in the UK they strike me as making far more sense (from an engineering perspective) than large scale "agricultural" solar PV, for the reasons mentioned by Vaclav Smil (this from my "professional" blog):

http://www.v2g.co.uk/2012/07/renewable-energy-is-the-work-of-generations-of-engineers/ (http://www.v2g.co.uk/2012/07/renewable-energy-is-the-work-of-generations-of-engineers/)

However from a political perspective they unfortunately offer lots of ammunition to Rose, Watts and their ilk.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Siffy on April 14, 2014, 03:08:17 PM
Personally I'm not sure why we don't just go with Nuclear. The damn things kill a hell of a lot less people per kw/h produced than any other form of power and it's a hell of a lot better for the environment than burning fuels. Especially if you include the cost in lives from extraction of the fuel used.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: icefest on April 14, 2014, 05:07:33 PM

http://www.v2g.co.uk/2012/07/renewable-energy-is-the-work-of-generations-of-engineers/ (http://www.v2g.co.uk/2012/07/renewable-energy-is-the-work-of-generations-of-engineers/)

Thanks for the link,  I hadn't seen that Gates video yet.

For those interested one of the book that's mentioned by him is freely available here:

It's great reading - I haven't come across any 'ammunition' yet though.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf)

@Siffy, Shall we move the nuclear conversation over to http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,776.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,776.0.html) We seem to be getting off topic.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 17, 2014, 01:29:03 PM
The so called "Real Science" blog has been badmouthing Al Gore recently. I'm afraid I couldn't let that slight on Al's predictive abilities go unchallenged. Steve Goddard evidently didn't care for my suggestion that he "is fond of poetic license", so my alter ego is "now spam" there too:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/456747699639832576
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Nightvid Cole on April 24, 2014, 02:39:33 AM
The so called "Real Science" blog has been badmouthing Al Gore recently. I'm afraid I couldn't let that slight on Al's predictive abilities go unchallenged. Steve Goddard evidently didn't care for my suggestion that he "is fond of poetic license", so my alter ego is "now spam" there too:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/456747699639832576

What'll happen if we get to ~9/20/2016 without the ice disappearing? Even if we have a minimum of 1.1 M km^2, I'm sure Goddard will claim victory once again.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 29, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
A fellow Exonian is getting lots of stick at WUWT at the moment:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/debating-skeptics-is-like-mud-wrestling-with-pigs/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/debating-skeptics-is-like-mud-wrestling-with-pigs/)

In case anyone is interested in such matters I now find myself in a conversation with Dr. Stephan Harrison of Exeter University about "the behaviour of the Southern Westerlies during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene" over at And Then There's Physics (http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/mud-wrestling-with-a-pig/):

http://youtu.be/-0VQWeA3QRo (http://youtu.be/-0VQWeA3QRo)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 13, 2014, 05:19:46 PM
In related news it gives me great pleasure to announce that I have just received a personal "Thank you" note from Richard Tol for contributing an image of the crumbling sea ice at the North Pole to his shiny new "IPCC Wiki (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,860.0.html)".
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 10, 2014, 09:06:00 PM
This deserves a couple of blog posts at least, but I'm off to watch "Thin Ice (http://freecinemaexeter.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/thin-ice/)" shortly.

Fresh from debating the thoughts of Richard Tol at WUWT I had the temerity to suggest that all those in WattsLand attempting to forecast the September 2014 Arctic sea ice extent could usefully use some facts and figures concerning thickness and volume. Here's what happened next:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/476405196570886144 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/476405196570886144)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on June 10, 2014, 09:12:28 PM
I saw that, Jim. Last year's 'recovery' (where even the WUWT community predicted too low) has emboldened them, it seems, to vote for very high September average SIE minimums. Although this year has some superficial resemblances with 2013, I wouldn't be too sure about a repeat. There are also a couple of similarities with the years preceding 2013.

But anyway, Watts says that they're voting for extent, and as volume has no influence whatsoever on extent (both unrelated from each other, just like the Arctic isn't part of the planet we are all living on), it makes no sense at all to keep an eye on SMOS, CryoSat-2, IceBridge and PIOMAS.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 10, 2014, 11:57:10 PM
Jim HIJACKING WUWT. Didn't know Joe understood what that meant. ;) ;D  Think that is a pot with a burnt out bottom on that subject.
For one who accuses every other site for fudging data his does an absolutely amazing job.
Congats. I am one who enjoys your fine work.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 11, 2014, 01:30:56 AM
Thanks for your kind words folks.

I've just got back from a very interesting evening NOT watching "Thin Ice". The movie was never delivered! Instead I found myself chucking ideas around with the remnants of Occupy Exeter. Anyone know of a design for an electricity generating exercise bike?

It seems that after reading the runes the favoured number in WattsLand is 6.25 million km2, and all of a sudden the WUWT sea ice reference page is now dated June 10th!

P.S. It seems the Watts forecast involves "submit[ing] the weighted average value of the top 5 vote-getters" which in this instance works out to "A value of 6.12 million sq km [which] will be sent to ARCUS".

Here's the icing on the cake:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 11, 2014, 04:12:45 AM
Not sure where to put put this or if you have seen it. Warnings 1 1/4 long and very depressing. Put together in part by Canada's own deniers favourite whipping boy Dr David Suzuki.
Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4)
Did find some projections emphasized a bit to dramatic such as repeating Dr. David Waddell's prediction of 2015 as no ice in Arctic, but all in all I believe much closer to target them many other examples we could see.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Xyrus on June 11, 2014, 09:15:50 PM
Thanks for your kind words folks.

I've just got back from a very interesting evening NOT watching "Thin Ice". The movie was never delivered! Instead I found myself chucking ideas around with the remnants of Occupy Exeter. Anyone know of a design for an electricity generating exercise bike?

It seems that after reading the runes the favoured number in WattsLand is 6.25 million km2, and all of a sudden the WUWT sea ice reference page is now dated June 10th!

P.S. It seems the Watts forecast involves "submit[ing] the weighted average value of the top 5 vote-getters" which in this instance works out to "A value of 6.12 million sq km [which] will be sent to ARCUS".

Here's the icing on the cake:

I'm surprised you still bother. Since just about every comment I've ever made over there got modded to oblivion, I just let Watts stew in his own stupidity along with the rest of the nutters over there. From a scientific literacy and honesty standpoint, WUWT is pretty much the king of ignorance and idiocy. You will never convince anyone over there of anything, even IF your comments make it through moderation.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 12, 2014, 12:36:27 AM
I'm surprised you still bother.

I don't spend all day every day there. On this occasion I'd been writing about TolGate, since energy policy is of professional interest to me:

http://econnexus.org/tag/richard-tol/ (http://econnexus.org/tag/richard-tol/)

I was intrigued to discover how WUWT would spin things, and then one thing led to another! Once the overt censorship kicks in I feel an irresistible urge to document the machinations for posterity. I don't labour under the misapprehension that any of the regulars will suddenly see the light, but sometimes I wonder how many lurkers and casual visitors pass by, and what they make of all the nonsense.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 12, 2014, 01:45:19 AM
I myself never comment, but on occasion I do visit. I think it more as a comedy club. Theme is How far can you turn science into a pretzel and still keep your target audience coming. So when I am feeling down about how bad things are and going to get, I visit there. They never stop amazing me at what they can say and not only that how many really believe it. Granted very sad in real life terms but for a laugh.... sorry but I really find them very funny.
Mind you I live in the neck of the world where there is a mayor that is the #1 comedy source for late night tv shows. Incredibly I think his brother who is a council member of the same city is not that much better.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 12, 2014, 02:36:16 PM
Anthony Watts assures me via Twitter that "You have only your own self and commenting style to blame". Needless to say I beg to differ:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/06/forecasting-sea-ice-extent-in-the-dark/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/06/forecasting-sea-ice-extent-in-the-dark/)

I hope that at the very least all and sundry will find the "Gish Gallop in 72 seconds" video useful!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 12, 2014, 06:59:26 PM
@ Jim just got caught up with things and saw you query about bicycles.
Starting point Bike powered electricity generators are not sustainable (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/05/bike-powered-electricity-generators.html). Answer to it.http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/05/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories.html (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/05/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories.html)
Quote
The main problem with our approach to pedal powered machines is that we compare them to fossil fuel powered machines and not to the inefficient human powered tools and machines that went before them. This explains why pedal power is often laughed at in the western world but enthusiastically welcomed in the developing world, where, for instance, methods of agriculture still rely heavily on the use of human power using primitive tools which are usually inefficient. This is a scenario in which light is produced by dirty and inefficient kerosine lamps, or where there is no light at all.
Ironically, communities in the poorest countries in the world are developing into sustainable societies independent of fossil fuels, enjoying basic but modern comforts, while we continue to be ever more dependent on increasingly dirty, dangerous and diminishing energy sources.
In comment section
Quote
When discussing use of DC power to avoid losses due to added electronics needed, the article states ''there are no DC-laptops'' for example.
The opposite is true, there are no AC laptops. Invariably, there is a power brick/transformer which converts residential AC (220 or 110) into DC, between 14 and 18 VDC, depending on the laptop model. So one merely needs to now the output voltage of the power brick to determine how to feed a laptop.
In 1st article mentioned great lose due to cd-ac conversion. shows great lack of understanding almost everything we use can either be used with dc or ac, or has a transformer built in or atched at cord that converts  ac-dc. Another point 1st article kept bring up was batteries, almost all 3rd world uses it directly to power thing and it is up to human to govern power.  Too much 1st thinking.
For a little humor.http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/driver-of-flintstonemobile-charged-gets-day-in-court.html (http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/driver-of-flintstonemobile-charged-gets-day-in-court.html)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: TerryM on June 12, 2014, 07:08:16 PM

Mind you I live in the neck of the world where there is a mayor that is the #1 comedy source for late night tv shows. Incredibly I think his brother who is a council member of the same city is not that much better.


Hope you're taking the time to vote for a Wynner today[size=78%]
Terry[/size]
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 12, 2014, 07:15:42 PM
@Terry: Live in Hamilton which is real left. Believe the 2 ladies can tango, the guy is so far right he still believes that if you give all the money in the world to the rich they will in turn help the poor. Too bad he sees history with poor eye sight. That belongs only to the very small minority. More common is a conversation I overheard All the cutbacks we have made have been good... more money in my pocket.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 12, 2014, 07:17:02 PM
Sorry of OT politics. Election day where I live.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 12, 2014, 07:37:59 PM
@ Jim just got caught up with things and saw you query about bicycles.

Many thanks LRC. Some comprehensive reference material, which I have now passed on.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on June 12, 2014, 10:28:35 PM
I'm not going to get into a slanging match with WUWT, I've made clear my low opinion of them elsewhere repeatedly, but this year on this matter as I am entering the SIPN with my own forecast I don't think it would be proper behaviour.

However I will make an observation.

Taking the NSIDC Extent losses from 11 June daily extent to the September average extent for each year from 1979 to 2013, and applying these losses to the current 2014 extent gives the following results.

Out of 35 years 13 produce a result equal to or above 6.12. I consider it appropriate that in the absence of stated bounds I apply the test '>=' because of the high sided distribution of votes in their pole.

However this does not constitute an almost 1/2 probability of success because summer losses are increasing.

Losses from 11 June to min have been increasing, indeed there are only two successes in the period 1998 to 2013, (2001 & 2006). While the average minimum extent using this method for 1980 to 1999 is 5.35M km^2, by 2007 to 2013 the average hindcast minimum extent is only 4.85M km^2. Losses from 11 June to September average extent having increased from an average of 5.35M km^2 for 1980 to 1999, to an average of 6.73M km^2 for the period 2007 to 2012, a 1/4 increase. Even the recent 'muted melt' of 2013 is clearly in the post 2007 camp at loss of 6.46 between 11 June and the September average extent.

As I have made an entry to the SIPN for June I should examine my own prediction. Taking the 2007 to 2013 losses and applying those to the 11 June 2014 Extent and the range of the 7 predictions is 4.22M to 5.46M km^2. My prediction for the SIPN, based solely on May PIOMAS data and no considerations of ice state in June, has a range of 3.48M to 4.62M km^2, an overlap of 0.4M km^2 or 35% of my range. With the failure of large extent loss so far my numbers for 2014 based on 2007 to 2012 volume (all hindcasts within bounds) are looking too low, but extent isn't like volume, it can drop fast when conditions are right - volume is limited by insolation.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 23, 2014, 04:20:29 PM
Steve Goddard reckons that the currently sluggish DMI central Arctic temperatures are an "Alarmists’ Worst Nightmare". As usual, I beg to differ:

"The Pseudo Skeptics’ Worst Nightmare? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/06/the-pseudo-skeptics-worst-nightmare/)"



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jdallen on June 23, 2014, 06:02:27 PM
Steve Goddard reckons that the currently sluggish DMI central Arctic temperatures are an "Alarmists’ Worst Nightmare". As usual, I beg to differ:

"The Pseudo Skeptics’ Worst Nightmare? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/06/the-pseudo-skeptics-worst-nightmare/)"
<head shake>

They really don't get us, do they?

I take pleasure in the scholarship we share.

I am gratified intellectually when my understanding is affirmed.

I am terrified of the conclusions my understanding leads me to.

I would accept failure with profound relief.

The only nightmare is the fact We are probably right.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on June 24, 2014, 12:01:33 AM
@jdallen: I second that.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 24, 2014, 01:29:06 PM
I would accept failure with profound relief.

The only nightmare is the fact We are probably right.

Thirded
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ghoti on June 27, 2014, 06:40:22 PM
I see in the Guardian that the BBC is addressing their own con and false balance problems.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/26/commonsense-prevails-as-bbc-upholds-today-programme-climate-complaint (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/26/commonsense-prevails-as-bbc-upholds-today-programme-climate-complaint)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Anne on June 27, 2014, 07:54:08 PM
About time, too! The BBC's approach has been appallingly unscientific. This from the Guardian article you linked to sums it up perfectly:
Quote
While BBC science and environment correspondents generally do an excellent job of reporting news about climate change, many of its presenter-led programmes mislead their audiences by attempting on occasion to be impartial between facts and fallacies.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChrisReynolds on July 01, 2014, 08:52:11 PM
The BBC did establish an editorial position of accepting the findings of the IPCC a few years back. That p---ed off the denialists mightily, and seriously cramped their style. When the last IPCC report was published Gavin Esler had (IIRC) Lindzen on News 24, he skillfully maneouvered Lindzen into a corner after Lindzen had been effectively insinuating that the IPCC was a scam - Lindzen would not answer the question (repeatedly put) as to why the IPCC would lie.

To do so would have brought all of Lindzen's bizarre psychological ticks into the open - he's a dyed in the wool nutcase.

Unfortunately nobody has uploaded that one to Youtube.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on July 06, 2014, 10:39:14 PM
Rose is at it again, eh?  ;D
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 07, 2014, 11:19:20 AM
Rose is at it again, eh?  ;D

So it would seem. Another performance of the David & Judy show, with an extra bit of Mountford (sic) & Goddard thrown in for good measure.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 26, 2014, 04:01:15 PM
"Steven Goddard" is at it again. Apparently a brief hiatus in DMI extent is compelling evidence for a "spectacular recovery of Arctic sea ice". He's also recently revealed that he's been hiding behind a pseudonym all these years:

Does Tony Heller Need To Be Prosecuted? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/does-tony-heller-need-to-be-prosecuted/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2014, 01:02:02 PM
What is the world coming to?

The Mail on Sunday has fixed the typo of Montford's name as David Rose quotes him quoting Goddard.

Goddard has "come out" and revealed his true identity.

The Australian Press Council tells The Australian it can't get away with blaming the Mail on Sunday and/or the Wall Street Journal for the climate lies Graham Lloyd has penned:

"Shock News! Murdoch Plagiarises David Rose Errors (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/shock-news-murdoch-plagiarises-david-rose-errors/)"

Last but not least I've just spotted the BBC's Andrew Neil being economical with the truth about Arctic sea ice extent on Twitter.

According to Andrew "This summer's Arctic sea ice extent at 10 year record high (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/andrew-neil-fails-simple-maths-test/)" whereas according to Jim Pettit IJIS extent is "Seventh lowest value for the date (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,743.msg32716/topicseen.html#msg32716)"

Where will it all end?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 29, 2014, 01:49:54 PM
What is the world coming to?

The Mail on Sunday has fixed the typo of Montford's name as David Rose quotes him quoting Goddard.

Goddard has "come out" and revealed his true identity.

The Australian Press Council tells The Australian it can't get away with blaming the Mail on Sunday and/or the Wall Street Journal for the climate lies Graham Lloyd has penned:

"Shock News! Murdoch Plagiarises David Rose Errors (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/shock-news-murdoch-plagiarises-david-rose-errors/)"

Last but not least I've just spotted the BBC's Andrew Neil being economical with the truth about Arctic sea ice extent on Twitter.

According to Andrew "This summer's Arctic sea ice extent at 10 year record high (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/andrew-neil-fails-simple-maths-test/)" whereas according to Jim Pettit IJIS extent is "Seventh lowest value for the date (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,743.msg32716/topicseen.html#msg32716)"

Where will it all end?
;-)

First, JAXA extent isn't a a ten-year "high"; it's at a six-year high. 2008 had substantially more extent on this date. So did 2005. So did 2006.

Second, though it's currently in seventh, 2010 was only 47k lower, and 2009 less than 30k lower. Those differences can, of course, be erased with one decent decrease. IOW, 2014 is statistically tied for fifth.

Third--and probably most importantly--Arctic sea ice extent is the seventh lowest its been in what some scientists say is likely many thousands of years. So even if extent were truly "at a ten-year high"--or even a 100-year high--it's still startlingly low.

David Neil is a buffoon...

Your website is awesome, by the way...
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: crandles on July 29, 2014, 03:51:13 PM
As far as I can see he only said extent and not by which data.

This is a bit hard to tell but it seems possible that this measure of extent was highest of the last 10 years just a couple of days ago when the claim was made.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fold_icecover.uk.php&hash=4f20935985637d1f47f848c0d12f262b)

Most records have this year around 5th to 7th lowest, so if he follows them all then perhaps he is cherry picking the best to make his point. If he only follows that particular measure.

Does trying to call him out on this when maybe it is a bit dubious but arguably correct really help or just make you look stupid or equally agenda driven as them or maybe just that arguments are ongoing?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2014, 04:03:54 PM
Does trying to call him out on this when maybe it is a bit dubious but arguably correct really help or just make you look stupid or equally agenda driven as them or maybe just that arguments are ongoing?

I look stupid most of the time crandles!

Goddard/Heller is also pushing the "Summer 2014 Arctic sea ice extent is at a 10 year record high" meme, which would thus seem to be denier flavour of the month. I figured I'd try to get my retaliation in a bit earlier this year, rather than wait for all the nonsense that's sure to arrive come mid September.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2014, 04:07:44 PM

David Neil is a buffoon...

In fact a whole host of buffoons!

Quote
Your website is awesome, by the way...

Thanks for your kind words.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2014, 08:54:15 PM
Andrew Neil has decided to engage with me on Twitter, albeit on a slightly different topic:

https://twitter.com/afneil/statuses/494190545674457089

I figure he's the one behind the curve, but what do I know?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2014, 09:02:23 PM
Andrew has now apologised profusely to me for his initially brusque manner:

https://twitter.com/afneil/statuses/494194941535739905
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 29, 2014, 09:48:09 PM
Does trying to call him out on this when maybe it is a bit dubious but arguably correct really help or just make you look stupid or equally agenda driven as them or maybe just that arguments are ongoing?

Why does it have to "help"? Calling out nonsense is a good and noble thing, if you ask me. Besides, it's cathartic...and we can all use a little catharsis, amirite? ;-)

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" -- Thomas Jefferson
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 30, 2014, 12:04:27 AM
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" -- Thomas Jefferson

Strangely enough that's the way things seem to me also.

This caused me another giggle. Try Googling:

https://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+neil+sea+ice (https://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+neil+sea+ice)

Do you see the same thing I see?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ChasingIce on July 30, 2014, 01:31:38 AM
this may of been answered, but I don't see the point in engaging Goddard, and giving him more hits in a cool season compared to the average.  If this turns out to be a cool year, you've just fed the fire.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 30, 2014, 08:36:45 AM
This may of been answered, but I don't see the point in engaging Goddard, and giving him more hits in a cool season compared to the average.  If this turns out to be a cool year, you've just fed the fire.

It hasn't been answered. I'm not giving him more hits, directly at least. I link to archives of pseudo-skeptic sites. Strange to relate, but according to Google analytics the traffic GWC gets from "Real Science" and WUWT is of better "quality" than from the ASIB or ASIF. What's more as Jim P puts it "Calling out nonsense is a good and noble thing" and "we can all use a little catharsis"!

Do you see any point in "retweeting" this?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/494366040772870144 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 30, 2014, 01:19:48 PM
I realise that I must look stupid, and I know that I have an extremely warped sense of humour, but I'm afraid I'm currently rolling around on the floor laughing at this one:

Shock News! Breathtakingly Ignorant Deranged Blogger Batting 1,000 This Summer (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/07/shock-news-breathtakingly-ignorant-deranged-blogger-batting-1000-this-summer/)

Quote
My pleasure Steve/Tony.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 31, 2014, 01:09:10 PM
For some strange reason I find this link even more entertaining than the last one, which has now been updated to include this one:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/494799677288886274

Quote
Ditto!

 ;)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 31, 2014, 04:31:45 PM
This exchange with Steve/Tony on Twitter strikes me as being rather revealing:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/494850475767128064
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: greatdying2 on July 31, 2014, 06:20:30 PM
This exchange with Steve/Tony on Twitter strikes me as being rather revealing:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/494850475767128064

Quote from: Steve-Tony via Twit
I am about to put you on ignore, because you are a waste of time.
Ironically, there's another quote earlier from him about how he knows what's going on because he uses the "scientific method" (but it's a waste of my time to dig it up).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 31, 2014, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: Steve-Tony via Twit
I am about to put you on ignore, because you are a waste of time.
Ironically, there's another quote earlier from him about how he knows what's going on because he uses the "scientific method" (but it's a waste of my time to dig it up).

Irony abounds at (un)Real Science! Paraphrasing Dr. Johnson slightly, ignore-ance is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 01, 2014, 01:22:03 PM
Snow White has just wet her knickers - https://archive.today/mPodY#selection-1307.0-1319.27
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 01, 2014, 10:42:20 PM
Somewhat belatedly I now have David Rose in my sights again:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/495307002202292224

and "Goddard" is still pushing the "10 year record" line this evening (UTC):

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/495301295830761472
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 02, 2014, 01:58:19 PM
Great White Con are proud to present round 2 of the contest for the title of "Greatest Arctic Sea Ice Prophet on the Planet".

In the red corner "Snow White". In the blue corner "Steve Goddard":

The Greatest Arctic Sea Ice Prophet on the Planet? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/08/the-greatest-arctic-sea-ice-prophet-on-the-planet/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: anthropocene on August 03, 2014, 03:04:44 AM
Hi Jim,

I have read through several of the threads with Steve Goddard on his and your blogs and on Twitter. Please believe me (as someone who accepts the concepts of global warming and the very real dangers we face) that I severely doubt this is achieving anything. In fact, if anything it most probably has negative impact on the cause. As somebody who has above average knowledge of the cryosphere I am sometimes lost on what you and Steve Goddard are disagreeing about. To a curious reader it must just seem like two opposing views slinging mud at each other hoping some will stick. The twitter exchanges are particularly so lacking in context and hard data that the discussion is not moved on by each new tweet. Of course you are free to do whatever you think is best and what suits you most at this moment int time. But I have to conclude that this is only likely to help the "other side" because all they have to do is confuse the situation and maintain the status quo in order to succeed.
  Maybe there are other ways to show the opposing position up for the untenable position it is. For example, do the 'other side' agree that the 2014 arctic temperature record is correct? Goddard has posted a blog crowing about the below average temperature in summer 2014 so presumably they do. How about asking them to integrate that temperature record over both winter and summer and seeing how far above average temperature the value is. The same values could then be presented for 2013, 2012 etc. and ask the 'other side' to explain how this could occur if the world is not warming.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Hi anthropocene,

His name is Tony Heller. Please at least use quotes if you utter those words in here. Then wash your mouth out with freshly liquidised first year ice: https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/494766116980666368

I have to conclude that this is only likely to help the "other side" because all they have to do is confuse the situation and maintain the status quo in order to succeed.

At this point in time I'm more than happy for most people to be confused, particularly if they are from the "dark side". Did you try the Google experiment I suggested earlier? What do you make of this "Tweet" in particular?

https://twitter.com/afneil/statuses/494194941535739905
 
Quote
How about asking them to integrate that temperature record over both winter and summer and seeing how far above average temperature the value is.

My crystal ball suggests that they wouldn't listen. They'd say rude things about me instead, or simply delete the comment. Shall we give it a try?

I've recently received all the data from DMI, so if you want to try that little experiment for yourself please just let me know. Top of my to do list is getting to grips with GIMP as soon as I have an hour or two to spare: https://archive.today/Ol1UT#selection-2093.0-2105.26

P.S. Here you go: https://archive.today/iiCbM#selection-3209.0-3221.26
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: notjonathon on August 03, 2014, 11:49:23 AM
Congratulations, Jim. You've been concern trolled.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
Congratulations, Jim. You've been concern trolled.

Thanks for the badge NotJon. I shall wear it with pride!

Meanwhile in the aquatic denialosphere, a big fish has taken the bait. Even though I'm universally acknowledged (http://www.webcitation.org/6RYGFwtE8) as the world's leading expert on surfing in the Arctic (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,624.msg27102.html#msg27102), the Daily Telegraph has absent-mindedly misplaced my helpful Arctic surfing tips :(

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/495910171928178689 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/495910171928178689)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 04:13:22 PM
I gave the ToryGraph a stern talking to, and my helpful tip has been restored to its former glory:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282159/could-global-warming-bring-surfing-to-the-arctic/#comment-1524046618 (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282159/could-global-warming-bring-surfing-to-the-arctic/#comment-1524046618)

Would anyone care to pop over there and give me the thumbs up? Scroll down a bit and there's a another comment with my ugly mug on it, which includes a link to the ASIF.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 04:45:26 PM
Apparently this is the explanation. Seemingly the Disqus spam filter has a configurable delay?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 04:54:54 PM
The archived copy of my original comment looked like this for a while. Now I can't access archive.today (https://archive.today/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282159/could-global-warming-bring-surfing-to-the-arctic/) at all  :(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 03, 2014, 05:25:09 PM
Now there's another lonely link that needs more love:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282159/could-global-warming-bring-surfing-to-the-arctic/#comment-1524332847 (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100282159/could-global-warming-bring-surfing-to-the-arctic/#comment-1524332847)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 04, 2014, 05:47:17 AM
Archive.today is working again now, after a fashion. By way of example see:

https://archive.today/YOxv3

and

https://archive.today/7rCZG

Should we break out the bubbly?

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 04, 2014, 02:51:20 PM
You've always suspected it, but here is the conclusive proof.

"Goddard" is a w@nker - https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/496273016830324738

He can't even read his own cherry picked charts.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 04, 2014, 05:44:59 PM
The Telegraph Online moderators are still being evasive:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: notjonathon on August 04, 2014, 07:12:14 PM
You haven't read the fine print--you know, the place where it says using the truth to buttress your arguments is a violation of Mail policy. At least that seems to be the general rule with Murdoch publications.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 04, 2014, 07:52:39 PM
You haven't read the fine print

I have in this case. The Telegraph's moderation policy (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/aboutus/mytelegraph/12/moderation-faqs/) doesn't forbid links for example. I can't see any way my comment violated that policy. I called the Telegraph again, but no substantive response has been forthcoming as yet.

I've also been in touch with archive.today, whose response conforms to the "cock up" theory of history, rather than the "conspiracy" theory. The Telegraph's DMCA relates only to the top level URLs that include the "Telegraph" name. Individual snapshots are still OK it seems.

Yesterday's outage of archive.today was apparently caused by a power cut!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: notjonathon on August 05, 2014, 01:36:41 AM
Mine was more a political observation than a legal one. I'm sure you have been quite thorough in your investigation.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 05, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
The investigation continues! It seems Andrew Neil thinks that he knows more about surfing in the Arctic than I do.

Andrew will soon discover that he has another think coming!

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/496528105612128256
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 05, 2014, 08:24:23 PM
My mate "Cotty" has picked up the "ToryGraph Arctic Surfing" ball on Facebook and is now running with it on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/496654205617061891
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: NeilT on August 06, 2014, 12:21:42 AM
You've always suspected it, but here is the conclusive proof.

"Goddard" is a w@nker - https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/496273016830324738

He can't even read his own cherry picked charts.

He got booted from wattsupwiththat for not knowing the science around the invariant point of water and then shouting everyone down who did.  Andrew cut him off himself and shortly after he was gone to his own site.....

He's not actually good enough to be a w@nker though....
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 06, 2014, 01:40:23 AM
I unexpectedly found myself being invited to introduce a showing of "Thin Ice" at Free Cinema Exeter this evening:

http://freecinemaexeter.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/thin-ice-2/ (http://freecinemaexeter.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/thin-ice-2/)

I mentioned the ASIB and ASIF on several occasions, and I received an unexpected round of applause when I sat down. As part of my ad hoc presentation I conducted a quick straw poll. Everybody had heard of Andrew Neil. Nobody had heard of David Rose and/or his "Great Green Con". Nobody read The Mail or The Telegraph, and so nobody had seen an image of a surfing polar bear recently. One person had heard of (and indeed attended) the recent Transformational Climate Science conference (http://skepticalscience.com/transformational-climate-science-exeter-university.html) at Exeter University. One person had previously visited the Arctic Sea Ice Forum.

Nobody had heard of Andrew Cotton (http://www.andrewcotton.co.uk/), but I nevertheless pointed out that Devon surfers were in general not impressed by The Telegraph's recent piss poor piss take (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/496528105612128256) of Arctic Surfing.

There also seemed to be a general consensus that hanging Andrew Neil by his balls from a Christmas tree would be a really good idea, and so (metaphorically at least) we will pursue that aim with all possible speed at GreatWhiteCon.info (http://greatwhitecon.info/tag/andrew-neil/).

For discussion about the movie itself rather than the ultimate fate of the Arctic accident prone Mr. Neil please go to:

"Thin Ice" - The Movie (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,944)"
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 06, 2014, 02:28:10 AM
He's not actually good enough to be a w@nker though....

But despite that fact Andrew Neil is regurgitating his fantasies in public places. Not a smart move I would suggest Andrew!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 06, 2014, 01:59:37 PM
I'm very much afraid that we North Devon surfers have taken umbrage over what we perceive to be a piss poor piss take (PPPT for short) from the ToryGraph and plagiarists thereof about what it really takes to be able to surf the Arctic basin:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-worlds-leading-arctic-surfing-expert/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-worlds-leading-arctic-surfing-expert/)

Fiddling with the facts in Fleet Street. Just say NO!

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D602.0%3Battach%3D9359%3Bimage&hash=fd48f9cc2cb56810cc072cb541d5ff83)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 06, 2014, 03:31:33 PM
When it comes to surfing the Arctic basin, fiddling with Photoshop in Fleet Street just doesn't cut the mustard!

http://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/496994932041986048 (http://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/496994932041986048)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: seaice.de on August 06, 2014, 03:58:34 PM
When it comes to surfing the Arctic basin, fiddling with Photoshop in Fleet Street just doesn't cut the mustard!

http://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/496994932041986048 (http://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/496994932041986048)

You definitely should watch the film about Station Alpha.

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02184_station_alpha/index.html (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02184_station_alpha/index.html)

28:08 Aquaplaning:

As you can see here, out of the ordinary was not always the same as
safe. Having grown up in the middle of the Alps, I have to admit that I
was always a little afraid of the ocean when it was not frozen and deeper
than up to my neck. So I have no longer any idea what possessed me
to do this without a wet suit.
Someone sent a picture of this to Sports Illustrated, but I don’t know if
anyone ever noticed. I do know, however, that plywood aquaplaning in
ice water at the North Pole did not become a popular sport.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 06, 2014, 04:16:53 PM
So I have no longer any idea what possessed me to do this without a wet suit.

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'd need my 5mm winter suit on at the very least before I tried any sports of that sort anywhere near the North Pole!

Quote
Someone sent a picture of this to Sports Illustrated, but I don’t know if anyone ever noticed. I do know, however, that plywood aquaplaning in ice water at the North Pole did not become a popular sport.

Here's me in my summer suit on a sponge. Isn't the Drifting Station Alpha video available for immediate download in this day and age?

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: seaice.de on August 06, 2014, 08:31:58 PM
Here's me in my summer suit on a sponge. Isn't the Drifting Station Alpha video available for immediate download in this day and age?
Unfortunately not yet. But you can order a free DVD copy through the NSIDC website. The AIDJEX documentation is very worthwile viewing too.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 08, 2014, 12:58:53 AM
But you can order a free DVD copy through the NSIDC website.

I've tried that. I've received any acknowledgement but it asks for my mailing address, which is included in said acknowledgement!

In the meantime I can't help but wonder how long this will remain visible at (un)RealScience:

https://archive.today/mpKJ3#selection-1911.0-1923.27
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 08, 2014, 10:50:38 AM
I fear "Snow White" might inadvertently wet her knickers one again:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fiddling+with+the+facts+on+fleet+street (https://www.google.com/search?q=fiddling+with+the+facts+on+fleet+street)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 15, 2014, 06:40:38 PM
Further to my recent Gimp driving lessons (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=942), I currently find myself being accused of all sorts of nefarious activities over at (un)Real Science:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/more-detail-on-the-arctic-catastrophe/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/more-detail-on-the-arctic-catastrophe/)

Quote
Jim, why did you change the color code from the one used at the site? Why do you color all ice below roughly nine feet thick white? Why doesn’t your map include a key, so that people can see that what is blue in your map is green in our hosts map?

I would say you are the one who is generating a false impression. To insinuate our host is doing so generates a second false impression. You need to stop doing this. It is bad for you.

The truth is, needless to say, that I am even purer than the driven snow. Unlike some others one might mention!
Title: “Steve Goddard” Reveals How David Rose Misled Mail Readers!
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 16, 2014, 02:22:54 PM
"Snow White" and I both feel particularly proud of this recent piece of surrealist performance art:

“Steve Goddard” Reveals How David Rose Misled Mail Readers (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/08/steve-goddard-reveals-how-david-rose-misled-mail-readers/)!

"She" has recently invested in a set of rubber undergarments, now carefully hidden beneath "her" frilly white dress. A wise precaution since it seems there are plenty more laughs to be had where that lot came from!

Quote
It is not hard to catch the MSM making such mistakes about sea-ice. Either they are in too much of a hurry, or are lazy, or perhaps have an agenda. The best thing to do is to gently and politely educate them to what the actual facts are.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: cesium62 on August 16, 2014, 09:56:02 PM
Further to my recent Gimp driving lessons (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=942), I currently find myself being accused of all sorts of nefarious activities over at (un)Real Science:

You didn't really expect anything else would come of posting on that blog, did you?  I was quite impressed that even Watt's seems to think that Steve/Tony is a wacko.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Anne on August 19, 2014, 02:49:42 PM
Jim, I watch the Daily Fail with a kind of horrified fascination but I've been interested by the recent articles by Ellie Zolfagharifard, which seem to be thoughtful and of a totally different nature to those by "David Rose". The idiot nature of those BTL hasn't changed, but this is small progress, no?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 19, 2014, 03:35:42 PM
You didn't really expect anything else would come of posting on that blog, did you?  I was quite impressed that even Watt's seems to think that Steve/Tony is a wacko.

It gives me a fair few chuckles Cesium, and laughter is the best medicine after all. Bob Ward is in the loop also, and he has bigger fish to fry than "Goddard"!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/500612900671995904
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 19, 2014, 03:39:32 PM
Jim, I watch the Daily Fail with a kind of horrified fascination but I've been interested by the recent articles by Ellie Zolfagharifard, which seem to be thoughtful and of a totally different nature to those by "David Rose".

I only ever read that particular organ if Rose is fiddling with Arctic facts. I'll take a look. In the meantime hopefully the image of Rose in a Polar Bear bear suit taking on Cotty on a 50 foot wave will bring at least a small smile to the corner of your mouth:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Anne on August 19, 2014, 03:40:42 PM
*like*
I wish we had a like button on here.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 19, 2014, 03:49:11 PM
*like*
I wish we had a like button on here.

Please feel free to "favorite"/ "retweet":

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/501710931773358082 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/501710931773358082)

or "like" on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon (https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 19, 2014, 06:14:38 PM
Oh frabjous day! The perfect opportunity to invite Steve/Tony along for a surf:

https://archive.today/jBPFy#selection-739.0-751.27
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 21, 2014, 02:12:49 PM
Steve/Tony is doing a much better impression of a chicken than a bear at this juncture.

The opposition are looking a bit thin on the ground, so Bob Ward and "Snow White" have just invited Matt Ridley to don a polar bear suit instead:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/502425233773821952
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 22, 2014, 07:44:50 PM
Not content with bad mouthing "Snow White" and I on a regular basis, the (un)Real Science blog's resident Arctic sea ice expert has taken to issuing entirely unwarranted ad hominem attacks against a Rear Admiral in the US Navy:

https://archive.today/ZC1zv#selection-2569.0-2581.27

Quote
They also know how to flatter and seek appointments by being rump-swabs and butt-kissers. (Why do you think some are called rear admirals?)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 23, 2014, 01:58:42 AM
The latest update on the Great White Con Arctic big wave surfing contest:

A Few Players Short of a Great Green Con Surf Team (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/08/a-few-players-short-of-a-great-green-con-surf-team/)

I accept a skeptical bet on an "ice free" Arctic, whilst no skeptics have yet accepted my Arctic surfing challenge. Meanwhile a building swell is visible from the USCGC Healy in the Chukchi Sea, whilst waves break on Barrow beach.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 23, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
Whoops! I seem to have upset Steve/Tony once again :( He/they claim that:

Quote
Climate experts say that Northeast and Northwest Passages are open for business, but neither will open up this year.

I beg to differ:

https://archive.today/48gIa

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 24, 2014, 10:50:27 AM
In an intriguing juxtaposition in an online surfing magazine (http://paper.li/mosticRAV/1321164005) the Great White Con big wave Arctic surfing contest meets surfing in North Korea meets David Cameron "surfing" in Cornwall!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/david-cameron-practices-for-big-wave-surfing-contest/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/david-cameron-practices-for-big-wave-surfing-contest/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 29, 2014, 08:09:36 PM
Yet more (un)Real Science we feel compelled to quibble about. "Steve Goddard" claims ‪Arctic‬ ‪sea ice‬ is thicker in 2014 than in 2012 on the basis of JAXA extent and the Fowler/Maslanik/Tschudi drift age model.

As luck would have it we managed to get our retaliation in first in 2014, thanks to a little help from our friends (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,942.0.html)!

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/505082154540609538 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/505082154540609538)

Here's 2014 versus 2013:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 31, 2014, 10:52:59 AM
David Rose is peddling nonsense about Arctic sea ice in the Mail on Sunday once again.

Once again we felt compelled to respond: https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/statuses/505998624393007104
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 31, 2014, 02:56:21 PM
What with one thing and another, including a forced move to CloudFlare (https://www.cloudflare.com/overview) this morning, I'm probably just getting paranoid, but can anyone else see any of my innocuous (and supposedly unmoderated) comments on the Mail Online?

Having now regained control of our server, here's the latest news from Great White Con Ivory Towers:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 01, 2014, 12:33:48 PM
"Snow White's" latest article is kicking up such a storm on Twitter it's hard to know where to start! Maybe here?

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/statuses/506356547963072512

In the meantime the mods over at WUWT don't seem very keen on my helpful comments:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 02, 2014, 01:01:35 AM
David Rose neglected to include a “stunning satellite image” for August 25th 2013 in his article about Arctic sea ice in the Mail on Sunday yesterday.

I am pleased to be able to help correct that no doubt inadvertent oversight:

"Santa’s Secret Summer Swimming Pool Revisited (http://greatwhitecon.info/2014/09/santas-secret-summer-swimming-pool-revisited/)"
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ghoti on September 02, 2014, 03:59:06 AM
Jim, it looks like Elon Musk has joined the Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con team with this tweet.

pic.twitter.com/0Xk2arTzvW (http://pic.twitter.com/0Xk2arTzvW)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 02, 2014, 09:36:44 AM
In the meantime the mods over at WUWT don't seem very keen on my helpful comments:

Some of my helpful comments over at WUWT have now been published. My most recent one, however, currently seems to be having some difficulty in escaping the eagle eyes of the WUWT "moderators":
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 19, 2015, 03:30:02 PM
After a brief hiatus David Rose has been spouting nonsense about "Global Warming" in the Mail on Sunday once again, and I felt compelled to investigate further:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/)

There's even an Arctic sea ice angle! I'm now desperately trying to discover what "Steve Goddard" makes of the latest extent chart from his beloved DMI, which currently looks like this (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php):

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 19, 2015, 04:30:17 PM
After a brief hiatus David Rose has been spouting nonsense about "Global Warming" in the Mail on Sunday once again, and I felt compelled to investigate further:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/)

There's even an Arctic sea ice angle! I'm now desperately trying to discover what "Steve Goddard" makes of the latest extent chart from his beloved DMI, which currently looks like this (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php):

I've always understood the distinction between DMI SIE measure which tracks areas that have at least 30% sea ice cover and the SIE that uses 15% ice coverage to measure SIE but I've never quite gotten any sense of how the comparison provides any real insight. Obviously, the 15% metric will always be larger. But looking at these two charts has suddenly suggested a reason for tracking these simultaneously across the seasons. It is not the anomaly that matters but the separate trends. When you see such a stark difference in trend, doesn't this suggest a rather weak freeze is occurring? If this sharply different trend between SIE measures (it seems equally revealing whether the 15% metric continues to climb while the 30% measure stalls and retreats as is now the case or whether the opposite is true) were to persist for a period, could we conclude that the extent is particularly fragile heading into the melt season? We know that the Pacific side of the Arctic was relatively ice free last summer and fall with historically high sea temperatures, isn't this also where the 2 measures have diverged?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 19, 2015, 05:18:07 PM
Steve/Tony seems to cherry pick the extent chart he displays to his faithful followers depending on which best suits his purposes.  In this instance, however, I'm compelled to agree with him that the sudden drop in the "old" reading is due to "sensor error".

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsaf.met.no%2Fp%2Fice%2Fnh%2Fconc%2Fimgs%2FOSI_HL_SAF_201501181200_pal.jpg&hash=86f1a6dba1ff61ebdee2bb8cc9adce5e)

Notice the black patches in Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes? In this instance I'm actually more interested to discover how he justifies his "almost spot on" description of his 2014 melting season "predictions". Not to mention how he justifies his "World class wanker" description of me! More in due course.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 19, 2015, 11:55:05 PM
Steve/Tony insists that his “almost spot on” claim for 2014 that "The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum" was "exactly how it turned out". Needless to say I beg to differ:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/implausible-deniability-of-2014-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/implausible-deniability-of-2014-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Peter Ellis on January 20, 2015, 01:10:29 AM
Your argument would be strengthened if the graphs you linked actually showed both 2006 and 2014. The only one that has both is the DMI graph, where they're buried in a spaghetti of other years (and in any case for the DMI series 2014 and 2006 are quite similar).

In any case, it's a futile contest to get into, since "close to 2006" is easily handwaved to be reasonably accurate. It just isn't worth bickering about individual years.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 20, 2015, 01:53:37 AM
The only one that has both is the DMI graph, where they're buried in a spaghetti of other years

Both CT and NSIDC [Now, thanks] also include 2006 without spaghetti, although that isn't always entirely obvious from the legend.

Quote
In any case, it's a futile contest to get into, since "close to 2006" is easily handwaved to be reasonably accurate. It just isn't worth bickering about individual years.

Personally I find a bit of bickering now and then to be rather therapeutic!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jai mitchell on January 20, 2015, 05:59:15 AM
The only one that has both is the DMI graph, where they're buried in a spaghetti of other years

Both CT and NSIDC also include 2006 without spaghetti, although that isn't always entirely obvious from the legend.

Quote
In any case, it's a futile contest to get into, since "close to 2006" is easily handwaved to be reasonably accurate. It just isn't worth bickering about individual years.

Personally I find a bit of bickering now and then to be rather therapeutic!

- like playing "peek-a-boo" with a baby
or
- like teasing a cat with a laser pointer
or
- like shooting fish in a barrel???

These propagandists need to be called out for what they are: sociopathic ideologues and liars, hell-bent on murdering everyone's children.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 20, 2015, 11:50:29 AM
These propagandists need to be called out for what they are: sociopathic ideologues and liars, hell-bent on murdering everyone's children.

The fish are a bit slippery though. According to one of "Steve's" many merry minions:

Quote
Guess what I want YOU up on trial for accessory BEFORE the fact to several thousand counts of Murder I.

Have a nice evening.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jai mitchell on January 20, 2015, 06:13:11 PM
These propagandists need to be called out for what they are: sociopathic ideologues and liars, hell-bent on murdering everyone's children.

The fish are a bit slippery though. According to one of "Steve's" many merry minions:

Quote
Guess what I want YOU up on trial for accessory BEFORE the fact to several thousand counts of Murder I.

Have a nice evening.

All sociopaths are 'slippery', by definition.

Let us be clear:

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates that we have already caused significant harm to our biosphere over the last 20 years due to our greenhouse gas emissions.  The current climate response is incontrovertible.  We also have the clear scientific understanding that there is a large imbalance in the current Top-of-Atmosphere boundary with anywhere between .7 and .9 Watts per meter squared being applied to the surface of the earth.  This energy imbalance is happening while the earth is experiencing one of the lowest solar cycles in a century and with South-East Asian aerosol (smog) emissions so large that they cannot see the tops of their high-rise buildings in their major cities on most days. 

These 3 factors alone suggest that we have locked in a total equilibrium warming, without feedbacks that is over 1C warmer than todays value.  Once the solar cycle returns to a higher peak and global sulfate emissions return to pre-industrial levels, the catastrophic effects of global warming that we are experiencing now will be 10-fold. 

Then we must expect significant system feedback responses, including the continuation of droughts/forest loss and the total loss of the Arctic sea ice.

This is the overwhelming weight of the body of scientific evidence, including the most recent field-studies, using the most technologically advanced instruments ever developed.  So, let a flat-earther whine about increased renewable energy subsidies.  I don't care what these sociopathic ideologues squeak  about one whit.  They are arguing for the deaths of our children.  Period.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 22, 2015, 04:29:27 PM
Let us be clear:

Extremely clear Jai.

Meanwhile the gish gallop (and accompanying ad homs!) continues over at (un)Real Science:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/implausible-deniability-of-2014-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/implausible-deniability-of-2014-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/)

I get the distinct impression that "Steve" and his many merry minions don't actually ever read any of his assorted rants and raves. He keeps posting this chart (I can only assume due a quirk in WordPress):

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FGoddard-DMI_new-2014-04-23.png&hash=43ed7e8ff88411a56cb1e05d8d00ccb2)

when talking about the 2014 minimum, so I keep dropping ever heavier hints. If he's spotted the problem he certainly hasn't fixed it yet.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jai mitchell on January 23, 2015, 04:48:52 AM
ugh, how can you even go over to that site?  I need a thorough delousing after visiting that place! 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 23, 2015, 03:31:54 PM
ugh, how can you even go over to that site?  I need a thorough delousing after visiting that place!

I'm afraid the delousing will have to wait for a bit. Hopefully there will ultimately prove to be some method in my surreal madness.  By way of example, Greenpeace have just "retweeted" this:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/558594921050152960
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 24, 2015, 01:12:54 AM
More fun and games on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/558747999544041472

David Rose just suggested that I "fuck off". He should be so lucky!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: crandles on January 24, 2015, 10:45:40 PM
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 25, 2015, 01:41:57 AM
You will note from HotWhopper that I'll need some Delingpole delousing also!

Meanwhile, let's see what Rose's managing editor has to say about this:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/#Jan24 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/#Jan24)

A little bird tells me the Grantham Institute are also intent on pursuing Rose via IPSO. Whether IPSO have sharper teeth than the PCC remains to be seen however!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 25, 2015, 07:48:15 PM
There's no rest for the wicked!

Now I find myself having a good old moan at Judy Curry on her blog:

https://archive.today/DFUkp#selection-10395.0-10425.58
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: mati on January 25, 2015, 07:57:37 PM
you know all these adversaries are connected yes?

http://www.libertarian.to/ (http://www.libertarian.to/)

author index:

http://www.libertarian.to/author/index.php (http://www.libertarian.to/author/index.php)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 25, 2015, 08:05:34 PM
you know all these adversaries are connected yes?

Yes, although I don't see Goddard/Heller on the list. I don't see me on there either, although I did say this once upon a time:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,65.msg552.html#msg552 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,65.msg552.html#msg552)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 26, 2015, 03:35:43 PM
For anyone who may have had the misfortune to read Christopher Booker's latest epistle (https://archive.today/0guDk) in The Telegraph, here is the initial response from Kevin Cowtan (of Cowtan & Way fame):

NOAA Paraguay data (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA#)

Here's "There's Physics" on the self same topic:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/ (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 27, 2015, 01:36:49 AM
One cannot help but wonder if Judy will follow in David's footsteps and start hurling some choice expletives in my direction in the not too distant future?

https://archive.today/BSm07#selection-16297.0-16313.159
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 27, 2015, 04:24:11 PM
Judy (or her support staff?) pressed the "Approve" button fairly quickly last night (GMT).

Andrew Cotton (AKA "Cotty") is a North Devon (very!) big wave surfer who was interviewed by Paxo before he departed Newsnight. Keep clicking through to see the recording.

This morning comes news that he has delivered some unanticipated (but most welcome!) exposure for the cause:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/560046212649598976

Any chance of a retweet or two?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: viddaloo on January 27, 2015, 06:28:50 PM
Jim, do you think you can ever make these folks see reason? After all, as suggested further up in thread, these people are hardened criminals. Plus they have the backing of the entire establishment, including the legal system, making their deadly crimes not only profitable, but to a degree also honorable.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 27, 2015, 10:13:42 PM
In September 2013 Paul Dacre owned the Mail and "owned" the PCC. We still "persuaded" the Mail (and The ToryGraph) to print (grudging) retractions of their worst Arctic sea ice excesses.

Currently I have Rose, Watts, and "Goddard" by their balls, even if they don't realise it. If Judy had any I'd have those too!  What's more the PCC has been replaced by IPSO.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/20/ipso-press-regulator-sir-alan-moses-new-guidelines (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/20/ipso-press-regulator-sir-alan-moses-new-guidelines)

If you don't recognise some of the names that are currently on board then Google them.

Andrew Cotton, Garrett McNamara, Ralph Freeman:

See above and: http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/the-arctic-surf-forecast-for-late-august-2014/)

Larry Hamilton, Kevin Cowtan:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/560085258688036864 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/560085258688036864)

"And Then There's Physics", "Sou from Bundanga":

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/ (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/)

"Wipneus"

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#Area (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#Area)

Moral support from Peter Gabriel:

http://water-connects-us.org/songs/fourteen-black-paintings/ (http://water-connects-us.org/songs/fourteen-black-paintings/)

Quote
From the pain come the dream
From the dream come the vision
From the vision come the people
And from the people come the power
From this power come the change

Now you tell me Vid. Is there a light at the end of the long dark tunnel?

P.S. See also:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/560130493686243328 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/560130493686243328)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: viddaloo on January 27, 2015, 11:40:46 PM
Now you tell me Vid. Is there a light at the end of the long dark tunnel?

I've lived in Norway almost my entire life and I've followed Norse politics when it comes to climate change and fossil fuel extraction for several decades, so if you ask me, which you arguable are, I would have to say 'absolutely not'. In Norway we've only gotten more and longer tunnels.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 28, 2015, 01:10:59 AM
At this juncture I'm talking about propaganda, rather than politics per se. Horse before cart? (if the metaphor translates)

IPSO proudly state on their web site (https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html):

Quote
We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the standards set out in the Editors' Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.

I intend to find out if they are as good as their word(s).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jai mitchell on January 28, 2015, 01:44:49 AM
I think it will be hard for them to sleep with you playing mosquito under their net!

Keep it up!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: viddaloo on January 28, 2015, 01:52:19 AM
Jim, I'm cheering on your efforts, don't get me wrong! My own experience just tells me it may be a bit like this old Greek guy.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.247sports.com%2FUploads%2FAssets%2F769%2F127%2F1127769.gif&hash=a0348f98d919841136e66407036b64c5)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 28, 2015, 12:01:52 PM
@Jai - Will do!

@Vid - Your animation reveals an inadequate model. There's several of us. The latest from Sou, with a bit of massaging by yours truly:

"Tricks Used by David Rose to Deceive (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-to-deceive/)"

Please feel free to spread the word!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: jdallen on January 28, 2015, 08:05:17 PM
Meanwhile, over at the Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts?utm_content=buffer73289&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts?utm_content=buffer73289&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 29, 2015, 12:41:30 PM
Ah yes. Thanks Jeff. I forgot to mention all the SkS backroom guys 'n gals.

Meanwhile Richard Tol has swallowed our bait on Twitter, hook line and sinker:

https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/560733683209228288
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 30, 2015, 07:40:09 PM
A teaser for our forthcoming interview with NSIDC director Mark Serreze.

While we're at it we also "out" Anthony Watts as a compulsive liar!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 30, 2015, 11:43:31 PM
Not too far off topic, Gavin Schmidt reports on Twitter regarding his long running legal battle:

Quote
The dismissal of this action with prejudice.

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/561283764865990656
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 31, 2015, 11:13:42 AM
I now have the bit firmly between my teeth, and I discover this morning that The Economist seems to be turning into a tabloid:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21641240-hype-over-arctic-recedes-along-summer-ice-not-so-cool (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21641240-hype-over-arctic-recedes-along-summer-ice-not-so-cool)

Quote
Please forgive my rather brusque manner, but I arrive fresh from hauling the Mail on Sunday in front of IPSO.

Can The Economist provide some evidence for their rather vague assertion that "less [Arctic] sea ice melted last summer than in 2013". Can you for example provide a link to an authoritative source?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 01, 2015, 11:09:26 AM
It seems that The Economist's editors don't work weekends, so here's an in depth introduction to my misgivings:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/is-the-economist-being-economical-with-the-truth-about-arctic-sea-ice/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/is-the-economist-being-economical-with-the-truth-about-arctic-sea-ice/)

The videos can also be viewed over on the NSR thread (http://).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 01, 2015, 12:24:10 PM
Shock News! David Rose "interviews" himself in today's Mail on Sunday.  :D

Quote
Climate of Hate: His children are urged to kill him, he's compared to Adolf Hitler and labelled a 'denier' – even though he's Jewish. Disturbing article reveals what happens if you dare to doubt the Green prophets of doom

https://archive.today/w2V9V

"Snow White" could bite her tongue no longer:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/561845273602052099

Expect more from us both in the fullness of time!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 01, 2015, 03:27:08 PM
I promised you all more, and here it is:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-science-of-the-david-rose-climate-of-hate-self-interview/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-science-of-the-david-rose-climate-of-hate-self-interview/)
Quote
Unfortunately [the article] is misleading and/or inaccurate, apart from the bit about the long term trend in Arctic sea ice. Hence I’ve just popped yet another Dear John (and Poppy) virtual letter to Mr. Rose’s managing editor (+PA) at the Mail on Sunday, and I’ll have yet another long chat with IPSO tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 02, 2015, 12:15:31 AM
Shock News!!! After much gentle persuasion WUWT's issued an "update" to the scurrilous smear on Mark Serreze's reputation they published recently:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/#Feb01 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/#Feb01)

It seems it was NASA wott dun it, not the NSIDC. Many questions remain unanswered still however. Such as why did Watts blame NASA for the "summer sea ice may be gone in five years" statement in 2012, but then the NSIDC in 2015?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: KeithAnt on February 02, 2015, 10:58:25 PM
You may or may not have seen this Jim; friend Watts has been at it again distorting a new science paper providing a anti anthropogenic climate change meaning.
One of the authors set him right.

 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 03, 2015, 12:38:30 AM
Thanks Keith.

No I hadn't seen that before, and for some strange reason that sorry story doesn't surprise me in the slightest!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 07, 2015, 05:11:35 PM
I was desperately disappointed to discover that The Economist has neglected to print my virtual letter to their editor (and their "man in Tromso"). I have therefore taken the liberty of self-publishing it. See if you can find it with the aid of the Great God Google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+economist (https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+economist)

It's currently #7 on my remote desktop, connected to a "clean" UK based server.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 13, 2015, 11:22:34 PM
I just got back from a spirited debate at Exeter University which pitted Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre against Richard Betts from the Met Office on the proposition that "This house believes we have forgotten about climate change".

Richard gave a rousing closing speech which amongst other things roundly denounced Christopher Booker's article in last weekend's Sunday Telegraph. I mentioned to Richard that we are already on that case:

"A Letter to the Editor of the Sunday Telegraph (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/a-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-sunday-telegraph/)"

Kasia (my better half) and I voted for Kevin, but the majority of the assembled multitude of students went for Richard. Thus the proposition was rejected.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 17, 2015, 12:15:41 AM
In related (and hopefully not too far off topic) "Shock News!" my professional alter ego was subjected to both unsubstantiated allegations and undeleted expletives by a UKIP prospective parliamentary candidate and energy spokesperson:

https://twitter.com/V2gUK/status/567281726813372416

He even called my attractive non-libel lawyer "He"!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 22, 2015, 04:01:42 PM
Christopher Booker's latest play in the “ClimateGate 2″ edition of ClimateBall™ appears in his article in this morning’s edition of the Sunday Telegraph, ably assisted by BBC Radio 4's so called "review of the morning papers" at 7 AM.

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-greatest-scandal-in-the-history-of-science/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-greatest-scandal-in-the-history-of-science/)

It seems that both Booker and Telegraph editor Ian Marsden are utterly incapable of understanding climate science, even when compelling video evidence is placed on a plate right under their respective noses.

Please feel free to spread the word!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/569502151304749056 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/569502151304749056)

and/or

https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon/posts/676792169109481 (https://www.facebook.com/GreatWhiteCon/posts/676792169109481)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: silkman on February 22, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Jim

We all know where Booker is coming from and it's no surprise that the Telegraph gives him a bully pulpit to preach from.

But like you I'm sure, I almost choked on my morning cup of tea when the BBC's review of the papers gave this ageing and bigoted non-scientist's views credibility he just doesn't deserve.

I despair when the main stream media in the UK feel they need to use Booker, Monckton or even Nigel Lawson to bring "balance" to what they insist on characterising as a debate about the very existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Only the Guardian has reliably nailed it's flag to the mast and, until others follow suit, it's difficult to see public opinion reaching an realistic understanding of the importance of the challenges we face.

With our current crop of weak political leaders seemingly incapable of doing more than determining policy by focus group I can see no way that the UK is going to have any positive impact on the outcome in Paris later this year.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Gray-Wolf on February 22, 2015, 09:07:05 PM
Esp. after the beebs move to bring some 'balance' to things by not doing the "they say this so what do you say?" take on climate.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 23, 2015, 07:41:40 PM
For those who do do Twitter, here's a little riddle:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/569923961133379584 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/569923961133379584)

For those who don't, click a link or two to reveal the answer:

BBC Radio 4 Swallows Booker’s Bait (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/02/bbc-radio-4-swallows-bookers-bait/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 04, 2015, 12:14:48 PM
In the cause of spreading the word about the porky pies being promulgated by the likes of Rose, Booker and Neil I took the opportunity at the weekend to field test my thickest winter wetsuit whilst simultaneously discovering which out of a variety of well known UK journalists and broadcasters is in actual fact the most famous:

The Great White Con Arctic Basin Big Wave (Fantasy?) Surfing Contest Equipment Evaluation Expedition #1 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/03/arctic-basin-big-wave-surfing-contest-equipment-evaluation-1/)

Here's my best wave of the day:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-__NgYWsAEZuqW.png)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 09, 2015, 02:25:40 AM
The surf was up again in SW England this weekend. This interview with the guy parked next to us took an interesting turn when he eventually mentioned "North Cape"!

http://youtu.be/pJE_v2ifsFk (http://youtu.be/pJE_v2ifsFk)

He also seemed highly amused at the prospect of Rose, Booker and Neil hitting some Arctic surf clad only in Polar Bear suits!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 09, 2015, 01:14:39 PM
torygraph is, I guess, beyond repair: h ttp://www.te legraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.h tml
(intentionally broken link)
a squarehead: [:-/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: LRC1962 on March 09, 2015, 02:23:25 PM
torygraph is, I guess, beyond repair: h ttp://www.te legraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.h tml
(intentionally broken link)
a squarehead: [:-/)
They really need to see http://youtu.be/3zqkPmM_hj4 (http://youtu.be/3zqkPmM_hj4) in which it shows that 'fiddling' with numbers is actually good science.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: DavidR on April 06, 2015, 10:45:57 AM
The Mail is not the only  place for getting complete nonsense. Australia's least informed environment writer, Graham Lloyd of the Australian reported on Saturday that there is a "new climate change 'pause' as Arctic melt stabilises".

"Melting Arctic sea ice, a keenly watched measure of global climate change, has "paused", sharpening debate on whether humans or natural variability are to blame for the earlier decline.

After shrinking 35 percent  over several decades, the low point reached in Arctic ice cover appears to have stabilized. This is despite a record low maximum sea ice extent this winter ...


Scientists who first identified the "hiatus" in global average surface temperatures are claiming a new climate change "pause. { Hang on Graham didn't you just  tell us this was a fact,  in paragraph 1, now its just a "claim"}

 Skip forward 3 paragraphs of drivel to "Climate scientists do not believe the long term downward trend  in Arctic Sea ice has been broken". { So its not a fact Graham, not the view of Climate scientists, just  the view of some deniers }

{Skip through 9  paragraphs presenting the unscientific opinions of David Whitehouse of the GWPF, a denialist think tank, to the last paragraph}

The US National  snow and Ice data centre said this years Arctic sea ice extent had reached a maximum 14.54 M km^2 making it the lowest on the satellite record.

Who said Graham doesn't tell us the truth. All you have to do is read the last paragraph and ignore the rest.  Unfortunately the last paragraph rarely makes it to the online edition, but we can blame Graham for that! 
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 19, 2015, 02:30:15 PM
Somewhat belatedly, our singular perspective on IPSO's recent rejection of Bob Ward's complaint about David Rose's Arctic sea ice article last summer. The next episode of the David and Judy show:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/04/ipso-powerless-to-prevent-the-great-white-con/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/04/ipso-powerless-to-prevent-the-great-white-con/)

Despite recently bringing her attention to the matter once again Professor Judith Curry’s personal blog still contains the inaccurate and/or misleading information first published by the Mail on Sunday on September 8th 2013 in an article by David Rose. What sort of “very distinguished scientist and ice expert” would continue to proudly proclaim the following inaccurate information after even the Mail on Sunday had retracted it?

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 12, 2015, 12:16:37 PM
According to Steve/Tony's (un)RealScience blog this very morning:

Quote
The New Normal In The Arctic [is] Cold Summers

I beg to differ:

The New Normal In The Arctic (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/05/the-new-normal-in-the-arctic/)

Here's one of many reasons why:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1149.0%3Battach%3D16188%3Bimage&hash=307af0f8b86ca68fcd8495bd87c1c4ef)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 14, 2015, 04:44:56 PM
As lady luck would have it I couldn't have planned it any better if I'd tried!

A denizen of (un)Real Science has challenged me to a £1000 bet. Now I get to simultaneously extract the Michael out of James Delingpole, Paul Homewood and "Steve Goddard", which I must say causes me immense pleasure!

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/598856406540877824

Any chance of a "retweet" or three?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 15, 2015, 01:09:56 AM
I've spent the day happily commenting away at Breitbart. Then the ad homs started.

Quote
More arrant nonsense from a scientifically illiterate troll?

Go away you silly little man.

Then I was "reported"! Then all but one of my witty comments disappeared.

Thus far I've had no confirmed takers for the other side of my £1000 Arctic sea ice wager. James Delingpole is conspicuous only by his absence, so who should I approach next? David Rose? Christopher Booker? Anthony Watts?

More on the whole sorry story at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/the-new-normal-in-the-arctic/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/the-new-normal-in-the-arctic/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 15, 2015, 02:26:24 PM
I've received no reply from the Breitbart webmaster thus far, so I thought I'd try another tack this morning:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 27, 2015, 06:46:13 PM
It has been brought to my attention (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,230.msg52780.html#msg52780) that Big Joe Bastardi has been "retweeting" nonsense from "Steve Goddard" to the effect that:

Quote
Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago

As luck would have it "Snow White" got her retaliation in early on this one:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/arctic-sea-ice-fails-to-track-2005-06/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/arctic-sea-ice-fails-to-track-2005-06/)

which leads in nicely to this:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/603597391703502848 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/603597391703502848)

not to mention this (https://archive.is/zzjYl#selection-1785.0-1797.24):

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D230.0%3Battach%3D16690%3Bimage&hash=e3365de58dc2b3f3b374f409e5a48b09)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 30, 2015, 12:23:35 PM
"Steve/Tony" is now claiming that "Arctic sea ice coverage is nearly identical to 20 years ago"

"Snow White" begs to differ, since the NSIDC 5 day average Arctic sea ice extent has fallen below 12 million km² in May for the first time since their records began:

Trouble Looming for the Arctic? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 02, 2015, 11:11:48 AM
Here is Big Joe Bastardi's forecast for the summer:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210098 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210098)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2F2015-05-31_BigJoe.png&hash=cc4fb3c2c8281ed74f9b1fa02aad5355)

Meanwhile DMI >80N temperatures have stealthily crept above "normal" for the time of year:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on June 02, 2015, 02:48:24 PM
I thought "Little Joe" Bastardi got out of the Arctic ice forecasting business when he fell flat on his face in 2010/20111?

Aren't video clips wonderful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G-ozEvSFVg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G-ozEvSFVg)


Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on June 02, 2015, 03:46:51 PM
Here is Big Joe Bastardi's forecast for the summer:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210098 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210098)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2F2015-05-31_BigJoe.png&hash=cc4fb3c2c8281ed74f9b1fa02aad5355)

I spoke to a member of the CFSv2 at EGU2015 and he told me that there is a problem with their model in that it starts out with too thick ice. They're working on using PIOMAS to constrain this initial ice condition. Bastardi doesn't know this, and if he would, he wouldn't tell anyone.

I thought "Little Joe" Bastardi got out of the Arctic ice forecasting business when he fell flat on his face in 2010/20111?

Aren't video clips wonderful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G-ozEvSFVg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G-ozEvSFVg)

I wish I had saved more of those videos to put on Youtube, they have all been taken offline.  ;D
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 02, 2015, 04:48:10 PM
I wish I had saved more of those videos to put on Youtube, they have all been taken offline.  ;D

Better grab this one while it's hot then Neven! More topical fun & games at:

https://archive.is/5aUsH#selection-2019.0-2031.25
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 03, 2015, 01:43:20 PM
I can't imagine what "Caleb" over at (un)Real Science has been up to recently, but whatever it is it seems to have given him snow blindness:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210143 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210143)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on June 03, 2015, 02:09:29 PM
I call it the "North Carolina" methodology.  When the state representatives in NC didn't like the outcome of a study on sea level rise in coming decades......they ignored it.

Apparently that is what Caleb is doing.  If they don't like it....they just try to "wish it away."
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 03, 2015, 04:37:27 PM
The ad homs continue to get flung thick and fast!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Peter Ellis on June 03, 2015, 05:50:19 PM
Look at the ablation stakes - the melt pond is draining.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 03, 2015, 06:47:37 PM
A few piccies from the GWC archives:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 05, 2015, 02:22:54 PM
This morning "Snow White" and I find ourselves asking:

What Planet is Tony Heller On? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/06/what-planet-is-tony-heller-on/)

It seems he can't spot the difference. Can you?

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on June 05, 2015, 02:34:09 PM
Quote
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/5807485/#

Come September 1st....maybe a 9/1/1995 vs 9/1/2015 will help him "see" the difference.

It is amusing that he used 6/1 comparisons.....BEFORE the three wost ice melt months of June, July and August.  I'm sure that was just a coincidence though, and didn't have anything to do with portraying a false narrative..:)



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 05, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
You haven't been following closely enough Buddy! He's also used 5/27 & 5/25 recently. Just coincidence!

A beautiful picture by the way, from Lake Baikal - "World In Half"

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 05, 2015, 05:04:09 PM
Shock news!!!

Tony posted yet another Arctic article today. I felt compelled to quibble yet again. Tony tells me I made a "good point"!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/06/what-planet-is-tony-heller-on/#Jul5-1515 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/06/what-planet-is-tony-heller-on/#Jul5-1515)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 08, 2015, 08:45:34 AM
Tony Heller has been telling fairy tales about Snow White's second favourite subject. She was compelled by some strange magical force to do her own due diligence on northern hemisphere snow cover:

Alaska May Snow Cover At Record Low Levels (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/06/alaska-may-snow-cover-at-record-low-levels/)

She found this flapping around in the cold wind blowing across the floor of the Rutgers Global Snow Lab:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 26, 2015, 04:56:13 PM
Look at the ablation stakes - the melt pond is draining.

Your comment to that effect at "Real Science" has finally emerged from Steve/Tony's "moderation" queue!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210482 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/trouble-looming-for-the-arctic/#comment-210482)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 22, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
The Daily Mail's up to its old tricks again today!

No doubt "Snow White" will pen a blog post in due course, but for now here's "her" latest tweet:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/623784781940174848

and here's the archive:

https://archive.is/NnfM6

which fails to reveal "her" strangely absent comment:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 22, 2015, 03:52:28 PM
There's no rest for the wicked today. David Rose is up to his old tricks once again, this time in The Spectator concerning the "hiatus". Archived at:

https://archive.is/e5XHu

At least my comment seems to be visible over there, for the moment at least!  Meanwhile over on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/623855417832161280

I thought "Snow White" was "blocked" by Mr. Rose, but perhaps now "she" is merely "muted"?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 22, 2015, 05:41:19 PM
Back at the Daily Mail, and after much quibbling with the Mail Online "communities" team my now linkless comment is finally visible!

Archived at: https://archive.is/MMepI#selection-2043.0-2045.40

Tweeted at: https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/623879613228392448
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 22, 2015, 08:11:28 PM
I've formally complained about the Daily Mail's leader. Should anybody else wish to do so here's the form to fill in:

http://dailymail.co.uk/readerseditor (http://dailymail.co.uk/readerseditor)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Andreas T on July 22, 2015, 11:09:46 PM
Maybe if everybody suggests another time in the last decade when the "northern ice cap" was "bigger" than now.
But then the stuff floating around in the arctic ocean isn't actually an ice cap so this bizarre diatribe is talking about something entirely different.  ;D
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 22, 2015, 11:16:51 PM
Another problem is that The Guardian is spouting only marginally less outlandish nonsense:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/20/arctic-sea-ice-volume-showed-strong-recovery-in-2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/20/arctic-sea-ice-volume-showed-strong-recovery-in-2013)

Quote
The shrinking Arctic ice cap is one of the best known impacts of climate change. The indication that it could be reversible is rare good news for a region where climate change has driven up temperatures far faster than the global average.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: ghoti on July 23, 2015, 01:46:06 AM
Similar write up by the CBC. I get the impression this was linked to a Cryosat-2 promotional effort.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: greatdying2 on July 23, 2015, 05:09:59 AM
Reversible -- yes, every winter! You'd think Canadians would know better...
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Andreas T on July 23, 2015, 09:27:55 AM
There are enough people here who know these figures better than the average reader. Lets make this available in a concise form!
what are the cryostat numbers? Can somebody point to the monthly numbers (not just graph) for October 2010 to 2014
I would want to point out what the difference between oct13 and oct12 is relative to yearly melt volume i.e. meltvolume in 13 was xx% smaller than in 12.
On the ridiculous claim in the Daily Mail "bigger than at any time" I looked up these figures at NSIDC sea ice index since 1979:
June 2015   3rd smallest ext   6th smallest area
May  2015   3rd smallest ext   4th smallest area
April 2015   2nd smallest ext   8th smallest area
March2015       smallest ext    5th smallest area
Feb 2015    3rd smallest ext   11th smallest area
Jan 2015    4th smallest ext     9th smallest area
does that look right?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Wipneus on July 23, 2015, 09:55:17 AM

what are the cryostat numbers? Can somebody point to the monthly numbers (not just graph) for October 2010 to 2014


Quote
201010   6536.5557
201011  11555.8098
201012  14795.9752
201101  19062.6465
201102  22941.1395
201103  25554.6537
201104  25674.4696
201110   5285.7710
201111  10393.6171
201112  14260.6350
201201  19034.4468
201202  21914.0118
201203  25264.4449
201204  25277.3580
201210   5419.6971
201211  10169.5799
201212  14236.0916
201301  18041.6983
201302  20869.0761
201303  24601.5179
201304  24265.1174
201310   8879.8820
201311  13095.3897
201312  17235.3437
201401  21020.1913
201402  23995.5547
201403  26838.7185
201404  26420.0175
201410   7632.6782
201411  13032.8434
201412  16795.5443
201501  20503.3015


This data is from a file on their website that was briefly available in April. I see no data or even graphs of the volume after Feb 15 (the prelim Feb number was mentioned on the press release as 24000)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 23, 2015, 12:10:08 PM
Snow White has now put her poison pen to virtual paper:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/)

Quote
Whilst searching {Rachel Tilling's] paper for the word “ice” returns lots of results a search for the word “cap” returns zero results, just like “recovery”.

She also quote's Andy Lee Robinson's "ice cube" video for the benefit of Daily Wail leader writers and Grauniad environment correspondents.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 23, 2015, 05:59:32 PM
I've already received a reply to my official complaint from one of The Mail's legal eagles :)

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/#comment-210847 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/#comment-210847)

A packet of peanuts for the first person to spot the minor arithmetical error. See also:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-ice-volume-2015.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-ice-volume-2015.html)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: wili on July 23, 2015, 06:49:31 PM
From the lawyer's letter:

"This is a quote from that IPCC report (p4 notes). ‘The annual mean Arctic sea-ice extent decreased over the period 1979 to 2012, with a rate that was very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1% per decade.’

Given that there are over three decades between 1979 and 2012, the shrinkage of the ice-cap couldn’t have been more than 12 per cent. Therefore the 41 per cent increase in the ice-cap reported by the UCL study must presumably mean that it’s bigger than in 1979 – i.e. decades ago."

4% per decade is presumably cumulative, but (s)he apparently just (stupidly) multiplied 4 percent by 3 decades to get his 12%. (Do I get some peanuts yet?)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Tensor on July 23, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
I've already received a reply to my official complaint from one of The Mail's legal eagles :)

A packet of peanuts for the first person to spot the minor arithmetical error. See also:


LOL Have you explained their error?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Nick_Naylor on July 23, 2015, 07:38:27 PM
A bigger problem than the math is that the IPCC report was referring to the mean (i.e., average) extent, while the 41% presumably refers to the minimum.

Apparently they believe that 1 +(.041 x 3) Apples > 1.41 Oranges, while we all know the opposite is true :).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 23, 2015, 07:57:10 PM
Have you explained their error?

Not yet. Don't forget that :

Quote
This item was written on the basis of a UCL report that formed this story....

Have you read the UCL paper yet? I don't think the legal eagle has!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Nick_Naylor on July 23, 2015, 08:39:25 PM
"This is a quote from that IPCC report (p4 notes). ‘The annual mean Arctic sea-ice extent decreased over the period 1979 to 2012, with a rate that was very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1% per decade.’

Given that there are over three decades between 1979 and 2012, the shrinkage of the ice-cap couldn’t have been more than 12 per cent. Therefore the 41 per cent increase in the [volume minumum] ice-cap reported by the UCL study must presumably mean that it’s bigger than in 1979 – i.e. decades ago."

Even a first year legal aide would know better.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Andreas T on July 23, 2015, 11:14:02 PM
Just heard Adam Rutherford on BBC4 inside science talk to Rachel Tilling. He made reasonable comments but missed the main point that the increase has to be seen in the context of a yearly melt which is much larger than the difference between two small end of summer ice remnants.
I sent that in as a comment and would encourage others to have their own comments. He is a sensible guy who corrects himself when he gets things wrong.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2015, 12:05:17 AM
I sent that in as a comment and would encourage others to have their own comments.

Did you just send them an email, or did you go through the "official" BBC complaints procedure? I tried that once:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/broadcasting-houses-million-square-kilometre-blunder/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/broadcasting-houses-million-square-kilometre-blunder/)

As you can see, that didn't get me very far!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2015, 12:54:02 AM
P.S. I gatecrashed the party with a dissenting Tweet:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/624351318413561856
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2015, 01:01:58 AM
P.P.S. Then I gatecrashed David Rose's party too:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/624353441846943744
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2015, 01:58:08 AM
I sent that in as a comment and would encourage others to have their own comments.

See what I mean?

Quote
Hello Adam,

Further to your recent interview with Rachel Tilling, and your joint Twitter conversation with my alter ego "Snow White", I'd like to reiterate how disappointed the two of us are that during your conversation with Rachel there was no mention of "41% of nothing". Twitter speak for "Doesn't anybody at the BBC have the faintest idea what Arctic sea ice volume was 30 years ago, in April and in October?"

By way of additional context see e.g.

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/)
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/cool-arctic-summer-brought-brief-recovery-in-2013-sea-ice-loss/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/cool-arctic-summer-brought-brief-recovery-in-2013-sea-ice-loss/)
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/)

Yours in dismay,

Jim Hunt

Quote
Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you very much for your email. While all emails are read - and we appreciate input from listeners - we cannot reply to each one individually. There are simply too many!

For more information about Inside Science, please go to our webpage:

Inside Science, Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2)
 
For individual programmes, click on 'Episodes'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2/episodes/guide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2/episodes/guide)

Once you have located a particular programme page, you will see a link to 'Listen now'- on the picture of Dr. Adam Rutherford.   
'Related Links' are found further down on the right hand side of the page.

Downloads/Podcasts of Inside Science are available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience)

Thanks again and do keep sending your comments in - listener feedback helps us make better programmes for you.

Yours sincerely

Inside Science, Radio 4
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Andreas T on July 24, 2015, 09:24:15 AM
I just trust that sound arguments made by many people will reach Adam and be aired on his next program. If not I will tell him off the next time I see him.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2015, 12:30:54 PM
I just trust that sound arguments made by many people will reach Adam and be aired on his next program. If not I will tell him off the next time I see him.

I've told him off already! I may even have blagged a spot on his next "Arctic Special"  8)

https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/624506839217098752 (https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/624506839217098752)

and the associated blog post:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/inside-the-bbcs-arctic-sea-ice-science/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/inside-the-bbcs-arctic-sea-ice-science/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 25, 2015, 12:36:29 AM
I've been informed by a fellow complainant that the Daily Mail have replaced the word "decades" by "years" in the online version of their ludicrously inept leader:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/#comment-210887 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-mails-climate-coverage/#comment-210887)

Meanwhile on the BBC front:

https://storify.com/jim_hunt/inside-the-bbc-s-arctic-sea-ice-science (https://storify.com/jim_hunt/inside-the-bbc-s-arctic-sea-ice-science)

Quote
According to the Polar Portal Arctic sea ice volume "is back down now". No mention of that by the Beeb though!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 26, 2015, 09:10:02 AM
I didn't think my contempt for these people could sink any lower, but it has.

If there is any truth whatsoever in their latest attempt to assassinate the character of Professor Peter Wadhams then the Great British gutter press have recently been hounding the partner of the late Professor Seymour Laxon (http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/feb/03/seymour-laxon-obituary). Here are the edited lowlights so far:

Lorryless Assassination for Dummies (https://storify.com/jim_hunt/assassination-without-a-lorry-for-dummies)

Disgusted of Dunchideock

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 28, 2015, 08:32:12 AM
The Guardian has carried an article mentioning the sterling work of Phil and "Snow White" referred to above:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/27/daily-mail-telegraph-wrong-arctic-sea-ice (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/27/daily-mail-telegraph-wrong-arctic-sea-ice)"

The Daily Mail still haven't drawn the attention of their online readers to the change, and as far as I am aware the same is true of the print version of the "editorial comment" in question:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 28, 2015, 08:38:43 AM
Professor Peter Wadhams has come out fighting and complained to the UK’s Independent Press Standards Organisation about recent newspaper articles that “ha[ve] substantially damaged my reputation for scientific integrity, and I believe that this was the deliberate intention”.

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/)

Quote
I did not make any of the statements enclosed in quotation marks by the reporter. Webster promised that this was in confidence and that if he wanted to use it he would contact me first. The next thing I saw was the article plastered over Saturday’s “Times”. He had clearly done some research in procuring photographs, but did not bother to contact me, and broke his promise of confidentiality.

Here's a slideshow revealing the edited lowlights of the story so far:

https://storify.com/jim_hunt/assassination-without-a-lorry-for-dummies (https://storify.com/jim_hunt/assassination-without-a-lorry-for-dummies)

The Guardian reports that a spokesperson for The Times said:

Quote
We have a recording of Professor Wadhams making these statements. Another newspaper [the Telegraph] subsequently reported that he had made similar comments to their journalist. We stand by the story.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 29, 2015, 12:07:32 PM
There's still no rest for the wicked! The Independent published another "WadhamsGate" article on Monday. We brought the matter to their attention:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/#comment-210964 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/07/professor-peter-wadhams-complaint-to-ipso/#comment-210964)

and after a fair bit of pestering I am now reliably informed that they have finally done so and that some sort of "correction" will be forthcoming.

Meanwhile we also felt compelled to point out to the Daily Mail's legal eagle this morning that in our humble opinion they're still spouting ballcocks:

"Mail Makes 1000% Arctic Mistake (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/07/mail-makes-1000-arctic-mistake/)"

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 30, 2015, 08:02:53 AM
I've finally found the time to formally respond to the Daily Mail's legal eagle:

An Open Letter to the Reader’s Editor of the Daily Mail (http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-the-readers-editor-of-the-daily-mail/)

The tell me they'd prefer future correspondence to be kept "off the record". My reply?

Quote
As you may have gathered I am not unduly concerned about my correspondence being kept confidential. Perhaps I might suggest an alternative quid pro quo? You splash my correspondence all over your front page, and I splash yours all over mine?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 15, 2016, 10:31:56 AM
It has recently been brought to my attention that David Rose has been regurgitating Goddard style Arctic propaganda on Twitter. Here is my alter ego's riposte:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/687919611539517440

Any chance of a "retweet" or three?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 15, 2016, 12:47:30 PM
Mr. Rose has now engaged "Snow White" in conversation :)

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/687963297908436992
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 16, 2016, 01:55:18 PM
Perhaps surprisingly Mr. Rose confided in me yesterday that:

Quote
I'd guess [2015] was the hottest year in the instrumental record (high confidence)

https://twitter.com/DavidRoseUK/status/688136348943814656

I felt compelled to remind him this morning that (JAXA) Arctic sea ice extent is currently the lowest ever for the date (in their instrumental record)

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/688340525313855488
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 16, 2016, 04:38:11 PM
Perhaps surprisingly Mr. Rose confided in me yesterday that:

Quote
I'd guess [2015] was the hottest year in the instrumental record (high confidence)

https://twitter.com/DavidRoseUK/status/688136348943814656

I felt compelled to remind him this morning that (JAXA) Arctic sea ice extent is currently the lowest ever for the date (in their instrumental record)

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/688340525313855488

On that first link, I get "Sorry, that page does not exist."

Apparently, the twit has removed the tweet.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 16, 2016, 06:50:38 PM
Apparently, the twit has removed the tweet.

So it would seem! As luck would have it "Snow White" preserved a copy for posterity. "Her" reply to him is still there however:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/688143752964132864

She has asked Mr. Rose for for an explanation:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/688421137664061440

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 17, 2016, 12:55:01 PM
Mr. Rose has not deigned to reply to my polite enquiry as yet, but his errant "satirical tweet" is nonetheless visible in our "Satirical Storify":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/01/2015-really-is-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/01/2015-really-is-the-warmest-year-in-modern-record/)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 24, 2016, 01:24:59 PM
All the usual suspects have been bleating about how chilly it's been on the east coast of the good 'ol US of A recently.

"Snow White" couldn't take all that expulsion of asinine, ovine hot air lying down, and so.....

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/690961876113604609

At least Katherine Heyhoe liked her style!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: helorime on January 26, 2016, 12:46:31 AM
I like to keep suggesting that they look up the definition of "weather" and of "climate" and to learn that they are not synonyms.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 26, 2016, 10:03:36 AM
I like to keep suggesting that they look up the definition of "weather" and of "climate" and to learn that they are not synonyms.

Or even that the "weather" in the rest of the planet isn't necessarily identical to that on the east coast of the good 'ol US of A?

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/691250695106891776

Thus far The Mail hasn't followed its usual track at this time of year. James Delingpole is another slippery kettle of fish however!

https://archive.is/Ee1hp
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: DavidR on January 31, 2016, 05:42:13 AM
Just found this great website that provides scientific assessment of claims about AGW. No longer any need to debate with deniers just link them directly to the relevant  article here.

http://climatefeedback.org/ (http://climatefeedback.org/)

Example:
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-justin-gillis-2015-hottest-year-global-warming/ (http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-justin-gillis-2015-hottest-year-global-warming/)

Given that  most of the nonsense is regurgitated nonsense it shouldn't take long for a response to  appear there.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Tensor on January 31, 2016, 08:10:24 AM
Wouldn't that require the deniers to actually accept, you know, facts, scientific methods, and reasoning? If so, not sure I see it happening.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 31, 2016, 09:36:59 AM
No longer any need to debate with deniers just link them directly to the relevant  article here.

http://climatefeedback.org/ (http://climatefeedback.org/)

Another such resource is of course Skeptical Science:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)

However your suggestion would require that the "deniers" in question deign to publish such links. In practice this is not a trivial problem to solve!

Taking a topical example (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/a-difference-in-nonsense.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c80ee03f970b#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c80ee03f970b) from the ASIB, can you see any evidence of my helpful link on this recent archive (http://archive.is/laYwQ) of Ron Clutz's "Science Matters" Arctic disinformation site?

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 31, 2016, 09:55:03 AM
I'm a sucker for punishment, and I'm afraid I couldn't resist this temptation:

http://archive.is/H2BEu#selection-5461.0-5483.124 (http://archive.is/H2BEu#selection-5461.0-5483.124)

The helpful image I'm attempting to draw to Ron's attention looks like this:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FMASIE-Min.png&hash=a949f02d2029fa7d0503ba9a03a220ed)

and can be viewed in context here:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#MASIE (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#MASIE)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 01, 2016, 07:50:11 PM
Surprise, surprise.

Ron Clutz still hasn't got around to releasing my pertinent comment from moderational purgatory  :'(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 04, 2016, 11:35:22 AM
"Snow White" gets her knickers twisted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation/Forum and Ron Clutz. Neven, Chris Reynolds and "Tamino" are  mentioned in dispatches:

"The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/)"

not to mention:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/695176179322642432 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/695176179322642432)

Here's Chris's picture worth a thousand words:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 09, 2016, 02:18:20 PM
"Steve Goddard" finally accepted my exceedingly generous gift of a bunch of pretty, early flowers :)

http://archive.is/3RkXw#selection-1749.0-1761.29 (http://archive.is/3RkXw#selection-1749.0-1761.29)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 09, 2016, 02:24:11 PM
"Steve"/Tony did of course block me on Twitter many moons ago. Nonetheless my alter ego is valiantly attempting to place the latest "Shock News!!!" from the cryosphere in view of his/their eagle eye(s):

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/697023696859439104 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/697023696859439104)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.arctic-sea-ice.net%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1377.0%3Battach%3D24842%3Bimage&hash=4e46c085b66f57e64c99b59b5cea81c9)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: magnamentis on February 09, 2016, 03:09:49 PM
while most people try to proof their points by pointing out temperature, melt rate and other charts i think that the answer to all deniers could be always the same and very short:

it's not the warming that is special, it has happened before, but it's the speed and the correlation between the warming curve and the level of industrialization that strongly hints to manmade impacts.

i'm sure that this quick reply note can be optimized but that's about it IMO we cannot proof human impact through the sheer fact that ice is melting faster and earlier but the above appears to be the point, at least to me.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 12, 2016, 05:51:50 PM
I have now made a modicum of progress in my attempts to bring the "Shock News!" about global sea ice area to the attentions of Messrs Monckton & Watts:

https://archive.is/MTd6A#selection-18485.0-18499.30 (https://archive.is/MTd6A#selection-18485.0-18499.30)

Benny Peiser from the GWPF still hasn't got back to me however,  after I placed my rigorously peer reviewed results in front of him:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-area-at-lowest-ever-level/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-area-at-lowest-ever-level/)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 13, 2016, 01:14:41 AM
Another comment from yours truly has now appeared over at WUWT with a third still waiting to see the cold light of day. In it I point out that Clive Best has now reproduced his Twittering conversation with Snow White on his own humble organ:

http://archive.is/D4ZpM (http://archive.is/D4ZpM)

You will note from that archive that my recent helpful comment is currently still invisible. As Clive himself puts it:

Quote
The temptation of those who want Arctic warming to appear dramatic will tend to use area. This realisation of this tendency only resulted after a twitter exchange with @GreatWhiteCon (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/698295239245697025) and his supporters. As a result I will use extent data from NSIDC for the rest of this post.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 13, 2016, 03:32:18 PM
WUWT in their infinite wisdom have still failed to publish the previous comment of mine about global sea ice area. They have nonetheless now published a riposte from a certain "Monckton of Brenchley" to my previous gentle probing! Read all about it at:

For Life on Earth, Ice is not Generally a Good Thing!? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/02/for-life-on-earth-ice-is-not-generally-a-good-thing/)

Here's my still strangely missing comment:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Buddy on February 13, 2016, 03:56:59 PM
I think that is their last position they will take.......that somehow a warmer earth, and an earth with more CO2 than we have is a good thing.

Think about all the "fails" that Anthony Putz (Watts) and his ilk have gone through:  (1) the earth is cooling (it's not), (2) the Greenland ice sheet is growing (it's not), (3) the Antarctic ice sheet is growing (it's not), (4) in 2010....the Arctic ice sheet is recovering (it's not), (5) CO2 doesn't affect warming of the atmosphere (it does)........even lame Joe Bastardi has lowered himself to using photoshop to lying about climate change.

When they have lied and mislead to their hearts content.....supported by the fossil fuel companies.....the last line of defense has to be:  Ice is bad.....warmer is better....the more CO2 the merrier.  That is all that is left to them......because facts, science, and truth are all working against them...



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 14, 2016, 10:23:56 PM
I have been attempting to debate "energy policy" and "climate change" with the United Kingdom Independence Party's spokesman on such matters. He told me on Twitter that "I will debate any time Jim. But not in 140 characters."

After an agonising wait of well over a day he has finally deigned to communicate with me in the comment section of his blog!

http://archive.is/pdWZu#selection-2329.0-2341.29 (http://archive.is/pdWZu#selection-2329.0-2341.29)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 18, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
A transcript of my recent conversation about Arctic sea ice with Dr. Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, is now available online at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/#Benny (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/#Benny)

Can you spot any difference between this graph:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FGWPF-masie-annual.jpg&hash=fab06919c06c52008c888b36d29374e0)

and this one?

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatwhitecon.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FGWPF-masie-day-2015365.jpg&hash=97bc7636ff5ceb7374ba9f02f183278b)

Apparently Benny can't!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 19, 2016, 12:27:08 AM
Benny Peiser may have gone to ground, but there's been a sudden burst of activity over at WUWT!

https://archive.is/s5Lot#selection-20617.0-20631.29

Some of my comments have been selectively displayed, whereas others remain invisible. Here they are:



Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 19, 2016, 01:09:58 PM
The Norse Gods move in mysterious ways, and evidently have a well developed sense of humour! For this morning's update on recent blue-arsed flying at WUWT please see:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#2016-02-19-0830 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#2016-02-19-0830)

Here's a little hint:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 21, 2016, 01:53:50 PM
Some real "Shock News!", in which my alter ego congratulates a Mail reporter on their remarkably accurate Arctic sea ice reporting!!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/701384954484232193

The headline was alarmingly warmist!!!

"Arctic sea ice dips to its lowest level ever"
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 28, 2016, 02:44:57 PM
I've been so busy blogging about "skeptical porky pies" recently that I haven't had time to keep this thread up to date with all the things that have been going on in the ‪"Wingnut Alternate Reality" (WAR for short. © Reggie Perrin 2013 (http://econnexus.org/the-arctic-joule-races-towards-the-beaufort-sea/))‬!

Let's start with our stunningly accurate prior prediction (© Wipneus 2016) of the latest all time low in global ‪sea ice‬ area:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-area-at-lowest-ever-level/#comment-213591 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-area-at-lowest-ever-level/#comment-213591)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 08, 2016, 01:20:40 PM
Neatly summarising my recent in depth exploration of the denialosphere:

“DMIGate Skulduggery In a Nutshell (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/03/dmigate-skulduggery-in-a-nutshell/)”

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

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 11, 2016, 02:16:59 PM
The usual #TwitterTrolls (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23twittertroll) have fallen remarkably silent recently!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/708235986275332096

Quote
Cat got your tongue @shubclimate? Testifying before @SenTedCruz on a topic you admittedly know little about is OK with you?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdQsUNmW0AAbsHw.jpg)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 24, 2016, 04:23:22 PM
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

The cryodenialospheric blogger formerly known as "Steve Goddard" has published a blog post about me!

"Is the Polar Ocean Challenge About to End in Disaster? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/07/is-the-polar-ocean-challenge-about-to-end-in-disaster/)"

Quote
It is if you believe Tony Heller, which I humbly suggest is not a particularly wise course of action at the best of times. In his umpteenth article on Northabout’s Great Adventure (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/07/northabouts-great-adventure/) over the last four days he dares to take your humble scribe’s name in vain as he loudly proclaims:

“Jim Hunt Egging The Ship Of Fools On To Disaster”

Title: Matt Ridley's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 24, 2016, 12:26:18 AM
David Rose is very quiet in the Mail on Sunday, but Matt Ridley is everywhere. First of all the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 repeats his Arctic sea ice BS verbatim:

Radio Four in Arctic Sea Ice Bias Shock Today! (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/09/radio-four-in-arctic-sea-ice-bias-shock-today/)

To quote one commenter:

Quote
In this one [The 5th Viscount] Ridley [was] not sitting at the end of a mic, but might as well have been

As Neven put it:

Quote
Spineless bastards all

I've registered an official complaint with the BBC. They assure me:

Quote
We aim to reply in about 2 weeks

Would anybody else care to join the queue?

Not only that, but also the Royal Society seem happy to provide Ridley with a platform & hence a propaganda coup:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106842-should-uks-royal-society-host-those-who-deny-climate-science/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106842-should-uks-royal-society-host-those-who-deny-climate-science/)

Not a good week all in all!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 27, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
The BBC has taken somewhat less than 2 weeks to reply to “Disgusted of Dunchideock”:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/radio-four-in-arctic-sea-ice-bias-shock-today/#Sep-27 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/radio-four-in-arctic-sea-ice-bias-shock-today/#Sep-27)

They may as well not have bothered:

Quote
All complaints are sent to senior management and programme makers every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future output.

Thank you once again for getting in touch.

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 28, 2016, 01:01:21 PM
Anthony Watts has written an Arctic sea ice article of his own for a change, quoting the GWPF as a source. However, our elucidatory comment remains invisible as a helpful WUWT moderator defines the word "mendacious" for us:

"Watts Up With The Inconvenient Arctic Hiatus? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/09/watts-up-with-the-inconvenient-arctic-hiatus/)"

Quote
Our title for today does of course refer to the inconvenient hiatus caused by the Gremlins currently stealing my comments from under the noses of Anthony Watts’ eagle eyed team of moderators before they can approve them as suitable for public view.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 29, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
The BBC thoughtfully invited me to take part in a survey, seeking my opinion on my recent contact with them. I dutifully complied:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/radio-four-in-arctic-sea-ice-bias-shock-today/#Sep-29 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/radio-four-in-arctic-sea-ice-bias-shock-today/#Sep-29)

Apparently:

Quote
All feedback – good or bad – gets passed back to the person that handled your contact.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: budmantis on September 30, 2016, 07:21:05 AM
Surveys, surveys, surveys. They are everywhere. I do most of my financial transactions online, and am asked repeatedly to take part in another mindless survey. I never participate because I think it's a waste of time. What I've seen Jim and so have you and many others is that these corporations suffer from groupthink and no matter what the response is, it passes through their own reality "filter".

Although I applaud your efforts I have to ask, is it really worth it? Is there a genuine way of getting our point across and creating real change? I hope the answer is yes, but I remain doubtful.
Title: The Mail's Great Global Temperature Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on December 12, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
According to David Rose in The Mail on Sunday:

Quote
Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

Also according to David Rose in The Mail on Sunday:

Quote
There were claims – now exploded by the Met Office data shown here – that our report was ‘misleading’ and ‘cherry-picked’.

Yet bizarrely, the fiercest criticism was reserved for claims we never made – that there isn’t a long-term warming trend, mainly caused by human emissions.

This just wasn’t in our report – which presumably, critics hadn’t even read.

I suppose that means that even David Rose and The Mail now agree that there IS a long-term warming trend, mainly caused by human emissions?

Post-Truth Global and Arctic Temperatures (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/)

The facts of the matter:


Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on December 13, 2016, 06:00:10 PM
It seems David Rose is following in the footsteps of "Steve Goddard (http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/09/shock-news-the-worms-have-turned/)" and has finally seen the light!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/#comment-216633 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/#comment-216633)

Quote
Again and again I was accused of not accepting there’s a long term warming trend, and furthermore if there is such a trend, and of course there is such a trend, that it’s not largely or to a great extent due to greenhouse gas emissions from human beings.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Gray-Wolf on December 13, 2016, 09:50:26 PM
Hi Jim! Just be careful with his setting up of the 'How can CO2 do all that?' straw man ?.

I'm sick to the back teeth of having Deniers lean on the 'how can CO2 be responsible for all that?' lurker bait.

You yourself linked a paper that had a 48 hr period of humid air ( 10 times the humidity to prior to the event?) raise temps , over a 48hr period, by 17c!!!

CO2= blue touch paper, water Vapour- BOOM!!! ......well across the Arctic/Antarctic at least!!!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on December 13, 2016, 10:09:07 PM
Intriguingly Anthony Watts has a poster at AGU this year. Rather than bleating about RSS temperature this time around he reveals an increase in total precipitable water. According to the RSS website "This increase can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change":

http://www.remss.com/research/climate#vapor (http://www.remss.com/research/climate#vapor)

Boom, boom?

On the Mail on Sunday front they assure me:

Quote
We are looking into your concerns and if appropriate will reply to you in due course.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on December 14, 2016, 06:34:45 PM
Willard and Willis have just issued a press release (http://archive.is/https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/challenging-climate-sensitivity-observational-quantification-of-water-vapor-radiative-forcing-our-agu16-presentation/).

Needless to say this polite enquiry of mine is invisible:
Title: Alternative Facts About the Arctic
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 04, 2017, 01:56:57 PM
By some strange quirk of fate "Snow White's" latest research into "alternative facts" about the Arctic propagated by the likes of "Steve Goddard" has coincided with the launch of the learned Journal of Alternative Facts!

Yet another quirk of fate bumped me into Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts on Twitter yesterday. The JAF article guidelines insist on peer review by politicians, so we've asked Senator Roberts for his comments on our research. "No answer!" has been his stern reply thus far.

Read all about it at:

Alternative Facts About the Arctic in 2017 (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/alternative-facts-about-the-arctic-in-2017/)

See also the project page on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic)

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Graham P Davis on February 04, 2017, 03:07:10 PM
Nothing changes in the Daily Mail's universe. Almost fifty years ago when I was working in the Ice Unit of the Met Office, I saw an article in my landlady's Daily Mail trumpeting that Met Office scientists were predicting that we were entering a new 'Little Ice Age' with the Thames likely to freeze over and East Greenland ice possibly extending to Scotland. As I read the nonsense that this article contained, I got more and more angry, especially as I knew the scientists involved and regarded the comments attributed to them as being utterly ridiculous.

When I got to work that morning, I refrained from phoning them to say what I thought about what they'd said until I'd calmed down a bit more. As it happened, one of them rang me first and asked if I'd seen the rag and to say that not one of the quotes in the article bore any resemblance to what he or his colleague had actually said. As evidence that this sort of thing happens, another acquaintance told me a few years of how he'd asked to record an interview with a newspaper reporter as he'd been badly misquoted on a previous occasion. They agreed but when he saw the article, they'd completely misquoted him again. They agreed to talk with him about his complaint but as the quotes were compared with the tape recording, they said 'well, you said that word then and the next word you said then . . .' To slightly misquote Eric Morecambe, their defence was that they'd 'used all the right words but not necessarily in the right order'.
Title: Re: Alternative Facts About the Arctic
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 04, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Almost fifty years ago when I was working in the Ice Unit of the Met Office, I saw an article in my landlady's Daily Mail trumpeting that Met Office scientists were predicting that we were entering a new 'Little Ice Age'.

Plus ça change Graham? Are you by any chance currently resident in the Exeter area? If not perhaps I might be able to persuade you to pass this message on to your local M(E)Ps?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/827823720609746944

I've already done Ben Bradshaw and Molly Scott Cato, but Parliament(s) are big places!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: TerryM on February 08, 2017, 06:37:19 PM
Jim
You may have a new friend in your ongoing battle against The Mail.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-07/melania-trump-says-article-deprived-her-of-a-chance-to-cash-in (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-07/melania-trump-says-article-deprived-her-of-a-chance-to-cash-in)


The enemy of your enemy may NOT be your friend.


Terry
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 07:11:02 PM
You may have a new friend in your ongoing battle against The Mail.

ROFL - She'll just have to join the queue! I'd like to think I've already got Geordie Greig by his dangly bits. I don't intend to let go even for the fragrant FLOTUS.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Ice Shieldz on February 08, 2017, 07:38:23 PM
The disastrous changes now culminating in the arctic and by extension earth's climate writ large, are causing big name republicans to update their narrative from, no such thing as global warming to:
“Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore,” the group writes, but it still hedges by adding, “the extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned.”

How mind-blowing it is that these men are now being cast as the moderates, who are actually putting forth a watered-down carbon tax!!?? 
http://grist.org/briefly/big-name-republicans-are-taking-a-carbon-tax-plan-to-the-white-house/ (http://grist.org/briefly/big-name-republicans-are-taking-a-carbon-tax-plan-to-the-white-house/)

It's clear that oil interests are setting this stage of faux debate and dissonance, so they can fully pump up their carbon bubble prior to its final implosion. Unfortunately our Holocene climate implodes along with it.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Phil. on February 10, 2017, 12:57:06 PM
You may have a new friend in your ongoing battle against The Mail.

ROFL - She'll just have to join the queue! I'd like to think I've already got Geordie Greig by his dangly bits. I don't intend to let go even for the fragrant FLOTUS.

Apparently Wikipedia has dropped the Mail as a 'reliable source' and is in the process of editing a number of pages to reflect that.  Nothing to do with climate!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

"The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”."
Title: Re: The WUWT Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 28, 2017, 12:20:51 AM
Only slightly off topic, my very good friend Alice F. has just been  "outed" by Anthony Watts in his time honoured, inimitable manner. Read all about it at:

https://archive.is/QF05J#selection-13147.0-13147.6

I don't think Anthony is a big fan of surrealist humour  :'(

See also: https://twitter.com/AF_Wetware/status/846485474969604096

Title: Re: The WUWT Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 28, 2017, 11:36:14 AM
My Twitter "conversation" with Anthony Watts is coming along nicely. My contact details are well and truly plastered all over cyberspace.

Meanwhile Watts and his band of merry mods have trampled this plaintive message underfoot on their cutting room floor:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: TerryM on March 28, 2017, 06:54:21 PM
Jim
You are braver than I to wade about in that alligator infested cesspool.
It is important, as I for one had no idea who was being honest when I first recognized that something was amiss with my local weather. I floundered about for a week or so before coming to the conclusion that Tony and his ilk were nothing but snake oil salesmen.
I haven't been back to his site for years now, perhaps ashamed that I had been taken in for even a short time by such obvious, now, BS.
The signals that outed Tony were, as I recall, his acceptance of conflicting stories, as long as they reached the conclusion he was pushing. His use of ad-hominem attacks, rather than attacking the data or conclusion, and the uncritical fans that peopled his realm.
Someone needs to call him out, and I'm grateful that you picked up the gauntlet!


Terry

Title: Re: The WUWT Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 28, 2017, 07:40:20 PM
You are very kind Terry, and the pleasure's all mine. Really! The ad homs are, on average, far worse at "Steve Goddard's".

However, please feel free to read all about some recent undeleted expletives at WUWT:

"Shock News! Alice F. Convicted in WUWT Show Trial!! (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/03/alice-f-convicted-in-wuwt-show-trial/)"
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Herfried on March 28, 2017, 08:53:19 PM
Watts unbelievably weird theses is... now so strange, its just funny. There is always the risk, some people fall for that crap, but all in all its just a funny comedy site, like being a sarcastic portrait of a model denier. A good comedian couldn't do better.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 28, 2017, 10:17:49 PM
Herfried - Laughable indeed.

The only problem is it seems that in this day and age the lunatics are in charge of the asylum:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/that-deaf-dumb-and-blind-kid-sure-plays-a-mean-climateball/#comment-220045 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/that-deaf-dumb-and-blind-kid-sure-plays-a-mean-climateball/#comment-220045)

Bannon peddles that crap, and Trump falls for it?
Title: Re: Malcolm Roberts' Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 29, 2017, 01:01:03 PM
Correlation doesn't equal causation of course, but for some strange reason Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts is censoring my comments on Facebook:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/censorship-down-under-by-senator-malcolm-roberts/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/censorship-down-under-by-senator-malcolm-roberts/)

Don't "One Nation" advocate "free speech"?

There's a prime prize of a packet of peanuts for the first person to spot one or more of my comments in the wild on Facebook!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: mmghosh on March 30, 2017, 04:01:14 AM
Jim, what's going on in the Arctic data scrubbing story?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: wallen on March 30, 2017, 05:47:45 AM
Jim, I wouldn't even waste your breath with Malcom Roberts. Trump is sane and reasonably minded , in comparison to this twerp.
He and his idiot ilk in Pauline Hanson and One Nation are our problem to deal with here in Australia. I all honesty, I think the best way to get rid of these fools, is to not waste your breath on them. They will fade away.
Title: Re: Malcolm Roberts' Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: DavidR on March 30, 2017, 06:59:07 AM
Correlation doesn't equal causation of course, but for some strange reason Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts is censoring my comments on Facebook:

Don't "One Nation" advocate "free speech"?
In a word NO.  They are also only interested in the facts that suit their agenda.  According to  Senator Roberts there is no empirical evidence for climate change. Roberts has spent the last seven or eight years working as the project manager of the Galileo Movement — a climate science denial group launched in 2011.
Title: Re: Donald Trump's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 30, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
Jim, what's going on in the Arctic data scrubbing story?

As Victoria says, since TrumpLand came into being all sorts of climate data are being "disappeared" from US government web sites. There are assorted ongoing efforts to try and archive it before it's too late:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/climate-change-data-rescue-berkeley-donald-trump-nasa-department-energy-environment-a7580481.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/climate-change-data-rescue-berkeley-donald-trump-nasa-department-energy-environment-a7580481.html)
Title: Re: Malcolm Roberts' Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 30, 2017, 12:12:46 PM
Jim, I wouldn't even waste your breath with Malcom Roberts.

I understand your point of view, but nonetheless I do like to archive the deeds and spread the word about the lunatics increasingly in charge of assorted asylums around the planet. Sometimes other words come boomeranging back:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/censorship-down-under-by-senator-malcolm-roberts/#Mar-30 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/censorship-down-under-by-senator-malcolm-roberts/#Mar-30)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: crandles on March 30, 2017, 12:17:23 PM
Jim, what's going on in the Arctic data scrubbing story?

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/28/i-am-an-arctic-researcher-donald-trump-is-deleting-my-citations/ (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/28/i-am-an-arctic-researcher-donald-trump-is-deleting-my-citations/)

Quote
do you mean citations, or data? Because they aren’t the same thing. Those even more alert will wonder “did you even mean citations, or just hyperlinks?”
...
But this – as all but the most hyperventilating know – is simply the new administration *cough* refreshing *cough* the whitehouse.gov website. And as we all know – for example, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/us-national-strategy-for-arctic-region/ (http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/us-national-strategy-for-arctic-region/) does – you simply need to update your link to https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf. (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf.) Victoria Herrmann might not know this – she is, after all, just a naive managing director. But the Graun ought to know better; we’re back to memory-of-a-goldfish type stuff.
Title: Re: Malcolm Roberts' Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 30, 2017, 12:18:31 PM
Roberts has spent the last seven or eight years working as the project manager of the Galileo Movement — a climate science denial group launched in 2011.

Which no doubt explains why he feels it's a terribly cunning plan to delete my comments to the effect that:

Quote
Tony Heller is a proven purveyor of porky pies covered in lashings of cherry sauce:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/that-deaf-dumb-and-blind-kid-sure-plays-a-mean-climateball/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/that-deaf-dumb-and-blind-kid-sure-plays-a-mean-climateball/)
Title: Re: Javier@WUWT's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 11, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
I don't usually bother these days, but a reader wrote to me re MASIE.

Who'd have thunk it, but just a few days later Javier@WUWT is misusing MASIE extent data yet again. By way of illustration for the aforementioned reader, how long do you suppose it will take Mod@WUWT to approve the following helpful comment of mine?

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2017/#comment-222732 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2017/#comment-222732)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 12, 2017, 10:41:30 AM
A new day has dawned, but my helpful hint to the WUWTers remains invisible. However during my vain search I did stumble across this little gem from Valaker (https://archive.is/f8IBH#selection-13623.0-13637.28):

Quote
We Norwegians have been doing a lot of stuff in the Arctic for several hundred years and any story that the Artic sea ice was the highest in 1979 for the past century is simply laughable. It was a bit higher in the mid seventies. But the big picture is a all over decline with the usual up and downs. I guess Your story is plausible when told in Huntsville Alabama, tell the same story to an old sealhunter in Tromsø, Norway, and You will experience what a Hakapik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakapik) is.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 30, 2017, 03:09:14 PM
Shock News!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2017/#comment-223074 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2017/#comment-223074)

The “moderator” at WUWT has finally released my helpful comment from purgatory!!

Something has been lost in translation though :(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on December 30, 2018, 08:45:21 AM
"Snow White's" continuing campaign to put the Arctic sea ice record straight has been "liked" by Victor Venema (http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/p/about.html):

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1076207543616225281

To celebrate this momentous occasion and to welcome in the New Year here's my alter ego and I in festive mood:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Neven on December 31, 2018, 03:38:40 PM
Jim, did you leave the kids anything to play with?  ;) ;D

All the best for 2019 to you and yours, from me and mine.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 01, 2019, 03:53:56 PM
Thanks Neven!

A happy (and prosperous?) 2019 to you, your family and your extended family at the ASIF & ASIB.

Some more "kids" at festive play:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on January 01, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
A happy (and prosperous?) 2019 to.... your extended family at the ASIB.

P.S. The ASIB login problem seems to have reared its ugly head once again? Whatever I try I can't login to post my festive greetings.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 02, 2019, 11:40:51 AM
David Rose and the Fail on Sunday have been remarkably quiet on the Arctic sea ice front recently. Probably preoccupied by Brexit? However that's not the case in other quarters of the denialosphere.

That being the case, yesterday I decided to indulge in a little All Fools Day fun by imparting the latest Arctic "Shock News!!!" over at Tony Heller's "Deplorable Climate Science Blog":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/04/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2019/#unReal

No sooner had I done so than the swift retort came back:

Quote
The satellite record is actually 47 years old and the data that is ignored from the first 7 years is inconvenient, so is not acknowledge (sic) by alarmists. 2019 so far has been higher than that from 1974.

Let's see about that!

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 02, 2019, 11:18:21 PM
"Snow White" stumbled across a follower of Steve/Tony on Twitter earlier. It seems one JW Spry doesn't much care for inconvenient Arctic truths either:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1113168650507354119
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on April 06, 2019, 01:31:25 PM
I'm now under moderation at Steve/Tony's unReal Science blog. None of my comments have disappeared as yet, but they do take a while to appear.

Meanwhile even his carefully cherry picked DMI extent metric is showing unmistakeable signs of being "lowest for the date in the satellite record":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/04/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2019/#comment-276603
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 29, 2019, 05:36:55 PM
Regular ASIF readers may recall that many moons ago I was "outed" and then "banned" by a certain Anthony Watts?

Here's the latest update on that tale of woe:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1133643627895382018

A tweet from my Arctic alter ego to ex Prof. Judith Curry, purveyor of porky pies to the US Congress (PPPUS for short).

Needless to say my polite and pertinent comment is still invisible to the denizens over at WUWT
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 29, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
A tweet from my Arctic alter ego to ex Prof. Judith Curry

I wandered over to Judy's place, whereupon I happened upon a reference to Judah Cohen's prognosis regarding high pressure in the Arctic. I sadly failed to resist temptation so please see the outcome, archived for posterity:

http://archive.is/wMcDS#selection-6107.0-6115.2

Where's the LOL smiley on here?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 30, 2019, 12:47:52 AM
It's bedtime (UTC), and there's still no sign of my comment seeing the light of day at WUWT,
and "no comment" on the matter from Judy either.

Let's see what tomorrow brings!

Night, night from misty SW England.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: gerontocrat on May 30, 2019, 12:03:27 PM
I wandered over to Judy's place, ........

Perhaps you need to wander over to Judy's place again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/30/humans-and-volcanoes-caused-nearly-all-of-global-heating-in-past-140-years
Humans and volcanoes caused nearly all of global heating in past 140 years
New study confirms natural cycles play little role in global temperature trends and tackles discrepancies in previous models

Quote
.......climate scientists have had a difficult time explaining exactly what caused a warming event in the early 20th century, between about 1910 and 1945. The average of the climate model runs incorporated in the last IPCC report only accounted for about half of the measured global surface warming trend during that period, and a study published last year suggested the other half could be due to natural cycles.

Contrarian scientists like Judith Curry, who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress, have often used this discrepancy to cast doubt on the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, arguing that “until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and [National Climate Assessment] attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.”

Study at :- https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
Quote
Abstract
The early 20th century warming (EW; 1910-1945) and the mid-20th century cooling (MC; 1950-1980) have been linked to both, internal variability of the climate system and changes in external radiative forcing. The degree to which either of the two factors contributed to EW and MC, or both, is still debated. Using a two-box impulse response model, we demonstrate that multidecadal ocean variability was unlikely to be the driver of observed changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) after 1850 A.D. Instead, virtually all (97-98%) of the global low-frequency variability (> 30 years) can be explained by external forcing. We find similarly high percentages of explained variance for inter-hemispheric and land-ocean temperature evolution. Three key aspects are identified which underpin the conclusion of this new study: inhomogeneous anthropogenic aerosol forcing (AER), biases in the instrumental sea surface temperature (SST) datasets, and inadequate representation of the response to varying forcing factors. Once the spatially heterogeneous nature of AER is accounted for, the MC period is reconcilable with external drivers. SST biases and imprecise forcing responses explain the putative disagreement between models and observations during the EW period. As a consequence, Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV) is found to be primarily controlled by external forcing too. Future attribution studies should account for these important factors when discriminating between externally-forced and internallygenerated influences on climate. We argue that AMV must not be used as a regressor and suggest a revised AMV index instead (North Atlantic Variability Index; NAVI). Our associated best estimate for the transient climate response (TCR) is 1.57 K (±0.70 at the 5-95% confidence level).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 30, 2019, 01:07:40 PM
Perhaps you need to wander over to Judy's place again.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I like to confine my occasional visits to the dark side to Arctic sea ice specific topics only.

If only Bill the Frog wasn't frantically busy studying physics at the Open University at the present moment:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/bill-the-frog/

Still no response from Anthony or Judy, or Mr. Mosher for that matter:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1133705017079345153
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 30, 2019, 06:48:19 PM
The force has been with me over on the dark side this afternoon (UTC).

The (in)famous Robert Ellison has taken my juicy bait at ex Prof. Judy's place:

Quote
Judah Cohen’s work is very much worth following – unlike WUWT.

The Arctic Oscillation has been negative – mostly – in April and May. Higher surface pressure at the pole relative to sub-polar sea level pressure. It is a very variable index over weeks and seasonally. It should settle down somewhat over the NH summer. But there are no hard and fast rules of course. Much longer term more negative values in both limited observations and models have been linked to low solar activity.

Archived for posterity at:
 
https://archive.is/rVqZb#selection-6743.0-6751.2
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 01, 2019, 07:07:34 AM
Mornin all (UTC),

My Maslowski missive to the "slime hole" that is WUWT is still missing.

https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/1134193598705143809

An acolyte of ex. Prof Judy has got his knickers in a twist:

http://archive.is/ZPg3A#selection-7301.0-7301.150

Ryan Maue is evidently "All mouth and no trousers":

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1134681415956742145

Last but not necessarily least, Big Joe Bastardi is "Not even wrong about sea ice":

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1134684460920823808

I wonder what joys the rest of today will bring?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 12, 2019, 01:34:45 PM
Here's the latest Arctic sea ice "Fake News" from all the usual suspects (except David Rose in the Fail on Sunday!):

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/ship-of-fools-iii-escapes-arctic-sea-ice/

The cryodenialistas have discovered that there's currently some sea ice off the east of Svalbard, whilst insisting it's off the west coast. For some strange reason they make no mention of the sudden absence of masses of multi-year sea ice north of Greenland.

Quote
Trygve Monsen and expedition leader Tore Toppe were among the 16 who were evacuated when MS Malmö got stuck in the ice on Tuesday. They respond strongly to what they call misinformation on the right-wing website document.no.

P.S. If any Norwegian speakers are in the house please feel free to critique my Google assisted translations into English.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: gandul on September 12, 2019, 03:45:13 PM
The PABOTUS has found the story of merit for his deplorable base
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 12, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
The PABOTUS has found the story of merit for his deplorable base

Thanks Gandul. I'll fire off a tweet in that direction too:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1172158138805608448
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 02:16:05 PM
Needless to say Donald still hasn't responded to my enlightening "Tweet", although one of his (presumed) followers has:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1172458058473189377

Given his lack of track record perhaps "Dave" is actually a bot?

Needless to say my enlightening comments are still "in moderation" at WUWT and NALOPKT. However over at Breitbart UK:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 02:33:04 PM
Shock News from WUWT!!!

I can only assume that Charles the Moderator has never heard of "Snow White" before.

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: blumenkraft on September 13, 2019, 02:41:06 PM

You can tell this Marvin guy is a moron because he calls everyone not denying CC 'the left'.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 02:51:58 PM
My constructive comment now seems to be invisible at Breitbart:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 02:53:54 PM
You can tell this Marvin guy is a moron because he calls everyone not denying CC 'the left'.

Perhaps he's actually a paranoid android?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: blumenkraft on September 13, 2019, 03:19:46 PM
No, paranoid androids are more human. ;)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 03:30:28 PM
Can anybody else see this comment?

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/breitbartproduction/delingpole_ship_of_fools_vi_8211_arctic_8216global_warming8217_mission_scuppered_by_mysterious_hard_/#comment-4614508256

If so, any chance of an up vote or two?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: vox_mundi on September 13, 2019, 03:55:51 PM
Apparently the Ministry of Truth at Breitbart dropped it down a memory hole to the incinerators in the basement.

Musn't let facts stand in their way.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 04:00:36 PM
The Ministry of Truth at Breitbart dropped it down a memory hole to the incinerators in the basement.

Thanks for the feedback Vox. Likewise at "Not A Lot Of People Know That" it seems!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: vox_mundi on September 13, 2019, 04:15:06 PM
https://i.imgur.com/PaSwfLU.gif
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 04:22:27 PM
A world of organised hatred?

https://youtu.be/52wis_sLT1I
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 13, 2019, 11:12:37 PM
My comment at Breitbart seems to have magically reappeared.

No magical correction by Mr. Delingpole to his original article is visible however.

All up votes still appreciated. The appropriate URL seems to be: http://disq.us/p/24bcxcw
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 12:49:56 PM
I have been engaged in conversation over at Breitbart, but comments are initially invisible to 3rd parties for quite some time.

I wonder when my response to Mr. Micawber will appear?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 01:59:41 PM
I wonder when my response to Mr. Micawber will appear?

It's there now, allegedly at: http://disq.us/p/24chxo0
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 02:02:45 PM
Just in case any native Norwegian speaking academics are watching, please feel free to join the latest "Great White Con" project over at ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Social-and-Political-Psychology-of-the-Ship-of-Fools-meme
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: gerontocrat on September 15, 2019, 02:33:22 PM
I have been engaged in conversation over at Breitbart......
Pourquoi?

There will be odd bits of ice in the Arctic for years and years, and years.
There will always be a story - a "best from the east" to make into an "AGW ain't real" story.

Breitbart and its backers will only change when the ratings and the advertising revenues fall.

Truth or lies are irrelevant to the Murdochs et al of this world, Ratings & Revenues decide.

I suppose if you get some enjoyment from it, go for it.
But frankly,  I just can't be arsed to spend any of my limited resources to tell them they are a bunch of shits.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 02:44:19 PM
Pourquoi?

It's part of an exciting new research project. See just above (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.msg228723.html#msg228723).
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 02:47:15 PM
In the latest "Shock News!" from the cryodenialosphere Steve/Tony has rather belatedly jumped on the MalmoGate bandwagon:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/ship-of-fools-iii-escapes-arctic-sea-ice/#Sep-15
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: blumenkraft on September 15, 2019, 02:48:24 PM
That's a shame. :(
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: SteveMDFP on September 15, 2019, 09:47:45 PM
...
I suppose if you get some enjoyment from it, go for it.
But frankly,  I just can't be arsed to spend any of my limited resources to tell them they are a bunch of shits.

You're certainly right that engaging with a committed denier won't alter the denier.
But in a public forum, there's always many more people reading than participating.  Many of them are on the fence.  Effective, reasoned posts can shift the views of the readership.

But it's a massive, thankless, Sisyphean task.   Kudos to Jim for fighting the good fight.  Personally, I don't have the patience, time, or stomach for it.  Maybe when I'm retired from employment.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 10:02:57 PM
That's a shame. :(

Actually there is much pleasure to be had over on the Deplorable Climate Science Blog  ;D

A recent example, currently still "in moderation", albeit on an old NWP thread rather than MalmoGate:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 10:07:22 PM
Kudos to Jim for fighting the good fight.

You are very kind Steve.

Actually I'm merely trying improve my rather threadbare academic C.V.

See above!
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 15, 2019, 11:07:37 PM
Actually there is much pleasure to be had over on the Deplorable Climate Science Blog  ;D

Likewise at WUWT. I'm very easily pleased!

This one is on the MalmoGate topic, and has escaped the moderator's red pencil:

Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 16, 2019, 12:15:29 PM
I've been having lots of innocent fun at the Deplorable Client Science Blog and WUWT as well. More on that later perhaps?

However for the moment at least here is my favourite ROFL generator, courtesy of Breitbart:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 16, 2019, 05:36:39 PM
For a change this is not David Rose on sea ice, but nonetheless the Fail on Sunday never fail to disgust me.

As a geriatric surfer from SW England I have been sending an annual donation to the Great British Royal National Lifeboat Institution for more years than I can remember. Now I read this:

Quote
RNLI-financed burkinis have been given to women and girls on swimming skills courses in Tanzania

Archived at: http://archive.is/Mfjjr
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 07, 2019, 11:42:58 AM
It's all go on the Arctic Sea Ice Con front at the moment!

No sooner have some people said some nice things about me on Judy Curry's blog than me old mates David Rose and Matt Ridley are out in force dissing Tamsin Edwards on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1181138013646213120
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 13, 2019, 02:00:15 PM
Matt Ridley still hasn't had the decency to apologise to Tamsin. Nor has Paul Matthews, or David Rose.

Meanwhile Eric Worrall has asked me to contribute a "guest post" to WUWT. (ROFL)^n!


Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: gerontocrat on October 13, 2019, 11:51:27 PM
Matt Ridley still hasn't had the decency to apologise to Tamsin. Nor has Paul Matthews, or David Rose.

Meanwhile Eric Worrall has asked me to contribute a "guest post" to WUWT. (ROFL)^n!
Expecting decency? C'mon, man.

To give copyright to WUWT. Oh dear! no, no no, no no no, no no no no.

Meanwhile - polar bears population (from the tweet)- the claim about numbers is from a book sponsored by - wait for it - GWPF (sorry Neven). The only use this idiot stuff they post is - is that it motivates me to find out some real data.

From WWF
Quote
Before 1973
Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the mid-1970's.

1973
Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat, strictly regulating commercial hunting. The US Government classified the Polar Bear under its Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2005
The polar bear was upgraded from Least Concern to Vulnerable by the the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.

2013
Ministers and other leaders from the five polar bear range states met in Moscow for the first International Forum on Polar Bear Conservation. The leaders made significant commitments to address issues of polar bear habitat, research and trade. This event was supported by WWF.

Today (2017)
Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.

Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.

In the future
By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This "Last Ice Area" is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.

A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades - with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.

Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.

but... https://www.totallyveganbuzz.com/news/over-5000-polar-bears-have-been-killed-for-sport/ TRUE?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 14, 2019, 05:46:23 PM
Expecting decency? C'mon, man.

The current WUWT moderator(s) has sprung to my assistance! (ROFL)^(1/0)
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: gerontocrat on October 14, 2019, 06:36:25 PM
Jim...

The small print says copyright on anything sent to WUWT belongs to them.

So I drag through a load of data, do my analysis, include it in my post & it belongs to that bunch of..... Then they can change it, twist it, whatever they want? And they can prevent me from posting the correct data & analysis - anywhere, including the ASIF?

No way. People should be warned to check the copyright policies of blogs, especially those that are anathema to people considering posting contradiction & counter arguments.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 15, 2019, 05:57:38 PM
The small print says copyright on anything sent to WUWT belongs to them.

Fear not Gerontocrat!

I have now been banned (again) from WUWT for the mortal sin of allowing myself to be abused in the most heinous of fashions:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 15, 2019, 09:44:14 PM
Shock News!!!

Anthony has published my polite question asking what rules I might have inadvertently infringed, and responded as follows.

Gator the abusive sock puppet is welcomed with open(ish) arms at WUWT. However Jim, bearing lots of peer reviewed evidence under my own name, is banished to the eighth circle of hell and beyond:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: philopek on October 15, 2019, 10:07:22 PM
Shock News!!!


I said it many times already, to tell the truth has become one of the biggest crimes nowadays and it is by no means restricted to online communities but is favored by all governments and their puppet institutions (or vice versa)

Not so long ago people were hung or burned have they been telling unpleasant truth to the average people.

Nowadays we are neither burned nor hung but our reputation is damaged and we're ridiculed, mostly and unfortunately by people who on a first glance seem to be just and honest and fighting for
good causes.

Political correctness is one of the results and US-President Truman already had his say about it upon his Admiral reported to him about Pearl Harbor.

None of us is perfect of course but those allegations are indeed far from anything I would have
guessed possible as far as @Jim is concerned.

I certainly do not consent with every thing he has to say which certainly is mutual and totally normally the case but IMO it's quite obvious who knows what he/she is speaking about an whether the intention is evil or just.

In my opinion we all err and are allowed to err in the process of learning as long as our intentions
are just, hence it's the meaning and the intention that makes things evil or just, else they're simply right, wrong, personal preference or relative.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 17, 2019, 11:56:55 AM
For some strange reason Anthony Watts is ignoring my follow up question:
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 17, 2019, 12:04:13 PM
None of us is perfect of course but those allegations are indeed far from anything I would have
guessed possible as far as @Jim is concerned.

You are very kind Philopek.

As far as I can ascertain the only possible motivation for Mr. Watts actions is to prevent his loyal readership from being exposed to the data (perhaps "facts" is too strong a word?) emanating from the Arctic.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 17, 2019, 01:38:29 PM
As luck would have it the latest article published at WUWT is by David Middleton on the thorny topic of Arctic sea ice.

How "unfortunate" is it in all the circumstances that I am prevented from commenting on David's words of wisdom?
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Klondike Kat on October 17, 2019, 02:55:00 PM
Shock News!!!


I said it many times already, to tell the truth has become one of the biggest crimes nowadays and it is by no means restricted to online communities but is favored by all governments and their puppet institutions (or vice versa)

Not so long ago people were hung or burned have they been telling unpleasant truth to the average people.

Nowadays we are neither burned nor hung but our reputation is damaged and we're ridiculed, mostly and unfortunately by people who on a first glance seem to be just and honest and fighting for
good causes.

Political correctness is one of the results and US-President Truman already had his say about it upon his Admiral reported to him about Pearl Harbor.

None of us is perfect of course but those allegations are indeed far from anything I would have
guessed possible as far as @Jim is concerned.

I certainly do not consent with every thing he has to say which certainly is mutual and totally normally the case but IMO it's quite obvious who knows what he/she is speaking about an whether the intention is evil or just.

In my opinion we all err and are allowed to err in the process of learning as long as our intentions
are just, hence it's the meaning and the intention that makes things evil or just, else they're simply right, wrong, personal preference or relative.

Unfortunately, this is true.  Too many are worried about perception, feelings, or their own personal agenda to be concerned about the truth.  This goes for dissenting opinions also.  Sometimes the truth is not know, but there are those who believe that they have all the answers, and mock and ridicule those who disagree.  Continue to put forth ideas, theories, and answers, and those that stand the test of time will win out.  But be careful, as many witch hunts may derail the truth.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 18, 2019, 08:51:35 AM
Too many are worried about perception, feelings, or their own personal agenda to be concerned about the truth.

That certainly applies to Anthony Watts! Hence:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1185084851336204288

Quote
As part of an exciting new research project we proudly present incontrovertible evidence of the ways in which "Watts Up With That" conspires to suppress "alternative" points of view regarding the current decline of Arctic sea ice.
Title: Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
Post by: Jim Hunt on October 18, 2019, 04:48:19 PM
Matt Ridley was on Julia Hartley-Brewer's "chat show" earlier. Apart from accusing Extinction Rebellion of "hypocrisy" Matt was rather economical with the truth about Arctic temperatures and sea ice. At the end of the video he exhorted Julia's loyal viewers to "stand up to the bullies". I think he was referring to XR, but I took him at his word and stood up to the purveyors of porkie pies at Watts Up With That in no uncertain terms:
 
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1185157156313677824