“Watching the Deniers” makes hilarious goof while accusing WUWT of “doctoring” NSIDC images (2013-07-05). If Anthony ever happens to be right about something, which like a stopped clock is about once every 43,200 instances, you can be sure he’ll beat it to death (or is it more strut about like a rooster?). When Anthony’s Aussie ditto head Eric Worrall spotted an accusation at Watching the Deniers (WtD) that Anthony had doctored an Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph to conceal the fact that the decline in Arctic ice extent was more than 2 standard deviations away from Anthony went .
Silly Mike, Anthony only by pure chance used the option on the NSIDC charting web page that suppressed the display of statistical significance! That’s just misrepresentation, not dishonesty, the kind of thin line that Anthony spends his life dancing back and forth over.
Anthony Watts likes to use the version of this chart that excludes statistical context. Makes it easier to imply that every wiggle is “just natural”. Click to see the difference.
After a short display of indignation Anthony runs quickly through the gamut of blogging postures.
- Victim card: WtD is driven by “hatred”!
- Anticipation of censorship: “I’ve left a comment explaining Mr. Marriott’s absurd misconception and asked for an apology. We’ll see if it passes moderation, and if he lives up to his “professional services” label.” Oh, it made it along with all the other denialist ditto head attacks. Mike ain’t you, Anthony.
- Megalomania: The king of the interwebs commandeth and threatens – “Change it sir. I won’t ask again.”
- Ad hominem digging.
- Dog whistle: “In the meantime, you can leave comments here.“
- An update to the whining: Anthony contentedly reports that WtD has been forced to change their post, retracting the “photoshop” claim. Funny I can’t recall Anthony ever doing the same, I guess he’s always been right.
Thus ending Global Warming. Which was natural anyway if it was happening. Which it wasn’t.
Wott's Up With That? 
And now that Watching the Deniers has changed their post (as requested) they’re being accused of hiding their error, despite that fact that the modified post refers to this error and to the fact that the post has been modified, as requested. Really can’t please some people any of the time.
Silly me for pointing out this simple misrepresentation… :)
Can’t please king of the interwebz and his minions.
“An update to the whining: Anthony contentedly reports that WtD has been forced to change their post, retracting the “photoshop” claim. Funny I can’t recall Anthony ever doing the same, I guess he’s always been right.”
Of course he would like here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/peter-h-gleick-genius/
Where he accuses Gleick of thinking the traffic lights had been melted by the sun even though you can easily see Gleick had already tweeted it was likely caused by fire long before Anthony commented.
Anthony immediately corrected the post and apologised … oh wait he did no such thing and is in fact a massive hypocrite.
de ja vu http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/anthony-watts-words-are-sancrosanct-just-ask-him/
Just an update, it appears the NSIDC have amended the presentation of all their graphs – both show the standard deviations (SDs).
Check out the sea-ice page on WUWT and the NSIDC sourced graphs: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Putting aside all the sound and fury, my original assertion about the presentation of data is valid.
To not include the SDs risks misleading and misinforming readers and the general public.
In addition to everything else, one of the charges laid against me by Mr. Watts small army (irony) was that I dared to suggest such minutiae was important.
“SDs, who the [expletive] needs them you [expletive]!” was but one the many abusive charges thrown at me.
It seems the NSIDC regard their presentation as meaningful and providing the right context.
It is also clear, intentional or not, that WUWT failed to follow the lead the NSIDC took four years in the presentation of data.
Mr. Watts can no longer be selective in his choice of which graphs to present.
The issue has been addressed ;)
WtD: “To not include the SDs risks misleading and misinforming readers and the general public.”
Hmmmm, seems to me from watching WUWT over many years – misleading and misinforming and misrepresentation and diversion away from the actual factual issues…
is what they are about –
Learning from the science in a constructive manner is certainly at the bottom of Anthony’s list. :- (
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WtD: “Mr. Watts can no longer be selective in his choice of which graphs to present.”
ROFLMAO
Wanna bet?
. . . they’ll figure out a way. Lordie knows they got practice.
First watching the deniers makes a silly mistake and now you do Ben.
WUWT didn’t create the chart it was automatically generated by NSIDC on a daily basis just as the chart that shows STD is. In fact, prior to August 2009 when the new chart with STD first became available it was their standard chart. For example just look at their “Sea Ice News Update” from May 2009 and you’ll see the chart without STD is used:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/03/
So when you say “Silly Mike, Anthony only by pure chance used the option on the NSIDC charting web page that suppressed the display of statistical significance!” you are wrong. It’s false. It’s another silly mistake. WUWT didn’t use the charting web page to generate a custom chart without the STD included. All you had to do was click on the image to know that since WUWT doesn’t host any charts on the sea ice page they are all linked directly from the source.
[Pay attention; the version that provides statistical context has been available for four years but Anthony has chosen to ignore it. Why? – Ben]
Ben you could at least admit your mistake. Anthony did not generate that chart as you claimed – and that is easily proven. The WUWT sea ice page referenced a chart that was readily available from NSIDC and was in fact the standard chart for NSIDC for years. It’s not misleading or dishonest to not show STD otherwise all of the other groups that don’t include STD would be guilty of being dishonest and that would be a silly claim.
Could Anthony have updated the sea ice page to include the newer chart? Sure. He could have. But the sea ice page always included charts with STD so it’s disingenuous to claim that Anthony didn’t include the NSIDC in order to hide anything. There are 40 charts and graphics on that page along with links to every known source of data. That’s not what I call “hiding” anything.
[So your defence is that Anthony’s lazy? Nolo contendere. (Sorry for the delay getting back here) – Ben]
“Pay attention; the version that provides statistical context has been available for four years but Anthony has chosen to ignore it. Why? – Ben”
Another mistake on your part Ben. You and Mike both assumed that Anthony never used the NSIDC chart with STD because he was hiding something. That claim was easily proven wrong just by looking at the Sea Ice Reference Page on WUWT and seeing that other charts shown included STD.
But more importantly it turns out that Anthony actually used the NSIDC chart with STD many times for the “Sea Ice News” blog entries. Here are some examples:
Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 13 – 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum reached, it’s all gain from here
Sea Ice News Volume 4 #2 – The 2013 Sea Ice Forecast Contest
Sea Ice News Volume 3 #15 – Arctic sea ice doubles in October
Sea Ice News Volume 3, #2
Sea Ice News: rapid re-refreeze of the Arctic in October, 40% faster than normal
I’m sure I could find more. Now will you finally admit that both you and Mike were wrong? You believed Anthony was hiding the information when in fact he featured it. Way back in 2008 he even called having STD displayed a “bonus”. Just because that specific chart wasn’t on the Sea Ice Reference Page it doesn’t mean he was hiding it and these posts conclusively prove that point. I think the problem lies with you ascribing motive on Anthony’s part.
I hope this post makes it past moderation!
[Your sleuthing shows that Anthony loved standard deviation only when it suited his narrative. Thanks for the laugh over the “it’s all gain from here” claim! – Ben]
Really? Maybe you could explain how showing how far below the 2 STD range it got in 2005 and 2007 fits his narrative. [The narrative is that natural variation explains everything, anything troubling is JUST A BLIP. – Ben] In case you didn’t notice, one of those links is from last month. That’s right right one month before Mike accused him of being dishonest, cherry picking, and misrepresenting the exact data shown in his post on June 6th.
Another way of saying it is that he FEATURED it just one month ago. Yet you still can’t admit you were wrong???
You do realize that the “it’s all gain from here” is referring to the fact that the minimum was reached for that season, right? Anthony was paraphrasing Dr Walt Meier of NSIDC: “In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will climb through autumn and winter.”. Is that funny for some reason? [It’s funny because Anthony picked the only phrase that could deceive his readers. The REAL trend is remorselessly down, but Anthony is trying to make hay from the annual cyclic pattern. – Ben]
[Sorry again for the delay in approving, I’m pretty busy in real life at the moment. – Ben]
Please write up an answer to Monckton’s post at WUWT. I need this badly.
It has been a long time…. I’d forgotten how the parody name went, but, then….
Thoughts:
I read WUWT, often. Despite that, I can’t make sense of your blog at all. It’s not informational, just smarmy junior high school yucks about how stupid you think Anthony Watts is. I can’t marry a single article you write with one I’ve read there. And, out of context, the blog really seems like a string of bad jokes….
Did Anthony will Best Science Blog again? I didn’t know that. Cool! And Tallbloke and McIntyre, too. Soon, Judith Curry will make the top of the lists as well.
But, this is my question: how do you do this? Do you have another job? Is nipping at Watts’ ankles a fun thingie you do, or is someone paying you for this? Who? (I believe that even the Soros-funded Climate Progress, starring Joe Romm, could not be sustained as a stand alone.) You, obviously, don’t have a wide readership or guest writers like Watts does.
…Did you read the lovely personal account on the site about becoming an AGW skeptic? Nice, I thought.
(Also, there’s quite an exchange between a “benny” person who believes in AGW and some others, in the comments to that post. No one has clipped that exchange — like, apparently, you do. And Real Climate and Deep Climate, too. I cannot imagine what in heaven’s name you are referring to, indicating Watts moderates, snips opposition views. Not at all in my experience — and some exchanges get quite heated. Here is just repetitive rah-rah of no significance it seems, as I read recent comments.)
But, again, what’s your motivation for doing this? Money? Hatred for Watts? You, obviously, know only a superficial bit about the science itself (beyond the joking ridicule) so I wonder what drives you.
Best. ….Lady in Red
[My motivation? Anthony Watts is a contemptible dissembler on important climate issues. You still seem quite happy to be reeled in. – Ben]
I just searched WUWT for the post “larak” is referring to by Lord Monckton. A quick look and a quick search found nothing, since May. Is that what he’s referring to?
Now, I often find Monckton’s stuff challenging to read (albeit a tad pompous at times), but having watched him, in debate, chew up and spit out adversaries, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that this scientifically thin site might be an appropriate foil for his thinking, his mind?
Quickly, on WUWT, I searched for a comment by “larak” but again found nothing.
On casual examination, your denizens don’t seem top o’ the barrel. Do you have the type of following you covet (if not, as yet, the size)? …Lady in Red
PS: I see Anthony Watts did, indeed, win the Best Technology/IT Blog. He also won all ‘roun Best Webblog of the Year and he’s in the Hall of Fame, for his multi-year wins. You denigrate him and his readers with your sideline ridicule. I keep wondering if there’s not something more constructive you might do.
[Yes, Anthony Watts’ gaming of online polls proves that Global Warming isn’t happening! There are those that tell the lie and those that cling to it. I see you’ve made your choice. Not sure why “larak” not commenting at WUWT proves anything, but Anthony’s eagerness to post Monckton’s scientifically discredited puffery nicely illuminates his own political agenda. – Ben]
Lady in red – You’ve got it. I thought it was just me, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. Ben’s blog really is bewildering in its pointlessness. Why read it? I don’t know why I do.
[Malicious, irrelevant, ad-hominem statements removed.]
I’ve tussled with Ben here before – his fragility and vanity mean he’s easily teased. But my motivation is not really to bully him, but to find out why on earth he writes this blog in the way he does.
Nobody reads it. He fails to counter with alternatives, instead resorting to odd and juvenile tongue-twisting name calling. He’s also a hypocrite, a master of the straw man, a conspiracy theorist (he likes his sock puppet accusations and notions of Anthony snipping and banning), quick to jump to 21st century ‘ism’ defences, a routine deployer of the non-sequitur, and an accomplished subject changer (see his odd response to your 6:01 post where he introduces, with a profound “Yes” salutation, something about online polls proving global warming isn’t happening – where did that come from? Nothing you mentioned as far as I can see).
These comments sum it up for me: https://wottsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/a-cool-white-christmas-almost-two-thirds-of-the-continental-usa-has-snow-cover/#comments
Ben has chosen a very silly start point for a post. RJ is obviously right and is cruelly enjoying Ben’s squirming (it’s also clear where Ben picked up the word ‘dissembling’ huh?). But for something very revealing take a look at Ben’s response to J Fujita’s comments. It’s just the oddest thing.
I would be very surprised if he published this comment; he doesn’t usually; he normally just picks up his ball and runs home.
[Dim-witted arguing about arguing, boasts of intellectual prowess, lame attempts at intimidation, a shotgun blast of lies. No wonder I didn’t rush back to approve this contribution to the scientific debate over Global Warming. I hope you enjoyed making your final comment here. – Ben]
Whew! I still wonder who pays you for this…. but…. perhaps, like Wm Connolly, it’s something compelling in the DNA? It certainly has little to do with truth, honest debate. ….intelligence, even.
….Lady in Red
PS: But, I’m happy you’re happy you “reeled me in.” ….smile.
[So smugly proud of your cluelessness. Goodbye once more. – Ben]