New Dogs; Old Tricks

New Dogs; Old Tricks“. Like the croaking raven, Steve McIntyre spends his days rasping out “the trick!” Steven Mosher assures us that this somnambulistic accusation is “largely misunderstood by nearly everyone discussing it, except Steve and a few of his readers.” Such brilliant minds that can, like the Emperor of fable, discern something so invisible to everyone else! I presume Mosher includes himself in that select few.

Mosher wants us to know that Steve McIntyre has begun a series of curmudgeonly posts about his critics, focussing strangely on desmogblog.com‘s summary  of Brian Angliss’ exposure of McIntyre’s false accusations about dendrochronology climate evidence.

Here’s a short version of the years-old puffed up controversy: “northern” tree rings correlate with interpreted climate trends up until about 1960 when they suddenly began showing an opposite trend. This means that “northern” tree rings are a useful climate indicator in older times because they match other measured trends. But after 1960 they don’t respond the same way as other indicators, so they shouldn’t be used in the most modern era. Why the change? I don’t think it’s understood yet. Why use the older data? Because it’s a good indicator and the data can be accurately collected. Seems kind of straight-forward to me. But Steven McIntyre claims that if tree rings stopped correlating to climate then they shouldn’t be used even for the time periods where they work. This is kind of like drinking from a bottle of milk every day and when later the milk starts to turn sour declaring that it must always have been sour.

Here’s a trick, Steven (and Steve): spend all your time implying malicious motivations by your critics and make vague insinuations about their arguments while talking as little as possible about the actual subject. You guys are good at that one.

As Steven Mosher grandly declares, we can indeed “watch the things [a slippery denialist] chooses to discuss and which things get ignored.” [my revision] Like the fact that so little of the scientific evidence of Global Warming is legitimately challenged by the denialists and how much time they spend talking about personalities and punctuation…

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper“. Anthony Watts gravely informs us of an uncovered climate conspiracy in New Zealand. But fear not, a “skeptical” (right-wing) New Zealand politician is calling for the replacement the existing New Zealand NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) climate record of a 0.92°C twentieth-century warming trend with something more ‘suitable’. Namely that it should be depicted as “remarkably steady at 12.6°C“.

A former politician named Barry Brill tries to fake it up with a “substantial essay” on a right-wing Australian website called Quadrant Online. Barry is also Chairman of the fraudulent denialist “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition”, caught in 2009 telling flat-out lies about NZ weather records.

The claims are all about “smuggled data” from Dr. Jim Salinger that doesn’t gibe with denialist’s anecdotal recollections, cherry-picked counter-examples and imputed political motivation. Somehow a conspiracy to manipulate climate data was initiated in 1994 in order to support a left-wing political agenda created in 2007.

Here’s the response from the NIWA to the denialist games. The above chart illustrates the dishonesty of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s claim that temperatures have been “remarkably steady“. There’s a “kaper” alright, Anthony. You’re part of it.

IPCC’s Chairman Pachauri Conflicted

IPCC’s Chairman Pachauri Conflicted“. Nothing seems to be sticking lately for Anthony Watts, so he’s casting about for more personal attacks on Dr. Pachauri. The denialist Science and Public Policy Institute has produced a so-called report (more of a rant really) titled “Dr Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC – No Fossil Fool”. Author Dennis Ambler claims that Dr. Pachauri “has previous or present connections, demonstrating a very clear conflict of interest” with energy companies in India.

All these secret connections! That Pachauri’s a tricky one. Wait, they’ve been public knowledge all along? Still, how dare he make intelligent, maybe even profitable, business decisions! Wait, isn’t that good capitalism?

Of course it’s all part of a “long-term UN agenda of wealth transfer from rich nations to poor nations.” Those cunning commies! Maybe someone needs to go back on their meds.

Arctic Sea Ice Reports: who to believe?

Arctic Sea Ice Reports: who to believe?” Anthony Watts implies deception about Arctic sea ice extent because different organizations (the EU’s “Arctic ROOS” and The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado), using different comparison periods and different methodologies, have slightly different ice extent graphs.

Anthony actually discusses the differences between two methods of calculation, which you’d think would be a starting point for realising that they’re different. But he prefers to lazily imply ulterior motives with statements such as this: “Of course we know that NSIDC director Mark Serreze is very active with the press.

You know that when Steven Goddard comes in to offer expert commentary the argument is profoundly flawed but he pops up here to declare that the chart below, to which I have added a 27-year  trend line, is good news for denialists! Go to the NSIDC link and compare the maps of the >2 yr. sea ice extent, shown as green pixels, for Sept. 2009 and Mar. 2010 and tell me what you think of Steven’s claim…

Ignore the 27-year trend, look at that blip in 2009!

Anthony finishes by trying to turn around criticism of his own earlier statements:

Don’t be fooled though. “Decreasing ice is climate. Increasing ice is weather.”

Anthony’s the one who tried to use a short-term increase in sea ice as a global warming disproof. Nothing that happens over a day, a month, a year, even a few years is “climate”, the denialists are the only ones who try to claim otherwise.

Belief in climate change tumbles in Germany

Belief in climate change tumbles in Germany“. Anthony Watts enjoys the confusion generated by the debunked denialist accusations about the IPCC’s last report. A brief Speigel Online article states that “fear” of climate change has dropped in Germany because of it. Think it will stick? Does Anthony think that psychological acclimatization isn’t a reason, or that climate change will reverse because of polling numbers?

Also the “respected German Leibniz research community” (they’re biologists and biochemists) want IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri to resign because of the same debunked accusations. Whatever!

Catlin Team Averaging 1.7 Miles Per Day – Only 295 Miles Left to Go!

Catlin Team Averaging 1.7 Miles Per Day – Only 295 Miles Left to Go!” Anthony Watts offers more petty sniping (and uncredited image usage) at the Catlin Arctic Survey team. Apparently they’re not moving fast enough for him and their ice measurements haven’t been scientifically random enough. Maybe Anthony will show us how a plump, but red-blooded, San Diegan does it?

Collecting a water sample. Image credit: Martin Hartley

Of course Anthony knows that they are traveling against the movement of the ice and thus their progress is pretty much one step forward, one step back. This has been a reality for every Arctic journey heading north from the Canadian Arctic Islands for the last hundred years. Some years surface expeditions actually lose ground! But that doesn’t suit his condescending intentions, does it?