The Small Picture

Over at WUWT there’s a new installment of Sea Ice News. The comments section includes this:

Smokey says:
August 4, 2012 at 12:06 pm

The big picture. Hardly any change in global ice. 23.5 MM km in 2000, about the same now.

The link is to this graph:

The thick line is a 13-month running mean, and note that the figure is titled “Global sea ice area NSIDC.”

The problem with calling this the “big picture” is that it’s the small picture. And a misleading one at that.

Minor issue: this graph is not global sea ice area — it’s global sea ice extent. Major issue: the 13-month running mean, intended to remove the annual cycle from the data (better to isolate the trend from the seasonal variation), fails to do so — part of the annual cycle remains. Great big giant issue-zilla: NSIDC data begin in late 1978 — so why does it start in 2000?

Answer: because that’s the only way to make it look like global sea ice isn’t shrinking fast.

Here’s my version of the same graph (compare to the one above):

I left out July of this year because the linked graph only goes through June 2012. I’ve also indicated the level of the 1st 13-month running mean with a dashed line.

The 1st 13-month running mean value is indeed 23.5 million km^2, but the final value is not the same, it’s 23.24 million km^2. Hence the last value shown is less than the first, by 0.26 million km^2.

More important is the fact that 13-month running means don’t remove the annual cycle. Here is a “phase diagram” of the 13-month running means, showing the residual annual cycle which they fail to remove:

The first 13-month average is for data from Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2001, centered on July 2000. The last value covers June 2011 through June 2012, centered on December 2011. Since the first value is centered on July it’ll be artificially low (July is near the minimum of the residual annual cycle), but the last value, centered on December, will be artificially high. That will make it look — artificially — like the recent sea ice extent is only barely lower than it was in 2000.

If you really want to remove the annual cycle you should compute 12-month running means [note: you can also compute 13-month running means as long as you give only half weight to the first and last values]. That gives this:

The first 12-month average is 23.82 million km^2, the last is 23.11, less by 0.71 million km^2. That’s 2.7 times as much as indicated when one mistakenly characterizes the trend with 13-month running means. That much sea ice reduction amounts to an area larger than the state of Texas. And that’s just since the year 2000.

If you want a bigger picture, just include more data. Here’s all the sea ice extent data from NSIDC (through July of this year):

Note that the overall decline is plainly visible, even without the 12-month running mean added in. We can also remove the seasonal variation by computing anomaly as the difference between a given value and the average value for the same month during some “baseline” period. I used the entire data set as the baseline, giving these anomalies:

Again the decline is plainly visible. It’s also statistically significant. If we characterize it by a linear trend we get this:

There is evidence (but not conclusive) that the rate of decline of global sea ice extent has increased, as indicated by a smoothed version of the anomaly:

According to the smoothed estimate, the net decline since the NSIDC data begin has been more than twice the area of the state of Texas.

In my opinion, commenter “Smokey” believes he’s justified in calling the graph of a small time span the “big picture” because it includes the Antarctic as well as the Arctic. He utterly fails to note that it’s most certainly the small picture — a mere 12.5 years out of a nearly 34-year data record. I also believe the small time span was deliberately chosen to minimize the obvious visual impact of sea ice loss — i.e., to “hide the decline.” It was further (in my opinion) mischaracterized by a smoothing method (13-month averages) which fails to accomplish its purpose, removing the seasonal variation, further “muddying the waters” by leaving part of that seasonal variation intact. Lastly — in my opinion — the real reason “Smokey” thinks it’s the “big picture” is that is seems to (but doesn’t actually!) support his claim.

Yet another comment actually does try to get at the “big picture” by referring to a post detailing various stories about Arctic sea ice. But the entire thing is anecdotal, not quantitative, and I stronly suspect was deliberately chosen (“cherry-picked”) to conform to a pre-determined narrative. It quite ignores that there are indeed objective, quantitative estimates of Arctic sea ice extent long before the satellite era. And what do those quantitative estimates say? You can read about that here and here.

The only thing actually to be learned from the comments on the WUWT post is this: that those in denial will easily find an excuse to believe what they want to believe.

85 responses to “The Small Picture

  1. Smokey is one of the convinced and quite righteous about it

  2. Smokey just got smoked.

  3. Smokey et al. represent small minds versus the big picture. And the big picture is not looking good, no matter how the smokey’s of the world try to spin it.

  4. I’ve seen worse. I mean, this is 12 whole years…. when they are really up against it deniers will put on the blinkers and only look at 5 years…. or 3…. or 1. The worst I’ve seen is when someone decided that it was worth drawing a graph of 2 years of data. Annual data.

  5. Yeah…Smokey is quite a character illustrating nearly all the bad qualities of the average Watts fan. He also seems to have some sort of special status at Watts’ site. I have to be particularly careful responding to Smokey’s comments there or my comment will never appear…I.e., he is allowed to get personal but if I do so back in even a fairly mild way, it seems to get nixed. I have sometimes wondered if Smokey is one of the people who is “bankrolling” Watts…That is, I imagine there are a few of his fans there who are also very generous financial contributors and my conjecture is that Smokey is one of them.

    The censoring of many of my posts directed at him is a bit ironic given that Smokey is always claiming how, unlike at Real Climate or here, posts there aren’t censored. Of course, anything I have tried to say contradicting this or pointing out the logical fallacy (How would he know what doesn’t get posted there?) doesn’t see the light of day.

    • arch stanton

      “He also seems to have some sort of special status at Watts’ site”

      Yes. He definitely gets extra protection. I ran into that too. And anyone complaining about it is a “whiner” (if their posts get through).

      I dunno about him being a sponsor though. But I have wondered if he is “sponsored”.

      BTW joeldshore – thanks for all the effort you put in over there. You put up with much more than I can tolerate. I find it too frustrating to put effort into posts knowing there’s a good chance that the mods may not let them through.

      • He’s been banned at least once and I think more than once, for flaming, though he usually gets away with it. But then so do most other contributors on the side of the angels. Rule of thumb seems to be that only outright noxious posts from sceptics may get banned, while others beware giving a hint of snark.

        I think Smokey is otherwise favoured because he is an indefatigable attack dog. He has an arsenal of links, the contents of which have not been seriously reflected on one whit by he, and he fires the same ol’ missiles again and again, often in sheer disregard of the topic.

        I’ve found occasion to swap some bon mots with him in the past, which was a nice surprise. He’s not relentlessly antagonistic. But it is an out and out, utter waste of time to argue with him on anything to do with climate change.

    • Joel – I get the same treatment at ‘the site that doesn’t censor’ – my posts are always delayed, and if I am engaging with ‘Smokey’, quite often disappear. I posted and then re-posted responses to his characteristically confrontational nonsense about the ‘Oregon’ Petition – and they failed to appear.
      Apparently ‘Smokey’ is exempt from Watts’ usual downer on pseudonyms because he is a personal friend and ISTR a veteran of some sort… he never seems to leave the relative safety of the threads at WUWT, as his idealogically-driven delusions would not survive scrutiny in a forum without his special privileges. He will probably read this, but he won’t dare respond here.

    • I don’t know if this has to do with the death of their main moderator, Robert E Phelan (REP) or what, but over the past several days, nothing that I have posted over at WUWT has gone through. Not sure if this is an explicit change in policy to very active censorship or if it is just a lack of fishing my posts out of the SPAM filter (which is apparently where they all go by default just by virtue of coming from me). Perhaps the days of WUWT even pretending to be even-handed in moderation are over?

      • I suspect it’s just lack of effort now that Phelan’s no longer alive.

        I used to be one of three main moderators for a very popular photo site years ago, and believe me, it’s a lot of work.

        Even when your goal is to keep the crazies out and the rationals in, rather than vice-versa as is true of WUWT!

  6. arch stanton

    Most all of Smokey’s graphs are cherry picked like that. It’s part of his M.O. Another part is his dry insults that somehow consistently make it past the ever so diligent mods there.

  7. I’m never quite sure what the “Look, the Antarctic ice is increasing” gambit is supposed to prove. Are we to believe that the Arctic decline is just a local effect, like the CONUS temperature record in the global context? Are we to conclude that some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism links the two polar trends? (Some commenters appear to think so.) Or is the idea that somehow the Antarctic ‘counter-balance’ will somehow obviate the feedbacks expected from the Arctic decline, making it ‘all OK?’

    Or maybe it’s just “Look! Squirrels!”

    • ‘Look, the Antarctic’ is like saying: ‘It doesn’t matter that there are billion people who are undernourished, because there are a billion people with overweight!’

      • More importantly, increasing sea-ice in the Antarctic has been predicted by climate models. The greater rainfall at the lower latitudes of the Southern Ocean (compared to the Arctic) freshens the water, which makes ice easier to form.

    • A bi-polar see-saw mecanism diminishes sea ice in the Arctic while increasing Antarctic sea ice

  8. Nice deconstruction of Smokey’s cherry-picked global sea ice “data”. Of course, those of us who’ve studied the crysosphere for any length of time know that a metric that looks at global sea ice is really just an interesting statistical exercise, as it combines two very dynamic regimes. But on a practical basis, the Arctic is the true canary in the coal mine. It has always been shown to warm first and warm the most in every climate model. And many studies show the Antarctic sea ice actually increasing for several decades. Years ago when I used to waste my time at WUWT I tried to actually point out these studies, foolishly believing the faithful there would actually read them without a jaundiced eye, if at all.

    But those of us living in the NH should care greatly about what is going on in the Arctic as it wil continue to have significant effects on our weather patterns. A great presentation on this can be seen at:

    • arch stanton

      ”Well, actually it does make sense…”

    • I have to say that your polite persistence in the face of so much unrelenting vitriol is astonishing.
      I’ve even seen WoahWooShuns, as I like to call Anthony’s dittoheads smear you even when you’ve partially agreed with them.

  9. My favourite example of the level of a typical WUWT commenter’s understanding of ice is this comment from last Christmas…

    Jim Peden says:
    December 22, 2011 at 9:22 am

    How ironic that “icebergs” actually reflect growing, not shrinking glacial systems. A receding glacier… well, simply recedes. Only a growing glacier calves off icebergs. Morons, all….

    If anyone thinking that receding glaciers calve is a moron, I can’t start to imagine what that makes Mr Peden.

    • Gavin's Pussycat

      That’s just par for the course. Didn’t Tony claim at some point also that the fact that an aeroplane that had crashed in Greenland was buried under accumulating snow, showed that Greenland is actually increasing in mass?

  10. And, of course, we have the total sea ice area also in decline.

    • That total ice are is of course skewed downward because NH ice is falling much faster than SH is gaining. The other thing that AGW deniers ignore is that SH sea ice melts to around 2 million sq. km. every year and that has not been changing up or down.

    • R. Gates

      Once an FSer came to the fantastic observation [parroted presumably] that the currents around the Antarctic were so strong that any extent getting too far out would be ripped to shreds. The facts I found was that the circumpolar was doing something like 2KM/hour up to several km deep. No idea “how rippin” that would be… meandering brook speed me thinketh.

      • Rattus Norvegicus

        For an ocean current that is pretty rippin’. For comparison, the current through the Golden Gate (SF, for the geography impaired) reaches around 8Km/h, sometimes more on a spring tide. This is through a very narrow opening and drains a rather large amount of water. So 2Km/h is pretty strong in the open ocean.

    • To add, . Is this maybe additive proof that the Antarctic has a quasi isolationary wall around it working to slow down the AGW impact?

  11. WUWT moderator REP, who has particular sycophantic traits, especially towards Monckton and Smokey, once stated that Smokey is personally known to Watts and some others and has saved lives, presumably through something he’s invented(?!)
    I’ve not been able to find the original link as it seems neither WordPress nor Google indexes WUWT comments.

  12. arch stanton
    Blatant ant-science misuse of the term “proof”. His (obscure) link (that by no means proves his point) does provide a suggestion of his true profession:“…Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of hitherto unknown coal deposits…”.

  13. arch stanton

    1. Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:31 am
    beesamen writes,
    “How refreshing it must be for the visiting Warmists to come to a site where differing views can be aired without the heavy hand of censorship.”
    Those of us who post politically incorrect views here find that we quite often get censored, even on technical points like the direction of sea currents. Those censored comments sometimes get re-posted on other sites, but if you don’t venture there you never see the censored posts.
    On the other hand, purely ad hom attacks against this site’s villains are encouraged.
    “As usual, Günther plays the smart ass with snark. He’s actually Neven. No scruples with this one. – Anthony”
    “Kirschbaum is German for Cherrytree. Picked enough for a big pie yet, Neven?”
    [Reply: Gneiss: Site policy is here. That is what commenters get snipped for. That includes mindlessly repeating talking points over and over again or introducing topics to a thread which is devoted to something else. We also do not encourage ad hominem attacks… and your two examples are not examples at all. As the old soldier’s saying went: “If you can find a better ‘ole, go to it.” (The one in Fan-ling Station was always a favorite destination.) Now, if you want to continue falsely griping about moderation policy, that too will be snipped. Capice? -REP]

  14. arch stanton

    A note to Ray Ladbury: Ray, I regret having provide links to a lame site (I know what it does to the Google searches). OTOH I would like to see Smokey, Mr. Watts and Rep dig their own graves. I also would like for Gneiss (and others) to receive credit where it is due.

    • …I regret having provide links to a lame site

      Would ‘nofollow’ help? I’m not sure how that’s working these days – perhaps others could clarify?

      Alternatively, Webcite or BackupURL make a copy that doesn’t give direct traffic to the original site, and there’s the added benefit of preserving material that might be otherwise inconveniently lost to a memory hole.

  15. Arch, At least this way I don’t have to click the frigging link. I refuse to give Anthony any more clicks that essential. The man is an absolute joke–the most pathetic creature on the denialist side with the possible exception of Judy Curry.

  16. Rattus Norvegicus

    And here Tony decides to look at the big picture but ignore the actual data. If you go to the NCDC site he links and select July 1930-2012 and show a line chart, you will see that indeed everything that AP reported is correct. So Tony, will you retract? I doubt it.

    • The best part from Anthonies story is this one…

      “Due to regional weather pattern variability, one state in 1936 had below normal temperatures, Texas. Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012.”

    • Rattus Norvegicus

      Oh, it gets worse. Here Tony, in his increasingly desperate attempts to prove that warming isn’t really happening calculates the temperature at 75.5F. See! NOAA is lying. Of course he neglects to calculate the average for the other years of the full CRN network. My guess, if I was inclined to do this, but I’m not, is that this month is a record. But you can’t tell if you compare apples w/oranges.

      • arch stanton

        apples w/oranges

        One of his bread and butter techniques along with:

        -Let me quote this hyped/amateur/blatantly deceitful (pick one or more) news review of a study as if it represents the paper/the authors.

        -Gore/Hansen/Mann are: fat/not perfect/associated with Penn State.

        – and more squirrels.

        Then he lets the altered reality of his cheering section pound in some more thumb tacks. They are both the drinkers of and the Kool-Aid itself (in both the Jim Jones and Kern Kesey contexts).

  17. Fielding Mellish

    “Smokey is personally known to Watts and some others and has saved lives,”

    Yeah, good one. The lowwatt ideology promotes a system with a high probability of causing death or distress for millions of people. Over there at Dimville, they really know irony–it’s just like bronzy and brassy, only with iron. :)

  18. Dr. Everett V. Scott

    Is everyone really worried about arctic ice disappearing? I really don’t see any problem:

  19. Dr. Scott,

    Try looking at the time series data.

  20. “What makes it different this time?”

    7 billion people. Fragile agriculture. Declining petroleum stocks so that it will be difficult to make up the losses due to drought and flood simply by throwing fertilizer at the problem. Nukes in the hands of callow people.

    And, as you may have noticed, the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    • Dr. Everett V. Scott


      You are full of passionate intensity. However, none of those things affect arctic ice cover.

      [Response: You say “The arctic has been through this same cycle many times before.” What “cycle” are you referring to? When is the last time Arctic sea ice was so low? When is the last time Arctic sea ice disappeared so rapidly?]

      • Dr. Everett V. Scott

        To “Response”: I was referring to the natural ebb and flow of arctic ice levels. There is ample evidence that the current lows have been observed before over the past several hundred years.

        snarkrates: You complain about my screen name? I doubt if your driver licence says Mr. Snarkrates.

        Also, I have been very polite, and I object to the constant pejoratives of ‘denier’, ‘denialist’, and so on. They have no place in reasonable scientific discussion, and if the insults continue I shall simply leave.

        [Response: Regarding what “cycles” you refer to, all you can say is “the natural ebb and flow”? That’s no answer at all. If you mean natural variation rather than “cycles” then say so. If you mean “cycles” then tell us exactly what cycles. If you don’t know the difference then admit it. So far you’ve told us nothing.

        Regarding when Arctic sea ice was last so low you claim “there is ample evidence” but you neither provide nor point to any such evidence. This is nothing but argument by assertion, which again tells us nothing. In fact there is strong evidence that Arctic sea ice has not been so low for at least 1400 years (discussed here) or at least 2000 years (discussed here).

        Regarding when Arctic sea ice last disappeared so rapidly, not one word.

        Making ludicrous false claims which are contradicted by the actual scientific evidence, then when specifically asked for evidence providing nothing but more false claims — that is what has no place in reasonable scientific discussion. If that’s the best you can do, then your absence will be a welcome relief.]

      • Dr. Everett V. Scott,
        First, why should I take seriously a man wearing women’s stockings?

        Second, if you do not like the term “denier” or “denialist”, might I suggest that you either 1)deign to actually consider the evidence; 2)suggestalternative terminology for those who refuse to consider the evidenc; or 3)grow a frigging pair.

  21. Tamino and Jeff, you are being Poed. Didn’t you guys ever see “The Rocky Horror Picture Show?”

    Hint: Great Scott!

  22. Dr. Everett V. Scott

    Ray Ladbury,

    My, feel the impotent hatred! You just cannot have a civil conversation – a hallmark of the wild-eyed, always wrong climate scaremongers. Where is that runaway global warming, anyway? It never happened, did it? No. And it will not happen. It was always a false alarm.

    I gave you your chance. So this is good-bye. I will MovOn to sites that have significant traffic, where I am not insulted for simply having a different scientific point of view.

    No wonder you are losing the argument. You know it, too. That’s why your responses are ever more shrill and insulting. That takes the place of admitting that there has been no global warming for more than fifteen years. The planet is making fun of your scare stories.

    And to “Response”, whomever you are: I do have voluminous evidence and links supporting what I wrote. I keep current with the literature. I can show conclusively — chapter and verse — that the current arctic variability has happened over the past several hundred years (when carbon dioxide was much lower), and repeatedly over the past 10,700 years. That could make for a lively discussion here. But I asked to not be insulted, and that others not label me with pejoratives. My request was ignored.

    So say what you want, Ray, have the last word. I will not comment here again, nor view what anyone writes. I will comment where courtesy prevails.

    A Dios.

    [Response: Let’s see … you have voluminous evidence which will show conclusively — but you won’t produce it. No wonder you’re losing.]

    • it appears that the good doctor was too dim to figure out that ‘Response’ was Tamino responding to his drivel. It appears he was also too dim to understand that our ire rises from having to respond to lying sacks of feces telling the same lies over and over. And saddest of all, he was too dim to appreciate the irony of using a computer to tell us that science doesn’t work.

      Just like the creationists, the denialists are always ‘just on the verge’ of overturning all of science and erasing the Enlightenment from the history books. These folks are about as pathetic as human beings get. .

    • arch stanton

      “First, why should I take seriously a man wearing women’s stockings?”

      The same thought passed through the dead fictitious person buried next to the gold’s mind.

      I feel the presence of Dr. Nutclusters.

  23. Philippe Chantreau

    Saying that there is ample evidence without even pointing to any at all is poor rethoric. What evidence?

    • bananastrings

      \”Saying that there is ample evidence without even pointing to any at all is poor rhetoric.\”

      I disagree, Phillippe. It depends on how many people get suckered by it, and it depends on what counts as evidence. Climategate was a highly effective rhetorical play that was targeted at a very well-understood audience of highly suggestible people, and there was evidence, even if the evidence was constructed of dreams and fairy dust. CG worked very well, and I\’m sure whatever Doctor Everett V. Scott, PhD, etc., etc., works very well for his target audience. I\’m sure they eat it up. I\’m also sure that it has about as much to do with reality as the CG fairy dust.

      But I could be wrong, and boy do I want to be wrong. Being wrong about this particular issue would make my year — maybe my whole life. So do me a favor, Doctor Everett V. Scott: bring the evidence. Ignore the sniping and bring the source of your confidence to bear directly on the willing audience members here at Open Mind. I hunger for your theory. Savage me with your insight, because the evidence thusfar is conspiring against me and my children.

    • Evidence? Heaps!!!!

      Just look at all those ships’ logs from the sealing, whaling, fishing fleets of the last few hundred years boasting of the ease of Arctic sailing and the abundant catches year after profitable year. The libraries of Britain, Norway, Russia, the Netherlands and everyone else who ever put to sea are just bursting with all the required information.

      It’s just killjoy naysayers who focused on a few *other* ships’ logs complaining of inaccessibility, impossible weather, crews starving to death trapped in ice and all that other doom and gloom nonsense who’ve got all the publicity.

  24. Horatio Algeranon

    Sounds like Pierre de Nier’s Last Theorem:

    I have discovered
    A marvelous proof
    Global warming is bunk,
    A mammoth goof!

    But alas, this blog
    Is simply too small
    To contain the proof
    So… that is all.

    • bananastrings

      Horatio, that is simply spot on. May I distribute widely, with credit?

      • Horatio Algeranon

        Sure. Be Horatio’s guest.

        Maybe someone who reads it will be able to prove it some day (with elliptical arguments?)

  25. There is little doubt that “smokey” (who posted 16,000 comments on WUWT according to his own account) is really David Stealey, WUWT moderator “dbs”.

    The problem with egos like Stealey is that they can’t resist revealing who they are in several posts, for example this one :

    which points right back through his “gravatar” :
    Retired from a 30 year career working in a metrology [science of
    measurement using physical standards traceable to N.I.S.T.] lab,
    calibrating temp, humidity, datalogger and similar instruments.

    Now, if a WUWT moderator is also posting as the resident troll, posting ad hominems and aggravating visitors just to generate more comments and traffic, then one may raise some eye browns w.r.t. conflicts of interest.

    But even if we overlook this despicable behavior of a moderator, it seems that WUWT is also engaging in a double standard. Anthony Watts has no problems exposing pseudonyms (and even the physical location) of people he does not like, but my two attempts to expose that “Smokey” is actually Dave Stealey, using exactly the same wording, were moderated away.

    Now that we know that WUWT uses pock-puppets of their own moderators to enhance their traffic, the only question is : how many posters at WUWT are actually suck-puppets of their own moderators ?
    Does anyone dare to assess who all these other nut-cases are that post there ?

    • Gavin's Pussycat

      > pock-puppet

      Socks on all your houses

    • arch stanton

      “Now that we know that WUWT uses pock-puppets of their own moderators to enhance their traffic, the only question is : how many posters at WUWT are actually suck-puppets of their own moderators ?”
      I have also wondered that.
      I have also wondered how many how many responses are “poe”. I know for a fact that at least some have been, although I have no idea how many. Tony’s is the dinalist’s equivilent of a born again poe magnet

    • Kevin MacDonald

      Rob Dekker | August 14, 2012 at 8:36 am | Reply

      There is little doubt that “smokey” (who posted 16,000 comments on WUWT according to his own account) is really David Stealey, WUWT moderator “dbs”.

      The problem with egos like Stealey is that they can’t resist revealing who they are in several posts, for example this one :

      Interesting, although I did suspect as much. Two or three years back, having had yet another personal e-mail address blocked, I submitted my work e-mail when making a comment. Smokey, who, apparently, doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, immediately attacked me for being a government shill, but was quite reticent on how he suddenly knew I was a civil servant; a detail revealed only in the e-mail address that Watts promises will “never be made public”.

  26. Or if David Stealey is actually a sock-puppet himself ?

  27. Actually, our friend “Smokey” may be just one sock-puppet name for David Stealey, any we may never know how many puppets are playing in the WUWT theater, or if “David Stealey” is a pseudonym himself, but he is propably not Anthony himself.

    At least in this picture, he is identified in this post as the bold guy sitting opposite of Anthony :

    Interesting is however, that these guys at WUWT are really not that hard to take out if you don’t make any mistakes in your posts.

    For example, in the same Sea Ice News update from which Tamino debunked Smokey’s statement on global sea ice extent, a character by the name of Richard Courtney appears late in the thread, posting unfounded allegations against Jan Perlwitz (who has been particulaly active lately debunking nonsense from Stealey et al on WUWT, and the subject of Anthony’s smear-posts).

    Richard S. Courtney is the Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry.
    who (looking at the picture) is certainly not Anthony Watts nor David Stealey..

    Such a position in the coal industry seems a fair reason for Courtney to deny AGW, but, as with any denier, you can expose their mistakes if you check the details of their statements and stick to the facts.

    I think that there are an aweful lot of sock-puppets on WUWT, and only a few “professional deniers”, and I think that stopping these nutwings in their track is the only way to challenge their inflated ego’s, so feel free to point out flaws in their arguments here or on Watt’s site. Beliefs are very strong human characters, but reason will prevail over belief, if carefully executed. Just be aware of Potholer’s first law, and ….. be careful out there.

    • Does anyone know the address or name of Perlwitz’s blog? I’d like to have a look and can’t find it.

  28. I also did not find Perlwitz blog. There is a Forbes entry for Pelwitz, but it contains no posts. Just a listing of denier postings.

    What I did find is that Perlwitz did expose a number of flaws in Anthony’s new “unprecedented” paper, Watts et al 2012, in this thread :
    with a (non-scientific) response to Perlwitz scientific comments around August 5 by Anthony himself.

    Then, when WUWT moderator Robert Phelan passed away, Watts put up an inappropriate comment in an otherwise very respectful and heartwarming thread expressing support for Phelan’s family :

    The last telephone conversation I had with Bob was on Wednesday. He called me because he was concerned about an attack website setup by NASA GISS employee and WUWT protagonist Jan P. Perlwitz.
    REP had fairly and rightfully admonished Perlwitz here for some comments he made that were over the top, and in response, Perlwitz decided to setup the attack website. Bob told me to look at it, but also said prophetically “you should take your blood pressure medicine before you look at it”.
    Shortly after that, Mr. Perlwitz responds with an attack site. REP told me that he left a comment there, I don’t know whether it was approved or not or what conversation came after that.
    … etc etc…

    Now, I really am kind of shocked that Anthony would want to even mention anyone’s specific web site and designate it as an “attack” website in a thread announcing the death of a highly respected moderator. But to scapegoat Perlwitz personally (including linking to an html with Perlwitz address and phone number) and point out perceived misbehavior in interaction with the deceased is at the very minimum highly inappropriate in context.

    Luckily, nobody else on that post seems to even acknowledge Anthony’s inappropriate smear post against Perlwitz.
    And nobody seems to know which “attack” web-site by Perlwitz Anthony was refering to.

  29. Actually, Anthony’s smear post against Perlwitz reminds me of Marc Morano’s smear post against Monnett’s wife after Monnett was interrogated by special agents of Inspector General for publishing an observational paper on downed polar bears.
    Don’t these guys have any ethics at all ?