Wooah!! Top scientists to examine "fiddled" global warming figures!!!

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

exaggerating temperatures is ghey >>>

Did exaggerated records make global warming look worse Daily Mail Online


Stanley????

 

[orogenicman]

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating fake controversy over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate - Science - News - The Independent

The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit.

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.

The smell of Fear and Desperation....Alarmist are in full protect mode.... CIRCLE THE WAGONS!!!!!

Too Funny....!! It too is written by a Podesta Front Group...

I agree the smell of fear and desperation, that instead of arguing the science, since you people cannot, you instead, attack it. Fear and desperation, indeed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating fake controversy over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate - Science - News - The Independent

The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit.

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.

The smell of Fear and Desperation....Alarmist are in full protect mode.... CIRCLE THE WAGONS!!!!!

Too Funny....!! It too is written by a Podesta Front Group...

I agree the smell of fear and desperation, that instead of arguing the science, since you people cannot, you instead, attack it. Fear and desperation, indeed.

screwing with the data is ghey s0n!! Zero fear s0n..........go look at my new thread about Obama and US energy exports!!! And I should be worried???


Smell that..............like a cesspool if you are a global warming k00k!!

 

[jc456]

WOW! WOOAH! AND YOUR PARENTS LIED ABOUT SANTA AND THE EASTER BUNNY! IF you are over the age of 40 and pay attention to little things like the local weather, you may have noticed the radical changes in the last 20 years. Oh, I see people fiddling with the facts here, those petroleum industry huggers that can't get past basic science or reality 101.

huh? what are you smoking?

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....I hear Pete Townsend too!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

 

[orogenicman]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

 

[IanC]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

 

[orogenicman]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

 

[Old Rocks]

Research Highlight Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC San Diego

During the past several years, scientists using global climate models (GCMs) that are more complex than process models found sea ice loss in response to rising greenhouse gases in their computer simulations is actually reversible when greenhouse levels are reduced.

“It wasn’t clear whether the simpler process models were missing an essential element, or whether GCMs were getting something wrong,” said Wagner, the lead author of the study. “And as a result, it wasn’t clear whether or not a tipping point was a real threat.”

Wagner and Eisenman resolve this discrepancy in the study in an upcoming Journal of Climate article, “How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability.

So, if we reduce the GHGs, then the sea ice will come back. But only after those levels are reduced. Considering that the Arctic is beginning to emit a lot of GHGs on it's own, at some point, we may find that we cannot go back by reducing our output. Also, even if we reduce our output of GHGs, the GHGs currently in the atmosphere are going to take decades before the natural processes reduce them to the point that the ice can start coming back.

 

[IanC]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

 

[IanC]

Research Highlight Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC San Diego

During the past several years, scientists using global climate models (GCMs) that are more complex than process models found sea ice loss in response to rising greenhouse gases in their computer simulations is actually reversible when greenhouse levels are reduced.

“It wasn’t clear whether the simpler process models were missing an essential element, or whether GCMs were getting something wrong,” said Wagner, the lead author of the study. “And as a result, it wasn’t clear whether or not a tipping point was a real threat.”

Wagner and Eisenman resolve this discrepancy in the study in an upcoming Journal of Climate article, “How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability.

So, if we reduce the GHGs, then the sea ice will come back. But only after those levels are reduced. Considering that the Arctic is beginning to emit a lot of GHGs on it's own, at some point, we may find that we cannot go back by reducing our output. Also, even if we reduce our output of GHGs, the GHGs currently in the atmosphere are going to take decades before the natural processes reduce them to the point that the ice can start coming back.

And yet the Arctic didn't reach a tipping point in the MWP, or the Roman WP, or any of the other periods of warm temps in this interglacial.

 

[jc456]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

well yeah, why did he have to expose the truth. shame on him.

 

[orogenicman]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

 

[IanC]

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Too Funny...

New paper out shows that the climate tipping point is nothing more than pure conjecture from failed models. Even arctic sea ice is no where near critical...

Source

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

 

[orogenicman]

Another rant from Anthony Watt. Oh dear.

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

I don't see Marcott's work as being faulty. I know of few who do. I don't know about the "Stevens" issue. Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

[IanC]

What a sad joke you are.

Billy Bob directly quotes one of the authors of the paper and YOU rant at Watts for publishing it.

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Comiso and other climate scientists reject the suggestion that his data set may overestimate the recent trend in Antarctic sea-ice growth — by as much as two-thirds, according to Eisenman's analysis. Another NASA sea-ice data set, processed using the other standard algorithm, shows a growth trend similar to that in Comiso's current data.

Paul Holland, an ocean modeler with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, calls the overall growth figure a distraction, and relatively modest. What truly stumps scientists, he says, is the fact that Antarctica experiences huge ice losses and competing gains in different regions, a pattern that is unaffected by this study.

“I don't think this lets us off the hook of explaining how Antarctica's sea ice is expanding in a warming world,” says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

I don't see Marcott's work as being faulty. I know of few who do. I don't know about the "Stevens" issue. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I bumped two Stevens a and one Marcott threads for you.

 

[orogenicman]

Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record Nature News Comment

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

I don't see Marcott's work as being faulty. I know of few who do. I don't know about the "Stevens" issue. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I bumped two Stevens a and one Marcott threads for you.

I posted Marcott, ET AL's response right after your post that included Roger's complaint.

 

[IanC]

Your last link is yet another example of how the first press release lives forever and the underlying story never sees the light of day.

Antarctic sea ice was kept at a lower level for 17 years because of a mistake. It was corrected 'accidentally' and with no fanfare in 2008. When the mistake was announced it was spun in such a way as to minimize the increase, and imply that it was no big deal.

To reiterate- Antarctic sea ice extent kept low for years by a mistake that would have been caught if it had been in the other direction. Mistake quietly fixed when it deviated so far that it couldn't be hidden any more. And when ASIE finally started to get noticed and become inconvenient, the mistake was trotted out with a garbled inference that it 'explained' how sea ice was at record highs.

What? Did you expect them to hold a parade? And so you are upset because you didn't get the memo? Really?

I am upset that press releases get sent out with faulty conclusions favoring CAGW and the scientists involved don't try to correct them. Eg Marcott. On the other hand when a press release favours the skeptical position there is an immediate response that clouds the issue leaving the impression that it has been rebutted. Eg Stevens.

I don't see Marcott's work as being faulty. I know of few who do. I don't know about the "Stevens" issue. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I bumped two Stevens a and one Marcott threads for you.

I posted Marcott, ET AL's response right after your post that included Roger's complaint.

Yes, and my post included that link as well. I have no problem linking at both sides. In this case it was sleazy to let reports make incorrect assertions for days, and then run away and hide behind the fine print