A Case Study In Dissonance And Implausible Deniability

After the 2007 Arctic wind event, the community of “experts” took full advantage of the propaganda opportunity and started forecasting imminent meltdowns.

  • Orheim – Ice free Arctic in 2008
  • Serreze – Ice-free pole in 2008
  • Fortier – Ice free Arctic in 2010
  • Zwally – Ice-free Arctic in 2012
  • Maslowski – Ice-free Arctic in 2013
  • Gore – Ice-free Arctic in 2014

PIOMAS trends show 2014 or 2015

After I posted this graph, alarmists started screaming that “my graph” was unrealistic, and that experts had written papers explaining why it would take much longer. David Appell went so far as to say this

Unbelievable stupidity on display. I post alarmist’s useless forecasts and alarmist’s useless data, and they come back with references to some obscure paper explaining why their own data and forecasts are useless. Didn’t the experts above read the paper?

Then David Appell accuses me of distortion. No David, you are just incapable of rational or objective thought. Your team wants to have it both ways. They want to be able to make stupid alarmist forecasts, and the same time pretend to be doing serious science.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to A Case Study In Dissonance And Implausible Deniability

  1. Me says:

    Pretty Much! 😆

  2. Gon says:

    Let’s hope Greenland mass balance doesn’t budge further into negative territory once the summer sea ice is gone in a few years. Between 1992 and 2011 Greenland mass-balance was -150 Gt/year, and between 2000 and 2011 -225 Gt/year.

    Bonus question: Did the UHi cause all this?!

  3. David Appell mostly posts ad hominem anyway. Occasionally (but rarely) he cites some goofy speculative paper coming up with a new hypothesis of one sort or another that seem to be in line with his beliefs. This he treats reverently. Although for any research that questions his beliefs, he mysteriously becomes a hard core sceptic. 😉

  4. tckev says:

    A little off topic but…
    Some people (including scientists) believe that they understand water and ice.
    Explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

    Water is the strangest common substance known to man.

  5. pjie2 says:

    It’s not an obscure paper. You’re making claims about what the PIOMAS model forecasts. So I went to their website, looked at their “publications” page and pointed you to the most recent forecast paper they’ve put out. It’s the second hit on the page, the most recent paper deals with uncertainty / validation of model estimates rather than forecasting.

    If you want to know what PIOMAS says, find out by reading the papers. A curve fit is not a forecast. By the way, I’m quite happy to say that many people on the other side of the debate make the same mistake.

    • So you must be very upset about all the ridiculous 2008-1013 forecasts being made by leading government experts.

      • pjie2 says:

        Yup, I think they’re overblown. Not by much though, I think there’s a real chance of dropping to around ~1.5 million before 2020, and complete loss a decade or so later. That’s what you get if you scale the Tietsche et al forecasts forward to match the current observed rate of ice loss, and it’s in the same ballpark as the PIOMAS projections for the more aggressive forcing scenarios.

        If you want to make a small long-term bet – say £50 that we’ll go below 2 million (NSIDC monthly average or IJIS daily min) by 2016 – I’d be happy to. I don’t go over £50 on frivolities like bets.

      • Warmists distance themselves from the bad forecasts but never ever criticise them when they are made.

      • Marian says:

        “Then David Appell accuses me of distortion. No David, you are just incapable of rational or objective thought. Your team wants to have it both ways.”

        Yeah, Steve.

        They do want it both ways. It’s any way the windblows junk science.

        As I’ve pointed out before one of the classics of that were the claims from PIK on Arctic Ice loss and supposed weather/climate effects. They shot themselves in the foot as their claims from the Head of PIK and their leading Climatalogist a few years ago both claimed the opposite. Ice loss would cause more extreme colder NH winters. Ice loss would cause more milder NH winters. 🙂

  6. Dave N says:

    I’m just peeved that I need to wait about 3 years until PIOMAS start reporting negative numbers..

  7. Whatever says:

    David Apell is absolutely right in stating that Goddard uses distortion. Take this post for example: Goddard posts predictions of different people without ever mentioning those 3 little words “At this rate”.

    In Zwally’s case he said in 2007, after a period of high melt, AT THIS RATE the Arctic would melt by 2012. Perfectly accurate. Zwally didn’t say that he expected the same rate to continue but simply referencing the rate which had just occurred.

    Goddard has been shown this point a number of times and yet he still tries to distort. Considering the free fall in ice volume and that all of his own predictions are grossly wrong, what other tool does Goddard have other than distortion?

    • Are you completely daft? The whole point of this discussion is that it is non-linear. Don’t weigh in if you are too dense to follow the discussion. Next time you go to spam. I’ve had it with people posting the same stupid comments over and over again.

      • I’ve lost count of the number of times a defence of a claim has dwindled down to arguing over the interpretation of words such as “THE” and “THIS”. This strikes me as a standard tactic of dumb people who assume they are smart.

      • Glacierman says:

        “it depends on what the mening of is is.”

    • fp says:

      “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” Sounds like Zwally was making a prediction that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2012. At the very least, he is trying to mislead the reader into getting that impression. He is comparing the current rate of melt to previous predictions, not to previous rates of melt.

    • DEEBEE says:

      whatever Whatever

  8. Andrew Troup says:


    Read what you just wrote. You conveniently changed what he said to leave out the word NEARLY.
    Standard operating procedure, as I’m finding out here. Repeat this a few times in succession and you have a Chinese whispers misrepresentation.

    He also used the word “COULD”
    Last time I checked, this did not mean “WILL”

    And last time I checked the Arctic, his tentative warning was looking scarily close to justifying his worst fears.

    • So basically you’re stating that any an expert can make any stupid claim that he wants as long as he qualifies it by inserting the word ”could” in front.

      • Windchaser says:

        @Will: Yes. Which is why real science uses actual estimates of the probability, and includes error bars, so that you can later compare the results with the prediction.

        ‘Course, newspaper readers don’t want to have to think, so any subtlety and nuance gets tossed out. It’s why science journalism isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. In a newspaper, “could” might mean a prediction of 80% certainty or 20% certainty, and you have know way of knowing the difference.

        But yeah, Zwally’s statement was 100% factual*, just overly dumbed down for laypersons. If you want to put yourself in the position of a reader, of one of those dumbed-down laypersons, that’s fine, but I don’t think you’re doing the skeptical position any favors. You’re certainly not arguing science, just semantics, or maybe presentation.

        *Yes, at that rate of melting, we *would* have had an ice-free Arctic by about 2012-2013. Do you disagree?

      • Passing Wind,

        If afternoons continued to warm at their current rate until 6am the next day, it would be 150 degrees.

        If IQs of alarmists continued to drop at their current rate, they would drop below zero.

        Hope this helps.

      • Windchaser says:

        Sadly, it doesn’t help much at all. For we can certainly imagine a scenario where Arctic sea ice would fall to (nearly) zero, whereas the two scenarios you presented aren’t even superficially realistic. Still, your first statement is factual and accurate.. and yet, no one but a complete idiot is going to take what you just said as *predictions* that tomorrow’s temperature will be 150 degrees.

        Maybe this is why skeptics are having trouble here? Because it’s at least *plausible* that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2013, they took Zwally’s comment as a prediction, instead of just speculation?

        All in all, your argument boils down to “scientists shouldn’t speculate about what happens if we extrapolate trends willy-nilly”. Hey, I’m on board with that 100%.

        But you aren’t rebutting Andrew’s claim even a little: that Zwally’s comment wasn’t a prediction at all, and that you calling it such is dishonest.

      • Windchaser says:

        In other words, applying *exactly* the same standards that you applied to Zwally, I can now say “Steven Goddard is predicting temperatures tomorrow will be 150 degrees”.

        Do you think that’d be honest?

      • timg56 says:


        So it is ok to make a statement knowing that much of the public who sees or hears it will ignore the nuances and the qualifying words and just go with the base message?

        Isn’t there a certain level of responsibility for scientists for at least trying to ensure their statements don’t get overblown or misconstrued by the press or other “interested” parties?

    • In other words, you aren’t very bright.

Leave a Reply