Goddard is a man who is not hard to impress, but is obviously in denial. He proudly claims a new record for Ice Extent with the following image from NORSEX;

 I suppose it looks a bit better than the latest from NSIDC;

 But the irony is that he claims a 'New Record' by only looking at the years from 2007, the real record of the lowest extent ever recorded, and completely ignores how it is below the recognised average indicated by the blue dots.

Now to start preaching about a 'New Record' just a bit below average takes some belief, but I'm sure his loyal following will act suitably impressed.

If a high point in just the last six years warrants a post just how short a time frame can he go? It seems he is capable of keeping this nonsense up indefinitely.


  1. Why are you showing the NSIDC graph dated Feb 5,2012 (notice the date in the lower right hand corner) and comparing it to the Norsex March 5, 2012 graph? Try looking at the NSIDC March 4, 2012(I provided the link) graph so you can compare apples to apples. You screwed up the Woods for Trees Graphs and now you screwed up the ice extent graph comparison. I see a pattern.

    1. The reason why I used that graph is it was the latest I found using tracks for the same years that Goddard included in his. I think that is more apples to apples for the point I'm making - that any time a track is on top, will be a 'New Record' to Goddard no matter that they are all below average and no where near any record.

      Perhaps there is a daily version, I couldn't find it but will be happy to include it.

      I did make an error in another post, though Goddard thinks I should include 2012 data even though this is only March, probably because it makes his cherry picking look stronger.

      The pattern that you should see is that once I noticed the discrepancy, I apologised and corrected it.

      On the other hand, when an error was pointed out to Goddard, he called me 'scum' and even though he has now admitted a mistake he has never apologised for it or corrected it in the original post or in the download available from the Science & Public Policy Institute to mislead people.

      So from that pattern of behaviour, who is more likely to be concerned about truth and accuracy and who is likely to be the most dishonest?

    2. Unless you want to have a blog with constant errors, I suggest you think first before posting. Example: I went to Real Science and noticed that they had the same graph I found on my first attempt yesterday. Your excuse, "I couldn't find the March graph" is less than weak because Real Science had the March 4, 2012 graph already posted prior to your post and all you had to do was take a screen shot of that graph from Real Science and insert it here. Problem solved.

      Instead of thinking and figuring it through you chose to use the February graph which can't possibly be confused with the March graph at Real Science by anyone with eyes. Everyone makes mistakes but there is no excuse for the illogical process you used in this post other than being blind. Do you disagree or do you think I am being unfair?

  2. I don't have a blog with constant error, I correct error. If you don't like it you don't have to read it.

    The March graph has just been posted today (dataed 5th March,, the one above was still there last night.

    I choose Febs graph because it was the latest available that compared years and the best one in my opinion to compare to Goddard's that compared years. It is the best one that shows Goddard's 'New Records' are far from anything new and just misdirection - It shows a 'new record' in Jan as well.

    The graph you think I should have used, you claim is 'apples to apples', shows only this year and is completely useless to compare Goddad's ridiculous below average 'records' with.

    You can question my reasoning but don't call the intentional an error rather than engage with the actual issue of the blog.

    The simple point is that if you agree that Goddard's 'New Record' is a significant event worth blogging about, we have nothing more to discuss and I believe you are gullible and have been duped.

    If you, as I, can see that Goddard's below average 'new record' happen all the time and show no significance in the trend of sea ice extent then you agree with the sentiment of this post. So which is it?

    1. You misrepresented data in order to argue your point! It wasn't necessary for you to do so IMO. You may argue the significance of Goddard's post that March 2012 set a new record in the NORSEX data, but his statement is FACT! However when I examine your statement, "I suppose it looks a bit better than the latest from NSIDC;" this is not fact and is actually an untrue statement because your graph was not the latest graph from NSIDC. The March NSIDC graph was already posted at Goddard's website prior to your post here, so you had no excuses for not using the March NSIDC graph.

    2. Papa Zu,

      In defending Goddard you are at risk of looking somewhat dense.

      What is the point of Goddard's post?

      This very clearly was not a new record. The Norsex page shows only traces from 2007 onwards, Goddard's faux peak only just makes it into the -1 sigma grey area of the long term average. Yes that's MINUS 1 sigma. So this was clearly not a record.

      Had Goddard been interested in being accurate he'd have stated it was a record for the post 2007 period. But he didn't. He said it was a new record.

      Goddard was wrong.

      Try to maintain the alternate view and the evidence will only make you look dense.

      There's been a bit of discussion about whether Goddard is mendaceous or just plain thick. I favour the former based on my own reading and the work Lazarus has been doing.