This is the last post on pseudo-skeptics for a while, I promise. I have written four in two melting seasons, out of approximately 250 posts.
The Arctic sea ice, it can burn.
We all remember how Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard were a bit overconfident last year and predicted a nice recovery ('you bet ya'). Their prediction turned out to be just 1 million square km too high. Of course, it didn't matter much for their reputation.
Nevertheless, this year the bravado has magically disappeared and thus they didn't do any predictions, although Goddard still likes to imply that we are witnessing a recovery at every opportunity he gets (for example writing multiple posts at the start of the melting season about how well 2011 is tracking 2006).
Their colleague Joe Bastardi did much better, taking a conservative view and predicting that 2010 would go relatively low. As it did. This success instantly made him last man standing on the pseudo-skeptic side of the debate. Or at least with regards to the Arctic sea ice.
So what did he predict for the 2011 melting season?
One down, zero to go. Extent didn't set a new record low, but the credibility of pseudo-skeptics did. Bastardi was at least as wrong as Watts and Goddard (who got off lucky) last year.
Of course, this could happen to anyone (happens to me quite regularly). But most rational and honest people own up to their mistakes and learn from them. Or did I miss Bastardi's explanation for his miserably failed prediction?