Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 Next
Comments 56051 to 56100:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:15 PM on 28 July 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
curiousd, John Cook like most of the contributors to SkS is very busy, and not paid for his contributions to SkS, nor for hosting it. I am sure that he attempts to read the comments on a regular basis, so that commenting here or on the SkS facebook page are probably among the most reliable ways to contact him. There is, however, no guarantee. For what it is worth, I have drawn attention to the fact that you are trying to contact him on another forum I know he frequents. There is no guarantee that he'll read that, either, and even if he does he may well be too busy in any event. -
curiousd at 11:52 AM on 28 July 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Is there any way to post a response to something from John Cook and know he reads it?Moderator Response: [DB] I have sent a message on your behalf to him. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:45 AM on 28 July 2012Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming
Daniel the issue does deserve a better analysis. Strat. WV is increasing in the stratosphere above Boulder (fig 2 above) long term. And SWV arrives in the stratosphere from storms (observations described in the article I linked). Ozone is off topic in this thread, but when I looked it up I saw this simple page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation There are influences on Brewer-Dobson such as ENSO http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JAS3433.1 There are other contributions to SWV like methane oxidation.Here's some support for the "stronger storms causes SWV" hypothesis: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA.....1794W
Recent observational studies indicate that the lower stratospheric water vapor concentration increased by 1 to 1.5% annually in the midlatitudes in the last 35 years. The mechanism proposed here may serve as a key process in the possible explanations for the observed trend.
On the other hand, there's evidence for the opposite conclusion for SWV trends, http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/H2O_after_2001.pdf "Global satellite observations from HALOE show a substantial, persistent decrease in stratospheric water vapor since 2001." Obviously 5 years won't say anything about long term trends and attribution, but it rules out simple depictions like the paper I originally linked unless their explanation also includes these natural fluctuations. -
tmac57 at 11:19 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, if Mann's so called 'trick' is so central to your critique of mainstream climate science,and results in what appears to be nit-picking on your part,what then,do you make of the many errors that the 'skeptical' climate scientists have been called on? Do you or McIntyre,Watts,etc. endlessly probe the minutiae of those scientist's works for any cracks in the facade of their scientific credibility,searching endlessly for fraud? Point me to any 'climate skeptics' who did this same level of trashing of the Douglas et al 2007 paper for example. Why do I have the feeling that you have only challenged the consensus climate science? -
Daniel Bailey at 09:45 AM on 28 July 2012Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming
"It sounds to me like this is a strictly localized effect."
Not exactly up to your usual standards of analysis, Eric. Heart just not into it today? -
Tom Curtis at 08:54 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Hameiri @190, when the so-called hockey stick was first presented to the public by Nature in 1998, there was no truncation. MBH 98 and MBH 99 did not use any data with a divergence problem, so there was no "hide the decline" either, which is a separate issue. Nor was the proxy record extended by the use of instrumental record. Individual proxies that terminated before 1980 where extended to 1980 by persistence, ie, by repeating the last value up until 1980. As proxies tended to follow temperature, and temperatures were rising in the 20th century, this would introduce a cold bias to the proxy record in the 20th century. Instrumental values were used to create end points beyond 1980, ie, where no proxy record existed, in creating the smoothed function. However, as discussed above, the smoothed function was not the reconstruction, and was not used in deriving any scientific results. What is more, using other methods (persistence, proxy mean, mean of last 25 values) all represent a choice to "predict" that global temperatures cooled significantly after 1980 and that therefore the proxies would show that "cooling" when in fact we know global temperatures warmed. This is what really annoys the fake skeptics about Mann's choice with regard to smoothing. He chose not to show a cooling in the smooth which he (and they) knew to be spurious. -
KR at 07:55 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Hameiri - Rob Honeycutt is quite correct. The _right_ way to disprove someone's conclusions is to provide your own, with better support from the evidence. Every year there are more science papers submitted. Many don't get through peer review due to obvious mistakes. Others pass peer review, and are found lacking - additional papers point out the issues, and we learn, and we move on. Others are found to be rather pointless (gravity proven for the Nth time!) and are just ignored. There are no paleotemperature reconstructions that contradict the basic conclusions of Mann's work, whether the initial 1998 paper or later ones (including by Mann himself) - recent warming is faster, and currently warmer than, any time in the last few thousand years. If you disagree, present your evidence and let everyone take a look at it. That's science, not whining about minutia and claiming it invalidates the broad strokes of the work in the field. And so far, skeptics have not ponied up... -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:31 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Hameiri... If anyone bothered to actually read the papers it would be clear what Mann was doing. Heck, the color version of the graph clearly uses a different color for the instrumental record. What more can you want? Also, Sphaerica didn't say that "he" doesn't care, he said, "no one" cares. I have to agree with him. It's really a completely pointless exercise to "audit" a scientific paper the way McIntyre has. Scientists are allowed to get things wrong! But wrong results become apparent when further research shows things to be different. That's not what has happened with Mann's work. Further research has, in fact, confirmed MBH's conclusion... repeatedly. So far no multiproxy reconstruction has shown anything other than what MBH showed. So, the "skeptics" need to put up or shut up. Either produce a good quality reconstruction that produces results that calls the other research into question, or... (self snip) -
Klaus Flemløse at 06:13 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I have tried to transfer money to Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, but it the donation page does not work today. -
curiousd at 06:07 AM on 28 July 2012Newcomers, Start Here
To John Cook, I have been deep into contacting, and reviewing various kinds of solar charities/offsets and found a lot of interesting things. But to do this right is going to take a while. There are complications. For instance, say you have two efforts that were equivalent otherwise, but one was in a population that had a high growth rate within a forested area and another was in a stable population. It might be argued that for the rapidly growing population, improved birth control would be the better choice for a contribution and in the stable population case, the solar offset would be better. -
Kevin C at 06:07 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Disclaimer: I am not a sociologist or a social anthropologist. Therefore the following analysis is at risk of Dunning-Kruger. There is something interesting going on. Many of the same blogs which condemned the Heartland unabomber poster, and in some cases also the SkS hack, are posting the Mann slanders, or at least posting material which allows the reader to infer them. How can the skeptic community not have learned from Heartland? What is going on? The easy answers are that they are morally deficient, or maybe saw an expediency in condemning one case but not another. I don't believe either of these. Most people don't do things they recognize to be evil. I think we are seeing the scapegoat mechanism at work. A community at stress seeks outlets for that stress, frequently through finding a figure to blame: The well known fictional archetype is Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's '1984', although there are also obvious historical examples. The scapegoat becomes an archetype, a dehumanised recipient for all of the frustrations of the community. This explains why the targeting seems so arbitrary. Why a palaeoclimatologist, when there are much more obvious targets? It was chance, but once established in the role, the myth takes over. It also explains the apparent double standards, condemning some outrages but turning a blind eye to anything concerning Mann. If correct, this analysis gives some pointers in responding:- We must not accuse those who are perpetuating this material of evil. To do so represents a failure to understand what is going on, and in doing so shuts down communication. Point the unfounded nature of the accusations and the injustice of the comparison.
- We must be vigilant in avoiding casting prominent skeptics in scapegoat roles ourselves. Otherwise we just perpetuate a cycle of rhetorical violence, and the outside observer will rightly conclude that neither side is capable of reasoned discourse. However, the scapegoat mechanism is part of our anthropology: Avoid it involves constant and careful self examination.
- Bear in mind that the scapegoat mechanism is a stress relief mechanism. If things get worse, that may well indicate that stresses within the skeptic community are also increasing. (Note: I am studiously avoiding the obvious Gandhi quote here. Persecution can be an result of progress, but should never be mistaken for a measure of progress.)
-
Hameiri at 05:37 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Sphaerica - That you don't care is interesting. When the "hockey stick" was first shown to the public in presentations and documentaries, I don't believe this truncation and appending was made clear. They were trying to prove a point, and they didn't want to muddy the waters. Well, whether you care or not, the waters are muddy now! -
IanC at 05:09 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Dikran, Yes it is really a subtle point, and I probably won't have picked it up either if David hadn't point out the problem. However no matter how simple the argument is, I agree that the argument should be as accurate as possible. Given that the strength of a hurricane theoretically depends on temperature contrast between the surface and tropopause, rather than the temperature itself, we should make that clear. I suggest that instead of "extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy", we can replace it with "due to the greenhouse effect, the surface is warming relative to the top of the atmosphere, which in turn increases the amount of energy available for driving hurricanes." I believe it is consistent with the physics, yet avoids the need to discuss the thermodynamics. An advance version, where the thermodynamics can be examined in greater detail, will certainly be useful. When I attended a talk given by Kerry Emanuel a few months ago I was quite fascinated by the theory, and found thermodynamics to be interesting for once! -
CBDunkerson at 05:04 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
HS, by 'lawsuits going the other way' I assume you mean climate scientists suing 'skeptics' for defamation. Why would you "wonder whether people want this door open"? I'd say it is long past due. The simple fact is that the courts in most countries have strict standards on what sort of 'scientific' is admissible... and virtually the entire body of 'climate skepticism' would not qualify. Basically, climate 'skeptics' are even more at a disadvantage in the legal arena than they are in the scientific... and getting trounced in the court-rooms will make it much harder for them to make progress on 'public opinion' - the one area where the facts being against them isn't a major impediment. -
HS at 04:23 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
(snip) Either way, this will open the door to further lawsuits going the other way; there was the Rahmsdorf case in Germany already. I do wonder whether people want this door open. (snip)Moderator Response: [RH] Moderation complaints snipped. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:13 AM on 28 July 2012Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming
Stronger storms may destroy ozone (subtitle: Extra water vapor up high coul trigger destructive chemical reactions)For now, the danger exists only on paper. Actual measurements tracking chlorine compounds in the stratosphere would help to confirm whether the damage is taking place and, if so, how widespread the problem may be
It sounds to me like this is a strictly localized effect. -
Albatross at 04:10 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Brandon @20, Thanks for your response, although it is unfortunate that your reprehension of Mr. Steyn's slander and falsehoods had to be solicited. As for your claim that you have not attempted to obfuscate, I think readers of this thread and the Muller thread will see it very differently. As for your claim that the main post contains a factual error, I'm afraid that you have not made a compelling case in that regard, as has also been noted by other commentators. Regardless, for argument's sake even if the main post does contain a factual error, it does not make the actions of Mr. Steyn (which were likely inspired by Mr. McIntyre's musings) or the repeated attacks on scientists by Mr. McIntyre and his ilk any less reprehensible or defensible. "but it is inexcusable to compare anyone to a child molester" Then I hope you will join me in condemning the following comments and innuendo made at ClimateAudit following a post by Mr. McIntyre (posts which were not moderated): "Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply A month or so ago, Judy Curry had a thread on a study of Jungian psychological profiles of climate scientists vs other physical scientists, and the results were quite striking. They are indeed, very, very different. It isn’t just your imagination." "Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Reply .....Steve, thank you for once more drawing attention to the strange personal properties that can be acquired by some scientists. The one that bothers me most is the departure from the generally accepted “scientific method” in the loose sense. It seems that it is often accompanied by departure from the norms of general social conduct, such as a reticence to conduct an honest inquiry, a dogged defence of inventive methodology that is plausibly flawed and so on to areas seldom discussed." Brandon "I have little interest in op-eds." I'd strongly suggest that you read Mr. Steyn's article, you might see some familiar accusations thrown around, some of which appear to have originated at ClimateAudit. His article is also critical to the main post. So you never read the op-ed by Mr. McIntyre that is demolished by DeepClimate then? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:04 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon... We've all had our comments deleted from time-to-time here. I've written articles here, I'm pro-AGW, and occasionally I step over the line and get my comments deleted. This is not an "anything goes" website. It's more of a regulated boxing match here with rules on how to keep the fight clean and fair. It's not a cage match like many other climate related sites. And I know this is off topic so that's all I'll say. Thx. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:48 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, you used what in sales and marketing is called a presumptive internal call for agreement for an implied conditional statement; an agreement equivalent to saying "if beating your wife is unacceptable on this site..." Stick to the science instead of ideology and spin and you will find, like most participants here, that this site is a haven of adult dialogue (and moderation-free) in a blogosphere predominantly adolescent in nature. It really isn't all that difficult. I recall a 14-year old girl posting here with no difficulties whatsoever. -
DSL at 03:43 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
I still don't see where the comment in question: "The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish." is claiming that "all energy" is being converted to mechanical. 1. The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation. 2. extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy 3. and storms are driven by such energy. 4. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy 5. or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish. Is it in point 3, the "such" of which I read as "increased lower trop and sea surface temp"? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 03:40 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Daniel Bailey, I have a copy of my deleted comment, and no matter how many times I reread it, I can't figure out what in the world you're talking about. I'm going to take that as a sign I shouldn't post here anymore. I apparently just can't figure out how to do it successfully. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:37 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
cheers Ian, you do a much better job of explaining the issue! It seems to me one of those things where a straightforward presentation for the general public isn't actually the whole truth, but is enough to convey the basic idea. Perhaps there needs to be an advanced version of the post? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 03:23 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Albatross, there have been no "attempts to obfuscate" anything. I saw a factual error in a post, and I pointed it out. That's all. My views on anything else in the article have nothing to do with whether or not what I took to be a factual error is in fact a factual error. As it happens, I hadn't read the article you're talking about, and I still haven't. I have little interest in op-eds. That said, I can give a general view. If the article compares Michael Mann to someone guilty of child molestation, I think that's completely unacceptable. I have no problem with people drawing parallels between how incidents were handled (as in, whether or not investigations were adequate), but it is inexcusable to compare anyone to a child molester. I don't know why my views on the subject should matter to anyone, but hopefully that clarifies things.Moderator Response: [DB] It is noted that it is Brandon's perception that there is a "factual error" in an SkS post. Thus far, he has yet to provide convincing evidence to prove his central tenet. -
BKsea at 03:12 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I find it ironic that people are saying Mann's efforts are going to invoke the "Streisand effect" given that the "fame" of Mann is due primarily to the Streisand effect - he would probably be little known outside of climate science but for the efforts to trash his name. I also think you need a graphic of the hockey stick graph with a big arrow pointing to the blade with the caption "This is the problem," and another arrow pointing to the handle with the caption "this is what we are arguing about." In my mind, we could throw out Mann's entire body of work and it would not change the climate narrative one iota - we are still facing dangerous warming. -
IanC at 03:04 AM on 28 July 2012Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Dikran, Kelvin's version of the second law states that No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work. i.e. some of the heat extracted from the warm source must be transferred into the cooler reservoir. Effectively the 2nd law states that not only do you need a cold reservoir to receive the heat that is not converted to work, there is also an upper limit to how much work you can extract. Any statement indicating otherwise amounts to a violation of the second law, and any machine that is more efficient then what 2nd law allows is a perpetual machine. Having a cooler reservoir is necessary but not sufficient to comply with the second law. You also have to make sure that the machine does not do more work than the second law allows. -
Albatross at 02:54 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon, I am an open person too, so are all the people posting here. I am not sure what the point of you saying that is. Numerous of my comments here at SkS have been moderated (no one's fault but mine I might add), and IIRC even deleted (again, my wrong doing), but that is not an excuse for me or anyone else to stop posting here or to avoid answering direct questions. So please stop making excuses and avoiding answering the question; I have posed it to you again on the relevant thread here and would be very grateful if you answered it. Thank you. -
Albatross at 02:48 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
What I am interested is whether or not Brandon agrees with Mr. Steyn's article. That is where he initially posted. So far Brandon has not said either way, although one could rightly assume his attempts to obfuscate and his silence on the matter as tacit approval of what Mr. Steyn said. I also wonder how Brandon would feel had made similar false accusations against Mr. McIntyre of the same falsehoods in a newspaper? I hope that we can receive an unambiguous and unequivocal answer from Brandon. -
fishellb at 02:18 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
#4, my understanding is that Mann's attorney knows libel law very well and doesn't take cases he thinks he can't win. It will be interesting to watch this play out. And how the MSM react. -
Chris G at 02:17 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
I have sometimes thought that Mann 98 and the mention of "trick" retains traction by the deniers is because the paper and the comment were directed at an audience then that is different from the audience receiving it now. The audience then was more limited and all the members were quite familiar with the divergence problem. Not showing the declining (negative?) correlation in the graph in no way changed the knowledge base of the audience members at the time. Everyone had the same knowledge and no one was deceived, or felt that they had been. The audience today is broader and less informed, and so not showing it has the appearance (only) of an attempt to deceive, at least to some that don't like the implications of the data. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 02:16 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Albatross, I'm a very open person, and I'll happily answer questions people have for me.However, my last comment here got deleted. I don't know why it was, and since I apparently don't know how to post here without getting moderated, I don't think I'll be answering questions here.But anyone should feel free to get a hold of me elsewhere if they have questions for me.Moderator Response:[DB] Your previous comment received moderation due to a combination of inflammatory insinuations and moderation complaints. As has this one.
The vast majority of participants in this venue never need nor receive any moderation, as they construct their comments to be in compliance with this site's Comments Policy. Having forced moderation on yourself in the past, this should come as no surprise to you.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:11 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @183:"@181, that's a dashed line. You are saying a gap in a dashed line means the series terminated earlier than I say."
1) It is a dashed line that just happens to end 25 years after the start of the series (1400 AD) and 25 years before the end of the instrumental record with both gaps being wider than the gaps than the typical gap between dashes. But lets ignore that inconvenient evidence (as it becomes apparent you are wont to do). If the actual dashed line ends 7-8 years prior to 1980, how could McIntyre know that the truncation was to 1980? At the very best he is relying on a bald assertion to claim his reconstructed technique was Mann's technique.
Of course, the smoothed curve in MBH 99 terminates one or two years before 1980, in contradiction to McIntyre and consistent with a 40 year smooth with the end point of the padded data being 1998. How odd.
Let me guess, is that also because its a dashed line?
"One of the reconstructions [in an SkS post] was Mann's hockey stick. It, and all the other reconstructions in the figure, are smoothed. I take this to mean Skeptical Science is okay with people calling smoothed versions of temperature reconstructions temperature reconstructions. It technically isn't true, but effectively it is."
2) It is one thing to use a smoothed curve of a reconstruction to represent a reconstruction in popular exposition. It is an entirely different thing to treat the smoothed curve as being the actual reconstruction so that you can impute malfeasance. You are clearly evading at this point. You have been shown to be straight forwardly wrong on two counts. Fess up, or show that you are quite happy with people saying untrue things about simple facts, so long as it is you saying the untruths.Moderator Response: TC: Edited to add quotes from a deleted comment to provide context, and so that that part of his claims not in direct violation of the comments policy can see light of day. (DB, feel free to delete this post if you think that crosses any boundaries.) -
Daniel Bailey at 01:53 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
KR, see my comment here Re: Mann's Law -
KR at 01:50 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I find the focus on Dr. Mann (and his work from 15 years ago such as in recent comments here, as opposed to the dozen or so similar reconstructions using different data, different methods) to be a rather revealing Rorschach test for deniers - he's achieved an iconic status in 'skeptic' circles, and there seems to be some idea that if only the icon can be tarnished, all that inconvenient data will just go away... - which it won't. That entire line of attack simply reveals the paucity of the skeptic arguments. Argument ad hominem rather than discussing the facts, the science. -
dana1981 at 01:42 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Albatross - I'd say the difference is that McIntyre is attacking the Penn State president and inquiry instead of directly criticizing Mann (though I didn't read his whole post, just the quotes at Deep Climate). He's indirectly inferring that Mann did something wrong instead of directly stating it as CEI and National Review did, and not comparing Mann to Sandusky as CEI did (propagated in the NR article quote). In short, McIntyre is behaving very Watts-like, throwing chum to his denialist readers without actually coming out and making specific accusations. This follows the behavior discussed in the final section of the post above, with denialist blogs frothing up their readers with these sorts of baseless accusations. As long as we're comparing the two investigations, it's worth noting that the Penn State football program brings in $60 million in annual revenue to the college, whereas Mann clearly does not. Thus there is no basis to infer that one coverup is evidence of another, since the underlying motivation of the former does not apply to the latter. To cut straight to the point, as noted in the above post, there is zero evidence that Mann did anything wrong. Even if the Penn State inquiry hadn't been 100% thorough, frankly the inquiry should not have been conducted to begin with. The McIntyres and Wattses of the world need to take their tinfoil hats off and stop with the baseless accusations which lead to abuse and death threats towards honest climate scientists. If you want to dispute the science, then do so, but stop attacking the messengers. -
chriskoz at 01:33 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
caerbannog @11, Thanks for that link to your calculations. Your honnest expectation (or maybe rhetoric sarcasm) is that deniers act logically. Nope. Your case proves again that in their actions, there is no place for any logic. What's the logic in this defamatory nonsense against Mike Mann? What are the motives of this individual called Ryan Simberg and CEI supporting him? I would call it the "final stage of denialism" - an attitude of a man who becomes so obsessed as to be detached from reality. He still has a chance to go back to reality by retraction and appology, otherwise he faces a certain defeat in the court case that would follow. -
dana1981 at 01:32 AM on 28 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
Aanthanur - even more shocking, they didn't bring the usual "tree ring proxies are unreliable" meme this time. Climate contrarian skepticism is very selective, which is why they're not actual skeptics. They're only 'skeptical' until they find information to support their pre-determined conclusion. That's not skepticism, that's confirmation bias. -
Albatross at 01:29 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I wonder where Mr. Steyn derived his inspiration from and what information on the internet piqued his interest as well as his imagination? Well, coincidentally (not) a certain "auditor" has been trying quite hard (see here, for example) to draw parallels between the tragic Sandusky affair and Dr. Mike Mann. Mr. McIntyre is then happy to let those uninterested with facts and the truth let their imaginations run wild. One has to wonder why Dr. Mann's lawyers have not yet sent a similar letter to Mr. McIntyre? Such a letter id long overdue in my opinion. And this OP once again clearly demonstrates why the the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is (unfortunately) so badly needed. -
Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @180:"But that has no bearing on the fact Michael Mann appended instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed historical record, smoothed the resulting series then published that (truncated at 1980) as a reconstructed historical series. It also has no bearing on the fact this Skeptical Science article contains a factual error."
You certainly like throwing out falsehoods. MBH 98 contained a reconstruction of temperatures over the last 600 years at annual resolution. The smoothed line was not the reconstruction and has not been claimed to be the reconstruction by Mann or his co-authors. The claim that it is the reconstruction is an invention by fake climate-auditors who, by that invention pretend they are making substantial criticisms when they are quibbling about irrelevancies. Again, I quote Michael Mann:"In some earlier work though (Mann et al, 1999), the boundary condition for the smoothed curve (at 1980) was determined by padding with the mean of the subsequent data (taken from the instrumental record). This does make a small difference near the end of the series. It doesn't effect any of the conclusions drawn in the paper though. These were based on comparisons of the individual reconstructed annual values (individual years and decadal averages over 10 consecutive years) from AD 1000-1980, with those from the recent instrumental record (1981-1998), and centered on the fact that the recent instrumental values were outside the error range of the reconstructed values over the past 1000 years and were not related to the smoothed curve. This figure shows the comparison of the originally published result with an alternative smoothing based on our more recent approach which does not use any instrumental data."
(My emphasis) Again, when will you stop "saying untrue things about simple facts"? -
Tom Curtis at 01:01 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shollenberger @180: Detail of fig 5 of MBH 98:
(Red marks added to show 1900 and 1950)
Please note that the smoothed curve terminates around 1973, not 1980. Clearly, therefore, McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's "third step" is incorrect. You will note, of course, that no matter how carefully we examine McIntyre's code, it will not make the smoothed curve MBH 98 terminate in 1980.
So, here is the question, will you acknowledge that McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's smoothing method did not in fact successfully reconstruct that method?
Or will you continue to "say untrue things about simple facts"?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:48 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @173, yes, that's correct. And as Steve McIntyre (as well as many others) has pointed out, Phil Jones did not truncate the series as Michael Mann did. This means what he did is not actually the same as what Mann did. But that has no bearing on the fact Michael Mann appended instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed historical record, smoothed the resulting series then published that (truncated at 1980) as a reconstructed historical series. It also has no bearing on the fact this Skeptical Science article contains a factual error.Moderator Response: [DB] Note that a laser-like focus on some minor technical point doesn't alter a paper's conclusions at all. -
DSL at 00:47 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Brandon: "The reality is people like Steve McIntyre have gone to great lengths to explain just what was done, and by who." I believe you've hit upon the problem, Brandon. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:46 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Methinks Brandon is sounding shrill. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:46 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Indeed. We should create a new "Law" rule, aka Godwin's Law: Mann's Law: "As an online discussion about climate science grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Michael Mann to tricks/fraud/misconduct/secret cabals/world domination is inevitable." Corollary to Mann's Law: "Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Michael Mann has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress; the coupling of this corollary with the initial statement of the law proves every threaded discussion to be finite in length." -
desertphile at 00:44 AM on 28 July 2012The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
".... I can tell you with full confidence that is NO credible empirical evidence in the entire historical record that CO2 has had ever any impact on Earth's climate! I am told my many people, with full confidence, that ghosts are real; I am also told by many people, with full confidence, that "fee energy" is possible. Meanwhile, the PPMCC between atmospheric CO2 increase and global average temperature increase is 0.90642 -
caerbannog at 00:44 AM on 28 July 2012Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Here's yet another data-point that shows how "skeptics" are far more interested in harassing scientists than doing any real work of their own. Remember how the CRU was inundated with FOI demands related to the raw station data in its possession? Remember this FOI storm? Well, as of today, it's been exactly a year since the CRU released all of the raw data that the "skeptics" had been demanding (and at the risk of violating nondisclosure agreements with supplers). So, what has happened in the year since? Do you hear crickets chirping? With only one exception that I know of (and that exception's results confirmed the CRU's work), not a single "skeptic" has done a lick of work with the data. Listen skeptics -- you've had the CRU's raw data in your hot little hands for a whole year. How about showing us some results? Or at least how about acknowledging that your FOI antics were intended to harass scientists and waste their time, and that you never intended to do any real work with the data? And don't even try to use the "scientists didn't disclose their methods/code, so we couldn't replicate their work" excuse. Don't even think about going there. Because on July 30 of last year (3 days after the CRU released all that data), I downloaded the CRU raw data, crunched it, and posted my results right here. Total turn-around time? A few hours. In that July 30 post, I made this bold prediction: Now, it remains to be seen what (if anything) the deniers who have been demanding access to this complete data-set will actually do with it. Based on what I've seen of their past performance (or lack thereof), I'd be willing to wager that they will produce absolutely nothing meaningful. Am I psychic or what? -
Brandon Shollenberger at 00:43 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Tom Curtis @169, there is no contradiction in saying results generated by a particular methodology are different than the results generated by the same methodology applied to a different data series. @171, McIntyre shows what was done in Mann's work that appeared in Nature. The e-mail in question is discussing a figure with three lines. One is Mann's work being referred to in my discussion. Another is from Keith Briff's work. Phil Jones says, "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." It is obvious what work he is referring to. Phil Jones referred to a trick in Michael Mann's work "of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years." Steve McIntyre discusses Mann having appended 18 years of instrumental temperature data to his reconstructed temperatures. "Mike's Nature trick" is exactly what Steve McIntyre says it is. -
Albatross at 00:41 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Sphaerica @174 and Alex @172, Hear, hear! What this nonsense essentially amounts to is people like McIntyre being obsessed by a paper from almost 15 years ago, engaging in an orchestrated and mendacious vendetta against climate scientists and using any opportunity (real or imagined) to shout "Squirrel!". In the meantime, while we fiddle Rome burns... -
desertphile at 00:39 AM on 28 July 2012The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
A very fine article: thank you. Bond Events don't look cyclical, judging from _Bond_et_al_ (1997) but it is possible they are, or were: one needs a much longer series of data to answer the question. It seems very odd to me that denialists and professional liars insist that proxy data going back 600 years are all wrong when Dr. Mann _et_al_ published the data, but proxy data going back 10,000 years are Gospel if they give the verisimilitude of causing doubt on the evidence for human-caused climate change. -
Aanthanur at 00:37 AM on 28 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
what i find interesting is that while several deniers seem to accept this Esper paper, they didn't bring the usual, but they used Computer Models meme this time :D -
Bob Lacatena at 00:35 AM on 28 July 2012Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
I get so tired of deniers trying to knit pick Mann (a very, very small part of the climate puzzle) to death, while: 1) No one has ever succeeded in demonstrating that the MCA was warmer than current temps, and if it is then that's bad, not good, news for the future climate. 2) Multiple studies, done in a variety of ways, have reinforced Mann's original conclusions. 3) The number of hockey sticks we see in the world -- from temps to sea ice to extreme events -- is increased every day. Really, this is getting tiring. Deniers need to stop focusing on Mann and either put up or shut up, as far as "proving" their point. The complete failure of the denial movement to generate any actual, factual arguments sort of makes this nonsense about Mann crystal clear -- it's a distraction from reality, because it's the only place where deniers think they can remotely "win", and then only because no one really cares (except for Steve "The Auditor" McIntyre)!
Prev 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 Next
