Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 Next
Comments 66151 to 66200:
-
bill4344 at 11:50 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I think we have pretty well established that you see it as two very different things and I don't. So, with that impasse established, I think that we've about exhausted our useful time together in this thread.
Ah, the tu quoque fallacy, followed by the traditional flounce! Unsurprisingly, in the circumstances; few will be taken in by your absurd attempt to establish a false equivalence, and it really doesn't make you look good. You would have done better to face the inevitable and admit simply Michaels' wrongdoing from the start. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:45 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross, I don't consider WCR to be a scientific site. Can Pat Michaels writing in a blog or in an op ed be considered a scientist? I'm not sure how the lower part of Scmittner et al, figure 3 helps people understand the top part. But I can say that omitting land and not explaining the omission is not a "simplification" but a deceptive alteration. -
Albatross at 11:44 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric @82, One more thing. You claim that "I do not condone it nor equate it". Good, yet you somehow still felt compelled to make that post at WUWT in response to an OP in which Michaels tries to defend doctoring other scientists' figures (and removing inconvenient data and ignoring inconvenient text) and in the process makes several defamatory comments about Dana and SkS. Given by your own admission that your example and what Michales did are not equivalent, why for you then try and make the connection in your post at WUWT? The uncritical readers at WUWT no doubt lapped it up-- fodder for the skeptics. It seems that you were only too happy to try and create the impression that SkS routinely engages in deceptive activities when it comes to posting graphics. You have been posting here long enough to know that is not true. Something in your narrative does not add up, and quite frankly I find your actions on this particular issue have not been in good faith. I thought you were better than that. -
owl905 at 11:37 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
It's an excellent interview. The only unfortunate part is Shakova's response on the question of humans sparking the event versus a natural world process. It's the difference between fatal acceptance and necessary response. The links show how quickly this subject becomes complex, and there is a very real need to make at least a swag on whether this is the start of a very very ugly arctic outgassing eruption. -
Albatross at 11:15 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric @92, "However, I completely agree with Tom that the alteration of figures, especially without mentioning the impact of the changes is not acceptable. I do not condone it nor equate it." OK thanks for clarifying, but I think the words you cannot seem to find are "scientific misconduct". My statement about 'scouring' was a general remark that I made before I knew it was you who had fed the fodder to "skeptics" at WUWT (all I did was follow the link provided to the screen capture images). My point was that I suspect that some of them are doing just that as we speak, they have done so in the past and I assume this will be no different. "Thus the excerpting of fig 3d from the rest of fig 3 in Gillett et al is not equivalent as those pieces are independent" In that particular case you may be right, but as shown by Tom @82, that reasoning does not pass muster for what they did to Schmittner et al's Figure 3. In that figure, the top and bottom panels are intricately related and connected. So will you then at least, following your own standards, condemn Michaels for excluding the lower panel of Fig. 3 in Schmittner et al. (2011)? -
hank at 11:00 AM on 19 January 2012Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
> changing playback speeds to search for trends How does changing the playback speed help one to search for trends? -
Eric (skeptic) at 10:59 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross, it all depends on what you omit, how you explain what you omit, and most importantly the context of where the graph is being used. I will repeat that I do not equate Pat Michaels editing within figures with the omission of K&H08 fig 3, part b. But in some cases here part b contained some important information (different base state, etc) that was not in part a but useful to a particular discussion. To mitigate that problem the link to K&H08 is included so people can look up all the details (not just part b of fig 3). That is pretty much standard practice here. One exception is the guide to skepticism http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf on page 8. There is room for part b, the question is whether it is too detailed for that guide. My only disagreement with Tom's post is that part 3b in K&H08 is not a distinct figure, as it lines up exactly with each sensitivity estimate. Part b would be meaningless without part a, and part a is made more meaningful by including part b. Thus the excerpting of fig 3d from the rest of fig 3 in Gillett et al is not equivalent as those pieces are independent. However, I completely agree with Tom that the alteration of figures, especially without mentioning the impact of the changes is not acceptable. I do not condone it nor equate it. A final note to Albatross, I did not "scour" the pages here. You can see from my link in post 82, I posted the omitted portion last September. -
skywatcher at 10:29 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I thought of taking a figure from a Michaels/Knappenberger paper and doctoring it as an example in order to show the opposite conclusion. I was thinking of a specific figure from Michaels et al 2000, purporting to show Philadelphia's increasing resistance to heat stress. I even got as far as drafting most of the figure, but was disgusted by the lack of source for the figure (I doubt Michaels did his own surveying for that figure!), and the lack of sources, quantitative analysis or justification for many unfounded claims in the surrounding text. It also felt very low deliberately altering someone else's work, even though the work was of a low standard in the first place. Maybe I should not have been surprised, and if anybody wants I'll finish the figure and show it as an example of how figure manipulation, say, to show how dropping a series here and there, or altering the time frame can wholly change the message taken from a figure. This is utterly different to using a whole panel, and individual panels frequently make individual points, or present specific data that is linked to, but distinct from, other panels. Panels may often stand on their own. Michaels and Knappenberger should be ashamed of their conduct; it is telling that they are unrepentant. As an aside, it's really hard to find truly original data in a Michaels paper! -
Marion Delgado at 10:22 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana it's great to see you posting outside of Amazon. :) -
EliRabett at 10:14 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
The figure was not adapted from Gillett, et al., it was copied and altered without permission in a [- snip- ] way.Moderator Response: [Rob P] You're going to have re-phrase your comment here - the snipped portion is a breach of the comments policy. -
hank at 10:09 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Thank you and Dr. Shakhova for getting the facts clearer with this interview. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:48 AM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
So your position is that the problem doesn't exist until I tell you what the solution is? Or simply that you won't admit that the problem exists until I've given you a solution that you consider to be painless? It's no wonder that you can't help to solve the problem, because you can't get as far as even identifying it until you first have a simple, easy, cheap solution in hand. As far as part 4... since we have already well quantified the absorption of CO2 and accompanying pH changes in the ocean in general (not simply a specific place like the Puget Sound), and we know that the only possible source of the CO2 is anthropogenic in origin, under what scenario can you possibly suggest that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to levels of 560 ppm or more could possibly correlate to a "may" greatly change ocean pH? The uncertainty that is discussed, I'm sure, is the wide range between 49% and 82%. 49% is the bare minimum, and bad enough. But more importantly, you left out the specific reasons the paper listed for that uncertainty (emphasis mine):...other changes that may occur over the intervening time were not taken into account, such as increased water temperature associated with anthropogenic climate change and its effects on biological and physical processes (e.g. Bopp et al., 2002; Hofmann and Todgham, 2010); changes in terrestrial inputs of nutrients, freshwater, and carbon linked to climate or land-use change (e.g. Borges and Gypens, 2010); or changes in marine inputs due to basin-scale changes in ocean circulation...
You are really, really dancing on this one. It is amazing to me, the lengths to which you will go to deny that there is a problem, or that you have any responsibility for recognizing it and at least supporting action, if not directly taking any on your own part. -
Albatross at 09:41 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Good, Pat Michaels finally pulled the plug on this farce, saving his loyal administrator from further humiliation. The honourable thing to do here was to admit error, accept personally responsibility for his transgressions and apologize. Michaels failed on all three counts. Instead we have had Michaels admit no error in judgement or actions, take no responsibility or accountability for his misconduct, but instead delegate the administrator from WCR to come here and do damage control and try and justify the indefensible and obfuscate. Not surprisingly the defense effort was weak and transparent from the outset. IMO, and this may break the house rules, Michael's behaviour has been (-snip-). They make a fine team.Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Chip Knappenberger at 09:26 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
dana1981, I think we have pretty well established that you see it as two very different things and I don't. So, with that impasse established, I think that we've about exhausted our useful time together in this thread. Thanks for having me here and I'll try to stop in from time to time in the future. Thanks again! -Chip -
Albatross at 09:23 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric @82, As noted earlier, you are grasping at straws, comparing apples with oranges and electing to miss the key point. Michaels doctored the figures, he removed inconvenient information from graphs (and ignored key text) that did not fit with his ideology. Additionally, he (going by your personal guidelines) also excluded certain panels from the Figures as shown by Tom, which you claim is a no, no. I suggest that you read Tom's post @80 very carefully and respond directly to the following: "If your interlocutor wishes to condemn SkS for the Knuti and Hegerl example, do they also condemn Michaels and Knappenberger for this additional offense? And if so, how does that establish equivalency for SkS' behaviour, in that SkS has not doctored graphs as done by Michaels and Knappenberger?" I agree with Dana that "There seem to be a lot of rather desperate efforts to accuse SkS of malfeasance rather than face up to the malfeasance presented on WCR and WUWT. I believe this is described as "deflection" and/or "projection.", and I include your efforts Eric to be amongst them. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:17 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Rob Honeycutt @41 "Chip said... If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. Or perhaps it might be advisable to cover both the graphs and the words at the same time. //sarcasm " Then the take home message truly would be unaffected. That Pat Michaels has no take home message! Interesting comments here from Chris. The voice of someone trying to justify actions that indicate a complete lack of any moral compass. Distorting information by whatever means to downplay AGW to the lay public is morally wrong. As simpe and as black-and-white as that. Chris just doesn't seem to get that this is a discussion about basic morality and the lack of it. -
dana1981 at 09:14 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip, it's not a double-standard because I didn't criticize WCR for omitting one of the figure panels, I criticized WCR for deleting data from one of the figure panels. Two very different things. -
Chip Knappenberger at 08:57 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
dana1981, My intent was to point out the double standard, not deception. As you all should well know by now, I am not opposed to showing whatever data that you feel appropriate. -Chip (my smiley face at the end of my original post over at your other thread was snipped) -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:54 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually thoughtful, thanks for posting the link to my side-by-side depiction of Knutti and Hegerl 2008 and eliciting replies here. As I said on WUWT, I don't think removing part b (the boxes) is the same category as deleting lines (Hansen scenarios) from a chart without an explanation of what was deleted. But the boxes in part b of K&H08 have provide additional information over what is in the error bars in part a. K&H explain that part b is a qualitative evaluation. It is somewhat important for some threads where the K&H part a has been posted (although not all). I posted part b in the thread that DB linked to above: /argument.php?p=5&t=268&&a=115#63452 and figured that was adequate for raising the issue of what the boxes say about part a in one particular case (paleo). Obviously I can do that at this blog whereas nobody can respond to Michaels in a hearing or in an article so those should have higher standards. -
dana1981 at 08:48 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Along these same lines as discussed by actually thoughtfull @54 and Tom @80, Chip apparently accused me of deception for including Gillett Figures 3b and 3d, but not 3a in my Gillett post. This rather floored me, since WCR did not include Figure 3a (or 3b) in their post. I had included more of the Figure 3 frames, and yet was being accused of deception by the person who included fewer of them. There seem to be a lot of rather desperate efforts to accuse SkS of malfeasance rather than face up to the malfeasance presented on WCR and WUWT. I believe this is described as "deflection" and/or "projection." -
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually thoughtfull @54, as is quite clear from the figure presented by Daniel Bailey (moderator comment @ 69) it is quite clear that the supposedly elided information by SkS is actually a distinct figure, ie, figure 3 b of Knutti and Hegerl, 2008. That makes teh case quite distinct. There is no convention in science or public discourse that requires presenting all figures grouped together by the authors of an original work. In contrast, there is certainly a convention against doctoring graphs, and in particular a convention against doctoring graphs to remove relevant but inconvenient information has Michaels and Knappenberger have done. It should be noted that if we were to accept a more extended convention as apparently suggested by your interlocutor, then Michaels and Knappenberger are to be doubly condemned. In the cases of both Schmittner et al, and Gillett et al, the figures they doctored appeared as part of a multi-figure cluster (shown below), whose other components where not shown by Michaels. They have not been condemned by SkS for that. If your interlocutor wishes to condemn SkS for the Knuti and Hegerl example, do they also condemn Michaels and Knappenberger for this additional offense? And if so, how does that establish equivalency for SkS' behaviour, in that SkS has not doctored graphs as done by Michaels and Knappenberger? Scmittner et al, figures 3 upper and lower:
Gillett et al, figures 3 a, b, c, & d:
-
Gareth at 08:15 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Good posts, John, thanks. It occurs to me, though IANACS, that a good place to look for potential ESAS methane spikes would be during a long interglacial - MIS-11, for example, lasted ~30k years? - on the basis that the permafrost capping any methane would have a chance to degrade. Are there signs of spikes in the ice cores, or is the time scale too short to be captured (because CH4 has a short atmospheric lifetime)? -
Lou Grinzo at 08:12 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Excellent interview. Excellent summary, especially the appropriately cautious tone. I think it's critical that people not give in to either of the obvious temptations regarding Arctic methane hydrates and leap to the conclusion that "we're already screwed beyond hope" or that "it's a tiny contribution to atmospheric methane, wake me up when measured levels jump". The problem, of course, is that the stakes are so enormous that waiting for "hard evidence" in the form of atmospheric levels taking off would squander even more time that we can't spare. Another question about what's going up in the Arctic relates to the emission rates over the next few years to decades. For the sake of argument, say that the total methane emissions right now turns out to be about double the conservative estimate, and is roughly 4% of worldwide emissions. If this stays constant it's certainly not a welcome addition to our situation, but it's not a bad 1970s disaster movies, either. If, however, continued warming makes that emissions rate climb by half a percentage point a year (e.g. in four years it's up to 6% of worldwide emissions), then we could conceivably be in a world of trouble -- depending on the total amount of methane that would be liberated at that rate. I really wish that one of the environmentally aware billionaires would fund a huge Arctic monitoring effort, looking for emissions from hydrates as well as permafrost. Better yet would be a cooperative project pooling the resources of a dozen or more countries, but in the current political environment I don't see that happening. -
paulhtremblay at 08:07 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip, Included in your caption the following: "Both the Gillett et al. (2012) and the Michaels et al. (2002) studies show that climate models are over-predicting the amount of warming that is a result of human changes to the constituents of the atmosphere, and that when they are constrained to conform to actual observations of the earth’s temperature progression, the models project much less future warming (Figure 1)." As already pointed out, that statement could be made only by manipulating the graph to exclude the data inconvenient to that conclusion. Why don't you directly address this issue, as well as the other relevant ones, rather than making oblique comments to Gavin Schmidt and using the old line of "Well, I can't convince you anyway." -
Chip Knappenberger at 07:58 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Utahn@76, Not sure what the exact issue is regarding Pat’s figure in your linked Forbes article, but it seems to center around the fact that he didn’t include the USGCRP caption which some apparently thought was relevant because it added the caveat to the image that “The data shown include disturbances that occurred on the nation’s large-scale “bulk” electric transmission systems. Most outages occur in local distribution networks and are not included in the graph.” I’ll be the first to admit to not to know what constitutes the “bulk” transmission system, but according to the National Hurricane Center’s review of the impacts of 1995 hurricane Opal, “Opal downed numerous trees, knocking out power to nearly 2 million people in Florida, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas.”—that certainly seems like it would qualify as a “bulk” impact to me and it seems that a graphic showing ‘Significant Weather-related U.S. Electric Grid Disturbances’ would have included that event. So I don't think Pat's conclusion would be altered any had he included the caption...in fact, it seems as if it may even have been strengthened. I suppose I could step into Gavin Schmidt’s post-Climategate role and try to answer each inquiry that you all have about Pat’s presentation of figures—but just as Gavin’s effort didn’t do much to change the minds of the “skeptics” I doubt my service would change the minds of the folks here at Skeptical Science (if the current thread is any indication). -Chip Knappenberger World Climate Report -
Albatross at 07:51 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
As always, John Mashey has some interesting revelations. From Deltoid: "re: 33 See p.6 of Pals and check out the groups (boxes) and other links (lines) among people. Note that Knappenberger was student of Michaels and that U VA was sadly a hot spot, with Singer, Michaels, Davis, Knappenberger. Note orange box (George Marshall Institute) which connects many. If I ever update this, I'll add another box to cover Heartland. Counting only those who have been Contributing Editors/Authors for Heartland's Environment and Climate News, we have: Balling, Baliunas, Davis, Michaels, Singer, Soon. If we add others who've written for or quoted in E&CN, most of the rest of the pals are there. And, for one more graph of connections, see Weird Anti-Science, p.4." -
Utahn at 07:03 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Not that you're responsible for Forbes, Chip, but it should be noted that no mention of adapting a figure was made in Michaels' post there. In addition, upthread was mentioned another example, where a figure legend explicitly negated Michaels' claim about it, yet was conveniently deleted from the figure. See comments under the post here for details. I do think this is real evidence of "serial convenient deletions". As I mentioned above, I know Michaels thinks he's "the good guy", but his actions show that he is more than willing to do what he accuses others of doing, "leaving out facts that would dilute the message". Projection is his profession, and he's darn good at it - but we should all be aware, or suffer the consequences for taking his view at face value. -
Albatross at 06:42 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Composer99 @74, "A swing and a miss by Mr Knappenberger! The apologist who continues to uncritically defend Michaels (who is strangely absent from these deliberations)has hung himself by his own petard several times now. It is becoming embarrassing for him and by extension Michaels. I'm surprised that Pat hasn't urged him to stop posting. The entertaining show by Mr. Knappenberger is increasing traffic to SkS by quite a bit though :) So more and more people seeing the duplicity and disingenuity of WCR, as well as their complete lack of scientific integrity or ethics. -
John Russell at 06:42 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
I really wish people -- especially those with scientific credibility -- would not make bets or predictions, however sure they are of the outcome. The 'benefits' of being right are far outweighed by the loss of credibility that comes from turning out to be wrong. And any subsequent defence, however rational, always sounds so weak. History is full of 'discredited' scientists who arguably were actually quite right but, for instance, got their timing a little out. Think Malthus, think the authors of 'Limits to Growth'. IMHO making predictions is a mug's game -- too many variables (or black swans). Just stick to probabilities. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:37 AM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
I can't possibly make a statement like that until you quantify what you mean by "addressed" (how), and what you consider adequate and timely. Again, I ask of you, what "actions" do you propose we take? Also, part 4 should not read WILL, but MAY, greatly change as the author states that the uncertainty is very high: "Under this scenario, the estimated percentage contribution of ocean acidification to the corrosiveness forecasted for the southern end of Hood Canal increases to 49e82%. Of course, the uncertainty on this calculation is very high...". "Nonetheless, this estimate illustrates the increased role that ocean acidification may play in a high-CO2 world...". -
Composer99 at 06:32 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
More gems from Chip: The caption associated with our graphic showing the results of Gillett et al. included the following: "(figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion)." [Excerpt from the WCR blog post reviewing Gillett et al 2012.] FWIW, the additional data that we deemed not relevant to our discussion were the data were produced by Gillett et al. when using the incomplete 1901-2000 temperature series. Apart from the fact that the additional data deemed "not relevant" by the esteemed personages of the WCR was the data that flatly contradicts their comment - Both the Gillett et al. (2012) and the Michaels et al. (2002) studies show that climate models are over-predicting the amount of warming that is a result of human changes to the constituents of the atmosphere, and that when they are constrained to conform to actual observations of the earth’s temperature progression, the models project much less future warming (Figure 1). - because the omitted data contains projections also constrained to actual observations of the Earth's global mean temperature. A swing and a miss by Mr Knappenberger! -
dana1981 at 06:30 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip, I remind you that in the Gillett discussion, you agreed that using different timeframes in the Gillett analysis leads to different future warming projections. This is problematic, as James Annan notes:"[Gillett et al.] has a worrying discrepancy between the results obtained with 1900-2000, versus 1850-2010 data. Normally one would expect the latter to be broadly a subset of the former - more data means closer convergence to the true value - but the two sets of results are virtually disjoint, which suggests something a bit strange may be going on in the analysis (cf Schmitter et al with the land-only versus land+ocean results). But just a glance at the first figure shows a striking divergence between model and data over the first decade of the 21st century (compared to the close agreement prior to then). Something isn't quite right there."
This is why Gillett (and Schmittner) included multiple temperature projections/sensitivites in the figures in question. This is why deleting some of those results is a misrepresentation of the research in its totality. Maybe the projections based on 1850-2010 constraints are correct. Maybe they're not (and there are good reasons to think they're not). When you only present the one result, you're ignoring the other possibilities, and thus misrepresenting the scientists' research as a whole. And in the associated posts, you didn't even mention the other results - your discussions were as if these other possible results didn't even exist. -
Albatross at 06:14 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually thoughtful @69, Thank you for your suggestions-- I agree that we should strive to meet those goals that you mentioned. It is not always possible to link to the original (not all journals provide links to individual graphics), but one could cut and past the entire image and saves it as an image file here at SkS and link to that. More work, but best to try and do it right. I think I speak for my colleagues here at SkS when I say that SkS is a work in progress and we will continue to strive to improve, unlike Michaels we do not claim to be perfect or error free. We are only human and make honest mistakes sometimes. I dare say the same is not true for Michaels. I suspect that someone will be exposing more data tampering and twisting/distorting of other scientists' work by Michaels in the not too distant future. They certainly Michaels et al. are of the horribly misguided belief that what they did was perfectly OK and feel no inclination/obligation whatsoever to correct their posts and apologize to the authors and the journals-- despite the authors expressing their unhappiness with what was done. -
dana1981 at 06:13 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
To be fair, as Chip noted @70, the Gillett and Schmittner graphics were captioned as"(figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion)"
and"adapted from Schmittner et al., 2011".
Of course they never explained how the figures had been adapted, other than to say some of the data was "not relevant" in the Gillett case. By "not relevant" they of course meant "not convenient". As shown in our post on the Gillett paper, the results based on the 1901-2000 timeframe are very relevant to the paper and its conclusions (as James Annan also noted). Of course in the Hansen case, Michaels did not even bother to note that he had altered Hansen's figure. That is definitely the worst of the three, but the more recent two examples, while being lesser misrepresentations, are clear misrepresentations nonetheless. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:02 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
jimspy... I don't even think he'd need to go as far as to say the next decade. I'd just go double or nothing that the next El Nino produces global temps that break 1998 even in the HadCRU3 data. -
Chip Knappenberger at 05:57 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually thoughtful@66, The caption associated with our graphic showing the results of Gillett et al. included the following: "(figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion)." FWIW, the additional data that we deemed not relevant to our discussion were the data were produced by Gillett et al. when using the incomplete 1901-2000 temperature series. I am not sure how you consider this stealing Gillett’s name? -Chip Knappenberger World Climate Report -
actually thoughtful at 05:54 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana and Albatross - thank you for clarifying. As a certified member of the choir, I understand why it was done, and don't think it changes the intent from the author's. However, here we are on a post taking Michaels to task for changing a graphic. The other side can point to a graphic SkS provided, and claim equivalence. We will say false equivalence. But the moral high ground has now tilted, and we find ourselves on a slope that, unsurprisingly, is slippery (THAT is a gish-gallop of metaphors right there!) Due to the existence of confirmation bias, the truncated Knutti graphic on this site will be enough to confirm for those who hold the belief that SkS does the same or worst that - SkS does the same. And even to my choirboy ears "we didn't have room" strikes me as somewhat hollow. I suggest SkS have the following policy ANYTIME a graphic is changed from the original 1) get the authors permission and/or 2) have the modified graphic linked to the original unmodified graphic, with an explanation below the graphic. Both 1 and 2 would be the best, and should be the goal every time. Alternatively, SkS could bow out of the "exposing the other guys" game - but I think it fits comfortably in the mission. I think it is an opportunity to step up our game. Full transparency AND the blessing of the original author is irrefutable (and something I strongly suspect Michaels could not achieve).Response:[DB] The Knutti and Hegerl diagram in question is shown as Figure 4 on this SkS thread:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
The link to the source article (Knutti and Hegerl 2008), containing the original graphic showing both Panel A and Panel B (on page 4 of the pdf) is given immediately above Figure 4:
-
jimspy at 05:51 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
If I were Annan, I'd go double or nothing on the next decade... -
les at 05:32 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
57 - DSL Not at all. I was making an observation based in the evidence, of which Chip has furnished as even more in 62... Very often one scientist will take the same data analyse in one paper and analyse it another was. The expectation is that they would say so, describe the new methods , give a comparison (with sone measure of significance) and have a discussion of the origin of divergences. That's what a scientist might think os as "having ones own facts" (assuming they didn't do any actual data gathering). They is clearly not what had been shown by the OP. What had been shown and described by Chip himself is, maybe, graphic design? Donno... -
Albatross at 05:30 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Composer @64, "Chip's comment here pretty much gives the game away IMO" I agree, as does this most bizarre assertion: "While data might be sacred, how it is displayed or used, is not." You have to be kidding me! But this is also a complete strawman as it does not speak directly tot the issue of deleting data and doctoring graphics already generated and then having the gall to try and attribute the doctored graphics to the authors who generated the originals. How data is presented is incredibly important. Gillett et al. presented their data in a particular way for a reason, they displayed those data on the same graphic together for a reason, reasons discussed in the text, reasons that Michaels chose to ignore. It is not for Michaels to decide to then doctor the graphic delete those inconvenient data that do not fit with his ideology and then attribute thew doctored graphics to the scientists who originally generated them. Drs. Urban and Hansen made it very clear that they objected to their graphics being doctored and that what was done to their graphics was highly misleading and unscientific. Hansen went so far as to say it was "treading close to scientific fraud". In other words the original creators of those graphics vehemently disagree with the lame justifications being made here. I think this recent spate of data fudging by Michaels is good cause to have him hauled before Congress to explain himself (and not have someone there speaking on his behalf as is happening here). Senator Waxman would be very interested in the latest developments. -
actually thoughtful at 05:15 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip @63 - you can take any data and make any graph you desire. Stick around on this site and you will see that both blog posts and comments include figures created, by the authors, with data they thought was relevant. And most would argue this is good and correct. What Michaels did, and you are attempting to defend, is manipulate a graph, and PRESENT it as the work of another, without their permission. In other words you made Gillett look stupid (or maybe you made them look like genius's - but what you didn't do is present your original work as your own - you stole Gillett's name. This is a textbook case of poor ethics. I wouldn't be surprised to FIND it in a textbook - it is that egregious. What part of this don't you get? What if I magically attained Michael's ability to present to Congress and I showed up tomorrow with a graph that Michael's once made, and erased everything on it except the part that would (without the rest of the information) be taken as incontrovertible evidence that the world was warming sharply and man was to blame and said - see, even Michaels knows the world is warming and the world is to blame? And then Congress passed a carbon tax set to take effect on February 1, 2012? That would be on par with what Michaels' did with Hansen's work, and continues with Gillett's. If you don't like the other side of the deal, it probably isn't a fair deal. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:15 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
@ Chip Knappenberger @ 51"At WCR we presented the data in a figure that well-corresponded to the papers’ abstracts."
Wrong and undeniably wrong. As shown very clearly in the OP above. Adulterating the graphics provided by the authors of articles and passing them off as that of the author due to a demonstrated lack of the change by you is "being deliberately misleading and deceptive". That you can no longer perceive this truth so obvious to persons of conscience is telling, indeed."So, perhaps, it is the primary findings of those papers that is really the heart of the issue."
Still wrong. Despite your obvious agenda of handwaving and goal-post moving to the contrary, the issue is Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data. And also obvious to all but the most obdurate of fake-skeptics is that Pat is apparently unable to mount any defense here personally for his conduct and his publications that eradicate the line between duplicity and outright falsification. @ Chip Knappenberger @ 63"While data might be sacred, how it is displayed or used, is not. Sort of like the saying that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."
Very ironic that you end your prosecution of your agenda by testifying against yourself in the same breathe. QED. Suggestion to all: DNFTT -
Composer99 at 05:08 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip's comment here pretty much gives the game away IMO: WCR isn't interested in presenting the science accurately to the public. Nope, it's about storylines! Misrepresenting Hansen's paper to Congress (was Michaels under oath for that part?) - why that's just presenting a different story! -
prokaryotes at 05:08 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Re #19 William Huybers and Langmuir (2009) proposed that glacially induced volcanism, triggered by the depressurization of the upper mantle increased the frequency of volcanic eruptions worldwide, and thus plays a key role in the atmospheric CO2 balance and ice‐age cycles. A link between arc volcanism and the 41 ka Milankovitch periodicity also emerges from a statistical evaluation of macroscopically visible marine tephra deposits near circum‐Pacific arcs (Jegen et al., 2010). On a more immediate scale, Tuffen (2010) concluded that ongoing glacier recession likely will result in intensification of eruptions worldwide, with a corresponding increase in associated hazards. link -
Chip Knappenberger at 05:06 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually thoughtful, Let's say, for argument's sake, that in an appendix to the paper, Gillett et al. included the data that were used to produce all their figures in the paper. Would it then have been OK for anyone to use that data for additional analysis or to plot up as they saw fit? Why do you think that Gillett et al.’s decision as to which groups of data to show in which plots is sacred? If it were an obligation that data could only ever be displayed as it appeared in the original publication where it was introduced, the IPCC reports, for example, would look entirely different (as many of their figures are redrafts and/or combinations of figures/data from various sources (I see nothing wrong with that)). While data might be sacred, how it is displayed or used, is not. Sort of like the saying that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. -Chip Knappenberger World Climate ReportModerator Response: -
paulhtremblay at 05:06 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
>>Graphs are just a way to visualize/present some data. Why are my options for presenting data limited to how someone else has decided to display the data? You are free to create whatever graphs you want, but you attributed your graph to the authors of the paper. That's what makes the graph misleading. -
tmac57 at 05:00 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Would those fake skeptics feel comfortable playing a game of Russian roulette,where they were given an 8 shot revolver with one empty chamber? The gun doesn't go off,therefore they were justified in taking the bet.Woo Hoo!!! -
dana1981 at 04:59 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Oh yes, Albatross @59 is right. I didn't see that they were two different panels. Ideally sure, it would be nice to include every single figure and panel from every paper we discuss, but that's simply unrealistic. What we don't do is alter figures that we take from scientific papers to hide inconvenient data, and unlike WCR, we also strive to discuss the important caveats associated with the papers we discuss. -
Albatross at 04:58 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
DSL, Knappenberger and Michaels are doing an excellent job of sabotaging their own integrity, without our help. In fact, they seem to do so every time they type or say something. -
Albatross at 04:55 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Actually Thoughtful @54, I knew this would happen, they will now scour the pages of SkS trying to find examples of where SkS is alleged to have doctored graphics. But as I noted, by doctoring graphs repeatedly Michaels have lost whatever moral high ground they thought they might have held in the past. The example you showed does not support their assertions/accusations. If you look closely, the figure in question has two panels (a) and (b). Panel (a) was shown. The caption also clearly explains the meaning of the various aspects of panel a. The uncertainty associated with each estimate is clearly reflected in the width of the confidence interval shown in panel a. They are desperately grasping at straws and trying to defend the doctoring of key graphs by Michaels and/or distract people fro that inconvenient facts. And yes, I am surprised that Michaels misleading/deceiving Congress is not actionable. And one has to wonder why Upton turned a blind eye to the evidence presented to him by Waxman. There is a very good reason and evidence why Waxman wanted Michaels held accountable for repeatedly misleading Congress and the American people. It is a travesty that Michaels (and his apologists), have until this point at least, avoided being held accountable in the courts.
Prev 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 Next
