Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 Next
Comments 66351 to 66400:
-
muoncounter at 11:00 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltsprings#47: "no mention of the word "record" either in the mapping or at the source you quote." Really? The linked NOAA map clearly displays state-by-state rankings of wettest and driest for the year. '#1' on that map would be record driest and '#117' would be record wettest. -
JMurphy at 10:54 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltspringson, you wrote on another thread : "A Google news search for "record cold temperature" for the past week gives 29 results. "Record high temperature" 9 results.". So far, adelady (above) has pointed you towards Capital Climate (which is showing 312 high records already this year in America, and 19 records for Jan the 9th alone), so I will just point you towards mherrera.org, (which also shows records for all countries each year since 2002), where you will see 7 of the 8 records so far this year are for maximums, not minimums. Do you have more details of the records you found on your Google search ? -
EliRabett at 10:39 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
The argument here (such as there is one) goes to intent. There is strong internal evidence (of the grade of finding a fish in a milk container establishing that the milk was watered) showing that Michaels simply COPIED the Gillett graph and erased the dotted lines Didn't do a very good job of it, you can spot it in the figure at normal size and it is completely clear when blown up. That sort of behavior is not ethical. Chip Knappenberger's argument that the 1851-2010 data is better than the 1901-2010 data is risible. Instrumental records are increasingly unreliable the further back you go, and more so pre-1900. If you doubt this take a look at the BEST record with uncertainty intervals shown -
Bob Lacatena at 09:53 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
136, hank, _hank, _Hank, hank_, Hank_, and _h_a_n_k, It's probably an act of extreme hubris to register for a site on the world wide web using nothing more than a familiar form of one's own first name, don't you think? :D
-
hank at 09:46 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Pssst, serious disambiguation -- "Hank_" is the guy using both the capital letter and underscore. "hank_" is the one with the lower case letter and the underscore. Neither of them is me. Is there any collision detection in the signup algorithm? Are we going to be joined by a "Hank" and a "_hank_" and a "_Hank" eventually? Aiee. If you wonder who's who, click the link behind the names, I suppose that can't be fudged.Response:[DB] I keep tabs of who's-who; there's no confusing the two of you.
-
John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 20 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Recommended reading: "Chatting with the climate scientist Newt dissed” by David Roberts, Grist, Jan 17, 2012 -
adelady at 09:34 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
saltspringson "There is no mention of the word "record".." If you ever want to keep on top of "records" set for the USA I can recommend Capital Climate which devotes most postings entirely to records. Just check out the posting for January 2012 so far. The neat little graphic on the left gives you a running total of records set for the current year. -
actually thoughtful at 09:29 AM on 20 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I have had my opinions about moderation informed by spending a few days on WUWT - it particular on the issue of Michaels testimony to Congress (raised here, "answered" on WUWT). I found the following: I wasn't moderated (with one caveat - 2 of my replies were eaten by the server - I take the moderator at his/her word that this was a server malfunction) - I did raise some tough points, and was answered (not to my satisfaction, but I wasn't ignored either). Dana1981 WAS moderated right before my eyes (whole post snipped due to something he said on Deltoid (according to Anthony at WUWT)). I don't particular care for the blog wars (even as I contributed in some small way). I heard quite a bit about folks who were moderated on this site. I like the moderator response for those comments that are partly snipped - transparency. I would like to see a comments/bulk where comments with no redeeming value are diverted to. So when someone claims "I was banned/deleted from SkS" - we can find their comment in Comments/bulk and show them WHY they were removed from the adult conversation. I don't see any other way to own the high ground (SkS can certainly claim it). Transparency is incredibly important when people are feeling like they were inappropriately deleted or banned. Most posters, even the trolls, are not aware of how unsupportable their posts are. Being able to point out that they are posting unsupportable claims on a science post will give SkS defenders a valuable tool, and continue to educate the curious about the differences between a science blog and a denier site. -
saltspringson at 09:01 AM on 20 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
39 muoncounter You stated, "What is the significance of town by town analysis? By the map shown here, 7 states had record wettest (two more near-record wettest) and Texas as a whole (a rather large area) had its record driest during 2011." There is no mention of the word "record" either in the mapping or at the source you quote. My point is when someone uses the word "record" as being an indication of things getting hotter or colder, it behooves us to look at whether the number of "records" are significant or not. It appears from the data I quoted, that there was not a significant number of "records" for 2011. If a "record" drought was occurring, over a widespread area (e.g. number of towns) for a number of years, that would possibly indicate a trend. 23 towns in all of the US with "records" is insignificant in my opinion. -
Don9000 at 09:00 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
@saltspringson "Why don't we act to reduce them[greenhouse gases]? - Financially it does not make sense because proposed reductions wouldn't make a dent in projected temperature rises anyways, except perhaps for worse case computer modelling which currently is not being supported by observations." Please, saltspringson, get a grip on reality. In this case, that reality is that any reduction we make in our emissions of greenhouse gases will in fact make a dent in actual temperature rises, even if only a small one. Is it really so hard for you to grasp this basic fact? Let me provide an analogy: You have a bank account that earns interest, and thus the more money you put into the account the more interest you earn. If you stop putting money into the account, or reduce the amount per week you put in, you will reduce the amount of interest you earn. The basic reality of putting man-made greenhouse gases into the environment is that the more we put in, the more warming [interest] will happen. And please, please, please, never again post with that silly closing line. Sincerely yours, Donald T. Blume -
hank at 08:54 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
> these are the sorts of things that could potentially > get spread around to a larger audience ... > the links to every paper are provided ... That's the key. Keep the links with the pictures, preferably as part of the image since images otherwise easily get copied or linked to without the source information being included. It'd be good to see an annotated version with error bars or uncertainty ranges -- but the important fact clear from the simplified bar chart is how they fall around the 100 percent line. -
Composer99 at 08:41 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Also, to respect Skeptical Science's comments policy each specific claim should be substantiated on the appropriate thread unless it pertains specifically to Arctic methane outgassing. -
Composer99 at 08:40 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
saltsprings: If your post survives moderation for being so egregiously off-topic and little more than a "who's who" romp through long-refuted hogwash, then IMO you need to substantiate every single claim you have made with references to peer-reviewed literature or concede that your claims are without merit.Response:[DB] Yes, saltspringson's comment was a nice example of a Gish Gallop. As such, should he/she feel up to the challenge of actually mounting a defense, the onus will be on he/she to mount said defense of each claim individually, on the most appropriate threads.
-
muoncounter at 08:35 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
saltsprings#21: Your off-topic misconceptions are dealt with in numerous rebuttal threads (for example, 'we're coming out of the LIA'). Others can be found with the search function. As for Vonnegut, you apparently don't know what his opinions were on the subject: entire vertebrate species, because of how we have poisoned the topsoil, the waters and the atmosphere, are becoming, hey presto, nothing but skulls and bones. "science fiction can predict accurately into the next century, while non-fiction can't accurately predict what's happening next week" If scifi predictions are so accurate, where is my jet pack? Where is my rocket car? And climate science is not about predicting next week. Please read. Think. Ask questions (on appropriate threads). Learn. You never know, you might actually enjoy it. -
Tom Curtis at 08:30 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
hank_, it has come to my attention that one complaint of misquotation has some substance to it. At this stage all I can tell you is that the error was inadvertent, and that it is being corrected. I will not comment any further on this issue here as it is of topic on this thread (and should have been raised on the thread where the error occurred - but of course we would far rather errors be raised and corrected than that formalities like remaining on topic be observed). -
saltspringson at 08:17 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
@funglestrumpet "Is global warming happening? - Yes Is the final amount of warming known? - No Is it potentially dangerous? – Yes, very Are greenhouse gasses responsible to some extent - Yes Do we produce greenhouse gasses? - Yes Would it help if we reduced our production of them? - Yes Why don't we act to reduce them? - We are too busy arguing about who has produced those already in the atmosphere." Ver. 2 Is global warming happening? - Yes, its been happening since the Little Ice Age, long before manmade greenhouse gases had any chance of affecting temperature rises. Is the final amount of warming known? - No. We don't even know when the earth is going to start cooling again, as it evidently has time and time again. Will warming eventually lead to cooling? - Yes, if you believe paleontologists, ice core data, etc.. Aren't both warming and cooling potentially dangerous? – Yes, very, but cooling is much more devastating - think mile of ice over much of North America. How many species would be at risk? Are greenhouse gasses responsible to some extent - Yes, but we're not sure if the temperature effect of manmade greenhouse gases is significant. The question of the amount of effect of AGW is still hotly debated, as evidenced by the wide range of projected temperatures by the UN IPCC models, and real world observations. Do we produce greenhouse gasses? - Yes, but not as much as Mother Nature. Water vapour is by far the most abundant GG. Would it help if we reduced our production of them? - Possibly, but even if every country in the world adopted Kyoto Protocol standards, experts say temperature rise by 2100 would only be delayed by 5 years. Why don't we act to reduce them? - Financially it does not make sense because proposed reductions wouldn't make a dent in projected temperature rises anyways, except perhaps for worse case computer modelling which currently is not being supported by observations. If Kurt Vonnegut were still alive, I am sure he could write a whole book on how the 21st Earthlings thought they were saving the planet by reducing CO2, when in fact they were condemning it to an earlier frozen grave in the 22nd Century. That's the nature of science fiction and non-fiction. When it comes to predictions, science fiction can predict accurately into the next century, while non-fiction can't accurately predict what's happening next week. A Google news search for "record cold temperature" for the past week gives 29 results. "Record high temperature" 9 results. A friend of mine once told me - "If you're going to predict, predict often." I'm just sayin'.... -
Albatross at 08:10 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana @130, Note how Knappenberger elects to misrepresent not only the science but the scientists' position on AGW-- none of the papers support assertions/opinions that warming down the road will be "lukewarm" (a vague term at best, so it is difficult to make a quantitative analysis, I guess it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean). Specifically, to my knowledge Santer, Urban, Foster, Rahmstorf, Solomon, Mears, Wigley, Meehl, Stott, and Thorne (amongst the other authors of the papers cited) are all very much concerned about the impacts of doubling or trebling CO2 and it is my understanding that they do not advocate continuing with business as usual as advocated by WCR. So that makes the narrative of the Knappenberger opinion piece especially disingenuous. I am confident that some authors would take strong exception to Knappenberger misrepresenting their work and trying to use it to push a "lukewarm" agenda/narrative. Not only that, but any evidence that has been published the past year or so that showed model predictions are consistent with observations when one takes the inherent uncertainties into account or notes that there are still outstanding issues with the satellite tropospheric temperature estimates (e.g., Thorne et al. (2011a), Thorne et al. (2011b), Mears et al. (2011)) or papers that are consistent with the climate sensitivity reported in the IPCC's 4th assessment (e.g., Park and Royer (2011), Pagani et al. (2010), Previdi et al. (2011), Kiehl (2011)) were simply ignored in the Knappenberger piece. The opinion piece in question is a very clear attempt to bias and mislead people by ignoring the body of evidence. I should not be surprised, as their behavior is consistent with the topic of and material posted by them this thread. Now before certain apologists try and seize this as an opportunity to take this thread off topic to detract from them doctoring graphs, can we all please take future discussion to the relevant threads as linked to by Dana @130. Thanks. -
DrTsk at 07:41 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Poor Albatross. I know it is difficult to keep one's temper down!! Chip is casually dishonest. -
hank at 07:40 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Disambiguation: "Hank_" is not me. I've been wondering if Michaels ever disclosed whose "advocacy science" he was doing -- this kind of stuff is either funded research to be presented to the lawmakers or courts, or it's what Michaels has been doing, taking published science and taking out the inconvenient parts. It's what advocates do. Legal advocates take published law and take out the inconvenient parts and argue the part they're there to advocate. Michaels and his group can absolve their consciences by thinking, it's not a lie, it's work for hire. -
Albatross at 07:18 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Some people at WCR really do either a problem with comprehension or paying loose with the truth. I said that "WUWT nor WCR (Michaels et al.) nor Pielke Senior are interested in open dialogue and permitting people to freely critique or challenge their assertions on their own turf". From the WCR page in which Michaels tries to justify doctoring scientists' graphs: "No Comments No comments yet. RSS feed for comments on this post. Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time" I do not appreciate people being dishonest with me and/or trying to misrepresent what I have said. -
dana1981 at 07:10 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
The MasterResource article is a re-tread of a few of the same misrepresentations we discussed here, and a few new ones. Instead I would recommend the more thorough and accurate SkS posts on these papers. Santer et al here and here, F&R here, Schmittner here, and Gillett here. -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:58 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross@122, Comments are open (to the modestly well-behaved) over at MasterResource.org where I have just posted this: Global Lukewarming: A Great Intellectual Year in 2011 reviewing the implications of Santer et al. 2011, Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Schmittner et al. 2011 and Gillett et al. 2012. -Chip Knappenberger -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:52 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Hank, what's bee said "elsewhere" is false. Michaels' testimony to congress is a matter of public record. Instead of believing what you read "elsewhere" do your work and find out what the reality is. If you find it more convenient and emotionally pleasing to believe what they say "elsewhere" then you can do that. If you decide to do so, you will be as far as one can possibly be from skepticism. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:40 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Congress is not about to address lies that they want to hear, hence the field days had by barely competent individuals like Michaels, Monckton etc. In fact, it could be interesting for SkS to analyze closer the contents of these testimonies and make a list of the statements that constitute something else than "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." The expression certainly does not cover representing other's research as saying something different than what it actually says, which was done many times by Michaels and the sorry piece called WCR. -
Albatross at 06:21 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Re my comment @123, My apologies, I should practice what I preach. My point was that unlike SkS authors, Michaels and Knappenberger are paid (and generously so) to do what they do. It is, hopefully, evident to readers by now exactly what that is. -
Stephen Baines at 06:15 AM on 20 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
CBD. I wouldn't be surprised if trade winds have increased, although I haven't seen the actual data saying so yet. I'm just trying to get Tealy to take a more scientific approach here in evaluating the influence of ocean volume on a local sea-level record, so there is something tangible to discuss. -
funglestrumpet at 06:13 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
With all due respect to Owl905 @7 I couldn't agree more with Dr Natalia Shakhova's words: "I believe that there is absolutely no point in trying to determine who is responsible, Mother Nature or human beings. Whoever is responsible, the consequences will be the same." As I have said before: You don't refuse steer round an iceberg because it is not anthropogenic in origin. If you stand back from the issue, it is possible to see the way arguing about whether global warming is caused by human activities or not is being cleverly used as a reason not to act. Is global warming happening? - Yes Is the final amount of warming known? - No Is it potentially dangerous? – Yes, very Are greenhouse gasses responsible to some extent - Yes Do we produce greenhouse gasses? - Yes Would it help if we reduced our production of them? - Yes Why don't we act to reduce them? - We are too busy arguing about who has produced those already in the atmosphere. If Douglas Adams were still alive, I am sure he could write a whole chapter of the HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy on how the Golgafrinchans tackled climate change based on our efforts on the matter. I know it is off topic, but surely the world’s financial problems would be cured at a stroke if we all adopted the leaf as a unit of currency the way the Golgafrinchans did. -
Stephen Baines at 06:06 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
"It would be nice to see a hearing to correct all the dis-information in previous climate hearings." It would be. But my guess is that won't happen because the stakes for are too high for those responsible(misleading congress is a federal offense), and the will in congress to force a proper accounting against those headwinds is simply not there at present. -
DaneelOlivaw at 06:05 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Dana, this is a nice review. Would it be worthwhile to try to turn it into an actual paper and publish it in the peer reviewed scientific literature? Scientific literature often is hard to interpret because it's very fragmented. This kind of reviews are the kind of thing we need, IMHO. Thanks for the hard work! -
CBDunkerson at 05:43 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
This information about Waxman wanting to call Michaels back to answer for some of his false statements is interesting. We've also previously discussed false testimony to congress from Monckton and others. It would be nice to see a hearing to correct all the dis-information in previous climate hearings. -
Albatross at 05:29 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Daniel and John, "All of the SkS authors are unpaid volunteers." In contrast, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have quite the fiscal (-snip-) to do what they do. They are paid generously apparently for the purpose of (-snip-) debate, (-snip-) doubt and (-snip-) Congress and the American people about climate science.Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Albatross at 05:22 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana@119, So, despite vocal claims to the contrary, Watts et al. really are not interested in open scientific discourse. How hypocritical of Anthony Watts. But that does not surprise me in the least. So we now know, by their own actions, that neither WUWT nor WCR (Michaels et al.) nor Pielke Senior are interested in open dialogue and permitting people to freely critique or challenge their assertions on their own turf. Ironically, if Watts or Michaels had the gumption to post here, they would be welcome to (assuming they can follow the house rules of course). -
Daniel Bailey at 05:21 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
@ John Hartz"All of the SkS authors are unpaid volunteers."
So what am I to do with this stack of IOU's...? -
CBDunkerson at 05:19 AM on 20 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
For the record, there is evidence that global warming has caused a Hadley cell expansion and thus increased trade winds. However, as Stephen notes, that doesn't mean the sea level trend near Tuvalu is entirely, or even largely, due to the trade winds. That said, the root cause of any sea level rise due to thermal expansion, ice loss, or trade winds is the same... global warming. -
Stephen Baines at 05:09 AM on 20 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Tealy, My question was, "What is your evidence that trade winds have increased on average in such a way to cause a long term change in sea-level? " You have simply provided evidence that local sea level near Tuvalu is higher relative to the rest of the Pacific basin because trade winds move surface water from east to west. No one questions that - it's established science. That does not explain the trend in sea-level near Tuvalu. Stating that trade-winds must be responsible for the trend because they are responsible for local elevation of sealevel in the tropical west Pacific is not good enough. The local elevation in sea-level has nothing to do, per se, with changes in sea-level over time. That would be confusing a temporal pattern with a spatial pattern. They need not have the same cause. You have posed a hypothesis - namely that increasing trade-are the sole cause of the increase in sea-level. The scientific approach would then be to test this hypothesis with data. A first step would be to show a corresponding increase in tradewinds with time. It would not be sufficient to make your case, because there is no reason to discount the role of observed changes in ocean water volume and you would not have established that the change in trade-winds was sufficient to cause the observed increase in sea-level. But it would be a necessary first step for you to be taken seriously.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Bold tag fixed. -
dagold at 05:09 AM on 20 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
When all is said and done, does it not come back to basic math and physics? IF we (including Pirate and Sphaerica!) agree with the vast majority of Clim. Sc. that 450 ppm is a 'danger demarcation' line' (if there is no agreement, then nothing much to talk about here) and therefor about 237 Gt Carbon is the total allowance remaining THEN...regardless of OA or anything else...we need to 1)Cap remaining total carbon emissions EVER at 237 Gt (and that's ignoring in the pipeline warming) 2) get our a**es moving and install replacement capacity with non-carbon sources. Yes? De-incentivize carbon, incentivize renewables (and efficiency) and do it! The 'solutions' start with the will and commitment...just like Apollo, just like WWII gear up and Manhattan project...there are many plan solutions already out there...THAT is not the sticking point. -
Composer99 at 05:09 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
hank: Have the pseudoskeptics can point out exactly where in the OP or comments Michaels is misquoted? As far as I have seen, every reference to Michaels' Congressional testimony or to WCR posts directly cite the appropriate texts (and provide links such that they can be checked for accuracy by anyone who cares to do so). I must confess I suspect that much of the brouhaha is for the benefit of those who will not take the time to review SkS' post. -
dana1981 at 04:58 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
On a note related to Albatross @7, although the "skeptics" often put forth alternative hypotheses (i.e. maybe the sun or oceanic cycles or astrological cycles or GCRs or [etc. etc.] has contributed more to global warming than we think), I did not find any attribution studies which attributed less than the vast majority of the recent warming to human effects. It's all well and good to say "maybe it's the sun", but as far as I could find, the 'skeptics' have been unable to back up their "it's not us" assertions with a robust physical and/or statistical analysis like those discussed in this post. -
Albatross at 04:34 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Readers, What emerges from this literature review and from the data presented in the figures, is that even given the inherent uncertainties, there is a convergence towards a relatively narrow range of values from multiple independent research papers showing that humans most contributed between 75% and 90% of the warming over the last 100-150 years, and that "over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%". That is a significant and robust finding. That is the message that is being conveyed here and that should cause us all concern. It is also a nail in the coffin for people like Dr. Patrick Michaels who repeatedly to try and mislead Congress and the American people by trying and demonstrate that the majority of the observed warming is not attributable to the GHGs that we humans have been adding to the atmosphere. Here was Dr. Michaels' most recent (failed) attempt and Dr. Ben Santer was having none of it. Additionally, none of the six papers discussed above support the claims being made by "skeptics". When will the public finally tire of the misinformation and distortion being peddled by "skeptics" and those who deny the theory of AGW? I have. -
dana1981 at 04:32 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Coincidentally, Watts is now censoring my comments on WUWT, and of course there are no comments allowed on WCR, so obviously any discussion of Michaels' data deletions will have to occur on SkS. -
John Hartz at 04:27 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
@hank_ #112 Lest there be any confusion, there is no such thing as "SkS staff." All of the SkS authors are unpaid volunteers. -
DSL at 04:23 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Why would someone ask a question when the answers are right there in front of him/her? Further, why would someone ask such a question while admitting ignorance of the situation being discussed? I could make this a multiple choice question, but several of the choices would violate the comments policy. DNFTT -
Stephen Baines at 04:15 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Hank Which quotes are you referring to? -
CBDunkerson at 04:01 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Hank, so far as I can tell the only purported quotation of Michaels in the document above is that he said; "more than four times less than Hansen predicted." These words can be found in CATO article by Michaels here. Thus, I see no evidence supporting the claim you are reporting. If you had some information on precisely what misquotation is being claimed it might then be possible to provide a more direct answer. -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
hank_ - My apologies, the opening post does indeed include a Michaels quote: asserting that the planet had warmed "more than four times less than Hansen predicted." That's part of the Congressional Record, and is indeed an incorrect assertion when you have actually read Hansen's paper and looked at the data. So, no. -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
hank_ - Yes, SkS* is getting a lot of attention on 'skeptic' blogs right now. I suspect that's because this particular topic, distortions of data and science by advocacy groups such as Michaels' are a serious and telling issue. And having that particular flaw pointed out bothers some folks. "Manipulating quotes"? There's a clear Comments Policy, violators of that are deleted or snipped to remove offensive or over the line language - and that's an open requirement to participation. In the Michaels post itself - the only quotes I see there are from scientists extremely unhappy with Michaels' selective editing of their graphic data representations. There have been a few Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacies thrown out (And You Fallacy); but quite frankly there's a difference between SkS posting some of the graphics/text of a paper with direct references (as opposed to reproducing entire papers each time) - and what Michaels has done, which is to edit graphs to change the presentation, which is equivalent to deliberately misquoting a person to portray them as having a diametrically opposed position. But: Read it yourself, hank_, look up the original sources as well, and judge for yourself. * Note the abbreviation - unwarranted associations with WWII are implied ad hominem's. -
hank_ at 03:51 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
@106 - 108 Pardon my ignorance of the whole Michaels situation. But none of you have answered the original question; Has the SKS staff manipulated statements from Michaels and then presented them here as an actual quote from him? That's what has been said elsewhere. HResponse:[dana1981] No, as a few commenters have noted, there is only one statement from Michaels in the above post, and it is a direct quote from his congressional testimony. I would be interested to know exactly how we are purported to have "manipulated statements from Michaels."
-
dana1981 at 03:44 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
CBD @110 - exactly. Chip has attempted to defend the WCR deletions by saying we could just cover up the figures and there would be no problem with their posts. That totally misses the point. Their posts also completely ignore the inconvenient data, and thus they wrongly claim that the papers support their assertions of low climate sensitivity and/or relatively little future global warming. The papers only support those assertions if you ignore the inconvenient data. Michaels' deletion of Hansen's Scenarios B and C is in a whole other league of distortion. I'm working on another post examining that one in more depth. Look for it to be published here probably on Monday. -
owl905 at 03:39 AM on 20 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
The external links coupled with the ESAS findings suggest an initial reaction of 'new development'. When global methane concentrations started rising again the fingerprint was increases in both northern and southern hemispheres at the same time. Somehow, the two-year mixing lag across the equator was bypassed - or it was a global phenom. Now hotspots are observed in the ESAS and in the Antarctic. The negative-hypothesis presented in the American WX link at the bottom of the Expert Discussion article is wanting on all counts. It isn't conclusive, but any dismissive about it isn't because it shouldn't, or the model didn't show it, or the IPCC didn't write it ... they're selling, not telling. -
CBDunkerson at 03:38 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Ultimately this isn't really about the graphs. Michaels claimed that Hansen 1998 made a prediction, that global temperature anomalies would increase by 0.45 C between 1988 and 1997, which it did not. Yes, he used a doctored graph to support this claim, but it is the false claim itself which is the essential problem. Likewise, Michaels claimed that Schmittner 2011 found low climate sensitivity... when, in truth, it did not. Again, he doctored a graph to support the false claim, but the graph is not the issue. It is just the prop on which the false claim was based. Ditto Gilette 2012. Michaels falsely claimed it found low future warming... by removing the portions of the graph showing potentially high future warming. It isn't the act of making changes to a graph in and of itself which is problematic. Additions and removals from graphs can be just fine. For instance, if one of Hansen's emissions scenarios had happened to exactly match observed emissions then it would have been reasonable to show a graph based on just the warming from that scenario. Michaels went wrong in using temperatures based on an emissions scenario which did not match observations and falsely claiming this was what Hansen predicted. So, again, the modifications to the graphs are not the root problem. The false claims which the graphs were modified to 'support' are the issue.
Prev 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 Next
