Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 Next
Comments 66401 to 66450:
-
DSL at 03:13 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Aye, Tom. It's easy to stand behind a wall, sneer, and preach The Truth. This is an open forum. Thanks for the report from behind the wall, Hank. Do you have anything of substance to add? Perhaps you could represent the bashers, since they seem to be taking the day off from open dialogue. Not up to it? Just the messenger? By the way, look at what you posted carefully. What exactly are you asking? If SkS is being bashed? If so, you just reported that SkS is. If you meant to ask about manipulation, read this thread for yourself. -
dana1981 at 02:58 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
If SkS is getting "bashed" in the "skeptical blogosphere", it means we must be doing something right. The truth hurts, and people in denial don't react well to it. -
dana1981 at 02:52 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
There's always a trade-off between detail and clarity. The figures are already getting cluttered, and adding more information makes them more difficult to interpret. I know most SkS readers have no problem interpreting more complex graphics, but these are the sorts of things that could potentially get spread around to a larger audience, in which case simpler graphics have much more impact. There's a phrase good communicators abide by, and is discussed at length in the Debunking Handbook - in short, K.I.S.S. As noted in the post and the comments above, the links to every paper are provided so that you can read them yourself if you want more information (thanks for fixing the link DB). -
Tom Curtis at 02:50 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Hank @105, that we are being "bashed" on the "skeptical" blogosphere says all you need to know. Evidently the people taking swings at us only have the courage to do so in our absence, and where they are not required to back up their claims with evidence. And before you say, "Sauce for the goose ...", I am sure Dana would be happy to raise the allegations in the main post on Michael's own blog. The problem is, Michael's doesn't have the courage to allow comments, which might result in his needing to back up his claims with evidence. Please note, the proper abbreviation of Skeptical Science is SkS. We avoid using "SS" because some of those oh so courageous "skeptical" bloggers have in the past deliberately made comparisons between Skeptical Science and Hitler's Schutzstaffel based on a coincidence of initials. This says all you need to know about their moral virtues, and the quality of their arguments. -
cynicus at 02:20 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
@150 hank_ Well, I could say "No", but then it becomes a he said/she said Yes or No situation, so I wont. Just carefully read the post and the links therein and decide for yourself if quotes were manipulated and by whom. Might be a revealing experience regarding the reliability of skeptic claims. -
hank_ at 02:13 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Wow, you guys at SS are getting bashed lately in the skeptical blogosphere lately for manipulating quotes, especially concerning the Michaels story. Is this true? H -
DSL at 01:24 AM on 20 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
Hey, thanks for stopping by to clarify and reiterate, Peter (or Dr. Kuipers Munneke, if you prefer). The Arctic seems to get all the press; it's nice to hear voices from the other end of the Earth. -
Utahn at 00:37 AM on 20 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip @78, Michaels was attempting to denigrate a graphic because it *didn't show any* power outages in a given year, and the graphic's legend said "Most outages occur in local distribution networks and are not included in the graph.” Can you see how leaving out that information makes it seem like you have a strong point, when really you don't? How is that not deceptive? -
Alex C at 00:13 AM on 20 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Chinahand- I think you mean mean? In any case, as Alexandre said you can search the papers themselves, it's not like the data is being hid away from readers. The Tett 2000 data for instance was derived from figure 6, at the bottom of the linked PDF (BTW, all of the Tett links are broken it seems - one has to delete the skepticalscience leading text, before the harvard abstract part). The anthro component for 1947-97 predicts a temperature trend of 1.35˚C/century, and the observed was 0.8 - that percentage of observed is about the 170% given in the figure. -
Tealy at 00:08 AM on 20 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Stephen Bains @26 Regarding you question as to trade winds causing the higher sea level at Tuvalu, I found the confirmation below in Wikipedia section on Tuvalu climate change:- "The 2011 report of the Pacific Climate Change Science Program published by the Australian Government,[3] describes a strong zonal (east‑to-west) sea-level slope along the equator, with sea level west of the International Date Line (180° longitude) being about a half metre higher than found in the eastern equatorial Pacific and South American coastal regions. The trade winds that push surface water westward create this zonal tilting of sea level on the equator." Therefore to have an even higher sea level at Tuvalu than the Pacific average means to have greater zonal tilting across the Pacific, which means to have stronger trade winds. ie you can't have an increased effect without having an increased cause. QED -
Alex C at 23:53 PM on 19 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Dana - at least one of the links is not set up correctly, the Tett 2000 hyperlink at the start of its section.Response: [DB] Thanks for the heads-up. Updated the various Tett links to this -
prokaryotes at 23:36 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Yes and this here needs consideration too Yurganow London CH4 Anomalies discussion he concludes: ..after 2007 new growing source(s) caused a new growth of CH4. The nature of these sources is a matter of debates. The current rate of CH4 increase (~ 20 Tg per year for the global troposphere) seems to be constant between 2007 and September, 2011. This increase does not look catastrophic: in early 1980 methane was increasing with a rate 40-50 Tg/year and the rate decreased to zero by 2000. A permanent monitoring is necessary to detect a potential large surge as promptly as possible. -
Alexandre at 22:44 PM on 19 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Chinahand As they are, those graphs are easy to grasp, and therefore they're a useful means of science communication to the broader audience. I assume this is the goal of many of SkS's graphs. Feel free to hunt the original research. Please come back and tell us if you do find some relevant innacuracy. Or even make some graphs of your own: you may have some good idea on how to convey lots of scientific information in a way that's intelligible in a glance. As for Dana, thanks for doing all the work of putting this together. -
John Mason at 22:13 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
OK, I have obtained the methane charts back to December 2006, so I'll post them one after the other: December 2006:
December 2007:
December 2008:
December 2009:
December 2010:
December 2011:
2011 does look pretty high compared to previous years, but one year out of a series has to be treated with caution. Also, note the fluctuations occurring over SE continental Asia.
-
Chinahand at 21:52 PM on 19 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
I am very surprised that in the summaries of each research paper you've not included any figures, nor the error ranges. This quantitative information is absolutely needed to add to the visualization provided in the charts. I can (just) understand the decision not to put the error ranges on the charts (but a high low and median chart is just as visually useful as a bar chart) but not to include any numerical data whatsoever in this piece seems to have missed out vital data. In preparing the charts you must have this data, why not share it with us - now I've got to go to the original research and hunt it out myself. Surely providing such numbers is just as important as the nice graphics. As far as I am concerned the median is of less use than the range which is by far the most important part of any scientific study. -
prokaryotes at 21:50 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
John, sorry about that, i have resized them all to 1024px (about 100kb) already, see my above link . -
John Mason at 21:46 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Prokaryotes, If you are going to post images, then please could you resize them to 500 pixels? The ones above are huge and they are generating server error messages at times (the 425 alert, if anybody wonders what that is), even with the size-settings you have applied. I have asked the moderators if they can replace them with copies I have resized and saved. -
prokaryotes at 21:34 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Latest Methane Anomalies (off the chart) with Expert discussion -
John Mason at 21:11 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Prokaryotes, It would be instructive to compare the Dec 2010 & 2011 graphs with those for a few of the preceding years. In 2009 and 2010 the pressure-patterns over the Arctic were rather unusual - these leading to the very cold wintry weather over NW Europe. In 2011-12, a "normal" polar-vortex pattern has dominated matters. It would, therefore, be interesting to see if December 2009 has any similarity to December 2010 and whether December 2006, 2007 and 2008 are more like December 2011. My line of questioning is based upon whether a trans-polar airflow giving deep Northerly outbreaks across NW Europe better flushes the methane out of the Arctic than the "normal" circumpolar flow. -
MarkR at 21:08 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
#51 Chip : You're free to use data however you want, although an honest broker will always explain which data they've selected and why. However, such analysis will not have gone through peer review and will not have been checked for mistakes, misleading choices etc. Take most of WUWT's scientific 'analysis' for example: their conclusions aren't in peer reviewed journals because their analysis would fail peer review. So how to get the impression of peer reviewed work (i.e. stuff that's been filtered for mistakes or misleading choices) supporting your conclusion? One way would be to take graphs from the peer reviewed literature and delete the data points that disagree with your opinion. A reader might think 'oh, this is real peer reviewed data and the analysis was good enough to get in a proper scientific report, maybe this blog post is right'. Unless you made it abundantly clear exactly what you'd done and why in the caption attached to the graph, then you'd be misleading your audience. Something that should be completely unacceptable in scientific debate and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. -
prokaryotes at 21:00 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Re Wili, let me add your image and the corresponding from 2010 2011 / 12
2010 / 12
AIRS Anomalies
Response:[DB] Fixed image ftp issues. Please resize images to no more than 500 pixels width. See here for posting tips.
-
prokaryotes at 20:40 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Response:[DB] Note: All graphics must include accompanying text which provides the context for why the graphic is relevant and germane to the htread on which it is posted. Future graphics-only or link-only will be deleted. FYI.
-
Tealy at 20:26 PM on 19 January 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Anyone have further references as to the cause of the ocean near Tuvalu being higher than the ocean average? -
pkm at 19:12 PM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
@16, 18, 19 As I mention in the paper, snowmelt plays an insignificant role in the mass budget of Antarctica. Mass is gained by snowfall and lost by calving of icebergs. Antarctica is simply too cold for significant melting. Moreover, almost all meltwater refreezes in the firn so that no contribution to sea level is made. However, snowmelt is important to quantify because it plays a role in the breakup of ice shelves. An insignificant change in meltwater volume since 1979 may hint to the importance of basal melting by warm ocean water in the recent breakups of ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula. Or, alternatively, ice-shelf breakup is preconditioned by melt over time scales longer than the 31 years assessed in the paper. -
wili at 17:25 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Satellite image of December Arctic atmospheric methane concentrations is up: ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2011.12._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg It shows very dark red (= high concentration) over ESAS, darker than any other month or year, as far as I can see. Is this the first strong instrumental indication that something is happening with Arctic methane this year? -
owl905 at 17:14 PM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Annan should have kept his money in his pocket. In that short a time-frame, he's betting his El Nino against Whitehouse's La Nina(s). The bigger picture was that bet he made with the Russians (is it still on?) betting warmer/cooler 1998-2003 versus 2012-2017. The bet had $10,000 of bite to it, and it really does measure whether AGW shows up with 15 years of more pollution. -
owl905 at 17:06 PM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
J Bob @ 27 - that's a very weak presentation of the trends, there's no way to judge the result from that jigsaw puzzle. It intrinsically gives every measurement set equal value - and this thread is by no means the only place that lays out UAH problems and HadCrut limitations. The layout screams agenda. And the website it comes from has a loud pro-pollutionist bias. It turns the overwhelming evidence of physics, chemistry, and biology; that gets synthesized into modelled projections; as ... 'groupthink'. -
Tom Curtis at 16:45 PM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
J. Bob, the bet was made with regard to the surface temperature record. It is well known that satellite temperature records show an exaggerated response to El Nino events, resulting in a much higher 1998 record in those indices than in surface temperature indices. This fact was well known to James Annan. It is highly probable, therefore, that he would not have made his bet based on a satellite temperature index, or insisted on a longer period before being confident of a higher record. As it happens, in two out of three existing Global Surface Temperature records, Annan would have won on. In particular, by the NCDC index, both 2005 and 2010 where hotter than 1998, with 2010 being the hottest. GISTEMP has 2005, 2007 and 2010 being hotter than 1998. (See figure 5 in the main article.) Further, the bet was made with regard to annual temperatures, not monthly. That makes a large difference. According to GISTEMP, for example, the hottest month on record occurred in March 2002, but the hottest years on record are 2005 and 2010. The difference is that while March 2002 was exceptionally hot, the other months of the year where not, while in 2010 most months where unusually hot, lifting the annual average higher. Indeed, with regard to monthly temperatures, Annan would have won his bet, for HadCRUTv3 shows a higher monthly temperature in February 2002 (1.0 degree C anomaly) and January 2007 (1.104 degree C anomaly) than the highest monthly temperature recorded temperature in 1998 (0.968 degree C anomaly in April) So, for both these reasons, use of your graph for comparison in this issue is disingenuous at best. -
Bob Lacatena at 15:39 PM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
35, Pirate,I can't and won't...
This has always been clear, and grows increasingly so. -
J. Bob at 15:19 PM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Albatross @ 20, You might try downloading the figure, and then enlarge it. Or go to climate4you.com under the Global Temperature tab. As far climate4you.com goes, they have the primary data sources listed with the graph, which I use in my analysis, so I have no problem with them. And no, I did not miss the point. There is nothing like putting a little “skin” in the game, and clearly defined rules. Doc Snow @ 22 Looking at the data on my posted figure, I would think that Whitehouse would have a good chance to collect some more money. First however, I have to remember how to correctly post links & images, -
Paul Magnus at 14:59 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Some known knows that are not so good.... The methane build up is probably even large than when previous outburst occurred. The sun is about 30% warmer than it was since a long time ago. Human induced warming is unprecedented in the long pass. Sesmic activities increases with warming. All these thing point to a higher probably that we may see an abrupt emission event. -
Bernard J. at 14:54 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Further to Albatross's observations at #67 on Chip Knappenberger's comment:"While data might be sacred, how it is displayed or used, is not."
it is worth noting that not only is the accurate and faithful visual depiction of data also "sacred", but the honest reporting of peer-reviewed work is too. What Michaels, Knappenberger, and Watts did was to take material that had been reviewed and assessed by professional experts, and that had been accredited as such by the fact of publication, and then post hoc alter the original authors' intended assessment. It's one thing to construct de novo the sort of pseudoscientific, bogus, BlogoscienceTM nonsense that is consistently paraded at W[W]WT, but it's another to fiddle with peer-reviewed material in order to misrepresent it to the lay audience. Others have made similar observations on this thread before me, but it bears repeating and expanding on - when an amateur deliberately manipulates data in order to present an inaccurate or a misleading impression to a third party it qualifies at the least as deception; when a professional does this, it is scientific misconduct. IMHO. -
Albatross at 13:48 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric @99, Thanks. I tried to have a look over there a little while ago and their site was not working properly-- probably part of their protest over SOPA. I didn't kow that they pre moderate comments there... Long day here, time to get some more work done and then rest. -
Composer99 at 13:41 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
To extend the baseball metaphor a bit further, I think Mr Knappenburger has thrown his glove in the dirt and gone home. Parsing some of his final comments anyway, we have: My intent was to point out the double standard, not deception. Except that in no way can it be shown that, say SkS has engaged in anything of the doctoring that WCR has. Omitting panels from a set of figures is not doctoring data, and WCR has no business suggesting a double standard is in play. As you all should well know by now, I am not opposed to showing whatever data that you feel appropriate. Good! I assume WCR will be accurately representing peer-reviewed literature referred to on its website going forward. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:41 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross I just wrote my followup post at WUWT, it's in moderation as normal. -
Albatross at 13:35 PM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Eric @97, I do not post at WUWT-- do not like my IP address being tracked etc. I assume that you are referring to Fig. 3b of KH08. If you are prepared to go over there and set the record straight then please by all means do so. As for deciding which panels to inlcude from a figure that is subjective. For example we both have different ideas at to the relevance of panel 3b Schmittner et al. So given that subjectivity I'm not sure one can objectively and consisently apply that criterion/rule. Pleased to read that you agree that doctoring of graphics (and even text) as Michaels has done is deceptive. -
skywatcher at 13:31 PM on 19 January 2012It's a 1500 year cycle
msqrd #25, you've served a double fault here, Pagani shows no such thing. The quoted CO2 concentrations are not strictly dependant on the proxy as you imply, and you missed that Pagani et al 2005 were reconstructing CO2 levels from the mid-Eocene to late Oligocene, some 25-45million years ago. Ice core CO2 measurements go back some 800,000years, so the two ranges do not even nearly overlap. From Pagani et al 2005:We used stable carbon isotopic values of di-unsaturated alkenones extracted from deep sea cores to reconstruct pCO2 fromthe middle Eocene to the late Oligocene (∼45 to 25 million years ago). Our results demonstrate that pCO2 ranged between 1000 to 1500 parts per million by volume in the middle to late Eocene, then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.
You'll also see how the level of CO2 is implicated in some crucial changes, notably the expansion of Antarctic ice sheets. You might also want to read Pagani et al, 2010, a paper discussing the Pliocene climate, and see if it supports your conclusions. You might want to consider what the climate of Earth was like the last time CO2 levels were this high -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:24 PM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Sphaerica at 33 I can't make the statement you are requesting until you define the parameters of your request. Just define the word "action" in your own words. I cannot agree to something for which I don't know the meaning. It doesn't matter if the solution is painful or painless. I've acknowledged repeatedly there is an existing problem and the potential of a greater future problem. I don't know why you think I don't see the problem - my posts clearly agree with the premise of the paper that the current problem is two-fold: the greater being nutrient enrichment and the lesser being anthropogenic CO2. And, future problems appear to be greater than current. As an environmental professional, I know some problems are costly and some are not, but I've never confused the right thing to do with the cost of doing it. I look for the best solution regardless of the cost. It's called a cost/benefit analysis, but sometimes you have to pay the cost regardless. Please don't confuse my asking you to clarify your definition of actions with looking for a solution. After seeing your example/solution of overnighted internet deliveries being changed to once a week - I'm not holding my breath. At this point, until you can come up with your definition of "actions" or examples of "actions" you would like to see taken, I can't and won't respond any further on this subject matter. -
Bernard J. at 12:57 PM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
[I tried posting this about 12 hours ago, but my connection died. Apologies if this ends up a double post.] There are several problems with this type of betting, especially in the way that they are understood by the lay populace. Another way of perceiving such wagers is to put the intent in the context of saying that the bet-placers are in fact betting on a particular rate of warming - say, of around 0.2 C per decade - with random noise overlaid. The first problem is that a pattern of warming even slightly less than the approximate rate that is currently being exhibited suddenly becomes, under the usual framings of the wager as is understood by the non-scientific audience and by dissemblers of the science, proxy evidence that there is no warming at all - especially when the starting point is predicated on the most extreme cherry-pick possible. Such is the trumpetted (if not the real) outcome of the Whitehouse-Annan wager. The second problem is that such wagers are vulnerable to short-term random variations, where the wagers are concluded in the short term. Of course, this issue impinges on the previous point too... Having said this, I've recently challenged a number of denialists with significant stakes dependent on the breaking of records. However, my wagers were structured using time spans that permit the signal to emerge over the noise - essentially my wagers were allowing the longer-term rate signal to irrefutably emerge. Curiously, not a single climate change denier has had the courage to accept my wagers. I guess that the lesson is not to not bet against extreme outlying cherry-picks, but to do so carefully. In more ways that one it's all about separating signal from noise. -
prokaryotes at 12:49 PM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Find out more about recent Methane science... Methane in the Twilight Zone (Second Episode) The most important paper on climate change in quite a while was published two days ago in Science (Shindell et al, 2012: read about it here). Archer’s thinking makes sense, if you’re not planning on doing anything about the climate. The more you are, the more his downgrading of leaking methane to ‘Nothing’ by taking an absurdly long view becomes quite weird. Huffington Post Oh and will at it, click my user link i wrote an extensive piece about RealClimate as well! Bottom line, the house is burning, when do we start with fighting it? -
jimb at 12:36 PM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
As a regular, non-scientific reader of this site, this continuing back and forth that has been happening on this thread has me a bit concerned. Can we agree that "apiratelooksat50"s efforts to mitigate the OA issues within his/her area of expertise is to be commended, while acknowledging 'Sphaerica's' point that such efforts are necessary but not sufficient to deal with the totality of the OA issue? I may be naive, but I don't read "apiratelooksat50" as denying there is a problem, washing his/her hands of responsibility or that he/she is not directly taking action. (see post # 26) 'Pragmatism' can sometimes be interpreted as 'defeatism', but the way things seem to be going..... -
msqrd at 12:24 PM on 19 January 2012It's a 1500 year cycle
"In contrast, human-produced global warming has been caused by the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 200 years -- rising over 390 parts per million after remaining below 300 parts per million for the previous 800,000 years." This is strictly dependant on the proxy that is being used to evaluate the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshphere. Ice cores show one of the largest sensitivities to CO2 whereas Stromata and the B/Ca ratio show much lower sensitivities. Therefore this comment can be easily argued by using Alkenones from Pagini et al. 2005 and 2010 show much higher historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:50 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross, my posts at WUWT were directed specifically at answering KR and Actually Thoughtful. However I did ask "how is that different from Pat Michael’s editing?" regarding the omission of part 3b. I now have my answer, it is different. You are of course welcome to go there and explain that or if you want me to, I will. -
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.
Prev 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 Next
