Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 Next
Comments 66451 to 66500:
-
dana1981 at 04:55 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
actually @54 - the difference is that we didn't delete any data from the Knutti and Hegerl graphic in question. It's a very large figure, and we have image width restrictions, so I presume the right side of the figure was excluded to make it more legible. The various climate sensitivity estimates in that figure are in very close agreement, so I don't see why the 'validity' (whatever the right side discusses, since I can't read it in your link) of each estimate is all that important. Interesting information, sure. Critical to the graphic? I don't think so. And omitting it is certainly not equivalent to deleting data from a figure. The main difference is that SkS always strives to present a full and accurate picture of the peer-reviewed scientific research, whereas WCR only strives to present the portion of the picture that can be interpreted to support their position. -
DSL at 04:52 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Now, Dana, les, and Albatross, you're coming close to questioning Chip's integrity. The comments policy here at SkS explicitly forbids calling someone's integrity into question even when (and I know this might sound crazy) there is evidence that, for example, someone is engaging in a systematic program to misinform both the representatives and voters of one of the most powerful democracies in the world. I doubt if such a person even exists. After all, what sort of bizarre story could he (or she) be telling himself each day in order to justify such behavior. I guess it could be the sheer joy of finally being employable that overcomes any ethical resistance. Anyway, tsk tsk tsk! -
John Mason at 04:46 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Oops! I'm a bit new to this system - my apologies. Corrected hyperlinks below: Self-preservation of methane hydrates: here 2010 Shakhova et al: PDF Realclimate links: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/an-online-model-of-methane-in-the-atmosphere/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/an-arctic-methane-worst-case-scenario/ Redgillite: abstractResponse:[DB] Fixed links.
-
Albatross at 04:35 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana @52, The apologist for Michaels (really, has Michaels lost his tongue?) is now tying himself in knots trying to fabricate a strawman argument and distract everyone from the root problem here-- doctoring someone else's data to further your agenda. I do not see the benefit of directly engaging someone who is so clearly duplicitous and disingenuous. There 'defense' amounts to, "but judge the witness would have not seem me commit the crime had they covered/averted their eyes". This repeated attempts to justify what amounts to, as noted by Hansen, treading close to scientific fraud got tiresome a very long time ago and only enforces Bernard J's excellent summation at all the more. -
actually thoughtful at 04:34 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip -the basic problem is you are presenting your modification of Gillett as Gillett - without the permission of the authors' that is just unethical (best case). And what Michaels did in Congress is way beyond merely unethical. Did you not expect to be held accountable? What do you think will happen when people realize what is really going on and we have reached a climate tipping point? Is your plan simply to be dead by then (natural causes, one hopes/expects)? This isn't going to end pretty for anyone. For those of you actively involved in deceiving those who will be deceived - what is it you expect? You are getting a tiny taste, on this site, where people chose not to be misled by people like you, of how people will react when all the information is on the table. -
Ari Jokimäki at 04:32 AM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
#16, victull, this compilation of papers contains those papers that I have found interesting during last week. All the papers above have been peer-reviewed but I have no idea if they are good science or not (I don't even know, what is meant by good science). I don't see obvious mistakes in them, so I think they might contribute to our body of knowledge. I don't see none of these papers going very strongly against the mainstream climate science. It is not to be expected that global warming happens everywhere all the time, so we can have parts of Eurasia cooling during winters and global warming continuing at the same time. I'm not quite sure if I even expected that Antarctic surface snowmelt would have been increasing. If I have understood correctly, Antarctic mass loss is mostly occurring by increased ice flow and warming sea melting ice from the bottom. I don't think that surface snowmelt is important factor there. -
actually thoughtful at 04:29 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I agree with Dana1981 that misrepresenting Hansen to Congress was very, very bad. So much so that I wandered over to WUWT, where Michaels put up an apologist piece about what he did (responding to this post) to share my opinion directly. A poster there, on the Gillett issue, pointed out that SkS routinely posts a graphic omitting some fairly important parts (the right hand side of the graph in the link - the part that explains how valid various estimates of sensitivity are. side by side graph from SkS and original paper I was at a loss to explain how that was materially different than what Michaels did with Gillett - is this a case of confirmation bias (the kind where it is OK if my guy does it, but not OK if YOUR guy does it?) In my humble opinion, what Michaels did with Gillett is over-reach - the paper itself can easily be spun to support the skeptic view point, but instead he overplayed his hand and deleted data. And what he did in Congress ought to be illegal. I am quite certain it is unethical. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:23 AM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
30, Pirate, Given (1) your stated investment in the environment and marine ecology, (2) your recognition of the dangers of ocean acidification, and (3) your recognition of that eventual situation from extensive, ongoing anthropogenic emissions, as well as (4) the warning from the scientists under discussion here that an increase to 560 ppm will greatly change the existing equation (i.e. 49% to 82% of an even greater pH change would then be due to anthropogenic carbon emissions) I simply wish to see a direct and unequivocal statement from you that such emissions are a serious problem that must be addressed, resulting in serious, negative consequences if we fail to do so in an adequate and timely manner. -
owl905 at 04:16 AM on 19 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
The links are messed up by the sks wrapper. Ex. here's the working link for the hydrate self-preservation pdf: http://gasoilpress.com/dgir/dgir_detailed_work.php?DGIR_ELEMENT_ID=283&WORK_ELEMENT_ID=5645 -
Albatross at 04:10 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
J. Bob @19, That graphic you link us to is of such poor quality one cannot differentiate the traces, so I'm not sure that graphic (from an unvetted source mind you) supports your opinion. You also clearly missed the caveats noted in the OP. The question is not really whether or not he won-- using the problematic HadCRUT3 he did win, using the improved HadCRUT4 or any of the other global surface temperature products he lost. The purpose of the post above is, as the titles states, "Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager". What lesson do you think "skeptics" are taking from this? I bet some are erroneously taking this as meaning a) AGW is a hoax, b) the warming has stopped, c) It has not warmed as much as expected so there is no reason for concern for doubling or quadrupling CO2. All those interpretations would be wrong (b and c are refuted here (and here) and here, respectively) and would miss the big picture. And in the meantime, the climate continues to accumulate energy as shown in Fig. 1 in the OP. -
les at 03:38 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
51 - So you're saying, in effect, that you don't understand science and anyone who mistakes your work as being science based has only themselves to blame. Fair enough. -
Composer99 at 03:35 AM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
victull: I'm speaking off the cuff here but if I recall correctly most ice loss occuring in Antarctica is due to increased glacier calving at sea level, not increased snow melt. -
J. Bob at 03:32 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Looking at the Global Temperature composite chart below http://www.4shared.com/photo/d_rL-9Tp/Climate4U_Compoosite.html from Climate4you: http://www.climate4you.com/ it would appear that Whitehouse won hands down. -
dana1981 at 03:32 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Yes it's a key point that all the fake skeptics are getting from this is "we won", but that they won doesn't make it a smart bet. The odds were in Annan's favor, but the 12.5% probability scenario is the one that came to fruition. -
dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Let's be clear here - the deletion of the inconvenient data from the figures in question is a microcosm of the Michaels/WCR posts about them. The posts made no mention that using different data (land temperature data in the Schmittner case and 1901-2000 data in the Gillett case) resulted in very different sensitivities/temperature projections. Omitting those key points makes for an inaccurate representation of the paper, both in the text and in the figures. Compare on contrast the SkS posts on these papers (here and here) to the WCR posts (linked in the OP above). It's clear which of us is trying to give a full and accurate representation of the papers, and which of us is trying to spin the results to support our positions. Coincidentally, I'm working on a follow-up post addressing Michaels' attempts to justify his use of Hansen's Scenario A only in his Congressional testimony. Suffice it to say, Michaels was very, very wrong to do so, and his new attempts to justify this behavior don't hold water. -
Chip Knappenberger at 03:20 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? NCDC is a storehouse for climate data yet nowhere on the site are there rules laid out as to how to graph that data (bar charts, line charts, start dates, end dates, etc.). If I want to show a bet-fit linear regression through the U.S. annual data from 1980 through 2010 I can. If I want to show a quadratic fit to the data from 1910-1995, I can. If I want to plot it as a bar chart, I can. If I want to plot the data as a series of smiley face symbols, I can. If I want to show the results of a climate model fit to observed data from 1901-2000, I can. If I want to show the results of a climate model fit to observed data from 1851-2010, I can. I can do the same thing with data available from the UK Hadley Centre. And I can do the same thing for data that I can find in the literature. Obviously, the authors are free to combine whatever sorts of data into whatever kinds of plots that they want to, subject to the spatial limitations of journal that they have submitted the paper to and the whims of the reviewers. No one else, you all, or I, or anyone else, is bound by those same constraints. If I want to plot the data that corresponds to the paper’s abstract I can. If you only want to display 3 of the 4 panels included by the authors, you can. It is just data! If someone wants to argue that by showing different data, or portraying the data in a different fashion, that the story being told changes, then more power to them…after all, isn’t that why virtually all blogs exist—to tell a different story than someone else? Just because you introduce new data doesn’t mean that you get to set the one and only storyline or determine the one and only way that the data can appear in a plot. At WCR we presented the data in a figure that well-corresponded to the papers’ abstracts. The authors presented data in figures that corresponded to other aspects of their analysis. Someone else may come along and use or present the data for a different analysis. Such is the life of data. Use it as you may. If someone else doesn’t like it, you’ll most likely hear about it. As apparently I am doing now! :^) But to me, it seems a bit strange that we have come under such fire for presenting the data that illustrated the culmination of the research of both the Schmittner et al. and the Gillett et al. papers. So, perhaps, it is the primary findings of those papers that is really the heart of the issue. -Chip Knappenberger World Climate Report -
cynicus at 02:55 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
We probably all remember the hype surrounding the "Hide The Decline" email. The skeptic websites buzzed in outrage with posts about how scientists supposedly removed inconvenient data from the IPCC hockeystick graphs, how the world is actually cooling. But, ofcourse, the warming is real and the data was left out by the data supplier with good and publicly documented reasons. Even massively zoomed-in portions of graphs were minutely dissected by the skeptic auditors and again scientists were found guilty of hiding the cooling signal in tree rings by plotting other series on top of the supposedly 'inconvenient' data. Never mind that the skeptics got tricked by one of their own and that any hiding -if there was any at all- is impossible to notice at normal zoom scales. Yes, great storms of outrage ripped through the skeptic community. But that was a bit more then a year ago and how different the skeptics respond now when some fellow-skeptics remove inconvenient data from other peoples work. No outrage, no minutely dissected graph investigations. Nothing of that at all. On the contrary, there are only excuses. This is a clear case of how fake skepticism works. -
Albatross at 02:29 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
MarkR @44, "Honest brokers should always be honest. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than Michaels has done in the past." I, of course concur fully Mark, and we do hold ourselves to higher standards, or at least we strive to. Ordinarily this all goes without saying, but I think it needed to be said here because whatever moral high ground that Michaels thought he once might have held has just vanished (together with the deleted data and ignored text). -
muoncounter at 02:26 AM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
victull: This is a summary of recent research, cross-posted from Ari's AGW Observer. It is not meant as a review of said papers, but it is a great way to see what is current across a wide range of publications. If you find an item of interest, you can often go directly to the full text of that particular article for the details. -
Shoe at 02:07 AM on 19 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Unsurprisingly, I have made an error in calling *this* page, the front page on my comment above, #19. As I had said, I don't use the website so much, as look at the articles linked in the emails. Now that I have looked around a bit, I see that this is a Weekly Digest page. I blame the newest version of Internet Explorer, because it seems to have removed the bar at the top of the browser alerting the viewer to the title of the page! I am going to go look at the site again, this time in Firefox, and see what changes. Meanwhile, I have now looked at the actual front page, and I believe that if I had seen it as my first experience of this website, I would have been overwhelmed. Just too much going on, for the front page of a website. The link to click if one is new to the site is useful, but it would not make a good front page. I'll go look at it in the other browser, and think about what I think could make it better. (By the way, I worked as a graphic designer and publishing editor for an NGO for a couple decades.) -
Bernard J. at 02:06 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Sorry about the double post. Something odd happened when I refreshed.Moderator Response: [Albatross] No worries Bernard J. your duplicate post has been deleted. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:00 AM on 19 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Before we discuss the particulars, what serious action do you propose? -
Utahn at 01:54 AM on 19 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
"Or, more succinctly... Michaels, Knappenberger and Watts are proof that we're stuffed." I had the same sick feeling last night. I'm not angry, but definitely feel sick about it. The thing is, as Albatross has discovered, if you post critically at Forbes, you'll likely get an email from Michaels. To him, he's the victim (of "pal review"), he can't see good intention in others, but only sees noble intention in himself, even when you point out things like this... -
adelady at 01:27 AM on 19 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
More user friendly? 1. WYSIWYG for comments. 2. For newbies (or those of us who don't look there very often). The boxes at the top left indicating various series should be split into 2 clear groups. The science group. The myth group. -
Shoe at 01:19 AM on 19 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Really good site. I find it very useful for talking points. If I could fix anything, today would be to update the "Coming Soon" section on the front page, as many have already been published. (Though I imagine keeping everything updated is probably the hardest/most boring part of the gig.) As to the little link boxes on the top-left? I never even looked at them, until someone posted here about the difficulties with them. And "OA not OK"? That really has to go. The only meaning for "OA" that I had previously heard of, was "Overeaters Anonymous." Yes, a 12-Step Group. My favorite thing that you do, is not the website, exactly. It is the emails. I rarely read most of the updates I get from other websites and organizations. But I check at least half of the ones you send, and click through to many of them. And I have never been disappointed. The only reason I don't read more, is that I get well over a hundred emails a day, and I just can't get to everything. Thank you! -
victull at 00:43 AM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
I am confused by such a bag of papers. Surely the purpose of this site is to expose the skeptical and anti-AGW viewpoints against the consensus as largely BS (bad science). Are we to believe that the papers showing cooling for significant periods and insignificant Antarctic snowmelt since 1979 are peer reviewed good science? If so how are we as non-climate scientists to judge whether this post has any value when it seems to minimize or even go against the generally agreed consensus that AGW is real and drastic action to reduce CO2 emissions is required now. -
muoncounter at 00:40 AM on 19 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
Ari#12, DB#13: CoolCloud jumps to a conclusion without reading the paper (or even the abstract): Our results suggest that the variance of summer temperature is partly explained by changes in summer cloudiness. This has nothing to do with feedback and even less to do with sensitivity. The motto of denial-world seems to be: Don't sweat the details. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:27 AM on 19 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
MarkR Sort of, Pielke went through all of the predictions/projections in the IPCC WG1 report of the form described in the IPCC guidance notes for communicating probability, there are a lot of them. IF the IPCC science is correct, and assuming that the predictions are independent of eachother (which isn't true), then indeed one should expect that 72% of the projections will come to pass. However the probability of serious human caused global warming is rather higher than this as not all of those projections directly relate to events with a serious outcome. The basic point is that if you observe a die to have sixes on five sides and a one on the other, then you would be perfectly rational to accept an even bet on throwing a six, and if you lost it would not mean that your assessment of the situation was wrong! -
Bernard J. at 23:12 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
That Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger (and Watts, in his evasive turn) do not and/or will not acknowledge that this altering of the material is an egregious misrepresentation of the data, seems to reflect the more broad crisis of rational cognition that afflicts those who deny the validity of climate science. It's the intellectual equivalent of the punctum caecum. Just as with a visual blind spot, they are unable to see what is in that part of the field-of-view, and just as with a visual blind spot their brains fill in the gap with what it thinks should be there. For several years now I've been ruminating over the fact that humans as a species seem too fundamentally flawed to perceive, as a whole, the pickle that they're entering of their own volition. Given their audience's response and the authors' own comments after the criticism that has been justly levelled at them, I think that this (...in and of itself, insignificant...) little antic of Michaels and Knappenberger (and by extension, of Watts) has cemented for me that the propensity for exaggerated subjective ideology/mythology is a phenotype too prevalent in the human genotype for the species' long term extancy. Or, more succinctly... Michaels, Knappenberger and Watts are proof that we're stuffed. -
chirhophoros at 22:45 PM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
A nicely balanced selection of abstracts allowing us to glimpse more directly the complexity of the science. The strong point of such a presentation lies in its invitation to the reader to address the science directly and make up his own mind. I'd certainly like to see more presentations like this regardless of any apparent relationship to the consensus or contrarian perspective as per observations by CBD @ 5. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:44 PM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
Just a drive-by, Ari. Hence the screen name of choice. Edit: User CoolCloud is a sock-puppet of user Dale. -
Ari Jokimäki at 22:21 PM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
#11, CoolCloud, that conclusion cannot be made based on a regional study. -
MarkR at 22:08 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
#15 by extension, 72% are correct according to Pielke? i.e. a 72% chance of serious, human caused global warming? -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:50 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
It is important to bear in mind that Annan losing the bet doesn't mean that his assessment was in correct. If he though the probability that the record would be broken was 85%, then this imples that he thought there was a 15% chance that it wouldn't. This means that he is likely to gain from an even bet as the odds are in his favour, so taking the bet was rational. However even though he lost there is a 15% chance that he would lose the bet even if his assessment of 85% chance of a record was spot on. This kind of error was made by Roger Pielke Jr in his blog article "How Many Findings of the IPCC AR4 WG I are Incorrect? Answer: 28%", where he calculated that assuming that the IPCC assessments of their probabilistic projections were correct, 28% of those projections would turn out to be incorrect. This is (approximately) true, and only something to make a fuss about if you don't understand why probabilistic predictions/projections were made probabilistically! The IPCC expect 28% to be incorrect and were quite explicit about it. -
Robert Murphy at 21:19 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip K at #35: "We included our version of the figures to help visualize what the authors were describing in the abstracts." Wouldn't using the original graphs the authors made be a better help in visualizing what the authors were describing? Why would doctoring the authors' original graphs (without saying so) make the graphs better express the authors' ideas? If a climate scientist had done that to a "skeptic" graph, don't you think there would be big outcry? As for the omission not affecting the argument you made, what nonsense. Of course it did, that was the whole point in doing what you did. -
MarkR at 20:00 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
#39 Albatrosss : "Now can you imagine their outrage and indignance had someone done that to one of their papers. Well, they now officially have no grounds whatsoever to complain about how anyone presents one of their papers." Honest brokers should always be honest. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than Michaels has done in the past. -
cynicus at 19:32 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
If the graphs are not key instrumental to the point the WCR is trying to make in the text, then why not leave the graphs out? Or, alternatively, show them as the original authors created them. But showing the original graphs means including the data that contradicts the point the WCR is trying to make. However discussing and showing contradictory data is key in science, the IPCC does it constantly but the WCR doesn't. Even worse, WCR does not only fail to discuss existing contradictory data the authors actively delete it. Why is that? I have yet to see Chip or Patrick present a clear valid reason to actively delete contradictory data to the point they are trying to make. -
CoolCloud at 19:14 PM on 18 January 2012New research from last week 2/2012
@10: "More cloud cover does indeed mean less warming." SURPRISE: Clouds aren't a positive feedback (means low climate sensitivity). -
Kevin C at 19:00 PM on 18 January 2012Lessons from the Whitehouse-Annan Wager
Tom: Yes, I think this requires writing up for publication, once I've done some detailed analysis on where the differences come from. It's a much less daunting task than my original station based approach because the methods so simple. Talking to Nick is also a good idea - his method gives a complete global reconstruction using a very different approach to GISTEMP. The GISS station count is based on the new GHCNv3 version (introduced 11/2011). All the station counts are the number of record present in the raw data - a few records may be dropped before use. The coverage figures and map for GISS are however from the v2 version - I need to update this, but I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference. -
les at 18:49 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
35 - Chip, Might I point out that your response is not just to the SkS authors (and commentors) but to the audience who read this material; a great many of whom are only interested in the substance of the posts - more than which "side" they're on... ... and, I should ad, many of whom are quite used to reading scientific papers as well as press articles, NGO reports etc. It can't really be said that your response is vindicating Michaels and WCR against the accusations made, now can it? If the authors of the papers put information in graphs to go with their own words, who are you guys to contradict them? All the examples above are of important data having been removed from the graphs which materially changes their content. Very poor practice. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:54 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
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 -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
For those new to the discussion: - Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger are principals in New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" that apparently contracts with various fossil fuel interests (Patrick Michaels - 40% of income from the fossil fuel industry). I have seen a great deal of "advocacy" papers over the years. Many of them are worth reading - presenting interesting data that may have been overlooked, that supports their position. However, presenting edited graphs (and misquoting papers) IMO crosses the line between advocacy and, to be frank, deception. A harsh statement, but I feel well supported by the data, as presented in the OP here and on the links in various comments. Michaels and Knappenburger are living examples of the Nick Naylor character from Thank You For Smoking. -
Albatross at 16:38 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR @37, Actually Patrick Michaels also omitted key portions of the text from Gillett et al., so either way their readers have been mislead. Same deal with Schmittner et al. (2011). Now can you imagine their outrage and indignance had someone done that to one of their papers. Well, they now officially have no grounds whatsoever to complain about how anyone presents one of their papers. -
Bob Lacatena at 16:23 PM on 18 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
So let's agree... 1) The current situation in the Puget Sound requires investigation and action to determine and mitigate all factors causing the current drop in pH. This is based on the fact that (a) a serious drop in pH is dangerous and (b) we do not know all of the factors involved in reducing the pH. 2) Anthropogenic CO2 represents a significant and irreversible future threat to the Puget Sound, and one that cannot be prevented without taking serious action in the near future. This is based on the fact that (a) a serious drop in pH is dangerous, (c) a drop that results from increased levels of CO2 concordant in both the atmosphere and the oceans is a situation which, once attained, cannot be mitigated in any way, and (d) the burning of fossil fuels at the current or an accelerated rate for a sustained period of decades will result in (c). Therefore, study and action is required in the case of point 1, and action is required in the case of point 2. -
Albatross at 16:22 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR @36, Good points and valid ones too-- Michaels et al. have in the past modified the text of scientific papers to change its meaning as I noted at #4 above. It is very sad that Patrick Michaels apparently still has not got the decency to come here and defend his own transgressions, instead we have to repeatedly hear from a loyal apologist. If the graphics were immaterial to their case/narrative then why did they have to doctor them or even bother including them for that matter? The fact remains that they did both. You saying they are being disingenuous is being incredibly generous. Now this is when reasonable and rational people would apologize to both the authors and the journal, and would replace the doctored figures with the originals. But I they probably won't. If so, then I sincerely hope that the AGU goes after them. That is the nice thing about being a fake skeptic, you never have to concede error or correct mistakes. There is simply no accountability. There are more problems with Michael's sad attempt to justify his scientific misconduct while slander (SkS and Dana; for all we know Chip co-authored that response), but I'll let Dana have the pleasure of dealing with that. -
paulhtremblay at 16:15 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
>>If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. That strikes me as rather a silly defense. Obviously, the experts here could put their hands over the graphs and still get the message you are trying to convey. Unfortunately, the non-experts would be mislead by your graphs. If you claim that your message "would not be impacted in the slightest" had you left out the graphs, then why didn't you? What could possibly be the justification for doctoring a graph? My job right now involves creating graphs for a report. One thing I refused to do, even though my boss requested it, was make a graph with two scales for the same units, one on the left and one one the right, specifically because the difference in scale is considered bad practice and misleading. Your graph goes beyond what my boss asked me to do: in your case, even a careful reading of the graph would not reveal the missing time frame and easily leads to the wrong conclusion. -
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - So: you have modified major graphs from various papers for various reasons. Does that mean you would support modifying quotes from various papers as well? Because that's exactly the same behavior - changing context and presentation to emphasize a particular point. "But to go after our handling of the figures with such disdain, when they are immaterial to the points we are making..." Yes, folks can dig in further. And find out that Michael has misrepresented the data by omitting large portions of it. Your figures are essential to the points you are making - and you are being disingenuous. -
Chip Knappenberger at 15:48 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
(-snip-). Our WCR articles covering the work of Schmittner et al. and Gillett et al. would not be impacted in the slightest had we not included the figures in question at all. In both cases, we included large portions of the abstracts in our coverage so our audience could read how the authors summarized their findings in their own words. We included our version of the figures to help visualize what the authors were describing in the abstracts. If the figures bother you so much, just put your hands over them when reading the article, the take home message is unaffected. If you don’t like the conclusions of our WCR articles, fine. But to go after our handling of the figures with such (-snip-), when they are immaterial to the points we are making (because you could read a textual description of them written by the authors themselves in the included abstracts), just seems like making noise for the sake of making noise. -Chip Knappenberger World Climate ReportResponse:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
adelady at 15:20 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
And let's face it. If you want to use a particular part, range, area, scenario of a graphic to emphasise that you are talking about this specific thing, modern photoshopping or other techniques can easily let you bold or highlight the target and present the others in faded or other minimised fashion. No need to omit entirely. And the same thing goes for arguments and for data selection. If you want or need to exclude them, you can find a way to say "I've left out ... because ..." There is neither explanation nor excuse for silent omission. -
skywatcher at 14:56 PM on 18 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I am astounded that Knappenberger thinks that Michaels' actions are acceptable. That he compares paper abstracts to selective use of figure portions makes me think he has never drawn a figure for publication, yet he is author on several publications. I wonder how he would feel if, as in one of his publications, all mortality data below 70F temperature was casually missed out and a new caption written? It would utterly alter the conclusion one takes from the graph. An abstract is written by the author and so is usually a fair summary of the key elements and findings of the paper (though there are of course poor abstracts!). There is less room for misinterpretation as it is the author summarising the paper's findings, in a setting where a summary is expected. A figure is usually a very important element of a paper in which details are refined and the exact presentation is often quite painstakingly deliberated over in order to present a point and make best use of space. Deliberately leaving some of the information out of a figure can completely alter the conclusion one takes from the figure. It is noteworthy, as Dana says, that the data deleted always happens to be in one direction - this is not a neutral "abstraction" of a figure.
Prev 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 Next
