Recent Comments

Prev  950  951  952  953  954  955  956  957  958  959  960  961  962  963  964  965  Next

Comments 47851 to 47900:

47851. Philippe Chantreau at 17:10 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I think the real problem is that there may be a conspiracy to present conspiracy theorists as having  conspiratorial delusions in an attempt to invalidate their outings of conspiracies. They'll stop at nothing! I also realized recently that the tinfoil doesn't cut it, really. Fortunately, some large furniture store nearby also has nifty stainless steel bowls that nicely fit on my head. Stainless steel baby! Now I'm protected!! Seriously, Tom, John, and others. This is beyond grotesque. It's worse than the 2nd law thread stuff. It's worse than "Pluto is warming." It's really, truly,  not worth bothering with This is pig that will drag you down in the mud so low that no possible outcome is worth the effort. I know some of you love a challenge but gee...

47852. Philippe Chantreau at 17:00 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I have wasted my time on a few occasions on McIntyre's blog. McIntyre is skilled at not saying anything while still saying it. He tolerates the worst accusations on his blog, to a point that certainly encourages collective conspiratorial thinking in his readers. I have seen how he made the maths in his paper on PCAS do exactly what he wanted it to do. I have read some Schollenberger's prior contributions on various blogs. Here is my personal opinion on this fake debate:

       McIntyre is a denier of the worst kind and he defines what fake skepticism is. Schollenberger is so full of it, one can wonder how he manages the breathe. Any attempt at engaging him in an intellectually honest discussion is futile. This is a clear case of DNFTT.

47853. Brandon Shollenberger at 16:12 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Tom Curtis @33 offers a bizarre interpretation of my comments and personality.  On the former, he claims I say one part of John Cook's comment is "an irrelevant addition."  I've never said anything of the sort.  Pointing out one part of a comment is relevant is in no way saying another part is irrelevant.
       
       Following from this, Curtis suggests the "rational perspective" of my comments is I "desperately [do] not want to discuss Lewsandowsky 2013," but rather want to post "a bit of misinterpretation to spread some FUD."  Not only is this an offensive accusation of dishonesty, it is completely baseless.  The reality is I'd happily discuss the paper, but I'm currently discussing a different issue.  Specifically, I want a simple answer to a simple question.  Asking for that before discussing a more complicated issue is perfectly reasonable.
       
       For his second point, Curtis merely misrepresents what I said.  He says I admit "unwarranted attributions of malice are a form of conspiratorial ideation."  I do nothing of the sort.  I said malice is only one part of conspitorial ideation.  That means you need more than just attributions of malice to exhibit such ideation.  Curtis has somehow conflated "part" with "form" to claim I've said the exact opposite of what I actually said.
       
       For his third point, Curtis claims my interpretation would require "Oreskes did not know the content of her talk, until after she had heard Mann's talk."  The only reason this would be true is if the only way Oreskes could have seen Mann's graph is to have seen his AGU presentation.  This is a peculiar assumption, one which is inconsistent Curtis's own argument. 
       
       Curtis says, "Oreskes could have... been 'wrong footed' by information given her in the lead up to the AGU."  If that's true, that information have led her to say what she said in her AGU presentation.  There is no reason she would need to wait until Mann's AGU presentation to know the content of her talk.
       
       Curtis's discussion of the wingman metaphor is no better.  He suggests an individual and their wingman would work together "towards a predetermined goal," thus Oreskes would have to intend to deceive.  That's a non-sequitur.  Mann and Oreskes could easily share a goal of conveying a particular idea or message, thus making her his mini wingman.  That doesn't mean they have the same beliefs about that message.  People supporting the same message often do it for different reasons.

47854. barry1487 at 14:23 PM on 7 March 2013
       Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
       

       Eclectikus,

       "Just a note about pseudoscience. The term itself is a modern term who started on XX century. The pejorative connotation is still more modern, coming from probably when it was linked with homeopathy, astrology and so on...
        
       For example, Feynman includes Social Science and Economy on pseudosciences (but without the pejorative tone): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw
        
       I am almost sure that Feynman would do the same with Climate Alarmism today (again without the pejorative tone), because in many senses, suffers of identical failures than Economy, Sociology... they are no susceptiuble of falsability, and fail to fulfill the Scientific Method."
       
       
       While I don't think it was a good idea for SkS to pull out of the awards Feynman would approve of the principle being defended - good science, to put it simply. Not politically correct (cargo cult) science, or politically driven science, but adherence to the scientific method. While there are patches of sound methodology in the skeptical blogs, the major part of their output is (cargo) cult science. The ideology is primary in those places. They are forever attemtping to disprove 'AGW'. Feynman said;
        
       “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
        
       The skeptical blogs highlight uncertainty to furnish their ideology. They do not operate from a spirit of enquiry. Uncertainty is used to argue that climate science is fatally flawed. I can understand the frustration that led to SkS withdrawing from the awards. The contest is antithetical to science. Quality science is not determined by a vote.
        
       Feynman might have eschewed climate change activism (maybe), but would align with SkS on the scientific principle. You appear to conlfate climate science with climate activism. I think it is unfortunate messaging that SkS have used a political vehicle (protesting) to defend the principle of science. It would be a mistake, however, to characterise SkS' scientific fidelity on this one action.
        
47855. grindupBaker at 14:21 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Kevin#1: I disagree with your analysis of the semantics re "big control knob". I offer the analogy of open microphone / speaker +ve feedback. You cough in the mike or tap it and a fierce whistle occurs due to +ve feedback. Stopped by a limiting circuit or loss of power. If no sound had entered the mike there would have been no whistle of increasing amplitude but nobody would suggest that your cough or you yanking the power plug out or a fuse blowing were a "big control knob". In fact, the amplifier might have a control knob you can adjust for more or less feedback.

47856. jzk at 14:10 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Rob says: "It also looks to me like Roe is very specifically discussing global ice volume as opposed to global temperature."

       Rob,

       What causes global ice volumes to change?

47857. Tom Curtis at 14:09 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Shollenberger claims that:

       1)  Cook's acceptance of Mann's description of the case is the point of Cook's post.  To put that in context, this is what Cook wrote:

       "Thanks for the extra details, Mike. I find it interesting that Steve McIntyre automatically lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events.Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking. The response to the research from climate deniers was a host of new conspiracy theories. We document the originators of these conspiracy theories in the paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation: Lew_2013. The chief originator of conspiracy theories? Steve McIntyre."

       By Shallonberger's interpretation, the section in italics is the point of the post, and the section in bold an irrelevant addition.  Given the relative length of the two sections, it is clear that Cook's main point in posting was to draw attention to the discussion of other conspiracy theories by McIntyre.

       Further, even if Shallonberger was correct in his interpretation, it then becomes bizzarre that he wants to discuss the views of a person who merely expressed agreement rather than the views of the person originating the theory.

       I think the more rational perspective is that Shallonberger desperately does not want to discuss Lewsandowsky 2013, which is after all the topic of this thread, and sees the potential in a bit of misinterpretation to spread some FUD without actually needing to engage in a battle he knows he will loose.

       2)  Shollenberger denies that McIntyre used conspiritorial ideation, saying,

       "McIntyre's attribution was not conspiratorial, whether or not it was right. Malice is only one part of such ideation. " 

       (My emphasis)

       Of course, he has given the game away because unwarranted attributions of malice are a form of conspiratorial ideation, as he admits.  It is not necessary for somebody to dispaly all types of conspiritorial ideation for them to display one type.

       3)  Somewhat bizzarely, Shallonberger argues that McIntyre did not think there was collusion between Mann and his "mini-wingman" because Oreskes was, purportedly, wrong footed.  By his interepretation, we must presume that Oreskes did not know the content of her talk, until after she had heard Mann's talk - a claim that is simply absurd given the long lead in to AGU conferences.

       In fact, the mataphor of "wrong footing" does not imply an immediate response, and hence in no way argues against the purported collusion.  Oreskes could have as easilly been "wrong footed" by information given her in the lead up to the AGU as by the lecture itself.

       In contrast, the metaphor of the wingman almost demands that there be cooperation between the two towards a predetermined goal; and indeed that there have been discussion of tactics beforehand.  It is only a metaphor, so McIntyre leaves himself some plausible deniability.  Never-the-less, the suggestions of collusion is fairly emphatic.

       Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting.
47858. Rob Honeycutt at 13:49 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       And that jibes very well with what scaddenp is saying relative to the radiative forcing being much higher at latitudes above 60N lat.  

47859. Rob Honeycutt at 13:47 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       It also looks to me like Roe is very specifically discussing global ice volume as opposed to global temperature.

47860. Rob Honeycutt at 13:42 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...  You're talking about two different things.  The article here is saying dominant control over the past 40 my.  Roe is in reference to glacial-interglacial cycles.

47861. jzk at 13:16 PM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       scaddenp,

       My quote is not from Roe?  I suggest you read it again.  "relatively weak" is how CO2 forcing is described as it relates to driving global ice volumes.  You admit that CO2 is secondary, but this article alleges it is the "Dominant control."  Is it the Dominant, or Secondary?

47862. Rob Honeycutt at 12:43 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  I have to add, it's actually quite important to get this straight because it's the very basis of your position on the issue.  Only if we clear this us can we even begin to talk about the substance of your original post.

47863. villabolo at 12:39 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Does the decrease in solar luminosity that started in 2002 have any bearing on the matter? Would ocean temperatures have increased more if the sun's luminosity stayed the same?

47864. Rob Honeycutt at 12:37 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  It seems fundamental to the issue where you actually stand with regards to your position.  Either Mann is claiming that McI is engaging in "conspiracy ideation" as you state in your first post, or you're claiming that Mann is saying that there is a specific conspiracy that McI is referring to.

       You're perfectly fine to say that you mis-stated your position in one of these posts.  There's no crime in making an error.  But to continue to claim that there is no inconsistency is to double down on your mistake.

47865. Rob Honeycutt at 12:26 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Don...  But it certainly explains a lot about Anthony's methodology.

47866. Brandon Shollenberger at 12:24 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Rob Honeycutt, I offered an explanation.  As far as I can see, you haven't addressed any part of it.  You haven't even quoted or discussed the second question I asked in my original comment.  It would serve no purpose for us to continue repeating ourselves.  If there is a problem with my explanation, feel free to point it out.  Otherwise, I'll leave it to readers to decide if you've shown any sort of inconsistency in my remarks.

       In the meantime, I'll offer one thought.  Even if I were inconsistent as you claim, that inconsistency wouldn't make anything I said wrong.  All it would mean is I offered two different arguments.  The validity of each would still need to be addressed.  Finding a failing on my part wouldn't do that.

47867. Rob Honeycutt at 12:16 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       And Brandon...  With regards to: "My intended meaning was quite clear."  

       Your meaning is taken from your unequivocal statement saying, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?" (My emphasis.)

47868. Rob Honeycutt at 12:13 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  Again you're grasping at straws here.

       The point is, in your first post you accept that Mann is discussing "conspiracy ideation."  Those are your words (hence, I'm not putting them in your mouth).

       Then in your second post you try to back pedal and say that Mann is talking about a "specific conspiracy theory."

       Even here in your post #27 you're being completely inconsistent again.  In your first post you clearly state that Mann is discussing conspiracy ideation and now you state,

       "[Rob said,]"it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory."  I explained why that seems to be untrue. [...]"

       So, which is it Brandon?  Is he or is he not discussing "conspiracy ideation?"  You have to state that you were in error in one of these posts because they are not consistent.

47869. Don9000 at 12:13 PM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Well, Rob, it is very, very fine, and to see it you have to believe ... It might help if you donned a pair of ruby red shoes, clicked their heels together three times and--

       
       No. I don't even think that would work.

47870. Don9000 at 12:06 PM on 7 March 2013
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       

       doug,

       I'm no expert either, but I trust that the recent volume calculations are fine. But I do wonder if the visible bouncing might be due to the shift to satellite observations which might possibly be better at recording the last stages of the summer melt season. That said, I think the explanation for the plunges is that there is now too little year-round ice both in terms of volume and area to keep the Arctic basin functioning as a year-round freezer. In other words, when most of the Arctic Ocean remained ice-covered throughout the melt season, the summer lows in ice area were reached by a fairly steady and slow process of melt around the edges and from below and this helped keep the volume loss low because the ice lid was still mostly in place. The last few melt cycles seem to simply reveal that the thin ice that does manage to form each winter is almost completely melting away with relative ease each summer--and then some of the old ice is also lost, hence the overall decline.

       We need to remember that in previous years a fairly signficant portion of each winter's new ice survived to live another year, but that is no longer happening. I'd say that the magnitude of the annual range in volume is going to become even more dramatic--with much lower lows and gradually lower highs going forward until the summer ice volume bottoms out, whereupon the seasonally frozen pond/lake comparison will be very clear.

       I'm curious about the relative temperatures of the ice in the pre-1980 days and more recently. I suspect that the current season's ice of the new Arctic is on average warmer, thanks to the influence of the ocean water beneath it and the relatively warmer air above it, at the start of the melt season than the old season's ice cover, which included more multiyear ice and had a colder atmosphere above it and potentially colder water below it, would have been.

47871. Brandon Shollenberger at 12:03 PM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Rob Honeycutt, I never claimed you put words in my mouth.  Why would you bring that issue up?  Quoting words doesn't ensure you interpret them correctly.  That's especially true when you only quote some of the words.  In this case, youignored this question from my original comment, "If so, what conspiracy did he discuss?" 

       If McIntyre invented a conspiracy theory, he necessarily showed conspiratorial ideation.  When Mann claimed McIntyre invented a conspiracy theory, he necessarily claimed McIntyre showed conspiratorial ideation.  The one requires the other.  The most you can say is I was unclear when I asked if people agreed McIntyre's post was "an example of conspiratorial ideation" instead of being more specific.

       But I had already quoted Mann's exact words, and my very next sentence was, "If so, what conspiracy did [McIntyre] discuss?"  My intended meaning was quite clear.

       Speaking of clarity Rob Honeycutt, you said, "it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory."  I explained why that seems to be untrue.  You didn't respond to my point.  Do you still believe what you said?

47872. Rob Honeycutt at 11:49 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Don9000 @ 12...  Oh! I had no idea that pixie dust came in flourescent yellow!  ;-)

47873. bill4344 at 11:40 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       If Watts has ringed the area in question with the highlighter he might have more of a defence!

       
       Also, could someone from his camp point out the 'global warming "pause" ' since 1997 I keep hearing about in this, his very-own chart? I'm having some difficulty seeing it...

47874. Don9000 at 11:14 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Matt,

       It looks to me like the vague summation I've quoted above and the nonsensical yellow line was the best material Watts could come up with. After all, his tired comedy act must go on, but the material he's using has been ground very fine--perhaps even as fine as pixie dust.

47875. dana1981 at 11:04 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       Matt @10 - to be fair, Watts didn't say the yellow line was a trend, just that he was 'highlighting' the apparent lack of warming since 2003 (which is only apparent because he drew a bogus flat line and didn't plot the actual trends).

47876. Rob Honeycutt at 11:02 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  You're grasping at straws.  You, yourself stated in your first post, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?"  (My emphasis.) Now you're saying that Mann isn't saying that and is making a statement of an actual conspiracy of some sort.  You can't have it both ways.

       You state that my statement is "not true" but I've not put any words in your mouth.  I've used your direct quotes.  You have made two statements in two posts that are internally inconsistent with the argument you're trying to present.

47877. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:54 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       I think I found out what the problem with line breaks was.  My browser blocked a number of scripts this page uses by default, and one of those scripts controls the comment box.  Without the script enabled, the comment box seemed like a mundane text box.  With it enabled, I have various formatting options available.  I bet something about that not having that script running caused my linebreaks to be stripped out.

       Hopefully that solves that mystery  And who knows, maybe that knowledge will help someone in the future.

47878. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:49 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Rob Honeycutt @22 suggests my comment have been inconsistent. This is not true. I asked two questions in my comment. It is true the question he quoted is not addressing the same point as my later comment. However, I asked a second question immediately after the first, "[W]hat conspiracy did [McIntyre] discuss?" That is the point I referred to in my comment @20. I asked the question I asked because my contention is there is no answer.Rob Honeycutt also claims "it's quite clear that [Mann] is referring to 'conspiracy ideation' rather than a specific 'conspiracy theory." I don't see how he came up with that interpretation. Mann explicitly referred to a specific conspiracy theory when he claimed Mcintyre, "chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory." It seems "quite clear" he was referring to a specific conspriacy theory rather than conspiracy ideation. Why else would he refer to a specific conspiracy theory?
47879. Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:42 AM on 7 March 2013
       Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
       

       First time I've seen anyone draw an arbitrary line through a graph (Fig. 3), sprinkle magic stats fairy dust on it, and call it a trend.

       The stats fairy will love and accept any arbitrary line if it's short enough. That's what makes her useless. I could likewise draw an arbitrarily short and steep — dare I say, alarmist? — line, and it would pass the same stats fairy test.

       Even the eyeball test reveals the yellow line as nonsense. 2003-2007 are all near or well under the yellow line; 2008-2012 are all near or well over it.

47880. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:40 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Sorry for the lack of paragraphs. None of my line breaks are going through, and I have no idea why.
47881. Rob Honeycutt at 10:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon @ 20...  Your original post states, "Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims?"  My following post is saying that, yes, McI's post is an example of conspiratorial ideation, per Lew 2013.

       Now your post @20 says, "Michael Mann explicitly stated Steve McIntyre invented a conspiracy involving "[Mann], multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc." That's a very specific claim, and my point has been it is unfounded."

       This was not in your original post and, in fact, you stated differently in each of the two posts.  Re-reading Mann's FB post, it's quite clear that he is referring to "conspiracy ideation" rather than a specific "conspiracy theory."  

       The overriding point remains, rather than looking for a rational explanation (or even bother to ask direct questions) McI takes it upon himself to create his own story out of whole cloth.

47882. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Tom Curtis @19 raises three points. He first claims discussing this example given by Mann "evades the point raised by Cook." This is untrue. Cook promoted this example by favorably commenting, associating his work with it, as well as by promoting it on Twitter. By implicitly agreeing Mann's claim was another example of what his paper found, he made Mann's claim perfectly relevant.Tom Curtis's second claim is McIntyre's post "certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation" because "it consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness." This is a red herring. McIntyre's attribution was not conspiratorial, whether or not it was right. Malice is only one part of such ideation. Moreover, even if one believed attributing malice is inherently engaging in conspiratorial ideation, that is not what Cook referred to. Cook explicitly said McIntyre "lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events." There was nothing conspiratorial about McIntyre's explanation.Tom Curtis's third point is just... strange. He says McIntyre suggests connivance between Naomia Oreskes and Michael Mann when he says Oreskes seems "to have [been] wrongfooted." Being wrongfooted requires one be mislead. Curtis's interpretation requires Oreskes be mislead by Mann yet intentionally play along with him. That's impossible. If Oreskes was mislead to believe a point, she was necessarily unaware the point was wrong.Stephen McIntyre alleged Michael Mann made decisions with the intent to deceive. He then argued it appears those decisions mislead Naomi Oreskes into believing untrue things. Right or wrong, that is not conspiratorial.
47883. Brandon Shollenberger at 10:18 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Tom Curtis @18 is right. Somehow the second link in my post got malformed to have the Skeptical Science URL appended at the beginning. I have no clue how that happened, but you can get the right URL by stripping out the first part (or just following the link Curtis provided).I'm afraid I can't understand the point made by Rob Honeycutt @17. Michael Mann explicitly stated Steve McIntyre invented a conspiracy involving "[Mann], multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc." That's a very specific claim, and my point has been it is unfounded.
47884. Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon Shollenberger @15,

       1)  John Cook's comment referred to conspiracy theories developed by McIntyre with regard to Lewandowsky's "conspiracy" paper in 2012.  Referring us back to McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU presentation evades the point raised by Cook rather than adressing it.

       2)  As noted by Rob Honeycutt, Lewandowski's theory is about the presence of conspiracy theory ideation, ie, the types of thought patterns typically found in conspiracy theories, rather than the presence of conspiracy theories themselves.  McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU adress certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation, regardless of whether it contains an actual conspiracy theory.  In this case the conspiracy theory ideation consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness.

       On that topic, Mann's AGU presentation should have used updated data.  The updated data is readilly available and should have been replotted to avoid any possibility of accidental deception.  This is particularly the case given the fact that the updated data appears go against Mann's argument.  Further, Mann should not have used the land station only data.  The comparison was to a projection of global temperatures, so a global temperature index should have been used.  If I understand Mann's explanation correctly, he in fact sent a diagram containing both Land station only, and Land-Ocean data to his publishers, who tidied up the graph by removing the later.  Mann should have noticed that the wrong temperature series had been retained, although it is a natural mistake to not have done so.

       3)  McIntyre does not just criticize Mann, but also goes on to criticize Oreskes.  In fact, he does so in terms that suggest connivance between Mann and Oreskes, saying:

       "Mann's AGU Trick appears to have wrongfooted his mini wingman, Naomi Oreskes."

       and

       "Oreskes’ starting point was that models had supposedly under-estimated relative to observations – a starting-point that seems oddly disconnected to the IPCC graphic shown above but, hey, Oreskes is an expert in manufactured disinformation. If Oreskes was not in fact wrongfooted by Mann, then one would like to know the provenance of her assertion that models were “underestimating” observed temperature increases."

       To clarrify, Oreske's is indeed an expert in analysing the manufacture of disinformation by pseudo-skeptics.  McIntyre's (at best) ambiguous phrasing suggests that she manufactures disinformation rather than analyzing that manufactured by others.

       Be that as it may, Shollenberger's claim that McIntyre "... blames everything in that post on Michael Mann", and that "That cannot possibly be talk of a conspiracy" are simply false.  McIntyre has alleged or strongly suggested that both Mann and Oreskes misrepresented data with an intent to decieve; and strongly hinted that they connived to do so.  That is a conspiracy theory, even if not as wide ranging as suggested by Mann.

       It is worthwhile noting that McIntyre completely misrepresents the basis of Oreske's talk.  As pointed out in comments, it was based on this recently published paper.  Contrary to McIntyre's suposition, it was not based on temperature data alone.  It was not based on analyzing Hansen 88.  It was based on clear assessments of earlier reports by later reports.  There is a certain audacity in McIntyre's suggestion that because Hansen 88 scenario B temperatures are running above observations; that therefore they are running above all projections of temperature increase since 88; and that a general claim that climate scientists have erred on the side of caution must be false because they have over estimated temperatures increases (if they have) regardless of how drastically they have underestimated the retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, Greenland melt rates and sea level rise.

47885. Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       RH, the "fixed link" now goes to an SkS page.  I think you will find this link is the one you are after:

       http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/

       Moderator Response: [RH] The link I fixed was the one going to the Lew_2013 paper.
47886. scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk - please read what I actually wrote (and preferrably some of the scientific literature pointed to in Chp6). Globally averaged, the CO2 forcing are around 3W/m2 but note that this applied to all of globe since GHG are well mixed in the atmosphere. Locally (60N), the milankovitch forcing is much higher. Easily enough to locally overwhelm GHG forcing. Ice sheets changes also change sealevel, albedo,  - and GHG. Got an alternative model where the number add up for a synchronous SH glaciation to NH forcing. 

       Now what Roe actually says is "This implies only a secondary role for CO2– variations in which produce a weaker radiative forcing than the orbitally-induced changes in summertime insolation – in driving changes in global ice volume"

       Your quote does not from Roe. Roe is quite correct - CO2 is secondary to NH summertime insolation which does the driving - but its an important feedback that makes it global. You might want to look at Denton et al 2010 as well as my earlier Hansen cite.

47887. Kevin C at 08:50 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Not sure if anyone's answered Kevin's question about what triggers the descent back into a glacial?

       Basically the glacial state is the equilibrium for icehouse earth. The Milakovitch peaks concentrate enough of the (almost constant) solar radiation in the latittude band where most of the land ice is which temporarily shifts the equilibrium, and the feedbacks take over to do the rest. Once the Milankovitch peak is over the feedback alone is not sufficient to maintain the interglacial state, causing a gradual descent back into a glacial.

       That's also why interglacials tend to be shorter than glacials.

47888. Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       

       Brandon...  Isn't that a little like asking what the conspiracy was behind the JFK assassination that conspiracy theorists claims?  It's not about the actual conspiracy.  They create a story line out of what they perceive to be inconsistencies.

       The point is the ideation of conspiracies, which is exactly what McIntyre engaged in.  Rather than attempting to look for a logical explanation, or even simply ask Dr Mann any questions, he went off in his own direction connecting dots to form a story line that had no basis in reality.  That's what conspiracy theorist do.  That is what McIntyre did in this case, as well.

47889. Brandon Shollenberger at 08:46 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       Ah, thanks. Sorry about that!
       Moderator Response: [RH] No problem.
47890. Chris Colose at 08:42 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Since my comment #16, there's still confusion of timescales in the discussion of feedbacks and "control knobs."  There's also some misunderstandings of Richard's AGU presentation.  He said himself that CO2 does not explain "everything" and he was looking at the broadest view of climate in a geologic perspective, and telling it as a historian.  That was his choice for giving a ~60 minute presentation on over 4 billion years of climate history, and I think it was a good choice, but obviously it's not fully inclusive.  Rather clearly, CO2 is not the principle driver behind abrupt climate changes, ENSO dynamics, regional climate variability, and it only tells part of the story over glacial-interglacial cycles (a CO2-focused perspective is valuable in the tropics, not so much at higher latitudes where the orbit and cryospheric feedbacks dominate and have a different structure than projected global warming changes).

       On geologic timescales, the weathering feedback being discussed (which by the way goes back at least to Walker and Kasting's paper in 1981) has classically been invoked to be important for long-term CO2 evolution.  This comes back in discussions of the Ordovician climate, the Neoproterozoic snowball deglaciation, the evolution of climate in the last 60 million years, etc...for a recent discussion of the Cretaceous to Cenozoic problem, see e.g.,  this paper.  This mechanism has also worked its way into the planetary science community as a viable mechanism to expand the limits of the habitable zone in the search for extrasolar life, and could conceivably work on any planet with plate tectonics and liquid water.  Keep in mind that this mechanism works on timescales longer than orbital, so you can still get considerable temperature fluctuations on sub-million year timescales, or can have positive carbon cycle feedbacks, operating primarily from the ocean or biosphere (as is evidently the case for the glacial-interglacial problem in the last several million years).

       
       The 'control knob' concept on geologic timescales comes not only from the fact that CO2 is a big player in climate evolution over geologic time, but also because CO2 can interact with the climate through a variety of negative carbon cycle feedbacks (on million year timescales), and positive carbon cycle feedbacks (on glacial-interglacial timescales), and thus inserts its role in climate evolution almost everywhere we can look.  It's only on rather short (decadal) timescales that we usually don't need to think about boundary condition changes from CO2.  For the timescales in which carbon cycle feedbacks tend to be positive, it's not a 'thermostat' anymore, but still a 'control knob.'  And in the case of glacial-interglacial changes, that control knob is very good at communicating the orbitally-paced fluctuations to the equator and globally.

       
       Other mechanisms do not work as a thermostat or control knob because they don't interact with the climate.  The sun, for example, changes independently of the climate. Moreover, solar evolution over geologic time is a one-way street, gradually brightening at ~7-8% per billion years.  On shorter timescales, the changes are usually too small for a lot of purposes.  Volcanic activity displays no to weak dependence on the mean climate state (there might be issues with the ground temperature or ice sheet loading on the crust, but these are probably small).  These things are very important for understanding climate evolution on all timescales.  Volcanic forcing, for example, is very important for the last millennium and there's still some uncertainty in these forcing reconstructions.  But volcanoes don't get up and organize themselves to blow up every year and cause an ice age. 

       
       In the Andrew Lacis worldview, the 'control knob' concept revolves moreso around the fact that CO2 is the most important non-condensing greenhouse in Earth's atmosphere, is very long-lived, and is most capable of changing on anthropogenic warming timescales.  The CO2 in the atmosphere is required to maintain a significant water vapor greenhouse, and any CO2 modifications in the future (likely to be the most dominant forcing over the next century) will set the stage for any water vapor or cloud responses.  Of course, other forcings could offset this tendency, but they tend to either be too small (solar variations), too slow (Milankovitch), or too short-lived (volcanoes, ENSO) to get in the way of making confident projections of late-century climate.  In this case, it's the uncertainty in climate response (sensitivity) and emission scenarios that dominate, rather than minor issues in how forcings are specified or what initial conditions you need to deal with (as in the decadal-projection problem).

47891. Brandon Shollenberger at 08:26 AM on 7 March 2013
       Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
       The proprietor of this blog, John Cook, recently promoted a Facebook post written by Michael Mann via Twitter. The post claimed this post by Steve McIntyre contained talked of conspiracies, saying McIntyre:

       chose to invent an entire conspiracy theory involving not just me, but multiple scientists, the AGU, IPCC, etc.

       John Cook also favorably commented on the post, saying:

       I find it interesting that Steve McIntyre automatically lunges towards a conspiratorial explanation of events. Stephan Lewandowsky published a paper last year showing a significant association between climate denial and conspiratorial thinking. The response to the research from climate deniers was a host of new conspiracy theories. We document the originators of these conspiracy theories in the paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation: Lewandowsky_2013. The chief originator of conspiracy theories? Steve McIntyre.

       This associated the paper this post is about with Mann's claims, and that leads to an important question. What conspiracy did McIntyre supposedly allege? As far as I can see, he blames everything in that post on Michael Mann. That cannot possibly be talk of a conspiracy.Do you believe McIntyre's post an example of conspiratorial ideation as Mann claims? If so, what conspiracy did he discuss?
       Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page format.
47892. Rob Honeycutt at 08:10 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...  Except that Lindzen stands virtually alone in such statements regarding glacial-interglacial cycles.  

       And you also managed to completely dodge my point that the direct radiative effects of CO2 are well accepted.  Please read my following post @61 about the properties of CO2.

47893. jzk at 08:04 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       Rob Honeycutt,

       Actually when presented with that very issue, that CO2 is necessary to drive interglacials and glacials, Richard Lindzen said "I don't think there is any case to be made for that."  He has further cited Roe's "In Defense of Milankovitch" which states "Thus, the relatively small amplitude of the CO2 radiative forcing and the absence of a lead over dV/dt both suggest that CO2 variations play a relatively weak role in driving changes in global ice volume compared to insolation variations."

47894. Rob Honeycutt at 08:01 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...   What you also don't seem to yet understand is that it's not the radiative effects of CO2 alone that are what makes CO2 the biggest control knob.  The direct radiative forcing of CO2 is not that much greater than Milankovitch cycles (AFAIK).  But it's the other properties of CO2 that make it important.  The fact that it's a long lived, well-mixed, non-condensing atmospheric gas is what makes it the control knob that it is.

47895. Rob Honeycutt at 07:56 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...  As has been pointed out in this thread many times now, the most recent research suggests that there may not be a lag.  And even if there is a lag, that doesn't in any way disprove the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature.

47896. Rob Honeycutt at 07:51 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       BillEverett @52...  If I understand Dr Alley's work (specifically his "Biggest Control Knob" lecture), the CO2 rock weathering thermostat idea comes from Dana Royer's work.  And then there is also Andrew Lacis' work on the CO2 thermostat that describes the mechanism on shorter time scales.

       I'm quibbling over the "main" vs "biggest" exactly because of the semantics issue that Kevin seems to be misunderstanding.  The problem seems to arise from how the thermostat changes.  

       Kevin seems to be saying, if the temp goes up before the thermostat (CO2), then CO2 can't be the thermostat.  Where he's getting it wrong is, he's not comprehending the forcing and feedback aspects of the thermostat, and I think that's where quibbling over phrasing becomes important.

47897. jzk at 07:41 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       scaddenp,

       During the last 400,000 years, when temperature levels were highest, CO2 levels were also at their highest (of the cycle so far) and the reusultant forcing from the CO2 was at its highest.  Yet, that, very powerful forcing, according to AGW theory, is not enough to overcome the forcing from all else because temperature starts dropping and CO2 levels continue to rise.  If CO2 forcing is stronger than everything else, how can that be? 

47898. Rob Honeycutt at 07:28 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk...   Actually, the forcing from Milankovitch cycles and the direct radiative effects of atmospheric are very well understood and calculated.  Not even the Richard Lindzen's and Roy Spencer's of the world dispute these figures.

       I would suggest that if you're not getting a satisfactory answer, then maybe you aren't reading or comprehending the research.

47899. scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 7 March 2013
       Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
       

       jzk. On a global scale milankovich forcing vary solar by 1/m2 but at high latitudes the forcing very much higher. (40 I think??) It easily can force high latitude change to albedo. However, albedo feedback alone is insufficient to create the global change. (Ie what you see is a change in forcing in NH affecting climate in SH where the forcing is the in the opposite way). However, there is no problem explaining the global change when you factor in the changes to GHG that are forced by the milankovich changes eg see Hansen et al 2012 and see how closely albedo + GHG does at reproducing the ice age cycle, assymetry and all. As always, not a bad idea to read the appropriate chapter in IPCC WG1 (chp 6).

47900. Greg54 at 07:08 AM on 7 March 2013
       George Will - Still Recycling Classic Climate Change Myths for The Washington Post
       

       Will's column was carried in our newspaper (the Holland, MI Sentinel), and I wrote a letter to the editor in reply before seeing this section of scepticalscience.com : http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x171156157/LETTER-George-Will-perpetuates-myth-about-science

       I wish I had seen the article here beforehand, so that I could have included a link to it.  I think it's really important to address the climate change denials that misrepresent science, scientists, and their motivations in even small newspapers every time we see them.  There are lots of folks who still get most of their news from such sources, and who are more likely to take a challenge from within their own community more seriously than one that originates from elsewhere.

Prev  950  951  952  953  954  955  956  957  958  959  960  961  962  963  964  965  Next