Junkscience endorses Climate Audit

Steve Milloy‘s Junk Science has now endorsed Climate Audit in the Weblog Awards, telling readers to vote for Climate Audit instead of JunkScience. I know that the we shouldn’t take the awards seriously, but other people will. Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy is a much better science blog and the best chance for beating them. Please vote for Bad Astronomy. You can vote once every 24 hours.

In other Weblog award news, Sadly No! has an unbeatable lead for Funniest Blog, so vote for the always reasonable Jon Swift.

And since he was desperate enough to ask for votes in my comments, vote for Hot Topic for Best Australia or New Zealand Blog. Maybe we can get him into 5th place!

Comments

  1. #1 Dano
    November 7, 2007

    Steve Milloy’s Junk Science has now endorsed Climate Audit in the Weblog Awards, telling readers to vote for Climate Audit instead of JunkScience.

    OK, so I’ve got two squares: 11/6 at 1200 GMT and 11/7 0800 GMT. Who’s keeping track of this pool, and do I win?

    Best,

    D

  2. #2 Ben
    November 7, 2007

    How did Junk Science and Climate Audit get listed as science blogs? I agree they might win for ‘best PR blog’ or some other synonym for bullsh–, but I would not call what they do science.

  3. #3 saurabh
    November 7, 2007

    What astounds me is that, although I can understand why we haven’t reformed our national voting system, why the hell can’t we do it in stupid web elections like this? There’s NO reason at all not to use approval voting for this sort of election.

    Of course, this whole process is farcical anyway, and any notion that the result actually reflect preference rather than stupid political contests is by now completely untenable.

  4. #4 Gareth
    November 7, 2007

    Desperate? Moi?

    HT is in 5th place. 4th would take a miracle, and I don’t believe in those.

    But thanks for the endorsement… ;-)

  5. #5 pete
    November 8, 2007

    No offence to Hot Topic, but maybe you should be funnelling some votes to All Men Are Liars. Wouldn’t want a denialist to win best Australian blog. (Or is Tim Blair doing a much more subtle Colbert sorta thing? Sometimes wingnuttery and satire are hard to tell apart)

  6. #6 Whatever
    November 8, 2007

    Climateaudit is now leading.

  7. #7 Marko
    November 8, 2007

    I highly recommend checking out Climate Audit. It has done some great analysis of climate studies.

    For example, Climate Audit published a paper (MM03) showing why the famous climate hockey stick (MBH98) is flawed. One reason is the use of unreliable bristlecone proxies. If one removes the BCPs, the hockey stick completely disappears.

    Since then, further analysis (the Wegman Report) and congressional hearings have agreed with Climate Audit that the method for finding the hockey stick was flawed.

    Contrary to popular opinion, Climate Audit does not conclude that AGW does not exist. Instead it focuses on analysis of prominent climate studies, especially when those studies misapply statistics.

    Anyway, it is good stuff. It is a great science blog. Please check it out.

  8. #8 elspi
    November 8, 2007

    “If one removes the BCPs, the hockey stick completely disappears.”
    ________________ ___________________
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \ | | | |
    | \| |________________| |

    I lie repeated a thousand times… still a lie

  9. #9 elspi
    November 8, 2007

    bloger killed my lovely NOT

  10. #10 MikeF
    November 8, 2007

    Marko – you forgot to mention the 155-page report from the 12-member panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences that said “an array of evidence” supported the main thrust of the paper?

    Or that the statistical flaw is that the same procedure on random noise produces a “hockey stick”, albeit a teeny-tiny-statistically insignificant one that is much smaller than the one shown by the real data?

    Or that Mann’s original paper in the first place is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings?

  11. #11 Thom
    November 8, 2007

    Wouldn’t Climate Audit work better under “Best Conservative Blog”? After all, Steve McIntyre’s cheerleaders are inevitably tied to right-wing/corporate causes.

  12. #12 Boris
    November 8, 2007

    There’s some real cognitive dissonance in CA’s message, as espoused by Marko.

    First, BCPs are fine proxies, but the strip bark version does show CO2 fertilization in the 20th century. But we are supposed to believe that if this kind of tree is removed, the MWP reappears. WTF?

    It doesn’t makes any sense.

    They’ve Ron Pauled this poll and the hoi polloi over there are lapping it up.

  13. #13 Ken
    November 8, 2007

    But I thought science wasn’t based on majority opinion?

  14. #14 Graculus
    November 8, 2007

    But I thought science wasn’t based on majority opinion?

    Yeah, because research is all about producing “opinions”.

  15. #15 Peter Bickle
    November 8, 2007

    Hi all

    I thought science was about fact, not opinion. Politics is opinion and consensus is about politics.

    What is the difference of being tied to right wing corporates and state funded left wing causes. The former ‘invests’ a lot more money than the right wing corporates.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

  16. #16 Doug Clover
    November 8, 2007

    Bickle

    Climate change is not ‘a state funded cause’. Governments of all stripes would love for it to go away as an issue, as nearly 20 years of government inaction around the world demonstrates. It is only because the science keeps building up in one direction that some governmnets have done the merger amount that they have (and mostly where there are co-benefits).

    In my experience working under both National and Labour governments that they both more influenced by business lobbies than the environmentalists.

    PS Exxon has a lot of money (more than the NZ govt) why don’t they pay some climate scientists to do some real research into dispproving AGW?

  17. #17 Dano
    November 8, 2007

    Exxon has a lot of money (more than the NZ govt) why don’t they pay some climate scientists to do some real research into dispproving AGW?

    I think that’s a question we need to ask more often.

    Best,

    D

  18. #18 Doug Clover
    November 8, 2007

    Oops sorry typo not merger I meant meagre of course.

  19. #19 Peter Bickle
    November 9, 2007

    cow fodder said

    ‘In my experience working under both National and Labour governments that they both more influenced by business lobbies than the environmentalists.’

    So whats the problem there? Business creates wealth while enviromentalists stifle growth and wealth (GW is the current tool that is being used to meet this end). Emnvironmentalists and their ideology is not the answer.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

  20. #20 Andrew Dodds
    November 9, 2007

    PB -

    If ‘Environmentalists and their ideology’ are not the answer (and I am inclined to agree that the kind of solutions advocated by environmental groups lack practicality), then what IS the solution? Denying that a problem exists?

  21. #21 MikeF
    November 9, 2007

    Peter Bickle – do you have a fanatical belief that there is no such thing as market failure? What happens in the long term then? Manna from heaven falls to maintain the increase in consumables? The rising dollar keeps the economy up because, well, it does? Teh Rapture?

    Environmentalists are at least trying to think in the long term. Given “Business”‘s current record, they appear to be pretty awful at it, and I see no evidence that “Business” has a plan to cope with the limits of living on one planet, instead it appears to rely on permanent expansion.

  22. #22 bigcitylib
    November 9, 2007

    Don’t know if its 100% settled, but it looks like McIntyre lost by about 50 votes. Go left-wing freepers!

  23. #23 Tim Lambert
    November 9, 2007

    Looks like there was a whole lot of cheating on that poll, mainly in support of CA.

  24. #24 bigcitylib
    November 9, 2007

    Its an online poll, what can you expect? In this case it looks like more of their hackers got caught.

  25. #25 gator68
    November 9, 2007

    #23. What makes you think there was cheating involved? Couldn’t the sudden jump in votes for CA be explained by links from the Drudge Report, etc?

  26. #26 Tim Lambert
    November 9, 2007

    No, because Drudge didn’t link to CA.

  27. #27 bigcitylib
    November 9, 2007

    http://www.tellinya.com/read/2007/11/09/science-blogs-2007-anatomy-of-a-break-in/

    Check this out for how to beat weblog security. I don’t doubt there was alot of traffic due to these outside sources, but I’m sure there were people on both sides that figured out the same technique as above. I suspect that once that was done you could vote multiple times easily.

    Online polls CAN be made relatively secure, but probably Weblogs didn’t think their poll would become an episode in the Culture wars and didn’t bother.

  28. #28 Tim Lambert
    November 9, 2007

    No, the same thing happened last year — a couple of polls had thousands of votes by bots.

  29. #29 gator68
    November 9, 2007

    Thanks for the link. After posting the comment, it also seems like thousands of votes have been kicked off the rolls, both for CA and BA.

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    November 9, 2007

    “For example, Climate Audit published a paper (MM03) showing why the famous climate hockey stick (MBH98) is flawed. One reason is the use of unreliable bristlecone proxies.”

    Interestingly, MM03 never mentions “bristlecones”. Those climate audit readers really know what they’re talking about.

  31. #31 Ray C.
    November 9, 2007

    @#2: How did Junk Science and Climate Audit get listed as science blogs?

    Look to who sponsors these awards: something called Wizbang. 100% wingnut. Republicans can do no wrong, the “Democrat Party” can do no right, waterboarding isn’t torture, and the MSM is more liberal than the conservative corporations that own it.

    A better question is how did any real science blogs make the cut.

  32. #32 bigcitylib
    November 9, 2007

    Weblogs is calling it a draw. Both blogs agreed.

  33. #33 Dano
    November 9, 2007

    Interestingly, MM03 never mentions “bristlecones”. Those climate audit readers really know what they’re talking about.

    Feh.

    All that matters is that you can muster an army of Cheer Squad bots to disseminate the results of the NewScience.

    Best,

    D

  34. #34 Chris O'Neill
    November 9, 2007

    Weblogs is calling it a draw. Both blogs agreed.

    Exactly 20,000 each. If you’re going to have one amazing coincidence, you might as well have a consistent theme.

  35. #35 Tim Lambert
    November 9, 2007

    Looks like they couldn’t figure out how much cheating went on. That’s embarrassing for the weblog awards folks.

  36. #36 Majorajam
    November 9, 2007

    Little help here. Having tried to do my hockey team homework, I am a little frustrated by the ambiguity of it all. Apparently the strip bark/bcp proxy data is critical in describing the MWP as a regional rather than global event. Also apparently this proxy is flawed, or at least serious questions have been raised about it, and not just by the intrepid climate audit, but also by the NAS in some study I’ve only seen recounted from a third hand anonymous source. Now, I take some of the points raised above- that you cannot demonstrate a hockey stick with random data that has the same significance, that the science doesn’t depend on this result- whatever. I’m just trying to get a straight answer- if we remove this proxy the root of all the trouble, can we replicate Mann’s temperature record? More broadly, what if any validity remains to climate audits continuing publicity of their ‘debunking’ of this temperature record and why is it not possible to put this all to bed in the scientific realm (allowing for the fact that outrageous fallacies and nonsense can live on ad nauseum in the public/pundit sphere). Appreciate the assistance…

  37. #37 Tim Curtin
    November 10, 2007

    Majorajam: once again you are on the wrong blog with that query, which you should address to Climate Audit on its current threads (e.g. the one on David Holland). Tim Lambert himself made an invaluable contribution there in the last 24 hours or so, by giving the exact reference to Lonnie Thompson’s “Thermometer” as the source claimed by Gore for “independent” verification of Mann’s hockey stick (pp.63-65 of AIT). Unfortunately Thompson’s “thermometer” is clearly labelled by him as Mann’s hockey stick, so Gore actually uses Mann’s graph and claims it verifies Mann graph. I propose to nominate Al for all of next year’s Science Nobels.

  38. #38 Majorajam
    November 10, 2007

    Tim “I know I’m thick” Curtin- aren’t there inane letters to editors to be written and bibs to be dribbled on? Whom can I thank that you’ve taken the time out of such a schedule to respond to me? As that goes, informed though you’ve proven yourself to be, I wonder if any learning ever gone on in your presence have ever been because of you quite as much as in spite of you. Unless you count life lessons that is. Thanks for sharing though.

  39. #39 Boris
    November 11, 2007

    Majorajam,

    You should read the tree ring chapter of the NAS report on climate reconstructions of the past 200 years–the chapter is only 7 pages long and it’s available online.

    What you’ll find is that the NAS does recommend not using the “strip bark” version of the bristlecone pine in temp reconstructions. This tree responds strongly to CO2 fertilization in the 20th century. This only affects the tail end of the calibration period and NOT the MWP. No such CO2 fertilization problem affects the full bark version of the tree.

    Mann probably disagrees with the NAS on the strip bark version. The issue is not that the tree is not a temp proxy, but that it has a shorter calbiration period against the instrumental record–at least that’s my assumption since the NAS did not make this very clear.

  40. #40 Jc
    November 11, 2007

    Mikf says:
    and I see no evidence that “Business” has a plan to cope with the limits of living on one planet, instead it appears to rely on permanent expansion.

    The horror, The sheer horror.

    Gen Electric CEO goes to board with new “idea”

    “Ladies and gentleman, i have asked all direct line executives to do their best to budget for a 5% fall in volumes this year and a corresponding 10% drop in profits from all divisions. The reason is that I am sick of permanent expansion.

    I anticipate the stock to fall 50% on this announcement which should obviously have a very negaitve effect on pension fund returns seeing we are the biggest stock in the index.”

    Meeting ends with clapping from the board.

    I’m sure the Farrelly bros. could see the humor in this script.

    Let’s call it Dumber and Dumber as against Dumb and Dumber.

  41. #41 Eli Rabett
    November 11, 2007

    How about “a 5% drop in volume and a 50% increase in profits as investments we made last year in efficiency kick in”. The problem with the stock market, as it is, is that the price includes the future and anyone can tell a story.

  42. #42 Chris O'Neill
    November 11, 2007

    Mann probably disagrees with the NAS on the strip bark version. The issue is not that the tree is not a temp proxy, but that it has a shorter calbiration period against the instrumental record

    To see how Mann chose to deal with the CO2 fertilization effect in MBH99, check figure 1 of MBH99. The issue could be avoided completely by calibrating off a pre-AGCO2 reconstruction (which yields nearly the same result), but this is much more complicated than necessary.

  43. #43 Jc
    November 12, 2007

    Rabbet says:
    “How about “a 5% drop in volume and a 50% increase in profits as investments we made last year in efficiency kick in”.

    Rabbet, you’d know we’re actually getting a form of that magic if you read a little more widely.

    KPMG did a study of the US economy where it found that the nations GDP had risen 2 1/2 times since the early 70′s but used about 25% less input. In other words if you picked up 2003 GDP and weighed it was 25% lighter than the early 1970′s.

    Pretty astounding, no?

    The problem with the stock market, as it is, is that the price includes the future and anyone can tell a story.”

    Well yea. And the point is?

  44. #44 Majorajam
    November 12, 2007

    Ok- I must admit I was hoping for something a little less involved/more succinct such as: bcp tree rings must be used because of x, i.e. there is no other option if you want to build a record, or the results are not dependant on that proxy such as by this study here, or some such. As it is, I take what your saying is that CO2 fertilization is demonstrably a problem with this proxy, but that is not worrisome before the industrial revolution when C02 and temperature were highly correlated? Way off or not, I have my homework (any links you have handy to suggested readings are appreciated).

    Btw, Eli, I would say the problem with the stock market is less that it is about the future than a poor understanding of the past. Of course, it doesn’t help that the market can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent.