Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3

Remember how Ian Plimer claimed that he could not recall where his dodgy figure 3? Well now he has resorting to lying about the source. In a talkback radio debate (about 4 minutes from the end) with Steven Sherwood, Plimer claimed that the graph came from page 21 of Klimafakten, a book published by the German government in 2001. That’s a straight-up lie.

The graph came from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. I’ve overlaid the graphs below so that you can see that they are identical. Just put your mouse on the graph to change it to the Swindle one. Notice that he copied the labels on the graph and the comparison to the right.

And no it’s not possible that Klimafakten copied the graph from the Swindle, since it was published before the Swindle. Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.

And the Swindle graph was only ever included
in the initial broadcast in the UK — it wasn’t in the version shown
in Australia or released on DVD. So Plimer didn’t get it directly from the
movie. He must have got it from one of the websites that posted
screenshots of the graph. But all of those pages were criticising
Durkin for posting an incorrect graph of temperatures. Plimer knew
that the graph was wrong and decided to include it in his book anyway.

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

The best match I can find to Plimer’s claimed source is this book. It was published in 2000, not 2001 and it wasn’t published by the German government but rather edited by someone who works for the German government, but by Plimer citing standards, that’s a perfect match.

If anyone can lay their hands on a copy and check page 21 for me, I’d much appreciate it. Plimer fans should have an especially strong incentive to do this, because if I’m wrong I’ll end up with egg all over my face. But I’m not.

Update: bluegrue tracked down a copy of Klimafakten:

I have located a copy of Klimafakten by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are faithful reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner’s Klimafakten is definitely not the source of Plimer’s figure 3.

Thanks to Jo Abbess, I have a copy of Berner’s figure 2.9:

i-c5cf573bc234fe48162ad99243fa3d71-klimafaktenfig2.9.jpg

That’s obviously different from Plimer’s figure 3.

Comments

#1 Michael
May 23, 2009

“It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is. – ‘Greig’

Or how utterly credulous the original is, making the parody difficult to spot.

{Marion, is this you poe-ing again??}
#2 Greig
May 23, 2009

Post #394
*Do you realise you’ve nullified your own argument?
You’re advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area*

I am making no such claim.

*- which means that on the one hand climate scientists must defer to the expertise of economists on economic matters – but by the very same logic economists must defer to climate scientists on climate matters.*

Nonsense, I am saying that people from various disciplines have a right to make comment on how we address climate change. It is not valid to say that any petition of objection must comprise of only climatologists. That is elitist garbage.

*” despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. “*

Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?
#3 bluegrue
May 23, 2009

> Since I found the Basque Centre for Climate Change which provided a link to this I really had no reason not to believe this post.

You have still failed to find ___Euskara Klimazientzia___, the most simple [search on google](http://www.google.com/search?q=Euskara+Klimazientzia) would have revealed, that this page is the only hit. Your links contain neither word. Searching for a Basque research center is simply not enough. That you offer your links as proof for the veracity of the EK claim, illustrates the low standard of proof you are willing to apply, if it supports your position. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction, but if a Tibetian writing about climate in Basque did not tip you off that this _might_ be a joke, I know of a bridge in Brooklyn that is up for sale.
#4 Greig
May 23, 2009

*”The view expressed in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change….” – ‘Greig’.

Sure it doesn’t, -”climate change, a natural phenomenon” -”carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas” -”The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years” -”there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.” -”new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming”*

None of the above comments deny that CO2 is causing climate change.

Michael, you need lessons in basic comprehension. You would do well to note the finer distinction between climate change and **dangerous** climate change.

*The source of the figure 3 is the very topic of this post*

Yes, and as I said, it is a bloody waste of time. Plimer did not draw any false conclusions from the graph. In the meantime the government is trying to implement a massive new taxation system on the Australian people. **Wake up!**
#5 Greig
May 23, 2009

[bluegrue]*That you offer your links as proof for the veracity of the EK claim, illustrates the low standard of proof you are willing to apply, if it supports your position.*

Oh sure, this from a guy who presented a critique on Leroux, thinking it was Plimer, and has posted more words here in attacking Plimer (and me) than anyone else, although he hasn’t even read one page of Plimer’s book.

Does that say something about YOUR standards?
#6 luminous beauty
May 23, 2009

None of the above comments deny that CO2 is causing climate change.

They are all falsehoods that deny the seriousness of AGW.
#7 Observa
May 23, 2009

Greig #392

Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you’ll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr ‘the science is not settled!!!’ Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that….well, you know…..

Yet ANOTHER strawman. Refuse treatment? At what point have I ever expressed the view that we should do nothing? Why are you attributing arguments to me, that I have never expressed? Are you so threatened by what I am saying? Why else would you choose to engage in such self-deception.

Greig #177

[BPL] The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you’re assuming that if we don’t know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

Wrong. We know so little, that we assume there is something to fix, and have fooled ourselves into thinking we can fix it.

Greig #179

To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

Greig #207

..we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

Greig #307

I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

Greig #327

I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

I also believe that a warming of 1-2 deg per century will have almost no net negative impact on the environment (previous IPCC asseessment have reached this conclusion), and that as Plimer suggests such warming is well within the range of natural variation.

The science is not settled, we have a really, really long way to go before we have the answers quantified sufficiently to set good policy.

Greig #330

[Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:19 AM] “If solar and wind power are not cheap, then we should pretend that global warming isn’t a problem.”

When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.
If we determine that it is good policy to reduce emissions, it MUST be affordable both to western and developing countries.

Greig #350

[Mark Byrne #347 ] Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?

Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

[Mark Byrne ] And when will you “know” global warming is a problem?

Not when. IF! We do not know IF it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.

This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.

…

[Mark Byrne ] Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?

Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn’t settled.

[Mark Byrne ] And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?

Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.

Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere, unless you believe any of that nonsense about polar bears. If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.
The science is not settled.

Greig #352

[Greig] I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

[bluegrue] This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature.

Which part of the science is not settled don’t you understand?
…
The science is not settled.
#8 luminous beauty
May 23, 2009

Lessee,

The IPCC estimates doubling of CO2 produces global warming of 2 – 4.5C.

‘But the science isn’t settled’, says Greig. Then it might be less, it might be more. You don’t know.

Greig. You are an idiot.
#9 bluegrue
May 23, 2009

>presented a critique on Leroux, thinking it was Plimer

An error that I much regret, which I made public myself, which I corrected myself and which I apologized for. Nothing either you or Plimer have done, when caught. Errors happen, it matters how you deal with them.

>although he hasn’t even read one page of Plimer’s book

I never claimed I had. “All” I have done is
1) watch his talk on the very same issue
2) identify, what exactly is wrong with figure 3
3) obtain a copy of _Klimafakten_ and expose Plimer’s explicit claim to the source of figure 3 as wrong.
#10 naught101
May 23, 2009

Greig:
Yes, and as I said, it is a bloody waste of time.

Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you’re the biggest of the wast of time of all.

55 Posted by: Greig
43 Posted by: bluegrue
36 Posted by: Mark Byrne
24 Posted by: TrueSceptic
23 Posted by: bi — IJI
17 Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
11 Posted by: Steve Chamberlain
11 Posted by: Lee
11 Posted by: janama
11 Posted by: Chris O’Neill
10 Posted by: sod
09 Posted by: Janet Akerman
09 Posted by: Dave
09 Posted by: Bernard J.
08 Posted by: Dan L.
08 Posted by: naught101
07 Posted by: John Mashey
07 Posted by: Gaz
06 Posted by: Michael
06 Posted by: jemima
#11 Michael
May 23, 2009

“In the meantime the government is trying to implement a massive new taxation system on the Australian people. Wake up!” – ‘Greig’.

Now this has to be a joke.

Global climate change or a new tax, which is the bigger problem – Tax,Tax,Tax!!!!

Wake Up, Anthropogenic Global Taxation is coming!.

‘Fess up. Who’s writing this stuff??
#12 Chris O'Neill
May 23, 2009

Greig:

It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke.

Intelligence is the ability to recognize. Greig is saying that to someone who is an idiot and can’t get any parody, all parody is bad. I wonder what that makes Greig?
#13 jemima
May 23, 2009

Greig doesn’t recognise things and that is their fault according to Greig. Greig is the measure of all things – just ask it. Well I recognise Greig for what it is – the smelliest troll extant today.

Back before I realised this I wasted my time writing something for it (jemima at #220):

At #151 above bluegrue almost has a fit reporting a self-detected error in something he or she’s said.
Think about it honest people: Ian Plimer is a full professor of science at a university who just makes up and publishes stories to suit his predetermined conclusions. He writes a book that has so many errors, half-truths and outright falsehoods that it would earn a “fail” for any school student who submitted it in a politics class (no student would submit such garbage in a science class). Result: Plimer has antiscience defenders all over the tabloid press and the blogosphere who think his behaviour is laudable and that his ends justify his means.

The point is that bluegrue is an anonymous commenter in the blogosphere who’s more concerned for his or her reputation and for the truth of what he or she says than the high-profile professor with a book just published in his name.

What a joke!

Posted by: jemima

Naturally, by repeating myself I’m only trying to improve my crummy position on naught101′s merit list (#410) by filling this thread with the sound of my own voice. I wouldn’t waste my breath correcting Greig on any of its errors (where to begin?)

It’s not a listening or caring troll, peoples.
#14 Observa
May 24, 2009

Greig and getting past the inpass:

Greig #207

I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found. And I also believe we do not need to panic, we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

Greig #373

What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

Greig #179

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

Greig #219

But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

Greig #361

[Steve Chamberlain] IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that it’s all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.

So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.
Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.
I rest my case.

Greig #367

[Steve Chamberlain] So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.

Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues. I beg to differ.

Greig #373

And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is… where?

Strawman. I never made such a claim. What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

The Goal
For Grieg:The goal should be “to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible”

Belief 1, “ that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]”;

Belief 2, the global economy, is “the fundamental basis for human standard of living”;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:
1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?

2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to lift the bottom billion out of extreme poverty?

3) Would you support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?
#15 Observa
May 24, 2009

The last bit in #414 should not all be bold, here again-

The Goal

For Grieg: The goal is “to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible”

Belief 1, “ that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]”;

Belief 2, the global economy, is “the fundamental basis for human standard of living”;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:
1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?

2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to life the bottom billon out of extreme poverty?

3) Would Grieg support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?
#16 Observa
May 24, 2009

For Grieg: The goal is “to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible”

Belief 1, “ that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]”;

Belief 2, the global economy, is “the fundamental basis for human standard of living”;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:

1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?

2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to life the bottom billon out of extreme poverty?

3) Would Grieg support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?
#17 Bernard J.
May 24, 2009

Greig.

For someone who claims only a ‘casual’ 20 year interest in global warming, you have been trotting out a sophisticated compilation of the worst of the debunked chestnuts favoured by the denialists.

By this very fact alone I perceive you to be either a credulous reader of ideologically-motivated sites that are untainted by any real science, or to be an ideologically-driven lobbyist associated in some way with a vested-interest group or several.

Your inundation of this thread with comments at such a persistently high rate confirms this for me.

One thing that you are not, is a genuine sceptic.

For a start, I seem to recall that earlier in this thread (I can’t be convinced that actually wading through it again, to find the specific reference, is a Good Thing) you made the claim that the IPCC’s output is not ‘peer-reviewed’. This is a mendacious distortion of the facts, because the IPCC is convened to review and summarise the peer-reviewed (id est expert-reviwed) literature of the global body of climatological output, and thus its starting material is very much peer-scrutinised. The problem with the IPCC’s reports, if there is any, is that they are based on consensus, and are therefore conservative in what they say – most scientists who work in the field are convinced that the future impacts are likely to be greater than has been communicated in the Panel’s outputs.

Claims to the contrary are not reflective of someone with a scientifically sceptical bent, but rather of someone with a political/ideological motivation.

It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is.

No, the problem here is that denialists are so recalcitrant in the inaccuracy, inconsistency and the nonsensical presentationof the material that they rely upon, and in the monotonous repetition with which they regurgitate it, that even a parodic caricature of their claims is indistinguishable from the denialists’ claims themselves.

The problem isn’t bad parody. The problem is however, a combination of bad science, atrocious synthesis of facts and data, dubious ideology, and mangled logic.

Put another way, the corollary to the tenet that there is no bottom to stupid, is that there is no parody of stupid that could be absolutely distinguishable from each and every potholes of stupid that exist somewhere in the universe.
#18 Greig
May 24, 2009

*Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you’re the biggest of the wast of time of all.*

That is because I am the target of every single post. It seems I have wandered into a nest of true-believers, and its me vs the brethren. 

*the IPCC is convened to review and summarise the peer-reviewed (id est expert-reviwed) literature of the global body of climatological output, and thus its starting material is very much peer-scrutinised.*

Correct.

*The problem with the IPCC’s reports, if there is any, is that they are based on consensus, and are therefore conservative in what they say*

Nonsense, the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments **is determined entirely by the lead author.** The result is not conservative, **it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.**

*By this very fact alone I perceive you to be either a credulous reader of ideologically-motivated sites that are untainted by any real science, or to be an ideologically-driven lobbyist associated in some way with a vested-interest group or several.*

Greig’s Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of having a vested interest, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.
#19 Chris O'Neill
May 24, 2009

Greig:

Nearly all of the Signatories are from relevant fields

“Relevant” fields just doesn’t cut it. How many actively, credibly publishing climatologists are on that list? Pretty close to, if not actually, zero. The science denial crowd like to make issue about argument from authority but then go and use “authorities” that fall short of being the best. Considering how even the best can succumb to political ideology, using anyone but the best as an authority has little credibility.

BTW, the list contains most of the usual suspects: Aitkin, Beck, Boehmer-Christiansen, Carter, Easterbrook, Erren, Essex, David Evans, Hissink, Jon Jenkins, Kininmonth, Lord Lawson, Lindzen, McKitrick, John McLean, Alan Moran, Motl, Plimer, Alex Robson, Singer, Spencer, and Wegman, along with the usual quota of engineers, biologists, geologists, meteorologists,chemists, economists, statisticians, computer scientists, air-force colonels, geneticists, forestry consultants and geographers.
#20 Chris O'Neill
May 24, 2009

Greig:

It seems I have wandered into a nest of true-believers

Greig’s Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of being a true-believer, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.
#21 bluegrue
May 24, 2009

> The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.

… reflected in the [lack of a storm of enraged comments by the relevant scientists in the draft comments](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=1&s=4&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&rotation=0).

> a nest of true-believers

For someone with an open mind you have the denialist ad-hominem lingo down pat.
#22 Dave
May 24, 2009

Greig:

> ” Post #394 Do you realise you’ve nullified your own argument? You’re advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area”

> I am making no such claim.

Let me throw your words back at you again, since you don’t seem to understand…

> I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change.

For starters you restrict yourself to policy decisions, and provide no evidence to suggest the signatories are in a position to pass judgement on the science (which they do).

> Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy.

Here’s what I was driving at – Economists are experts in their field and are as such best placed to comment on economic factors. But by that logic, surely climate scientists are experts in their field and best placed to comment on climate research? Is not the ideal scenario everyone sticking to their area of specialism, and letting the economists work with the IPCC findings, rather than having economists challenge the actual science behind it (which is what this letter does)?

> Nonsense, I am saying that people from various disciplines have a right to make comment on how we address climate change. It is not valid to say that any petition of objection must comprise of only climatologists. That is elitist garbage.

Except that – as I said very very clearly – the petition is challenging the science as a basis for any policy, rather than accepting the science and challenging policy decisions. Your argument implies that economists have no place doing that, as it is not their area of expertise.

> Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?

For the sake of hilarity, let’s say I am a “grocery replenishment technician” and thus have as much right to challenge the basis of your views as anyone.
#23 sod
May 24, 2009

Nonsense, the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author. The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.

this (as almost everything you write) is of course false. you have ZERO knowledge about the process.

here ism, what happens:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

Each IPCC Assessment and Special Report has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) which is widely distributed. The SPM text is subject to line by line discussions and approval at a Plenary Session. The SPM has to be consistent with the factual material contained in the full report. Lead Authors of the report participate in the Session to provide explanations and clarifications and assist to ensure that consistency between the Summary for Policymakers and the full report is achieved.

what part of “line by line approval” do you not understand?
#24 bi -- IJI
May 24, 2009

Shorter Greig:

I said ‘I believe the IPCC is wrong’. This shows that the true unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

Look, I’ve used this argument… not just once… or twice… or thrice… but four times! This shows that my logic is obviously purrrfect!
#25 Greig
May 24, 2009

*what part of “line by line approval” do you not understand?*

It doesn’t mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous agreement that ALL items are presented. But that does not mean that there is unanimous agreemnt on what goes into the assessment report. The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See [the Principles Governing IPCC Work](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf).

But despite this the underlying peer-reviewed documentation is the most reliable information that can reasonably be obtained on the issues associated with greenhouse warming and climate change. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written in support of greenhouse policy agendas based on IPCC reports has involved selective use and misrepresentation of the IPCC findings, or uses only the subset of data in the assessments.

A classis case of misrepresentation may be found in Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers, which totally misreads the IPCC findings to promote the idea of impending climate catastrophe.
#26 Greig
May 24, 2009

*Except that – as I said very very clearly – the petition is challenging the science as a basis for any policy, rather than accepting the science and challenging policy decisions. Your argument implies that economists have no place doing that, as it is not their area of expertise.*

So you are saying that the petition can only challenge the science if it comprises entirely of climatologists? Really?

And yet you know the petition covers many issues of science, policy, economics and technology. Surely then, the petition should comprise a mix of experts which cover all aspects presented in the petition, including climatologists, physicists, economists and engineers. Which, as it turns out, is the case.

So, explain to me again, why does the Bali Open Letter petition need to comprise of ONLY climatologists?
#27 bi -- IJI
May 24, 2009

Shorter Greig:

The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in ‘relevant discipline’ is even more reliable — indeed, it’s the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!

This further proves that the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists. Perfect logic again!
#28 Bernard J.
May 24, 2009

[sod] what part of “line by line approval” do you not understand?

{Greigtroll] It doesn’t mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous [sic] agreement that ALL items are presented.

It is blatantly obvious to me that you have never participated in a consensus review process.

I have had the (dis?)pleasure to spend a weekend of my life reviewing, by consensus, the state-of-the-art in environmental science for government policy, and it is a torrid process indeed.

In our consensus model each area of science/policy focus was ‘workshopped’ by expert panels for an hour, and the important aspects were summarised and distilled into government-’actionable’ points. The outcomes of each workshop were presented to the conference in general, and a 95% voted agreement was required for acceptance of ‘consensus’. Where there was dispute of any point (= line-by-line analysis), there was a timed process to allow debate from both sides. Sometimes the debate resolved to reflect the expert opinions of the submitting workshop professionals, and sometimes there was a stalemate called by time limitations, in which case the best scientific opinon was dropped from government recommendation.

In this conference, about 50% of the best scientific assessment of each of the policy points was dropped, simply because of the stringent 95% requirement for ‘consensus’ in any one area. By the time that the policy was accepted by government, about 95% of the best scientific assessment was discarded…

Each and every one of my colleagues at that conference was gutted by the final government policy outcome, and this was after a stringent process to hammer home the ‘best science’.

Your description of a ‘consensus’ is not only mis-informed, it is down- and out-right wrong. I stand by my previous description of the conservative assessments comoing from the IPCC, and the fact that you find cause to dispute the cautious nature of such a process is only further confirmation that you either do not know of what it is that you speak, or that you are promoting your own vested interest in complete cavalier disregard of the truth.

Which leads me to:

Greig’s Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of having a vested interest, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.

Erm, I gave you my reasons for suspecting your vested interest. Nothing that you have said since has threatened to alter my analysis. And the fact that you countered with a glib, but irrelevant, epithet only furhter reinforces my suspicions.

Bernard J.’s Law: When someone casts red herrings about in an effort to distract from the original point, and does not carefully and systematically counter this original point, it is likely that said original point has a significant degree of truth and/or relevance.
#29 Barton Paul Levenson
May 24, 2009

Greig writes:

Does anyone here seriously think that every qualified scientist in the world agrees with IPCC 4th Assessment? Really? Some I know refuse to endorse it purely on the basis that it was written under the process of consensus.

No one competent in science would have written a sentence like that last one, and certainly no competent scientist would have. Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works, and it has been a fantastically productive system. The only people who rant against the very concept of the scientific consensus are pseudoscientists with an axe to grind.
#30 Greig
May 24, 2009

*Your description of a ‘consensus’ is not only mis-informed, it is down- and out-right wrong.*

Actually, what I described to you, is exactly what is described in the [Principles Governing IPCC Work Appendix A](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf). Your own personal experiences with “consensus science” are irrelevant.

And Bernard, to you and other posters, perhaps you think its funny, perhaps you think it is intimidating, but the continuous bullying with pointless abuse and name-calling only denigrates your position.
#31 Michael
May 24, 2009

“Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author. The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.” – Greig

And now Greig defends the peer-reviewed literature.

Damn you Grieg, you almost had me convinced that the peer-reviewed literature was wrong in saying that there is a warming trend not explained by natural causes and that various books and blogs with wrongly cited, unverifiable graphs were right.

My head’s spinning.
#32 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

297 Greig,

“Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED.”

This is too much. He used a graph that had previously been seen only in TGGWS. He can not unknowingly have chosen this. It was chosen for the same reason that Durkin fabricated it: to misrepresent the temperature record. It was so blatant a distortion of the truth that Durkin was forced to replace it *immediately* after the first broadcast of TGGWS (the next broadcast, only a week later, contained another version). Yet Plimer used that first, outrageously dishonest, Durkin graph.

At first Plimer claimed not to remember the source. He then claimed it came from a German publication that no one had heard of. I’ve been involved in climate blogs and forums since March 2007, when TGGWS was first broadcast, and I’ve never seen it mentioned by anyone. It might be well-known in Germany for all I know, but not in the English-speaking world.

We then see that Plimer’s graph does not appear in ‘Klimafakten’. We already knew this was extremely unlikely as otherwise Durkin would have referenced ‘Klimafakten’.

All the above would be appallingly sloppy for a clumsy and poorly educated layman, yet Plimer claims his book is about ‘”The Missing Science” and he is indeed a scientist, albeit in a different field. His use of this graph, and his false claims about its origin, put him at the same level as Durkin or Monckton and he has forfeited any authority he had as a distinguished scientist.

Again, a “mistake” of this nature by someone with any claims to scientific rigour is not acceptable and only the highly deluded or dishonest would claim otherwise.
#33 sod
May 24, 2009

It doesn’t mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented.

please, provide a reference.

their is exactly ZERO ambiguity in the term “line by line approval”.

and your link confirms this:

a final line by line approval by a Session of the Working Group.
(page 7)

. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous agreement that ALL items are presented. But that does not mean that there is unanimous agreemnt on what goes into the assessment report. The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

no. a “line by line” approval is exactly that: a line by line approval.
if serious opposition wants something out, it is out. (or at least disagreement noted, as outlined in your link).

the draft is OF COURSE prepared by the lead author. you are showing of a complete ignorance of how to write a paper with multiple authors.

But despite this the underlying peer-reviewed documentation is the most reliable information that can reasonably be obtained on the issues associated with greenhouse warming and climate change. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written in support of greenhouse policy agendas based on IPCC reports has involved selective use and misrepresentation of the IPCC findings, or uses only the subset of data in the assessments.

i am glad, that you would mention this. now look at Plimer s figure 3 again.

we have proof of this tactic being used by denialist scum on this very topic! while you are trying to invent some other cases!!!
#34 Greig
May 24, 2009

*Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works*

Perhaps so, but to the detriment of science. Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

*“Consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels.”* the late Michael Crichton.

*”‘Consensus,’as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science.”* Jack Schmitt (PhD. Earth Scientist and one of the moon-walking astronauts)
#35 Michael
May 24, 2009

“The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in ‘relevant discipline’ is even more reliable — indeed, it’s the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!” – bi — IJI

That’s just your elitist arrogance trying to make it sound as though those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

Anyone with an open mind knows they aren’t!
#36 bluegrue
May 24, 2009

>”2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer’s book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don’t give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3. ”
> I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response.

What’s the status on this?
#37 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

392 Greig,

“Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc. Get a grip people. Stop bowing down to the IPCC lead authors, and think for yourselves. Debate, learn, open your minds, accept others views (they may know something that you do not, shock horror).”

This thread is about one graph. All the time and effort has been wasted because, rather than

1) ignore the thread altogether or

2) post a single message along the lines of “yes, Plimer screwed up there but I still think the book is worth reading”,

some ignorant, offensive, arrogant fanatic has typed thousands of words here

1) defending Plimer’s user of the graph;

2) abusing any who dare to correct his ignorance;

3) abusing the entire climate science community;

4) attempting countless misdirections;

5) making numerous contradictory claims.

Yes, I’ve seen your type before and I despise it.
#38 Dr Dave
May 24, 2009

So Greig, in a single day you have said:

“…the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author.”

and then:

“Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.”

So if you don’t like the lead author approach and you don’t like the consensus approach, how do you think that IPCC reports should be written?
#39 naught101
May 24, 2009

[Greig]

it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.…

The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

1). There is more than one lead author – one for each chapter. Are you suggesting that they all harbour the same “distorted view” of the available literature? If not, and only some of them do, which chapters?

2). No where in that document that I can see does it even imply that the lead authors have final say in anything. Each chapter goes through three draft review processes, where it is reviewed by many people. Do you seriously think that if the Lead Authors were going against the majority of those people (or even a minority), there wouldn’t be a massive shit-fight? Or is it just that “they” (government, illuminati, whoever) hush it up?
#40 bi -- IJI
May 24, 2009

So, shorter Greig:

1. If the IPCC reports weren’t the result of consensus, then they’re wrong, because they don’t take into account all viewpoints.
2. If the IPCC reports were the result of consensus, then they’re also wrong, because consensus is a political construct.
3. Therefore, the correct way to do science is to scream ‘Waaah! I’m being bullied!’
4. Conclusion: Plimer is perfectly honest, and we should do nothing to mitigate climate change.
5. Quod errat demonstrator.

* * *

Michael:

> > The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in ‘relevant discipline’ is even more reliable — indeed, it’s the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!” – bi — IJI

> That’s just your elitist arrogance trying to make it sound as though those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

> Anyone with an open mind knows they aren’t!

Aha! Indeed, and even though the 2 things aren’t mutually exclusive, they also are mutually exclusive at the same time. These two claims, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive. And perhaps they also are mutually exclusive…

This is so confusing! I therefore declare that the science isn’t settled. Hooray!
#41 Chris O'Neill
May 24, 2009

Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you’re the biggest of the wast of time of all.

Greig:

That is because I am the target of every single post.

If you’re so worried about wasting time, perhaps you shouldn’t make incorrect assertions about where Plimer likely got his graph from and also that there is no significance in presenting correct or incorrect data as long as the “correct” conclusion is reached.

Methinks thou protest too much.
#42 Bernard J.
May 24, 2009

Grieg.

Let’s go to the nub of the question…

Exactly what professional experience do you have with scientific analysis, synthesis and summarisation?
#43 naught101
May 24, 2009

For the punters: The Greig posts data for the last week or so:

60 Posted by: Greig
46 Posted by: bluegrue
36 Posted by: Mark Byrne
26 Posted by: TrueSceptic
26 Posted by: bi — IJI
18 Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
15 Posted by: Chris O’Neill
12 Posted by: sod
12 Posted by: Bernard J.
11 Posted by: Steve Chamberlain
11 Posted by: Lee
11 Posted by: janama
10 Posted by: Dave
09 Posted by: naught101
09 Posted by: Michael
09 Posted by: Janet Akerman
08 Posted by: Dan L.
07 Posted by: John Mashey
07 Posted by: jemima
07 Posted by: Gaz
06 Posted by: Observa
06 Posted by: Dirk Hartog
05 Posted by: Sally Johnson
05 Posted by: Richard Simons
05 Posted by: Deen
04 Posted by: Marion Delgado
04 Posted by: GWB’s nemesis
04 Posted by: Dr Dave
03 Posted by: Tim Lambert Author Profile Page
03 Posted by: Peter Smith
03 Posted by: nauhgt101
03 Posted by: mark Byrne
03 Posted by: luminous beauty
03 Posted by: aw
02 Posted by: Nathan
02 Posted by: Markhc
02 Posted by: Gavin’s Pussycat
02 Posted by: DavidK
02 Posted by: ChrisK

Note: if you graph that data… OMG!!! HOCKEYSTICK!!! GREIG POSTS < => GLOABAL WARMING? Note also the associates severe upward trend in those locals inclined to rebut time wasters (by own admission).

Not also: satellites “issues” caused me to misspell by own handle 3 times in 12 posts, leading to an UNDERSTATED UPWARD TREND. WTF?!

links -dump “http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php” | grep ” Posted by” | sed ‘s/ | .*$/ /’ | sort | uniq -dc | sed ‘s/ $[0-9]$ /0\1 /’ | sort -r
#44 naught101
May 24, 2009

Stupid markdown. MarkUP damn it.
#45 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

396 Greig,

“It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke.”

No. A bad parody is one that is so crude that it is not funny and so clumsy that the target recognises it instantly as a parody.

A perfect parody is one that is recognised and admired by everyone except its target, showing his extreme credulity and poor comprehension.

You lack even the good grace to say, “yes, you got me there”. Instead you claim that your inability to recognise it means that it wasn’t obvious enough.

I doubt that you could possibly lower any further my opinion of your behaviour here.
#46 Michael
May 24, 2009

“Aha! Indeed, and even though the 2 things aren’t mutually exclusive, they also are mutually exclusive at the same time. These two claims, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive. And perhaps they also are mutually exclusive…

This is so confusing! I therefore declare that the science isn’t settled. Hooray!” – bi –IJI.

It’s only confusing if you’re an arrogant elitest afflicted by concensusitis.

That they aren’t mutually exclusive is shown by the fact that they aren’t. They may occur simultaneously, and be opposite, that is a different thing. -3 + 3 = 0, but 3 and -3 still exist simulataneously. Ergo, you are an elitest ideologue concensusarian in need of an open mind. The science is not settled. A wrong graph does not invalidate the conclusions drawn from that graph, as long as the conclusions are correct. Concensus is the right way to reach a conclusion and a scientific concensus is the ignoring of the peer-reviewed literature which is the most reliable information except when the most reliable information is a letter on a blog endorsed by thousands, no hundreds, no some, climate scientists, no, scientists, well, at least some scientists, who are the most reliable people to comment, except when economists and geneticists are the most appropriate scientists, which is always. Except when it’s not.

Really, I don’t see what’s so confusing.
#47 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

414 Observa,

What is the “inpass”. Do you mean “impasse” or something else?
#48 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

417 Bernard,

I salute your precise description of the situation.

The sheer volume of false, contradictory and insulting verbiage indicates either someone highly delusional and fanatical or someone supporting an interest, even someone paid to do it. The sort of behaviour that propagandists such as Steven Milloy and Marc Morano could be behind.

I must repeat these few paragraphs with emphasis.

“**No, the problem here is that denialists are so recalcitrant in the inaccuracy, inconsistency and the nonsensical presentation of the material that they rely upon, and in the monotonous repetition with which they regurgitate it, that even a parodic caricature of their claims is indistinguishable from the denialists’ claims themselves.**

“**The problem isn’t bad parody. The problem is however, a combination of bad science, atrocious synthesis of facts and data, dubious ideology, and mangled logic.**

“**Put another way, the corollary to the tenet that there is no bottom to stupid, is that there is no parody of stupid that could be absolutely distinguishable from each and every potholes of stupid that exist somewhere in the universe.**”
#49 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

430 Greig,

“And Bernard, to you and other posters, perhaps you think its funny, perhaps you think it is intimidating, but the continuous bullying with pointless abuse and name-calling only denigrates your position.”

I nominate this for “Most Shameless Hypocrisy 2009″.
#50 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

442 Bernard,

Can’t you see that you’re bullying him? He’s just an innocent open-minded sceptic asking questions.
#51 Bernard J.
May 24, 2009

Truesceptic at #450.

“Innocent” and “open-minded” weren’t quite the first concepts that came to mind, but perhaps I really am just a bully.

I’m still interested in the answer to the question though.

There’s a peculiar Rumsfeldianism to Greig… he knows better than climatology’s known knowns; he concededs that he doesn’t know the known unknowns (even though he knows them better than those who are supposed to know), and he just might know the unknown unknowns but because climatologists think that they know better he knows that they will never know.

[And completely off-topic: speaking of parodies, do any of the Australians here remember the 'Dead Parody Sketch' (a satire of the national economy in the tradition of Monty Python) performed by the Cactus Island commercial radio skit team during the Hawk/Keating era?

I laughed so hard I almost pooped myself. Apparently the same team released the skit again last year, updated for the current government, but I can't imagine that it could possibly capture the delightfully pointed impersonations that were present in the original 80s version.]
#52 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

446 Michael,

You might think that your *-3 + 3 = 0, but 3 and -3 still exist simulataneously* is a parody beyond anything that would ever happen but see [warming of 0.75 + cooling of 0.774 = cooling of 1.524](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3823150#post3823150). I later [collated this fantasist's posts on the subject](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3854567#post3854567).

BTW he appears to be Nasif Nahle, whom you’ll also find at ClimateFraudit and WattsUpWithMyBrain.
#53 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2009

451 Bernard,

I hope that you were ironically misreading my irony.
#54 Lee
May 24, 2009

Greig:
“That is because I am the target of every single post. ”

No, Greig. The idiocy you are spewing is the target of a lot of these posts. I could give a f*** less about you.

–

Greig thinks he is being bullied – it is obvious that he has never been anywhere near a contentious lab meeting at a vigorous productive laboratory. His dismissal of consensus publishing is idiotic at best. I’ve been lead author on multi-author papers submitted to Science, Cell, Genetics, J Neurophys, JCB, et al (and have published in all but 2 of those journals) – and in every one of those papers it didn’t get submitted until every author approved – near the end of the process – every word, every punctuation mark, every citation. And in the early drafts, we didn’t proceed until I got feedback and requirements for inclusion of ideas, for every idea and argument in the paper. We left important stuff out of every one of those papers – or delayed the papers pending another experiment – because one author or another didn’t feel that data or idea was yet ready for publication in this journal.

Greig betrays at every turn his lack of familiarity with how science works.

Seems he acquired his ‘understanding’ from Crichton, whom he cites approvingly above. And yes, Greig, THIS is an insult. Finally.
#55 WotWot
May 24, 2009

Greig betrays at every turn his lack of familiarity with how science works.

He sure does. Dead give away.
#56 Barton Paul Levenson
May 24, 2009

Greig writes:

it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Neither of these are judgments engineers are qualified to make. The first belongs to climatologists, the second to economists. That’s one reason nobody takes the Oregon Petition seriously.

And since when was any scientific issue in history decided by a petition???
#57 Barton Paul Levenson
May 24, 2009

Greig writes:

” despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. ”

Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?

Sweet jumped-up Jesus Christ in a sidecar, Greig! Get the fucking data and CALCULATE IT YOURSELF!!!

This isn’t something people can REASONABLY disagree on. There’s only one way to calculate a trend — you do a linear regression of the value in question against time. The only expertise you need is an introductory statistics course. Or the ability to use the “data analysis” add-in in Microsoft Excel.

It is not open to debate. Call that elitist if you want. I call it “knowing how to do math.”
#58 Barton Paul Levenson
May 24, 2009

Greig writes:

“Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works”

Perhaps so, but to the detriment of science. Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

You appear to have quoted me without reading the quote, or at least without understanding it.

I said… “are how modern science works.”

You said “Perhaps so,” which is agreement.

Then you said, “…has nothing to do with science,” which is a 180-degree contradiction of your previous statement.

“Consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels.” the late Michael Crichton.

He wasn’t a scientist. He was an M.D. turned science fiction writer. And frankly, I think he started going downhill after “The Andromeda Strain.”

“‘Consensus,’as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science.” Jack Schmitt (PhD. Earth Scientist and one of the moon-walking astronauts)

A bizarre statement from a guy with a geology degree, to be sure. I’d like to ask him if his own published papers are part of the scientific consensus are not, and if not, why not. BTW, his first name is “Harrison.” “Jack” is a nickname.
#59 jemima
May 24, 2009

Anyone who knows what they’re talking about is “elitist” and arrogant according to Greig, who’s set a better example by not understanding anything he’s written about over the course of 60 comments. At least, Greig has _affected_ to misunderstand everything but would you believe him?
#60 Tim Lambert
May 24, 2009

I’ve created a new thread for Grieg and folks who wish to interact with him. No more comments from Grieg or responses to him on this thread please.
#61 Bernard J.
May 24, 2009

I hope that you were ironically misreading my irony.

Don’t worry TS, your irony was immediately detected!
#62 observa
May 25, 2009

I‘m going to be a bit of git and present a brief critique of the Greig interaction thingy. Please critique me as you see fit.

A brief reflection of strategy and process:

It seems as though Greig got under some of our skin. I can share the frustration felt by many poster here who were trying to address the science. I understand the urge to vent with words like F*** etc. But as a tactic, I’d caution against it.

Amid the morass of Greig’s errors, erroneous assumptions and distorted logic were a few good points. Combine these few good points with some use of crude words towards him, resulted in Greig sometimes looking more competent than his arguments.

Greig seemed most caught out when posters presented the literature to show his error, showed that they had themselves read the literature and exposed Greig’s errors, or simply asked him for the science to backup his position. This often had him changing tack. It also showed the limited range of Grieg’s sources (Roy Spencer disproportionately).

Trueskeptic, thanks for the correction, I spell poorly. “Impasse”
#63 bluegrue
May 25, 2009

I think I have nailed down the likely, ___undoctored___ source of the doctored Durkin/Plimer temperature diagram.

[_Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880--1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection_](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ…472..891S)
Soon, W. H.; Posmentier, E. S.; Baliunas, S. L.
Astrophysical Journal v.472, p.891 (1996)

Figure 7 shows GISTEMP data from Hansen & Lebedeff (1987, 1988), updated through 1993 and smoothed using an 11 year running mean, i.e. the last data point covers the period 1983 to 1993. The diagram by Soon/Posmentier/Baliunas is – as expected – a faithful reproduction of the data.

Now, here is [Plimer's figure 3](http://i44.tinypic.com/52jup4.png), a stretched version of [Soon's figure 7c](http://i40.tinypic.com/34zh7c0.png) and an [overlay of both](http://i40.tinypic.com/2mz04g.png). Near perfect match of the curve form, the temperature axis agree with each other, but observe how the time axis of the Plimer/Durkin diagram is doctored.

Tim, feel free to take the images and append a mouse-over comparison to your post, the images are designed for that kind of blinker comparison.
#64 Bernard J.
May 25, 2009

Something that has been bothering me for some time about Plimer’s figure 3, and which I’ve been sitting on because I didn’t know whether it was just a ‘smoothing’ irrelevancy into which I was reading too much, is that there are several points on the curve where the slope of the line does strange things for a time series where year-to-year anomaly values shouldn’t differ too much from each other.

At about ’1880′ on the x axis the slope of the curve is essentially vertical, but not only that it is actually negative. At ’1909′ it appears vertical, and at ’1917′ it seems to me to once more be slightly negative off vertical. At ’1998′ it appears to be vertical again, and the ‘peak’ is closer to ’2000′ than to ’1998′.

Even the Swindle graph doesn’t seem to display any portions of the line that are absolutely vertical in slope, although the ‘peak’ is once again centred very close to ’2000′.

In my work I never fit any curve beyond a linear or logarithmic regression line to dispersed data points, so even with the many tens of thousands of graphs that I have produced over my life I am not overly familiar with the vagaries of smoothing processes. So the first thing I wondered about was whether Durkin’s ’2000′ peak (which is obviously meant to be 1998) can end up where it did even if one accepts that it was just a ‘fluff’?

Of greater interest to me though, is whether there is any reasonable data-smoothing method that would give the vertical and the negative slopes on portions of Plimer’s line, where one would not expect to see either? And I suspect that vectorisation would have a great resilience to shiftings in x values, so does the coincidence of the peaks at ’2000′ (rather than at least one graph peaking at 1998) indicate an unlikely ‘accident’?

Of course, my suspicion is that these anomalies do reflect the use by Plimer of a vectorisation process. Am I being overly cynical, or does figure 3 give hints of its dissociation from direct graphing of straighforward time/temperature data?
#65 bluegrue
May 25, 2009

If you want to quickly play around a bit, do the following:

1. Download GISTEMP from [NASA for current data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt) or from [climateaudit for some older vintage versions](http://www.climateaudit.org/data/giss/hansen.collation.dat) (this is the easiest one of all to use). That’s for fast access, if you want to go into detail use the archive.org {[1](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/GLB.Ts.txt), [2](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt), [3](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt)}

2. Import into the spreadsheet software of your choice as fixed column width (some lines have *** for missing data without a blank separating them from neighbors). The GLB.Ts.txt files have some annoying text lines interspersed that you need to delete (sorting the lines helps). You want to take column J-D (January-December, calender year) or D-N (December to November, following the seasons).

3. Calculate a centered 11-year mean, e.g. 1980-1990 should go to 1995, otherwise you get undesired shifts with regard to the annual data. (Excel trendlines give you _trailing_ averages, introducing the undesired shift)

4. Plot using smooth curves (spline interpolated), not straight lines.

You can see results in my post #21 above [or here](http://i43.tinypic.com/357hd3p.jpg).

Regarding McIntyre’s collation, they refer to Hansen publications like Hansen Lebedeff 1987. Soon_smoothed should be Soon et.al. 1996 linked above.

Bernard, I think you have a good point about the negative and vertical slopes and vectorization artifacts, but I’d prefer to see a higher resolution scan before I pass judgement.
#66 bluegrue
May 25, 2009

Bernard,
you could be on to something regarding vectorization, but I’d love to see a higher resolution scan for that.

There are some useful pointers (how to get the data) for you coming up, the comment is however stuck in the moderation queue right now. In the meantime please have a look at my comment #21

P.S. It will probably show up above this post.
#67 bluegrue
May 25, 2009

Ooops, #25, not #21
#68 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2009

463 bluegrue,

I thought it was well known where Durkin got the basis for his doctored graph. Tamino covered it in [Swindler's List](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/swindlers-list/) and McIntyre covered it in [Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519). It came from Robinson, Robinson, Baliunas, and Soon. The only doubt seemed to be whether it was the same in the [Medical Sentinel](http://jpands.org/hacienda/v3n5.html) and the [Oregon Petition](http://www.oism.org/pproject/) (I don’t have access to the first and I don’t know how much the OISM version has changed).

Would your find have been, in turn, been the basis for the above?
#69 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2009

464 Bernard,

When you said ’1880′, did you mean ’1890′?

Please tell me if I’m being stupid but I’ve always assumed that the Durkin and Plimer graphs were probably hand-drawn and not data-generated. I can’t see any -ve slopes in either Durkin version, but these could easily be introduced during a copy of a copy, as when making the Plimer version. I doubt that much care was taken with accuracy in any of these; after all, it’s the big picture they are misrepresenting, not the fine detail!
#70 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2009

464 Bernard,

I must say that it never occurred to me that Durkin’s last peak was supposed to be 1998. I assumed that it was simply where the minor 1985 peak ended up when the graph’s x-axis was altered to end in 2000.
#71 Bernard J.
May 26, 2009

When you said ’1880′, did you mean ’1890′?

Oops, yes.

Another late night.
#72 Hank Roberts
May 26, 2009

Bluegrue, my hat’s off to you for your post at

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1655712

Looks right.
#73 TrueSceptic
May 26, 2009

Does anyone have an image of Plimer’s fig 15? I’m curious to see how it compares to both Berner’s 2.9 and Durkin’s [Temp & Solar Activity 100 Years](http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p53.htm).
#74 Gaz
May 26, 2009

Truesceptic,

(Re-writing because my earlier comment appears to have disappeared.)

I have the book in front of me. Lent to me, not bought, honest.

The lines showing temperature anomaly and sunspot cycle length in Plimer’s graph in Fig. 15 appear to be identical to the corresponding lines on a graph on the page FOLLOWING (sorry – dunno how to do italics) your reference, ie graph (a) on:

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p54.htm

They show the same values and cover the same time frame.

They are not the same as the lines on the page you referred to showing the graph from the Swindle documentary.

However it is clear that Plimer used a graph showing values that were well known (although possibly not by him) to be wrong at the time he wrote his book, and which referred to a time interval ending more than 20 years earlier.

But does this tell us anything new about Plimer or his book? Sadly, no.

Perhaps Mr Lambert can find a suitable way of illustrating this.
#75 Richard Simons
May 26, 2009

Gaz

(sorry – dunno how to do italics)

You enclose the text between `< `i`>` and `< `/i`>`. To bold, replace the i by b and for subscripts and superscripts use sub and sup. To quote someone, use blockquote but you have to do it for each paragraph. There are various others – when you see an example of one you want to use the easiest way to find out how is probably to view the source code.

Just above the comment box there is also a link to a rather terse site where a few minutes ago I found out how to make the `< `i`>` not be acted upon.
#76 Gaz
May 26, 2009

Thanks Richard, that’s really, really helpful.
#77 Gaz
May 27, 2009

TrueSceptic: Just an update on the source for Plimer’s figure 15.

Berner’s Fig 2.9 (shown in Tim Lambert’s update of the original post above) is almost identical to Plimer’s fig 15.

However, judging by the way the vertical axes are set out, it would seem that the source for Plimer’s Fig. 15 is more likely to be the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) paper, or some copy of it, as shown in the graph (a) on the page after the one in your Durkin link at #473.

Either way, Plimer’s Fig. 15 is crap. What was he thinking?
#78 TrueSceptic
May 27, 2009

474/7 Gaz,

Thanks. So it’s *possible* that Plimer’s fig 15 was derived from Berner’s fig 2.9 in ‘Klimafakten’ (these things are rarely exactly the same).

BTW another way of doing italics is by enclosing in asterisks: * italic * without the spaces becomes *italic*. Underscores also invoke italics, hence the frequent problem with URLs: _ italic _ without the spaces becomes _italic_. For bold, use double asterisks or underscores: * * bold * * without the spaces becomes **bold** and _ _ bold _ _ without the spaces becomes __bold__.

For URLs, use the instructions immediately above the Post a Comment box. I managed to not notice that for ages.

Now, I must learn how to do the indented message quote thing…and I hope my message looks like it does in preview.
#79 TrueSceptic
May 27, 2009

477 Gaz,

The upshot is that, whatever the source, there is no excuse for _anyone_ to use information that has since been corrected and is many years out of date anyway. For a scientist, writing about “The Missing Science’, it is disgraceful.
#80 dave
June 21, 2009

Guys,

Fascinating blog, but would it be just possible for you all to use correct English grammar and spelling? Current usage makes you look like a lot of amateurs.

Dave
#81 bi -- IJI
June 21, 2009

dave:

> Fascinating blog

Grammar fail.

> would it be just possible for you all to use correct English grammar and spelling?

So what’s your next excuse for not talking about the subject of the blog post (Plimer’s Figure 3)?
#82 Bernard J.
June 28, 2009

Following up on my [querie](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1655941) on 25 May, I took Bluegrue’s [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1656018) on board and had a look last week at a copy of H&E (and no, I did not buy it!) with a magnifying glass.

It is as I described in my earlier post: Plimer’s figure 3 has both vertical, and negative, slopes on the increasing trajectories of peaks on the line.

I doubt that such a curve was obtained by any routine ‘curve-smoothing’, so my personal suspicion of a vectorisation is heightened. If this really is the case, Plimer has been a very naughty boy.

And if Plimer did use a curve-smoothing process that gives such artifacts, he is using dodgey processing methods indeed.

Either way, and given the issue with the time scale, I think that Plimer has some explaining to do. Wouldn’t it be nice to see Tony Jones ask him a few more questions…?
#83 bluegrue
July 21, 2009

[@468 TrueSkeptic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1656799)
>Would your find have been, in turn, been the basis for the above?

No, I looked into the matter only now, Tamino’s and McKintyre’s efforts precede mine. Initially I had just taken the current GISTEMP and compared smoothed versions of it to the Durkin plot. As you can see in my first comment, the wiggles match, but the longterm variation is off. Hunting for older versions of the GISTEMP data set I came across McKintyre’s collation containing a column called _soon\_smoothed_ without further attribution. I followed that clue and ended up at the SPB1996 paper.

@482 Bernard J.
With the artifacts you describe it does indeed look like Plimer took Durkin’s plot as his source and graphically refurbished it. So the likely chain of events is:
1. Soon, Posmentier, Baliunas publish their 1996 paper and use copies of the smoothed data for e.g. the Oregon publication.
2. Durkin/his team use one the incarnations of the SPB data and fabricate the Durkin plot by stretching the data.
3. Plimer/helpers take the bogus Durkin plot and refurbish it using graphics tools.