Quote mining code

David Kane asks me to look at two of the strongest arguments made by the “other side” following the break in and theft of data from CRU. OK, once he sees how weak the strongest arguments are, we can all agree that the affair is a beat up.

Today I’ll look at Eric Raymond’s alleged “siege cannon with the barrel still hot”:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

But what is the code directly following the fragment Raymond quotes? Look:

;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;

IDL uses a semi-colon to indicate a comment, so the only code to use yearlyadj has been commented out. Raymond must have known this since he is an Emacs user and Emacs colour codes the comments. This doesn’t seem to be a smoking gun so much as a gun that hasn’t been fired.

Furthermore, another piece of commented out code shows how the adjusted values were used: they were clearly labelled as “MXD corrected” and plotted along with the uncorrected values. They were not shown as temperature values despite what Raymond says.

;legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
;  'Northern Hemisphere MXD',$
;  'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline'],$

In the comments to Raymond’s post, others pointed this out to him

As other have repeatedly pointed out, that code was written to be used for some kind of presentation that was false. The fact that the deceptive parts are commented out now does not change that at all.

In fact, it was it was labelled as “corrected for decline”, so it was not false or deceptive.

Raymond continues:

It might get them off the hook if we knew — for certain — that it had never been shown to anyone who didn’t know beforehand how the data was cooked and why. But since these peiple have conveniently lost or destroyed primary datasets and evaded FOIA requests, they don’t deserve the benefit of that doubt. We already know there’s a pattern of evasion and probable cause for criminal conspiracy charges from their own words.

In fact, they did not destroy primary datasets, and they did not have permission to redistribute the data requested using the FOIA.

Raymond has made no attempt to find out if the graph was actually used anywhere. The file name was osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, so we should look for a paper with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 and sure enough there’s Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd “Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:

In §4, we referred to a notable correspondence between
‘hemispheric’ MXD series (averaged over all sites) and an
equivalent ‘hemispheric’ instrumental temperature series.
Despite their having 50% common variance measured
over the last century, it is apparent that in recent decades
the MXD series shows a decline, whereas we know that
summer temperatures over the same area increased.
Closer examination reveals that while year-to-year
(i.e. mutually ten-year high-pass filtered) correlations are
consistently high between tree-growth and temperature
(ca. 0.7 for 1881-1981), the correlations based on decadally
smoothed data fall from 0.89, when calculated over the
period 1881-1960, to 0.64 when the comparison period is
extended to 1881-1981. This is illustrated in figure 6,
which shows that decadal trends in both large-scale-
average TRW and MXD increasingly diverge from the
course of decadal temperature variation after about 1950
or 1960.

And figure 6 is basically the graph plotted by the code above and it does not include the “corrected MXD” data:

i-f4d73c2366292d1fb592d8ac4534e05b-Briffa98fig6.png

Oh, and Raymond reckons the greens are controlled by commie puppet masters:

Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There’s a hard core that’s sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They’re actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren’t a lot of them, but they’re very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep.

There’s more paranoid raving, but you get the picture — Raymond is the sort of person who will add 2 and 2 and come up with a commie plot.

Comments

  1. #1 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Speaking of quote mining, Tim Flannery gave a smack down to Bolt’s misrepresentation’s of science on [Radio National today](http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/12/bst_20091203_0741.mp3)

    Interesting that Bolt’s spin even convinced some Liberal MPs to vote for Abbott, saying you know you did the right thing, even Tim Flannery is a Climate sceptic now.

    Flannery is simply advising people not to trust anything Bolt says.

    Imagine if Bolt made distortions like this and changed opposition policy on an important issue?

  2. #2 el gordo
    December 3, 2009

    Akerman

    I’m a vegan and there is nothing else I can do to solve this problem of over fishing.

  3. #3 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Just leave it up to some other hard working volunteers hey el gordo?

    Would you like a vegan beer while you rest on your engorgeo.

  4. #4 faithless
    December 3, 2009

    Referring to the Wall Street Journal article by Bret Stevens:

    Climate change scientists get their funding because organisations with the money are worried about climate induced problems – therefore, the scientists have to believe in climate change and make everyone else believe it.

    That would explain, of course, why the germ theory of disease became so popular – it wasn’t because it was RIGHT, and the miasma and ‘four humours’ theories were WRONG, it was because the scientists were getting funds to study microbes…

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2009

    Fatso summarises marine biology thus:

    We know that fish stocks move about and that’s how they survive over millennium. They found the PDO by tracking the salmon.

    The only trouble is, there are tens of thousands (at the least) of species that are not pelagic, but rather sub-littoral/benthic/otherwise restricted to particular regions. Warming is not their friend.

    If you doubt this fat boy, take a dive in Tasmania’s kelp forests, or along any other part of its coastline. Or New Zealand’s. Or any number of other non-contiguous marine ecosystems, especially those that lie away from the tropical regions..

    You’re just a tar-baby, aren’t you Tubby? No matter how many times you’re whacked with fact, none of it leaves a mark.

  6. #6 vagueofgodalming
    December 3, 2009

    El Gordo:

    I’m a vegan and there is nothing else I can do to solve this problem of over fishing.

    You could try voting for people who promise to interfere in people’s lives. In the end, we all do.

  7. #7 murph
    December 3, 2009

    Cheers for the link DC but that ain’t me

  8. #8 Craig Allen
    December 3, 2009

    Conner, one graphic argument for why a few of degrees warming is such a big deal is to point out that during the height of the last ice age the Earth was just 5 to 6 degrees C cooler than now and that was enough of a difference to cause half of Europe, Asia and North America to be covered with an ice sheet several kilometres thick.

  9. #9 guthrie
    December 3, 2009

    I thought everyone knew about the geek- Heinlein connection. I’ve known about it for over a decade. Especially of course the wish fulfillment later Heinlein. Of course the poor downtrodden geek is going to idnetify with one of the overmen/ women, or at least the very competent characters.
    But now that they rule the world, is Heinlein worship decreasing?

  10. #10 Phil
    December 3, 2009

    Sad reading these comments, so many in denial. Seems you are hoping it’s all some nightmare that you’ll wake up from. Trajic how this is going to hurt science and real enviromentalism. Guess you should have hung on to being skeptics first and foremost.

  11. #11 David Kane
    December 3, 2009

    186: Lee A. Arnold. Your interpretation of Curry’s remarks could be more correct than mine.

  12. #12 David Kane
    December 3, 2009

    Tim: With regard with my suggestions in #100 about other smart skeptics who merit their own threads at Deltoid. I now agree with some of the other commentators here that Curry’s remarks are not clear enough to merit discussion. (And I also suspect that you agree with her criticisms that more transparency is a good thing, as you also argued in the Lancet debates.)

    So, I would replace Curry with Roy Spencer. Or maybe something else from his blog. Again, my goal is to find the best arguments from the smartest skeptics and then see how you (and others) respond.

  13. #13 Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
    December 3, 2009

    “It’s time to dump the paleo stuff- not to stop conducting research or to concede to any of the unsupported and unscientific attacks on it and its exponents, but simply to stop talking about and defending it as regards a justification for policy action- for the practical reason that we don’t need a scientific reason to do so. A political/rhetorical reason will suffice for the political rhetorical blogospheric world.”

    Yeah, but that opens the door to MWP/LIA “it’s all natural cycles, we’ve adapted in the past” arguments and blah blah blah. You don’t want to concede a major part of the science to these wankers. Maybe temperature from dendrochronology is a lost cause, but not all paleoclimatology. It’s too important.

    *Which ignores that population in the MWP was 1/12 of what it is now and GDP/capita about one-tenth what it is now. Adaptation to climate change is going to be disruptive. Plus, the 14th century, when the MWP began to end, was a fucking miserable time by all accounts. Adaptation ain’t costless, as the deniers appear to think. Mitigation is comparatively cheap.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    December 3, 2009

    Bernard, Janet, I have been away on a sabbatical the past few months, but its glad to see that El Chubbo is still promulgating scientifically vacuous remarks like, “We know that fish stocks move about and that’s how they survive over millennium. They found the PDO by tracking the salmon”.

    Where to deconstruct this utter gibberish? Nothing on trophic differentiation, food webs, etc., just an utterly fatuous remark devoid of any depth. I cannot and will not go into discussions of meta-population theory and local adaptation, because old El Chubbo will not have a clue what I am talking about.

    But the facts are these: the vast majority of the ocenas are ostensibly biological deserts. The really productive marine ecosystems – the green seas – are those occurring on continental shelves and are (or were until humans began to overexploit them) some of the most productive ecosystems on Earth. What Homo spaiens has done to these systems in a relatively short time beggars belief. If we ignore hyperpeutrophication and other forms of pollutiuon and focus on overharvesting alone, our species has decimated food webs by exploiting these systems from the top-down – effectively plundering species towards the end of the food chain then going on to the next etc. There is little doubt that this anthopogenic decimation of these systems has totally unravelled food webs and has also created scenarios whereby lower trophic levels have become top-level predators and are preventing the re-establishment of trophic integrity. The waters off of the Atlantic coast of Spain have been so heavily plundered that some species of jellyfish now occupy the terminal end of the food chain.

    As many marine biologists have said, over-exploitation of marine ecosystems is certain to undermine their functioning and may lead to irreversible damage. What is most worrying is that there are those – people generally lacking any pedigree in biology or ecology but who have influence (I think we know who I am talking about here) – who simply cannot grasp the notion that resources are finite. They cling to the hollow idea that if humans over-exploit resources in one place we can always go elsewhere. But given the fact that 11 of the world’s 15 major fisheries have been exploited at or beyond their limit, this argument does not – excuse the pun – hold water anymore. Simply put, advances in fishing technology do not increase the ability of marine systems to sustainbably regenerate themselves, it only allows humans to drain them of their capital that much more quickly.

    With respect to Connor’s earlier point: it is imperativce that we try and frame our understanding of global change within the framework of what natural systems have evolved to respond to in their evolutionary history. Too many of us cling to the idea that somehow things we do to nature will either not rebound on us, or else that we have intellectually evolved beyond any constraints imposed by natural systems. This is, of course, pure fantasy, but there are those who still peddle this drivel.

    To answer your point directly, we have no way of knowing if a 2 degree C change – or the loss of 15% of the Amazon for that matter – will push complex adaptive systems beyond a tipping point beyond which they are unable to sustain themselves. The question is one of scale. Temperatures at higher latitudies are incresing much more rapidly than those at lower latitudes (as predicted by global circulation models first discussed more than 50 years ago and refined since). The predicted rate of temperature change experienced by boreal ecosytems, for instance, is probably unprecedented in many millions of years, and yet we are challenging natural systems and the species and genetically distinct populations that make them up to adaptively respond to these changes. It is clear that tewarming in the order of 5-10 C that is occurring in less than 200 years in high latitudes will devastate these ecosystems. There will be many losers, and we can only see it as a crap shoot with a potnetially disastrous outcome. As I have said many times on various threads in Deltoid, human beings are not exempt from the laws of nature – by contrast, our very existence and survival critically depends on a range of ecological services emerging over variable spatial and temporal scales from natural systems across the biosphere. There are no technological substitutes for many of these services, and even where there are they are often prohibitively expensive and much less efficient than they are based on the combined biotic output of the planet’s biota.

    Bear in mind that humans are assaulting nature in a wide range of different ways, of which warming is only one. Effectively, humans are conducting a vast experiment on systems of immense complexity whose functioning we barely understand but which we know sustain life in a manner that we know. AGW, if allowed to accelerate and continue unabated, poses a very real threat to not only the survival of many of the planet’s evolved inhabitants, but to our own species.

  15. #15 Marco
    December 3, 2009

    @David Kane: “best arguments” ??
    If we look at Roy Spencer’s top 10:
    1. is a complaint about the media and the public perception
    2. is mostly a strawman. Nobody in the scientific world denies natural climate change. Hardly anyone even calls Roy Spencer a denier. They might say he’s wrong, but that’s a different story.
    3. Ask *any* scientist in *any* field, and they’ll note biased peer-review. The focus on peer-reviewed publications is that it is a *scientific* publication that can subsequently be *scientifically* evaluated, and *scientifically* discussed. Not a blog-entry where you just have to ‘hope’ that an expert looks at it and evaluates it for its merits. Comments to the blog entry also tend to become very noisy.
    4. Logical fallacy. The Appeal to Authory is *not* a logical fallacy, it is the *False* Appeal to Authority that is. More problematic, Roy Spencer falsely claims that the IPCC funds research (it does not). Also problematic: that the majority might be wrong does not mean the minority is right.
    5. If Roy Spencer wants a debate, he could come to the scientific conferences. Plenty of room for questions and debate. Public debates are useless, they are popularity contests in front of a mostly lay audience. I could get significant numbers in a lay audience to believe HIV does not cause AIDS (even without believing so myself), just by simple tricks and absolute statements. Creating doubt is often enough.
    6. Likely an Appeal to Authority and/or circular argument. The claim that it is well known that clouds have a net cooling effect is based on…? Probably his own research.
    7. Ignorance. ALL computer models are validated; validation is part of the testing procedure
    8. We even had an old model already forecasting the effect of a big volcano quite accurately, but Spencer decides to attack a strawman…
    9. Claim without evidence. The IPCC was explicitely set up to find out how and how much humans influenced the climate. A proper research hypothesis.
    10. Mostly strawman. I see very few people making the claim that Roy Spencer claims they do. Moreover, what is “good” and “bad” is often a matter of perspective, also for earth scientists. If altering an eco-system is the goal, than the change is “good” (since it is the goal). If altering an eco-system is not desired, but it happens because humans do something, then obviously humans have done something “bad”.
    More problematic is that Roy Spencer does not realise that nature could care less about humans. Yes, it will change. Should we just sit and hope we can keep up with the evolutionary pressure we are putting on nature (and, by proxy, ourselves?)

  16. #16 dhogaza
    December 3, 2009

    The problem, d. ol’ bean, is that you’ve been talking to the wrong people. Even Henry Farrell lets on that he “[likes] me mid-period Heinlein just fine.” In fact, H. could spin a hell of a yarn and revealed in occasional bursts of self-deprecating awareness that he knew what a colossal wanker he was — either one of which would put him multiple notches above Ayn Rand. The problem with Heinlein is not that he’s a bad read; everyone knows he’s a great read. It’s just that, if your brain had palms, reading Heinlein would cause hair to grow on them.

    Oh, even I liked Heinlein – when I was a kid. I was just never dumb enough to imagine that his utopian societies developed (mostly) around benevolent übermen bore any real resemblance to reality. Maybe my delving into history led me to understand that Stalin and Hitler are more likely outcomes than the Professor in “A Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.

    My surprise as I’ve gotten older is related to how many engineers/software types seem to think that his utopian libertarian societies have any chance at all of becoming reality.

    As guthrie says:

    Of course the poor downtrodden geek is going to idnetify with one of the overmen/ women, or at least the very competent characters.

    And that’s what’s so funny … they’re so convinced that *they’ll* become the protagonist rather than one of the cup bearers asked to do the protagonists bidding …

  17. #17 David Kane
    December 3, 2009

    Marco: I am just trying to come up with the names/arguments of the most prominent/respected/intelligent/credentialed skeptics so that Tim might focus threads/discussion at Deltoid on them rather than on the stupid skeptics. If you have better suggestions than mine (and I hope you do), please provide them.

    Another article worth its own thread at Deltoid would be Lindzen’s recent WSJ op-ed.

  18. #18 dhogaza
    December 3, 2009

    David Kane, do you agree with Lindzen’s scientific assessment that cigarette smoking isn’t really very harmful and rarely causes lung cancer?

  19. #19 Marco
    December 3, 2009

    @David Kane: in all honesty, so far I’ve seen little added content in the arguments of the supposedly prominent skeptics as compared to the ‘stupid’ skeptics…

  20. #20 Majorajam
    December 3, 2009

    Marco- on the appeal to authority bit, I wouldn’t personally distinguish between a false appeal to authority and a veracious one. Rather, I’d say that supporters of the science and scientists are *not* making an appeal to authority at all, but rather an argument that rhymes with it and can therefore be exploited by deceivers like Spencer.

    That argument goes like this: there is currently no informed dissent on the proposition of a human hand in recent substantial warming, therefore there is no meritorious dissent and the matter is settled for all intents and purposes, (in the epistemological sense of the word settled. Of course, no science is ever ‘settled’ as that word is understood colloquially).

    *One* piece of evidence for the proposition is that those with the requisite qualifications to understand these complex issues near unanimously assent to the mainstream understanding. That is evidence- not an appeal to authority. But it is by no means the only piece of evidence for the proposition on offer.

    The second piece of evidence supports the implications of the first: ‘skeptical’ arguments that have been made over the years have been repeatedly exposed as scientifically invalid, and frankly, weak to the point of illiteracy. Taken together, (and they are not exhaustive of the supporting evidence), these two pieces of evidence provide the argument strong support.

    This is not logical fallacy. This is the polar opposite.

  21. #21 the oracle
    December 3, 2009

    thanks to tim, rob, neil, marco and others for insigt. the ipcc is bullshit. cap and trade is bullshit. its global socialism. the earth will continue to do its thing whether we are here or not. its been going on for millions of years. relax. god is in charge.

  22. #22 Jeremy C
    December 3, 2009

    Yeah Heinlein was very libertarian. But, but… he didn’t let those views sway him from the science. If he was still alive he would be evicerating the deniers.

  23. #23 Gavin (not THE Gavin, just a Gavin)
    December 3, 2009

    I am surprised and rather saddened to see something like this from ESR :-(

  24. #24 dhogaza
    December 3, 2009

    Saddened, I understand; surprised, not so much …

  25. #25 Pin Galaxy
    December 3, 2009

    the earth will continue to do its thing whether we are here or not. its been going on for millions of years. relax. god is in charge.

    Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes,
    Long as I have my plastic Jesus
    Riding on the dashboard of my car

    I could go a hundred miles an hour
    Long as I got the Almighty Power
    Glued up there with my pair of fuzzy dice

  26. #26 sod
    December 3, 2009

    Marco: I am just trying to come up with the names/arguments of the most prominent/respected/intelligent/credentialed skeptics so that Tim might focus threads/discussion at Deltoid on them rather than on the stupid skeptics. If you have better suggestions than mine (and I hope you do), please provide them.

    UAH just declared that this November (that is the “climate gate” month….) was the HOTTEST November on record.

    the discussion is over. the facts contradict what sceptics say.

    but that wont keep them from making false and misleading claims and dirty tricks (like stealing, publishing and misinterpreting mail) to delay action and gain some personal fame.

  27. #27 Lars Karlsson
    December 3, 2009

    #226: UAH just declared that this November (that is the “climate gate” month….) was the HOTTEST November on record.

    Oh no, the AGW-conspirators got Roy Spencer too!

    (Irony)

  28. #28 el gordo
    December 3, 2009

    Wasn’t that the warmist November since 1979? Not to worry, at least we can all have a good laugh.

    http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Denial-Lukovitch.jpg

  29. #29 dhogaza
    December 3, 2009

    Wasn’t that the warmist November since 1979?

    Yes. Since it’s cooling, though, it’s not what you’d expect, though, right?

  30. #30 Dave Andrewsa
    December 3, 2009

    dhogaza, Tim et al

    You can hide away here ignoring what is going on the world outside but you ultimately can’t avoid it.

  31. #31 guthrie
    December 3, 2009

    Dhogaza #216 – I havn’t come up with a name for it, but it could be something along the lines of “If only everyone thought like I did, the world would be a better place”.

    And also more boring, but of course, if everyone thought like I did the world would be a better place, wouldn’t it?

    And many people like escapism which lets them get away from their painful little lives. Personally, I’ve always found Frank Herbert to be more mentally stimulating than Heinlein.

  32. #32 Dave Andrews
    December 3, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    Wondered where you’d been. Glad to see you back with the world would be better off without humans claptrap!

  33. #33 sod
    December 3, 2009

    Wasn’t that the warmist November since 1979? Not to worry, at least we can all have a good laugh.

    warmest in that dataset. this is how you make a comparison…

    but how should you know…

    but with all the cooling, all the the other datasets being faked and no sunspots anywhere, those record temperatures are a little bit strange…

  34. #34 Connor
    December 3, 2009

    @ Craig Allen – yeah, tried that one… Would I be right in assuming that global temp averages are a combination of tropospheric temps, sea temps and land temps, whereas regional temps are just surface temps? Or am I off the mark there?

  35. #35 TrueSceptic
    December 3, 2009

    217 David,

    Other than Lindzen, who do you consider a “prominent/respected/intelligent/credentialed skeptic”?

    Should I add a caveat that this should be someone who hasn’t written a batshit-crazy article somewhere, or would that be unfair?

  36. #36 TrueSceptic
    December 3, 2009

    226 sod,

    To be fair, one month means little. Of course, if it were the *coldest* Nov since whenever, the denialists would be making a lot of it, but let’s not play their game.

  37. #37 TrueSceptic
    December 3, 2009

    220 Majorajam,

    I’ll add that not only are the arguments “weak to the point of illiteracy” but also that they are frequently contradictory (mutually exclusive). This is why we don’t need to know much science to know the arguments are rubbish; we only need to understand language and apply critical thinking, aka scepticism.

  38. #38 murph
    December 3, 2009

    Here’s another concept for you, Lambert: critical mass. The game is up. You and your loser mates will have to wait another 20 years to hitch your wagon to another loser cause.

  39. #39 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Hey murph, thanks for the heads up, that is at least the third time some fact free assertion of this claim has been make here in the last few weeks.

    I’m glad you’re looking out for our well being, but if you were confident in your position, why would you bother pushing it on us?

    Do you wonder if deep down your sub-concious knows you are just trash talking?

  40. #40 TrueSceptic
    December 3, 2009

    239 Janet,

    I like the semantics.

    You are trash-talking.

    You are trash, talking.

    Both work for me. :)

  41. #41 debreuil
    December 3, 2009

    briffa_sep98_d.pro is commented out.
    briffa_sep98_e.pro is used it two plots.

    ‘e’ comes after ‘d’ even in that version control system I assume. The whole premise of you article is flawed, maybe you should put a disclaimer up there?

  42. #42 Ajax
    December 3, 2009

    >”briffasep98e.pro is used it two plots.”

    Which plots?

  43. #43 el gordo
    December 3, 2009

    murph

    The Deltoid larrikins are fairly intrenched in their faith and it’s hard to get traction. I enjoyed the recent Drudge attack and pray to Gaia that we see more threads along that line.

  44. #44 Ezzthetic
    December 3, 2009

    briffasep98e.pro is used i[n] two plots

    Which plots?

    Oh, that’s easy.

    The Eco-Socialist World Government Plot, the Plot to Make Al Gore Rich …

  45. #45 Majorajam
    December 3, 2009

    I’ve no doubt gordo. People tend to do better when they find their level. Me, I’ll continue to find entertainment in the exasperated pleas of the Drudgebots and resident mental midgets who desperately want to believe anything that would validate their sorry world view. The effort to save our souls is something like watching my three year old draw daddy- touching.

  46. #46 Sim
    December 3, 2009

    Mr el gordo,

    What makes you happy?

    And

    Can you direct me to the last post to which you added value to the discussion?

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2009

    The corpulent one squealed:

    Jeff Harvey,

    < ?br>
    Wondered where you’d been. Glad to see you back with the world would be better off without humans claptrap!

    Alrighty fatso, show us exactly where Jeff said that the world would be better off without humans. Dare ya.

    Your just squealing now because Jeff actually had the patience to whack you around the face with a DPO-revealing salmon, and show the thread how clueless you really are. Unfortunately, I doubt that this drubbing will knock any sense into your skull – sense just doesn’t seem to want to stick there, for some reason.

    You know, it really is time that you allowed the scales to fall from your eyes…

    Of course, if you actually have a scientific basis for claiming that the species and the ecosystems of the oceans will all simply take a step toward the poles, please provide a comprehensive and robust elucidation.

    I dare ya on that one, too.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2009

    Dang.

    The computer ate my homework.

    What I’d intended to post, and what was lost in the aether, was a request that Fatso supply evidence for his outrageous:

    Wondered where you’d been. Glad to see you back with the world would be better off without humans claptrap!

    See, I read and reread Jeff’s commentary, and I can’t see where he says that “the world would be better off without humans”.

    Jeff did however, with his patient response to Fatso’s drivel, well and truly whack fatso around the head with the cold carcass of a PDO-revealing salmon, but unfortunately, as Jabba’s skull is bone all the way to the centre, none of Jeff’s fact’s are likely to stick. It is certainly a forlorn hope that the scales might actually fall from fatso’s eyes…

    Of course, if Jabba’s convinced that he has the science to show that marine species and ecosystems are all simply able to take a step closer to the poles, he will no doubt provide a robust and comprehensive scientific explanation of how this is so.

    What’s that [sound](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA)…?

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2009

    Oo, big apologies.

    It seems that I am confabulating the various Denialists on this thread. It was Dave Andrews who put words into Jeff’s mouth, not Fatso.

    In hindsight, Fatso is generally less snarky than DA (and me in my last posts). I should have known.

    Mea culpa.

  50. #50 sod
    December 4, 2009

    To be fair, one month means little. Of course, if it were the coldest Nov since whenever, the denialists would be making a lot of it, but let’s not play their game.

    it is not one month. November 2009 is the warmest November in the UAH dataset. September 09 is the second warmest September (only beaten by, you might have guessed it, 1998). July 09 is the third warmest July on record, apart from 1998 only July 2007 (pretty recent as well..) was warmer.

    we have a non-spectacular el nino event, and temperature starts beating records. that is not what you would expect, if you follow denialist arguments.

    i am not using a single month in a “denialist tactic” way. if would do that, i would use their “arcitic ice is recovering” scheme, to point out massive warming since 2008…

    HadCrut has just changed the trend since 1998. there is no more cooling, even when you start from the highest point in the curve.

    it is a fact, that reality does not support the idea, that fudged data is the basis of these trends.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    December 4, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    You can hide away here ignoring what is going on the world outside but you ultimately can’t avoid it.

    Amazing. Someone who ignores the acceptance of climate science by the vast majority of governments complains about ignoring of a smear campaign. What a hypocrite.

    BTW Dave, how is your study of the latest methods of temperature reconstructions including regularized expectation maximization, going? You disappeared from sight last time I mention it.

  52. #52 John Daigle
    December 4, 2009

    I am not a global warming denier. But I do study simulation. Here’s the thing: These computer models are not particularly valuable. If the code is not open source (which, if it has to be stolen, it isn’t) and there is no proper version control (which there isn’t) than there is no way to verify the model, that is, the “in-silico” experiment is not repeatable and the methods are not testable. So it doesn’t matter if the results are artificially pushed or not, if the raw data and the software–in the specific version used for a specific paper–isn’t available, there is no way to know.

    I hope that the modeling and simulation community takes this lesson to heart, if nothing else.

  53. #53 sod
    December 4, 2009

    So it doesn’t matter if the results are artificially pushed or not, if the raw data and the software–in the specific version used for a specific paper–isn’t available, there is no way to know.

    John, you don t have any clue about the stuff you are talking about.

    please show me the raw data of Newton’s work. now. or the world will collapse immediately, as his theory will fall apart.

    replication means: i get a similar result with my data and my model.

    running the same program is NOT replication. it is running the same program.

  54. #54 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    Please tell me exactly in my last comment where I said the following, “Glad to see you back with the world would be better off without humans”….

    Of course you can’t. All I am saying is a range of current human assaults across the biosphere are seriously undermining the health and resilience of our global ecological life-support systems. If anything, its the denialists in the anti-envrionmental camp who do not seem to give a damn about the future.

    You are full of you-know-what. Nothing new there.

  55. #55 MartinM
    December 4, 2009

    But I do study simulation.

    Study more.

  56. #56 dhogaza
    December 4, 2009

    John Daigle’s assertions are false, but even if you accept them …

    I am not a global warming denier. But I do study simulation. Here’s the thing: These computer models are not particularly valuable. If the code is not open source (which, if it has to be stolen, it isn’t)

    You are a liar. NASA GISS Model E is open source

    and there is no proper version control (which there isn’t) than there is no way to verify the model

    The assertion that version control is necessary is stupid and bizarre (speaking as a software engineer with 40 years experience), but it doesn’t matter.

    The link above points to CVS snapshots. CVS provides version control.

    Liar liar pants on fire!

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2009

    Isn’t it interesting that whether they’re spouting on about data availablity, code operation, physical evidence, or biological consequence, none of the denialists/’sceptics’ have managed to produce a cogent, tight, and defensible argument against AGW.

    In fact, I can’t think of one denialist who has managed to produce even one of “cogent”, “tight”, or “defensible”.

  58. #58 Donald Oats
    December 4, 2009

    Look, configuration management doesn’t depend upon automated version control tools, although I personally wouldn’t do it manually for anything bigger than a day or so’s work – not when it is a 30 second job to whack a new project into CVS or an equivalent. For a large important project the source code tree and project tree should be planned better than that, of course.
    Anyway, the point is moot as dhogaza points to CVS snapshots.

    Remember that some of the code would have been created for one-off grants, and then been available for use in newly award grants. The flipside is that planning across several grants simply isn’t realistic as the resources for a grant are temporary (except perhaps one or two senior scientists), and there is simply no way of knowing whether follow-on grant applications will be successful. For really humungous multiyear projects with an expected long life the rules are different: it should be possible to be much more organised with software development processes appropriate to the project in place, etc. But it’s clearly not CMM5 stuff (not even in principle possible to be CMM5, since that requires whole-of-organisation processess to be in place, among other things). Boy, am I that old?

    As a side comment, while a lot of people are going on about how absolutely everything needs to be available in order to replicate it, this point is a misunderstanding of the scientific process. The key point is that other scientific groups should be able to reproduce the result, which is not the same thing as being able to replicate the result. If two teams do slightly different processing of the data the results should still be statistically equivalent. In other words, the results found by the first group should be sufficiently robust to still be present in the processing by the second team, so long as they have followed the algorithm/processing steps as explained by the first group.
    As a statistician (in my dreams, but pretend I am), in trying to reproduce the results I might make some slightly different decisions about what points are dodgy outliers versus valid extreme cases, and so on. Most statistically demonstrated results should survive such minor discrepancies.

    If I was trying to repeat Joule’s experimental proof that work and heat are essentially two forms of energy, then even if I grab a canon and bore the tube as he did, my results might differ somewhat but still support his conclusions. Replication is not necessary and in some ways is actually of less value than reproducing the result by independent means.

  59. #59 Teme
    December 4, 2009

    John Daigle said:
    > If the code is not open source (which, if it has to be stolen, it isn’t)

    It’s my understanding that the stolen code is not a climate models, but statistical stuff.

    Anyway, besides NASA model, also [UCAR](http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/) released their code 5 years ago. Folks at [Hamburg](http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Downloads.245.0.html?&L=3) have also done that.
    And [GFDL](http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms). And [MIT](http://mitgcm.org/public/source_code.html).

    Why would you think that code is not available? And is the science more sound now that you know the code has been available for years?

  60. #60 Joseph
    December 4, 2009

    As a side comment, while a lot of people are going on about how absolutely everything needs to be available in order to replicate it, this point is a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

    Of course, the reason they want everything to be available and open-sourced has nothing to do with the scientific process. It has to do with trust, actually. You’re not going to convince any of the hard-core “skeptics”, but for the average guy from the street it could make a difference if it is known that the provenance of data sets and graphs is well understood and replicable in its entirety.

    Reproducibility helps, but not so much with the skeptical public. When you say “hockey stick,” people care about the Mann et al. reconstructions. They don’t really care or know about the fact that there are dozens other historical reconstructions.

  61. #61 murph
    December 4, 2009

    please show me the raw data of Newton’s work. now. or the world will collapse immediately, as his theory will fall apart.

    Sorry to rain on your imbecilic parade but there is no need to show the raw data of Newton’s work because we are surrounded by it. It can be observed. It can be tested. AGW cannot because it is crystal ball gazing bollocks. If you cannot see the difference, then I suggest you stick to playing with your Lego blocks.

  62. #62 D. C. Sessions
    December 4, 2009

    I think we’re seeing some of the turbulence attending a shift in denialist strategies. They’ve gotten by for quite a while insisting that there is no warming, but that game’s about played out. With the Northwest Passage opening, iconic snowy mountaincaps going bare, new monthly temperature records being set regularly, and widespread species migrations that message is getting harder and harder to sell.

    We’re already seeing the next fallback location for the goalposts: “the earth is warming but it has nothing to do with human activity. We don’t know what it is, but …” I’m also seeing signs that the one after that is that warmer is good for us. Then there’s the “self-limiting process” pitch.

    By the time those are all used up, it won’t matter nearly so much. The current crop will have died of old age, and their heirs will have moved their investments into beachfront property in British Columbia.

  63. #63 PaulUK
    December 4, 2009

    >…there is no need to show the raw data of Newton’s work because we are surrounded by it. It can be observed. It can be tested.

    It was observed to fail, It was tested and it failed. But we still use it.
    http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

    Try thinking. Dick brain.
    So lets abandon Newton.

  64. #64 el gordo
    December 4, 2009

    BJ

    I accept your apology, unreservedly.

  65. #65 Bruce Sharp
    December 4, 2009

    It’s bad enough that Murph’s posts are devoid of facts. Now he’s gone too far: he’s dissing Legos!

    I’d like to point out that real scientists actually use Legos. [At the Catalan Institute of Paleontology, they use Legos to organize small fossils.](http://www.icp.cat/blog/?p=607〈=en) And at one of the musuem labs here in Chicago, I saw scientists using Legos to make small forms for making plaster casts.

    Not sure what the pretend scientists at WattsUpWithThat use. Maybe Fisher-Price Peek-a-Boo blocks.

    cheerrs,
    Bruce

  66. #66 Lee
    December 4, 2009

    @murph:
    “It can be observed. It can be tested. AGW cannot because it is crystal ball gazing bollocks”

    So, murph…
    Are you claiming that the infrared absorbance of CO2 gas can not be observed or tested? That of water vapor?

    That the concentration and anthropogenic origin of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can not be observed or tested?

    That the near-invariance of global relative humidity with varying temperatures can not be observed or tested?

    That sea height changes, glacial and ice sheet front movements, temp anomaly changes, dates of first and last frosts, dates of key agricultural events, patterns and date of animal migrations, relative changes in near-surface and stratospheric temperature – and on and on and on and freaking on…

    That none of this can be observed or tested?

    To use your own phrase, murph:
    “we are surrounded by it”

  67. #67 el gordo
    December 4, 2009

    Sim #246

    I cannot find that last post and it’s a travesty that I can’t.

  68. #68 Chris O'Neill
    December 4, 2009

    To be fair, one month means little. Of course, if it were the coldest Nov since whenever, the denialists would be making a lot of it, but let’s not play their game.

    We should perhaps call denialists who argue about whether the earth’s surface is warming, first-stage denialists. Those who say there is always climate change including warming sometimes but which is natural should perhaps be called second-stage denialists.

    Of course, there are also denialists who switch back and forth between first and second stage denial as it suits them. Being in denial doesn’t require any intellectual honesty.

  69. #69 idontknow
    December 4, 2009

    I note the psuedoskeptics have made fraud claims on Watt’s blog concerning this code. However they failed to bother tracking down the publication involved and were just assuming it was part of the hockey stick (or a climate model!). Idiots.

  70. #70 assman
    December 4, 2009

    “So, murph… Are you claiming that the infrared absorbance of CO2 gas can not be observed or tested? That of water vapor……….

    Your are a confused person. Firstly you don’t test observations, you test model predictions. Or you can test claims. However global warming can be tested because it isn’t a precise claim or even a model. See Newton’s theory is precise … it tells me exactly what will happen in certain situations. Global warming models don’t. They give me ranges of predictions. And when they are proved wrong which has happened repeatedly, it doesn’t kill the theory. The theory remains, the model dies. In many cases the model doesn’t even die. So the theory has an infinite life and every time something comes along which disproves it people just tweak the model to keep it alive. Think about it … we have been ‘improving’ the models for the last 20 years. And the improvement continues. How can you improve something that is correct. You don’t improve Netwon’s theory. There have been no improvements or modifications. Relativity isn’t a modification, it is a different theory.

    But Global Warming is an amorphous blob…like communism. You can’t really disprove it because it just changes to accommodate new facts and adds ad-hoc hypothesis (like aerosol cooling) to deal with inconvenient facts like the lack of warming in the troposphere. It throws away inconvenient evidence, makes very vague predictions, ignores it failures, trumpets its successes. And it soldiers on.

    To all you global warming believers answer me one question: What would it take to falsify your theory? Name a precise prediction failure that would disprove AGW.

    Now I know what people will ask me? What will it take for deniers to believe in warming. To that I say:

    1. Fix your theory. I want one model – not 50. Don’t keep shifting goal posts. Tell me the model, give me some precise predictions from the model.

    2. Describe the scope of your theory exactly and precisely. I need know its domain of applicability. What is it capable of telling us or what do you think it can tell us.

    3. Test predictions within its domain of applicability repeatedly. If its successful, especially if the predictions are unlikely to get correct by chance alone I will believe it more. More success is better.

  71. #71 Joseph
    December 4, 2009

    How can you improve something that is correct.

    @assman: Not every observational science can be based on exact models like Newton’s laws. For example, that smoking causes lung cancer is well established, but there’s no precise model that will tell me if someone will develop lung cancer. There are approximate models. Every study will produce a different model.

    The same is true of, say, the lifecycle of stars, the heritability of human traits, all of economics, etc.

  72. #72 Michael
    December 4, 2009

    assman wrote:

    Firstly you don’t test observations

    Reading comprehension: FAIL.

    assman wrote:

    However global warming can be tested

    That’s the one thing you wrote I can agree with. Yes, it is quite simple – they are called thermometers.

    And on Newton’s theories- you know that they were replaced with more precise theories don’t you?? (Hint -ever heard of Einstein??). Oops.

  73. #73 lab rat in training
    December 4, 2009

    I been a programmer for along time too. I say one thing to the Mr. Lambert. It ain’t real hard to remove the silly semicolon to make a run and then replace it. You simply have no idea the context during which the comment was ‘live’ and when it was an idle comment. This code text is after all just a segment with no time stamp. You know that well if you claim to be a computer scientist.

    Your only legitimate response should have been “what did the comment do and when did it do it?”. I’m afraid that past that point you are editorializing.

    To Phil Jones; show all the code and all the data, deliver to all other interested scientists your reports and articles. Let the world see your work and reproduce it; otherwise, leave your doctorate at the door as you leave the building.

  74. #74 Joseph
    December 4, 2009

    Your only legitimate response should have been “what did the comment do and when did it do it?”.

    Given the all-caps “ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION!!” comment, this was clearly stealth production code meant to be used to produce an IPCC graph, and rule the world as a result.

  75. #75 luminous beauty
    December 4, 2009

    >You don’t improve Netwon’s theory. There have been no improvements or modifications. Relativity isn’t a modification, it is a different theory.

    I don’t know about Netwon’s theory, but Relativistic Dynamics is Newtonian dynamics modified to fit Reimannian space/time [see: Lorenz transforms]

  76. #76 dhogaza
    December 4, 2009

    You simply have no idea the context during which the comment was ‘live’ and when it was an idle comment.

    Nor do the people who claim it proves scientific misconduct on the part of Keith Briffa.

    Quick, now, do the right thing and go point that out to them, OK?

  77. #77 dhogaza
    December 4, 2009

    To Phil Jones; show all the code and all the data, deliver to all other interested scientists your reports and articles. Let the world see your work and reproduce it; otherwise, leave your doctorate at the door as you leave the building.

    Who are these people who think they can dictate the terms under which one may practice science?

    Lab rat in training – drop and give me twenty or turn in your resignation as you leave the instituion in which you’re training.

    Or else.

    There! I can do it, too!

  78. #78 caerbannog
    December 4, 2009


    To Phil Jones; show all the code and all the data, deliver to all other interested scientists your reports and articles. Let the world see your work and reproduce it; otherwise, leave your doctorate at the door as you leave the building.

    Showing all this to a global-warming tinfoil-hatter would be like showing a copy of Principia Mathematica to a cow.

  79. #79 Bernard J.
    December 5, 2009

    [Lab rat in training](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2124445) (the training doesn’t seem to be working, btw).

    I [sic] been a programmer for along [sic] time too. I say one thing to the [sic] Mr. Lambert. It ain’t real hard to remove the silly semicolon to make a run and then replace it. You simply have no idea the [sic] context during which the comment was ‘live’ and when it was an idle comment. This code text is after all just a segment with no time stamp. You know that well if you claim to be a computer scientist.

    Fine. Remove the semicolons, produce the output, and show us where in the literature this output was published, or where it garnered any traction.

    What, it “ain’t” out there?! Whatever can that mean?

    Oh, and if you’re such a top-gun programmer, how is it that you are unaware of devices such as “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!”, where upper case and exclamation marks give a big hint – especially to the programmer himself – that there is a non-standard procedure, and most likely a testing procedure, being implemented?

  80. #80 Paul UK
    December 5, 2009

    lab rat:
    >I been a programmer for along time too. I say one thing to the Mr. Lambert. It ain’t real hard to remove the silly semicolon to make a run and then replace it. You simply have no idea the context during which the comment was ‘live’ and when it was an idle comment.

    Which basically makes the exercise of doing any analysis of the code pointless.

    >Your only legitimate response should have been “what did the comment do and when did it do it?”. I’m afraid that past that point you are editorializing.
    To Phil Jones; show all the code…

    That’s a pretty dumb statement!
    You have said that the comment may or may not be abused.
    Yet you believe that releasing the code will make things clearer! Surely you are admitting that such an action would cause more doubt.

  81. #81 Paul UK
    December 5, 2009

    asswhole said:
    >You don’t improve Netwon’s theory. There have been no improvements or modifications. Relativity isn’t a modification, it is a different theory.

    The issue is whether it models the ‘universe’ (or rather solar system, to bring it closer to home) adequately. It failed.
    However it was and is good enough to plan ahead and make risk analysis in engineering and decision making.

    So basically we use a known faulty Newtonian model to successfully determine what the future will be like. eg. we know in the future that if we set a car in motion at 70mph into a brick wall, it will crash at a specific time etc.

    We use incomplete science to make decisions, we always have done.

  82. #82 TrueSceptic
    December 5, 2009
  83. #83 Tony
    December 5, 2009

    Keep splitting hairs and making excuses for obvious fraud, and you really endanger not just the fraud you’ve been paying into,, but many legitimate environmentalists and conservationists – along with anyone who believes REAL science is the key to human progress.

    Giving up your pride in order to pursue the truth is more respectable than going down with a sinking ship, no matter how bad it may feel.

    Worst of all, keep calling skeptics, the healthiest thing to have in science, “denialists.” Now you are practicing religion and no longer a scientist. In addition to being coarsely immature, you are copping out of real debate. Yes, if someone challenges you, you must meet them with overwhelming evidence. If you don’t have it, or you don’t believe you need it, you have just forfeited your legitimacy.

    Objective observers like myself, see these baseless and immature tactics, and I start to believe the AWG camp has no real substance. No matter how belligerent your opponent may be, please take the high ground and simply meet them with the facts. People like me will take notice. I started out believing “the Inconvenient Truth,” and it was only until fellow proponents failed to answer my questions that I became a skeptic.

    Peace.

  84. #84 Neil
    December 5, 2009

    >Keep splitting hairs and making excuses for obvious fraud

    …while you keep on making excuses for **theft**.

  85. #85 dhogaza
    December 5, 2009

    Keep splitting hairs and making excuses for obvious fraud, and you really endanger not just the fraud you’ve been paying into,, but many legitimate environmentalists and conservationists – along with anyone who believes REAL science is the key to human progress.

    All I can say at this point is … yawn. Constant repetition of lies becomes tedious after enough time goes by.

    Keep that head of yours in the sand, dude, meanwhile the grownups will continue to do science, or to do their best to understand the science.

  86. #86 Betula
    December 5, 2009

    Tony,

    Denier!

    Sorry Tony, I couldn’t resist. Being on this site is like being in the Church of AGW, and any hint of skepticism is considered blasphemy and cause for castigation.

    Besides, your comment isn’t based on a peer reviewed paper.

    Personally, I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that the “2500 scientists” of the IPCC aren’t all scientists.

    I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that you can’t find any information on the number of Polar Bears harmed by global warming.

    I don’t need peer reviewed papers to know that Al Gore is not a scientist, is bitter, and is a hypocrite.

    I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know when I’m being sold fear.

    I don’t need peer reviewed papers to sense arrogance.

    I don’t need peer reviewed papers to see the one sided approach to harmful affects of a hypothetical.

    I don’t need peer reviewed papers to see the ideologies, biases, politics, egos and religious like qualities that are associated with every aspect of this chimera.

    I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that Sod will repond to this comment with “But Clinton did it too!” or “Al Gore is fat!”

    I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that someone will be clever and respond with “Shorter Betula” brilliance.

    And lastly, I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that when a lead scientist thinks the “lack of warming is a travesty”…..that it is a travesty.

    See you on the slopes.

  87. #87 Lars Karlsson
    December 5, 2009

    No Betula, you don’t need any peer-reviewed papers, because you are already convinced.

  88. #88 Joseph
    December 5, 2009

    Keep splitting hairs and making excuses for obvious fraud,

    Real cases of scientific fraud have an important characteristic that this doesn’t have. In real cases of fraud, it’s known which publication contains the fraudulent data. Until you produce this, all you have is rhetoric, i.e. all bark but no bite.

  89. #89 Betula
    December 5, 2009

    Lars,

    So you need peer reviewed papers because you’re not convinced? Denier!

    What if a peer reviews a paper on AGW and he disagrees? Denier!

    Who defines what is accepted as a peer review journal? Denier!

    Who decides who is a peer? Denier!

    What if the…..Denier!

    How does a…Denier!

    Shouldn’t…Denier!

    I…Denier!

  90. #90 pwngu
    December 5, 2009

    Thanks so much for the comment linking to STR (http://shelleytherepublican.com/category/education/technical/linux)! Wow, I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time.

    STR is just asking tough questions (and ignoring answers!)!

  91. #91 Lee
    December 5, 2009

    What fraud? Where? Be specific.

    Experimental or ‘what if” code run in the lab doesn’t count – it isn’t fraud. When I was doing science, I often ran ‘dummy’ data sets, or intentionally added a constant to part of a real data set to test the sensitivity of my procedures. That isn’t fraud – it is working to better understand my tools and data.

    Fraud means knowingly misrepresenting to others what one’s results were, or what was done to get those results.

    Point me to the fraudulent statements or figures in the fraudulent publications. This is science – show me.
    And if you cant do that, shut the fuck up about fraud – it is a vile and nasty accusation to make, and if you’re doing it without reasonable evidence, you are engaging in vile, nasty and deeply unethical conduct. At this point, it starts to become clear that you’re either doing it knowingly, or remaining intentionally ignorant – and that means you are being intentionally unethical. If you can’t point to the goods, then you should fucking well stop.

    And if you think my language disqualifies my argument, all I can say is – you need to hang with more scientists.

  92. #92 oldchemist
    December 5, 2009

    291 posts and I only see one (#258) that even comes close to suggesting the obvious and productive course of action – re-analyze the data using different algorithms and compare the results. Guess that would be too boring and….scientific.

  93. #93 Greg Kochanski
    December 5, 2009

    Lee is quite right. It’s fraud if and when fake data gets into a publication.

    Test/dummy/imaginary data is [useful stuff](http://kochanski.org/blog/?p=315) to test analysis procedures and to understand how things work. One would be a fool to trust a complex chunk of software without testing it, and you can’t test it on your real data. So what’s left? You make dummy data and run dummy analyses.

    All you have to do is keep track of which is the dummy data and which is the real stuff…

  94. #94 dhogaza
    December 5, 2009

    291 posts and I only see one (#258) that even comes close to suggesting the obvious and productive course of action – re-analyze the data using different algorithms and compare the results. Guess that would be too boring and….scientific.

    While that would be an improvement over simply screaming “fraud”, on what basis do you believe that Briffa’s the only person looking at doing temp reconstructions using tree rings?

  95. #95 dhogaza
    December 5, 2009

    Point me to the fraudulent statements or figures in the fraudulent publications. This is science – show me. And if you cant do that, shut the fuck up about fraud – it is a vile and nasty accusation to make, and if you’re doing it without reasonable evidence, you are engaging in vile, nasty and deeply unethical conduct. At this point, it starts to become clear that you’re either doing it knowingly, or remaining intentionally ignorant – and that means you are being intentionally unethical. If you can’t point to the goods, then you should fucking well stop.

    If I understand correctly, what was being done here was to essentially ask, “what if the recent divergence is due to anthropogenic causes that, once nailed down, can be compensated for? How would that effect our PCA?” – I assume something like, “would it cause other chronologies to rise to first place?” … nothing nefarious, in fact a damned good question to be asking. Poking at data trying to get a better handle on what it’s trying to tell you – burn the fucker at the stake, they say, he’s doing his job!

    At least that’s my paraphrase of what Gavin’s said at RC (at first he said he wasn’t sure what was going on, then came back with a detailed explanation, which means presumably that he asked…)

  96. #96 luminous beauty
    December 5, 2009

    >Worst of all, keep calling skeptics, the healthiest thing to have in science, “denialists.” Now you are practicing religion and no longer a scientist.

    A genuine skeptic will try to judge scientific arguments objectively on the basis of reason and the cumulative weight of evidence. A denialist will desparately cling to contrarian opposition to any such objective concilience of scientific opinion by irrationally labeling his narrow subjective view as ‘skeptical’ and that of rationally skeptical scientists as ‘religious’ belief.

  97. #97 Betula
    December 5, 2009

    LB…

    A Denier will irrationally label himself a skeptic, therefore, all people who call themselves skeptics are assumed to be irrational deniers.

    And please, “rationally skeptical scientists”? C’mon, in regards to AGW, that’s like saying “reasonable denying scientists”. It doesn’t make sense.

  98. #98 Marion Delgado
    December 5, 2009

    It’s the obvious fraud by , for example, Steve McIntyre -blatantly lying about not being able to get data he’d secretly had for years, cherry-picking that data in a way that it takes all of 5 minutes to point out is completely inaccurate for the population, etc. – that these denialists are not skeptical about, at all.

    Because they’re True Believers, and liars, and frauds, and anti-scientific medievalists and economic royalists with an agenda the size of Jupiter, they assume everyone they’re dealing with is as stupid and crazy as they are. It’s only after you realize that that you understand why they gibber and squawk in such apparently paranoid schizophrenic terms and operate at such a grade school level when discussing science.

  99. #99 Janet Akerman
    December 5, 2009

    >*And lastly, I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that when a lead scientist thinks the “lack of warming is a travesty”…..that it is a travesty.*

    And Betual dosen’t need to find out what the scientist ([Trenberth](http://www.desmogblog.com/kevin-trenberth-standing-ipcc-process)) was referring to before he decided what Trenberth was commentining on.

    Betual dosen’t need context nor corroborating evidence to pronounce speculation as fact.

    This is how to do ‘quick science’ the patented Betula “easy way”. Forget the rigorous compiling of evidence and looking for alternatives, lets just pronounce speculation as fact.

  100. #100 Lee
    December 5, 2009

    @oldchemist. 292:

    “291 posts and I only see one (#258) that even comes close to suggesting the obvious and productive course of action – re-analyze the data using different algorithms and compare the results. Guess that would be too boring and….scientific.”

    What exactly do you think GISS is doing? Same broad data set, independent decisions about criteria for inclusion and exclusion (they don’t use data that cant be freely released, for example), independent assumptions about correcting the data – and very, very similar results.

    It also makes sense to ask the same question using entirely different tools and data – which is what the satellite teams are doing, also with very similar results.

    No it’s not boring, yes it is scientific – and it is beig done. Which you should bother to know before making the knd of implication that lies at the heart of your comment.

Current ye@r *