I don't particularly like the aside about the heatwave in Pakistan. Its precisely the kind of localised weather event that anti-AGW proponents would use, were it a cold snap. Plus it comes across as scoring cheap points with the misery of others.
Pardon the OT, but did anyone here notice CBS, and possibly others, trotting out a quick sound-bite about allegations of sexual harrassment by Al Gore that were dropped FOUR YEARS AGO for lack of evidence? Looks like the cowards who run our MSM are looking for anything that will distract our attention from the real issues; actual substance or relevance is not a requirement.
"Pardon the OT, but did anyone here notice CBS, and possibly others, trotting out a quick sound-bite about allegations of sexual harrassment by Al Gore that were dropped FOUR YEARS AGO for lack of evidence? "
It is because the woman only now came forward with the charges, and went to the media. The media has a hard time not reporting on such things.
I disagree DaveH @2. I hear your concern, but although it is gets damn hot every May/June before the Monsoon starts, the temperatures this year were extraordinary, breaking records. The exceptional heat is also consistent with a long term warming trend.
Great job Peter, although IMHO it would have been better to wait until the Russell inquiry presented its results. Weren't they mean to report in the spring?
Always this confusion, deliberate or genuine, between "weather events"- "a hot spell in Pakistan", and record temperatures - "record high temperatures in Pakistan" "record length of hot spell in Pakistan". Of course hot days are not evidence for climate change, any more than cold days are evidence against. But, all over the world, high temperature records constantly being broken is evidence of climate change. If these were random variations around a mean you would see, on average over time, equal numbers of high and low records. This isn't what we are seeing, we are seeing fluctuations around an ever rising mean, and so we keep poking through the temp ceiling, and that ceiling keeps rising. How hard is this stuff to understand, really?
It helps to actually pay attention -- the headline shown in the video says "record temperatures of up to 122F in hottest summer on record" (with the actual temperature going over 128F), and is followed by a report of the NASA announcement that the 12 month running mean global temperature has reached a new record high. By your logic, we should never mention any of the observable consequences of AGW because someone might cluelessly conflate them with common local weather events like "heat waves" and "cold snaps" (which themselves are sometimes consequences of AGW).
Peter Sinclair does an excellent job. Only one thing I didn't like in the vid: he points to 2007 as the record broken for Arctic Sea Ice extent on some date, but 2006 sea ice extent was less for recent dates than 2007. So 2010 is breaking 2006 records, not 2007 records.
Truth machine, I may be wrong, but I don't think David Horton is Dave H, and I don't think he meant what you think he did.
Your reading comprehension is way way off -- of course they are not the same, of course I know that, and both David Horton and I responded critically (and quite similarly) to Dave H's comment. My #10 was in regard to the question at the end of David Horton's post, and pertained to Dave H's thinking process.
SCP, that is a very minor point indeed, given that 2010 has now been below 2006 for most of June
I don't see how that's at all relevant to SCP's point which, regardless of it's "minor"ness, appears to be factual: the record for the date in question was set in 2006, not 2007.
Given that some of the skeptics embarrass themselves by jumping up and down whenever sea ice extent rises to approach the average, as it did March/April this year, I also cringe to see the same line of argument the other way - especially when there is a factual error in the point being made. The current sea ice extent for a particular day is not a telling piece of evidence for climate change, its the trend that matters.
Given the friendly fire, it seems a couple of people are on a hair trigger today.
Truth machine, my reading comprehension may have been off a bit, about as much as the clarity of your writing.
SCP, I don't know about you, but to me four orders of magnitude below average seems well outside natural variation, especially given what we know about 1) current record global mean temps, 2) polar amplification, 3) the long term decline in both sea ice extent and volume, AND 4) the recent collapse of thick multi-year sea ice, as confirmed by actual boots-on-the-ice.
In other words, I am taking the long term trend into account.
SCP's post @12 is not clear, at one point referring to "day" and at another point "period". If their intention was to say that between 1 January and 8 June 2006 the ice extent had been lower, on average, than in 2010, then they would have a point.
Comparing ice extents on a given day is extremely dangerous. The date for Peter's map is 9 June 2010, and according to the map provided by SCP the ice extent on 8 June was indeed lower in 2010 than the previous record set in 2006.
Now, we have data until 23/24 June thus far and all the products (AMSRE etc.) are showing the mean ice extent (please note the limitations of focusing on ice extent versus volume) to date in June 2010 is running at its lowest in the satellite record, lower than the mean extent recorded in June 2006.
I agree that Peter's point would have been better made had he waited until it was certain that June was going to set a new minimum extent for June in the satellite record.
And again, it wold have been better had he waited until the findings from the final inquiry into the CRU hack had been released.
talking about a crock, the new story making headlines on many "sceptic" blogs is a bomb being send to Spainâs Dr. Gabriel Calzada. he has authored a bogus study about the spanish alternative program costing more jobs, than it creates.
I read somewhere that if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear. Think the author was an academic with a real bee up her bum regarding what to her is/was the abysmal standard of writing in the academic literature. Apropos of nothing, pretty sure as well she is/was a transsexual. Course, this was near 15 years ago when I read this, so the memory's fuzzy.
Anyway, notwithstanding the unrealistic standard, I think she makes a fair point. It's probably true that the most exquisite writing is impossible to misunderstand. In any case, tis better to take the opportunity to reflect on one's writing than otherwise if one does care about communication with other human beings.
So long as I'm on a roll here with the unsolicited opinions, I'd also say trivial is an appropriate modifier for the ice extent correction- the underlying point is wholly unscathed. And it's a web video.
Eli, that stuff there is horrifying. And it's not just Lomborg, btw, that has directly climate related mortality inversely related to temperature. Richard Tol claimed in a blog conversation with me that his studies do as well. This is a man who happens to be prominently cited in the climate economics literature.
S'funny, I was just reading another thread where a certain commenter's words had been misinterpreted - not his/her fault there either of course but one does sense a pattern developing...
The temperature/mortality thing that Lomborg, Tol et al. push is dodgy in the extreme, particularly if you start factoring in the temperature dependence of such things as viruses & their vectors. (And no, I'm not speaking of Malaria. On the other hand, Chikungunya, Congo-Crimea Hemorrhagic Fever, West Nile Virus, Puumala, (and on the animal front Blue Tongue & African Horse Sickness) should be considered?)
Comments 11 and 12 make the same point, but 12 got hammered for it. Strange. Anyway, regarding the "nice guys" -- who is that in the video saying the hackers were nice? How does he know? Is there some kind of hate legislation that can be applied to Morano?
Steve L: it is strange ... MapleLeaf, who is usually sensible, is rather ridiculous in #22 -- the period #12 referred to includes the day of Peter's video. Blather about "Peter's point" is ridiculous -- #11 and #12 weren't about his "point", they were just a minor factual correction about what year the record was set in.
And the assertion that "if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear" is just plain stupid, as was Jim Eager's misunderstanding.
You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people. I addressed #12, not #11. Read my post. I stand by what I said, saying that day X set a new record is not terribly meaningful or convincing IMHO. Poster #11 (SteveL) got it right-- June 2010 is breaking the previous record low (for Arctic sea ice extent) set in June 2006.
I also stand by my observation that #12 was not clearly worded.
For what it is worth, I was trying to clarify matters, not be "ridiculous" or to "blather". But thanks for the show of support TM, you are a darling ;)
Luminous- in context during the period it was written? Perhaps, I don't know. These days and sans context, quite obviously not. In any case, I know of at least one person that would argue that nothing of its value, whatever that is, can be derived from it being difficult to understand without a degree in classics from Oxford. Quite the opposite. That doesn't mean that clarity is all there is to writing- wit, wisdom, rhythm, artistic value, etc.- these things matter too. So arguing the merit of something in an abstract sense would be a strawman.
Anyway, color me shocked that person going with the moniker 'truth machine' views as stupid an intentionally provocative assertion that plays on the tension between the subjective character of written expression and the fact that it is generally done, you know, for the benefit of persons who don't share one's subjective point of view. Which is to say other people.
I wasn't trying to win the internets with that paraphrased second-hand slogan, fyi, just taking the opportunity to point up something that made me think back in my schooling days. It's a shame that TM wasn't there back then to notify these academics who have apparently wasted their life's work on the stuff that they were doin it rong. He's clearly a very impressive and precise fellow, so perhaps they would have been as persuaded by his steel trap of a mind as I am now.
Chris S.- the Tols of the world dispose of that stuff in their development assumptions. Apparently, as soon as the whole world gets rich in a generation or so there will be no more disease vectors because mosquitoes are apparently easy to eradicate from the face of the earth. Sounds pretty courageous to me, but that's the word passed down from the mount. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?
Tol was only hired by someone because people in the Irish government for a while had starry eyes about booms with no busts, just like Iceland did. The Irish governmental officials themselves have repudiated him, repeatedly, but in the market fundie climate we still have worldwide, it's hard to just fire someone on that basis without having to violate the consensus and admit market fundamentalism fails.
Tell me, who do you think the audience is for Crock of the Week? At a guess, I'd say it breaks down into:
a) Those that accept AGW and try to engage with those that take an anti-AGW standpoint, and want to watch a handy (and entertaining) comprehensive debunking of recent talking points.
b) Those that may be on the fence (or leaning towards one side or the other), thta have perhaps been sent the link in an attempt to persuade them in a specific direction.
c) Those that argue against AGW, and want to find weaknesses in the evidence presented that they can argue against.
Much as I enjoy Crock of the Week, I don't think it is a particularly useful tool for persuasion. It commits the cardinal (but necessary, given the format) sin of repeating the allegation before proceeding to debunk it, which unfortunately reinforces it in the mind of those predisposed to believe it. Indeed, its the rule of primacy again, where the first news you hear becomes "true" forever, despite subsequent falsification. The tone is sarcastic and dismissive - entertaining to those of us exasperated with the same tired nonsense arguments surfacing again and again, but a massive turnoff to someone seeking a moderate and polite rebuttal.
So, when these videos contain anything that can be interpreted as a weak point, it can immediately be used by anti-AGW mouthpieces to further damage the credibility of these videos in the eyes of those otherwise willing to be persuaded. Eg, "The latest video hypocritically makes reference to AGW being responsible for a single specific heatwave, without any evidence, therefore we can ignore all its arguments as partisan alarmism and continue referencing snow in Washington DC as proof that the globe is cooling."
So I took issue with the aside about the Pakistan heatwave intially (and still do) because it doesn't directly address any of the arguments the video is supposed to be rebutting (and thus is unnecessary), it doesn't affect the mindset of anyone already convinced of the reality of AGW, it may well be a turn-off to fence-sitters due to the double standard involved, the lack of specific evidence, the crass or easily-dismissed-as-alarmist tone, and it will certainly provide ammunition to those that want to dismiss the video's other arguments wholesale.
Similarly, taking an unnecessarily confrontational tone with those that are actually seeking a constructive discussion simply provides further ammunition to those same mouthpieces. Indeed, your words are already being linked to and used as further "evidence" of the overly aggressive and science-free nature of the commentary on this blog. This kind of dishonest framing appalls me, given the high quality contributions of some of the commentators here, and I am disappointed at the short-sighted willingness to simply cede the moral and intellectual high ground.
TM, having recently been the recipient of your particular brand of attentions on another CRU thread (complete with attributes pertinent to this conversation), I thought I'd take a long shot at (IMHO) improving the overall state of affairs. I don't give it much chance, but you're welcome to surprise me :-)
Firstly, regardless of your often incisive analysis and logic, there is plenty of reason that people might make assess that "you do seem to be doing your best to annoy people". I've had that reaction to your comments (directed at others) long before any recent exchanges between us, and I've no doubt others have too. It seems to me that your communication style - and some of your content, and some of the assumptions embedded in it - cannot help but come across to a sizable portion of the readership as annoying rather than engaging. If you're merely aiming to get your rocks off posting in an often derogatory (and often personally denigrating) fashion about what you perceive as error, whilst not caring who thinks you're a hypocritical jerk who engages liberally in ad hom whilst lecturing others on their own errors and is simply better off ignored - then hey! You're probably succeeding! Give yourself a pat on your back and feel proud about just how many people have you in their killfile.
But if you actually want to influence people to abandon error, then I suspect you're not doing even half as well as you could - let alone half as well as you think you are.
Let's consider an example.
> What a stupid comment.
Given that this is a response to the statement you quoted - "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people.", and said statement (a) seems to be a *subjective* statement of opinion from (b) *someone other than you*, then *you* claiming that "it's a stupid comment" is ... well, should we merely call it poorly expressed? Or point out that strictly speaking it's fallacious? Or should one instead comment on it being completely unsupported and likely unhelpful on a number of levels? Or perhaps impressively self-unaware, presumptuous, or even hubristic? Or take the knee-jerk route and jump straight to your preferred term - "stupid"? Should we take into consideration that your judgement may not have been directed merely at the quoted statement but the entire comment that contained it (noting that your comment referencing style in the past hasn't always been as clear as it could be) and suggest that you may not have communicated what you intended, or should we merely take it at face value?
How much would your response to *each* of these options include a solidly righteous dose of "I'm right, you're wrong, screw you!"? Given the options, which one would enhance the chance of ongoing fruitful conversation, mutual understanding and perhaps advancement of knowledge?
> The assertion that "if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear" is just plain stupid...
As would equally be one's unwillingness to consider that one's own communication may not have been as clear or on point as one believed. Ah, how blissful that particular delusion must be ;-)
But what do I know? According to you I'm "quite inept at following a logical argument", so any argument I make will likely be not worth considering in the first place, right?
I'm beginning to wonder whether truth machine is interested in reasonable discussion or just here to be an obnoxious tw*t. So far there's been strong evidence for the latter. I mean _**'tl;dr'**_ ?? What are you, fifteen?
I guess we can add that to TM's list of avoidance tactics ;-) Lately it seems to me that TM can dish it out but can't take it - but my sample size is not particularly large.
> What are you, fifteen?
It had crossed my mind that TM could in real life be a very logically intelligent but socially unintelligent kid - but I have no evidence either way. As they say, on the Internet no-one knows you're a dog ;-)
That's even more stupid than the other comment -- at least the other one can be taken as hyperbole.
According to you I'm "quite inept at following a logical argument", so any argument I make will likely be not worth considering in the first place, right?
No, that would be a fallacy. But I'll tell you what isn't worth my considering: complaints about my tone and style, or any other pompous lecturing -- so you can save yourself some effort and stow those.
Or should one instead comment on it being completely unsupported and likely unhelpful on a number of levels?
Completely unsupported? If you're really so stupid that you cannot understand, upon a little reflection, why "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is a stupid comment, I really pity you. I mean, surely I could do better to annoy people if that were my goal. But of course mere annoyance is not my goal, and only the most intellectually dishonest sort of jackass would say so, or would persist in the claim after being called on its stupidity. As for "unhelpful on a number of levels" -- how is telling me that I seem to be doing my best to annoy people helpful? If you really believe that's my intention, then it would not be rational to expect me to become less annoying in response. OTOH, pointing out that it's a stupid comment might cause someone to honestly reflect on its prima facie absurdity.
It had crossed my mind that TM could in real life be a very logically intelligent but socially unintelligent kid
Incidental facts: I'm 60, and I have very high social intelligence, unlike a lot of the folks here who seem to have autism spectrum disorders.
> ...so you can save yourself some effort and stow those.
That seems to be my prerogative, not yours.
> ...complaints about my tone and style...
Interesting. You seem to be eliding my complaints about your substance and misunderstanding of subjectivity...
> ...at least the other one can be taken as hyperbole.
Never mind that TM's formidable intellect appears unable to grok why his original statement might be a fallacy - now we're at least getting somewhere! TM now recognises that not all speech is intended to be literal ;-)
From there it's a short step to considering that perhaps some speech that TM interpreted as intended to be purely literal was not actually intended that way. (And a short sidestep to any other interpretation TM placed on someone else's communication might not indeed by entirely accurate either.) And from there that anyone TM considered to be an idiot because he interpreted their speech as purely literal when not intended that way might not in fact be an idiot - or strictly speaking is not demonstrated to be one by TM's interpretation.
> Yes, there are numerous forms of intellectually dishonest rationalization.
There are indeed, and that statement itself appears to be a prime candidate. TM apparently implies that there *can be no honest reasons* for others to form the view that he's intending to annoy people - despite others reporting that they have indeed done so. In other words, he's right that their reported impressions of him *can only be* dishonest and wrong. What impressive mind-reading skills!
> As for "unhelpful on a number of levels" -- how is telling me that I seem to be doing my best to annoy people helpful?
a) That quoted comment was a response to your comment, not to the original commenter.
b) It's eminently helpful if you don't realise that's how you're viewed, and if it's not your goal.
> If you're really so stupid that you cannot understand, upon a little reflection, why "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is a stupid comment, I really pity you.
If you pity me on that basis, it's your problem (and unfortunately it diminishes my regard for you, but I doubt that matters to you).
The comment was *telling you something useful* that you seemed to be unaware of, and seem heavily invested in remaining unaware of. In that light, calling it stupid is itself stupid - and yet me calling your assertion of stupidity stupid did not (as you suggest might happen) cause *you* to reflect on what appears to me to be its prima facie stupidity. Oh, well, maybe that tactic doesn't work very well in practice.
> If you really believe that's my intention,...
I do not, and I doubt the original commenter did either.
And you would not believe that I believed that if you applied your own type of logic to my response. Surely if I did believe that I wouldn't have responded with suggestions on how to come across as less annoying and therefore be more effective at persuasion. (And I wouldn't be writing this comment.)
> I mean, surely I could do better to annoy people if that were my goal.
After all these exchanges you still seem to fail to understand that it's completely NOT about **your intent as you experience it**, but how you **come across** to OTHER people **as they experience it**.
Is there some part of the word "can" that you're too stupid to comprehend? Of course you can choose to waste your time.
You seem to be eliding my complaints about your substance
I'm only willing to spend a limited time on your idiocy and asinity; I pick and choose what I respond to, and this is the end of it on this subject. As for "substance" ... your complaints are about me. Let's get back to climate change.
Never mind that TM's formidable intellect appears unable to grok why his original statement might be a fallacy
Sorry, but "What a stupid comment" is not "strictly speaking [...] fallacious" and it's idiotic to claim that it is.
I wouldn't have responded with suggestions on how to come across as less annoying
If you had any social intelligence you would have grasped by now how fruitless a pursuit that is.
Meanwhile, Steve L and SCPritch both made the valid, but indeed minor, point that the video misstated the record year as 2007 rather than 2006. That's the sort of "substance" that matters, and the rest is foolishness.
After all these exchanges you still seem to fail to understand that it's completely NOT about your intent as you experience it, but how you come across to OTHER people as they experience it.
This is just so sadly dumb. The comment that I said was "stupid" did not say that the commenter finds me annoying, or some other personal and subjective judgment to which I could not have objected. No, it made an empirical claim about my intent. It tried to pass off a personal impression as a fact. The personal impression I could simply ignore, or say "too bad for you", or if I were a pathetic approval seeker I could have said "oh dear, so sorry, will try not to annoy you". But as an empirical claim it warrants rebuttal -- and my rebuttal is that it is prima facie stupid, a ridiculously false claim -- really a lie, as I'm quite certain that I did not "seem" to be doing any such thing, as you just acknowledged: "I do not, and I doubt the original commenter did either".
But again I expect all this to be lost on you, as you have demonstrated an inability to follow a logical argument. So that makes two of us wasting our time on this nonsense -- but at least I realize that it is a waste of time, and am not so foolish as to think that I will change you with a few words of patronizing advice. I've been posting on the internet since it was the ARPAnet and I have a wealth of experience with this form of communication, and you are decades behind with your silly attempts to change my ways.
>I have very high social intelligence, unlike a lot of the folks here who seem to have autism spectrum disorders.
I dunno, I'd swear blind that that's the kind of statement a mildly autistic person might make...
I can understand why you call yourself 'Truth Machine'; for someone who simply has to be right every time, you obviously perceive yourself as the definition of your Nom de Web. I'm not saying this is wrong in principle, and you are usually correct. But as you can clearly tell, everyone here who can be bothered to comment thinks you're behaving like a jackass.
"I've been posting on the internet since it was the ARPAnet and I have a wealth of experience with this form of communication"
Aha, another overtly macho [expletive deleted] using the 'I've been doing this since...' argument to explain their preference for juvenile alpha-male posturing. Seems that many of these early adopters have failed to realise that the internet has moved on since the early days of nerdy fanboys playing who could display the bigger intellect through the medium of pixels (and displaying a complete lack of self-awareness in the process). Nowadays grown-ups use the internet too and they remain singularly unimpressed with the loose-cannon approach to internet debate.
TM, does it not give you pause that someone can think that you, a 60 year-old, are coming across like an autistic teenager?
Not trying to 'change you' of course, I've got Greasemonkey...
#31 Majorajam: "the Tols of the world dispose of that stuff in their development assumptions. Apparently, as soon as the whole world gets rich in a generation or so there will be no more disease vectors because mosquitoes are apparently easy to eradicate from the face of the earth."
Apparently certain members of the human race have an over-developed sense of their (potential to) control nature. Much like some of the statements we see coming out of BP. Hubris is a terrible thing.
> Is there some part of the word "can" that you're too stupid to comprehend?
I guess there's some part of "I was politely telling you that you can take your repeated suggestions about what I might like to avoid commenting on and shove them" that you're unable to comprehend.
> No, it made an empirical claim about my intent.
I suspected that was the core of your error.
The word "seem" in "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is generally taken by most readers at high school level or above as an indication of a *subjective* impression. Whereas the alternative word "are" would generally be taken to indicate a claim of empirical fact, although it's not entirely uncommon in colloquial usage for it to be used for subjective impressions as well.
Or to paraphrase and add what seems like an eminentally plausibe subtext to the original statement, "You give the appearance of doing your best to annoy people. Are you aware that's how you come across, and if so is that your intent or do you just not care if it undermines your otherwise generally excellent contribution?"
While the writer of the comment could have intended it as a poorly expressed claim of empirical fact, it's indeed "sadly dumb" to argue that it *can only be* - or even is *most likely intended as* - a claim of empirical fact.
> But again I expect all this to be lost on you, as you have demonstrated an inability to follow a logical argument
Yes, yes, heard it all before - and your claim is just as fallacious - and "stupid" - now as it was then, and rather ironic given that it seems to apply to your own recent attempts.
> If you had any social intelligence you would have grasped by now how fruitless a pursuit that is.
It's good of you to confirm that you're entirely dedicated to missing the point, which kind of reinforces my own.
Aha, another overtly macho [expletive deleted] using the 'I've been doing this since...' argument to explain their preference for juvenile alpha-male posturing.
No, moron, I was responding factually to the suggestion that I'm a "kid", as well as to the pompous notion that someone could, at this late date, point something out to me that I have not heard about numerous times before -- it had nothing to do with explanation of why I choose the approach I do.
Seems that many of these early adopters have failed to realise that the internet has moved on since the early days of nerdy fanboys playing who could display the bigger intellect through the medium of pixels (and displaying a complete lack of self-awareness in the process). Nowadays grown-ups use the internet too and they remain singularly unimpressed with the loose-cannon approach to internet debate.
My but you are an ignoramus about the history of the internet and its user community, as well as a wielder of stupid generalizations.
TM, does it not give you pause that someone can think that you, a 60 year-old, are coming across like an autistic teenager?
killfile is great, but when you have multiple machines it takes a while before you manage to plonk someone on every one of them :-( In the meantime you sometimes see gems like this though:
> ...with people trying so hard to be idiots?
Shorter TM: it's a prima facie absurd and stupid claim of empirical fact that borders on an outright lie when **other people** make these sorts of statements about someone else's intentions (even if they employ a word that explicitly indicates a subjective impression) ...
...but when **I** make these statements (without explicitly indicating subjectivity), then it's **none** of those things.
This video has no facts... it's all personal insults and bending the truth to make it look like people support the Klu Klux Clan... Instead of announcing a "crock of the week," why don't you try and debate a point made by a "climate crock"
You've quoted many institutions in your video saying that there was nothing wrong with Michael Mann's work, but even the UN IPCC report has left out Michael Mann's graphs and data from their latest reports. For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports, just compare all three major IPCC reports. Also, take a look at the 1990 IPCC report. It's funny how the temperature records have changed so dramatically. It's pretty obvious to me how Mann used "tricks" to formulate a graph from proxy data that was radically different from the "standard" graphs.
The UN thinks that his graph has been debunked, I think so. I think the people (2 Canadian scientists if I'm not mistaken) who helped reveal Mann's flawed techniques in plotting his graph ARE nice people. I like skeptical people. :) Even if racists like them too. Because even a racist, evil scientist can be right about a specific debate in the science of climate change.
Read it, Andrew Bell, and then go and scream at the miss-informers you have been relying on. You are being taken for a ride, and not by the IPCC or any climate scientists, but by the people you apparently trust.
Thanks for the reply! Dave R, could you give me a link or name the two that debated the integrity of the proxy tree ring data by Mann? Or are you keeping it a secret? haha
I only have a copy of the Synthesis report for the 2007 assessment report, and Mann's graph is no where to be found. Could you direct me to a link for the full report including Mann's graph?
Okay, so I've been shown [This](http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html) Which is just confusing me further. I thought the Mann "hockey stick graph" was debated because of the unreliable data, and such a margin of error, which seems to be which the website referred to is proposing as well.
Would anyone happen to have a link to Mann's original report, and the peer review papers on it? Would be much appreciated.
I just really want to know how many trees (and what kind of trees) as well as the other proxy data Mann used in his graph (I believe lake sediment data if I'm not mistaken)
Dave R, could you give me a link or name the two that debated the integrity of the proxy tree ring data by Mann? Or are you keeping it a secret? haha
You think they are nice people and that they "helped reveal Mann's flawed techniques" but you don't know their names and think that someone else not saying their names is keeping them a secret rather than, say, assuming you must already know them or where to find them? haha indeed, clown.
Because even a racist, evil scientist can be right about a specific debate in the science of climate change.
The intellectual dishonesty engaged in by you and people like you is arguably evil, and certainly is unreliable -- even if you happen to be right occasionally, it's in the same way that a stopped watch is.
You know asshole, I'm not some clown and I'm generally interested in the debate. I'm skeptical yes, but I'm sure you would be too if you were coming from the same position as me. I don't believe that people are born with an opinion about something, they develop one through interaction and experiences.
You, my friend, through this experience, have both given me a laugh and made me develop quite a strong opinion towards "you and people like you."
Again, I'm not saying that the science that anyone else has referenced to is WRONG, just that it is ridiculously hard to find compared to other studies of science. And there SEEMS to be a lot of grey areas around it (many temperature readings over the same areas and time contradict each other)
Intellectual dishonesty? What? You think I say something other than I believe/know? or are you referring to me as ignorant? Is ignorance a crime? I'd say arrogance is, but can't you see I'm not here to yell something out but to actually engage in learning more about the subject? I mean, isn't that you, as a raging activist on the keyboard, would want from someone?
Just so you know, I'd post criticisms like the one you referenced about climate skeptics too. I don't hate "you and people like you," I actually have no idea who you are or who you are like, so I CANNOT hate you.
By the way, the last quotation was a parody of the video's logic. The creator of the video compared climate change skeptics to Klu Klux Clan members and, as a joking parody, I threw that in my criticism. Take a joke... Dude.
Andrew Bell Writes:
>*I only have a copy of the Synthesis report for the 2007 assessment report, and Mann's graph is no where to be found. Could you direct me to a link for the full report including Mann's graph?*
You know asshole, I'm not some clown and I'm generally interested in the debate.
We hear that a lot here. But, as I said, it doesn't help to start out with an obvious lie -- an intellectually honest skeptic would not make the uncritical false and stupid claims of #63. Nor would someone wanting to learn start out with assholey hostility like "For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports". You're an ignoramus who has unskeptically swallowed a lot of cock and bull; if you want to actually learn something here, rather than "debate", drop the attitude and have a little humility. 97% of climate scientists, and every reputable scientific organization in the world, accepts AGW due to the vast amount of accumulated evidence, so we're past the point of "debate" with pissants like you.
Intellectual dishonesty? What? You think I say something other than I believe/know? or are you referring to me as ignorant?
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in thought processes, such as we see in so-called "skeptics" whose skepticism is applied oh-so-selectively; people who are intellectually dishonest generally believe what they say, but they form their beliefs by thought processes that conveniently produce results that conform to their desires or expectations rather than to the facts.
>*Schneider said the FBI had taken an interest earlier this year when his name appeared on a "death list" on a neo-Nazi website alongside other climate scientists with apparent Jewish ancestry.*
And truth machine, if you don't get passionate responses you won't get good responses :)
I'm not looking for a debate! I'm looking to solve the debate I have personally with myself, what stance to accept on this subject. I don't care what other people think I'm not here to convince anyone, only to excite the people here who know a lot about the science, so they can show what they know to me.
and call me ignorant or misinformed, which I very well may be, but don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind.
"I'm looking to solve the debate I have personally with myself, "
You'll go blind.
Andy, we can't solve your existential crisis and you should instead go to the horses' mouth to educate yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch and see what it is you're skeptical of.
"but don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind."
Thing is, we only have your word on that.
Some people will be skeptical of that assertion. I'm sure as a skeptic yourself, you will accept that.
Then why do you write crap like ""For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports"?
don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind.
What part of "people who are intellectually dishonest generally believe what they say" are you too stupid to understand? Or id you simply not read it? You say you're generally interested in debate and then you say you're not here to debate. You talk about "all you geniuses out there looking for proof" and then say you're not trying to concince anyone. I explain the difference between dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty and then you complain about the former and ignore what I said about the latter. You're looking to solve the debate with yourself, but you're apparently not intellectually competent enough to do so with any reliability. Sorry, but some people are just stupid.
jakerman, that's very surprising. There's always those people that just surprise everyone out there...
What I find most surprising is somehow a Neo-Nazi group called climate scientists Nazis? Did they take it as an insult?
"I get scared that we're now in a new Weimar republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists." -Schneider
So it's a bunch of people calling each other Nazis. Wonderful.
Sorry, I misread; you said you're generally interested in the debate. But when you say that you're not here to debate, you simply aren't credible after #63, which is full of you debating.
Well, finally found those 2 Canadians who were involved in an audit of Mann's work, and I think they're completely right.
Anyways, I'm done arguing over whether or not I'm here to debate or learn. If you're not going to be productive, I'm done with it.
I found, with no real help from anyone here sadly, that Mann et al was based off of 12 trees with 390x weight on them, basically excluding the other proxy data, only leaving tree ring data, which the IPCC previously advised not using.
I found countless other papers showing a medieval warm period (which apparently was a big concern in Mann's graph's integrity) which really contradicts the IPCC's graphs.
Here obviously was not the right place to ask questions about the global warming debate.
Bartonâs report, written by statisticians with no apparent background at all in the relevant areas, simply uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and an oil industry consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Bartonâs âpanelâ. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago. Bartonâs report also reveals that his panel collaborated closely with the two Canadians, yet made no attempt to contact me [Michael Mann] or my collaborators at any point.
I found countless other papers showing a medieval warm period (which apparently was a big concern in Mann's graph's integrity) which really contradicts the IPCC's graphs.
The online world is awash with hundreds of thousands of individuals, who despite lacking training or experience in a highly technical areas, feel they can confidently dismiss entire disciplines of science after a few weeks of searching Google and consulting a few blogs.
On one hand, you have 12 trees with 390x weighting, which are totally divergent from the other 24 trees Mann used. Then, you have 18 proxies which have the same weighting, and publicly accessible data. I don't know what to believe about the climate-gate emails, but I guess I'm just stupid enough to think that they fit together. Like the plates of Africa and South America... haha.
perfect, as always.
and i love the V series....
I don't particularly like the aside about the heatwave in Pakistan. Its precisely the kind of localised weather event that anti-AGW proponents would use, were it a cold snap. Plus it comes across as scoring cheap points with the misery of others.
How can you go wrong with 'V' and Monty Python?
Pardon the OT, but did anyone here notice CBS, and possibly others, trotting out a quick sound-bite about allegations of sexual harrassment by Al Gore that were dropped FOUR YEARS AGO for lack of evidence? Looks like the cowards who run our MSM are looking for anything that will distract our attention from the real issues; actual substance or relevance is not a requirement.
"Pardon the OT, but did anyone here notice CBS, and possibly others, trotting out a quick sound-bite about allegations of sexual harrassment by Al Gore that were dropped FOUR YEARS AGO for lack of evidence? "
It is because the woman only now came forward with the charges, and went to the media. The media has a hard time not reporting on such things.
Take a look at the map and the comment under it and tell Eli that it is just the weather.
I disagree DaveH @2. I hear your concern, but although it is gets damn hot every May/June before the Monsoon starts, the temperatures this year were extraordinary, breaking records. The exceptional heat is also consistent with a long term warming trend.
Great job Peter, although IMHO it would have been better to wait until the Russell inquiry presented its results. Weren't they mean to report in the spring?
Always this confusion, deliberate or genuine, between "weather events"- "a hot spell in Pakistan", and record temperatures - "record high temperatures in Pakistan" "record length of hot spell in Pakistan". Of course hot days are not evidence for climate change, any more than cold days are evidence against. But, all over the world, high temperature records constantly being broken is evidence of climate change. If these were random variations around a mean you would see, on average over time, equal numbers of high and low records. This isn't what we are seeing, we are seeing fluctuations around an ever rising mean, and so we keep poking through the temp ceiling, and that ceiling keeps rising. How hard is this stuff to understand, really?
@Dave H
It helps to actually pay attention -- the headline shown in the video says "record temperatures of up to 122F in hottest summer on record" (with the actual temperature going over 128F), and is followed by a report of the NASA announcement that the 12 month running mean global temperature has reached a new record high. By your logic, we should never mention any of the observable consequences of AGW because someone might cluelessly conflate them with common local weather events like "heat waves" and "cold snaps" (which themselves are sometimes consequences of AGW).
@David Horton
It's hard to understand anything if one makes no effort to, and if one simply ignores relevant distinctions.
Peter Sinclair does an excellent job. Only one thing I didn't like in the vid: he points to 2007 as the record broken for Arctic Sea Ice extent on some date, but 2006 sea ice extent was less for recent dates than 2007. So 2010 is breaking 2006 records, not 2007 records.
A minor point, but Peter says that decreasing arctic sea ice this year has eclipsed the record set for this day in 2007. However, this graph
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure2.png
clearly shows that 2006 had lower sea ice extent for that period, even if 2007 has the lowest summer minimum record.
SCP, that is a very minor point indeed, given that 2010 has now been below 2006 for most of June: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Truth machine, I may be wrong, but I don't think David Horton is Dave H, and I don't think he meant what you think he did.
Truth machine, I may be wrong, but I don't think David Horton is Dave H, and I don't think he meant what you think he did.
Your reading comprehension is way way off -- of course they are not the same, of course I know that, and both David Horton and I responded critically (and quite similarly) to Dave H's comment. My #10 was in regard to the question at the end of David Horton's post, and pertained to Dave H's thinking process.
SCP, that is a very minor point indeed, given that 2010 has now been below 2006 for most of June
I don't see how that's at all relevant to SCP's point which, regardless of it's "minor"ness, appears to be factual: the record for the date in question was set in 2006, not 2007.
Given that some of the skeptics embarrass themselves by jumping up and down whenever sea ice extent rises to approach the average, as it did March/April this year, I also cringe to see the same line of argument the other way - especially when there is a factual error in the point being made. The current sea ice extent for a particular day is not a telling piece of evidence for climate change, its the trend that matters.
Given the friendly fire, it seems a couple of people are on a hair trigger today.
Truth machine, my reading comprehension may have been off a bit, about as much as the clarity of your writing.
SCP, I don't know about you, but to me four orders of magnitude below average seems well outside natural variation, especially given what we know about 1) current record global mean temps, 2) polar amplification, 3) the long term decline in both sea ice extent and volume, AND 4) the recent collapse of thick multi-year sea ice, as confirmed by actual boots-on-the-ice.
In other words, I am taking the long term trend into account.
Truth machine, my reading comprehension may have been off a bit, about as much as the clarity of your writing.
Oh, right, your mistakes are my/i> fault. What an ass.
Why thank you, punkin, you're a real sweetheart, you are.
Bring back the boojum!!
SCP's post @12 is not clear, at one point referring to "day" and at another point "period". If their intention was to say that between 1 January and 8 June 2006 the ice extent had been lower, on average, than in 2010, then they would have a point.
Comparing ice extents on a given day is extremely dangerous. The date for Peter's map is 9 June 2010, and according to the map provided by SCP the ice extent on 8 June was indeed lower in 2010 than the previous record set in 2006.
Now, we have data until 23/24 June thus far and all the products (AMSRE etc.) are showing the mean ice extent (please note the limitations of focusing on ice extent versus volume) to date in June 2010 is running at its lowest in the satellite record, lower than the mean extent recorded in June 2006.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
I agree that Peter's point would have been better made had he waited until it was certain that June was going to set a new minimum extent for June in the satellite record.
And again, it wold have been better had he waited until the findings from the final inquiry into the CRU hack had been released.
talking about a crock, the new story making headlines on many "sceptic" blogs is a bomb being send to Spainâs Dr. Gabriel Calzada. he has authored a bogus study about the spanish alternative program costing more jobs, than it creates.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable…
I read somewhere that if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear. Think the author was an academic with a real bee up her bum regarding what to her is/was the abysmal standard of writing in the academic literature. Apropos of nothing, pretty sure as well she is/was a transsexual. Course, this was near 15 years ago when I read this, so the memory's fuzzy.
Anyway, notwithstanding the unrealistic standard, I think she makes a fair point. It's probably true that the most exquisite writing is impossible to misunderstand. In any case, tis better to take the opportunity to reflect on one's writing than otherwise if one does care about communication with other human beings.
So long as I'm on a roll here with the unsolicited opinions, I'd also say trivial is an appropriate modifier for the ice extent correction- the underlying point is wholly unscathed. And it's a web video.
Eli, that stuff there is horrifying. And it's not just Lomborg, btw, that has directly climate related mortality inversely related to temperature. Richard Tol claimed in a blog conversation with me that his studies do as well. This is a man who happens to be prominently cited in the climate economics literature.
And they bash Stern...
I read that too, but I think you've misinterpreted it.
It can't have been written very clearly.
S'funny, I was just reading another thread where a certain commenter's words had been misinterpreted - not his/her fault there either of course but one does sense a pattern developing...
The temperature/mortality thing that Lomborg, Tol et al. push is dodgy in the extreme, particularly if you start factoring in the temperature dependence of such things as viruses & their vectors. (And no, I'm not speaking of Malaria. On the other hand, Chikungunya, Congo-Crimea Hemorrhagic Fever, West Nile Virus, Puumala, (and on the animal front Blue Tongue & African Horse Sickness) should be considered?)
Comments 11 and 12 make the same point, but 12 got hammered for it. Strange. Anyway, regarding the "nice guys" -- who is that in the video saying the hackers were nice? How does he know? Is there some kind of hate legislation that can be applied to Morano?
>Whereof what one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence.
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Is that clear enough? No?
Steve L: it is strange ... MapleLeaf, who is usually sensible, is rather ridiculous in #22 -- the period #12 referred to includes the day of Peter's video. Blather about "Peter's point" is ridiculous -- #11 and #12 weren't about his "point", they were just a minor factual correction about what year the record was set in.
And the assertion that "if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear" is just plain stupid, as was Jim Eager's misunderstanding.
TM @29,
You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people. I addressed #12, not #11. Read my post. I stand by what I said, saying that day X set a new record is not terribly meaningful or convincing IMHO. Poster #11 (SteveL) got it right-- June 2010 is breaking the previous record low (for Arctic sea ice extent) set in June 2006.
I also stand by my observation that #12 was not clearly worded.
For what it is worth, I was trying to clarify matters, not be "ridiculous" or to "blather". But thanks for the show of support TM, you are a darling ;)
Luminous- in context during the period it was written? Perhaps, I don't know. These days and sans context, quite obviously not. In any case, I know of at least one person that would argue that nothing of its value, whatever that is, can be derived from it being difficult to understand without a degree in classics from Oxford. Quite the opposite. That doesn't mean that clarity is all there is to writing- wit, wisdom, rhythm, artistic value, etc.- these things matter too. So arguing the merit of something in an abstract sense would be a strawman.
Anyway, color me shocked that person going with the moniker 'truth machine' views as stupid an intentionally provocative assertion that plays on the tension between the subjective character of written expression and the fact that it is generally done, you know, for the benefit of persons who don't share one's subjective point of view. Which is to say other people.
I wasn't trying to win the internets with that paraphrased second-hand slogan, fyi, just taking the opportunity to point up something that made me think back in my schooling days. It's a shame that TM wasn't there back then to notify these academics who have apparently wasted their life's work on the stuff that they were doin it rong. He's clearly a very impressive and precise fellow, so perhaps they would have been as persuaded by his steel trap of a mind as I am now.
Chris S.- the Tols of the world dispose of that stuff in their development assumptions. Apparently, as soon as the whole world gets rich in a generation or so there will be no more disease vectors because mosquitoes are apparently easy to eradicate from the face of the earth. Sounds pretty courageous to me, but that's the word passed down from the mount. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?
Tol was only hired by someone because people in the Irish government for a while had starry eyes about booms with no busts, just like Iceland did. The Irish governmental officials themselves have repudiated him, repeatedly, but in the market fundie climate we still have worldwide, it's hard to just fire someone on that basis without having to violate the consensus and admit market fundamentalism fails.
@TM #9, #10, #15
Tell me, who do you think the audience is for Crock of the Week? At a guess, I'd say it breaks down into:
a) Those that accept AGW and try to engage with those that take an anti-AGW standpoint, and want to watch a handy (and entertaining) comprehensive debunking of recent talking points.
b) Those that may be on the fence (or leaning towards one side or the other), thta have perhaps been sent the link in an attempt to persuade them in a specific direction.
c) Those that argue against AGW, and want to find weaknesses in the evidence presented that they can argue against.
Much as I enjoy Crock of the Week, I don't think it is a particularly useful tool for persuasion. It commits the cardinal (but necessary, given the format) sin of repeating the allegation before proceeding to debunk it, which unfortunately reinforces it in the mind of those predisposed to believe it. Indeed, its the rule of primacy again, where the first news you hear becomes "true" forever, despite subsequent falsification. The tone is sarcastic and dismissive - entertaining to those of us exasperated with the same tired nonsense arguments surfacing again and again, but a massive turnoff to someone seeking a moderate and polite rebuttal.
So, when these videos contain anything that can be interpreted as a weak point, it can immediately be used by anti-AGW mouthpieces to further damage the credibility of these videos in the eyes of those otherwise willing to be persuaded. Eg, "The latest video hypocritically makes reference to AGW being responsible for a single specific heatwave, without any evidence, therefore we can ignore all its arguments as partisan alarmism and continue referencing snow in Washington DC as proof that the globe is cooling."
So I took issue with the aside about the Pakistan heatwave intially (and still do) because it doesn't directly address any of the arguments the video is supposed to be rebutting (and thus is unnecessary), it doesn't affect the mindset of anyone already convinced of the reality of AGW, it may well be a turn-off to fence-sitters due to the double standard involved, the lack of specific evidence, the crass or easily-dismissed-as-alarmist tone, and it will certainly provide ammunition to those that want to dismiss the video's other arguments wholesale.
Similarly, taking an unnecessarily confrontational tone with those that are actually seeking a constructive discussion simply provides further ammunition to those same mouthpieces. Indeed, your words are already being linked to and used as further "evidence" of the overly aggressive and science-free nature of the commentary on this blog. This kind of dishonest framing appalls me, given the high quality contributions of some of the commentators here, and I am disappointed at the short-sighted willingness to simply cede the moral and intellectual high ground.
You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people.
What a stupid comment.
Poster #11 (SteveL) got it right
Steve L, not being an idiot, pointed out that SCPritch made the same point in #12 that Steve did in #11.
As for Dave H @ #33: tl;dr
TM, having recently been the recipient of your particular brand of attentions on another CRU thread (complete with attributes pertinent to this conversation), I thought I'd take a long shot at (IMHO) improving the overall state of affairs. I don't give it much chance, but you're welcome to surprise me :-)
Firstly, regardless of your often incisive analysis and logic, there is plenty of reason that people might make assess that "you do seem to be doing your best to annoy people". I've had that reaction to your comments (directed at others) long before any recent exchanges between us, and I've no doubt others have too. It seems to me that your communication style - and some of your content, and some of the assumptions embedded in it - cannot help but come across to a sizable portion of the readership as annoying rather than engaging. If you're merely aiming to get your rocks off posting in an often derogatory (and often personally denigrating) fashion about what you perceive as error, whilst not caring who thinks you're a hypocritical jerk who engages liberally in ad hom whilst lecturing others on their own errors and is simply better off ignored - then hey! You're probably succeeding! Give yourself a pat on your back and feel proud about just how many people have you in their killfile.
But if you actually want to influence people to abandon error, then I suspect you're not doing even half as well as you could - let alone half as well as you think you are.
Let's consider an example.
> What a stupid comment.
Given that this is a response to the statement you quoted - "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people.", and said statement (a) seems to be a *subjective* statement of opinion from (b) *someone other than you*, then *you* claiming that "it's a stupid comment" is ... well, should we merely call it poorly expressed? Or point out that strictly speaking it's fallacious? Or should one instead comment on it being completely unsupported and likely unhelpful on a number of levels? Or perhaps impressively self-unaware, presumptuous, or even hubristic? Or take the knee-jerk route and jump straight to your preferred term - "stupid"? Should we take into consideration that your judgement may not have been directed merely at the quoted statement but the entire comment that contained it (noting that your comment referencing style in the past hasn't always been as clear as it could be) and suggest that you may not have communicated what you intended, or should we merely take it at face value?
How much would your response to *each* of these options include a solidly righteous dose of "I'm right, you're wrong, screw you!"? Given the options, which one would enhance the chance of ongoing fruitful conversation, mutual understanding and perhaps advancement of knowledge?
> The assertion that "if someone has misunderstood what you've written, it wasn't clear" is just plain stupid...
As would equally be one's unwillingness to consider that one's own communication may not have been as clear or on point as one believed. Ah, how blissful that particular delusion must be ;-)
But what do I know? According to you I'm "quite inept at following a logical argument", so any argument I make will likely be not worth considering in the first place, right?
I'm beginning to wonder whether truth machine is interested in reasonable discussion or just here to be an obnoxious tw*t. So far there's been strong evidence for the latter. I mean _**'tl;dr'**_ ?? What are you, fifteen?
> I mean 'tl;dr' ??
I guess we can add that to TM's list of avoidance tactics ;-) Lately it seems to me that TM can dish it out but can't take it - but my sample size is not particularly large.
> What are you, fifteen?
It had crossed my mind that TM could in real life be a very logically intelligent but socially unintelligent kid - but I have no evidence either way. As they say, on the Internet no-one knows you're a dog ;-)
As the old saying goes, I'd rather have TM inside the tent....
there is plenty of reason that people might make assess that "you do seem to be doing your best to annoy people".
Yes, there are numerous forms of intellectually dishonest rationalization.
strictly speaking it's fallacious
That's even more stupid than the other comment -- at least the other one can be taken as hyperbole.
According to you I'm "quite inept at following a logical argument", so any argument I make will likely be not worth considering in the first place, right?
No, that would be a fallacy. But I'll tell you what isn't worth my considering: complaints about my tone and style, or any other pompous lecturing -- so you can save yourself some effort and stow those.
Or should one instead comment on it being completely unsupported and likely unhelpful on a number of levels?
Completely unsupported? If you're really so stupid that you cannot understand, upon a little reflection, why "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is a stupid comment, I really pity you. I mean, surely I could do better to annoy people if that were my goal. But of course mere annoyance is not my goal, and only the most intellectually dishonest sort of jackass would say so, or would persist in the claim after being called on its stupidity. As for "unhelpful on a number of levels" -- how is telling me that I seem to be doing my best to annoy people helpful? If you really believe that's my intention, then it would not be rational to expect me to become less annoying in response. OTOH, pointing out that it's a stupid comment might cause someone to honestly reflect on its prima facie absurdity.
It had crossed my mind that TM could in real life be a very logically intelligent but socially unintelligent kid
Incidental facts: I'm 60, and I have very high social intelligence, unlike a lot of the folks here who seem to have autism spectrum disorders.
> ...so you can save yourself some effort and stow those.
That seems to be my prerogative, not yours.
> ...complaints about my tone and style...
Interesting. You seem to be eliding my complaints about your substance and misunderstanding of subjectivity...
> ...at least the other one can be taken as hyperbole.
Never mind that TM's formidable intellect appears unable to grok why his original statement might be a fallacy - now we're at least getting somewhere! TM now recognises that not all speech is intended to be literal ;-)
From there it's a short step to considering that perhaps some speech that TM interpreted as intended to be purely literal was not actually intended that way. (And a short sidestep to any other interpretation TM placed on someone else's communication might not indeed by entirely accurate either.) And from there that anyone TM considered to be an idiot because he interpreted their speech as purely literal when not intended that way might not in fact be an idiot - or strictly speaking is not demonstrated to be one by TM's interpretation.
> Yes, there are numerous forms of intellectually dishonest rationalization.
There are indeed, and that statement itself appears to be a prime candidate. TM apparently implies that there *can be no honest reasons* for others to form the view that he's intending to annoy people - despite others reporting that they have indeed done so. In other words, he's right that their reported impressions of him *can only be* dishonest and wrong. What impressive mind-reading skills!
> As for "unhelpful on a number of levels" -- how is telling me that I seem to be doing my best to annoy people helpful?
a) That quoted comment was a response to your comment, not to the original commenter.
b) It's eminently helpful if you don't realise that's how you're viewed, and if it's not your goal.
> If you're really so stupid that you cannot understand, upon a little reflection, why "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is a stupid comment, I really pity you.
If you pity me on that basis, it's your problem (and unfortunately it diminishes my regard for you, but I doubt that matters to you).
The comment was *telling you something useful* that you seemed to be unaware of, and seem heavily invested in remaining unaware of. In that light, calling it stupid is itself stupid - and yet me calling your assertion of stupidity stupid did not (as you suggest might happen) cause *you* to reflect on what appears to me to be its prima facie stupidity. Oh, well, maybe that tactic doesn't work very well in practice.
> If you really believe that's my intention,...
I do not, and I doubt the original commenter did either.
And you would not believe that I believed that if you applied your own type of logic to my response. Surely if I did believe that I wouldn't have responded with suggestions on how to come across as less annoying and therefore be more effective at persuasion. (And I wouldn't be writing this comment.)
> I mean, surely I could do better to annoy people if that were my goal.
After all these exchanges you still seem to fail to understand that it's completely NOT about **your intent as you experience it**, but how you **come across** to OTHER people **as they experience it**.
That seems to be my prerogative, not yours.
Is there some part of the word "can" that you're too stupid to comprehend? Of course you can choose to waste your time.
You seem to be eliding my complaints about your substance
I'm only willing to spend a limited time on your idiocy and asinity; I pick and choose what I respond to, and this is the end of it on this subject. As for "substance" ... your complaints are about me. Let's get back to climate change.
Never mind that TM's formidable intellect appears unable to grok why his original statement might be a fallacy
Sorry, but "What a stupid comment" is not "strictly speaking [...] fallacious" and it's idiotic to claim that it is.
I wouldn't have responded with suggestions on how to come across as less annoying
If you had any social intelligence you would have grasped by now how fruitless a pursuit that is.
Meanwhile, Steve L and SCPritch both made the valid, but indeed minor, point that the video misstated the record year as 2007 rather than 2006. That's the sort of "substance" that matters, and the rest is foolishness.
One final point on this:
After all these exchanges you still seem to fail to understand that it's completely NOT about your intent as you experience it, but how you come across to OTHER people as they experience it.
This is just so sadly dumb. The comment that I said was "stupid" did not say that the commenter finds me annoying, or some other personal and subjective judgment to which I could not have objected. No, it made an empirical claim about my intent. It tried to pass off a personal impression as a fact. The personal impression I could simply ignore, or say "too bad for you", or if I were a pathetic approval seeker I could have said "oh dear, so sorry, will try not to annoy you". But as an empirical claim it warrants rebuttal -- and my rebuttal is that it is prima facie stupid, a ridiculously false claim -- really a lie, as I'm quite certain that I did not "seem" to be doing any such thing, as you just acknowledged: "I do not, and I doubt the original commenter did either".
But again I expect all this to be lost on you, as you have demonstrated an inability to follow a logical argument. So that makes two of us wasting our time on this nonsense -- but at least I realize that it is a waste of time, and am not so foolish as to think that I will change you with a few words of patronizing advice. I've been posting on the internet since it was the ARPAnet and I have a wealth of experience with this form of communication, and you are decades behind with your silly attempts to change my ways.
@TM 40, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47
tl;dr
LOL Dave :-)
TM:
>I have very high social intelligence, unlike a lot of the folks here who seem to have autism spectrum disorders.
I dunno, I'd swear blind that that's the kind of statement a mildly autistic person might make...
I can understand why you call yourself 'Truth Machine'; for someone who simply has to be right every time, you obviously perceive yourself as the definition of your Nom de Web. I'm not saying this is wrong in principle, and you are usually correct. But as you can clearly tell, everyone here who can be bothered to comment thinks you're behaving like a jackass.
"I've been posting on the internet since it was the ARPAnet and I have a wealth of experience with this form of communication"
Aha, another overtly macho [expletive deleted] using the 'I've been doing this since...' argument to explain their preference for juvenile alpha-male posturing. Seems that many of these early adopters have failed to realise that the internet has moved on since the early days of nerdy fanboys playing who could display the bigger intellect through the medium of pixels (and displaying a complete lack of self-awareness in the process). Nowadays grown-ups use the internet too and they remain singularly unimpressed with the loose-cannon approach to internet debate.
TM, does it not give you pause that someone can think that you, a 60 year-old, are coming across like an autistic teenager?
Not trying to 'change you' of course, I've got Greasemonkey...
#31 Majorajam: "the Tols of the world dispose of that stuff in their development assumptions. Apparently, as soon as the whole world gets rich in a generation or so there will be no more disease vectors because mosquitoes are apparently easy to eradicate from the face of the earth."
Apparently certain members of the human race have an over-developed sense of their (potential to) control nature. Much like some of the statements we see coming out of BP. Hubris is a terrible thing.
> Is there some part of the word "can" that you're too stupid to comprehend?
I guess there's some part of "I was politely telling you that you can take your repeated suggestions about what I might like to avoid commenting on and shove them" that you're unable to comprehend.
> No, it made an empirical claim about my intent.
I suspected that was the core of your error.
The word "seem" in "You do seem to be doing your best to annoy people" is generally taken by most readers at high school level or above as an indication of a *subjective* impression. Whereas the alternative word "are" would generally be taken to indicate a claim of empirical fact, although it's not entirely uncommon in colloquial usage for it to be used for subjective impressions as well.
Or to paraphrase and add what seems like an eminentally plausibe subtext to the original statement, "You give the appearance of doing your best to annoy people. Are you aware that's how you come across, and if so is that your intent or do you just not care if it undermines your otherwise generally excellent contribution?"
While the writer of the comment could have intended it as a poorly expressed claim of empirical fact, it's indeed "sadly dumb" to argue that it *can only be* - or even is *most likely intended as* - a claim of empirical fact.
> But again I expect all this to be lost on you, as you have demonstrated an inability to follow a logical argument
Yes, yes, heard it all before - and your claim is just as fallacious - and "stupid" - now as it was then, and rather ironic given that it seems to apply to your own recent attempts.
> If you had any social intelligence you would have grasped by now how fruitless a pursuit that is.
It's good of you to confirm that you're entirely dedicated to missing the point, which kind of reinforces my own.
*plonk*.
everyone here who can be bothered to comment thinks you're behaving like a jackass
Which only tells us something about that small set of persons. (And it's not even true -- chek made no such assertion.)
plonk
Oh good ... now I have even less reason to point out your numerous errors.
Aha, another overtly macho [expletive deleted] using the 'I've been doing this since...' argument to explain their preference for juvenile alpha-male posturing.
No, moron, I was responding factually to the suggestion that I'm a "kid", as well as to the pompous notion that someone could, at this late date, point something out to me that I have not heard about numerous times before -- it had nothing to do with explanation of why I choose the approach I do.
Seems that many of these early adopters have failed to realise that the internet has moved on since the early days of nerdy fanboys playing who could display the bigger intellect through the medium of pixels (and displaying a complete lack of self-awareness in the process). Nowadays grown-ups use the internet too and they remain singularly unimpressed with the loose-cannon approach to internet debate.
My but you are an ignoramus about the history of the internet and its user community, as well as a wielder of stupid generalizations.
TM, does it not give you pause that someone can think that you, a 60 year-old, are coming across like an autistic teenager?
Intellectual dishonesty is rife.
Chek made no comment regarding your jackassery or lack of it. I don't doubt that you're aware of the source of his choice of phrase though.
It seems Chek would rather have you inside pissing out than outside pissing in. I think the key point is that you're pissing.
I think the key point is that you're pissing.
The key point is that you and the other jackasses pissing about me rather than about climate change are pathetic self-serving hypocrites.
And kudos to chek for being mature enough not to join in on the juvenile tone trolling.
Oh, and kudos to everyone else in the universe who also did not join in on that stupid tribal exercise.
P.S.
Chek made no comment regarding your jackassery or lack of it.
Which would, as I said, make your statement untrue.
I don't doubt that you're aware of the source of his choice of phrase though.
Hmmm
Why thank you. And, if you really stretch your reading comprehension:
See, there is no implication that I'm pissing into, or in, the tent.
[Gad, why am I having this ridiculous conversation with people trying so hard to be idiots? Enough.]
killfile is great, but when you have multiple machines it takes a while before you manage to plonk someone on every one of them :-( In the meantime you sometimes see gems like this though:
> ...with people trying so hard to be idiots?
Shorter TM: it's a prima facie absurd and stupid claim of empirical fact that borders on an outright lie when **other people** make these sorts of statements about someone else's intentions (even if they employ a word that explicitly indicates a subjective impression) ...
...but when **I** make these statements (without explicitly indicating subjectivity), then it's **none** of those things.
I make these statements (without explicitly indicating subjectivity), then it's none of those things.
That's what you claimed, you hypocritical jackass.
This video has no facts... it's all personal insults and bending the truth to make it look like people support the Klu Klux Clan... Instead of announcing a "crock of the week," why don't you try and debate a point made by a "climate crock"
You've quoted many institutions in your video saying that there was nothing wrong with Michael Mann's work, but even the UN IPCC report has left out Michael Mann's graphs and data from their latest reports. For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports, just compare all three major IPCC reports. Also, take a look at the 1990 IPCC report. It's funny how the temperature records have changed so dramatically. It's pretty obvious to me how Mann used "tricks" to formulate a graph from proxy data that was radically different from the "standard" graphs.
The UN thinks that his graph has been debunked, I think so. I think the people (2 Canadian scientists if I'm not mistaken) who helped reveal Mann's flawed techniques in plotting his graph ARE nice people. I like skeptical people. :) Even if racists like them too. Because even a racist, evil scientist can be right about a specific debate in the science of climate change.
>even the UN IPCC report has left out
[No they haven't](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1).
>2 Canadian scientists if I'm not mistaken
You are mistaken. Neither of them were scientists and they were wrong, as explained on the page linked above.
Dave R already set "Andrew Bell" straight on two points. Let me add a third: the figure in the FAR (the 1990 IPCC report):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_an…
Read it, Andrew Bell, and then go and scream at the miss-informers you have been relying on. You are being taken for a ride, and not by the IPCC or any climate scientists, but by the people you apparently trust.
Fixed for you Marco. Scienceblogs linking is borked and can't handle underscores unless you do this: < URL > (without the spaces).
Stu, I knew. Really, I knew. I just forgot. And now I know again (and will likely forget again...).
Thanks for the reply! Dave R, could you give me a link or name the two that debated the integrity of the proxy tree ring data by Mann? Or are you keeping it a secret? haha
I only have a copy of the Synthesis report for the 2007 assessment report, and Mann's graph is no where to be found. Could you direct me to a link for the full report including Mann's graph?
Okay, so I've been shown [This](http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html) Which is just confusing me further. I thought the Mann "hockey stick graph" was debated because of the unreliable data, and such a margin of error, which seems to be which the website referred to is proposing as well.
Would anyone happen to have a link to Mann's original report, and the peer review papers on it? Would be much appreciated.
I just really want to know how many trees (and what kind of trees) as well as the other proxy data Mann used in his graph (I believe lake sediment data if I'm not mistaken)
Marco, I trust no one :)
This video has no facts
It's not good to start out with an obvious lie.
Dave R, could you give me a link or name the two that debated the integrity of the proxy tree ring data by Mann? Or are you keeping it a secret? haha
You think they are nice people and that they "helped reveal Mann's flawed techniques" but you don't know their names and think that someone else not saying their names is keeping them a secret rather than, say, assuming you must already know them or where to find them? haha indeed, clown.
Because even a racist, evil scientist can be right about a specific debate in the science of climate change.
The intellectual dishonesty engaged in by you and people like you is arguably evil, and certainly is unreliable -- even if you happen to be right occasionally, it's in the same way that a stopped watch is.
You know asshole, I'm not some clown and I'm generally interested in the debate. I'm skeptical yes, but I'm sure you would be too if you were coming from the same position as me. I don't believe that people are born with an opinion about something, they develop one through interaction and experiences.
You, my friend, through this experience, have both given me a laugh and made me develop quite a strong opinion towards "you and people like you."
Again, I'm not saying that the science that anyone else has referenced to is WRONG, just that it is ridiculously hard to find compared to other studies of science. And there SEEMS to be a lot of grey areas around it (many temperature readings over the same areas and time contradict each other)
Intellectual dishonesty? What? You think I say something other than I believe/know? or are you referring to me as ignorant? Is ignorance a crime? I'd say arrogance is, but can't you see I'm not here to yell something out but to actually engage in learning more about the subject? I mean, isn't that you, as a raging activist on the keyboard, would want from someone?
Just so you know, I'd post criticisms like the one you referenced about climate skeptics too. I don't hate "you and people like you," I actually have no idea who you are or who you are like, so I CANNOT hate you.
By the way, the last quotation was a parody of the video's logic. The creator of the video compared climate change skeptics to Klu Klux Clan members and, as a joking parody, I threw that in my criticism. Take a joke... Dude.
Andrew Bell Writes:
>*I only have a copy of the Synthesis report for the 2007 assessment report, and Mann's graph is no where to be found. Could you direct me to a link for the full report including Mann's graph?*
Huh?
DaveH [linked you to figure 6.10](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/climate_denial_crock_on_stolen…
) in the AR4. That is the Hockey stick and MBH1999 is Mann's 1999 hockey stick published incomparison with numerous updated others.
For the full report [go here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html). You want chapter 6.
>*The creator of the video compared climate change skeptics to Klu Klux Clan members*
[Read here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/the_hate_mail_campaign_against_…). The creator of the video has spent more time looking at the issue than you give him credit for.
You know asshole, I'm not some clown and I'm generally interested in the debate.
We hear that a lot here. But, as I said, it doesn't help to start out with an obvious lie -- an intellectually honest skeptic would not make the uncritical false and stupid claims of #63. Nor would someone wanting to learn start out with assholey hostility like "For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports". You're an ignoramus who has unskeptically swallowed a lot of cock and bull; if you want to actually learn something here, rather than "debate", drop the attitude and have a little humility. 97% of climate scientists, and every reputable scientific organization in the world, accepts AGW due to the vast amount of accumulated evidence, so we're past the point of "debate" with pissants like you.
Intellectual dishonesty? What? You think I say something other than I believe/know? or are you referring to me as ignorant?
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in thought processes, such as we see in so-called "skeptics" whose skepticism is applied oh-so-selectively; people who are intellectually dishonest generally believe what they say, but they form their beliefs by thought processes that conveniently produce results that conform to their desires or expectations rather than to the facts.
>*The creator of the video compared climate change skeptics to Klu Klux Clan members*
From [the Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate):
>*Schneider said the FBI had taken an interest earlier this year when his name appeared on a "death list" on a neo-Nazi website alongside other climate scientists with apparent Jewish ancestry.*
Thanks jakerman, reading through it now
And truth machine, if you don't get passionate responses you won't get good responses :)
I'm not looking for a debate! I'm looking to solve the debate I have personally with myself, what stance to accept on this subject. I don't care what other people think I'm not here to convince anyone, only to excite the people here who know a lot about the science, so they can show what they know to me.
and call me ignorant or misinformed, which I very well may be, but don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind.
"I'm looking to solve the debate I have personally with myself, "
You'll go blind.
Andy, we can't solve your existential crisis and you should instead go to the horses' mouth to educate yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch and see what it is you're skeptical of.
"but don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind."
Thing is, we only have your word on that.
Some people will be skeptical of that assertion. I'm sure as a skeptic yourself, you will accept that.
I'm not looking for a debate!
You're contradicting yourself.
I'm not here to convince anyone
Then why do you write crap like ""For all you geniuses out there looking for proof that they removed it from their latest reports"?
don't call me dishonest. I never spoke anything other than my mind.
What part of "people who are intellectually dishonest generally believe what they say" are you too stupid to understand? Or id you simply not read it? You say you're generally interested in debate and then you say you're not here to debate. You talk about "all you geniuses out there looking for proof" and then say you're not trying to concince anyone. I explain the difference between dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty and then you complain about the former and ignore what I said about the latter. You're looking to solve the debate with yourself, but you're apparently not intellectually competent enough to do so with any reliability. Sorry, but some people are just stupid.
jakerman, that's very surprising. There's always those people that just surprise everyone out there...
What I find most surprising is somehow a Neo-Nazi group called climate scientists Nazis? Did they take it as an insult?
"I get scared that we're now in a new Weimar republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists." -Schneider
So it's a bunch of people calling each other Nazis. Wonderful.
PS If someone calls you dishonest, they're just speaking their mind.
Surely you can accept that and maybe prove your statements.
You say you're generally interested in debate
Sorry, I misread; you said you're generally interested in the debate. But when you say that you're not here to debate, you simply aren't credible after #63, which is full of you debating.
that's very surprising
Not to people interested in the debate enough to have actually paid attention to it rather than just swallow the stuff you regurgitated in #63.
Well, finally found those 2 Canadians who were involved in an audit of Mann's work, and I think they're completely right.
Anyways, I'm done arguing over whether or not I'm here to debate or learn. If you're not going to be productive, I'm done with it.
I found, with no real help from anyone here sadly, that Mann et al was based off of 12 trees with 390x weight on them, basically excluding the other proxy data, only leaving tree ring data, which the IPCC previously advised not using.
I found countless other papers showing a medieval warm period (which apparently was a big concern in Mann's graph's integrity) which really contradicts the IPCC's graphs.
Here obviously was not the right place to ask questions about the global warming debate.
Well, finally found those 2 Canadians who were involved in an audit of Mann's work, and I think they're completely right.
What a shock. But so what? You're not competent to judge.
Here obviously was not the right place to ask questions about the global warming debate.
You're such an asshole. Go away and you won't be missed.
Well, finally found those 2 Canadians who were involved in an audit of Mann's work, and I think they're completely right.
No real skeptic would be so quick to reach such a conclusion given
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-discovery-of-…
I found countless other papers showing a medieval warm period (which apparently was a big concern in Mann's graph's integrity) which really contradicts the IPCC's graphs.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-…
Will do! I'll leave you a parting gift though...
I'd suggest reading these as well as the IPCC TAR report.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckt…
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
On one hand, you have 12 trees with 390x weighting, which are totally divergent from the other 24 trees Mann used. Then, you have 18 proxies which have the same weighting, and publicly accessible data. I don't know what to believe about the climate-gate emails, but I guess I'm just stupid enough to think that they fit together. Like the plates of Africa and South America... haha.
"Here obviously was not the right place to ask questions about the global warming debate."
What questions?
"Well, finally found those 2 Canadians who were involved in an audit of Mann's work, and I think they're completely right."
Is not a question.
"I found countless other papers showing a medieval warm period"
Is not a question.
Nor has anything else you've said on the theory of climate been a question. They've all been statements as of fact.
Andrew Bell writes:
>*What I find most surprising is somehow a Neo-Nazi group called climate scientists Nazis?*
Can you show me where? Could you be confusing different hate mongers?
Bell, M&M's paper has been comprehensively debunked.
Please try a different source.