Chip Le Grand, Victorian editor of The Australian, complains that Stuart Rintoul was victimized by Media Watch. Just like Rintoul, Le Grand misrepresents Watson’s paper:

[Rintoul] brought to national attention research by NSW researcher Phil Watson showing that sea levels around Australia over the past 100 years haven’t risen as quickly as scientists would have expected them to as a result of global warming.

This isn’t true. Watson did not compare the sea level rises with expected sea level rises as a result of global warming. As Kathleen McInnes of the CSIRO told Media Watch:

The study by Phil Watson does not call into question the projections of the IPCC nor CSIRO and so there is no basis for anyone else to make such assertions.

Media Watch pointed out the News Ltd’s own Professional Conduct Policy states:

2.1 Individuals or organisations that have been criticised…should be given a fair opportunity to respond.

Rintoul did not talk to the CSIRO. And in his follow up article Le Grand does not either.

Le Grand writes:

Phil Watson was carpeted by his employer, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, and prevented from giving interviews. … Watson was not quoted by Media Watch or by the various sites and blogs that paved the ABC’s way into the story.

Le Grand has no evidence whatsoever that Watson was reprimanded by his employer. Media Watch quoted Watson’s department:

Mr Watson does not agree with the use of his findings to infer future projections of sea level rise nor does Mr Watson agree that his research casts doubts on the future modelling undertaken by CSIRO.

Not surprisingly, Le Grand does not mention this inconvenient statement.

Le Grand continues:

Dr Houston agrees the weakness of The Australian’s report was the prominence given to the views of Dr Brady, a palaeontologist rather than climate scientist. “Leave out everything that Howard Brady said, and it is OK,” he said.

Yes it would be, and you also have story that would not be on the front page of The Australian, since it was Brady who provided Rintoul with the statements that Watson’s paper showed that CSIRO projections were “dead in the water” and there would be only 15cm of sea level rise this century.

Le Grand continues on Brady:

Yet like many articulate amateurs who have risen to prominence in the climate change debate — fellow palaeontologist Tim Flannery, economist and former diplomat Ross Garnaut, Malcolm Turnbull and most of the federal Labor front bench — a lack of formal qualifications is no barrier to having a say. Nor is it evidence of a deliberate attempt to misrepresent scientific findings.

I don’t think Rintoul deliberately set out to misrepresent Watson’s paper. It just that he has no background in reporting on science and has no way of judging scientific expertise. I think he really thought Brady was a climate researcher and had no idea that Brady was retired and had never published in that area. What Brady had was a message that fit in with The Australian‘s campaign against climate science so Rintoul accepted it. The same apples to Le Grand and the other journalists at The Australian who write about climate science. The Australian‘s science reporter doesn’t get to report on stories like this one because … well you figure it out.

Le Grand:

[Sea levels have] also risen steadily, rather than accelerating in the second half of the 20th century as carbon emissions spiked.

Untrue. Sea level rise accelerated last century.

Wait! There’s more! Would you believe Le Grand has another story in the same paper on this issue? He hasn’t talked to CSIRO for this one either, but he does at least quote from CSIRO sea level expert Kathleen McInnes letter to Media Watch. Just not the most relevant bits. Le Grand:

The CSIRO agrees with Mr Watson’s findings showing a deceleration of sea-level rises in Australasian coastal waters in the second half of the 20th century but argues they have no bearing on IPCC projections of global sea rise this century.

Compare with McInnes:

The data that Mr Watson published show some similar features to
global data analysed by CSIRO scientists, which show a strong rate of
rise in the latter part of the 20th Century. Indeed CSIRO observations
published in 2011 in Surveys in Geophysics show global sea level rise
since 1993 has been between 2.8-3.2 mm/year. The confusion around the
Watson study appears to have arisen from the particular statistical
curve that he fitted to his data. This quadratic curve does not
represent the behaviour of the observations in the latter part of the
record when sea levels have been rising particularly quickly, and in
fact this curve shows a decelerating trend whereas the data itself
show an accelerating trend

Which is kind of the opposite of what Le Grand said. And you can easily see this yourself with this graph from Watson’s paper:

i-c1492993368176cd63f9c5ee3df27ee6-fremantle.png

Le Grand quotes Charles Finkl:

“I am not in favour of models for many reasons. They get better over time, and we need to use them, but with a grain of salt. We should instead use our brains and hard or real data to make interpretations.”

The decelerating trend is in the model. It’s not in the real data.

Update The next day *The Australian adds an editorial to the pile:

The climate change debate is too often treated as a zero-sum game where every scientific development or weather event is measured as a loss or gain for the activists or the sceptics.

This approach is best exemplified by the reporting in The Australian.

Climate science is growing faster than our emissions. Thousands of experts around the planet continue to research the geological record for lessons past, monitor current events for evidence, influences or clues, and recalibrate their modelling for greater certainty about their predictions. Classic scientific method continues to rely on initial observations in order to deduce hypotheses, and measurement of data to test experiments or theories. This is how we amass and expand our bank of knowledge — which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has constantly revised its predictions. The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson, the global average temperature readings of NASA, even the daily records of our own weather stations, must all nourish this process. They each should be accorded their appropriate weight in the scientific and public debates; nothing more and nothing less. But data should never be ignored or censored because it does not fit the models. The models must continually be open for testing against measured reality. If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records, but to the activists who often have made implausible exaggerations about climate change impacts. In climate change, as in so many fields, cool heads must prevail.

“Appropriate weight” for Watson’s paper, published in a minor journal, apparently being a front page story in The Australian. Something not given to more important scientific papers on climate change because they can’t be spun to support The Australian‘s agenda.

Comments

  1. #1 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    Kev so you are debating something that you admit not having any idea about,

    here is gavin schmidt, NASA he does know about it

    [Response: Yes. Having now listened to the podcast(Salby), I thnk he has done a regression of growth rate to temperature (and soil moisture) over the recent period. The sensitivity he then derives is projected back using the 0.8 deg C warming over the 20th C. However, this is ludicrous – the sensitivity in the recent period can’t be more than say, 1 ppmv per 0.1 deg C. Projected back you would have say a 10 ppmv (max) change over the 20th C. Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. Salby’s sensitivity appears to be 10 times too large. Someone might want to have a look at the data and redo the regressions, but the physics is screwy. – gavin

  2. #2 kev
    August 9, 2011

    John I have made my points very clear and concise but people choose to avoid answering them.

    The fact is that there has not been an upward trend since 1998. There has been an upward trend since some time before not 1998 but not since. That is a simple fact.
    Otherwise you may as well try and tell us that there has been an upward trend in the US stockmarket since last night.

    Actually I do have an idea john, but as I said I am not going to chase every random point thrown at me until we resolve those still outstanding (I have debated AGW believers before)

    I do not have great faith in Gavin Schmidt by the way and am not about to take his word as gospel. I see he seems to be discussing some model results but it is a bit hard to make an intelligent comment on this random non-contextual snippet. I will say though that this bit looks a bit suss –

    “Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. ”

    because as I am sure are well aware, the relationship is not linear. (It is logarithmic). So without context there is not much to say.

    Would you like to tell me what your point is?
    And explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event?
    and my original quesrtion ? …

  3. #3 bill
    August 9, 2011

    kev @ #93

    erm John, predictions are meant to be made BEFORE the event, not after. LOL!!!!! You are hilarious!!!

    A perfect merging of Dunning-Kruger and multiple exclamation marks!!!!!!!! Now watch him fail to understand what just happened…

    (BTW – how come New Zealand rural TV can manage this sort of profile while ours just routinely plays the 2+2≈4.5 game? Now that‘s the treatment the man ought to get everywhere.)

  4. #4 Wow
    August 9, 2011

    “The fact is that there has not been an upward trend since 1998.”

    Absolutely false.

    There is a positive trend.

    With large error bars.

    Those error bars include the longer term trend and the computer model trends.

  5. #5 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    kev if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record, NASA, how do you manage to find that the trend is not up,

    I feel that you may have to resort to claims of hoax to convince yourself otherwise?

    now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2, think about what you have said.. are you really a physicist?

  6. #6 Marco
    August 9, 2011

    Kev, you clearly do not possess the necessary scientific understanding to comment on these issues. Gavin Schmidt discusses the amount of net CO2 emissions per degree warming of the oceans and vice versa, the uptake of CO2 per degree cooling. That isn’t logarithmic. You are confusing it with the effect of CO2 on temperature.

    And you have to cherrypick a year (and not all work) after 2002 to get a non-positive slope in the temperature record.

  7. #7 rhwombat
    August 9, 2011

    That’s interesting. A different person is now using Kev’s nym. Have a look at the style of Kev@100, then compare it with Kev@59 & 62, not to mention 78 & 80. Either it was a long, liquid lucnh (sic), or there was a shift change for the duty “physicist” at the Koch Institute for Advanced Climate Trolling. Kev’s latter incarnations bears a remarkable similarity to the late, unlamented mikey-boy, complete with sneering reference to Gavin Schmidt and a tone of smug superiority. And he’s fallen for the same trap that bill set for GSW. Snark.

  8. #8 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    Kev “Would you like to tell me what your point is? And explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event? and my original quesrtion ? ”

    this question indicates that you are only asking why did the trend not go up period 1998/2000 , we thought that you meant till now or 2010 at least. you know, decade trends.

  9. #9 kev
    August 9, 2011

    bill I said that noone predicted the post 1998 plateau despite the ‘awesome’ modelling ability.
    So then I find out that it WAS predicted! Only the prediction seems to have been made a long time after the event. So that is why I am a bit unimpressed. Would you like me to predict last weeks lotto numbers?

    Wow
    You seem to be a bit late to the discussion so I suggest you go back to the start.

    ” if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record”

    If it was … but it was not. Don’t take my word for it! Look at the graph that chris (or someone) provided.

    “now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2″

    Now this is the stage where I wonder to myself whether I am about to answer a legitimate question from someone who really does not know the answer or am I just having to go through the motions of giving an answer you already know but are hoping that I do not.
    This first time I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Later I will not.

    In the laboratory it is well understood that CO2 has a greenhouse effect and it has been shown that as the level in some sample ‘atmosphere’ increases the temperature of the sample increases logarithmically. So far so good. This effect happens as well in the planets atmosphere. As CO2 increases there is an inevitable warming and this component of warming will also be logarithmic.
    However…
    the planet is not just an ideal glass bubble of gas. The temperature of the planet is determined by one or two other factors (actually there are at least fifty that I could come up with right now).
    One of the effects of a warming planet is a release of CO2 from the oceans. (A well known effect of warm water not dissolving gas so well). So as the planet warms CO2 is released from the oceans. In this case of course CO2 lags temperature increase. There is also a much more solid connection between ocean temperature and CO2 content than there is between atmospheric CO2 content and atmospheric temperature.

    But of course there was no need for the above discussion was there? Because, as you are well aware, the historic record shows clearly that CO2 lags temperature whatever the reason.
    So I have to wonder what your motivation is to state something like this – “”now when you say that the relationship is logarithmic, you are confirming that temp follows CO2″
    I can only assume that you know it to be false and yet you try and convince others that it is true.
    What is your motivation for that?

    Marco
    “you clearly do not possess the necessary scientific understanding to comment on these issues”

    I was waiting for that one! The high priest has decided that none shall dare question his pronouncements.
    Sorry marco but science is open to anyone to debate.
    As I said from my previous post it is a bit much to expect me to comment on a non-contextual snippet of someone commenting on what appears to be a third persons article so I am really sorry that I could not suddenly give you the answer you wanted. What is your point? Was it a test to see whether I had memorised every paper written about climate in the past 50 years or something? OK I admit that I have NOT.

    By the way, one does not have to have a PhD in ‘climate science’ to be able to compare the predictios of Schmidt et al with reality.

    “And you have to cherrypick a year (and not all work) after 2002 to get a non-positive slope in the temperature record.”

    Thank you! You have unwittigly agreed with my point. If you read back you will see WHY I deliberately cherry picked 1998. I never denied that it was cherry picked and I did so for the reasons I gave above. My point was proven as well. I suggest you read it before you comment.

  10. #10 kev
    August 9, 2011

    “this question indicates that you are only asking why did the trend not go up period 1998/2000 , we thought that you meant till now or 2010 at least”

    Yeah sure you did…

    My point was quite clear and I will repeat it.

    You have such faith in these models and in 1998 you were no doubt wetting yourself with excitement as the ‘hockey stick’ prophesy was coming true … but then it all fell away didn’t it!

    The temperature stopped rising and the temperature plateaued.

    And despite your amazing models and the genius of Scmidt et al NOBODY predicted it! But does that diminish your faith in the models? No way!!
    First we had denial that the warming had stopped. (actully we still have that)
    Then we had a hastily cobbled together ‘explanation’. A desperate fix to the theory.

    SO2 and soot to the rescue!!
    Oh yeah and el nino … and anything else we can throw into the hole to plug the gap.
    OK done! It is all explained away now and John has the hindcasts to prove it!!
    Well done john. Very convincing.
    Try a prediction for the future next time and it might be a bit more convincing if it happens. In the meantime I can hind cast all of last years lotto numbers if you let me train my algorith on them…

  11. #11 Wow
    August 9, 2011

    > You have such faith in these models and in 1998

    Kev, you were putting faith in a model that used a quadratic to fit the data.

    You were also the one putting faith in 1998 as some form of magic mantra.

    > as the ‘hockey stick’ prophesy was coming true

    The hockey stick is more than 1998, most of it is in the past.

    > The temperature stopped rising and the temperature plateaued.

    False. The temperature is rising. Despite a colder sun.

    > And despite your amazing models and the genius of Scmidt et al NOBODY predicted it

    a) because it hasn’t happened

    b) because to predict a cooler sun you have to use a model of the sun, not a model of the earth’s climate

  12. #12 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    kev you are very hard to follow.

    “Kev “Would you like to tell me what your point is? “explain how a prediction can be made 2 years after the event? and my original quesrtion”

    what event was predicted two years later?

    now you are confusing projections with actual temp data
    the projection, for 1998 the hind-cast done in 2000 was way below the actual temperature, I wish that you at least had some idea what you where talking about

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    August 9, 2011

    Kev:

    I know what the little green line represents

    This guy is even dumber than I thought. Illiterate too. Not much I can do.

  14. #14 Wow
    August 9, 2011

    > ” if the period , twelve months dec09 to nov 2010 was the hottest on record”

    > If it was … but it was not.

    Except it was.

    > One of the effects of a warming planet is a release of CO2 from the oceans. So as the planet warms CO2 is released from the oceans.

    Which takes about 800 years.

    So where is the 800-year-old 1C warming over 50 years?

    > as you are well aware, the historic record shows clearly that CO2 lags temperature

    By 800 years.

    > whatever the reason

    PETM?

  15. #15 Donald Oats
    August 9, 2011

    Streuth! That troll is dumber than a sackful of hammers…and you can quote me on that.

  16. #16 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    Kev the rise in co2 leads to a temperature rise and that is logarithmic, double co2 for about 1.2DegC on its own.UPDATE

    a temperature rise leading to CO2 emissions from the Ocean can only be approximated from past climates, nothing to do with logarithmic

    From you comment following gavin’s quote
    “”Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. ”
    KEV
    “because as I am sure are well aware, the relationship is not linear. (It is logarithmic).”

    what you have said in this context is ludicrous as has been explained to you

  17. #17 kev
    August 9, 2011

    wow
    I am not putting faith in any models and I never claim that a curve fit represents a model. The curve fit simply indicated that the word ‘accelerating’ was incorrect and ‘decelerating’ was more accurate. That was all.

    “You were also the one putting faith in 1998 as some form of magic mantra.”
    No. You obviousoly have not bothered to read why I cherry pciked that year. I suggest you do so before you waste any more time.

    John what I am saying is very clear and easy to follow. I am saying that a hindcast done post 1998 does not count as a prediction. Predictions have to be done BEFORE the event.
    So unless you wish to keep on quibbling I think you will agree that pre 1998 these fantastic models, upon which we want to base our economic destruction, were unable to predict the climate post 1998 or even come close.
    What I am saying is that the models are shown to be useless at that time and I have no reason to believe that they have miraculously improved since then. That is my humble point.

    So Chris, I see you have refused to answer the question so I will tell you the answer.
    The little green line does NOT represent a trend in the data you are looking at it represents a trend including data decades before what is shown on the graph. You are the one who provided the graph so you should at least have been able to answer the really simple question based upon the data in that graph. You failed.

    So John, I take it from you latest post that my suspicion was correct and that you do understand the FACT that CO2 lags temperature. So I then have to wonder what your motivation is to try and deliberately mislead. It is not science is it? You are on a blog about the ‘attack’ on science and yet here you are trying to spread misinformation.

    Lets have a look at what you wrote.

    “Which takes about 800 years.
    So where is the 800-year-old 1C warming over 50 years?”

    So you are looking for a nice neat 800 year finger print are you? And you think that this will be nice and distict against a background of climate noise etc?
    Let me think – either you really wonder about the answer to this question or, yet again, it is an attempt to troll me. I wonder which it is…hmmm.. I wonder.

    By the way, you still have not given me a straight answer to my original simple question. I wonder why not.

  18. #18 Stu N
    August 9, 2011

    >The data shown on the graph ie. SINCE 1998 will not have a positive slope trend line. I have explained exactly why I chose 1998 – to see whether you could give a straight honest answer. You failed. (That was why I suggested that someone see what the little line did when graphing 1998 to 2000)

    Strange, my earlier post, which was the first reply to your original question, shows a positive slope trend line – as does the one Jakerman provided.

    Yet you said

    >That line is a trend line which is based upon decades of data prior to what is being shown on the graph.

    Wow. Does being this stupid come naturally to you, or do you have to work at it? Here’s the graph Jakerman linked to again: < http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/mean:13>

    You’ll notice that the linear trend is specified as ‘From (time): 1998′. It doesn’t get any more transparent than that – the trend line is based only on data from 1998. Truly, I admire your efforts to further sully the reputation of fake sceptics everywhere. Well done.

  19. #19 Stu N
    August 9, 2011

    To clarify the above comment – the trend line is based only on data from 1998 onwards.

  20. #20 Marco
    August 9, 2011

    Kev, your explanation for cherry picking 1998 was very obvious: it was the only far-out-enough year that gave you a remote chance of having it right (and you had not, the slope is still positive). You tried to link that to Tim’s supposed cherry-pick.

    There is a big problem with that: as Tamino showed, Watson made some boo-boos in his analysis, resulting in an incorrect claim of deceleration (Houston and Dean did a real cherry pick. Almost any other year and their result would have been different).

  21. #21 kev
    August 9, 2011

    “what you have said in this context is ludicrous ”

    Yes I know John. That is why I said that there was no point me commenting on a non-contextural snippet of someone commenting on someone elses paper.

    Was that your great Gotcha moment was it?!
    Well done!
    You caught me a beauty there didn’t you!? Because I didn’t notice that they were talking about oceans (given that there is no mention of what they are talking about in 99) I just noticed something odd about the CO2-temperature relationship.
    Gosh I am such a fool for not having memorised the entirety of climate science papers for the last few decades!
    Wow. Great work. I am really impressed with the way you guys debate science. You sure have convinced me!

  22. #22 kev
    August 9, 2011

    So Stu you still haven’t worked it out have you? You should have picked up on the fact that everyone else has gone very quiet about the matter.
    Your trend line still goes up when you plot 1998 to 2000 and that is a clear plummet.
    That is why I suggested using a bit of common sense occasionally.

  23. #23 rhwombat
    August 9, 2011

    Hmm. Kev is ponderous, pompous, evasive, self-obsessed, abusive, semi-literate, and demands answers to it’s thread hijacking. Tim, can we have a new troll, please? This one’s broken.

  24. #24 Marco
    August 9, 2011

    Oh, and Kev, if you think Salby’s analysis is right, you got a bit of a problem with your “CO2 lags temperature”.

    Salby’s analysis and claim is completely dependent on an almost instantaneous effect of temperature on CO2 emissions. That directly contradicts the lag that has been observed in paleorecords.

    Oops…

  25. #25 Wow
    August 9, 2011

    > I am not putting faith in any models

    Yes you do.

    > and I never claim that a curve fit represents a model.

    Ah, so THIS is how you can say with a straight face that you don’t put faith in any models!

    A curve fit IS a model. You’re modelling the data as whatever curve you fit to the data.

    This is a model.

    One you’ve put all your faith in.

  26. #26 Wow
    August 9, 2011

    > I am saying that a hindcast done post 1998 does not count as a prediction.

    It is if you use the same model but put in the actual external parameters.

    You see, the model predicts an average effect for volcanoes etc. Because this isn’t a volcano model, it’s a model of the climate and it has to figure on a “average” effect.

    But when you take the model output, put in, for example, the actual pinatubo explosion, you get what the model would have predicted if vulcanologists had predicted the pinatubo eruption.

  27. #27 DavidK
    August 9, 2011

    Hmmm, coming to the party a tad late but has anyone asked Kev if he understands why 1998 and 2010 are on par as the hottest years on record while the former (1998) was one of the hottest El Nino years and the latter (2010) was one of the coldest La Nina years? Just a thought.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    August 9, 2011

    Kev, old feller-me-troll.

    You’re a great one for asking questions, and I should know, as it’s one of my favourite strategies for trying to elicit thought processes in others. Thus far however, you have demonstrated very little by way of actual scientific thought, so perhaps it’s time that you answer some questions yourself…

    The first is one of my perenial favourites to pose to denialists, such as yourself, who pursue the claims that you do: what is the magnitude of the noise in the mean global temperature signal for the last century or so? Show working.

    Following on, what does the answer to the previous question imply for determining the time period required to discern a trend in the signal, from the noise of the signal?

    Discuss.

  29. #29 Dave R
    August 9, 2011

    >were unable to predict the climate post 1998 or even come close.

    Hogwash. All climate models exhibit noise that closely resembles the noise observed in the real climate system. But climate scientists are not interested in predicting the noise — they are interested in changes in __climate__, not weather. If you look at the projections in the IPCC reports you will see that they use ensemble runs __to eliminate the noise from the projections__.

    Your cherry picking of 1998 on the other hand, is a deliberate attempt to mislead by emphasising the noise in order to obscure the trend.

  30. #30 Stu N
    August 9, 2011

    >the latter (2010) was one of the coldest La Nina years?

    David, no it wasn’t. 2010 was an El Nino year – but it was not anywhere near as strong as 1998.

    I think I’m safe in saying that a La Nina year will NEVER set a record high global temperature.

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    August 9, 2011

    >The curve fit simply indicated that the word ‘accelerating’ was incorrect and ‘decelerating’ was more accurate. That was all.

    It’s been said already, but I’ll repeat it for your benefit Kev, as you are obviously burdened with a comprehension problem…

    the curve fitting was [completely inappropriate](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/bag-of-hammers-ii/). Therefore, any conclusion by Salby (and by his igoraminions) of deceleration versus acceleration is also going to be inappropriate.

    I note that this simple truth doesn’t slow you in the slightest though – you’re galloping ahead under the momentum of your own trollish ideology.

    That ain’t science.

  32. #32 DavidK
    August 9, 2011

    Should have said 2010 going into 2011. I think I’m safe in saying that we will have a La Nina year that is hotter than 1998’s El Nino.

  33. #33 lurker
    August 9, 2011

    Kev@120,
    the reason why the trend line still “went up” when you changed the year range is because you didn’t change the trend line range to match the new data range. [Try This](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/trend:2000)

    I think most people picked up on how to work the graphing webpage except you…

  34. #34 lurker
    August 9, 2011

    Whoops Kev@121 should have been

  35. #35 Jeremy C
    August 9, 2011

    Kev,

    Can you show your evidence that temperatures haven’t increased since 1998?

    > Your guru Mann has begrudgingly admitted it.

    Where has Michael Mann grudingly admitted (I am making the assumption you mean Michael Mann the scientist).

    However, I just wanted to go back to the following statement of yours:

    >Now see what the little green line says when you ask what the temperature did between 1998 and 2000. It goes up!! No wonder you guys swallowed the hockey stick hook line and sinker.

    If you go back to that graph it has this piece of information:

    > uah/from: 1998/to:2012/trend

    wrt to the green trend line. Weren’t you complaining that the green trend line was not marked with when it started yet it is clearly presendted in the above.

    In answering this I would really like your evidence about it not heating up since 1998 first.

  36. #36 Doug McClean
    August 9, 2011

    Kev,
    Just where are you getting the idea that the WFT trend line uses data outside the graph. I looked up the 1998-2000 time period you claim shows an increasing trend line even though the data is clearly decreasing, which you further claims supports your point that it uses data from outside the time period.

    As usual, you’re wrong. Here it is:
    for UAH http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2000/trend
    for GISS http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2000/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2000/trend
    for WFT http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2000/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2000/trend
    for HADCRUT: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2000/trend

    All of these plots show a decreasing trendline on the decreasing data. As everyone (including you) agreed, 3 years is far too short an interval for that trend to be physically meaningful. However, the fact that these trendlines correctly go down (because they are calculated using only the data from the selected time interval), directly contradicts your repeated assertion that they go up.

    Do you have a link to a plot which supports your out-of-nowhere assertion that these trendlines are calculated using data from outside the time interval? Do you have access to a spreadsheet program, because contrary to your assertion that regression is something we don’t understand, in fact it is quite simple. Any spreadsheet program (there is a free one included in OpenOffice which is quite nice) will allow you to replicate these regressions.

    Why is it that the (badly fit) quadratic regression in the original post is gold to you, but the (better fit, even simpler) linear regressions of the temperature data are black magic, too complicated, and based on faulty models? (As if we don’t know the answer to that.)

  37. #37 Doug McClean
    August 9, 2011

    Kev,
    I forgot to include the post number, but see posts 61 and 89 for places where you made this assertion that the WFT trendlines for 1998 to 2000 contradict the data by increasing while the data clearly (near-monotonically, even) decreases.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    August 9, 2011

    > Truly, I admire your efforts to further sully the reputation of fake sceptics everywhere.

    Stu N wins the intertubes!

    And safe to say that the current kev won’t grok why this is warranted.

    Anyone want to lay bets as to whether kev will [answer any of Bernard’s questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_70.php#comment-4751434), which would immediately leapfrog him ahead of our previous self-puffing condescending fallacy and irrelevancy spouter friend, VincentR of the “Shorter Clive James” thread? Or should we compare his performance with our other recent visitor who proclaimed “I teach physics” before proceeding to demonstrate his rank ignorance of basic scientific principles?

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    August 9, 2011

    Oh, and really, kev, you need to get your act together!

    See, any fool can and will draw inappropriate conclusions from a mere quadratic fit, but such primitive work tends to indicate the workings of a small mind.

    However, as readers who can remember as far back as last year goes, the state of the art in fitting arbitrary polynomials to data was already up to the 5th order way back then – and the R^2 in that case were *much* better than the mere quadratic you tout as worthy to draw conclusions from. Surely someone of your staggering intellect could rise to the challenge and demonstrate that still higher order polynomials produce even higher R^2 and are thus a far better model for determining whether the data support a conclusion of deceleration or not? Seriously, kev, hop to it! Surely as a proud physicist eager to demonstrate your intellectual brilliance you cannot be content to let a mere retired economics professor trump you in the curve-fitting stakes?

  40. #40 Tim Lambert
    August 9, 2011

    **Update** The next day *The Australian adds an editorial to the pile:

    >The climate change debate is too often treated as a zero-sum game where every scientific development or weather event is measured as a loss or gain for the activists or the sceptics.

    This approach is best exemplified by the reporting in *The Australian*.

    >Climate science is growing faster than our emissions. Thousands of experts around the planet continue to research the geological record for lessons past, monitor current events for evidence, influences or clues, and recalibrate their modelling for greater certainty about their predictions. Classic scientific method continues to rely on initial observations in order to deduce hypotheses, and measurement of data to test experiments or theories. This is how we amass and expand our bank of knowledge — which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has constantly revised its predictions. The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson, the global average temperature readings of NASA, even the daily records of our own weather stations, must all nourish this process. They each should be accorded their appropriate weight in the scientific and public debates; nothing more and nothing less. But data should never be ignored or censored because it does not fit the models. The models must continually be open for testing against measured reality. If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records, but to the activists who often have made implausible exaggerations about climate change impacts. In climate change, as in so many fields, cool heads must prevail.

    “Appropriate weight” for Watson’s paper, published in a minor journal, apparently being a front page story in *The Australian*. Something not given to more important scientific papers on climate change because they can’t be spun to support *The Australian*’s agenda.

  41. #41 john byatt
    August 9, 2011

    ” when people feel the need to profess they “believe in the science”. Science should be the polar opposite of belief. It represents the triumph of facts and reason over blind faith.”

    So reading,understanding and accepting the science is deemed to be blind faith, even though one’s position is based on facts and reason.

    ” best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement”

    which pretty much sums up the editor’s position,

  42. #42 Chris O'Neill
    August 9, 2011

    The sea-level observations of NSW researcher Phil Watson

    When it suits The Australian’s agenda, it’s “observations” even when it’s a model.

    If we are keen to understand why public scepticism about some of the climate modelling seems to be on the rise, best not look to the scientists working on accurate measurement and records

    No doubt implying that Watson is one of the scientists working on accurate measurement and records when in actual fact he was working on a model.

  43. #43 john byatt
    August 9, 2011
  44. #44 jakerman
    August 9, 2011

    >>[Yep](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/mean:13).The straight line that best fits the data is one with a positive slope.”

    Kev’s reply:

    >*Absolute lie. That line is a trend line which is based upon decades of data prior to what is being shown on the graph.*

    Such strong assertions Kev, yet still so wrong. Afraid its back to school for you Kev. The line used is generated from data [from 1998 onwards](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/mean:13).

    Do you think you represent about average in competence for so-called “skeptics”?

  45. #45 jakerman
    August 9, 2011

    Ahh I see StuN and others have already show the bag of hammers his errror. But does he get it? Unfortunately ‘Hammers’ Kev just [keeps reprsentin’](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_70.php#comment-4751272)

  46. #46 bill
    August 9, 2011

    jakerman @ 143

    Ooh Oooh! Pick me! Pick me! I know that one!

    ‘Yes!’

  47. #47 Jeremy C
    August 10, 2011

    Where’s Kev?

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    August 10, 2011

    He’s got after-school sports practice ;-)

  49. #50 ConnorJ
    December 5, 2011

    Miranda Devine has resurrected this:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php

    Some new comments there attributed to the author. I’d sure love to know exactly how they’been taken out of context.

Current ye@r *