1. #1 Neven
September 12, 2011

Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die.

Jonas, stand up for your national anthem and sing along.

2. #2 clippo UK
September 12, 2011

I was going to attack Jonas N’s, silly Statistical views again in the previous thread but I decided to take other’s advice and not feed the troll.

So, no response there, (and maybe here if he persists in his trollery), doesn’t mean he’s won that argument – just that he’s so unreal he deserves to be the object of pity.

3. #3 Andy S
September 12, 2011

Just for reference in case that “very likely” statement coincidentally comes up for discussion again:

9.4.1.4 The Influence of Greenhouse Gas and Total Anthropogenic Forcing on Global Surface Temperature

4. #4 clippo UK
September 12, 2011

Sorry, I just can’t resist this from Wikpedia re: Statistical Analysis (haven’t figured how to link in Deltoid system yet) :- (& my bolding in each case)

Some consider statistics to be a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data,[5] while others consider it a branch of mathematics[6

&

Statistics also provides tools for prediction and forecasting using data and statistical models. Statistics is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, including natural and social sciences, government, and business.

&

To prove the guiding theory further, these predictions are tested as well, as part of the scientific method. If the inference holds true, then the descriptive statistics of the new data increase the soundness of that hypothesis.

& much much more. Jonas

Your post #107 there is incredible waffle – the waffle of somebody who hasn’t a clue.

………………………

So, back to the question I asked in the other thread :-

Tell me clearly why you think so many scientists in Global Warming related disciplines collect all this data.

Also, please tell me what sort of Mathematics does McIntyre, or Spencer, or Mckittrick , or Wegman etc. etc. use .

And why do they ‘analyse’ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science? perhaps to create ‘models’ of their own to ‘predict’ lesser problems from AGW ???

Virtually all modern science and industry is dependent on advanced statistical analysis.

You’re still wet behind the ears Jonas N.

5. #5 Jonas N
September 12, 2011

Clippo – You entirely miss the point. I never said that statistics aren’t useful. I’ve been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied.

As I said, and as it states in your link: You need a model, or a ‘guiding theory’ which essentially has the same function. The curve fit / equation alone is not enough for predictions.

And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not ‘advanced statistics’. Interpreting data towards a theory might be. And I already answered your questions. Essentially confirming what you just copied. But possibly you missed that too … Sorry kid.

6. #6 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Jonas

Nice to see you are still with us.

😉

7. #7 chek
September 12, 2011

Jonas said: “I never said that statistics aren’t useful. I’ve been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied”.

Of course we’ve already heard that schtick from M&M, M&S and Wegman and look what a horlicks they made.

8. #8 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Clippo

I re read Jonas’s post #107, can you be a bit specific about your criticisms of it? I don’t see much there that could be classed as controversial, have I missed something?

“Tell me clearly why you think so many scientists in Global Warming related disciplines collect all this data?”

Without raw data all analysis is meaningless. Not all data is collected for purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.

“Also, please tell me what sort of Mathematics does McIntyre, or Spencer, or Mckittrick , or Wegman etc. etc. use.”

They heavily use statistial analysis, if that is the desired point you are making(?)

“And why do they ‘analyse’ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science?”

It wouldn’t make much sense to ‘make up’ your own data, although Mann is frequently accused of doing so.

Did you really learn advanced statistics just so you could fit a line? Microsoft sell a packaged called Excel, there are free packages around as well that are probably better.

9. #9 Jonas N
September 12, 2011

In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

Jeff Harvey (and quite some more) repeatedly claimed I was attention seeking, and not being on topic. But if you go back to the Rick Perry thread, and took out all comments spent on speculating about me, making up stuff about me, wanting to describe who I ‘really’ am etc ..

.. less than half would remain, I reckon. (Admittedly, I too responded to some of the blathering, and without that there would have been even less)

Funny thing is that the topics I touched upon, including the Mashey stirr weren’t really responded to or relevant to discuss. Same thing with the more climate/IPCC related details about attribution etc. (At least not for the majority.)

No, my persona was much more in vouge. And especially among those who complained about me being off topic. But as I’ve said: Usually I assume that people bring to the table the best arguments the have (left). And being logical or consistent in one’s stance just doesn’t seem to be for everyone …

But it’s kinda comforting. In this thread i cannot be of topic, I am the topic. And if I just might vent my opionions too about som particluarly stupid remark or commenter, I’d still be on topic. Much more than those who have spent days and weeks here neither adressing the post, or de issues discussed ..

🙂

10. #10 chek
September 12, 2011

Try considering yourself as a pollutant whose increasing concentration of vapidity was making other threads intolerable, Jonas.

11. #11 Jonas N
September 12, 2011

Andy S

You’ve already shown figure 9.9 several times. Thank you. And weren’t you the one (forgive me if i mix up the signatures) who pointed out that 90% isn’t 100%?

clippo

One more remark. Neither Wegman, nor McKitrick or McIntyre are really concerned with the models. What they focus on is not bungling the statistics. McIntyre considers himself to be a luke warmer (and left leaning politically, why that should matter). For all practical purposes you can label me as lukewarmer too, and I’m quite positive I made that clear in the beginning.

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

12. #12 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Jonas

“In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.”

Agreed.

No one has much to say on the Dessler thread (old and incomplete news). Harvey’s had a go at de-railing it to a discussion about ‘policy’, but there’s not much interest in that I’m afraid. You’ll get a few turn up to throw the mindless abuse they substitute for scientific debate.

😉

13. #13 Michael
September 12, 2011

Should have known – he exhibits classic signs of Libertarianism (nasty affliction that one).

He’s probably a devotee of Anyn Rand as well.

Just feel sorry for him.

14. #14 Jeff Harvey
September 12, 2011

*…McKitrick or McIntyre are really concerned with the models*

Poppycock. Both have affiliations with far-right think tanks (the Fraser Institute and George C. Marshall Institute respectively) which receive huge amounts of money from the fossil fuel industries. If these two had a shred of integrity they wouldn’t go within a country mile of any of them.

*It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere) *

In YOUR opinion Jonas. And, whether you like it or not, your opinion is as good as a fart in the wind. I will say it again: you want to make a splash? Write a paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s how I do it, as well as being a former editor at Nature. In recent years I have presented both plenary and keynote lectures at conferences, and this only came about because I am a well-published scientist whose work is cited well in the empirical literature. You hate to hear it, but your views are worth zilch because you refuse to write (or are scared to or both). Why don’t you give it a try if you think that you are right? I am sure GSW is dying to collaborate with you on it. And if not, why not? Do you honestly think that commentary on blogs like this is heavily recycled in scientific circles e.g. conferences? Well I hate to rain on your parade, but it ain’t.

Scientists are, for the most part, not talking about ‘climate armageddon’ anyway. We are talking about causation beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact is that the rapid warming observed since the early 1980s has a human fingerprint all over it. It did so when James Hansen first raised the alarm in 1988, and within a few years of that the concern was growing. When I presented a lecture at a conference on climate change in 2002 in Denmark, the senior climate scientists I spoke with there told me that their view as that the current warming was certainly attributable to human actions. So who am I supposed to believe – these people with years of experience in their field or you, Jonas, who has no track record in any field of science? Do you think that we should listen to the views of scientists or do you think that the views of any Tom, Dick or Harry should carry equal weight? The only way I can assess your contribution is to have it judged by other scientists with the relevant expertise. So I am asking you to write up your rebuttal. Heck you’ve written five paper’s worth of drivel on Deltoid alone in the past two weeks. Whay not save some of that energy for your Earth-shattering article? Or will you disappear into the fog along with your views, like most lay-contrarians?

Jonas claims that any measure to control climate is futile. I might just as well say that trying to influence biogeochemical and hydrological cycles is futile; all of these operate over enormous scales. But we know that humans are profoundly affecting cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds, and that these effects are being manifested in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, humans monopolize almost 50% of net primary production and an equal share of freshwater flows. Why is it so hard to think that humans can also influence climate patterns both locally and over larger scales? Certainly we have altered the planet’s albedo, as well as evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes (see work by Shukla, Nepstad and others).

And why is attempting to control climate ‘detrimental to the environment’? And Jonas’ last statement, *the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)* is gibberish. What is ‘fingerpring’?

15. #15 Michael
September 12, 2011

@11

Where Jonas tries his hand at concern-troll.

Poor effort – can do better.

16. #16 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Harvey,

Hope this helps – ‘fingerpring’ is a typo he meant to say ‘fingerprint’, the letter ‘t’ is just above the ‘g’ on the standard keyboard. Surprised you couldn’t work it out for yourself. I know you non empirical types struggle with that sort of thing – thinking that is.

17. #17 Jeff Harvey
September 12, 2011

GSW.

In my recent posts I have attempted to draw a corollary between cause-and-effect relationships in complex fields in which there are many ‘unknowns’. Population and systems ecology are an excellent example. Above I try and explain that humans are a global force whose effects are manifested in other areas (e.g. biogeochemical cycling, redirection of NPP etc.). so why anyone would try and suggest that we cannot influence climate is beyond me. But of course, neither you or JonasN address the important link between scientific uncertainty and public policy. I give many lectures on this field and it lies at the heart of mitigation efforts. Trust both you and Jonas to muff it.

And with respect to ‘derailing the thread over policy’, your darling bosom buddy above does just that: *It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile*. If this is not an ‘opinion’ calling for inaction, I don’t know what is.

Methinks you ought to actually read what I say before you put your foot into your mouth again.

18. #18 Jeff Harvey
September 12, 2011

GSW:

*you non empirical types*

Listen lunkhead – I have more empirical papers in peer-reviewed journals than you and most of your buddies put together. My guess is that you don’t have a single one.

So put up or shut up, right wing troll.

19. #19 Jeff Harvey
September 12, 2011

…and for that matter, there’s no such word as ‘anthropogening’ either…

seems like English grammar is another one of Jonas’ weak spots.

20. #20 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Harvey,

I do try to read what you say Harvey, unfortunately it’s all emotional, irrational nonsense, which doesn’t really assist in the flow, if you know what I mean.

Grow up! buy a maths book and start from there!

21. #21 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Harvey,

Also, ‘anthropogening’ is another spelling mistake/typo, not an error in grammar, cretin.

😉

22. #22 Michael
September 12, 2011

Jeff,

Your posts are educational for those of us interested in science. We value the contributions and insights of a working, widely published scientist.

However, your eforts are totally wasted on Jonas, GSW and their ilk. They can lie, distort, misconstrue and smear to their hearts content, while you, being a member of the reality-based community, are at a distinct disavantage, restricted to mere facts and logic.

23. #23 Jonas N
September 12, 2011

Jeff H – Do you really think that your exclamations have a different impact when I read them for the third or forth time?

Jeff – Seriously, you are so immensely boring, that even the small points of relevance you sometimes touch upon, those that would be interesting to discuss if you were capable of keeping a level head, totally get lost in your emotional rants and frustrations.

If you really don’t know what a fingerprint is, I’d accept that and leave it there. But trying to make dungpile of a typo is just so lame and boring .. and as I said: It is what people try when they have no better arguments (left).

I see that you now also have adopted the fossil funding meme. Completely giving up on what actually is being said. I reckon that you, at the same time, think we should not discard everything that is said from those taking tax money, which has to be taken from people using coersion under the threat of force and violence.

If I were you (and I am not) I would tread carefully here. Because me thinks that without the force of the government, that is if you had to earn your money honestly, by offering others your services, at the rate they are prepared to pay you, you would not be as well off.

You have repeatedly made derogatory remarks about workers in cardboard box factories. But they earn honest money. And they are taxed heavily to pay for all kinds of nonsense, and additionally for quite a number of ‘liberals’ insulting for their work them on top of that ..

It’s nothing I can respect. And that goes for much of your comment. But I will respond to one more thing, which has some relevance:

“Scientists are, for the most part, not talking about ‘climate armageddon'” which is true, and those scientists I can respect, even when I don’t agree with them. Unfortunately quite some of the most prominent ones, and the IPCC in general, unabashedly promote all kinds of ‘climate armageddons’, and those are the ones we are hearing the most about or from.

You for instance are promoting the ecological diversity armageddon, and my understanding is that you totally believe in that you have seen the light. In exactly the same whay as all previous foretellers of disaster have. Because they too thought, that this time it is really for real ..

And I am not even challenging your beliefs, just noting that you are totally incapable to do anything about it. Publishing ten more papers of the scare, will at best get some media attention … and then the world will proceed exactly as it did before.

24. #24 GSW
September 12, 2011

@Michael, Jeff,

Jeff is at a distinct disadvantage solely because he doesn’t know what he is talking about, which is limiting in most professions you’ll find.

@Jonas,

Quite a successful first evening I think, Keep it going!

25. #25 Jonas N
September 12, 2011

For allt the Jeff:s in the world who will misconstrue any typing error, I want to correct the above to make clear that i meant:

” they are taxed heavily to pay for .. quite a number of ‘liberals’ insulting [them] for their work on top of that “

26. #26 chek
September 12, 2011

I’d suggest that the Booker/Delingpole wannabees here will only continue to play various combinations of denier bingo and are best left alone to mutually masticate over their entirely dull, predictable and evidence-free views.

27. #27 Michael
September 12, 2011

chek,

I find their ranting strangely compelling.

Personally, I’m hoping for some more comedy gold like when Jonas lectured me on how I didn’t understand “errorbars”.

28. #28 John
September 12, 2011

So Jonas is an extreme far-right Libertarian. Suddenly everything is so clear.

😉

29. #29 Jeffrey Davis
September 12, 2011

Real Climate has the Bore Hole. Every politically-tinged site should have the equivalent. When a bore get naughty, there’s a siding to park them in. Like sending a 4 year old to go stand in the corner.

30. #30 John
September 12, 2011

That’s called SILENCING DISSENT Jeffery. It just feeds into their paranoia.

31. #31 Mikem
September 12, 2011

@8 GSW

It wouldn’t make much sense to ‘make up’ your own data, although Mann is frequently accused of doing so.

Yes, Mann is frequently accused. Cleared because there’s no actual evidence. Accused again. Cleared again because there’s no actual evidence. Accused. Cleared. Accused. Cleared. And so on, ad nauseum.

In fact, it has transpired that it doesn’t even matter who or what organisation is actually doing the “inquiry” into Mann, or whether they are supported or not supported by sceptics. The end result is always the same after all the “evidence” is examined.

As I have asked previously: Do you think there might be a simple, logical, rational reason why Mann gets cleared of fabricating data so often by so many different lines of inquiry looking at so many lines of evidence? Or is the conspiracy just far deeper than you ever imagined?

And I’ll repeat my other recent question: Does it make you ponder why sceptics so often seem to have a credibility problem and end up getting treated with derision and scorn? I would think that if sceptics are the supremely logical and rational thinkers they seem to believe they are, then they might finally be nearing the point where they could safely concede that Mann probably hasn’t fabricated anything at all. Maybe?

32. #32 Jeffrey Davis
September 12, 2011

re: 31

There is no actual paranoia. It’s contrived. (You can’t offer an elaborate, cooked argument w/ cherry-picked data and not know it.) They’ve decided to scream, so let them.

Over there.

33. #33 Billy Bob Hall
September 12, 2011

Where’s my threaD tim ? Or cat got my tung (again) ?

34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
September 12, 2011

I quite enjoyed the irony of Jonas calling JeffH “boring”.

On the one hand, we have well-written and informative opinions based on real-world observations from a professional whose work is accepted for publication by respected science journals.

On the other hand we have a nauseously long-winded fog of nonsense recycled from idiot-blogs by an anonymous cretin.

No, it isn’t Jeff who’s “boring”.

35. #35 Alan
September 12, 2011

Jonas

Contact Bob Stringer (ex CSIRO scientist), Ian Plimer (Adelaide University) Bob Carter (James Cook University)
Chris De Freitas (University of Auckland), give them an outline of your research and ask if they are willing to collaborate with you on working up your ideas into a paper in a scientific journal, e.g. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

Let us know when your important paper is published.

36. #36 John Brookes
September 12, 2011

What is the most common bird on earth?

Yes, its the chicken. Human influence again….

37. #37 Michael
September 13, 2011

John @ 36.

Away with your AGW (Anthropogenic Global Waxing (of chickens)) theory.

The current high numbers of chickens are simply natural varibility. Haven’t you heard of the MCP (Medievel Chicken Period)? Chickens even grew in Greenland then.

38. #38 Gaz
September 13, 2011

Apparently the Vikings used to make wine out of chickens in Greenland during the medieval warm period.

Jonas Curtin told me.

39. #39 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Mikem

The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that’s being kind) use of statistical methods.

Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don’t have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today.

The importance of the MBH papers is played down now, even gavin says they were never anything more than just ‘interesting’.

So No, I don’t think we are near the point where it’s going to be accepted as a ‘valid’ piece of work.

40. #40 Jeff Harvey
September 13, 2011

*The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that’s being kind) use of statistical methods*

B*. The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically driven, just as it is against Hansen, Trenbarth and others. Mann’s ‘crime’ was to publish a seminal article in Nature that has become the ‘Alamo’ for the denialist cause. They have used the hockey stick as the icon in their own anti-environmental crusade.

As John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton explain in “Trust Us, We’re Experts’, the climate change denial lobby has used every method in their book to debunk the science that they hate. That you, GSW, think that most of the so-called sceptics are interested in ‘good science’ tells me a lot about your understanding on the issue.

41. #41 Jonas N
September 13, 2011

Yeah, yeah ..

And it was Exxon, and the right wing think tanks who manipulated Mann to include the Tiljande sediments upside down … We’ve heard it all before: Paranoia among the chicken …

42. #42 chek
September 13, 2011

GSW said: “So No, I don’t think we are near the point where it’s going to be accepted as a ‘valid’ piece of work”.

Yeah right, hence the untold millions invested in investigation after investigation after investigation of Mann.

The denier industry focus is transparent, GSW. The hockey stick totem is more of a Pavlovian fixation to them than that pigeon was to Dastardly & Muttley.

43. #43 Jeff Harvey
September 13, 2011

Thanks for all the support everyone here and other the other threads that were contaminated by JonasN (with support from simpletons like GSW).

JonasN has finally shown his true political colors – he’s a far-right libertarian, which explains his loathing of government regulations, as well as his ‘views’ on climate science. I am sure that with enough coaxing GSW will also finally reveal his political affiliations as well, and – surprise! surprise! – it will mirror those of Jonas. GSW claims that I don’t know what I am talking about (guffaw, guffaw) without discussing a single point I made (much like our right wing pundit). Another typical trick of the denial lobby – ignore substantive arguments with vacuous, dismissive jibes.

I certainly have better things to do now than to waste more of my time on another ‘exiles’ thread. Jonas can now proudly join the ranks of Curtin, Sunspot, Brent and others in their own rogues gallery of denial. Buh-bye.

44. #44 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Harvey

The thing about science Jeff is you are supposed to set aside your own politicial views/prejudices and consider each thing objectively on its own merits.

You don’t, it’s all politically and idealogically driven, you never ever address the facts or details of whats being said. You operate purely on prejudice. For some reason you think everyone else does to, it’s what you accuse them of, the overwhelming majority of empirical scientists don’t behave that way.

Are you one that did that Oickos(?) paper, this is exactly what I mean. Think about it for a moment.

45. #45 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Chek

“The hockey stick totem is more of a Pavlovian fixation to them than that pigeon was to Dastardly & Muttley.”

I have to admit there is some truth to this. The circus surrounding the controversial Mann is more like a sideshow attraction than legitimate scientific discourse and discovery.

46. #46 chek
September 13, 2011

Well, that’s that’s that then.

Jonas has no scientific arguments whatsoever, just a selection of denier greatest hits memes.

Quelle surprise.

47. #47 GSW
September 13, 2011

@chek

The Exxon’s behind everything is actually one of your sides ‘memes’. Jonas was simply illustrating how ridiculous it is.

48. #48 Scribe
September 13, 2011

I’d like to know who “Jonas” is in real life. Is he one of the superannuated academics, usually geologists, who comprise the “Dad’s Army” of deniers? (I noticed he uses “kid” to address others …)

Or is he merely one of the paid claque that goes around disrupting comment sections dealing with AGW; the type of whom Upton Sinclair famously said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”.

49. #49 Dave H
September 13, 2011

@GSW

Childish, utterly blinkered, and transparently baiting.

Killfiled.

50. #50 Bernard J.
September 13, 2011

Jonas N.

It seems that you found it profoundly difficult to actually undertake a process whereby you might find the papers detailing the methodology used in the IPCC’s establishment of ranges around modelled warming, and/or the researchers who conducted the work.

You certainly gave no indication of the extent to which you undertook any such investigation… and yet, you are determined to spread the meme that no work was done by climatologists in order to establish said ranges, and rather that the IPCC’s “numbers are made up, guessed at best”.

If you are so confident that you can make this claim, you must have read at least some of the IPCC’s references and established that they don’t provide the information required to establish the model ranges.

So, can you please list the IPCC reference papers that you have read, and determined do not contain the requisite information, or do not contain information needed to locate the requisite information about the model ranges?

And do you seriously stand by Glen Raphael’s muddle-headed attempt at binomial probability?

51. #51 Jeff Harvey
September 13, 2011

GSW,

Again, read the posts where I discuss ‘complexity’ in various fields of science as well as large scale processes influenced by human actions (aside from climate). There’s nothing whatsoever idealogically driven by those comparisons; its just that you and Jonas refuse to discuss them in a scientific framework. Must either be because you don’t understand environmental science or else I have hit a nerve.

52. #52 CLIPPO uk
September 13, 2011

Although my response following seems to be attacking you GSW, it’s not meant to – I’m just trying to get Jonas N to re-evaluate his ‘denial’ and silly mis-understanding of Statistics – but you have had the courage to ask me to explain more

Re:- GSW @ 8

I re read Jonas’s post #107, can you be a bit specific about your criticisms of it? I don’t see much there that could be classed as controversial, have I missed something?

Jonas N’s post 107 is general purpose rubbish. He could have looked that up in an elementary textbook – and I think Chris’s in post #110 there claim in post that it is possibly even sub – undergraduate stuff elevates it considerably.
My main criticism, and why I entered this ‘whack-a-denier’ Jonas N argument, was his statement in post #71 of the Dressler thread as I’ll call it,

There is nothing wrong with fitting straight lines to noisy and/or varying data, but those should not be confused with the actual data. And fitted lines carry no predictive or explainatory value. The discussion above was about where the hypothesis and real data agreed well, and where not. (trendlines are irrelevant for that purpose)

which shows he’s a naive babe where any science is concerned, but particularly statistics.

Data on its’ own is MEANINGLESS – and tells you NOTHING. My fundamental argument is that scientists collect data to analyse and understand the mathematical relationships that cause the data – as Jeff Harvey suggested in post #18 here and from the extensive Wiki article.

Statisticians fit ‘lines’ to ‘predict’ – FULL STOP.

Re:- GSW @8

Not all data is collected for purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.

To a slight sense, I agree with the first part but re: the second which I have bolded, what do Meteorologists do with weather monitoring data ? – make a forecast (or ‘prediction) perhaps?. (Furthermore,what is the common name for Meteorologists? – smile).
And there’s NO WAY they can do that these days without enormously complex ‘models’ derived from advanced statistics on horrendously expensive computers.

Re: GSW @8

They heavily use statistial analysis, if that is the desired point you are making(?)

YES! – prercisiely the point I was trying to get Jonas N to realise – he doesn’t appear to accept the Statistical models that the IPCC and Climate Change science consensus have generated – but he will believe the Statistics / Models of a few vested-interest AGW deniers.

Re: GSW @8

“And why do they ‘analyse’ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science?”

Think about this question a bit more deeply – in my opinion, and probably many others, they analyse this same data to ‘corrupt’ the analysis to fit their pre-conclusions.

Re: GSW @8

Did you really learn advanced statistics just so you could fit a line? Microsoft sell a packaged called Excel, there are free packages around as well that are probably better.

Seriously, I was doing advanced Statistical analysis before even PCs came out. I did use Excel a little later but frankly, for extensive multivariate analysis, the then Excel couldn’t match other specialised packages.

Re: Jonas N @ 12

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

So, in your opinion, reducing CO2 emissions, by say, lessening the combustion of fossil fuels and/or replanting tropical rainforests as a major carbon sink won’t have any effect on the atmosphere? Neither will the reduction of ‘soot’ from such burning ? Neither will the enormous pollution caused from burning coal ?

My God – you’re really freaked out.

53. #53 clippo UK
September 13, 2011

Sorry some of my paragraph / quote formatting in the last post is not quite right.

54. #54 Michael
September 13, 2011

There was a guy called Jones
Whom on others placed the onus,
For his climate science education,
But ‘twas mere masturbation,
For this libertarian named Jonas.

55. #55 Jonas N
September 13, 2011

Bernard,

In the Sept Open Thread, [you essentially said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/september_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5141731) only an idiot could not find the the relevant references in AR4:

>”Although, seriously .. I can understand why it is that you haven’t been able to find any of the material in the IPCC reference lists. Idiot.”

Well, I have not found them, which kinda makes the point you wanted to make, doesn’t it? 🙂

Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

(Oh yes, one more tiny little detail: They must be in there too, which kinda is the center of the whole brouhaha)

56. #56 chris
September 13, 2011

Re GSW (@ 40)

“Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don’t have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today.”

That’s a little sad GSW. I thought you might be a serious sort of chap, but it seems you’re one of those misguided individuals that considers nonchalant smearing and misrepresentation of scientists to be all in a days work. Have to say I’m curious about your motives! Perhaps like Dr. Roy W. Spencer you consider your political opinions “trump” honest representation of science [and even to the extent of playing the little cheerleader for the dullard Jonas 😉 ].

Anyhow, for those that might be interested in the science, rather than GSW’s lazy falsehoods it’s easy to see that “the CRU guys, Briffa+Osborne” (sic) think nothing of the sort. In fact Briffa and Osborn consider that the late 20th century and contempory warming is greater than anytime during the last 1000 years. We know this because they say so in their papers. Let’s look at one of these:

Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation
M. N. Juckes, M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. J. Osborn, and S. L.Weber (2007) Climate of the Past 3, 591-609.

Briffa and Osborn state at various points:

“The IPCC2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported by subsequent research and by the results obtained here.”

and:

“The IPCC 2007 conclusion that “It is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in at least the past 1300 years” (Solomon et al., 2007) is also supported by our analysis.”

and of their own composite reconstruction:

“A new reconstruction made with a composite of 13 proxies extending back to AD 1000 fits the instrumental record to within a standard deviation of 0.14 K. The maximum pre-industrial temperature in the reconstruction is 0.25 K, in the 11th century, relative to the AD 1866 to 1970 mean. The maximum temperature from the instrumental record is 0.84K in AD 1998, over 4 standard deviations larger.”

Obviously they’re not too impressed with the flawed 2003 “critique” of Mann’s work by a pair of Canadian bullies (McKitrick and McIntyre aka MM2003) whose work they consider to be “discredited”.

“Also, data from South West Mexico was omitted in MM2003 (discussed further in the SM). McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) [MM2005b] revisit the MM2003 work using the stepwise calculated principal components. They claim to reproduce the results of MM2003 by making only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. However, examination of the relevant figures shows that the MM2005b predictions for the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 result as opposed to 0.5K in MM2003. This is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it would not make the 15th century the warmest on record.”

57. #57 jakerman
September 13, 2011

>The importance of the MBH papers is played down now,

Because its 13 years old and superseded by advancements such as [Mann 2008](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html)

58. #58 chek
September 13, 2011

Chris @ #56

The problem is that on the one hand the denier echo chambers create an alternative reality in which goons who inhabit that undergound like our double act here, come to believe that what is repeatedly rumoured and insinuated must be true, and no matter how flawed their understanding (which can never be admitted). On the other hand they may just as easily be cold, stone-faced, deliberate liars.

It’s the only way that their netherworld can sustain itself. Like any cult, really.

59. #59 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Clippo

Thanks Clippo, I don’t really have an axe to grind over a lot of what you say. I few points did grate however.

“Statisticians fit ‘lines’ to ‘predict’ – FULL STOP.”

I’d prefer to say statisticians fit lines to establish and quantify “relationships”. The relationship established one could then go on to make predictions admittedly.

“Not all data is collected for the purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.”

None of the data collected in the late 19th and early 20th century was collected for building ‘models’. You can easily determine that a storm with high winds is heading your way from a series of barometric plots.

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, you said for the purposes of ‘building’ models, the fact that this data is routinely ‘input’ to models for weather forecasts is a different matter entirely.

“Think about this question a bit more deeply – in my opinion, and probably many others, they analyse this same data to ‘corrupt’ the analysis to fit their pre-conclusions.”

Well I don’t doubt that your pre conceived ideas as to individuals motives ‘colours’ your view.

I’d simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial. Your conclusions as to why they do so now is very much your own opinion.

60. #60 jakerman
September 13, 2011

Since 1998 the [science has developed](http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html). Interestingly the newer findings largely vindicate the main findings of MBH (and put into perspectives the scale of any failings of MBH -which have been so over-blow by so called skeptics).

61. #61 chris
September 13, 2011

jackerman (@ 57 and @ 60)

Yes, quite so jackerman. But GSW has on a couple of occasions had the audacity to step away from a stream of insults, sly insinuations and cheer-leading for the delightful Jonas to make some specific claims. Perhaps he thought readers might not notice, but it’s worth addressing these specifically. GSW might not care for the truth (he seems to be “operating on prejudice” as he quaintly puts it), but I suspect the vast majority of readers, just like the vast majority of scientists, like to get stuff right.

62. #62 chris
September 13, 2011

of course, I meant “jakerman” (not “jackerman”)

63. #63 Andrew Strang
September 13, 2011

Hi JonasN,
I apologise for possibly mischaracterizing you elsewhwere. Is English your first language? If not that might explain part of your relative incoherence to readers here. Can you briefly summarize in scientific protocol for us, your position re AGW? FYI I have no scientific qualifications but FWIW I accept that black holes might pop into and out of existence through and within us at Planck dimensions.

64. #64 Andrew Strang
September 13, 2011

self correction – Planck scales

65. #65 Bernard J.
September 13, 2011

Jonas N.

>Well, I have not found them, which kinda makes the point you wanted to make, doesn’t it? 🙂

So, what you’re saying is that you haven’t actually read any of the IPCC references?

Riiight…

>Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

Jonas N, I am planning to go through as many of the (clearly referenced) papers that you claim have no explanation of the methodologies behind the IPCC statements, as I can obtain through my institution. To do that I need to know which papers you’ve read, and have decided don’t contain any of the methodologies that describe the determination of temperature ranges.

You need to stump up petal. You’ve been libelling the IPCC, many professional climate scientists, and other people of intelligence and intregrity such as John Mashey, but you don’t ever supply anything by way of evidence or substantiation. Whenever you’re pushed to provide such, you wiggle and scratch and squeal like a cornered rat.

So, let’s have it. Where’s your analysis of the IPCC’s report and it’s sources and authors? Where is the basis for your nonsensical claims?

What substance do you actually have, little troll?

66. #66 Stu
September 13, 2011

Jonas, sweetheart? Why are you still wasting your brilliance on us poor, misguided plebes?

As you helpfully collaborated in another thread, there are millions of Exxon dollars to be had if only you publish your laser-like arguments, your thorough and scientific trouncing of all the nincompoops at the IPCC.

Why, Jonas? I’m only looking out for you. I want what’s best for the you, and the world. Your insights should be immortalized, stat! The world cannot wait any longer!

Run, Jonas, run!

67. #67 John
September 13, 2011

GSW

>I’d simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial.

I’d simply point out that not once in the past twenty years has any of their work stood up to even mild scrutiny.

Spencer, Lindzen, and Cristy’s ideas will die with them.

68. #68 Michael
September 13, 2011

Which reminds of that funny little saying;

Science advances one funeral at a time.

69. #69 Harald Korneliussen
September 13, 2011

> If I were you (and I am not)

For statistics gathering purposes, I’d like to know how you came across Deltoid, Jonas. Rarely do we a specimen of Objectivistus Americanus so perfect that he feels “I am not you” is a necessary clarification to make 🙂

(I came across deltoid via slashdot many, many years ago, as Lambert profiled some PR groups that were paid to attack Linux.)

70. #70 Jonas N
September 13, 2011

No, Bernard #65, that’s not what I’m saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your ‘facts’, OK?

And I can’t remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there. And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying ‘it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]’ while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion, or valid under specific restrictions.

Wich is much worse, than when an anonymous blog commenters tries to pull a quicky and dirty ..

So nowadays, I ask the referrer if (s)he has actually read and understood the contents, and would be able to discuss and defend them, if I read it. I don’t make the effort to follow references from random people who in their posts show that they cannot phrase specifics, valid arguments or even their own stance.

In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

But I think you make a mistake here.

Finding central scientific results is not (should not be) very difficult today, especially if it is (supposedly) so widely known as the IPCC AR4 centerpiece claim.

You shouldn’t need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists. Merely pointed out that the basis for that claim is immensely difficult to find (and more and more seem to grudgingly agree no).

Yes, tentatively, I have said that (I think) it doesn’t exist. Because that is a falsifyable statment.

As i wrote: I am sticking my neck out, go ahead and have a swing.

But I can’t (ever) prove a negative (and those few among you who something about science, of course know that)

71. #71 John
September 13, 2011

So in short Jonas can’t name any papers he believe prove his point. Edifying stuff.

>I don’t make the effort to follow references from random people who in their posts show that they cannot phrase specifics, valid arguments or even their own stance.

Good advice. How tedious it must be that these cretins go as far as to reference something! Probably a taxpayer funded paper by Michael Mann too!

72. #72 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Bernard

“What substance do you actually have, little troll?”

Come of it Bernard, you can hardly accuse Jonas of being a Troll on his own thread! It’s rude if nothing else!

😉

73. #73 Jeff Harvey
September 13, 2011

*And I can’t remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there*

Good grief, the pit Jonas has dug for himself is so deep that he’s liable to pop up on the other side of the planet any time now. This is a classic case of the mouse that roars. “Can’t remember off the top of my head?!?!?” “I used to follow are read references that AGW proponents pointed me to?!?!?!?”

How much more lame can this clown get? And to think we have tried here to pry from his big mouth the actual science behind his screeds! But our resident troll has a memory blank when it comes to the actual peer-reviewed studies, and all we are left with is his admission that “I used to read papers – trust me, I really did, once upon a time in the good old days when they were given to me”.

This guys becoming more of a hoot every second. Priceless!

74. #74 Jonas N
September 13, 2011

Jeff – Inventing your own ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ still is a really lousy method for understanding the world.

Really, how dense can you be? Show me were that claim is based on real science, or shut up! All you guys have been doing is shouting that it must be in there (for the most peculiar reasons) but none of you has seen it either!

The implicit claim you are making is that it is so deeply burried and well hidden, that nobody can find it if he/she is looking really hard for it.

Well, if it indeed exists, it is! You are the living walking proof of that …

75. #75 elspi
September 13, 2011

What Jonas said:

“And I can’t remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there”

What Jonas would have said in a perfect world :

“All of em Katie”

76. #76 Clippo UK
September 13, 2011

Re: GSW @59

Clippo – “Statisticians fit ‘lines’ to ‘predict’ – FULL STOP.”
GSW – I’d prefer to say statisticians fit lines to establish and quantify “relationships”. The relationship established one could then go on to make predictions admittedly.

I put ‘lines’ & ‘predict’ in inverted commas for a reason – to imply quantified relationships had been found.

&

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, you said for the purposes of ‘building’ models, the fact that this data is routinely ‘input’ to models for weather forecasts is a different matter entirely.

I didn’t say this – please re-read what I wrote. To help you, I said that meteorologists / weather forecasters, put ‘current’ weather information into very complicated ‘models’ (by implication derived by Advanced Statistical analysis of older data), to forecast short term weather.
&

You can easily determine that a storm with high winds is heading your way from a series of barometric plots.

Can you ??? I severely underestimated you – but why do NASA, say, monitor the progress of hurricanes and TS worldwide using satellites & state of the art technology?

I’d simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial.

No they weren’t (except Linzden perhaps) – they only started analysing this data at the bejest of the ‘doubt science’ USA right wing. You should try to read some books like History of Global warming (Spencer Weart), The Republican war on Science, (Chris Mooney) &, of course, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway) and others.
And I agree completely with John in #67

I’d simply point out that not once in the past twenty years has any of their work stood up to even mild scrutiny.
Spencer, Lindzen, and Cristy’s ideas will die with them.

Finally, I’d like you to clarify some ambiguity in your post # 108 in the Dessler thread :-

Jonas vs Clippo. I’d call that at least part way to a drubbing Jonas.

I have not studied many of your postings before GSW but I’m beginning to become suspicious of YOUR analytical capabilities

77. #77 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Clippo

Ok, happy to agree to disagree. Are you claiming weather forecasting didn’t start until the NASA satellite era? are you being serial?

There’s a bit of info around the net on the US Weather Bureau (18th Century) and how it developed over time – quite interesting light reading really.

😉

78. #78 Shub
September 13, 2011

Jeff Harvey,

Could you please point to the Nepstad paper that shows specifically the alteration of ‘evapotranspiration regimes’ in heavily deforested tropical biomes?

Thanks.

Additionally, it would be nice if you could clarify what you mean by such mumbo-jumbo as “alteration of evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes”. Sounds awfully scientific and like woo – all at the same time.

In my line of work, if a junior reported that such-and-such variable is “altered”, “deranged” or something like that, he would be rapped on the knuckles immediately. He/she would have to be more specific.

79. #79 Holly Stick
September 13, 2011

You could have googled it, Shub, if you were really interested in learning something:

“…Climates can be classified according to the average and the typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation. The most commonly used classification scheme was originally developed by Wladimir Köppen. The Thornthwaite system,[2] in use since 1948, incorporates evapotranspiration along with temperature and precipitation information and is used in studying animal species diversity and potential effects of climate changes…”

80. #80 chek
September 13, 2011

Shub the nobody said “In my line of work…”

Oh gawd – shub’s pulling his voice of authority one out of his grab bag. This should be hilarious.

Remind us again what exactly it is you do shubby, and your achievements to date. Jeff we already know about.

81. #81 chris
September 13, 2011

Oh dear shub, I hope you’re not a bully in real life! It’s pretty obvious what Jeff’s sentence means (are you really struggling over the word “altered”?)

interesting report for shub
(see chapter 2)

Nepstad, D, G. Carvalho, A. C. Barros, A. Alencar, J. P.
Capobianco, J. Bishop, P. Moutinho, P. Lefebvre,
U. L. Silva Jr, U.L., and E. Prins. 2001. Road
paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of
Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management
154:395-407.

Nepstad, D. C., C. R. Carvalho, E. A. Davidson, P. Jipp,
P. A. Lefebvre, G. H. Negreiros, E. D. da Silva, T. A.
Stone, S. E. Trumbore, and S. Vieira. 1994. The
role of deep roots in the hydrological and carbon
cycles of Amazonian forests and pastures. Nature
372:666–669. 78)

82. #82 GSW
September 13, 2011

@Shub 78,

Apologies Shub, but why do you ask? You haven’t been subjected to one of Harvey’s biodiversity armageddon rants have you? (That’s what Jonas calls them anyway)

Just curious,

😉

PS ignore the proles.

83. #83 chek
September 13, 2011

My apologies GSW. I was forgetting, as proles often do, that shubby is quite the intellectual, as it were, over at Montford’s trash fiction promo site.

84. #84 GSW
September 13, 2011

@chek

Not a prob chek. Good site the bish has. v. polite. Now back to your dustbin prole.

😉

85. #85 chek
September 13, 2011

GSW said: “Good site the bish has. v. polite”.

86. #86 Shub
September 13, 2011

GSW@82

Why, yes! Quite a bit of time, and quite some time back too.

87. #87 jakerman
September 13, 2011
88. #88 Michael
September 13, 2011

Has Shub managed to elaborate on his pompous “my line of work, if a junior….”.

No?

Just more self-aggrandizing hot air?

Whodu thunk it??

89. #89 Mikem
September 13, 2011

@40, GSW

The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that’s being kind) use of statistical methods.

Oh no, no, no, no. Do you not read WUWT and Climateaudit?

Have you not read the rants and raves against Mann on “sceptic” blogs? Have you not read the synthesis of the allegations sent into Penn State in an email bombardment? They mostly involve allegations of systemic fraud and allegations of a criminal nature. Heck, even prominent conservative politicians want him in jail!

You are mistaking criticism of his scientific methods with the frenzy of allegations made against him in the blogosphere. If you have problems with his scientific methods, then the place to show how wrong they are is in the literature with your own original work. Sceptics have so far spectacularly failed to do this (despite a valiant effort from McIntyre).

The main thrust of allegations from sceptics however, are of a criminal nature. Don’t make me go and cut & paste numerous sceptic commentaries onto here to show you. These are allegations of widespread fraud. I’m sure you’re well aware of the facts, however you choose to dress them up.

90. #90 Jeff Harvey
September 14, 2011

Thanks Chris, Chek, Holly Stick and others. You’ve answered Shubbie. The point I was making is that an emergent tree in a tropical rainforest recycles huge amounts of water from its roots that are diffused through above-ground plant tissues back into the atmosphere… millions of liters of it to be precise… convectional precipitation falling on the eastern slopes of the Andes is recycled several times as it moves east across the continent eventually falling on the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil. Critical in this cycle is the feedback between the vegetation and the atmosphere. More than a decade ago, Shukla and colleagues projected that even a limited loss of tropical plant biomass would interfere with this cycle, with consequences that should be clear.

As for ‘ecological armageddon’, such a phrase could only come out of an anti-environmental handbook. Sounds a lot like something from Ronald Bailey or ‘Rational Readings’ etc. Well done Jonas and GSW; join the club. Membership does not require one having even a basic understanding of population or systems ecology in response to global change, but simply to ridicule the message, and damn the empirical evidence.

91. #91 Eli Rabett
September 14, 2011

Weather prediction sucked before large computer models were created on large computers and satellite observations were available (one, maybe two days). Today prediction is pretty good for over a week, and the pretty is better the larger the computers available to run the models.

It’s sort of like medicine before scientific medicine in ~1900 when going to the quack was not very good for your health or like Medicare would be under the Republicans or the National Health under the Tories, you might call it weather prediction, but it would not be weather prediciton

92. #92 Jonas N
September 14, 2011

Clippo

It is you who do not understand the basic things discussed here (and I suggest that you refrain from such stupid guessing about me)

What I said in #107 is perfectly correct:

The data is one thing,

Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another

A model, a guiding theory, an attempt at an explanation is yet another,

Such a proposed model, may be fitted to observational or experimental data, especially when some factor/parameter of the hypothesis needs to be be determined (estimated, fitted) through that procedure

Predictions (projections) from that model into new (uncharted) territory is yet anotherthing.

The fitting, and the (explanatory) model are two seperate things. Fitting a straight line to dataset doesn’t make that line a predictor. I have already mentioned the stockmarket as an example. The same is true for a data series you get when rolling a dice or the roulette wheel a number of times .. You may fit a nice line to it, and not much more.

For predictions you need an attempt at an explanation, a model.

Even when only extrapolating a straight (fitted) line, say into future, you implicitly make the assumtion that ther exists a ~linear relationship between the changes you observe, and the chosen parameter (time here).

And you are right, what I say is basic 101 of data analysis and handling, or any modelling, in physics or engineering. I too found it very strange that you felt compelled to throw a hissy fit ..

Wrt Climate, armageddon and politics:

You seem very prejudiced about that debate (and not very well informed). And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on ‘the climate’ are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than ‘controlling the climate’.

93. #93 itsyourself
September 14, 2011

Jonas do ever say anything? I have read your stuff, all the many many words. Is there a point to this stream of semi random letters?

September 14, 2011

> The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically [sic] driven…

And you think that the catastrophic man-made warming movement isn’t?

95. #95 chek
September 14, 2011

96. #96 Wow
September 14, 2011

> Is there a point to this stream of semi random letters?

I think it’s “look at me!!!”. Which is quite pointless over the internet.

97. #97 Wow
September 14, 2011

> What I said in #107 is perfectly correct:

> The data is one thing,

> Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another

So why not go after the people [doing just that](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)?

98. #98 GSW
September 14, 2011

@Jonas 93,

Mm, thoughtful post. You’re a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren’t you? there’s a lot of honesty in you words. Some may not agree with them, but there’s not much of defence against the truth.

Your thread’s proving quite a success! the rest of blog is pretty quite. As someone said earlier “Compeling”. Well done! Keep it up!

😉

99. #99 Mikem
September 14, 2011

So was that a tacit concession from Rick Bradford that the case against Mann actually is ideologically driven, or just a clumsy redirect?

100. #100 Jeff Harvey
September 14, 2011

*And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on ‘the climate’ are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than ‘controlling the climate’*

The above passage is pure gobbldegook, utterly meaningless drivel (and the grammar is appalling). Its preferable to use up less resources? Soot reduction? And GSW calls this gibberish ‘thoughtful’?!?! No wonder most on here think they both deserve each other. The poster Itsyourself nailed it with his response.