Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    “Brad can deny rejecting the consensus position [...] all he likes,”

    But I haven’t denied that.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Has it occurred to you that I may have found your objection feeble and unpersuasive, continued to believe the proposition you objected to and therefore persisted in the claim in bona fide?

    No, but now that you mention it, perhaps you are simply intellectually incompetent in just the right way to make it look like a pattern of deliberate mendacity. I may have been grievously mistaken all along!

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ chameleon

    Small correction:

    Didn’t Brad K say he HAS NOT ‘rejected’ it?

    What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    But I haven’t denied that.

    My bad.

    Please tell chameleon. She’s asserting you said you “… [have] NOT ‘rejected’ it?” [the consensus position].

    Only one of you can be correct.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    Firstly, the likelihood you place on the range you specified constitutes a rejection of the consensus position. I think we’re all in agreement with that. Even the 1.5C value itself is an outlier in the consensus position, an outlier so extreme that values below it are considered to be ruled out with very high confidence – and your comment was about “less than 1.5C” which is still more extreme.

    “Supported” in science does not generally mean “there’s a paper that claims it”; it means that it’s a defensible inference from ALL the evidence. Your claim – the ECS range you cited and the weight you place on it – is indeed an unsupported outlier value in the light of ALL the evidence. The fact that you refuse to cite supporting evidence makes it even more ironic that you claim your position is not “unsupported”.

  6. #6 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?

  7. #7 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    BTW Lotharsson,
    Brad is correct. I misquoted him.
    It doesn’t change the substance of my comment to BBD.
    However, apologies to Brad.
    He most definitely said : in favour of . . .

  8. #8 bill
    February 11, 2013

    Dear Chebbie,

    What year did MBH ’98 start?

    signed,

    All The People Actually Paying Attention

  9. #9 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 11, 2013

    :waves frantically:

    There seems to be something wrong with this merry-go-round! Can the mechanic fix something so that we’re not going backwards and forwards over the same 2 metres the whole time?

    Please!

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @Lotharsson, you really should read my comments in context: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148034

    FTFY:

    Assuming BBD expects this to be taken at face value as some kind of support for his position:

    “The argument for the range above [ ~2.5C – ~3C] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature.”

    …let’s take a look at it.

    BBD says the argument for his estimate is “exhaustively documented in the literature”, which any philosophy student with basic English parsing skills could tell you is a very different claim to “is the best inference from all the evidence”, which makes one wonder why BBD specified the former concept and not the latter. There are any number of scientific propositions that are exhaustively documented in the literature – along with their complete and utter rebuttal, the validity of which almost no-one now denies.

    This is very similar to BBD’s hero Fabius Maximus’ M.O. which attempts to avoid any defence of one’s asserted position by simply refusing to demonstrate that one’s position is the best inference from all the data (and in part by ignoring the confidence levels in various propositions put forth by others).

    You’re welcome.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @bill,

    I just wanted to tell you how witty you are.

    “Dear Chebbie,”

    It took me ages to get it, but… that nickname is so clever, because chameleon and Chebbie BOTH START WITH “CH”!

    LOL!

    It works on so many levels. You, sir, are the new Hitchens!

  12. #12 adelady
    February 11, 2013

    “There are any number of scientific propositions that are exhaustively documented in the literature – along with their complete and utter rebuttal, the validity of which almost no-one now denies.”

    Goodo. Seeing as this argument is now presented in the discussion of the range for ECS, we now presume that there is a “complete and utter rebuttal” of the 2.5 to 3C calculation available in the scientific literature.

    Where is the citation?

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson, you really should read my comments in context…

    There goes another irony meter. Brad tries to lecture other people about taking context into consideration – right after misinterpreting a quote scientist by refusing to apply context!

    And Brad, I already did so.

    Your comments were in the context of alleging that you weren’t lining up behind an unsupported outlier. And your lame attempt to “FTFY” by replacing “Brad” with “BBD” misses the mark because of context. BBD wasn’t lining up behind a position that it as unsupported outlier, nor has the position he cited been completely rebutted – unless you want to allege those things thereby pushing the envelope of denialism into the realm of complete farce?

    So Brad, what adelady said: citations please.

  14. #14 bill
    February 11, 2013

    ‘Chebbie’ came from ‘Debbie’ at Jo Nova’s being coincidentally the only other person in the entire universe who happens to believe that Flannery said snow would be a ‘fleeting fancy’ by 2012. She denies they’re the same person. I couldn’t be bothered checking.

    Well done on working out the ‘Ch’ bit. Next you’ll be telling me you figured out why I referred to latimer as ‘Larch’.

    Hitchens was a war criminal and an anti-religious bigot, so your sarcasm is wasted.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    And since it goes to Brad’s lack of critical thinking ability and/or lack of honesty…Brad is repeating the claim that Mann’s algorithm was “kept secret” based on allowing Brad’s personal interpretation of an alleged quote in the WSJ to outweigh the plain evidence of the algorithm being published in the MBH98 paper itself, it is worth also noting that I have pointed out previously to Brad that (ignoring the paper) even the quote is suspect, as Mann writes in his book:

    Regalado also gave readers the false impression that my coauthors and I had something to hide. He quoted me as saying “Giving them [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.” I doubt I said that to Regalado since the algorithm was published in our original (MBH98) article, and thus there would be no need to give it to someone. I might have said that regarding the source code…and for good reasons: (1) our source code wasn’t necessary to reproduce and verify our findings. Scientists such as Eduardo Zorita…had independently implemented our algorithm without access to our source code. …

    The most likely explanation is that the journalist – who Mann details making several other misleading statements, even after having interviewed Mann and other scientists – confused “source code” with “algorithm”. Heck, even McIntyre himself, a key player in the events in question, when writing in this article quietly corrects Mann’s quote when he quotes from the WSJ!

    Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    Not only does Brad foolishly rely on a quote in a newspaper article to tell him what is found (or not found) in a freely obtainable paper, but the guy the quote refers to rejects the specific word in the quote that Brad relies upon.

    Once you’ve absorbed that calamity of error on Brad’s part, read the whole page of Mann’s book at the first link – and the surrounding pages that are available for context! – and note how they contradict not just this but a number of other claims that Brad makes about Mann and his group’s work. For example, not only is the algorithm that Brad alleges was kept secret evident in the paper itself, but other researchers were able to implement it without having the source code! How could that possibly be true, if the algorithm were kept secret – or if “the source code specifies the algorithm”?!

    And yet Brad continues to make these allegations. Based on past performance – and having been informed of these issues previously – he is very unlikely to acknowledge any errors, not even when McIntyre himself corrects them, and will simply Gish Gallop to his next sophistical gambit. We must also conclude that Brad is incompetent – or a crank and a liar, or perhaps all three.

    So I reiterate the request for citations either supporting an ECS or 1.5 C or less over and above all of the counter-evidence, or comprehensively rebutting an ECS most likely to fall in the range of about 2.5 – 3.0 C, but based on Brad’s demonstrated inability to argue in good faith and his ability to parse the completely unexpected from English text if it “benefits” his position, I expect nothing substantive to arise from it.

    (Go on Brad, surprise me! ;-) )

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    February 11, 2013

    “exhaustively documented in the literature”,

    So…is this bit in dispute?

    Maybe compare it with the “exhaustiveness” of any documentation for the <1.5 degree/doubling?

    As far as I know, the latter is pretty much exclusively confined to crank posts on crank blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova.

    which any philosophy student with basic English parsing skills could tell you is a very different claim to “is the best inference from all the evidence”,

    Yeah, probably because its intended meaning was as per the statement as written, and not as your second statement, which is obviously true, but wasn’t at that point under discussion.

    Perhaps they were a bit overzealous in the philosophy unit concerning, “Red Herrings”? Such a shame you wasted your time on such a pointless and truth-avoiding course of study.

  17. #17 Vince Whirlwind
    February 11, 2013

    Just out of interest, are you now, or have you ever been, a fan of the “theory” of the abiogenic mechanism for the origin of petroleum?

  18. #18 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the Hockey Stick?.
    Bill,
    If you have outlined the issue of timeframes in your rather vague question re MBH98, does that mean you agree or disagree with Vince re BEST and MBH98?.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson, are you confabulating again?

    “Heck, even McIntyre himself, a key player in the events in question, when writing in this article quietly corrects Mann’s quote when he quotes from the WSJ!”

    Really? Here’s McIntyre:

    Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    And here’s the original:

    Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    The quote appears to be unchanged. McIntyre didn’t “correct” a word of it, did he?

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    The quote appears to be unchanged. McIntyre didn’t “correct” a word of it, did he?

    My mistake. I was looking at the clarification that he was talking about the source code, and the fact that the entire McIntyre article is written in terms of “source code”, not algorithm. In other words, McIntyre does at least interpret the journalist’s quote as applying to the source code which is at least consistent with your conflation of “source code” with “algorithm” – and consistent with Mann’s belief that he was misquoted by the journalist after talking to him about the source code.

    Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge – the assertion that the paper doesn’t specify the algorithm, the assertion (IIRC) that no-one else could implement the algorithm without the source code, the assertion that the source code is the specification of the algorithm, the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … Bet you don’t acknowledge any of them.

    And then there is the question of the citations for your preferred estimate of ECS…

  21. #21 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    Do you agree with Vince that the hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST?

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Chameleon, that question was asked and answered long ago.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Chameleon, do you agree with Brad that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is most likely below 1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2?

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    “My mistake. I was looking at the clarification that he was talking about the source code, “

    The “clarification” was nothing more than a replacement of the pronoun “it” by the noun it signified.

    Original:

    Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    ClimateAudit excerpt:

    Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    “and the fact that the entire McIntyre article is written in terms of “source code”, not algorithm. In other words, McIntyre does at least interpret the journalist’s quote as applying to the source code which is at least consistent with your conflation of “source code” with “algorithm”

    I’m not the one who mixed things up here, Lotharsson.

  25. #25 bill
    February 11, 2013

    It’s funny how when you live in a world made of the merest fluff even the simplest question can appear vague…

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, your #24 agrees with what I said about the McIntyre article in #22.

    How interesting that you felt the need for a whole comment on the part where I agreed with you, and completely ignored the set of erroneous claims you have yet to acknowledge!

    But par for the course.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

    So again with the hearsay.

    And the algorithm is public. It’s a common advanced statistical technique NOT invented by Michael Mann.

    And replication in science isn’t “do precisely what someone else did”. It’s “do the same process”.

    You really don’t know the first thing about science, do you.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    <blockquotethe hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST?

    BEST proves the Hockey stick MBH98.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge – the assertion that the paper doesn’t specify the algorithm, the assertion (IIRC) that no-one else could implement the algorithm without the source code, the assertion that the source code is the specification of the algorithm, the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … Bet you don’t acknowledge any of them.

    So, care to acknowledge your errors, Brat?

  30. #30 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    BBD says the argument for his estimate is “exhaustively documented in the literature”, which any philosophy student with basic English parsing skills could tell you is a very different claim to “is the best inference from all the evidence”,

    It uses different words, but please demonstrate how they have a different meaning entirely.

    Oh, sorry, I forgot: you don’t do proof, do you.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    if Mann’s algorithm is given in the original paper, then please explain why Mann was saying, 7 years after it was published, that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in?”

    If he didn’t say that, then you’re query is void.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    “Since you didn’t say, I remain curious about why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.”

    I don’t. So you’re posing yourself a trick question.

    Except you do.

    You said:

    I consider a sensitivity less than 1.5C per CO2 doubling to be much more likely.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    This is what matters: is the consensus based on the evidence, or isn’t it?

    It is.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    is there any evidence for this:

    “Scientific consensus emerges by default over ideas that nobody has been able to tear down.”

    Yes.

    Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    When have I ever expressed that idea?

    All the frigging time.

  36. #36 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Especially when Phil Jones SAYS he hid something and

    And nothing has been hidden.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    Therefore what he meant is academic.

    Especially since that email you fixate over says nothing about what was being hidden.

  37. #37 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    By whom Lotharsson?
    I have asked YOU!
    When you answer that oft asked question, I will happily answer yours :-)

  38. #38 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    How can you possibly know that nothing has been hidden?

    I can’t.

    But I DO know that “the divergence problem” wasn’t one since it is not hidden.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    You see, if you can see it, it isn’t hidden.

    How can you say that something in plain sight is hidden, chubby?

    (also note that the term used was “hide”: future tense. Just like Ballmer’s “I’m gonna fucking kill Google”)

  39. #39 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    By whom Lotharsson?

    And he answered you.

    And BEST proves MBH98.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, since we’ve already had over 0.9C of warming for a half-a-doubling of CO2, how can you get anything less than 1.8C per doubling for climate sensitivity to CO2?

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    By whom Lotharsson?

    By me. That’s what “asked and answered” generally means when someone says it.

  42. #42 mike
    February 11, 2013

    You know, Wow, I’ve long had a rather vague but persistent notion that there’s something unsettling–unhealthy even–about your obsessional, groupie-like fixation on a known weirdo who sports the improbable surname “Mann.”

    But bill’s comment, up-thread there, about Latimer and bill callin’ him “Larch” and all, helped me to finally put my finger on what it is that’s been puzzling me about you, Wow.

    In particular, Wow, I suddenly realized the disturbing fact that your chosen moniker, “Wow”, is just “Mom” rotated 180 degrees!

    And so, it’s suddenly dawned on me that your last Michael “MANN” comment was really nothing more than a desperate, really creepy plea for help!

  43. #43 pentaxZ
    February 11, 2013
  44. #44 mike
    February 11, 2013

    Hey Wow!

    Be a pal and add another 180 degrees to that rotation, up above, would you?

  45. #45 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Pretty simple explanation here: The sun has an effect.

    Funny how you whining bitches complaining eternally about how it’s the IPCC that is fixated on CO2 are fixated on CO2…

  46. #46 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    mike, projection is giving away an awful lot of your secret thoughts.

    Just being a pal…

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Hey, our WUWT cut-and-paster is here!

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    But our WUWT cut-and-paster is a bit slow. It already made Tamino’s comments on Jan 24.

    Trying to find explanatory cycles in the Central England Temperature record, which isn’t global and isn’t even all from the same location – what could possibly go wrong?! ;-)

  49. #49 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Anything the denieridiot wants!

  50. #50 bill
    February 11, 2013

    We were wrong, you know; ‘mike’s’ position on the LoSA scale is more like 20!

    Just when we all thought that psychoanalysis was completely discredited, and the only half-way accurate thing Freud ever said is that you should certainly forgive your enemies (after they have been hanged), along comes mike in his scary drag role as Norman Bates’ momma…

  51. #51 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    1.5C per doubling is an outlier value and rejected the most likely value of around 3C per doubling.

    You have rejected the current warm anomaly of over 0.9C.

    You have rejected the measure of increased CO2 to nearly 400ppm.

    Your assumption of 1.5C per doubling is less supported by data than the value of 6C per doubling.

    And you’re rejecting the most likely value for an extreme (and now impossible) outlier.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Nah, Wow, Brad’s not rejecting things left, right and centre! He’s merely espousing private semantics. The key word in his quote is “unsupported”. Brad likes to think his position is “supported”, which does not seem to match the usage of the word by scientists. I expect that – should Brad deign to clarify – under Brad’s definition of “supported”, it simply does not matter that recent warming appears to be rather too strong for his preferred range of values. In other words, “supported” can include “strongly rebutted by evidence” as long as Brad can point to some scientist somewhere (Lindzen, anyone?) who once claimed ECS was rather low.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Odd then that he calls the IPCC report unsupported, then. Or any of the claims by, for example, BBD as unsupported.

    Maybe you’re only nearly correct: his definition of “supported” is actually “I like it”.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    Can you describe your understanding of the difference between transient climate sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity?

    Once you’ve done that, can you explain what the current observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, compared with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the same period, implies about equilibrium vs transient climate sensitivity? Reference to numbers, forcings, feedings-back, and sundry empirical studies would be interesting.

    I’m keen to see if your climate physics is any better than your pH chemistry…

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Maybe you’re only nearly correct: his definition of “supported” is actually “I like it”.

    I could believe that.

  56. #56 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    You will have to direct me to where you answered that question.
    I must have missed it amidst all the wowisms.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Why the hard-on for Lotharsson’s answer?

    Is it that you want to just demand, demand, demand like a two-year-old who wants their every whim answered NOW!

    ?

    Or is it that you only think Lotharsson is right?

  58. #58 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    WUWT cut and paster?
    If you’re referring to pentaxZ there is no link to WUWT at the PNAS site.

  59. #59 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Ummm Wow?
    Neither :-)
    You have also claimed Lotharsson answered that question.
    Maybe you can direct me to that answer?

  60. #60 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Neither

    So why do you absolutely need Lotharsson’s answer so much that you can’t go on without it, yet not so much that you can justify looking for the answers between when you asked and now, which would only be a couple of pages to search through?

    Because the front-runner for explaining this is the two-year-old tantrum thrower idea.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Over at WTFUWT you’ll find the same link and this is where panties got the idea to link to it from.

    You deniers are all pretty transparent, for all that you’re incredibly thick.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    If you’re referring to pentaxZ there is no link to WUWT at the PNAS site.

    I didn’t say there was.

    The article in question was just touted on WUWT (via Bishop Hill), and the timing of pentaxZ’s (ahem) emissions generally suggest he that he gets his info from WUWT (and other denialosphere) articles and then cuts and pastes here. Lord knows he shows little sign of comprehending what he writes.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Wow, chameleon is just hoping to stir up controversy, perhaps to distract from Brad’s latest failures which may even be obvious to her – just like Brad manically posted a bunch of crap to try and distract from Latimer’s failures.

    Either that, or – and this is quite plausible, given her history here – she can’t remember what she read a couple of days ago. She certainly shows no sign of any ability to research simple questions, and she is still on record as denying what she herself wrote a few days before she denied writing it.

    Mind you, there’s nothing stopping both of the above hypotheses being true.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    I rather suspect it’s the best she can do to “punish” people for not buying into her denialism. See her attempts to get ME to do the work she could easily do.

  65. #65 pentaxZ
    February 11, 2013

    lotharsson

    To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything. It’s a activist site, like csc and rc. I would say PNAS have a slightly heavier impact than the activist sites.

    Not much left of the once so bright and shiny CAGW castle. You deltoids really are like the forgotten japanese soldiers forgotten on a remote island in the pacific. Hahaha….

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @Lotharsson

    ”Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge – the assertion that the paper doesn’t specify the algorithm,”

    Are these statements in the WSJ article correct?

    Dr. Mann offered a strong rebuttal of the Canadians’ 2003 journal article, explaining that it didn’t correctly apply his techniques. In doing so, however, he revealed details of his data and mathematical methods that hadn’t appeared in his original paper.

    When Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick pointed this out to Nature, the journal that first published the hockey-stick graph, Dr. Mann and his two co-authors had to publish a partial correction. In it, they acknowledged one wrong date and the use of some tree-ring data that hadn’t been cited in the original paper, and they offered some new details of the statistical methods.

    If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything

    A VERY>/b> lazy ad hom there.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Yup, more hearsay from Brat.

    PCA is a standard advanced statistical technique and wasn’t invented by Mann for his paper.

    The source code could only be used to show that the program was run, which isn’t science.

    If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

    Since he did specify, it isn’t so.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    I would say PNAS have a slightly heavier impact than the activist sites.

    Only if the paper stands up to post-publication scrutiny. At first glance it seems likely to suffer from some of the fatal flaws of some of the papers that were widely celebrated by the denialosphere before the responses started to roll in.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

    Even “if so”, your claim does not follow. The text you quoted does not demonstrate that the algorithm was not published – no matter how many times you repeat the claim. Furthermore, as previously pointed out repeatedly, Zorita’s independent replication demonstrates that the paper’s description was sufficient for a competent researcher – just not for M&M, who have demonstrated quite a lot of incompetence over the years (including horrendously screwing up their attempted “correction” of Mann’s original method).

    I note – again – that you are arguing about what’s in the paper from someone else saying things about the paper, instead of demonstrating that the paper does not contain the algorithm. This is almost as low on the credibility stakes as pentaxZ cutting and pasting from WUWT. Maybe ignoring primary evidence in favour of sophistically parsing secondary comments about the evidence passes for thinking in a philosophy degree, but it’s showing you up as a poor critical thinker and unreliable claimant here.

    But hey, as long as you keep getting attention, even disapprobation, it’s all good, right?

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @Wow

    But I DO know that “the divergence problem” wasn’t one since it is not hidden.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    You see, if you can see it, it isn’t hidden.

    Could the audience of Phil Jones’ WMO presentation see it? You know, the people who saw the graph Phil Jones was referring to in the “Hide the Decline” email? Could they see the divergence problem when he put up the slide in question?

    (also note that the term used was “hide”: future tense. Just like Ballmer’s “I’m gonna fucking kill Google”)

    That’s odd—I thought “[to] hide” was the infinitive.

    Please tell us more about this new grammar!

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    PentaxZ in a bid to out-stupid Brad, emits:

    To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything.

    It’s a heavy argument for what I used it for – that you’re a bit slow on the ball and rely on waiting until “news” hits WUWT, Bishop Hill, etc. before you transfer it to a comment here.

    But comprehending what I wrote was probably too advanced a task for you, right?

  73. #73 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Could the audience of Phil Jones’ WMO presentation see it?

    Yes.

    The graph represents the salient points of THREE papers, ALL THREE were referenced and the one for the Briffa curve includes this graph:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

  74. #74 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    That’s odd—I thought “[to] hide” was the infinitive.

    To hide is future.

    Have hidden is past perfect.

    Try this “I have hide the leaving card”.

    Compare with “I have hidden the leaving card”.

    Or “I went to hide the leaving card” which is not saying they DID hide it, just went to do so, compared to “I have hidden the leaving card” which states that the hiding has happened.

    However, being a flunk-out of philosophy, your inability to find coherent meaning is entirely expected.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    If something has been hidden, it isn’t the decline of some temperature proxies accuracy. Because that is entirely visible.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    So, Brad, about those errors you need to acknowledge…

    …and the evidence either FOR “ECS is probably less than 1.5 C” or against “ECS is most likely between 2.5 and 3.0 C”…

    …and Wow’s question at #40?

    …and Bernard’s questions at #54?

    Oh, who am I kidding? Brad’s not going to seriously answer any serious questions let alone acknowledge errors! The latter would immediately belie his personal assessment of the awesomeness of his own intellect, and the former would expose him to the same danger!

    [And damnit, looks like the comment numbering here for old comments here can change if another comment was held up in moderation :-( ]

  77. #77 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    And if something had been hidden on that temperature graph, then BEST would have found a record different from that one.

    They haven’t, so the contention that something is hidden on it is unsupported by any facts.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Speaking of both MBH and the WMO graph, it’s rather interesting that Brad spends far more energy on textual analysis of comments about a work than on any analysis of the work itself. (And he’s not the only one.)

    Why, it’s almost like he’s taking more of a humanities approach to “analysing” scientific claims than a science approach…and even there doing it rather haphazardly by analysing secondary sources rather than primary ones…

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow:

    To hide is future.

    So then, you understand grammar about as well as you understand Islam or how science works.

  80. #80 chek
    February 11, 2013

    “Brad” and PantieZ don’t look at science papers. They’re too busy snarfing up all the denier trash they can about science papers.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    So then, you understand grammar about as well as you understand Islam or how science works.

    Yes, thanks for the compliment!

  82. #82 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    So, brad, given that your assertion as to what was hidden is absolutely false (it’s in the paper referred to in the graph, as is common when synthesising the results of many papers: you don’t cut and paste the entire contents of all the papers you’re referring to), what is hidden?

    Nothing.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    So, brad, given that your assertion as to what was hidden is absolutely false (it’s in the paper referred to in the graph, as is common when synthesising the results of many papers: you don’t cut and paste the entire contents of all the papers you’re referring to),

    No, but if you say such-and-such a curve comes from such-and-such a source, you can’t quietly chop and change the curve (in order, say, to hide the bits you don’t like). That’s essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it’s called “verballing.”

    what is hidden?

    The decline. Like Phil Jones said. (Are you calling him a liar?)

  84. #84 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    Speaking of both MBH and the WMO graph, it’s rather interesting that Brad spends far more energy on textual analysis of comments about a work than on any analysis of the work itself.

    Says the guy whose argument is based on Michael Mann’s memoirs.

    (And he’s not the only one.)

    No, we’re all doing it—but only you, Lotharsson, are pompous enough to sneer at the practice.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    you can’t quietly chop and change the curve

    Yes you can. It’s entirely accepted. You use the data where it is valid and don’t use invalid data.

    This is known as “Quality Control” Colloquially, failing to do this leads to GIGO.

    Your insistence on garbage in so you can get garbage out is entirely because you have an ideological problem with the results of the impersonal consequences of climate science.

    The decline

    What decline? Phil jones hasn’t said what was in decline in that email.

    Or are you picking information from OUTSIDE that email, in contravention of your fake shock at my assertion that that one email was insufficient as to show what was being talked about?

  86. #86 pentaxZ
    February 11, 2013

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

    Well said, Richard Feynman.

  87. #87 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    No, we’re all doing it

    No, you’re projecting again.

    After all, if everyone is doing it, then you’re not bad for doing it, right? Much more effective than not doing the scummy things you want to do.

    what is hidden?

    The decline.

    Except that nothing is hidden on that graph, else there would be a difference between it and an independent analysis of the temperature records for the same period, such as in the BEST study.

    Nothing is hidden.

    Or are you calling BEST a fraud?

  88. #88 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Well said, Richard Feynman.

    Is this why you don’t believe in McIntyre, then?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow

    also note that the term used was “hide”: future tense.

    To hide is future.

    Any backers? Would anyone else like to show us that they’re as ignorant about grammar as Wow is about Islam, how science works, grammar, …?

    LOL

  90. #90 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    That’s essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it’s called “verballing.”

    Nope. It isn’t. It’s essentially NOT like attributing a mangled quote to someone, and nowhere is this act known as “verballing”.

  91. #91 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Any backers?

    So you’d say “I have to hide” is about the past?

    And are you now depending on the consensus?

    Moron.

    PS if it’s hidden, how come you can see it here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    ?

    Or does “hidden” mean “in plain sight” in your lexicon? Any backers for that?

  92. #92 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    That’s essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it’s called “verballing.”

    Given your misattribution and mangling of quotes from a third party as being ones from Mann himself, I can only say: ROFL!!!!

  93. #93 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    And Steve Ballmer really killed Google, right?

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    you can’t quietly chop and change the curve

    Yes you can. It’s entirely accepted. You use the data where it is valid and don’t use invalid data.

    How do you know where the data is “valid” and where it’s “invalid”?

    You haven’t thought this through too well, have you?

    LOL

    Next time you meet a scientist, ask them what they think about your nu ethics. (Hint: as Jonathan Jones, Richard Muller and Paul Dennis have pointed out, the kind of manipulation you’re defending is unforgivable in science.)

  95. #95 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    How do you know where the data is “valid” and where it’s “invalid”?

    Like with anything else: you compare it with concurrent proxies.

    You know, like thermometers.

    And guess what? You get a graph like this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    Which indicates VERY good agreement with the thermometer record for this specific proxy up until some time after 1960.

    There are also PROXIES. I.e. multiple proxy measures.

    These too agree with each other and with the thermometer record where they too are available.

    You know, use data to determine how accurate something is.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    You haven’t thought this through too well, have you?

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    PS if it’s hidden, how come you can see it here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    Because that’s a different graph.

    Remember, Phil Jones only said he’d hidden the decline in his own, Phil Jones’, graph; he never claimed to reach out through space and time and mangle Keith Briffa’s version.

  98. #98 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Because that’s a different graph.

    Well spotted.

    Now is this other graph invisible?

    No?

    No, it isn’t.

    Therefore the decline is not hidden.

    Remember, Phil Jones only said he’d hidden the decline in his own, Phil Jones’, graph;

    Remember: he didn’t. His email doesn’t say what decline and doesn’t say he actually hid anything.

  99. #99 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, please explain how something plainly obvious and referred to can be called “hidden”.

    TIA.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    You know, use data to determine how accurate [some other data] is.

    How “accurate” are the dendro proxies for the year 1500, Wow?