Stoat

This shows the virtue of the open review process at journals such as Climate of the Past.

[Agreed -W]

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 12, 2009 8:15 PM

How did JR end up on the paper in the first place, hardly his area?

Posted by: Magnus Westerstrand | November 13, 2009 3:58 AM

Where did this Maurizio guy come from all of a sudden, and why is he posting now on all the climate science blogs so often?

Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 13, 2009 2:21 PM

More Maurizio (saying what he *really* thinks):

Is the terrain being prepared for zealot co-revolutionaries soon to remove most freedoms and a wide range of technological achievements, imposing us a future "eco-friendly" life of pain, illness, manual labour and struggle, with the belief that human ingenuity is an evil that will destroy the planet instead than improve our lives?

Is this Catastrophism too? Perhaps. But who would have thought 100 years ago of the upcoming Golden Age of Nazism and Communism, doctrines getting ready to kill millions of people: having scientifically proclaimed themselves to be "for the good of humanity"?

- From TCS Daily, Aug. 16, 2006

Sounds a lot like Monckton.

Posted by: Deep Climate | November 13, 2009 4:12 PM

Does anyone see the irony of RC always pointing to the peer reviewed literature, and then when something gets published that they don't agree with they get upset.

[You must have missed http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/ -W]

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 13, 2009 8:50 PM

Paul,

This is exactly my point. I actually feel that these types of reviews are useful responses even to peer reviewed papers. As to what people choose to take on that is up to them. RC never takes on Mann, and CA doesn't take on Pielke.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 14, 2009 1:10 PM

DC,

That is simply your opinion.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 14, 2009 8:42 PM

Nicolas:

One of the biggest reasons to why I stopped taking CA seriously was when McI and almost all of his peanut gallery couldn't figure out something that first-year Met 101 students could correctly answer in their sleep. Climate auditors indeed.

Until McI and the others at CA stop their circle-jerk and publish something peer-reviewed (which at least the Pielkes bother to do), it'll be just irrelevant noise.

Posted by: Former Skeptic | November 15, 2009 1:11 PM

Hank Roberts, Deep Climate, Paul Middents: oh, the bother! Nothing like posting a series of ad-hom's, right? Ready to attempt any other character assassination, are you today? And why not.

Thank you for visiting my blogs and doing a "google" about me.

Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | November 16, 2009 7:07 AM

Maurizio, as the blog saying goes, they laughed at Einstein, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The game is that everyone gets to choose who they laugh at. Several people have appeared to put you in the Bozo category. Perhaps some introspection would be useful. There is life after Bozohood, but it is a hard way back.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 16, 2009 9:32 AM

Come on guys, the best you can do is an offhand comment in August 2008? McIntyre doesn't claim to be a climate scientist, he is a statistician.

And he is published, so that is simply incorrect.

It is simply his choice whether to publish, or simply post. From what I have seen it doesn't make his arguments any more or less correct. They seem to get plenty of response when scientists disagree, so we all know where different folks stand on an issue.

In my short time looking at this stuff I have also seen nonsense published by Schmidt and Rahmstorf. So no one has a monopoly on that.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 16, 2009 4:14 PM

For anyone with a little time to waste, Nicolas raised his issues with Rahmstorf's simple sea level model on this RC thread:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/comment-page-9/#comments

For Nicolas, did you ever communicate your concerns directly to Dr. Rahmstorf or did you just blog on it? Perhaps your characterization of his work as "nonsense" might impact his willingness to respond to your comments.

Posted by: Paul Middents | November 16, 2009 5:20 PM

Nicolas,
McIntyre has exactly one peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature (GRL, 2005). One. Uno. That's it.

Comments on his own article, the two articles in E&E (an unrecognized social science journal) and the non-peer reviewed letter to PNAS don't count.

The only reason that scientists respond is because McIntyre has managed to bamboozle the popular right-wing press into thinking he's actually on to something. It's got nothing to do with science as that term is commonly understood.

Last year, I spent a fair amount of time at CA. Many posts contain serious errors and misunderstandings, as McIntyre struggles through the science. At best, CA specializes in unfocused mountains-from-molehill "analyses". And the accusations of cherrypicking and scientific misconduct are unrelenting.

The recent controversies over Yamal and Tiljander are cases in point, as our esteemed host can confirm.

Posted by: Deep Climate | November 16, 2009 6:43 PM

Paul,

I did communicate with Rahmstorf, of course no response.

And if you keep reading on my blog you will see my comments on Schmidt.

As usual no substantive response to my remarks from anyone.

Climate, no confirmation forthcoming.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 16, 2009 10:55 PM

did communicate with Rahmstorf, of course no response.

And if you keep reading on my blog you will see my comments on Schmidt.

As usual no substantive response to my remarks from anyone.

Which, of course, as any crank scientist knows, this means you're right, rather than just an annoying crank not worth responding to ...

Andy by the way response to Schmidt is submitted. So far infinitely delayed by the publication.

Infinitely delayed means you're right, of course. If you were wrong, they'd pay attention to you ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 16, 2009 11:17 PM

OK, Nicolas, I'll play along with your hide the thimble game and go search your blog. From the looks of it, it needs the hits.

You have 15 posts. I find one. March 14, which mentions Schmidt. Is that your basis for tarring him with the "nonsense" brush?

Posted by: Paul Middents | November 17, 2009 1:13 AM

Nicolas,

It's only hard as you chose to make it.

I followed the link to your Feb. post which refers to MM07 and S09 with no links to the papers under discussion. Google Scholar and McKitrick's web page are no help. I am assuming that MM07 refers to something by McIntyre and McKitrick and that S09 refers to something by Gavin Schmidt. Gavin has published a lot in 2009 so you may have to help me here as I struggle with this concept of a "link". Perhaps you could use a few in your blog posts to make them a little less opaque.

And just to put your mind at ease, I have read both R07, the comments and reply. You have not convinced me that Rahmstorf writes "nonsense".

Posted by: Paul Middents | November 17, 2009 2:19 AM

Re: #27

Deep Climate - I have written much more than those two paragraphs at the time and since. But anyway...one of my concerns, in 2006, was the possibility of some kind of "climate terrorism" becoming a reality, with activists so frustrated by inaction they would turn to bombs to destroy evil CO2-emitting power stations for example.

Given 9/11, then 7/7 in London, and the reports of terrorism-like activities by so-called "animal loving" extremists, I do not think that "climate terrorism" was or still is such a far-fetched idea.

Likewise, when people start talking of a "war against climate change", the concept of seeing the back of civil rights in the name of a higher purpose is something we should handle well before it happens. I am not the only libertarian concerned about this, and I am happy to see the problem is understood by people independently from their stance on AGW.

Luckily, so far inaction has prevailed on the "it's a war!" front. Also what I can see happening is an inward turn of those frustrations, towards self-help rather than bombs.

This explains why so many climate "believer" activist bloggers are so keen to censor non-believer comments, and so reluctant to post links to "non-believer" bloggers.

This also explains why the "appearance" of somebody not believing in upcoming climate catastrophes is responded with ad-homs. You learn to be very thick-skinned (and wary of friends and foes alike) when your opinion does not follow AGW orthodoxy.

Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | November 17, 2009 5:22 AM

#36 gives DenialDepot's Inferno a run for his money in the humour department (even if it is unintentional).

Posted by: Deep Climate | November 17, 2009 12:10 PM

Re: #38

Deep Climate - Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Looks like you're back in the ad-hom's department. Why am I not surprised.

Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | November 17, 2009 1:05 PM

Paul,

Are you trying to set a record for posts without substantive comment?

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 17, 2009 7:29 PM

Paul,

Nice use of French.

If you want to actually criticize what I wrote with a substantive comment then do it. You can't really "call" someone on it if you can't point out what is wrong. I really don't think you understand them at all. Tamino's post just re-estimates a linear relationship without responding to either the published criticism or mine.

I only pointed to my posts to provide evidence for my earlier comment. I don't care if anyone reads it. I write for my own amusement.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 17, 2009 8:32 PM

Beauty are you kidding me? Try Google translate. It means finished, and of course it is French.

And by the way fin means end and it is almost impossible to write in English.

Any more worthless comments.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 21, 2009 1:30 AM

I don't know who is aligned with who any more. But I, perhaps foolishly thought that Paul meant that he was finished with the topic. Are you really telling me that if had written "finished" at the end you would have said it wasn't English because he didn't write a complete sentence.

You guys will argue about anything. I am still waiting for a single substantive comment about my criticism of the Schmidt, or Rahmstorf papers, but I know that will never happen.

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 21, 2009 5:49 PM

I don't know, I never could spell in French. Google translates finis as finished. But since you don't pronounce the "s" anyway....

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 21, 2009 9:08 PM

[Rm. I think this has to end somewhere, it has become dull -W]

Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | November 22, 2009 3:14 PM