Chris Mooney on the report Joe Barton commissioned on the hockey stick:
I am beyond bored with the whole thing. I'm reaching the point of despair. Listen, people: This is an argument over a study that is now some eight years old. Eight years! You would think there is nothing new under the sun in climate science.
So let us recite, once again, for those who still don't get it: *One study never definitively proves anything in science. Any single study can be attacked and criticized. Any individual piece of work will have its gaps, shortcomings, and associated uncertainties.* As for those who show no appreciation of this fact, who obsessively beat up on a single study for political reasons: By this behavior, they simply show that they approach scientific information as lawyerly debunkers, rather than by trying to accurately grasp the big picture.
James Hrynyshyn adds:
Three allegedly distinguished academics -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- have taken it upon themselves to to attack not just paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, whose work was largely vindicated by the National Academies of Science just the other week, but the tendency of climate scientists to rely on peer review...
But this sort of disdain for the scientific community is entirely consistent with the lack of respect for science that typifies the Republican and Bush approaches to public policy. I suggest we should be very concerned when any elected official with any significant degree of power supports the not so subtle message that scientists by their very nature, can't be trusted.
The hijinks never end with Congressman Barton. David Appell reports:
The hockey stick hearings, held by Congressmen dripping fossil fuel money from their fat, fleshy jowls, will be viewable here, on Wednesday the 19th at 10:00 am EDT. They say the guest list is still to be determined.
I think I may have the social network graph that will be used for the guest list right here.
Why... just yesterday I was trying to make this point as a comment on a post at another site regarding the Wegman "report" which, in my opinion, is merely a thinly veiled ad homimen attack on the author of an eight-year-old LETTER that has no bearing on public policy.
To my endless amusement, I kept getting deleted from there as fast as I could type (tee-hee).
How funny to stumble across this blog (and your previous post with its comments) today! (Just as I grew bored and left... someone made reference to "deltoid" and, at the time, I had no idea what they were talking about)
TCO: Could it be "Tau turbulence??!!"
Re: "Why... just yesterday I was trying to make this point as a comment on a post at another site regarding the Wegman "report" which, in my opinion, is merely a thinly veiled ad homimen attack on the author of an eight-year-old LETTER that has no bearing on public policy."
Now, would that site be ClimateAudit?
I honestly can't remember. That might have been the name of the site. Reading a previous post here certainly suggests that it was. I really was just poking around the web a bit ... out of curiousity on the House Energy subcommittee.
why yes it was... I just went back to check and sure enough... I've been banned. Apparantly someone belongs to a knitting blog that doesn't discuss energy policy... and so it's inappropriate to discuss energy policy in the comment section of that blog...despite the fact that the post is about a report to the Energy subcommittee. Too weird for words.
MissJ - Shall we start a club? John Hunter would be the charter menmber.
Steve invited me back as of Monday, and I managed one polite-but-firm response to a disparaging post offered my way in my absense - my next (substantive) post was filtered, and my first post removed. I am currently blocked again. apparently it is okay for the dissenters to abuse "hyperwarmers", but not for me to respond or to offer substance.
I'm still catching up on some background reading over the purpose of the blog that I got caught at:
" a blog that is specifically about M&M's criticisms of MBH's papers on AGW is spending its time on M&M's criticisms of MBH's papers on AGW"
omigosh!
... I had *no* idea what a comedy this one was! I did double over when my comment was returned tonight (I was merely giggling last night when I had to suddenly start typing in little hexadecimal numbers...)
I have no problem being banned from such a narrowly-focused blog. I do have an interest in getting involved in areas with more substance.
Ah, history ... I noted this on Chris's page too.
http://www.sigmaxi.org/meetings/archive/forum.2000.millikan.shtml
--------------------
"In Betrayers of the Truth, Broad and Wade want to make the point that scientists cheat. Chapter 2, Deceit in History starts out with a list of culprits: Claudius Ptolemy, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, John Dalton, Gregor Mendel and Robert Millikan. At the very least, Millikan is in good company. Of Millikan they say he "...extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing than was in fact the case."
"I would argue that this statement is profoundly incorrect. Incidentally, although I have no time to make the case today, the accusations against most of the other scientists on the list are equally spurious.
"For the statement by Broad and Wade to make sense, Millikan's principal experimental result would have to be that there exists a smallest unit of electric charge. We would have to imagine that the existence of electrons, and by implication the existence of atoms, was an issue of burning controversy in 1913...."
....
-------------------
I really dislike people who say they are tired of the truth.
1 They used a non temperature proxy, the Bristlecones.
2 They overweighted it by several hundred times.
3 They calibrated the data wrongly to a short period rising trend, and mine for data that shows a rising trend in the 20th Century.
4 They ignored standard statistical tests, that showed the data had no "skill".
5 They republished based on similar data many times, with related authorship, and call them all independent.
6 They refuse to freely release their data and methods to third parties to test replication.
7 Mann writes his own indecipherable fortran program to do the job, when standard statistical software is available.
8 They assumed a linear relationship between tree rings and temperature, when it is well known that too hot or too cold conditions inhibit tree growth.
9 They didn't compare tree rings to local grid cell temperatures, but instead compared trees to global average temperatures as if a tree in California somehow knows what is going on globally.
These are not "small errors/mistakes".
In all repects their research is fatally flawed, and wrong.
MarkR - one more time:
JB, the comments you are responding too also reflect a somewhat common meme about what the NAS report said - and that meme is wrong. Please allow me to jump in with a bit of further discussin of the kinds of claims that you responded to here.
The NAS report's summary split the analysis into two kinds of evidence. The multiproxy reports, from Mann et al and its follow-ons, were limited by the NAS report to less than they originally claimed - the NAS committee ended up saying that the quantitative results of those analyses were solid going back 400 years, with decreasing utility because of increasing uuncertainty going further back to 900AD, and effectively unusable before 900 AD. Whel they acknowledged some statistical problems with those analyses, they also said that the primary reasons for the uncertainty were sparsity and uneven geographic distribution of proxy records as one goes further backin time. They DID limit the Mann et al global quantitative claims, but that was only one part of their report.
In the same summary, in adjacent paragraphs, they also pointed to many lines of additional evidence that independently suport the conclusion that something anomalous was going on in late 20th century climate, on at least a millenial time frame. This includes quantitative evidence from high latitude and tropical ice cores (dealt with independently because of differing uncertainties), global glacier ice balance and retreat, observations of glacial melt in places where we have evidence that it hasnt happened in many thousands of years, evidence of rooted sub-glacier plants being uncovered for the first time in many thousands of years, and so on. These lines of evidence were covered in their own chapters in the report.
The report then says that the combined quantitative and qualitative data from this additional evidence supports the quantitative claim from the Mann and follow-on multiproxy studies that temps in the late 20th century were globally anomalous on millenial time scales. They specifically said that the quantitative multiproxy claims were plausibleeven if too uncertain in thero won context, and they did this in the context of all this additional suporting data showing something anomalous happening in the late 20th century.
MacIntyre/Wegman/etc HAVE shown some data source and statistical problems with various of the multiproxy studies - and are claimign they apply to later studies but have not done a good job of extending thair analyses to all the other later reports, so that part of the cliam is IMO suspect.
But, (to get back to where I started this post) the NAS limitation and Wegman partial statistical criticism are being presented as if they cut the legs out from any claims further back than 400 years, and by some 'sceptics' as fi they cut off any claims for anthropogenic causes for climate change. This is being done in many cases by behaving as if the Mann et all work was the only evidence that existed, or at least including ONLY mentins of that work in their analysis, and that leads to implications that are simply false.
BTW, this was the point I was making, and being attacked for, when I was banned from Climate Audit.
The fact that the precise quantitative global results from the multiproxy studies have more uncertainty than previously claimed does NOT mean the millenial evidence for late 20th century cimate anomalies is not strong, even if the suporting data does not allow precise quantitative calculation of the global temps during those millenial time frames.
Posted by: Lee | July 16, 2006 02:52 PM
Lee
1 Do you accept that Mann et al was wrong in any aspect?
2 Please point to one other specific, incontrovertible proof (excluding Mann et al and derivative papers), that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in the last thousand years.
PS No one has ever been banned from Climateaudit for making a point.
Lee
"partial statistical criticism"
Wegman is complete statistical destruction for Mann et al.
MarkA, thanks for realizing that your question was already answered in my post.
Wegman did not go on to examine the impact of the errors they identify on the overall MBH98/99 reconstructions. Wegman identified serious errors in a specific data series used in the reconstruction, but stopped right at the most important step: the reconstruction. Later reconstructions use different methods; Wegmans criticisms don't apply to those. I specifically said 'Mann and their follow-ons' and specifically pointed to those later papers. And my cental point, of course, is that even if all the dendro reconstructions get flushed altogether, the stronger claims I see about having demolished the evidential basis for AGW are pure unfounded hyperbole.
I get tired of responding to people who knee-jerk challenges to me without bothering to read what I've already written.
Lee
You'd get a lot less tired if you just simply answered the two questions I posted above.
They used a non temperature proxy, the Bristlecones.
MarkR, would you like to try to argue "your" point on a dendro listserv, with non-Googlers who do this for a living?
Let me know & I'll log you in.
Best,
D
Mark, I answered q.1 in my post.
2. i refer you to the NAS reporrt - there is a LTO of supporting qualitative data, including northern hemisphere high latitude ice cores from canada showing anomalous warming compared to TWO millenia, there is southern hemisphere high latitude collapse of long-lived ice s helves, ther is a millenial-scale anomalous combined temp/precip CLIMATE signature in the tropics, there is observed sruvace melting in tropical ice cap that is unique in a time frame of many thousands of years, there is evidence of retreat fo glacial fronts to positns nunique in many thousands ofeyears. None of thes alone are incontrovertible - taken together they create a pretty good picture of globally anomalous events, expecially in the tropics where lower innate variability adds weight to the analysis.
The only people who get banned or routinely censored from CA for ANY reason are the peopel who chalenge the ideas there. JohnA routinely goads people and then misuses his moderatin power when I/they respond. My firs tpost when I returend tonight was a poltie but forceful response to an insult left in my absense. My post was removed, the insult to which I responded remained. That kind of behavior by JohnA is pervasive and continuous.
Does anyone here think CA banning/censorship policies is the same or worse than at RC?
Hi Dano
Re Bristlecones
I don't need to argue it, I cited published papers.
I'll leave the arguing to you.
Hi Mark,R (July 18, 2006 12:25 AM)
Notice the sneaky ,,,, in the name.
You see it's not MarkR, but someone playing pretend.
Whoever you are, (and you obviously won't be brave enough to reveal your true name), it's probably past your bedtime, so off you go.
| July 18, 2006 12:25 AM
Hi TN
If people new how censored the RealClimate site was they would be shocked.
I challenge anyone.
Post something which is opposed to their point of view and see what happens.
Lee
Question 1 is a kind of yes or no answer.
Question 2 requires the citing of actual papers.
Just trying to help.
See this needn't be tiring. Just read the question, and then answer it.
You ask for: "specific, incontrovertible proof"
Tell us something you believe that you know by "specific, incontrovertible proof" please?
Any one example will do, of what you consider "incontrovertible proof" that satisfies you, about anything.
Re: "2 Please point to one other specific, incontrovertible proof (excluding Mann et al and derivative papers), that the 20th century warming was unprecedented in the last thousand years."
MarkR, I ask you, please identify any peer-reviewed papers which show that the warmth in the latter half of the 20th Century was NOT unprecedented over the last thousand years. Can you do this for me?
Re: "Does anyone here think CA banning/censorship policies is the same or worse than at RC?"
and:
"If people new how censored the RealClimate site was they would be shocked.
I challenge anyone.
Post something which is opposed to their point of view and see what happens."
Complete BS. About the only things that are blocked on RC are discussions which are completely off topic and ad-hominum attacks. NOTHING ELSE!
Re: 'You ask for: "specific, incontrovertible proof"'
Hank, MarkR seems not to think that there can be "specific, incontrovertible proof", even in the case of the force of gravity.
"Tell us something you believe that you know by "specific, incontrovertible proof" please? "
You're the believer, surely you have proof?
Hi Stephen
RealClimate is about as free from censorship as PRAVDA.
Stephen: MarkR is right. RC treats their comment area much more like a "letters to the editor" page than a traditional blog comment section. They decide on a case-by-case basis which comments to allow and whether to edit them. Some comments are posted as is, some are posted with inline responses, some are partially censored, and a great many are entirely censored.
You will make the cut if you agree with their views or if you disagree in a way they find interesting, novel, and easy to refute with a quick in-line comment. Otherwise, the odds are strongly against you.
It is *possible* to express disagreement with a posting on RC in a way that passes muster, but you have to be lucky and catch them in the right mood. I only manage it about a third of the time.
Censorship is staterun in nature, I hardly think RealClimate is run by any state.
And yes, RealClimate have a strict commenting policy, but it is evenly applied - any comment that is political in nature, or off-topic in any other way, gets deleted.
"And yes, RealClimate have a strict commenting policy, but it is evenly applied - any comment that is political in nature, or off-topic in any other way, gets deleted."
You have to be kidding.
"You're the believer, surely you have proof?"
So, it's not just assertions about climate change that you don't like - you believe that it's wrong to ever assert anything at all?
Please don't avoid the question. If you believe that some things require "specific, incontrovertable proof" then please give an example where an assertion about the world has such proof.
People,
You are wasting your breath with MarkR, a man who relies for much of his information, if not interpretation, on corporate-funded web sites THAT WON'T CHANGE THEIR OPINION NO MATTER HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE COMES IN. They have an agenda to defend, and they will continue to twist, mangle, distort and abuse science until we are sifting through the ashes. They'll also do what MarkR is honing: the abiliy to concentrate on pedantics. Forget the other 99.99999999999999999999999999% of empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis of AGW; distract the attention of the public and policy makers on one eeny-weeny point and blow it out of all proportion. Lee, Dano, Stephen et al. have done a brilliant job in quashing every one of MarkR's points, and he yet he drags himself off of the mat for more. Ya gotta hand it to him. Kind of reminds me of the boxer Randall Cobb when he fought Larry Holmes many years ago. Holmes was battering Cobb senseless, yet somehow Cobb, beaten to a pulp, stayed on his feet. Howard Cosell was, in his inimitable way, begging the referee to step in to stop the 'debacle', but Cobb's bloodied, mangled face was still getting hammered in the 15th round.
Onto another point, Aberdeen recoreded its highest ever recorded temperature for any month yesterday - 29 C. July records are set to be broken all over western Europe today or tomorrow. The first ten days in May and July were the warmest on record in De Bilt, Netherlands, and we are into our second fficial 'heatwave' of the month; bear in mind that between 1911 and 1989 there were 27 such heatwaves recorded in De Bilt; since 1990 there have been 12 (including the two this year). Tomorrow in London they are expecting temperatures to approach 100 F (38 C). Note how many more record 'heat' temperatures are being broken compared with record lows. In northwestern Europe, its clear that the climate is becoming more and more like southeastern Europe. Sure, Hans Erren is going to argue that the current clear regional warming trend is a 'natural' process (but bear in mind that most of the sceptical lobby were arguing only 10-15 years ago that climate change itself was a 'doomsday myth'). This sordid lot have moved on. In a few years they will, as Pat Michaels is beginning to even now, admit that the primary culprit is Homo sapiens, but their next strategy will be (and already is) that its too late to do anything so we will just have to 'adapt'. But by then its going to be too late. The latest coverage of the massive and unprecedented drought bedeviling the Brazilian Amazon by the Hadley Centre should be sobering. The ecological and environmental consequences of a mass die-back of the Amazon forest are too stark to even contemplate.
Here's what gets nailed on RC- comments that spout crap which that they have already answered somewhere in their columinous archives. Yes, they don't allow any old chumpwad to belly up to the bar comment wise, because when somebody asks a bunch of antogonistic questions re:some stupid cut and paste website, they don't let it cloud the debate. MarkR, prove that you understand what you are even saying, then they might float your comment. Or even better, comment on topic.
Here's one pattern I've noticed on RealClimate:
Gavin (or whoever) will dismiss a critical point with a perfunctory inline comment that "we already dealt with that issue *here*" linking back to some earlier RC posting (on which comments are now closed). Sympathetic readers see this and are satisfied, but skeptics follow the link to discover that, in their opinion, the issue was therein *discussed* or at least touched on but not convincingly *dealt with*. A few points were piled up in favor of the RC position but little blood was drawn and there's still something to be said for the skeptical position.
So in response to Gavin's note the skeptic tries to point out that no, actually this point has *not* yet been sufficiently dealt with.
The skeptic's comment is ruled off-topic (because it refers to a prior "already dealt with" issue more than the issue directly at hand) and silently deleted.
Yes, but skeptics have this tendency never to give up the point no matter how completley their arguments have been dealt with. Did you know that they are still going on about an eight year old paper despite a NRC investigation [basically vindicating it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel…)?
Tim, the reason the sceptics won't let go of the hockey stick is that its a bit like their 'Waterloo'. Or a cliff to which they are hanging by their fingertips. If they let go, they'll plunge to the rocks below. So they are'nt about to let go. Nope, these people are gonna stick to this little study as if their lives depend on it. As their denial is vanquished by the empirical data, as it is and will continue to be, all they are going to have left is a charred and burned 'hockey stick' as a legacy.
How many times must it be said that the denial lobby by and large couldn't give a hoot about the 'science'. Science is only a useful tool insofar as it can be twisted to support an agenda. Astroturf lobbying organistations and their web sites like 'CO 2' and 'GES' will continue to go through the empirical literature to find studies to distort to bolster their argument (reflecting that of their polluting corporate sponsers) that ecological systems are linear and that the more CO 2 humanity belches into the atmosphere, the better off we'll all be. Its b* of course, but they have a job to perform (mangling science) and they will continue to do it with gusto.
I've had some (IMHO) tame criticisms blocked on RC, but have had absolute flames go through on CA. That said, CA has pretty much become the "Fox viewers who stroke McIntyre's ego ad infinitum" site, whereas RC still has a lot of good stuff (if you stay away from attacks on their "cause celebres" such as Mann).
whoops, forgot to add my point to the above -- the problem with the whole "science blogging" paradigm is that it tends to get into these "binary" camps, i.e. you're either RC or CA, where the truth is probably out there (not necessarily in the middle), but probably off at some odd angle between the two (e.g. Hans van Storch et al has good & sensible things to say and neither side can really co-opt them).
I notice no-one even tried simple answers to a couple of simple questions I posted above (July 17, 2006 11:23 PM). Just a load of venting and obfuscation.
Speaks for itself really.
Hi Steven Berg (18 July, 1:24 AM),
You might be interested to have a look at a recent paper entitled "The origin of the European "Medieval Warm Period" (in a peer-reviewed journal). The abstract starts as follows: "Using a combination of proxy records and results of a three dimensional climate model, we show that European summer temperatures roughly a millennium ago were comparable to those of the late 20th century. Those two relatively mild periods are separated by a rather cold era, supporting the existence of a summer "Medieval Warm Period" in Europe". The whole article is available http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/285/cpd-2-285.htm here.
It seems to me that there are a few questions.
1) Who was more close to right - McIntyre, Mann, or is it a draw? This may not be as *important* a question as "what proportion of global warming is caused by human activity" or "what is the cost/benefit of programs designed to limit global warming," but it's understandably interesting.
2) How much global warming should we expect over the next several years, how much would it cost to do something about it, and what good would doing something about it do? Those are the more important questions, sure, but declaring a winner in the McIntyre/Mann debate is still fun.
3) If we conclude that McIntrye is more close to right than Mann, then why didn't peer review catch the problem, and what does that say about our confidence in the other GW analyses? This question is more important than #1, and it's not a stupid question at all.
It seems to me that there's more derision coming out of the bloggers on both sides than is helpful. Instead of saying "The hockey stick bores me," it would be helpful to us lay readers for some of the climate guys to explain:
1) Here's where McIntyre was right, and why
2) Here's where Mann was right, and why
3) Here's where no one can tell which one is right, and why
4) Here's what the climate science community did about the McIntyre/Mann debate, and why, and
5) Here's why the hockey stick isn't all that important.
Geoff
I believe Mr Berg was referring to a different geographic scale. He was also replying to MarkR, an exercise that can be frustrating. The paper that you link to is concerned with Europe only and it would be unwise to extrapolate those findings to broader regions. The paper really is not news in the sense of its major finding; the existance of a MWP in Europe has been appreciated for decades. What is of interest to me is the modelling approach taken and the points regarding the forcings believed to be responsible for the relatively mild summers of the MWP in Europe. They also make it clear in their conclusion how they expect the European climate to change in the coming decades; changes that will make European temperatures much warmer. Of course some will discount this paper because one of authors is Mann.
> MarkR | July 18, 2006 12:47 AM
You ask for: "specific, incontrovertible proof"
Tell us something you believe that you know by "specific, incontrovertible proof" please?
Any one example will do, of what you consider "incontrovertible proof" that satisfies you, about anything.
One example -- of such specific, incontrovertible proof.
Just one. On any point whatsoever that you believe is true on the basis of specific, incontrovertible proof.
Eh? Some proof what you keep asking for exists anywhere in the universe of your experience.
Or are you saying you want something new in the world, to satisfy you?
Geoff:
Interesting paper. I see that Mann was a co-author.
MarkR,
You don't want answers. You want 100% proof of AGW that will never be forthcoming, in order to do a complete reverse and say that the problem is a mirage. On another post I said that one of the sly ploys of the anti-environmental lobby is to demand 100% incontrovertible evidence that humans are forcing the climate. I have noticed in exchanges with several libertarian bloggers that without this 100% evidence they more-or-less argue that environmental problems - such as acid rain, high extinction rates, AGW - do not exist. As a fellow scientist who works on acid rain told me, debating the sceptics is like "Trying to win a pissing match with a skunk". To get the kinds of answers you seek to fully understand the dynamics of immensely complex non-linear systems would require many billions of dollars - never to be funded. This is the rub.
One piece of good news in Nature last week was that RC is ranked in the top five of science blog sites. Of course, CA didn't appear in the ranking (small wonder).
Jon,
Don't fall into the contrarians trap of putting all of the AGW eggs into the hockey stick basket. The denialists are on the run and they know it. Bear in mnd that AGW was postulated some ten years before the Mann et al. paper was published and that many volumes have been written in the peer-reviewed literature before and since providing masses of other evidence for AGW. The IPCC report alone is the most peer-reviewed document in scientific history - 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. Just about every national academy of science on Earth has endorsed the IPCC findings or even claimed that they don't go far enough.
As for Medievel Warm Period, this is meaningless. The current warming - which is unprecedented globally in more than a millenium and perhaps many thousands of years - is occurring against a background in which humans have altered and simplified ecosystems across the biosphere in a myriad of ways, and thus our per capita and cumulative impact is many thousands of times higher than it was centuries ago, when we were just an emerging player on the planetary scene. AGW is therefore but one more stress on systems that have been stressed a myriad of other ways.
I don't need to argue it, I cited published papers. I'll leave the arguing to you.
Who cares.
You don't understand what you are arguing. That is: "your" arguments don't jibe with what people who do this for a living say.
So, I rephrase:
Are you afraid of arguing "your" point with people who actually know what they are talking about?
Best,
D
If I may disagree with Carl slightly:
That said, CA has pretty much become the "Fox viewers who stroke McIntyre's ego ad infinitum" [site]
should, IMHO, be rephrased to:
CA has pretty much become the "wankers who stroke their totem ad infinitum" [site].
Best,
D
Hi Dano
You say: "You don't understand what you are arguing. That is: "your" arguments don't jibe with what people who do this for a living say."
I think there will be a lot of people who USED TO do this for a living. When the funding stops, the jobs are gone.
Hi Geoff
Interesting article you refer to above.
"the uncertainties are too large to state that this period is the warmest of the past millennium in Europe in winter."
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/285/cpd-2-285.htm
Mann is one of the co authors. Is this the first sign of him back pedalling to save his skin?
But MarkR, do you have "specific, incontrovertible proof" that Mann is one of the co-authors, or indeed that he has a skin?
Mann got environmental "religion" as Berserkely, then set out to warp the science to feed his need. He, in the classic fashion of heroic Berserkely radicals, build a small army of devoted followers. The social network diagrams tell all. RC is the expression of the cult on the web.
Posted by Steve Sadlov at climateaudit
Geoff, thanks for the link.
One thing I've noticed from the paper was that after the mid-20th Century, winter temperatures are warmer than at the height of the MWP (around the year 1000) if you take an average of the reconstructions. Summer temperatures are not quite, but almost as warm today as they were in the year 1000.
Re: "Mann is one of the co authors. Is this the first sign of him back pedalling to save his skin?"
MarkR, get a life! This in no way takes away from the hockey stick reconstruction. And for the love of Pete, STOP WHINING ABOUT THE BRISTLECONES, "SKILL", AND REs OF ZERO! THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL TO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION!
Hi Kevin
Mann is about to get "skinned" by the Congressional Committee. Tune in tomorrow.
Re: "Mann is about to get "skinned" by the Congressional Committee."
Which translates as:
"Mann is about to get 'skinned' by those who know nothing about climate science."
Hi Stephen
You say: "STOP WHINING ABOUT THE BRISTLECONES, "SKILL", AND REs OF ZERO! THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL TO THE WHOLE RECONSTRUCTION!"
I did used to think that you were genuinely looking for the answer, but now I see that you just don't have a clue.
Quoting MarkR
"I did used to think"
Without a doubt.
Jon,
The first paper from your namesake perhaps got through because the journal had no idea where it was going and then, as now, peer review does mean verification. Wegman goes into considerable detail as to why other papers subsequently got through and as to why it has taken so long for the flaws to be accepted. Forgetting climate change this is probably a good day for science.
Oops! Should say does NOT mean verification.
the interesting "social network diagram" would be Wegman & Scott & their ties to Republican nutjobs like Barton, and their US Army contracts, etc. Wegman was one of Reagan's "Star Wars" buddies, so that tells you where these guys are coming from.
I think there will be a lot of people who USED TO do this for a living. When the funding stops, the jobs are gone.
Shorter MarkR:
[handwaves] I'm afraid to take my FUD to the dendro listserv.
IOW, you are full of sh*t hooey.
Best,
D
Just an observation. Have a look at the number of ad homs in the above posts by pro-AGW posters, compared with the number of ad homs in posts by sceptics.
And what does it mean when those pro-AGW posters who tell us that they are interested in robust science resort to ad homs?
what does it mean when those pro-AGW posters who tell us that they are interested in robust science resort to ad homs?
Perhaps:
1. They are human and frustrated at the FUD purveyed by/thickheadedness of astroturfers.
2. They don't presume the denialists/astroturfers have any intention of debating "robust science" and so have fun with denialists/astroturfers.
3. Some folk may not know the meaning/proper use of ad hom.
Just a thought.
Best,
D
I see the level of discussion concerning climate change is as dismal on science blogs as on more overtly political fora. Little effort is expended on dissecting the "received view" into its component hypotheses and assessing the warrant of these components individually. Much effort is expended on maligning the integrity, both moral and intellectual, of those on "the other side."
Truth in advertising: I believe that global mean temperatures have risen significantly in recent decades. I believe that human activities have caused dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2. I am unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes. I don't believe that current climate models and simulations provide reliable predictions about long-term trends. Leaving science for politics, I think there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our use of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with climate change. I don't think climate change is even close to being the most urgent environmental problem we confront.
Little effort is expended on dissecting the "received view" into its component hypotheses and assessing the warrant of these components individually.
If the denialists/contrascientists actually had testable component hypotheses with resultant scholarly papers, then you'd have no beef.
Hence the exhibit of human behaviors you decry.
Best,
D
One doesn't need to put forward an alternative hypothesis to have sound reasons for not embracing (which isn't the same as denying) those already on offer. The burden of proof rests on those who make positive claims. They may become frustrated at not being able to persuade others to their views, but that's not much of an excuse for lapsing into incivility and substituting insult for argument.
Dano, it's all about this, innit?
One doesn't need to put forward an alternative hypothesis to have sound reasons for not embracing (which isn't the same as denying) those already on offer.
You do if you want (as you claim) to have a scientific discourse.
Else we are in church/synagogue/mosque/etc.
Best,
D
Dano, it's all about this, innit?
If you are referring to, Hans, the process by which the denialists/contrascientists formulate their (albeit still non-existent) testable alternative hypotheses, then yes.
Best,
D
No, Dano, scientific discourse is critical as well as constructive. Indeed, students of scientific methods tend to view criticism as more important than constructivism for distinguishing science from what transpires in church/synagogue/mosque/etc. One can't evade the burden of proof I mentioned earlier simply by noting that skeptics have no positive theory of their own.
One can't evade the burden of proof I mentioned earlier simply by noting that skeptics have no positive theory of their own.
You present your argument as a lack of a scientific discussion where the denialists' component hypotheses are not assessed, rather ad homs are flung about.
When I point out there are no component hypotheses, you state they are not needed.
I'm not sure where to go from here, unless I point out shifting rationale.
Alternativeluy, of course, you could be implying above that the "received view" is one the scientists have, in which case your premise is false and the conclusions don't follow.
Best,
D
Anyone read economist Alan Wood's opinion column in the Australia today? According to him the whole IPCC are now a bunch of liars and nothing in their upcoming report can be trusted soley because of the Wegman and Mason report on Mann. Make perfect sense, doesn't it? Hopefully people who are better writers than I are firing off a letter to the editor today.
My "argument" is simply that one can raise legitimate criticisms of an hypothesis without having to propose an alternative hypothesis. Typically this is done by questioning the quality of evidence, or the soundness of inferential moves, neither of which requires the posit of an alternative hypothesis. The history of science is replete with examples.
A mere sampling of the kind of "component hypotheses" I think could be fruitfully (and civilly) discussed is suggested in my Truth in advertising disclaimer.
So just what is my false premise? And what is the conclusion that doesn't follow?
Bob Koepp has said exactly what I have been thinking. Why am I skeptical of AGW? Like most morons, when I first started cleaning up the environment over 20-years ago, I, too thought I was doing the Lords own work protecting the knuckle-draggers from evil corporate polluters poisoning our water supply for all time. It turns out that the water supply is not remotely threatened by industrial pollution. The big fish in that arena have yet to be hooked, let alone landed and fried. Out of a job, you say?? No, not by a longshot. Groundwater and soil cleanup marches on with a hodge-podge of government agents and their willing accomplices in the "environmental remediation" industry. Not too much of a surprise that big oil goes along with it because it eliminated independants and Mom & Pop gas stations all in the name of Gaia. Thats a two-fer. MTBE makes a hat-trick. I bet ADM took a shit when the Sierra Club endorsed MTBE to clean the air. (OT: any guesses how much of current US fresh water supply is needed to replace 50% of gasoline with biofuel?)
Now, man-made global warming hits the radar. My immediate response is to try and figure out who is trying to pick my pocket. Oh, Yeah, it's the UN and the Kyoto protocol trying to shove a Hockey Stick up my ass. Whoa, don't be a cynic. This shit sounds bad and it's all my fault. Gotta get me a Prius. Ride my bike to the cruelty-free organic store to fill my hemp bags with bulgar and beets. This is a problem, I know it! I've measured CO2 myself and could see the increase in baseline over the years. Fuck! In the back of my mind, a little voice reminded me of my own messianic experience saving the world from nothing. Wait a second. The Hockey stick is bogus. No way, it was peer reviewed. Solid science. Come to find out, it's based on the only shade trees near Summer Field Camp. You know the ones, the old fuckers with names like Bob Hope and a boatload of other old guys. That's right, those trees we would gather under in mid-afternoon to eat nectarines and blow a J. Having actually lived in that part of the world for a couple years demonstrates that the only proxy that place was suitable for was hell, or maybe Los Angeles.
Hey, before you book me Dano, I just wanted to say that even though I'm skeptical, John A and Mark R are MUCH bigger c-words than you could ever hope to be. Of course, most folks who play joust over AGW are by definition pencil-neck no-count weenies.
In any event IMO it's much more important to get off of towel-wrapper oil, stop over pumping the ogallala and do a better job of treating sewerage before carbon sequestration. If you warmers want to re-order that priority list, maybe you should rely less on Al Gore and that funny guy who wrote Seinfeld's wife. Remember John Lennon's advise:
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
Tim, thanks for the site, it's great. I also like your political blog (http://timblair.net/). You Aussies are awsome. Go to War with you anytime!
Hi Horst
Take more water with it.
Climate skeptics need to be sober.
Obviously.
You can find links to a PDF download of the NAS report on the Mann papers and other climate links on ElementList.com here:
http://www.elementlist.com/lnx/link.php?id=2367
Steve, re Alan Wood's column. You may or may not agree with Alan Wood's expression of the problem. However, in a way that doesn't matter.
What has happened is that the pro-AGW crowd have lost a LOT of credibility with the problems now emerging about the poor quality of at least some of their work.
If I were a working climate scientist, I would be having a tough discussion with Mr Mann, and insisting that he begin to comply with normal scientific practice. Otherwise I would distance myself from him.
Credibility is all-important. And that, rather than the Hockey Stick, is what has been destroyed. I think that those of us genuinely concerned about the AGW issues have a legitimate grumble about how Mr Mann has singlehandedly done so much damage.
I'm afraid that Mr Mann's work is altogether too similar to Stephen Schneider's declared position that (to paraphrase) that the end justifies the means. I'm sorry. It doesn't.
I'm supposed to take someoen who uses the phrase Berserkely seriously?
Bob Koepp, I need to know the specific reasons why you believe that CO2 and GW are not related before I can consider your skepticism scientific.
PP, I noted earlier that not embracing a hypothesis isn't the same as denying it. I have not claimed that atmospheric CO2 and GW are not related. I have said that I'm unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes. I trust that you appreciate the differences. As to why I am unpersuaded, it's largely due to the fact that there are climate scientists who present reasonable (albeit, non-compelling) arguments against the claim in question. And before we go there, I don't view these climate scientists as cranks, nor as toadies of the petrochemical bad guys.
Hi "concerned of berkely"
In the most recent posting you wrote:
>I'm afraid that Mr Mann's work is altogether too similar >to Stephen Schneider's declared position that (to >paraphrase) that the end justifies the means. I'm sorry. >It doesn't.
The Stepehen Schneiders quotation is a based on several selective quotations and manipulations. This well documented.
In spite of this several third Party organisations and you continues to refer to this.
What he said and wrote can befound on his homepage or by seaching on Google. One example of misquotiation can be found on John Delay's homepage.
I will suggest to you to investigate what he wrote and said and to bring a correction on Deltoid. Then we can start the discussion.
Bob Koepp writes, "And before we go there, I don't view these climate scientists as cranks, nor as toadies of the petrochemical bad guys".
This, in spite of the fact that many of the most prominent sceptics have been paid handsomely by think tanks and their corporate sponsers who have a vested intwerest in denial. This in spite of the fact that many of the most prominent sceptics openly associate with the same organizations that have a vested interest in denial.
Yes, I think we SHOULD go there. Either these sceptics are exceedingly stupid, naive, or both. On the other hand, lawyers work for those who pay them, irrespective of the whegther their clients are guilty or not. Why should it be any different with a few scientists on the academic fringe?
"Either these sceptics are exceedingly stupid, naive, or both."
And so, we're off to the races -- no need to address the actual agruments of exceedingly stupid and/or naive scientists. On the other hand, short of demonstrating that their arguments are very, very seriously flawed, what possible grounds could one have for dismissing them as exceedingly stupid and/or naive?
I am aware of the full quote, at least as presented at (with a detailed explanation) http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/sch_quote.html.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Please explain to me how this should not be paraphrased as "the end justifies the means".
The quotation is correct but you are missing one important point:
>The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions
> of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed
> to me in the APS News article:
Please read the ful text om:
http://home.att.net/~rpuchalsky/sci_env/sch_quote.html
I disagrre with the way you have read Stepehn Schneider.
We have six postings from Bob Koepp bemoaning the incivility of the discourse and yet we have yet to see a single point from Bob Koepp on why the science is wrong. It is difficult to discuss the science when the participants will not raise the science.
JP - Have I said the science is wrong? If so, where? Do people on this blog know the difference between "x believes not-P" and "x does not believe P"? It's beginning to look like they don't.
I repeat, the burden of proof rests on those who make positive claims. If you want to "raise the science" in a persuasive way, have at it. I will do my best to be critical.
Bob, are you positive it's safe to burn fossil fuel at the current rate, unprecedented not only in human history but in geologic time?
JP,
Most of what I see from denialists are at the same level as what you are seeing from Bob Koepp. They will harp on a point (incivility) or small detail (britlecone pines, spectra saturation, the latest nitpick ad infinitum), provide little or no science to back their anti-AGW assertions, and claim victory or use their points to smear the scientists doing the work. It really is all so tedious. I wish they'd raise substantive issues, but I've long since concluded that they really don't care about the science, they look upon AGW as a political issue. I shudder to think what would have happened if this sort of "debate" had happened when we were dealing with the ozone hole and CFC's.
Hank Roberts - No. In fact, I've said that I think there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our use of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with climate change. Although it's not germaine to the present topic, I actually advocate much more dramatic changes in how we relate to our environment than rationing fossil fuels. Start with the minimization (if not outright elimination) of dirt farming. Proceed to dismantling human developments on coasts and inland waterways, and re-establishing green corridors. And that's just for starters.
mndean - Please reflect on the simple logical point contained in my previous post, and then (re)consider your suggestion that I've made some "anti-AGW assertions." Also, which scientists have I smeared?
Bob Koepp wrote "I have said that I'm unpersuaded that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes".
So the science which states that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation is not true? What makes you have that assertion?
The science is accurate and is reflected in the fact that the climate models e.g. Hansen's, have predicted the actual global temperatures for the past few years. Note, Bob, being able to make predictions based on a hypothesis is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. WAG's and unreasonable denial is not part of the scientific method.
Well, now even I've become bored. It's beyond me that anybody could think my being unpersuaded that CO2 is the main driver of warming somehow requires me to deny that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation. And this person presumes to lecture me about the role of prediction in testing hypotheses. Sheesh...
There's a serious issue here that the climate people are not addressing. The social network stuff was a silly sidebar, but climate folks have to deal with the fact that Wegman is a major statistics guru and he claims that Mann and others have the statistics wrong in calculating the path of temperature.
I read Wegman's report and the debate is way over my head. But this is one serious challenge that the climate folks have to address. I want to hear the response on the statistical methods issue and I'm not hearing it.
Frank: I listened to part of the hearings today. There were a number of issues covered. The one that just about everyone agreed with (I say just about because Barton seemed to have a problem with it) is that whether MBH is right or wrong means nothing to the current theories of global wamring and the current conclusions reached.
Read the NAS report, I think it presents a better whole picture than the Wegman report. By the way, Wegman was really grilled in the hearings, at times I almost felt sorry for him.
John
Wegman also said "carbon dioxide is heavier than air" and that he doesn't know where carbon dioxide is found in the atmospheric profile.
What is the point of going to Climate Audit at all? The title itself shows that it is conceived in arrogance (who is entitled to perform audits on science? Does not the name show a total ignorance of what the science process is all about?) and is not concerned with building science but tearing it down. The two authors produced a 20 page paper of which over 17 pages were devoted to attacking MBH over a series of petty mistakes such as will often be found in academic writing, which they managed to get published in an admittedly partisan journal. Since then all they have produced is a short note on a minor statistical curiosity and a raft of offensive and often woefully ignorant claims ( a number of which were produced by McKitrick who was then taken down by Lambert). Their original paper became unavailable on their site where it was replaced with a new and improved version, a brand new way of science for sure. The comments in their web page, when I took a look a year or so back, were mostly from toadies and denialist riff raf.
It would seem that Esper, Moberg, Wilson, Luterbacher, and others would disagree with you:
Climate: Past and future changes
Esper, et. al.
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/QSR_Esper_2005.pdf
"So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude?
We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios."
Hi Nanny State
The warmers have got themselves completely out of their depth.
Ever more outlandish speculation, and "suggestion", to retrieve themselves from the untenable position that Mann et al put them in.
Interesting that the data in the Esper et al. paper stops at 1979. It begs the question "did they stop the curve there so it wouldn't show a hockey stick?"
Hi Ian
A lot of the tree ring proxy papers stop early, because few people are releasing any more raw tree ring data.
That is because, it turns out that while temperatures have risen lately, tree ring proxy data doesn't reflect that, they artfully call it the "divergence problem", thus calling into general question the use of tree rings as proxies.
See, the warmers only want to use tree rings while it supports their case. When the tree rings don't, the warmers "move on" to the next dodgy statistic.
"divergence problem" -- Google finds that at climate argument and right politics sites, and in one posting on RC mentioning Lubos. Can you come up with a published journal article citation?
NGS: Well, first, it is not me who disagrees with Esper but rather your intrepertation of Esper that disagrees with the NAS and Wegman.
Second note what Esper says "thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions". Would you care to put an estimate on this? If not we can see what else Esper says. He noted the difference between reconstructions can be 0.5C. This means the natural variations can be 0.5C more. So this means that at the most you could subtract 0.5C off the IPCC predictions but how much depends on what the forcings are. We don;t know these in the future so probability estimates are already used - i.e. not a single value.
Third the way the scenarios are developed, this was already taken into account. They use all the reconstructions to develop their estimates. That is why the estimate is so large 1.5 to 5.9 IIRC.
So, no it really doesn't change things. We are still headed towards warming and the IPCC estimate is still valid.
Of course you realize that Moberg and Esper use tree rings in their work don't you? Just thought you would like to know.
Best
John
That is because, it turns out that while temperatures have risen lately, tree ring proxy data doesn't reflect that, they artfully call it the "divergence problem", thus calling into general question the use of tree rings as proxies.
Hi MarkR:
would you like to take "your" factless argument to a dendro listserv to try to defend your rube-created FUD?
That is: do you have the courage of "your" convictions to defend them to folk who do this for a living, as opposed to those who purvey FUD?
Let me know and we'll sign you in and watch.
Note to others: when popping popcorn for the show, I prefer light butter, no salt. Thank you.
Best,
D
Garhane
Why go to CA indeed, when they will come to you, much like a bad case of the flu.
Ian
Many of the tree-ring series (and other proxies) used in the reconstructions do not extend to the end of the 20th century because the trees were cored and the chronologies developed well before then. Thus, the reconstructions do not extend beyond 1980. In the Esper paper they comment on how one might improve the calibration of the proxies (and potentially the performance of the reconstructions) by using tree ring series (and other proxies) that extend closer to the present day, but that would require considerable sampling and chronology development. I would also point out that the Esper paper shows remarkable agreement between several millenial reconstructions (see their Fig 1), the debate is not over the pattern of reconstructions but rather the amplitude of the variations over that interval.
Of course MarkR and the other bright lights of the cheer squad could go out and collect their own tree ring, ice core, and speleothem data but they would rather moan about a vast conspiracy to lock up that data and shield it from the public view.
Wegman was quite a hit, sounds like he got his science education from Ken Ring.
John Cross, I don't think Wegman said anyting about "a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors" or antrho ones, so I don't know how the Esper et. al. quote disagrees with him.
Beside the point. If it is .1C or 10C or 10CC or CC Rider it is still "a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors" and a bitter pill for the AGW crowd to swallow.
You mean the Hansen A,B,C scenarios that show observed temps are closely following scenario C already, though no warmers want to admit it? A little dip and we'll be on scenario "D" as in "Don't you still believe us?".
Hey, they're your spaghetti heroes, not mine. If you don't like what they say or how they do their proxy work, take it up with them.
Hank
"Can you come up with a published journal article citation?"
Certainly.
Divergence problem:
NAS Report pages 47, and 111
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
NGS: I am not sure what your point is. Wegman agrees that his work changes nothing. However if the use of my word nothing bothers you then I am glad to change it to insignificant, immaterial, or trivial.
In regards to the "redistribution" my use of the word insignificant should solve that problem. I apologize since I thought we were talking about science not bandying words about.
Finally, I am happy to admit that we are following along close to C. Of course B&C are esentially the same up to 2000 so we have only had 5 years to deviate. The interesting thing is that you knew that because you had it pointed out to you before yet you still choose to bring it up. Are you sure you are trying to discuss the science?
Best,
John
Say, MarkR:
Are there any chronologies in question that are above 55o N?
That is, after all, where the book says the issue is. Did you read it?
And has any denialist/contrascientist collected data to defend this hypothesis? Do let us know.
Oh, and let me know when you want to defend "your" arguments on a dendro listserv - I'll sign you in.
Thanks!
D
Hi Dano
Nice cartoon about the right to remain silent.
Mann sure did, didn't he.
No danger of him testifying under oath.
Did he flee the County, or the Country?
MarkR, I ask again, as you have hand-waved yet again:
Are there any chronologies in question that are above 55o N?
That is, after all, where the book says the issue is. Did you read it?
And has any denialist/contrascientist collected data to defend this hypothesis? Do let us know.
Oh, and let me know when you want to defend "your" arguments on a dendro listserv - I'll sign you in.
Thanks!
Best,
D
Hi Dano
All I'm saying is that there is a "divergence problem".
The NAS said so.
What is your problem?
I really dislike people who ignore the truth.
1. (a) They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies have some correlation with temperature, even when it is degraded by increases in CO2 and especially before it was degraded by increases in CO2.
(b) They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies also have correlation with rainfall, which is correlated with temperature in other parts of the world.
2. They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies are only necessary for climate reconstructions before 1450 and that reconstructions after 1450 made with or without Bristlecone proxies agree extremely well even though the Bristlecone proxies supposedly introduce a huge bias.
3. They ignore the fact that when the data is calibrated to a period with no rising trend, i.e. 1856-1928, the reconstruction still passes validation.
4. They ignore the relationship between validation measures and validation statistical significance.
5. They ignore the fact that variations of method with the same data make no significant difference to the reconstructions, instead asserting that "the method" produces biased results.
6. They ignore the fact that computer programs, as opposed to data and algorithms, are intellectual property and entitled to copyright status.
7. They ignore the fact that how one person implements just one of the many implementations of the multiple methods available for solving a problem is just not significant.
8. They ignore the fact that even if the average temperture rises or falls a degree or two, for the vast majority of the time, proxies stay within a reasonably linear range.
9. (a repeat of point 1) They ignore the fact that rainfall that affects proxies is correlated to climate and temperature over a much larger area than the immediate area of the proxy.
10. They ignore the fact that what was originally called a "correction" to a reconstruction and hence was being called a reconstruction is now no longer called a reconstruction.
These are not "small errors/mistakes".
In all respects their research is fatally flawed, and wrong.
Bob,
If you had any science on your side, why don't you show it? If, like me, you are not a climate scientist, then who do you get your science from? Your assertion doesn't make any sense since it isn't backed up by anything. Many of the contrascience posters seem to think that science is something to be misused to their own ends - it doesn't even have to be cited correctly or that the person citing it even understands what it means. Just so long as it might create some specious doubt. Of course, they also can't resist the cheap smear (Beserkely? My, how '70's of you!), that their fellow-travelers can high-five each other and bump bellies over. I used to think, some years back, that there might be something to the denialist side. Then, when I started to read what the denialist side comprised, I quickly shed any doubts on the reality of AGW. Any denial now is wholly political.
MarkR, please read the following article thoroughly. It will silence you once and for all (hopefully, if you can actually think properly) about your criticisms of the hockey stick, criticisms which match those of M&M.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece…
mndean - What is my side? Not denial of AGW; simply skepticism about some of the claims that tend to get lumped together under that label. Do I have to list the climate scientists who have raised questiones? All I've objected to is the way anybody who expresses even a bit of doubt, whether it's about the extent of influence of CO2 on warming, the reliability of projections, whatever, is immediately labeled as stupid, a denier, an anti-environmentalist, a tool of big business, etc, etc. I think this is disgusting, and I don't think it serves science well.
Hi Stephen Berg,
I'm not sure if you've been following the developments closely, but the RC piece is an embarrassment so severe it's hard to believe they actually posted it. Anyone who has looked at the data and reconstructions closely recognizes that the only reason there is an HS in MBH9x and any other reconstruction based on similar manipulation of the proxies is the presence of a bristlecone series (or as they coyly refer to them the " N. American tree ring network", which the original data collectors stated were not temperature indicators, and which the NAS study said should be avoided. You will note that neither RC nor MBH have ever given any climatic reason for including the bristlecones other than "a better fit".
The slow but powerful earthquake has hardly begun to topple the papers that will have to be withdrawn or substantially ignored. Of course the demolition of MBH9x does not address other claimed indicators of the AGW hypothesis, but now that it has been shown that one of the iconic papers declaimed conclusions which even Dr. North admitted cannot be achieved by the methods indicated in the paper, there will be more detailed reviews of other work.
What those reviews will find is unknown, but I would hazard a guess there are likely to be some surprises.
Chris said: "I really dislike people who ignore the truth."
So do I, see my corrections of your untruths in CAPS below.
Chris also said:
(a) They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies have some correlation with temperature, even when it is degraded by increases in CO2 and especially before it was degraded by increases in CO2. HOW DO YOU KNOW IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUMENT RECORDS BEFORE c1850? (b) They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies also have correlation with rainfall, which is correlated with temperature in other parts of the world. NOT SO. IN MANY AREAS MOST RAIN COMES IN THE WINTER, WHICH IS COOLER THAN SUMMER (SURPRISE SURPRISE!). EVER HEARD OF THE MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE? (HINT: THAT CLIMATE ALSO EXISTS IN SOUTHERN SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA, EVER BEEN THERE?)
They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies are only necessary for climate reconstructions before 1450 and that reconstructions after 1450 made with or without Bristlecone proxies agree extremely well even though the Bristlecone proxies supposedly introduce a huge bias.
NOT EVEN THE US REVIEW OF MANN BELIEVES THAT HIS PROXIES HAVE ANY MERIT BEFORE 1600.
They ignore the fact that when the data is calibrated to a period with no rising trend, i.e. 1856-1928, the reconstruction still passes validation. BUT NOT FOR BRISTLECONES.
They ignore the relationship between validation measures and validation statistical significance. MANN & CO HAVE NEVER PROVIDED ANY TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE, NOR HAVE YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS FIELD, LEAST OF ALL IPCC'S MYRIAD AUTHORS.
They ignore the fact that variations of method with the same data make no significant difference to the reconstructions, instead asserting that "the method" produces biased results. IT DOES AS PROVED BEYOND DISPUTE BY WEGMAN.
They ignore the fact that computer programs, as opposed to data and algorithms, are intellectual property and entitled to copyright status. NOT SO. ASK BILL GATES' MICROSOFT JUST FINED c$400 MILLION BY THE EU FOR JUST THAT CLAIM
They ignore the fact that how one person implements just one of the many implementations of the multiple methods available for solving a problem is just not significant.
OH YES IT IS BOYO IF THE OUTCOME IS BS.
They ignore the fact that even if the average temperture rises or falls a degree or two, for the vast majority of the time, proxies stay within a reasonably linear range.
IN THAT CASE WHY DO YOU FRET ABOUT THE IPCC SCENARIOS WHICH SUGGEST A RANGE VARYING JUST BY A "DEGREE OF SO"?
(a repeat of point 1) They ignore the fact that rainfall that affects proxies is correlated to climate - IT IS NOT, PROVIDE YOUR R2 - and temperature over a much larger area than the immediate area of the proxy. NONSENSE. TRY BIGHORN, WHERE FOR LAST 100 YEARS TREE RINGS CORRELATE ONLY WITH RAINFALL, NOT AT ALL WITH TEMPERATURE (CHECK OUT GOOGLE).
They ignore the fact that what was originally called a "correction" to a reconstruction and hence was being called a reconstruction is now no longer called a reconstruction.
NOW YOU ARE INTO 16TH CENTURY POETRY A LA JOHN DONNE NOT SCIENCE.
Tim Curtin,
Hey, Boyo, please tell me when I can expect your expert analyses to be published in the pages of Nature, Science, PNAS, or even Global Change Biology, Ecosystems, Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, Basic and Applied Ecology etc. I just typed Curtin T and Curtin T* into the ISI Web of Science search engine and all of the hits I got revealed nothing about climate science, and all of the 'Curtins' were based in Europe or North America.
Could it be true that Tim Curtin has never done any scientific research? Say it ain't so, Joe!!!!
He's a theorist:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…
This is a disagreement on the fundamental science on which all other work about atmospheric physics is based.
It seems that, with very few exceptions, few sceptics are scientists and even fewer publish in the refereed scientific literature on relevant topics. From my own standpoint I have two observations. First, whether or not the MWP or LIA were global in extent has nothing to do with AGW, which is based upon the known radiative effect of greenhouse gases and the amounts we are pumping into the atmosphere. Second, hockey sticks occur using other proxies (glaciers for instance) and these clearly have nothing to do with C02 fertilization, bristlecone pines etc. I'm glad to see that the (sensible) sceptics have moved from "there is no warming" through "the record is contaminated by urban heat islands" and are now agreeing that warming is happening. It won't be long before they are on board the attribution argument too!
MarkR,
All I'm saying is that there is a "divergence problem".
The NAS said so.
What is your problem?
That you don't know what you're talking about, yet you spread FUD.
IOW, you have no clue on the subject, can't speak to it when questioned, and must hand-wave to continue to comment here.
Can't wait 'til the astroturfer's energy wanes!
HTH,
Best,
D
If, eventually, I do come onboard the attribution argument, it won't be because I've been insulted, had statements attributed to me that I've never made, or otherwise succumbed to bullying tactics. It will be because I've been persuaded by the scientific arguments.
As for those who accept or reject scientific hypotheses on the basis of whether they comport with one's political agenda, a pox on both your houses.
I see Tim Curtin has taken some time out from high school study of molecular weight.
"They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies have some correlation with temperature, even when it is degraded by increases in CO2 and especially before it was degraded by increases in CO2. HOW DO YOU KNOW IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUMENT RECORDS BEFORE c1850?"
It is actually possible to reconstruct temperature at the location of Bristlecone proxies without using Bristlecone proxies back to 1450. That would give plenty of time to check their correlation before 1850. But much simpler than that is to compare them with the Northern treeline series which correlates quite well before 1750.
"They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies also have correlation with rainfall, which is correlated with temperature in other parts of the world. NOT SO. IN MANY AREAS MOST RAIN COMES IN THE WINTER, WHICH IS COOLER THAN SUMMER (SURPRISE SURPRISE!)."
It doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative correlation. The only thing that matters is that there is some non-zero correlation with rainfall.
"They ignore the fact that Bristlecone proxies are only necessary for climate reconstructions before 1450 and that reconstructions after 1450 made with or without Bristlecone proxies agree extremely well even though the Bristlecone proxies supposedly introduce a huge bias. NOT EVEN THE US REVIEW OF MANN BELIEVES THAT HIS PROXIES HAVE ANY MERIT BEFORE 1600."
Oh that's a peer-reviewed paper is it? How about we just stick to papers that at least have the credibility of a peer review such as for example http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticC…
"They ignore the fact that when the data is calibrated to a period with no rising trend, i.e. 1856-1928, the reconstruction still passes validation. BUT NOT FOR BRISTLECONES."
Passes with 95% or more statistical significance with or without Bristlecone proxies.
"They ignore the relationship between validation measures and validation statistical significance. MANN & CO HAVE NEVER PROVIDED ANY TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE, NOR HAVE YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS FIELD"
Just to start you off in your long journey from ignorance read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-pr… There's not much point knowing how red your proxies are unless you're doing statistical tests of significance.
"They ignore the fact that variations of method with the same data make no significant difference to the reconstructions, instead asserting that "the method" produces biased results. IT DOES AS PROVED BEYOND DISPUTE BY WEGMAN."
Yeah sure, Wegman talks all about Regularized Expectation Maximization, doesn't he Tim?
"They ignore the fact that computer programs, as opposed to data and algorithms, are intellectual property and entitled to copyright status. NOT SO. ASK BILL GATES' MICROSOFT JUST FINED c$400 MILLION BY THE EU FOR JUST THAT CLAIM"
Yes that's right Microsoft is worthless.
"They ignore the fact that how one person implements just one of the many implementations of the multiple methods available for solving a problem is just not significant.
OH YES IT IS BOYO IF THE OUTCOME IS BS."
Even if it was BS why not just use a public domain implementation that gives the same result and which is much easier to follow?
"They ignore the fact that even if the average temperature rises or falls a degree or two, for the vast majority of the time, proxies stay within a reasonably linear range.
IN THAT CASE WHY DO YOU FRET ABOUT THE IPCC SCENARIOS WHICH SUGGEST A RANGE VARYING JUST BY A "DEGREE OF SO"?"
I was talking about the past.
"They ignore the fact that rainfall that affects proxies is correlated to climate and temperature over a much larger area than the immediate area of the proxy.- IT IS NOT, PROVIDE YOUR R2 TRY BIGHORN, WHERE FOR LAST 100 YEARS TREE RINGS CORRELATE ONLY WITH RAINFALL, NOT AT ALL WITH TEMPERATURE"
You're just not getting the point. Even if a proxy only responds to rainfall, that rainfall depends on the climate which is related to temperature over a much larger area. So even just a rainfall proxy can be useful in reconstructing global climate and temperature.
"They ignore the fact that what was originally called a "correction" to a reconstruction and hence was being called a reconstruction is now no longer called a reconstruction.
NOW YOU ARE INTO 16TH CENTURY POETRY A LA JOHN DONNE NOT SCIENCE."
Missing the point as usual. I was referring to M&M's supposed "correction" (that's what M&M called it) of MBH's reconstruction. It can't be a correction to a reconstruction unless it is also a reconstruction. Now however M&M don't want to call it a reconstruction anymore. M&M realise their mistakes sometimes but unfortunately not often enough. Just like you Tim.
O'Neill: "It doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative correlation. The only thing that matters is that there is some non-zero correlation with rainfall." Classic IPCC-speak, as well as an indication that your econometric studies are not progressing well. So we now have tree rings proving AGW via CO2 either because they are positively correlated with precipitation which is/is not correlated with heat, or because they are not and it(rain) is or is not correlated with heat as the case may be. Anything goes and that is why the IPCCs FAR, SAR, and TAR lack credibility. The Big Horn data on rings, temps, and rain is on the web and available for your multiple regressions. Even simple regression would suffice to show that temps and rain are not correlated there, but no doubt there are places with summer rain that is more plentiful in hotter seasons, albeit not the UK at present or ever when I lived there. Globally MBH had to be ring-selective to avoid the Big Horn problem. Very scientific!
Re: "Classic IPCC-speak, as well as an indication that your econometric studies are not progressing well."
First of all, Tim, it would be an honour to sound as scientific as the IPCC, since this is exactly what we are dealing with: climate SCIENCE.
Secondly, we are NOT dealing with econometrics. What do tree rings and the IPCC assessments have to do with econometrics? NOTHING!
It's all about CLIMATE SCIENCE, and judging by your bio on your website, you have no publishing history in climatology.
You certainly would have the qualifications to speak with authority about economics/econometrics. I say this even though I would tend to disagree with your assessments of economic development issues.
However, your bio does not sound authoritative in climate science one iota, especially in comparison with a scientist like Dr. Michael Mann.
Hey now, remember, the applicability of Gresham's Law to Atmospheric Physics was first described by Dr. Curtin, you know, not long ago and right here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h…
"... what we are told by IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 - repeat, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 - repeat, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 - has gone up by 100 ppm since 1750, which can ONLY mean that non-CO2 by ppm MUST have decreased by the same amount - repeat, non-CO2 by ppm MUST have decreased by the same amount. Like the other clowns in the IPCC you can redefine the terms of the debate, but if plain English and arithmetic mean anything (which clearly they do not on this Blog), you have to account for the 780 bn tonnes of non-CO2 that have gone missing."
"Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 20, 2006 07:08 AM"
Tim Curtin -
uhhhh.... your logic fails here.
Let us imagine that in a med climate, where winters are cold and wet and summers are hot and dry, that the average annual temperature goes up by 1C, and rainfall increases by 1".
Winters would still be cold and wet, and summers hot and dry, and there would ALSO now be a positive correlation between average annual temperature and average annual rainfall, even if SEASONAL rainfall is still negatively correlated with temperature. Seasonal patterns and annual averages are different kinds of categories.
Seasonal variations have next to nothing to do with annual averages, and that was a pretty basic error of categorization you made. I found myself unable to take the post seriously enough to read further after that error - care to fix it and repost it, and I'll try again?
Having just read the last post by Hank Roberts -
Tim Curtin, do you imagine that the volume of the atmosphere is constant?
Having just read the last post by Hank Roberts - Tim Curtin, do you imagine that the volume of the atmosphere is constant?
Posted by: Lee | July 21, 2006 09:14 PM
Ask IPCC, who cite CO2 in ppmv, not in absolute amounts. Try this thought experiment: assume volume of atmosphere was 100^20 of whatever 100 years ago, with CO2 at 280 ppmv, and that as you suggest, it has expanded to say 100^30, with CO2 at 380 ppmv, that is even more CO2 than IPCC implies - but it also means that non-CO2 has increased in absolute terms by much more. Now what? back to your cave my friend.
Curtin - WTF?
How on EARTH did you get that I'm suggesting that the atmosphere increased in volume by 10 orders of magnitude? Where in the F*** did **you** get the idea that the atmosphere increased in volume by 10 orders of magnitude?
If you add 100 ppmv CO2 to the atmosphere, the atmosphere increases in total volume by about 1/10,000 (a negligible change in the denominator of the ppmv calculation), and CO2 increases by about 35%, a very substantial change in the numerator. And NOTHING needs to "go missing' from the atmosphere - certainly not "780 Bn tonnes of non-CO2."
Is your 'analysis' an example of the kind of arithmetic they teach you in econometrics school?
Sheesh.
Lee, you seem to have difficulties with language as well as numbers. I did not say you said what you say I did. The numerator is not just the CO2 but the other emissions that arise from burning fossil fuels, like H2O. Tell us about them. What is the total increase in the atmosphere from burning 100 tons of fuel? - but then you also overlook the question of increasing concentration. As you put it, there is none, the extra CO2 simply expands the atmosphere. But then there would be no rise from 270 to 380 ppm. As you are so coy about your own identity and CV it seems fair to assume that you are another sockpuppet who never did go to school.
Tim: Here is a thought experiment. You have a glass of water and some food colouring. You put a drop of food coloring in the water. Now what happens to the volume of the glass and the concentration of food colouring. Extra points for discussing which effect would be easier to observe.
Regards,
John
John: You will enjoy this, but beyond it I cannot help you.
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147
"... carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning (about 26 billion tonnes per year, 7.2 GtC)..."
http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm
-- 7.2 billion tonnes of carbon added to the atmosphere per year; the carbon came from underground, e.g. as coal, pure carbon. The oxygen was in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is increasing faster than all the natural sinks can absorb so the concentration (parts per million) in the atmosphere is increasing as noted.
Oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons so from those some fossil hydrogen is also burned, making some water. But water vapor condenses back to water over a few days; it's not accumulating in the atmosphere the way carbon dioxide is.
Hi Dano,
I'm having trouble understanding your comments about the divergence problem. This is well documented in the literature. Perhaps one example would help:
" in many tree-ring chronologies, we do not observe the expected rate of ring density increases that would be compatible with observed late 20th century warming. This changing climate sensitivity may be the result of other environmental factors that have, since the 1950s, increasingly acted to reduce tree-ring density below the level expected on the basis of summer temperature changes. This prevents us from claiming unprecedented hemispheric warming during recent decades on the basis of these tree-ring density data alone".
Ref: K. R. Briffa, T. J. Osborn and F. H. Schweingruber, Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issues 1-2 , January 2004, Pages 11-26 available http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-A-Ms… here (for a fee).
I'm sure any conprehensive dendro listserv participants could come up with many more.
Or perhaps you had a different point?
"this "divergence," which for now is considered unique to the 20th century and to areas north of 55°N (Cook et al. 2004)."
http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309102251/html/104.html
"... Bristlecone Pine Forest ... Schulman Grove (37° 23.129' N, 118° 10.745 W, 9985 ft) & Patriarch Grove (37° 31.645' N, 118° 11.889' W, 11293 ft)."
http://www.tim-thompson.com/vacation_2001.html
"...lines of latitude are circles of different size. The longest is the equator, whose latitude is zero, while at the poles--at latitudes 90° north and 90° south (or -90°) the circles shrink to a point."
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slatlong.htm
OK, Curtin, how does one deal with an argument as jaw-droppingly stupid as this one is.
First, if you are calculating concentration of CO2 as the volume of CO2 in the volume of the atmosphere, then H2O and other gasses are not part of the numerator, as you said, but part of the DENOMINATOR. Volume of CO2 is in the numerator, and total volume of the atmosphere is in the denominator, if you want to calculate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Those other gasses change (negligibly) the total volume of the atmposphere (denominator), they do not change the total volume of CO2 (numerator). Only CO2 changes the volume of the CO2 (numerator). My third-grade son can handle this arithmetic.
Second, you are arguing as if doubling the volume of a trace gas in the atmosphere will double the volume of the atmosphere overall. This has been explained quantitatively to you, many times now, and your argument simply is not true. But let me explain it again - I'll even continue to include explicit labels for the numerator and the denominator, to make it easy for you:
If you include all the other human emissions that contribute to the total volume of the atmosphere (denominator), they make negligible changes in the total volume (denominator) when calculating the increase in concentration of the TRACE gas CO2 (numerator), because they are only a miniscule fraction of the total volume of the atmosphere (denominator). This is especially true for water, which simply rains out and is removed from the atmsphere within a couple weeks, and then no longer contributes to anthropogenic changes in the total volume of the atmosphere (denominator).
Once again, here is the change.
Numerator:
280 (previous CO2) + 100 (new CO2) = 380 (total CO2).
Denominator:
1,000,000 (previous volume) + 100 (new CO2) - 100 (consumed O2) = 1,000,000 (total volume).
Water is negligible (it rains out within a couple weeks). Other trace gasses (and the tiny fraction of water that resides for that first 2 weeks or so) may add a few parts to the total volume, so for purposes of demonstration let us overestimate and add another term: + 100 (other trace gasses), making the denominator 1,000,100, instead of 1,000,000.
Quick, Curtin (yes, this is an arithmetic test): what are the absolute and percentage differences between 380/1,000,000 and 380/1,000,100? And if you adjust the second fraction so that the denominator is precisely 1,000,000 (for presenting as ppmv) what is the new value of the numerator?
As for my identity, I'm a biologist - I guess biology graduate programs require a better 2nd grade arithmetic education than whatever economics program you attended?
Dr. Curtin, you're an academic, associated with a teaching institution. Please talk to someone in Physics there. This material would not have been taught when you were an undergraduate -- it is now.
To understand the issues about fossil fuels, you need to learn what the atmospheric physicists mean when they describe changes in CO2 in parts per million.
Someone at your university will have taught this and will be willing to take the time needed to explain.
It's important, because:
"Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal.
Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In
the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
http://www.indiana.edu/~jkkteach/smp98.html
At least Tim Curtin no longer disagrees with the fact that using Bristlecone proxies in global temperature reconstructions before 1450 produces a statistically valid result that agrees with reconstructions not using such proxies after 1450. However he still has difficulty imagining any physical process that could make such a statistically valid result possible (although heaven knows how there could be a statistically valid result without some physical process occuring, even if we don't know it). Considering his difficulty with physical chemistry*, this is not surprising.
"Even simple regression would suffice to show that temps and rain are not correlated there"
For Tim's benefit, I'll repeat: "Even if a proxy ONLY responds to rainfall, that rainfall depends on the climate which is related to temperature over a much larger area. So even just a rainfall proxy can be useful in reconstructing global climate and temperature. An example is El Nino where the world on average becomes hotter but not everywhere, while rainfall increases in some places and decreases in others. The rainfall can be affected in places where the temperature doesn't change much, e.g. the western United States.
* "what we are told by IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 - has gone up by 100 ppm since 1750, which can ONLY mean that non-CO2 by ppm MUST have decreased by the same amount - repeat, non-CO2 by ppm MUST have decreased by the same amount" followed by "you have to account for the 780 bn tonnes of non-CO2 that have gone missing."
Yes, volume measured in tonnes, interesting. To avoid giving Tim too much physical chemistry to think about at once, just imagine that the non-CO2 was O2 that was consumed by burning C. So for every O2 molecule consumed by burning C, one CO2 molecule is produced. Net result: O2 decreased by 100ppmv while CO2 increased by 100ppmv. This isn't the whole story but it's enough for Tim to handle at one time.
O'Neill: "Yes, volume measured in tonnes, interesting."
Ever read the IPCC? ".."pre-industrial CO2 was about 280 ppmv corresponding to an atmospheric amount of 594 gigatonnes of carbon (1ppmv CO2 equals 21.2 GtC and 7.8 GtCO2), IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990, p.9.
I trust you will write John Houghton pointing out the error of his ways.
Good bye
Curtin, the word "corresponding" has meaning in that sentence. As in: if one translated ppmv into absolute quantities (conceptually, by multiplying by the volume of the atmosphere) this is the absolute value one derives.
I note that in response to a couple of detailed posts outlining exactly where your lack of understanding lies on this basic issue, that you home in on the least substantive phrase you can find that you can point t and imply an error, and ignore everything else.
Lee: yes that is a useful trick, it's one I learned here from TL and JQ, eg their coverage of the Wegman report.
Bye
There's another classic troll -- the forged name (note the dot in that last one).
I trust someone's keeping track of the IP addresses being used for the forgeries.
Tim.Curtin comes from the same IP as Tim Curtin and uses the same email. Interestingly [this comment by "Rex"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/the_australians_war_on_science…) also somes from the same IP.
Lambert: that point was inadvertent, arising like Rex from your decision to expunge me from automatic listing prior to posting, requiring retyping. No bans etc, no subterfuge.
I think the position is quite clear. When seeking clarity on climate issues, Tim Curtin is not your man. If seeking clarity on econometric issues, given his inability to understand simple arithmetic, then he's probably not your man either.
I pity any clients he may have.
Lambert: I also note that you only "disemvowell" and reveal pseudonyms of those you disagree with, eg per but not Dano. You abuse your power as webmaster by that selectivity. Teachers' pets like Gareth can say anything they like and retain anonymity (though he does seem to have something to do with truffles/trifles).
I revealed per's name because he used multiple ids to back himself up -- ie sock puppets. People who agree with me seem to more willing to follow my commenting rules than you do. If you like vowels in your comments then just follow my rules. Can't you control yourself?
Dear Tim
it is noteworthy that you also revealed my name as John Brignell !
Of course, sock puppets have nothing to do with your patent animosity. That is why you try to guess my name.
That is also why you are quite happy for Dano, and others, to routinely transgress your "rules" about personal abuse.
What you cannot stand is losing the argument. That is why you invented a rule about multiple posting for MarkR. That is why you banned me when I didn't know the definition of a computer science technical term.
you are a bully.
yours
per
In what way does publicly linking to my own blog constitute remaining anonymous?
You can be as grumpy as you like, but until you show a better grasp of simple physical concepts, expect to get your shortcomings pointed out - especially in a public debate.
That is also why you are quite happy for Dano, and others, to routinely transgress your "rules" about personal abuse.
You are just mad that I point out your tactics, such as throwing ad hom around everywhere.
Your weak arguments might have more merit if the accusation were something that occurred across the board, rather than occasionally directed at those who blatantly purvey FUD.
That is: the argument here is the standard whine about lack of 'scientific dialogue'.
IOW, try harder.
Best,
D
"pre-industrial CO2 was about 280 ppmv corresponding to an atmospheric amount of 594 gigatonnes of carbon"
The above statement has a definite meaning unlike the following statement:
"you have to account for the 780 bn tonnes of non-CO2 that have gone missing."
What substance is this non-CO2 that made up 100ppmv of the atmosphere and had a mass of 780 bn tonnes? By an incredible coincidence it had the same molecular weight as CO2 and yet it couldn't have been CO2 because as we all know the CO2 has increased by 780 bn tonnes. There must be some genius at high school chemistry out there who can help us, especially the person who wrote the second quote because he certainly needs it.
I hope Dr. Curtin watched Dr. Mann and Dr. Christie during the second hearings when they both talked about the experience of having their errors corrected.
I hope you'll go over to your school's Physics Department, and ask someone there to look over your idea of how these calculations are done.
You don't want to be left out of these discussions because you aren't doing the basic addition the same way as everyone else, do you?
The link I posted in 116 above is broken because the underscores are interpreted as italic codes. Belatedly cleaning up after myself here, Markdown's "literal" feature apparently works -- putting a backtick around each underscore should give a link that will work and look right. If the whole line below is the same color, it ought to click and work; if not, copy and paste it to navigate
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the
_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php#comment-114141