james delingpole

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm

tlambert — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:04:28 +0000

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm seems to work quite well, with coverage by the Economist, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, US News and World Report, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Independent and CNN.

Here is the BEST algorithm:

State that "reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality".
Collect funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Make the utterly predictable finding that warming is not a product of poor measurement.
Brief reporters.

If only I had used the BEST algorithm, then my own analysis would be in all the papers.

You may have heard this joke before: Q: What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? A: A used car salesman knows when he's lying.

Decide for yourself which of the following are more like the computer salesman and which more like computer salesman.

Earlier Anthony Watts said: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."

He's not accepting their results because 1. they haven't passed peer review (yes, that's hypocrisy) and 2. they used a 60 year period instead of 30 years. Trouble is, BEST can easily recalculate and show that a 30 year period gives the same results, and when the results are published in a journal, Watts won't have a leg to stand on.

James Delingpole has taken a different approach:

In the first half of his piece, Professor Muller sets up his straw man. He does so by ascribing to "skeptics" views that they don't actually hold. Their case, he pretends for the sake of his wafer-thin argument, rests on the idea that the last century's land-based temperature data sets are so hopelessly corrupt that they have created the illusion of global warming where none actually exists.

No it doesn't. It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.

Compare with one James Delingpole, just last year:

Global Warming: is it even happening?

Check out this magisterial report by our old friends Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and judge for yourself. In brief: the surface temperature records are such a mess that they simply can't be trusted.

tlambert Sat, 10/22/2011 - 06:04

Tags

global warming

anthony watts

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature

best

james delingpole

richard muller

global warming

I was writing for the american audience, vinny.

You know, Dai.

You can take your arse and your hole and fuck off.

Excuse me, I was too busy moving those goalposts way over there to hear you. What were you saying again?

Thanks for that link to Delingpole's previous nonsense. I glanced at his latest opus and thought it cast a rather different slant to his normal lies.

For those interested, there is more on Delingpole at RationalWiki. Also good for a laugh is his dissection of peer-review. Aside from not understanding anything at all, he lists "Scientific American" as a peer-reviewed journal.

Gangsters can't be shamed and there's nothing to be gained by participating in the mummery of a "discussion" with them.

As Groucho said in Duck Soup, "Begone! And never darken my towels again."

Delingpole is obviously an expert in scientific issues. After all, he has published only four fewer scientific articles than Tim Ball, Canada's first climate PhD.

When Delingpole writes that "professor Muller sets up his straw man", I think that he actually means that Muller sets up a faithful image of Delingpole himself.

âThe issue of âthe world is warmingâ is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.â

A. Watts 2011

âInstrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant âglobal warmingâ in the 20th century.â

A. Watts 2010

First line of the summary in the paper Delingpole liked so much.Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?

Watts was a co-author on Fall et al and contributed to BEST, both of which utterly falsify the SPPI nonsense. But he won't retract or correct it, that's how they roll.

"Decide for yourself which of the following are more like the computer salesman and which more like computer salesman."

Well, I suspect both of them are so delusional that they really don't know that:-

1. They can't stop lying;

2. They keep contradicting themselves.

So Watts is more like the computer salesman ... and Delingpole is also more like the computer salesman!

The thread following the article in The Independent on this had deniers flocking in to say that of course Muller wasn't really a skeptic to start with. There is literally no study, no evidence, no analysis by anyone who isn't a star denier, or doesn't remain one in the face of evidence, that will ever be accepted by these lunatics.

Well I for one am interested to see what eventuates when Prof Muller is called to testify before Congress again. Willl the usual suspects throw him under a bus, a la Delingpole, or will they actually listen?

re: 10
of course, one might mention:
old Muller article.

Eh, isn't that really the Hamster Wheel algorithm?

"No worries, down maybe, but not out. I still have the upper hand, they just donât know what I know at this point. â Anthonyâ

I'd surmise that what Anthony 'knows' that remains unknown to anyone else could be engraved on the head of a pin with a hockey stick.

Those moving goalposts are as unexpected as a Bolt from outta the blue.

I imagine follow up funding from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation could be in doubt. Adulation and glory from people Pr. Muller has previously praised as heroes like A.W. and McI will be in doubt too.

Whilst Muller's practice of scientific scepticism seems praiseworthy it might have helped if he'd practiced it prior to voicing support for those heroes... or maybe not. The way this has played out - with the high priests of climate disbelief so eager to find a place amongst the like minded on BEST's comfortable plush rug, the results from having it pulled out from under them has to be more unbalancing than if they'd been circling it warily.

Isn't this the sort of thing that The Australian's ['Cut and Paste'](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/and-lo-as-the-lamb-opened-…) likes to feature, juxtaposed anomalies highlighting some supposed slip up on climate change. No wait, the quotes are actually in context and reflect real hypocrisy.

Just to add to the facts about how disingenuous Delingpole is, he was interviewed by Paul Nurse for a TV documentary about attacks on science and he was going on about how science should be open and done on the internet. Now he has got that, he has laid into Muller. In fact many skeptics are going on about the fact that Mullers paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet, these are the people that say peer review can't be trusted and that results and methods should be open for all to see.

Delingpoles interview with Paul Nurse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

His views about how science should be conducted is about 4 minutes in.

You know how some names become part of the language (Boycott, Quisling, etc.)?

Can I suggest delingpole as shorthand for "arrogant, delusional, ignorant, mendacious, offensive, science-denying twerp"?

@ TrueSceptic - see also monckton.

Delingpole's interview with Sir Paul was just embarrassing.....for Delingpole. I mean, he showed himself to be just a complete twit. You can almost see through Sir Paul's overt politeness, the thought cloud above his head saying "oh my god I'm talking to an idiot".

Where were all those mainstream media outlets when 255 members of the National Academy of Science came out with a strong statement on climate change a year or two ago?

Where was the coverage of the Bloomberg article exposing all the dirty tricks of the Koch brothers? Oh, right, they were too pre-occupied with the Solyndra story to ever notice 100 years of crony capitalism with the fossil fuel industry.

How many of them have covered the economics study showing that coal does more damage than it's worth? Like 17 cents/kWh as a conservative estimate.

I'm sure other readers can think of numerous other omissions by MSM.

@Ken Fabos, #14:
That's what I thought Ian Plimer was doing when he released a book which was indistinguishable from satire.
Plimer still hasn't done the rug-pulling yet, though, so maybe his book wasn't satire, just arrant nonsense?

>Here is the BEST algorithm:
>
>.1. State that "reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality".

>.2. Collect funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

>.3. Make the utterly predictable finding that warming is not a product of poor measurement.

>.4. Brief reporters.

.5. Acquire undeserved credibility as legitimate judges of climate science.

.6. Publish followup study supporting Muller's pet "it's the Atlantic cycle" theory or similar.

.7. Brief reporters.

TrueSceptic @19

The podcast of the British Humanist Association, The Pod Delusion has been using "Dellingpole" as an insult as in referring to someone as "what a Dellingpole" for some time now.

"One Delingpole" sounds to me like it should represent a standard international unit of something...arrant nonsense, perhaps? Disinformation? Self-fluffery? The half-life of one's memories of one's earlier assertions that are inconsistent with current assertions but conveniently decayed to a state of non-recollection?

Where's Zibethicus when needed? ;-)

I fear that it may be another case of skeptic-laundering, where a couple of skeptics are mixed into a peer-reviewed/submitted article's author list, with the rest of the authors being mainstream climate scientists; out the other end, after publication, the skeptics are now considered---by the media machine---as "mainstream climate scientists", because the article is part of mainstream climate science.

Then said ex-skeptics try on their shiny new "mainstream climate scientist" attire, and publish more of their usual ding-bat theories, safe in the knowledge they can point back to the mainstream climate science article as evidence that they are indeed mainstream. Just skeptical, that's all...

Dirty money in, clean money out. That's the trick.

Delling , Divison
Definition: difference in opinion

Pole,.... pile , wooden, a thing up your arse

"I think you may have Dellingpole",
The medical opinion that you may have a broomstick up your arse but then again it may be your head"

"One Delingpole" sounds to me like it should represent a standard international unit of something.

Well, I recall there was a proposal to make an "Albrechtsen" the amount of time before the standard wingnut line on anything moves from the US blogosphere to the Australian one. (Personally, I think a "Bolt" would do perfectly well, provided that it's accompanied with accusations of GroupThink against "Leftists".)

Personally, I think a "Bolt" would do perfectly well, provided that it's accompanied with accusations of GroupThink against "Leftists"

and especially if it sits within a post full of whining self-pitying vixtim-playing where he lets everyone know that elites are trying to silence him and are obsessing over his personal life by telling the truth against him.

Perhaps that could be called a "LOLbolt".

19 SteveC,

Yes, but there are other Moncktons so it would be unfair on the others. AFAIK there is/has been only one well known Delingpole so that doesn't arise, and in any case, doesn't it sound like a name that should have a meaning?

20 Mikem,

Delingpole claims that the discussion went on for hours and the bits shown were selected to make him look bad. I'd love to see the whole thing.

24 MA,

I see someone beat me to it, but that's good. :)

25 Lotharsson,

Well, that's weird. I nearly added that to my comment. Yes, much like a Scoville is a unit of chili heat, a Delinpole is a unit of arrogance/delusion/ignorance/etc.

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but Delingpole has replaced Tim Ball as my favourite kook-hero.

Umm...

The Standard Unit of climate change denial is the 'clie'.

Someone who deals in 'em is, of course, a 'cliar'.

You can measure them in clie-packets named after your favourite denier of choice, I guess.

Example - a little lie caused by refusing to read relevant papers might be a 'delingtwig'. A catenated bundle of delingtwigs (say a full article worth) makes a delingpole.

But then they also come in 'bolts' and even 'watts' - not to mention 'greigs' and 'megagreigs'.

Personally, ever since I found that the denier Lubos Motl was claiming to be "Abbe Hyupsing Qong and I came from the planet called Zetor here" (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/) he went straight to the top of my own favourites. He adds, for our elucidation; "All of us had to prepare special masks to look just as the people living on the Earth. So whenever you meet me at the Department of Physics and Astronomy in New Jersey or at NASA or our spaceship, you will see a person looking precisely as the terresterial human beings. My mask is able to change its gender so I can look both as a girl and as a boy." (ibid.)

Needless to say, Dr Motl/Abbe Qong has some very decided opinions on the subjects of Einstein and climate change. It is very considerate of him/her to visit our mundane little orbit to let us in on all these revelations, which rival Monckton's story of The Great Chinese Naval Arctic Expedition of 1421, which supposedly found a 'largely ice-free' North Pole.

(We have Monckton's own word for that, so don't scoff.)

The prodigious efforts of Dr Motl/Abbe Qong in, umm, advancing interplanetary understanding ought to be rewarded and remembered, it seems to me, and I therefore like to think of the basic Earth unit of multiples of clies as a 'zetor'.

But that's just me.

Zetor is definitely a make of Tractor. I know I had one once. It broke down constantly, never ran right, made a lot of noise and never did any real work.

Delingpole: a game played on a tilted and distorted field, in which the goalposts are moved rapidly by the defensive team.

I've wanted to have a unit of suffering named after Richard Lindzen -- the skeptical scientist who obviously should know better. 1 lindzen would be the same number of people who died in the Holocaust. The question to pose to deniers, then, is how many lindzens it would take for them to change their tune.

Speaking of Bolt, he has been strangely silent on the latest news from the Berkley Earth people. In fact, our favourite lurking sceptics on Deltoid have been strangely silent too.

The scientific conspiracy to fudge global temperature data has now grown so massive that it even engulfs sceptical scientists previously endorsed by sceptical non-scientists. It appears that only a few intrepid Galileos out there on the web really know the truth.

Strange world out there......

I think that we may be up the Delingpole, time running out

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/

If we were to create International Standard Units of Stupidity and Malice, how would we rank Albrechtsen, Jones, Bolt, Monckton and Delingpole in the hierarchy? E.g. how many Albrechtsens make a Bolt? Is it ten Bolts to the Monckton? Can I get a couple of Jones change for this Delingpole? And surely the ultimate unit must be a Murdoch?

Just spent the weekend at the inaugural Womad Earth Station in the Adelaide Hills. 3 whole days of the the Science from actual scientists and nary a Wing Nut in sight! Joy! I hope they intend to pod or webcast a lot of the material that was recorded.

"Is it ten Bolts to the Monckton?"

No, that would be overly logical. It would need to something like 6.5 or - better still - pi Bolts to the Monckton.

Good point, Lurker! So it's Ï Bolts to the Monckton unless the IPCC agrees, and â2 Albrechtsens in a Jones...

I wouldn't touch this with a delingpole.

Can someone do the maths, perhaps similar to https://www.neatoshop.com/product/Money-is-the-Root-of-All-Evil ?

36: "Zetor is definitely a make of Tractor. I know I had one once. It broke down constantly, never ran right, made a lot of noise and never did any real work."

So that's why Motl/Qong's flying saucer only goes in circles, and always to the Right.

It runs on tractor beams...

#24 ".6. Publish followup study supporting Muller's pet "it's the Atlantic cycle" theory or similar.
.7. Brief reporters.
Posted by: Dave R | Oct"

He did not wait for the follow up it is in paper number 4,
see last paragraph of summary...

> So it's Ï Bolts to the Monckton unless the IPCC agrees, and â2 Albrechtsens in a Jones...

And *i* Delingpoles to the Bolt - because (a) it's all about him, (b) complexity makes their head spin, and (c) as everyone knows any two "skeptics" will make orthogonal arguments to each other ... and applying a third will result in two arguments facing completely opposite directions...

Let's not forget Delingpole's own claim as an "interpreter of interpretations" because he doesn't read the scientific literature, but he does read those who interpret it and that gives him license to interpret their interpretations (that should be in the interview with Sir Paul Nurse, linked in one of the comments above).

How you manage to judge someone's interpretation of an original source without actually reading the original source itself is beyond me, mind you, but I suppose they teach you that at journalism school (I sure didn't learn how to do that in the sciences...that'd be a useful skill as it would free up lots of my time).

> our favourite lurking sceptics on Deltoid
> have been strangely silent too.

Revised talking-points distribution delayed over the weekend?

I've always wished someone would turn 'global warming denial bingo' into a tracking study: where each new talking point appears first; how long it takes for the echos to start.

Call it "global warming denial sonar"

âThe issue of âthe world is warmingâ is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.â

A. Watts 2011

A. Watts 2010

To the above, I'd add:

WUWT, posted today:
"Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend"

After looking at the footage of the debate between Monbiot and Delingpole, I've suddenly realised that Delingpole dresses and sounds like a really annoying sixth-former.

It all makes sense now, the constant referrals to himself and his complete faith in his own world view. He's seventeen and three-quarters, and just a really irritating schoolboy.

Unfortunately, he won't grow out of it, but at least we know that he's a victim of his hormones, and not that he's simply a prat. Still time to go to journalism school...

@51 MMM and don't forget :
"âAnd, Iâm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. Iâm taking this bold step because the method has promise. So letâs not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results." A. Watts, march 2011

Someone at Romm's suggested to bring back this citation everytime BEST is mentioned. I find this idea excellent.

RealClimate [has a dry sense of humour](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthqua…).

> This must have been something of a disappointment for anyone hoping for something else.

There's also some trenchant critique of Muller's spin on the meaning of the results and on some of his claims, and some initial skepticism (in the proper sense of the word) about the methodology behind the claim that the AMO affects global temperature on 2-5 year timescales more than ENSO.

I think you left out the most important step:

0. Choose a title for your project that gives you a catchy acronym.

Tamino is looking at the "AMO stronger influence than ENSO" paper, and in the first part of a two-parter, he [thinks it has some issues](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/decadal-variations-and-amo-part-…).

He argues that:

a) some of the quoted standard errors are simply quite wrong;

b) the claim that AMO correlates more strongly than ENSO with land temperatures *has not been tested by the published analysis*;

c) it appears from the cross-correlations that land temperatures probably slightly lead AMO temperatures - and ENSO leads AMO by a realistic period - which suggests AMO is not *causal* for land temperatures and that if there is a causal relationship here it may be ENSO driving AMO.

I expect it will be interesting to see how this paper evolves prior to formal publication.

And as one commenter points out, to be ignored by denialists everywhere:

> Great display of the way science works.

> The BEST team have several enormous names attached to the project. And yet, the actual work is combed for flaws.

@56 Lotharsson : I bet that, once flaws will be revealed by peer review process (as Tamino suspects), denialists will grab these reviews (even though "peer review process is corrupted" to shout "see ? SEE ? This study is flawed THEREFORE global warming is a ecololeftist conspiracy !"

If that doesn't happen, I accept to kiss Lord Monckton.

Can we now expect that Muller et al will be subject to a blizzard of FOIAs? [Rhetorical question]

> Can I suggest delingpole as shorthand for "arrogant, delusional, ignorant, mendacious, offensive, science-denying twerp"?

Sorry, that's been known for a couple of years already as a 'trenberth'.

> Can we now expect that Muller et al will be subject to a blizzard of FOIAs? [Rhetorical question]

dunno, but i bet his inbox is full of flowers and rainbows and bile right now.

...the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.

I've been in agreement with that for quite a while. I'm simply uncertain about the human influence. I'm open to the possibility that humans are significant contributors.

On the other hand, I doubt we will be able to hold back CO2 emissions, and I think that is a fact. Solar and Wind power won't contribute nearly enough to make a difference. Our only hope for bringing down CO2 while the world population continues to increase, is nuclear fusion. I realize this may not be feasible, but the billions being pumped into useless renewables would be better off spent on a solution that at least has the potential to make a difference.

what's that, ben? it's too late to do anything? ooh, that's a breath of fresh air after all the "well maybe it is warming, but it's definitely not because of us" i've been hearing these past few days ;-)

> emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age

It's now warmer than the MWP. So how can the warming trend be because of exiting the LIA?

> If that doesn't happen, I accept to kiss Lord Monckton.

bratisla, don't buy condoms yet

Tim's fellow ScienceBlogger Ethan Siegel, who usually deals with cosmology, has a post up on the BEST project. The comments have been infested with deniers, evidently sent over from a denier blog. There's a need for more reality-based commenters to respond to the deniers.

ben:

...the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.

I've been in agreement with that for quite a while. I'm simply uncertain about the human influence.

And why, pray tell, is the world no longer in the Little Ice Age? Where is the vast "skeptical" science published in scientific journals explaining why the world is substantially warmer than the Little Ice Age?

#Comment 65 - I just had a look at the 'I am a Scientist' thread - the poor guy is like velcro for deniers.

I did wonder where most of them had gone, because usually they'd be here...

..the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.

Yes, all the warming is just a reversion to the mean since the LIA of the mid-19th century. This obviously explains why most of the warming has occurred since 1980.

The "emerging from the LIA" is the new parrot-like chant from these clowns.

Hilarious. Makes no sense whatsoever, on numerous counts.

Clarification: The majority of surface temperature records are a mess and indeed cannot be trusted.
This statement is true.

Perhaps I'm not reading the newspapers right, but I haven't noticed this BEST (non-)result making the rounds among Australian media, of late. I snuck a look at the Oz in the library today, and saw nothing on topic, just the usual imported Neo-Con rhetoric and yelling from the rooftops about censoring of freespeech, even as parts of the Australian are put behind a paywall - risible stuff. Free speech, so long as you can pay for it!

Anyway, easy to find stories on the BEST results at the BBC or at the Guardian websites, respectively. Honestly, our media is worse than some tinpot dictatorship's efforts.

re: 69 return from LIA
It's not new.
SkS, #32 on the fixed list.

You almost have to like the sort of reporting that the denialist community is coming up with in the aftermath of the BEST reports. This one is a doozy of false reasoning and blatant tautological thinking.
http://oilprice.com/Environment/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-Debate-Fi…

Oh dear, not, er, Best pleased, are you?

Well, I keep telling you but you won't listen, it's all over. Nobody believes any of that AGW twaddle anymore but as you chaps and chapettes obviously need an 'End of the World is Nigh' scenario in your lives (everyone's hobby is always incomprehensible to everyone else) I do try to help with some suggestions - not that I get much in the way of thanks!

However, did you know that some fearfully brainy cosmology swot has just discovered that the universe is not only expanding - heh, even I knew that! - but that it is hurtling away at an increasingly faster rate. If gets any faster we're all likely to lose our hats in the wind! It could be the end of the universe as we know it!

There, feeling better? Good, no need to thank me.

> Well, I keep telling you but you won't listen, it's all over.

Oh dear, you don't or won't comprehend the BEST results at all, do you?

> ...(everyone's hobby is always incomprehensible to everyone else)...

Indeed. Your Deltoid hobby, for example ;-)

Nobody believes any of that AGW twaddle anymore

Uh, except Muller and the BEST team, of course... Oh, and all those other tedious people who believe in an evidence-based reality! How's the weather in Epistemic Closure World? How's that beloved Free Marketâ¢ treatin' ya?

Beyond that, Captain Skidmark is up to his usual standard of rambling incoherency.

The more popular terminology is 'recovery' from the LIA. For maximum rhetorical power!

Well David, if your suggestions were even remotely intelligent, then maybe you would get thanks.

So the BEST team headed by a sceptical scientist supported by Anthony Watts have confirmed that the temperature record indeed says exactly what climate scientists originally determined that it said. This is a real conundrum for sceptics like yourself which you can't quite wrap your head around, isn't it?

We are already seeing the emergence of the sceptical argument "umm, aaah, well, yeah we always said it was obviously warming, I mean, clearly it is, but the cause is not humans and industrialisation" to replace the "that temperature record is all lies!!" argument.

Gotta admit you sceptics are highly flexible creatures when it comes to putting forth an argument.

I'm trying to think of a forum where David Duff's senseless garble would be appropriate.

"hat blowing off in the wind of galactic expansion"?

Is he insane or on drugs?

feeling better

You can come here and make yourself feel better any time you like.

Definition for Duff:

Noun:

1) A person's buttocks: "I did not get where I am today by sitting on my duff".
2) Decaying vegetable matter covering the ground under trees.

Seems about right.

To add to that:

3) Duff [informal (British English)] - bad or useless, as by not working out or operating correctly; dud: (Collins)

4) Duff (beer): relentlessly promoted over-priced, tastless, poor quality fizz. (Simpsons)

Pity that comments aren't enabled -

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/be-prudent-wit…

Pell wants less religion and more evidence in the global warming debate!

@82,If that's what he wants,then it's very decent of Pell to introduce himself ,then show himself the door....ah,if only! News Ltd is back like that shaggy dog that's found something old and dead to roll in.

Nick, that's an excellent metaphor - though I'm not sure whether Pell is the shaggy dog, and the Murdocracy the old dead thing, or the other way around.

Pell^fn1 speaks of climate science as a religion, and of the "religiously-held" views of AGW proponents. The ol' master of superstitious things^fn1 commenting upon scientifically validated claims as though they are mere superstition - sheer chutzpah, that!

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my science from the climate scientists who've spent a lifetime doing the climate science.

Fn1: Pell is better known as Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney (Australia).

As an amateur Shakespeare buff I would remind you that in the 16th c. he and his company dismantled an entire theatre in north London in December/January and then dragged the timbers across the *frozen* Thames to rebuild it on the south bank. So of course neither I and anyone else is suggesting that earth temperatures do not change. Like a whore's drawers they go up and they go down, and in fact stasis for any length of time would be a *real* disaster. It's the 'A' in AGW the rest of us doubt. Sure, it has an effect but ... well, perhaps Best puts it best:

âThe human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.â

Happy to go along with that, are you?

> Is he insane or on drugs?

> Posted by: Craig Thomas

Yes.

Or And.

Ah David, the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered beckons...

dragged the timbers across the frozen Thames to rebuild it on the south bank.

Odd thing to do when they could have merely waited until spring and ferried the timbers across the Thames by boat. Actually, I think that is what they did.

the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered beckons...

Although to be fair, it must be an impossible task to construct an internally consistent opinion from amongst the club mix mashup that comprises the ever-shifting kaleidoscope of self-contradictory denier talking points.

Compounded by the lack of ability to compare like-with-like.

@ Dud:

âThe human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.â Happy to go along with that, are you?

No, because (probably not for the first time and certainly not the last) you failed to put that sentence in context. IOW you cherry-picked.

82-85

Also posted this on the Open Thread but since it is mentioned here, you can get the full text of Pell's lecture (21 pages) via the GWPF website. I haven't read the full thing but a quick scan shows the usual guff, including Australia's most influential RC, with ease of access to politicians and the Australian's opinion pages bemoaning:

Professor Bob Carter, Dr. David Evans, Professor Stewart Franks, and Dr. William Kininmonth have succinctly stated the case for the sceptics, a case which so far has been completely ignored by the Australian media and political class.

@ 92,to correct the fool Pell, Carter et als "succinctly stated case for the sceptics" has been exclusively noted by members of the Australian 'media and political class' because that's the audience for which it is intended. Apart from a succinct rebuttal or two,t's been ignored by the 'scientific class' and most of the public.

@ lord_sidcup:

Beg your pardon, m'lud, but it was December/January because:

a: They started immediately after Xmas when the ground landlord was absent, there were legal implications, and,

b: It was imperative to have the 'new' theatre built and ready in time for Spring and the opening of the new season.

The point being, of course, that the Thames was frozen solid which it has been on fairly frequent occasions in our history because the climate is in perpetual flux. Happily for them in their day, when it stopped freezing over there didn't have to put up with a bunch of exciteable adolescents leaping up and down crying "The end of the world is nigh and it's all the fault of the Catholics/Spanish/Jocks/Lord Burghley (delete to taste).

Pell speaks of climate science as a religion

He's obviously never heard the saying "People who live in glass houses..".

> The point being, of course, that the Thames was frozen solid which it has been on fairly frequent occasions in our history because the climate is in perpetual flux

No, the point being that it was cold.

Now, why was it cold? Why was it not as cold when the Thames DIDN'T freeze? What changed?

And, when you include all the known parameters and get a model that describes the freezing of the Thames well enough to plan for it, you have a model that predicts that our actions are causing unprecedented warming.

AGW.

You see, Duffer ol pal, the Thames doesn't freeze just because it feels like it. The climate doesn't change just because it's bored of the old climate. They change for reasons.

And one of those reasons is CO2 concentration.

Which we're increasing by our actions.

AGW is the natural result of the forces that make the climate what it is.

@94

I got my information from Wikipedia which cites a book by James Shapiro. Wiki isn't always reliable, but in this case there is a reference. The Thames was wider, shallower and slower flowing in the days before the embankments were built. Also, old London Bridge had small arches and acted as a partial barrage.

Anyway, your logic that human can't influence climate because climate changes without human incluence does not hold. The mechanism by which humans can change the climate is clearly set out in scientific literature.

>...it must be an impossible task to construct an internally consistent opinion from amongst the club mix mashup that comprises the ever-shifting kaleidoscope of self-contradictory denier talking points.

With the recent furore surrounding the publicity around Muller's BEST [sic] project, and considering how hysterically frantic the denizens of WUWT and similar sites have been in their shifting of the goal-posts, I started to compile a table of Denialist fall-back stances on the reality of global warming. It's basically in the vein of Skeptical Science's responses to Denialist arguments, but where Skeptical Science lists and deconstructs Denialist arguments, this list is simply an approximate chronology of the contrarian anti-science meme-of-the-day.

I'd be curious to see people add to or modify this initial list, or any that follow. For ease of future reference, it'd be handy if people posted their own complete versions.

What I jotted down in 10 minutes:

it's not warming - CO2 concentration is not increasing in the atmosphere, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's not warming - CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's not warming - the global temperature record is wrong, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's not warming - it's the Urban heat island effect, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's not warming in the USA (lalala I can't hear you) - and the USA represents the World, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's not warming nearly as much as scientists say - the temperature record is wrong, and the world's scientists are incompetent and they are committing fraud and they are conspiring to destroy the economy and our Way Of Life
it's warming, but it's natural - it's the sun, and the world's scientists...
it's warming, but it's natural - it's ENSO/AMOâ¦ (NFI)
it's warming, but it's natural - it's the Little Ice Age ending
it's warming, but it's natural and warmer temperatures are Good
it's warming and it's not natural, but warmer temperatures are Good
it's warming and it's not natural, and warming is not entirely Good, but it's cheaper to not do anything about it
it's warming and it's not natural, and warming is not entirely Good, and it would have been cheaper to do something about it sooner, but we can start now
it's warming and it's not natural, and warming is turning out to be as bad (and Worse) than scientists said, and it's the Government's fault that nothing was done sooner
it's warming and it's not natural, and warming is turning out to be as bad (and Worse) than scientists said, and it's obvious that it's been left far too late by governments to do anything substantive about it
it's warming and it's not natural, and warming is turning out to be as bad (and Worse) than scientists said, but it's the scientists fault that they conspired to not inform the world what was coming even though they said it was, because they are all communist eugenicists who want to destroy humanity
Fuck, it's hot. Wattsy/Bolty/Moncky - your great-grandfather was a self-serving arsehole for being involved in holding up progress on carbon emissions for those critical decades at the turn of the century.

Of course, that last is simply idle fancy that rusted-on denialists might actually ever admit to themselves that they were completely ignorant of the truth.

And then there's ocean acidificationâ¦

The Thames was also substantially re-engineered in the early 19th Century with a new [London Bridge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge) and Embankment specifically to improve flow rate and deter freezing.

Which illustrates the importance of comparing like-with-like and not swallowing any random denier factoid that happens along by design from some malignant think tank that's ten times more intelligent than you, David Duff and knows what it's sucker clientele will readily buy into.

@94: The point being, of course, that the Thames was frozen solid which it has been on fairly frequent occasions in our history because the climate is in perpetual flux.

The Thames was not frozen solid "fairly frequently", even when hydrological conditions favoured it (ie prior to the Embankment and London Bridge changes). It was thickly cover in ice only 24 times between 1400 and 1814 - a rate of once every seventeen winters.

I wouldn't call that frequent, but YMMV.

@ Lord Sidcup:
I beg pardon, m'lud, and throw myself on your mercy. 'Twas 6 years ago when I read Shapiro's book which relates the tale in detail and indeed you are right, it was ferried over because whilst London was snowbound the Thames that year was described as 'nigh frozen over', that is, unsafe for the passage of heavy goods. Alas, in mitigation I can only say that I put my memory down somewhere but I can't remember where!

@Check:
Setting aside your charming remarks I am grateful for your information that the Thames was re-engineered and thus freezing has been averted in recent years. So nothing to do with global warming then!

Dai, does this mean you'll correct those who believe that the Thames freezing is proof AGW doesn't happen, then?

I keep telling you but you won't listen, it's all over.

Tell it to the judge.

So nothing to do with global warming then!

Give me strength.
No David, it's just another factor independent of climate to be taken into account before rushing to judgement as you are wont to do about AGW.

Dave

mate,

>As an amateur Shakespeare buff I would remind you that in the 16th c. he and his company dismantled an entire theatre in north London in December/January and then dragged the timbers across the frozen Thames to rebuild it on the south bank. So of course neither I and anyone else is suggesting that earth temperatures do not change

Erm, ummmm.....

The Thames was wider, shallower in Shakespeare's day hence the water flowed much more slowly and so you know what that means......Yep, it froze just like the Serpentine froze in Hyde Park did during last winter because it is shallow, wide and hardly flows, while the Thames didn't freeze at all......

So Dave if you don't believe me then here's a challenge. I will meet you outside Thommies one Sat or Sun morning with a map of the Thames in London from Shakespeare's time and we will walk down past the Eye and the Tate Modern to Sam Wanamaker's heroic reconstruction of the Globe using the map to mark out the boundaries of the river as it was then compared with today.

Then Dave you can tell me if you will continue to stick to this denier meme about the Thames freezing over.

(BTW Did you catch Kevin Spacey's Richard III at the Old Vic this summer - magnificent production and incandescent performance by Spacey)

Last night, the Daily Show aired an [absolutely terrific segment on Richard Muller's report, and the way it's been covered in the media](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights…).

THanks, Jeremy, but that has already been pointed out.

No, I pondered the expense of getting up to town to see Spacey but, truth be told, Dick III is not my favourite history play. The temptation for leading actors to ham it up is usually irrestistible. The play, I feel, is as lopsided as its 'hero', partly, I suppose to make the first of the Tudors as heroic as possible. BUt did you see the 'Henries' at The Globe? Terrific!

Back to (semi) serious matters, I came across this site which is fascinating to skim through for anyone interested British climate in the last two centuries:

http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1850_1899.htm

In the meantime, I am preparing myself for lots more freezing winters, like last year, over the near future and if any of you lot even whisper the words Anthropological Global Warming I shall not be responsible for my actions!

Y'know David, if you had any real curiosity you might have marvelled at how temperatures in Greenland were [10-15Â° warmer than here in the UK last winter](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1340436/Why-cold-warm-Gr…).

Or perhaps wondered what was going on when trucking in snow was considered at the end of 2009 for the winter Olympics the year before when February 2010 temperatures were still at [44Â°F](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Winter_Olympics).

But then that might entail examining some of the rubbish misinformation you prefer to believe about what AGW means, in order to be able to deny it.

Thanks Bruce @#105, I'd certainly like to see that - but my Aussie IP address means I can' watch the piece!

Who needs science when you have *such* a wit and can reference Shakespeare?

It was cold in England in the early 1600's? Who knew? Surely this will end the scam!

Dave,
I see from your comment about "ham" that you didn't see Spacey. Re the Globe, I had to book a month ahead to stand for MAAN this summer, it was much better when you could just turn up on the night.

I'm curious about your switch to the topic of british weather once the Thames freeze meme you parroted was so easily swept aside. My curiosity is why did you put the Thames freeze up in the first place, did you actually think it was true or did you think we would fall for it? Why didn't you investigate it yourself? If you did believe it to be true why aren't you now questioning the surrounds of your faith/ideology especially as an example supposedly buttressing your worldview was flicked away so easily by those you don't consider your equal?

I can understand you not being responsible for your actions when hearing the words 'Anthropological Global Warming' as having your worldview continually dissolved by reason and logic must stretch your personality to breaking point.

Climate change includes both natural variability and human influences and the apportionment into the sub-reasons within each is usually called *attribution*.

Here's a graph of CO2 over last ~1000 years. Increasingly-good evidence is appearing to refine and support Bill Ruddiman's hypotheses about human depopulations and resulting reforestrations and CO2 drawdowns, the big one being the 1600AD drawdown from the largest human-die-off in history in the post-Columbian Americas.

For the general idea, read Plows, Plagues and Petroleum.
For more current detail, see the recent special issue of The Holocene, especially Nevle, Bird, Ruddiman, Dull (2011) "Neotropical humanâlandscape interactions, fire, and atmospheric CO2 during European conquest."

It's possible the CO2 drop was a part of the LIA.

Since we're on Shakespeare...

Wow - the nutters are out in force in response to Steve Shirwood's article in today's Austrayin.

However, did you know that some fearfully brainy cosmology swot has just discovered that the universe is not only expanding - heh, even I knew that! - but that it is hurtling away at an increasingly faster rate.

Yes, imbecile, we do ... or rather, we know the accurate version. (Saul Perlmutter ... where have I heard that name before?)

It's the 'A' in AGW the rest of us doubt.

Ignorant gits doubt a lot of things that are true.

Jeremy, the reason I mentioned the Thames freezing was simply to point out the obvious fact that what goes up, in climate terms, goes down again - and then up again - and then down again I have no beef with people who claim that the 20th c. shows signs of warming (although even that is not 100% proven given the inadequacy of the measuring techniques) I only suggest that the 'proof' that it is man-made is so unconvincing that I personally would not want a penny of my taxes spent on rectifying a purely speculative hypothesis. Alas, Jeremy, "reason and logic" do not seem to play a large role in AGW agit-prop! Anyway, irrespective of what you adn I think, the fact of the matter as indicated by various polls is that you have lost your argument. Fewer and fewer people outside 'the church', so to speak, believe a word of it.

Also, I should add that I personally hope there is some global warming. I like a warm globe. Warm is good! Cold is bad! But alas, I fear that cold is coming.

For God's sake, Bill, don't get us on to the 'who wrote Shakespeare' shtick. The enraged arguments on that subject make debates on AGW look like a mild disagreement at the Womens Insitute!

> the obvious fact that what goes up, in climate terms, goes down again

Really? So Venus' climate will go back to the non-runaway-greenhouse-effect climate it used to have a few billion years ago?

It's also obvious that there has to be a REASON for the climate to go down again and that if the reasons for climate going down don't appear, then it won't.

But then again, you're seriously clueless about what physical processes mean, you think everything is a cycle and repeats. To you, there is no causation, just curve fitting.

I only suggest that the 'proof' that it is man-made is so unconvincing

to an ignorant cretin. I already gave one convincing-to-non-cretins link; here is another.

the fact of the matter as indicated by various polls is that you have lost your argument

The validity of an argument isn't determined by polls, you imbecile.

I like a warm globe.

Great, we'll buy you a one-way ticket to Venus.

> Also, I should add that I personally hope there is some global warming. Warm is good! Warm is good! Cold is bad!

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for. You may find you intensely dislike the ecosystem that results from a rapidly warmed world.

The moron's ethic can be found on his web page:

âThat one can convince oneâs opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.â

. My god we have been Pell-ted with crap

(Archbishop Pell GWPF), sounds like Plimer's nonsense

King DickDavid the Duff #106

Back to (semi) serious matters, I came across this site which is fascinating to skim through for anyone interested British climate in the last two centuries:

http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1850_1899.htm

So, enlighten us, what conclusions do you draw from reading
therein oh clever one?

You may like to consider an old saying we have here in Britain, 'we don't have climate we have weather', now couple this with the very apt statement,'weather throws the punches, climate trains the boxer', and you have an accurate explanation for events that have unfolded in the UK over the last few years.

And in Italy recently, Thailand too, also much of central and southern US, Russia, Australia and many many more places across the whole globe.

Consider this article and reflect on its meanings.

Also consider the disconnects that are being caused in the food chain that supports our privileged life style as the globe warms bringing on earlier breeding cycles in many insect species causing migrating birds to starve because their migration is driven by hours of daylight and not temperatures. That is but one example from a legion.

If you don't have a clue what I am on about then a reasonable primer is: Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity by Dr. Richard Pearson

PS. don't forget the High-Z team too, and Vera Rubin and ....

bill,

You should be able to see it at [desmog blog](http://www.desmogblog.com/daily-show-notes-irony-koch-funded-study-affi…)

Cheers

Lionel, I'm wondering why Dai the Dick thinks that British climate is telling us anything about the global one or why we'd be interested in merely the British climate when 99.8% of the population of the world doesn't live in Britain.

A good editorial in Nature taking Muller to task for seeking publicity for his study "before the scientific process has run its course."

[Scientific climate](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/478428a.html)

Chris W - Desmogblog's link is blocked as well (I'm in the UK), so hopefully someone has kindly put it on You tube.

BTW - I thought the actual saying is 'we doesn't have climate, we have (mostly really rubbish) weather'. Although its really nice today...

>Also, I should add that I personally hope there is some global warming. I like a warm globe. Warm is good! Cold is bad!

Then move to a warmer part of the world you dopey turnip.

Turning up the thermostat a degree or two on a whole planet is a profoundly heavy price to pay in order to give a egocentric nimrod like you the opportunity to take his shirt off at high latitude, and thereby frighten the local children - doing so* would/will trash whole ecosystems in the process...

(* Turning up the thermostat, that is...)

Dave......

>Jeremy, the reason I mentioned the Thames freezing was simply to point out the obvious fact that what goes up, in climate terms, goes down again - and then up again

It was pointed out to you by a number of people here that the Thames freezing over during the times period you mentioned was due to water flow and not climate - as you acknowledged.

So how can you say we are part of a 'church' (wrong terminology on your part but we will let that pass) when you had the Thames history wrong. Do you not see a teensy weensy contradiction in your thinking and outlook?

What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good? What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?

Interesting that you see this whole thing as a popularity contest - that is ideology all the way with you needing to push science out of the way......... for now.

D. Duff may be wishing for AGW to "hurry up"

I personally hope there is some global warming. I like a warm globe. Warm is good! Cold is bad!

But alas, (for him) he is also correct when he says

I fear that cold is coming.

A simple explanation may be found at How Global Warming will make the British Winters Colder

The important thing here is to look at the latitude of the United Kingdom. It is at the same latitude as Newfoundland and much of Siberia, which places have incredibly cold winters. Traditionally the United Kingdom has warm winters for its latitude and the reason for this is the North Atlantic Ocean Circulation System.

I have sailed the coasts of Newfoundland and the UK in the month of July, not the same year, and for some reason I didn't see icebergs as I approached the Scillys, unlike the rather massive one we sailed around leaving St John's harbour on a sunny July morn.

Desmogblog's link is blocked as well (I'm in the UK), so hopefully someone has kindly put it on You tube.

I'm in the UK too. Try the "Modify Headers" extension for FireFox.

Do any of you ever re-read your comments? I ask because I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound? You're like the bloke in the pub wagging his finger under an opponent's nose and shouting louder and louder whilst issuing forth a stream of insults! Why isn't it possible for you to undertake a pleasant, even amusing, debate with people who are not convinced by your arguments? I never heap abuse on you, although I pull your legs gently - at which point you all begin to froth at the mouth.

Anyway, here is a link to a highly intelligent essay on why it is that on the subject of economics Keynesians and Hayekians can never agree. It has implications for 'warmers' and 'deniers'!

http://cafehayek.com/2011/10/my-challenge-to-paul-krugman.html

Delong's Law violation!

Duff, all troll, all the time.

David Duff:

I certainly can't think of why people might get upset at your disingenuous intransigence.

Wait... wait... maybe it has something to do with:

(1) Your failure to be convinced by the mass of evidence showing AGW is real & bad is not the fault of the evidence; rather it is a failure of your reasoning faculties. What is causing this, I am not privy to say, not being you.

(2) Your continual insistence on re-hashing long-debunked arguments against the reality & gravity of AGW, often couched in snide implications following largely irrelevant references (e.g. to the freezing of the Thames & English weather) to trivia which are simply not up to the task of refuting AGW.

(3) The fact that the continued obstruction by AGW denialists, whether on the blogosphere, "in the street" or among policy-making circles, is delaying action which will be required, lest the consequences involve, as predicted by the evidence, intensive property damage and economic deterioration, collapse of agricultural systems, and widespread human suffering, particularly to millions of the poorest people of the world (who live in the two most badly-affected areas, the tropics & the Arctic).

That you continue to whinge about tone (usually disparaged as tone-trolling), particularly in the light of point (3), is scarcely likely to change anyone else's responses.

@ Composer33

I was thinking more of:

'The moron's ethic'; 'Duff, all troll, all the time', 'you dopey turnip', 'Dai the Dick', 'an ignorant cretin', 'you imbecile', 'Yes, imbecile', 'Ignorant gits' and that sort of thing. You see what I mean about the drunk in the pub wagging his finger!

On what you would no doubt call 'the denier sites', I rarely see that sort of vituperation and when it does occur the hosts usually issue a warning to the commenters, even snipping the worse offenders. I should emphasise that I'm not about to burst into tears but that sort of slagging off approach is soooooo boring.

Dave,

>Do any of you ever re-read your comments? I ask because I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound? You're like the bloke in the pub wagging his finger under an opponent's nose and shouting louder and louder whilst issuing forth a stream of insults! Why isn't it possible for you to undertake a pleasant, even amusing, debate with people who are not convinced by your arguments? I never heap abuse on you, although I pull your legs gently - at which point you all begin to froth at the mouth.

Let me repeat:

1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?

2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?

Is that unpleasant enough for you?

Dave,

Let me repeat:

1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?

2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?

Is that unpleasant enough for you?

Oh
The poor tone troll!!!

I feel so bad.

Wait, no I don't.

Rule number one: If you don't want spanked, don't Godwin or Delong.

F*cking internet, How does it work?

David the Duff, or is it deaf?

You still have not answered my question above.

Do you bother reading and understanding the replies of others and to examine the evidence presented to back up their arguments?

It would seem no, for if you did you would not continue to spout long debunked nonsense.

As for this pearler:

You're like the bloke in the pub wagging his finger under an opponent's nose and shouting louder and louder whilst issuing forth a stream of insults!

And you are like the bloke in the pub who likes to pontificate loudly about matters on which he has little knowledge and even less understanding, the bloke having forgotten, or never heard over his raucous utterances, the maxim 'it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt.'

You come across as rather juvenile, could you be Delingpole in disguise perhaps?

Surely any unit of denial must be based on imaginary numbers!

[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/the_berkeley_earth_surface_tem…):

So you are grievously offended by me pointing out that you're a dopey turnip? Poor petal.

Consider it this way... Anyone who would cut a 200 year-old oak tree, rather than walk around it, because it is in his way during a forest walk, it a "dopey turnip" - at the least. Anyone who needs to catastrophically warm the planet (yes, the 'c'-word) in order to be able to take off his own shirt, is a "dopey turnip". Anyone who takes a cannon to shoot a sparrow is a "dopey turnip".

You're a dopey turnip.

That you think the crime here is being called a "dopey turnip", rather than the one of wanting to wreak global ecological disruption and/or destruction in order for your mere transient personal comfort, indicates that you are rather more* than just "dopey turnip"...

[* Magnitude changes, not the sign...]

[Alan](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/the_berkeley_earth_surface_tem…):

>Surely any unit of denial must be based on imaginary numbers!

Actually, the unit itself could be a real number. It only needs the coefficient i in order to become appropriately imaginary!

Finally, a journalist's article on BEST is listed in an Australian newspaper, online at The Age's website. Eugene Robinson's article, originally in the Washington Post, is worth a read, in preference to some other duffer's stuff.

> Surely any unit of denial must be based on imaginary numbers!

Indeed :-) (I attempted to introduce that concept [earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/the_berkeley_earth_surface_tem…) ;-)

I just quickly googled David Duff and Deltoid, and discovered that he's been pulling the same schtick for a long time, including monotonously arriving to announce 'the catastrophe is called off' and 'no one believes that stuff anymore'.

I wonder if you're honest enough to admit that your own behaviour contradicts your chief assertion?

I mean, there's the BEST team who believe that stuff, for a start; that being the subject of this thread, and all.

Every time the actual scientific method has to get used to evaluate the issue - as in BEST - rather than measuring the dB output on the blowhard squawking index; whaddyaknow, it's, over and over, brainy science guys (and reality's well-known liberal bias) 1, blowhards 0. Those who are not terminally wedded to idiocy might even begin to detect a pattern here...

So it's risible, and not a little pathetic, to repeatedly announce that you're winning, as the evidence against you piles higher and higher. Your pathetic serial triumphalism might even qualify as gloating, Mr. Tone Troll, if it weren't so palpably wrong in the first place! You just look daft.

(It's like those turkeys who repeatedly turn up at Warmist blogs announcing that "No-one reads your blog! no-one cares what you say! Nyaah nyaah!" Well, clearly you do, mate.)

Sure, due to the power of The Stupid a whole bunch of people may well have been herded around in to an anti-intellectual hysteria by various powerful interests and their corporate media mates; however, in the field of actual science, you're on a hiding to nothing! So reality will eventually overwhelm even the awesome majesty of Stupid, and then, beware; a lot of that unfocussed rage an sourness you guys have helped to foster will most likely be aimed squarely right back at you!

During the time you've been breezing in playing the old codger who assumes his arrogance and intellect somehow corellate your cause has been winnowed down by evidence until only the ignorant, fanatics, the silly old buggers (as our former PM described them) and the talk-back radio xenophobes are left. The BEST results really are a shattering blow to your cause, and the sheer incoherence and vindictiveness of their response indicates that many of your movement's 'shining lights' are only too aware of it.

Those hanging on to denial post-BEST are an anachronism, and that's the kindest thing that can be said about them. This isn't all a big joke, you guys really have helped to fuck-up the world, irreversibly to a large degree, and a little bluntness is looooong overdue.

Duff in denial:

On what you would no doubt call 'the denier sites', I rarely see that sort of vituperation and when it does occur the hosts usually issue a warning to the commenters, even snipping the worse offenders.

Obviously doesn't spend much time reading WTFUWT:

many of the best AGW scientists are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to push their personal AGW agenda

But as we all know, science denialists have a pathological hatred of facts.

It was noted above that the surface temperature record prior to 1980 is sometimes considered to be dodgy by skeptics (depending on what mode of argument they are using). The choice of 1980 is interesting. Its when satellite records became available. So after 1980, was it necessary to do wholesale adjustments to the surface temperature records to bring them into line with the satellite temps? Well, no.

So there seems to be no grounds to suddenly start trusting the surface temperature record after 1980, except that the existence of the satellite temperature record would make you look like a right twit if you didn't. But before 1980, you can sew doubt......

Christ, David. Grow a pair. If you're going to come here to ridicule people don't whine when you get ridiculed back.

Bill,

The reason the denialists talk about winning is because in places like Australia they have scored very solid public gains in public opinion. This has been due to their tireless efforts to confuse the public at large with disinformation and smears plus outright lying.

Its a tactic that has worked. Examples of these tirteless efforts are seen in people like Bob Carter traipsing around towns in Australia taking public meetings on his anti AGW stance while scientists involved in climate research are just too busy grappling with the difficulties of the science to give the amount of time required. Carter has been extremely successful in 'capturing' various LNP MPs in the Australian Federal parliament.

The thing is the denialists do this for free. They are not oil shrills, they don't sit beside the phone waiting for some one to ring offering them money to say a line publicly publicly. When that has happened the money has followed these people not the other way around.

In short a number of them are fanatics, a much better word than the mis applied word, fundamentalists. But note not all are fanatics. Its why they keep on when all the scientific evidence is against them. And it has been extremely successful in Australia.

I wouldn't say David Duff is a fanatic, I just can't work out if he believes the stuff he puts out or not. If he does believe what he puts out then I can understand the annoyance he has expressed above because the condescending attitude he displays could be because he really does believe those who deny AGW are smarter than the rest of the population. Then his world view is shown to be extremely deficient as soon as he comes on this site. The guy must suffer abrupt cognitive dissonance and has to go away to patch his worldview back together again. Hence why he has disappeared these past 24 hours.

So when the denialists, such as Andrew Bolt, say its all over, move on etc it is because of they have been so victorious in Australia and their zealotry gives them far more energy than the rest of us. They wont go away.

Oh, Jeremy, and just when we were beginning to get along! The reason I have been away is because I do have a life elsewhere, however I now have time to respond to your two questions:

"1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?

2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?"

I, personally, have no proof because I am a non-scientist. However, as a reasonably intelligent man (just) I take an interest in the world around me, and my interest is always heightened if my government uses somebody else's, er, 'proof' of something or other as an excuse to raid my wallet. Hence myintense interest in this climate warming lark. I have spent the last few years breezing through the internet reading the pros and the cons and, I freely admit, not always understanding them (but, heh, that's scientists for you, can barely write a grammatical sentence!) and I came to the conclusion that the 'deniers' have shot enough holes in the 'warmers' theories to cast considerable doubts (which is not the same as 'disprove') and also, and for me, more telling, the behaviour of the 'warmers', in various ways, has been less than exemplary, thus casting even more doubts.

In the comment above you used the phrase "world view". That, in my opinion, is a key phrase as Russ Roberts makes clear via the link I provided above. If, in his article you replace the word 'economics' with 'AGW', exactly the same thing is going on. In other words, were I to trot out a list of scientific papers casting doubt on AGW, you would instantly trot out an equal number in favour of it. And neither of us would be swayed by the other's 'proofs'! Because, of course, we hold opposite 'world views'. This entire 'syndrome' was once summed up by the late, execrable Nikita Kruschev who, whilst banging the lecturn with his shoe at the United Nations (probably before your time), shouted words to the effect of, 'there are no neutral men', Possibly that was the truest thing the little thug ever said.

Do read Russ Roberts:
http://cafehayek.com/2011/10/my-challenge-to-paul-krugman.html

At least you, Jeremy, are shrewd enough and honest enough to tell it the way it is - that the AGW argument is losing its grip in what passes for the public mind. On that proposition, of course, you risk outraged attacks from your own internal, er, 'deniers' - I trust you are good humoured enough to enjoy the irony!

David the Duff at #150

In other words, were I to trot out a list of scientific papers casting doubt on AGW, you would instantly trot out an equal number in favour of it.

Let us put that to the test eh and using an excellent resource that you should use as an educational opportunity.

BTW. That earliest skeptic paper that pops up there has been soundly rebutted and one such rebuttal can be found in the excellent The Warming Papers by David Archer and Ray Pierrehumbert .

David Archer's excellent lectures on the physics of climate change can be found on the web, you should look, learn and inwardly digest for you will then realise how we know that the globe is warming and that GHGs are responsible. For your further elucidation I suggest the latter author's, Pierrehumbert, book 'The Principles of Planetary Climate'.

This last of yours was a real duff of a pudding. Practically indigestible without a large jug of grog. Believe me I have known such.

Now, what about your mention of the British climate (whatever that may be), what are your conclusions from reading therein.

See what I mean, Jeremy?

Its all about the PR for Duff, he just runs from the science.

Duff -

I, personally, have no proof

No, what 'I' have is an illimitable supply of pompous waffle.

How many years have you been running that ridiculous line about Kruschev, for example? (Though I notice that as the geniality veneer slips and self-affirming narrative bites he's become an 'execrable' 'thug' and was banging his shoe on the lectern at the time of making this very statement. Google yourself and note your descent into believing your own fantasy. Do you think that might be part of a pattern?)

Do you imagine you've scored a point against the evil Leftists here? Apparently so! Yep, we're all secret Soviet fifth-culumnists here. I feel greatly undermined by your pointing to the bizarre antics of a man who ceased to be Premier (of a totalitarian state that disintegrated 20 years ago) when I was 2 years old.

You really are an anachronism!

And a link to 'Cafe Hayek' - what a giveaway! Your obsessive reiteration of the line about 'no neutral men' is a palpable projection; if it's true of anyone, it's certainly true of you! You are the one who thinks like Kruschev, David. And then you outrightly admit you won't be swayed by mere evidence!

And your opponents must be the same as you - they're just believing what they want to believe, too. Tell that to NASA, NOAA, the NAS, BoM, CSIRO, Met, NIWA, and all the Academies of Science of the Free World!

The real irony of this morass of projection, hostility, and wilful ignorance is just how representative of your whole tribe you truly are.

Rightist windbag spends declining years goading the people he can't admit to himself he resents chiefly because it's increasingly evident that they're right, and he's wasted his life. That's what you amount to?

David Duff denies science for ideological reasons. Stop the presses.

>were I to trot out a list of scientific papers casting doubt on AGW, you would instantly trot out an equal number in favour of it.

The major difference being "ours" would be consistent with each other, and "yours" would be inconsistent and contradictory.

Duff mangling the facts:

the AGW argument is losing its grip in what passes for the public mind

That should be:

the AGW argument is losing its grip in what passes for the Republican mind

in the USA.

The 29th October edition of New Scientist has an article on science illiteracy in the USA. It has a graph showing acceptance of climate science has never been stronger amongst liberal voters but has dropped among Republican voters.

[John]():

>>were I to trot out a list of scientific papers casting doubt on AGW, you would instantly trot out an equal number in favour of it.

>The major difference being "ours" would be consistent with each other, and "yours" would be inconsistent and contradictory.

Duff's list would also be much shorter in total number compared with the body of papers supporting the science of climate change. Duff is using a little semantic trick in an attempt to garner an impression of equivalence.

It's just another a sordid little strategy - and mundanely characteristic of those who deny the science.

Judith Curry has stuck her oar in again, in a piece in that excellent science journal 'The Mail on Sunday'.

âWhatever it is thatâs going on here, it doesnât look like itâs being dominated by CO2.â...says Curry.

No need for me to add anything more, Jakerman, Bill, John, Chris and Bernard illustrate my point better than I could myself!

>No need for me to add anything more, Jakerman, Bill, John, Chris and Bernard illustrate my point better than I could myself!

Indeed we have, Duff, but probably not in the way in which you delude yourself.

If you disagree, you could start by listing all of the scientific paper that you believe "cast... doubt on AGW". We'll count them, and see how the number stacks up against the real scientific literature.

After all, that was my original point...

Dibble @ #159 - My [reading of it](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-…) is far worse.

Ms. Curry now seeks to brew up her own little version of 'climategate'.

"There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasnât stopped," she said. "To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate".

"As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: âThis is âhide the declineâ stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline".

"To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasnât paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled."

Chris O'Neill tried improving the duffer's text as follows:

the AGW argument is losing its grip in what passes for the Republican mind

That's better, but more accurate still would be:

the AGW argument is losing its grip on those who are mindless duffers or Republican, where these differ

Dibble #159

Ah yes, Curry in the Daily Fail that haunt of the nutty Melanie Phillips. Very sensible arguments promoted by that organ - not.

That tells us something about how Curry should be recognised as being an arbiter of sound debate - she isn't. Another one with a career, in science at least, in a tailspin joining such as Michaels, Spencer and Lindzen.

Whatever one may say of Ms Curry, Chek, she's certainly not hiding her decline ...

The Sunday Mail piece was written by David Rose, who has quite some track record.

David Duff

This excellent lecture has just popped up at SkepticalScience.

I suggest you watch it David and learn why you think the way you do.

>No need for me to add anything more, Jakerman, Bill, John, Chris and Bernard illustrate my point better than I could myself!

I think I missed something. You had a point? I thought you were just sniping like a spoiled child. I don't think there's any need for you to add anything more, either. You've sufficiently embarrassed yourself here enough.

Judy Curry continues to embarrass herself:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-…

I didn't take that Daily Mail article seriously (look at that hideous GWPF graph: where is the 2008 La NiÃ±a?), but hearing that David Rose wrote it, puts the cherry on top.

It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.

Ah yes, it hasn't been settled whether it is insignificant or non-existent. Is this woman insane?

Dr Richard Milne in his excellent lecture Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial sure has a sense of humour with some nice lines such as this:

Its all about bristle-cone pines, now these are trees that can live eight thousand years. They can live longer than some of the Republican presidential candidates probably think the Earth has been around for.

You really need to watch that David Duff to discover, apart from anything else, the difference between justified criticism and genuine unpleasantness of which Watts calling out his attack dogs from time to time is but one example. But then you must install a vitriol filter when you read over there, or at Nova et. al.

I thought this thread was about BEST, but it seems to have gotten diverted into discussions with (people in my KILLFILE).

Let's return to BEST:
For good fun, see Marc Morano's views.

Circular firing squads are such fun to watch from a distance.

I foresee interesting times at Santa Fe Conference this week. In diplomacy, they might speak of "a frank exchange of views".

Curry's session should be fun:
"T-II: Observations (Judy Curry and Manvendra Dubey):

T-5: S. Wofsy (Harvard) HIAPER Pole to Pole Observations (HIPPO) of
climatically important gases and aerosols 10:35-10:55
T-6: R. Muller (UC Berkeley) The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Land
Results 10:55-11:15
T-7: R. Rohde (Berkeley Temp Project) A new estimate of the Earth land
surface temperature 11:15-11:35
T-8: F. Singer (SEPP) Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997
real? 11:35-11:55
T-9: J. Xu (NOAA) Evaluation of temperature trends from multiple Radiosondes
and Reanalysis products 11:55-12:15"

Sadly, the Viscount is in a different session, but he is certainly not the only other "interesting" speaker. See if you can find them all.

I see Judy's got three appearances. I suppose she could always hawk a few extra copies of LaFlameout's well-received (by her) new anti-IPCC book from some suitably shoddy cardboard kiosk in the foyers between gigs.

John M,

Regarding the Viscount's contribution!?!

He is not leading the science presentations but instead is talking on the cost effectiveness of mitigation i.e. accountancy, not once but again and again and again.

As the editor of Private Eye would put it...."Shurley some misthake"....

Enjoy the conference. Should you attend one of the Viscount's sessions do shout out from the pews, "Dr PINKER IS A WOMAN" as I won't be there to do it.

Are my eyes deceiving me or is La Curry implying that David Rose has ran off with her quotes and turned them into something his friends from GWPF really love?

Time, Rosegate number how much is this going to be?

I do like the link to David's blog called "Duff and Nonsense". It is unintentionally hilarious! I am curious about David day job and educational background and whether he is financially compensated by fossil fuel interests. It might provide a reason for why he continually wastes all of your time when you could be getting on with doing something about mankind's terrible experiment on the planet's climate.

'Time' should be 'Tim', of course.

Yes Neven, it seems like the foul smell comes from Rose and not from Curry.

Lars, most of it, perhaps, but not all. As Curry notes, Rose quotes her accurately (apart from that "climategate" quote). It's the framing she doesn't like. Well, Judith, welcome to the world you yourself have helped maintain.

Curry replied to my comments:

"Well, I have a rule about not talking to reporters on the phone, asking for submitted questions and I respond by email. Its a rule I extremely rarely break, and Rose caught me on the phone and I spoke with him. Back to enforcing my rule.

IMO Muller overplayed his hand in his media statements, why I am not sure.

I am getting a substantial number of press queries, I will do my best (lowercase) to set all this straight (via carefully crafted email replies)."

and

"At the moment, Iâm feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST. This is one reason I started a blog, to get my words out there and minimize my personal exposure to manipulation."

I know enough to paint a pretty accurate picture in my mind of what happened now. Let's see what Curry decides to do. My guess is she won't take Rose/Mail to task. But maybe she'll surprise me.

C'mon Neven, you're not still under the impression there's anything honourable going on with her, are you? Fallen into bad company or somesuch?

First her promotion of GWPF stooge Montford's novel, then more recently promoting LaFlameout's rubbishy IPCC hitpiece, and then lately she delivers another dogwhistling ['hide the decline' - in those words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/october_2011_open_thread.php#co…) into yet another GWPF stooge David Rose's lap. Unconvincingly backpedal as she may.

As Oscar Wilde might have said: "Once is a misfortune, twice is carelessness". Thrice is a bona fide serial killer on the loose.

Well, at least she's saying that Rose misrepresented what she has said to him on the phone.

Maybe she'll now see what happens when a lie races halfway round the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Not that I have any high hopes of that happening, but who knows...

At least she can't claim 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst'.

Its interesting how the deniers are out in force to destroy BEST. They had high hopes of BEST but are now moving fast and ruthlessly to smear and denigrate any comments, results etc coming from BEST. I guess the objective is to stop the building of a media narrative consisting of 'even skeptics believe the science' that could run for years causing the media to drop mentioning things like climategate from its collective memory and give a whole host of problems to deniers everywhere.

I would guess thats why you seeing the Global Warming Policy Foundation move so quickly with the article in the astrology promoting Mail.

Tim's War on Science can continue. The Australian is allowing everyone to view their dumbest articles on climate change, first Pell and now [Matt Ridley](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ipcc-warming-assessments-a…).

re: #174
A few weeks ago, I was idly toying with the idea of signing up to attend and flying down there for this ... but then shelved it and made other commitments. This was before the BEST fireworks, but it's too late to change my mind, alas.

Elsewhere:
"Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action. (taken from Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger)"

Speaking of GWPF, see Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation is spreading errors. He ends with:

"Perhaps it is time for the Charity Commission to review the campaigning and political activities of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and its trustees?"

The link between Donna LaRaspberry's ridiculous book and Curry's glowing endorsment of it may be explained when you notice this line it contains:

âHow can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. . . Rather than recruiting real experts like Reiter the IPCC enlisted young, inexperienced, non-experts instead.â

Gee....I wonder who Donna borrowed this shoulder-chip from?

It's a bit bizarre, but it seems a sinogle incident of professional jealousy is all it took to push Curry over the edge and into the cess-pit of ignorance and lies that is the deniosphere.

When I asked for David Duff's educational background this is what I received via email:
"Ah, I suspect you are a young man, or at least, one of the new style âgentlemenâ who discount such minor matters as courtesy and good manners. You suppose that you can barge, unasked, into my âIn-boxâ demanding personal information and expect an instant and full reply. Sorry! However what you can expect is my usual response to people with no manners â fuck off! Come back when mummy teaches you to say âpleaseâ and âthank youâ.
David Duff"

Tamino has a post up on Curry's pirouetting over BEST and her suggestion that she was done wrong by Rose.

It's a great post that appears to me to leave the SS Uncertainty with several gaping holes below the waterline.

I urge you to go read the article by Tamino that SteveC linked to. (And ponder whether the analysis will ever reach the consciousness of those who were exposed to the Morano bullshit.)

Well, in ways perhaps never intended, it looks like Judith is getting [her very own 'currygate' weekend](http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#comments)

I didn't take that Daily Mail article seriously (look at that hideous GWPF graph: where is the 2008 La NiÃ±a?)

And where does that 1.5 deg cooler point in 2010 come from?

Re the last two plots on the Mail 10 year graph

at Tamino

Nick Stokes | October 31, 2011 at 2:18 am | Reply
I did a count of the data that BEST has for 2010. In March they have 14488 stations reporting. In April and May there are 47. And in June, none.
And April and May are all Antarctic.

Rattus Norvegicus | October 31, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply
Well, that pretty much settles it then. Those months clearly should not have been analyzed because of inadequate coverage of the data. Good catch.â

This then explains the deep drop in the last two plot points (apr. may) on the Mail
graph

Curry is now back peddling so fast that her bottom bracket is smoking...

"Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you canât infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous. He thinks there is a pause, that is probably associated with AMO/PDO. So I am ok with this interpretation."

And where does that 1.5 deg cooler point in 2010 come from?

According to Nick Stokes - who has looked at the BEST data -over at Tamino's the number of recording stations at the start of 2010 dropped from 14488 in March to 47 in April, and what happened in April...oh yes...Paul Clark reminds us of that...EyjafjallajÃ¶kull

Sorry, this is a totally tedious sidetrack but as young Master Schaffer (age 14) of the Third Form raises the subject, not once (176), but twice (188), allow me to give you the full thread because he, in a manner which reminds me of something similar in other fields, cuts the full story to suit his own ends.

This arrived, not on my blog but in my personal 'In-box' by e-mail out of the blue from a perfect stranger:

What is your educational background and what do you do for living? Simple questions not answered by you anywhere that I have read.

To which I replied, not unreasonably to a stranger:

Why do you want to know and whoâs asking?

Back he came again with this:

I am asking because it isn't on your blog where it should be to allow people to judge if you might have any expertise in what you claim to know about. Who I am doesn't matter until I make a claim.

Given the hectoring, arrogant, unpleasant tone I instantly guessed where he was from! Actually, as it happens, I frequently make references on my blog to my many former occupations and my appalling educational standards - indeed, I think I have confessed all here on occasions! Anyway, I responded thus:

Ah, I suspect you are a young man, or at least, one of the new style âgentlemenâ who discount such minor matters as courtesy and good manners. You suppose that you can barge, unasked, into my âIn-boxâ demanding personal information and expect an instant and full reply. Sorry! However what you can expect is my usual response to people with no manners â fuck off! Come back when mummy teaches you to say âpleaseâ and âthank youâ.

Unabashed and unembarrassed, this juvenile actually publishes the rebuke with pride! But, somewhat stuck for words and lacking one of those pithy three-word slogans which is an absolute requirement for the 'youf' of today, he offered this final, pathetic sally:

I will assume you have very little education from your response and what you have gleaned is little. A good "fail" student on a pass fail basis.

Oh God, re-reading that last bit, please don't tell me he is actually a teacher!

What is interesting is just how much BEST has upset the denialati. If the "skeptics" were a boil, I'd say they aren't far off blowing.

WTFUWT is now schizming between contrarians who think Curry is a hero, and those who think she's a villain.

We do indeed live in exciting times.

The fawning 'progressive' global media love Muller, of course.

> "Skeptic's own study finds climate change real" - Washington Post

> "Ex-climate sceptic now backs global warming" - The Independent

> "Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study" - BBC

> "Climate sceptic Richard Muller won over by warming" - The Australian (horrible denialist Murdoch rag -- ignore)

> "Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real" - Atlanta Journal Constitution

> "Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming" - Business Insider

You should be anointing this guy as a Hero Worker, or whatever you call them -- that's the best ink the alarmist movement has had in years.

Rickybabes,

When BEST was announced with great fanfare (go read the Anthony Watts link at the top of this - he was particulalry enthusiastic) the denialati thought it and Muller the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now that it looks like BEST may just confirm the existing science its a bit of a media own goal for the denialiti especially as dumb journalists are now going to bring it up for years and years and might just compare it to climategate and finally figure out how the deniers have been playing the media - then watch out for revenge.

You know who pushed a lot of money to the BEST project, don't you, Dick? Heartland Institute, Koch brothers, and similar.

They were touted as the nail in the coffin that would show that the temperature record was fiddled and the decline in temperatures hidden.

You ought to recognise that last phrase since you've parroted it several times before.

Dick Bradford:

You should be anointing this guy as a Hero Worker, or whatever you call them

Sorry, the science denialists did that first.

What is going on at The Australian?

Apart from cleverly framing the photo to show a notice about the "The Coming Ice Age", their November 1 report on Muller seems to be dispassionately factual, without verballing him or distorting his results. I know that is what newspapers should do but on matters of climate science I have learned to look for trickery, deviousness and outright lies from The Australian. Alas, being an actual physicist myself, I am ill-equipped by temperament and training to find them.

Am I missing something?

Alan, Alan - you're reading the paper upside down...

I see that Rick Bradford has joined us; a daft puppy always front-and-centre for its masters, pathetically eager to swallow the dog's breakfast that is Jo Nova's incoherent ball of spite 'aimed' - if such a sodden, tangled mess could ever be considered to be aimed at anything - at Muller:

I canât find anyone who has a good thing to say about BEST â even the creepy Deltoids are laying into it, apparently because Muller said a couple of years ago that âhide the declineâ shenanigans are not the way to do science, and the Deltoids havenât forgiven him.

'Creepy' eh? Oooh, cutting; bet the alpha-dogs love that one! May I just point out to you what you clearly already know only-too-well; just what a blow to your motley pack this really is? Your enraged howls that only amount to 'not fair - they're using facts' really only reinforce the point! What exactly do you imagine you're achieving?

Now, run along, whelp, and do your yapping elsewhere...

It appears that Jonas had a very short run over at Tamino's place,one and done.

[As I don't see an open thread but do see #201 & 202 ...]

The innumerate, illiterate Murdoch Australian is [at it as usual](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ipcc-warming-assessments-a…) and still can't get itself past primary school level educational failure:

"... the audit showed that 5587 of 18,531 -- fully one-third ..."

The Oz - so much less than just typos and stupidity.

Jonas at Tamino:

> Unless you are very very confident in the origin of each and all of the underlying contributing mechanisms, there is no way anybody can separate what part of the data constitutes a true trend and what supposedly is noise.

Er...doh!

And that attempted point by Jonas entirely misses the point of Tamino's response to Curry's "There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasnât stopped".

> ...one and done.

Tamino doesn't suffer fools much...

@ Alan | October 31, 2011 5:17 PM

You may have accidentally inserted the contents of a real newspaer inside the cover of a pretend one.

@ frankis | October 31, 2011 7:39 PM

Are they still touting that LaRaspberry (pace Craig Thomas) tosh? What next - a 5-page "Special" in the weekend colour supplement by Prof. Dr. J. Curry on what the NIPCC can teach us all about nepotism?

@197

You should be anointing this guy as a Hero Worker, or whatever you call them -- that's the best ink the alarmist movement has had in years.

Gee Rick, you almost sound really pissed (off).

Yet another review/reanalysis of temperature data concludes that it does actually say exactly what climate scientists have always maintained it said. This continual smacking down, getting back up and yelling conspiracy, smacking down again, getting back up and yelling conspiracy, and smacking down yet again must be really getting to you by now, eh?

Just how many more smackdowns can you actually take before you lose your mind even more than it has been lost already?

I ask because I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound?

Ad hominem fallacy. Respond to the substance, asshole.

as a reasonably intelligent man (just)

Not even close, as you have repeatedly demonstrated here.

@199
> ...dumb journalists are now going to bring it up for years and years.

Finally we agree on something. Most of the journalists from the MSM, and especially the 'progressive' media are so dumb that regurgitating press releases is all they're capable of. And even that's a stretch, sometimes.

If only they had the brains to 'bring up' things that Muller actually said, such as:

> "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

> "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated."

Rick, why do you believe either of these quotes is relevant and telling?

The quotes you selected are prosaic and in no way support your claims about the journalists you seek to smear.

He doesn't, jakerman. All he's trying to do is put a lot of words out whether they support his position or not, because it takes no effort to make shit up completely and lots to show why it is a load of crap.

So Dick spouts irrelevant nonsense, knowing that The Team (His Team) will accept it as being important because "he wouldn't have posted it otherwise".

Just remember how many denialists point to a paper "proving" AGW false and when you go in and read it, find out it does no such thing.

A Watts is a journalist blogger. And since he fluffed up BEST and Muller's qualifications, Dick's assertion that mere journalists lifted him up erroneously is correct. Dick's just knows that his matey denialists won't let themselves notice that he's dissing Watts as a source of reliable information, since it doesn't gel with their faith.

Question from me:
"I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound?"

Answer from Ianam:
"Ad hominem fallacy. Respond to the substance, asshole." (My emphasis)

In one sentence, 'fallacy' turns into reality.

Perhaps, who knows, one day AGW will do the same!

Duff, I wonder if you realise how sensitive you seem? So you were called a name on the internet. Harden up, tone troll.

As I have already said, you are only here to ridicule, mock and condescend. No reason to chuck a sobbing wobbly when your tactics get turned back on you.

In one sentence, 'fallacy' turns into reality.

Another denialist who doesn't know what ad hominem means.

> In one sentence, 'fallacy' turns into reality.

In one post: doesn't understand ad hom.

You're an asshole, but if you can give some evidence that stands up to scrutiny, you will be a correct asshole.

However, no matter how unpleasant we sound, the evidence doesn't change.

I can't recall exactly how long Duff has been trolling around, making snide comments and ignoring science. At least 3 years, on a wide variety of blogs.

A trivial point but just for the record, when you've experienced an Aldershot drill sergeant at close quarters, being called names has no effect whatsoever. I was only trying to drop you a hint, although I realise that many of you are a bit slow slow on the uptake, that if anyone trying to find out the rights and wrongs of this AGW lark came here (as I did years ago) to hear both sides of the argument the unpleasant nature of *some* of you would instantly put them off (as it did me years ago) both you and your argument. It's a bit like listening to a salesman with bad breath and BO, very off-putting!

Then why do you whine incessantly about it, Dai? If it meant nothing to you, why even bring it up?

Here's a hint: stop being an asshole and people will stop calling you an asshole.

But nobody has said you're wrong BECAUSE you're an asshole. Just that you're so wrong so often, you're an asshole.

Difficulty reading, 'Wow'?

Blowhard on the Far-Starboard Bow!

Seriously folks, why waste time arguing with a pathological attention seeker and fabulist like Duff? His own thread is long overdue, methinks.

Incidentally, this is what the great man considers to be funny, apparently. Note that even the Birthers get a run on his site!

David Duff makes an excellent point, as commenters on skeptical websites are so polite and never abuse anyone.

Oh wait, he is being a tone troll, and a remarkably sensitive one at that.

Wow, it's spelled "arsehole", and you can shove your inferior american spellings where you like.

Sense of humour failure, Bill?

Yes, you do have difficulty reading your own posts.

You complain about insults but don't care about insults. At least one of those is fake, Dai.

In one sentence

That one sentence was intended (obviously, I thought) to elicit from you the very stupidity and ignorance that you in fact demonstrated. Avoiding substance by deflection to such personal characteristics as tone is ad hominem fallacious; calling you an asshole is simply a conclusion from evidence. Again, you pathetic coward: respond to the substance.

BTW, moron:

Question from me: "I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound?"
Answer from Ianam: "Ad hominem fallacy. Respond to the substance, asshole."

What I wrote was not, and was not intended to be, an answer to your question.

the unpleasant nature of some of you

All or some? Make up your mind ... not that it matters, because you're a dishonest imbecile either way and your opinion isn't worth anything.

Iâm quite surprised that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature groups findings arenât being embraced by climate change believers. As far as Iâm aware this is only the beginning of their investigations and they will be looking at further evidences of global warming.

My take is (as Iâve written elsewhere):
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) - led by Richard Muller â has given us the independent review and analysis of global climate data that was so desperately needed to get this âdebateâ back on track. This is one the climate change sceptics can't touch. First it confirms that the so-called âClimategateâ emails were a deceptive trick by climate change sceptics to stall action on climate change. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group have cleared The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and by imputation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), much better than a thousand investigations could have.

BEST's independent analysis of the data gave the same result: global warming is real. Thus the CRU could not have doctored anything - or Richard Muller's investigation would have shown no warming.

The climate change sceptics arguments are now shown to be false. They should have no real input into the climate change debate from now on. But this time the debate should begin at a grass root's level with town hall style meetings telling the truth ie that the latest survey showed that 97%-98% of climatologists agree that man-made climate change is real and presents one of the greatest threats to mankind ever experienced. The emphasis is (and always has been) on the climate change sceptics to show they are right. Climatologists have never been shown the respect for their profession, and the presumption of innocence, that they deserve as professional scientists. Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group have changed all that.

IMHO the climatologists made a rod for their own back by refusing to sue climate change deniers for libel, slander, defamation, and scientific fraud. I recently posted this thought at another forum - only to get a reply that suing would be âvindictiveâ. Which prompted me to consider these comments (as a reminder that Iâm not the only one who thinks like this):

âCan't these scientists club together and take people like Monckton to court for libel/slander/defamation or something?

If he is using the names of respected scientists, and the organisations they represent, to support falsification, distortion and outright lies, then surely this is a legal matter for the courts?

As mentioned previously, few people are fighting for the scientists, so they're going to have to adapt and fight for themselves, tooth and nail.

For now there is little other choice it seems.â

Source:
Mezzum 3 June 2010 3:55PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-clim…

ââ¦Certainly if scientists were to approach their respective nation's courts with this issue then they would have to consider deeply how it may be perceived in the wider public sphere with respect to freedom of speech.

However from what I understand, Monckton has misrepresented the facts, he has distorted the work of professional scientists; scientists who are attached to academic institutions and private companies.

Further, Monckton has sought to not just discredit the work of these men and women, but ridicule them and sully their professional reputation, and that of their sponsors in the process.

That any individual or organisation should not have recourse to the law in these circumstances is madness.â

Source:
Mezzum 3 June 2010 8:59PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-clim…

> Iâm quite surprised that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature groups findings arenât being embraced by climate change believers.

Your implication appears to be counter-factual.

> This is one the climate change sceptics can't touch.

Except that they are applying their usual maneuvers - goalpost shifting, inflating uncertainty, indulging in creatively "interpreting" the results for their legion of fans whilst dissing more fair-minded reportage as "biased", tribalism - including casting the offending researchers out of the tribe, rewriting (their own) history, and blatant application of double standards.

For example, you write that this investigation has definitively cleared the CRU.

The trouble is, this investigation is *itself* now being cited by "skeptics" as untrustworthy and methodologically suspect - even by one who was involved early on and announced that their methods were really good and he'd trust the results - and the media releases are being dubbed propaganda.

You also write a number of things that *should* happen to explain the evidence to the public - except that most of those have already happened, and have been rejected by those who don't share your assumptions that we all want a rational assessment of the best evidence we have - even if they *say* they do or *think* they do.

Monckton on the loose again

illconsidered — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:27:55 +0000

Monckton on the loose again

Non-lord Christopher Monkton is out and about again after laying low for a while, calling people nazis, using his Pink Portcullis coat of arms, etc.

Greenman has a short video on that, though I must say I found more interesting the clips and content on James Delingpole. I must say he does not come out looking too good in that!

Seriously though, it is a perfect analogy no wonder he faltered and stuttered like he just woke up from one of those dreams where you are naked in a crowd only to find it was no dream. I actually felt embarrased for him!

Think he mistook this cartoon as a "How To" guide?

illconsidered Mon, 06/27/2011 - 07:27

Tags

"Non-lord Christopher Monkton"
Actually, he is a "Lord" but not a member of the "House of Lords".

Really? He's still using the Pink Portcullis of the House of Lord? Or is that old footage?

no, his is using it again (sorry can't find a citation)

I see, it is right.

So if that cartoon is justified we must see clear and present evidence that the globe has warmed substantially since Hansen promised Congress it would be 0.2 C a decade and that the sea has risien by a significant fraction of the 20 ft Gore promised. In fact, of course, neither have happened. Perhaps, rather than falsely denying Monckton's title yoy should acknowledge that Hansen, Mann & other liars aren't scientists.
[spam snipped]

Oh for godsakes . . .

Heads up, Coby:

Neil has completely devolved into kamikaze-troll mode, zombie pasting his own stupidity and ignoring all responses. The man is unstable and we support this public implosion at the price of our own souls.

Er, it's Monckton, not Monkton.

The basic problem is that Mr Delingpole is like the slightly smart boy who has noted that sceptism and a refusal to accept authority is an essential part of science. He still does not understand that this also demands that your sceptical posture requires PROOF. Science is one of the areas in life least susceptible to group think and appeal to authority.

Monckton is a prime target for the Jon Stewart sign "You're not helping."

Poop. Yes, "Monckton"

Neil, this time I will remove only the cut and paste portion of your comment, next time the whole comment. You already got a thread of your own...

How do you respond to the observation in this figure that there appears to be no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes?

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg

seamus

Who says there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the graph you provided?

The answer to your question has been provided thousands of times, and is so simple. CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and no-one has ever claimed it is. You have to consider other drivers - such as TSI, oceanic transport, orbital factors, etc, etc. If you remove those factors from your figures, you will find an excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

That is the point - the influence of all those other drivers is absent from current warming. All that is left is atmospheric chemistry.

coby

And to continue with the pedantry (I mean, correcting grammar and spelling) raised by JG, the title of the thread should be "Monckton on the LOOSE again", not 'lose'.

mandas, I disagree, though Monckton is on the loose, he's also definitely on the lose too. Even Watts is taking a step away.

Oh come on Mandas seamus maguire asked a very good question which requires a bit more than a "shut idiot" response.

crakar, while it may seem like a good question to you, the fact is the answer really is very boring. CO2 is not the only driver of surface temprature changes. End of story.

There is no reason to expect a continuous close correlation between CO2 and temperature over geologic timeframes. We could draw a similar graph of temperature and solar irradiance and the corelation would be worse. Does that lead you to believe that the sun has no influence on the earth's surface temperature?

Exactly as coby has pointed out crakar - I did answer the question.

Just because you failed to understand it (or did you just deny it as usual?) doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

Coby,

I am sure it seemed like a good question to SM only to be face palmed by Mandas in his usual way.

A more appropriate way for Mandas to respond would have been to produce a study which removes drivers "such as TSI, oceanic transport, orbital factors, etc, etc" leaving us with a very good correlation between CO2 and temp presumably showing CO2 leading temp just as Mandas claimed to be in existence. I suspect no such study exists and everything Mandas claims is simply opinion hence the face palm. This is just another example of the mans arrogance.

But while you are here how is everything, the new baby must be quite big by now is she 12 months old yet?

OK Mandas time to call you on your bullshit.

Lets call the co2 and temp data in SM's post as the "unadjusted data", now if you are correct in post 12 then you should be able to provide a graph which spans the precambrian period to present that has all drivers being taken into consideration thus leaving is with a true correlation between co2 and temp.

If you cant then kindly retract your bullshit in post 12, now hurry along with the google search, im waiting...........

crakar, careful with the bait and switch here. seamus presented a graph with the implication that it proves CO2 does not move global surface temperature. We tell him plainly a simple truth that is apparent in any study of climate forcings you care to check (ie CO2 is just one of many forcings). Now, you are implying that unless we can use this same graph to prove the opposite, well seamus must at least have a good point.

No. There are plenty of other lines of evidence that clearly show CO2 influences temperature. We don't need to create a single earth-history-spanning plot of temperature and all forcings.

Now, it would be fantastic if it were, or were to become, possible. But the plain fact is there were no thermometers, no CO2 monitoring stations, no orbiting solar observatories, no field expeditions to the arctic and antarctic netherlands (when they even existed), no aeresol monitoring. We are looking back through *very* foggy glasses.

Hell, you don't even except paleoclimatolgy going back 1000yrs, you expect us to believe if we could come up with one study going back 4,000 million yrs you would finally be convinced?

There are plenty of particular geologic events that support the basic theory of climate, in fact so far every one where there is enough data to figure out what was going on provides more evidence that the current scientific picture is basically right. Plenty of material for refining models and understanding, but no "oh my God, Monckton was right!" moments...

Julia is 10 months now and she is a delightful and happy baby, thanks for asking!

Coby,

I would not say that your answer is 100% correct (in relation to SM's post)but it would go along way to answering SM's question or if you like statement, now compare your response with the arrogant reply from Mandas.

His first mistake was to assume SM's intention, therefore his response was inadequate.

Of course it would be impossible to accurately subtract all other drivers to come up with a final CO2 V temp graph however reading the Mandas response one could be fooled into believing one exists which is why i challanged Mandas to produce one because i know he will not be able to bring himself to admit he had erred.

Glad to hear all is well, my Ella is now 26 months old (the terrible two's as they say) but the good far out weighs the bad.

By the way Coby i briefly mentioned to Mandas and Adelaidy about the documentary Gasland (as they both come from Adelaide), the doco was about hydraulic fracturing to get access to the gas but it was really just another example of how the US government have rogered its people, it had the usual suspects with Bush, Cheney and Haliburton and included circumventing ALL EPA regulations, the result of course was inevtiable...............environmental destruction on a grand scale (add this to the Gulf of Toxico)not to mention the near future mass deaths caused by 596 chemicals in the water table and the air.

As you are a lot closer than me, if you have any knowledge of this method/destruction could you please say a few words about it, this doco was the most heart breaking and depressing doco i have ever seen. The stupidty of the greedy few knows no bounds.

Cheers

coby,

Don't bother to try and answer crakar or seamus on this issue. I did a little more research into the graph, and found that it is complete bullshit. Made up. Not real.

It is a denier site misinterpreting and cherry picking data, and completely misusing a couple of science papers, then filling in the gaps with made up information from a couple of denier books.

It is brought to you by a guy called Nasif S Nahle, another lunatic with wacky theories, including "The Eternally Replicating Universe", and his explanation of why CO2 is not affecting climate is.... wait for this:

"....By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws. The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor. By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth...."

source: http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

So - how's it going with your research and reading on paleoclimatology there crakar? Any other nut-jobs that you want to link to? Or do you think it may be important to actually read what they say and do some basic research before making a complete fool of yourself (again!).

"Actually, he is a "Lord" but not a member of the "House of Lords"."

He's a Viscount, Bob.

A lord is a lower grade of noble and hence wouldn't be used.

So he's not Lord Monckton, he's Viscount Monckton or, if you're being REALLY formal, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Bletchley, but you cannot separate the two parts out like you can with surnames and first names.

Calling Vic Monckton "Lord" would be like calling your doctor "Mister" (or, in the reverse, calling your Drill Sergeant "sir").

Nahle also has strange ideas on how GCR's travel inward at the same speed as the solar wind travels out.

And he ALWAYS drops the "per second" bit if it helps him prove that CO2 has no warming effect (see, unlike his latest thing where he's trying to call CO2 a coolant, he had previously worked out that CO2 could only warm the atmosphere by 0.02C at most (or some similar small number) by judicious use of "ignore the rate" and calling the warming rate the warming full stop).

I note, yet again, that the only answer alarmists here can give to serious questions about thei alleged beliefs is censorship. Clearly that is necessary only when they know their claims cannot face the facts.

What censorship?

The analogy of the cancer diagnosis could mislead if one were not careful.
It is clear that climate science is very good at tracking climate change, and that observation had made a strong case that said change is associated with the byproducts of humanity.
It is another thing to claim that scientists (and policy makers) are to be trusted with "correcting" the situation, something in which they have zero experience.

Uh, policy makers HAVE to be trusted with correcting the situation.

Every country-scale situation that has been successfully dealt with was dealt with by policies made by policy makers. And you CANNOT drop in the sideswipe half-statement that policy makers have no experience in making policy.

Scientists aren't making policy, however.

Despite so many people insisting they are trying to do so.

There are many reasons to expect that climate policy currently is and will be driven by politics. Especially as there is no clear path from climate observations to some action that will lead to optimal weather.
Just look at the economy, a policy driven disaster in an area where the remedies are well known.

"Just look at the economy, a policy driven disaster in an area where the remedies are well known."

Nothing to do with unregulated free-marketeers & profit-hungry speculators then.

The path is clear.

What isn't clear is the leadership to make the change.

I.e. all those alarmists who INSIST that undergoing AGW mitigation will cause the ruination of the Western World.

The economy policy causing the disaster was the ultra-right Free Market capitalism where control of the markets were taken FROM politicians and put into the hands of the market itself.

Again, the remedy is clear (place restrictions back and double-down them on the markets) but what isn't clear is who the hell would be brave enough to vote for them with all the wingnuts crazy about "One World Government" being armed.

Walt, you need to be careful about seperating politics from science. You are allowed your own political opinions, but not your own scientific reality!

Yes, climate policy is and will be driven by politics, to the shame and hardship of us all. However, no one is trying to take "some action that will lead to optimal weather". We are trying to stop current actions that are changing the current climate. Just as politics /= science, weather /= climate.

Cheers,

Coby,

I'm only trying to say that politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate.

We really have no practical way to convince billions of people to abandon the necessities of the short term for a better life in the uncertain future (this includes, of course, politicians facing the next election).

It may be true that only the relatively rich can afford to take the long view and that our best hope is to encourage world-wide wealth. I do feel this must be part of the solution.

As to "stopping current actions that are changing the current climate", I am certainly in favor of stopping the various government subsidies of energy production as they distort the real costs and incentives, although our elected will do whatever earns them office.

Neil @24:

Only in the mind of a true conspiracy nut can having an entire thread dedicated to your (spammed) questions be evidence of censorship. Puh-leeze!

"I'm only trying to say that politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate."

That isn't what you SAID, though:

"It is another thing to claim that scientists (and policy makers) are to be trusted with "correcting" the situation, something in which they have zero experience."

Is what you SAID.

"We really have no practical way to convince billions of people to abandon the necessities of the short term for a better life in the uncertain future"

Uhm, we could try. Shall we at least TRY, dearie? You know, the good old "can do" attitude you americans were so famous for in the past?

"although our elected will do whatever earns them office."

So don't vote for them. Vote Green Party and tell your previous party why you changed.

Tell your current MP why you will vote differently.

Tell your councillor.

Change yourself.

If 30% of the people reduced their use 50% (no problem for the west), then that would reduce pollution by anything up to 15%. That would be less than a billion people easy. Probably less than a half.

"So don't vote for them. Vote Green Party and tell your previous party why you changed."

Thank you, Wow! This simple measure has worked so well in the past.

It got Sufferagettes their vote.

The USSR members got their independence from it.

It got the Liberals reduced to a third-party also-ran for most of the 20th century and gave Labour the boost into second/first place.

So, yes, it has worked so well in the past.

It's just the "can't do" attitude of today's inactivists way of being in denial of AGW yet refusing to be shown in denial.

I would also note that saying you said something that was different from what you ACTUALLY said has never worked before, yet you still tried it.

So why the different attitude between the two?

I AM NOT in denial!
Wait, that came out wrong...

The statements:

"scientists (and policy makers) are [not] to be trusted with "correcting" the situation [climate change], something in which they have zero experience"

and

"politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate"

express the same sentiment from different angles.

I'm not sure what your point is but I sense it's veering off topic.

Mandas in 22,

Thank you Mandas, the longer i stared at that graph the less correlation i saw and i could feel my faith being sapped from me, obviously this graph is the work of the Devil.

Mandas could you please show me a graph made by the hand of God, a graph that shows CO2 leading temp in a merry dance, is without misinterpreting and cherry picking data, and completely misusing a couple of science papers, then filling in the gaps with made up information from a couple of denier books?

I feel as though i need to see this graph of which you speak as i travel the lonely path of spiritual enlightenment and keep the nasty denier Devil at bay.

TIA

Crakar

PS, i know you have issued Coby with a ban on responding to my post and i dont want to get anyone in trouble but i did also ask Coby if he had thoughts on hydraulic fracturing. Would it be OK if Coby was allowed to talk to me about it?

Yours

A mere dumb non-scientist

Crakar

Might I suggest the curious listen to Richard Alley's presentation at the 2009 AGU which goes through the history of Climate and the role of CO2.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Lots of good science on display

Phi

It looks as though the wheels are falling off the Monckton applecart:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-mon…

However, Mad Lord Monkfish is merely repeating that he IS a member of the HoL and then getting furious about all the ad hominem attacks.

He forgets of course, that asking about his membership of the HoL is a relevant question when someone claims to be a member.

It would only be a (minor) ad hom if someone were to say "You're not a member of the House of Lords, therefore you don't know anything about the climate." and then only because lack of membership is no proof of the contested item.

Hi, maybe it's a stupid question but I would like to know what are the unit of measurements for CO2 and temperature (ppm,Â°C)????thaks!

Those are the SI units for them.

ppm can be either by volume (ppmv) or mass (ppmw).

The fuss over the Photoshopped polar bear ...

hrynyshyn — Thu, 13 May 2010 06:49:33 +0000

The fuss over the Photoshopped polar bear ...

... is actually good news for those holding down the scientific fort.

Last week, Science published a letter from 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences pleading for "an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues" in the climatology community. The letter laid bare (not bear) the scientific basis for the theory of anthropogenic climate change, a theory the authors said belongs in the same category as the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. So far so good. It was accompanied by a collage image of polar bear isolated on a single ice floe (at right), an image described as just that. But some took umbrage at its use, and it was replaced by a non-manipulated photograph (below right). No big deal, right?

Wrong. Climate change pseudoskeptics seized on the use of the collage as yet more evidence of dishonesty in the ranks. James Delingpole at the Telegraph, for example, even went so far as to blame the letter's authors for the misstep:

Well, anyway that's what 255 members of America's National Academy of Sciences want you to believe.

Of course, as a journalist, Delingpole knows full well the authors of the letter had nothing to do with the choice of stock imagery to illustrate the item. But that's not a surprise.

What's refreshing is how the pseudoskeptics have focused on the image, rather than the science. It has all the hallmarks of an act of desperation. The letter lays out the scientific underpinnings of AGW so concisely and elegantly, that it's hard for even the more devout members of the denial community to argue against it. Even Roger Pielke Jr. got distracted. Instead they chose to attack an illustration that has no bearing on the case at hand. Could it be that they're beginning to weary of banging their heads against a wall of increasingly unassailable facts?

One can only hope.

Here's the science detailed in the letter:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

The letter's lead author, Peter Gleick, isn't as optimistic, though. In a HuffPost essay he sees the attention being drawn to the image as just another example of the climate denial movement's well-worn strategy:

This focus on the art the editors chose to accompany the letter is an attempt by climate deniers to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change. This is exactly what the scientists are talking about in the letter. Instead of challenging the science with better science, the vocal deniers are grasping at any straw to muddy the waters and confuse the public about the real climate threats we face. Mistakes found in the IPCC assessment of climate? Oh, then all climate science must be mistaken.

Maybe. We'll see.

hrynyshyn Thu, 05/13/2010 - 02:49

Tags

Media

climate change

james delingpole

National Academy of Sciences

See its like this, that the undoctored photo show two polar bears proves that there is no problem with the climate.

They can mate and their cubs will each come with their own mini ice berg. Enough mating & the artic sea will be chock full of ice again.

Bad 'shopping is always paramount to good science. I thought everyone knew that.

It's a version of "My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid."

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/your-argument-is-invalid

You're right, it's an act of desperation. Denialism is running on empty, unable to produce any credible science to support its position.

It's time to turn away from them. If you have a bookmark to a denialist blog, remove it because the sole purpose of such blogs is to distract us from the science and Its implications for public policy.

"Even Roger Pielke Jr. got distracted." No, really? :)

It's stunning how the climate denialist's arguments look like creationist's arguments.

As far as I can tell, their best argument is "No! You're wrong."

Sometimes, no picture is better as it distracts, in this case with "oh, there they go with the polar bears again", or "boy, anyone knows that polar bear numbers are up" etc. You can't capture AGW in a meaningful way in a single photo that would hit home with the deniers, the ones who need to be reached or nullified.

As I see it, by the time we get an actual photo of the outcome of AGW, it will be too late. Then all we'll hear is, "Somebody should have told us!"

If it wasn't the photo it would have been something else. Probably they would have dug up some dirt on one of the signers or something.

Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though youâve already said that!

good to be open to interpretation

The Australian's War on Science 42

tlambert — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:37:32 +0000

The Australian's War on Science 42

Christopher Monckton will trouser $20,000 for an Australian Tour with Ian Plimer on backing vocals. To celebrate both The Australian and The Daily Telegraph printed extracts from Monckton's letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd generously offering to brief Rudd about climate science. Monckton always makes lots of errors when he writes about science, but this letter may have broken his previous record for quickest mistake with one in the very first word:

His Excellency Mr Kevin Rudd

Rudd's correct title is

The Hon. Kevin Rudd, MP

The editor at The Daily Telegraph didn't notice the mistake and started their extract with the the incorrect title.

Monckton, of course, doesn't do any better at science than titles. The heart of his letter is this calculation:

The IPCC's bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC's statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer's Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC's maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write

ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

But if you read the fine IPCC report, you can find that function that Monckton claims is not there:

Figure 3.38: Relationship between global mean equilibrium temperature change and stabilization concentration of greenhouse gases using: (i) 'best estimate' climate sensitivity of 3°C (black), (ii) upper boundary of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5°C (red), (iii) lower boundary of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C (blue) (see also Table 3.9).

Notes:

IPCC (2007a) finds that the climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C-4.5°C, with a 'best estimate' of about 3°C, very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C and values substantially higher than 4.5°C 'cannot be excluded' (IPCC (2007a, SPM).

The simple relationship T_eq = T_2xCO2xln([CO₂]/280)/ln(2) is used (see Meehl et al. (2007), Section 10.7, and Table 10.8), with upper and lower values of T_2xCO2 of 2 and 4.5°C.

As well as missing the formula in the IPCC report, Monckton got the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity wrong: it's 2-4.5, not 3.26 ± ln 2 as Monkton would have it. Consequently the coefficient in Monckton's last equation should be 6.5, not 5.7. But this error is trivial compared to what follows. Monckton continues:

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today's emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

This understates the difference since the alternative is for emissions to increase, but this error is also trivial compared to what comes next.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today's CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv

Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°

- Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°

= "Global warming" forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

Monckton is wrong to suggest that this is the warming forestalled over this decade, since climate sensitivity is defined as the eventual warming rather than the immediate warming, but this, too, is trivial compared to his main error -- he ignores everything that happens after 2020. In as much as his calculation is valid, he is comparing stabilising CO2 at 408 ppm with stabilising it at 406.5 ppm. And, yes, there isn't much difference between the two scenarios. But stabilising at 408 in 2020 would require an immediate 50% cut in world-wide emissions, which would be much more expensive than the alternative of a gradual 15% reduction and then an immediate 35% cut in 2020. Of course, neither scenario is realistic. If you want to be realistic, the sort of policies that Monckton favours could result in CO2 stabilising at 1000 ppm and 8 degrees of warming as compared to the Copenhagen agreement to keep warming under 2 degrees.

There are of course many more errors in Monckton's letter. Of note is this:

Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

This is a reference to Lindzen and Choi's recent paper, which would seem to have gotten its results by cherry-picking the comparison periods. See here and here.

You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science, but they continue to promote him as their champion. For example, James Delingpole with an inadvertantly accurate title to his post: If any of your idiot friends still believe in AGW, make them read this letter. Well yes, only an idiot would be persuaded by Monckton's nonsense.

tlambert Mon, 01/11/2010 - 07:37

Tags

DISCO SCIENCE: Cooling Causes Warming
Real environmentalists saw the smoking icebergs of truth from Climate Gate as a good thing, those with other agendas didn't. We the majority now know the climate emergency is called off so you can stop TRYING to scare our children like "climate cowards" as the history books will call you climate changers.
Be happy! Is that possible?
Finally this modern day witch burning is over so now we can be civilized environmentalists who "Preserve, Protect and Respect Nature" and who face the future energy challenges with courage, not the old fear factor from an old CO2 mistake.
Get ahead of the curve doomers because promising a dead planet for another 24 years is not sustainable in support from "WE" the people, the voters. Voters decide science policy, not paid consultants in lab coats who somehow strangely out number climate change protestors by thousands. So how come it wasn't your scientists marching instead of you flat earthers of Climate Change?
Al Gore and others will be arrested for leading the planet to an Enviro WMD war against itself, a non existent enemy so don't look like the last fella to show up at the party with disco duds on.
This cultural and scientific and political mistake was a growing pain and it's about time this advanced society grew up.
Remember, environMENTALism caused globull warming.

Nice one Tim.

I think the 'meme mime' means you did a good job.

That should have been:

I think the 'meme mime' response means you did a good job.

Rear-Admiral Monckton is always a strong contender for Denialist twit-of-the-month, but I think Lindzen has him beat for January.

That any mainstream media organisation could imagine Monckton's rantings deserve any notice at all ought to be cause for alarm; the treatment of arguably the most important issue of our times by mainstream media as circus entertainment seems to indicate deep flaws in how our global society deals with reality.

Got to go - there's Hollywood Gossip on TV and I wouldn't want to miss anything!

EnvironMENTALism

Well, Meme Mine's superior knowledge of etymology has convinced me.

Thanks Tim. An excellent demolition job on Munchausen's nonsense. Any chance of submitting this as a letter to the editor? I know that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that it will be published, but you never know.

In other news, I see that Faux News has signed the gun-toting hockey Mon, Sarah Palin, as a political commentator for the next umpteen years. As if they need someone else from the far-right on their payroll:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/fox-news-hires-sarah-palin-a…

In other news, I see that Faux News has signed the gun-toting hockey Mon, Sarah Palin, as a political commentator

I guess Obama will save some money in the next campaign, not having to contribute to her war chest. So to speak.

Best,

My favourite thing about Monckton's letter is that he models the climate system with back-of-the-envelope phenomenological equations. Aren't we always hearing from denialists how you can't predict anything about climate that way?

Wow, loonies on tour! I think I will go to the Melbourne leg of this tour just to fathom how much damage this may cause.

And, of course, to listen to two old men rant about government conspiracies in order to sell a few copies of their own books.

Here's a comment from the Telegraph blog you linked to:

It is not enough to expose the hidden agenda of this NWO cabal, there must be prosecutions for treason! This government has imposed a cultural genocide on England no different to what the Chinese have done in Tibet. Since our Police force and Judiciary answer to Europe now we need a peoples court to apply the justice they refuse to implement.I want to see them incarcerated in the Tower of London, I want to see heads on pikes!

Must scientific disagreements end with heads on pikes?

The worst part is if Rudd and other world leaders are trying to set up a New World Order they are doing a remarkably bad job at it (and I suppose Mockton will take credit it for this.)

BTW, I had a nice conversation today with a US colleague who was in NZ for 6 months on a fellowship. They stated the Mayor of Auckland was a denialist, and his staff has to talk around his denialism in order to get certain things done.

Eh?

Is it the water Down Under?!? The ozone hole cooking bald, conservative white men's brains?!?

Best,

What's with all this "we" crap Monckton uses?

He's neither royalty nor a newspaper editor.

Either he has a tapeworm or a mouse in his pocket.

My money is on the tapeworm.

You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science, but they continue to promote him as their champion.

Fine by me. If the he and Plimer are the best the denialist movement can come up with, then they ain't got much hope. Let them speak, I say. Give them as much rope as they want.

Also, the timing of their tour is not so good (from their perspective), with massive heat waves sweeping across the country.

Re #14

"...Also, the timing of their tour is not so good (from their perspective), with massive heat waves sweeping across the country."

Perhaps it's the anti-Gore effect.

Once Monckton set his pompous incompetence upon the satellite record, and Spencer (or Christy, I forget which) had to set the record straight, you'd think the denier crowd would have started taking the guy with a grain of salt.

I can't tell if he's just stupid, or dishonest. And I don't use such terms lightly; I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and questioning intelligence is a bit below the belt. But this man leaves little choice.

Hopefully in his presentation he'll enlighten us on how to subdue the natives at no extra cost!

Monckton's math errors compound beyond what Tim says.
Potty states:
"the Annex 1 parties, who will account for
about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020. Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, todayâs emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%,
namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual."

He has halved reductions (because of Annex 1 accounting for half of all emissions) twice instead of once (or he thinks there are two decades between now and 2020, calendars clearly being a crypto-catholic-communist plot). His correct comparison (on his terms) would be 408 ppm to 405 ppm over a decade.

Now if you extend that out to 2100 (90 years), with BAU adding 20 ppm/decade and Copenhagen adding 17 ppm/decade and use Monckton's formula (wrong, as Tim points out), you get:

BAU: 5.7 * ln (568/388) = 2.2 degrees celsius
Copenhagen: 5.7*ln (541/388) = 1.9 degrees celsius.

This demonstrates that the Copenhagen accord will keep temperature rise below 2 degrees by the end of the century, which is what we want in order to avoid further positive feedbacks. Thanks, CM!

Of course, in reality as opposed to Lord Privy Cesspool's imagination we want to compare to the CO2 level before the industrial revolution, 280 ppm, in which case the results look rather grimmer.

James, actually that calculation seems correct. The second halving comes from averaging the reduction over a decade (and assuming a linear reduction).

And of course BAU is increasing emissions, not constant emissions.

Crickey.com.au slams the moron Monckton. Good read.

Happy new year Tim, and keep up the good work! Monckton's always good for a laugh.

but this, too, is not is trivial compared to his main error

Typo there.

The pomposity of Mr. Monckton's writing is astounding. I cannot imagine any sane civil servant wading through all that verbose dreck.

Dang! Outcalculated, oh the shame.

I doubt Rudd will take up the offer to be "briefed" on climate change by Monckton but it will be interesting to see if Abbott can resist the urge to do so. Not that Rudd's efforts on climate change look much more than greenwash funded by fossil fuel royalties.

To book a ticket to see Plimer or Monckton you have to [contact](http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-v…)

Daphne Dimitri for Gina Rinehart, daphne_dhimitri@Thancockprospecting.com.au

..Ms Nova tells us.

And what's Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL) do?

Well, among other things, according to its [web site](http://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/index2.html)

HPPL is currently progressing two major thermal coal projects in the Galilee Basin, Central Queensland. The Alpha Coal Project (held by Hancock Coal Pty Ltd) and Kevin's Corner Coal (held by Hancock Galilee Pty Ltd) are located approximately 400 kilometres from the coastline, near the town of Alpha. The tenements contain more than 5 billion tonnes of JORC compliant thermal coal, with low sulfur and low ash by Australian and International standards.
The Alpha Coal Project will be an open cut mine with 30 mtpa production.
Kevin's Corner will also be a 30mtpa mine utilising both open cut and underground long wall operations.
Subject to approvals first coal exports are planned for late 2013.

5 billion tonnes!

They're not being very subtle, are they?

Monckton is wrong because he used a computer model! (Well, a formula, but technically it is a model). Doesn't he know that climate models are irredeemably flawed and don't do clouds properly?

Hurrumph! I'll never trust him again :-)

The big danger with this duo is outrageous pomposity and getting the science wrong, but if they get their act together and the msm give them time and space, they will get some traction in an election year.

16 carrot eater,

Lord Munchkin is, of course, highly delusional, so it's difficult to assume actual dishonesty. How can we tell if he really believes what he writes?

Surely you know that it makes no difference how contradictory various denialist claims are, or if one "sceptic" corrects another? We see over and over that they are absolutely impervious to awareness of this obvious fact; they do not even suffer cognitive dissonance.

You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science

No, actually, I wouldn't think that at all.

TrueSceptic: It's one thing when different sceptics put forth mutually exclusive hypotheses. I thought it'd be another matter when one blatantly misrepresents the other's work.

No, actually, I wouldn't think that at all.

Exactly. Denialist and pseudoskeptic mission statement:

Grasp any straw, misrepresent any citation, mine any quote.

Best,

I have this mental image of them doing a road picture like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. I can see them now in ON THE ROAD TO AUSTRALIA and doing all kinds of slapstick routines.

30 carrot eater,

Very similar. The one who's being misrepresented obviously knows this, but no other "sceptic" will even notice or, if they do, they simply ignore it.

Meme Mine: "Voters decide science policy,"

That's one of the scariest assertions I have ever heard. Good job by all the anti-intellectuals the last two decades.

Berbalang:
I can see them now in ON THE ROAD TO AUSTRALIA and doing all kinds of slapstick routines.

So can I. ;-)

RE 12: Dano, I wasn't aware of John Banks' (Mayor of Auckland) opinions on climate change, but he's a populist conservative who used to be a talkback host, so what can you expect?

Yes, we do seem to have more than our fair share of denialists here, don't we?

If they had done this tour a few months ago it would have been spoof, but they are now riding on the crest of a major climate shift.

Good theatre, his Lordship will utter that more people will die from this freeze than the 67,000 civilians killed during the Second World War, and he will blame it on Gormless Brown.

Interesting!

Monckton has changed the logo on his letterhead. See the warm-rudd1.pdf compared to:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…

He has obviously decided that he was infringing HM Copyright after all!

For politically-based mitigation to work, you don't just have to cut emissions by 10% or 15% in some number of years. You have to keep cutting emissions on an ongoing basis.

I'm skeptical this is ever going to work, however. I think scientific/technological solutions should be prioritized.

Isn't it unseasonably warm in Australia now, El Gordo? I doubt the people there will be much impressed by tales of cold in a few regions.

I think some sceptics will be surprised when the Jan global numbers come out. They've been fed this story about a cold snap, when it's clearly only regional.

Joseph: I don't understand your point about political and technological. If a technological silver bullet existed (for reducing emissions at little to no cost), it'd already be implemented. The whole reason for the political process is that this hasn't happened, nor is it likely to happen in the short term.

[i]I think some sceptics will be surprised when the Jan global numbers come out.[/i]

Nah - they *know* the "data" has been doctored.

[i]They've been fed this story about a cold snap, when it's clearly only regional.[/i]

When you can't see past the end of your nose, what more *is* there than regional?

Aren't we missing the point here? Its that Monckton and Plimer are undertaking a tour and will be addressing lots of people across Australia. Some of those people wil already believe what they hear and feel their belief has been confirmed and some will come to believe it.

Job done!

Its not only Monckton and Plimer but Bob Carter has been doing this sort of thing energetically across Australia and New Zealand for the past few years. Again, some people who hear him will already believe and have their belief strengthened and some will come to believe what he says.

Again, job done!

We can ridicule these guys and say its all down to hubris and ego but this sort of activity is what helps keep denialism alive and growing in the two countries (alongside various blog sites which reach a particular audience).

Is there any comparable effort by climate change experts and highly knowlegeable lay people? Do they undertake long boring ongoing journeys from country town to country town where any public meeting will gather an audience so as to put the problems of climate change directly to people?

Monckton and Plimer are being very smart. Thousands of Australians and New Zealanders wont have seen Tony Jones and George Monbiot demolish Plimer on Lateline and incessantly posting on blogs like this is not going to reach the people Monckton and Plimer will convince on their tour.

Job done!

Can we say the same?

The NH isn't exactly regional.

It's the political consequences of doing nothing about global cooling, no UK politician will have the bottle to defend AGW after this debacle.

Plimer and the good Lord will have lots to say about the lack of grit, looks like negligence or ignorance. The Met will get a roasting and the politicians will try to squirm off the hook.

Can we say the same?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I don't buy the line that the climate science community has not been sufficiently diligent in presenting and publicising this info. There is a limit to how much you can simplify info about complex situations, and present it to the public for them to take it on board.

There is a tidal wave of high quality, readily accessible, (genuinely) science based info out there for those who choose to seek it. Despite their mixed track record, the main results of climate science are being reported in the main stream media.

We cannot make the ignorant and ill informed open their eyes to things they do not want to believe in.

The only reason the denialists like Plimer and Monckton get away with it is because they are selling a simplistic and false and ideologically and emotionally comforting message, which is easy to do when you are not dealing with the more subtle and complex and challenging realities.

A lie can be out of the house and half way around the world before the truth has had time to even get its shoes on. Propagandists have know this since time immemorial, and that is not going to change.

A lot of this is just the inevitable and understandable emotional backlash against the horrifying truths that climate science is telling us. It is very difficult to this stuff take on board.

no UK politician will have the bottle to defend AGW after this debacle.<?i>

Bullshit.

no UK politician will have the bottle to defend AGW after this debacle.

Bullshit.

El gordo,

When do you do fantasies that we will see a [global climatic cooling trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:360/plot/gis…)?

Plimer has his own graphs, going back millions of years. In the fulness of time he will point out that this small blip is nought to worry about.

Monckton will explain how the Russians scientists predicted in 2005 that we were heading into cooler climes and then he will discuss Climategate and its ramifications.

None of this will see the light of day if the msm don't pick it up, the tour will only be preaching to the converted in drafty halls. But if the debate goes mainstream the commonsense and natural scepticism of the Australian people will show up in the ballot box.

Now I may have missed it (I have had a few beers this arvo)and it's been a while since I've done chemical/pressure/temperature equations (or even fancy mathematical equations) but, umm, shouldn't these be done in degrees Kelvin rather than Celcius? Often does make a fair difference to the end result.

*The NH isn't exactly regional*

...and the NH has not uniformly experienced below normal temperatures this month; check out temperatures in the western USA, as well as in the Arctic and (as usual) they are well above the norm. The US midwest, which is often an ice-box at this time of year is very mild - temperatures of up to 10 C expected over the next few days in North Dakota. Ontario and Quebec have also been above normal - heck, its expected to be about -2 C today in parts of the area adjacent to James Bay which is some 5-10 C above normal for this time of the year.

Moreover, temperatures over much of south-central Asia are certainly not below normal - Japan is having a very mild winter, for example, as is the Middle East, Iran, etc. And the month is only half over. As for conditions in Britain, it has not been the cold but the snow, as temperatures in England have hovered around 0 for a few weeks now - certainly below normal but not a "deep freeze" by any means. Only the media is hyping the snow as a proxy for an Arctic climate, but the main issue has been the snow.

So El Fatto is off on a tangent again. And one that carries little weight (excuse the ironic pun).

> Plimer has his own graphs, going back millions of years

Does he also have graphs showing human society going back millions of years?

The Met will get a roasting and the politicians will try to squirm off the hook.

?? What are London's police force going to get a roasting for? Not prosecuting those squirming, now impecunious, MPs whose expenses have had to be returned to the public coffers?

But if the debate goes mainstream the commonsense and natural scepticism of the Australian people will show up in the ballot box.

So what will be your take if their side of the debate does go mainstream*, and yet the Oz public still don't elect the denialist Abbott Coalition? Will we still possess common sense and natural scepticism. Or do we do so only if we agree with your view?

*Let's be honest here, EG, their nonsense already commands a substantial amount of mainstream media space, far more than it deserves, so I don't buy your premise that they are being shut out of opportunities to put their view. That is pure spin and playing the victim.

Plimer and Monckton might be ignored, but the debate will go mainstream at election time. If the conservatives fail to convince the electorate of their argument, then they deserve to lose.

JH: The circumpolar vortex has gone wobbly, the Northern Annular Mode is negative and the jet stream has changed direction. A kind of random walk. That is why Alaska and Greenland are a lot warmer than normal.

What, 50+ comments and still no Hooterville Gazetteer?

38 Neil,

Not quite. Look at the other pages. BTW you fell foul of the underscore trap in your [link (corrected)](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…).

43 el gordo,

It's the political consequences of doing nothing about global cooling, no UK politician will have the bottle to defend AGW after this debacle.

Well done. A new benchmark. "The most idiotic claim by el gordo"!

But, I must ask: what would anyone do about "global cooling" if it were happening?

Joseph: I don't understand your point about political and technological. If a technological silver bullet existed (for reducing emissions at little to no cost), it'd already be implemented.

There are basically 3 things that drive climate long term:

1) Solar irradiance.

2) Emissivity / greenhouse gases.

3) Albedo / aerosols.

You can't change #1. The current focus is to change #2 by political means. I think it might be more feasible to change #3 by technological means.

42 Jeremy,

People like Carter, Plimer, and Munchkin are on a mission. They either have private means for this or are being supported by industry via thinktanks.

Who would pay for anyone to present the real science on tour?

"Who would pay for anyone to present the real science on tour?"

Fidel Castro, the estate of Karl Marx and Al Gore's Jenny Craig advisor.

60 John,

I love your shining wit. ;)

If you don't want to decimate the oceans (more than they've been already, that is), then you have to attack the "2) Emissivity / greenhouse gases" point.

Increased ocean pH isn't going to go away by technologically treating the oceans (well, no doubt it could, by pumping equivalent amounts of material to counter CO2 dissolution, but that would be a complete folly).

Has anyone had a look at [Munchkin at Watts](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley…)?
Get the vomit bucket out if you read too many comments.

> Increased ocean pH

Surely you mean "decreased"

Yes. I meant to write "increased acidity" but got lazy.

I happened to see Jesse Ventura's CONSPIRACY THEORY program on Global Warming. Of course Monckton was interviewed in the program's quest for the "Truth". The "Truth" they found was that Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Rothschilds to, dare I say it, RULE THE WORLD! In other words, an Illuminati conspiracy! The episode is available on YouTube.

El gordo: If you put any effort into looking at it, you'd see the current cold snap is regional. High pressure there, low pressure here. Pretty much by definition, this is weather, with nothing to do with climate. The Arctic and Greenland are unseasonably warm; parts of the US and Europe are unseasonably cold. You don't even have to leave the NH to find the balance.

Joseph: I see you're a geoengineer, and of the sulfate aerosol sort. You weren't around for the panning of that idea when Superfreakonomics came out? Save it as a last resort, and a rather unpredictable and unsatisfactory one. How much aerosol? How to get it up there? Where to put it? Who pays for it? Who makes these decisions? What do you do when it changes temperature and rainfall patterns? What do you do about other unintended consequences (maybe you will get acid rain, I don't know much about that)? Does somebody get paid compensation for that? What do you do about the ocean pH? Is it really sensible to keep putting more and more stuff up there, to balance out ever increasing CO2?

You see, it's a total illusion that this is a purely technological fix. It has just as many political problems, in terms of reaching agreements between countries. Along with the rather greater uncertainty of what impact it will have.

North-central Ontario (Canada) also unseasonably warm...one day Florida had colder temps than we did. We seem to be on on the edge of the Arctic air. Temps drop to -20 or -25 C for a few days, then shoot back up to near zero, up and down like a yo-yo as the air flows moves back and forth across our region. Hm, just checked and we may have rain coming in this weekend.

Of course, this is just regional weather. Anyone thinking the areas affected by a cold snap demonstrates global cooling (or lack of global warming) is grasping at straws (leftover from all the strawmen they make, no doubt). Doesn't say anything about climate.

Gee,
I hope Kev's got better advisers than you lot, or Monckton'll be running rings around them.

Save it as a last resort, and a rather unpredictable and unsatisfactory one. How much aerosol? How to get it up there? Where to put it? Who pays for it? Who makes these decisions? What do you do when it changes temperature and rainfall patterns? What do you do about other unintended consequences (maybe you will get acid rain, I don't know much about that)? Does somebody get paid compensation for that? What do you do about the ocean pH? Is it really sensible to keep putting more and more stuff up there, to balance out ever increasing CO2?

Dumping aerosols into the atmosphere is not a good option right now, I agree. I was thinking that we don't know enough about their precise impact, so what if we get ourselves into an ice age by mistake? (A real one.) Later, CO2 might start to decline on its own due to peak oil, so what do we do then? It's probably much easier to dump aerosols than reclaim them.

We would need to change the albedo of Earth by some means we can control. I'm estimating that to decrease Earth's temperature by 1C, you need to increase the albedo by about +0.01. (Maybe less, because there should be albedo feedback.)

How to do that seems a little tricky a problem, but that's what engineering is for. You basically need more white surfaces and less dark surfaces.

60 Joe,

We love irony here. Thanks :)

> Has anyone had a look at Munchkin at Watts? Get the vomit bucket out if you read too many comments.

Too late. So much for breakfast.

Are these commentors auditioning to be Munchkin's Royal Bottom Wiper or something? I've heard of fawning, but these dorks come across as cultish worshippers.

I also noted that WFTWT had the wrong graphic to go with an NCAR press release - and no-one has commented on the disparity. Clueless gits.

My favorite comment on that thread is someone complaining that the graphic is done on a Mercator projection (it isn't) but that using that particular projection is indicative of some sort of deliberate fudging. WTF is that?!? Talk about reaching!

Posted by: Joseph | January 13, 2010 12:44 PM

"It's probably much easier to dump aerosols than reclaim them. "

Actually, people like the aerosol idea because they have a limited lifetime in the atmosphere. They fall out over relatively shorter lifetimes, so the primary effect is reversible if you change your mind.

"You basically need more white surfaces and less dark surfaces."

Those ideas get tossed around now and then; most famously Stephen Chu considered it. It's an idea, but it's not the whole solution. Do some math, and see how far you can get with it. You also have an issue with the oceans.

> You also have an issue with the oceans.

Easily solved. Just keep dumping light-coloured plastic at sea.

TrueSceptic

It's criminal negligence not to order more grit.

You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science

No, actually, I wouldn't think that at all.

Jeff |Harvey,

Happy New Year!

I'll let you in on a big secret - there is no such thing as 'global climate' there is only local and regional weather.

Some say they can discern trends in this weather over time that they call 'climate'. The UK Met Office' for example, is one such.This year they predicted a mild winter, so much so that Local Authorities did not stock up on grit to treat the roads. Now we are experiencing our worst winter for 30 years the grit is running out. ( What cost that to the local population in terms of accidents, slips, broken limbs etc?).

Of course the Met Office also predicted a "barbecue summer" during 2009 - it was a total washout, just like their predictions of summer for 2007 and 2008.

When they are taken to task about their poor forecasting the Met Office retreat beyond the headlines of their press releases and say the forecasts were hedged around with all kinds of caveats.

Yet the Met Office is also a major player in the IPCC and wants us to believe that its models are sophisticated enough to predict the 'climate' in 20, 30, 50, 100 years time. They never seem to mention the caveats that must surely apply to these 'forecasts' as well!

DA writes:

>*I'll let you in on a big secret - there is no such thing as 'global climate' there is only local and regional weather.*

Dave Andrews [this](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:360/plot/gis…) is for you.

Not heard of confidence intervals eh Dave?

Besides, forecasting 'climate', while tricky (and, indeed, smothered in caveats), may be easier than seasonal forecasting because it's averaged over a longer time.

You wouldn't expect a climate model to get the weather right for July 22nd 2021 would you? Nor would you expect it to get a regional seasonal forecast right for summer 2021. You wouldn't expect it to get 2021's global anomalies right. It might get global anomalies reasonably correct for 2015-2025 though.

Dave Andrews,there is no need for you to remind readers of your unfamiliarity with the content of the IPCC reports.

At risk of having to bring out the vomit bucket for all those with sensitive stomachs, over at CA McIntyre is looking at Climategate in technical detail. Just love who dunnits!

My guess, and its only a guess, is that some young UEA admin person collecting emails for an FOI request (in an unguarded moment) left the file laying about and a whistleblower did their duty.

Gee,that's fascinating,El Gordo. I suppose they're all consenting adults. BTW,where's the 'technical detail'?

Aaah thats the problem KRudd things hes royalty and rules as a dictator! Id be surprised if the buffoon lasts till the end of the year and once hes out of power you watch how the real stories about him come out!

Same with the global warming stupidity - its gonna freeze to death!

72 Derecho64,

They are. Just as they are cultish worshipers of The Reverend Anthony and Saint Stephen (The Blessed Lady Jennifer seems to have gone walkabout).

There's lots more if you can take it...

82 el gordo,

Wanna bet? I say it's a hack from outside and always have.

And "file laying about" and "doing their duty"? Do you have any ****ing idea? Have you looked at the hacked zip, the files it contains, and the timestamps?

78 Dave,

I took your recent absence from Deltoid as evidence that your resolution was to stop being stupid in public but...

Doh!

It's an idea, but it's not the whole solution. Do some math, and see how far you can get with it.

Yeah, it's complicated. I'm estimating you'd need about 1.5 million km2 of a mirror-like surface around the equator, for a 1C drop, even with 50% help from feedback. That could be 350,000 patches of land 2kmx2km. Or perhaps 1,500 artificial islands of 1,000 km2 each. The biggest artificial island in the world is close to that size, so it's doable in principle.

twawki (@84) is just trolling for traffic on his own hyperbolic delusion soaked site.

You know the type, enviro-fascism, leftoids' plan to dominate the world, CRU are frauds, the new ice age is just around the corner, AlGoreAlGoreAlGore,...

IOW, don't waste your time.

88 Joseph,

Yes, but, how do you know how much of "anything" it will take? Is this some simple formula that tells us the answer in one (or a few) lines, or a "model"? How will it pan out over 1, 5, 10, 20, 50... years?

And how about the the whole "unintended consequences" issue?

A whistleblower? That's a good one. Every place I've ever worked, you don't gather information for an FOI(A) request unless it's a valid request. If it was a valid request - someone will legally get the requested information and be able to release it without hiding their identity.

I've also never heard of a whistleblower who only releases a sample of what they have - something this hacker admitted. A Whistleblower wouldn't need to hack into RealClimate to place the file there. A whistleblower should also be willing to step forward and cooperate with the authorities once an investigation has begun.

My own guess, and it's just a guess, is that some people may be worried about the hacker being linked to them in some way, so they'll try and divert attention elsewhere. It's curious that CA and WUWT haven't been demanding that the whistleblower release all the code and data he has with the same intensity that they demand the code and data from Scientists - even when they have the data, and interestingly it seems only make demands from those that support AGW while being quite when it comes to those who deny it.

How does someone hack a secure system? Must be the FSB.

Charles (WUWT moderator) has just posted his version of events as they unfolded.

el gordo,

Take your off-topic fantasising somewhere else. Why do your random musings and thought-bubbles keep appearing outside open-threads?

Whilst the "barbecue summer" tag line designed largely for the media was a "touch unfortunate", behind that headline the UKMO in their seasonal forecasts actually issue probabilities on temperature. The actual UKMO summer seasonal forecast (issued in April 2009) is here. In that forecast the following probabilities are given for temperature: 50% above average (>14.4Â°C), 30% average (13.6-14.4Â°C) and 20% below average (<13.6Â°C). For rainfall the probabilities are not presented in the same manner as temperature in the linked report (p. 10). They just give a graphic where they suggest the probabilities are "likely average or above average" or "likely average or below average".

Behind that headline, what their summer forecast message said was:

* Summer 2009 is expected to be âbetterâ than the last two summers with times when temperatures will be above 30Â°Celsius and much lower rainfall.

* Rainfall For the UK and much of northern Europe rainfall is likely to be near or below average. A repeat of the wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely.

* Temperature For the UK and much of Europe temperatures are likely to be above average.

For comparison, the UKMO's analyses of JJA temperature and rainfall are as follows:

JJA temperature (Â°C)

200914.7+0.6

200814.4+0.4

200714.1+0.1

200615.8+1.7 (July anom +3.0Â°C)

JJA rainfall (mm, % of norm)

2009318.5140

2008327144

2007357.8158

2006188.383

The England/Wales rainfall % of norms for June, July and August were 88/90, 239/275 and 88/90 respectively.

The Scotland/NI rainfall % of norms for June, July and August were 87/80, 161/173 and 183/176 respectively.

In their "end of season assessment" the UKMO note the following:

Figures released today confirm that for much of the UK the summer has been both warmer and wetter than average, in what has been a summer of mixed fortunes with wide contrasts across the UK, and through the season.

* UK mean temperature over the three months of June, July and August was 0.6 Â°C above the long-term average at 14.7 Â°C.

* UK rainfall reached 318.5 mm, 40% more than average.

* Summer 2009 was warmer than both 2007 and 2008.

* Unlike 2008, each summer month saw temperatures in excess of 30 Â°C.

* In the south-east of England rainfall was very close to normal and temperature was 0.6 Â°C above normal.

* In western Scotland 60% more rain than normal fell through the summer months, although it was almost a degree warmer than normal.

So actually, neglecting the stupid headline, the UKMO were correct on their summer temperature forecast. And the rainfall forecast wasn't as bad as it appears either, at least for England and Wales in 2 out of the 3 months. The figures were distorted by a very wet July over the whole of the UK (that pesky jet stream again not being where it should be wasn't it?).

How does someone hack a secure system?

And with seven words the fat boy shows his complete ignorance of (amongst so many other things) what hackers are capapble of, and of the nature of university IT 'security' systems.

Fatso, you are your own parody.

Thanks for the advertising, I might check it out.

>*Thanks for the advertising...*

Was that Ryan's misguided attempt to compare the public exposure to Deltoid with the global media hegemony of oligarchs like Murdoch.

>*You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science, but they continue to promote him as their champion.*

[Enter Ryan](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Nothing like a pile of debunked garbage to attract the denialists like flies.

Janet, I achieved my ambition of having the last word on a Deltoid 'open thread', but I'm not going to talk to myself.

I want to find the culprit who hacked UEA.

Hey Tim. Why don't sea levels rise every Northern Summer?

>*I'm not going to talk to myself. I want to find the culprit who hacked UEA.*

Well el gordo, this ain't your blog and you need to respect the owner and others bloggers. Your musings are spam to most readers.

If you havn't noticed the blog moderator is already deleting some your off topic raves.

Well, maybe its time for another open thread.

Hey [Ol' Sancty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Why don't sea levels rise every Southern Summer?

I'm not going to talk to myself. I want to find the culprit who hacked UEA.

"Culprit", huh?

Trying the concern troll angle again, fat boy? Yeah, right... You shouldn't - the pretense doesn't play well to those you know you even a little bit.

>*Well, maybe its time for another open thread.*

The last open thread is open, you just need to write something interesting and worthy of a response. Spamming is not an appropriate attention seeking behaviour.

89 your name wotwot about sums you up - clueless! - if you cant argue with facts then dont both. KRudd only has 20% support in his own party - thats not even sustainable!

#101 Hey Tim. Why don't sea levels rise every Northern Summer?

They rise in summer in each hemisphere!

Neil White

I was tired of the Australian's war on climate change science so I cancelled my subscription. Now I can get my daily dose of self inflicted masochism on line with the opinions, editorials, the lead letters to the editor etc swaying overwhelmingly into the denialist camp.

The culprit is not one of us, it's Vlad Putin.

Rupert Murdoch believes in AGW, but he gives his editors the freedom to do what they like on this question. The Courier Mail is pro and the Oz is not.

The SMH and The Age are not part of his stable and they are pro AGW. The Third Estate is in your pocket and yet, you won't be happy until all debate is gagged.

Why?

Someone is twawking out of his own arse:

KRudd only has 20% support in his own party...

Please provide your evidence that indicates this: I am sure that it does not come from anyone with any skill nor understanding of political surveying.

And if you were trying to induce me to follow you link, it didn't work. I guess this makes you are not-very-good troll.

How sad.

Rupert Murdoch believes in AGW, but he gives his editors the freedom to do what they like on this question.

That's a good one.

This is it! I am officially calling Poe's Law on Christopher Monckton. His claims and manner are so bedlam and outlandish that he HAS to be an IRL troll! On the outside chance that I'm actually right I can then proceed to brag to my friends about it....

@Dave Andrews #78:

Of course the Met Office also predicted a "barbecue summer" during 2009 - it was a total washout, just like their predictions of summer for 2007 and 2008.

Really; you got some figures for that? Here was me thinking that temperatures for the summer months in 2009 were significantly above average, and that August (and September as well) particularly was pretty dry and sunny as well. July was the wettest on record, which skews perception; but interestingly the Met Office was misled by past experience in the UK which suggests that wet summers are colder than normal. I wonder whether there's been a change in climate that might explain that mistake?

el gordo said: "How does someone hack a secure system? Must be the FSB."

you mean like gary mckinnon, who single-handedly hacked into almost 100 DoD and NASA computers in 2 years? was he perhaps working for the FSB too? i think we should be told.

as a sysadmin myself, i can confidently say there's not much you can do to keep a hacker with enough ability, dedication and incentive out of your system.

all of these traits can be bought if you don't have them in-house.

and i can guarantee that servers at small UK universities will be *way* less locked down than US govt systems, since they're (usually) way less interesting to hackers.

el gordo writes:

>*The Third Estate is in your pocket and yet, you won't be happy until all debate is gagged.*

Read the title of this thread el gordo, what number is is up to. Then go back over all 42 examples of the Australian's war on science and tally up all the distortions, misrepresentation and bogus claims. Then tell us how the third estate is in our pocket.

Then tell us why Murdoch's media is so hard right wing? And Berlusconi?

Then tell us who is [pushing for reform](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership) of [media consolidation](http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership) and who is not.

Here is a clue, have a look how hard all those hard-right anti science "think tanks" are pushing to reduce media consolidation.
Your assertions are laughable.

>*you won't be happy until all debate is gagged.*

Bollocks el gordo, All I ask is that scientific debate should be in proportion to evidence and not high-jacked by concentrated wealth and their PR machines.

For this it is essential that journos are prepared and call people out when they [spout rubbish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php).

And el gordo, since you are standing in defense of Monckton's rubbish, I wonder, who is the giant that best represents your views, Plimer or Monckton?

Thanx ligne, insightful.

Yes, but, how do you know how much of "anything" it will take? Is this some simple formula that tells us the answer in one (or a few) lines, or a "model"?

@TrueSceptic: The thing about albedo is that its effects are much easier to quantify than those of greenhouse gases and aerosols. (The bond albedo of Earth is just about 0.29, and that's the portion of solar irradiance that is reflected out. The albedo of different types of surfaces is measurable.) But it would require manipulation of substantial surface area.

Stu,

You mean the totally bogus 'confidence intervals' that the IPCC came up with in the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers?

Dave,

first you claim that there are no caveats on the models, and when the caveats are pointed out, you claim they are bogus. Well which is it? No caveats or bogus caveats?

Hey, at least the IPCC model suite has reasonable and physically consistent confidence intervals. Monckton's graph supposing to demonstrate that the IPCC TAR's model suite had gotten the last few years wrong was the very definition of a strawman, as it didn't include the real projections and had genuine 'bogus confidence intervals'. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliber…

It's easy to tear down something fragile that you made yourself. For example I very much enjoyed rugby tackling a snowman I made last week. Hmmm, I seem to have wandered off topic.

KRudd only has 20% support in his own party

Oh, really?

[Read it and weep, baby...](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/12/23/essential-report-christ…)

Kevin Rudd is preferred [PM] by 91% of Labor voters

I think you are confused with Rudd's approval rating [from Coalition supporters...](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2009/12/Essential-Report_141…)

18% of Coalition voters approve of the job Kevin Rudd is doing as Prime Minister.

If Monckton puts up one of his dodgy graphs the msm will eat him alive. Deservedly.

Stu,

The Met Office and others do not put caveats against their climate models, they do put them against their forecasts - read what I actually said.

The IPCC 'confidence intervals' in AR4 were a joke, totally unscientific but designed to achieve a political outcome.

Unfortunately for them it all went belly up in Copenhagen, because people realised the UN process itself was also a bit of a joke.

Robin,

" The Met Office was mislead by past experience"

Wow, but aren't they stuffed full with supercomputers, super scientists and all other kinds of technological knowhow?

And don't they base their climate models in part on 'past experience'?

If they can be so easily mislead over summer 2009 perhaps they can be similarly mislead over many things don't you think?

Dave, never has there been a clearer case not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

You say "The Met Office and others do not put caveats against their climate models, they do put them against their forecasts - read what I actually said."

Directly from the Met Office web site at http://meto.gov.uk/climatechange/science/projections/

"It is important to be aware that projections from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different projections. More on using computer models (external page)"

Well, that's basic caveats isn't it? And it's the most important ones too - we don't know everything, and the computing power isn't there to calculate it perfectly even if we did.

So there you go Dave, I hope you will never claim the Meto don't attach caveats to their climate projections again. Because it's demonstrably false.

The Met should just stop publishing the seasonal forecasts. They don't serve any useful purpose, they're wrong as often as not, and through guilt by association they make people think the climate projections (a totally different enterprise) are off, too.

carrot eater

The Met should stop publishing seasonal forecasts and so too the BOM, then free enterprise like Accuweather would live or die on their seasonal predictions.

A good example is the weather Almanac which predicted this year's cold snap in the US midwest, while NOAA saw a mild winter.

The Australian is doing it again today with an article of pure dribble on Darwin and evolution in the Magazine.

Let alone the snarky little comment in the Magazine's Heads Up about the "trouble with telling the future, as many a climate scientist will attest, is that eventually time catches up with the prediction".

May the editor of the Weekend Australian Magazine be nibbled to death by rampaging physicists. Honestly, they are just insanely terrified of, and vengeful about, science.

And to clarify (now that I've restored some blood sugar) the article basically says that Darwin himself is responsible for high-school massacres,which I have to say is drawing a long bow. It appears to be a re-print of something written in a far-right US newspaper (put it this way, it quotes Ann Coulter approvingly).

And to finish the quote re: climate scientist "eventually time catches up with the prediction, and can leave the prophet red-faced." Apparently climate scientists are on par with religious loonies across time who've randomly predicted the end of the world as happening in the new day/week/year/soonish really.

I tend to find this little snidiness that The Oz indulges in far worse than publishing rot by Screaming Lord Monckton. Which at least is (a) for a purpose and (b) good for a laugh. The snide comments just demonstrate a weaselly viciousness that is rather disturbing.

Stu,

You know as well as I do that the Met is engaged in politics with regard to the IPCC. It has invested so much energy and resource in the latter that it has to continue to support it come what may.

When Vicky Pope stands up and makes her regular announcements to the media about the latest Met climate projections, does she start off by talking about the limitations of the models? Of course not. They are hidden away, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, in a locked filing cabinet at the bottom of a deep mine on a different planet.

Care to give any examples Dave? I've obviously provided one example already. What does Vicky Pope herself say about climate projections?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained1…

"Like any 'expert' trying to project into the future, scientists cannot give precise predictions of what will happen in 100 years, or even in the next 10 years. However, we are able to give a range of possible outcomes of the world's actions and to assign probabilities to these, and climate projections should be treated as an assessment of risk."

This is obviously what Vicky Pope wants to say on the matter. One Timesonline article I have already come across mentions 'most likely' scenarios, but attaches no quantitifying statement to that term. Is it the fault of the Met Office when media outlets don't quite give the full story? I don't know, but I think the material on the Meto page itself gives the clearest view - and that view is that climate projections do have uncertainties for various reasons.

Maybe somebody should point out to gordo, AKA Fat-head,that it is still January.
A cold snap does not a winter make.
Let us know at the end of March if this winter has been mild or not.

NOAA is addicted to the illusion that their programs are accurate. There is more snow and ice on the way, so I'm quite happy to wait until March.

And here's an interesting one. Why has The Weekend Australian published an article from Associated Press (Inquirer 5 in the print version and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-wholesale-climate-fraud-… online) that demolishes the denialists' claims about the UEA emails? And why have they delayed using it for over a month since it became available?

@Dave Andrews #125:

Wow, but aren't they stuffed full with supercomputers, super scientists and all other kinds of technological knowhow?

They are.

And don't they base their climate models in part on 'past experience'?

No. Have you read anything at all about climate models?

If they can be so easily mislead over summer 2009 perhaps they can be similarly mislead over many things don't you think?

Do you know the difference between weather and climate?

Weather forecasts are a mix of science and craft; and past experience plays a(n often significant) part in them.

More specifically, historically a warm summer in the UK has been a dry one; a cold one a wet one. As the amount of energy in the system increases, however, the atmosphere holds more water, so a warm summer in the UK can mean a wet one. The change in behaviour is therefore more evidence for GW; and we know that the CO2 causing the GW comes from fossil fuel combustion.

Robin Levett,

So they don't hindcast with the models to see if they are ok? Isn't that using past experience?

As for reading about climate models, I;ve done tons of that. I'll give you one little quote from someone, see if you can guess who before the end

" The modelling community leaders are probably as skeptical about our paleo-reconstructions as we are of their sulphate aerosol parameterizations, flux corrections (or more worrying, supposed lack thereof in some cases!), and handling of the oh-so-important tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere interface"

None other than hockeystick Mann himself, email 0906042912 of the CRU emails. (Did you guess it?)

The Australian has launched what it seems to believe is a devestating broadside in its ongoing War on Science. I'd be interesed to know the truth, rather than what The Australian claims, as they're totally untrustworthy.

Dave, I would like you to address the exposure of your persistent misinformation about the Met Office's caveats.

What gives?
Are you a liar who hopes nobody notices, or are you an opinionated ignoramus?

Either way, do you still feel there is any value in you continuing to share with us your embarrassingly useless opinions?

@ Dave Andrews, 136.

You dishonest little shite.

That out-of-context Mann email you quoted from stolen documents, is from 19 freaking 98. It is 12 years out of date, in a field where there has been intensive progress over the last decade. For starters.

That snippet is part of a longer discussion of an AMS meeting that was coming up shortly afterwards. Mann goes on to discuss how important it is that the Paleo community fairly and accurately represent what they are sure of, what they think is probably true, and what they simply don't yet know.

It then discusses Phil Jones desire foe the data in Mann's reconstruction, detailing Mann;s efforts to make that all available at NGDC and his goal to do so as quickly as possible, and the complication that some of the data is restricted by his access agreement, and some unpublished.

Man and Jones come off really well in that interchange. You,on the other hand, come off as a dishonest twit.

David Irving,
It's an interesting exercise to compare the story in today's Australian with the original in the Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?to….
Notice that The Australian has inserted irrelevant material about 'climategate' (obviously ignoring the article in the Weekend Australian) and omitted the fact that the IPCC error was uncovered by Graham Cogley, who doesn't sound like a denialist.

Sorry, the link above doesn't work because of the full stop at the end. Try this one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?to…

As Dave Andrews has already been [called](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) on his [misrepresentation of Mann](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…), I won't belabour that point any further.

I would make an observation, however...

The climate change denialists, to a person, take a single mistake by a professional climatologist to spell the end of his/her career, and yet they will happily spout a stream of discredited/untrue/slanderous/otherwise despicable garbage, and they will do so repeatedly and without blinking.

Is it just me who smells a whiff of hypocricy and double-standard?

Thanks, Graham.

It's not quite the body blow The Australian claims, but (if true) it's not a good look.

On the bright side, it means that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indo China and southern China aren't going to run out of water as early as I feared.

The Australian has launched what it seems to believe is a devestating broadside in its ongoing War on Science. I'd be interesed to know the truth, rather than what The Australian claims, as they're totally untrustworthy.

"
Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | January 17, 2010 6:32 PM

Seems to be an almost verbatim copy of the article from the Sunday Times, which they credit.

Another article they publish today explains how it was all an innocent mistake 'though.

UN glacier blunder a 300-year mix-up

Lee,

In what way was I being dishonest? Those were the words Mann used - you might not like it but so what?

Bernard J,

Interesting remark about 'mistakes'. Can't say I've ever taken that approach myself. But when you look into it, it really doesn't seem to be too different to all the opprobrium that was heaped upon Plimer at very great length on this blog and elsewhere re 'mistakes' in his book.

So your remark is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black.

... it really doesn't seem to be too different to all the opprobrium that was heaped upon Plimer ...

The comparison would be valid if there were a mistake on every other page of the IPCC reports, Dave Andrews (#147).

The other big difference is of course the response.

Has Plimer acknowledged the sun isn't really made of iron, for example? Has he backed down on the volcano issue? Has he disowned The World's Dodgiest Graph?

Admitted any of the other [errors](http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91) he made?

No?

I didn't think so.

[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

You're just the (unwanted) gift that keeps on giving, aren't you? [Gaz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) has already pulled you up well and truly on your logical train wreck, but the immortal words of a long-dead disciple (or his ghost-writer) might serve to drive another nail in your coffin...

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

(Matthew 7:3, KJV)

Gaz,

A question for you. Do you know what the interior of the sun is like?

Bernard J,

A minor family crisis prevented me from ending my comment to you last night as I intended.

re Mann and his statistical manipulations, if you don't understand that he keeps using custom statistics that have little or no verification then you need to get out a bit more.

Dang!,

Should be 'customised statistics'

Dave, I already told you how you're dishonest. You presented a 12 year old quote in the midst of a response about the models of today, as if it is somehow relevant to the state of the models today, as if it somehow tells you something about what Mann or the Paleo community think abuot the models today. That, sir, is either blatantly dishoesnt, or it is blitheringly idiotic. Or both.

Oh,and re: your questioon for gaz. We are reasonably certain, Dave, that the interior of the sun is not iron. But please go ahead and argue taht point. Please.

Do you know what the interior of the sun is like?

Dave Andrews, the people who spend their lives studying the composition and structure of stars - as opposed to, say, people like Ian Plimer - say it's mostly composed of hydrogen and helium.

[Here](http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html) is some information that might help you.

[And here](http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/sun_parts.html) is a lovely picture.

Was your ignorance genuine, or were you trying to imply something with your question?

154 Gaz,

Dave Andrews is a denialist. He will make any claim, no matter how idiotic, and tell any lie, no matter how obvious, to support his denial.

But perhaps he's a Poe...

150, Dave Andrews: oh my god, you're right! since no-one has been in there to check, for all we know the centre of the sun might be full of delicious snacks! as well as the iron, natch.

i'm writing a letter to NASA right now, to persuade them to launch a missile into the sun so it bursts and we can all enjoy a glorious future filled with snacks. i hope you'll sign it.

everyone else: why do you hate our snacks so much? have you no shame?

156 ligne,

I believe the whole thing is a giant Terry's Chocolate Orange. Prove it's not!

[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

re Mann and his statistical manipulations, if you don't understand that he keeps using custom statistics that have little or no verification then you need to get out a bit more.

Tell me - what type of people do you think develop the procedures that we humble folk refer to as 'statistics'?

Did none of the techniques that we use (I don't mean to assume that you, specifically, are included as such a user) at no point enter the statistical lexicon as a "custom" method?

What process do you imagine occurs in order to develop the stone tablets upon which the body of kosher statistical techniques are inscribed?

Do you actually understand what Mann's bona fides are, that permit him to "custom[ise]" statistical techniques?

What are your particular bona fides that permit you to pontificate about what constitutes appropriate statistical methodology?

I suspect that you need to pull your head in a bit more.

Bernard J,

Consider:

Mann is not a statistician nor is he a dendrochronologist. Nevertheless he used dubious statistics and BCPs to remove the MWP from the shaft of his hockey stick.This despite the fact that the dendro who collected the original BCP tree rings said they were not suitable for temperature reconstructions.

Mann also used decentering but got it wrong according to the statistician (Jolliffe) who devised the method.

He later used an 'inverted' Tijander sediment series in not one but two papers.When this was pointed out he claimed it didn't matter!

He also resisted releasing his codes for many years so that it could not be assessed by others.

Apart from that presumably to you his statistical bona fides are probably ok.

Lee,

I'm sure I've mentioned Stainforth et al, 2007, to you and many others in the past. They present serious and detailed criticisms of the models, many of which still, apparently. are unable to overcome the points that Mann was making.

I notice Dave Andrews has failed to address the exposure of his persistent misinformation about the Met Office and has gone on to other things.

Just like Plimer.

[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

In spite of your ability with cut-and-paste, you did not actually address any of [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Would you care to try again?

Ducky,

For all of Stainforth's talk of uncertainty and inadequacy of models, he is not saying they are absolutely uncertain and inadequate, but only relatively and marginally compared to what they might be with improvements. As he says in [concluding remarks](http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1857/2145.full):

>There is much to be done but information from today's climate models is already useful. The range of possibilities highlighted for future climate at all scales clearly demonstrates the urgency for climate change mitigation measures and provides non-discountable ranges which can be used by the impacts community...

Many of the improvements he prescribes have been [implemented](http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/T341/index.shtml) and confidence boosted.

Ian Jolliffe confirms that MBH98 does not use de-centered PCA, but short segmented PCA, in which all the data is used and compared for improved quantification of uncertainty, refuting McKittrick & McIntyre's bogus claims.

Andrews:

Care to tell us what exactly you imagine Stainforth et al 2007 is about and what it concludes? It shouldn't take more than a paragraph - I could do it in two sentences, but I'm not disposed to alleviate your embarassment.

While you're at it, why don't you tell us where it addresses the "sulphate aerosol parameterizations, flux corrections (or more worrying, supposed lack thereof in some cases!), and handling of the oh-so-important tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere interface" that Mann mentions, in the quote you failed to tell us was from TWELVE FREAKING YEARS AGO!!!!!

Ducky,

PCA wasn't developed as a statistical tool, but as a multi-variate analysis tool, a discipline in which Micheal Mann is expert. Co-author Malcolm Hughes is a dendrologist. As pre-eminent as they come.

luminous b,

Jolliffe said he didn't understand what MBH were doing with the statistics.

Lee,

I don't imagine what Stainforth et al said in the paper, its there for all to see.

Plus, are you trying to say that what Mann was talking about 12 years ago is no longer relevant, that all the issues have been sorted out? It would seem that Nature, no less, does not necessarily agree with you

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html

This quote from Francis Bacon (1620) turned up on another blog recently.

âThose who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other menâs efforts than good by their own.â (Bacon)

Just about sums it up, really. Thank heavens we are still inquiring.

He later used an 'inverted' Tijander sediment series in not one but two papers.When this was pointed out he claimed it didn't matter! - Dave Andrews

Hey Dave, you do know you're just regurgitating a bit of McIntyre's misunderstanding of maths with this, don't you??

No? Oh well, just keep cutting and pasting in blissful ignorance.

He later used an 'inverted' Tijander sediment series in not one but two papers.When this was pointed out he claimed it didn't matter

For the analysis he was doing, it doesn't.

Hint: what is the value of 1*1. what is the value of -1*-1.

in case you'd not noticed Ms Nova is bashing around this piece today.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/deltoid-creates-some-sci-comm-pollutio…

Also - not sure if you are aware but this is your Oz war on science #42... but the URL lists is as war_on_science_43.

Same for your piece 43, it has a URL of 44.

What a load of tripe. Jo Nova has slammed this for what it's worth.
I guess you alarmists haven't got much ammunition left. I can sense your panic

"Not much ammunition left"? Hilarous!

It's taken almost 3 years for you retards to detect one error in the 2007 IPCC report.

Methinks *you* lack ammunition, if that's the best you can do.

Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice is going...going...
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…

Oh dear Humbug has followed me here and now in context my post looks like I'm a loony tune skeptic! not guilty your honur!

[Mattb](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Your question is answered with a combination of [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…) and [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Thanks Bernard - glad to know I'm not the only person who notices such obscure things.

I did the ill-advised thing and followed MattB's link to Jo Nova... erk!

Marohasy has left the troops in 'safe' hands it seems - Jo has enthusiastically donned Jen's mantle as postergirl for the lunatic pseudoscience-pushing numpties who have wandered in homeless after the drying-up of the Bog.

She's not even proficient at constructing her points-of-view, but this doesn't slow the numpties one little bit. They'll take whatever Jo tells them without blinking... It reminds me of [the scene from The Holy Grail](http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm#Scene 5) where the crowd enthusiastically accepts the 'evidence' that an old lady is a witch.

Yeah sorry Bernard:) I just thought Tim may be interested.

Whilst it is easy to attack people with mathematics when most of your readers are not scientists it is a fact that not a single scientist has been able to show a direct link between CO2 and global warming. Only computer models from a now discredited group of left wing scientists has declared this link. Until someone produces real evidence I shall, like all resonable people say ' Case not proven'. Until then we should do nothing which hinders efforts to help the starving people of this world. I saw a car sticker recently which said "Help the starving. Maximise your CO2" Maybe he/she has got it right.

"You'd think that the denialists would have cottoned on to the fact that Monckton doesn't have a clue about climate science,"
And Al Gore does?
I think Monckton knows just a little bit more than Gore.
Maybe all this hostility coming from you warmists is because you know Monckton is right and your climate change religion is slowly coming to an end. Sorry guys but that's the truth and you all know it. Because if your religion was safe you wouldn't even talk about him.

Only computer models from a now discredited group of left wing scientists has declared this link.

LOL

>*it is a fact that not a single scientist has been able to show a direct link between CO2 and global warming.*

Try again Ferdinand

>*Until then we should do nothing which hinders efforts to help the starving people of this world.*

Um, Ferdinand, you do realize that we had sufficient food to feed the world for decades, that is if there were the political will to distribute it justly.

Yet people still starve. And they starve without internalization of the cost of carbon with is wastefully used by the rich.

So I agree with the statement that:

>*Until then we should do nothing which hinders efforts to help the starving people of this world.*

But it doesn't mean what you think [it means](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929…).

Thanks, MattB, I guess. Does anyone want me to address Nova's post, or are her errors obvious to all?

Rod #179 - how would you act if someone claimed for a decade that you were lying? You might get a little pissed off about it. Thats whats happening here. People like MOnckton and others have been calling scientists liars and charlatans for years, and everyone who has any understanding of the science at all is getting fed up with it.

Jakerman. Oh dear here we go again. I repeat There has not been ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE DIRECTLKY LINKING CO2 to significant planetary warming. I have read over two hundred papers now and none of them - not one, has shown any link.

ferdinand ['the bait' @178](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…)

>*it is a fact that not a single scientist has been able to show a direct link between CO2 and global warming.)*

ferdinand ['the switch" @184](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

>*I repeat There has not been ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE DIRECTLKY LINKING CO2 to significant planetary warming.*

Spot the difference? ferdinand, why did you find the need to insert your addition of "*significant planetary warming*"?

Ferdinand, your disingenuous tactics excludes you from serious debate. You are not behaving as a truth seeker, when you employ sly shifter tactics.

You can try and argue black is white and that there is no evidence linking CO2 with warming but you just look dishonest in the face of overwhelming evidence that link the global temperature and the enhanced greenhouse effect. You keep denying it, and I'll keep presenting evidence of [the links](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…).

Sorry, His Excellency is the correct honorific for Rudd. Check the UN whenever Rudd is speaking there and you will find he is called His Excellency, an honorific he earns by virtue of being the Australian head of government. It is how he was described on the UN list of Copenhagen delegates. That Rudd prefers "The Hon." doesn't alter the fact that internationally, he is "His Excelelncy"

Any chance of a retraction or apology?

>*Any chance of a retraction or apology?*

You'd better [check with](http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/TUTORIAL/address.htm) the Parliment of Australia on that one Dave C.

Doesn't work for the prez of the US either.

It's not just under [Kevin Rudd](http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/TUTORIAL/address.htm) that the Australian Prime Minister is addressed as _The Honourable_, it used to be the same under his predecessor [John Howard](http://web.archive.org/web/20060620213026/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library…). Various earlier PMs were also appointed to the Privy Council and their title was _The Right Honourable_.

It's simply that the UN adresses each and any head of state as _His Excellency_, irrespective of the countries own customs.

Dave C, Monckton has left you high and dry by correcting his letter. His [new version](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/open_…) has Rudd's title correct. Any chance of a retraction or an apology from you?

Tim Lambert said

"Thanks, MattB, I guess. Does anyone want me to address Nova's post, or are her errors obvious to all?"

I wonder if you could explain it in very simple terms for very simple people to understand (ie. me)

At first look, it appears that she simply is allowing monckton a few small errors cos, well, they don't matter (although if an IPCC article contained the same, AGW is diproven)

But I am more interested in her claim "and accuses him of getting a figure wrong (which Monckton got right)"

Well, did he or didn't he?

Its hard for the untrained to muddle through the fog sometimes.

>*I am more interested in her claim "and accuses him of getting a figure wrong (which Monckton got right)".

Well, did he or didn't he?

Tim writes:

>*As well as missing the formula in the IPCC report, Monckton got the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity wrong: it's 2-4.5, not 3.26 Â± ln 2 as Monkton would have it. Consequently the coefficient in Monckton's last equation should be 6.5, not 5.7. But this error is trivial compared to what follows*

Tim explains that Monckton wrongly suggest that this is the warming forestalled over this decade, since climate sensitivity is defined as the eventual warming rather than the immediate warming,

The Earth system is [out of radiative balance](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-Earths-energy-imbalance.html). It takes time for the current enhanced greenhouse forcing to raise temperatures to their equilibrium temperature (where radiation in and out are in balance).

The warming resulting from stabilising CO2 at 408 ppm is not the warming in the first year or decade of reaching 408 ppm CO2. It is the warming required to return the earth sytem back to radiative balance at 408 ppm CO2.
Tim points out that this error is trivial compared to what follows.

>*his main error -- he ignores everything that happens after 2020. In as much as his calculation is valid, he is comparing stabilising CO2 at 408 ppm with stabilising it at 406.5 ppm.*

So there is 80% of the century of either action or inaction that Monckton dodges. Monckton game is a total farce!

Tim explains:

>*the sort of policies that Monckton favours could result in CO2 stabilising at 1000 ppm and 8 degrees of warming as compared to the Copenhagen agreement to keep warming under 2 degrees.*

Thanks for the summary jakerman

Now I have read it, I can see it through the article, but some of us need things simplified.

I have been a reader of this site for a while now, but readily admit that most of the technical details are WAY over my head. But generally I can follow along with the argument. This one however left me confused, particularly when obfuscation like that from Nova's post just adds to the confusion (which I am sure is entirely the point)

Thanks again for taking the time to reply to me.

No worries Ben,

Also of note regarding Monckton's misleading claims of the magnitude of forestalled warming; is that the current temperature anomaly is not the equilibrium temperature anomaly. We haven't yet reached the temperature rise that we are forcing with our current enhanced greenhouse concentrations (389 ppm CO2).

From memory I think there is still about 0.6 degree C rise yet to be realised from current GHG forcing. That is if we stabalised GHGs at current levels.

[Someone please correct me if this is not the most up-to-date figure].

Mcintyre misunderstood somehow. Yet again.

tlambert — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:15:23 +0000

Mcintyre misunderstood somehow. Yet again.

Over the past few days we have had another outbreak of stories of how global warming has been totally disproved. For example, James Delingpole: the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa - though from exactly the same area - the results he got were startlingly different.

The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

Andrew Orlowski (This was linked and quoted in a Climate Audit post.)

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

Chris Horner:

The inescapable and powerful conclusion is that Mann-made warming is real, while man-made warming remains at best a theory, more likely a hypothesis.

Jennifer Marohasy

It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.

Anthony Watts

the Briffa tree ring data that purports to show a "hockey stick" of warming in the late 20th century has now become highly suspect, and appears to have been the result of hand selected trees as opposed to using the larger data set available for the region.

Ross McKitrick:

Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

Melanie Philips:

The scandal not only shows once again that AGW is a fraud but shoots to pieces the integrity of scientific peer-review.

Now these seem a little silly to me. We don't need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre's black line doesn't prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren't good proxies for temperature.

Briffa replied

My attention has been drawn to a comment by Steve McIntyre on the Climate Audit website relating to the pattern of radial tree growth displayed in the ring-width chronology "Yamal" that I first published in Briffa (2000). The substantive implication of McIntyre's comment (made explicitly in subsequent postings by others) is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases. ...

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

And McIntyre then complained about how unfair Briffa was:

Briffa's comment leads off with the accusation that I had implied that the recent data had in this chronology had been "purposely selected" by Briffa "specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases". I want to dispense with this up front. While I expressed surprise that there were so few cores, not only did I not imply that Briffa did any sub-selecting, but I specifically said the opposite.

With "specifically said the opposite" McIntyre refers to comment 254 (yes, 254 comments in!) in the discussion where he says:

It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.

This isn't the opposite of saying that Briffa deliberately cherry picked, since it is consistent with McIntyre believing that Briffa was guilty of fraud but had been subtle about it. In any case, what McIntyre says in the post is more important than stuff buried deep in comment threads and there we see

The [image above] is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit. ...

I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference.

it's very hard to think up a valid reason for excluding Khadyta River, while including the Taimyr supplement.

As well as this:

Sure enough, there was a Schweingruber series that fell squarely within the Yamal area - indeed on the first named Khadyta River - russ035w located at 67 12N 69 50Eurl . This data set had 34 cores, nearly 3 times more than the 12 cores selected into the CRU archive.

And yet, in his new post:

I did not propose the results of these sensitivity studies as an "alternative" and "more robust" chronology. I am not arguing that the Yamal versions using the Schweingruber data provide the "correct" climate history for the region.

Poor misunderstood McIntyre. How is it that this keeps happening?

RealClimate comments:

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn't just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever. ...

The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly 'telegraphed' across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything 'hockey-stick' shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the 'hoax' has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the 'real' problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn't want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we're confident that the corrections will appear any day now.... Oh yes.

Well, if McIntyre won't do it, maybe Roger "middle ground" Pielke Jr will demand that Watts and co correct the record. Let's see:

Gavin's outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin's most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn?

There is one minor mistake in the RealClimate post. In his post McIntyre did not "declare" that Briffa cherry picked, rather he strongly implied it. In his post Briffa says "implication" without being denounced by Pielke, so the entire basis of Pielke's accusation of dishonesty is just the use of the word "declares" instead of "implies". I do think that is an error, but it makes no substantive difference and Pielke has no basis at all for his claim that it was deliberate.

Look at what happened here. Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying. Not one word about the claims of fraud that McIntyre's post spawned.

And if you think that Pielke is likely to behave like a decent human being and apologize, you don't know him.

Tags

Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying. Not one word about the claims of fraud that McIntyre's post spawned.

Typical. Denier. Behaviour.

At RC Comment 108; TrueSceptic says:
51 Gavin,
"Iâm sorry but whatâs required is specific quotes, with URLs of course, to refute nonsense immediately. Replies like yours just feed nonsense claims of âsnarkâ".

[Response: "Fair enough, so here goes (a couple of allied quotes as well): 1) "In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection", 2) "It is highly possible and even probable that the CRU selection is derived from a prior selection of old trees", 3) "I do not believe that they constitute a complete population of recent cores. As a result, I believe that the archive is suspect.",4) (Ross McKitrick) "But it appears that they weren't randomly selected.", 5) (Anthony Watts) "appears to have been the result of hand selected trees", - gavin"]

Only points 1, 2 & 3. apply to Steve McIntyre. Regarding point 2. the full sentence from Steve McIntyre was: -
âIn my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection â in this respect, perhaps and even probably by the Russiansâ

Sorry Gavinâs tilting at windmills; not his best day. Perhaps Roger Pielke Jun. is âon the moneyâ.

good post.

while i have a certain respect for Steve's work (at least he is doing some real work..), he simply isn t doing enough to stop the abuse of his results.

[Jennifer Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-…) for example made the false claim, that the black line represents the entire dataset.

When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely.

basically the same is happening on a German blog, [readers edition](http://www.readers-edition.de/2009/09/30/das-ende-der-klima-wissenschaf…), that has made many weird claims in the past. (Beck was posting there..)

Und nicht nur das, die Kurve wird fÃ¼r die jÃ¼ngste Vergangenheit sogar negativ. Kombiniert man die beiden DatensÃ¤tze, so ergibt sich fÃ¼r das 20. Jahrhundert ein flacher Kurvenverlauf. (if both datasets are combined, the curve will show flat behaviour)

the truth of course is, that the combined datasets show nearly exactly the same increase, because all post 1990 data is from the CRU data. so the full combination shows a hockeystick, and only the combination with all data after 1990 removed, shows the flat curve.

both blogs simply denied to correct their errors. everybody in the denialist blogosphere is well aware of their position, in fulfilling their purpose.

Steve provides ammunition, others spin it into oblivion.

... explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign

Oh come now, there's no need for that.

Just don't renew their contracts.

the dozen were cherry-picked

Sorry, have we confirmed that the trees in question were in fact cherry trees?

The scandal not only shows once again that AGW is a fraud

We all owe Melanie Phillips a dept of gratitude. First, she proves that all of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were definitely found and secretly smuggled to Syria by the CIA (as she wrote in The Spectator two years ago). Not content with that, she also finds time to mindlessly parrot another baseless claim. I can only hope they pay her what she's worth.

Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

I don't think anyone's going to argue with that.

Because of the 9 years delay of releasing the data no one knew that Briffa had selected those twelve trees. So no one could ask him Why did you make this selection? Refering to McIntyres ivestigations this selection seems to be quite questionable.

You put a lot of effort in your comment to investigate whoever said what on this matter, but you seem to missunderstand what are the core (!) issues of this Yamal mess.

Shorter Geoff Larsen:

Here's the full context of the McIntyre quote that Gavin quoted, which doesn't actually change hte overall meaning of the quote, but in any case this shows that maybe Pielke Jr. was right in calling Gavin a liar.

But please note I never actually said that Gavin was a liar; I only insinuated that Gavin was a liar. There's a very important difference here.

* * *

Shorter Bengt A:

We shouldn't care about what McIntyre said, but we should care about the core issues, which are whatever McIntyre said they are.

* * *

Well, these days there certainly seem to be an awful lot of 'skeptics' who are being 'misunderstood'. Besides McIntyre, there's the US Chamber of Commerce, who

> doesn't oppose all efforts to deal with climate change -- only those, like the Waxman-Markey bill, and its likely equivalent in the Senate, that are actually being considered.

And not forgetting our very own dearest barry, who's merely trying to bring some balance to the debate by insinuating that Monbiot was lying.

Heheheh.

How did Briffa and Mann manage to get every thermometer on the planet to lie during these last 50 years?

Last month:
Climate scientists used tree rings that matched temperature records well. FRAUD!

This month:
Climate scientists didn't use tree rings that didn't match up with temperature records at all. FRAUD!

[Doug Henning Voice]Claims of fraud are projection. They are the projection of fraud.[/Doug Henning Voice]

pough,

Never underestimate the evil genius of the cabal of scientists running the world. Yes, they even control all the thermometers.

Ah, pough, [you beat me to it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…).

On another note, a lot of the Denialati chatter on [the Real Climate thread](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/) is fixated with the "withholding of data/code/pick-your-other-conspiratorial-bugaboos-about-AGW-shenanigans". It seems that many are concerned that the world's scientists, whilst sitting around the table of the Great Global Scientific Conspiracy, are stonewalling Truth, Justice, and the Denialati Way by preventing 'replication' of the results.

As several commenters have rejoined however, besides the fact that there is ample access to relevant data, there is nothing stopping sceptical (in the true sense of the word) scientists from collecting their own samples and performing their own analyses. Given the amount of $ sloshing around the Denialosphere it shouldn't be an insurmountable burden to do exactly this, and to publish the results in a peer-reviewed forum. This is certainly what 'replication' means in the scientific context: rejigging someone else's data is not.

So why, exactly, is it that the braying hoards simply do not side-step those Nasty Conspirators and conduct their own work, rather than trying to smear petroleum jelly on the focussed lens of the science of the experts?

Hmmm?

Don't you know, global warming is one of the three all-time super-hoaxes? The other two are the Moon landing and the Theory of Evolution. ;)

Please stick to the point -- the science. Was the data mishandled? Was the data withheld? Are Briffa's results trustworthy or not.

All of the irrelevant brouhaha about who is being misunderstood is the mark of childish diversion.

Please stick to the science on a "science blog!"

Malcolm Helm.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but if you are interested in 'trustworthy results', you might ask why McIntyre's 20th century trajectory peaks in the region of the middle of the second World War (I am doing a quick and dirty calculation with a dodgy ruler), and then drops precipitously thereafter.

As [pough pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…), McIntyre's plot is rather at odds with every thermometer (and satellite) on the planet...

Please stick to the point -- the science. Was the data mishandled? Was the data withheld? Are Briffa's results trustworthy or not.

so let us stick to the point:

Was the data mishandled? that is what Steve and Co should e able to tell you. but apart from vague accusation, there is nothing.

Was the data withheld? people bringing up this point, expose how clueless they are. in short: in general, scientists are NOT oblidged to provide their raw data. if they are nice, they might do it. in general, people are supposed to get their own data.

Are Briffa's results trustworthy or not. another thing, that you would expect to learn from Steve and Co. but again, all that we have are extremely vague claims.

All of the irrelevant brouhaha about who is being misunderstood is the mark of childish diversion.

Deltoid did provide a link to realclimate. in short, the hockey stick is not broken. case closed.

You gentlemen are "dropping the ball" as you say.

You poor old sod, of course researchers must comply with the data archiving requirements of publishers. The fact that Science and Nature allowed this type of stonewalling is a scandal on real science.

Stick to the science. What was Briffa hiding all those years? Oh yes, of course. He was hiding the unrepresentative nature of his precious samples. How silly of me not to say that up front.

This kind of stuff must be why Nature is recommending Piekle on their short list of authors for the Copenhagen meeting (sigh)
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/mustreads_for_copenhage…

Because he's such a _political_ scientist.

They (the hockey stick team) got caught with their pants down (eeewwww). Now they are running around doing damage control. Even the NY Times opines it's a sad day for science when data lies end up in the IPCC reports. You'd be better serve rapping the stick's knuckles then parsing McIntyre's words.

Malcolm,

The data isn't Briffa's. It is Hantemirov and Shiyatov's data. More precisely, the property of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Most of it is, I believe, archived in the ITRDB. It is Briffa's, Osburn's, Hughes', Schweingruber's, H&S's and others' sometimes competitive and other times collaborative analysis of that data, which they have been quite transparently debating and refining in an on-going discussion in the literature and doubtless numerous personal communications for years.

Stick to the science. What was Briffa hiding all those years? Oh yes, of course. He was hiding the unrepresentative nature of his precious samples. How silly of me not to say that up front.

Sorry. I didn't catch on that you were just kidding. Sometimes it's hard to tell satirical posts from actual stupidity.

I quite like this latest "*OMGZ!1! Global warming is the hoax11!*" from the Deniers - it really exposes their hysterical desperation. They're scraping the barrel so hard all they're getting is splinters for their troubles.

Regardless of what the trees are telling us, there are thousands of other natural data proxies that all point in exactly the same direction - the planet is warming. Growing seasons, bird migration, blooming of flowers, migration and spawning of fish, dates of mountain snow melt, peak flow of glacier-fed streams and disappearing ice sheets and glaciers.\* They're all telling us the same thing. Thermometers and satellites concur.

Are the birds, fish and ice all in on this global conspiracy?

Perfect observation, Tim: "*Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying.*" It's just more evidence, as though any were needed, that exposes Pielke Jr's dishonest agenda.

Once again the Deniers obediently comply with the clear definition of [denialism](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php):

> Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

\* hat tip [greenman3610](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610).

Hank's [URL](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/mustreads_for_copenhage…) corrected for markdown mess-up.

I find it interesting that a dyed-in-the-wool Right Libertarian like Pielke Jr. is citing an anarcho-socialist like James Scott. What with the fall from grace of Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, is a reassessment of Chomsky and Herman and consequent mea culpa for his prior manipulative behavior imminent?

I jest, of course.

Good point about RPJr., Tim. I'm not the slightest bit surprised as well, given his previous examples of (poorly) playing role the misunderstood victim in the various train wrecks and wildly - and falsely - accusing Eric Steig of plagiarism.

Pielke Jr, like his father, are mere opportunists and poor spin doctors at distorting reality. Why are they still given due respect when their recent behavior deserves and demands scorn instead?

Shorter Malcolm Helm:

Hey, I asked a question! Why won't you simply give my preferred answer? Stick to the science! By that, I mean, stick to my conspiracy theory!

* * *

Shorter Bart Renson:

McIntyre said he was misunderstood, which means when he said that he didn't accuse Briffa of fraud, he should actually be understood that he did accuse Briffa of fraud. Check your pop cryptography handbook, peeps.

shorter bi--IJI,

I believe everything Gavin says!

pough, Hank, Tim et al

Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper. There were no caveats included in his original paper and it has been used by at least another 10 papers since to back up what he said. Now suddenly it seems the original was not that robust!

But that's ok, its not as if its been used by a UN agency to support a specific point of view about climate change at all, is it?

Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust

He did? Where? Not that it means much. It certainly doesn't mean anywhere near what you imply, that without the Briffa paper, everything else comes tumbling down. There's a lot of "everything else" which doesn't at all use his data, most of which is actual temperature measurements.

That's really what makes this whole thing such a farce. I'm used to denialists using confusion and insinuation to further the FUD, but this one really takes the cake. To be honest, I'm shocked that anyone is so stupid that they've managed to be hoodwinked by this. I'd be less surprised to find out McIntyre has been a Poe all along and this is his coup de grÃ¢ce.

The guy who does Denial Depot should copy the story verbatim.

Does Marohasy have any position, anywhere, other than PR flack?

If so, we should make this a PUBLIC CHALLENGE.

posters, everything. with her words it is time they explain how mcintyre is wrong or RESIGN.

Rub her nose in this, and everyone that prints what she says, until no one will touch her.

She should back up her libels with facts or RESIGN.

She should, ideally, be pursuing her real vocations in either the food service or housekeeping industries. Seriously.

Now these seem a little silly to me. We don't need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre's black line doesn't prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren't good proxies for temperature.

Moral of the story: the trees were good evidence for global warming before they weren't.

I'm kidding, and I take your point. More seriously, I think the moral of this story is that AGW researchers don't do themselves any favors when they don't demand full disclosure from researchers.

Longer Dave Andrews:
I believe nothing climatologists say, and everything said becranks, frauds and ideologues that contradicts AGW. This makes me a "skeptic".

I just make stuff up, who needs citations and quotes!

I do this all the time!

I've just read the RealClimate post and the statement by Briffa which were linked, so I think I'm now closer to working out what's going on. So let's see if I have this straight:
Briffa uses a dataset obtained from some Russian researchers, but because he wants to look at longer-term variations, processes this data in a way which will better resolve these long-term variations. (It looks to me as though he's saying that he selected trees based on ability to construct temperature trends over a wider geographical area? But I could be misinterpreting, I don't understand the data analysis jargon).
McIntyre then decides to toss out Briffa's trees and run the analysis including a different set of tree-ring data, with no particular rationale; he gets a different result and writes this up, but apparently does not intend to be making, or even implying, any point whatsoever in doing so.

I think Briffa is being very careful in his statement, as a good scientist should be. But this makes it easier to misunderstand what he is saying, or (especially for the mendacious) to misinterpret it. When he says

McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation

this (AFAICS) means that McIntyre's original writeup has a bunch of hedges saying that he, that is McIntyre, would need to investigate further before being confident about any conclusions. It could be read (by the mendacious) as saying that Briffa is admitting that McIntyre's criticisms are valid and that they should be investigated further (by himself or other climate scientists). Similarly, saying

Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established

may, to a certain mindset, be read as saying that the McIntyre analysis has equal initial plausibility to Briffa's own. But it should probably be read instead as saying that Briffa will not definitively state that the analysis is rubbish until he's done a bit of extra work to demonstrate what, precisely, is wrong.

Tommy jokes:

Now these seem a little silly to me. We don't need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre's black line doesn't prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren't good proxies for temperature.

Moral of the story: the trees were good evidence for global warming before they weren't.

Heh. I was initially puzzled by this. Was the point that those trees could be excluded from the dataset on the grounds that they didn't show the increase in temperature we knew to be there; when the dataset was supposed to be used as evidence in support of the conclusion that there was a temperature increase?
Looking through the linked posts, it's obvious that there were independent reasons for selecting the cores that were included - they weren't included on the grounds that they showed a 20th-century temperature increase that we already knew was there.
However, thinking further, it would be OK to use failure to show the known 20th-century increase as grounds to include or exclude data, since the known 20th-century increase results from data which weren't vetted on those grounds. The series of graphs at RealClimate is an excellent illustration of the large range of data supporting the existing conclusion.

Incidentally, can any of the expert commentariat here tell me if there is a good introductory source for statistics/data analysis, specifically regarding climate? I'm going to take some courses in stats and (hopefully) environmental science but I wouldn't mind something to read in the meantime. The denialists do like to throw around the bafflegab, and although you guys are doing a wonderful job smacking it down, I'd like to acquire a modest level of competency of my own.

Statistical Analysis in Climate Research by von Storch and Zwiers may be what you are looking for. Perhaps someone who has used it can tell you for sure.

I'm sure there's another one that escapes me for the moment.

Jennie,
[This](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/message-to-readers/#comment-36094)is the simplest and most sensible explanation I've found.

Dave Andrews:

Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper. There were no caveats included in his original paper and it has been used by at least another 10 papers since to back up what he said. Now suddenly it seems the original was not that robust!

Only if you believe in a cartoon version of science.

The real one involves continuous evolution of knowledge, with later researchers trying to improve on what preceded them.

Will the Hockey Stick is Broken zombie NEVER die?

The really sad thing in all this is that MacIntye, I think, genuinely thinks that he is doing good things for science. For him to continue in this fashion for so long indicates an obsessive nature. If he was on Dr Phil that is a show that I would watch.

When hacks like Morohasy hang off his every word this only reinforce the obsession. I mean when your written word gets picked up and talked about by so many people it must feed the gratification cycle.

You have to think about a person that could be this obsessed for so long about something that is insignificant at best. I guess giving people the answers that they want keeps him going.

Here's my take on the McIntyre-Briffa controversy. Wading through McIntyre's tiresome posts and comments was tough, but I figured somebody should do it. It should put paid to suggestions that McIntyre did not make explicit accusations of cherry-picking.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

Some sample quotes (the last one is the best one, but you'll have to go to the post to read it, since it's definitely a spam filter risk).

One doesnât expect Team adjustments to leave even small scraps on the table and this proved to be the case here as well â the added data substantially increased 20th century values and substantially lowered 1150-1250AD values, thereby altering the medieval-modern differential in favor of the 20th century.
=========
Iâd be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.
=========
Jacoby, DâArrigo, whatever other faults they may have, use the entire crossdated population from a site. (They cherry pick sites, but donât cherry pick trees within a site.)
=========
Iâm assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like ***** ******* by paleoclimatologists.

Usually I like to say my own piece, but after reading the Deep Climate compilation, I sure liked this:

"Somehow, we are to believe that the mountainous scientific corpus that overwhelmingly demonstrates the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic genesis is a vast conspiracy, one involving thousands of scientists and other professionals. And we must further believe this conspiracy has been exposed by the scattergun technical analysis of a mining consultant turned blogger."

To put this in perspective, there are still large groups of American conservatives who even fall back to saying that it can't even be proven that the 20th century rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is anthropogenic, because natural fluxes are so much larger. So, yes, they do believe "the mountainous scientific corpus... is a vast conspiracy", as strongly as they believe that the IPCC is a key component of a vast, sinister, globalistic, socialistic takeover of the free market system, as well as part of a vaster, larger plot that intends as its final outcome the eventual undermining of Western civilization.

The difficult thing about this is, as I alluded in a RealClimate post, that much of the opposition in Congress to climate change legislation is fomented by this core of like-minded thinkers (and thinktanks), and because they form a large part of the population of states with as many Congressmen as Senators (or less), their voices are listened to, and they are given undue weight in the debate.

Oh wait -- did I say undue weight in the debate? I might be pulling a McIntyre-type analysis here.

P.Lewis, that book looks like the ticket - thanks!

And lenny, thanks also for the link - the entire discussion there was very useful.

Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper.

The actual statement is:

My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data.

This is a general statement of ongoing work and doesn't mean what you think it means.

He would've said the same thing 10 years ago, and indeed when he started working in the field, and will say the same thing up until the day he retires.

I suspect if there had been a blogosphere around when the Phlogiston/Oxygen controversy was all the rage, and Phlogiston theory supported the economic status quo, there would have been the same denialism. There is always a lucrative market for people prepared to soothe the popular mind about lingering concerns that we may not live in the best of all possible worlds. What else can explain the continued presence of the terminally boring likes of Gerard Henderson in the pages of our daily newspapers? And the great thing about writing op-ed pieces is you never have to apologise when proven wrong. Almost everything Greg Sheridan, for example, has ever written has in time been shown to be diametrically opposite to the truth, but his penance has been to be promoted. Marohasy's resignation demand is in the same vein - the day she calls for Plimer to be put in the von Daniken pile, we can maybe consider taking her seriously.

Even [shorter](http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1CHMA_en-GBAU344AU344&sourceid=ch…) Dave Andrews.

Marion (27): "[Marohasy] should, ideally, be pursuing her real vocations in either the food service or housekeeping industries. Seriously."

I have enough problems with the wrong meal being delivered by accident. The last thing I want is waitresses who deliberately misinterpret my order ;-)

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this Tim, but when I first read the title of your post, I thought it meant McIntyre was a misunderstood person. Yet again!

Anyone else think that there's more than a little displacement going on in RP's "attack" on Gavin/RC over the McI issue?

Tim:

You have an amazing ability to generate lots of text without ever once addressing any of the real issues here:

1. Refusing to publish raw data is wrong and is endemic to the whole AGW movement.

2. Yamal's results are fatally flawed (one tree--YAD061-- skewed the entire curve) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a flat temperature trend. Intentional fraued or good faith error, this was bad science and it had consequences. If Briffa can't stand up and admit that, he's not much of a scientest or a human being.

3. IPCC, Mann and others DID rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the lastest UMASS meta-proxy study used it--and wouldn't have been able to make their "warmest decade in 2000 years" claim with its data removed.

Funny how the "deniers" focus on facts, and all you can do is argue about how many times the word "cherry picked" was used.

Bob Levinstein:

You have an amazing ability to generate lots of BS without ever once addressing any of the real issues here:

1. Refusing to see that McI is mistaken about raw data access is wrong and is endemic to the whole Climate Fraudit movement.
2. McI's analyses are fatally flawed (click here and here for Tom P's analysis) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a massive Hockey Stick. McI's analysis was bad science and it had consequences. If McI can't stand up and admit that, he's not much of a scientist or a human being.
3. IPCC, Mann and others DID NOT rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the latest RC post has a summary of all the other studies w/o the Yamal data--and STILL have been able to make their "warmest decade in 2000 years" claim with its data removed.

Funny how the "deniers" make up facts, and all you can do is argue about how many times the word "Yamal" was used.

Refusing to publish raw data is wrong and is endemic to the whole AGW movement.

it is not wrong. how do you come to the conclusion, that everyone has to give away raw data for free?

Yamal's results are fatally flawed (one tree--YAD061-- skewed the entire curve) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a flat temperature trend. Intentional fraued or good faith error, this was bad science and it had consequences. If Briffa can't stand up and admit that, he's not much of a scientest or a human being.

basically everything in this post is wrong. starting with "tree YAD061". the tree is named YAD06. the 1 identifies the core.

the other approach is not "much larger" and doesn t show a flat curve either. (the merged dataset shows the same behaviour as the BRIFFA sample alone after 1990). neither fraud nor errors have been shown.

and the conclusion you draw about a person you don t know go at least one step too far.

IPCC, Mann and others DID rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the lastest UMASS meta-proxy study used it--and wouldn't have been able to make their "warmest decade in 2000 years" claim with its data removed.

the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data.

Michael,

"The real one involves continuous evolution of knowledge, with later researchers trying to improve on what preceded them. "

No disagreement with that. The difference in this area is the political spin being put upon the science. Climate science no longer operates in the realm of 'normal science' it is promoted in the cause of an 'agenda'

Deep climate,

Just what is the problem with using crack and cocaine in the same sentence?

Climate science no longer operates in the realm of 'normal science' it is promoted in the cause of an 'agenda'

So if any science is promoted in the cause of an agenda, it ceases to be true? Hmm. That's a crazy, unpleasant fantasy world you live in. No wonder you're so bewildered.

There is one minor mistake in the RealClimate post. In his post McIntyre did not "declare" that Briffa cherry picked, rather he strongly implied it.

Having used the methods of the creationists, they now appear to be moving on to the methods of the Holocaust Deniers.

#50
I couldn't get through some spam filters with that phrase (at RC for one). So I just started taking out. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.

#45, #52
The point of my post (at top of deepclimate.org) is that McIntyre did more than imply "cherry-picking". I don't think Gavin was wrong when you look at the whole record.

RP jr is doing his usual act: attacking the climate scientists he supposedly agrees with for a minor or non-existent transgression, and refusing to criticize contrarians like McIntyre and McKitrick even when they are making outrageous baseless accusations.

sod,

"the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data."

Which particular "hockey stick" are you talking about here? The discredited Mann 'hockey stick' the now suspect Briffa 'hockey stick' or the numerous derivative 'hockey sticks' base on the former two?

Davey boy, if they don't contain the tree ring data from Yamal, they do not depend on the Yamal data.

Gosh, that's simple.

Scientists are hiding the raw data. We need the raw data.

Therefore I demand that all satellite data is beamed directly into my brain, and I want to see all the Yamal tree data in binary code form, or the hockey stick is a fraud.

I think we should also have access to the DNA sequence of all climate scientists in amino acid base pair format, just to be sure.

Generic Denialist - "Scientists are hiding the raw data. We need the raw data."

However you have missed a crucial point. The makers of the various operating systems may be also in on the conspiracy so you will need the source code to MS Windows if any of the analysis was done on a Windows machine and/or OSX10 or Solaris. Failure to provide such source code will be of course mean that the hockey stick shape is built into the operating system so therefore all of AGW will be proven wrong once again.

Microsoft, Apple and Sun cough up your source code or risk being implicated in the AGW conspiracy.

*Climate science no longer operates in the realm of 'normal science' it is promoted in the cause of an 'agenda'*

should more appropriately read:

Climate change denial has never operated in the realm of 'normal science', because it has long been promoted in the cause of an 'agenda'

That`s more like it.

Gil juxtaposed the moon landing and global warming in a prior post. It reminded me of this:

"Former astronaut speaks out on global warming"
By Associated Press

Sunday, February 15, 2009 -

SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon
and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans
are causing global warming.

"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural
effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next
month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree
with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels,
temperatures and sea levels.

"They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they
haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a
human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a
science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied
geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology
from Harvard University in 1964.

In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission."

- A. McIntire

There was no moon landing/walk.

Astronauts know that if they don't go along with the political consensus of the moon landing they loose their jobs with NASA.

And potential astronauts know that admitting to being a moon landing skeptic is career suicide - that's clear intimidation.

In my view Schmitt is full of... well, let me just say it rhymes.

The only wafer-thin excuse for the denialists can grasp at is the "scientists cannot secure grants if they do not go along with the argument that humans are main driving force behind climate change".

The evidence procured? None. Not a shred. The fact is that scientists test hypotheses. These can be directed (e.g. We are testing the hypothesis that humans, through the combustion of fossil fuels, are the main driving force behind the current changes in climate) or neutral (e.g. we test the hypothesis that climate change is occurring within natural boundaries and that there are multiple forcings).

Given that most of the sceptics accept that climate is changing, but believe so within ranges that are normal, and that other factors (the sun, natural cycles) are responsible, there is nothing remotely controversial about them applying for grants in the same way as all scientists do by applying straight forward hypotheses. Furthermore, there are many quite outspoken sceptics who are Professors or hold senior positions in research institutes. I do not seem them on the streets holding out caps begging for funds.

The underlying message here is that sceptics are not doing much in the way of climate research, but are instead hounding the much larger body of scientists who believe that humans are the main drivers behind climate change. In my view, the reasoning is simple. As I have said before it is highly unlikely that the sceptics will ever win a scientific victory in this field, but that is not their aim. Their aim is to discredit AGW, and thus to spread doubt amongst the public and policymakers. As several have said on this thread, why don`t the sceptics get off of their butts and do their own comprehensive climate research? A few do, but it seems to me that most sceptics don`t. Instead, they harp away at the sidelines, claiming a big scientific victory when they poke a few holes in some are of climate change science undertaken by researchers who are actually doing the primary resesarch.

Bear also in mind that many scientists in the denial camp are older researchers, a large number who are past their retirement or close to it. If you look at the publication of these older scientists before climate change become a focus of scientific interest, you will find that they have very poor or at best modest publication and citation records. So they were not doing much in the way of science even then.

Finally, as Bernard and I have said, there are huge amounts of money sloshing around the denialasphere. Billions of dollars, in fact. many PR firms and think tanks are becoming rich on denial. Given that many of the prominent sceptics have appalling publication records over many years (and in their own fields that are not climate change related) the grant argument does not hold any weight. It is a desperate attempt to counter the fact that some of the prominent sceptics are closely associated with polluting industries or think tanks funded in part by fossil fuel industries who oppose regulations limiting C02 emissions. When I see some prominent sceptics writing papers in defence of the coal industry or a relaxation of pollution regulations and then venturing into climate science claiming that AGW is a myth or that warming is due to other factors, it should be patently obvious that their motivations are questionable at best. Yet the sceptics come across as all innocent where this is concerned, and have tried to counter with the grant story. I say: prove it.

It may be of no great importance, but the IEA says human induced CO2 emissions are down 2.6% because of the financial crisis. It seems its the lowest in 40 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE58K2AN20090921

Good post all-around. I'm glad some are exposing the rhetorical tactics of the "skeptic" crowd. McIntyre slings mud, and when the target calls him out for it, he pretends he didn't do it. He strikes me as someone torn between trying to be relevant in science (many in his crowd have no such desire or propensity) and getting easy attention. If he engages in real objective science, assumes good faith on the part of others, submits his work for peer-review, and keeps issues in their proper context, he's like any boring scientist in the field. If he makes highly-provocative statements to a desperate crowd of individuals eager to absorb "AGW is a hoax" rhetoric, he gets major political attention, which he seems to relish.

"When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa - though from exactly the same area - the results he got were startlingly different."

Any article accusing others of "lying" better first get their facts right. McIntyre's proxies were all from a single location. What Briffa used (see his response) was from at least 3 different locations. So Briffa's range is larger in this case.

The scientific relevancy of this issue is summarized on the 2nd half of the Real Climate post.

#64, whatever the case, I hope he continues to do so.

'I do feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is one day going to be looked upon as a low point in this debate. Climate change is important, but so too are other values, and freedom of expression is among them.'

Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus
22 July 2008

RE: this quote by Steve M appended to Biffa's response:

> On a closing note, as I said from the outset, I did not say or imply that Briffa had "purposely selected" individual cores into the chronology and clearly said otherwise. Unfortunately for himself, Briffa's tactic of withholding data and obstructing requests for data has backfired on him, as some people (not myself) have interpreted this as evidence of malfeasance...

Is it wrong that I find that similar in tone to the reporting of the Obama "birther" wingnuts?

@el gordo

> freedom of expression is among them

Freedom of expression is all well and good. On the other hand, I have every right to eject someone from my reading group if they don't read the book under discussion, but instead turn up every week with a megaphone and spend an hour shouting that the earth is flat.

Is this not a science blog? Do science and banning coexist?

Posted by: Girma | [October 5, 2009 6:18 AM

OK, Girma Orssengo, if you're going to be so high-and-mighty about this being a "science blog", perhaps you will finally capitulate and deign to answer the very basic questions about the statistical and scientific fundamentals [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…).

You have been asked dozens of times now to do so: if you're so precious about scientific integrity, you'll rush to answer immediately, and fill in the yawning chasms of your own scientific oversight.

If you can't answer the questions, then you will automatically have your answer to the purile question that you put to Tim Lambert.

> Don't you know, global warming is one of the three all-time
> super-hoaxes? The other two are the Moon landing and the Theory > of Evolution. ;)

Well, the Moon landing clearly is a hoax. I mean, would you believe that those bootprints were put there by the only industrialized nation incapable of extending proper health care to its own people?

Girma is only allowed to post to the thread where Bernard J has asked his questions. Please do not respond to him on other threads, as will delete responses as well as his comments.

So let me get this straight:

1. Refusing to release raw data temperature (Jones & Wiley) or tree-ring data (Briffa) so conclusions can be studied and verified is the same as protecting computer software trade secrets?

2. A scientest who looks at this series:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-inf…
and can't tell that one tree is an outlier is worth defending?

3. For all the talk about "actual temperature data", why isn't clear to you that a global temperature measurement system that isn't accurate within a couple of degrees
(NOAA's standards) can't measure changes on the order of .1 degree per decade?

4. And besides, we're not talking about "actual" temperature data, we're talking about "adjusted" temperature data with the source data generally unavailable and the adjustments not explained. (And gee, all of the "adjustments" just happen to exaggerate the warming trend, what a shock).

But despite all of this--and the fact that none of the models have come remotely close to predicting anything--the science is "settled" right?

1) Yes, it can be. What's the difference between protecting a slice of code that says "if c -gt 42)" and this?
2) WUWT trolling
3) It can. A ruler with 1mm markings can measure the wavelength of red laser light at 600nm. It just takes intelligence to work out how.
3) All temperature is adjusted. The WUWT site spawned a complete US-wide manhunt to show how unadjusted temperatures from US sites would be wrong.

> and the fact that none of the models have come remotely close to predicting anything

Where did you get that idea from? Hansen's 1988 (?) paper predicted that a large volcanic eruption would have a certain effect on the global temperature record. Pinatubo erupted. Prediction was shown to be right.

Poor, poor misunderstood McIntyre. He's been misunderstood as insinuating that Briffa was committing fraud, even though he assures us he never once did that, but still, he tells us that it's only natural, nay, it's only right and proper that he's being misunderstood!

So let me get this straight:
Refusing to release raw data temperature (Jones & Wiley) or tree-ring data (Briffa) so conclusions can be studied and verified is the same as protecting computer software trade secrets?

When Briffa, Jonens and Wiley don't own the right to redistribute the raw data then, yes, it's exactly the same.

Why would you think it's not?

The Russians shared their data with Briffa, what's your evidence that, back when Briffa 2000 had been published, that the Russians had also granted Briffa the right to redistribute the raw data?

Without hard evidence of this, your screeching boils down to insisting that Briffa should've ignored the Russians' right to their own data.

Now skip forward to 2008 ... one of the Russians is a co-offer on Briffa et al 2008 (hat tip to Rabett's blog). And subsequently the raw data became available. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. It's the kind of tit-for-tat tradeoff that makes sense to academics, though, "we'll co-author a paper and then yes, I (the Russkie), will publicly archive our data").

Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or *you* demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit.

A scientest who looks at this series: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-inf… and can't tell that one tree is an outlier is worth defending?

Except one working scientist has already shown that this conclusion is false, and Briffa himself is already working on a detailed response.

Why does your skepticism not extend to being skeptical of McI, who has no relevant credentials in the field? Why do you accept as gospel McI's claims of fraud while being "skeptical" of the work of real scientists?

So let me get this straight:

You were fine until right after this part.

i am very busy at the moment, but spent my break reading [WuWt.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/04/trees-named-tyranny-and-freedom-w…)

the comments are a blast. everybody who ever saw a tree in his life, thinks that he is an expert on Siberian larchs.

take a look and enjoy the show.

ps: my first thought was this one: when the nice tree on the left is that young, would it be chosen to take a sample?

The MBH98 paper showed unprecedented 20th century warming, so McIntyre and Kitrick tried to discredit it. Nothing wrong with that, except that climate change has become a very big political issue.

Briffa has been made unofficial captain of the 'hockey team' and, as he is one of the lead authors of AR4 along with Overpeck, it's a surprise they left out the graph from the SPM.

On a slightly different bent, it appears this northern hemisphere winter in the US will be mind-numbing. Because El Nino is weak the hot money is moving towards an increase in consumption of fuel oil. There is a 75% chance that this will come to pass.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE

Jeff Harvey,

"Finally, as Bernard and I have said, there are huge amounts of money sloshing around the denialasphere. Billions of dollars, in fact."

If I thought your grasp on reality was tenuous before, I now realise it is non-existent.

Fancy that, Dave Andrews offers a fact-free snark.

"And if you think that Pielke is likely to behave like a decent human being and apologize, you don't know him."

I just read through that thread. Pielke Jr. appears very good at the art of dodge and strawman construction (not unlike Pielke Sr.).

Take for example Lambert's comment:

"RPJr isnât convincing the skeptics of the errors of their ways because he isnât trying to.

For instance, heâll criticize Gore, but he he wonât breathe a word of criticism for George Will."

Notice how Pielke Jr. spins this...

"The question of why I donât cheer-lead for a side in the climate debate has come up before....Tim Lambert is disappointed that I do not cheer for his team"

Lambert is clearly criticizing Pielke Jr. for never or rarely attempting to correct obvious skeptic errors or calling out their poor behavior. Pielke Jr. attempted to morph the criticism to the equivalent of Lambert criticizing him for not commenting on the scientific community approvingly, an entirely different charge that Lambert isn't making. He completely dodges the charge that he rarely criticizes skeptics. It's understandable why the self-described "honest broker" does this.

Pielke Jr. has a natural bias, yet prefers to sit on the fence. This is uncomfortable, but academics have the right to remain silent.

Sceptics and deniers are, after all, just a few voices arguing about trees in the Siberian wilderness.

Dave Andrews, with his Fox news view of the world intact, must apparently and sincerely believe that the denial industry is underfunded.

Clearly, Dave, you have your head stuck up your posterior too much if you do not know how much corporate money has been invested in denial. If you can read - just - I suggest you check up on who funds the very large number of right wing think tanks who focus on issues dealing with environmental regulation, as well as astroturf lobby groups (there are thousands of them), the Public Relations Industry and the like. Some PR firms were set up actually on the basis of lobbying against environmental regulations, and have become multi-billion dollar industries in their own right. Also go to your library and check out how much money the fossil fuel and automobile industries alone spend lobbying members of Congress each year, much of it on environmental regulation. See how much the fossil fuel lobby donates to certain politicians as well as to some scientists.

What I find amusing about your posts is that it is clear that, unlike me, you have not read anything about lobbying and about politics in the environmental arena. I have read volumes of information and researched it - hence why I am invited every year to give lectures at universities about the interface between politics and the environment. It appears that you, by contrast, peruse a few skeptic web sites for your worldview (judging by the simplicity of your posts on this and other threads) and that you castigate those who rain on your parade.

It is clear that you do not know very much about a lot of issues, and your way of showing this is to write witless remarks attacking not the facts as they stand, but the people who are writing them. Your posts have, without exception, been shallow and without empirical depth.

Jeff, I'd suggest anyone who doubts the extreme levels of spending of big coal and big oil to buy power, then they should run for Congress as a little experient.

Dave Andrews has proved himself yet again an unending source of consistent bunk.

El gordo/gullibo:

Briffa has been made unofficial captain of the 'hockey team' and, as he is one of the lead authors of AR4 along with Overpeck, it's a surprise they left out the graph from the SPM.

They didn't leave out the words:

"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}"

and they didn't leave out the reference to the graph.

"Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or you demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit."

That is an interesting take. According to 'Nature' (who I know you respect a great deal):

Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions.

One could almost make the case that Nature thinks that data should be made available just because someone demands it. Oddly, they say 'readers'. They don't say editors or reviewers (or even subscribers). Anyone who reads. Imagine that. So, I'm curious how dhogaza could come to a conclusion that is at such odds with the editors of Nature... Anyone want to bet that we will get an explanation? Now, not all publications have such stringent requirements. But it seems odd to use the word 'bullshit' to describe a scenario where authors are required to provide materials and data and associated protocols to readers, doesn't it?

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/06/delayed-oscillator-on-divergence/

Introducing âDelayed Oscillatorâ or D.O. as I call this new blogger. Some key quotes:

In other words, Yamalâs âenormous HS bladeâ, said by McIntyre to be like âcrack cocaineâ for paleoclimatoligists, is much reduced in DOâs first version, using a standard RCS implementation instead of McIntyreâs home-grown version.

And DOâs conclusion:

my quick review of these data here shows that including Khadyta River raw data in the Yamal chronology does not result in a more accurate nor precise understanding of past temperatures in the region.

Yep, he actaully went and compared the two series to the corresponding gridcell temp, and found the new Khadyta series showed modern divergence from 1970 on, while Yamal tracked quite well.

Read my summary above, or dive into the originals here:

http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yamal-emulation-i/
http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yamal-emulation-ii-di…

How ironic, mr irony, that you didn't represent the Nature data guidelines accurately.

Nature does allow for restrictions on access to data, but that these must be made clear in the orginal submission.

Oh, and just in case you're trying to imply something about the Briffa paper that McI has been waxing stupid about, Nature implemented this policy in 2007.

.... rather it shows that those trees aren't good proxies for temperature.

Like the Polar Urals aren't good proxies for temperature, right? Except they were (Briffa 1995), then they weren't (Briffa 2000). Hmmm....

nanny

What's so strange about a scientist, 5 years later, changing their mind? It would only be a problem if the scientist simultaneously held two opposing views.

Deep Climate

That's quite interesting. Have you linked DO's stuff at Climate Audit? I am sure they'd LOVE to hear about it. Is DO a dendro? I would post it there but for some reason when I post there it fails... And it's an awful place to hang out.

"Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or you demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit."

That is an interesting take. According to 'Nature' (who I know you respect a great deal):
Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions.

One could almost make the case that Nature thinks that data should be made available just because someone demands it.

They're not asking it being given for free. They're saying if you want to reap the value of being published in Nature (which is VERY HIGH) you have to agree to make data valuable.

Sort of like a restaurant saying if you want to eat, you have to pay money for your meal.

Which is not like a restaurant saying "your money is worthless".

What you've done is essentially proved the opposite of what you wanted to prove: data is very valuable. In science, it's a bit like currency in the real world.

So, I'm curious how dhogaza could come to a conclusion that is at such odds with the editors of Nature...

The editorial policy of Nature does not triumph law. In the case of Briffa, the data wasn't his, and he had no legal right to make it available.

Nature's recourse if presented with a paper where the author doesn't own the data, therefore can't archive it, is simple: they can refuse to publish it. If they do, anyway, it still doesn't triumph over law.

I happen to believe in the rule of law. McI, you, Watts, and others don't. Fuck you, I say.

(It just happens that I make my living on my intellectual property so perhaps I more fully understand my rights in that property than you do)

Like the Polar Urals aren't good proxies for temperature, right? Except they were (Briffa 1995), then they weren't (Briffa 2000). Hmmm....

Research moves on, therefore science is worthless, while Ayn Rand is the true child of God, infallible in her fiction which is much more worthwhile than truth.

Oh, and just in case you're trying to imply something about the Briffa paper that McI has been waxing stupid about, Nature implemented this policy in 2007.

Obviously, since Briffa didn't anticipate this in 2000, he's guilty of scientific fraud.

McI and friends have pulled this several times regarding published papers not meeting standards set down years after publication (Lonnie Thompson, for instance).

Despicable.

Nathan,dhogaza,

Funny that some tree ring chronologies are temperature proxies, some are not, and some apparently can switch. Perhaps this is less about scientists moving on and more about the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies.

Nanny

It isn't funny or strange or unusual. It's perfectly reasonable.
And in the example you gave it may be that Briff thought the tree rings formed a good temp proxy, but then discovered that they didn't.

"Perhaps this is less about scientists moving on and more about the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies."
Perhaps this is more about you not having any idea what you're talking about.

Well we already know why nanny wants AGW to be a conspiracy and false. They have the religious belief that any involvement of government is bad and cannot lead to anything good.

Maybe Grima's got his little brother involved.

> The MBH98 paper showed unprecedented 20th century warming, so McIntyre and Kitrick tried to discredit it. Nothing wrong with that, except that climate change has become a very big political issue.

Nope, the thing that was wrong with it was that the discredit was itself far more flawed than the paper it was discrediting.

Eff all about how it's become political.

And it's weird that an AGW denialist fluffer like you accuse the survival of the MBH98 paper and the dismissal of MM's discredit to politics when the entire reason for the MM paper was political: to delay political movement on an issue for the interests of monied powers.

Accuse others of what you're doing is a very boring and standard tactic.

Nanny, you ninny:

If a tree lives 10 years and you have to select 20 trees to cover 100 years, this means you have 20 opportunities for calibration error.

If a tree lives 100 years and you have to select 1 tree to cover 100 years, this means you have 1 opportunity for calibration error.

Ergo, you should pick long-lived trees.

McI picked short-lived trees.

Guess whether he gave any thought to calibration errors between trees.

Wiki graphic dumped.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/united-nations-pulls-hockey-stick…

Gordo, why waste yours and our time with this junk:

>"The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into âofficialâ publications"

Can't you piece together why this commentary is worthless bunk? (Go check the source of the "wiki' graphic, was it from wiki mystery data?)

It is so much worse than useless.

If a tree lives 100 years and you have to select 1 tree to cover 100 years, this means you have 1 opportunity for calibration error.

And if your tree is not a temperature proxy then your error is 100%

Here's a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

Until that question is answered all the tree ring proxies in the world won't mean squat.

Here's a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

Until that question is answered all the tree ring proxies in the world won't mean squat.

It's been answered, you silly little cut-and-paste WUWTdroid.

Wasn't that question answered on the same day that thermometers were invented?

You know what would be interesting, though? If there were trees that grew in places where the temperature was the limiting factor in their growth. Then those trees could, at least to a certain degree (no pun intended), be used to figure out what past temperatures were like. Of course, you'd have to take all factors into account and examine the data to make sure you're getting rid of as much noise as possible to pull out the actual signal. Too bad scientists never think to do things like that.

Here's a better question ninny: are scientists morons that just happened to breeze through undergraduate courses you couldn't pass at the point of a gun before earning PhDs and devoting their lives' work to highly specialized inquiry within broad fields of science you couldn't find with two hands if they were your arse. Until that question is answered all the inane second-rate second guessing in the world won't mean squat.

"They're not asking it being given for free. They're saying if you want to reap the value of being published in Nature (which is VERY HIGH) you have to agree to make data valuable."

(I assume you meant 'available')

I didn't even get that Nature doesn't think that the author could charge for the data. I just interpret that that Nature is saying that authors should provide the data without preconditions to readers (again, not editors or reviewers, just readers). Given that, it hardly seems like bullshit that a reader of a paper might ask for the data. If they get a reply that it will cost $XXX, that wouldn't seem unreasonable, as long as everyone knew the cost ahead of time and everyone had to pay the same price.

"Nature's recourse if presented with a paper where the author doesn't own the data, therefore can't archive it, is simple: they can refuse to publish it. If they do, anyway, it still doesn't triumph over law.

I happen to believe in the rule of law. McI, you, Watts, and others don't. Fuck you, I say.

(It just happens that I make my living on my intellectual property so perhaps I more fully understand my rights in that property than you do)"

I missed the part where I was advocating overturning the rule of law. Perhaps you could clarify that for me? I just think that it is reasonable for people to want to see the data that went into a published scientific paper. You think it is bullshit. I think that is an odd point of view (but given you just saying F*** you and I expect a F*** yourself is probably coming my way again, so maybe it isn't so odd that you think so). You know, Nature isn't the only publication that requires that data be made available. Not all do, but there are several. The US governments policies on availability of data from federally funded studies is also pretty clear. If I thought it would make you happy I would do some research on this for you (but, to be honest, I really don't think it would make you happy. You might tell me to go f*** myself if I did that).

For some reason, I get the impression that some people want to discuss this and you just want to kick anyone who disagrees with you.

I missed the part where I was advocating overturning the rule of law. Perhaps you could clarify that for me? I just think that it is reasonable for people to want to see the data that went into a published scientific paper. You think it is bullshit.

I don't think it's bullshit, simply that authors don't always have control over the datasets they are using.

When they don't, they do not have the legal right to make that data available.

Science rejected McI's requests because Briffa had already released every bit of work that was *his*. McI wasn't bright enough, apparently, to go ask the Russians for the underlying tree core data.

That's not Briffa's problem.

You know, Nature isn't the only publication that requires that data be made available. Not all do, but there are several.

Actually, your understanding of what's required isn't entirely accurate, not surprising since you've lifted it from McI, who himself clearly doesn't understand.

Here's the actual requirement for Science (thanks to Eli Rabett):

Data availability After publication, all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. We recognize that discipline-specific conventions or special circumstances may occasionally apply, and we will consider these in negotiating compliance with requests. Any concerns about your ability to meet Science's requirements must be disclosed and discussed with an editor.

Obviously, the "special circumstance" in this case is that Briffa didn't have the right to distribute the data, and all this was negotiated to Science's satisfaction.

Indeed, Science's response to McI makes it clear:

They argued that Osborn and Briffa 2006 did not use the Yamal measurement data, but only the chronology and I should contact the "original authors" for the measurement data. The source of the chronology was, of course, Briffa 2000. I wrote Tim Osborn and asked him for the data and he said that he didn't have it. So I wrote Keith Briffa and he stonewalled me. I wrote back to Science rather crossly about the nonsense.

The "original authors" referred to in Science's response are the *russians* who own and control the data. McI wasn't smart enough to figure that out, and y'all are crying a river over it.

The US governments policies on availability of data from federally funded studies is also pretty clear.

What's clear is US policy for federally-funded studies varies. You can't get the original data on the Mike shot, much less modern fusion warheads.

Oh, gosh, Mr Irony, look at this caveat in the Nature requirement:

Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission.

The irony of it all ...

Oh, gosh, Mr Irony, look at this respose Briffa sent to McI when McI asked for the data in 2006 (McI's claim that he's been asking for it for TEN YEARS is a little white lie):

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them.

cheers, Keith

Oh, gosh, looky, looky, Briffa passed on Steve's request to his Russian colleagues and TOLD STEVE he would do so. And if he didn't? McI knew who to ask at this point ...

McI is spewing shit.

Here's McI's note that Briffa responded to (more thanks to Rabett Run):

Dear Dr Briffa,
On April 28, 2006, I asked Tim Osborn for the measurement data for Polar Urals, Tornetrask, Yamal and Taimyr sites, supporting the chronologies used in Osborn and Briffa [2006]. Osborn says that he does not have the data, but did not say that you didn't have the data. Do you have the data? If so would you please comply with the request below and voluntarily provide the measurement data used in Briffa 2000, and relied upon in Osborn and Briffa 2006, for these sites.
Thank you for your attention. Steve McIntyre

So, the chronology is clear:

1. McI asks Briffa
2. Briffa says, it's not mine, I'll pass along the requests to my Russian colleagues
3. Apparently nothing happens (maybe the Russians, after reading CA, decided "nyet!")
4. McI publicly accuses Briffa of stonewalling, withholding data, not being in compliance of publication policy, blah blah blah.

And people wonder why right-minded folk think McI is despicable.

Further on how McIntyre is often misunderstood, I assembled some quotes of his, which seem to vary between thinly veiled insinuations of fraud, and retractions of those statements after the damage is done: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/mcintyres-role-in-th…

are scientists morons that just happened to breeze through undergraduate courses

... like statistics?

"I am not a statistician" - Michael Mann

mr irony wrote:

For some reason, I get the impression that some people want to discuss this and you just want to kick anyone who disagrees with you.

How ironic. I get the impression that the relevant scientists have spent decades "discussing" this just fine, but when their results pointed towards a change in climate that necessitates action, entire websites popped up for the express purpose of kicking anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what.

Ninny, everyone who gets a PhD in the physical scientists gets a healthy dose of statistics as part of their education. This does not make them a professional statistician (what Mann says) but does not mean they're ignorant of statistics, either.

RPJr is a prick.

But then, everyone here with triple-digit IQ already knew that ...

"I don't think it's bullshit, simply that authors don't always have control over the datasets they are using."

I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood. The way you presented yourself, it certainly seemed like you thought that asking authors for their data was an outlandish request. Now I get you... You think that it is perfectly reasonable. I'm glad we agree. When you referred to me trying to overthrow the rule of law, I had the impression that you were having a different conversation, perhaps with someone else. You mentioned my understanding wasn't complete:

"Actually, your understanding of what's required isn't entirely accurate, not surprising since you've lifted it from McI, who himself clearly doesn't understand. Here's the actual requirement for Science (thanks to Eli Rabett)"

I have to confess, that confused me. I actually haven't read anything that McI has written on the current subject. I also didn't mention anything about Science. But, thanks for quoting Eli Rabett anyway. Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can't share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well? Certainly there are some funding bodies who require it, but it seems like two of the most prestigious publications seem to think that sharing data, if at all possible, is a requirement for publication. That certainly would lead one to believe that sharing data is important, wouldn't it?

"How ironic. I get the impression that the relevant scientists have spent decades "discussing" this just fine, but when their results pointed towards a change in climate that necessitates action, entire websites popped up for the express purpose of kicking anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what."

What part did you think was ironic? That a guy who said "bullshit" and then said "F*@$ you" to me because it seemed like I disagreed with him seemed like he really just wanted to fight and not talk like someone who wasn't slavering on themselves?

> Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can't share data, the data should be shared.

What version of "should" are you using, mr.

Is it "you should do it, even though you don't have to" or "you should do it because we tell you to"?

Also note it isn't Briffa's data to give.

Also note that copyright says you get your right to protect your work in the public eye, but though that means you should release your source code, Microsoft and many other companies think that is a *terrible* idea and refuse.

> McI publicly accuses Briffa of stonewalling, withholding data, not being in compliance of publication policy, blah blah blah.

A publication policy, please note, that didn't come into effect until _*five years*_ after the publication.

No ex posto facto laws is generally the case, isn't it..?

> And if your tree is not a temperature proxy then your error is 100%

a) if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

So WHAT THE FICK does that "if" mean.

If you want to use that, show that the trees are not proxies for temperature.

Go ahead.

We'll wait.

Now, IF the trees are proxies for temperature, you can find that out by analysis. Do you think that *maybe* the people who are making scientific papers for peer review in august publications like "Science" and "Nature" have already done this?

Have YOU?

> Here's a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

Here's one for the fkwit in the back:

Are the only temperature proxies thermometers?

Jeff Harvey,

First I have never seen FOX news and deplore Murdoch's approach to the media. FYI, as an example only, I have been a reader of the Guardian for over 40 years. (Though I have to add that it is not the paper it once was :-) )

Second, your appeal to 'authority' in relation to your academic work cuts no ice. Plenty of professors have been shown to repeatedly get things wrong, just like other folk.

Mark & dhogaza,

Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

Duck's Arse, all your responses are slathered deep in hysterical blathering.

All just innuendo and fact-less gossip, because you have no facts on your side, so you must pound on the table.

> Plenty of professors have been shown to repeatedly get things wrong, just like other folk.

> Posted by: Dave Andrews

Next time Ducky posits AGW is wrong because of what one professor of geology says, shall we remind him of this?

Shorter Duck:

That you have made many rebuttals to arguments here shows that you must be desperate.

Yeah, right.

Based on that, you must agree that your AGW denial is well stuffed, since your people still yibber on about how it's the sun wot does it.

Desperate or what?

Dave Andrews"

Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation

Correct.

They are becomoing desperately annoyed with the morons, such as yourself, who are aghast at the 'tone' etc, of the people who are reposnding to the dissembling of McIntyre, while having nothing much to say on the said dissembling and associated screeching of 'fraud' throughout the sheep-like denial-o-sphere.

And just how many times in comments will Dave 'ducky' Andrews tell us he reads The Guardian?? And what the hell is this meant to signify???

Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can't share data, the data should be shared.

Most scientists will share data with other scientists as a professional courtesy, although they are not obliged to do so unless it is required by contractual obligations related to funding or publication. One obvious exception is if it isn't your data. If somebody else collected the data and gave you access to analyze it, you wouldn't be able to redistribute it, any more than you are allowed to make copies for all your friends of that movie you rented from Blockbuster.

What part did you think was ironic?

The part where the discussion you want to focus on only exists because of people who are willing to make things up, exaggerate trivialities or (McIntyre's specialty) string together non-related truths in a misleading way to imply fraud - all because they want to "(kick) anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what".

So in essence, you want to discuss FUD initiated by - um - kickers, and you are being "kicked". In my opinion, the scientists do not deserve what they get from McIntyre and you do deserve what you are getting from dhogaza. Isn't it ironic? Just a bit?

Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

Might I suggest that you switch to saying stupid, wrong things over and over and over again? That way, you can be sure you'll never get intemperate responses. No, sir. None. Never an intemperate response to repeated inanity. That's not the way things work anywhere on planet Earth.

Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

May I suggest that I don't give a rat's ass what you think?

Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can't share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well?

Yes or no, it's good to see you acknowledge the fact that Briffa could not do what McI insists he should've done, because yes indeed, there are strict legal reasons why you can't give away OTHER PEOPLE's data.

That should not be hard to understand.

As far as the general principle goes, many things in science and other professions are changing along with technology. 20 years ago asking that all data used in the creation of a scientific paper be put up in a public database or site on the internet would've been and impossible requirement. The standard seems to have moved to journals often requiring it, with caveats regarding special cases where for some reason it's not practical or doable. Judging Briffa 2000's not abiding by today's standards is unfair. No, dishonest. Briffa 2006 apparently met Science's requirements. It's their call (Science) not McI's as to whether or not he did.

Ha! Ninny thinks undergraduate statistics courses qualify one as a statistician.

Is that the source of your novel ideas about paleoclimatology, ninny? Some buddy of yours drew you a Venn diagram and went on to divulge that bone headed climatologists think trees are thermometers? Silly scientists! What a bunch of thickos!

There are too few of you on the right side of what's right ninny. Keep up the good work bringing light to the masses.

>>Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can't share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well?

>Yes or no, it's good to see you acknowledge the fact that Briffa could not do what McI insists he should've done, because yes indeed, there are strict legal reasons why you can't give away OTHER PEOPLE's data.

So, now that its clear I'm not talking about Briffa or McI, but about sharing data... Is it important? Why? Nature and Science think so. At least, they think its important until they think it isn't important. What changes? What is it about the reason for why you can't share that makes it unimportant? Does the fact that some scientist in bureaucracy in Eastern Europe or university in England wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of a data set mean that sharing data isn't important anymore?

133 Majorajam,

You set the bar too high. Most Denydiots appear to lack the basics required for GCSE (UK high school) maths and physics. I don't know if formal logic is a GCSE subject now but if so, they'd fail that too.

>What version of "should" are you using, mr.

>Is it "you should do it, even though you don't have to" or "you should do it because we tell you to"?

>Also note it isn't Briffa's data to give.

>Also note that copyright says you get your right to protect your work in the public eye, but though that means you should release your source code, Microsoft and many other companies think that is a terrible idea and refuse.

That is inane. Microsoft isn't producing Windows in an attempt to prove that they have made a significant discovery about Computer Science. When Microsoft makes a claim that SQL Server is 30% faster than Oracle in their tests, you bet that everyone demands to know every detail of how that test was run. And if Microsoft doesn't provide the details of that test, how much attention do you suppose their results should be given? Is Microsoft and copyright really the parallel you want to draw?

Second, I'm saying it is the "you should do it, even though you don't have to". Because really, you should have to, or expect no one to pay any attention.

134 mr irony,

Have you learnt nothing from the replies to your posts? It appears so. Go back, reread, and come back to us.

Dave Andrews (#123)

If tone is indicative of desperation, McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, etc. must be some of the most desperate individuals on the planet. Some of the general irritation is in response not only to the baseless assertions and insinuations from these individuals of "selection", fraud, "hiding" data, and general misconduct, but to how so many individuals uncritically parrot these assertions, without the slightest indication of critical thought. You ask someone to provide evidence supporting McIntyre's assertions and you get a link to one of McIntyre's posts. Such zealotry is a bit scary.

[Poe's Law alert]

You make an excellent point, Mark, about whether we can really trust thermometers as temperature proxies. It's ver troubling.

If only we had better proxies than thermometers to test temperature we could have confidence that thermometers really were all they were cracked up to be ...

Maybe if we got some really long lived trees ... and then tested the thermometers against them ...

[/Poe's Law alert]

137 skeptic

Actually, I have learned a lot. Not many people here are really interested in talking about, well, anything. There is a pretty fair number of people that like to argue. Although posters on a blog seems like self selecting sample, so no real surprise, right? Do claims of 'copyright' seem like intelligent reactions to you? Or perhaps you just want me to reread the posts that tell me to f*@# myself? As I appear to not be cheering along with the rest of the crowd here, it now seems like a good time to start blaming me for all the evils executed by all those you disagree with. Grab your effigy of choice.

Mr Irony,

I would like exactly to know what your point is? If you are saying that science should be more transparent, then I agree with you.

But what annoys scientists (myself included) and others here is that you are trying to corner them on a point which is not as straightforward as you make it appear to be. My belief - and I think there is a lot of evidence for this - is that a large number of the sceptics are not interested in science but in promoting a political agenda, using science as a tool to do so. Whereas I think that most data should be available from the journal in which it is published, the issue here is that, in promoting a political, anti-regulatory agenda, many of the sceptics are desperate to find flaws in research showing evidence for the human fingerprint on the current warming (bearing in mind that a large number of studies have shown this to be the case). Like creationists, they will pour over the data until they find some flaws based on there own analyses and voila!.. they run screaming to the corporate media screaming victory, that they have slain the AGW beast!

I also wonder why so many of the sceptics have such shoddy publication records in their own right. Why aren`t these people doing their own research and publishing it in respectable jounrals, instead of baying like hounds for the rest of the scientific community to cough up their results, then going over these with a fine toothed comb? And don`t give me that nonsense that it won`t be published because of bias amongst the peer-reviewers; if the science is rigid it will get through, I can assure you.

Again, I am all for transparency but, given the association of many sceptics with right wing think tanks and web sites openly arguing against regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions, then it should be obvious that there is an different motive at play.

Jeff, I guess I would ask you the same question. What is your point? Is it that science should be more open, but the danger is that the wrong people will be able to get their hands on the data and pour over it? So, given that there are people who will want to do things with the data that you don't like, we shouldn't be transparent?

You make what seems like a very innocent point, but I don't see your point as being very innocent. Nature seems to think that data should be available without preconditions. Do you agree? Or do you think that preconditions are necessary to keep the wrong people from getting their hands on the data? Your last sentence seems pretty clear that the data should only be shared with people who have the correct motives.

Steve McIntyre has every opportunity to go and chop down some trees himself if he wants tree rings.

But no - he's not interested in original research to test his theories (whatever they are). All he wants is to be given other people's work so he can do funny stuff with it and try to then show...something-or-other...

McIntyre's latest effort is mind-boggling - he chooses a special selection of tree rings to prove that the tree rings he has chosen are not a good proxy for known recent temperature variations. WTF?

Mr Irony,

You are one strange guy. It appears that the only reason you ventured into this thread was to get people to say exactly what you want them to say. When they don`t, you get all huffy and puffy. Let us say that everyone here agrees with every word you say and every breath you take, will that make you sleep any better?

I said that I think that research data should be transparent. However, this in no way says that it will be used honestly. Of course, this is a price that comes with doing open science. But, as Vince Whirlwind said after your post, many of the so-called scientists in the denial camp strangely do not appear to do primary research. Instead they snipe away at the sidelines and forever criticize the work of others.

Now let me ask you this: why do you think they do not do their own research and feel contented want to re-analyze research done by other scientists? At the same time, do you think they are thoroughly editing the work of researchers (even the few that do) who produce results that are in agreement with their own conclusions about the current warming?

Again, science should be transparent. But you can see what happens if one negligible error is found in the work of a climate researcher - every right wing rag, blog site and pundit screams from the hilltops. What do you think of this behavior? A bit ironic, don`t you think Mr Irony?

Hmmm... I guess I don't see what I said was strange or huffy or puffy. I did resent being told to f*&@ off because I was trying to overturn the rule of law (not all huffiness is created equal it seems. I'm curious what choice of words it is that I used that prompted you). Am I any different than yourself or anyone else who wants to hear people agree with them? I think that we shouldn't trust anyone. I think data should be freely available. I think the reality is that very few people can be trusted. I don't think you can be trusted. I think you would prefer to set yourself up in judgment of the motives of others and be the arbiter of their access to the data. If not yourself, at least, then your proxy. I distrust that most of all.

I think this is actually pretty straightforward. You just don't like the result. Well, too bad. You say you are a scientist, well then, figure out a way to deal with people whose motives you don't trust that doesn't set you up as their censor. You are pretty clever in that you keep saying that you think science should be more transparent, BUT... Well, do you think it should be more transparent or not? Do you think people should have to pass your "motives test" before they get access to the data? Ever worked as a lawyer?

Yes, I think it is bad when the blogosphere latches on to some unproven point and assumes that years of work is overturned. I think that is ironic, actually. It is interesting when things actually do turn out to be ironic. Despite what you say to make yourself feel good, I don't think that there is a monopoly on it...

Do claims of 'copyright' seem like intelligent reactions to you?

Does persistently ignoring and/or deliberately misconstruing the legitimate explanation of why Briffa is legally (and ethically) prevented from releasing the raw data seem like intelligent and honest reactions to you?

Not. Even. Close.

Are you seriously suggesting that Briffa break the law (and permanently destroy the trust his colleagues have in him) by releasing the data without the copyright holder's permission? Because that is the only logical outcome of your 'reasoning' about this situation.

And you wonder why you are copping a bit of flack here? Totally justified, IMHO.

> Do claims of 'copyright' seem like intelligent reactions to you?

IF you don't like copyright, get in touch with your senator to have their accord with the Berne Convention on Copyright repealed.

This requires that

a) everything is copyrighted that is written
b) that your country accept the copyright rights of other countries' authors

PS how much can you learn about how Microsoft writes an "Enterprise level" database when their source code is closed?

Claims of copyright do not seem to bother you there, though.

> That is inane. Microsoft isn't producing Windows in an attempt to prove that they have made a significant discovery about Computer Science.

No, irony, THAT is insane.

From the US constitution discussion on Wikipedia:

_Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"._

So if Microsoft aren't purporting to show a significant increase in the knowledge of computer science, why are they asking for copyright? Copyright is for the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.

You've just said there is no advancement of useful knowledge there.

Either

a) you're wrong

b) microsoft is wrong

1) What data was required of Briffa when he pubished? Did he provide it?

2) What extra data are now required?

3) Did Briffa provide the required extra data?

3) Is there more extra data requested?

4) What processes to do critics want changed?

5) Are critics prepared to pay more taxes to instigate changes across the board (not just for temperature reconstructions)?

6) Has the extra "auditing" of data overturned any broad conclusions relating to climate reconstructions?

1) is actually 2 questions

1b) Yes

2) None. Ex posto facto. (or "Grandfather" clause")

3) Some.

3) From Science? No.

4) They want AGW to be wrong. That's all the change they want.

5) Course not

6) No. Lots of blog comments, though

Appreciated, thanks.

the bits I didn't answer, I don't know, but the rest are from

a) actual law

b) Science's new (2006) requests for full submission acceptance

But the entire denialist wank-fest over this is rather like their circle-fluffing over the data that was delayed getting in to Nature by MBH's 98 paper. The data was put in as an addendum but McI didn't bother looking and just proclaimed that MBH were hiding the truth that there was no hockey stick because they hid the data.

They didn't.

Same deal here.

Depressingly the same.

It's a standard ploy for those wishing to sh*tcan a thesis they don't like to focus on some detail, inviting others to assume the whole edifice is flawed. I'm sure it would be possible to find some flaw with the construction of the Great Pyramid, and then, eyebrows raised, ask whether the edifice would stand for even six months.

The issue here is not the science, it's the politics. Deniers want to delay action as long as possible. Their true confreres are those in apartheid South Africa whose slogan was 'not in my lifetime'. Apres moi, le deluge. Who cares about the future?

> Are you seriously suggesting that Briffa break the law (and permanently destroy the trust his colleagues have in him) by releasing the data without the copyright holder's permission? Because that is the only logical outcome of your 'reasoning' about this situation.

No. I actually think I went out of my way once to say I wasn't saying that.

>IF you don't like copyright, get in touch with your senator to have their accord with the Berne Convention on Copyright repealed.
>This requires that
>a) everything is copyrighted that is written b) that your country accept the copyright rights of other countries' authors
>PS how much can you learn about how Microsoft writes an "Enterprise level" database when their source code is closed? Claims of copyright do not seem to bother you there, though.

Right. I am honestly amazed that you think there is a parallel between Microsoft saying "I invented this to make a profit. I don't want anyone to steal my invention so I get a copyright" and a scientific author saying "I think I have a theory for how stuff works. Please believe me. I have a method and data that show I am correct. But, I have that method and data copyrighted, so you are just going to have to take my word for the fact that I am correct".

Seriously? That is the point you are trying to make? I am amazed. If Microsoft gets a copyright on SQLServer so that I can't examine the underpinnings of how it works, I don't care. I pay for the license and use it. Or I don't. The documentation is either accurate or it isn't. The point is not whether or not copyright should exist. The point is whether or not someone who hides their intellectual property behind copyright should then be able to publish a scientific paper and skirt what seems to be a reasonable expectation of sharing data and methods. They have every legal and ethical right to do so. My point is that the expected response to that should be that we aren't interested in your results unless you share the data and methods. If you want to take that to go make a profit, good luck. If you want to convince us that have discovered something, then share the data and methods.

Honestly, I really don't understand comparing the use of copyright by a company trying to make money and someone trying to show that they have figured something out.

> Right. I am honestly amazed that you think there is a parallel between Microsoft saying "I invented this to make a profit....

And scientists want to get paid.

So why is it that copyright, which is to advance the useful arts, shouldn't be applied when it comes to science that you admit is advancing the art of science, but must be allowed to be applied to something you say DOESN'T advance the useful art of computer science?

Remember: just because your code is out there to be read doesn't mean you can't make a profit: you can read books, can't you? Therefore you can copy books or learn from books. Yet publishers and authors STILL make a profit.

So MS's closed source IS just as much a "should be released" as scientific data. But why do you fight that idea?

> No. I actually think I went out of my way once to say I wasn't saying that.

> Posted by: mr irony

then what WERE you saying? Or is your name ironically ironic?

The data isn't Briffa's to give. So Briffa can't give it. So why your DEMAND that he do so?

If he gives the data away he breaks copyright: IT ISN'T HIS DATA.

So are you saying he shouldn't have given away the data? Because that's the only "not breaking the law" he can do. But if you do, then what are you complaining about?

>No, irony, THAT is insane.
>From the US constitution discussion on Wikipedia:
>Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".
>So if Microsoft aren't purporting to show a significant increase in the knowledge of computer science, why are they asking for copyright? Copyright is for the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.
>You've just said there is no advancement of useful knowledge there.
>Either
>a) you're wrong
>b) microsoft is wrong

Wow, I would have guessed ahead of time that it would be impossible for someone to mis-characterize what I am saying so completely.

I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability. Do you really think they have another motive? Seriously? Are you really going to compare someone writing a paper for publication with what MS is doing? Despite the fact that I have said that I am not interested in overturning the rule of law, people seem to ignore that and want to argue that I am saying that. Does that just make it more fun to fight with me?

I'll repeat and everyone can save the indignant outcries about rule of law. Copyright is a good thing. There. Happy?

Now, if MS made a claim that they have discovered something new about the way a DBMS works and that SQL Server proves it, we could either believe them or not believe them or we could ask for proof. I would do the third. If they said, well, we have a copyright on SQLServer that prevents us from giving you the proof, I would say that is fine. I just don't believe you. But I would still support MS right to sell SQLServer and have their IP protected from someone else trying to make a living from it. If MS profit base depended on us believing their claims, they might be in trouble. But, since MS profit really depends on SQLServer saving my data, regardless of how groudbreaking the mechanism behind it is, they are probably still going to have more money than god.

Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad. If you want to continue to attribute all the evils of modern society to me and then argue with me that I am the cause of them, save yourself the effort. I won't bother responding to another post that claims that I am trying to get rid of copyright.

Only because there's no way to read your ramblings without coming to a conclusion you do not wish to be concluded.

> I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability.

You are wrong.

Books are under copyright and the source code is completely open to anyone who reads the language.

Book publishers have profits.

Ergo, closed source is not required to preserve profit making abilities.

Therefore you're wrong.

> I'll repeat and everyone can save the indignant outcries about rule of law. Copyright is a good thing. There. Happy?

So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

> Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad.

Yes you did.

You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

I.e. for science (where progress would be in a useful art) copyright us a bad idea.

Or have you changed your mind?

Have you changed your mind? Or are you going to keep ignoring the question?

> Now, if MS made a claim that they have discovered something new about the way a DBMS works and that SQL Server proves it, we could either believe them or not believe them or we could ask for proof.

MS say that their SQL server is faster than their competitors.

I.e. they've discovered how to solve a computer problem in a faster, more efficient way.

So can we demand proof of this and say that the only way to prove it is to show us the source code?

OR will MS have to stop saying that their product is faster than someone else's?

Nature seems to think that data should be available without preconditions. Do you agree?

No, I don't, because it's a false statement. The policy has a process for not requiring it, i.e. disclosure at submission and also in the paper itself. You can look this shit up, you know. Google and all that.

I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability

You don't "ask for a copyright". Until you understand copyright law, would you please STFU? You're just embarrassing yourself by making a string of false statements.

Do you really think they have another motive? Seriously?

Now if you want to discuss that LICENSE AGREEMENT you must agree to before using MS software, then, yes, you get to say that the motive behind the wording of the MS license agreement is to preserve their right to make money licensing (they don't actually sell it) their software.

The GNU license agreement does the opposite, but is equally based on copyright.

And you don't "ask for a copyright".

> Copyright doesn't enter into it - all open source software is also under copyright.

> Copyright merely establishes who owns the rights, not what they choose to do with them.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Which one person breeching a mere 24 items under copyright has been charged with a bill for over $2M.

And many people consider each and every fact potentially a single copyrighted element.

Now, what is the readership of Science? What is the *potential* readership?

> So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

Wow. Can you please quote where I said that? "All scientists to breech copyright?". Didn't you feel a little silly writing that? Take a deep breath before you reply again.

> You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

I think that is the first, possibly the only thing you got right.

Let me explain again... Copyright is just fine. Use it to your hearts content. But, don't expect me to trust you when you use copyright to protect your proof of something.

MS does nothing that is not related to maintaining their markets. If you think they are getting a copyright for some reason other than that, you are wrong. Non-profits have things copyrighted. That doesn't mean that copyrights are not used to protect markets and profits. MS is getting a copyright so that they can sue anyone, or threaten to sue anyone for any reason at any time. They have lots of money and lots of lawyers. If they have a copyright, they potentially claim that a competitor is breaching that and threaten to sue. They don't have to have a valid claim, they just have to threaten to sue. They don't have to win, they just have to be able to use it as an intimidation tool. Once again, I have no problem with that. They can go nuts. But if MS were to claim that they made an advancement in computer science, and the proof were buried inside the source code for SQLServer, I would want to see the proof. And they would say 'sorry'. And that would be fine. I just wouldn't believe them. My purchasing a SQLServer license may or may not be based on believing their claim, it may be based on the fact that no one ever got fired for buying MS.

Once again, I just don't understand trying to make a comparison between a company getting a copyright to protect their profit making ability and a scientist using copyright to refuse to share data or methods. I never said the scientist should be flogged (holy crap, how many times do I have to repeat that?). I just said we shouldn't believe the scientist until he shares that data or methods.

>>Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad.

>Yes you did.
>You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

I think this might be the problem. Those two things are not the same. Copyright can be good, yet at the same time, you can use copyright protections in a way that is bad. Those are not mutually exclusive. I think for us to discuss this any further, you will first have to agree that those are not mutually exclusive. Copyright is good. Using copyright to hide your proof on a scientific paper is bad. You should either be prepared to show your data/results/etc. when you submit a scientific paper, or you should be prepared to be met with incredulity. Despite how you are trying to twist my argument, that is what it boils down to and that is pretty simple.

And, I'm not alone. Some very reputable publications believe that sharing data and methods is important as well. What I don't have any sympathy for is when those publications decide that it is only important until it isn't important.

> Wow. Can you please quote where I said that?

In comment 140:

> Do claims of 'copyright' seem like intelligent reactions to you?

and in 163 itself:

> > You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

> I think that is the first, possibly the only thing you got right.

Both saying that copyright here should be invalid.

> But, don't expect me to trust you when you use copyright to protect your proof of something.

Why? GSK doesn't post the raw data to their medical procedures in trialing a drug.

Yet you don't care.

And you can do your own research, requiring no copyright breech.

> Once again, I just don't understand trying to make a comparison between a company getting a copyright to protect their profit making ability and a scientist using copyright to refuse to share data or methods

Once again you make the statement as if to pass it off as real with is absolutely known to be incorrect:

Closing the source of a copyrighted work isn't necessary to make a profit.

Therefore MS isn't using copyright to maintain a profit by keeping their source code closed. This source code is ABSOLUTELY analogous to raw data in a scientific paper.

You say MS should be allowed to keep their source code (raw data) secret.

You say science doesn't.

Why?

> Copyright can be good, yet at the same time, you can use copyright protections in a way that is bad. Those are not mutually exclusive.

> Posted by: mr irony

And microsoft keeping the source code closed, relying on copyright of that source code and claiming copyright on the non-expressive binary is an abuse of copyright.

And one that you deem right.

If you deem this use of copyright as a reason to keep the raw data (source code) secret, then claims of "copyright" are indeed intelligent responses to the demand "give me your raw data".

We need to define a couple things... When I say use of copyright is bad, I don't mean it is illegal or shouldn't be allowed. I thought I had said this so many times it would be difficult to miss. The reason I say this is that I mean that if an author claims copyright for not sharing data or methods, the rest of us have no legal claims to sue or anything like that. In that sense, the use of a copyright claim is perfectly valid and legal.

Now, the reason I am saying it is bad is that the author of a paper is trying to convince me that he did something that no one else did before or discovered something no one else has discovered or found a way to verify something. Typically though, a paper doesn't get published unless there is something groundbreaking in it. It seems reasonable to ask for proof when someone makes a claim like that. To me, any refusals to supply the proof make the claim invalid. If you don't want to supply the proof, why should I believe you? Now, please don't get crazy. I'm assuming that there are standard ways to provide the data and methods and those could be well known ahead of time. I'm not saying that an author needs to respond personally to every request for every bit or byte. But it needs to be out there and available to all.

> And microsoft keeping the source code closed, relying on copyright of that source code and claiming copyright on the non-expressive binary is an abuse of copyright.

> And one that you deem right.

Correct, that is how one one maintains a business. What I would have thought was painfully and blindingly obvious is that I think it is just fine if Briffa and the Russians want to stay home and generate temperature reconstructions from their data and keep someone else from generating temperature reconstructions, that is just fine. They have the same right to use that copyright protection to keep someone from using their data that MS has to keep someone from using their source code. If Briffa wants to license his reconstructions and sell them, the copyright should give him the same protection it gives MS. Please tell me that I won't have to repeat that again...

However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data. I don't believe that he would HAVE to (i.e. he can't be sued or sent to prison), but I believe that if he wants us to believe him, he should share the data and methods. And if he claims copyright for why he can't share, we should express sympathy and say that if he wants to convince us of something he should find some not-copyrighted data that he can share with us that shows what he is trying to prove.

> Closing the source of a copyrighted work isn't necessary to make a profit.

I never said it was. You seem to be making the leap that since it isn't necessary to make a profit, it is completely unrelated in all cases to making a profit. I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow.

So you think copyright should be ignored if you don't like the restrictions it places on you?

Is that it?

> GSK doesn't post the raw data to their medical procedures in trialing a drug.

I have friends who work in QA and stats at a large pharmaceutical firm. I sent your quote to them. They had a pretty good laugh at that. If you think there isn't a form or chart or temperature reading or note that isn't organized and sent to the FDA for review (in well known, standard formats), you really don't know anything about how pharmaceutical studies work. Drug/medical companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on that aspect of studies alone (I know, they have lots of money). The point is that if a drug company claimed access restrictions on their data, in the way you are saying, that drug would never see the light of day. It would probably never make it past laboratory trials to even be tested on people.

> So you think copyright should be ignored if you don't like the restrictions it places on you?

> Is that it?

I have to say that conversing with you has been less interesting than watching paint dry. You seem uninterested in anything I say, only in how obtusely you can spin it back to me. Is that really what you got from what I said? Really? That copyright should be ignored if you find it inconvenient... Really? Everything I said and that was what you took away from it? I'm staggered. Enjoy your day.

Mr irony, can you perhaps point me to the PUBLIC access raw data of a drug trial? ANY drug trial will do.

If not, I have a challenge for you. Call the authors of the linked paper (below), and ask them for the raw data:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/98516958/PDFSTART

Expect a loud laugh, or an incredulous silence. Public access is not the same as access by the FDA. And you won't see the FDA publish its own analysis with that data.

So you don't want to answer it?

Is that because, basically, that's what you want?

You want Briffa to ignore copyright because you want the data?

> I have friends who work in QA and stats at a large pharmaceutical firm. I sent your quote to them. They had a pretty good laugh at that. If you think there isn't a form or chart or temperature reading or note that isn't organized and sent to the FDA for review (in well known, standard formats)

And the data is reviewed by the reviewers of a paper (or can you tell us all where to get the raw data for all medical trials?).

Yet you DEMAND that this isn't good enough.

So why is it good enough for GSK?

Interesting that mr irony introduces drug companies to this issue of data access (i presume he is as combative and insistent on open access to their trial data given the stakes involved):

http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/and-now-nerd-news/

We have known for decades that academic publishing faces two serious problems. One is that trials often go missing in action: a drug company might do eight trials of a drug, say, but only two have a positive result. So those two positive trials will appear in an academic journal, while the six remaining with negative results quietly disappear. Bizarrely, regulatory bodies like the FDA get to see this negative data, but often enough doctors do not.

This is a familiar problem, and a murderous one, because overall the results of all 8 trials combined might show that the treatment is ineffective: in the absence of this full information, people are subjected unnecessarily to side effects, and deprived of other more effective treatments.

However, there aren't any patents needed in making a new discovery in science, whereas secrecy and patent protection exists in medicine that makes repeating the medical trial impossible, whereas repeating a science trial can be done without hindrance.

In fact, since getting your own data should show up if there's a bias in the data sample or a chance happenstance rather than a real effect, whereas these will remain hidden if all you do is the exact same calculation with the same data as the original study, this makes "do it yourself" a FAR better method of testing the validity of a science discovery.

After all, the debunking of cold fusion was done by other people doing the procedure detailed in the paper again, not by taking the numbers the original authors used to see the effect.

I don't know if any of you will believe this, but I didn't set up the rules for how the FDA operates. I posted your questions about missing trials to my buddies. They say that happens when people are committing fraud. I'm not sure if you hold me directly responsible for that fraud or not, but I can only say I'm innocent. I think the FDA should make that data available. Do you think they should or they shouldn't? Are you jealous of how the FDA operates and so you think all science should get to operate that way until the FDA cleans up its act? This repeatedly accusing me of saying things I obviously don't mean is just getting old and stupid. Yes I think that people should do their own studies. Yes I think there should be multiple copies of data gathered. Yes I think that people who use data in a published paper should have a responsibility to share that data? Yes I think the FDA should make fully public the results of drug studies?

Are you still slavering? What other examples of injustice in the world will you use as an excuse for why a published scientific paper shouldn't share its data? People are starving in Rwanda? Well, my data is copyrighted.

> You want Briffa to ignore copyright because you want the data?

No, you fool, I will say it again. I don't want him to ignore it. I want him to use non-copyrighted data in his study in the first place. You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn't Briffa go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it? Next you will ask why doesn't McI or RPJ or someone else do that? I don't know. Ask them. I've sent an email to Briffa asking him how he feels about trying to avoid issues like this by only using data that isn't copyrighted. If he bothers to reply, I'll let you know what he says. This slobbering that because someone else doesn't do something the way we would like, no one should do it the way we like is childish at best. I really am done. You aren't interested in a discussion, you want a shouting match. Tim once debunked a paper written by Ross McK by looking at the spreadsheet used to do the calculations and noticing that an empty cell had the net effect of a zero, not the effect of no data point. Do you feel that that was outrageous? Tim was easily able to check something and didn't need to get his own data. Why aren't all studies like that? You seem to be defending the status quo from some people but demanding more from others. That just makes you a frothing partisan. Trust me, you aren't doing yourself any favors by boiling everything I say down to "So you think copyright should be ignored if you don't like the restrictions it places on you?" or even worse "you want all scientists to breech copyright?".

You win. You get the final word. This really is becoming too cumbersome. Accuse me of puppy strangling, I won't bother to defend myself...

Mr Irony,

You said:

"I don't believe that he would HAVE to (i.e. he can't be sued or sent to prison), but I believe that if he wants us to believe him, he should share the data and methods."

Do you apply these same stringent criteria to other areas of science? Do you think it is common within scientific fields to be suspicious of any particular result until you've replicated the exact result using the same data? If not, why not on the latter?

I certainly think that the sharing of data at the point of publication is useful for fellow investigators who are interested in the details of the method, but its overall usefulness, to some extent, is related to external factors regarding the results and conclusions of a particular study.

So, now that its clear I'm not talking about Briffa or McI, but about sharing data... Is it important? Why? Nature and Science think so. At least, they think its important until they think it isn't important. What changes? What is it about the reason for why you can't share that makes it unimportant? Does the fact that some scientist in bureaucracy in Eastern Europe or university in England wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of a data set mean that sharing data isn't important anymore?

Why is sharing data important? It's important because other qualified scientists may be able to utilize that data to advance science. Publication is a way of sharing data. Most scientists will, as a professional courtesy, provide data after publication to qualified colleagues who feel that the data will advance their studies. Some funding agencies or journals may require some types of data to be made publicly available as a condition of funding or publication. In this case it is a contractual obligation, whether or not there is any scientific value to doing so.

Of course, there have to be limits. In many labs, raw data is scattered through multiple notebooks and data files. Organizing raw data so that it will be interpretable to somebody else takes time and money. And with controversial issues, there is the potential for people who don't like the results to try to impede a scientist's work by burdening him down with extensive and arbitrary demands for data. So the the scientific value probably does not justify the scientific cost of expecting a scientist to send data to anybody who wants it, in whatever format they want it.

My point is that you seem exceptionally forthright on demanding the availability of tree ring data (ignoring many of the caveats about whose it is and when it was demanded) yet seem rather unphased re drug companies keeping trials secret. Moreover you seem remarkably accepting of 'your buddies' defences but seem very willing to suggest misbehaviour by climate scientists - is it just cos they aren't your buddies? Or perhaps your skepticism is not so universal?

Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal. It also considers the possible statutory damages for breech.

No. Please, people, STFU when you don't know what the F U are talking about.

I'll try to make this simple, though Mark's not really interested in learning, just pontificating ...

Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal.

No, breeching the license is, itself, illegal. It falls under contract law.

It also considers the possible statutory damages for breech.
Which one person breeching a mere 24 items under copyright has been charged with a bill for over $2M.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Without a license agreement, you can't make use of someone's intellectual property *at all*, other than in very limited ways enumerated under Fair Use provisions.

Any and all unlicensed use is, therefore, a breech of copyright. As to damages, here in the US you are entitled only to reimbursement of actual monetary harm (typically what a license would've cost the user if they'd licensed the work legally). If you *register* a copyright that you own, you can win 3x your monetary loss as punitive costs and legal expenses.

If you've licensed the work, and breech that license, the courts will treat that as a breech of contract case (your signature on the contract means the aggrieved party doesn't have to prove ownership as they would if it were tried under copyright law).

And many people consider each and every fact potentially a single copyrighted element.

So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

Copyright doesn't enter into this. The Russians own some data - just as I own my car. They can lend that data, just as I can lend you my car. If I lend you my car, and McI demands that you give it to him, you don't have that right unless I've given my permission.

So in practical terms, you've got the right idea - just the wrong law. Copyrighted creative work isn't the only form of intellectual property.

You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn't Briffa go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it?

Because arranging a trip to a remote part of far northern Siberia is 1) expensive and 2) undoubtably involves a bunch of red tape (no longer Red tape since the USSR collapsed, but I can't imagine modern Russia is all that much less bureaucratic).

Since the Russians had already done the work, it's not necessary to duplicate it.

> I don't know if any of you will believe this, but I didn't set up the rules for how the FDA operates

Strange.

Didn't know that the FDA REQUIRES that raw data for any medical trial be kept secret.

You know, I don't think it does.

Therefore it isn't about how YOU control the FDA but that GSK keeps their raw data secret and YOU don't have a problem with that.

Why then do you have a problem with other scientific endeavors?

> Copyright doesn't enter into this.

Yes it does.

If there were no copyright, then there's no need for a license to do what copyright restricts.

Briffa could give out the raw data with no legal repercussions.

Because copyright says he can't do that without a license, he can't.

So copyright IS involved.

> No, breeching the license is, itself, illegal. It falls under contract law.

No, because without copyright, there's no need for a license. Therefore a license breech is not possible.

If you sign an NDA, that doesn't need copyright law and is instead covered by contract law, but contract law has no statutory damage and is a tort problem whereas copyright is a strict tort: you have to show you can do what you did, whereas copyright law requires someone prove you couldn't by that contract.

Contract law is not licensing law.

Learn The Difference.

> Copyright doesn't apply to facts, only creative works, so they'll be unhappily surprised when they learn the truth.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Incorrect.

Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

The metro in SF Bay have copyright on the facts that make up the metro time table.

You may wish it otherwise, but this is the case.

> No. Please, people, STFU when you don't know what the F U are talking about.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Interesting.

Will you likewise shut the fuck up now that you have been shown not to know what the fuck you're talking about?

One hopes...

> ...but seem very willing to suggest misbehaviour by climate scientists - is it just cos they aren't your buddies? Or perhaps your skepticism is not so universal?

> Posted by: kejr

It's because GSK et al are corporations and they are Beyond Reproach(r)(tm).

Whereas the journals in Nature and Science are being used to make a Socialist One World Order(tm).

And wanting something from commercial entities is Socialist and hits at the very heart of mr irony's rock-hard belief system.

Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

Dictionaries contain word definitions that are the creative output of language professionals.

That's why they're all different.

Being creative works, they are copyrightable.

This is why the phone book is not copyrightable, for instance - at least here in the US. It's just a list of facts - which a dictionary is NOT.

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The metro in SF Bay have copyright on the facts that make up the metro time table.

No, they have copyright on the physical representation - the layout, print style, i.e. creative content - of that timetable. Not the timetable itself. I can take the underlying data and make my own timetable using my own style, media, etc.

Here's a definition under US Law:

Copyright is legal protection for creative intellectual works. Just about any expression of an idea is covered by copyright, including text (such as books, articles, emails, and web-based information), photographs, art, graphics, music, and software. Also, note our guidelines in chart form.

Creative intellectual works.

Copyright does not protect works that: lack originality (like the phone book), are in the public domain, are freeware (not shareware), are US government works, are facts, or are ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works.

I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

You can copyright a creative work built upon facts - dictionary - but not the facts, ideas, processes, methods themselves.

Chris Horner :

The inescapable and powerful conclusion is that Mann-made warming is real, while man-made warming remains at best a theory, more likely a hypothesis.

Yeah! I thought only creationists didn't understand what a theory and a hypothesis are!

Will you likewise shut the fuck up now that you have been shown not to know what the fuck you're talking about?

One hopes...

Direct quote, US Code, Title 17:

Â§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

How Current is This?
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

You can't copyright a fact. You can't copyright data.

This is interesting.

For a couple of reasons ...

The NYC MTA is suing a guy who wrote an iPhone app to generate MTA schedules on the phone.

Now what's interesting is that the article makes the point - correctly - that data isn't copyrightable, so they expect the MTA to lose.

Fair enough. But nothing in the article indicates that the suit is for breech of copyright in the first place. In fact, there's nothing in the article to indicate that the suit's nothing but legal harassment.

Not sure if anyone else has noted this yet, but apparently updated Yamal reconstructions, using more live-core data, were made available by Rashit Hamerintov last summer. The information comes in an email to an anonymous third party that was released by Steve McIntyre today.The Yamal hockey stick is alive and well, apparently â¦

Let the backpedalling begin â¦

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/

The charts I show are from this PDF (in Russian of course).

http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog…

Not sure if anyone else has noted this yet, but apparently updated Yamal reconstructions, using more live-core data, were made available by Rashit Hamerintov last summer.

Not surprising, though. After all, McI is screaming about Briffa 2000, isn't he? And there's been at least a Briffa 2001 and 2006 on reconstructions, right? Probably more I'm not aware of ...

> But nothing in the article indicates that the suit is for breech of copyright in the first place.

Well, the person has no contract with them, so what could it be?

Trademark???

> You can't copyright a fact. You can't copyright data.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Ah.

Seems you can't STFU when you don't know what you're talking about.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_dictionaries_public_domain

> Dictionaries contain word definitions that are the creative output of language professionals.

Nope, they are facts.

Or, if you say this is enough to be creative, then the tree ring data is the creative output of a bunch of Russian dendrologists.

> (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

So you try making a story about a youngster who is an orphan and finds out he has magical powers.

See how quick you get sued.

For (guess)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1224264.stm

PS can you show that the data was only kept secret by NDA? Or are you merely jumping at conclusions because you don't think copyright is involved and do not want to be wrong?

>However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data.

There is nothing new about RCS, it has been around since the 1930s, though continuously undergoing refinement, as one would know if one was the least familiar with the last 70+ years of the literature. A fundamental ignorance Steve McIntyre is only too willing to exploit. Briffa's rather pedestrian advancement in 2000 was in applying a well known method, RCS, to Hantimerov and Shiyatov's _previously published_ chronology they had standardized by another, less skillful, method. Though Briffa may have received raw tree ring width data via personal communication with H&S, he was not obligated to publish that data, but only his own re-analysis, which is exactly what he published. Stepan Shiyatov, however, submitted that original data plus their standardized chronologies to the ITRDB in 1995. I have no clue why McIntyre was unable to find it for all these years. Additional subsequent data acquired by H&S and used in Briffa, et al.(2008) has been published in accordance with The Royal Society norms, which McIntyre has been quick as a monkey to misrepresent, misuse and abuse.

So, mr irony deficient, what's the beef?

So you try making a story about a youngster who is an orphan and finds out he has magical powers.
See how quick you get sued.

Very quickly.

The US author who is suing the writer and publishers of the Harry Potter stories for allegedly...

Mark:

For (guess)?

Not copyright violation?

plagiarising her work is to reissue her own books.

Nancy Stouffer of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania claims that JK Rowling lifted ideas for Harry Potter from her 1984 book, The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.

I was right, and I'm not even surprised!!!

STFU, Mark.

plagiarising

Mark doesn't even read his own links:

But unlike many other types of literary works, dictionaries are full of non-copyrightable facts

Non-copyrightable facts ... hmmm.

PS can you show that the data was only kept secret by NDA?

Or perhaps just professional courtesy, since it appears that Keith Briffa is an honorable man.

Or are you merely jumping at conclusions because you don't think copyright is involved and do not want to be wrong?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, just pointing out facts aren't copyrightable.

Stepan Shiyatov, however, submitted that original data plus their standardized chronologies to the ITRDB in 1995. I have no clue why McIntyre was unable to find it for all these years.

McI even says that Science told him "talk to the original authors", though they didn't explicitly say "H&S 1995" so apparently it went right above his head, as he asked Osborne and Briffa instead (and Briffa said "I'll pass on that request to the Russians").

No excuse whatsoever.

I don't think McI would have much success as a private detective ...

However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data.

Even if this were true (that Briffa was publishing about a new invention, RCS, rather than using an existing technique) what we'd expect to see would be detailing of the mathematical analysis technique, not any particular data. You could, for instance, devise an artificial dataset and use that to explain the technique, and then go on to say "when applied to this interesting Russian dataset, this is what you get compared to the original Russian analysis" without disclosing their proprietary data.

Looks like Briffa's russian colleagues have expanded the tree sample set, done similar analysis to Briffa, and ... HOCKEY STICK.

Oh, well, so much for McI breaking the 2000 one using bad math. He'll have to start over with the expanded data set.

Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is.

Although information systems theory works as if there is a neat distinction between data and information it's hard to imagine such a thing as raw data can in practice ever exist. I might walk outside my door and sense a warm breeze. Two bits of raw data to be sure, but if I document that somewhere I've already begun the process of turning it into information which at least in principle, is my intellectual property, or could be made so.

It's true that dictionaries contain non-copyrightable facts since much of the usages of dictionaries refer to pre-existing specifications of language and references to the speech of others, names, literary references and so forth. That that is so doesn't entail believing that the compilation of this stuff is copyright-free.

I recall a little while back in Australia that someone tried to design and market a mobile phone app that would allow commuters to work out when the next train was coming at a given station. The input data was the publioshed train timetable, but City Rail asserted that this data was copyright protected and it won. City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

Mark,

"Next time Ducky posits AGW is wrong because of what one professor of geology says, shall we remind him of this?"

Quite apart from your gratuitous insulting namecalling, you really ought to read what I have said in my posts. I have questionned the knee-jerk response to Plimer so favoured here, but don't recall ever saying anything about his work proving things one way or another.

Your own 'certainty' seems to blind you to the reality of what others say.

>*knee-jerk response to Plimer so favoured here*

Dave Andrews, you are beyond contemptible.

>...don't recall ever saying anything about his work proving things one way or another.

Of course not, Ducky. Ignorance and its resulting profound uncertainty within which your mind is insularly cocooned is the game you play. Just like your failure to cite any of the prejudicial sources to which you allude, preserves your delusional opinion of your own objective disinterest.

You're only fooling yourself, Ducky.

Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is.

No, the work is not. However the tangible realization of that work - a published paper, for instance, is.

Fear not, however - if you gather data, you OWN it. Just as I own my car.

Here's something that might help ... if I sell you a book with my prose in it, you OWN that book.

I recall a little while back in Australia that someone tried to design and market a mobile phone app that would allow commuters to work out when the next train was coming at a given station. The input data was the publioshed train timetable, but City Rail asserted that this data was copyright protected and it won. City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

This is exactly the case in the NYC MTA suit mentioned in my link above, though nothing in the article says the suit is actually based on copyright.

Under US law, since the guy simply typed in the data, copyright law won't apply. Can't speak for Australia. However, there are other possibilities for getting yourself legally screwed - download the data from an online source and massage it, for instance, and you'll probably find yourself in violation of the published "Terms of Use" for the site ...

You can do *almost* whatever you want with it - you can read it. Sell it. Burn it. Wipe your rear with it.

What you *can't* do with it is to make copies of its contents.

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of *plagiarism*, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

Back to the Briffa/Russian case ... the additional information from Deep Climate includes a note from one of the Russian researchers saying "at the time, we and CRU were in close collaboration", which is why Briffa had access to the data.

"close collaboration" usually means some sort of agreement ... the Russians gave data, what did CRU give? Lots of possibilities - collaboration on a paper/co-authorship? (one of the Russians apparently appeared as a co-author on a follow-up paper by Briffa, IIRC). Some help with learning how to properly apply RCS to the dataset? Access to superior computing facilities? Visitation back and forth, sharing work?

All sorts of possibilities, at bottom is the fact that data has value, and the Russians might certainly have had many reasons other than "keeping it secret from McI" for not letting it loose.

Oops, something got pasted in the wrong place, breaking up the logical flow of my post:

Here's something that might help ... if I sell you a book with my prose in it, you OWN that book.

You can do almost whatever you want with it - you can read it. Sell it. Burn it. Wipe your rear with it.

What you can't do with it is to make copies of its contents.

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

---

I'll add a bit more ... this is why your notion of "Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is" isn't true.

It has to be a tangible realization - a physical data file, etc. Under US law that tangible realization is copyrightable but not the data itself, or the process used to generate it (however, you can patent a process under today's greatly widened US law... :)

It has to be something you can give me and that I then can physically possess - tangible.

Tim,

It seems that 2 normally reliable contributors are behaving like cranks. What's the topic again? Perhaps a quick word?

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above)

Better be careful here ... if you copy too closely and your work is declared to be a derivative work, then that's a copyright violation. So in Mark's case if a court declares that the fictional character is most likely to be assumed to be Harry Potter by the reader, then it can be a copyright violation - as a derivative work. So don't go off making Mickey Mouse knick-knacks for sale because the mouse gets very pissed off when people do this.

This is because the character itself - mickey mouse - is a tangible realization of creative work, having appeared in a multitude of comic books, movies, etc ...

It seems that 2 normally reliable contributors are behaving like cranks. What's the topic again? Perhaps a quick word?

I'm sorry, but when someone makes a mistaken claim then insults me when I point out they're wrong, I'm not letting them off the hook.

It makes not one grain of difference which reason it is. The basic and central fact is that the raw data was not Briffa's to re-distribute. Something that mr irony seems completely incapable of grasping, or admitting.

And that is before we even get into the other important facts of the case, like the raw data had already been published! Which completely negates the central claim about 'hiding the data', and any imputation based upon it. (See comment #198.)

"Oh, well, so much for McI breaking the 2000 one using bad math. He'll have to start over with the expanded data set."

Is it safe to assume now that McIntyre will just fall back on the same old tired assertion that all tree ring proxies are bad?

Is it safe to assume that he and his fervent supporters won't apologize for or retract insinuations of cherry-picking, fraud, hiding data, or what not?

Is it safe to assume that within a few months, he will post another "of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit" and start the whole ball rolling again, with eagerly willing and duped media outlets helping him along the way?

... Ninny thinks that undergraduate statistics courses qualify one as a statistician

No, they certainly don't. But when one's paper essentially deals with only statistical issues (see any multi-proxy reconstruction, including those of Dr. Mann), you'd hope that those involved stepped up at some time in the past to take a few graduate courses, instead of blundering through with "novel" methods that can easily be shot down (once the methods are revealed) by even non-academics.

You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn't Briffa go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it?

Ah, mr irony is a poe-tic example of nominative determinism.

Don't believe me? Consider this:

You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn't mr irony go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it?

If mr irony is actually serious in his diatribe against Briffa, then he is not only suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance, but he has missed the whole thrust of the real nature of 'replication', and ignored his own suggestions to boot.

sucks:

with "novel" methods

AFAIK, he's referring to a method that's more than 12 years old, is outdated and superceded. Sucks really knows how to keep up to date.

To settle the can a dictionary be copyrighted, the answer is yes it can. I have sitting beside me a copy of the "Pocket Oxford English Dictionary" and opposite the table of contents is a page claiming Copyright (c) 1969, 1978, 1984... and on until 2002. So it would appear that yes dictionaries can claim copyright.

I would note that the last time I looked into copyright law -- this was in the early 1990's -- there was a concept called "compilation copyright". This sort of copyright did not protect the actual facts (the example was a phone book) only the presentation of those facts in a particular compilation.

But dhogaza has it mostly correct re:the data. If the data was provided to Briffa under personal communication then he really is not allowed to release it w/o the permission of Hantiremov and Shiatikov. This is why both Science and Briffa said "ask the original authors".

McIntyre seems to think that data ought to be covered by a sort of "data GPL", a worm which works to make all data free. Unfortunately, most journals seem to accept that there may be reasons why data which did not originate with a particular author or set of authors may not be able to be released except by the original authors. Well Stevorino, tough titties. You'll have to look in the footnotes and just contact the original authors.

I think this quote from Mark Twain sums up SM and his followers at CA:

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so."

Trll [said it well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…), and I feel compelled to repeat his comments.

Why is sharing data important? It's important because other qualified scientists may be able to utilize that data to advance science. Publication is a way of sharing data. Most scientists will, as a professional courtesy, provide data after publication to qualified colleagues who feel that the data will advance their studies. Some funding agencies or journals may require some types of data to be made publicly available as a condition of funding or publication. In this case it is a contractual obligation, whether or not there is any scientific value to doing so.

Of course, there have to be limits. In many labs, raw data is scattered through multiple notebooks and data files. Organizing raw data so that it will be interpretable to somebody else takes time and money. And with controversial issues, there is the potential for people who don't like the results to try to impede a scientist's work by burdening him down with extensive and arbitrary demands for data. So the [...] scientific value probably does not justify the scientific cost of expecting a scientist to send data to anybody who wants it, in whatever format they want it. [emphases mine]

My own databases are huge arrays of millions of data-points, and derivations from such, and organising and annotating them so that any joe off the street could understand them would take many months, if not years. Even my own PhD supervisor's eyes glaze and roll back in his head when he tries to delve into them, simply because of the complexity of the data.

I have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours constructing routines that will check for logical consistency in my data, and for every error of entry and mishandling of which I can conceive. My databases are interpretable by a person well-versed in population biology and ecology, and who has the inclination to take the time to learn the architecture from me.

I have happily, and indeed enthusiastically, shared my data with other population ecologists and with relevant government agencies, but I would have misgivings in releasing it to anyone and everyone who had a mild curiosity to see it. Unless of course some benevolent donor was willing to fund me for the dozens of weeks every year that it would take to explain the data to inexperienced tyre-kickers, to correct misuse, misapplications and misinterpretations of the data, and to chase down the theft of intellectual property that has already occurred with my work once before.

If people want to know what my data 'say', they can in the first instance read the methodologies in my papers to understand what analytical processes and statistical procedures I employed. They can scrutinise my results for consistency. If they have any doubts, they are more than welcome to contact me and organise to see whatever data is necessary to resolve any problem that they perceive exists. However, the last is not replication, and if anyone did have misgivings about my results they should be performing their own work from scratch.

"Ah, but what if you are playing loose with the data?" you may ask. Well, that's why we have peer-review in the pre-publication process. My anonymous reviewers are provided with whatever data they require in order to assess whether I have played straight. Given that there is not a huge number of ecologists working with the taxa that I study, authors are usually known to the reviewers, and there is a very meticulous scrutiny of manuscripts and accompanying data, both through professional rivalry and through a desire to maintain the highest degree of integrity possible in our field.

Interestingly, although it's never happened to me, I know that the anonymous reviewers have been able to pick even subtle hiccups in results of colleagues without recourse to the raw data. This is simply because the reviewers are expert in the field, and thus are aware of the sort of glitches that may escape the author of a manuscript because s/he is too 'close' to the tables, graphs and statistics.

I'm all for transparency, and I am entirely open to it. Prior to the advent of the Interweb science was able to function with protocols for ensuring adequate transparency, and I don't see that these are all now redundant with the last decade of information technology. Indeed, given the enormous amount of resourcing that would be required to open the floodgates of all raw data to every one in the world, I believe that the established protocols are completely relevant and functional.

For high impact journals such as Nature and Science, which publish cutting edge work that has significant implications for the fields in which the papers are based, then there certainly is a strong argument for an extra level of data presentation: it's a bit like playing extra games for a semi-final and for a grandfinal, and I have no issue with providing supplementary data in these instances. Such authors are usually funded well in any case, and thus have the resources to undertake the required background work.

For projects that are simple in terms of data content and analysis, publication of raw data is certainly a feasible expectation too, with the caveat that such publication may increase the quantity of vexatious, irrelevant, misdirected or downright ignorant responses that demand reply.

For the enormous body of day-to-day data-dense science, the provision of every last item of raw information in a form accessible to every person on the planet would simply bring the progress of such science to a grinding crawl. If anyone with a legitimate concern or interest cannot use established protocols to address their questions, then they are probably not qualified to raise concerns in the first place. Contact the author/s, ask for access to data, then perform a new analysis â or perhaps better still, a meta-analysis. Or get off one's proverbial arse and gather one's own raw data from scratch, and in this way truly replicate or refute the study that one is so bothered by.

One final reservation I have is that publication of large raw databases would inevitably lead to the scientific equivalent of music sampling, with folk who have no funding or hard work of their own to show for themselves, publishing results from other people's hard-earned work, and reducing the capacity for original scientists to benefit from their own efforts. I could easily write a dozen papers from my PhD data alone: if I published the database with the first paper, I doubt that I could have extracted and written up the material for the other papers before someone else had dredged out papers themselves, or had at the least spotted the novel implications of my data and applied it to theirs before I have the opportunity to publish.

If this makes me a dog in a manger, sobeit. I worked damned hard for my data though, and I have no desire to lose my hard-won intellectual property as I did once before. If someone wants to check up on me, they have but to knock on my door, and if they don't like my response they can take it to my institution's appropriate oversight committee. If they want to use my data to publish their own paper/s, they can suggest a collaboration with me; or if they don't want to share their derivative work with me, they can just bloody well wait until I have had the chance to extract what I am able to with the resources available to me. Or they can undertake their own research.

Alternatively, they can pay me for the time and effort required to submit the grant applications, to organise and conduct the field/lab work, to collate and analyse the data, to present it in a form where they benefit from my intellectual insights, and for future lost professional return from my work on the project - then I'll happily transfer my share of the ownership of the data to them and they can do with it what they will... within the further constraints of my overseeing institution, of course.

Whilst science itself is an objective and impartial discipline, the humans who engage in it still have to put bread in their families' mouths, and I for one am not going to compromise my ability to gather due benefit from my own work.

Bernard,

As always, a fantastic and timely post. I would very much like to hear from you personally about your research - you know my email and where I can be reached. It sounds fascinating!

As far as data is concerned, as Bernard says, there are often multiple ways to examine empirical data sets. Different kinds of analyses of data sets can yield different results, which gives some credence to the saying "lies, damned lies and statistics". I co-authored a paper that was published this year but amongst which several of my co-authors disagreed strongly over the correct statistical methodology. A few years ago a paper I submitted was rejected on the basis that one of the referees could not believe that the insects I was working with at the time could exploit resources one trophic level beneath them so efficiently. I offered to send the anonymous referee the data as well as the insects for them to experiment with, but they declined, and in the end I got the paper published in another journal (as a footnote, a referee of the second journal called the study "a model approach" which certainly differed from the referee of the first journal where it had been submitted!)

Ultimately, even in the case of lack of copyright, the one reason I believe that data transparency should be limited is if it used by the second party for reasons other than to advance science. I am disturbed when data is reanalyzed and then within hours every right wing pundit in the blogosphere is screaming for another Spanish Inquisition. In my opinion, if data is to be shared, there have to be conditions. One important one is that the second party cannot use the said data to advance any kind of agenda, whether it is personal or political. In other words, I do not think it should be callously appear on unregulated blog sites where it can be used by any readers to potentially smear the name of the scientist who conducted the original research. The data can be used if the scientist(s) who did the research and the journal in which it was originally published give permission in writing, and under the conditions that it may be re-analyzed and possibly submitted to a peer-reviewed journal only (1) if the scientist who did the research and the journal once again agree to this, and (2) in the case of differing conclusions, if the original scientist(s) are able to reply to the critcism him/her/themselves. In this way sound science is maintained and we do not get another furore over the internet and in right wing rags or blog sites.

At least this is the way I think that science should proceed. Call it conservative, but many right wing pundits in the media have taken it on themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner where climate science is concerned, not because they possess some inherent knowledge of the field, but in my opinion because any information downplaying the human role in the current warming fits their pre-determined world view.

And that is before we even get into the other important facts of the case, like the raw data had already been published! Which completely negates the central claim about 'hiding the data', and any imputation based upon it. (See comment #198.)

Well, at least a paper based on it ... but regardless, McI, despite his claim to the contrary (I was busy sending 40 requests to Science magazine!), should've been able to figure out who to ask for the data.

This fits McI's profile - treat me special! Hold my hand! Don't expect me to be as smart as scientists asking for data! Whine whine whine whine.

It's no wonder that he's not treated with the respect he expects.

No, they certainly don't. But when one's paper essentially deals with only statistical issues (see any multi-proxy reconstruction, including those of Dr. Mann), you'd hope that those involved stepped up at some time in the past to take a few graduate courses

You're asserting Mann didn't take such graduate courses.

Proof?

Or libel ...

Bernard J., thanks for the reality lesson, which, of course, every denialist on the planet will reject, because wasting your time thus slowing research is the point ...

But dhogaza has it mostly correct re:the data. If the data was provided to Briffa under personal communication then he really is not allowed to release it w/o the permission of Hantiremov and Shiatikov. This is why both Science and Briffa said "ask the original authors".

Oh, I assure you, I have it entirely right.

The situation appears to be that CRU and the Russkies had a collaborative arrangement.

The contract has not been published, but given statements by Briffa and one of the Russians involved, it didn't include the right for CRU to release raw data.

Case closed.

McIntyre seems to think that data ought to be covered by a sort of "data GPL", a worm which works to make all data free. Unfortunately, most journals seem to accept that there may be reasons why data which did not originate with a particular author or set of authors may not be able to be released except by the original authors. Well Stevorino, tough titties. You'll have to look in the footnotes and just contact the original authors.

With the modern era, and easier storage of data and access (i.e. public databases), it's moving more and more to McI's position.

Not driven by McI, of course, but by researchers and publication.

Bottom line is about cost. There are public repositories where researchers can deposit date without having to pay for the bandwidth costs associated by (say) CA, WUWT, Slashdot and other referral sources.

Something missed in this that free access by researchers, forced to host on their own sites, can be extremely expensive.

Anyway, the system is evolving, and reasonably well, IMO ...

Is it safe to assume now that McIntyre will just fall back on the same old tired assertion that all tree ring proxies are bad?
Is it safe to assume that he and his fervent supporters won't apologize for or retract insinuations of cherry-picking, fraud, hiding data, or what not?
Is it safe to assume that within a few months, he will post another "of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit" and start the whole ball rolling again, with eagerly willing and duped media outlets helping him along the way?

I *might* (no guarantee, I'd have to think further) take a 1000:1 bet against you but I'd only put up a few dollars, no more...

Mr "irony".

Further to my beef with the misuse of data by unqualified people, let me tell you about some of my own experiences.

The first was an observation of apparently relatively compentent third-year undergraduate students taking an ecology course in which I was tutoring. In order to complete an exercise in data analysis and interpretation, I provided them with a small (and uncomplicated?!) extract from some of my fieldwork on habitat use. I knew the data (and the field behaviour of the animals) inside out, so I was very familiar with what it showed, but only the top few students out of about 60 were able to select the appropriate statistical tests, to present the results appropriately, and to come to the most parsimonious conclusions based on the analysis.

The second example is a bit closer to the Deltoid home. If you are in any doubt about the way that an incompetent outsider can mangle the import of even simple datasets, have a look at the efforts of one Girma Orssengo who has bastardised the HadCRU3 mean annual global temperature anomaly record, and who refuses to acknowledge his many errors of analysis, highlighted in questions repeated dozens and dozens of times.

Orssengo's efforts, and the scores of person-hours of time wasted in an attempt to straighten the record, can be followed through the links [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), or by simply starting at the top of that behemoth of a thread.

It's enough to make any half-competent scientist cry, and to question why s/he bothers with the Ignorati in the first place.

> Something missed in this that free access by researchers, forced to host on their own sites, can be extremely expensive.

> Posted by: dhogaz

Absolutely.

And who will pay for all that storage? It costs millions, tens of millions, maybe 100's even today to store the raw data for climate papers.

Bandwidth costs too. Unless the skeptics won't bother reading it.

And who will pay?

Will the denialists complain that the spending on climate science has gone up again and thereby use this as "proof" that it's all a money making scam for scientists (not *their* scientists, though).

> I'm sorry, but when someone makes a mistaken claim then insults me when I point out they're wrong, I'm not letting them off the hook.

> Posted by: dhogaza

WHO started with the "STFU"'s?

YOU did.

You arrogant prawn-whacker.

"You can't copyright facts", yes you can. What hook are you leaving me on here?

> Better be careful here ... if you copy too closely and your work is declared to be a derivative work, then that's a copyright violation.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening with copyright.

That law was written as a gentleman's agreement with the thought that it was obvious what was intended and what wasn't.

But first world economies outsourced all their actual work and now are mostly "knowledge economies".

There's a lot of money pretended to exist because of knowledge.

Lexmark printers sued for COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS someone who made replacement ink cartridges.

Sony suceesfuly sued for copyright violation the region-unlocking of the PS2.

Dimitry Slkarov was sued under copyright laws for making a reader for adobe books.

SCO sue for "negative knowledge". I.e copyrights in things they did and people DIDN'T copy.

NY metro is suing for copyright violations for their series of facts.

A musician is unable to get their own music listed on their MySpace page because Warner Music say erroneously they have copyright on it.

And so on.

And in this case, there is only one way a license is needed: because there is no right to do what Briffa wishes to do with the data (make a derived work). And that is a copyright issue.

Because a license grants rights you do not already have, breaking the license is not otherwise an offense. But with copyright, those rights do not exist and your only right to do these things exist because of the license agreement. Ergo, by default, you are guilty.

This is in contrast to a contract which can REMOVE rights you have by default, breaking the contract doesn't mean you do not have the rights you have but gave up by contract. Ergo you can only be sued for the breech of contract, but by default you have the right to do as you wish.

> Quite apart from your gratuitous insulting namecalling, you really ought to read what I have said in my posts.

> Posted by: Dave Andrews

And you have gratuitously namecalled.

You have no standing to complain, duck's arse. When you behave yourself and stop slagging people off with your scurrilous and baseless slurs, maybe you'd get less contempt.

> > For (guess)?

> Not copyright violation?

No.

Though since you have this endemically wrong (see the post on why a license breech is not itself wrong, exercising the right you don't otherwise have is -copyrights-), it is no surprise you get this wrong.

Learn the facts before opening your cavernous yap again.

> City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

> Posted by: Fran Barlow

IIRC this one (and the SF Bay area metro) have both also said that if THEY weren't the ones making the timetable, then commuters may get the wrong date/time and miss their connections.

Chaos would result: cats and dogs living together, etc.

> However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data.

But such discoveries are given in patents, where you get the process to the result, NOT the data.

Given that you have so many pals in medical trials, one would assume you were cognizant of this.

Unless you're talking out your arse.

Hang on, there's our answer...

> Mark doesn't even read his own links:

> > But unlike many other types of literary works, dictionaries are full of non-copyrightable facts

> Non-copyrightable facts ... hmmm.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Dog doesn't even think beond his own crow.

Dictionaries are copyrighted.

Despite being solely facts.

Doofus.

> I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

Maybe this will show why you consistently get this wrong.

Plagiarism is the breech of copyright and in addition the claiming of the copyright as the author yourself.

You CANNOT plagiarise what cannot be copyrighted.

"Harry Potter" are not the same words as "Larry Potter", so JK cannot be plagiarising the work itself as fixed.

What HAS been copied and you say this in the quota above is the idea or story, not the words in the story.

Yet you yourself in trying to show how copyright isn't applied in #189 say:

> Copyright does not protect works that: lack originality (like the phone book), are in the public domain, are freeware (not shareware), are US government works, are *facts, or are ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works*.

Ideas.

But you just said that "I also own the ideas expressed in that work".

Under what intellectual property right?

Patent?

No.

Trademark?

Hell no.

Trade Secret?

Double hell no.

So what's left?

In ideas?

That's unpossible!

You CANNOT plagiarise what cannot be copyrighted.

That's ridiculous. Plagiarism has zero relationship to copyright. Plagiarism is an ethical violation, copyright is a legal one. Plagiarism is misrepresenting work as your own, when it really is not. It doesn't matter whether that work is copyrighted or not; all that matters is whether you originated it or not.

> That's ridiculous. Plagiarism has zero relationship to copyright. Plagiarism is an ethical violation, copyright is a legal one.

In the cont4ext of someone sueing someone else for plagiarising, it's not an ethical violation, it's a legal one.

And copyright is the only thing that covers this.

"You can't copyright facts", yes you can. What hook are you leaving me on here?

I posted the relevant US Civil Code section.

Readers can decide for themselves: which source is more authoritative?

1. Mark.

2. US Civil Code

regarding what can and can not be copyrighted in the US, at least. I won't speak regarding oz or the UK.

Sometimes Mark is right. Often he is wrong. His inability to differentiate between the two cases is consistent.

> I posted the relevant US Civil Code section.

And people have posted relevant information anyone else can look up: open up the folio on your dictionary, full of nothing but facts.

See a copyright claim?

The US Civil Code talks about how business methods cannot be patented.

Guess what: they are.

Maths can't be patented.

They are (software patents).

There's how things OUGHT to be and how things ARE.

And the way things are, you're wrong dog.

You are often wrong on things. Sometimes you're right.

And when you're not willing to change, you'll yell STFU.

Who started that first?

You.

As I said, readers can decide for themselves whether Mark or the US Civil Code is a more authoritative source.

In the cont4ext of someone sueing someone else for plagiarising, it's not an ethical violation, it's a legal one.
And copyright is the only thing that covers this.

If you plagiarize copyrighted text, then it is both an ethical infraction (plagiarism) and a legal one (copyright violation). Plagiarism is simply the manner in which the copyright violation occurred. It would still be plagiarism if the text in question were in the public domain, but there would be no liability or violation of law involved.

Trrll, thanks for the clarification, you're right, I was mistaken in this instance.

As Mark is wrong regarding many other claims he's making about copyright.

No, you're wrong and you ignore any evidence that this may be so.

You won't listen to anyone even if it's not me about it, just insist that this isn't copyrights.

So instead I'll ask you: why are you so damned vehement about this not being about copyrights?

And Trll's point backs up my point: that there was legal attempts and attacks (what I find amusing about JK's response to this case is how many fansites she's shut down because they've "stolen her story". Ironic.) shows that this could only have been for copyrighted elements.

And the only copied element was the idea.

Which dog both agreed was wrong and illegal AND states categorically cannot happen because the US civil code says ideas aren't copyrighted.

So who do you believe:

a) Someone who is consistent and has actual cases on their side
b) dog who doesn't show consistency and has just what the law says not what the law's used for on theirs.

Oh, and dog, the US is a common law country.

Case law trumps the law text if case law disagrees.

Yawn. #248 proves you're not *always* wrong.

Oh, and congratulations on all the [Edit] embellishments you've earned at Real Climate.

And it does prove you are sometimes wrong.

So, will you answer why you are adamant that Copyright not be used here as a reason for keeping data undisclosed?

PS: Lots of people have managed that.

YOU would, if you were brave enough to behave on there like you did here.

Janet Akermann,

Please define 'beyond contemptible' and how you arrive at that remark in relation to what I have said? My guess would be that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you.

Mark/ luminous beauty,

Are you one and the same person or do you both just have an 'eider complex'?

Dave Andrews,

Guess what you like, say what you like, You provide zero evidence for most of what you assert. So your guesses are pretty useless.

Your latest baseless claim of "knee jerk" reaction to Plimer (in the face of overwhelming specific and detailed criticism and exposure of lies) is just the latest example.

Your continuing record of poor critique,(which is actually reflexive, i.e DA is often either early or the first to post in response to Deltoid topics, and most often you fail to back your claims), is knee jerk. Your poor behaviour takes you beyond contempt.

[Update 2] above: young Roger's not trying as hard these days to pretend to being an "honest broker" is he! Perhaps he feels the honest truth has become a tradeable commodity (brokerable) like everything else. Whatever, he's becoming insufferable; I wish him well.

Bernard J,

your post at 221 is an excellent summation of the problems of making data available to the public.

I've linked to it in a [response](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142) over at CA, if it gets approved.

> Are you one and the same person or do you both just have an 'eider complex'?

> Posted by: Dave Andrew

No, ducky.

Are you suffering from chronic rectal-cranial inversion syndrome?

I just had a terrible thought.

What if you had an Eider Complex and Down Syndrome?

Janet Akerman,

I think I might have been the first to post to a single Deltoid topic, and that was just the luck of timing, so you are way off the mark here.

>"*Your continuing record of poor critique,(which is actually reflexive, i.e DA is often either early or the first to post in response to Deltoid topics, and most often you fail to back your claims), is knee jerk. Your poor behaviour takes you beyond contempt."*

Ducky replies:

>"*I think I might have been the first to post to a single Deltoid topic, and that was just the luck of timing, so you are way off the mark here."*

Oh dear, Ducky, look at the many parts of my criticism of [your behaviour](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…) that you didn't address.

And how accurate is your assessment of me critique? Up to your usual standard: [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/shoddy_journalism_from_stephen…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/a_taxonomy_of_delusion.php#comm…) are two counts of Ducky reflex. And I counted more than 10 further occations where Ducky Dave Andrews was either 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th off the mark.

You are beyond contempt Ducky Dave.

Well, Janet, imagine that! I posted 12 times in the first five but was totally unaware of it because I wasn't counting.

Perhaps, as I intimated, it has something to do with timing. I'm UK based but I can assure you that Deltoid is definitely NOT the first blog I check out when I go online (which is generally mid - late evening).

On the other hand, even if I did head straight to Deltoid what difference does it make?

>_On the other hand, even if I did head straight to Deltoid what difference does it make?_

The difference between you addressing more substantive criticism and avoiding it while driving the thread even further off topic, perhaps?

You're a real larf, Ducky.

Well Ducky,

You can choose to remain obtuse, and remain blind to conclusion that I [highlighted]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…) both the misplaced nature and multiple hypocrisies of your whinge against Deltoid.

Regardless, at least now we have a suitable name, the **âDucky reflexâ**, to describe your inane outburst in reaction to Deltoid posts.

luminous beauty,

And when are you going to comment anywhere seriously on dendro studies? Isn't what you do exactly what you are accusing me of doing, although you no doubt feel you do it in a more 'refined' manner.

Temper tantrums at the Spectator

tlambert — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:13:56 +0000

Temper tantrums at the Spectator

After Ian Plimer reneged on his agreement to answer Monbiot's questions, the folks at the Spectator have reacted just like Plimer does to criticism -- with name calling and nothing to address the criticism.

Spectator columnist Rod Liddle

Moonbat ... You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass. ... reminds me a little of the hardline creationists you find jabbering in the backwoods of the Appalachian Mountains

Novelist James Delingpole, the man that the Spectator decided was best qualified to review Plimer's book:

ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat .... if anyone ever chooses to take any of the self-hating Old Stoic's ravings seriously, we'll soon all be living in caves, travelling round in coracles, and dining on nettles and ground acorns ... Moonbat

The editor of the Spectator Fraser Nelson endorses Liddle's comments and added:

high priests of climate change alarmism fear debate ... setting prissy conditions

None of them even acknowleged the existence of the questions that Plimer cannot answer. If he really wanted a debate, why didn't Nelson try to get Plimer to answer them?

2) Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin's film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.

In your book it remains unchanged.

Tim Lambert has reproduced the graph here.

a. What is the source for the graph you used?

b. Where was it first published?

c. Whose figures does it use?

d. How do you explain the alteration of both the curves and the timeline?

More comments: greenfyre and Mehdi Hasan.

Update: Monbiot comments:

Just as significant as what Fraser Nelson wrote is what he didn't. At no point, as far as I can see, has he pressed Ian Plimer to honour our agreement and ensure that the debate could go ahead by answering my questions. Fraser attacks me for publishing my evidence, but says nothing about Plimer's failure to publish his. In organising this debate, the Spectator was supposed to be neutral. But the referee has taken sides throughout the game. Quite why this magazine continues to champion Ian Plimer, who can't answer the basic questions I sent him and whose book contains page after page of hilarious schoolboy howlers, remains a mystery.

tlambert Sat, 09/19/2009 - 00:13

Tags

From Delingpole's rant:
"Monbiot, as I reported before, was the one who chickened out. But he did it such a way [sic] as to try to present himself as the victor... The contrast between what Monbiot repeatedly tells you - that he won the debate because Plimer chickened out - and the evidence of their correspondence speaks for itself."

Which rather turns everything I've read here and at the Grauniad completely on its head. Predictably, Delingpole accuses Monbiot of "cognitive dissonance".

Delingpole and Teh Spectator are mad, weird and ultimately not worth wasting even a minute of one's ever-decreasing lifespan reading (I should know, I just wasted three).

Tim
Thanks for the mention. For the Fraser Nelson piece I have a more specific response at An empty head for The Spectator

[Fixed link for greenfyre](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/an-empty-head-for-the-spectat…)

The evidence has always been clear and available for all to see. To now claim that Monbiot has backed out, as I expected they would when Plimer did so, shows that Liddle, Nelson, and Delingpole are either:-

1. Shameless liars (and so stupid that they imagine they can get away with it)
or

2. So cretinous that they cannot read simple English and actually believe their delusional wing-nuttery.

The Spectator slipped up by printing the guff on their front page in the first place. I'd have thought they'd shut up about it in embarrassment. Rallying to Pilmer's defence is adding to their humiliation.

Moonbat, they call Monbiot "Moonbat." Get it? What a witty bunch.

Following the trail over to Greenfyre's and on to the correspondance between Monbiot and the Spectator, we find the following hilarity:

Monbiot: "Dear Phoebe,

I have just noticed this message* in the thread and have two comments.

1. It is not an accurate summary of my discussion with Matthew.
2. It suggests that you are not acting in a neutral capacity in organising this debate.

Can I have your assurance that there will be no further misrepresentation and that you will not seek to take sides in this debate?

*Dear Ian,

I would like to introduce myself, Phoebe Vela, I am in charge of the Events for the Spectator. As I sure you are aware, we finally managed to hold George Monbiotâs feet to the fire and get him to agree to debate with you on the topic on Wednesday 21 October 2009 in London. He did specify that he wanted you to answer some specific questions which would be put on our website and that of the Guardian as a prelude to the debate/trial. Please see below. I hope you will agree that Matthew dâAncona taunted him on your behalf in order to guarantee a good event...

...I did call George this morning to finalise the details and understand that there is a problem and that you have pulled out. I find this hard to believe.

Phoebe Vela: You have my assurances that we completely neutral on this and my email to Ian was to understand why he pulled out having taunted you.

So, did or did not the Spectator journalist taunt Monbiot? Are the Spectator trying to be neutral or not? Did Plimer pull out or not?

Anyone who scratches the surface of this story will be blinded by just how disingenious Plimer has been.

Why do deniers always resort to such obvious projection tactics? (Plimer now Liddle comparing Monbiot to a creationist.)

It's OK, soon Plimer is going to come clean and admit the whole thing has been a hoax to show how the so-called sceptics will actually believe anything that goes against AGW and won't even do the most basic fact checking. He's probably having a good chuckle that they've even fallen for the comparison between AGW and creationism, given that he obviously knows the 'sceptics' are the ones using political campaigns to try to undermine science.

Soon, I'm sure.

Any day now...

Ian Plimer, and his book H&E, are yet another demonstration of how a scientist can derail from scientific discourse, and engage in precisely the same kind of irrational time wasting arguments that they accuse their layperson opponents of using.

Aside from the cost of dealing with this sort of noise, the thing that has me most scunner is that if this sudden leap in stupidity can happen to the emeritus professors of the world then it can happen to anyone - including me!

If this pans out, you ALL have to give ME credit. I completely claim priority. Okay?

I believe eventualy we will find out that every columnist at the Spectator is really a character created by, and written by, former Young Ones comic Alexei Sayles. You've been warned.

"I believe eventualy we will find out that every columnist at the Spectator is really a character created by, and written by, former Young Ones comic Alexei Sayles. You've been warned."

What even the greek guy who writes that nasty 'High Life' column (I'm assuming he still writes that, I haven't read the speccie in a long time).

Chris K (9), presumably this along the lines of Frankie and Benjy, a pair of hyper-intellegent pan-dimensional beings responsible for the creation of the Earth but who everybody else thought were just ordinary lab-bred Mus musculus?

I just hope Plimer makes it before Max Quordlepleen gets up on stage...

I followed greenfryre's links to the speccie and it seems the editor is getting a real kicking, the readers having collectively seen through the editor's efforts.

6 JM,

"Moonbat" is quite old and apparently George doesn't mind it anyway. So much for the shining wits.

11 Marion,

Just one thing: it's Sayle

I was enjoying the comments--found at the Spectator link mentioned above--that seemed to insist that Monbiot should have participated anyway. They left me wondering if Ian Plimer had information that could only be communicated through a series of gestures and grunts, or if they were hoping that matters of science would be resolved by a swimsuit competition between the two.

Then I saw a comment that was really funny.

Taken from a comment made by John Levett: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us who are frustrated by this lack of debate."

Haha. I don't care if he's a liar, he speaks for me!

17 mb,

Perhaps John Levett is a Denial Depot regular? ;)

I seem to remember that this all started because Monbiot fired the first shot with some questions for Plimer and Plimer refused to answer.

I think if we strip back to that moment. It doesn't really matter what happened after, Monbiot rightly has the upper hand as it were.

I'm sure Gavin Schmidt and other climate scientists would have just answered with a lot of confidence and without hesitation.

Paul UK:
re: RC answering:

They did.

Never seen anything of James Delingpole's before. Wish I hadn't now.

Taken from a comment made by John Levett: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us who are frustrated by this lack of debate."

Anyone who insists on a spoken debate of science is a liar, a fool or both. It's a subject best understood by individuals who have spent years of their lives trying to grasp knowledge accumulated over decades by thousands of very smart people in millions of lines of text (or more) and they think it's best settled in a format that favors liars, one used primarily by such truth-seekers as lawyers and politicians?

It sounds like the Spectator are having trouble finding a debating opponent for Ian Plimer, promoter of pseudoscience for vested interests.
I'd like to suggest that they invite the similarly-named Ian Plimer, fearless champion of scientific thought in the face of antiscientific conservative hogwash, to debate him. Since I believe the two both work at the same institution, there's probably some two-for-one deal they could get on the airline tickets.
They could debate the proposition "Is 'If you can't beat them, join them' ever morally defensible?"
Suggested tactic: Ian Plimer could invite Ian Plimer to test the proposition that CO2 is harmless by sticking his head in a plastic bag.

Jeremy C #14,

thanks for that, I'd have never bothered to read those comments if you hadn't pointed to it. At first it seemed like people who didn't frequent the Spectator's site wading in to make the occasional sane post, but then it was quite clear that many regulars had seen exactly what was going on.

Brilliant :)

Seems that Lord Lipsey believes Plimer, according to a letter in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/sep/17/space-exploration.

A reader http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/sep/19/moon-mars-monbiot-god… puts perfectly what we all think, especially when you remember Lord Lawson...

If the good people here can find the time, I wonder if you would be so kind as to tell my Member of Parliament what unmitigated tosh Plimer's work is:

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=900

He seems to have read it recently, and is taking it seriously.

Many thanks.

tx TrueSkeptic, but please, teach the controversy on the spelling of Mr. Sayle(s) name. The lack of debate on this issue is disturbing to me, a truth seeker!

27 Marion,

No controversy. You made a trivial error and I made a trivial correction, that's all :D

Paul UK,

"I'm sure Gavin Schmidt and other climate scientists would have just answered with a lot of confidence and without hesitation."

Well, Gavin often gets asked lots of questions at Climate Audit. He never responds but goes away and pretends he discovered the issues raised by the questions himself.

Who wants to come along with me to the planned speccie thing with Plimer to each ask just the one question, "Why didn't you answer Moonbat's questions?"

Anyone up for it?

(BTW From now on I'm gonna use 'Moonbat' as an affectionate, approving title demonstrating George Monbiot's success in driving denialists to the brink of existential despair)

Dave Andrews @ 29:

He never responds but goes away and pretends he discovered the issues raised by the questions himself.

No he doesn't you liar.

30 Jeremy,

I'm tempted.

As I said before, "Moonbat" is old and he doesn't mind it anyway.

29 Dave Andrews,

Really? Gavin is a regular at ClimateFraudit and he gets asked lots of questions?

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that as something somewhat closer to reality?

Sorry, Dave doesn't do reality, or even anything close to it.

TrueSceptic,

You know what I meant. Many questions have been asked at Climate Audit about work that Gavin, and other members of the 'Team'have been involved in. See, for example, the threads relating to Steig et als paper on so-called Antarctic warming earlier this year.

The questions are raised and suddenly Gavin finds he has realised a 'mistake' all by himself.

Of course Gavin never posts at CA,although other members may visit occassionally, but generally they don't like it when the heat get turned on and they may have to answer some serious questions. So they throw a 'hissy fit' and leave.

So much for 'robust science'.

TrueSceptic,

As an example, after Nature's front page exaltation of Steig et als paper, questions were asked at CA. Steig himself posted a few comments but when the going got tough took umbrage at the fact that his name had inadvertently been misspelt a couple of times and so he then took his ball away and went home!

I'm sure you are probably already well aware of this and the 'robust science' Steig was obviously involved in.

TrueSceptic,

Have a look at the threads on CA for, eg, Santer et al 2007, Mann et al 2008, and now Kauffman et al 2009 and see how the SIs that this 'robust science' is supposed to provide in order to actually get published is deficient in almost every respect. Note also how novel and untransparent statistical methods are devised to achieve certain aims.

Then, tell me about this 'robust science'.

In other news, the British Crown has completed its report on the unfortunately successful defalcations led by traitor George Washington of the Western Atlantic colonies, and is about to issue its report on whatever it was that happened to the penal island south of the India territories.

All right thinking patriots will be glad to know that the past 200 years have been lived in an illusion perpetrated by the infamous Gutenberg and his ilk, who spread bogus stories widely.

The elimination of reading and printing, and the delivery of all news by Broadsides issued by the Crown, will make everything Right.

ChirsK #9:
"It's OK, soon Plimer is going to come clean and admit the whole thing has been a hoax to show how the so-called sceptics will actually believe anything that goes against AGW and won't even do the most basic fact checking. "

Do you know - when his book was first released, Plimer appeared on the Australian Lateline show:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

I watched this interview and thought "comedy"!.
Several nights later I had dinner with several people including two people who work in the same field as Plimer (which is not climatology, as I'm sure you know!) and who know him - I put it to them that Plimer was setting up an elaborate hoax to make the Denialidiots look even stupider.

Sadly, they told me Plimer was strong on communication ("a great lecturer"), and not so strong on science, even in his own field. They thought it extremely unlikely that Plimer was anything but 100% sincere in his deluded denialidiot beliefs.

**Update:** Monbiot [comments](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/23/spectat…):

>Just as significant as what Fraser Nelson wrote is what he didn't. At no point, as far as I can see, has he pressed Ian Plimer to honour our agreement and ensure that the debate could go ahead by answering my questions. Fraser attacks me for publishing my evidence, but says nothing about Plimer's failure to publish his. In organising this debate, the Spectator was supposed to be neutral. But the referee has taken sides throughout the game. Quite why this magazine continues to champion Ian Plimer, who can't answer the basic questions I sent him and whose book contains page after page of hilarious schoolboy howlers, remains a mystery.

Dave Andrews,

It appears that you are under the strange delusion that legitimate scientists are answerable to a blog whose entire raison d'Ãªtre is repeated attempts to smear them with accusations of fraud and/or incompetence.

I will also comment that you provide no links to your claims, and that in typical denydiot fashion you are ignoring the thread topic and attempting to introduce an irrelevant one.

The topic is the behaviour of Ian Plimer and those supporting his nonsense. Kindly return to it.

TrueSceptic,

First. you responded to my original post which subsequently you suddenly find is 'off topic'. I then followed up.

Second, you know exactly how to access CA and the threads I mentioned.

Third, you have absolutely no answers to the issues I raised>

TrueSceptic,

Moreover, I never said that the scientists should be answerable to a blog. The Journals in which they publish state that as part of the publication they should provide full and clear backup information so that their work can be properly understood and replicated by fellow scientists. It is quite clear that there is a considerable dereliction of duty in this regard on both the part of the scientists and also the Journals. However, the latter at last now seem to be tightening up their procedures.

Which still leaves you to tell me about how 'robust' this 'robust science' is.

Hank,

You are obviously in ------ mode today.

Dave 'concern troll' Andrews,

If you'r so concerned about the processes of science, get your CA friends to submit a journal article to Nature about their findings.....until then it's just a circle jerk.

Dave illustrates Plimer's method while trying to distract people from the topic.

Assert, don't cite, repeat, offend.

Same reason they send in clowns at rodeos and bullfights, when the guy in the fancy suit with the cape is screwing up and in danger of getting, now, what's the right word ....

It's "Gored" Hank - the correct word is "Gored"! Dave Andrews got it right in the arse, poor bastard.

Shorter Dave Andrews:

I cannot stand all these examples and evidence presented by warmist, so I'll smear Greenpeace, smear Monbiot, smear Schmidt. I need present no evidence, all you need to know is just don't trust any sources that I smear.

Seems like my Member of Parliament is still taking Plimer seriously:

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1008

My comments also fail to appear on his blog.

Hank,

Experience teaches that you read widely in both the science and the blogosphere. So the points I am making are not new to you and you understand precisely what they are about.

Rather than address them, however, you prefer to take 'cheap shots'. Why?

Question - 'Rather than address them, however, you prefer to take 'cheap shots'. Why?'

Answer - Because your a sad troll and Hank is having a laugh (as are the rest of use).

Lord sidcup - after reading the comments on his blog, they all seem to be away with the fairies, including him - see here for his many idiocies http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/douglas_carswell/harwich. His majority is only 640, so your in with a chance of someone less stupid...but I suspect you might have to put up with a complete dick being your local member....

"Read widely ..."? Hah!

Some pillock titled his book "Heaven & Earth", understanding neither, and that was plenty good enough for Dave and teh Spectator.

I retract what I said earlier about comments critical of Plimer not being posted on my MP's blog. Some seem to be getting through now:

http://www.talkcarswell.com/show.aspx?id=1008

It is always nice to see a cosy little enclave of science denial invaded by a few people who know what they are talking about.

MikeB - I don't think Douglas Carwell's seat is under serious threat. The Labour Party here is in freefall. Makes it all the more important that Plimerâs rubbish is challenged whenever and wherever possible.

Tilo Reber, get back in your own thread, or get your own blog where you can post incessantly about how you're being burnt at the stake.

*[I've deleted his comments because he is only allowed to post to his own thread. Tim ]*

Plimer's cheerleader Delingpole is at it again, this time in the UK Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-glo…

attention to this from an article on RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Delingpole seems to think that there is a global warming industry!

Monbiot on Plimer

tlambert — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:27:58 +0000

Monbiot on Plimer

Ian Plimer is well aware that numerous serious errors of fact and interpretation have been exposed in his book but has yet to mount any kind of substantive response -- all he has done is call his critics names. As a result James Delingpole leaves himself wide open when he writes an excessively credulous review of Heaven and Earth:

My tribe doesn't believe in global warming! ... Plimer has a sciency-looking book saying it's all a big hoax! ... the Australian government will collapse ... Al Gore is fat!

OK, that was a paraphrase. Except for the bit about the Australian government collapsing.

George Monbiot takes advantage of the obvious opening.

In one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year, today the Spectator has made the book's British publication its cover story, with the headline "Relax: Global Warming is all a myth". Its story consists of a hagiography of Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows -- and cares -- less about science than I do about Formula One. Plimer's book, he says, is "going to change forever the way we think about climate change", as it demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming "is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history." Delingpole takes the opportunity to cite the usual conspiracy theories about the "powerful and very extensive body of vested interests" working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science magazine. That took some organising.

I have come to expect this sort of rubbish from Delingpole but I'm amazed that the Spectator is prepared to run a story like this on its cover when a quick check would have shown that it's utter nonsense.

tlambert Thu, 07/09/2009 - 06:27

Tags

> Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows -- and cares -- less about science than I do about Formula One

Ah, projection again.

Why is he amazed that _The Spectator_ would run a complete pile of poop as a cover story? Has he never read that magazine?

It's extraordinary the positive coverage this book has gotten. Why does a book that has been totally discredited get such approving coverage? Is it Plimer's 'professor' title? Is it desperation from the denialists to get support from someone with a scientific background? (but in mining geology?) Is it Plimer's pugnacious attitude to people he doesn't like? Bizarre.

One of the things Monbiot says in the article is "What this story shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction." Yes! It always amazed me that the denialists could cheerfully trot out the claim that AGW is some kind of religion, whereas it is so obvious that the reverse is true. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary the denialists cling to their belief that everything is just fine. I don't know whether it's a complicated form of projection or simple chutzpah, but it has got to be one of the stranger things to surface from the murky swamp of denialist thought.

> Why does a book that has been totally discredited get such approving coverage?

Because it says that it isn't people's fault.

Because people with a lot of money can pay for all the positive press they can afford.

Because people hate anyone smarter than they are or anything that says the are wrong.

Because there are a huge group of people trained by the media not to think for themselves, but let the pundits tell them what's going wrong and that they just have to repeat it.

You know. Like Ray.

Once again, I'm reminded of The Second National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of - and Making Progress In - The American Culture War of Fact. It covers the presentation of and reaction to information about several social issues, global warming being one of them.

When presenting information on a social issue, people tend to evaluate the accuracy of that information based on how well it lines up with their pre-existing ideological biases. And of course, as soon as you attach information to ideology, you reject the former about as often as you reject the latter (i.e. not very).

While not quite as widespread or applicable as Dunning-Kruger (especially because it focused on America, where the culture wars wage on - it may be applicable in areas strongly influenced by American media such as Canada, but I suspect it's weaker in Europe), this paper should probably by read by everyone involved in this sort of discussion.

Thanks for that ref Brian - while I enjoy ripping holes in the denialists as much as anyone else here, it's good to see that there are people working out constructive ways to overcome these cultural blockages.

Continuing Brian D's theme, Pure Poison cites some interesting work on overcoming myths and spin in the media [here](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/09/myths-and-distortions/).

Sure am looking fwd to all the Boomer and older denialists dropping off their perches.

Then progress can commence.

Hey Timbo, what's with all the typos?

Tim M

Re 5, that's very interesting, but I noticed that the survey questions apparently used to classify subjects included a question about global warming. If that's the case then I don't know that the classifications can be used to predict views on AGW.

===============================================

Initially, the cultural values of all subjects were measured using
two scales corresponding to âHierarchy-Egalitarianismâ and âIndividualism-Communitarianism,â respectively (Kahan et al. 2007a).

===============================================

From Kahan et al 2007a Appendix B (Survey Items):

==================

1. Environmental Risks

ENVIRON Environmental pollution is a serious risk to public health in our country.

GLOBWARM Global warming poses a serious danger for the future of our planet.

NUKES It is dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant.

==================

Looks like you can comment on Delingpole's work [here](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100002691/memo-to-pri…).

I didn't say it was necessarily predictive. The paper as a whole seems to hinge more on classification than prediction.

That said, there are conditions where information was presented to different groups in each side, one group getting affirming info and the other getting challenging info. In the case of global warming and individualists, one group of individualists got an IPCC summary with "this means we should regulate pollution better" and a different group of individualists got "this means we should deregulate/encourage nuclear power". I should note the second group, even if they were classified as individualists via (in part) a question on global warming, ended up endorsing the summary once it was presented in a way that affirmed their ideology. The "left" groups presented with the nuclear version lessened their opposition to nuclear power once it was presented in a way that affirmed their worldview.

The point wasn't to see views on GW across ideologies. It was to see how people would react to information based on how it was presented in relation to their ideology. This can't be determined without figuring out ideology in the first place.

A useful service might be to enumerate, in one place, the various reviewers/commentators/bloggers who have *recommended* Plimer's book, and where they did so.

Plimers success just follows the success of Erich Van Daniken and others. In the 70s popular media and popular science looked at Van Danikens books with interest. It sells papers and makes TV shows.

Van Daniken tried to prove that humans weren't capable of building pyramids through their actions and achievements.
Plimer is just feeding the same myths, by suggesting that humans can't change the climate through their actions and achievements.

They are both saying humans are stupid and they can't do as much as they claim. In many respects they are pessimists (about humanity) and revisionists.

Brian D:
>In the case of global warming and individualists, one group of individualists got an IPCC summary with "this means we should regulate pollution better" and a different group of individualists got "this means we should deregulate/encourage nuclear power".

Globally the two 'groups' do not 'exist'. Or rather there is a greater fragmentation of ideas than you suggest.

The groups are more accurately defined:

1. Environmentalists that want cuts in emissions but have had to take a pragmatic approach to nuclear energy recently, due to the fact that the situation is more dire than the last IPCC report suggested and politically it is a slow process to get people to cut emissions.

2. Environmentalists that have stuck with the no nuclear approach because they see nuclear energy as passing the 'buck' onto future generations rather than dealing with our own faults and problems today.

3. Enthusiasts of nuclear energy that are now just using the excuse of global warming to promote what they always wanted, that is more nuclear energy. (I actually know one semi-retired nuclear energy scientist in the UK, who actively campaigns against wind farms and acts as a consultant for anti-wind groups.)

4. Others that pick and choose from 1, 2 and 3.

If Plimer's booksales are any indication, the punters are indeed interested in what he has to say, as evidenced in last night's standing room only climate debate sponsored by the Aust. Inst. Geoscientists in Perth.

One pertinent comment received afterwards

"Just wanted to say what a fantastic event it was last night. Well Done! I was thoroughly entertained by both the speakers and the audience members. It was so interesting to note the different opinions on a topic I had though was universally accepted".

####@anu.edu.au

> One pertinent comment received afterwards

And is that genuine?

I don't think so. It's easy to say "Well, I thought it was all settled, but this opened my eyes" if you don't mean it. After all, it gives the impression that this work is somehow valid without actually saying that it is. After all, we have no record of the quoted person ever saying that AGW was settled, do we.

Shorter Louis Hissink:

Consensus isn't science... except when it is!

Also, last night felt good, therefore global warming is a myth.

Louis Hissink :

One pertinent comment received afterwards

Yes, pertinent alright. Shows there's plenty of gullible unskeptical people around.

BTW do 2 "Marks" post comments on Deltoid?

Cripes, if Marohasy goes away Hissick and Bird may start posting here. There goes the S/N

re: #20

ELi, the burrow may not have this, but Firefox+Greasemonkey + Killfile works pretty well here, if people can be persuaded not to feed the trolls.

Meanwhile: what's the matter with Rabett Run?
"bX-6vix0l" : that's like an error code from the long -ago mainframe days.

re: #13 OPaul UK

You might want to look at earlier post here. See if you disagree with my models of science, pseudo-science, and anti-science.

From there, I repeat that I think von Daniken is pseudo-science and Plimer anti-scienice. Both sell, albeit for different reasons.

Louis,
Some of my work colleagues from the GSWA were at that 'debate' organised by the AIG. They said it was rubbish. The guy they got to debate the 'pro-AGW' stance was useless.

Neither debater acually knew what they were talking about and there wasn't actually a 'debate'. Just to men with opposing views unable to adequately justofy their position.

BTW did you ask Plimer about plate tectonics? He would have given you a masterclass...

I went to Plimer's talk in Kalgoorlie last night. He basically gave his standard presentation with all the disproven graphs and half-truths. Similar to his preso that's available on youtube. I got to ask two questions: I first explained that Plimer has omitted to explain the full details of the greenhouse effect that he says doesn't exist. I went into detail about spectral overlap between CO2 and H20 and how the CO2 in the higher,dryer part of the atmosphere is not "saturated" with radiation. I explained how the saturation limit moves up and traps more energy in the atmosphere as CO2 concentration goes up. He agreed that there was such a thing and that I was correct but, get this, he says "but the common punter doesn't know that". He said he looks at the radiosonde data which doesn't show the temperature increase as the models predict (I know, that's nonsense too). He says he would rather look at measurements than worry about the theory!!

I then got another question in and challenged him on the fact that he goes to great pains to discredit the terrestrial temperature data but then goes and uses the same data to correlate with the sun cycles. I also raised the issue that if the heat island effect (his favourite hobby horse, it seems) is such an issue, why are the greatest temperature anomalies in the far northern hemisphere where there is low population? To the first part of the question he replied that we don't have to discard all the data, but we must just be "suspicious" of data that has to be "corrected". In response to the heat island question he blathered on about some cop in Myaree that had to take measurements and they were wrong or something. Bit pathetic. Oh, and I shouldn't worry about maps which show red bits and yellow bits because they're suspect. Unfortunately I didn't get any opportunity to respond with more questions, but I'm hoping the more reasonable people in the audience got the point that he's dodgy.

I must say though, he is an excellent speaker. It's a pity he has chosen to obfuscate and present stuff which I think he knows is wrong. He would be an excellent asset on the side of real science. Sad, really.

John, we're back. Blogger had a brain fart.

Yes, it is pretty sad. He is an excellent lecturer, when he knows what he is talking about. It is a pity he has blown his previous good reputation in this way.

Some advice for anyone considering "debating" Plimer:

Don't.

To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.

I wonder if Dr Jennifer Marohasy, now that she has left the Institute for Public Affairs, could apply for a professorship at the University of Adelaide? She should be eminently qualified. The University of Adelaide could set up a Department of Climate Change Denialism to build on their growing reputation in this field. Or how about a joint Center of Excellence with James Cook University, home of Bob Carter?

Most universities have a Code of Conduct that requires the highest
standards of scientific integrity.

There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers.

Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability.

And in the case of Plimer, we know what the knowledge is like...

> BTW do 2 "Marks" post comments on Deltoid?

> Posted by: Marion Delgado

I didn't think that Mark was a particularly uncommon name, Marion...

To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.

Or public debates with creationists.

Mark.....

"There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers.
Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability."

The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

Mark #1 didn't seem like later Mark, is why I asked :)

dhogaza,

"Or public debates with creationists."

Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

> I didn't think that Mark was a particularly uncommon name, Marion...

> Posted by: Mark

No, *I'm* Mark!

There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers. Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability.

The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

They found out by November last year.

Shorter Dave Andrews:

Logic and evidence is decided by whether you can wow an audience.

Dave Andrews (33): Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

Now why does that sentiment ring bells with me? Which of yer reg'lar crowd on here would I have had that thought about...? Ummm... no, no, don't tell me. But yes, of course, Ray! And your good self of course! Silly me.

> No, I'm Mark!

> Posted by: Martacus

And so's my wife!

> The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

> Posted by: Betula

Yup, then the US voted him out.

>>dhogaza:
"Or public debates with creationists."

>Dave Andrews:
Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

dhogaza's right. Debating professional bullshitters (one of which, sadly, Plimer has become) in front of lay audiences is a no-win situation for scientists. Undeserved credibility is conferred upon the Hamms, Gishes and Moranos of the world, and laymen are mostly ill equipped to understand the arguments.

Your charge that dhogaza would "prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone" is not at all borne out by what I have seen here and elsewhere. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a lie.

Debates:

See why live science/anti-science debates are dumb over at RC.

It's not just a question of debating Plimer, or Monckton, or anyone in particular, but rather that a verbal debate in front of a general audience (or over radio) is totally weighted towards aside that wants to promote confusion above clarity, can cherry-pick charts, etc.

It might be possible to do a plausible debate via a blog moderated by a rational third-party, spread across weeks, with the ability to point at sources, and time for the audience to check things. The RC post points at an example of such a few months ago.

Of course, if I were an anti-science advocate, I'd much prefer a live debate.

40 John Mashey,

You are right, and let's be clear about this: the anti-science advocate has no reason at all to be honest or obey any normal rules of decency. Throw as many lies and personal attacks as possible into the "debate" and the opponent has no chance of actually "debating" the subject at all. This is what Munchkin did to Littlemore, wasn't it?

Why on earth anyone thinks that complex science can be decided in this way is a mystery to me.

I meant 41, of course.

Dirk #27:

As a proud graduate of Adelaide University, I beg you to not consider Plimer's shoddy scholarship to be indicative of the institution's credibility. It's a fine university. Sir Douglas Mawson belonged to Geology department long before Plimer arrived and subsequently lost the plot.

The University's code of conduct is here.
But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance. Imagine the uproar! The code speaks of professionalism, integrity and objectivity. But it also talks of freedom of inquiry and expression. There is no way that the argument against him could be won, and it would do terrible damage to the institutions reputation to attempt it, while at the same time adding fuel to denialist complaints of suppression.

re: #44 Craig

Yes. In particular, tenured (and especially emeritus) professors can pretty much do almost anything.

Most professors, even most emeritus ones, do good work for a long time, sometimes an amazingly-long time. Many are still as sharp as ever, and keep contributing to their field in one way or another.

But most good, even excellent universities have a few who they'd rather wish they didn't. [I've spoken @ hundreds of universities, including Adelaide, so I think I have a decent sample.]

And surely, Adelaide's Barry Brook makes up for Plimer.

Re: Craig Allen #44

The code you link to does talk about freedom of expression, but also makes it clear that academic staff should stay within their areas of expertise and "that they will observe the highest ethical and professional standards".

In Plimer's case, he is way outside his area of expertise (as determined from his refereed publications), and his capacity as a scientist would seem to be roughly equivalent to that of a bottom-quartile freshman student.

The University of Adelaide Code of Conduct is worthless if Plimer can get away with writing anti-science such as Heaven and Earth. What next? A Professor from Medicine claiming that iridology can diagnose all illnesses?

The University of Adelaide may well be a prestigious university, but one thing for sure, its reputation isn't advanced by having Plimer on the staff. If I was a proud graduate of the University of Adelaide, I would be writing to their President (or whomever the right person is), to complain about the situation. This isn't an example of legitimate intellectual debate, it is about a member of faculty who is publishing complete and utter rubbish.

Re: Craig Allen #44

The University's code of conduct is here. But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance. Imagine the uproar!

Actually, I would like them to apply it to Plimer. It would show that the University of Adelaide had some integrity. Otherwise, to whom does the Code of Conduct apply? Only those people whose cases won't cause negative publicity?

> But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance.

Yes.

> Imagine the uproar!

That would be WHY. If people SEE that a code of conduct works, then they'll believe the people operating under that code more robustly.

> The code speaks of professionalism, integrity and objectivity. But it also talks of freedom of inquiry and expression.

> Posted by: Craig Allen

But it's an inquiry to ask "Can I see your wife's underwear?". "Cor, she's got a great arse!" is an expression.

You are allowed freedom of expression UNDER the auspices of professionalism, integrity and objectivity.

Else all you're doing is rating freedom above the freedom that makes it all worthwhile: the freedom to take the consequences.

And the consequences for the University is that they are being seen as weak and feeble and that statements from emeritus professors do not have to be professional, objective or have any integrity behind them.

The University of Adelaide is going to have to decide who is working for whom.

Plimer is getting a paycheque...not a blank cheque.

Craig Allen:

My sympathies. And I would like to do the same for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, quite a brilliant science school for its size. Gerhard Kramm and (crank edition) Syun-ichi Akasofu are in no way representative.

Mark @ 39.....

"Yup, then the US voted him out."

This is Mark, responding to my comment that "The U.S. is finding that out the hard way" in relation to his other comment...

"There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers. Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability"

In other words, Mark is saying people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills........

In addition, Bush couldn't have served another term anyway, so "voted him out" doesn't even make sense.

Confused....yet entertaining.

Bush "speak" [sic] was calibrated to pull of [a con job](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm). The success was to make people think he was somthing other than a rich kid from the super elite, one of the most powerful and priviledge in the world.

It worked. And Bush got a huge policy agenda through that served his super elite class.

I don't think Bush was as [impared as Reagan](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/08/science/doctor-s-world-reagan-and-alz…).

> In other words, Mark is saying people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills........

> Posted by: Betula

No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy.

Just like them.

Whereas if it hadn't been for his parentage (see how you have a royalty too...) he would have been flipping burgers for a living, rather than in charge of a nuclear power.

Marion Delgado,

I would highly appreciate to find the link to your publication record so that the people here have a chance to compare your publication record with those of Syun Akasofu and mine.

For your information: The building of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) has been named Syun-Ichi Akasofu Building. Believe it or not, I would never name a dog house Marion Delgado Building because I like dogs very much.

Since Syun Akasofu is a friend of mine, I would like to list his awards and honors:

1976 - Chapman Medal, Royal Astronomical Society
1977 - The Japan Academy of Sciences Award
1979 - Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
1979 - John Adam Fleming Medal, AGU
1980 - Named a Distinguished Alumnus by UAF
1981 - Named one of the "1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists by Current Contents
1985 - First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, UAF
1985 - Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora (October 3)
1986 - Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris
1987 - Named one of the "Centennial Alumni" by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
1993 - Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska
1996 - Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska
1997 - Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, University of Alaska
1999 - Alaskan of the Year - Denali Award
2002 - Named one of the "World's Most Cited Authors in Space Physics" by Current Contents ISI
2003 - Order of the Sacred Treasures, Gold and Silver Stars by the Emperor of Japan

Your opinion about me is so important to me like a dog's barking to the moon.

Dr. Kramm,

In his own field of solar physics Dr. Akasofu is a solid scientist. In climatology, as I have so often said, Akasofu-san wa bakayaro des'. No matter how good your qualifications in field A, if you've never studied field B, you should refrain from pontificating about it, and he who does so is a baka. His explanation that global warming is caused by the sun simply does not hold up to any rational analysis.

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html

Dear Gerhard Kramm,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu's work on the magnetosphere and related areas is impressive and my hat is off to him. However, I was only able to find a single paper he co-authored that was related to climate, it was about [seasonal CO2 uptake by arctic sea ice](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL017996.shtml). Akasofu puts his idea on [temperature cycles onto his web page only](http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_…), instead of publishing it. There is a technicality within that pdf, that I have stumbled across; could you as a colleague of his please help and clear it up?

In his memo he writes that his figure 2a is a smoothed version of the 5-year average in Hansen et al 1999, which is depicted in his figure 1a. Here is a [properly scaled overlay](http://i44.tinypic.com/33pf41z.png) of the two plots. I have no idea, which smoothing algorithm would result in the shift of the 1900 and 1940 peaks and which would account for the huge difference between the original data and Akasofu's smoothed version in the period 1915 to 1935. As he makes repeated and prominent use of figure 2a, could you please inquire, which algorithm was used to obtain this graph? TIA.

"a building was named after him" must be one of the best cases of appeal to authority fallacy on the web.

Kramm keeps reposting that biographie, but prefers to mention the apperance of Akasofu in the "great global warming swindle".

when i first read anything from Mr Kramm [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php), he was trying to use the inability of most posters here to read German, to sow doubts about Rahmsdorf by linking to a Spiegel article.

i am not impressed.

sod | July 15, 2009 6:00 PM,

again, the article in the German Magazine Der Spiegel about Rahmstorf's behavior cannot be assessed as a support of him.

The Spiegel-authors Hein and Becker stated the following: "Seine Thesen gelten als richtig, sein Laden als das Referenzinstitut fÃ¼r das gesellschaftliche Leitthema Klimawandel."

It is carefully written by these Spiegel-authors to avoid any trouble with Rahmstorf.

I criticized the paper of Rahmstorf et al. published in Science in 2007 because this paper is not in agreement with commonly accepted scientific standards. Following these standards, it is forbidden to suppress observations to obtain a better agreement between model simulations and observations. Obviously, you are unable to recognize these scientific standards.

Rahmstorf is an employee of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). This notion is a contradiction in terms. Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based.

For comparison: The statistical result of an average age has no impact on your age.

Some couple of years we had temperatures below freezing point in June. Even we tried to protect the plants in our gardens, a lot of annuals were destroyed. It was not very helpful to us that the mean temperature for that June was slightly higher than normal.

So much about climate impact research. This is only a big bluff, and Rahmstorf is strongly involved in it.

My publication record can be found on my web site. Many of my papers are available and can be downloaded for personal use. In the case of recent papers there exists open access. Feel free to read something about my scientific work.

Dr. Kramm

In the case of recent papers there exists open access. Feel free to read something about my scientific work.

Oh, don't worry. [Some of us already have](http://tinyurl.com/ntdyep).

I don't suppose you can pay me for my wasted afternoon reading your "work"?

Care to translate that Gerhard?

"Seine Thesen gelten als richtig, sein Laden als das Referenzinstitut fÃ¼r das gesellschaftliche Leitthema Klimawandel."

Quite the compliment

"His theories are known to be correct, his lab (shop in the original) is the go-to place for climate change issues, the foremost question for our society"

you started your post with this claim about the Rahmsdorf paper, and then linked to the Spiegel article. 99% of those who read your post, would come to the conclusion, that the Spiegel article supports the claims you made about Rahmsdorf and his article.

but the [article](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,505095,00.html) does not support your point. instead, it agrees with the scientific position of Rahmsdorf. "Dass Menschen fÃ¼r den Klimawandel entscheidend mitverantwortlich sind, bezweifelt fast niemand mehr."
(nearly nobody doubts that mankind is mostly responsible for climate change)

it agrees with the rahmsdorf position on denialists. "Der Film von GÃ¼nter Ederer, der als "AufklÃ¤rung" Ã¼ber die Klimahysterie angekÃ¼ndigt wurde, gab unter anderem dem US-Forscher Fred Singer die Gelegenheit, seine altbekannten Thesen zu verbreiten. Singer wurde dem Zuschauer als renommierter Klimaforscher vorgestellt. UnerwÃ¤hnt blieb, dass er jahrelang Geld von Ãlkonzernen bekam und frÃ¼her die Existenz des Klimawandels ebenso bestritt wie den Zusammenhang zwischen FCKW und dem Ozonloch."
(paraphrasing: the Spiegel also noted that a denialist piece attacked by Rahmsdorf, did not mention Singers relation to the oil industry)

it disagrees with the methods he is using to contradict those denialist positions, because they might actually strengthen them. "Wie Rahmstorf einer marktschreierischen Minderheit ermÃ¶glicht, sich als verfolgte Speerspitze des kritischen Journalismus darzustellen "
(Rahmsdorf is giving a vocal minority the possibility, to claim to be persecuted by journalists)

For comparison: The statistical result of an average age has no impact on your age.

so you think a "population age impact centre" doesn t make any sense in western countries these days?

or did you just chose a very bad example by chance?

your argument only makes sense, when you focus on YOUR garden. all over the world, the majority of gardens were too hot, not too cold.

Sorry sod, your translation went astray (native speaker here).

>Wie Rahmstorf einer marktschreierischen Minderheit ermÃ¶glicht, sich als verfolgte Speerspitze des kritischen Journalismus darzustellen

>How Rahmstorf enables a ballyhooing minority to pass themselves off as the persecuted spearhead of critical journalism

Not a very flattering characterization of the "skeptics". The only criticism levied against Rahmstorf in that Spiegel article is that he enables "skeptical" journalists and op-ed writers to depict themselves as victims and hence to increase their undeserved public standing.

Sorry sod, your translation went astray (native speaker here).

sorry for taht. my german is also quite good, but it was a pre-first-coffeee translation.

and i was trying to be as neutral as possible. i didn t want to have any bias in the translation.

Rahmstorf is an employee of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). This notion is a contradiction in terms. Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based.

do you guys notice, that Gerhard Kramm is denying the existence of all and any feedback mechanisms?!? positive ones and negative ones?!?

so the average global temperature has no influence on average global temperature?

how much sea ice is left, will not influence other climate factors?

landuse changes due to temperature changes will not have an effect on temperature?

if he can publish this break through in climate science in a real paper (sorry, E&E doesn t qualify), i will personally construct a "Kramm Building".

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

Appeal to authority is wrong, unless it's my authority. Also, this German quotation (which you probably can't read) agrees with the science of global warming, but that only serves as further evidence that Global Warmists Are Sending Out Inquisitor Ninjas To Suppress Debate.

Dr. Kramm. Have you enquired after bluegrue's question at #56 yet? I too would be interested in the answer.

Interestingly, looking up Marion Delgado on Google scholar generates this hit: http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Lemisch41.htm I was unaware of the origins of said handle. Check out paragraph four, but remember - Weather is not climate ;)

Gerhard Kramm:

Puh-lease. Don't go down that "my views count because I have published peer-reviewed papers in the empirical literature". But if you want to go down that road how many papers have you listed on the Web of Science and over how many years? Moreover, how many citations are there of of your work? I found that you had 22 articles on the WOS with 292 citations since 1989. Is this correct? Most climate scientists who roundly disagree with you would have far more than that. Heck, I have 85 srticles on the WOS (writing as a population biologist) with 1400 plus citations since 1993 but I shouldn't have to wave that canard around to make me a 'credibale voice' in the debate on climate change or its effects. I enjoy reading Deltoid because most of the posters here - including Marion Delgado - have very valuable things to add to the discussion.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of scientists are in broad agreement over the issue, and the empirical evidence in favor of AGW is strong and growing. Your views are on the outside, and are getting pushed farther and farther into the fringe.

Actually, Kramm's views are already well past the fringe and deeply into lunacy where climate science is concerned. He's a familiar figure from Eli's "Rabett Run," where he rabidly defends Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner's crackpot paper "disproving" the greenhouse effect.

Mark.....

Let me get this straight.....

First, you claim people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills..... then, when I call you on this this, you try to cover your tracks with this gem.....

"No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy." "Just like them."

So now your saying Bush disguised his good speaking skills as bad speaking skills to get idiots to appeal to his idiocy?

In reality, isn't it clear that you are choosing not to disguise your idiocy to appeal to yourself?

Don't worry Betula, we understand.

And BTW, how is the George W Fan club going? He was a great guy wasn't he? Got all those excellent policies through, and no one in the big media ever made a point of his rich and powerful class cos, he sounded nothing special, like the people who continue to to think he was swell.

Don't worry though Betula, I'm sure his legacy will not be near as bad a Hilter's. Though more suffering will likely become evident in decades to come.

But you keep rooting for GWB like the little trooper (storm) you are.

;)

> "No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy." "Just like them."

> So now your saying Bush disguised his good speaking skills as bad speaking skills to get idiots to appeal to his idiocy?

> Posted by: Betula

He was an idiot.

And his team marketed him not as an idiot but as a good ole boy.

As long as they controlled the media well enough his idiocy would seem like just normal good ole boy bluntness.ic

Which was wrong. He was an idiot.

But I guess that you don't see that since he could well be smarter than you...

Janet.....

Pointing out the absudity of Mark suggesting Bush had good speaking skills is hardly a ringing endorsement for Bush.

Could you please show me a comment where I defended or "rooted" for George Bush.....

Thanks.

Weaselling out of things is what separates us humans from the animals. And the weasels...

Isn't that right Bet?

sod | July 16, 2009 8:14 AM

I recommend to take, at least, a 101 level class on statistics to learn what it means.

Barton Paul Levenson | July 17, 2009 5:59 AM

obviously, Joshua Halpern aka Eli Rabett is the your favorite "physicist".

Meanwhile, I read the comments on the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) authored by Rabett and his bunnies (see http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/files?upload=1 ).

If you agree with this comment, then go back to a graduate school.

Shorter Betula:

Bush couldn't have been a con man, because he didn't have good speaking skills. This should not be construed as a defence of Bush.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

You can't use a person's track record to estimate his future performance, because his past performance has no effect on his innate potential. Anyone who doesn't understand this profound principle (especially when I write it using pompous mathematical jargon) should take Statistics 101.

Jeff Harvey | July 17, 2009 5:38 AM

I assume that you are a proper biolist because to write more than 80 papers in your field is not so simple, but you are neither a trained theoretical physicist nor a trained theoretical meteorologist or physical oceanographer. Therefore, your insides into the energetics of the atmosphere may be rather inadequate.

Believe it or not, Marion Delgade's contributions to the discussion of climate change are only personal attacks against Syun Akasofu and me. He called us, for instance, right wing people. When he disagrees with Akasofu's contributions or those of mine, he may write comments on these contributions. This is the commonly accepted way in science. But his behavior is like that of a small dog which is barking up the moon

Mark @ 73

That's a first. I haven't seen that done before.....

Your response doesn't answer my question, and in not doing so, manages to answer itself.

Classic.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

I ignore all your scientific questions about our work, because I don't care a darn thing about your "opinions"! Akasofu has a building named after him! Therefore everything I say is absolutely correct!

Shorter bi....

All con men have good speaking skills. All con men don't have good speaking skills. This is a defense of Bush.

bluegrue | July 15, 2009 5:57 PM

In 1999 Syun Akasofu became the director of the new International Arctic Research Center (IARC). It is his baby. He was still working hard to keep this institution running. During that period he only published mainly in his field of geophysics (upper atmosphere).

Many of IARC's scientists, however, published papers to climate change. Akasofu knows these papers. As the director of IARC he had always the opportunity to become a co-author, but he declined. After his retirement from the post as director of IARC in 2007 he focused his own work more on climate change.

I considered your comparison of the two figures. You are right, there is a mistake. I recommend to send your figure to Syun Akasofu so that he may improve his manuscript. Probably, he did not arrange this figure. If you can agree, I will talk to him in this matter, too.

Petula,

A good speaker isn't necessarily someone who speaks well.

For example; Ronnie Raygun, like Bush the Younger, spoke reassuring lies appealing to the ignorant, selfish and existentially anxious identity of far too many Americans, combined with fearful, grossly exaggerated hyperbole and sabre-rattling directed at any convenient bogeyman du jour, making them good speakers.

Obama, OTOH, speaks well formed complete sentences, employing coherently reasoned arguments combined with evidential fact, and delivered with consummate rhetorical skill.

I hope (with little confidence) this helps clarify your thoughts.

> I considered your comparison of the two figures. You are right, there is a mistake. I recommend to send your figure to Syun Akasofu so that he may improve his manuscript. Probably, he did not arrange this figure. If you can agree, I will talk to him in this matter, too.

Feel free to simply pass the image on, I don't need to be involved in this. Use it as you see fit.

P.S.: I simply have nothing to add apart from the observation that there is that mismatch. I appreciate that you asked.

I recommend to take, at least, a 101 level class on statistics to learn what it means.

i am not a statistics crack, but i am rather sure that i would pass statistics 101. (mathematics major)

you made this claim:

"Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based."

please explain what effect this has on climate feedbacks!

you are saying: an increase in mean temperature over 30 years (trend) will not have an effect on the distribution of temperature during those 30 years.

this sounds blatantly false to me.

talking about your example of population age, it will of course have an economic effect which will influence the (maximum) age of individuals!

Now I'm not a statistitian, and neither do I have anything more than A-level mathematics, but doesn't a small increase in the mean of a normally distributed variable lead to a much larger effect at the extremes, e.g. a relatively small increase in the mean surface temperature could be expected to lead to a large increase in the number of very hot days, even with the distribution preserved?

Dear Betual,
I donât know where I could have gotten the idea that you are a George Bush apologist?. Perhaps it was the way you tried to pardon Bushes war crimes by [citing the crimes of Clinton]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) and Bushes enablers is the Democratic party?

I guess I might have judged you a bit on your pasting (without attribution) pages and pages from the right wing apologist cite [âFree Republicâ]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic). The Free Republic site being a tool to coordinate attacks against opponents of the criminal wars of aggression.

But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?

Betula's favourite source:

Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children. âA typical street whore.â âA bunch of ghetto thugs.â âGhetto street trash.â âWonder when she will get her first abortion.â These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative Free Republic blog Thursday, aimed at US President Barack Obamaâs 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.

Though this may sound like the sort of thing one might read on an Aryan Nation or white power website, they actually appeared on what is commonly considered one of the prime online locations for US Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizingâââand for a short time, the comments seemed to have the okay of site administrators.âââVancouver Sun

LB...

"Obama, OTOH, speaks well formed complete sentences, employing coherently reasoned arguments combined with evidential fact, and delivered with consummate rhetorical skill."

Yes, uh, I'm quite uh, familiar with uh it. Uh, it's name is uh TOTUS.

What uh, would he do uh without it. Uh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIeyG_pzsSw

Shorter Betula:

Clinton also lied on Iraq. Bush can't be a con man, he doesn't speak well. Obama needs a teleprompter, he doesn't speak well, he is a con man. I'm not defending Bush.

Some advice for anyone considering "debating" Plimer:
Don't.
To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.
I wonder if Dr Jennifer Marohasy, now that she has left the Institute for Public Affairs, could apply for a professorship at the University of Adelaide? She should be eminently qualified. The University of Adelaide could set up a Department of Climate Change Denialism to build on their growing reputation in this field. Or how about a joint Center of Excellence with James Cook University, home of Bob Carter?
Most universities have a Code of Conduct that requires the highest standards of scientific integrity.
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | July 11, 2009 6:20 AM

But at least I always stick to the facts as I see them, or understand them, which is all one can ask of anyone. I'm rather dismayed that so many poster on these blogs seem to think that a convincing argument is to call someone an idiot, or a fraud. Senator Fielding and Ian Plimer are certainly no idiots or frauds.

Many of us are genuinely concerned that the case for AGW really isn't proven. However, the case that our climate is always either cooling or warming does seem to be proven. Identifying the reasons and causes and being certain about them is the problem. For example, as recently as today I came across the following news report, dated 16th July 2009.

Heat released by industry and other human activity â rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) â is the main anthropogenic source of âglobal warming,â according to a new study by scientists at LuleÃ¥ University of Technology in Sweden.

The full report is at http://www.epmag.com/WebOnly2009/item42502.php

Is such a claim likely to be true, or even partially true. I certainly wouldn't know. I presume that the scientists who did the study know more about what they're doing than I do. This why I try to maintain a position of pure skepticism. It's very easy, especially for people in search of a new religious faith, after their traditional one has been destroyed by science, to find that the AGW cause fits the bill.

AGW has got all the hallmarks of a religious faith, the main one being its transcendental nature; ie. the opportunity to work for a cause that is bigger than oneself and more important than oneself. It's not difficult to appreciate what a great sense of purpose and satisfaction anyone might find in a belief that they were working and arguing to actually save the planet with life as we know it from destruction. Wow!! Wow!!

Secondly, you have the endorsement of science itself. The same science that caused serious doubts about your traditional religious faith is now supporting a new faith, backed by scientific consensus, but unfortunately not backed by unanimous scientific consensus, which leads to the third point.

Any religion worth its salt must be beyond proof or disproof. It cannot be falsified, but neither can it be proved. Voila! You've got your new religion.

When you criticise peoples' religion, as I seem to be doing occasionally on this site, I guess one has to accept a bit of vitriolic abuse. Hopefully, it's not as serious as the consequences of criticising a Muslim's faith.

I recently came across an interesting article in the July issue of National Geographic. The cover story is about the demise of that great civilization of the Khmers at Angkor in Cambodia. For the benefit of those who don't know about Angkor, it was a the most powerful empire in the region, that lasted from the 9th to 15th centuries. They did a huge amount of building of hundreds of massive temples that rival anything found in ancient Egypt, and constructed an elaborate network of canals and reservoirs. It's an amazing place.

However, in the 16th century the whole city did a vanishing act, until it was rediscovered by the French in the 19th century, overgrown by jungle. How did such a civilization just disappear? Was it really just because they were attacked by neighbours, such as the Thais? Did the population become unwilling workers, perhaps, as their religion gradually changed from Hinduism to Buddhism?

These people left virtually no records of their demise. What's left of their civilization is just a massive amount of elaborate stone carvings on hundreds of temples, and a few inscriptions.

Okay! I'm coming to the point. Recent studies of tree rings in the area now uncover some interesting facts. To quote from the article: "The po mu trees told a stunning story. Sets of constricted growth rings showed that the trees had endured back-to-back mega-droughts, from 1362 to 1392 and from 1415 to 1440. During these periods the monsoon was weak or delayed, and in some years it may have failed completely. In other years, megamonsoons lashed the region."

In short, not only were the Vikings of Greenland a victim of The Little Ice Age, but also that great Khmer civilization of Angkor. And the main point? Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses had nothing to do with either event.

Shorter Ray:

1. Global warming may be caused by heat from man-made industry rather than man-made carbon dioxide. Therefore, global warming isn't man-made.
2. Climate has changed in the past, therefore man-made global warming is a myth. Similarly, people have died naturally in the past, therefore murder is a myth.
3. When people dispute my claim that global warming is a religion, which I prove by assuming at the outset that global warming is a religion... it only serves as further proof that global warming is a religion! Therefore, global warming is a religion.
4. Conclusion: Plimer is absolutely right on everything he says.

> a relatively small increase in the mean surface temperature could be expected to lead to a large increase in the number of very hot days, even with the distribution preserved?

> Posted by: Jody Aberdein

Yes it can. But not in all situations, the distribution has to depend on the mean. This isn't the case for measurement errors on a pipette, for example.

Vikings in Greenland from 1000 AD, but abandoned Greenland by 1350 (too cold). So lets pick every warm event in history and pretend it happened at the same time.

Or we could pay attention to the facts and recognise warming in Angkor while cooling in Greenland should not be counted the same as warming at the same time.

BTW Ray there was a warming in Europe in the Medieval, it is accounted for by an extended period without major volcanic eruptions. Is that the same reason for current global warming. No, there is very strong evidence that current warming due to the growth of gases that have the physical property of slowing the escape of heat.

It is utterly fascinating that somebody (in this case Ray in #92) can claim that a hallmark of a religious faith is to "have the endorsement of science itself".

It is utterly fascinating that somebody (in this case Ray in #92) can claim that a hallmark of a religious faith is to "have the endorsement of science itself".
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | July 19, 2009 5:28 AM

It is indeed fascinating, but at least I have attempted to explain it. This endorsement is not that of true science, but tentative science open to dispute because the conclusions and predictions cannot be proved. They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

This why there are so many reputable scientists who are skeptical.

No, Ray, the reason why most denialist scientists are on that side is

a) they don't get any climate research and want that money
b) they can get lots of money on the lecture circuit talking to the converted
c) they get paid to do so (with the bonus that they don't have to worry about being correct)
d) they just want the attention

Ray writes:

>They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.

Several points:

Gerhard: Your views on climate change are, as BPL said, on the fringe and are getting pushed farther out there. I also note on your web site that you post the "10 favorite papers written by yourself". Since you have only 22 according to the Web of Science, methinks you don't have that large of a crop to select from. Some advice: before claiming that your qualifications give you credibility in the debate on AGW, check out those of researchers like Susan Solomon who really do publish and get cited in very large numbers and who support the broad consensus over AGW.

Moreover, I am used to personal attacks since Bjorn Lomborg published his error-filled tome in 2001 and I co-reviewed it in Nature. But the main point is that your views, like his, fall outside of the broad scientific consensus on such subjects as human-mediated climate change (your area of expertise) and a range of other processes (which Lomborg covers in his book). Each and every day the evidence accrues as to the human component in the forcing of climate. I don't know what your politics are, but many of those most prominent in denail are associated with corporate funded think tanks and astroturf lobbying groups that are distorting the science to promote a political agenda. Those scientists who appear on lists or petitions attacking the consensus on climate change must realize that these petitions are often set up, promoted and distributed by the same generally conservative think tanks. Hence why Marion makes allegations of this kind. If I were you and the other so-called small band of denialists I wouldn't allow my name to appear on petitions ostensibly set up by those pushing for a clear business-as-usual agenda.

As for Ray's statement: "This why there are so many reputable scientists who are skeptical". Speaking as a scientist who actually does a lot of science, Ray, what do you exactly mean by 'reputable'? Those names who appear on petitions set up by corporate funded think tanks? To me a reputable scientist is one who does intensive research in a field, publishes their results in rigidly peer-reviewed journals, and viligintly refuses to be associated with any groups (especially those where profot margins are concerned) that will use their name to promote a political agenda. The truth is that reputable scientists are always sceptical - that is how science advances. However, by scpetical you actually mean in denial over the causes and consequences of AGW. Isn't this correct? Now that is an entirely different ballgame. Very few reputable scientists (see my description above) are denialists.

My last quation for Ray is this: Are you yourself a scientist? If not, what gives you the confidence to know the relative number of those clearly in denial over AGW? Speaking 'from the inside', I can tell you that the number in most fields is exceedingly small.

Shorter Ray:

1. Climate scientists acknowledge that there are uncertainties surrounding climate science. Therefore, climate scientists are religious zealots.
2. Conclusion: Plimer is absolutely correct in absolutely everything he says.

Janet.....

You seem to have failed to show me a comment where I defended George Bush, other than to show that I cited crimes of Clinton......so I understand your frustration.

Don't get me wrong, you have a knack for assumption and accusation that is quite commendable, though a little hard to follow.....but I think I've figured it out..

Using your logic @ 89...... since I am currently visiting this site, I can somehow be associated with every bloggers comments on this site, as can you....

I'm going to refer to this as "Janets law @ 89", and it will state that "anyone who watches,reads or links to a source of information, is hereby associated with, and assumed to be defending, all information generated around that source, yet at the same time, can be assumed to be defending the opposite of all generated information, when the need fits"

It's quite simple really, and it can be applied to most anything. Here are a few examples....

1. I recently watched "Old Yeller". Using Janet's law @ 89, I agree the dog should have been shot, therefore I hate Dogs and I'm defending all Dog killers.

2. I recently linked a YouTube video showing Biden joking about Obamas teleprompter....Using Janet's Law @ 89, I am now associated with all comments ever posted on every YouTube video, and I'm defending Ronald Reagan.

3. I read parts of "An Anarchists Cook Book" while in college. According to Janet's Law @ 89, I am an Anarchist.

4. Janet linked us to her "favourite source", The Skeleton Closet @ 52.
We find on this site (under Al Gores skeleton closet) this statement......
"One thing is, like several of this year's candidates (notably George W. Bush), Gore has grown up in that protected, distorted world of wealth and privilege that makes it so difficult for him to understand normal people and normal life"

Janet, according to your own logic @ 89, by linking us to that site, you are comparing Al Gore to George Bush....

Shame on you!

Shorter bi @ 91....

Joe Biden joked about Obamas need for a teleprompter, Biden is defending Bush. Bill Clinton lied, Clinton is defending Bush. Lincoln was shot, Lincoln was defending Bush.

Betula,

One might think when Obama pauses while speaking off the cuff, he is thinking about what he is saying before he speaks.

Unfortunately, Betula doesn't think except to mimic right wing talking points, so this wouldn't occur to him.

I hear Obama likes spicy brown mustard on his gourmet hamburgers, too.

Shocking!

Betula, Hand waving, might work with your pals at Free Republic, but not here.

You somehow forgot the key difference between this site and your favourite site, that being you agree with the mob at Free Republic. You agree soooo much that you copy and paste their work and try to pass it off as your own.

And hand waving and attempt at distraction was also your tactic to try and shift blame from Bush his enablers (and his shadow-men) for the hundreds of thousands killed in the criminal Iraq invasion.

The crickets are chirping in response to my invitation to set me straight:
> But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?

While the crickets chirp, readers might conclude, my judgement of your support for Bush is correct.

Betual certainly went to some effort to attempt to shift discussion away from the travesty of the Iraq war. It must take some real effort to gather [all those quotes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) whilst leaving out the assessment of Hans Blix, and the whistle blowers on the military-intelligence-political complex?

Betual, how did you feel when millions around the world marched to say, we donât believe the lies put forward for this war?

If you want to believe those who [will profit form war](http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/149-iraq/908-i…), your cherry picked quotes might help your aims. But if you want to consider a wide scope of relevant background you might pay attention to those going out on a limb (at great personal cost), and those who have been show to be accurate.

Rod Barton quit in disgust after the [CIA censored a crucial WMD report]( http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1300705.htm), leading to deletion of central facts and conclusions.

That means paying attention to what Andrew Wilkie, Scott Ritter and David Kelly each had to say about the faulty the invasion story whilst it was being swallowed by the media-political-profit complex.

Jeff,

My experience on this site has informed me that whatever scientist one quotes in support of an opposing view will be immediately villified and denigrated on all sorts of matters that are not related to climate science.

If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

I'm not a professional scientist, earning a living as such. But my education was largely scientific and I believe I understand well the principle of falsifiability. If you cant't think of a way of falsifying your theory, it's not scientifically secure.

Of course one can't expect Politicians, such as Penny Wong, to understand this. Their expertise is in Law and Arts. Senator Fielding, with a degree in Engineering, would better appreciate the true scientific implications of the AGW argument. (But of course, he's described as an idiot.)

The bodgy scienctific conclusions of the IPCC lend themselves to a new religion for those who have lost their religious faith due to other scientific discoveries. The power of science which has demolished the historical truth of the scriptures written by sages who were clueless of scientific matters, is now presenting itself as a religious certainty with regard to AGW.

But let me say, I don't really believe that the scientists behind the research are nearly so certain. The certainty is politicised in order to get action.

Jeff,

Ray doesn't need evidence, he "believe[s]".

And here we finally have Ray's definition of "proof".
Forget the overwhelming evidence of AGW, Ray has proof of something:
>If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

Ray, great to see you are so skeptical. It sure takes rock hard evidence to convince you. Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?

Ray, I'm waiting for you to backup your calim [from earlier:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…)

>Ray writes:

>>They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

>Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.

Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 12:23 AM

Yes they did. They demonstrated a complete lack of scientific rigor and enquiry, by lumping all creationist views as endorsing the view that dinasaurs walked with man, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Anyone who has visited Roy Spencer's site would understand that he is not a creationist in the fundamental sense, as Isaac Newton probably was, but thinks that a theory of intelligent design could explain the lack of definitive proof for Darwin's theory.

I don't agree with him on this issue. But I refrain from misrepresenting his views in order to attack them.

This practice of misrepresenting the views of others in order to refute the sense and intelligence of their argument, is a practice employed by scoundrels

Ray,

If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.

Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the [errors and poor practice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/roy_spencer/) that has influenced Spenser's claims.

Ray writes:

Senator Fielding and Ian Plimer are certainly no idiots or frauds.

Ray, Ian Plimer thinks the sun is made out of iron.

Ray writes:

Senator Fielding, with a degree in Engineering, would better appreciate the true scientific implications of the AGW argument.

One possible definition of a pseudoscientist: Someone who thinks engineers are scientists.

Ray,
If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.
Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the errors and poor practice that has influenced Spenser's claims.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 3:13 AM

Janet,

I appeal to no-one's authority. I try to work things out for myself, something that seems almost impossible for most constributors to this blog.

We're all under the influence of our up-bringing, and a whole host of other influences. People hold views that are conditioned by their experiences.

Know that conditioning and you can manipulate them.

I'm not interested in manipulating people, just telling the truth as I see it.

I'm always open to correction on my views. But so far most of the corrections on this site take the form of ad hominem attacks.

Ray,

Spencer is an outlier. The very fact that most of the prominent sceptics can be counted on one hand should be enough evidence of this. For every Spencer, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Singer, Balling and Michaels there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified climate scientists with very different views to theirs. Te very fact that we know many of the denialists by name shows how often they are quoted in the corporate maninstream media. Moreover, you should check the number of recent peer-reviewed publications by many of the so-called luminaries amongst the denialist camp. You'll find that most of them hardly publish anyhting nowadays and instead rely upon think tanks and astroturf sites to maintain their status. The very fact that its primarily the same names amongst the most prominent of the denialists that were around 10-15 years ago should give some indication how small their number really is. Back in the 1990s, a memo was leaked from the American Petroleum Society in which concerns was expressed that the anti-AGW lobby was effectively using up its credibility by relying on the same scientists to promomote the argument of denial. The memo went on to state that the APS should aim to recruit a new generation of what they termed as 'independent scientists' to promote the views of the fossil fuel industry which was clearly not interested in the science but in maintaining the status quo. More than ten years later and yet we still see the same names (I listed some of them above) being used to downplay the human component in the current warming. A few new ones have been added since, but the denial camp still relies primarily on the same people. This should be enough to suggest that there really aren't that many 'reputable' scientists in the denial camp. And as I said above, many of those on the recent petitions hardly publsih anything in the empirical literature.

Your point regarding the principle of falsifiability is a red herring. Very few theories or hypotheses in earth science (esepcially in environmental science) are iron-clad. As scientists, we set up hypotheses and then test them. Even if the hypothesis is accepted, the results of individual experiments do not necessarily constitute a general rule and thus all empirical results of experiments should be treated with some caution. But the fact is that, although science has never advanced by consensus, public policy must be based on it. Rarely is empirical evidence of a process absolute. However, this in no way precludes the fact that there is high statistical probability that a process is due to a specific causal factor. On this basis we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the current warming is due primarily to human forcing, and that the consequences of inaction may have serious consequences for the health and vitality of our global ecological life support systems and, ultimately, for us. On this basis it is prudent that action is taken to reduce the impact the human combustion of fossil fuels is likely to have across the biosphere. Using your falsibility argument, we'll wait until kingdom come and beyond before we act, and by then it will be way, way too late.

One way to prove AGW false would be to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

If the temperature goes down, then AGW from CO2 is true. If it doesn't, then AGW from CO2 is false.

Ray, I'm waiting for you to backup your calim from earlier:

Ray writes:
They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.
Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.
Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2009 12:29 AM

I would have thought this is obvious. There are two issues. One, a slight rising in temperature that rivals the temperatures prevalent in the Medieval Warming period, and (2) how much of this repetition of the Medieval Warming period is due to our C02 emissions?

That's the $64,000 question which has not be answered conclusively.

If you want to predict that sea levels will rise 1 metre (in 50 years, whatever), you have to demonstrate that you understand precisely and exactly all the influences, without exception, that affect climate change.

There's no such claim, even from the IPCC.

Spencer is an outlier. The very fact that most of the prominent sceptics can be counted on one hand should be enough evidence of this .
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | July 20, 2009 5:11 AM

Well, Jeff, thanks for at least a rational response.

Not necessarily. When there's a powerful consensus in place it sometimes takes a lot of courage to speak your mind, even in Australia. In China, you're in jail.

I recall many stories in Australia of 'whistle blowers' losing their jobs and credibility. On this site alone, I've been called an idiot and a moron many times. If I were a renouned scientist questioning the case for AGW, I would certainly be reluctant to post my views on this site. It would be like casting pearls before swine.

I'm new to this climate debate. I've got a lot to learn. But I smell a rat already.

So to clarify Ray,

You are not claiming that AGW is "beyond They are beyond the principle of falsifiability"

This is a claim you disagree with and did not make? We wouldn't want anyone to be confused about your bold claims.

Ray writes:
>If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

Janet Akerman writes:
>Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?

Ray writes in reply:
>[Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority]â¦Yes they did [emphasis added]. They demonstrated a complete lack of scientific rigor and enquiry, by lumping all creationist views as endorsing the view that dinasaurs walked with man, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Janet Akerman writes:
> If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.
>Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the errors and poor practice that has influenced Spenser's claims.
Ray responds:
> I appeal to no-one's authority. ..

Ray go back and read this conversation again.

Then Ray kindly backup your claim, and provide the "many stories, as in:

>I recall many stories in Australia of 'whistle blowers' losing their jobs...

Or is this more pseudo-skeptical rubbish?

Janet asks....

"But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?"

This is classic..... you accuse me of defending Bush without evidence, so you ask me to defend Bush in an attempt to prove your false accusation correct?

Janet, I would gladly answer the question, if rephrased, perhaps to something like this.......

Betula,

I realize I haven't questioned the facts you presented, but rather questioned your motives for presenting them.

My assumptions and accusations are a direct result of my ideological blinders that tend to obscure and repel reality while creating frustration and confusion.

At the risk of waking up from my dream like state, I will attempt to lose my blinders and would like to ask you the following question.......

Respectfully, Janet.

Go ahead, give it a try.

Jeff,

Don't be fooled by Rays foe skepticism, [here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…) a little background on Ray that may save you wasting any time with him.

And here are some [other choice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…), quotes that might help you judge if Ray is trying to [waste time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

Betula Darlin,
Did you miss the evidence on which I based my judgement of your support for George Bush? Fortunately I can link you back to it, [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…) and [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…).

See darlin, you accuse me of making an assumption about your support for Bush, but I expose you for apologetics for Bushes war crimes with your hand waving, and attempt at distraction.

Chirp, chirp.

Now I notice Observa has some [interesting questions]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…). How did you feel when millions around the world saw through the lies, and marched in protest?

Chirp, chirp.

There are two issues. One, a slight rising in temperature that rivals the temperatures prevalent in the Medieval Warming period, and (2) how much of this repetition of the Medieval Warming period is due to our C02 emissions?

20th century warming is significantly greater in amplitude, modality and global homogeneity than the [MWP](http://planetsave.com/files/2008/09/0901pnas2.jpg). It rivals any rate change in global temperatures since the end of the last [ice age](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variati…) and the maximum temperatures of any interglacial in the last [3 million years.](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev…) 20th Century warming and the MWP simply aren't comparable.

20th Century warming is likely all due to human generated greenhouse gas and land use change [plus](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html) some small amount of cooling that has been averted. The climate has been generally cooling since the Holocene Maximum as the procession of the Earth's axial tilt has moved in relation to the obliquity of the Earth's orbit, fluctuating by relatively small variances due to slight differences in sunspot cycles, the stochastic clustering of explosive volcanic events, and small albedo changes, either natural or due to human activities.

Shorter Ray:"Nobody opposes the consensus because brave people are afraid to work in climate science. I am not an idiot."

Ray.

Can I point you in the direction of this site?: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

You may find it handy in your quest for determining who the rat is in this quote "I'm new to this climate debate. I've got a lot to learn. But I smell a rat already."

Google scholar may help you too...

Janet says....

"Did you miss the evidence on which I based my judgement of your support for George Bush?"

I saw your evidence, that's why I'm questioning your judgement.

According to you, linking factual information about someone other than a republican, is an indicator of support for George Bush, as long as that information counters a belief or exposes hypocrisy.

I understand your judgement is impaired by, well, your judgement, so I won't ask you again to show me where I indicated support for Bush, lest the question itself be misconstrued as support for Bush.

As for your favorite site (The Skeleton Closet) comparing Al Gore to George Bush, I feel your pain, but that is an issue you are going to have to deal with yourself.

The little comfort I can offer you is the one thing I learned from you..... since we are both visiting Deltoid, you must assume we are of the same mindset.

At least we'll always have that.

Betula, who would want anything off you except your absence?

Go find a place where Shrub Is God and Obama is The Black Satan and feel all comfy.

At least give us that.

Betual,

[Rien Ã dire?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…)

#86

sod,

a feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

#113

Dear Barton Paul,

please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence. There is an urgent requirement to establish such an experiment because the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect is only related to a hypothesis. As long as this hypothesis cannot be verified by empirical evidence it will be still a non-proven hypothesis without any scientific meaning.

#60

Dear Joshua,

you are not a native speaker even you are familiar with the German language. A adequate translation into English would be:

"His theses are considered as correct; his lab is reputed to be the leading institute for the central theme of our society: climate change."

This is the opinion of the two editors (in German: Redakteure) of the German Magazine, Der Spiegel, carefully expressed to avoid any trouble either with Rahmstorf or persons who do not agree with the editors' opinion.

News media people are trained to use such soft formulations for protecting themselves and their employers against any kind of attack. Supermarket tabloids, for instance, would struggle to survive if they would write their stories (even accurate) in such a plain language as used in science.

Note that in the German language the word "These" means a statement that demands the proof of the truth.

> please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

Yes. Burn 10 billion tons of fossil fuels for 80 years.

It's a common denier meme: show me empirical evidence!

But anything which isn't an actual world being actually forced through extinction isn't for them evidence.

Why do you need empirical evidence?

Prove 1+1=2

I DEMAND IT.

Prove it.

1 + 1 = 2

+++++++++++++++++++

There is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

There is no evidence that this doesn't work in the real atmpsphere.

There are calculations based on the basic physics that do.

Look for the 1956 apers by Gilbert Plass:

Plass, G.N. (1956a). "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change." Tellus 8: 140-54.

Plass, G.N. (1956b). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.

Plass, G.N. (1956c). "Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere." American J. Physics 24: 303-21.

Plass, G.N. (1956d). "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate." American Scientist 44: 302-16.

Plass, G.N. (1956e). "Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate." American J. Physics 24: 376-87.

Plass, G.N. (1959). "Carbon Dioxide and Climate." Scientific American, July, pp. 41-47.

Got any proof that these calculations were wrong?

> a feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

My god! How did you manage to fake it through college with THAT limited an understanding?

How do you determine the feedback strength you idiotic faux professor???

1) If it's simple enough, calculation

(note: even then you MUST prove it correct by measurement. Guess what: statistics used there you moron)

2) If it isn't simple or is emergent, experiment

Oh, look. Statistics again.

How did you manage to fake your way with that level of inexcusable idiocy?

Rather than distract from the demolition of Kramm's "argument". I'll reply to Darlin Betula back at the [Warblogger's posting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…).

Gerhard Kramm is suggesting (@133) that use of neutral language by news editors is evidence that ??? what is it evidence of??

Gerhard Kramm writes:

please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence.

John Tyndall did lab work to show that water vapor and carbon dioxide were greenhouse gases back in 1859.

Back-radiation from the atmosphere can be measured with a device called a pyrgeometer (google it).

The sun only provides enough energy to warm the Earth to 255 K. Earth's mean global annual surface temperature is 287-288 K.

#57 sod, #58 Dr Gerhard Kramm:

Bitte erlaube mich ein herzliches Dank auszusprechen fÃ¼r die indirekte Link nach Dr Rahmstorf's Schreiben in der Frankfurter Allgemeine. Leider sind solche gutgeschriebene und wohldokumentierte BeitrÃ¤ge zur Verteidigung der Wissenschaft und gegen der Unsinn auch heute noch hochrelevant.

http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EC09932113…

Nochmals Dank!

Further to Barton's reference to [Tyndall's work](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work) over 150 years ago, I suggest that Gerhard Kramm Google 'carbon dioxide greenhouse experiment' or some such, and see just how many people, even at high school level, routinely demonstrate the effect.

If Kramm is serious in his babbling about "empirical evidence", I can only assume that he has as much genuine scientific understanding as [Piers Akerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…].

It seems that the Denialists' rhetorial vehicle for promoting the science for their case is still up on blocks, with its donk swinging from the rafters...

I want some empirical evidence that Pissing in the river upstream is bad.

It can't use "statistics" since that's all maths lies.

It can't use microscopes since they don't show how the wiggly things in the water do any damage whatsoever.

And anything else you can think of, that won't be evidence either.

All I want is proof!

I just want to be able to reject anything I don't like as not proof. Is that too much to ask???

#134

Mark,

I beg your pardon, but, obviously, you are not familiar with physics and the standards in science. Any hypothesis (even it is based on theoretical considerations) formulated in physical disciplines demands an experimental proof. Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

#135

Mark,

obviously, you have no inside what a feedback process is. That is your problem, but not mine.

#138

Barton Paul,

I beg your pardon, but your statement is entirely inaccurate. Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

In 1859 Tyndall was not familiar with Kirchhoff's law published in 1860. During that time Tyndall also did not know the Stefan-Boltzmann law published 20 years later by Stefan (1879) and theoretical derived on the basis of thermodynamic considerations by Boltzmann (1884). Tyndall passed away before the radiation laws of Wien (1896), Rayleigh (1900, 1905), and Planck (1900,1901) were published.

Currently, the best explanation of ice ages is related to the astronomical theory of Milutin Milancovitch pubslisched in 1920.

#140

Bernhard J.

Science is not based on wishful thinking.

sod, feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

this claim is complete nonsense Gerhard!

you brought up the example of an ageing population yourself. obviously the age of a population has a feedback on economics and on the age again. the statistical effect is obvious. a population with an average age of 12 will have a different economic output that one with an average age of 32 or one with 63. the feedback is obvious. please try to (exactly!!!) describe the physical EQUATIONS of this underlying process!

Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

there are a lot of simplyfied examples of the greenhouse effect.

feel free to build a 10 km column experiment to test the real effect.

you are aware of the databases and the calculations of temperature on different planets, all based on the well established greenhouse effect of CO2???

Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

the claim that this is speculation is idiotic. the effect of CO2 and water is well known,. it is a simple matter of calculation, to understand the effect on our planet.

your complete reliance on experiments puts you limits of understanding physics at the level of a 12 year old.

> Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

Heck, even Billy Bob thinks that H2O has such an effect.

When "professor" has less knowledge of a subject than the Billy Bob's of this world, you wonder where the "professor" got his education.

> Science is not based on wishful thinking.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

Indeed, so stop hoping CO2 has no effect and prove that the small scale lab experiments do not continue into the realms of the earth's (or other planets) atmosphere.obviously,

> you have no inside what a feedback process is. That is your problem, but not mine.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

I'm afraid it is YOU who do not know what a feedback process is.

An Op-Amp has a feedback process. Doesn't lead to infinities.

Despite your hope that it does.

> I beg your pardon, but, obviously, you are not familiar with physics and the standards in science.

I'm not familiar with YOUR world's standards of science. I'm vastly more proficient with this real world's standards than you, however.

> Any hypothesis (even it is based on theoretical considerations) formulated in physical disciplines demands an experimental proof.

And that proof doesn't have to be "show me the earth under any conditions"

We do not "prove" that the sun weighs how ever much it does. We do not get out a pair of cosmic weighing scales.

Yet you would demand this, since you demand not proof that the effect is real and then go from that to the result (the sun produces enough gravity to keep the earth going round in 1 year and we know from small scale measurements of solid weights and torsion bars what the proportionality constant is, yet we do not know that this really applies to an incandescent plasma).

> Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

There is.

The temperature this year and for the last five years has been above any temperature before 1998.

CO2 is at a higher level than it has ever been since 1998.

There is your proof.

Stop wishing it away and deal with the science.

Gerhard Kramm writes:

I beg your pardon, but your statement is entirely inaccurate. Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

Oh, good grief. Do I have to draw you a diagram?

Greenhouse gases mostly let sunlight pass.
The sunlight warms the Earth.
The Earth radiates infrared.
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared.
Greenhouse gases radiate infrared.
Some of that goes back down to the Earth.

That's how the greenhouse effect works. You've got both sunshine and "atmosphere shine" warming the surface, and BTW, the latter is actually larger than the former -- 333 watts per square meter compared to 161.4. They measure atmospheric back-radiation with a device called a pyrgeometer (google it), and it's really there. Atmospheric back-radiation = the greenhouse effect. Case closed.

#146

sod

using a pseudonym and stating

"the claim that this is speculation is idiotic. the effect of CO2 and water is well known,. it is a simple matter of calculation, to understand the effect on our planet.

your complete reliance on experiments puts you limits of understanding physics at the level of a 12 year old."

is not in agreement with any scientific standard.

My education is well documented. For instance, I earned my doctoral degree in meteorology (magna cum laude) at the Department of Physics of the Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany. This is a world renown institution (see http://www.hu-berlin.de/ueberblick/geschichte/nobelpr_html ), but not a community college. My papers are well known. Where is your education documented and where are your papers listed?

#147, #148

Mark

Are you a scientist educated in atmospheric physics and chemistry? Have you any knowledge in atmospheric energetics including atmospheric dynamics, turbulence, cloud physics, and radiative transfer? Please list your papers so that the common readers have a chance to evaluate your reputation.

#149

Barton Paul

Sorry, you are a programmer, but not a scientist.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm: I am an Authority, and you are Not. Therefore, AGW is bunk (per valde superbia).

So, Kramm is dismissing the scientific arguments of others by appeal to authority (or lack thereof)? And also arguing that those same others don't understand how science is done?

WTF?

Gerhard Kramm writes:

Sorry, you are a programmer, but not a scientist.

I'm certainly not a practicing scientist at the moment, despite my physics degree. But what in my post was incorrect, GK? Care to specify, so I can see what my scientific errors were?

#151

Brian D

your words are those of a scientific retard. A scientific authority does not use a pseudonym.

#152

Lee,

I have enough scientific arguments. However, I do not further discuss science with people who act like snipers using pseudonyms. Authority begins with your own name, but not with a nick name.

#152

Dear Barton Paul,

I beg your pardon, but your arguments are incorrect. First, only the divergence of the radiation flux can change the internal energy (and in a further step the temperature) of a layer of the atmosphere, but not the radiation flux itself. This is a fundamental consequence associated with the first law of thermodynamics.

Second,the radiation flux across the entire atmosphere has to be calculated using the radiative transfer equation and by integrating over all wavelengths.

Unfortunately, there is no conservation equation for radiation intensities. This means that one needs boundary conditions. At the earth's surface there is only an energy flux balance, but not a radiation flux balance. The net radiation is a part of this energy flux balance. The atmospheric fluxes of sensible and latent heat are, by far, not negligible. The included soil heat flux is of about 10 to 15 percent of the net radiation. Note that in the case of our moon this soil heat flux compensates the emitted radiation flux on the dark site of the moon. If we would ignore the soil heat flux in our calculation the surface temperature of the moon's dark side would be nearly identical with the temperature of the space, but not of about 130 K

At the top of the atmosphere there is, if at all, only a radiation flux balance on a long-term basis. This means there is no radiation balance on a daily, monthly or seasonal scales. The temperature of the thermopause, for instance, can increase up to 1800 K or so. The number density is very small. The mean free passes are very long. What consequences has the thermopause termperature for the radiative transfer calculation? Are you sure that the scientific community understand this exactly? There is, for instance, no possibility to use Planck's radiation formula as a source function in the radiative transfer equation because aloft a height of 60 km above ground because the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium cannot further be justified. Consequently, the boundary conditions commonly used by radiative transfer calculations have to be scrutinized carefully.

Third, it is well known that immediately after sunset the net radiation becomes negative. The emission by the earth's surface is much larger than the down-welling infrared radiation. Consequently, the earth's surface temperature begins to decrease. Neither the soil heat flux now directed upward nor the downward directed sensible heat flux are able to compensate this effect. The formation of temperature inversion is mainly the result of this negative net radiation. This means that the atmosphere is unable to prevent cooling of the earth's surface.

Fourth, the IPCC claims that the anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750 amounts to 1.6 W/m^2, on average. This value cannot be justified on the basis of geophysical processes. Simple uncertainty calculations using Gaussian error propagation principle shows that the degree of uncertainty is so large that this anthropogenic radiative forcing is only noise. This is a crudely estimated house number, but nothing more. If you have a degree in physics, then you should be familiar with uncertainty calculations. This is essential in physics.

Fifth, climate projections provided by General Circulation Models (so-called global climate models or GCMs) are based on conservation equations. However, cloud microphysical processes, turbulent transfer and radiative transfer processes have to be parameterized to solve the entire set of partial differential equations numerically. These parameterization schemes are huge sources of uncertainty. Please, take a look on Roger Pielke's weblog (http://climatesci.org/2009/07/24/a-new-paper-a-case-study-on-wintertime…). Kramm and Herbert (2009, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOASCJ/2009/00000003/0000… ) showed that four different parameterization schemes provided such a huge scatter in the results that we have to expect that the degree of uncertainty in this matter is of about 20 to 25 percent. In the case of geophysical processes such a degree of uncertainty is not so bad.

kind regards

Gerhard

Gerhard, what you wrote is a lot of hocus pocus.

you made a simple claim above:

Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

so i have three simply questions. yes or no will do.

does CO2 have a greenhouse effect on our atmosphere?

are there feedback effects on the climate? does one typically base such effects on statistical values? (let me remind you, that you denied the existence of such effects in post #58)

do you think that the statistical property of age of a population can have an effect on the future age that population?

Kramm:

Third, it is well known that immediately after sunset the net radiation becomes negative.

Where I live this normally starts happening (the temperature starts going down) before sunset.

#157

Dear Chris,

of course, this is possible because the formation of temperature inversions will start when the net radiation becomes negative. This can occur before sunset. It depends on the location. I described the situation as I observed during field campaigns in the middle of Europe. In Interior Alaska where I am living the situation is quite different. Especially in the period from November to February the incoming solar radiation is relatively small so that the net radiation keeps negative during daytime.

Over wet soil covered with shrubs or trees former colleagues of mine observed negatives (downward directed) sensible heat fluxes even during daytime in summer because huge portions of incoming solar radiation were converted into latent heat because of the vaporization of water.

#156

sod

the fundamental laws of physics cannot be denoted as a lot of hocus pocus.

Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation (see also Kirchhoff's law and read Einstein's paper on derivation of Planck's radiation law, also described in many textbooks on atomic physics and radiation). The notion greenhouse gas is, indeed, hocus pocus.

A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past. Such statistical results have no effect on the distribution itself. It is simple to show that different distributions can provide the same mean value. This is true also in the case of the globally averaged near surface temperature. Note that in statistics it is indispensable to distinguish between random errors and procedural errors. Only the former can be handled using statistical methods.

Feedback processes are physical processes. During my engineer's thesis nearly 37 years ago I simulated the heart action on an analog computer. One cannot do this without understanding what a feedback mechanism does mean. To solve ordinary differential equations on an analog computer it is always necessary to connect the outputs with the inputs either directly or in the case of higher-order ODEs over several integrator steps. The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock. They have a poor physical basis.

Engaging further with Gerhard Kramm is just a waste of time, and I encourage others not to give the impression that he has something meaningful to say. He cannot even get himself to the level of more "respectable skeptics" and there are only two options for his online behavior, as well as his defense of pseudo-science like G&T--- ignorance or scientific fraud. My guess is a heavy combination of both. In fact he will never even be able to communciate the science as efficiently as "programmers" like Barton Paul Levenson (who does a great job by the way) or even to other pseudonym posters who could just read the wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect and have a more complete understanding of what is happening.

The fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect (and what a greenhouse gas is) is not in question. Such discussions can be found in most elementary atmospheric science books right up to graduate and professional level material. The fact is that when an absorbing atmosphere is present, the average emission temperature of the planet is less than the surface value, and the loss of energy by the planet is therefore much less efficient than the surface emission. Another aspect of the greenhouse effect as outlined by BPL is the downward emission of terrestrial radiation to the surface. In other planetary applications one can have a significant greenhouse effect from scattering of radiation as opposed to absorption. In all cases, whether it be the Faint Young Sun paradox, the evolution of Earth's climate over geologic time, early Mars, the climate of Venus, etc, the greenhouse effect (usually CO2 as well) is a very big player and comes with enormous predictive and explanatory power. Such predictive and explanatory power also demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of those who say we can't make predictions about the effect of rising CO2 levels on temperature, those who deny a greenhouse effect period, and the like.

Despite Kramm's experience simulating heart action nearly 4 decades ago, he is also wrong with his understanding of the error in radiative forcing and his opinion that the "equations" (maybe be more specific?) of climate feedbacks is poppycock. Real discussion of these topics on forcings can be found for instance in Myhre et al 1998, Collins et al 2006, and the IPCC reports. There is also extensive literature on feedbacks (see Bony et al 2006 for a good summary), and we can understand climate change through standard forcing and feedback concepts, indicating that nothing is substantially wrong with the physics of energy balance.

Gerhard, it is good that you are a practicing scientist. We may all hope that one day you will have practiced enough to get something right.

The notion greenhouse gas is, indeed, hocus pocus.

this is simply false.

A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past. Such statistical results have no effect on the distribution itself.

you are fighting a straw man there. the mean value of course will have an effect on later values, not on the ones beforehand.

are you claiming that there is no auto correlation in time series analysis?

this would make you position even more absurd!

The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock. They have a poor physical basis.

that is false of course as well. the sea ice feed back for example is pretty good understood.

but there is no need to look at the climate. you brought up the example of an aging population yourself. i will repeat my question:

do you think that the statistical property of age of a population can have an effect on the future age that population?

It is amazing, well, ok, maybe it isn't, how many denialists get all crotchety of the use of the word greenhouse without quotes around it. I've specifically used it as 'greenhouse effect' when writing about AGW, and had someone go "ah ha, its not like a real greenhouse therefore you are wrong." So I said "Thats why I put quotes around it, because I knew someone would complain about it. You do know why the quotes are so used?"

And so on. Their self centredness is incredible.

@Gerhard Kramm:

Oh please - the old "GCMs can't parameterize clouds" canard. I notice that you don't post at Realclimate as it is a treasure trove of [information]( http://tinyurl.com/5v2f3b) on [models](http://tinyurl.com/a5ka6t) that destroys the straw man you posited on #155.

Scared of what Schmidt et al. will do to you? Grow a freaking pair and post the sh*te you dump here at RC. I dare you, but I guess you'll pussy out because you know you are WRONG.

The last time you tried [taking on people who knew calculus](http://tinyurl.com/ntdyep) you tried [every weasel way](http://tinyurl.com/lk5c6d) to escape acknowledgment of [your numerous high-school level mistakes](http://tinyurl.com/ng94g9) and you finally took your toys out and [left without even an apology](http://tinyurl.com/njn6lh).

In Duae Quartunciae's words - you demonstrate [a lack of integrity](http://tinyurl.com/nd9lpz). I would go further and think you have a serious ego issue. Not as big as Motls' that requires professional psych help, but it's getting there. At least you contributed to the mirth of everyone who read your stupidity.

And you take the tacit approval of your paper by RPSr. as some sort of vindication? Oh please. RPSr. is so entrenched in his meso-scale/regional climate worldview that whenever he tries to shift out of this scale, he gets [laughed at](http://tinyurl.com/mjdf7y) by [all and sundry](http://tinyurl.com/l4t4e5). (Oh wait - it applies to you too!)

And his recent foray into micro-meteorology with WTFWatts is pathetic. How he can assume the Monin-Obukhov ST can be applied to urban surfaces when all urban climate textbooks show otherwise? If I did that, one of my old Ph.D. comm members - a VERY well-known urban micro-meteorologist with more first-rate publications than you and RPSr. combined - would have thrown me out of the program.

Three words that applies to RPSr.: Dunning. Kruger. Effect. Pay attention Gerhard. It applies to you too.

> Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation

It does indeed.

But if it hits another molecule before it can emit IR, this can result in an INELASTIC COLLISION.

Now, someone who's done physics until 15 years old will know what an inelastic collision is.

Yet you don't.

Funny, eh?

> A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past.

Nope, temperature, as anyone who did physics up to 18 years old will know, is a statistical mean velocity of a gas molecule in the bulk.

Does temperature only exist in the past?

> The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock.

Ah, just saying it is proves it?

Poppycock.

> of course, this is possible because the formation of temperature inversions will start when the net radiation becomes negative.

Doesn't require a temperature inversion.

Just Energy out > Energy In.

Or do you think the day doesn't get dimmer until twilight has started?

Peter Taylor's book Chill needs a response. All the deniers are roaring about it like lions. Apparently Taylor has asked Monbiot to debate with him and Monbiot has gone quiet.
Can someone take a look at Chill and see if it has Plimeroid flaws?

@ Captain Black:

I haven't read Taylor's book, but the PDF he had on his website didn't seem to have anything other than the usual denialist talking points. Mostly cosmic rays and conspiracies IIRC.

He commented here on [open thread 27](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/open_thread_27.php#comment-1743…) but did not respond when asked to support his claims. Also mentioned in #33, 34 and 47 of [open thread 41](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php#comment-2275…).

	Business as usual:	ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) =	0.29 C°
-	Copenhagen Accord:	ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) =	0.27 C°
=	"Global warming" forestalled, 2010-2020:		0.02 C°