Judith Curry on climate science: Introspection or circling the wagons?

by

Climate scientist Judith Curry has regularly spoken up about the rumblings in climate science, especially in light of the CRU emails and the alleged IPCC errors. And when she speaks, people listen. She’s a respected academic, and subscribes to the consensus view that climate is changing in (large) part due to human activity (so supporters of the consensus take her seriously). But she’s also increasingly critical of mainstream science, especially the way in which the consensus has been achieved and the way certain individuals have acted (so those disagreeing with the consensus listen as well; even more so, they love her as someone from within the establishment who’s openly critical).

Journalist-blogger Keith Kloor has a good Q&A with Judith Curry which is well worth reading. As I also wrote over there, I appreciate Prof Curry’s constructive criticisms and calls for introspection. However, I find it disconcerting that she doesn’t call out the many baseless and exaggerated attacks on climate science for what they are.

In the comments, Judith Curry writes

“To see such a respected academic accused in this way (with the accusations so obviously baseless) is absolutely reprehensible.”

With “respected academic” she means Wegman (one of the main hockey players of the ‘skeptics’). I have no opinion about him, but I do note that many respected academics, pretty much a whole profession even, have been accused in often baseless, and if not entirely baseless, surely exaggerated ways. I’d say, reprehensible is the right word to describe it.

Actually, Curry has been the target of ‘skeptics’ herself. In a newer post, she recites from what she calls ‘the hurricane wars’ that were the result of a paper of hers that was (coincidentally) released a few weeks after Kathrina hit New Orleans:

“While global warming was mentioned only obliquely in the paper, the press focused on the global warming angle and a media furor followed. We were targeted as global warming alarmists, capitalizing on this tragedy to increase research funding and for personal publicity, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, etc.”

These are similar charges as are now levelled against the whole field, together with baseless charges of misconduct, fraud and data manipulation (*). What puzzles me is the apparent disconnect between her own experiences (of being viciously attacked on her science, clearly for extra-scientific reasons such as an appeal to the ‘American way of life’ etc.) and how she judges (or doesn’t judge at all) the current wave of attacks on climate science.

Perhaps the explanation is in the following:

“I learned several important lessons from this experience: Just because the other guy commits the first “foul” doesn’t give you the moral high ground in protracted academic guerilla warfare. Nothing in this crazy environment is worth sacrificing your personal or professional integrity.  After all, no one remembers who fired the first shot, all they see is unprofessional behavior.”

That is very true. But it doesn’t quite explain why not to call out reprehensible behavior for what it is. Something she isn’t shy of doing, clearly (e.g. regarding Wegman in the comments following the Q&A, and in a more subtle manner regarding the CRU emails).

Apparently she doesn’t find the way climate science is being attacked in the blogosphere and the mainstream media problematic, or if she does, she choses to focus on ‘cleaning up our own house’, while not letting the fringe talk get to her (she’s ‘been there, done that’). A commendable position actually. But I do sense a lack of critically assessing the criticism. ‘Corruption of the IPCC process’ is way too string of a statement in my mind. It’s not a very constructive start at ‘cleaning up our own house’ either, as it feels more like yet another attack on our house. The consequence, of course, is that the shutters will be closed, again.

Because that’s something where I do agree with Curry: There is a tendency of ‘circling the wagons’ within the scientific community, in response to the continuous attacks on the science. Attacks that are mostly based on smear and insinuation rather than solid arguments. It in no way resembles a scientific argument, and shouldn’t be treated as such. So while I have no straight answer to the obvious question of ‘what else than cicling the wagons could we possibly do?’, Curry’s own part- answer is a good start: Do not engage in the guerilla warfare that you feel being drawn into. But that again states what not to do. What do you do instead? is the difficult part. Engaging with skeptics is only useful insofar as they are interested in constructive knowledge building. No doubt some are. But no doubt many aren’t. E.g. a commenter at climateaudit writes:

“It only takes one honest (wo)man to bring the whole rotten edifice crashing down.”

I’d wager that people referring to climate science as a ‘rotten edifice’ are not interested in constructive dialogue or in serious scientific inquiry.

Curry is much more positive about McIntyre than most climate scientists. While indeed he’s done quite a lof of analysis of climate related data himself, he also often engage in ‘dog whistle’ politics; making subtle insinuations of data manipulation, bias and misconduct. Sometimes it’s less subtle (e.g. a headline under an image of Mike Mann saying “try not to puke”). That behavior doesn’t invalidate the occasional good point he may or may not have (I’m not opining on that), but it does cause a near-continuous stream of messages that lowershe credibility of climate science. McIntyre’s influence on the latter (lowering science’s credibility) is much larger than his constructive influence on knowledge building. Even if McIntyre may have a point on details, most of his audience and the mainstream press gets away with a totally exaggerated and erroneous impression that the science is abysmal.

It is slightly ironic that back in 2002, Phil Jones provided McIntyre with data no problem. It’s only after he found out what McIntyre is all about that he stopped being helpful. Which leads McIntyre to ask the rhetorical question: “What has changed since 2002?” At WUWT, Steve Mosher takes issue with this change in Jones’ attitude as well. Looks like the scientific community is not the only place that could do with some more introspection.

Curry finds preaching to the converted not very interesting. But preaching to people who won’t listen (except when you criticize what they dislike) is even less useful. The challenge is to distinguish those who have genuine concerns from those who are merely slinging mud and will never accept anything, no matter the strenght of the evidence. And I think a similar tendency (a defensive attitude or ‘circling the wagons’) is happening at the ‘skeptical’ side of the fence: Also those with genuine concerns regarding the science or data analysis sling around accusations of misconduct, corruption, manipulation, etc. That’s a sure way of not getting heard by the scientific community. Which adds to the defensive attitude, and the circle is round.

I think both ‘skeptics’ and scientists feel they deserve more respect than they’re getting, and as a result adopt a defensive us-versus-them attitude. If anything, I applaud Judith Curry for highlighting this in the scientific consensus ‘camp’ and calling for more introspection and a critical look at ourselves. Perhaps someone could also step up to the plate at the ‘skeptical’ camp?

 

(*) CRU’s data handling has not inflated the warming trend, see e.g. here and here. The HadCRU temperature reconstruction agrees with those of other institutes, with those currently undertaken by bloggers (some ’skeptical’; some ‘consensus’), and also with satellite reconstructions.

Alleged errors and wrongdoings have been greatly exaggerated (e.g. RC and MT and this blog on the glacier issue).

As a whole, climate science stands up very well to the various the scientific methods (Oreskes; slides here (from slide nr 30 onwards)).

Partly based on my comment at Kloor’s.

See also William Connolley’s rather critical comments. His main point is that Curry’s allegations (towards individual scientists and the IPCC) are vague and unsubstantiated.

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

224 Responses to “Judith Curry on climate science: Introspection or circling the wagons?”

  1. Magnus W Says:

    I tried to post over att kloor’s blog but lost the posts in cyberspace…

    you and WC say most of the relevant things just one thing… I’m just a PhD-Student so I don’t have that much experience of the research however I have much longer experience from politics.

    Forgetting to put this in to a bigger picture and how scientists should act in this bigger picture is a big mistake. For people to continue to put high confidence in scientists and there by making it possible for them to contribute to the taxpayers. It is important to point out where the false accusations of fraud and cheating scientists come from why they are wrong. If a scientist have issues with how the IPCC are doing their work and actually wants to contribute then it is absolutely necessary to be precise (and here Curry fails big time) otherwise the spin from the spinning machine have an all to easy task. And when something goes wrong in mainstream media stand up and do the best you can to correct it… I think that the biggest problem in the US at the moment is how the media there is working… It is the biggest difference I can see to many European countries that have much better debate, and politicians never would get away with acting like e.g. Inhofe…

    To get started on the bigger picture I recommend reading:
    Denialism: what is it ans how should scientists respond?
    european journal of public health vol. 19 no.1, 2-4
    Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of Doubt
    Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 78, No. 1, February 2008, 2-38

    http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

  2. Zeke Hausfather Says:

    I sometimes wonder how much the “us vs. them” focus of the climate science blogosphere becomes a feedback of sorts that inhibits meaningful discussion. Judy makes some good points and some that I take issue with, though my first reaction is to consider how her open criticism will be spun by the “other side”, and that’s probably not a good sign.

    Part of the problem is this idea that any crack in the edifice of climate science will somehow overturn the whole field. You see this in the puzzling obsession with Mann et al 1998 in some parts, but it probably affects both sides. For example, I saw a lot more criticism of some of Hansen’s more dire sea level projects from scientists on more private forums than I ever encountered on the prominent blogs. The inability of either side to give ground certainly doesn’t help the level of dialogue.

  3. phntwoo Says:

    Bart,

    she subscribes to the consensus view that climate is changing in (large) part due to human activity (so supporters of the consensus take her seriously).

    For that statement to prove true you would need to know how climate would have changed without human activity.

    And You [edit] do NOT know that.

    So I cannot take you seriously on this article.
    Sorry.

  4. Hank Roberts Says:

    > a lot more criticism of some of Hansen’s more dire sea
    > level projects from scientists on more private forums

    I have trouble thinking any scientist fears causing “a crack in the edifice of climate science” — when adding something to the research would likely get them a publication.

    I’d think it’s far more likely they don’t want to be this guy:

    http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/10541

    You need a strong publication record in relevant science to back up your venture into becoming a science blogger, if you want those in your own field to respect you in the morning.

  5. Bart Says:

    Zeke,

    I totally agree.

    Hank,

    I think with the “crack in the edifice” Zeke referred to the contrarian efforts in making it seem to have overturned a whole field; not that an honest scientist would think that. At least that’s how I interpreted it.

    Magnus,

    You’re right, that context is absolutely important. With the caveat, also expressed by Zeke, that we should not become blinded by ‘us-vs-them’ thinking as a result.

    phntwoo,

    Science doesn’t deliver proof. It produces understanding based on evidence and physical theory. By now it’s abundantly clear that you don’t take that seriously. There’s no need to keep underscoring that point.

  6. Scott Mandia Says:

    I can understand having Pielke, Sr., Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen at the table but NOT McIntyre or worse, Watts. McI and Watts operate their blogs with the notion that climate scientists are liars and cheats at worst or misguided group-thinking incompetents at best.

    Dr. Curry is setting science back and hurting her reputation by including those two.

    It isn’t just the anti-science crows that is being unfair to climate scientists, look at this little study I did about Climategate Coverage. The accusations got A LOT more coverage than the exonerations.

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    My Global Warming Blog
    Twitter @AGW_Prof
    “Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group

  7. Scott Mandia Says:

    Oops. Forgot the link.

    Climategate Coverage: Unfair & Unbalanced « Global Warming: Man or Myth? http://bit.ly/dm9Kf3

  8. Bart Says:

    Scott,

    I’m of two minds on this one. E.g. in his public communications, Lindzen has been quite extreme in his accusations of climate science as well. The line distinguishing him from e.g. McIntyre is that Lindzen started off as a respected academic. But McIntyre has done quite some analyses. I don’t think they’d cause a landslide change in the scientific thinking about climate change, but at least he’s done some work and thinking, FWIW. If he were to let go of his insinuations/accusations, he could very well make a serious contribution to the science, and he would probably be accepted as well (though by now he has probably gone too far to be given the benefit of the doubt). Watts on the other hand shows no sign of any constructive contribution. If he were to let go of his accusations, all that’s left are rehashed press releases (sometimes quite interesting as a (biased) climate news aggregator actually), photographs and cold weather reports.

    In a way, anyone who abides by the scientific methods and by some minimal level of civility and respect can have a seat at the scientific table.

  9. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    Hi Bart,

    I think in the US context the two sides in question are Democrats and Republicans. Climate scientists are overwhelmingly Democrats. We discussed this a few weeks back in the context of an article written by Bailey.

    If I have to be put in a camp, I rather like a division into “environmentalists” and “techno-optimists”. The neat thing about that is that I then fall into the camp favouring science and technology, while the opponents are the ones rejecting scientific progress and who want to send us back to live on trees or in caves ;-)

    There isn’t a perfect overlap, but quite a bit, and when forced to choose tribes and when considering who else is in the two tribes to choose from, often enough:

    environmentalists = Democrats = climate science believers

    techno-optimists = Republicans = climate skeptics.

    What this tribalism does, and in particular what appeals to fellow tribe members to please carefully consider the impact of what they say on their tribe’s standing do, is to make it much harder to find a consensus on the facts. After all, people sympathising with the other side (and on many measures that’s half the population) hear these appeals as well, and read them as a call for a conspiracy to suppress facts supportive of their side.

  10. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Heiko,

    Your characterization of “environmentalists” (vs “techno-optimists”) is not meant to be serious, right?

    Personally, I think any thinking within boxes is hampering a constructive discourse, whether it is along party lines, trust in the science, or trust in technology, or whatever.

    That’s where I agree with Judith Curry: Tribalism is not a good thing; neither for the science, nor for the public discussion.

  11. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    Hi Scott and Bart,

    I think McIntyre’s focus is on paleo studies (temperature history of the last 1000 years mostly, and mostly tree rings) and to a lesser degree on the three main temperature indices (GISS etc.). Watts is primarily about the temperature indices (yes there’s lots more on his blog, but he’s just aggregating all sorts of interesting climate news, articles and opinion pieces there). In spite of all the noise around these areas, I think the number of climate scientists involved in the tree ring studies and temperature index compilations amounts to 50 individuals or so. Millions of people read these blogs (McI and Watts, but also realclimate and the like), but the government funding going into the generation of the statistics being criticised is only a few million Euros per year, as far as I know. An alternative reading to climate scientists being incompetent group thinkers is therefore that the group in question is a tiny subset of climate science (especially in terms of funding) and the research area so underfunded that the quality of the output necessarily must suffer, which the members of the group underplay in public out of tribal / likely political impact considerations without properly realising this themselves in the charged atmosphere created by politically tinged tribalism.

    Earlier you said, blogging was like talking over a beer, well, even on the premise that paleo studies and the world temperature index work is underfunded severely by a factor 100 and deserves not tens of millions, but a few billion per year, I think that these areas are still high in blog entertainment value, where they get like 80% of the attention, and nowhere near that important a piece in the overall climate issue.

  12. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    Hi Bart,

    on my blog I wrote about this distinction a while back. The caricature of an environmentalist is someone who rejects all technology fearing the potential dangers. The caricature of a techno-optimist is someone who will support technology developments that are near 100% certain to wipe out humanity and is not willing to see the blindingly obvious dangers.

    But beyond the caricature, I think there is a real distinction there that I see in the stance people take on say solar radiation management.

    I also think that some of this is indeed based on faith, or on an assessment of the likelihood of unknown unknowns in Rumsfeld speak, where we cannot properly make an assessment. What is the likelihood of an ultra cheap energy source turning up over the next twenty years?

    Or what is the likelihood there is a planet with life on it somewhere in Andromeda? This is the type of question where a rational proability determination is just plain impossible, because it depends on things we do not know enough about. It’s like asking for a probability that I’ll obtain a 26 on a die without telling me whether it’s a 6 sided die (ie probability is 0) or a 1000 sided die (probability is 0.001). The likelihood is then plain not known.

    Yet we still have to make decisions about how vulnerable society is to economic shocks, or how important ecosystems are to human survival. This is where perfectly rational people can quite reasonably come to different conclusions based on exactly the same facts.

  13. Zeke Hausfather Says:

    Hank Roberts,

    I was referring more to the tendency of certain skeptic sites (CA, WUWT) to take small methodological issues and frame them as the “final nail in the coffin of AGW” or whatnot. This in turn can lead to a reaction on the part of blogging scientists to try and avoid any criticism of problematic claims of other scientists or extensive focus on uncertainty in order to avoid having their statements exploited. In the long run though, it can make the climate science discussion worse all around. Granted, sites like RC are less subject to this than, say, Romm, but I’d argue there is a tendency not to be as frank about the proverbial dirty laundry on blogs as one would be around colleagues.

  14. Bart Says:

    Zeke,

    Indeed. That’s an issue that needs addressing. Fear is a bad advisor, including fear of being co-opted or fear of your words being twisted and turned.

  15. Tom Fuller Says:

    My blood pressure started to drop when I started being able to better identify those who were involved in politics and policy and distinguish them from those interested in science and data.

    Joe Romm–politics. Gets on my nerves.
    Bart Verheggen–science. Really helps me understand.

    Monckton–politics. Gets on my nerves.
    Climate Audit–data integrity. Really helps me understand.

    I started my journey following climate change as pretty skeptical, because of what people did to Lomborg and the way I saw people treated at Real Climate. Smelled frankly like a cover-up of the weakness of science.

    I became much more open to the real achievements of climate science and became a ‘lukewarmer’ because of the ongoing efforts of patient and civil people like Bart, Judith Curry and a handful of others.

    Just a personal description–not trying to be prescriptive about anything. But I would say that anyone upset about some of the things said on weblogs, both in posts and comments, should start to pay attention to who is saying what. The sample segments itself pretty quickly.

  16. Deep Climate Says:

    Bart,
    You have decided to quote Judith Curry’s ill-informed and erroneous criticism of my textual analysis of the Wegman report. However, you have (so far) “no opinion” on her actual statement.

    Of course, I categorically reject Curry’s characterization of my posts as an “absolutely reprehensible” attack based on “accusations so obviously baseless”.

    Curry claimed that my analysis was based on a single definition found in Wikipedia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I have found more than seven pages of Wegman report to be constituted of unattributed material “striking similar” to various sources, including Wikipedia, two text books on social network analysis, as well as Raymond Bradley’s classic text on paleoclimatology.

    The side-by-side comparisons can be found here:

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wegman-bradley-tree-rings.pdf

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals1.pdf

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/wegman-social-networks1.pdf

    The various analyses based on these are easily found, so I won’t clutter your blog with those links.

    It should go without saying that I do agree with you that climate scientists “have been accused in often baseless, and if not entirely baseless, surely exaggerated ways”. I’m sure if you read up on the Barton investigation, you will come to understand that it falls squarely into the pattern you have forthrightly called “reprehensible”. In fact, it may well be the most egregious example of the phenomenon. [edited on request]

  17. Tom Fuller Says:

    I guess I now need to add that what Deep Climate did to Wegman is symptomatic of the absolute worst that weblogs have to offer the world in understanding our world and what we can do.

    It is absolute slime at its worst and people interested in trying to find out what’s happening and what we should do about it should condemn what Deep Climate did in the strongest and clearest possible terms.

    I recently published research finding that Lord Oxburgh’s company had extensive occurrences of organised crime activities at sites where Falck Renewables put up windfarms.

    But throughout, I repeatedly wrote that this was not in any way an accusation against Oxburgh. I had a legitimate motive–to show that drawing the head of the UEA inquiry from the private renewables sector was guaranteed to produce conflicts of interest and murky areas of business conduct, and that we would have been better served by selection of someone from the legal sector.

    Contrast this with the mudslinging Deep Climate used against Wegman and you see the difference clearly. I have nothing but utter contempt for what Deep Climate did.

  18. pough Says:

    … not in any way an accusation against Oxburgh… guaranteed to produce conflicts of interest and murky areas of business conduct …

    Ah, the classic “this is in no way an accusation, but I think you’re probably corrupt” ploy.

    Contrast this with the mudslinging Deep Climate used against Wegman and you see the difference clearly.

    I don’t think you’ve presented your case very well, because it seems to me that the biggest difference is that Deep Climate doesn’t come across as completely oblivious.

  19. Bart Says:

    Deep Climate,

    I wrote that I don’t have a strong opinion about Wegman, as I haven’t looked into that stuff in any detail (and neither did Judith Curry, as she later admitted). Curry’s statement about your investigations struck me as odd, based on what I read a your site. The oddness that I focussed on here is in relation to the very clear reprehensability (?) of the attacks on science, which she hasn’t denounced or discussed at all (afaik).

    Tom,

    There’s a some irony in seeing your characterization of deepclimate in the context of you denouncing the treatment at RC.

    Perhaps RC (by nature of being run by high level climate scientists) is mostly appropriate for other scientists and those who have a basic trust of climate science. Some of those who come to RC with a simmering distrust in the science seem to leave RC in negativity and even more skeptical. That could be an important observation (if it is widespread).

  20. Deep Climate Says:

    Bart,
    That’s more or less what I thought, but it’s good to have your explicit clarification.

  21. crazy bill Says:

    Umm, Tom,… aren’t you being a tad hypocritical? In both of your assertions?

    As far as I can see, what DC has done is an extremely useful analysis of the Wegman report and its similarity to prior publications (by other people, unattributed). Striking (Disturbing?) similarity. Thanks to DC for revealing it for all the world to see.

    And yet, you say people should “should start to pay attention to who is saying what.”.

    Indeed.

  22. Anonymous Says:

    Bart,

    The idea that Macintyre has somehow put himself outside the pale seems to me strained. He has published in respectable journals and his analysis has stood up to all the criticisms, though it is being misrepresented to this day (e.g. the idea that he proposed an alternative reconstruction). the mudslinging began before he ahd even published his first paper.

    consider the following quote from Michael Mann in an email from October 26 2003

    “My suggested response is:
    1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is already known to have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we know has been asked to “review” this so-called paper
    2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
    Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is..
    Thanks for your help,
    mike”

    I draw your attention in particular to the phrase “to deny that this has any intellectual credibility”. This was a campaign against Macintyre even before he got into print. There is no serious attempt at refutation and MacIntyre’s criticisms were solid enough to cause Nature to demand corrections. Then the early posts at Real Climate were heavily critical of MacIntyre (even before Climate Audit was set up I think). Climate Audit is sometimes sarcastic, but it is generally very much politer than the vitriol which can be found in the climate gate emails and on Real Climate. As Judith Curry implies, it is well worth reading Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, not least for a description of the way MacIntyre has been treated by the “hockey Team”. The example of the supposed Amman and Wahl “refutation” is particular instructive.

  23. MapleLeaf Says:

    HT to “sod” over at Deltoid.

    “http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-page-2/#comment-3622

    Judith Curry Says: April 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
    Keith, thanks for raising this point. The people slagging off on McIntyre, Watts et al. have probably spent no time over at their blogs or made an effort to get to know them personally and understand what makes them tick. Or to talk to the scientific skeptics like Christy, Michaels. Or talk to the libertarian think tanks, like CATO and CEI. Well, i’ve made that effort, and therefore I think I know alot more about the what the “deniers” are really like than the people accusing me of naivete, who have drawn premature conclusions because somebody found some sort of obscure link to an oil company. Well, if any medical researcher who got funds or otherwise engaged with pharmaceuticals was demonized like those linked even in some obscure way with an oil company, well medical research would come to a screeching halt.”

    This post if it can indeed be attributed to Dr. Curry really undermines her credibility and integrity IMO. If what she wrote above is true, then it shows that Curry has gone to the dark side and has been, for want of a better expression, duped by the contrarians. It also shows her blatant asymmetric skepticism; I would not mind some of her critique if she also applied it to the contrarians. She seems to be trying to play both sides of the field. If she keeps this up here reputation is going to be in tatters, if it is not already, and that is very unfortunate, as it was completely preventable and her own doing.

    PS: If Dr. Curry honesty believes that McIntyre, Watts, CEI and Cato operate in good faith, have integrity and an genuine interest in advancing the science, then I am left speechless.

  24. joe Says:

    Bart; Fascinating post. I think the “us-vs-them” problem stems mainly from the fact that most arguments against AGW tend to originate from (let’s put this charitably) non-peer reviewed research (i.e. blogs). As your site has demonstrated, constructive scientific debate can and does happen on blogs, but the body of evidence (both for and against AGW) still needs to be built within the framework of peer review. No matter how much you disagree with someone’s results, mudslinging won’t change the science.

    Tom: You’re fine with CA (apparently because of their concern for “data integrity”), but you have nothing but contempt for DeepClimate who painstakingly detailed extensive plagiarism in a widely-publicized report? What’s the difference?

  25. Tom Fuller Says:

    Hi Joe,

    I obviously don’t consider what Deep Climate did as painstaking, nor detailed, nor what it describes as extensive, nor plagiarism. I do consider it a cheap smear.

  26. Tom Fuller Says:

    Bart, Crazy Bill and Joe,

    You see nothing overtly political about what Deep Climate is doing? If the worst case was true and it turned out that someone did cut and paste some of the definitions used in Wegman’s report, what would that in fact mean?

  27. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom,

    “I do consider it a cheap smear.”

    That would be wrong. You seem disinterested in ethics and scientific misconduct by contrarians. I’m sure if Jones had plagiarized large sections of text you would be screaming it from the hill tops and demanding an inquiry. Your asymmetric skepticism and hypocrisy are astounding.

    You can cavalierly dismiss what DC has done, but the damning evidence is simply not going to go away, nor is AGW for that matter.

    I’m sure that you only believe the true painstaking and detailed analyses to be undertaken by “reputable” and “honest brokers” like Anthony Watts (sarc).

    PS: Not that DC is engaging in “cheap smear” as you suggest, but what do you call McI’s references to “crack cocaine”, and “James Hansen and his disciples have a more jihadist approach”? Now that is an example of cheap smear– and there is more where that came from. Surely you are not going to deny that as well.

  28. Tom Fuller Says:

    Okay, let’s do a comparison. Donna Framboise engaged three teams of researchers to go through IPCC’s AR4. They found that over one third of references were to grey literature–press releases and such. You want to toss Wegman because some boilerplate got lifted by some intern and pasted into the background of the report? Let’s toss AR4, then. After all Rajendra Pachauri famously said it was 100% peer-reviewed.

    As a writer whose work is constantly pasted into other peoples’ websites–entire articles, not just sections–I can only say that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery–and if Wegman’s staff plagiarised dictionary definitions and textbook descriptions, doesn’t that mean that they’re umm, accurate? You want to jump on him for not citing his references, fine–but to try and discredit his work because some intern got lazy? Get real.

  29. Scott Mandia Says:

    Tom,

    I highly doubt that you are a “lukewarmer” despite your claims. You have a lot of balls to criticize Deep Climate after publishing Climategate: The CRUtape Letters.

    You make Frank Luntz proud.

    Sorry, Bart, for the language but this latest Dr. Curry disaster has me quite annoyed. How can such a smart person be so naive? How did McIntyre charm her so?

    I cannot believe we are beating this dead horse yet again. And all the while the ice is melting, seas are rising, oceans are dying,…….

  30. Tom Fuller Says:

    Hi Scott,

    Well, first, I believe global warming is real and demands a policy response. I have written extensively on that. You can believe it or not–your option.

    Second, have you read my book?

    Third, I made a ton of money in London showing Luntz up for the methodologically challenged hack that he is–if you want to lump me in with him, go ahead. You already seem to be talking from a position of ignorance. “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” Herbert Spencer

  31. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom, you are not an ambiguous dog too are you? Look it up.

    Your comments here and elsewhere are inconsistent with your claim that “I believe global warming is real and demands a policy response”

    Steve Mosher plays the same game, as does McIntyre. They seem to do so in order to try and give some semblance of credibility to the nefarious claims and allegations they make against climate science and scientists.

    If you do wish to demonstrate your impartiality and firm belief in AGW, then please hold the feet of the contrarians and self-proclaimed “skeptics” to the fire. You will find an an abundance of fact-based material, and won’t have to resort to distorting and misrepresentation to get a good “story”. The facts are out there for you and all to see. All you have to do is apply some true journo skills and some true skepticism. I’m all ears for your detailed and damning expose series on the “skeptics” like McIntyre et al..

    And a rather lame attempt by you to detract from the plagiarism in the Wegman report. So now some intern is being thrown to the dogs– Mr. Harper would be proud of you. You forget that Wegman signed off on the report, he thereby endorsed all its contents. Intriguing how you don’t let facts get in the way of shedding some light on your bias.

  32. Scott Mandia Says:

    Tom,

    1) Don’t believe you.

    2) Nope. No need to. And how does your book advance your first statement?

    3) Luntz: The scientific debate [on climate change] remains open.
    Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…

    I would say that your book and your posts do a good job of this – even if unintentional.

  33. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Leaf, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I know Mosher believes as I do. I’ve never spoken with McIntyre, but people who have tell me he does, too.

    You guys will never understand what Curry is trying to do until you understand lukewarmers–get this straight:

    1. Michael Mann did bad. The Hockey Stick is junk.
    2. Global warming is real and requires action on our part.

    If that makes your head explode, it’s your problem, not mine.

    The fact that you are playing this Wegman plagiarism game just lumps you in with the political hacks that don’t care about the facts and are just sliming anyone you can. I’m used to it–go ahead with me. But it’s just sleazy what you’re doing to Wegman.

  34. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom says “Let’s toss AR4, then. After all Rajendra Pachauri famously said it was 100% peer-reviewed.”

    How you do distort, lie even?

    From the IPCC referring to WGII:

    “The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.[2]

    [2] ‘Grey’ literature is defined as literature which is not available through traditional commercial publication channels, such as working papers, government reports and theses, which therefore may be difficult to access.”

    from:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-1.html

    And AR4 was reviewed extensively by scientists:

    “Each of the twenty chapters of the Working Group II Fourth Assessment had a minimum of two Coordinating Lead Authors, six Lead Authors and two Review Editors. The writing team and review editors were appointed by the IPCC Bureau on the recommendation of the Working Group II Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. They were selected from the pool of nominated experts, in consultation with the international community of scientists active in the field, and taking into consideration expertise and experience. In total, the Working Group II Fourth Assessment involved 48 Coordinating Lead Authors, 125 Lead Authors and 45 Review Editors, drawn from 70 countries. In addition there were 183 Contributing Authors and 910 Expert Reviewers.”

    same source as above.

  35. Scott Mandia Says:

    Tom,

    1) The Hockey Stick is not just Mann.

    2) And your book will do wonders for that.

    Sleazy is taking STOLEN personal emails and profiting by writing a book. Please!

  36. Tom Fuller Says:

    Scott,

    1. Don’t care. Because of 2.

    2. You criticize something you’ve never read. Tell me, is that prima facie evidence of intellectual bankruptcy, or just moral vacuity? As for how it advances my first statement:

    (P.8, Climategate: The CRUtape Letters)

    “But—and it’s a big but—although we are harsh in our criticism of the actions of this group of climate scientists and paleoclimatologists known as The Team, readers need to understand two things:
    1. Our criticism does not extend to criticism of the theory of global warming. Both your authors believe global warming exists, is a problem and needs to be addressed. We just don’t think it poses a catastrophic threat to civilization. We explain in detail below.
    2. Our criticism should not be construed as criticism of the majority of scientists investigating our climate, its effects and possible changes to it in the future. We have communicated with a large number of climate scientists, and they are not at all like The Team in either attitude or behavior.
    We are tough on the scientists we call The Team, and we think deservedly so. But we want to stress from the outset that we do not for one minute believe there is any evidence of a long-term conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming, by The Team or anyone else. What we find evidence of on a much smaller scale is a small group of scientists too close to each other, protecting themselves and their careers, and unintentionally having a dramatic, if unintended, effect on a global debate.”

    3. Why would I care what Luntz says? He’s helped conservatives lose the world over. I’m not a conservative and I’m not interested in losing. More importantly, why would you care what he says?

  37. Krumhorn Says:

    Isn’t that odd? Mosher, McIntyre, Fuller and Curry are thrashed for their skepticism even as they claim some appreciation for the purported weight of the evidence that favors AGW. But isn’t that precisely the role of a scientist to be particularly brutal when challenging their own assumptions and methodologies?

    But now that skepticism is characterized as nothing more than a facade behind which insidious destructive forces do their dirty deeds. And meanwhile “the ice is melting, seas are rising, oceans are dying,…….”

    The true believers brook no nonsense whatsoever unless that nonsense begins with absolute acceptance and a defense of the received wisdom.

    That’s not science. That’s religion.

    The scientists worth their salt are the ones who are particularly ruthless in the effort to demolish their own conclusions and welcome all comers to do the same. That kind of conduct builds credibility for the proposition offered. No doubt, that is Curry’s point.

    ………….

  38. Tom Fuller Says:

    The Hockey Stick is bad science. Don’t you care? What exactly do you do for a living that you can not care about bad science being on the cover of IPCC reports?

  39. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom,

    I encourage you to look up the poem “ambiguous dog’, it perfectly encapsulates you and the likes of McIntyre.As for McIntyre’s stance of AGW. This is a quote form an interview which was printed in the Canadian media. Tom, you really should learn to Google, with extreme caution of course. Anyhow, here is his what he said:

    “While McKitrick doubts the threat of climate change, and thinks his research has helped cast doubt on such fears, McIntyre — despite the demonization of him — said he really doesn’t know what to think.
    “I honestly don’t know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem,” he said.

    I’m doing nothing to Wegman, he did himself in when he signed off on that report.

    Tom, and what about all the independent proxies using other stats techniques and other data (excluding dendro chronologies) which corroborate Mann’s HS? Convenient how you ignore them. That said, I am glad to read that you at least realise that whether the HS broken or not, it has nothing to do with the theory of AGW.

    You say AGW requires action on our part. Yet how come I get the feeling you are smirking in private when you hear the French back away from a carbon tax, or the Aussies backing away from measures to limit GHG emissions. Please prove me wrong, and condemn their myopic actions in public.

  40. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple leaf, don’t accuse me of crap and expect to have a civil conversation:

    “It is really a question of looking at the most vulnerable regions of the world … like small island states and parts of sub-Saharan Africa.”

    People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions, he said.

    “The process is so robust – almost to a fault – that I’m not sure there is too much scope for error. Where there are gaps we are very candid in admitting we don’t know enough about this subject,” he said.

    “Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I’m not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0

    And those 900 reviewers seem to have missed stuff about Himalayan glaciers, flood and hurricane damage, and the 5,618 references that came from press releases.

  41. Tom Fuller Says:

    And Mapleleaf, don’t throw crap in my direction and then ask me to make statements on your pet pony tricks.

  42. Tom Fuller Says:

    “This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” – Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

  43. Krumhorn Says:

    I gather it’s MapleLeaf’s view that the ‘science is settled’.

    I don’t know why we bother with any further pesky discussions of it. It’s such a nuisance when there is all that saddling of economies and wealth transfers to be done.

  44. Tom Fuller Says:

    That’s what this is all about, obviously. You are letting a thug trash Wegman to protect bad science.

    What a contribution to the 21st Century.

    Shame on all of you.

  45. MapleLeaf Says:

    Krumhorn,

    I never said the science is settled. Please stop distorting, arguing straw men, and attributing fallacious statement to me. That is a lame and transparent ‘defense’.

    Tom,

    Pachauri, if he indeed said that, clearly mis-spoke. Please provide the source. Did you bother to ask him yourself, or ask him to clarify/elaborate?

    And can you please elaborate on “don’t throw crap in my direction and then ask me to make statements on your pet pony tricks.”. Thanks.

    Is WGII perfect? No. I’m not going to defend the Himalayan error. Hopefully AR5 will be even more rigorous, but mistakes will occasionally slip through. Anyhow, they are taking steps to address those issues. To expect perfection in a thousand plus page document is unrealistic and unreasonable. As for droughts, read the paper by Dai et al. (2004). please, do read it.

    I do love how you take on face value some ad hoc “evaluation” of AR4 by some biased self-interest group. You clearly did not apply “skepticism” to their claims, and are happy to parrot their claims here and elsewhere. Do some actual fact checking for once.

    I also asked you about the independently-derived SAT proxies. Silence. I also asked you to publicly condone the mendacious antics of the ‘skeptics’ and contrarians, and the myopic actions of the French and Australian governments. Silence. You taking offense at some yet unsubstantiated claim of ‘crap’ and throwing your toys is not an excuse for not answering some reasonable questions. Questions which going by your alleged understanding of the threat of AGW you should have no problem answering in a pubic forum.

    The source for my McIntyre quote was:

    http://www2.canada.com/northshorenews/story.html?id=2307613

    I am very happy to engage you in a civil debate Tom. Question is, are you up for it? Going by your weaseling thus far, my deduction is no.

  46. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom,

    “You are letting a thug trash Wegman to protect bad science.”

    Is the irony and hypocrisy of this statement by lost on you? Go after the real thugs Tom. Surely I do not need to provide you a list? By the way, have you actually engaged DC? Maybe you should listen to Curry’s advice and engage him/her. Or is that infamous asymmetry/double standard at play here again?

    The science has moved on since Mann et al 1998, might I suggest that you move on too. That said, the transgressions of Wegman et al. need to be addressed, regardless of when they were made.

  47. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom,

    “5,618 references that came from press releases.”

    Could you please support this claim with some substance and details/specifics as to how they arrived at that number. Thanks.

  48. Hank Roberts Says:

    search – “5,618 references” press releases IPCC
    – did not match any documents.

    Dr. Curry has withdrawn the comments about DC’s analysis of the Wegman papers, saying she didn’t actually know about the subject.

    TF echoed what Dr. Curry originally said — bad timing — and will have to either follow Dr. Curry’s lead, continue to make the assertion without having read the side by side comparisons of the text files, or do the reading.

    Seems like a red herring to distract from the topic, frankly.

  49. jakerman Says:

    Tom, what is the limit to plagerism that you support? And what level of plagerism do you believe DC has documented in Wegman’s report?

  50. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Leaf, I already told you that you don’t get to insult me and then demand I respond to some idiocy of yours. Sorry.

    Roberts. Pathetic. Just pathetic. Too bad you don’t know how to find stuff on Google. It would stop you from having to invent things.

  51. Tom Fuller Says:

    jakerman, my stuff gets lifted completely for articles on various skeptic websites, depending on what I’m writing about. Sometimes attribution is good, sometimes it’s poor to nonexistent. I think I read recently something about Wikipedia having a liberal definition of what’s acceptable use without attribution, but I don’t agree with it. If you use someone else’s stuff you should acknowledge it. If someone at Wegman’s office didn’t do that, they erred.

    What I disagree with more is the vilification of Wegman in a useless attempt to rescue Mann. It’s cheap and dirty. I don’t like it when skeptics do it, and have said so. I don’t like it when consensus holders do it either.

    Again–do you toss AR4 because of mistakes and violations of policy? I personally would say no, at least not to WG1. But how consistent are you going to be? Even WG1 has 18% of their references going to grey lit.

  52. Tom Fuller Says:

    jakerman, as to what I’ve seen in the side by side comparison, a lot of it seems to be stuff that it would be fairly difficult to write in another way. A lot of it seems to be the stuff that an intern would crib, rewrite a bit and plug in if he was in a hurry to meet a deadline. None of it is stuff that I would expect Wegman to be writing himself. Look at it. Look at what Wegman does for a living, look at his contribution to the report. This is kid stuff.

    Contrast it with the errors in substance that Mann did. Where is the sense of perspective? This is nakedly political slime designed, not to win an argument today, but so some jerk at Deltoid can later comment ‘Wegman was decisively convicted of plagiarism.’ Pathetic.

  53. jakerman Says:

    Tom, Thank you for clarifying some of your views on plagerism in general.

    Do I toss AR4 wg2 for 3 mistatkes in 1000 pages? No I commend them for correcting the record. Do I toss AR4 for policy violations? I don’t konw which policy?

    Can I ask again, what level of plagerism do you believe DC has documented in the Wegman report?

  54. Tom Fuller Says:

    None. Plagiarism involves intent to deceive, of which I see no evidence or even inference.

  55. jakerman Says:

    Leap frog posting applogies,

    If an intern were responsible for the pages and pages of lifted and copied work appearing in Wegman, would you agree that we have been deprived of reading the authors’ (Wegman et al) synthsis and comprehention of the issues discussed?

  56. Tom Fuller Says:

    No. Had I commissioned the report I would have expected a natural division of labor with an intern-level resource generating background material for use by Wegman in deliberations as well as inclusion in the final report.

  57. jakerman Says:

    So the supposed interns have played a significant role in selection of background material without proper engagement with or synthesis of it? And supposedly Wegman made finding in this context of information?

  58. DLM Says:

    Tom 14, hockey team 0

  59. Tom Fuller Says:

    I don’t know. Ask Wegman (Have any of the master sleuths tried this?).

    I find it doubtful. I think they could be very engaged–to the point of information overload, which would paint them into a corner as far as deadlines. But this is just speculation.

    The point is they provided Wegman with accurate information. Word for word, you might say. If this idle speculation proved to be true, Wegman would have in front of him the very words, not an abridgement.

    Wouldn’t you say that would assist in his analysis?

  60. jakerman Says:

    “I don’t know. Ask Wegman ”

    Tom, haven’t you made this defense without asking Wegman if it were the interns what done it?

    “I find it doubtful. I think they could be very engaged–to the point of information overload”

    Those engagmed to point of overload don’t need plagerise word for word. One fully engaged with synthesis the material into ones own patterns and pathways.

    “The point is they provided Wegman with accurate information”

    The point is what processes were used to make the finding. What was cosidered? And how were those cosiderations selected?

    The Wegman report (without attribtuion) seems to be across the background issues, when infact this appears to a signficant degree to the result of lifting others work rather than proper synthesis.

  61. Tom Fuller Says:

    Well, jakerman, you’re the one asking the questions. But why are you asking me? I’m just presenting what I know of how reports get written in a general sense to show why I think the accusations are stupid, wrong and malicious.

    But hey–you go find the facts. You’ve got the burning questions.

  62. jakerman Says:

    “But hey–you go find the facts. You’ve got the burning questions.”

    DC has presented facts. I note that facts were not necessary for you to fabricate a denfese of the plagerism nor any required for you to blame some intern.

  63. Tom Fuller Says:

    And you know, if you digitise Wegman’s report into a binary representation of the English alphabet and then feed it into Mann’s calculating procedures, I’ll bet you get a Hockey Stick.

  64. Tom Fuller Says:

    DC has facts? Where?

  65. jakerman Says:

    DC linked you to his comparison earlier:

    “The side-by-side comparisons can be found here:”

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wegman-bradley-tree-rings.pdf

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals1.pdf

    http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/wegman-social-networks1.pdf

  66. jakerman Says:

    Further more , the chart put the scale of Mann et al 99 errors into perspective (ie the errors were of a type that did not significantly alter the finds).

  67. Tom Fuller Says:

    I’ve seen the materials you link to. I see nothing to support claims of unethical or criminal behaviour. At worst, as I’ve said before, it looks very much like an intern behaving carelessly.

    Done for the evening. Jakerman, thank you for engaging collegially, despite our opposing views.

  68. jakerman Says:

    A generous finding by Tom towards the demonstrated plagerism in Wegman et al (and a construct of the intern defesne to boot. No required for this finding). I wonder how many were as gernerous with Phil Jones and the CRU.

  69. Krumhorn Says:

    MapleLeaf

    I dunno. It wasn’t much of a leap to get to the ‘science is settled’ subtext. Nowadays, even the proponents don’t dare say that with quite the verve of times past, but it’s implicit in your comments as well as those like Scott Mandia’s.

    *******
    “You say AGW requires action on our part. Yet how come I get the feeling you are smirking in private when you hear the French back away from a carbon tax, or the Aussies backing away from measures to limit GHG emissions. Please prove me wrong, and condemn their myopic actions in public”
    ********

    By all means, lets hustle into carbon taxes and restraints on CO2 and think nothing of it.

    The problem outlined by Ms Curry and so many others is that those that argue the case for action have behaved abominably. The arrogance and sneering condescension is palpable from a distance. And when you combine it with more than a whiff of corruption and turpitude followed up by whitewashes and circled wagons, people naturally react with a strong sense that something’s not quite right here whether they can follow the details of the science or not.

    Then when scientists and mathematicians and statisticians who are fully capable of understanding the details make clear that they don’t join the ‘consensus’…..and then are trashed mercilessly by those that do….it’s no wonder that folks start checking for party affiliations and political motives.

    The very best friends on this planet that AGW proponents have, apart from policy allies who are drooling at the chops for all that revenue, wealth redistribution and control, are folks like Mosher, McIntyre, Fuller and Curry. Because they bring honor and scientific integrity to a process that, on the evidence, is sorely lacking both.

    If Steve McIntyre one day posts on his blog that he feels the thesis has been finally been proven and that action must be taken, then millions of people will take serious notice. And when Lindzen and Spencer follow, you can begin to count me in too because, so far, I’m not convinced. I’m not a luke warmer. I’m an ice colder.

    I give Bart credit for his class and decency. The VS thread was a magnificent, enthralling discussion, and that sort of thing is the way to sort out issues and make the case in a convincing manner. I’m pretty sure that was what Dr. Curry was advocating because Gavin, Mann, Santer and Hansen are just not cutting it. Not by a longshot.

    …………..

    ………

  70. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom et al.,

    On a break here, so doing this on the fly.

    Tom, how exactly did I offend/insult you? Was it my reference to the “ambiguous dog”? You were suggesting earlier that you are thick skinned, but know you are using your alleged hurt feelings to avoid answering some important questions. While also calling DC names (e.g., jerk, thug), and referring to my alleged “idiocy”. So you are OK insulting others, but pout when you take offense to my seemingly accurate analogy? Please, do grow up.

    And no, I did not ‘demand’ you answer them, but other readers here would probably also appreciate an answer. Thanks.

    Hank this is probably the dodgy source of Tom’s stats:

    http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/

    I think one should exercise extreme caution before disseminating stats from that particular “audit”. I love the irony, Tom is disparaging the IPCC for citing grey literature (which is within their mandate) and at the same time he is using supporting ‘evidence” from an unvetted and informal ‘audit’– it does not get any more ‘grey’ than that. I suspect that Tom liked their answer, and didn’t want to be bothered with verifying them, lest it raise some inconvenient and awkward truths. How about you at least provide a citation for those stats. Nah, easier to act as an echo chamber for the contrarians. Do you see know Tom why I made the ambiguous dog analogy? You say in one breath that the IPCC is fraught with problems, yet in another breath you claim that we should perhaps not ignore it.

    Anyhow, wasn’t this thread about Dr. Curry’s unfortunate musings?

    PS: IMO, I do not think that DC is trying to protect Mann, not that Mann needs protecting, he did nothing wrong at least not intentionally, but rather holding Wegman et al. to account for worrisome findings in their report. Students have been expelled form university for much less serious transgressions and/or for committing plagiarism. Tom, I find your double standard most telling.

  71. jakerman Says:

    A primer on the temperature reconstructions:

    http://laymans-guide.com/temperature-reconstructions/

  72. MapleLeaf Says:

    Krunhorn,

    You are making some huge deductions based on nothing more than your gut feeling. Wow, and you continue to distort. The science is never settled, it continues to advance and the more information that comes in shows that some of the impacts of AGW are probably going to be more serious than were initially thought. Anyhow, climate scientists have known for a long time now that AGW is a legitimate concern and has the potential to have serious consequences for humanity down the road. Now you, of course, probably believe that is all bunk.

    We are not “hustling” into anything. Read Spencer Weart’s book. AGW has been on the radar for a very long time, and scientists have been warning us of the potential consequences for decades. So please, stop making it sound like scientists are forcing this upon people; you’ll be happy to know that we probably have missed the boat already in terms of reducing GHG emissions. As for conspiracy theories about ‘wealth distribution’ and global government– I guess you have to do whatever it takes to convince yourself that it is OK to maintain the very convenient and comfortable status quo (well for you, and for now at least).

    Anyhow, I think it best for us to politely agree to disagree. Good night.

    PS; Personally, I’m naively hoping for that climate sensitivity is closer to +1.5 C, assuming of course we don’t go on to triple CO2 levels (not to mention concomitant increases in CH4, N20 etc).

  73. Tim Lambert Says:

    Here is one of the references that Fuller suggests proves you can’t trust the IPCC reports. The first chapter of WG1 says:

    “Sir Isaac Newton (1675) wrote that if he
    had ‘seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’.”

    Newton (1675) does not refer to a peer-reviewed journal, but to a letter he wrote.

    It is also interesting that Fuller’s take on plagiarism flipped from it being the worst think you could ever accuse anyone of to being no big deal once he realised that DC’s evidence was incontrovertible.

  74. Bart Says:

    ALL:

    – Keep it civil. No namecalling

    – Keep it on topic: The alleged ‘us-versus-them’ attitudes in both camps (which is demonstrated, but not constuctively discussed by the recent string of comments) and other issues brought up in this post.

    – Hockeystick and Wegman discussion is off topic: Take it to the open thread or e.g. Deep Climate’s blog.

  75. Tim Lambert Says:

    Also, Fuller’s intriguing theory that the plagiarism was done by an intern and Wegman was just negligent in not noticing what was done, does not get Wegman off the hook. If Wegman thought this hypothetical intern wrote the relevant sections, then the intern should be given credit as a co-author. If that wasn’t done, then Wegman is guilty of plagiarising the intern’s work.

  76. pough Says:

    Climate Audit is sometimes sarcastic, but it is generally very much politer than the vitriol which can be found in the climate gate emails and on Real Climate.

    I think McIntyre should get bonus points for very politely using molehills to turn hardworking scientists into the recipients of death threats. Thumbs down for vitriol in private emails as a response to that. That’s just uncalled for.

  77. Tim Lambert Says:

    I found McIntyre to be hostile and abusive right from the start. Back in 2006 he offered this rationale:

    I also distinguish between “civilians” and professionals. I don’t believe that you can find a single unkind word from me to a “civilian” (and I don’t regard you and Lambert as “civilians”.)

  78. Dave H Says:

    > Okay, let’s do a comparison. Donna Framboise engaged three teams of researchers to go through IPCC’s AR4. They found that over one third of references were to grey literature–press releases and such.

    Or rather, they came with an agenda and saw what they wanted to see. Including:

    * Flagging self-references to previous IPCC reports as non-peer reviewed
    * Flagging up publications that predate peer review
    * Flagging up references from books as non-peer reviewed, when the book in question does in fact contain a peer-reviewed piece of work

    As Tim Lambert points out above, apparently you think it is ok to attack the credibility of the citations used in the IPCC reports on the grounds that they included a famous quotation from a letter sent by Newton.

    > You want to toss Wegman because some boilerplate got lifted by some intern and pasted into the background of the report?

    Not boilerplate – as DC makes *abundently* clear they changed sections and corrupted meaning in several instances. But you are too closed-minded to engage with this openly it seems.

    > Let’s toss AR4, then. After all Rajendra Pachauri famously said it was 100% peer-reviewed.

    You’re deliberately twisting context in the way you want, twisting the words the way you want, and framing the statements in the way you want, to reach a conclusion you have already decided upon. I find it to be dishonest to present this narrow interpretation of one person’s statements as trumping the fact that the IPCC openly and clearly states that they use both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature. Surely you don’t support dishonest misinterpretation and ignoring plain evidence?

    > As a writer whose work is constantly pasted into other peoples’ websites–entire articles, not just sections–I can only say that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery–and if Wegman’s staff plagiarised dictionary definitions and textbook descriptions, doesn’t that mean that they’re umm, accurate?

    This is one of the main points of DC’s analysis. They’re not accurate. They copied chunks of text without attribution, moved some bits around to make it look more original, and in doing so lost the sense of what they were supposed to be explaining. Witness the damage they did to the sections of Bradley’s work they copied and changed without attribution. Surely you don’t support erasing key sections of text written by a respected authority, changing them to mean something different, and then claiming them as original work?

    You think that this behaviour is ok? You think that investigating plagiarism is wrong?

    > You want to jump on him for not citing his references, fine–but to try and discredit his work because some intern got lazy?

    Please provide evidence that this was just some lazy intern.

    Even if that is the case, the Wegman report is further discredited through sloppy process and lack of rigorous review, and Wegman must take responsibility for putting his name to other people’s shoddy work.

    Shame on you, Tom.

  79. Dave H Says:

    This is precisely the issue with engaging in honest introspection. One side refuses to do it, while simultaneously attacking the other for not engaging in it (and also attacking every time they do, for good measure).

    As we’ve seen here, documented evidence that there is something amiss and worth pursuing in an oft-cited report is dismissed out of hand, and the investigators are attacked as engaging in smears, without even a hint of consideration as to the merits.

    A good start would go something like the following:

    Mann agrees that the MBH98 “hockey stick” could have been a better analysis if it employed different statistical methodology – as he has already stated.

    Tom Fuller agrees that the results are not materially affected by the criticism, and that referring to MBH98 as “bad science” is an unhelpful overreach of the actual state of affairs, aside from being wholly irrelevant anyway given subsequent work.

  80. Deep Climate Says:

    Off-topic matters referred to by Bart can also be discussed at James Annan’s blog.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/04/curried-leftovers.html

    (Note to Hank Roberts: Not wanting to talk about a statement is not the same as withdrawing it).

  81. Sam Cohen Says:

    @Tom Fuller

    Do you have any understanding of the concept of Research Misconduct? Plagiarism in reporting research results is considered Research Misconduct by all federal agencies. Go and read the Policy on Research Misconduct at George Mason University, and tell me how the plagiarism by Said, et al., does not constitute Research Misconduct.

  82. Sam Cohen Says:

    Oh, Tom Fuller, it wasn’t an intern. Get a clue. It was an NIH postdoctoral fellow (Said) working under the direction of Wegman. Big difference, if you know anything at all about academics.

  83. MapleLeaf Says:

    DC,

    So Curry now does not wish to discuss the issues surrounding Wegman (sorry Bart, but Judith Curry opened this door)?

    Pity that Curry has not the fortitude to withdraw her statements about DC made in defense of Wegman et al.

    Sam and Dave H, well stated.

    Bart et al,

    Bart, this all goes to show why this has evolved into an “us and them”. From the outset the contrarians and ‘skeptics’ have almost exclusively not engaged and operated in good faith. yet, it is demanded of scientists to engage them, essentially as rational and equal peers in the complex field of climate science. The contrarians are free to distort, harass, threaten and attack, all the while lamenting how those nasty scientists won’t share their data and their code. The contrarians are wholly unconstrained by ethics, professional behaviour and rules (e.g., data sharing agreements), while the scientists are very much constrained on all those fronts. However, when subjected to sustained attacks, harassment, stress and pressure, some of them sometimes do not respond well as evidenced in some of the CRU emails. I would be interested to see some of the email correspondence between McIntyre and Curry, or between Curry and CEI and Cato. They would probably explain a lot of what is going on here.

    Mr. McIntyre demands to be treated as a professional, he had better stop playing at dog whistle politics, stop libeling scientists and orchestrating vexatious data requests and displaying confidential/sensitive NASA information on his blog.

    Well, at first Jones did share his data, and look where that got him with McIntyre? Nowhere. Curry also forgets that contrarians have been unwilling to share their data, or have lied about not having data when they have in fact had it all along (e.g., McIntyre complaining about not having some dendro data in late 2009 when he had had it since 2004). But the reason there is very different, not because of data sharing agreements etc., but because they know that will not stand up to close scrutiny. And here we are not talking about small, inconsequential errors, we are talking blatant data manipulation.

    Dr. Curry conveniently forgets that McIntyre and Watts are wholly disinterested in advancing the science. Their goals are, ultimately, to stoke the contrarian fires by creating an impression of debate where in fact none really exists, undermine the credibility of scientists and harass scientists. All the while expecting to be treated as a colleagues, to be invited to sit at the table, and expecting to not be held accountable for their mendacious actions.

    How Curry can turn a blind eye to something so blindingly obvious is beyond me, and many others too.

  84. sod Says:

    As a writer whose work is constantly pasted into other peoples’ websites–entire articles, not just sections–I can only say that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery–and if Wegman’s staff plagiarised dictionary definitions and textbook descriptions, doesn’t that mean that they’re umm, accurate? You want to jump on him for not citing his references, fine–but to try and discredit his work because some intern got lazy? Get real.

    oh, i am not surprised, that Fuller is taking a rather liberal approach on plagiarism.

    when i noticed that he had copy pasted the Pielke biography from wikipedia into his post on the air vent, he also didn t bother to add quotations or a link.

    instead he used your average “dog ate my homework” excuse. pathetic.

    Tom Fuller said
    April 23, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Sod, you’re absolutely right about my not citing Wikipedia for Pielke’s bio. I had a link to it but it disappeared and I should have used quotes. Sorry, all. Especially to the hard workers at Wikipedia who deserve to be credited.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/tobis-and-pielke/#comment-26278

    most funny thing is, that the obvious target of the quote was an attempt, to pimp up Roger Pielke Jr’s biography a little.

  85. willard Says:

    No need to know who said both

    > Just a personal description–not trying to be prescriptive about anything.

    and that

    > [A]nyone [so-and-so] **should** start to pay attention to who is saying what.

    in the same comment to start to pay more attention about what is being said in comment threads.

  86. sod Says:

    Joe Romm–politics. Gets on my nerves.
    Bart Verheggen–science. Really helps me understand.

    Monckton–politics. Gets on my nerves.
    Climate Audit–data integrity. Really helps me understand.

    and that is the point, where the Fuller confusion starts:

    the problem in placing those claims next to each other, is a completely false comparison.

    if you do an honest comparison between the blogs, you will find that on substance, Romm is much closer to the “climate audit level”, even though he doesn t really focus on hard science.
    (sorry Joe, i ignore for this comparison that you are mostly right, while McIntyre is often wrong. just my attempt at a “neutral” view, on the technical level of science discussion on the blogs)

    the idea that, what climate progress does, is even remotely similar to the Lord Monckton nonsense, is idiotic.

    if you put things into perspective, you will find the vast majority of “sceptic” blogs (i would consider the blackboard to be an exception) starting at a quality level, that is the lower boundary of consensus blogs.

    and i think that this could be demonstrated by a real scientific analysis.

    ———————–

    Dave, your analysis above was simply brilliant. but i take issues with your last part:

    A good start would go something like the following:

    Mann agrees that the MBH98 “hockey stick” could have been a better analysis if it employed different statistical methodology – as he has already stated.

    Tom Fuller agrees that the results are not materially affected by the criticism, and that referring to MBH98 as “bad science” is an unhelpful overreach of the actual state of affairs, aside from being wholly irrelevant anyway given subsequent work.

    the problem is, that nobody cares what Tom Fuller says. even if, once in a lifetime, he is saying something that is right.

    on the other hand, any Mann admission would be spun into oblivion by the denialist blogs and misguided media. (think “1934 was the warmest year” stuff)

    this sort of thing is a very bad tradeoff for science. the other side has nothing to lose.

  87. Bart Says:

    Maple Leaf,

    I agree with most of what you wrote (though perhaps I would phrase it differently). But all of that doesn’t mean that for the sientific community and its supporters it wouldn’t be good to also look introspectively at what our role has been, and how we could improve on it. If anything, from a purely pragmatic point of view it is clear that something needs to change in order to increase the scientific literacy amongst the public. We’d better take a good look at what we could do to improve that.

    Dave H made a good coment over at Kloor’s, that we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t highlight the uncertainties: In both cases contrarians will try to spin it as meaning that the science is BS. That context is important (but it doesn’t free us from our own responsibilities).

  88. Bart Says:

    I think the part that Sod quoted of Dave H was actually very good: It would go a very long way indeed if people from either side of the fence would admit the merits in the other person’s argument and admitting the faults in one’s own. They both exist (in most cases).

    And that is what is part of letting go of the ‘us-versus-them’ strategy, and it would become a much more constructive discussion. Or at the very least, it would become less destructive, and the general public wouldn’t be led into thinking that scientists are closed minded and shutting down critics (which has become a succesfull matra)

  89. Hank Roberts Says:

    DC’s right –I dropped an important word above. I meant to say Curry withdrew FROM discussing Wegman, as in, backed away and tried to get KK to shut it off. Not an honorable withdrawal of the claim.

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/#comment-3323

    but found it hard to make other people quit talking

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/#comment-3381

  90. Bart Says:

    Deep Climate,

    Just to clarify, since it appears that you took offense to what I wrote in this post:

    The only reason I brought up the Curry quote regarding your take on Wegman was to contrast it to how silent she is on the attacks on science, which I find an important omission on her part.

    I didn’t mean to endorse her view of your blog post at all. I merely refrained from voicing an opinion on that, since it was not the topic I wanted to discuss. I think your deep digging into all this hockeystick stuff is very important, since it is such a central issue for the ‘skeptics’. I haven’t looked much into it though, so generally try to circumvent the discussions surrounding it (except occasionally, but then more so to highlight McIntyre’s communication tactics rather than technical details).

  91. DLM Says:

    So many zealous defenders, yet the climate dogma continues to crumble. Must be the denialist mainstream media’s fault.

  92. Scott Mandia Says:

    I posted these two comments at Climateprogress:

    1) I think she may look back on this year and realize that she stepped up to the plate in an important playoff game without having practiced at the batting cage and without studying the scouting reports of the other team. A sure recipe for a strikeout.

    2) My take is that she is trying to bridge the gap between climate scientists and “the other side” but does not understand that the “other side” has no intention of changing their minds regardless of how much transparency the IPCC process has. “Lack of transparency in the IPCC” is just a smokescreen to divert the conversation away from dealing with the problems of global warming.

    She also cannot seem to get her head around the fact that people are refusing to accept the scientific consensus because of the economic implications of doing so. If fixing the problem cost one cent, I doubt there would be anybody opposing the science.

    I think she is very confused but now that she is going down the road she thinks she cannot turn back – even though she is driving with the lights off toward that bridge is out sign. (Sorry, metaphors and bad puns are in my DNA so it cannot be helped.)

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
    Selden, NY
    My Global Warming Blog

  93. Scott Mandia Says:

    DLM,

    Dogma is not a forcing mechanism.

  94. MapleLeaf Says:

    DLM,

    So much rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims. For example, “yet the climate dogma continues to crumble.”

    Can you please substantiate this statement with some facts (not from contrarian blogs), data and scientific references? Can you also elaborate what you mean by ‘climate dogma’? Are you trying to refer to the theory of AGW, climate in general or climate change?

    I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a zealous defender of the anti-science crowd. That is, the distortion, data manipulation and is representation routinely undertaken by ‘skeptics’.

  95. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    Thanks for your response. I need to mull this over a little more. If you already have not done so, I highly recommend Joe Romm’s most recent post on Curry. IMO, he really does an excellent job of taking her to task and exposing the pitfalls of her rather odd and unfortunate statements and arguments.

  96. Bart Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    I just read it, and he makes a lot of good points indeed.

    I’m on two (or perhaps more) minds on this whole story. The thing is, the ‘skeptical’ PoV is getting more traction in the mainstream. The question therefore, is, what do we do about that? I think that badmouthing the ‘skeptics’ (in which I also sometimes engage, though in milder words than many others) may not be the right strategy. Plus, not all ‘skeptics’ are equal. Sometimes, some of them have a point, be it a minor one, be it hidden under a lot of insinuations. Perhaps we shouldn’t treat all of what all of them say as BS. If anything, it raises suspicion with the general public, and increases the venom which they’ll spew at the science. And perhaps, if the dialogue gets going, we may discover some valid points in what orthers say. I’m primarily thinking about how we could turn the tide with public understanding and acceptance of the science. It’s also a matter of ‘change the things you can; accept the things you cannot’.

  97. willard Says:

    Bart,

    Without going into many details, we must observe a strange stance:

    – there should be no “sides”;
    – there should be a dialog.

    Have we ever had a dialog without two “sides”?

    I am sure this apparence of contradiction can be resolved. But the way to put these two desiderata side-to-side does not help get the discussion going.

    And that is, of course, without saying that this dialog idea entail that there are no real discussion going on, which is kinda weird, considering the number of words we can read on comment threads.

  98. DLM Says:

    Catastrophic AGW is dogma. Defenders of the dogma zealously scrutinize, criticize and demonize skeptics, yet you are perfectly happy having your profiteering charlatans (Al Gore, the railroad engineer, et al) jetting around the world trying to scare the populace with non-scientific bull shit. Check the latest public opinion polls. See Copenhagen. Read Der Spiegel. It ain’t working anymore.

  99. MapleLeaf Says:

    Thanks DLM, what an eloquent, compelling and factually based argument (sarc). You have convinced no one, but yourself, with your unsubstantiated invective and vitriol here. And you expect, no, demand to have a seat at the table? No thanks.

  100. DLM Says:

    The beating that you characters are taking in the public opinion polls is a fact, and that is what this is all about. These climate science dogma blogs weren’t created to serve as roundtables for scholarly discussion. You can do that more comfortably in your little ivory towers.

    I have a seat at the table. It’s called a vote. And I vote that no more of my money be spent on agenda driven ‘research’, subsidies for impractical energy schemes, useless junkets for hordes of feckless politicians, and propaganda designed to scare little school-children. And I am in the majority. That’s bad news for the climate science business.

  101. Harry Says:

    I do not think that the current debate has shown that there is a change in either side’s position. The AGW believers have circled their wagons and instructed their flak to fire at any spot. The skeptics have decided that AGW is flawed, but do not have the ammo to break the cordon sanitaire.

    I am a skeptic and will remain so.

    I am appaled by the misuse of the scientific method.

    I am disgusted with the systematic abberation of science by people who seem to be mindless RC clones.

    At least I can think for myself.
    I think, therefore I am.

  102. DLM Says:

    Well Harry, you are right about the misuse of the scientific method, but they didn’t make the whole story up out of thin air. There is something to the physics of global warming. I am sure someone will come along soon, to ridicule you and eagerly explain where claesjohnson has got it wrong. What they won’t be able to explain, is why we should fear a climate catastrophe from anthropogenic CO2.

  103. Harry Says:

    DLM,

    Let them ridicule me for pointing to an alternative explanation for their lack of insight into real world physiscs. I am completely fed up with the herd of RC sheep regurgitating the mantra of pure physics. They do not know what they are talking about, the average level is at Joe the plumber reasoning. And I like Joe the plumber. I am one of them.

  104. Deep Climate Says:

    Bart,
    I answered you at Annan’s, where you posted a similar comment.

    Shorter DC answer:
    No offense taken (really, I mean it) but you have to look at the full context of Wegman et al and its role in the prime example of what you correctly identify as unacceptable “attacks on science” (i.e. the Barton investigation). Touting Wegman is a red flag for any would be “honest broker”.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/04/curried-leftovers.html#4235574903271113767

    Apart from Wegman et al, you raise points about wagon circling that might be interesting to discuss. But this thread is out of control. So … perhaps another time.

  105. sindbad Says:

    Deepclimate,

    Finally going to have your vindication? You must be really desperate as AGW community. The cards are falling. You can not do anything about that. Anything you do will make it worse. And it does. Is doing so.

  106. jakerman Says:

    I must acknowledge a key oversight in my interaction with Tom Fuller. I failed to raise a most pertinent point, which I thank Dave H for bringing to my attention:
    that pointbeing that included in some of the lifted material Bradly in Wegman et al from, was some rewarding to change the emphaiss and meaning of the orginal author.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1/

    Bart, thanks for putting up with me, thus endeth my OT.

  107. jakerman Says:

    In English:

    that point being that included in some of the lifted material from Bradly in Wegman et al , was some rewording to change the emphaiss and meaning of the orginal author…

  108. John Mashey Says:

    To be more precise:

    1) Most of the alleged plagiriasm vareity: copy with a few word changes, simplificaitons.

    2) In the tree-rings part, whoever did it often inserted words to *weaken* what Bradley said. They added an error, and in one case, simply reversed a major conclusion of Bradley’s, i.e., the said:

    “―As pointed out earlier, many different sets of climatic conditions can and do yield similar tree ring profiles. Thus tree ring proxy data alone is not sufficient to determine past climate variables.”

    In the book (I own a copy), Bradley explains the difficulties and how they are dealt with. Really, disentangling signals from confounding factors is what paleo* scientists do.

    People make mistakes, but when the mistakes always lean one direction, it’s a hint.

  109. jakerman Says:

    John’s backgrounding to the attacks on Mann et al is also highly relevent:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony

    As is Wegmans signining this petitition in 2007:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020

  110. willard Says:

    Krumhorn entertains an interesting conterfactual:

    > If Steve McIntyre one day posts on his blog that he feels the thesis has been finally been proven and that action must be taken, then millions of people will take serious notice.

    Back from Georgia Tech, Steve talked about his talk:

    > I also prefaced my talk with a few disclaimers e.g. that I did not argue that anything in the talk disproved global warming; that, if I had a big policy job, in my capacity as an office holder, I would be guided by the reports of institutions such as IPCC rather than any personal views (a point I’ve made on a number of occasions); and that I believed that policy decisions could be made without requiring “statistical significance” (such decisions are made in business all the time, and, in all my years in business, I never heard the words “statistical significance” pass anyone’s lips as a preamble to a business decision.

    That was more than two years ago. The serious notice that millions of people had might have gone unnoticed. Maybe it was for the best, for the idea that science will tell us what to do is not Steve’s.

    Source: http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/18/back-from-georgia-tech/

  111. Eli Rabett Says:

    The trick to McIntyre is that he starts with a huge number of charges. After you point out to him at great length (and he seldom concedes) there is occasionally one or maybe ever two small things left, at which point he screams AHA I WAS RIGHT ALL THE TIME.

    Sorry Judy dear, this is not someone you want to know.

  112. DLM Says:

    Yo Rabitt,

    Keeping your fellows in lockstep with the party-line is beginning to reach a level of difficulty and frustration akin to herding cats. It seems that Judy dear has strayed from the reservation. She is a wayward climate scientist, who despite having earned a Phd like the rest of them, needs a lecture on the someones she should want to know.

  113. Bart Says:

    Harry,

    On your second point we certainly agree, though we see the misuse of te scientific method done by different people I guess. As if climate science doesn’t follow the scientific methods (yes, it does. Slides here (from slide nr 30 onwards)).

    On your third point we also agree, except the last part. Again, we see the abberation happenign by different people I guess.

    And if your opinion is set in stone (your first point eludes to that), irrespective of the evidence, then your attitude has nothing to do with genuine skepticism.

  114. Eli Rabett Says:

    So let’s see, DLM calls Eli out for organizing the March of Bunnies, Eli goes nuclear that CLN can’t even spell Rabett correctly, and Judy tone trolls Eli after CL mis-represents her position. Got it.

  115. DLM Says:

    I thought your friend Eli, spelled his name with an ‘i’. It’s quite an amusing coincidence that you both use that ‘ett’ affectation. Shouldn’t it really be ‘ette’? If only more of you people had Judy’s balls.

  116. Frank Says:

    Eli Rabett Says:

    “The trick to McIntyre is that he starts with a huge number of charges. After you point out to him at great length (and he seldom concedes) there is occasionally one or maybe ever two small things left, at which point he screams AHA I WAS RIGHT ALL THE TIME.”

    C’mon Eli. The main fnding of MM is that Mann cherry-picked his dendro-treemometers to eliminate the MWP and LIA from the paleo record. Ross McKitrick gives a summary here:

    “Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts”.

    While dendrochronology may be useful in determining the age of the wood in King Tut’s Barcalounger, it is unwise to believe that “(t)he ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology” (Esper) will land you anywhere else but on the slippery slope from bad science to fraud.

  117. steven Mosher Says:

    Hi Bart:

    “At WUWT, Steve Mosher takes issue with this change in Jones’ attitude as well. Looks like the scientific community is not the only place that could do with some more introspection.”

    In the book I tried to explain as best I could from the mails what caused this change in Jones. what changed between 2002 and feb 21 2005. I tried to stick to the mails as best I could to understand what drove Jones from being a guy who would share data with an unknown ( my kinda guy) to a guy who would write the letter he did to Warwick Hughes. It seemed a big change of character to me. So I viewed it like a novel of sorts. The title of the book contains a clue. The first 3 days I had the files I read the mails from top to bottom. The change in Jones was in my mind dramatic. Some linguistic changes here and there, that to my mind showed he was trying on a new mindset, and wasnt quite fluent with it yet. ( that’s not a substantive argument, just my impression)

    The premise is basically that Jones was sucked into a particular mindset. That mindset evolved into a bunker mentality. The ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ of this matter less to me than understanding and showing that this is what happened.

    a few snippets for a taste of the mindset. Please note, I’m not discussing the TRUTH of the underlying views, but rather the metaphorical and emotional frame that was being created. As you read through these, Its important to be attuned to the language, the metaphors, the sense of community that is being formed. I’ll just select a couple. Again, its not about the science, its about the group identity that is being formed, and how people outside the group MUST BE perceived:

    Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
    Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500

    Dear All,
    This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence. Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that “Energy and Environment” is being run by the baddies–only a shill for industry would have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to “Climate Research” without even editing it. …

    I’m working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at 
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration.

    Phil,
    I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
    You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc… Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too… talk to you soon,

    Yes, I will be in the Lion’s den, so to speak. Not sure how much must stands behind
his roar though…We do have to deal w/ the skeptics here somewhat directly. At least,
to the extent that I do presentations on capitol hill for USGCRP (I do one w/ Jim
Hansen and Malcolm on the 17th of this month), I’m a bit in the fray. Mostly, though,
I’ve been trying to help Mike McCracken and company behind the scenes. We all know
what happens when a U.S. scientists becomes a thorn in the side of big business…

    One or two people can’t fight that alone, certainly not with the “artillary” (funding
and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is 
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
 campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I’m doing
 everything I can to do so, but I can’t do it alone–and if I’m left to, we’ll lose this
 battle, 
mike

    Thats the picture that Mann creates. That’s the frame. Mike fighting alone.

    On feb 21. Briffa sends Jones a list of paper clippings where Mann is under a blistering attack from the conservative press.

    Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
    Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005

    Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
    this to our advantage to get the series updated !………
    PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

    Phil

    Jones who had promised Hughes the data, changes his approach and writes the letter that we all know: “why should I give you the data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it. Same day. Feb 21, 2005

    Funnily Jones tries to adopt Mann’s over the top rhetoric, and casts Climate science in the role of darth vader.. read the whole mail

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Empire Strikes Back – return of proper science !
    Date: Fri May 20 13:45:26 2005

    I think its a really interesting period to study, from 2002 to 2005. In my discussions with Dr. Curry she holds a position very close to mine. That they got McIntyre wrong. My first meeting with McIntyre in 2007 and all my discussions with him since then, convince me that they did get him wrong. Again, the science is a different matter. But when I read the mails and compare their opinion and their characterization to the man I know, I think Im right about this.

  118. MapleLeaf Says:

    Frank,

    Please read this:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf

    Now pleaselook at this:

    Look at the teal line (incorporating M&M’s critique), look at the red line. They are practically on top of each other.

    Now, I do hope that you realise that the HS has nothing to do per se with the radiative forcing properties of GHGs. Also, even if the MWP were global as claimed by skeptics, then it would point to a higher climate sensitivity than has been calculated– so be careful what you wish for.

    MBH98 was a new and novel technique, and as is often the case with seminal works, it had some issues. However, when those issues were addressed it did not significantly change their findings, and their work has been corroborated by numerous independent paleo constructions determined using independent statistical techniques and which do not use dendro data.

    Cynics repeatedly conveniently choose to ignore the the aforementioned fact. You know those independent paleo constructions exist, you simply choose just ignore them. Why? Because the HS is a convenient distraction from the real issues, and it is an easy speaking point to get those skeptical of AGW riled up without them knowing the specifics, especially when it is erroneously portrayed as a corner stone for the theory of AGW. They just hear the words “broken” or “fraud” and happily parrot the misinformation on the internet.

    Anyhow, the science has advances since MBH98 and I suggest that you and M&M do so too. Otherwise you just sound like a broken record stuck in the past.

  119. Krumhorn Says:

    Willard

    I recall that thread. I think that Steve made a careful point and many seem to have missed it. While he stated the view that nothing he was discussing could be extended to disproving the AGW thesis….a point he makes frequently on his blog…..he transitioned to how he would react to the institutional views were he in a position to make policy.

    I don’t think that most folks will be persauded by some argument of prophylaxis policy. Particularly, oppressive and expensive policy in the absence of proof. If that’s truly McIntyre’s view, he’s welcome to it. It’s not mine.

    More to the point is that people read his work because he tests some of the underpinnings of the AGW thesis and reports his findings on such things as multiproxy reconstructions.

    If the day arrives that he concludes that his tests ultimately support the scientific conclusions, then I rather imagine that will be a significant event.

    What you and others seem to ignore is the other far more important statement he made in that thread and repeats often. And that is at the very heart of Dr. Curry’s point that is the topic of this thread:

    *********
    Not everything was sweetness and light. There were a couple of rough patches, not about my analysis of MBH or proxies, but about some incidents here at climateaudit. I’ll discuss blog manners and perceptions on another occasion and mention only one point right now. I regularly discourage people from being angry in their posts for a couple of reasons – even if you feel that the angry outburst is justified, it never convinces anyone of anything; and it gives people an excuse to ignore non-angry posts. Regular readers tend to filter out the angry posts and pay attention to the more substantive posts. However consider the possibility that visitors have the reverse filter – they tend to pay attention to the angry posts and ignore the substantive ones. As people know, I’ve modified my attitudes towards comments over time and now try to delete angry posts when I notice them (and these angry posts are 99% of the time condemning climate scientists and the horse that they rode in on, rather than this blog). It places an unreasonable burden on me to weed out these angry posts and I re-iterate one more time my request that readers refrain from making angry posts as they are entirely counter-productive.
    ************

    McIntyre very frequently makes this point. And isn’t that precisely Dr. Curry’s point? He understands fully well the dynamics of human interaction that are involved in the process of persuasion.

    Making the point clearer, Lucia posted the following:

    *********
    I’m glad it went well. As I said, I admire Judy Curry a lot for inviting you.

    Listening or reading actual arguments question and comments by those you wish to convince, is the first step in overcoming this problem. It appears Judy realizes it and acted on it. Normally, this would not be characterized as a bold move, but oddly enough, in the context of climate-blog wars, it was.
    *************

    You can make your own comparison with tone of the comments of a great many of the climate faithful, and very likely one could well see how it is that Dr. Curry sees what the rest of us see. And the results of the failure to persuade are everywhere around us these days.

    ………………

  120. willard Says:

    Thank you for taking the time to ackowledge my comment, Krumhorn, and following it up. I’ll make two short comments, now that it’s a bit late here:

    The first is that saying something like:

    > Particularly, oppressive and expensive policy in the absence of proof.

    cannot be in any way constructive. And to say that, one does not even need to consider the first part of the sentence, which assumes lots of debatable stuff as a matter of fact. It’s the last part: the absence of proof.

    The point that bears some importance is one that Bart made not so long ago, but I can’t find it right now. It’s simply that there is no proof, in science, not the kind of proof that this kind of sentence pressuposes. In other words, if you are looking for scientific proofs to back up your beliefs, you better stay in mathematics. And even there, proof theory is not always as neat and tidy as we suppose.

    My second would be concerning Judith Curry’s stance on the issues. Your interpretation is interesting, and has merits. It is true that AGW proponents can sound like zealots, sometimes. But I would venture to say that the same is observable on the other side, if there exist sides. My point would not count exactly how many proponents or opponents sound like freaks, but to simply point out that the persons that do not hold the same opinions as you usually do not have a style you like, both by way of writing and by way of argumenting. In a nutshell, only the Others share an ideology. And that’s the main issue about which I disagree with Judith Curry.

    I disagree about Curry’s stance being motivated by tone and civility. At least to my mind, she’s about opening up science to the blogs. To create a more open scientific community by promoting the idea that it should engage here. It’s a great tool, in fact it’s more than a tool. It’s the way we’ll do science, sooner or later. Not only she wants that, but she wants that the issues raised by critics, criticisms she finds legitimate, should deserve a public discussion. We’ll see about that: I have doubts it will succeed, if she’s to engage his collegues with the idea that she’s facing tribalism, whereas she’s simply confronted to an institutionan reality.

    For that project, civility is no replacement for collegiality. For that discussion will take place in a collegial format, the usual mode scientists talk to each others. With collegues, you don’t always need to stay polite. As long as you stay collegial, you don’t need attorneys, SEOs and political aids to help you write your comments. That simple fact seems forgotten by the emails overanalysts.

    Angriness is everywhere. I am not sure Frank’s or DLM’s contributions as positive, constructive and worthy of anything else than a touchdown dance. A touchdown dance on their lines of ten, how refreshing.

  121. MapleLeaf Says:

    The real Mosher (or is that the Piltdown man) wrote at DC:

    “steven mosher // February 8, 2010 at 7:42 am | Reply

    The death threats are troublesome for two reasons.

    1. Jones caregivers should be reading his mails if he is in such a state of mind.

    2. I know his supporters are mad at him, but why are they writing death threats”

    Wow. So much for Mosher having credibility. He also seems to enjoy playing mind games (and making money) at Jones’s expense. The Piltdown man (aka Mosher) is of course providing a careful selection of the stolen emails in his post here at Bart’s blog, and he is equally careful not to shed any light on the antics of McIntyre et al. during the period in question. The Piltdown man is anything but impartial.

    And before the Mosher and McI acolytes jump on me, after much thought, I propose that Dr. Curry head the equivalent of the WGII in AR5.

  122. DLM Says:

    Willard, Willard

    It is about civility. In fact, it is a lesson in civics. It is no longer a collegial discussion confined to the ivory towers, it is a civil discussion open to all. Climate scientists exposed themselves to public scrutiny, when they became advocates for ill-conceived policies of doubtful consequence that call for very painful sacrifices. You will one day wake up to the fact that we-the unwashed masses-do demand proof, Willard. We are not going to have this stuff rammed down our throats with scary science fiction movies, and pal reviewed climate ‘science’ filtered through an agenda driven committee of internationalist apparatchiks.

    Dr Judith Curry sees the handwriting on the wall. The anger will only become more widespread. You people better drop that ‘debate is over’ foolishness, and get your science in order. You can start by throwing Al Gore, and that railroad engineer under the bus. Put Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in some sort of climate science rehab. And the next time you clever people have a big ostentatious meeting to save the world from incineration, pick someplace that is not likely to be snowbound. Khartoum?

  123. MapleLeaf Says:

    DLM,

    I find it incredibly odd that you, of all people, are lecturing others about ‘civility’ and stating how important/critical it is. You are clearly not involved in science. I have had enough papers reviewed by my peers to know that peer-review can be very humbling, and that the critique/debate (rightly or wrongly) is not always polite, and scientists tend to be very candid and blunt when they debate/talk amongst themselves. You are apparently not up for that.

    Your statement is also at odds with the dog-whistle politics McIntyre engages in, not to mention the nefarious insinuations that McIntyre frequently makes about climate scientists.

    As for your misconceptions about ivory towers, read Foster al at. (2010). Who is the lead author?

    As for your demands of the ‘proof’. The abundance of evidence is there for all to see DLM (and you don’t need to read/consult the synthesis provided in the IPCC reports). Unfortunately some, like you it seems, just to deny its existence and/or ignore it. Further, you are also very creative at dreaming up all kinds of reasons and conspiracy theories to rationalize doing so.

    As for “pal review”, are you aware of the debacle at Climate Research and the role played by de Freitas, Soon and Baliunas. That they were in fact the ones signing off (at the same time!) on each others’ papers.

    Your missives are filled with a potpourri of (debunked) contrarian talking points, and really only do your ilk harm. All you care about (in this case) is that Curry is fawning over McIntyre et al. It suites your ideology and your agenda, so why bother yourself with inconvenient truths, no?

    Moreover, your comments show you to be close-minded and disinterested in the science beyond MBH98, and to be blinded to the empirical evidence by your obvious bias and ideology. It is futile trying to reason or have a rational discussion with people like that, and if you persist with that, you and your ilk will forever be on the outside looking in. Don’t blame others for your choices and shortcomings. Please do some soul searching and try to be more open-minded and receptive to the overwhelming evidence out there, as unpleasant and disconcerting that may be at times. Believe me, I get no thrill from reading that estimates of sea-level rise, for example, were probably way too conservative.

    Now, despite what you think of my post (I am pretty sure that it will enrage you), I am in fact trying to be be both candid and constructive, although I can see why that may not be apparent in these fora given my somewhat prickly and terse demeanor at times. Hence the clarification on my part. I am sincere in what I say and do hope that you take some time to reflect and to apply your ‘skepticism’ symmetrically; that is to M&M et al. Likewise, I do not simply gobble up everything I read (in journals or elsewhere) which alleges to support the theory of AGW.

  124. MapleLeaf Says:

    Frank,

    I am glad, in one respect, that Mosher posted those emails, b/c he opened the door to M&M (2005).

    First though, I would caution you citing McKitrick as a credible source, or as a scientists of repute. Lest we all forget the embarrassing M&M (2004) saga, in that case (despite his repeated claims to the contrary), McKitrick’s errors did have a substantial impact on their findings and in turn their significance. And that is just the start, lest you think there is only one example. Anyhow, I digress.

    Please read this:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf

    Then, please do look at this:

    That figure is what the fuss is about. Now, the teal line is the curve derived incorporating M&M’s recommendations/critique, the red curve that of Ammann and Wahl. As you can see, the curves are practically on top of each other. Yes, MBH98 had some issues, which is hardy surprising given that it was a seminal work. Despite the small impact on the curve, M&M did advance the science somewhat. They were sure to exploit that and overstate their contribution and use their paper to manufacture a controversy. Sadly, McI has become increasingly disinterested in the science in recent years. He has even admitted that he needs to “feed” his blog. Well, many scientists manage to publish, sit on committees, teach, spend time with their families and manage perfectly good blogs.

    Now the “skeptics” forget (at least) four key things when they keep ranting about the “fraudulent or broken HS graph”:

    1) The HS curve does not have anything to do with the underlying physics of AGW theory per se. That is, contrary to what has been fabricated by the “skeptics”, the HS is not one of the corner stones of the theory of AGW.
    2) Even if the MWP were global (and even Mann is on the record saying that he is open to that idea), it does in no way refute the radiative forcing properties of GHGs. In fact, some in the know about climate sensitivity understand that if the MWP were indeed global then it would point to the climate sensitivity being higher than current calculations suggest– so be careful what you wish for.
    3) Multiple independent temperature reconstructions which do not rely on dendro chronologies and which use independent stats techniques have corroborated the HS curve.
    4) When the critiques of NAS and M&M are adopted, the impact on the paleo reconstruction is not significant.

    The science has evolved since 1998, techniques have been improved, data sets have improved etc., and everyone it seems except McIntyre has moved on. Why is McI so obsessed with the HS? I suspect that it is because he has been tasked with fueling the contrarian fallacy that if the HS is broken then AGW falls like a house of cards, to fuel the fallacy manufactured by contrarians that Mann is a fraud and incompetent, and therefore by association so are all climate scientists (all 2700 plus of them apparently– see UofT list), and to create the impression of debate and controversy surrounding AGW.

    In the meantime, the planet continues to warm….

  125. MapleLeaf Says:

    Hi Bart,

    I have tried to post a message a couple of times tonight but it seems to be lost in cyberspace. I suspect it might be caught in your spam filter b/c of some links I included….could you please free it? :)

    Thanks for enduring the OT posts, you are very (too??) accommodating.

    Anyhow, my response to our brief exchange as what to do is at the bottom of my reply to Mosher. Our discussion gave me much food for thought, and I think having Curry lead the equivalent of WGII in AR5 would be a worthwhile exercise. It could go horribly wrong too of course, but that would not be without its benefits/lessons.

    Anyhow, I wont; be posting for a while, but you’ll still see my IP pop up as I keep abreast of events. Lat but not least, thanks for taking the time to provide this forum.

  126. Bart Says:

    ALL: Slow moderation for this coming week.

    Please keep it clean & on topic. If caught in moderation, please be patient…

  127. Steve Bloom Says:

    FYI, ML, the AR5 coordinators were appointed ~6 months ago. In any case Judy would only be qualified to take a role in WG1. Also, by Judy’s own assessment she’s only a medium fish in the climate science world, which would tend to qualify her for at most a CLA role in her field, and maybe not even that depending on how much competition there is for those slots. That said, I don’t see why she wouldn’t be a suitable reviewer for WG1, although I suspect she wouldn’t be interested since she wouldn’t get any traction on the issues she’s stated concern about (the lower bound for sensitivity and the use of confidence levels in general).

  128. willard Says:

    DLM,

    > It is about civility.

    Please show me a quote from Curry that says so. If I recall, we touched that subject, before the 200th comment. I hope you do succeed in showing that Curry’s take is all about civility.

    For you’re basically using my comment as a springboard to entertain yourself with yet another touchdown dance. You’re rehashing your own pet subject, AGW, about which Curry does not even agree with you.

    How is that civil?

  129. willard Says:

    Bart,

    You have a problem with an open italics, in your thread. All text is in italics, now.

  130. MapleLeaf Says:

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks. It has clearly been a while since I was over at the IPCC site– last time I checked the call for nominations was still open.

    I would have thought Dr. Curry would have been more suitable for WGII. Funny enough I originally was going to suggest WGI, but perhaps was swayed by her recent comments on impacts. Anyhow, given how critical she has been I would think it highly hypocritical of her not to step up to the plate and be proactive and to get involved as much as possible.

    Earlier Bart cited Dave H saying, effectively, that the IPCC are damned if they do and damned if they don’t regarding highlighting the uncertainties. What is odd though is that I was under the impression that they went to great lengths to quantify the uncertainties in AR4. So I suspect the contrarians will never be happy.

    Anyhow, the thrust of my suggestion was to have Curry fulfill a high profile role in AR5. That is, not “just” as a reviewer, to in some way try and appease the skeptics and make them actually do something rather than casting stones.

    But have we not been here before? The “skeptics” have had an opportunity to be involved in the IPCC process (both as authors and reviewers), and some of them (e.g., Spencer) walked away. Also, contrarian papers have also been cited in the IPCC, but it is rather a challenge to do so when they keep getting debunked after appearing in print! For example, does one include Lindzen and Choi (2009) in AR5, does one include McLean et al.? McKitrick and Michaels (2004) was ultimately included in AR4, but should it have been given all of its faults. The list of contrarian papers that don’t pass muster is long. So it is a rather bizarre situation. The contrarians, could no doubt bring much grey literature to the table, but they themselves claim that “grey literature” is taboo. Anyhow, maybe Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and some of the more reputable skeptics should be invited and encouraged to participate in AR5 at as high a level as is appropriate, if they have not already been encouraged to do so.

    I guess my thinking was to have a skeptic head up a section or WG. That way they will soon realise the trials, tribulations and complexities of actually doing something, rather than simply casting stones and critiquing from afar.

    You talked about Curry having an issue with the lower bound of CS. Hang on, Annan’s work and that of others have shown that the PDF for CS drops off sharply below +3C, but has a long tail extending all the way up to +6-8C. So shouldn’t we be more concerned with the much larger uncertainty associated with the upper bound? Shouldn’t the scientists try and nail down the upper bound better?

    PS: I just went over to the IPCC and they state that:

    “On 15 January 2010, IPCC Focal Points and Observer Organizations were invited to nominate experts as authors and review editors for the three Working Group contributions to the AR5. The nominations period closed on 12 March 2010″

    I was unable to find a list of coordinators, but I am in a rush so did not look too closely.

  131. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart, thanks very much for freeing up my post. Now I’ll, finally, get out of your hair for a while. Have a good weekend.

  132. DLM Says:

    Maple, Maple

    So much foolishness, and so little time. Your angry, uncivil post doesn’t make me mad, it amuses me. I don’t get angry at you people anymore, because you have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the civil population. You have jumped the shark. The voters ain’t buying it anymore. You are no longer a credible threat to our modern industrial civilization. There is a civics lesson in this for you.

    Among the many things you have got wrong is that I am trying to lecture anyone on civility, as in being nicey-nice. I obviously don’t much care about that in the specific context of the Climate Wars. I was pointing out that the discussion is no longer collegial (confined to the ivory towers) but has entered the civil realm, because your lot have been using your ‘science’ as a blunt instrument to impose draconian energy policies on an unconvinced, and unwilling civilian population. Do you get what context I am in here with ‘civil’ yet, Maple?

    dog-whistle politics: I call hypocrisy on that one. I bet you were really proud to see Al ‘The Debate Is Over’ Gore and the railroad engineer collect their Noble Prize for charlatanism. Why is it that your side cannot bring yourselves to admit any fault, in any of your own? Do you endorse Al Gore’s ‘science’? Was the railroad engineer right about that ‘voodoo science’ bull shit? Is it OK for your lot to label skeptics/deniers as either tools of Big Oil, or just nutcases?

    ‘proof’: Yeah, right. Find the missing heat and get back to me. Apparently there was not enough proof to convince the feckless mob of junketeers in frosty Copenhagen, to do anything constructive to prevent the earth from burning up. How about Addis Ababa for the next junket? The nightlife is not so good, but it most likely will be hot.

    ‘pal review’: So de Freitas, Soon and Baliunas did it too. I am shocked. Phil Jones was obviously telling the truth, when he admitted that climate scientists don’t check each others work. They just waaaave it through.

    ‘potpourri’: Your arms are waving. Straw men are marching.

    ‘close-minded’: foolish ad hominem diatribe

    ‘symmetry’: more hypocrisy, check yourself

    Bottom line, the politicians say that 2C of warming is acceptable. Your lot has believable evidence that suggests that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times will result in about 1C of warming. I hope we get at least that much. Together with the beneficial increase in biomass that will result from the added CO2, we should be cavorting in the high clover. You can run around like Chicken Little and wave your arms all you like, but you ain’t gonna stop it.

  133. DLM Says:

    Willard, Willard

    You are confused. I did not say that Judith Curry said it was about civility. I was not commenting in particular on Judith Curry. I was basically using your pompous and irrelevant comment about ‘collegiality’ as a springboard to entertain myself with yet another touchdown dance. Remember what that felt like, before Climategate and all the other gates? The good old days, when all you had to do to score points was to wave your arms and holler about BIG OIL!

  134. MapleLeaf Says:

    Wow, DLM. Your posts just goes to sow, again, that engaging the denialists in a rational and intellectual debate/discussion is neigh impossible. I think I’ll keep your posts to show my children one day what we were up against. Of course there are many clones of your post in cyberspace, so one really does need only one or two of them to encapsulate the “sum” of the denialists’ “arguments”.

    Thanks for your revealing and insightful rant. Have a good weekend. Looks to be lovely and warm here, unseasonally warm in fact– must be AGW ;)

    PS: I would be wary of standing up for big oil right now, especially with what is happening in the GOM and what just happened on the Great Barrier Reef. Best lay low for a while, again, until this latest disaster has past.

    PPS: The planet has already experienced almost 1 C of warming, where have you been hiding?

  135. DLM Says:

    Wow, Maple. I hope you aren’t teaching your children to emulate your hypocrisy.

    Learn to read. I have not stood up for big oil. However, I do admit to using the stuff. You don’t, right. You must drive one of those green SUVs powered by a windmill on top. More Goreish hypocrisy.

    The planet has experienced a lot more than 1C of warming since the last ice age, and those of us with any common sense are very grateful for it.

  136. Krumhorn Says:

    Willard

    I’m a little puzzled about your assertion that “there is no proof in science”. You qualified that by presuming the sort of proof that I would seek. Rather than parse the standards of a classic proof, it might be more productive to suggest that the conjecture a thousand years ago that light travels in a straight path through transparent bodies was proven though years of diligent work in the traditional manner described by Aristotle.

    Similarly, quantum physics has, for many decades, given us a useful and reliable model of the micro world described by probability fields that defies the logic of our objective and deterministic world. Schrodinger’s famous cat lived in a different reality than the rest of us. And yet, it is a true statement that if a certain event is not proscribed by a quantum rule, it can happen……it will happen.

    To use an example that is dear to climate physics, nobody seriously disputes the laws of entropy and the 2d law of thermodynamics that was first stated 160 years ago.

    Giving proper deference to the complexity of climate systems, some sort of a formal proof may have to give way to at least getting the basic mechanics of science right. How about a reliable global temperature record without a lot of data fiddling? How about getting the feedback argument under control? How about using formal econometric principles to state defensible confidence intervals? How about developing far more believable multiproxy reconstructions? How about some larger paradigm that reliably accounts for major historic temperature variations that can properly account for GHG rather than solar distributions of cosmic radiation.

    These are legitimate questions that cannot be bullied away from discussion.

    People are insisting on proof that we are to blame, and, if so, we can fix it. That’s really not too much to ask.

    “In this universe effect follows cause. I’ve complained about it but—” — House

    …………

  137. JMurphy Says:

    I am puzzled as to how individuals such as DLM can so readily abuse scientists (and other authority figures they don’t like, probably for political reasons), and seem to be able to claim a higher knowledge of these matters; while at the same time claiming to speak for the general public. Is it all down to anonymity, which allows those who feel that they aren’t being treated with the respect they think they are due, to lash out and hit back from the safety of comforting surroundings ? I find it very odd but also very troubling.

  138. Frank Says:

    Hello MapleLeaf,

    Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I took advantage of the nice weather to do a little outside work. My reason for posting McKitrick’s snippet on Mann was that I sensed from prior posts that the AGW crowd is attempting to ‘rehabilitate’ the good doctor in the manner of the FSU. Interesting that you referred to Amman & Wahl, who have their own sordid history misusing treemometers here:

    (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html)

    I’m glad we agree that the Hockey Stick doesn’t have anything to do with AGW theory. Ditto the historic temperature record, which has been discussed at length on another thread here. However, I disagree with you that these are ‘convenient distractions’ dreamed up by skeptics. Rather, they are always introduced by the alarmists as ‘settled science’ to gullible journalists and impressionable school children, so really, there’s nothing convenient about the effort required to expose the junk science.

    Which brings me to your vague reference to the ‘radiative forcing properties of GHGs’. And your point here is exactly – what? That the GCMs predict a mid-tropesphere ‘hot spot’ that doesn’t exist? Please spare us the alarmists’ efforts to find same, and please do provide at least some modicum of evidence for AGW.

    Regards – F.

  139. DLM Says:

    Krumhorn,

    Well said! But only to roll off their backs. The impervious ones, like Shrodinger’s famous cat, are living in a different reality than the rest of us.

    You said : “How about a reliable global temperature record without a lot of data fiddling? “ If doghaza the dogma defender is around, he may reply, as he had recently to a similar entreaty: “The climate scientists don’t make the thermometers.” So we will have to wait for a reliable global temperature record, until the climate scientists figure out how to make thermometers.

    Before ClimateGate, HimalayaGate, AmazonGate, and etc.Gate they used to be dangerous. Now they are mostly just amusing.

  140. willard Says:

    Krumhorn,

    Thank you for your reply. It helps me understand where you are coming and going. I still disagree about your demand for proof. To explain why, I’ll reply specifically to two parts of your comments, but believe form a general answer to your comment.

    > Rather than parse the standards of a classic proof, it might be more productive to suggest that the conjecture a thousand years ago that light travels in a straight path through transparent bodies was proven though years of diligent work in the traditional manner described by Aristotle.

    I’m not sure what to make of the Aristotle example, since, at least to my knowledge, his conception of science has no currency anymore. Let’s stick to proof.

    Speaking of proof can create an equivocation. Either we refer to something like a formal derivation, or to something akin a legal argument. Usually, at least from my experience, someone who asks for a scientific proof of such-and-such asks for a formal derivation. There is no such proof, that is you can’t deduce AGW from what we know. In fact, you can’t deduce AGW or its negation from everything that we can know. The way that AGW will stand or fall is not by way of a formal deduction.

    The examples of physics you chose are interesting, because you talk about the laws. I don’t even know exactly what we mean by the AGW thesis, but I am quite sure it’s not a law, nor a theory. It’s more like a thesis, an hypothesis, or a conjecture, about the theory of climate, which encompasses lots of theories. (There is a comment by Curry in the thread where she actually cites research that question some important touchstone in physics: I can’t find it right now.)

    Some people holds that we cannot explain what we know about climate without conjecturing that the world is actually warming, or, more generally, that humans are becoming an important driver of climate change. What would be a good way to refute this conjecture seems to be a better question than what could possibly prove it. The point is not to prove it, the point is to make sense of the climate theory. (It might be necessary to introduce models and interpretations, but let’s keep it Popper-like.)

    > How about a reliable global temperature record without a lot of data fiddling? How about getting the feedback argument under control? How about using formal econometric principles to state defensible confidence intervals? How about developing far more believable multiproxy reconstructions? How about some larger paradigm that reliably accounts for major historic temperature variations that can properly account for GHG rather than solar distributions of cosmic radiation. These are legitimate questions that cannot be bullied away from discussion.

    Legitimate questions, to be sure. But please note the epithet: “reliable”, “under control”, “defensible”, “believable”, “paradigm”. Even if you had a paradigm with everything under control, defensible and believable, there is nothing that can prevent the possibility that it can be refuted. (If you can’t possibly refute it, you’re not doing empirical science.) So there can’t be formal proof. A formal proof, once established, can’t be taken back. We can always demand better control, better defensibility, better plausibility. That’s not asking for a formal proof, so if that is the kind of proof that we want, then we using a concept of proof that is more judiciary. In which case, saying that you want a judicary proof of AGW is not asking too much.

    But consider the implications of this demand. If what we want is a judiciary proof, who are the jury, who is the judge, who are the lawyers? More importantly, when do we stop to deliberate? That is the important question, if we take the judiciary framework seriously. You can’t just sit there and proclaim that the jury is still out, that there are still questions to answer. So even the judiciary proof has its problems portraying very well how scientific theories evolve. The analogy breaks too soon. Speaking for myself, I believe that the process is a neverending audit, so there is no real tipping point when it’s “fullproof”.

    Should we have waited the theory of light to reach its ultimate destination, its final proof that light travels in straight path through transparent bodies after a thousand years, to start using it?

  141. DLM Says:

    Is that you Murph?

    So you are puzzled. And you no doubt will remain puzzled.

    Authority figures, who abuse their authority, invite and deserve abuse.

    I have not claimed a higher knowledge. It’s just that I won’t conveniently ignore the uncertainties in the science, and the lack of honesty of those trying to sell the catastrophic AGW narrative. The Nobel Prize winning dynamic duo of the profiteering Al Gore and his profiteering ill-groomed railroad-engineer sidekick, are the poster boys for your climate science dogma. Are you proud of them? Is there anything that those hacks have done that does not deserve your adulation and approval? If you people had any common sense, you would listen to Judith Curry and clean up your act.

    I never claimed to speak for the general public. I have pointed to recent opinion polls that clearly indicate that your appeals to authority and your heavy handed scare tactics ain’t working for you anymore. Are the polls inaccurate, like your thermometers? Maybe you can find some other data that will give you a more desirable representation of the public mood. Invert the recent tree ring proxy data that shows temperature going down, and use the Nature trick to hide the precipitous decline in public support for your climate dogma.

    Look, I have seen a representative sample of your soft climate scientists, and as a 6’3’’ 227 pound ex-paratrooper with a particularly aggressive disposition ( and very expensive lawyers), I am hardly hiding behind anonymity. I regulary abuse my little father in-law, a physicist of some repute, and a wishy-washy lukewarm/skeptic, who is loathe to criticize his fellow scientists. Even those in the squishy sciences.

    I hope I haven’t scared you again, Murph.

  142. JMurphy Says:

    DLM wrote : I have not claimed a higher knowledge.

    Previously, DLM wrote: It’s just that I won’t conveniently ignore the uncertainties in the science, and the lack of honesty of those trying to sell the catastrophic AGW narrative.

    How does DLM ‘know’ about that ‘lack of honesty’ ? The claim to a higher (and a secret known only to the chosen ones) knowledge.

    Previously, DLM wrote: Your lot has believable evidence that suggests that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times will result in about 1C of warming. I hope we get at least that much. Together with the beneficial increase in biomass that will result from the added CO2, we should be cavorting in the high clover.

    How does DLM know which bits are believable; that warming will be limited to 1C, and that there will be a ‘beneficial increase in biomass’ ? The claim to a higher (and a secret known only to the chosen ones) knowledge.

    Previously, DLM wrote: It’s not the heat that is missing. It’s the science.

    How does DLM know that the science is ‘missing’ ? The claim to a higher (and a secret known only to the chosen ones) knowledge.

    DLM wrote : I never claimed to speak for the general public.

    Previously, DLM wrote: …you have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the civil population.

    How does DLM ‘know’ this ? He/she speaks for the general public.

    Previously, DLM wrote: The voters ain’t buying it anymore.

    How does DLM ‘know’ this ? He/she speaks for the general public.

    Previously, DLM wrote: You will one day wake up to the fact that we-the unwashed masses-do demand proof, Willard. We are not going to have this stuff rammed down our throats with scary science fiction movies, and pal reviewed climate ‘science’ filtered through an agenda driven committee of internationalist apparatchiks.

    He/she speaks for the general public.
    (My emphasis above, of course)

    Previously, DLM wrote: The anger will only become more widespread.

    How does DLM ‘know’ this ? He/she speaks for the general public.

    Previously, DLM wrote:And I am in the majority.

    How does DLM ‘know’ this ? He/she speaks for the general public.

    Previously, DLM wrote: Please do not insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe that it was an impartial, and thorough investigation.

    He/she speaks for the general public.
    (My emphasis again)

    DLM wrote : I hope I haven’t scared you again, Murph.

    Again ? When would have been the last time, then ? Perhaps you tried to scare someone else ?
    Whatever. If you were sitting next to me on a bus, claiming your access to higher knowledge and the ability to speak for the public, then I would perhaps be a little worried. However, if I had some headphones on and a raincoat to protect me from getting too wet, then I would just stare out of the window and pray for my stop to come as quickly as possible.

  143. Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Curry: The Finale Says:

    [...] who also wrote a second and third post; Roger Pielke, Jr.; A Few Things Illconsidered (Coby Beck); Ourchangingclimate (Bart Verheggen); Climate Progress (Joe Romm, who also wrote a second post); James Annan; Only In [...]

  144. DLM Says:

    Murph, I am flattered that you have spent so much of your time and energy cherry picking through my posts for whatever weird purpose, and I do appreciate the publicity. However, I am becoming very concerned about your emotional well-being. I am considering pretending that I believe in your dogma, just to avoid causing you further angst.

    It is very unlikely that I will ever find it necessary to ride a bus. But please rest assured that if the unthinkable occurs and I find myself on public transport, should I encounter a timid little man dressed in a raincoat and sandals, listening to birdcalls on his ipod, I will not sit down, and I will disembark at the very earliest opportunity.

    Look Murph, I see your lips flapping but you aren’t saying anything. What is it with this higher knowledge bull shit? What you don’t get is that if you want to scare the populace into agreeing to regress to the stone age, you have to show them something that is convincingly scary. We, as in myself and billions of other people, just ain’t that scared. Look at the public opinion polls, Murph. Sorry.

    And what have the politicians done to save the world from the alleged imminent danger of overheating? I will help you. Nothing of any consequence. Because the people don’t want it, Murph. Your dogma has failed. Why don’t you get that?

    PS
    You must have missed this in my last post Murph? I have asked variations of this question several times, and none of you proud, morally and intellectually superior consensus keepers has had the honesty or the guts to reply:

    The Nobel Prize winning dynamic duo of the profiteering Al Gore and his profiteering ill-groomed railroad-engineer sidekick, are the poster boys for your climate science dogma. Are you proud of them? Is there anything that those hacks have done that does not deserve your adulation and approval?

    Will you man up and be the first Murph?

  145. A C Osborn Says:

    willard Says:
    May 2, 2010 at 05:39
    You wrote a lot of words to say Nothing.

  146. steven Mosher Says:

    Maple>

    You should read the entire Piltdown Mann thread. The parts where I explain the similarities and the fundamental difference. As I argued the charge of fraud against Mann could not be maintained. He was simply ignorant. But the similarities in the cases are very interesting. maybe Bart will post the piece I have on it. Ah lets see, and even today I joined steve Mcintyre in condemning the virgina AG for his stupid attempt to go after Mann.

    WRT Jones. If in fact he was suicidal then his caretakers should have been screening communications. So, either he wasnt or they were negligent. You decide. I also like the way people assume they can tell motives by reading
    words about words.

    I show people jones and manns actual mails. And nobody wants to speculate about motives.. Jones tells you that he has received hate mail. and without reading it yourself, you make a determination that it is valid. Maybe you missed the object lesson in sarcasm. Do you really think you can read intentions off the words? I think you missed the joke.

  147. steven Mosher Says:

    If anybody wants to compare wegmans plagarism with Briffa’s Im up for that

  148. steven Mosher Says:

    Zeke

    I was referring more to the tendency of certain skeptic sites (CA, WUWT) to take small methodological issues and frame them as the “final nail in the coffin of AGW” or whatnot.

    This happens at WUWT, but steve is usually very clear to say his views on these matters are technical. Google “bridge too far” on his site.

  149. steven Mosher Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:
    April 29, 2010 at 01:11
    Tom,

    “I do consider it a cheap smear.”

    That would be wrong. You seem disinterested in ethics and scientific misconduct by contrarians. I’m sure if Jones had plagiarized large sections of text you would be screaming it from the hill tops and demanding an inquiry. Your asymmetric skepticism and hypocrisy are astounding.

    MAple leaf. BRIFFA took Whals words, against IPCC regulations, againsts overpecks direct instructions, he used those words without attribution in IPCC documents, covered up his communication with wahl, wrote that he had to be careful and not get caught.

    So whatever you want to conclude about wegman is fine. It goes worse for briffa.

  150. steven Mosher Says:

    “People make mistakes, but when the mistakes always lean one direction, it’s a hint.”

  151. steven Mosher Says:

    “The accusations got A LOT more coverage than the exonerations.”
    go figure.

    Wonder why. perhaps because there ISNT an exoneration that rises above attacking Wegman for his wrong doings. or sliming steveMc, or kicking the random skeptic in the teeth. You cannot EXONERATE phil jones asking mann to delete mails to insure that an appeal to a FOIA request will fail. Cant exonerate that. You can Mislead poeple and talk about a FOIA spamming incident that happened a year afterward, you can talk about the science, you can point to whitewashes, you can do all sorts of things. You cannot exonerate. you can distract, deny, go on the offensive, mitigate, minimize, attack the messenger, switch topics, attack the hacker, blah, blah, blah.. But what none of you can do is exonerate. You cant even bring yourself to say what the actual facts are. you cant even bring yourself to read the relevant mails. cause the facts are not relevant to your position.

    Jones and Palmer decided to deny Hollands request for Briffa’s communications about Ch06 of the AR4.
    They planned to deny that request, and palmer told Jones an appeal was certain, so before the denial was sent to Holland on June 2nd, jones wrote to mann asking him to delete mails:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    go read it.

    IN CONTEXT the facts.

    1. Overpeck, the review editor INSTRUCTED briffa about the rules of contact OUTSIDE the official process. He told him that they had to be squeaky clean.
    Communications during the review period had to go through the official process. That means official reviewers making their comments through the system. And authors responding officially to every comment.

    2. Briffa Violated these procedures and instructions and contacted Whal directly. He passed wahl unauthorized copies of reviewer comments and unauthorized copies of the Draft for Ch06 he was working on.

    3. Whal provided comments and text OUTSIDE THE PROCESS. no reviewers were allowed to see these comments or raise objections to them.

    4. These comments changed the way Ch06 was written as can be shown from comparing the drafts to the final version. the changes were specific to issues between Wahl and Mcintyre.

    5. Briffa used ( his word was stole) work product from Wahl, with Wahl’s permission. Briffa failed to attribute this borrowing. In fact, he asked Wahl if anybody would “notice” and he attempted to cover up the borrowing. ” I hope no one will notice”

    6. Briffa could not attribute the borrowing because the attribution would have shown a violation of the process that overpeck had instructed him on.

    7.After the publication of the final report and the posting of reviewer comments ( 4 of us FOIAd Noaa to get these released) it became clear that Briffa like wegman had lifted other peoples work without attribution. he had permission from the author, but did not attribute the borrowing.

    8. Holland issued an FOIA for Briffa’s correspondence WRT Ch06 of AR4. His FOIA was based on seeing the apparent borrowings that Briffa had engaged in.

    9 Jones argued that briffa should say he received nothing, encouraging Briffa to lie.

    10. Palmer instructed the team that the request would be denied on grounds of confidentiality. he instructed them to contact Ammann and ask if he[ammann] considered his mail confidential.Palmer warned that an appeal was certain and that they needed to proceed by the book in this case.

    11. Ammann never responded with a clear answer.

    12. 2-3 days before Palmer issued the denial, Jones contacted mann to ask him to delete mails and to have others delete mails. If an appeal was coming, it would not be allowed to succeed. Simply. Jones asked mann to delete mails when Jones knew and supposedly believed they were deny the request for the mails on valid grounds.

    Exonerate away. Dont change the subject, dont wave your arms, dont attack the messenger cause these facts exist independent of me. dont raise wegman, dont attack Watts, attack Holland maybe? ha. bring up CEI, spin twist, toss your scientific ethics overboard.

    The incident doesnt change much in the science. Some of the too clever language about uncertainties in Ch06.. a chapter that doesnt matter very much.

    Its interesting when people fight over things that dont matter.

  152. MapleLeaf Says:

    Mosher, you tried the same trick at DC’s, no cigar. Is it any wonder you keep coming up empty, despite submitting “evidence” to HoC etc. And you know to what trick I am referring (Steven mosher // April 27, 2010 at 10:20 am). And, your trick, has been addressed here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846#comment-171303

    As for your comments at DC’s, just admit you made a joke in incredibly bad taste and that you were being disingenuous in the extreme. Don’t try for a second to claim that you honestly care about Jones’ well-being. You had the stolen emails in hand, you had a choice to make, and you went ahead and made them public. Why? Because you are a zealous so and so. And you know damn well what the contents of some of those hate emails look like that Santer Jones, Mann, Weaver, Jones etc. have received, they range from vague threats to full out threats of violence and have been given to the police to deal with. Could have a couple of them come from some maniacal eco-nut? Yes, possibly. But you made a gross generalization at DC’s, and we know from those type of threats mostly, if not exclusively, originate from acolytes of Limbaugh, Beck, Watts and perhaps even McI. Have you asked the police? Will Mosher write a book detailing the attack on science and scientists?

    Mosher “you can distract, deny, go on the offensive, mitigate, minimize, attack the messenger, switch topics, attack the hacker”

    And that is exactly what you are doing here when you say:

    “If anybody wants to compare wegmans plagarism with Briffa’s Im up for that”

    Again, you try to distract, and make gross extrapolations to insinuate that fraud and/or misconduct are rampant in the legitimate climate science community. I would lobe to do a deconstruction of Wegman or your antics, but alas, nobody has stolen your emails and put them on the net to be quote mined etc. Unless, you and Wegman, Watts, McIntyre are willing to free all your emails (before deleting sensitive material) pertaining to CA, climate change and CRU and their affiliates? No? Thought so.

    Re your condemning the ludicrous antics of the Virginia AG– good, glad to hear it. That said, it just smacks of more ambiguous dog tactics that you McI and Fuller like to engage in. Mosher you just do the bare minimum to maintain some iota of credibility (which some can latch onto so as to buy your lies), and then in the next breath go disparaging the very people you claim to have just defended. Please do google the poem and read it. You should appreciate it given your sense of humour.

    As I have said many times before if PSU, HoC, Oxburgh or Russell came up with proof of misconduct, then I am not going to defend the accused. So far the contrarians are 0 for 3 (0 for 4 if you include the NAS panel).

    Anyhow, please don’t lecture me on spin, ethics etc.. You need to take a long and hard look in the mirror, and step outside the glass house before you caste stones. Oops, too late Mosher.

    While people like you are obfuscating, libeling and procrastinating, and all the while the radiate forcing from higher GHGs continues to escalate. What is more important Mosher, a manufactured vendetta against some climate scientists, or addressing AGW and attendant issues like ocean acidification? It it clear that you, despite claims to the contrary, have made you choice. I would wish you good luck, but I would be lying.

    The fact that Curry has any time for the likes of you is, unfortunately, a very poor reflection on her.

    Bye, bye.

  153. Harry Says:

    Bart,
    @30042010 11.27

    I am a skeptic. As far as I am concerned, one can not be a scientist without being a skeptic. But let me make this clear: I am able to review all the scientific evidence that is presented in the scientific literature with regard to climate change. At least as able as anyone working in this area is. And I am not dogmatic: if you or anyone else can convince me of their findings, I will absorb them. I have a very open mind. But telling me 200 (2000) times that CO2 is causing global warming will not do.

    As for the second remark, I strongly object to the use of the scientific method in a lot of the comments on this and other blogs. The scientific method requires that one has first quality data. I am sure you will agree that the global temperature data sets do not live up to their pretentions. The entire temperature record is corrupted (at least not validated). Let us get this first sorted out, then we can do some modelling.

    It makes a lot of a difference whether we are talking about a temperature increase of 4 deg/century or a decrease of 1 deg/century.

    And it is not true that my ideas and convictions are set in stone, stone is perishable….

  154. joe Says:

    Harry: I’m curious as to why you think the surface temperature record is corrupted. I too am open to the science, and the arguments I’ve seen have shown that it doesn’t really matter which stations are retained for an analysis of mean global temperature trends. High quality, medium quality, or low quality, urban or rural, they all show roughly the same rate of warming, somewhere around 0.2C/decade.

    Not to mention the fact that surface temperature trends are validated by borehole reconstructions, ocean temperatures, ice-core records, tropospheric temperatures, and weather balloon measurements.

  155. DLM Says:

    joe, joe

    You forgot to provide us with the links to realclimate to prove all that.

    While you are at it, provide link to missing heat.

  156. MapleLeaf Says:

    The contrarians have reproduced the CRU temperature record– JeffId and RomanM. And, interestingly, JeffId obtained a greater warming trend than CRU. So I guess Jeff Id and RomanM are in on the conspiracy too, as are NCDC, GISS, JMA, CCC, RATPAC, UAH (Spencer and co), RSS, and the Russians. Bart has compared some of the products on his blog.

    Dr. Curry needs to get up to speed on the science, and admit/concede that the SAT record is in fact robust.

  157. Hank Roberts Says:

    > (Steven mosher // April 27, 2010 at 10:20 am). And, your
    > trick, has been addressed here:
    > http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846#comment-171303

    Good pointer. A game of “where will he rebunk it next”?

  158. Harry Says:

    @Joe&Mapleleaf:

    You underline exactly my point: boreholetemp, delta 18O, treerings, are all calibrated against the global average dataset. The fact that JeffId and others could replicate the gridded global average was because they started with the same dataset: NOAA or GISS. But this is not the raw, unprocessed data. It is already “value added”. Roy Spencer has shown that when UHI is taken into account, global warming is decreased considerably. And I want to know why we should use global, homogenized data? Both temperature and CO2 concentrations show considerable local variation. Why would one want to have a borehole temperature (very local) related to a global averaged value? Why would one even consider to have treerings correlate with global temperatures? If one looks carefully, the calibration of treerings with actual thermometers spans hundreds of miles, and when the rings do not correspond to the thermometers, the data are thrown out. So you end up with a data set that spans more than 1400 years, with a calibration on a subset having the most convenient data in a period of less than 100 years near the end of the record, in which the last 10 years have been discaded because they do not fit. You consider this good science? Really? And these reconstructions are applied as calibration to yet other reconstructions.

    So all in all, I am not convinced that the temperature record is reliable. And as long it is not reliable, it is not done to base any modelling on a busted record. Get the data right first.

  159. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    I fear that you have been at WUWT too much, and forever have images of thermometers in parking lots etched in your mind.

    The satellite data, OHC data and radiosonde data all agree incredibly well with the global SAT records. The satellite data are not calibrated using surface station data. rate of warming over last 30 years from RSS +0.158 C per decade (near sfc layer, TLT), rate of warming (C per decade) for GISS since 1979 +0.162 C, UAH lower trop. +0.132 C.

    The fact that the SAT records have been reproduced independently demonstrates that the code and methodology used to generate the global products are robust.

    So it seems that you are convinced then that even Roy Spencer’s data are wrong for showing the warming globally. And Roy’s work on the UHI over the USA (not the globe as you suggest) has not even been published, yet you sign off on it without even questioning the validity of his method and value his blog work over the numerous papers in the scientific literature. Spencer has “tested” his methodology globally for one year.

    You are contradicting yourself, saying that others used the adjusted data (as if that is a bad thing), and then arguing that adjusting for UHI decreases the warming trend. The SAT record do adjust temps. to offset the impacts of the UHI. This red herring that you are arguing has been refuted so many times it it just getting silly.

    As shown above, the satellite data and SAT data are in excellent agreement, if you still choose to ignore that fact then you are simply deluding yourself.

    PS; “And as long it is not reliable, it is not done to base any modelling on a busted record.” I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

  160. Frank Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:

    “The satellite data, OHC data and radiosonde data all agree incredibly well with the global SAT records.”

    – No. They both show warming overall post-1978, but the satellites and radiosondes less so due to less UHI influence. Btw, they all exhibit periods of cooling, which should be a head-scratcher if CO2 is the main driver.

    “So it seems that you are convinced then that even Roy Spencer’s data are wrong for showing the warming globally.”

    – Logical fallacy. Correcting for UHI doesn’t necessarily result in cooling.

    “You are contradicting yourself, saying that others used the adjusted data (as if that is a bad thing), and then arguing that adjusting for UHI decreases the warming trend.”

    – The surface record is corrupted by UHI, so yeah, correcting for this would decrease the warming trend. What’s your point here? Do you know?

    “The SAT record do adjust temps. to offset the impacts of the UHI. This red herring that you are arguing has been refuted so many times it it just getting silly.”

    – By “adjust”, do you mean lower earlier temps and raise recent temps? Seems kinda counterintuitive given the actual pattern of demographics, doesn’t it?

    “As shown above, the satellite data and SAT data are in excellent agreement”

    – Except for the increasing divergence over time, yes. But I digress, as we both know that the historical temperature record is not evidence of AGW. Still waiting for it.

    Regards – F.

  161. DLM Says:

    Maple, Maple

    So what? Let’s call it .145 C per decade (unless you want to to go with Roy’s number), with no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years. Is that unprecedented, or even unusual? Take out the spike from the ’98 El Nino, and what do you have left? Shouldn’t the El Nino events be getting stronger with all that additional radiative forcing from CO2? What happened to the heat in the ‘pipeline’? Why are El Ninos getting weaker, instead of stronger? Why have the deniers been kicking your behinds up between your ears in the public debate? Why was the fiesta in Copenhagen such a disaster for you. Aerosols, right. LOL!

  162. MapleLeaf Says:

    Frank,

    To be frank, you are being irrational and illogical– there is clearly no reasoning with you as you seem to have been completely brainwashed by WUWT and seem to be disinterested in the science. I’m have the distinct feeling that I am wasting my time, and Bart’s too. Sorry for being so blunt, but this UHI fallacy has been refuted ad nauseum, and it is shocking that there are still people out there who are only too happy to blindly accept the misinformation put forth by the likes of Watts.

    You clearly missed the stats. RSS (that is a satellite product) warming trend +0.158 C per decade, GISS +0.162 C per decade, HadCRUT +0.159 C.

    HadCRUT minus RSS = +0.001 C per decade. Yes, that is one heck of a bias in the SAT record (sarc)!

    GISS minus RSS = +0.004 C per decade

    The SAT data are also in excellent agreement with the the global radiosonde data between 1958 and present:

    http://tinyurl.com/ylxu5gw

    In fact, you will see from the above figure that the warming trend in global mid-tropospheric temperatures from the radiosonde data is greater than the warming trend in global SAT data.

    As for your unsubstantiated claim that “Except for the increasing divergence over time”, that would be incorrect. I just compared RSS with HadCRUT and the the slope of the difference is on the order of 10^-5. Also see,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2010

    Moreover, there is no divergence between the RATPAC and the global SAT data.

    As for how the adjustments are done, read the literature, it is all explained for you there. And the method that you described is not how it is done. Here is a starter (Peterson, 2003, J. Climate):

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

    Please go and argue with Dr. Peterson.

    PS: There is plenty of evidence of AGW, you just have to overcome your ideology and bias to see it. Have you watched Peter Sinclair’s video (in which he cites scientific papers)? I cite that only because it is easily accessible, but the literature is full of independent lines of evidence (consilience) which supports the theory of AGW.
    PPS: So if you claim the SAT record is not evidence of AGW, then why the fuss? You are tying yourself in knots here, in one breath claiming that until the SAT record is “fixed” we can’t move on, and in the next saying that it is not pertinent to the theory of AGW.

  163. MapleLeaf Says:

    DLM,

    For the record, I for one am not go to entertain your distortion, misinformation and lies even. Please go here to do that:

    http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

  164. dhogaza Says:

    Frank:

    Btw, they all exhibit periods of cooling, which should be a head-scratcher if CO2 is the main driver.

    When someone makes a statement of this sort, it’s a clear indicator that they’re not up to speed on the most basic fundamentals of climate science.

    Please go read a primer and educate yourself.

    There’s nothing in the least bit that’s “head scratching” about a rising trend being imposed on noisy climate data. That’s *expected*, regardless of whether the change in forcing’s solar, CO2, etc.

    After reading that basic miscomprehension on your part, I stopped reading your post. If you don’t understand the basics, you’re not going to be able to add anything of value to a technical discussion.

  165. DLM Says:

    Maple, Maple

    You are a testy little dogmatista. Since when have your ilk passed up a chance to debunk the lies and distortions of the demon deniers? But the Nobel Prize winning profiteers and lying distortionistas, who are the poster boys for catastrophic AGW, are untouched by your outrage. You are quite simply, a hypocrite.

    WUWT is way too popular. I prefer the obscure sites.

  166. Frank Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    Where to start?

    First off, please refrain from resorting to ad-hominem attacks – there are at least 7 in your first paragraph alone.

    Second, you completely misinterpreted my reference to increasing divergence over time – please re-plot your WFT graphic starting in, say, 2003.

    Third, I agree that the SAT and RS (mid-trop) series are in good agreement. One could even suggest that the slopes are statistically equivalent, although I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that both series have unit roots, and therefore we can’t say a whole lot about them, can we? But even if these series pass statistical muster, where then is your beloved ‘hot spot’? You know, the one that all the GCMs predict, I mean ‘project, as ‘evidence’ of AGW?

    Fourth, if you’re going to appeal to authority (Peterson 2003), please use a recent reference. Most of the relevant work on UHI has taken place since then, as evidenced by Jim Hansen’s ongoing ‘corrections’ to data as far back as the 1940’s.

    Fifth, if you’re going to appeal to authority, please make sure your ‘authority’ (Peter Sinclair) is actually an authority, rather than a “long time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives…An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator”. Ditto, desmogblog, which you might be embarrassed to know ‘is routinely highlighted in the world’s most popular news blogs: New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger’.

    Finally, you keep saying there’s ‘plenty of evidence of AGW’, but haven’t produced any. I’ll make a deal with you – if you cease trying to pass off historical temperature records as evidence, I’ll cease criticizing the methodology behind them. Ok?

    Regards, – F.

  167. Frank Says:

    dhogaza Says:

    “There’s nothing in the least bit that’s “head scratching” about a rising trend being imposed on noisy climate data. That’s *expected*, regardless of whether the change in forcing’s solar, CO2, etc.”

    I threw out the term “head scratching” as a bit of funtime ‘chum’ to see who would rise to the surface. Congratulations! Your so-called ‘rising trend’, of course, has been ably dispatched on another of Bart’s threads. But you are, however, quite correct that we ‘expect’ climate data to be ‘noisy’.

    As a pertinent side note, I think I must have ESP since I previously anticipated your kind advice to “go read a primer and educate yourself” and had gone out and purchased Dr. Roy Spencer’s “Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists”. Haven’t finished it yet, but you’ll be pleased to know that Spencer thinks climate data is noisy, too! So noisy, in fact, that the AGW consensus has mistakenly attributed a forcing (cloud extent) as a feedback, thereby mistakenly (way) overstating the impact of CO2.

    Like you said, “(i)f you don’t understand the basics, you’re not going to be able to add anything of value to a technical discussion”.

    Regards – F.

  168. dhogaza Says:

    But even if these series pass statistical muster, where then is your beloved ‘hot spot’? You know, the one that all the GCMs predict, I mean ‘project, as ‘evidence’ of AGW?

    The tropospheric hotspot is not diagnostic of AGW, and has never been presented by science as being diagnostic of AGW.

    Once again, if you’re not up to speed on climate science basics, you’re not going to make much of an impression on those who are.

  169. dhogaza Says:

    I threw out the term “head scratching” as a bit of funtime ‘chum’ to see who would rise to the surface. Congratulations!

    So you admit to being a troll.

    As a pertinent side note, I think I must have ESP since I previously anticipated your kind advice to “go read a primer and educate yourself” and had gone out and purchased Dr. Roy Spencer’s “Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists”.

    That’s a primer in climate science in the same sense that something written by Bill Demski is a primer in modern biology.

  170. dhogaza Says:

    you’ll be pleased to know that Spencer thinks climate data is noisy, too! So noisy, in fact, that the AGW consensus has mistakenly attributed a forcing (cloud extent) as a feedback, thereby mistakenly (way) overstating the impact of CO2.

    If clouds are a forcing not a feedback, what is causing the change in cloudiness?

    Sky fairies?

    Spencer’s out to lunch. Wake us up when he gets his work into the scientific literature and it’s not laughed off the planet. When scientists stoop to the popular press to “debunk” their peers, it is never a good sign.

  171. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dhogaza,

    I have the distinct the feeling we are wasting our time. For example, they claim that the series diverge since 2003 (they do love to move the goal posts, and then the infamous contrarian speaking point about the “hot spot” is introduced).

    Anyhow, I did exactly what was requested:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/to:2010/trend

    No divergence. There is some between RSS and HadCRUT. Anyhow, that is way, way too short a period to make any grand deductions.

  172. MapleLeaf Says:

    Out of respect to Bart, might I suggest that Frank please moves his SAT “debate” to here:

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/

    Just a thought.

  173. DLM Says:

    doghaza,

    Is Al Gore a surrogate of the ‘consensus’ climate scientists, or is it the reverse?

    Any luck on re-inventing the thermometer?

    Is Obama on your side, or ours? He said that he had more important things to do than to stay overnight in cold Copenhagen, to negotiate a deal to save the world. He then left on a vacation to sunny Hawaii. It’s on tape. Is Der Spiegel on out side too?

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/der-spiegel-copenhagen-tapes-english.htmlhttp://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/der-spiegel-copenhagen-tapes-english.html

  174. DLM Says:

    That didn’t work. Try this:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/der-spiegel-copenhagen-tapes-english.html

  175. Harry Says:

    @Mapleleaf and Dhogaza,

    Dear preachers,

    I have not heard anything from you both that I have not heard before. I think your record is becoming a bit scratchy. Can you try a new song?
    And if you feel that you are wasting your time on educating me, please go, I did not ask for this kind of contemptuous treatment. I do not want to be educated this way. I will look for my own sources, and come to my own conclusions. Nice paper in PNAS, by the way. Very convincing. Peer reviewed.

  176. Harry Says:

    Frank and DLM,

    Thanks for your reactions. You beat me in reacting to Mapleleaf and Dhogaza. Nothing to add at this moment, well done.

  177. MapleLeaf Says:

    Hi Harry,

    Say what you will about us Harry, it does not change the science. And I could not agree more with you when you say,

    “You beat me in reacting to Mapleleaf and Dhogaza.”

    Yes, the contrarians do just that, react. Knee-jerk unsubstantiated reactions.

    And I have not heard anything from you contrarians here that I have not heard before. The same old mythical speaking points, which have all been long debunked.

    As for “contemptuous treatment”, have you read DLM’s missives? Your partisanship is astounding.

    Also as for “I will look for my own sources, and come to my own conclusions.”

    Yes, that way you can cherry pick those data and information which suite your ideology. It also sounds remarkably like something someone with Dunning-Kruger would say.

    Harry, Frank knows the evidence to support AGW is out there, he’s have to be blind to ignore it. Yet, he insists uses the convenient excuse for others to provide it, just so he can ignore it.

    The Sinclair vid contains references to several key papers, I even stated in my post that I only provided that because it was easily accessible (read my post). I never stated Sinclair was an “authority”, he does not suffer from D-K though. And I said that Peterson (2003) was a good starting point when I said “Here is a starter”. Good grief but you guys can lie and distort.

    More key papers are available at SkepticalScience (e.g., Murphy et al. 2009, “finger printing” work by Santer et al., satellite and surface observations of an enhanced GH effect (e.g., Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Philipona 2004, Chen 2007, Wang and Liang 2009, Wang 2009)).

    Curry, Lindzen and Spencer and others agree that AGW is real. Yet here you are trying to argue that it is not or arguing that there is no evidence for AGW. If you want to debate the magnitude of CS, fine, but first you first have to accept, like Lindzen, that AGW is real. Then you can try convincingly demonstrate that CS is not significant. So far Lindzen at al. have repeatedly failed to do so.

    Anyhow, McI and others have come out and condemned Cuccinelli’s witch hunt; has Curry done likewise yet?

  178. Frank Says:

    dhogaza Says:

    “The tropospheric hotspot is not diagnostic of AGW, and has never been presented by science as being diagnostic of AGW.”

    – It is according to the IPCC – ref: IPCC AR4 (2007), Ch9, Fig 9.1. If they’ve changed their mind on this, please let me know.

    “That’s a primer in climate science in the same sense that something written by Bill Demski is a primer in modern biology.”

    – Have you read the book?

    “If clouds are a forcing not a feedback, what is causing the change in cloudiness?”

    – Certainly not “skyfairies” and apparently not CO2 either. But you’re the one with the heroic theory (AGW). How about some evidence?

    Regards – F.

  179. Harry Says:

    Mapleleaf,

    If you can prove that the global temperature record is correct,

    then I will accept that GW is true.

    Since you can not do that, I remain skeptical.

    Which does not mean that I deny the possibility of global warming.
    I do not deny any possibility.

    But when we accept global warming as a fact, it still does not mean that it is caused by Antropogenic activity.

    For me, but correct me if I am wrong (which you will do, no doubt), the human component in the warming is there, and readily observable. Roy Spencer did a nice job in his UHI analysis. The fact that it is not yet published in a peer reviewed paper does not tell me so much. There is so much garbage in peer reviewed papers. After the removal of the UHI, Roy concluded that the remainder of warming may well be attributable to natural causes. Pielke Sr came 5 years ago to the same conclusion. And did so again today.

    The physics argument, popular with Dhogaza, is also under fire. When the correct application of physics comes under scrutiny then the models succumb. All models succumb. That is why they are models: simplifications of the real world.

    The main reason for identifying atmospheric CO2 as main culprit for the global warming was that the models could not cope with warming unless the effect of CO2 for warming was included. This is so bunk, that I can only laugh at it. And at this moment, I am laughing all day.

  180. Frank Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    Your posts read better without the spurious text bolding. I have no idea about Curry, but I’m pretty certain that Lindzen, Spencer and others aren’t buying the entire AGW truckload of harmful warming and the misanthropic malthusians’ recipe of how to prevent it.

    PS – I do not know that “the evidence to support AGW is out there”, I’m still waiting for you to provide it.

    Regards – F.

  181. Harry Says:

    Mapleleaf,

    My reaction to the Cucinelli case is on-line. But I want to repeat it here, if you want.

    Why are you playing the ad-hom card so heavily, putting words in my mouth that I never, ever suggested? And please stop patronizing. I am not dumb. I cannot do anything for it that you already explained multiple times something which is for you obvious. I do not care. I do not want to be treated as an ignorant mental deficient.

    Start thinking along this line:
    That I may be someone who is as brilliant as you are, with access to scientific literature, with a long record of publications, with a long record of peer review.

    And I will continue with my “cherrypicking” of papers, way like you do.

    In short:
    treat me like you would like to be treated if you were a scientist.

  182. MapleLeaf Says:

    Frank,

    Regarding the call for evidence, please read the references provided in my post @22:51. Just how did you miss those references? Anyhow, those are just the tip of the iceberg.

    You and Harry you are contradicting each other about whether or not the SAT record is required evidence for AGW. Odd then that you both agree with each other that AGW is not real.

    Harry,

    “And at this moment, I am laughing all day.”
    Now that is worrying behaviour….

    Re, the robustness of the SAT record has been demonstrated ad nauseum here and elsewhere by scientists and skeptics, so no need to keep rehashing that.

    And models are not one of the cornerstones of the theory of AGW. Arrhenius et al did not have models. Regardless, one does not require a model to determine/estimate climate sensitivity (e.g., Hegerl 2006; Royer 2007; Lorius 1990, Hoffert 1992, Hansen 1993, Gregory 2002, Chylek 2007, Tung 2007, Bender 2010). The range of all of those studies is 1.3 C to 6.2 C. Knutti and Hegerl (2008) and Annan(2006) determine that CS is about +3 C, with 90% probability that CS is > 1.5 C, and greater than 66% probability of it being between 2 and 4.5 C. That is for doubling CO2, and we will easily double CO2 before the end of the century with BAU.

    As for Lindzen, Spencer et al. For starters, Lindzen believes that he can smoke and that it will not affect his health or greatly elevate the odds of him dying from cancer. He seems to have little regard for consequences of irresponsible behaviour, and it is hardly surprising that he thinks that more than doubling CO2 will not have serious consequences for the biosphere. That said, at least he recognizes that AGW is real.

    I have a hard time taking young earth creationists like Spencer, Christy, Michaels and McKitrick, Ball et al. seriously. How do you reconcile the planet and climate changing over billions of years with your belief that the earth is only 6000 years old? I can only conclude that Spencer et al. do not believe in Milankovitch cycles or glacial cycles. How very convenient.

  183. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    What words did I put in your mouth? Please elaborate.

    “That I may be someone who is as brilliant as you are, with access to scientific literature, with a long record of publications, with a long record of peer review.”

    OK Harry, please prove it.

    And yes, please do tell us what you think of Cuccinelli’s witch hunt. What I am more interested though is what Curry has said on the matter.

    I suppose you believe that the EPA and IPCC also cherry-pick papers. Do you honestly think that AGW is some kind of grand conspiracy?

  184. Harry Says:

    Mapleleaf,

    Are you serious?
    What did you smoke?

    I really can not take you serious after this last rant. IMHO, you should be behind thick steel bars.

    You put so much in my mouth that I would not even consider to utter.

    You are mad. Please do not hurt anyone. Get yourself a professional counsellor.

  185. Harry Says:

    How do you reconcile the planet and climate changing over billions of years with your belief that the earth is only 6000 years old?

    Did I ever mention something like this?

    Mapleleaf, you are making things up. You are an idiot.

    Glad you did this. Thanks. Saved me a lot of effort.

  186. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    Whaaat on earth are you talking about? This is getting surreal.

    What is your stance on Cuccinelli? Do you know if Curry has said anything?

    Also, I asked you to please elaborate about me allegedly putting words in your mouth. Remember when you asked @23:43 “Why are you playing the ad-hom card so heavily, putting words in my mouth that I never, ever suggested?”. Nothing wrong with asking you to elaborate.

    Lindzen has openly stated that he is skeptical of the link between smoking and cancer. It is no secret that Spencer is a young earth creationist. These facts are well understood, and do not do much for their credibility.

    As for me allegedly needing help, I am just fine thanks, and I do not smoke, period.

    “You are mad. Please do not hurt anyone. Get yourself a professional counsellor.”

    Harry, you are projecting. And remember, you are the one who has volunteered @23:17 that you are allegedly “laughing all day” :) I have seen this behaviour of yours and these same tactics with trolls on other blogs.

    If you want to be treated like a scientist, then please behave and think like one……

    Anyhow, as per usual the discussion has spiraled into silliness, as it often does when ‘debating’ contrarians and those in denial about AGW.

    Bye.

  187. Harry Says:

    Mapleleaf:
    /+cit
    What words did I put in your mouth? Please elaborate.

    “That I may be someone who is as brilliant as you are, with access to scientific literature, with a long record of publications, with a long record of peer review.”

    OK Harry, please prove it.
    /-cit

    Mapleleaf,

    I did not state that I am, I stated that I would like to be treated as if I..

    But you can without no problem prove that you fulfill this requirement.

    By now, you should be fuming. If not let me know.

  188. Harry Says:

    Mapleleaf,

    You were already fuming. Please take care.

  189. Harry Says:

    And playing the cancer card with me is very, very, very painful. I will not forgive you for this, ever, never. We were talking climate, not cancer. A completely off topic item, which hurts so many people. If you are not aware of the repercussions of silly remarks like this, then please reconsider your position. This is something that may never happen in a scientific debate. You just disqualified yourself in the most cruel way. If I ever meet you in person, we will have a fight. By fists. This is outrageous!

  190. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    You were making reference to Spencer’s work. I was pointing out that he may not be as credible on the AGW file as you think. When I was saying “how do you”, I was talking about Spencer. However, I can see that was not clear from my writing/wording. Sorry for the confusion.

    I honestly misinterpreted what you said about being a scientist. I still stand by my argument that if you want to be treated as such, then you have to walk the talk, and your comments and beliefs stated here are not consistent with those of a scientist.

    Anyhow, if there is anything else that you need clarifying, I am happy to do so before signing off. And no, I am not “fuming”, again you seem to be projecting.

  191. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    I was not playing the “cancer card”. The smoking analogy is often used in the AGW ‘debate’, and it is actually relevant analogy given how many people died needlessly because a select few hide the truth (determined by scientists) from people that smoking is extremely bad for your health (and that of others near you) and is highly correlated with cancer. Similarly, scientists are now, again trying to warn people of a serious situation and again, they are being attacked for doing so. So it bothers me (and many others I might add) that Lindzen is so cavalier about AGW and smoking.

    And as for you threatening me with violence, that is completely irrational, futile, unacceptable and uncalled for.

  192. harry Says:

    I do not care what the background of this use of cancer is.

    Do not use it in the climate discussion. Never.

    And I stand to my commitment: when we meet, we will fight.

  193. harry Says:

    My son just died. Cancer. 18 years old. If anyone feels free to make a mockery of cancer, I will get them. No excuse possible.

  194. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry, we have children, so I am sincere when I say that I am truly sorry to hear about your son.

    Now that I know your situation, I will not mention it to you again. Just to be clear, we cross posted earlier, so when I was composing my message which appeared at 01:37 I was unaware of what you had posted at 01:20 b/c I did not refresh my browser.

  195. harry Says:

    Mapleleaf,

    Thanks. I know that you are sincere. You do not need to explain.
    Thanks again.

  196. Judith Curry Says:

    Interesting discussion! My statement about cuccinelli is at

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m5d4-Global-warming-Interview-with-Dr-Judith-Curry-Part-1-Cuccinellis-Witch-Hunt

  197. Frank Says:

    Harry & MapleLeaf,

    Harry’s loss, for which I am truly sorry, reminds me that there are things in life that are much more important than what we debating here.

    Regards – F.

  198. DLM Says:

    Harry,

    I am very sorry for your loss Harry. You will always have the memories.

  199. DLM Says:

    Dr. Curry,

    Perhaps it is about time for a legal fishing expedition. We have already seen the results of various political whitewashes.

    You posed some very interesting questions regarding the elevation of the hockey stick to it’s iconic status in the AGW industry. Just how did such a thing that will probably not survive the test of time get past 2500 IPCC scientists? How did a rookie researcher become an IPCC lead author? Was it because Mann was told that he could make a name for himself by ‘getting rid of the MWP’? Collusion would go a long way towards answering the questions you have raised, Dr. Curry. Perhaps public funds have been misused to promote causes, and careers.

    a little context:

    http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

  200. Judith Curry Says:

    DLM, the issue is more with the IPCC rather than Mann, IMO. the VA AG rifling through Mann’s emails is unlikely to find anything related to this, other than an invite from the IPCC to be a Lead Author.

  201. DLM Says:

    Dr. Curry,

    You said: “So how did such a young and relatively inexperienced scientist who had just received his Ph.D. become a lead author for the IPCC TAR?”

    Perhaps his sudden elevation from rookie to senior scientist status was a reward for getting rid of the MWP.

    Perhaps some rifling through his emails will find one that says “Mike, we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. If you can do this for us, your career will be made.”

    Or maybe Mike Mann is a wunderkind, and that explains how the young lad so easily and rapidly overturned previous conceptions about the Medieval Non-Warm Period, and became famous. Or should I say infamous?

    I am sure that not long ago your belief would have been that nothing fishy could be found, by rifling through the CRU emails :)

    You are to be commended for confronting the serious issues raised about the state of climate science/politics. Meanwhile, the gutless ones circle the wagons.

  202. Phil Clarke Says:

    I wonder if anyone can identify who wrote:

    “I actually don’t believe men of honour publish correspondence without permission. Nor do I believe men of honour would select portions of the email that don’t correspond to the entire message”

    Source: http://tinyurl.com/3xaoons

    I guess ‘honour’ is a relative and flexible concept.

    Hat-tip to MarkB posting at DeepClimate.

  203. Phil Clarke Says:

    I think we should resist Steve Mosher’s troll-like calls to ‘exonerate’ Phil Jones against his allegations. The trouble is – Mosher’s ‘case against’ keeps changing. Here he says UEA simply ASKED Ammann if he considered any of his mails were confidential, but back in January the allegation was that UEA SUGGESTED to Ammann that he should say they they were, a suggestion that only ever occurred in Mosher’s imagination. Today he says Ammann never gave a clear answer, back than he has ‘Ammann appears to think otherwise.’

    He also stated that Phil Jones ‘even suggested changing the dates on papers to hide the misdeed’. Why those two-faced, lying …. Only trouble is, despite having ‘researched’ a book Mosher is unaware that Jones was joking about a printer’s error. This is clear from a CA post, a post that Mosher referenced in his hilarious ‘hackers’ piece at WUWT.

    So I leave determining if Mosher’s latest accusations are a fair and full interpretation of the evidence to others. The odds seem slim. Besides, even if we don our foil hats and follow him down the rabbithole, the worst we will find is an inconsequential transgression of IPCC procedures and maybe an unwise request to delete private emails.

    Despite the book title Mosher and the ‘dishonourable’ Fuller are no Bernstein and Woodward, apparently failing to observe even the basic journalistic ethical practice of contacting Jones et al for a response before going into print with allegations of scientific misconduct (would have saved the embarrassing blunder noted above) so expressions of concern about Jones’ welfare now sound just a little hollow …..

    Sources:

    http://biggovernment.com/smosher/2010/02/01/leake-and-the-london-times-climate-scientists-thwarted-foia/

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/23/will-stephen-schneider-say-what-the-acceptance-date-of-wahl-and-ammann-2007-was/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/mosher-the-hackers/

  204. MapleLeaf Says:

    Phil,

    Intriguing. If what you say is true, and there seems to be little wiggling room for Mosher here, it is consistent with their motives (those of Fuller and Mosher) being disingenuous, perhaps even nefarious. It has always bothered me that Mosher and Fuller did not approach Jones et al., nor do they apply their critique/skepticism to the actions of McI, or indeed themselves.

    If you keep this up you will put DC out of work ;)

    Have you seen this (read comment #40?

    http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/oxburgh-and-organ-grinders/#comment-2543

    (H/T to J Bowers)

    This is why I really have trouble with Dr. Curry not applying her critique symmetrically at all times, especially given that she seems to expect others to do just that. It has been clear for some time now that McI and his followers have not intention of acting in good faith, despite trying to create the pretense that they are. I think it unreasonable and perhaps naive to expect people dealing with the likes of McI in the trenches to do as Dr. Curry suggests. On paper yes, but in reality, not so much. Will Curry condemn Mosher’s attack on CRU?

    All that said, I still strongly urge Dr. Curry to get involved with AR5 in any way possible, and the higher up the better.

  205. DLM Says:

    Phil Jones joking about a printer’s error:

    “You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
    hasn’t
    changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
    Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.

    Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those
    skeptics something
    to amuse themselves with.

    Cheers
    Phil”

    Really, he was just joking about a printer’s error. Read between the lines. Still don’t get it? You must be a Creationist. Lean way to your left and read it again. Are you laughing now?

    We don’t have to abide by no closing dates. We runs the show!

  206. Arjan Says:

    @DLM:

    You seem to think that the science cares anything about the public opinion, as it being something very powerful (it is not, because it is subject to wild changes). Well, history has shown that science (and the scientists) do not care at all about the public opinion. Even in periods of “witch hunts” or strong oppression by powerful groups, science keeps on progressing. The great thing in this discussion is that the actual physics does not care about our opinions. If AGW is right it WILL eventually show, and thus by itself convince the public. That will probably take a while though, AGW being such a slow process compared to human lifetime. It the skeptics are right, it will also show, because then temperatures will probably drop back substantially in the coming decades. This will probably convince other scientists that they are wrong, and then they will look for other mechanisms in climate. Climate science is an interesting research topic, and there will probably be many more surprizes as our knowledge progresses. I do think it is important that we focus on the basic science (because of the uncertainties still present), because a better understanding of the climate system and climate changes is also important even if AGW does not verify. (E.g. who wouldn’t want to predict the phases of El Nino, PDO, AMO, AO, understand the influence of clouds and aerosols on climate and possible solar/cosmic effects. Without a thorough understanding of these physical processes it will be nearly impossible to do accurate local climate variations, even if we do understand the much simpler long term global effect of (Antropogenic) GHGs.)

  207. DLM Says:

    Maple, Maple

    “What is your stance on Cuccinelli? Do you know if Curry has said anything?”

    Dr. Curry responded to your question. You could at least have the courtesy to thank her.

  208. MapleLeaf Says:

    Yes, DLM, right you are.

    Thanks Dr. Curry.

  209. DLM Says:

    Arjan,

    What planet did you just arrive from. Climate science cares about public opinion. Climate science would be an inconsequential backwater, if not for the massive attempt to scare the public into regressing to pre-industrial times. Why do you think these denier debunker blogs exist? How many other sciences have front men like Al Gore and his poorly groomed railroad-engineer sidekick jetting about the world spending hundreds of millions of dollars to frighten school children?

  210. Arjan Says:

    I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you.

    Climate science would be an inconsequential backwater if it wouldn’t change the way it does and if we wouldn’t be so much dependent on it.
    Yes, of course some scientists do care somewhat about the public opinion. Everybody likes some kind of recognition for their work, and scientists, being human, also have their ideologies, views and opinions.

    BTW: How many scientists (what fraction of “pro” AGW scientists) are actually actively blogging? What’s the fraction of skeptic scientists actively blogging? Who is more dependent on public opinion?

    I do agree that there would be less scientists working on climate science if there was no AGW, but these scientists can (and will, if funding dries up) work in other science fields. Scientists working on the basis of climate physics will remain important, because people do want to predict and understand natural changes too. Anyway, like I said before, public opinion is subject to wild changes, and the actual physics will show itself, and convince the public.

    Some “skeptics” seem to have their own alarmism: “the next ice age”, and “the world is doomed without oil” (and many more…) Anyway, I know that the media is much more interested in actual doom stories than most scientists. There are more serious problems in the world than AGW, but it can definitely be “inconvenient” ;) if the atmosphere is highly sensitive to changes in (LW) radiative forcings.

  211. Magnus W Says:

    Reality check for Curry?

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/06/national-academy-of-sciences-letter-defending-climate-science-integrity/

  212. Harry Says:

    Frank, DLM,
    Thanks for your kind words.
    I hope the discussion can continue without this kind of OT.

  213. Harry Says:

    Arjan,

    Are we really dependant on climate science? If we take into account that papers like Sherwood and Huber in PNAS widely exagerate the worst case scenarios of the IPCC AR4, then what shpuld we do? My opinion is clear: stop modelling as long as you do not have an accurate record of global or preferably, local temperatures. And whether the troposphere is sensitive or insensitive to radiative forcings is a question that can only be answered when we have sufficient data. Measured, not simulated or modelled.

  214. Phil Clarke Says:

    DLM – if you followed my second link you would have found, in a letter to McI from Stephen Schneider

    “With regard to Ammann and Wahl 2007, of course it was not received in 2000 and that was an unfortunate printer’s error on the part of the publisher, and indeed your presumption of August 2006 is correct for the date of receipt. ”

    It was this error that Jones was making light of….

  215. DLM Says:

    Phil, Phil

    I read the letter from Schneider to McIntyre. Did you see the part where McIntyre all but called Schneider a liar? Did you happen to read the post at all?

    “David Pannell, an Australian academic and journal editor, observed the improbability of the chronology claimed at the UCAR website and suggested that I investigate.

    The authors’ claimed chronology for the original paper does not add up. Looking at the journal, all of the recently published papers were accepted in 2007. As a journal editor myself, it is not plausible that one article would be kept aside for later publication, other than perhaps by an issue or two to get it into a particular special issue. I interpret that the claim by the authors “February 28, 2006″ Accepted for Publication” is false in some way. But if it is false, where did all those dates (in review, revised, etc.) come from? Could they really make up a series of dates like that? If they are not made up, then what has happened?

    Steve, if I were you, I would ask the editor what has happened to the paper.

    “Despite Wahl and Ammann being in limbo since the GRL rejection of the companion article in March 2006, the myth of the March 1, 2006 “acceptance” date was preserved. The reason for this is, of course, IPCC publication deadlines, which Ammann and Wahl (and Schneider) had kept a close eye throughout this process. Did the “acceptance date” matter? Well, it did for the IPCC.”

    It wasn’t the so-called ‘unfortunate printer’s error’ that was the subject of controversy. That is a red herring.

    Here is a detailed and revealing perspective on the issue that differs from your RC boilerplate explanation/lame excuse:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    You people just can’t hide these things anymore, Phil. Sorry.

  216. Phil Clarke Says:

    DLM,

    >>It wasn’t the so-called ‘unfortunate printer’s error’ that was the subject of controversy. That is a red herring

    Of course the printer’s error is a red herring, but that did not prevent Mosher from using it as a way further to smear Jones, as this is the ONLY evidence he provided to support the claim that Jones ‘‘even suggested changing the dates on papers to hide the misdeed’.

    I have read the fictional piece by your Chartered Accountant on the trajectory of the various papers into print and had a really good laugh, it is no more than biased opinion, plus a series of unsupported and unsupportable claims.

    E.G. “Confirmation that the R2 was close to zero would strike a serious blow at Wahl and Amman’s work.” Balony. Wahl and Ammann actually argue that R2 is a very poor method of evaluating the skill of such reconstructions. See for example

    MannME, Rutherford S,WahlE,AmmannC(2007) Robustnessofproxy-based climate
    field reconstruction methods. J Geophys Res 112:D12109.

    or “With the replication of the hockey stick in tatters, reasonable people might have expected some sort of pause in the political momentum.” – a total exaggeration of the facts. As has been demonstrated several times over, the impact of MM’s work on MBH was and is negligible.

    Perleeze.

  217. DLM Says:

    That’s all ridiculous Phil.

    “Of course the printer’s error is a red herring, but that did not prevent Mosher from using it as a way further to smear Jones, as this is the ONLY evidence he provided to support the claim that Jones ‘‘even suggested changing the dates on papers to hide the misdeed’. ”

    And your evidence is Jones’s self-serving claim that he was joking about changing the dates. And he must have been joking about deleting emails and data, rather than turn them over in response to FOI requests. Yes we can tell from the Climategate emails what a joker Dr Phil Jones is. LOL! The joke excuse is transparent bull shit. We are not obligated to take Jones’s word for anything. Look at the context of the alleged joke. The printer’s error, the 2000 date, was not even obliquely part of the discussion. Look at the dates being discussed:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=816&filename=1189722851.txt

    BishopHill has it nailed, and you know it.

    “E.G. “Confirmation that the R2 was close to zero would strike a serious blow at Wahl and Amman’s work.” Balony. Wahl and Ammann actually argue that R2 is a very poor method of evaluating the skill of such reconstructions. See for example ”

    And we are supposed to take Amman and Wahl’s word that R2 is a very poor method of evaluating their own bull shit. Why did they do the calculation then? If the R2 had come out in their favor, do you think they would have discarded it as a very poor method?

    The catastrophic AGW industry is corrupt Phil. You can’t hide it anymore. Sorry.

  218. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Maple,
    Come on, man.

    Come on over to the dark side. :)

  219. Phil Clarke Says:

    >>BishopHill has it nailed, and you know it.

    What I know is that Bishop Hill’s real name is Andrew Montford, he is a Chartered Accountant with a degree in chemstry. Montford has written a fanciful and highly inventive account of the treatment of a single paper by IPCC. If you think this paper is critical to our understanding of climate change, or that the IPCC’s conclusions would be substantively different without it, you are very much mistaken.

  220. DLM Says:

    I see where you are coming from Phil, it is a well known fact that anyone who spells their name Montford (luckily my name is spelled Montfort), and is a Chartered Accountant with a degree in chemistry is dumb and silly. You are a lightweight Phil.

    I don’t believe the paper is critical to anyone who is not a dupe of the IPCC Phil. It was the IPCC who broke their rules to get it into their trumped up report. Why did they feel the need to do that Phil? The paper is a piece of crap, just another in a litany of dubious pal reviewed research that has been conjured up by the catastrophic AGW industry.

    Now tell me that it was let in as a joke. That would make sense.

  221. Harry Says:

    I was one of the citizen auditors to have the IPCC AR4 report dissected with regard to peer-reviewed and gray literature. I was amazed at what we found. We made errors (sure of that!), but as far as of this date, nobody has really challenged our findings. Why?

    Because our findings were correct! IPCC AR4 contains a terrible lot of references to pamphlets, political junk, whatsoever. Anything but peer-reviewed. So start with getting rid of this voodoo science man. It cleans your own boot. Then maybe you can use this boot to kick someone else. But I am afraid this someone else will have two boots, iron clad, to boot you…

  222. Scientists Fail At Science. Again « SoftestPawn’s Weblog Says:

    [...] circled wagons mentality of a community suddenly under direct and personal public view seems to be driving a conspiracy [...]

  223. Steven Sullivan Says:

    “Because our findings were correct! IPCC AR4 contains a terrible lot of references to pamphlets, political junk, whatsoever. Anything but peer-reviewed. So start with getting rid of this voodoo science man.”

    In the WGI section? Really? Do tell, Mr. Citizen Auditor. Because that’s the *science* section. How many grey lit cites did you find there?

    And there were NO peer reviewed papers cited in the others sections? Really, Mr. Citizen Auditor? Because that’s what ‘anything but’ means.

    Also, Mr. Citizen Auditor, did you audit the grey lit to see how much of it was, in fact, based on peer-reviewed lit, and thus simply a ‘secondary’ source rather than primary?

  224. Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes « Greenfyre’s Says:

    [...] Put bluntly, it boils down to dismissing the concerns of the climate science community and accepting the lies and frauds of the Deniers at face value. Even some of her supporters acknowledge the double standard. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: