Revkin on Steig, O’Donnell, peer review and solid scientific basics

by

Andy Revkin wrote a good overview of the recent kerfuffle between Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell. His piece is centred around contrasting the conflicting views at the edge of the scientific development with the well understood basics of scientific knowledge that makes up the big picture:

I also hope that tussles at the edges of understanding, where data are scant or uncertainty is high, don’t distract the public too much from the basics of climate science, which are boringly undisputed yet still speak of a rising risk that sorely needs addressing.

That’s a very important point to make, and I applaud Revkin for doing so. Media attention to new results (which are usually disputed to a certain extent) can sometimes lead to a skewed picture of the scientific knowledge in the field as a whole, which tend to be underreported. That’s why Revkin’s framing here is important, as it drives home the fact that a dispute at the edge of knowledge (spatial statistics as applied to Antarctic temperature trends) does not mean that the whole theory of climate change is suddenly disputed. Revkin:

Everything laid out above tends to draw attention away from the broad and deep body of work pointing to a growing and long-lasting human influence on the climate system.

Revkin does however exhibit a misunderstanding of peer review when he writes:

The exchanges between Steig and O’Donnell do raise questions about peer review, given that Steig has said he was an early anonymous reviewer (…)

This got quite a few people riled up. I wrote in to state that I think it still is a

Very good article, and good to see attention to detail not go at the cost of also providing the context of what is known.

One comment:
You say this all argument raises questions about peer review. But in fact, it is completely normal, or expected even, that authors whose paper is being critized are one of the reviewers. They are most familiar with the issues, plus it enables the editor to hear both sides.

Of course the editor needs to be aware of the position of this reviewer as the one being critiqued and weigh the review accordingly with other reviews from more disinterested parties. Revkin has since posted Louis Derry’s response, an editor of a geosciences journal:

1. Editors make final decisions. Reviewers make recommendations only.

2. It is common for a submission that critiques previous work to be sent to the author of the critiqued work for review. 2a. That emphatically does NOT mean the reviewer has veto power. It means that his/her opinion is worth having. Such a choice is usually balanced by reviewers that editors believe are reasonably independent, and the review of the critiqued is weighted accordingly. Suggestions that asking Steig to review O’Donnell was somehow unethical are utterly without support in normal scientific practice. Obviously, Steig did not have veto power over O’Donnell’s paper.

3. The fact that O”Donnell’s paper went through several rounds of review is absolutely unsurprising and unexceptional. Many papers on far less public topics do the same.

4. Some have questioned why Stieig 09 got “more” visibility than O’Donnell 10. The answer is simple. Steig had a “result,” O”Donnell had a technical criticism of methodology.

He also chimes in about the importance of the context as provided by Revkin:

Finally, Revkin’s point that the Steig vs O’Donnell debate is not unusual in the progress of science and does not have much of anything to say about the majority of the evidence is correct. Disagreement about how to model the flight of a Frisbee correctly doesn’t imply that basic aerodynamics are wrong. Disagreement about how many EOFs [empirical orthogonal functions] to use to model Antarctic [temperature] changes doesn’t imply that climate physics is wrong.

The Frisbee comment reminded me of one of my favorite sayings: Observing a bird in the sky doesn’t disprove gravity. The science may not be settled, but solid it is.

Some more things have been said about peer review by others. E.g. Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford writes in the Hockeystick illusion, page 205 (h/t Tim Lambert):

As the CC [Climatic Change] paper was critical of his work, McIntyre was invited to be one of the peer reviewers.

 Guess we can all agree on that aspect of peer review now.

Update: John Nielsen-Gammon has some useful things to say about peer review here (on revealing the identity of reviewer), here (retelling the story and why it makes sense to have had Steig as a reviewer; quoting Steig; interesting dicussion), and here (explaining the dynamics of peer review and making the interesting suggestion of mentoring  relative outsiders navigate peer review).

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

541 Responses to “Revkin on Steig, O’Donnell, peer review and solid scientific basics”

  1. Scrooge Says:

    Science and peer review is not the problem. Overall this is not anything big scientifically. The problem is the childish/political behavior that came about after they figured out they couldn’t beat science with science.

  2. Tom Fuller Says:

    Good post, Bart. You make good points and point to others out there. Wish everybody’s blogging was like this all the time.

  3. RickA Says:

    Louis Derry said:

    4. Some have questioned why Stieig 09 got “more” visibility than O’Donnell 10. The answer is simple. Steig had a “result,” O”Donnell had a technical criticism of methodology.

    I guess this is like the news being on the front page and the correction being on page 10A.

    Since the “result” Steig obtained was wrong (The entire Antarctica is not warming as shown showed on the cover of Nature – just the Peninsula), it is a pity that the “technical criticism” cannot get spread like the original faulty “result”.

  4. Marco Says:

    RickA: that’s the nature of things (pun intended).

    Of course, as Eric Steig said multiple times, S09 focused on warming of West-Antarctica. THAT was the result S09 highlighted, and which was not contradicted by OD10 (nope, RickA, it was not just the peninsula).

  5. Deech56 Says:

    In that DotEarth thread, Raypierre has a good comment:

    Thanks for making this a Your Dot. It does help to underscore that whatever happened with O’Donnell, it does not in the least indicate any problems with peer-review.

    Regardless of how badly behaved O’Donnell or any other ClimateAuditor may be, their ideas deserve to be considered seriously when they reach a level of development sufficient that they can be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I have no problem with that — ultimately in science, it’s the ideas, and the judgment of the community on those ideas — that counts. But that is not to say that the vicious behavior of the ClimateAudit crowd is good for science, or good for the ability of the public to make sense of science. I am chagrined that (looking at the blogosphere, not the published papers), you seem to look at O’Donnell and Steig, and conclude that this is a catfight with equally much hissing and spitting on both sides. But that is clearly not the case. It was O’Donnell and the ClimateAuditors who began the process even before the submission with all sorts of outrageous claims of research malfeasance or major mistakes, and after publication (and an all too brief civil interlude) continued with outrageous and unfounded accusations that Steig manipulated the review process, and with repeated attempts at character assassination — which have not been completely withdrawn and apologized for.

    So after a long time, the Climate Auditors have finally spit out one contribution to the peer-reviewed literature. But its impact and import, compared to the noise they have made over this and other things, is hardly earthshaking. I just don’t understand why you can’t bring yourself to look at the situation and see how plainly the conduct at ClimateAudit is reprehensible, and not a good thing for the progress of scientific understanding.

  6. dhogaza Says:

    RickA:

    I guess this is like the news being on the front page and the correction being on page 10A.

    The O10 reconstruction underestimates the warming trend at Byrd by a factor of 3. Some “correction”.

    The best comment I’ve seen about this thus far is that we’re not talking about mathematical proof that one approach is “correct” and the other “wrong”. We’re talking about *optimality* – which approach does the best job given the extreme lack of coverage of Antarctica by ground temperature sensors.

    Thus Steig and O’Donnell et al could go back-and-forth over whether kgnd or iridge infiilling did a better job with the data at hand. You can see this in the caveats woven into some of Steig’s comments (paraphrasing “maybe the authors are right suggesting that iridge does a better job than kgnd as I had first thought”), etc etc.

    Of course in the blogosphere RyanO et al speak of correcting Steig’s paper and in RyanO’s last missive he talks very harshly of S09, far harsher than Steig speaks of O10 (he praises it highly despite pointing out problems with it).

    That’s too bad. RyanO et al would’ve never thought of putting together their own reconstruction of Antarctica temperature trends if S09 hadn’t been published. Their motivation has been quite clearly to trash Steig at a personal level, not just his creative paper which did something no one else had done before in regard to Antarctica.

    Once a paper and methodology are out, other scientists have a target. In the normal world, science pushes forward, and the original author is often part of the process (indeed, Steig’s mentioned that he and his team are moving on with more work on Antarctica).

    In real science, publication of a paper like S09 or Mann’s original hockey stick paper marks a POINT IN TIME, not THE END POINT OF HISTORY.

    Thus the odd disconnect between scientists who continue to move forward spawning dozens of hockey sticks while The Scrubs focus on Mann’s original work with the intensity that someone with psychological issues might focus on an annoying speck of dust on the floor.

    I think a lot of the vitriol probably boils down to the fact that, much to their surprise and annoyance, their reconstruction showed warming in West Antarctica, too, though much less than Steig. But also, at Byrd, much less than the instrumental record which leads one to question whether or not their reconstruction underestimates the trend elsewhere, too …

    All reconstructions of temp trends in Antarctica will be flawed – there’s just not enough data at the moment.

  7. TimG Says:

    I find meaningless bromides like this:

    “Everything laid out above tends to draw attention away from the broad and deep body of work pointing to a growing and long-lasting human influence on the climate system.”

    To be a distraction from the real issue: is the human influence on climate something that we should care about and, if so, can we do anything about it?

    The trouble with Revkin and others is they assume that the answer to those questions is ‘Yes’ when many people disagree.

    BTW – Grist has a post up that does a good job of explaining why ‘carbon control’ as a policy is doomed to fail.

  8. willard Says:

    Bart,

    Reading you reminds me reality exists.

    Thanks,

    w

  9. Ron Broberg Says:

    TimG: To be a distraction from the real issue: is the human influence on climate something that we should care about and, if so, can we do anything about it?

    The trouble with Revkin and others is they assume that the answer to those questions is ‘Yes’ when many people disagre

    A reason Revkin and many others ignore the people who disagree with the idea that AGW may be problematic and mitigations may exist is because those that disagree often hang out with those that refuse to accept basic physics and not-so-basic modeling. The tactic of ‘attacking the science’ means that those who agree with the science aren’t hanging around to listen to the dissenters ideas about impacts and mitigations. Agree on certain parts of the science and a rational discussion about impacts, mitigations, and policies can occur.

    This is, of course, the basic message that Dr Schmidt tried to send to the Lisbon organizers.

  10. TimG Says:

    Ron,

    The problem is any assessment of the risk of climate change requires an assessment of the possibility that the boffins have misunderstood significant aspects of the climate system and thereby exaggerated the potential harms.

    The problem with people like Gavin is they claim that the chance of the scientists being significantly wrong is so infinitesimally small that it is not worth considering. That kind of certainty is completely unjustified given the evidence available and a lot sceptics get into arguing the science in order to show that the claims of certainty are unjustified.

    Of course, skeptics are a diverse lot and many peddle some out right nonsense but that is also true of alarmists who babble about extinction of the human race.

    In the end, climate change is nothing but an economic problem for humans and we need to discussing policies that provide an economic benefit even if the CO2 issue irrelevant.

  11. dhogaza Says:

    Hmm, I’ve got a comment in moderation …

  12. Ron Broberg Says:

    we need to discussing policies that provide an economic benefit even if the CO2 issue irrelevant.

    Go ahead.

  13. RickA Says:

    Marco:

    I do see that O10 did find a small warming trend in West Antarctica. It is a lot smaller than Steig’s, but positive none the less.

    So you are correct, there is warming in more than the peninsula, so I was wrong to say it was just the peninsula.

    Didn’t Steig’s paper also show warming at the South Pole, which was shown by O10 to be faulty?

  14. Scrooge Says:

    OK looks like we are a little off topic but that’s fine with me. TimG since I don’t know you or anything about you, don’t take what I say in a bad way. Its a weird sense of humor not being facetious. You sound like a yuppie from the Reagan era. Wait for the trickle down to make everyone rich. Economics are important but mazlo’s needs sure don’t make it as important as food. We saw this last year what can happen to the worlds food supply. Besides Russian wheat which we all know about, in S Korea a head of cabbage cost 18 usd. You may think its only cabbage but its a staple and like us in the U S paying 10 dollars for a loaf of bread. That is because its a supply and demand problem. China now is stockpiling wheat to help survive drought, its a supply and demand problem. Previous WHO study indicates 150000 deaths per year attributed to GW a UN article last year gave a number of 300000. Living ranks pretty high on mazlo’s needs. So I guess we can just print money and send to places where the deserts are expanding. But we better make it edible. And make it taste like cake so we can say let them eat cake. But these are problems now. Not some future problem.

  15. TimG Says:

    Scrooge,

    Your argument is based on the premise that there is a credible link between recent food supply problems and the relatively modest warming we have seen to date. I have yet to see any largely because there are so many variables in place it is rediculous to claim that climate change had anything to do with a specific problem.

    As a challenge, why don’t you dig up the actual scientific basis for the 150,000 deaths per year claim. Let’s see if it is actually a peer reviewed paper for a propaganda leaflet from an NGO. If it is peer reviewed lets look at the caveats that are in the paper. Lets see how your little factoid stands up to some skeptical analysis.

  16. TimG Says:

    Ron,

    1) Build infrastructure that helps reduce the impact of weather events. Extreme weather is a problem no matter what.

    2) Invest in R&D into energy alternatives. End this nonsensical aversion to nulcear. Figure out what is needed to make thorium power economic.

    3) Invest in improvements to electricity grid to make it better able to dispatch power over longer distances and more intelligently manage demand as well as supply. This will have the effect of making renewables more economic but the current policy is backward – you need to fix the grid then bring on variable supply. Not force the variable supply and then expect the existing grid to handle it.

  17. dhogaza Says:

    RickA:

    So you are correct, there is warming in more than the peninsula, so I was wrong to say it was just the peninsula.

    Good … my first lengthy response is in moderation (must’ve used bad word, though I don’t know what!)

    Didn’t Steig’s paper also show warming at the South Pole, which was shown by O10 to be faulty?

    Didn’t O10 show Byrd’s warming trend to be 1/3 that recorded there, by real thermometers? Is RyanO’s showing that S09’s paper showing warming at the south pole equally faulty, i.e., refuted by thermometers? If not, which is more reliable? If so, what does this show?

    The data’s so sparse that robust results are difficult, and both papers show this.

    So in some sense it’s remarkable that both approaches show WA warming.

  18. Paul Kelly Says:

    Policies that provide an economic benefit, based on market principles, are really the only ones available.

  19. Marco Says:

    RickA, dhogaza called it right.

  20. Marco Says:

    @Paul Kelly: but economic benefit for whom?

  21. TimG Says:

    dhogaza,

    O10 shows S09 is statistical junk. What S09 says is irrelevant. Even if it coincidently makes the thermometers in some places. The farmer’s alumnac is probably more useful than S09.

    Go ahead and argue that *other* sources suggest that O10 is wrong as well as S09. None of the authors of O10 are claiming that their version is necessarily the final word on antarctic temps.

    IOW – it is not at all interesting that both approaches show WA warming. S09 is junk so its results are irrelevant. O10 could be wrong because the method is an estimate of a value that we cannot know.

  22. Paul Kelly Says:

    In markets, the economic benefits go to buyers, sellers and producers. My company sells units of energy transformation. Note that the customer base for our product includes but is not limited to the CO2 concerned.

    Even though economic benefit is not the only criterion for policy, sound economics should undergird most policy. It’s difficult because the governmental approach is so inadequate.

  23. Bart Says:

    Discussions on mitigation strategies to the open thread, please.

  24. Bart Says:

    My initial reaction to reading Revkin’s first piece on Steig/O’Donnell was very positive. This was tempered a little by his misunderstanding of an aspect of peer review (but he proved himself open to providing a platform to a knowledgeable opinion setting him straight).

    In the end, the popular climate debate is about the big picture, as TimG also writes (although he misunderstands what is and isn’t understood about the big picture). Therefore, in this little catfight who is more right and more wrong (see Raypierre’s comment at DotEarth as quote by Deech) is ultimately not important and (to me) not very interesting. Even more so because it has the signs of a misunderstanding gone wrong: Ryan had interpreted one of Eric’s review comments differently than Eric had meant it, and based on this misunderstanding, Ryan got pissed. I don’t fault Revkin for not passing judgment on who is more right or wrong here, esp since he did something much more important: Pointing out how unimportant this catfight is in the grand scheme of things. For pointing out that very important aspect, which we should really be driving home in all our communications, I have no trouble at all excusing him for the little slip-up. The lack of judgment in this particular case also speaks more for Revkin thanagainst him, because this wasn’t a disagreement on scientific understanding (where journalistic judgment is called for imo, esp when the case is relatively clearcut), but rather disagreement about communication (which is inherenlty subjective and prone to misunderstanding).

  25. Sou Says:

    I know this is about Revkin rather than the O’D invective. But readers might be interested in Eric’s comment on Eli Rabett’s delightful blog.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/some-useful-comments-from-elsewhere.html

  26. Jeff Id Says:

    dhog,

    “I think a lot of the vitriol probably boils down to the fact that, much to their surprise and annoyance, their reconstruction showed warming in West Antarctica, too, though much less than Steig. But also, at Byrd, much less than the instrumental record which leads one to question whether or not their reconstruction underestimates the trend elsewhere, too …”

    Steig’s Byrd trend of 0.32 is incorrect. It makes his whole article appear reasonable to those who don’t bother to look at the data. He probably knows from Ryan’s reply that he goofed it up too but has never taken a single thing back. Even if he had the right trend for Byrd, the comparison of the trend at a single point in a 7 pc Kgnd recon doesn’t make much sense to me. Comparison of sensitivity does, but not the simple trend due to the distribution of nodes in Chladni patterns.

    While Ryan stated our work was an improvement, it was a refutation IMO. The methods of S09 were fun, the puzzle was fun, especially when the authors were so publicly dismissive of our (now shown correct) blog critiques. Ryan’s sensitivity test at CA says it all, S09 math didn’t work, the trend at Byrd had nothing to do with the data at Byrd and the results were flat wrong.

    What I have always found amazing is that S09 didn’t agree with any of the historic work on temp trends, and ours fell right in line. Why is it that only skeptics would question a paper that produced such abnormal trends across the Antarctic. There were no experts surprised by our results IMO.

    When you imply that we didn’t want warming in the West. You are wrong because nobody exchanged a single word about the meaning of one trend or another. Just whether it was accurate. What I also think too many are missing is that we don’t recommend these methods over others for determining trend. I (and I think all of my coauthors) prefer simpler and more controlled methods such as Kriging or closest station reconstructions – which also give the same results as O10.

  27. TimG Says:

    Sou,

    It really does not make a difference how many times Eric denies that he demanded that iRidge be used. The text of his review comments prove otherwise.

    Remember that there is an imbalance of power in this situation much like there is an imbalance of power in the boss-subordinate relationship so the text must be read from the perspective of the subordinate. It is not reasonable to claim the text should be read from the perspective of an equal or superior.

  28. Eli Rabett Says:

    As has often been said, no model is correct, some are useful and this is certainly true of the two under discussion here, but the peanut Jeff and TimG are pushing is that Jeff’s model is “correct” and Eric’s is “junk”. Fine way to start a conversation.

    The fact is that that the O’Donnell model diverges from ground truth measurements in significant ways (Byrd, the large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula and more). Therefore it has NO chance of being correct. OTOH, they have shown that Steig’s model needs improvement first beefing up the statistical analysis, and then looking for some more O’D needs to understand the nature of the data better and Steig needs to use improved statistical methods, wouldn’t it be cool if they got together.

    Unless the authors of O’D et al get their act together this is just going to be another remember Yamal, when McIntyre (curious he is always involved in these things) HAD the data, but wanted it hand delivered by Briffa and not from the owners of the data who had given it to him. McIntyre and Co have a real history of engendering trust.

  29. Sou Says:

    @ TimG – your comments might carry weight if you provided the quote in context. I take it that this is the text you are referring to, although it doesn’t say what you claim it says:
    “My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with.

    I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best
    estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead.”

    The ‘insist’ refers to using the ‘most likely West Antarctic trends’.

    The iridge reference relates to ‘Perhaps…as the authors suggest’, not the word ‘insist’. Neither I nor anyone but lazy blog writers conflates the two separate sentences.

    As for O’Donnell et al being subordinate – I can only say they have subsequently certainly acted like brats, ie like young children throwing a tantrum in front of adults. I don’t see any evidence that other people who submit papers for publication think of themselves as ‘subordinates’. Peer review means review by ones equals – though as you say, the O’D authors did not choose to act like equals when sounding off in their blog rants.

    Jeff’s post above comes about the closest to discussing the paper itself, although he still seems to not understand the publication and peer review process when he talks about Steig ‘not taking a single thing back’. (I would conclude he didn’t read either of Steig’s realclimate posts properly, although he did comment on at least one of them.)

    Here is an recent article that gives another perspective:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/

  30. TimG Says:

    Sou,

    The ‘most likely West Antarctic Trends’ results *were* the iRidge regression results. Eric forgets that in his protestations.

    Don’t give me that nonsense about ‘peers’ The fact is the reviewers are the gatekeepers – they have to be satisfied before a paper can be published. This puts the power in their hands. This makes ir difficult to refuse any request if the writer wants his paper to see the light of day.

  31. Neven Says:

    he fact is the reviewers are the gatekeepers – they have to be satisfied before a paper can be published.

    Nonsense, the editor decides, not the reviewers.

  32. Sou Says:

    TimG – what you lack in comprehension you make up for in …well, I’m sure you have a redeeming characteristic of some kind.

    What I read is that Steig was referring to the inconsistency between the figure and the text. The text stating that the figure likely underestimates the warming. Whether the most likely results were from ridge regression or any other statistical technique is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the figures should show the most likely results, which is what Steig was sensibly suggesting.

    The author always has the final say over his or her paper. Reviewers can be of great assistance in helping an author fine tune a paper to get it to a standard for publication. Steig put in a lot of effort to help them get the paper to a standard that would be acceptable to the journal (from what I understand was a very rough first draft). The editor has the final say in whether a paper gets published – not the reviewer. The author has the only say in what he or she writes.

    Reviewers do not have to be ‘satisfied’. It’s the editor/editorial committee that has to be satisfied. Editors can and do at times, take nil account of what an individual reviewer might say.

    Look, we get that O’D and co are inexperienced. That should give them humility. Instead it has resulted in their unprovoked and wholly unfounded and unsupported vicious attacks on the integrity of the person who was probably the most instrumental in their paper getting published at all.

  33. Jeff Id Says:

    “As has often been said, no model is correct, some are useful and this is certainly true of the two under discussion here, but the peanut Jeff and TimG are pushing is that Jeff’s model is “correct” and Eric’s is “junk”. Fine way to start a conversation.”

    No I’m pushing the fact that the math is correct. Not the model or result.

    IMO, if you want to know temp trends of the Antarctic, it’s hard to beat the right column here —

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/si-1-images/

    You can see that your statement:

    “The fact is that that the O’Donnell model diverges from ground truth measurements in significant ways (Byrd, the large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula and more).”

    Is not accurate. I wonder what trend you think Byrd has? What trend do you think the peninsula has?

    The right column is infilled offset temperature reconstruction from surface data only. Missing data is simply copied from the next closest station. The first 60 months of coexisting data are used to calculate anomaly offset. It’s simple, accurate and looks the same as O10 to the limits of the methods. It also matches previous Antarctic work.

  34. dhogaza Says:

    No I’m pushing the fact that the math is correct. Not the model or result.

    Ah … it’s the old bumblebees can’t fly gambit …

  35. Jeff Id Says:

    dhog,

    PCA is an exercise in extremes. Find the first axis of maximum variance, remove that as PC1, find the second axis of maximum variance, remove that PC2 …..

    The result is that while all the data can be represented, the maximum axes can create localized trends which aren’t of maximum quality. The tradeoff is that with this method, actual weather patterns can determine where the most similar ground station is rather than distance. IMO, distance is still hard to beat and the advantage of these methods in this case is probably not evident in the result. In reality, we don’t know. What we do know is that when the methods are applied correctly the answer is markedly different from S09 and far closer to measured ground temps.

  36. Jeff Id Says:

    Also because of PCA decomposition, what Steig refers to inaccurately as overfitting, is actually something quite different.

  37. Bishop Hill Says:

    There are actually several incidents in the Hockey Stick Illusion that are relevant.

    1. MM03, when Mann complained to E&E that he had not been invited to review.
    2. The CC paper where McIntyre was invited to review the first draft but not the second.
    3. The GRL comment, where McIntyre was invited to review and the paper was rejected.
    4. The “Jesus paper” – the resurrection of the rejected GRL comment in Climatic Change – where McIntyre was not invited to review.

  38. MapleLeaf Says:

    The Hokey Stick redux…..same mendacious characters, same fabricated controversy, same nit picking, same mountains out of molehills..yawn. At the end of the day western Antarctica is warming and WAIS is losing ice at an accelerating rate. My predictions is that the obfuscators and contrarians will go after the GRACE data next ;)

    Looking forward to seeing Steig’s reply to O10 in a journal.

    O’Donnell et l’s actions of late have clearly demonstrated that they are not operating in good faith…they will deny that of course, but that is the truth.

    Maybe is O’Donnell et al. offer an sincere, unconditional and unambiguous apology (like their mums and dads hopefully taught them is the right thing to do) to Steig, then I’m ignoring them, and I suggest others do so too.

  39. J Bowers Says:

    “There are actually several incidents in the Hockey Stick Illusion that are relevant.”

    Are there?

    “1. MM03, when Mann complained to E&E that he had not…”

    Oh, there aren’t.

  40. Eli Rabett Says:

    Well, some progress, Jeff Id does not think that Steig 09 is “junk”, or at least he carefully steps over that, but we have yet to hear from our friend TimG.

  41. Jeff Id Says:

    Eli — I do think the S09 result had precisely zero meaning.

    Sou commented that I’ve not read at RC. My comments were made to the first post before the big blowup and were extremely reasonable, correct and of very careful tone.

    They were snipped.

    The boys ain’t qualified to snip my comments so I don’t go back.

  42. dhogaza Says:

    The boys ain’t qualified to snip my comments so I don’t go back.

    D-K …

  43. TimG Says:

    Eli,

    Here is a good illustration of why S09 is junk:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html

    I don’t see how anyone can justify a method that causes spurious warming in WA when artificial trends are added to peninula stations yet shows no change when when artificial trends are added WA stations.

    I don’t think junk is an unfair description.

  44. Tom Fuller Says:

    I believe a recent post at Climate Audit advances the discussion considerably. I look forward to Mr. Steig’s response.

  45. TimG Says:

    Sou,

    There is a new post at CA which provides the complete context and clearly demonstrates why Eric’s claim that he did not insist on iRidge is not supported by the paper trail.

  46. Jeff Id Says:

    More is coming.

    Dhog… what?

  47. Tom Fuller Says:

    Jeff, don’t mind him, he’s just auditioning to be a regular on Portlandia.

  48. J Bowers Says:

    But, Tom, surely by now you have plenty of advice to give on “auditioning”.

  49. Tom Fuller Says:

    Jeff, the syndrome alluded to by Mr. Portlandia is exemplified, nay personified by J, ‘this lime tree bower, my prison..’

  50. Jeff Id Says:

    I just don’t know what it means. If someone flips you off with their pinkie finger or calls you homie, is it an insult or is it a compliment. I think dhog, may be sweet on me.

    Sorry Bart, I don’t know what he means.

    As far as solid ‘scientific’ basics, the CA post ‘coffin meet nail’ ought to clear that up for anyone as to what is wrong with S09. It does make one wonder how RO10 will react to the same test though.

  51. John Mashey Says:

    Since Bishop Hill brings in the Hockey Stick Illusion, to calibrate that, a key quote comes from a “Dog Astrology Journal” and then another is misquoted to create a claim about Jonathan Overpeck. See discussion.
    In real academe, that might raise a question of *falsification*, one of the FFP trio of academic misconducts.

    Those interested in exploring incredible soruces may find more here.

  52. Tom Fuller Says:

    Well, Mr. Mashey, it depends on how many different colors of ink are used, doesn’t it?

  53. Sailrick Says:

    Paul Kelly

    The market can do a lot of things, but a religous belief in its omnipotence in all matters is something for a theatre of the absurd. As Naomi Oreskes points out so well in her book “Merchants of Doubt”, it is exactly this free market belief that led to acid rain, smog, CFCs damaging the ozone layer and greenhouse gases warming the earth. I would add asbestos, formaldahyde, lead in gasoline, poisons in our food, damage to topsoils from over fertalizing with chemicals and other such niceties. And it was adherence to these free market principles that led otherwise intelligent scientists like Seitz, Singer and Nierenberg to deny the science showing the dangers of all these things. Oh, I forgot tobacco. Will the free market fix the damaged oceans? Will it replace the biodiversity that has already been lost? Or the biodiversity that will be lost in this century? You can’t put an economic value on everything.

  54. Sailrick Says:

    Paul Kelly

    After reading your next comment I see you moderated your first comment by saying
    “Even though economic benefit is not the only criterion for policy, sound economics should undergird most policy. It’s difficult because the governmental approach is so inadequate.”

    Still
    Government may be inadequate but the free market can be downright destructive.

  55. Eli Rabett Says:

    Jeff, when you said

    What I have always found amazing is that S09 didn’t agree with any of the historic work on temp trends, and ours fell right in line. Why is it that only skeptics would question a paper that produced such abnormal trends across the Antarctic. There were no experts surprised by our results IMO.

    you had, perhaps, read the part in Review A1

    It is germane to this point that RO10 find that their results are more consistent with those of Monaghan et al. (2008) and Chapman and Walsh (2008). These studies, like RO10, reconstruct missing values in the Byrd station location – the only station of any length in West Antarctica – using a linear combination of other, mostly distant weather stations. Monaghan et al. (2008) noted in their paper that Byrd shows cooling in recent decades. Yet Monaghan et al. have since shown at several meetings that their Byrd station reconstruction was problematic and in conflict with nearby AWS stations that were not included in their original work. Monaghan’s updated reconstruction, combines information from these other nearby stations – that are highly correlated with Byrd. The results – reported at the MOCA meeting in Montreal in July 2009 – shows significant annual warming at Byrd (concentrated in winter and spring), in excellent agreement with the AVHRR data. These problems in Monaghan et al. (2008) was pointed out in S09 but are ignored entirely in RO10. Although the updated work of Monaghan remains unpublished, it is at least another red flag that the choice of kgnd values used in the main reconstructions in RO10 are suspect.

    So perhaps the answer to that is that folk were aware of the new results from Monaghan?? Note that this is not a discussion of how your results match the Byrd (unreconstructed) results, but a comment on your comment above.

  56. dhogaza Says:

    Fuller’s typical stupidity:

    Jeff, don’t mind him, he’s just auditioning to be a regular on Portlandia.

    I’m not even close to what the show portrays, being decades older, having started and run a software engineering company of about 50 people for a long time, and now consulting for five digits a month (without a decimal), which is a far cry from being one of those young people who came to Portland to retire…

  57. dhogaza Says:

    I think dhog, may be sweet on me.

    I think you’re a crazy libertarian who, when you began posting, was obviously wrong on your math (and I do have a math degree).

    Your politics are paranoid, your grasp of science slim, and “dhog” is not the proper shortening of “Dho Gaza”.

  58. dhogaza Says:

    So perhaps the answer to that is that folk were aware of the new results from Monaghan?? Note that this is not a discussion of how your results match the Byrd (unreconstructed) results, but a comment on your comment above.

    Consideration of science marching forward isn’t allowed when The Scrubs are proving that The Team’s been cheating!!!

  59. dhogaza Says:

    Just for grins:

    interesting

    interesting

    interesing

    Climate science *is* a fraud!!!

  60. Jeff Id Says:

    I’ve always liked the abbreviation Dhog, it fits your personality. So with your great grasp of math, you’ve never produced a single math comment of any value in any discussion? BTW, You shouldn’t brag about salary, someone always makes more than you. Sometimes by orders of magnitude and it makes you look petty – not that you shouldn’t be proud of your excellent career.

    If you actually took the time to look at the link I’ve provided above, I used a linear combination of both AWS and manned stations and also found a warming in the West Antarctic of 0.12C/Decade. Statistically significant with a positive trend at Byrd. The trend is lower than what Steig claimed though.

    Of course, the recent sensitivity test ‘coffin meet nail’ at CA will do nothing to change the eyesight of an advocate who’s decisions and learning were all finished decades ago.

  61. Jeff Id Says:

    Eli,

    As my clipped comment at RC points out, it is silly to look at a single point with a reconstruction by PCA having this few values. While iRidge uses hundreds of PC’s, in the Sat Data. The ground station data is still broken into 7. The modes of the various pc’s can cause station information to be shifted relative to the actual position somewhat. If you average larger sub areas like the ‘west antarctic’ or Ross etc. you are more likely to get an accurate trend.

    It is the Chladni patterns, get it?

    Here is a post that Ryan did some time ago on Chladni and UAH sat data which demonstrates what can happen when you look too close at the pretty patterns.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/pca-sampling-error-and-teleconnections/

    SteveM left a comment there and it caught my attention today again. If you look at what happens to PCA and UAH it is easy to see that without enough resolution, information at a point can become shifted yet the average of the whole can still be correct.

    Where S09 missed the boat was in the extreme concentration of peninsula stations. It created the situation where PC1 was peninsula information — very, very, very similar to bristlecones in certain Mannian reconstructions. When regridded spatially such that instead of 15 stations in the peninsula you get 1 or 2, the whole trend of the Antarctic can be calculated from 1 pc. When you have oversampling, higher numbers of PC’s are required to spatially constrain the information. Which O10 did. But spatial constraint, isn’t the same as ‘perfect spatial location’ so the Byrd argument is moot, and a little naive on Steig’s part.

    It is also why the engineer in me prefers other methods for determining trend.

  62. Sou Says:

    O’D et al could so easily have retained their dignity if they had only refrained from making such vicious personal attacks on Steig’s integrity.

    From where I sit, and I expect a lot of others as well, I have no reason to doubt Steig when he says the paper is a worthwhile addition to the literature.

    When I read O’D et al making attacks on Steig’s integrity and trying on what appears as deliberate misinterpretation of his review (Steig said x but it’s obvious he meant y), then the paper itself takes a back seat and any level of trust in O’D et al dissipates.

    In the end, it doesn’t matter what the reviews contained. The paper will be judged on its own merits, and the parts that are useful will probably be picked up and used to create more knowledge.

    The part that disgusts me is O’D et al using the paper as an excuse to try on what is becoming a classic fallback position of the denier chums and deniers – an attempt to falsely smear a scientist. And it confirms the view of many people the only reason for writing the paper was to try to chip away at the science by falsely attacking the reputation of scientists.

    Obviously, if the authors were wanting to add to knowledge they would not have belittled their own efforts in the way they have done. Jeff Id says in this thread that he was looking to improve analytical techniques. From the way he and his colleagues continue to beat a dead horse, that does not seem to be the case. Their actions suggest they are interested in nothing but trying to delay CO2 mitigation – through unfounded attacks on those who’ve erroneously thought they were honest people.

    In a couple of posts here, Jeff talks about the content of the paper and his methodology. If he and his colleagues had only stuck to that topic, they might have retained some dignity. Too little too late IMO.

    And still no apology to Prof Steig.

  63. Jeff Id Says:

    Sou,

    Remember that Ryan and I are separate people – no really we are. I’ve never even met him. I should say though that I found his critique and subsequent apology quite reasonable. We followed Steig’s advice and replied to his reviews which then resulted in his blog critiquing what was insisted we follow. Ryan wrote the post and then apologized for assuming that Steig had read the reply.

    There are multiple personalities involved in this and Steig could have simply asked for our reply rather than repeating his unfounded critique in blogland. The angry reply was written by Ryan, nobody else, and later toned down at Ryan’s own request. He put a huge amount of unpaid work into replying to Steig’s concerns during the review, to then see it simply accused again in blogland including critiquing the methods we were forced by Steig to accept.

    Ryan felt betrayed by someone he had continually defended on every blog he posted on. He did that despite the fact that Steig has referred to individuals in our group as dishonest or playing games both in emails and on line. I’m referred to as a lunatic, by him, McIntyre is compared to McCarthy, Ryan is only out to play gotcha. He even called all of us deniers – which is flatly false. From my perspective, that appears to us to be standard tactics by RC to discredit anyone who would critique the climate lords.

    There is a lot of history in blogland between our groups. IMO it did not help the review process whatsoever having my or Steve’s names on the paper. RC authors are not clean either starting way back with my initial requests for data and code from Steig.

    If you read the reviews you will note that Reviewer A continually pushed us to state agreement with S09 often even when the reconstructions were different. Any aspect which he could grasp, including particularly agreement in West Antarctica. That’s how we suspected from the beginning we had a team member. More directly, he was directing pressure for us to reduce the PC’s in the ground stations to the effect of less containment of peninsular trends and increased trends in the West – kgnd. Then after publication, (which he never did agree to) the first thing he did was declare victory because the methods both showed positive trends in the West. Not terribly scientific considering that other methods showed slightly lower trends there.

    We ended up infilling with iridge both because Steig insisted that the most likely results be included, and to avoid further unreasonable Kgnd critique. It is a better solution but not the same methods as we were attempting to critique themselves.

    We ended up with 125ish sat pc’s, 7 ground pc’s (or a deweighted complete set of ground PC’s iRidge), vs basically 2 and 3 respectively for S09. It constrained the temp data better but not perfectly, because the method can only do so much with this data.

    I can’t help but mention that in addition to NEVER recommending anything other than major rewrites, he has also referred on line to our work as lousy. So is it worthwhile or lousy, you can take his word for it either way.

    So I’m sure that all will allay any concerns you have about what went on right? hehe.

  64. Jeff Id Says:

    Eli,

    This is inaccurate by me, bad editing.

    Eli,

    While iRidge uses hundreds of PC’s, in the Sat Data. The ground station data is still broken into 7.

    It should say

    While the final regression uses hundreds of PC’s from the Sat Data, but the original result still broken into only 7.

  65. Jeff Id Says:

    the original ground data is still broken into only 7

    Thassit, I’m going to bed now.

  66. J Bowers Says:

    Tom Fuller — “Jeff, the syndrome alluded to by Mr. Portlandia is exemplified, nay personified by J, ‘this lime tree bower, my prison..’”

    Ah, Coleridge…

    “That we may lift the soul, and contemplate
    With lively joy the joys we cannot share. “

  67. Bart Says:

    Jeff,

    – I agree that a lot of this kerfuffle is indirectly due to the long standing feud between personalities, and the “personalizing” of the argument via the blogs. All sides played a part in this.

    – Steig insisted that the most likely results be included; he didn’t insist on that being iridge.

    – Ryan apologized for assuming that Steig had read the reply. That is a far stretch from what I and presumably many others had hoped for, which is an apology for the vitriolic accusations (that have since been edited, but not apologized for afaik).

  68. TimG Says:

    Bart,

    Give me a break. He insists that the ‘most likely’ results be used and in the same paragraph suggests iridge. The editor then tells the authors that a rework is required.

    Eric might have honestly believed he did not demand that iridge be used but his written words left the authors with no practical choice but to use iridge in order to get the paper accepted.

  69. sharper00 Says:

    TimG,

    “Give me a break. He insists that the ‘most likely’ results be used and in the same paragraph suggests iridge. “

    I insist you be at my office at 12pm tomorrow. Perhaps, as you’ve previously suggested, a way for you to get there is via the 11:15 train.

    Nobody operating at a normal level of English would suggest I “insisted” you took either the train or the 11:15 one specifically. You, and others, can continue to argue this is the case if you like but you’re simply putting yourself on the side of people who don’t read and understand things.

    If the train ended up not getting you to my office on time I’d be well within my rights to criticise you for it despite the fact I offered it as a possibility based on information you provided.

  70. Bart Says:

    Eric writing in a comment at Eli’s:

    “I suspect that George W. Bush may turn out to be a good president after all, but I would like to see more evidence before casting my vote.

    is not the same thing

    “I endorse George W. Bush for president.”

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/great-minds-agree.html

  71. Deech56 Says:

    Bart wrote:

    Ryan apologized for assuming that Steig had read the reply. That is a far stretch from what I and presumably many others had hoped for, which is an apology for the vitriolic accusations (that have since been edited, but not apologized for afaik).

    I went back to Eric’s original response at RC. Was is tough? Yes and no. There was a disagreement of some of the methodology, but nothing personal, and Eric generally praised the study. Well, that’s science, as anyone who has had to present his or her studies to an audience can attest.

    It’s really O’Donnell and others who responded with personal attacks on Eric and a betrayal of a trust. At this point, Eric hardly needs an apology – the scientific world will judge his output by its merits and from what I have been reading, scientists generally understand his situation.

    The reputations of O’Donnell and coauthors, OTOH, have taken a hit. Do they really expect anyone to trust or interact with them? It’s the fact that they do not understand Bart’s point expressed above that suggests how they approach science. Are they interested in getting a better understanding of the natural world or are they interested in settling scores?

  72. Sou Says:

    TimG, apart from not being able to comprehend two sentences in a row, still thinks the reviewers have the final say. Either that or he thinks that the authors had no choice but to provide the ‘most likely’ data in the figures. The latter implies that the authors would have preferred to use less likely data to illustrate their point, which is also what Jeff implied.

    The former could be put down to not understanding the process for scientific publication, the authors not having faith in their own work and relying on reviewers to do the hard work for them. The latter would imply deceit.

    Makes one wonder if TimG is deliberately or only inadvertently undermining the credibility of O’D et al.

  73. gryposaurus Says:

    I believe a recent post at Climate Audit advances the discussion considerably. I look forward to Mr. Steig’s response.

    Hardly. How is this advancing? Partisan word parsing without providing any additional information to excuse what happened.

    They made mistakes.  They released names and reviews. They accused or inferred that Steig was using peer-review to his own advantage. They are using tidbits of emails and avoiding the real points.

    I have no idea if the html formatting will word here.

  74. willard Says:

    > The fact is that that the O’Donnell model diverges from ground truth measurements in significant ways (Byrd, the large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula and more). Therefore it has NO chance of being correct.

    I am not sure this has been adressed here.

  75. Shub Says:

    Bart,
    I dont think you understand the issue at all. I don’t think you have read the submissions and the reviewer comments.

  76. Jeff Id Says:

    “Steig insisted that the most likely results be included; he didn’t insist on that being iridge. ”

    Actually, everything else being discussed was already in the table, iRidge was EXCATLY what he meant. As Shub wrote, I doubt you’ve read it and I sure don’t blame you. Read the history of the 6/10 submission – iridge sections. The discussion surrounding the likely result and you’ll see there simply isn’t any other way to interpret what he said. He wanted it becuase it had a higher trend in the West and better stats than the other methods.

    I find it a little weenie that he hasn’t admitted to it, especially after Ryan apologized but the behavior is standard fare for RC Lords of Climate. He lost a lot of points from me for it.

  77. Bart Says:

    From Steig’s review:
    “The use of the ‘iridge’ procedure makes sense to me, and I suspect it really does give the best results. But O’Donnell et al. do not address the issue with this procedure raised by Mann et al., 2008, which Steig et al. cite as being the reason for using ttls in the regem algorithm. The reason given in Mann et al., is not computational efficiency — as O’Donnell et al state — but rather a bias that results when extrapolating (‘reconstruction’) rather than infilling is done.”

    and

    “My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. The authors state that this “yields similar patterns of change as shown in Fig. 3, with less intense cooling on Ross, comparable verification statistics and a statistically significant average West Antarctic trend of 0.11 +/- 0.08 C/decade.” If that is the case, why not show it? I recognize that these results are relatively new – since they evidently result from suggestions made in my previous review – but this is not a compelling reason to leave this ‘future work’

    John N-G about this passage:
    [Layman – You are correct that he asked the editor to insist that the ‘most likely’ be shown. But his review did not argue that the ‘most likely’ was definitely iridge, only that it was ‘perhaps’ iridge. The review leaves the choice of ‘most likely’ up to the authors. – John N-G ]

    http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/steig_this_is_not_complicated.html

    I agree with N-G’s interpretation, though a lot seems to hinge on the word “perhaps” in Steig’s review comment. If one’s interpretation hinges so strongly on one or a few words, the argument almost certainly stems from a miscommunication. Time to move on (perhaps after apologizing for the wild accusations).

  78. PS Says:

    Yes, Bart, I don’t think you understand the issue at all. Steig was trying to trick O’Donnell et al. into making a positive contribution to the science, something they were trying very hard to avoid. He may have succeeded which is why they are so upset.

  79. willard Says:

    Grypo:

    > They made mistakes. They released names and reviews. They accused or inferred that Steig was using peer-review to his own advantage. They are using tidbits of emails and avoiding the real points.

    You seem to forget that on the 2010-12-11, 8:13, thus wrote Steve McIntyre:

    > [I]t is an entirely one-way “feud” on Steig’s part.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/#comment-248809

    Yup.

  80. Shub Niggurath Says:

    This looks interesting.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/new-paper-random-walk-lengths-of-about-30-years-in-global-climate-by-bye-et-al-2011/

  81. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “especially after Ryan apologized”

    Absolute BS– that was not an apology, it was a “nonpology”, and he used it as an opportunity to make more allegations. And are you going to apologize for this piece of propaganda Jeff (H/T to Steve Bloom at Eli’s]:

    JeffId“The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.”

    JeffId“As to the 88 pages, I read em, they exist and it was a very clear lesson for me.”

    I would call that more than propaganda, but a lie by omission. It seems that McIntyre has taught you well. And yet you have the audacity and are deluded enough to come here and continue to argue as if still have any credibility or interest in the science. You should be hiding under a rock in shame.

    The game is up Jeff, you and your ilk have, yet again, betrayed your true colours and motives and modus operandi with this fiasco. Now please, enough already with throwing your toys out of the cot and the whining and moaning…it is all getting very annoying and reasonable people have long ago started to tune you guys out. I think O’Donnell et al. need a long time out.

    PS: Trrll once again make some excellent points.

  82. RickA Says:

    willard at February 14, 2011 at 16:23:

    I think it has been addressed.

    The OD10 paper has nothing to do with establishing their own reconstruction. It is simply pointing out that S09 did theirs wrong.

  83. Jeff Id Says:

    Mapleleaf, I believe the first quote is again Ryan but there were 47 pages in the first reply alone. I’ve never counted the rest, what number did you find?

  84. willard Says:

    RickA,

    Indeed, it has been addressed. But I specifically asked if it has been adressed **here.** You have a quote and a link?

    Besides, what can you do with a model that (allegedly) has **no** chances of being correct?

  85. MapleLeaf Says:

    JeffId says: “Mapleleaf, I believe the first quote is again Ryan…”

    No it was not, it was from post made on your blog, which was posted by you (JeffId) on 1 December 2010. You know damn well what you said as well as when and where you said it. You Jeff Condon, said on 1 December 2010:
    “The review process unfortunately took longer than expected, primarily due to one reviewer in particular. The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper. “

    See here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/

    Now you have two apologies to make.

  86. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Mapleleaf, I think you have blown your fuse.

    Maybe Steig should have foreseen that you would get worked up about the reviews and the responses’ page numbers and been appropriately brief in his response, to begin with.

  87. MapleLeaf Says:

    Shub,

    Oh dear. Stop appealing to emotion, and stop trying to deflect attention form Jeff.

    Jeff and his pals behaved incredibly badly and have subverted the peer-review process at J. CLimate, not to mention slandering Steig. Sad that you knowingly and blindly continue to defend the indefensible, you are no better than they are.

    I guess it is hopeless requesting that you suggest to Jeff that he do the right and honorable thing and apologize to Steig, John N-G, J. Climate and to readers here?

    Are you and Jeff man enough, do you have the ethical and moral fortitude?

  88. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Leaf, questions of ethical and moral fortitude aside (are there nutritional supplements for that?), are you saying that the reviews and responses were not 88 pages?

  89. MapleLeaf Says:

    Oh and shub, I and many others don’t care one whit about your opinion or what you think ;)

    Jeff is a big boy (with guns too…yikes) so I’m sure that he can fend for himself.

  90. RickA Says:

    willard @ February 14, 2011 at 19:11:

    Oh – I didn’t understand that you wanted it addressed **here**. I have no idea whether this blog discussed that particular issue – I just thought you should understand that this issue was addressed in the OD10 paper itself.

    “Besides, what can you do with a model that (allegedly) has **no**
    chances of being correct?”

    You use it to show that S09 had no chance of being correct – which advances science by correcting the scientific record. Also the techniques OD10 used to show that S09 had no chance of being correct can be helpful in analyzing other sparse data sets.

    You seem not to understand that the OD10 paper was not about them creating their own model or their own temperature reconstruction. Instead, as they said in their paper, it was about showing that S09 made math errors which render its conclusions faulty.

  91. dhogaza Says:

    Fuller:

    are you saying that the reviews and responses were not 88 pages?

    And the first draft of the paper + supplementary materials was 91 pages.

    So technically it’s correct to say that the reviews and responses were longer than the original *paper*, but it’s another one of those sins by omissions kinda thingies we’re so used to from The Scrubs.

  92. MapleLeaf Says:

    I thought alleged journos would have better comprehension skills. JeffId on 1 December 2010 (one day after their manuscript was accepted):

    “The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.”

  93. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Fuller et al. should know by now that the tally of 88 or so pages refers to
    all
    the correspondence between all the reviewers and the authors. JeffId attributed all of those 88 pages to Reviewer A– and it still says so on his blog to this day.

  94. J Bowers Says:

    Eli did a breakdown of pages.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/two-four-88-odonnell-gate.html

  95. MapleLeaf Says:

    Correction,

    I said above:

    “JeffId attributed all of those 88 pages to Reviewer A– ”

    I meant to say:

    “JeffId attributed all of those 88 pages to correspondence with Reviewer A”

  96. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Maple
    You were pestering tallbloke to ‘man up’ and ‘apologize’ just over a week ago. You were contemplating the possibilities of launching lawsuits against Judith Curry about three days ago. What’s with all the vengefulness?

    Just as Steig wrote something and expected the authors and everyone else to understand something else, so is it with Jeff’s sentence above too. Jeff says clearly that the reviewer (A) comments and their subsequent responses adds up to 88 pages. If he had said that reviewer (A)’s comments and the consequent responses had added up to 88 pages, that would have implied what you allege took place – that Jeff placed the blame for the entire 88 pages on Steig’s head. He is just recounting a chronology.

    See, everyone can play word-games.

    The point is, that if I am asked to see that Steig did not actually cause iRidge to be adopted as the main method in O’Donnell et al, even as he clearly spelt out its advantages and favored its use, (and I can certainly see there is some truth to it), you should be easily able to see that Jeff Id is not propogating any of (your imagined) myths about all of the 88 pages being written solely by Steig.

  97. troyca Says:

    Willard –

    “‘The fact is that that the O’Donnell model diverges from ground truth measurements in significant ways (Byrd, the large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula and more). Therefore it has NO chance of being correct.’

    I am not sure this has been addressed here.”

    Regarding Byrd, I’ve discussed this a bit here: http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/#comment-254621

    But to summarize…

    There is no unambiguous trend for Byrd. The trend you get from the station data depends upon the offset that is chosen (that is, the choice of method to determine the offset) to combine the data before and after the station move. So, it is somewhat questionable to invalidate an entire reconstruction based on the data-challenged Byrd.

    In his response, Steig points to Monaghan 08 with respect to Byrd. What is interesting is that from my reading of Monaghan ’08, there appears to be NO trend at Byrd over the entire station history, with significant cooling it recent years…which is closer to O10 than S09. It is only in an updated (and unpublished?) reconstruction by Monaghan that Byrd supposedly has a higher trend than 010. Note the warning from Monoghan 08:

    “Because portions of the Byrd record have been reconstructed, the negative temperature trends may be viewed with skepticism.” Presumably we retain this questionable outlook towards Byrd, even if these temperature trends turn positive, correct?

    I also want to note where Steig 09 references Monaghan 08:
    “Our reconstructions show more significant temperature change in
    Antarctica (Fig. 2), and a different pattern for that change than
    reported in some previous reconstructions.” Clearly, the trends from Steig 09 did not match Monaghan 08 at the time. In fact, the trends at Byrd were completely different. However, to my knowledge it was never suggested that the results of S09 had NO chance of being correct because they diverged from “ground truth”.

  98. dhogaza Says:

    Just as Steig wrote something and expected the authors and everyone else to understand something else, so is it with Jeff’s sentence above too. Jeff says clearly that the reviewer (A) comments and their subsequent responses adds up to 88 pages.

    So we’re supposed to understand that “10 times as long as the paper” was meant to be understood as “10 base 2″?

  99. sharper00 Says:

    Shub Niggurath ,

    “The point is, that if I am asked to see that Steig did not actually cause iRidge to be adopted as the main method in O’Donnell et al, even as he clearly spelt out its advantages and favored its use, (and I can certainly see there is some truth to it), you should be easily able to see that Jeff Id is not propogating any of (your imagined) myths about all of the 88 pages being written solely by Steig.”

    This is not a difficult concept.

    Steig as reviewer was addressing his comments within an expert context to a limited audience. When he said he wanted an objective met and suggested a potential means of achieving that objective it would be reasonable for him to conclude he’d expressed that satisfactorily.

    ODonnell, Jeff Id and others in their public commentary have consistently blurred the line between the amount Steig wrote, the total review including comments and the proportion of it relative to the size of the paper. Reading the comments at WUWT or CA quickly reveals a lot of confusion (and outrage) concerning the 88 pages, something which just happens to benefit their claims concerning Steig’s unreasonableness.

    In the first case we’re supposed to accept that Steig is a master genius, crafty enough to codify a suggestion so expertly as to confuse experts on the topic at hand into doing the wrong the thing while ODonnell et all simply made keep getting confused in their communication concerning the 88 pages in a way that benefits their argument.

  100. Shub Niggurath Says:

    No sharper, they have offered clarifying remarks as well. For example, see Ryan’s post in the same ‘Doing it ourserlves’ thread. John N-G, identified, for example, that Reviewers B, C and D did not provide occasion for long replies or write as many pages to begin with, and that the bulk of the output resulted from Reviewer A and his elicited responses.

    Does that mean that John N-G “supports” Jeff’s original assertion? No, obviously not.

    There are lots of people who read carelessly. Even the best of scientists sometimes write carelessly. Reviewer A contributed to the bulk of the pages being extant. People *are* going to walk away with a questioning look on their faces.

  101. J Bowers Says:

    Shub — “Reviewer A contributed to the bulk of the pages being extant. People *are* going to walk away with a questioning look on their faces.”

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%E2%80%99donnell-peer-review-solid-scientific-basics/#comment-10971

  102. MapleLeaf Says:

    Re ML to Shub,

    “I guess it is hopeless requesting that you suggest to Jeff that he do the right and honorable thing and apologize to Steig, John N-G, J. Climate and to readers here? Are you and Jeff man enough, do you have the ethical and moral fortitude?”

    Going by the latest post by Shub…the answer to my question seems to be NO.

    Many others were asking Tallbloke to apologize. Nor was the only who first pondered whether or not Judith curry’s slandering of Steig was actionable.

    Re Shub “What’s with all the vengefulness?”

    In reality he should be asking that question of O’Donnell et al. (i.e., O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre), and their band of rabid acolytes.

    But this is all a lame attempt to take the heat off JeffId…..

  103. Tom Fuller Says:

    MapleLeaf, why do you want Shub to do your (rather ridiculous) dirty work for you? You want something from Jeff, ask the man. He will answer.

    Rabid acolytes… hmm… I suspect Maple Leaf is experimenting again with aluminum foil helmets…

  104. MarkB Says:

    My comments on 88-PageGate…

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/on-peer-review-and-climate-progress/?permid=79#comment79

    Dr. Steig has been way too trusting of these individuals.

    This sort of commentary from one of the authors of O’Donnell et al. doesn’t generate any confidence that the individual is looking at anything objectively or with any substantive knowledge of climate science.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/#comment-138202

    Of course, that’s one reason why peer review is important. It’s a good first pass at removing some of the biases and problems that would likely exist in a paper coming from a few politically-motivated attention-seeking types, although these types don’t handle scrutiny of their work very well.

  105. MapleLeaf Says:

    “He will answer.”

    And since when is asking someone to be accountable for their errors and apologize considered “dirty work”? You live in an alternate universe devoid of ethics. I have asked him, he has yet to answer.

    Tom, if you want to see rabid acolytes, read (with an open mind if you can) the posts at WUWT and climate Etc. and CA. i can post some examples if you like :)

    Making ad hominem attacks on me is not going to help Jeff et al’s lies and slandering.

  106. Majorajam Says:

    I love how quickly the wagons circle when one of their liars gets caught in a lie… ‘bu, bu, bu, surely you’re not claiming that there aren’t 88, er, pages of things and such… eh… so there!’ Gives you an inkling of the relative weight they attach to objective standards of behavior and fidelity to the tribe. The eyesight of advocates who’s decisions and learning were all finished decades ago, and for whom the ends justifies the means. Indeed.

    So it is with the ‘good’ facts and the ‘bad’. Of the latter, their claim that Steig insisted upon iridge is not likely to waver in the face of manifest publicly available evidence to the contrary. For example O’Donnell first claimed that it was Steig that suggested iridge. Without apologizing of course that particular claim is being exiled into the denial memory hole. After all… Galileo.

    So it is with the related disinformation which they are by now quite committed to, wherein ‘perhaps as the authors suggest’ is taken to mean ‘of course I insist’, to the point where TimG and JeffID would have us believe that the opposite of what is obvious is obvious. All of which goes to show what we knew already- that slandering scientists means never having to say you’re sorry, (though it can finally have other consequences, e.g. the libel suit against Tim Ball).

    PS note with interest that the aim of O’Donnell according to coauthor JeffID above was to show that Steig’s construction was flawed, not to actually improve our understanding of the climate of mainland Antarctica. In a truly zany coincidence, that is also true of McIntyre’s criticism of the science of paleoclimate, and of Watts and and McKittrick’s ‘work’ regarding the historical instrumental record. Complete coincidence, I know, that so far as the ‘skeptics’ are concerned ‘uncertainty = all is well, nothing to see here’. God help me if they should ever be anything less than completely predictable.

  107. Scrooge Says:

    I know I’m behind the times here with this newfangled electronic age. But what’s the big deal about 88 pages. I understand office politics, but arguing over 88 pages makes it sound like a weekend hobby that turned into a real job.

  108. Marco Says:

    Since Jeff Id sometimes shows up here, I have a simple question:

    1. What do you make of the first author on your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer, after both you and another author had been explicitely informed that this would be considered unethical?

    2. Did you inform said first author of the content of the e-mail you received from John Nielsen-Gammon?

    3. What do you make of the first author of your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer as well as the full reviews, after promising to that reviewer he would not do so?

  109. MapleLeaf Says:

    MarkB,

    From that illuminating post by JeffId at WUWT:

    “So my long winded comment is getting to the point that in fact any reasonable Antarctic temperature math contradicts predicted CO2 based warming. It also ruins the AGW’s most serious disaster point of FLOODING. After all, no melt, no flood.

    That comments, and other sin the dame post are disingenuous and misleading, not to mention demonstarting his ignorance of the science behind how Antarctica is expected to respond to AGW. Even Wu et al. (2010) found ice lost from WAIS was -64 Gt per year (+/- 32 Gt per year) between 2002 and 2008, and other research has found that the rate of loss is increasing.

    Mark my words, they’ll be going after GRACE next.

  110. Tom Fuller Says:

    Actually Maple Leaf, GRACE has been discussed at some length, with predictable side-taking and conclusions. Keep up!

  111. MapleLeaf Says:

    Tom, you continue to try and obfuscate and detract from Jeff’s blunders– you are indeed a loyal little acolyte. Jeff has just been caught yet again playing loose with the facts. I understand that does not concern you, but it does rightly concern others.

    Now how about you listen to your own advice and let Jeff answer for his transgressions.

  112. dhogaza Says:

    Actually Maple Leaf, GRACE has been discussed at some length, with predictable side-taking and conclusions.

    Right, engineers and scientists design and build the observation instrument, scientists analyze the data, and The Scrubs scream “the data’s messed up because we know it’s not warming!”

  113. Tom Fuller Says:

    Weak, Maple Leaf, very weak. ‘Loyal little acolyte’–I could do better in my sleep. Which your inane and inept sallies tend to induce, sadly.

  114. Carrick Says:

    Jeff ID:

    I’ve always liked the abbreviation Dhog, it fits your personality. So with your great grasp of math, you’ve never produced a single math comment of any value in any discussion?

    The dhog has formal training?

    Oh well, maybe not to late for a refund!

  115. dhogaza Says:

    I do technical work when people pay me for it.

  116. Shub Niggurath Says:

    majorajam’s comments are always entertaining. Total melodrama, thunder and fury. Sort of spoiled by some of the strong charges though.

  117. Paul Kelly Says:

    Sailrick,

    “a religious belief in its omnipotence in all matters” really doesn’t reflect anything I’ve ever said or even thought. A market is just a form of social interaction. I would note that the countries with the most robust private sectors have the best records in dealing with environmental issues.

    A market can be anything it’s participants want it to be.

  118. Majorajam Says:

    Of course GRACE is being gone after with ‘predictable side-taking’ vis a vis who’s job it is to spread the manure and who’s it is to clean it up. As they know all too well, the threat is knowledge, and sometimes, well you just can’t get there in time. Apropos of just how shocked, shocked I am that the sum total of the efforts by skeptics is to cast doubt on data and methods (and actually really persons by innuendo and echo chamber, of course, as any pr firm or political consultancy will tell you is where the action is). God forbid they add to our understanding of the natural world. That’d be counterproductive.

    I’m reminded of the move Fallen wherein the demon jumps into the hectoring old lady: “Some things pal, you shouldn’t know”. Certainly not if they’re going to get their say, (wherein he discovers the appeal of ‘extended peer review’).

  119. MapleLeaf Says:

    Here are some real examples of “Total melodrama, thunder and fury.”

    O’Donnell:

    “There are not enough vulgar words in the English language to properly articulate my disgust at his blatant dishonesty and duplicity.”

    O’Donnell:

    “Fool me once, shame on you. But twice isn’t going to happen, bud.”

    How scientific and professional. And there are many, many more examples of melodrama and bluster (from the authors of O’Donnell paper over the years) where those came from. Shall I continue?

  120. MapleLeaf Says:

    Majorajam,

    I wonder if DSCOVR will ever get launched?

  121. Majorajam Says:

    “I would note that the countries with the most robust private sectors have the best records in dealing with environmental issues.”

    That’s just plain false. Rich countries have better records than poor countries, (in the present, not while they were developing of course), but the differentiation there is very poorly explained by whatever of a million things can be inferred by ‘a robust private sector’. What is clear, beyond any question whatsoever, is that within rich countries, those that have the most robust state sectors (e.g. by state enterprise fraction of GDP) and regulations (e.g. by ‘economic freedom’ rankings) have by far and away better records when it comes to environmental issues than countries like the US, with smaller state sectors and lesser (and eroding) regulatory protections.

    The statement that ‘a market can be anything its participants want it to be’ is likewise fatuous, and not just for its being utterly devoid of content. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a market for public goods and externalities in the absence of the government involvement you apparently find ‘wanting’. In other words, your approach indisputably means the commons- of which our shared atmosphere and climate are a sterling example- are SOL. So I guess we’d better pray that nothing we can do to the commons is all too important, otherwise the best we’re going to get out of you lot is option A: place head between knees and kiss arse good bye, option B: there is no option B. Now there’s some serious can do.

    My going through all of the forgoing, of course, assumes some level of sincerity on your part. Given what we know is the approach in the realm of science, I’d have to be pretty foolish to think that the underlying strategy for economic issues is different, but hope springs eternal (in some circles, anyway).

  122. Majorajam Says:

    If it weren’t completely built and sitting in a warehouse, I’d say no way. As it is, that’s a pretty good metaphor for what fossil fuel interests are doing to this debate. Maybe that’s the lever that finally gets it off the ground. As I say, hope springs eternal.

  123. Carrick Says:

    MapleLeaf:

    Here are some real examples of “Total melodrama, thunder and fury.”

    Oddly, on the 88 pages… I though your prevarication acted as a suitable example.

    Oh, here’s another:

    I SIMPLY DID NOT THINK I COULD ARGUE WITH THE EDITOR OR THE KNUCKLE-HEADED REVIEWERS

    Life is full of sound and fury… and knuckledheaded commentators.

  124. Carrick Says:

    dhogaza:

    I do technical work when people pay me for it.

    Why do you suppose it is you only do technical work when people pay you for it?

    That certainly isn’t true for most of us who have technical degrees.

  125. Jeff Id Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:
    February 14, 2011 at 19:15

    JeffId says: “Mapleleaf, I believe the first quote is again Ryan…”

    No it was not, it was from post made on your blog, which was posted by you (JeffId) on 1 December 2010. You know damn well what you said as well as when and where you said it. You Jeff Condon, said on 1 December 2010:

    ===========================

    Please read the post —- it says clearly —- Guest post by lead author Ryan O’Donnel.

    ===========================

    Do I need to get his signature for you? I also asked before, have you counted the pages yourself yet? I haven’t, what if there are 88 pages as Ryan has claimed? Did running out of fingers stop you?

    How stupid a conversation is this when the accuser can’t read, won’t count and can’t admit error.

  126. Jeff Id Says:

    Majorajam ,

    PS note with interest that the aim of O’Donnell according to coauthor JeffID above was to show that Steig’s construction was flawed, not to actually improve our understanding of the climate of mainland Antarctica.

    That is correct. We improved the method so it might be used by others correctly. S09 did not, it is also important to know.

  127. Tom Fuller Says:

    “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”

    Charles Darwin

  128. Jeff Id Says:

    # Marco Says:
    February 14, 2011 at 22:07

    Since Jeff Id sometimes shows up here, I have a simple question:

    I do show up here, it is a nice blog run with honesty.

    1. What do you make of the first author on your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer, after both you and another author had been explicitely informed that this would be considered unethical?
    I was unaware that anyone considered it unethical. Who did that?

    2. Did you inform said first author of the content of the e-mail you received from John Nielsen-Gammon?
    I don’t know what you mean? IIRC, there may have been an email conversation but I get a hell of a lot of emails when I’m blogging. Can you be more explicit?

    3. What do you make of the first author of your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer as well as the full reviews, after promising to that reviewer he would not do so?

    I am concerned about how people will take it but I think there is an important lesson contained within review A for those who wish to understand what was happening. Ryan is a big boy who would like to do more publication. He’s doing some excellent work and wants to continue in a more normal environment rather than the offense/defense review tactics. He really wanted a nice environment to work in and maintained his focus through endless critique.

    I have no doubt that S09 would never have made it past reviewer A if given the same open mind as we received and the same West Antarctic trend as we got. This should make you wonder what is going on when something bright red can go through review when MANY stations are known to have long term cooling trends.

    I hope it settles down though, the thing forced me back into blogging and I don’t have time.

  129. MapleLeaf Says:

    From the top of your 1 December 2010 blog post Jeff:

    “Doing it Ourselves

    Posted by Jeff Id on December 1, 2010″

    Anyhow, the words in contention (the first quote) do not strictly belong to you (although they are featured on your blog), and for those I agree you do not need to apologize– sorry, my mistake. You see, that was not so difficult…..

  130. luminous beauty Says:

    Shub: “What’s with all the vengefulness?”

    Tom Fuller: “Rabid acolytes… hmm… I suspect Maple Leaf is experimenting again with aluminum foil helmets…”

    DARVO

  131. Mel Says:

    Jeff Condon stated in his May 30, 2009 WUWT post that “The current models ‘apparently’ predict significant warming in the Antarctic based on evil CO2. This is an extremely important point for AGW as if the Antarctic won’t melt, the flood disasters don’t happen. It is critical to AGW that the Antarctic melts. Without rebuttal, this paper (S09) and those which Dr. Steig claimed at RC are being developed by others will be the new poster children for the IPCC.”

    Looks like Jeff’s motives might not have been limited to improving a methodology for others.

  132. MapleLeaf Says:

    With that said, why is that error by O’Donnell still on your page, and surely you were aware that O’Donnell had erred, or do you simply blindly post guest posts?

    I have said this earlier, but apparently people are not listening. I am not denying that there were a total of 88 or so pages of correspondence made concerning the paper during the review process– you know damn well that people are claiming that those 88 pages only concerned reviewer A, some even seem to think that reviewer A wrote 88 pages.

    Now that rumour was started because of an error in a post by O’Donnell on your blog, the error is still on your blog, so it appears that you are reticent to correct the public record, but rather seem happy to fan the flames of disinformation.

    Are you going to correct the error on your blog? Are you going to apologize to John N-G and editor of J. of Climate?

  133. J Bowers Says:

    “I would note that the countries with the most robust private sectors have the best records in dealing with environmental issues.”

    Even if that were the case, not abroad.

    Chevron Guilty of Amazon Rainforest Destruction, Judge Issues $8 Billion Fine

  134. MapleLeaf Says:

    Marco:
    “1. What do you make of the first author on your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer, after both you and another author had been explicitely informed that this would be considered unethical?”

    JeffId’s response:
    I was unaware that anyone considered it unethical. Who did that?

    You have got to be kidding me…..

    “From: John Nielsen-Gammon
    Subject: reviews and reviewers
    Date: December 8, 2010 10:59:20 AM CST
    To: Jeff Id, Steve McIntyre

    Jeff & Steve (with copies to AMS publications leadership) –

    What I told you about making reviews publicly available is correct. There’s no AMS policy against, nor any formal objection to, an author making the contents of anonymous reviews and responses public. If a reviewer provides his or her name, or if there is other information that makes it possible to discern the identity of the reviewer, such information should be redacted unless the reviewer grants permission.

    In the context of this, I would think that publishing an anonymous review and speculating as to the identity of the reviewer would be unethical. The author, if making the review public, has a duty to preserve the anonymity of the reviewer.”

    John N-G at Stoat:

    “Announcing the identity of the anonymous reviewer was wrong in and of itself. The seriousness of the offense deepens to the extent that the author also reveals some of the content of the review. Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible.”

  135. MapleLeaf Says:

    Mel,

    Looks like Jeff’s motives might not have been limited to improving a methodology for others.”

    You can probably extend that to McIntyre too.

  136. J Bowers Says:

    “1. What do you make of the first author on your paper revealing the identity of a reviewer, after both you and another author had been explicitely informed that this would be considered unethical?

    I was unaware that anyone considered it unethical. Who did that?

    John Nielsen-Gammon, apparently.

    From: John Nielsen-Gammon
    Subject: reviews and reviewers
    Date: December 8, 2010 10:59:20 AM CST
    To: Jeff Id, Steve McIntyre

    Jeff & Steve (with copies to AMS publications leadership) –

    What I told you about making reviews publicly available is correct. There’s no AMS policy against, nor any formal objection to, an author making the contents of anonymous reviews and responses public. If a reviewer provides his or her name, or if there is other information that makes it possible to discern the identity of the reviewer, such information should be redacted unless the reviewer grants permission.

    In the context of this, I would think that publishing an anonymous review and speculating as to the identity of the reviewer would be unethical. The author, if making the review public, has a duty to preserve the anonymity of the reviewer.

  137. Tom Fuller Says:

    I think exposing unfruitful research as such is a perfectly adequate motivation for a paper. I believe it is not unusual. I also believe it is the way science moves forward.

    As opposed to worshipping at the feet of the Climate Masters of the Universe, who only occasionally start ranting in caps.

  138. J Bowers Says:

    And ML got there first.

  139. J Bowers Says:

    Tom Fuller — “As opposed to worshipping at the feet of the Climate Masters of the Universe, who only occasionally start ranting in caps.”

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………………………..

  140. Scrooge Says:

    Yea there’s something about that blog post Mel mentioned. Does this prove its a big denial conspiracy. Do we need congressional hearings. Maybe a few independent investigations. Total harassment. None of that would cost much. Someone should write a book.

  141. Tom Fuller Says:

    Yeah, Mashey’s got his colored pens at the ready, I’m sure…

  142. Tom Fuller Says:

    J Bowers, I warned you that Maple Leaf’s posts induced sleep. Sorry it caught up with you during my sparklingly brilliant comment.

  143. Paul Kelly Says:

    J Bowers,

    I hope you’re not using Ecuador as an example of a country with a robust private sector. Petroecuador is a state run enterprise. From wikipedia:

    Petroecuador has been the sole owner and operator of the oil facilities since 1990. Sadly, Petroecuador has continued to damage the environment severely. In five years, Petroecuador had over 1000 oil leaks. Petroecuador has also failed to clean up sites that were its responsibility under the joint venture. Comparable national companies like Petrobras, Petro-Canada, Statoil and Qatar Petroleum have much higher environmental standards.

  144. Majorajam Says:

    “S09 did not, it is also important to know.”

    Indeed, not least given the ends of interest here, as per the quotation of yours that Mel cited. Very important to the public relations campaign (certainly the choir has been receptive- Fuller can confirm). As to its real world importance to status quo ante, we’ll see whether Steig chooses to respond, and if so whether there is any consensus about the implications of the criticisms you have leveled for the original work. Needless to say, the effect of your corrections on the results, which in true ‘skeptic’ style were disowned immediately without any effort or interest in pushing on, have not make this at all unambiguous.

    In the meantime, you might want to consider a slightly more rigorous job of prevaricating when it comes to your blatant political agenda vis a vis the accidental science that resulted from it. The stuff here makes me wonder why you bother.

  145. Neven Says:

    Ryan is a big boy who would like to do more publication.

    With all due respect, I would suggest he doesn’t collaborate with Captain America and Iago again.

  146. Jeff Id Says:

    Mel,

    At the time I already knew Steig09 was a mess. A big part of the global flood HAS to come from the Antarctic. Right now the trend isn’t there. Figuring out there is an obvious error is far different than improving on the math enough to publish a critique. Our blog posts at the time all turned out to be completely correct.

    Of course you have to read them to know that. Peninsular smearing of trend was discovered very early on when SteveM’s correlation vs distance plot was done. Our trend comments were based on understanding not conjecture.

    MapleLeaf,

    I have apologized more than any blogger or blog commenter I’m aware of. I am fully willing to apologize for things which I do wrong. Not that I give in easily, but on numerous occasions when shown to be wrong, I apologize – and often.

    So my auditor friend, since you are so concerned about 88 pages, why don’t you tell me how many were devoted to Reviewer A? Why do I need to do it for you? Heck, why not write it into a post, I’m sure some blog will take it.

    BTW, I’ve already written to another commenter on another blog, that I’m sorry if there was any confusion for poor wording on my own part. I’m honestly unsure if your perception is correct or not. Ryan’s statement seems pretty clearly directed toward the whole process though. Figure it out, tell me what I did wrong, and come back.

  147. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Hey Maple, I am really sorry for wasting your time defending Jeff, when being the knucklehead that I am, I hadn’t even noticed that it was Ryan who did all the ‘lying and slandering’?

    :)

  148. Jeff Id Says:

    J Bowers,

    I did both receive and read that email. I recall being somewhat interested in it and wondered how it would relate to our situation where we had an agressive reviewer. Honestly, I didn’t care either way if someone anonymously considered something ethical or not because their opinion is not mine. I was more interested in the text of regulations or requirements. It is my understanding that the publication of papers on line by authors is accepted practice. Mann does it all the time yet copyright says you cannot do it. This concerns me regarding Ryan’s future efforts – which I understand will not be related to the Antarctic but rather to the math.

    I doubt very much that I would have had the guts to release those files on line in the context they were, however it was done. I’m quite glad of it because one reviewer insured that the first submissions were of better quality than the last. We had 3 non-Steig “Knukleheaded” reviewers who all recommended publication. They all contributed meaningfully to the text, some including Eq corrections IIRC. Those insightful reviews are also on line.

    Several seemed quite brilliant to me and saw the material from a different angle than I had considered. It was like being in university halls where people who were smart were present in every direction. Damn I miss school sometimes.

    Then there was this other guy who seemed far more interested in making us agree with S09. The one who wanted major reviews every single time and kept saying it wasn’t worth publishing. The one who said it was a good/lousy contribution to the science.

    The one which was wrong.

    It ain’t my fault Reviewer A was wrong, it ain’t my fault that people got mad about Reviewer A’s actions. It IS my fault that I published the commentary on line in conjunction with other blogs and despite the furor, I don’t yet regret any of it.

    So tell me, even with 20/20 hindsight what should I have done?

  149. Jeff Id Says:

    insured

    ensured

    ….
    nice job Id.

  150. Tom Fuller Says:

    Jeff, although the usual crew of escape artists from Deltoid will continue to slam you, I think you have acted admirably throughout all of this. Not perfectly–you’ve covered that. But admirably.

    But here comes the fire brigade… 88 pages! What were your motives! How…dare…you…?

  151. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “To my auditor friend, since you are so concerned about 88 pages, why don’t you tell me how many were devoted to Reviewer A? Why do I need to do it for you? Heck, why not write it into a post, I’m sure some blog will take it.”

    I’m not falsely claiming to be an auditor like McIntyre is, and I am not your friend. And why do you insist on keep making this silly strawman argument? I have clearly stated my position on the 88 pages and stated that I do not deny that they exist.

    This is getting silly, Ryan did not make it clear that he was referring to the whole process as you want to try and claim– he said (this must be the third time now that I’m showing this):

    “The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.”

    “The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone”. Don’t try and defend the indefensible. Ryan was wrong. John N-G has said what you and McIntyre and Ryan did wrong.

    “…big part of the global flood HAS to come from the Antarctic. Right now the trend isn’t there.”

    You seem to be conflating the temperature trends and ice loss data. The findings by Wu et al. (2010) and Velicogna (2009) demonstrate that statement by you to be incorrect. Even with error bars the more conservative numbers from Wu et al. for WAIS are negative (i.e., ice loss).

    Can you please support this claim made by you:
    “The current models ‘apparently’ predict significant warming in the Antarctic based on evil CO2″

    Jeff:
    “It is critical to AGW that the Antarctic melts”
    This is another strawman, scientists are concerned about WAIS, not so much EAIS– that is thought to be stable. Where does the IPCC or science paper say what you claim? Please provide a citation and link.

    Jeff:
    “Without rebuttal, this paper (S09) and those which Dr. Steig claimed at RC are being developed by others will be the new poster children for the IPCC”
    Busted…so this is HS redux. Thanks for confirming. That one sentence betrays your true intentions (it is clearly more about politics than science to you and Steve) and duplicity of your actions.

  152. Jeff Id Says:

    Tom,

    Kind words. I’m curious whether ML will have the ability to critique Ryan’s addition or my mis-explanation (if it exists). Not interested enough to work it out myself but a little. These guys have spent years slamming me on every blog they can find. Bart is the only blog which permits reply.

    THE ONLY ONE BART– you are doing something wrong.

    I think Bart is the only strongly pro-AGW blogger smart enough to figure out that no matter what this paper says or what people did wrong, or what thing I write here, it changes little about the real debate. No fear of debate means no fear of conclusion.

    Good for everybody.

  153. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “The one who wanted major reviews every single time and kept saying it wasn’t worth publishing.”

    Are you referring to Steig? Perhaps I missed something. When did Steig say you paper was not worth publishing in his reviews?

    And while we bicker western Antarctica warms and loses ice.

  154. Jeff Id Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    Read before writing, it helps one’s credibility.

  155. MarkB Says:

    “The current models ‘apparently’ predict significant warming in the Antarctic based on evil CO2. This is an extremely important point for AGW as if the Antarctic won’t melt, the flood disasters don’t happen. It is critical to AGW that the Antarctic melts. Without rebuttal, this paper (S09) and those which Dr. Steig claimed at RC are being developed by others will be the new poster children for the IPCC.”

    Aside from the political motivations obvious in this block, there are a number of fallacies. Warming in the Antarctic interior may in fact increase snowfall (a tenuous IPCC conclusion for the 21st century), so a warming Antarctica doesn’t necessarily mean sea level rise. Interestingly, O’Donnell et al. show considerably greater warming on the peninsula, where warming is most likely to lead to net ice sheet depletion, as has been observed. Faster warming of that area would tend to indicate greater sea level rise. Jeff is an alarmist catastrophist warmist {insert other -ist words here}!

    Observed warming over the Antarctic (or lack thereof) is not “critical” to AGW or “CO2″. Such an assertion presumes greenhouse gases are the only influence on Antarctic climate. It reminds me of some hacks proclaiming that “AGW predicts” year-over-year increase in global temperature, and then use the lack of such steady warming as evidence against it. Jeff’s view is rather simplistic.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/

    There is of course about 20 meters of future sea level rise in the Greenland ice sheet, and that has seen signficant net depletion in recent decades.

    At any rate, Jeff errors, presumptions, and fairly implausible statements like “I was unaware that anyone considered it unethical. Who did that?” are much more disconcerting than worrying about using “insure” instead of “ensure” (other than strict legal usage, the words can be used interchangeably).

  156. MapleLeaf Says:

    MarkB,

    Good points, but i think GIS, if it melted completely would contribute about 7 m to global sea levels, not 20 m.

  157. MarkB Says:

    “These guys have spent years slamming me on every blog they can find. Bart is the only blog which permits reply. THE ONLY ONE BART”

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=5967#comment-199265

    Must be a different Jeff Id.

    Obviously, the kind of rants at WUWT aren’t accepted everywhere. Yet mere use of the word “denier” is often enough to get censored at the Watts site.

  158. MarkB Says:

    Absolutely right, MapleLeaf. My mistake. I was thinking feet, as you probably can guess.

  159. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “pro-AGW blogger”

    Another strawman. Do you honestly believe that climate scientists want AGW to be real and for the worst-case scenarios to pan out? I can’t speak for Bart, but I doubt very much that he is “pro AGW”.

    They are not “pro AGW”, they are pro science.

    With our continued inaction, I for one am hoping that equilibrium climate sensitivity is much less than +3 K.

  160. Tom Fuller Says:

    WAIS has been predicted to lose ice since the 1930s for mechanical reasons unrelated to global warming. Greenland ice sheet sits in a bowl and monotonic warming for 3,000 years is required to melt it. Observed warming in the Antarctic may not be critical to AGW, but it certainly is a feature of all GCMs–but hey, maybe we don’t need them any more.

    But what about your motives, Jeff? And how about those 88 pages?

  161. Jeff Id Says:

    Maple,

    You are right, Ryan attributed the reviews/replies to only one. My recollection was incorrect. So I added it up.

    response to review A 47
    second response to review A 7
    Third response to review A 10
    Review A 14
    Review A 2 6
    review A 3 4

    47 + 7 + 10 + 14 + 6 + 4

    88

    I solved a math problem which Maple couldn’t.

  162. Jeff Id Says:

    MarkB,

    I have been permitted multiple head posts at WUWT to explain to the ‘deniers’ that AGW is perfectly real. My guess is that I have made more progress on the matter than most ‘believer’ blogs.

    I also have published the single highest ‘correct’ combination of temperature trends based on ground station data of any blog/paper I’m aware of — all based on the methods of a brilliant statistician who seems to like skeptic blogs.

    Id is crazy — watch out.

  163. Eli Rabett Says:

    Well, the “The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.”

    Is a real goody.

    WTF does “dedicated by” mean? Steig broke a bottle of champaign over Condon’s nose??:)

  164. Scrooge Says:

    JeffID.
    I do commend you for being here. I would hate to see someone not stand up for their work. AGW passions run high. Even though there is a lot of noise and I would have done things different after publication, the noise will die down and the paper will stand or fall on its own merits. I think you blogging here does help. It sure makes it interesting. Bart is probably sleeping by now but he will have plenty to catch up on.

  165. Rattus Norvegicus Says:

    Consistent with Steig’s prediction in his review, O’D10 already has one citation.

  166. Neven Says:

    Jeff Id, are you one of the smartest people alive?

  167. Scrooge Says:

    God that was funny. Its getting late must be bloody mary time with celery sticks at the ER hut.

  168. Jeff Id Says:

    Jeff Id, are you one of the smartest people alive? —

    Why, because I can answer questions to the RC/Tamino trolls without getting slaughtered? Are you unused to a skeptic willing to engage? Maybe that’s because the blogs you travel don’t allow any reply.

    Perhaps someone well read enough to be able to back up his opinions is disconcerting. Meh..

  169. Jeff Id Says:

    Eli,

    ODonnell’s nose.

  170. Jeff Id Says:

    Nevin,

    I think I figured out your comment.

    Roman M was the brains behind the trend posts, not me. I’m an engineer.

  171. Neven Says:

    No, Jeff, it’s the way you write. You seem to be in love with your own superior intelligence.

  172. Jeff Id Says:

    Neven,

    Well if the facts don’t support the conclusion, go for the personality.

  173. Sou Says:

    Like Scrooge, I think it’s useful that Jeff Id is posting here. It confirms what most of us had already deduced.

    Jeff Id here has demonstrated his perfidy more with each post he makes. And not only his disdain of ethics, but his disregard for any sense of team among his fellow authors, O’D et al. Perhaps it’s part of the new libertarian philosophy – no fellowship or teamwork, only individuals with a jungle mentality.

    But surely it’s time for this silliness to be called to a halt. The paper might have meant a lot to the authors and may be useful in future analysis. In the wider scheme of things it’s barely a blip in the vast body of literature relating to anthropogenic global warming.

    The attempt by the authors to subvert the peer review process can be deemed a failure. Likewise any related attempt to get the public to slow CO2 emissions. Ryan’s posts were hardly front and foremost even on WUWT – perhaps because he had to call on Delingpole for ‘confirmation’ of his outrage. And I haven’t seen any mention of this fiasco on mainstream discussion boards where climate change is discussed, often by rabid deniers.

    There are much more interesting matters than dragging on this display of the lengths to which denier chums will go to try to demean scientific advances; or their disregard of ethics, honour, truth and ‘mateship’.

  174. Sou Says:

    The sentence should read: “Likewise any related attempt to get the public to slow action to cut CO2 emissions.”

  175. Neven Says:

    Well if the facts don’t support the conclusion, go for the personality.

    Indeed, if the big facts haven’t changed and the small facts are largely irrelevant, we might as well enjoy ourselves and observe the megalomaniac personality.

    You are the smartest, Jeff, you are the biggest. Too bad you do not realize what the side-effects of your actions are. Makes you a little less smart or big as you could have been. Have any kids?

    Last piece snark from me, Bart doesn’t deserve this. You guys, meaning Fuller and Jeff, shouldn’t misuse his hospitality to set up one of your many provocation platforms needed for your delaying crusade.

  176. Majorajam Says:

    Indeed JeffID we fear your superior intelligence and ‘willingness to engage’. For example, while by your own admission your work says nothing about the recent climate of antarctica, let alone ice sheet dynamics in the peninsula- the dynamics at issue for antarctic ice sheet related sea level rise within most cost-benefit horizons- and let alone the small matter of the 7m that greenland ice could add to global seas, it clearly bears upon the ‘great flood’ you cavalierly mock. Of course CBA’s are forward, rather than backward looking, and even in that, no CBA of which I’m aware explicitly factors in sea level rise due to ice sheet collapse, and neither has the IPCC, (and yet each still find mitigation to be justified at least on some scale), but such conservatism is no excuse. Clearly the implications of your finding that Dr. Steig is not infallible are as legion as your intellect… to one person at least.

    Speaking of which, as long as you’re blowing our minds by way of overwhelming engagement, perhaps you can tell me why O’Donnell did’t step into the breech and attempt to actually model the Antarctic climate, rather than simply peeing on the parade (as you lot have repeatedly admitted was the sum total of the objective here)? After all, you personally have ‘published’ more ‘correct’ temperature trends than anyone in the known universe- clearly your skills precede you. So, por qua? Concerned it might imperil the carefully cultivated illusion of ignorance on all matters climate?

    PS when Lubos Motl hears you’re the smartest person in the world, he’s going to be pissed.

  177. William Says:

    Jeff Id can’t be too smart if he believes this.

    “Most will notice that I’ve not been blogging this week. There really isn’t any time but Cuccinelli is now being given a new hurdle to uncover Mann’s emails. Virginia senators are considering changing law to prevent Mann’s private emails from being read. First the university claims they don’t exist, then as it is found that the emails do exist “friends of Mann” spend a half million dollars to make sure nobody can see them. <b<Now Mann has enough friends in (leftist) government that they would change the law to protect his emails from being read.”

    That is up there with the kookiest conspiracy theories. For a guy who boasts he is correct and only relies on evidence, I would to know what he has to back this up with.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/above-the-law/

  178. Marco Says:

    Jeff, thank you for your answers. I’m less impressed with your dismissal of John Nielsen-Gammon’s answer to YOUR enquiry.

    O’Donnell WILL have a problem publishing in the future, as what he did IS considered unethical in all fields of science. If it were Mann who did this, I am 100% certain “the Auditors” would have been calling for his head. Just see how so many commenters on your site are trying to claim Steig should not have been reviewer, due to CoI, and no one pointing out the same supposed CoI when McIntyre reviewed Wahl & Ammann (did he sign his review? Don’t think so).

    And nice going in adding more conspiracy, as well as blatant untruths. On several occasions in the reviews, Eric Steig indicates that it is publishable. On RC Eric Steig indicates it is a valuable addition and will likely get many cites. All he did, oh this nasty man, is ‘make’ you change your manuscript from “Steig is all wrong” to “likely wrong, but not as much as we made everyone believe on our blogs”. I’ve said it once, and say it again: you guys went into the whole affair with one aim only: to show “the Team” wrong. Not to contribute something useful, but to show them wrong. Steig’s comments ‘made’ you change the manuscript so it actually has become something that actually contributes. It appears to me it’s the latter that pissed off you guys…

  179. Sou Says:

    I wonder if O’Donnell has realised yet the extent to which his fellow authors betrayed him? Or the extent of his own willingness to be used by his collaborators to push their unsavoury agenda?

    It must be a hard pill to swallow. Either that, or he is a very willing pawn in their ongoing anti-science game.

  180. J Bowers Says:

    Paul Kelly — “I hope you’re not using Ecuador as an example of a country with a robust private sector. Petroecuador is a state run enterprise. From wikipedia:”

    No, irrelevant to my point which perhaps could have been clearer. I believe the USA is an example of a country with a robust private sector. Chevron is a US company. Chevron did lots of environmental damage in another country. Ergo…

  181. Bart Says:

    Hey guys, hope you’re having fun. Keep it on topic please, so discussions about private vs public sector for example should be directed to the open thread.

    And: Play the ball, not the person.

  182. J Bowers Says:

    Jeff Id — “Well if the facts don’t support the conclusion, go for the personality.”

    And if the hockey stick ain’t broken, go for the Antarctic poster child?

  183. J Bowers Says:

    Tom Fuller — “Greenland ice sheet sits in a bowl”

    A bowl with ragged, uneven, and broken edges. The bowl can usually only hold enough soup as the lowest points on the edge allow. There are four distinguishable outlet areas at the edges of the “bowl”, of ~50m height, in this topo map of the Greenland bedrock:

    Compare to where the ice sheet lies over the bowl:
    * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Geography-of-greenland.svg
    * http://www.siovizcenter.ucsd.edu/library/internship/greenland.jpg

    Look up ‘fluid dynamics’, Tom.

  184. Sou Says:

    “Play the ball, not the person.”

    If only O’D et al had thought of that, these threads would not exist.

  185. Sou Says:

    PS Don’t get me wrong – I think you’re absolutely right to urge that, Bart.

  186. J Bowers Says:

    Jeff Id — “Several seemed quite brilliant to me and saw the material from a different angle than I had considered. It was like being in university halls where people who were smart were present in every direction. Damn I miss school sometimes.

    Then there was this other guy who seemed far more interested in making us agree with S09. The one who wanted major reviews every single time and kept saying it wasn’t worth publishing. The one who said it was a good/lousy contribution to the science.”

    Jeff, I once had a latin and classical studies teacher who was a harsh taskmaster. Every pupil in the school despised him; he was an old grammar school type who came down on any erring student like a ton of bricks and brooked no nonsense, marching around in his black gown and making his voice heard across the entire school whenever he saw a transgression of school rules.

    It wasn’t until the end of our time as his pupils and after we eventually left school that near everyone in his class held him in the highest regard, because it was his PERSEVERANCE and discipline which got most of us past our exams to a pass grade, where more lenient teachers would have failed. He never gave up on a single pupil, and willingly volunteered his own time after hours to give that extra bit of tuition that can make all the difference with those with a little less aptitude than most. What we couldn’t see for a lot of our time in his classes was that he was also incredibly fair, and how we could be overly petulent, disruptive and obstructive. When a pupil managed to translate a particularly challenging passage that went that extra yard, and understood its literary significance, he’d beam with enthusiasm and made you feel like you’d won a lottery (which sometimes you did in the form of a coin from his own pocket).

    If I can be so bold as to make a humble suggestion to such a genius as yourself, how about next time you write a paper you lock your politics and preconceptions in a strongbox, brush the chip off your shoulder, don’t speculate on who the reviewers are, and be at least a little bit appreciative when someone is willing to give up so much of their own time while challenging you regardless of whether you think they’re right or wrong.

  187. janet Says:

    “Then there was this other guy who seemed far more interested in making us agree with S09. The one who wanted major reviews every single time and kept saying it wasn’t worth publishing.”

    Did the other guy really say “it wasn’t worth publishing” Jeff? Can you point me to the quote please?

  188. Bart Says:

    A good discussion is going on at the Climate Abyss (amongst others), where John N-G says many pertinent things:

    * he [Steig] asked the editor to insist that the ‘most likely’ be shown. But his review did not argue that the ‘most likely’ was definitely iridge, only that it was ‘perhaps’ iridge. The review leaves the choice of ‘most likely’ up to the authors. – John N-G

    * They [O’D et al] may not have realized that the review left them with options. According to the published correspondence, they were concerned throughout the review process about the supposed power of Reviewer A over their manuscript. That, plus the tendency to sometimes see things in an us vs. them mentality, could easily lead the authors to receive a different meaning than the reviewer intended. – John N-G]

    * keep in mind that we’re parsing these words, meanings, and implications much more finely than any reviewer of any paper would be doing while writing his or her review. – John N-G]

    * Marco – Another Mars vs. Venus aspect of this episode that struck me from reading the reviews is a point that O’Donnell made from the outset at ClimateAudit:

    “The first salient point is that Eric still doesn’t get it. The whole purpose of our paper was to demonstrate that if you properly use the data that S09 used, then the answer changes in a significant fashion. This is different than claiming that this particular method (whereby satellite data and ground station data are used together in RegEM) provides a more accurate representation of the [unknown] truth than other methods. We have not (and will not) make such a claim. The only claim we make is – given the data and regression method used by S09 – that the answer is different when the method by which the data are combined is properly employed. Period.”

    During the review process, the reviewers (not just Eric) are wondering about what O’Donnell’s results mean for the rate of melting of the Pine Island Glacier and other issues of practical importance. Eric, too, in his discussion of the paper at RealClimate, praises it for expanding our knowledge about what’s happening in Antarctica.

    The authors beg off on such analysis, stating that they are not qualified to make such interpretations.

    No wonder “Eric still doesn’t get it.” The payoff for a climate scientist is to learn something important about the climate. The payoff for O’Donnell is to prove publicly that Steig et al. didn’t apply their method properly.

    Ryan O’D also makes an appearance and appears very reasonable again.

  189. willard Says:

    RickA,

    I note this sentence:

    > [T]he techniques OD10 used to show that S09 had no chance of being correct can be helpful in analyzing other sparse data sets.

    Here is what RyanO says:

    > The whole purpose of our paper was to demonstrate that if you properly use the data that S09 used, then the answer changes in a significant fashion.

    If O10 corrects S09, chances are that S09 has been corrected, which means that there is still the possibility that a model is correct in the story.

    Please stop try to peek at my understanding if it’s to parrot.

    ***

    troyca,

    Thank you for the summary of your take on this. I need to think about your response. I’ll simply note for now that your last sentence:

    > [T]o my knowledge it was never suggested that the results of S09 had NO chance of being correct because they diverged from “ground truth”.

    sounds like a tu quoque to me.

    I note here that the only terms that differ between Eli’s claim and yours is that Eli used “diverged **in significant ways**”, from which I suppose he infers that “it has NO chance of being correct.”

    Whatever wanted to prove O should not distract us from the fact that we’re talking about reconstructions here. The ball is science. Not Steig.

    You keep your eye on the ball, troyca, and it’s very commendable.

    ***

    Jeff Id,

    Could you give the timestamp of the email sent to John N-G?

  190. Marco Says:

    Bart, O’Donnell indeed sounds reasonable again. It just doesn’t fit his CA rant. Moreover, it shows he does not have experience with the peer review process, as he apparently believes the “major revisions” was solely due to reviewer A. I’d personally qualify the other reviewer comments (to the first version) also as “major revisions”, if I had written those.

  191. Jeff Id Says:

    Wow, troll central.

    I’m sorry I cannot reply to all the silly allegations. I wish that some of you would do some more reading before flinging accusations against me. For instance, I am responsible for certain things yet not for others. I have made some claims, yet not others. Others who are not me, are not in my control. I know you feel like AGW has taken some kind of big hit — it has not. Just relax a bit.

    For instance:

    Majorajam

    I did not say our paper was unrelated to climate. It was a ciritique of the methodology of S09, which gave better climate answers — surely you see the difference.

    J Bowers,

    I once had a dynamics teacher pre-grad who gave a test on Coriolis acceleration. He marked me wrong on the first test of the year. Engineering tests often had 3 problems so if you get 1 wrong that is 33% of the grade. My answer was not wrong. I brought him texts, demonstrated his error, after months tried unsuccessfully to elicit help from other professors who didn’t want to get involved. At the end of the year, by surprise, without discussion with the class about why — he said — anyone who got this answer on the first problem on the first test, also get’s credit. Tough prof or stupid?

    The difference is gatekeeping for preferred results vs real critique. My reading of Steig’s reviews is very clear, I don’t think you need to be a genius to figure it out.

    Marco,

    I didn’t ask John for anything. I didn’t forward his emails. He didn’t provide any evidence to me, only opinion. I was unsure of the roots of his statement and McIntyre was more interested in the detail of it than I. I didn’t release the reviews, although my blog was one of a group which carried the post. You should blame me for only the things I do, wouldn’t you agree.

  192. Jeff Id Says:

    Majorajam

    to be more clear

    I did not say our paper was unrelated to climate. It was a ciritique of the methodology of S09, by which the critique gave better climate answers — surely you see the difference.

  193. Shub Niggurath Says:

    ‘ODonnellgate’

    Play the ball not the person.

    Both sides play the ball and the person. Somehow it seems to be that one side is more outraged about it.

    I don’t understand the timestamping business. It all is only to say: “Aha! he knew that …da da da.. …. at the time”. Moreover John N-G is not Moses delivering a commandment. Everyone ought to know, and knows that revealing reviewer identity may not be such a great idea.

    Willard, reviewer anonymity is to allow reviewer to provide strong opinions and requirements for publication, unconstrained by identity, as long as they can argue their stand to the editor. Now obviously, this arrangement can be abused. And secondly, the whole thing ends if the reviewer cannot convince the editor (who knows reviewer identity) that his objections are valid.

    Steig failed on both counts well before any of this started.

    Something to ponder about there, rather than fishing out confessions of conspiracy from the mouths of those who participate in discussions openly, rather than hide behind the Iron Wall of Moderation

  194. Sou Says:

    There is a big difference between measured tone and reasonableness.
    It would be wrong to confuse the lack of name-calling in a single post with ‘reason’. (Fool me once…)

    Flip flopping does not engender trust in the way that sincere apology and full withdrawal might (or at least be a start). O’D would have to do more than a half-explanatory non-apologetic post IMO. O’D’s colleagues seem to have conspired against him but O’D himself has to take responsibility for his own words and actions.

    Of course, I haven’t visited Lucia’s blog as O’D suggests (and won’t). If there is a full apology there, maybe O’D will put it on all the websites on which he published his personal attack on Steig.

  195. harold Says:

    Sou, I like the measured and reasonable tone on your website.

    “Deniers and denier chums seem to be doing their best to destroy any semblance of credibility they might have hoped for among gullible members of the public. Hopefully their latest shonky tactics backfire and they sink into oblivion sooner rather than later.”

    LOL, anyway just came here to post a link to Lucia’s. It is a pity that none of the reviewers were statistically competent.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/eric-to-john-nielsen-gammon-it-isnt-very-useful-support/#comment-69632

  196. Sou Says:

    @ Harold, yep, we’re more inclined to tell it like we see it and don’t mince words here down under. Bart is nice so I try to be more circumspect here – lol.

  197. Majorajam Says:

    Dr. Jeff: “the critique gave better climate answers”

    Mr. ID: “No I’m pushing the fact that the math is correct. Not the model or result.”

    Surely you see the difference?

  198. Marco Says:

    Jeff, you and Steve were both informed that it would be considered unethical to disclose the name of a reviewer. You may care little about Nielsen-Gammon’s opinion, but unfortunately for you guys, he’s not the only one actively publishing and involved in editorial functions who holds that opinion. I didn’t hear anything about a “thanks, but we don’t care about that anyway” mail to him, either.

    Note, there are quite a few of these unwritten rules in life in general. And if you’re so disinterested, I assume you defended Jones when he didn’t want to hand over his data? Or Mann and his code? There are no written rules that required them to do so! And note that it wasn’t even an unwritten rule at the time.

    And I only blamed you for what you did. I may read things in your blogposts and responses that you yourself think are not present, but well, the interpretation issue never stopped you from making large claims…

  199. Jeff Id Says:

    Majorajam,

    If you want to know trends in the Antarctic, there are better ways. The Sat data is useless for trend. If you read the paper, it has a lot of detail for better methods for choosing parameters in these regression methods. Of course, if you can’t even follow simple logic there isn’t much hope you’ll work out what the paper says.

    Our result is climatologically more accurate than S09, it is a critique of the method. There are better methods IMO to get the job done and they are a lot simpler. Of course had we presented the simpler methods instead, it wouldn’t be a critique of S09 would it?

    Simple simple stuff.

  200. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    You can add me to the list of “knuckleheads” (word of the week it seems thanks to Eric). Yes I outdid myself yesterday and made a complete ass of myself. What can I say except sorry—there I have apologized twice now in as many days. You are right, people ought to read much more carefully before making accusations. I now you probably don’t give a sh1t, but I always try and apologize if I am in the wrong, as unpleasant as it is. Anyhow, I just wanted that to be on the record.

    Just one last observation on the 88-page fiasco started by Ryan. Ryan said that the 88 pages of content pertaining to reviewer A was “more than 10 times the length of the paper”. I saved manuscript originally submitted to the journal as Word file set spacing margins to 1 inch all round, 12 point font and single-line spacing (to match the reviewers), and the body text (and abstract) is about 11 pages. So those 11 pages do not include tables, figures etc., just the abstract and body text. Even then 88 pages is not more than 10 times the length (not to mention that the authors were responsible for 64 of the 88 pages) of the body text alone. Now, I could be wrong of course (certainly would not be the first time) but the claim of “10 times” seems to be quite the exaggeration on O’Donnell’s part.

  201. willard Says:

    Jeff Id,

    You say:

    > Of course had we presented the simpler methods instead, it wouldn’t be a critique of S09 would it?

    The question begs to be asked then: why not present simpler methods?

    ***

    I note that you have not answered this other question:

    Could you give the timestamp of the email sent to John N-G?

  202. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    Not everyone who asks you questions (especially if they are relevant to the discussion and topic at hand) is a troll Jeff– trying to glibly dismiss critique as trolling will get you nowhere.

    “I know you feel like AGW has taken some kind of big hit — it has not. Just relax a bit.”

    Nice strawman. Actually after Wegman, Lisbongate, Pearcegate, Monckton being refuted yet again, Delingpole’s implosion and O’Donnellgate, it its the skeptics who have taken quite a few hits the last while. And I think it is O’Donnell who needs to relax, but maybe he has already.

    People seem to be having trouble finding where Steig said that O’Donnell (see February 15, 2011 at 13:15) was “not worth publishing”. People probably also still would like to know whether or not you agree that WAIS (even by the most recent and conservative estimates) is still losing ice.

  203. Majorajam Says:

    JeffID,

    If you can’t even understand simple English there isn’t much hope you’ll work out the disconnect between what your work shows and what you seem to think it shows.

    Again, in your words, not mine: “No I’m pushing the fact that the math is correct. Not the model or result.” Hate to be the one to break this to you, but that’s not ambiguous. It is very explicit statement that O’Donnell et al is a critique of the mathematics of Steig 09 and nothing more. Now you want to claim that there is some model of Antarctic temperatures, simple or otherwise, within the paper.

    So, please the court, which is it? And if you plan on reversing yourself here because you suddenly remembered what your own paper was about, feel free to further enlighten us as to why this vague ‘simple’ and ‘optimal’ model was not used to generate the most likely results for O’Donnell et al? Or maybe you’re saying that the most likely results tend to be produced by sub-optimal models, in which case maybe Steig 09 is back in play, with or without a rejoinder??

    Muddled, muddled stuff.

  204. Jeff Id Says:

    WAIS ice loss has nothing to do with tenths of a degree of surface temp.

  205. MapleLeaf Says:

    Talking of muddled,

    Jeff, how much has the Peninsula (which is part of western Antarctica) warmed since the fifties?

    And you are still avoiding answering other relevant questions. Maybe Steve or Ryan can come over and help– it is after all an honest blog.

  206. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    The original question was regarding the loss of ice from WAIS– the GRACE data show ice loss over WAIS. You claimed in your post at WUWT that “After all, no melt, no flood”.

  207. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Leaf, the ice in WAIS has been projected to decline for decades now, for reasons that have either very little or nothing to do with climate change. As I think you already know. GRACE data show ice loss over WAIS of 190 Gt per year, +/- 77Gt. The total mass of WAIS is 2.2 million cubic kilometres. You do the math. Total dissolution of WAIS ice would contribute 4.8 meters of sea level rise.

    GRACE is a work in progress. It holds great potential. But better resolution of the land masses underneath the ice is clearly needed.

  208. Tom Fuller Says:

    Oh, and Maple Leaf–you are correct that not everyone who has a question for Jeff is a troll:

    Hiya Jeff-how are you?

    But you, Maple Leaf, are.

  209. dhogaza Says:

    Carrick:

    Why do you suppose it is you only do technical work when people pay you for it?

    That certainly isn’t true for most of us who have technical degrees.

    To be honest, I was partly joking, but at the moment I’m juggling three consulting contracts and am working 7 days a week.

    In much of my life, I’ve tended to put in about three or four months a year as a volunteer, mostly as a field biologist and educator on conservation and natural history subjects. I’m also internationally published magazine and book photographer, though I’ve kinda let that drop to the wayside in recent years and shoot for myself, these days.

    So, I have many interests, and the time I get paid to do technical work pretty much eats up the portion of my life I care to spend doing so.

    Make of that what you will …

  210. MapleLeaf Says:

    Hiya Tom :)

    Pertinent questions are not trolling (and besides I do not care what you might think and Bart did ask nicely to play the ball not the person), and in my experience trolls do not apologize if they mess up.

    And talking of playing the ball. Jeff has made their reasons for critiquing the Steig paper very clear– it was about attacking what they perceived to be a poster child for AGW. So by Jeff’s admission ay WUWT, advancing the science was really not their primary objective, if one at all. Like I said before this is the Hockey Stick redux.

    Back to the ice loss from WAIS. I am not sure where you are sourcing your numbers, that is why it is customary in science to provide references.

    Jeff seems to think that the ice loss from WAIS has stopped (although he may be muddling ice loss and temperature data)– the data show otherwise, and you agree that the ice loss from WAIS is occurring. That is, you disagree with your pal Jeff. But for the umpteenth time, please do let him speak for himself– he is quite capable of defending himself.

    Here is Velicogna (2009):

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

    Here is Wu et al. (2010):

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo938.html

    Here is Allison et al. (2009):

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6215004

    Here is Bamber and Riva (2010):

    http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/4/1593/2010/tcd-4-1593-2010.pdf

    And a summary from SkepticalScience:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=473&p=2

    Looking forward to seeing the first publications using the new Cryosat2 data.

  211. Bart Says:

    Jeff,

    You wrote:

    There are better methods IMO to get the job done and they are a lot simpler. Of course had we presented the simpler methods instead, it wouldn’t be a critique of S09 would it?

    Willard asked:

    The question begs to be asked then: why not present simpler methods?

    That’s a good question.

    In terms of pushing science forward, that would have given better buck for your money (esp since they are “better” as per your own admission). Why so intent on critiqing S09 rather than using your energy more constructively to provide the best possible reconstruction?

  212. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Leaf, I can’t let Jeff have all the fun.

    This, in case you haven’t noticed yet, isn’t science. These are comments on a weblog. As you don’t respond to figures quoted here in comments, I don’t know why other people provide you with sources.

    What Jeff did is science. He questioned the findings of S09, hypothesized that they were the result of incorrect application of statistical techniques, experimented with other procedures, and determined that his hypothesis seems valid. He (and his buds) wrote their findings up and got them published.

    That is science. See the difference?

  213. MarkB Says:

    ML: “I am not sure where you are sourcing your numbers, that is why it is customary in science to provide references.”

    TF: “This, in case you haven’t noticed yet, isn’t science. These are comments on a weblog.”

    Nothing Tom Fuller does is science. On that we can agree. Regardless, it’s not a good excuse for consistently failing to back up any assertions with references, even failing to on request.

    Sometimes science can originate on blogs, although the signal to noise ratio is generally very small.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/

    Getting published tends to encourage authors to think critically about their work and generally increases credibility, unless of course one violates widely accepted ethical standards and throws tantrums about the process and critical reviews. Then they look like hacks trying to gain attention.

  214. Tom Fuller Says:

    Mark B, the fact is that Maple Leaf and his ilk constantly call for backup but apparently never use them. They don’t respond to the arguments that are backed up and Gish Gallop on to the next topic. I’m not going to play that game.

    Web comments are not science. When we comment about the science we are very much like antagonists in a cafe or bar talking about baseball strategy. We are fortunate that occasionally one of the players pops in.

    Web comments are, on the other hand, quite useful and relevant when talking about policy and politics, as a way of attracting support for differing points of view.

    I’m at least honest in that I admit quite readily that I am not a scientist. Fortunately, the engaging parts of this debate are not scientific, other than the usual scramble to distort and conceal infelicitous findings.

    We don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. So we’re all hanging around waiting for that answer to get in and arguing about trivia in the meantime.

  215. Jeff Id Says:

    Bart,

    I did present one of the simpler methods. There are plenty of other works on the market, and prior to this craziness I had hoped to use Roman’s methods to create another result. I’m not sure it is worth it because it seems to me that without my certified believer card, publication can be a nightmare.

    Rev 1 of the paper as the simple methods presented side by side with the rest in the SI. For the trolls who don’t do numbers a link to the pictures is below.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/si-1-images/

  216. Majorajam Says:

    I disagree MarkB. Not only does “All Pathos All The Time” Fuller do science, he is science. A human experiment to test whether the empirical correlation between famous journalists and journalists that monetize their inane ramblings from ignorance is evidence of causality or otherwise. Thus far the results are discouraging… for Tom.

  217. Jeff Id Says:

    Bart,

    Why so intent on critiqing S09 rather than using your energy more constructively to provide the best possible reconstruction?

    A good question. I suppose that some of the press releases had something to do with it:

    http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=46448

    The attempt to dramatically change the story based on what looked to my eye to be immediately faulty. Knowing what you know about ground station trends Bart, how would you have reviewed S09. I would have let it go except Steig was too cocky and dishonest about access to the data and code initially. Dhog probably was there mocking me about that. He later released his data, but never the code for his work. I was genuinely interested if he was right at the beginning. Later, every step became a battle. Every blog post wasn’t worth reading, every critique a trick for my readers. Eventually things settled down and we attempted publication.

    But there is actually more reason. The Chladni patterns are oft mistaken for coming from climatological origins in literally hundreds of climate papers. RegEM is being used more regularly for these types of methods, often by people with little understanding of the meaning — something from both the papers and reviews Steig had little of. If you followed the statistical conference in Scotland this year, I think there were dozens of papers seeing patterns in PCA trends. If climate science is really serious about this stuff – as the endless govt funded publications show – it is important that improved methods are demonstrated.

  218. Tom Fuller Says:

    Majorjam: Huh? You are spreading nonsense throughout this thread the way Steig spread temperatures across Antarctica. (Let’s see… Pathos was one of the Three Musketeers, famous journalists would be Andrew Revkin, and journalists that monetize their inane ramblings from ignorance would be Joe Romm. So that would mean that Pathos and friends took the yellow brick Dot Earth road to Romm… yeah, that’s it.)

  219. Majorajam Says:

    Speaking of pathos Jeff, that’s a work of art there. What happened to all the bravado from yesterday? I was inspired! You were leaping tall buildings in single bounds then! ‘Engaging’, parrying and beating back those ‘believers’ with all that skeptic mojo we’ve been denied due to the tyrannical moderators of the blogs we feel safe in.

    Now we can’t get even get a very simple answer out of you about why you didn’t put forward the ‘best model’ as most likely, and why each of O10’s authors have in turn assiduously disowned even their most likely model (with you being the exception as it suited your fancy about the higher political import of the paper… hence your little predicament here).

    But you’re so much better than those real climate folks. They don’t even have the common decency to call someone a troll before they decline a response.

    Duck and run Jeff. Go and find a skeptical shoulder to cry on.

    PS This is taken from the second comment on that blog post you’ve sent us to:

    RyanO… says things like “if you’re going to use the model in Steig 09, this is the right way to do it” while avoiding claims that the results are objectively “true”.

    Truly it is obvious to all punters that you’ve made a clear and unequivocal statement as to the recent climate of Antarctica.

  220. Majorajam Says:

    You forgot QED Fuller. Careful where you point that rapier wit friend.

  221. MapleLeaf Says:

    JeffId says,

    “I’m not sure it is worth it because it seems to me that without my certified believer card, publication can be a nightmare.”

    Are you serious? This is a hopeless exercise, you insist on engaging in rhetoric, innuendo and making references to religion, not to mention suggesting that there is a conspiracy afoot. These actions have long ago betrayed your true intentions (and that of your co-authors), people know your MO– are you seriously so deluded that you do not realize that?

    Publishing in a major journal like JOC is not mean to be easy, otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time. Nor is not meant to be a cheerleading session. Really, cry me a river…..your paper got published, so God only knows why you guys insist on whining and entertaining conspiracy theories.

    I hope you understand that the peer-review of O’Donnell et al. now really starts in earnest and I hope that you are mature enough and humble enough to accept criticism of your work, and can do so without thinking that there is some conspiracy afoot.

  222. willard Says:

    Jeff Id,

    Thank you for your answer, which satisfies my curiosity and honors your reputation.

  223. Tom Fuller Says:

    Yes, Maple Leaf, people know Jeff and why he’s doing this–despite your best efforts.

  224. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    I’m curious to know whether or not you are buying any of these excuses being made by O’Donell et al., and Jeff in particular. Also, what do you make of someone like Jeff at one time speaking to the stats and another saying things like “I’m not sure it is worth it because it seems to me that without my certified believer card, publication can be a nightmare.”? Also, consider the other revelations of things said by Jeff at WUWT that have come to light here. Do you consider CA and its affiliates to be working in good faith and interested in advancing the science? CA et al. had a chance with this paper to demonstrate that they were operating in good faith– they blew it.

    To me (and many others) this looks like the Hockey Stick redux–a deliberate attempt to fabricate more controversy, undermine the scientists credibility, and make mountains out of molehills, and all shamelessly done under the guise of science.

  225. Jeff Id Says:

    Majorajam,

    Regarding your first comment, or whatever, I think I have satisfactorily answered your questions. Perhaps you feel you should get your money back?

    MapleLeaf

    There is a difference between tough and unreasonable. This is in a letter we sent to the Editor on 4/16. It is online at CA as well.

    I don’t expect it will have much meaning to you but it does to me. This is why I didn’t freak out from Ryan’s post. There is a lot of history and a pile of math behind it. I suggest you go to the links at CA and read this one.
    ———-

    We have several concerns that we feel do not belong in the response and are more appropriately expressed in a letter. With this in mind, we would like to take a few moments of your time to discuss them. First, it is quite clear that Reviewer A is one (or more) of the authors of S09. This results in a conflict of interest for the reviewer when examining a paper that is critical of their own. This conflict of interest is apparent in the numerous misstatements of fact in the review. The most important of these were:

  226. Majorajam Says:

    Quoth the skeptic slayer of believers JeffID: ‘believing it makes it so’. And irony died.

  227. Info on O'Donnell vs Steig - TheEnvironmentSite.org Environment Forum Says:

    […] Revkin on Steig, O A interesting article, I thought…. Groucho, any thoughts on the whole debate? […]

  228. Tom Fuller Says:

    MajorJam, perhaps it is you who are irony-deficient, or are blissfully unaware of the history of the principals involved.

  229. RickA Says:

    MapleLeaf at February 15, 2011 at 23:36:

    MapleLeaf – I hope there is peer review of O’Donnell et al. You should be prepared for the possibility that peer review of O’Donnell et al may show that S09 was flawed. In other words confirm OD10 to have valid criticisms of S09.

    Then, hopefully, somebody will do a more statistically valid reconstruction of Antarctica. Perhaps Steig will do a revised one?

  230. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    McIntyre et al. have been demonizing and harassing “The Team” and any other climate scientist they do not like (e.g., Trenberth) . Their actions, and those by you, are a main reason for the bad blood– note that I did not say “sole or only reason”. So please don’t insult us by trying and play the hapless victim. At the end of the day, your paper got published, and you all still chose to behave badly and subvert the peer-review process. You and your co-authors have been very sore winners.

    As for your allegation of conflict of interest. From the main post written by Bart above:

    “Some more things have been said about peer review by others. E.g. Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford writes in the Hockeystick illusion, page 205 (h/t Tim Lambert):

    As the CC [Climatic Change] paper was critical of his work, McIntyre was invited to be one of the peer reviewers.

    Guess we can all agree on that aspect of peer review now.”

    Several prominent scientists and editors of science journals have stated that, in this type of situation, there was nothing wrong at all having Steig be one of the reviewers. Yet that information seems to keep falling on deaf ears. Just how many more people have to tell you that before it sinks in? Further, how quickly the “skeptics” forget what McIntyre did to Wahl and Amman.

    The fact is that there have been many occasions when “skeptics” have been involved in submitting or reviewing a journal paper and it has turned into a circus– Wahl and Amman, O’Donnell, McLean et al, Lindzen and Choi, Douglass et al., McKitrick and Michaels, not to mention the fiasco at Climate Research under de Freitas–all these (and many more examples) speak more to the failings and issues with the “skeptics” and their ignorance of the peer-review process etc. than anything. You will disagree, but I do not honestly expect anything else.

    “Without rebuttal, this paper (S09) and those which Dr. Steig claimed at RC are being developed by others will be the new poster children for the IPCC” JeffId

  231. dhogaza Says:

    MapleLeaf – I hope there is peer review of O’Donnell et al. You should be prepared for the possibility that peer review of O’Donnell et al may show that S09 was flawed. In other words confirm OD10 to have valid criticisms of S09.

    Steig doesn’t claim that S09 is without flaws.

  232. Steven Sullivan Says:

    JeffID, undoubtedly the editors knew who reviewer A was, and that he was the ‘S’ of S09. Nor was assigning Steig as a reviewer of a paper about Steig09, unethical or unusual. And you’d better believe that such a review will be ‘tough’ for the submitter. Don’t take my word for it, I’m just a biologist — take John Derry’s word for it, he edits a climate journal. See his quote in Bart’s post up top.

    Your complaint to the editor probably just showed the editor what tyros you guys are. If you use your experience publishing O’10 as an excuse not to further engage in peer-reviewed science, that’s just *weak*.

  233. MapleLeaf Says:

    RickA,

    “I hope there is peer review of O’Donnell et al. You should be prepared for the possibility that peer review of O’Donnell et al may show that S09 was flawed.”

    Yes, of course. This is a complex problem with no easy or sibgle perfect solution. Hopefully Steig writes another paper and incorporates the suggestions made by O10 and addresses some of their shortcomings. Doing so probably won’t change the outcome much at all, but it should streamline the methodology and make it more robust for other sot use down the road.

  234. Jeff Id Says:

    Steven,

    I felt the editor handled the situation perfectly. In his position I would have done the same. He may not have realized the type of review he would get from Steig and may not request it again but seeing it from his perspective, he’s not afraid of anything scientific. If I ever learned what he went through for this process, it might be one of the most interesting stories I’ve heard.

    Unfortunately, my guess is that he’s also sick of it. In my book though, a guy who doesn’t fear the results of math/science is a good guy.

  235. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “If I ever learned what he went through for this process, it might be one of the most interesting stories I’ve heard.”

    This situation plays out very regularly. Anyhow, glad to hear that you believe that the editor did an admirable job.

    Yes, I’m sure he is sick of “skeptics” trying to subvert the peer-review process and “skeptics” using science as a political tool/weapon. And I am confident that he was more troubled by O’Donnell et al’s behaviour than he was of the behaviour of reviewer A, because the other journal editors who have opined on this matter sure were troubled by O’Donnell et al’s unprofessional behaviour.

  236. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,
    Wow, this thread is just a treasure trove of beautiful quotes from the contrarians, the gift that just keeps giving.

    “….and may not request it again but seeing it from his perspective, he’s not afraid of anything scientific.”

    The innuendo against Steig by O’Donnell et al. continues– got to keep those “skeptics” all fired up. Unfortunately the truth is that, like the editor of JOC, Steig is not afraid of science (or statistics for that matter).

    Now in contrast Wegman, Lindzen, Michaels, Monckton, McLean, Douglass, de Freitas, Easterbook, Eschenbach, Goddard, Watts, D’aleo and McKitrick etc. are afraid of good mathematics, statistics and science. Intriguing though how the self-proclaimed “auditors” continually give them free pass. What a joke, it would be hilarious if it were not such a serious situation.

  237. jakerman Says:

    >”Yes, I’m sure he is sick of “skeptics” trying to subvert the peer-review process and “skeptics” using science as a political tool/weapon.*

    Shewonk has a good post on this: http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/when-science-becomes-politics-by-other-means/

  238. Tom Fuller Says:

    Why is it when Trenbert defends Phil Jones’ remark about using peer review to keep stuff out of the published literature by saying Jones was young and new and naive, it’s okay, but O’Donnell et al are supposed to be fully conversant with new procedures right out of the gate? Is what O’Donnell said really any worse than what Jones said? I sure don’t think so.

  239. Sou Says:

    TF – apart from your misinterpretation of Prof Jones comment, he made that comment in a private email not on a multiplicity of public forums (at least it was not made public until emails were stolen and some individuals even went to the lengths of publishing them in books).

    People are appalled that O’Donnell wrote a nasty personal attack on the integrity of an individual, using very colourful language. As well as the fact that he violated professional ethics further, by naming one of the anonymous reviewers of his paper. Rational people would not take any issue with O’D or Steig making a public comment on the merits of the science (or statistical tools).

    It is an issue of morals and ethics. For those that have unusual (personal) morals and are not clear on how to behave in society, they can be guided by professional ethics should they wish.

    If you can’t spot the vast differences between the two situations…(probably enough said).

  240. Marco Says:

    Tom Fuller: faulty papers are generally hardly ever cited in the scientific literature, and one would hope they are only cited with a reference that they are flawed. The IPCC reports are such that they almost HAVE to cite even the obviously flawed stuff and ‘discuss’ them. With page limits, this usually means unjust attention to bad papers. Of course, “the Auditors” don’t want to see anything wrong with the papers Jones wanted to keep out of the IPCC report (as in “not being cited”), because it is “not the IPCC”. Which brings me to my next observation (next post)…

  241. jakerman Says:

    “he made that comment in a private email not on a multiplicity of public forums”

    A stupid comment that was wrong before it got publicised (i.e. wrong in private as well).

    I’d be prepared to give O’D the same benefit of doubt and allowance for saying stupid things. But the anti-science rollout the is in train with O’D’s stupid comments is a different thing. The anti-science chumming associated with this is a feeding frenzy playing to crazies.

    http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/two-minutes-of-denialist-chumming/#comment-4261

  242. Marco Says:

    I find Jeff Id’s comment on the reason for going after S09 quite interesting and telling. S09 may become the new posterboy for the IPCC, can’t have that!

    But posterboys for the ‘skeptics’, however flawed, no problem! You wonder how “the Auditors” missed the initial huuuuuuuge flaws in Loehle’s reconstruction. You wonder why they did not laugh away Douglass et al. Or what happened to Lindzen & Choi’s very questionable math? And let’s celebrate McShane & Wyner. As long as it is “not the IPCC”, “the Auditors” have apparently little problem with bad math or methodology.

  243. Bart Says:

    Maple, Jeff,

    I think it helps in these discussions to not assume nefarious intentions to those you disagree with. I disagree with Jeff’s overall stance on climate change and geo-politics, but that doesn’t make him a bad person worthy of contempt.

    Jeff wrote:

    I’m not sure it [publishing] is worth it because it seems to me that without my certified believer card, publication can be a nightmare.

    I think that opinion is clearly a consequence of not having a lot of experience with scientific publishing and an overly defensive/conspiratorial outlook on the process and the dynamics at play. I’ve been co-author on a paper that went through different rounds of reviews (totaling around 10 from memory) at multiple journals (3), and never yet saw the light of day. See also e.g. Gavin’s story at RC and Grumbine’s exposition of how science differs from blog conversations.

    I think Jeff was pretty straight up in stating that their objective was not to advance the science, but rather to critique the mathematical methods used by Steig et al (2009).

    Having communicated with Jeff before, I have no trouble believing him when he retells the story of how he became more persistent in critiquing Steig. A big part of this kerfuffle is due to the dynamics of the communication between adversaries. Jeff is not innocent in playing his part in that, surely. Neither am I, or anyone else for that matter.

  244. Jeff Id Says:

    Thanks Bart,

    “I think Jeff was pretty straight up in stating that their objective was not to advance the science, but rather to critique the mathematical methods used by Steig et al (2009).”

    I saw the paper as an advancement of the mathematical understanding rather than the best possible trends for the Antarctic. To me that is also a ‘scientific advancement’ especially considering there are so many papers using PCA techniques. There is some minor shifting of trend location as a coming post will demonstrate. That said, I don’t think the trends we found differed from the best methods much at all.

    Hopefully, that is what others take from it.

    You may be right about the lack of publishing experience. I’ve only published one other paper and that was decades ago on interferometric engine analysis. I did/do find Steig to be overly adversarial in the review, with sort of a machine gun critique policy. His critique was so full of accusations which he had clearly not even bothered to check, it was amazing to read, and very frustrating to reply to. It is difficult not to assume that it was a gatekeeping strategy, but it cannot be proven. It was only the editor that let us through finally.

    During this latest kerfuffle, I was making some soft critiques at RC about the silly Byrd stuff Steig posted and was being snipped while Ryan was apparently seething over the iRidge stuff because he knew for certain it was Steig. We were both mad for different reasons.

    Anyway, there is a lot of history to this starting way back when I tried to get Steig’s code and he suggested I enroll in his Matlab class. — good stuff. I am most certainly not innocent.

  245. Jeff Id Says:

    Marco,

    Loehle is one of the most honest scientists you will run across, that doesn’t make him perfect. I wasn’t blogging when he published his reconstruction but I bet you don’t have a clue of what the biggest problem with his corrected reconstruction might be.

    I was critical of the MW paper because it is just another variance smasher. The VonStorch Zorita 04 work, despite its flaws, is a good example of what I mean.

  246. Neven Says:

    I disagree with Jeff’s overall stance on climate change and geo-politics, but that doesn’t make him a bad person worthy of contempt.

    Not a priori, I agree, but it all depends on the consequences.

    For the record, I don’t think Jeff Id is a bad person worthy of contempt. My problem with him is that what he does is used to delay meaningful action to solve the problems of which AGW is potentially a very big part.

    I know you feel like AGW has taken some kind of big hit — it has not. Just relax a bit.

    Jeff, no one here feels AGW has taken a big hit. I can’t speak for everyone, but my problem is the spin.

    This whole thing is already being spun into the 88 pages meme, the CoI/gatekeeping meme, the ‘Antarctica isn’t warming’ meme. And the most important meme of all: S09 is seriously flawed, but it appeared on the front page of Nature -> all of climate science is alarmist -> AGW is a hoax, don’t do anything.

    And you allow that, Jeff, while at the same time you say AGW is real. If you really think AGW is real (and if it’s real it could have serious consequences), you would speak out very strongly against the spin. I know I would. You aren’t a kid in the playground, Jeff, you have a responsibility.

    Iago McIntyre’s responsibility is even bigger.

  247. Bart Says:

    Neven, good point. That kind of spin bothers me as well.

  248. Neven Says:

    Bart, my point is not the spin per se, my point is that people who are partly responsible for creating the material for the spin (in football/soccer terms: they give the assist) do not clearly and consistently dissociate themselves from the spin.

    They create the circumstances, the spin takes place, they are silent (what’s the English expression for ‘zwijgende toestemming’?). It looks very much like a tactic, a tactic that Steven Mosher is working hard at to get everyone in the denier/lukewarmer/skeptic camp to adapt. It’s also highly hypocritical, not to speak of the ethical implications if AGW turns out to be very problematic after all.

  249. Bart Says:

    Neven, the word you’re looking for may be dog-whistle politics.

  250. J Bowers Says:

    Neven, I believe it’s “tacit consent”.

    (Earlier esponse didn’t appear).

  251. J Bowers Says:

    Like that missing ‘r’ didn’t appear.

  252. RickA Says:

    Neven at February 16, 2011 at 13:29:

    “This whole thing is already being spun into the 88 pages meme, the CoI/gatekeeping meme, the ‘Antarctica isn’t warming’ meme. And the most important meme of all: S09 is seriously flawed, but it appeared on the front page of Nature -> all of climate science is alarmist -> AGW is a hoax, don’t do anything.”

    Neven – it is not spin to point out that S09 was wrong, and that it improperly took peninsula warming and spread it out to the West Antarctica and to the South Pole.

    Nor is the gatekeeping meme wrong – in the sense that reasonable people can look at the facts and reach different conclusions. I think Steig didn’t want a paper published which showed that his paper was wrong – you probably don’t think that. I think Steig would have recommended rewrites another 10 times if given the opportunity – but always to improve the paper – all the time trying to change the tone of the paper to salvage his West Antarctic warming trend. You probably don’t agree with that.

    Now it would be improper to spin OD10 to then say that AGW has been proven to be wrong – because OD10 doesn’t prove that.

    It would be improper to spin that to then say that all of climate science is alarmist – because OD10 doesn’t prove that.

    I have not seen that spin myself.

    I have only seen people explaining why they think S09 was wrong, and therefore the claim that the entire Antarctic was warming is wrong – it is only the peninsula and a little bit West Antarctic (much smaller trend that Steig showed).

    The vehement defense of S09, when it really doesn’t matter to the entire AGW meme, is (in my opinion) causing more harm to the AGW meme then simply saying – ok S09 was wrong, lets fix the errors and publish a paper with the actual Antarctic trend.

    When people are unreasonable in the face of overwhelming evidence it makes you wonder if they are being unreasonable about other aspects of their cause, and blinded by their urgent need to “save the world from AGW”.

    If the entire Antarctic is not warming – so be it – I don’t think that is fatal to AGW at all. Isn’t it enough that the peninsula is warming?

    Trying to pretend something isn’t wrong because it may have implications for arguments in the future about the larger issue of AGW is a mistake.

  253. J Bowers Says:

    RickA – “I think Steig didn’t want a paper published which showed that his paper was wrong”

    Another meme. Steig consistently recommended publication to the editors.

  254. RickA Says:

    J Bowers:

    I think reasonable minds can differ on that point. I think you are wrong, based on the three reviews. Now I could be wrong, or you could be wrong. The different people can read the facts and form different opinions (in my opinion).

    Since I base my opinion on the actual reviews – it is not a meme.

  255. Øystein Says:

    Rick A:

    Just about anyone who have published in journals, and who have chimed in, read the reveiws as Steig not trying to stop the paper.

    Of course, you may or may not believe that. I’m not going to repeat the point.

  256. Bart Says:

    Rick,

    If you’re right he would have recommended rejection rather than major revisions. Your position seems based on strongly distrusting Steig’s intent.

  257. RickA Says:

    Bart:

    I agree that I am reading the three reviews distrusting Steig’s intent.

    This obviously colors my opinion – and I freely admit that.

    However, I just wanted to point out that I agree with part of Neven’s meme statement, but not all of it (as I stated above).

    I don’t agree that if I am right Steig would necessarily have rejected the paper. Why couldn’t he do what he did, which is to keep requesting major revision after major revision.

    Remember – Steig was the only reviewer who still thought the paper needed a major revision after his third review. The other three reviewers and the editor did not agree.

    So there is some evidence that Steig may have continued requesting major revisions – as he did it three times.

    Again, pure speculation – but I think reasonable minds can reach opposite conclusions based on the record.

  258. Bart Says:

    I’ve had three reviews on a paper where one reviewer recommended outright rejection, another one acceptance with just a few minor textual changes, and another one acceptance barring taking into account some thoughtful comments of his/hers. It never made it through. Shit happens.

    If a reviewer really wants a paper rejected, they will strongly suggest rejection.

  259. Jeff Id Says:

    It wasn’t only requesting major reviews, it was also making completely wild claims.

    Nevin and Bart,

    Besides my own blog, I am the only person who has placed multiple posts at WUWT explaining why the basic AGW physics are incontrovertible. I was very clear with my opinions and they were given in reply to a PhD physicist making incorrect claims and statements to the contrary. In the end I changed some minds and received several thanks by email.

    I also have driven a couple of Judith Curry’s orignal threads with comments that I don’t believe those who ‘deny’ agw qualify as skeptics. However, I also don’t snip opinion at my blog so you get pure public. Recently I allowed the post from a guy who felt he had the basic physics beaten, the group tore it apart, as I expected they would.

    Also, I flat challenged an idiot at WUWT who had a denier blog that I could find 10 science errors in his favorite proof against AGW. I found 26 or something. I called him the Cliff Claven of WUWT.

    I’ve posted methods which take a gridded trend and combine it to produce both a more correct and higher trend than anything legitimate on the market. And that is an improvement on the science.

    It isn’t up to me to fight every idiot in the world guys, but I’ve done more than most anyone in this thread.

    Where we disagree is in the magnitude and the danger. I say, I don’t know the magnitude. I say models are running hot. I say, UHI is a real effect. I say warmer is better and I say there isn’t anything we technically can do to change output now in a significant way except nuclear and that won’t stop output from increasing.

    So when people claim the Antarctic melt is a big deal, it’s just funny to me. I’m totally unconcerned. Kilimanjaro melt — other causes. Warm air, -sounds nice. Sea ice melt, no problem. Hurricanes – flat false. Drought, nobody knows.

    I bet not many readers here understand that the ability for a model to react differently than assigned to CO2 has been parametrized right out of the models. I also bet, most here don’t even follow that sentence. But I’m the idiot.

    The end of the world stuff is the silly side of AGW. If the world ends from CO2, we don’t need to predict it because we can’t actually stop it. In 50 years, we might be able to, in the meantime relax and grow some tomatoes.

  260. Jeff Id Says:

    I bet not many readers here understand that the ability for a model to react differently than assigned to. CO2 has been parametrized right out of the models. I also bet, most here don’t even follow that sentence. But I’m the idiot.

  261. Eli Rabett Says:

    The Jeff and Judy show is kinda like the guy who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy as an orphan.

    Having worked for years to open the window to the idiots, don’t complain when the idiots act like idiots. You asked for it.

  262. gryposaurus Says:

    “Where we disagree is in the magnitude and the danger. I say, I don’t know the magnitude. I say models are running hot. I say, UHI is a real effect. I say warmer is better and I say there isn’t anything we technically can do to change output now in a significant way except nuclear and that won’t stop output from increasing.

    So when people claim the Antarctic melt is a big deal, it’s just funny to me. I’m totally unconcerned. Kilimanjaro melt — other causes. Warm air, -sounds nice. Sea ice melt, no problem. Hurricanes – flat false. Drought, nobody knows.”

    How do you reconcile your beliefs? Everything you are saying could happen, but for whatever reason, you seem to forget that there is another side to what you are saying. That all sounds like you believe the science that reconciles with your political beliefs and have decided to ignore the rest. With a few exceptions, all you’ve listed could be the outcome according to mainstream science. Maybe it won’t be as bad. But the more you list, the smaller and smaller the probability becomes that you are correct as you move further and further from the most likely outcomes. It’s up to the individual to decide what they believe, but where I get confused is, how do you pick out certain outcomes? Is this the true definition of lukewarmerism? It just sounds like gambling for the sake of politics.

  263. RickA Says:

    Bart:

    Hey I hear you.

    However, if you were a reviewer of a paper which was submitted after a public challenge to someone to publish or shut up – and you admitted that the paper may have some validity – and you were wrong on some issues – but you still thought your overall point was correct – you might not just flat out reject the paper you were reviewing.

    It might smell.

    So you might just try to bring out the part of the paper which you thought supported your overall point.

    At least it could look like that to some people (like me).

    Of course we will never know because this goes to intent and motive and we cannot read minds.

  264. RickA Says:

    gryposaurus at February 16, 2011 at 18:40:

    “It just sounds like gambling for the sake of politics.”

    Isn’t spending trillions of dollars to switch the world over to non-carbon energy – if it isn’t necessary – also gambling for the sake of politics.

    This issue really gets back to a cost benefit analysis.

    If your side is correct about AGW and we stopped emitting carbon 100 % today (except for breathing I hope) – how much temperature increase is already baked in using your models?

    The science still bounces all over the place on what would the effect be of even reducing CO2 back to an earlier year level – even if we did that more realistic goal – what effect would that have on temperature increase.

    So if we still have to adapt and mitigate anyway (if you guys are right) what are the costs and benefits?

    And why won’t the Greens support nuclear – which is the only baseload power supply we have which doesn’t emit carbon?

    If we really want to fix this problem we need to go nuclear in a big way (I think).
    I just read an article that stated that even if we cut off carbon today – that it wouldn’t

  265. RickA Says:

    Ignore my last sentence – forgot to delete before posting.

  266. Jeff Id Says:

    Eli,
    When I started tAV, one of my goals was to make he science more accessible. I worked hard to make everything look as simple as possible.

    Why haven’t you got it yet? – sorry, had to.

    gryposaurus Says:

    “How do you reconcile your beliefs? ”

    Because there is nothing we can do to stop it and even if the warming is true, I don’t beleive a single one of the end of the world doom stories. Not one. Some of the most mind wrenchingly bogus stuff comes out of those papers, but they make good headlines.

    A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live. Polar bears might be mad, but life is hard. And again, we don’t have the technical ability to prevent it. That’s it.

    See it reconciles easily.

    Sorry for the OT Bart.

  267. J Bowers Says:

    RickA — “Isn’t spending trillions of dollars to switch the world over to non-carbon energy – if it isn’t necessary – also gambling for the sake of politics.”

    Isn’t insisting that we stick with energy sources that may have already peaked, as well as will most definitely run out, while cutting research and development for replacements, just plain stupid if not a sign of insanity?

    It’s gonna happen, it’s gonna hurt, and the longer we delay the more it’s gonna hurt.

    Personally, I think many amongst those who fund delay know in the back of their minds that they’ll be dead by the time it hits the fan, anyway. Charles and David Koch are gonna be dead through natural causes relatively soon. Take away the over-65s and acceptance of the science on AGW jumps from ~63% to ~91%.

    Try this: Find independently audited figures for OPEC oil reserves.

  268. gryposaurus Says:

    “See it reconciles easily.”

    Not really. Now you’ve just added to the puzzle. Now it is because we cannot do anything about it? RickA also expresses this but brings up another point about spending now. He is right about cost benefit analysis, but this includes the future value concerns that come with climate change. What does that cost? RickA seems only to able to see the “now” cost, which is similar to only seeing the “good” in climate change, as JeffID also adds to by speculating what a warmer world would be like. The important word in climate change is “change”. How conservative is that? It appears that is very liberal. Although not very progressive.

  269. Eli Rabett Says:

    Well Jeff , as the saying goes you went about it in a funny way.

  270. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    Thanks for your response, I agree with much of what you said. However, I respectfully disagree with you when you say “…not assume nefarious intentions to those you disagree withI for one am not “assuming” nefarious intentions.”

    I and others, including you Bart, are routinely forced to respond to misinformation, distortion and spin from “skeptics” and those who deny the reality of AGW. I and others are responding to actions, no supposition, no assumption.

    Jeff et al. are playing games, that is deceitful and there is a well documented record of there being a concerted and orchestrated effort by ‘skeptics’ and their allies to play dog-whistle politics, disseminate misinform, fabricate debate, hype uncertainty and undermine the credibility of climate scientists. I know that you know that. O’Donnell et al. (2010), and their actions since it was accepted for print form part of that plan.

    Do you honestly believe that someone you says the following (see below) is someone to trust with climate science and our path of action on AGW?

    “So when people claim the Antarctic melt is a big deal, it’s just funny to me. I’m totally unconcerned. Kilimanjaro melt — other causes. Warm air, -sounds nice. Sea ice melt, no problem. Hurricanes – flat false. Drought, nobody knows.”

    A couple of strawmen in there. And he thinks ice loss from WAIS (and probably GIS) is a”funny”. Such glib and incorrect comments do raise serious questions about their knowledge and understanding on the subject of climate change.

    Regarding sea-ice melt, surely Jeff has heard of polar amplification and the recent paper by Flanner et al. (2011)?

    One could urge Jeff et al. to stick to the mathematics and statistics, they can make a contribution there. But they won’t– that is not part of their objective Bart. So they insist on ruining things by repeatedly engaging in spin, obstructionism, rhetoric, dog-whistle politics and chumming, all while trying to gain some semblance of credibility by publishing the occasional paper that critiques the techniques used in seminal works and in the end does not drastically alter the initial conclusions. Collectively these actions are clear evidence that they are not acting in good faith and are being deceitful, and that they are not seriously interested in the science. Bart, did we learn nothing from the tobacco “debate” and the evolution versus creationism “debate”?

    You may not hold the people guilty of the despicable actions in the most recent in contempt, but others rightly do, and so will future generations.

  271. gryposaurus Says:

    I’ll also add that
    “If your side is correct about AGW and we stopped emitting carbon 100 % today (except for breathing I hope) – how much temperature increase is already baked in using your models?”
    is a strawman, so can’t really argue against made up policy options.

  272. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    Because there is nothing we can do to stop it

    Now, there’s true alarmism …

  273. Jeff Id Says:

    dhog,

    First thing I’ve ever agreed with you on.

  274. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live.

    Speak about assertions with no basis in fact. Wow. This is stunning.

    Let’s see … absolute assertions are fun to play with … what if warmer meant an average global temperature of 1,000C?

    I would claim your assertion would not hold.

  275. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    “…not assume nefarious intentions to those you disagree withI for one am not “assuming” nefarious intentions.”

    Should read.

    “…not assume nefarious intentions to those you disagree with”. I for one am not “assuming” nefarious intentions.”

  276. Majorajam Says:

    Actually Jeff, what you’ve done by selling distrust of science and scientists without evidence is give every idiot in the world a sense of entitlement to his own facts. Now we’re meant to believe you’re a real stand up fellow for making an effort to bookend this slippery slope to barbarism, which of course has the fringe benefit of making the propaganda more palatable for a larger group of people. Noble, noble stuff friend. Your shining white horse awaits.

    Speaking of which, were you meaning to mock Cliff Claven or emulate him? Couldn’t tell based on this: “I say models are running hot. I say, UHI is a real effect.”

    Actually, thermometers are running hot and UHI is reflected in the products. There is no evidentiary basis of course to believe in material misspecification, but that doesn’t matter when you’re on the side of the angels.

    Wanna know what I say? I say that you and your kind never point to any physical basis whatsoever for your absurd handwaving on temperatures and, more importantly, radiative balance. I say you don’t because you have squat, but that doesn’t both you because your own sad state of self-awareness makes the moral ramifications of any unethical behavior slide by unnoticed like so much water over a duck’s back.

    But if that’s Cliff Clavenism, this is positively Homer Simpsonian: “I say warmer is better and I say there isn’t anything we technically can do to change output now in a significant way except nuclear and that won’t stop output from increasing.”

    Positively absurd on more levels than can be articulated. Have, you like, actually read any papers on the ramifications of a warming planet? Because, um, I can assure you that these don’t say what you seem to think they say. And as to the feasibility of reducing the carbon intensity of the economy, there are likewise people that actually study these matters. You should look into it.

    But what really gets me in all this is the conceit of believing that there is a greenhouse effect, that there are gross positive feedbacks, in some cases large ones, and that the uncertainty that remains past these established facts is a case not to act. Let me ask you a question Jeff, if sensitivity for a doubling could be 1º, could it not also be 4º? 6º? And if you allow that uncertainty might not mean never having to say that humans could actually have an impact on our planet, just how confident are you that a climate 6º warmer than that of the pre-industrial age would still be ‘better’, with no ‘great floods’, dramatic loss of arable land, drinking water resources, etc. etc. etc.?

    Go ahead and surprise me with something less than depressingly predictable.

  277. J Bowers Says:

    Jeff Id — “A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live.”

    Jeff, how much warmer than today would you guess the planet will be at the end of this century, and when do you think was the last time in the paleorecord that you believe the mean temperature was at that level?

  278. Tom Fuller Says:

    MajorJam, did you just finish communing with Colonel Mustard? Rolling dem bones on the sensitivity guesses, are ya, just a little?

  279. MapleLeaf Says:

    Ignore the peanut gallery Majorajam.

  280. dhogaza Says:

    TF conflates uncertainty with “guessing”:

    MajorJam, did you just finish communing with Colonel Mustard? Rolling dem bones on the sensitivity guesses, are ya, just a little?

    You know, when you walk into the doctor’s office, and she says “you’ve got the flu”, and you ask “how long will I be sick”, and she replies “a week or two”, her uncertainty does not mean that she’s *guessing* that you have the flu…

  281. MarkB Says:

    Most of the stuff that comes from amateur contrarians is self-serving chest-beating blather. They smear climate scientists because they can, because it’s strongly encouraged among those primarily with a certain strong political bent, because there’s little public scrutiny of this sort of behavior, and they hope to elevate their relative standing by bringing down experts (a common political strategy). The latter strategy involves sometimes agreeing with mainstream science to establish credibility, but claim the people involved are corrupt and need to be replaced with post-normal people (like them).

    Jeff tries to establish credibility here by saying he’s argued something to the effect of the Earth isn’t flat, or smoking causes lung cancer, declares himself the only one to have done so in more than one post (Roy Spencer hasn’t?), then proclaims that while smoking might cause lung cancer, lung cancer is good for you, unlike what those alarmists claim. Bravo.

    As for as global warming is good for everyone except for the polar bears…

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

  282. MarkB Says:

    “her uncertainty does not mean that she’s *guessing* that you have the flu…”

    Nor does it mean that zero days is a remote possibility or the low end of the projection is as likely as the best estimate. The “uncertainty means we know nothing” types would be stuck in NOLA during Katrina, and not for any economic/logistical reasons, but their own stupidity. After all, the warnings were based on scientific observations and the dreaded computer models, which we know are not precise, and therefore useless.

  283. Majorajam Says:

    I couldn’t do that MapleLeaf. Here we have the published author of a book about ethical lapses and apparently he’s not for them. I mean, they should’ve sent a poet.

  284. Jeff Id Says:

    Majorajam Says:
    February 16, 2011 at 20:27

    “Actually Jeff, what you’ve done by selling distrust of science and scientists without evidence is give every idiot in the world a sense of entitlement to his own facts. ”

    Bull.. If the scientists want trust, they need to stop publishing bad papers with intent. This is happening, as is blocking of papers which do not conform to the consensus. Ask Spencer, Lindzen or MM (climategate emails) or McIntyre. You should read his Santer rebuttal reviews — holy crap those boys were way over the top. I’ve never seen anything like it.

    Or are you one of those who does believe that fish are shrinking 37% from overfishing and 3% from global warming?

    EVERY Antarctic expert should have jumped all over S09, yet there wasn’t a squeak. Instead it got accolades. I’m still curious as to Bart’s answer if he had reviewed that paper, what he would have said.

    Everyone knows the south pole station is an excellently maintained long term record that shows — cooling.

    There are others as well. See my link above. Yet cheers and international press greeted S09 with open arms. We fixed their mess.

  285. Majorajam Says:

    and they hope to elevate their relative standing by bringing down experts (a common political strategy).

    An increasingly lawless, Kafkaesque political strategy at that.

  286. J Bowers Says:

    How’s this for good reason to get cracking with changing our energy sources?

    WSJ – Exxon Struggles To Find New Oil

    In its closely watched annual financial report released Tuesday, the company said that for every 100 barrels it has pumped out of the earth over the past decade, it has replaced only 95.

  287. Majorajam Says:

    Nor does it mean that zero days is a remote possibility or the low end of the projection is as likely as the best estimate.

    Nor does it mean that what is most likely has not been remarkably robust to time and scientific development. Wherein I marvel at what’s happened to the discourse all over again.

  288. dhogaza Says:

    Nor does it mean that zero days is a remote possibility or the low end of the projection is as likely as the best estimate.

    To extend the analogy … death *is* a remote possibility …

  289. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff, the gift that keeps giving says,

    ” You should read his Santer rebuttal reviews — holy crap those boys were way over the top.”

    More unsubstantiated assertions. And along those lines one might ask whether Jeff has stopped beating his wife? See, two can play at that game. Lindzen and Spencer have both published prolifically in the scientific literature– read their CVs. They have even had crap published, e.g., L&C09.

    ” I’ve never seen anything like it”
    And you have not being paying attention to the smearing of climate scientists by your ilk. Peer review is tough. Seems the “skeptics” are not up for it.

    Oh this is good– someone please give jeff a bigger shovel, he needs it. I’m going to get more popcorn.

  290. RickA Says:

    JBowers:

    “It’s gonna happen, it’s gonna hurt, and the longer we delay the more it’s gonna hurt.”

    Prove it.

    See the problem is that we all know it is warming – but nobody can prove that the warming is caused by humans.

    The time period of the temperature record is simply to short – the error bars on temperature reconstructions to large and the warming since the LIA is well within natural variability.

    So – could humans be causing global warming – yes.

    Could the current warming also be due to some other factor(s) (i.e. not human) – yes.

    The burden of proof is on the ones wanting to spend trillions – not on the ones who want to wait for more data.

    The argument that we have to take action, without evidence, simply because the potential harm is so great is not a valid argument, given the cost benefit.

    Of course we could spend trillions and switch over to nuclear (the only technology we currently have that is baseload and carbon free), but who does that hurt, if the expense wasn’t necessary.

    Well how about everybody who pays taxes, buys power, or eats.

    The poor will get poorer and the increase in standard of living will be slowed in third world countries.

    Meanwhile – will all the spending make a difference.

    It doesn’t look like it to me.

  291. Neven Says:

    Global Warming isn’t about ‘hey, my summer is 1/2 degrees warmer, I can handle that’. It’s about all that energy added to oceans and atmosphere starting to have an effect on climate patterns that need to remain relatively stable for our vulnerable societies to be able to maintain themselves peacefully. Frankly, I think 1 or 2 degrees more warming can have serious effects. Serious, because they are unpredictable. To say that AGW is real, but it won’t be a problem, is either nuts or disingenuous.

    But anyway, to conclude what I was writing about yesterday: I think every climate blog should have a disclaimer at the top of the front page with a clear and unambiguous statement on AGW by the blogger.

    So, for instance, if Iago McIntyre would have a disclaimer on his blog stating that AGW is real and potentially harmful, people could use that to counter spin by various think tanks and cranks. It would save McIntyre the work of correcting news stories or blog articles that misrepresent what he’s about (not about proving that AGW is a hoax, but just an unhealthy focus on a very small segment of climate science). If CEI or someone like George Will would come up with some BS about how McIntyre broke the Hockey Stick and thus proves AGW is a scam, commenters could point to the unambiguous disclaimer on Climate Audit. That would effectively kill the spin.

    PS J Bowers, thanks for ‘tacit consent’, that was the one I was looking for.

  292. MarkB Says:

    Jeff mentions Lindzen as evidence of scientists publishing bad papers with intent. In some sense, we can agree on that.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/

    Then there’s McLean et al., the infamous Soon/Baliunus debacle, most things published in E&E, the long sordid history of Spencer’s UAH analysis and uncritically using his data to trash the surface record and models, and to claim it’s not really warming, and Douglass et al. overconfidence in short-term observational accuracy to push an agenda.

    The intent of most mainstream scientists is to advance understanding. The intent of contrarians is to push the agenda that global warming isn’t a problem.

  293. dhogaza Says:

    RickA:

    Prove it.

    See the problem is that we all know it is warming – but nobody can prove that the warming is caused by humans.

    The time period of the temperature record is simply to short – the error bars on temperature reconstructions to large and the warming since the LIA is well within natural variability.

    Why should I believe you rather than the rather large number of scientists who study the subject?

  294. Bart Verheggen Says:

    “it’s gonna hurt”

    “prove it!”

    Someone is feeling masochistic…

  295. RickA Says:

    dhogaza:

    You shouldn’t believe me – because I have not proven anything.

    The better question is what have the large number of scientists proven?

    Nothing yet – they merely have an opinion.

    The science has not validated AGW.

    The current warming is merely consistent with AGW theory – but not yet proven to be caused by humans.

    The current warming is also consistent with natural variability.

    So why do you believe?

  296. Neven Says:

    Jeff, would you be willing to put up a climate disclaimer on your blog (even though it is now more or less defunct)?

  297. Tom Fuller Says:

    Peer review is tough. Pal review is not. You should check out what scientists said about Mann’s work after it got published. Or what Spencer Weart said about Prall, Schneider et al.

    Peer review is tough. It’s tougher when jerks game the system to protect their own turf and pet ideas. See Steig and The Hockey Team.

  298. MapleLeaf Says:

    RickA claims,

    “but nobody can prove that the warming is caused by humans.”

    Nobody can prove that tobacco causes cancer. So be my guest, smoke a pack a day, heck life is short, smoke two packs a day. After all JeffID said to chill and enjoy life. And, in some circles at least, he is considered to be one of the smartest people around.

    If “skeptics” thinks that the body of science across several scientific disciplines, amassed over many decades is simply “an opinion”, then there is really no reason to engage a person who holds such a misguided belief.

    Now one could try and educate and inform such a person, but I doubt very much that they would be swayed– after all, they are clearly turning a blind eye to all the evidence out there now.

  299. MapleLeaf Says:

    Talking of gaming the system. Yes, the fiasco at climate research under de Freitas and his fellow “skeptics” showed that “pal review” is not tough at all– ask Soon and Baliunas ;)

    At the end of the day O’Donnell was published, so was L&C09, so was McLean et al, so was Douglass et al., so was MM05…..

  300. RickA Says:

    MapleLeaf:

    I don’t think my opinion is that radical.

    Most climate scientists would agree.

    The lack of proof is the reason for papers which say “warmer than in the last 1000 years” or “warmer than in the last 2000 years”.

    Because of the lack of actual proof, scientists have to resort to trying to show that we are outside the bounds of natural variability.

    The problem is that all of the papers I have seen that claimed this have had major problems.

    I see all the evidence and guess what – it is inconclusive.

    Maybe in 60 more years we will have a definitive answer.

  301. Neven Says:

    RickA, the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are outside the bounds of natural variability that we human beings have experienced ever since we first appeared. Do you contest the radiative properties of greenhouse gases?

    Maybe in 60 more years we will have a definitive answer.

    And if in 60 more years it appears that, yes, AGW is real and a huge problem. What do you propose we do then, in 60 years from now?

  302. MapleLeaf Says:

    What made you think that I was talking to you RickA? Recall, I said “there is really no reason to engage a person who holds such a misguided belief.”

    Maybe Bart and others can try this part:

    “Now one could try and educate and inform such a person”.

    I’ll do my part, just in case there are some lurkers. Pretty much all one needs to know is freely available at:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com

  303. Jeff Id Says:

    “More unsubstantiated assertions.”

    Not if you read them Maple…

  304. MapleLeaf Says:

    Hot off the press:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html

  305. J Bowers Says:

    RickA — “The burden of proof is on the ones wanting to spend trillions… “

    Which means you. Oil ain’t free anyway, at a cost of $250bn a year to extract. The fossil fuel industry worldwide receives half a trillion bucks in taxpayer subsidies each year.

    “…not on the ones who want to wait for more data.”

    I’ll ask again; show me the independent audits of OPEC oil reserves.

  306. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “Not if you read them Maple”

    Read what? You just made some assertions– you did not provide any links or text or context? Do you expect us to take your word for it, especially after what you and Steven did to O’Donnell and JOC (and that is just one instance)?

    And again, you are clearly not paying attention to what is being said at ClimateAudit, Climate Etc., ClimateDepot, WUWT, heck even people on your own blog and other contrarian blogs. That IS over the top stuff– even surreal at times.

    You have also made several unsubstantiated (and incorrect) assertions about droughts etc. And you have a paper in JOC….God help us.

  307. Dave H Says:

    @Jeff Id

    > A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live. Polar bears might be mad, but life is hard. And again, we don’t have the technical ability to prevent it.

    This is the attitude I don’t understand. People such as yourself frequently highlight uncertainty in assessment of current trends, future response etc, yet also manage to have incredible certainty in one particular outcome (in your case a positive one). What do you make of the (to my mind entirely valid) criticism that present models completely fail to account for anything other than reasonably smooth progression, thus leaving comparatively sudden dramatic shifts (which we know to be possible under similar historic conditions) a completely unknown quantity? What do you make of the numerous assessments that completely contradict your claim about increasing biodiversity? Or of assessments that food production will be stressed, and primary crops may (for example) become more abundant but less nutritious?

    To put it another way – there is a *wealth* of evidence that shows the reality of AGW, that you seem to agree is incontrovertible in its basics. Yet when it comes to the area with pretty much the most uncertainty (likely consequences) you have nailed your colours to one particular mast on the basis of comparatively non-existent evidence. Your approach to this aspect seems contradictory and irrational to me.

  308. dorlomin Says:

    RickA Says:
    February 16, 2011 at 23:47
    The current warming is merely consistent with AGW theory – but not yet proven to be caused by humans.
    = = = = = = == = = =
    Oh dear, and I thought they had all been taught the Popper-by-rote schtick.
    Now here is one fluffing the lines.

  309. dorlomin Says:

    Jeff Id Says:
    Bull.. If the scientists want trust, they need to stop publishing bad papers with intent.
    = = = = = = = = = = = =
    All of them? Lets open this up a little have a chat about it. Give us your thinking on the matter a little, why are so few good papers being produced? Is this because all these ‘scientists’ (a group as of yet undefined for this puprose) are poorly educated compared to yourself or just that you are of inherently nobler morals……

  310. Majorajam Says:

    I somehow missed Jeff’s prior silliness until now. Tangled up were we? By all means Mr Id, tango on:

    If the scientists want trust, they need to stop publishing bad papers with intent.

    And here I was worried you’d neglect to impugn the integrity of thousands of people with a stroke of the keyboard. Of course you have proof… err…. some actual evidence of that… right? Tell you what, in the interest of showing mercy to a charlatan, why don’t you just itemize the evidence you have against these chaps. And what about Bart, when did he take up with ‘them’ and start falsifying his scientific work?

    Ok, so rhetorical device over, we know you have zero evidence and I’ll save you the need to have to write some painfully stupid response the above. Does it not strike you though Jeff as a slightly fantastic thing to believe that all these (climate only) scientists in countries all over the globe across decades have so uniform an absence of integrity?

    Certainly we know that everyone who studies Antarctic climate is in on the scam. It couldn’t be anything like those who, rightly or wrongly, found Steig’s quantitative methods appealing, or those whose expertise didn’t lend itself to critiquing that approach, or whose thought it was that the work that O10 did was not going to have any substantial effect on the results (and lo and behold), or any of a dozen other potentialities- no, they were in on it, and by extension the rest of ‘them’.

    But that is such a small slice of the community. Paleo doesn’t even add that much to it. And then of course we’ve established several decades of research that resulted in much the same consensus outcomes. Strange… no?

    To summarize then: here is a man that decries Believers, not least of the card carrying variety, and yet evidently and quite faithfully believes in the hopelessly implausible proposition that thousands of scientists are frauds. Faithfully, of course, follows from the fact he is in possession of 0.0 evidence of this proposition. Impressive feat that level of cognitive dissonance.

    Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that Jeff decrier of ‘gatekeepers’ who feels strongly about his particular role in adjudicating which generally accepted scientific findings one must accept if one is to be Serious, which are optional to Seriousness, and where acceptance crosses the line into Belief? Didn’t he also say that he was against gatekeeping at some point?

    Indeed, I think we can safely say that JeffId is a man of contradictions.

  311. Jeff Id Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    Off the meds today?

    Dave H,

    I’ve only read the math in the Cam 3 model. All possibility for the thing to react outside of what they pre-conclude has been parametrized out of the thing.

    Models run high with respect to measurements already, along the pre-concluded paths. They are complicated and require an in depth look at how they function, but in my opinion are entirely unconvincing in their ability to predict.

    I have run in detail through your ‘wealth’ of evidence. I see no certainty of any future. The models could be accurate, today they run a bit hot. The models could be completely bogus, I wouldn’t be surprised to see 10 years of cooling. There is so much shallow understanding in climate blog thread commentary on these topics. I know of very few who have even bothered to look at model math.

    There is too much BS associated with the consequences and the ‘preferred’ green responses not to realize climate science is politically corrupted. I think it is irrational to hide your head in the sand from what is obvious fact. That fact alone doesn’t negate the good work though.

    Politics or science.

  312. MarkB Says:

    There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Shewonk’s nice post on chumming reveals a rather hypocritical statement by McIntyre.

    http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/two-minutes-of-denialist-chumming

    “Steve McIntyre Posted Feb 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Reply
    another point to keep in mind – Broccoli had already blown off our request that Reviewer A be treated as a conflicted reviewer or that his review, at least, be sent to unconflicted reviewers for consideration before requiring us to make more major revisions. ”

    McIntyre had no problem being a “conflicted reviewer” of Wahl and Ammann’s critique of his paper. Interestingly, Steig did not see the final revision of the O’Donnell submission either, but he’s not out there whining about “breach of reviewer agreement”. To McIntyre, everything’s an evil deed or great conspiracy against him, and making such claims brings out the big nuts.

    http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47365

  313. Jeff Id Says:

    McIntyre has been singled out by the community, perhaps you can say of his own doing, but the community should have been able to handle it better. Give the guy data and reasonable cooperation and you would see a different man. Whether you agree or not about Steig, he’s seen plenty of bad reviews and behavior. A large portion of the climategate non-controversy centered around making sure his work didn’t see the light of day.

    Bart is right that nobody is clean, I am right that there is reason for McIntyre’s reactions. But again, he is a separate person from me.

  314. Sou Says:

    Jeff Id possibly doesn’t realise how much he sounds like the typical commenter at WUWT – ‘Warm is good'; ‘All scientists are corrupt (except a couple that say what I believe)'; ‘Who cares about mass extinctions'; ‘Nothing is proven'; ‘Climate is uncertain'; ‘I’m brilliant’. (Okay, that last one was a variation of ‘Brilliant post’.)

    Any guesses for how long before he writes ‘…and Al Gore is fat’?

  315. Neven Says:

    That’s why a good, honest disclaimer of Jeff’s exact position on the front page of Jeff’s blog would work wonders, I believe. It would make the constant shifting more difficult. The same goes for all so-called lukewarmers and skeptics who claim that AGW is real.

    Which is why most of them would probably never put such a disclaimer on their blogs.

  316. Neven Says:

    Jeff, did you always hold this position on AGW (that it’s real, but not a problem whatsoever) or was there a time when you thought the warming wasn’t real and/or human activities didn’t have anything to do with it? Was there some sort of evolution in tAV?

  317. Jeff Id Says:

    Neven,

    There was a time when I had no opinion but believed it was political. It only took a glance at a CO2 absorption graph with the Planck curves overlaid to know the truth. A few minutes of verification and the basics were proven beyond a doubt to me.

    —-
    For everyone, a picture story to make the acronym driven headaches go away.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/a-calmer-conversation-with-the-nail/

  318. dhogaza Says:

    Give the guy data and reasonable cooperation and you would see a different man.

    Man, you crack me up …

  319. Neven Says:

    Thanks, Jeff. One last question: would you be willing to put up a disclaimer with your exact position on AGW (more or less like you stated in this here thread) on the front page your blog? Hypothetically speaking, as your blog is closed.

  320. dhogaza Says:

    Hey, everyone, remember when McI couldn’t reach CA from some airport in the UK and he went all paranoid over the fact, convinced that some climate science conspiracy had … well … conspired! to get CA blocked?

    Remember when he was spidering NASA and got blocked, and in a fit of pique, simply couldn’t believe that the poor random netadmin who’d blocked him had never read of Steve McIntyre, and that he was being blocked intentionally due to the climate science conspiracy, blahdy-blah-blah?

    The man’s got a screw loose. A persecution complex.

  321. Jeff Id Says:

    Nevin,

    What would you have it say.

  322. jakerman Says:

    Maples rebut to Jeff is worth repeating:

    >“Not if you read them Maple”

    Read what? You just made some assertions– you did not provide any links or text.

  323. Jeff Id Says:

    jakerman,

    would you like Steve to put them on line? Gawd this crowd is crazy.

    Just look at the pictures.

  324. Neven Says:

    What would you have it say.

    Something along the lines of ‘GW is real, caused by human activities, but no big deal, and even if it were, there is nothing that can be done about it’. You know, things you have said further upthread.

  325. jakerman Says:

    “would you like Steve to put them on line?”

    Put what online? As Maple pointed out you’ve just made allegations about the intent of scientists. You admitted you haven’t much experience in publishing. If we are to take the reaction to O’D vs S’09 as an example we’d be left assuming that you have read Santer’s comments with equal prejudice.

  326. jakerman Says:

    Jeff writes:

    If the scientists want trust, they need to stop publishing bad papers with intent.

    Which papers were published “bad” “with intent”, Jeff? I suspect this is a silly comment that Jeff would retract. But correct me if I’m wrong Jeff, you were able to show a more defensible method than S’09 for estimating Antarctic warming, but I missed the bit were you showed his work was intentionally bad.

    Such statements are “chum” to the “idiots” who can’t tell your reasonable comments from the less reasonable.

  327. MapleLeaf Says:

    Neven, you are onto something here. Below is probably what McIntyre’s site should say (I’m now boycotting using the word “audit”, they are anything but). From an interview with McIntyre in a sympathetic CanWest newspaper:

    “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. “And I don’t think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem.”

    Climate***** the folks who don’t know whether AGW is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem.

    Quite the quantitative analysis by the mathematician there ;) And they expect to have a chair at the table? No thanks.

  328. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jakerman,

    It also seems that McIntyre et al. have been showing around reviewers’ comments to whoever they like long before the JOC fiasco.

    I took what jeff said to mean that Steig published the 2009 paper with the intent to mislead people or knowing that that it was bad, apparently the reviewers’ were complicit too, failing to notice their alleged “mess”– that is a serious allegation, and until demonstrated otherwise libel.

    Then there was that whole email thingy, and Yamal, and the vexatious FOI campaign that Climate***** et al. orchestrated et cetera. They simply cannot be trusted. The sad part is that they still take themselves sooooo seriously, and are so deluded so as to thing that they have the moral high ground.

    Notice any parallels between the comments below?

    McIntyre:

    “In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you.”

    JeffId:
    “Just because I had already figured out in May that the S09 paper was horribly flawed, spreading peninsular warming across the west antarctic and continent, doesn’t imply motive for the conclusion. It implies that I had already figured it out.”

  329. dhogaza Says:

    “would you like Steve to put them on line?”

    JeffID, I’d *love* to see Steve put online the papers that show that warming – *unlimited* warming, since you stated it as an absolute – necessarily leads to greater biodiversity.

    Let’s see it, dude.

  330. dhogaza Says:

    “In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you.”

    Google google …

  331. Majorajam Says:

    JeffId, a few of us have asked for you to unpack ‘climate science and all its non-Watts/McIntyre practitioners is corrupt’, which is your excuse/legitimation for selling lunacy to the public. Interest? Or really, is all you’ve got inane silliness barely rising to baseless innuendo? Now that’s what I call Belief. Thanks for this though:

    There was a time when I had no opinion but believed it was political. It only took a glance at a CO2 absorption graph with the Planck curves overlaid to know the truth. A few minutes of verification and the basics were proven beyond a doubt to me.

    Translation: there was a time when I was highly confident the physics, models and historical records of climate to be fraudulent politically-motivated bunkum. After I realized I was laughably misled, not to mention just how foolish my faith-based rejectionism of the bulletproof mechanics of ghg forcing made me look to moderately educated laymen, I reworked the narrative maintaining strict fidelity to certain core elements *wink* and started referring to myself as a ‘lukewarmer’ (although, frankly the models are running hot and we don’t know anything anyway, least of all about Antarctica, so the ‘warmer’ bit is something of a concession to the believers. Of course, were it to warm, that would be a good thing).

    Keep up the stellar work here Jeff.

  332. Tom Fuller Says:

    Just looking at the past dozen comments or so makes me realize just how full of small-minded hatred some of you are and how glad I am that I share so little with you.

    I’m really, really pleased to be on the other side of the political debate.

  333. Majorajam Says:

    Rest assured Fuller, your contribution to exposing ‘the skeptics’ for the corrupt hacks they are is all the greater for your ostensible alignment.

  334. Jeff Id Says:

    Tom,

    The troll arguments are extraordinarily shallow when given the light of day. Apparently I provide a lot of entertainment, my reading of the thread is a little different than theirs – again.

    I think Bart could add a lot in new threads about the science he does and since he has such an open format, a heavy discussion of the science conducted on his personal topics could potentially change a lot of minds IMO. I would find a climate blog which focused on cutting edge features of the math and detail in his favorite areas quite interesting to read. It leaves the expert open for making mistakes but in the meantime, the discussions might be a lot more fun and could leave people with a better understanding of his perspective. He would probably lose some of the Majorajams though as trolls fear graphs.

  335. Majorajam Says:

    Feeling that hangover, eh Jeff?

    I’d hate to see one of the skeptics that don’t engage, if you’re the standard bearer of those that do. Indeed, don’t think that by throwing out the word troll you’re distracting anyone from your inartful dodging here. As we all know, serial prevaricators fear questions.

  336. Jeff Id Says:

    Feeling that hangover, eh Jeff?

    Naw, I worked until I fell asleep.

  337. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    The shallowness of your belief system and understanding of climate science have been exposed, Majorjam just showed another inane comment by you. Some advice, you are not all-knowing– people who makes those kinds of assertions as you did in that quote are very often suffering from the what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    We have tried to get you to speak to the science. What we got in response was silence or you and your fellow “skeptics” continued speaking through your hats. For example, you still have to tell us whether or not you agree with Wu et al. (2010), and others, concerning the loss of ice mass from WAIS and GIS. The “melting” (it is more complicated than that of course) has not stopped. And you never did back up your assertion about droughts, nor have you done so for the many other claims that you have made about the climate system. That is the antithesis of science.

    As has been pointed out to you, you have made many shallow, fallacious, and vacuous comments, here and at WUWT. And you too have posted your fair share of rhetoric on this thread, so save us the lecture.

    I and others will actually quite happy if you actually did improve upon Steig et al. (2009), nothing wrong with that. BUT, all the BS, slander, innuendo, scientific misconduct and ethical breaches by you and your co-authors in the process have detracted from that immensely, and that poor behaviour is what people very much do have a problem with.

    I look forward to seeing Steig et al.’s response, as well as what others have to say.

    And in the meantime, it would be much nicer for all if you and your friends stopped playing political and ideological games and just stuck to the statistics and mathematics, pure and simple…no hype, no innuendo, no chumming, no grandstanding, no slandering, no exaggerating. And it would also help and be a sign of good faith if you and your friends made some sincere, unambiguous apologies. Remember Lisbon Jeff, the ‘skeptics’ are supposedly keen on reconciliation…..

  338. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff,

    “as trolls fear graphs.

    Hang on you just called McIntyre and his clan trolls. We all know how they hate hockey stick shaped graphs (and there are many of them out there) ;)

    [And before you get upset, that was a joke.]

    You are right though, this graph graph does rightly ‘scare’ some:

    And you have to go back an awfully long time to exceed current CO2 levels, never mind where we are heading.

  339. luminous beauty Says:

    Were I to suggest what Condon might display as a disclaimer on his website would be a diagnostic report from his therapist.

  340. dhogaza Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    Just looking at the past dozen comments or so makes me realize just how full of small-minded hatred some of you are and how glad I am that I share so little with you.

    I’m really, really pleased to be on the other side of the political debate.

    Well, we all know that the actual science doesn’t influence your position on the political debate one teensy-weensy little bit, but it’s nice of you to periodically remind us of your true motivation …

  341. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    The troll arguments are extraordinarily shallow when given the light of day.

    You mean unsubstantiated troll arguments like … warming will lead to greater biodiversity?

  342. Jeff Id Says:

    luminous beauty,

    You guys have spent two years trolling on blogs about how ignorant I am. I’ve read more trash from guys like maple, dhog and yourself than most any group of troll/believers around. So when I point out just how poorly read your type actually are and rub your collective noses in it a little you call me the narcissist. I think it would be better if you three read more and wrote less.

    Dhog,

    There are many papers on the topic, I am not your librarian.

  343. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    There are many papers on the topic, I am not your librarian.

    Oh, and I’m sure the majority support your position … not. Your casual handwaving assertion is in direct contradiction with mainstream science consensus.

    From Nature, for instance …

    Climate change over the past 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species1, 2 and has been implicated in one species-level extinction3. Using projections of species’ distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (18%) than mid-range (24%) and maximum-change (35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

  344. Tom Fuller Says:

    Bart, there’s an old book–a mystery from the 60’s–I think Ross Thomas was the author–with a title that you should really take to heart, as it should give you pause.

    “The Fools In Town Are On Our Side”

    Look at the comments on this thread–are you pleased with the caliber of the company you keep?

  345. dhogaza Says:

    Oh, that Nature paper’s been cited 1691 times …

    Here’s another abstract, which of course points out that global warming is only one problem in a suite of issues negatively impacting coral reefs and associated biodiversity:

    The worldwide decline in coral cover has serious implications for the health of coral reefs. But what is the future of reef fish assemblages? Marine reserves can protect fish from exploitation, but do they protect fish biodiversity in degrading environments? The answer appears to be no, as indicated by our 8-year study in Papua New Guinea. A devastating decline in coral cover caused a parallel decline in fish biodiversity, both in marine reserves and in areas open to fishing. Over 75% of reef fish species declined in abundance, and 50% declined to less than half of their original numbers. The greater the dependence species have on living coral as juvenile recruitment sites, the greater the observed decline in abundance. Several rare coral-specialists became locally extinct. We suggest that fish biodiversity is threatened wherever permanent reef degradation occurs and warn that marine reserves will not always be sufficient to ensure their survival.

    Many ecologists have expressed concern over the worldwide decline in coral cover due to global warming and associated coral bleaching, overfishing, and coastal pollution (1–5).

    I can play this game all day long, if I weren’t working 7 days a week at present I might list all the relevant abstracts from the 100 or so copies of BioScience shelved in my library, but your lack of faith in science would be unshaken, so why bother?

    Maybe we can get Dr. Jeff Harvey over here to teach you a thing or two about ecology.

  346. dhogaza Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    Look at the comments on this thread–are you pleased with the caliber of the company you keep?

    Well, let’s see, this fool is actually citing science while arguing that JeffID’s hand-waving claim that warming will increase biodiversity is nonsense.

    Why don’t you weigh in, Tom?

    Do you believe global warming will increase biodiversity?

    Show your work.

  347. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Still no science from the contrarians and still no substance to back up their assertions about ice loss or impacts of AAGW…..and they claim that we are trolling ;) And we are not their librarians, but I’ll help– Jeff et al. should read some of the papers here on the impacts of AGW.

    But in some people’s minds, citing science is considered ‘trash’, and carries apparently less weight than unsubstantiated opining. The mind boggles.

    For some really good “trash” talk about scientists go to Climate*****:

    “Steve McIntyre (Feb 13, 2011, 3:18 pm)

    Over the past few days, Eric Steig aka Reviewer A has made a series of increasingly puzzling and strident outbursts, as the inconsistency between his RC post of Feb 1 as Eric Steig and his conduct as Reviewer A has been exposed…

    Steig’s post contained a trick (TM- climate science). It omitted any quotations from or consideration of his Second Review or the responses to the Second Review, which, after all, had been what provoked Ryan in the first place. Andrew Revkin noted up Steig’s response, but didn’t notice Steig’s trick…

    In Steig’s First Review (as Reviewer A), Steig made one unsubstantiated statement after another, all of which were biased towards coercing our results towards higher trends in West Antarctica. Steig characterized our optimized values of k_gnd as “suspect” and alleged:

    Yesterday, Steig placed his latest and wildest diatribe online at two blogs …

    Going back now and parsing Steig’s recent statements, one sees one untrue statement after another. Consider first his Feb 8 email:…”

  348. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dhogaza,

    Jeff says:
    I think it would be better if you three read more and wrote less.

    Well someone is clearly projecting, because based on revelations here and elsewhere, they need to read a whole lot more. It is also telling that they cannot cite the authentic and reputable source/s of their musings on the impacts of AGW.

    But maybe Dunning-Krugers don’t feel compelled to cite the relevant scientific literature. Is that perhaps the problem?

  349. dhogaza Says:

    I’ve invited Dr. Harvey over here, we’ll see if he can be bothered … probably not, though he did express interest in the qualifications of RyanO et al over at deltoid.

    A few rounds with our resident genius on biodiversity would be entertaining.

  350. Majorajam Says:

    The tough guy routine is wearing a bit thin Jeff. We get that you can give offense, or at least give it a good college try. That much is clear. I think we’re more interested though in getting you to reveal the basis for your silly claims, evidentiary or otherwise, so that we can more comprehensively explode them in your face for you.

    In any case, if you’re not going to ‘engage’, as your chest beating upthread indicated was your want, why are you bothering here? What is it, so you can continue to believe in this myth you’ve conjured of your own indefatigability?

    They’re going to write books about you my friend, and not for the reasons you’d hope for.

  351. J Bowers Says:

    Has Tom found his very own action hero? I believe he has.

  352. Jeff Id Says:

    I wonder why he would ask qualifications rather than what points are made.

    Again, I would invite you three to visit the pictures demonstrating the complete non-functionality of S09 math. How many times have each of you disparaged posts by myself over the past two years when they now turn out to be completely correct?

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/a-calmer-conversation-with-the-nail/

  353. MapleLeaf Says:

    Jeff needs to read all of Dr. Harvey’s posts at Deltoid– and for the record, Harvey is a former associate editor at Nature who was also non too impressed by the despicable and unprofessional behaviour of O’Donnell et al.

    Nice strawman at 21:48 Condon. I am on the record saying that “I and others will actually quite happy if you actually did improve upon Steig et al. (2009″. Steig also commended some of your work. BUT you choose to miss the point and argue that there is a conspiracy to ignore your “brilliance”…you published in JOC for God’s sakes please grow up, you can now shut up about being shut out.

    And still crickets on the science from the contrarians, but an attempt to divert attention by once again referring to their own work :)

  354. Majorajam Says:

    Jeff, your pullstring is showing. Who was that directed to in response to what?

  355. William Says:

    Come on Jeff.

    When you say things like this “Welcome to Earth, people who believe in massive government–… spank!! Breathe baby, breathe.”

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/234-4/

    The only response can be that you are a conspiracy theorist. The scientists are part of a global conspiracy to create a big government to take away your rights, according to you. Which is not rational.

  356. Jeff Harvey Says:

    I don’t normally venture into the lion’s den but this time I will make an exception, as I cannot let comic-book level distortions about climate change and biodiversity go unchallenged.

    Most importantly, high temperatures are not a pre-requisite for high biodiversity! Jeff Id, please read that and repeatit 1,000 x.

    The fact is, that the planet probably evolved higher species richness in the past 8,000 years than at any other times in the Earth’s history. This coincides with a period that was not unusually warm. The debate over what stimulates and maintains high genetic and species richness has long been the subject of debate, but certainly two factors come to mind (as discussed by the likes of Gaston,Blackburn et al.). One is stability – that is, that conditions in a region are not altered frequently by some important extrinsic challenge, such as rapid local climatic changes. Certainly, warm, stable climates have benefitted tropical biomes, but these have been accompanied by relative stasis over at least the past 10,000 years.

    The problem with the current warming is that it is occurring well outside of normal boundaries within species can adapt, and we are seeing all kinds of deleterious effects as a result of regional warming involving multi-trophic interactions that, if scaled up, could very well lead to the fraying and unraveling of food webs and interaction networks in tightly linked communities. Ecologist Daniel Janzen once said that the “ultimate extinction is the extinction of ecological interactions”, and we must bear this in mind when considering any anthropogenic stresses on natural systems. Its alsmost certain that the loss a single species of tropical plant would lead to tens or even hundreds of extinctions of species intimately associated with that plant (such as co-evolved mutualists, such as pollinators or antagonists, such as herbivores, as well as specialized natural enemies of the herbivores such as endoparasitoid wasps).

    At the same time, we must remember that natural ecosystems are much simpler now than they were even 100 years ago, due to the combined effects of habitat destruction via the vast expanses of agricultural and urban landscapes that have fragmented many landscapes. All species have physiologically adapted thermal ‘envelopes’ that determine to a large extent their distributions. This means, that as the climate warms, species have to shift polewards, and given that there are many open non-habitat expanses that must be traversed, there will be many species that are unable to disperse to new suitable habitats. This is especially a problem for many long-lived plants, and of course soil biota. Again, different species have different dispersal capabilities, but plants cannot simply uproot and relocate hundreds of kilometers away to new suitable habitats. At the same time, we will see biomes increasingly squeezed, as biomes to the north are dominated by soils that are not conducive to more southerly plants. This will be a big problem in North America, where trees characteristic of the eastern deciduous forest biome cannot expand into acid soils characteristic in the Canadian shield, where conifers dominate. Once again, the current rate of warming threatens to seriously undermine the functioning of biomes and ecosystems through uneven effects on species within tightly interacting food webs.

    The planet is now dominated by a bipedal primate which co-opts more than 50% of freshwater flows and 40% of net primary productivity. Our species has simplified the planet biologically through the combined effects of paving, ploughing, damming, dredging. logging. slashing and burning, mining, dousing in synthetic pesticides, biologically homogenizing (e.g. through invasive species), altering the chemical composition of the air and water, and through various other forms of pollution. We know that genetic diversity is being lost at rates unseen in 65 million years, and against this background we are challenging an already impoverished fauna and flora to respond to climate changes that are unprecedented in perhaps tens of thousands of years.

    It is therefore quite frankly ludicrous to suggest so flippantly that climate warming will benefit biodiversity. I say this as someone working in the field of population ecology for the past 20 years. Amongst ecologists, there is little disagreement here. The consensus is as strong, or even stronger, than the strong consensus amongst climate scientists that the current warming is anthropogenic. I want to make this abundantly clear.

    Now I am out of here.

  357. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    Another author of O’Donnell et al. (Lewis) enters the political fray in the right-wing rag “The Spectator”.

    Lewis is chumming in a duo with Ridley, the latter is from the Global Policy Warming Foundation (i.e., an astroturf lobby and disinformation group) which has discredited people like Carter, Plimer, and McKitrick (from Climate*****) on its “academic advisory council”. The title or the Lewis/Ridley piece is:

    “The ice storm – Nicholas Lewis and Matt Ridley expose the bias and bluster behind the latest set of shaky global warming data”

    Quite the generalization and quite the team effort by the CA crowd- they now have enough fodder to feed the “skeptics” for a few more months.

    Pathetic that the contrarians and “skeptics” can’t keep politics out of science.

  358. Bart Says:

    Jeff suggested the following:

    I think Bart could add a lot in new threads about the science he does and since he has such an open format, a heavy discussion of the science conducted on his personal topics could potentially change a lot of minds IMO. I would find a climate blog which focused on cutting edge features of the math and detail in his favorite areas quite interesting to read. It leaves the expert open for making mistakes but in the meantime, the discussions might be a lot more fun and could leave people with a better understanding of his perspective.

    Hmm. Not sure how many people would be interested in that. For example, does this entice you:
    An inverse modeling procedure to determine particle growth and nucleation rates from measured aerosol size distributions. It’s quite heavy on the math compared to what I’ve done since. It doesn’t strike me as a subject to blog about, but YMMV. Something a little less abstract and more climate related: Scavenging of black carbon in mixed phase clouds at the high alpine site Jungfraujoch.

    My interest with this blog is mostly on the big picture of climate change and on the (public and scientific) discussion and social-political-ethical-communication dynamics surrounding it. I view it as an educational tool, both for myself and (hopefully) for readers. Partial differential equations feel more like work to me than something I’d like to discuss for fun. Then I’d rather go swimming or something. But that’s just me of course.

    That said, I’d like to do more posts on the big picture concerning the role of aerosols, along the lines of my RC guest posts on aerosol formation and the associated relevance of cosmic rays for climate.

    But the catch 22 of how to juggle my time between family and blog is an issue I’m also facing, so I’m not making any promises. I’m sure you’ll understand.

  359. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dr. Harvey,

    Thanks for dropping by. This pretty much sums it up:

    “The planet is now dominated by a bipedal primate which co-opts more than 50% of freshwater flows and 40% of net primary productivity.”

    While the creationists might not appreciate your nomenclature, I do :)

  360. MapleLeaf Says:

    Regarding my post at February 17, 2011 at 22:28, H/T to lord_sidcup at Deltoid.

  361. Tom Fuller Says:

    Dr. Harvey, thanks for participating. I’m wondering if some of the estimates used for reduction of biodiversity are based on actual inventory, rather than estimates. Are there patch inventories used for species reduction studies of plants and/or animals?

  362. dhogaza Says:

    Jeff Harvey:

    One is stability – that is, that conditions in a region are not altered frequently by some important extrinsic challenge, such as rapid local climatic changes. Certainly, warm, stable climates have benefitted tropical biomes, but these have been accompanied by relative stasis over at least the past 10,000 years.

    Even in times of rapid climate change, one thing remains stable in the tropic:

    Length of day remains fairly constant over the year. Stability never seen in the temperate or arctic/antarctic regions.

    My guess is that JeffID mistakenly believes that the species richness we observe is due solely to warmth, and doesn’t understand the role that stability plays.

    Not quite your point, but related.

  363. Paul Middents Says:

    Here is a good start for some reading on the paleo effects of climate on biodiversity:

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/papers-on-ecosystem-response-to-past-climate/

  364. Holly Stick Says:

    Jeff Harvey gave Eli Rabett a reading list about the biodiversity crisis:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-jeff-harvey-reads.html

  365. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    This article by John N-G is worth reading.

  366. Jeff Id Says:

    Jeff Harvey,

    Thanks for the reply. However, I think like so many tied up in the eco-sciences you have blended too many causes and effects together to attribute the micro-warming to anything damaging to the ecosystem.

    Now sure, if you believe the change is too fast for adaptation, there would be a drop in populations. I see very little evidence for that and a lot of published bluster. You can’t separate 37% reduction in fish size from overfishing from 3 percent shrinkage due to global warming statistically — yet that is exactly what some in your ‘field’ have done.

    However, my point is that over the next hundred years of warm weather, it would certainly result in higher planetary biomass all other effects unconsidered. Higher biomass eventually results in higher diversity. Warm in general is good for the planet, if you do it slowly enough and not too much of it.

    How fast and how much, we could argue all day.

  367. J Bowers Says:

    A link to the Spectator’s blog with a post on the story.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml

    “But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here, final version here) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

    Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator. It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion.”

    If it gets personal in the actual article, I hope Eric Steig’s checking with his lawyers this time. It’d be great to see The Spectator made to eat shit, and I think they’d be way out of their depth on this one.

  368. Neven Says:

    It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science.

    This is the spin you have made possible, Jeff.

  369. dhogaza Says:

    And the Spectator is published in the UK, where legal action is actually a reasonable possibility.

  370. chek Says:

    Good to see someone talking with some sense and comprehension of the sub-topic, thanks Jeff Harvey.

    I was beginning to think that this thread was about ignorant clowns with blogs braying as loudly at other anti-science clowns with blogs while pretending they understand science better than actual, real scientists.

    Which is pretty much the mission statement of the aforesaid clowns, and their blogs.

  371. dhogaza Says:

    More handwaving from JeffID without a single reference to support it.

    But I love it … here we have a professor of population ecology being lectured by an engineer on how his field has so many things wrong.

    Just what I expected.

    Luminous Beauty’s link has it nailed perfectly.

  372. MapleLeaf Says:

    JBowers,

    Oh dear, dear, dear, talk about whipping up a froth of vitriol and slander:

    “the high priests do not like refutation”

    Wow, serious la-la land, not to mention libelous. Now who is going to be first to post quotes by Steig suggesting that the paper be published. I wonder if Ross McKitrick had a part in the diatribe published in “The Spectator”?

    Dhogaza, I don’t know if Steig can take them to task for libel, b/c Steig is across the pond. The cowards know that you see…..

  373. MapleLeaf Says:

    Chuckle, oh this is priceless! Jeff Condon arguing with Dr. Harvey, with Condon yet again not one iota of hard evidence provided to back up his assertions/beliefs…..roll eyes.

    Time to call it in: Condon = D-K. That is not an ad hom, it is a statement based on empirical evidence presented here and elsewhere ;)

    “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Carl Sagan

  374. J Bowers Says:

    ML, I’ll pick up a copy tomorrow or at the weekend. That was the editor’s opinion piece and the actual article may be very different in its focus.

  375. Neven Says:

    From that Spectator piece:

    Last year, a paper in Nature Geosciences concluded heretically that `it is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide’

    This looks like a direct quote to me, but when I type it into Google I only get an overview of the memes spreading. Does anyone know which paper the meme-spreaders refer to?

  376. MapleLeaf Says:

    JBowers,

    Good point. I doubt that it will be much better though, and the editor has done lewis et al. a huge disservice is they did not entertain those words or thoughts. Then again, perhaps it was a way of saying what they really meant without having to bear any of the responsibility….

  377. SteveC Says:

    JeffID

    like so many tied up in the eco-sciences you have blended too many causes and effects together to attribute the micro-warming to anything damaging to the ecosystem. Now sure, if you believe the change is too fast for adaptation, there would be a drop in populations. I see very little evidence for that and a lot of published bluster.</I

    Face. Palm.

    Of course, you've got stacks of papers, data and articles to back those absurd claims up, right?

  378. sharper00 Says:

    @Neven

    “This looks like a direct quote to me, but when I type it into Google I only get an overview of the memes spreading. Does anyone know which paper the meme-spreaders refer to?”

    I’d guess they mean this, linking to WUWT for the skeptic-context

    Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine

    A PDF copy of the actual paper is here

    The relevant section is

    “It is at present impossible to accurately
    determine climate sensitivity (defined as
    the equilibrium warming in response to a
    doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide
    concentrations) from past records, partly
    because carbon dioxide and short-lived
    species have increased together over the
    industrial era. Warming over the past
    100 years is consistent with high climate
    sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide
    combined with a large cooling effect from
    short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could
    equally be attributed to a low climate
    sensitivity coupled with a small effect from
    aerosols. These two possibilities lead to
    very different projections for future climate
    change (Fig. 1).”

  379. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    Now sure, if you believe the change is too fast for adaptation, there would be a drop in populations. I see very little evidence for that and a lot of published bluster.

    Christmas Bird counts … a very blunt tool, but the drops in numbers of birds that winter in North America is staggering enough to make even those uncertain numbers certain enough to establish statistically significant downward trends.

    Of course, as Jeff Harvey pointed out, land use changes in North America have been the primary factor, yet we’re seeing changes in plant communities due to warming that have working plant ecologists worried (actually, organizations like The Nature Conservancy – hardly a frothy liberal commie world-takeover-plotting organizaion – have been working on how to adapt their conservation strategy to a warming world for at least a decade).

  380. dhogaza Says:

    Of course, when we speak of biodiversity, there is something of a passing-through-the-eye-of-a-needle aspect to it.

    But a future recovery of biodiversity after the crash we’re seeing today combined with future pressure due to climate change on evolutionary timescales is not what the political discussion is about.

    We’re talking about the next several generations of humans … generational, not evolutionary or geological timescales.

  381. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Harvey, Thanks for the reply. However, I think like so many tied up in the eco-sciences you have blended too many causes and effects together to attribute the micro-warming to anything damaging to the ecosystem.

    Whoosh, that was the sound of Jeff Id dismissing the findings of ecology that conflict with his predjudice. Jeff ID, that white wash is what one might call denial of evidence.

    Id continues:

    However, my point is that over the next hundred years of warm weather, it would certainly result in higher planetary biomass all other effects unconsidered. Higher biomass eventually results in higher diversity. Warm in general is good for the planet, if you do it slowly enough and not too much of it.

    Higher biomass leads to higher diversity? Next hundred years? Eventually? Your reference to evetnually means in millions of years. In the time frame of thousands of years the evidence points to further stress and further ecological collapse (with extincitions already running more than 50 times higher than the the background fossil exiction rate).

    Jeff Id, do you think it relevent to dismiss the evidence that Jeff Harvey cites and propose a theory that might lead to biodiverity recovery (after massive collapse) some millions of years in the future?

  382. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Id:

    Now sure, if you believe the change is too fast for adaptation, there would be a drop in populations. I see very little evidence for that and a lot of published bluster. You can’t separate 37% reduction in fish size from overfishing from 3 percent shrinkage due to global warming statistically — yet that is exactly what some in your ‘field’ have done.

    Is this the playbook? Find something that you disagree with in a feild and use that to dismiss everthing you want? That is anti-science.

  383. jakerman Says:

    Is this the playbook? Find something that you disagree with in a feild and use that to dismiss everthing you want? That is anti-science.

    It is also a meta ad-hom fallacy.

  384. Dave H Says:

    @Jakerman

    I think the quotes around “field” constitute an actual ad hom.

  385. Neven Says:

    Thanks, Sharperoo. I remember how that paper was spun at the time, but forgot about the details.

  386. jakerman Says:

    Neven writes:

    It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science.

    This is the spin you have made possible, Jeff.

    Not only made possible Neven, Jeff feeds its with knowledge that he’s throwing chum to people he considered “idiots”.

  387. Tom Fuller Says:

    Extinction rates running 50% higher than base rate. We don’t know the base rate–we guessed. We don’t know how many species exist. We guessed. We don’t know how many go extinct in any given year. We guessed.

    Yes, I’ve read the papers. That’s how I know we guessed.

  388. Rattus Norvegicus Says:

    Neven,

    This looks like a paraphrase, but I see no reason to argue with it. The last 30 or so years of research really has been unable to narrow it more than the IPCC estimate. It is an accurate statement removed from context.

  389. Jeff Id Says:

    “Is this the playbook? Find something that you disagree with in a feild and use that to dismiss everything you want? That is anti-science.”

    Not anti-science it is against this particular main thread of government funded science. There is a ton of information which shows that ecologies are far stronger than the govt pro’s would have you believe. In my opinion, global warming is the #1 lowest threat to the critters of the world that humans present. We do a ton of damage – no question – but other issues are immeasurably more important.

    The majority of the damage comes from poor undeveloped countries. Of course they do it in service to those who are not poor. Yet somehow the left wants to pay the poor to increase their lifestyle while they do it.

    Free is clean folks. Free invented clean.

  390. dhogaza Says:

    Oh, so now Tom Fuller is also smarter than people like E.O. Wilson.

    Ludicrous.

    Jackerman:

    Eventually? Your reference to evetnually means in millions of years. In the time frame of thousands of years the evidence points to further stress and further ecological collapse (with extincitions already running more than 50 times higher than the the background fossil exiction rate).

    This being, in case JeffID doesn’t get it, the “passing through the eye of the needle” aspect I mentioned in my post above.

  391. dhogaza Says:

    Fuller – estimates aren’t guesses.

  392. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    Not anti-science it is against this particular main thread of government funded science.

    So when it comes down to it … government is just plain evil! I’m seeing some consistency in Jeff’s position, at least. If he were to agree that government-funded science is overall of high quality it would be hard to argue that government’s the root of all evil, wouldn’t it?

  393. dhogaza Says:

    JeffID:

    In my opinion, global warming is the #1 lowest threat to the critters of the world that humans present. We do a ton of damage – no question – but other issues are immeasurably more important.

    This actually isn’t unreasonable … however JeffID misses a couple of points:

    1. Effects are *cumulative* – global warming will be piling on top of damages due to other human changes to the biosphere.

    2. Warming will be more rapid and is already more rapid than seen in quite a long time, thus will become more of a factor over time. The issue isn’t *today* the issue is *the future*.

    and the biggest point JeffID misses is

    3. this is totally a mainstream view you’ve put forward. You accept it, of course, because it allows you to pretend that the cumulative effects of AGW *thus far* being low, implies that it will be so in the future.

  394. Jeff Id Says:

    “global warming will be piling on top of damages due to other human changes to the biosphere.”

    How do you ‘know’ that.

    “. Warming will be more rapid and is already more rapid than seen in quite a long time, ”

    Incorrect

    The rest is incomprehensible.

  395. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Id writes:

    You can’t separate 37% reduction in fish size from overfishing from 3 percent shrinkage due to global warming statistically — yet that is exactly what some in your ‘field’ have done.

    Jakerman responds:
    “Is this the playbook? Find something that you disagree with in a field and use that to dismiss everything you want? That is anti-science.”
    Jeff Id responds:

    Not anti-science it is against this particular main thread of government funded science. There is a ton of information which shows that ecologies are far stronger than the govt pro’s would have you believe.

    Huh? You are trying to write off the “this particular main thread of government funded science” [Ecology], because you disagree with one calculation someone once made? You are trying to dismiss Jeff Harvey’s points by attacking someone else.
    That is fallacious ah-hom. And an anti-science approach.
    Id continues:

    In my opinion, global warming is the #1 lowest threat to the critters of the world that humans present. We do a ton of damage – no question – but other issues are immeasurably more important.

    An anti-science opinion that excluded the evidence that Jeff brought to your attention. And furthermore AGW climate disruption has a synergistically detrimental effect with other land use, clearing, invasion, and toxification.

  396. jakerman Says:

    Fuller – estimates aren’t guesses.

    Fuller should know that I picked the lowest end of the estimates (IIRC the range is 50-1000 time more rapidly than the fossil background rate).

    Pehaps fullers raised his comment to tells us he thinks if we don’t know the exact figure then we should ignore rising extiction rates? Come on Tom do we have an problem with extinction rates at the moment?

  397. Tom Fuller Says:

    jakerman, I will repeat myself–we don’t know what the extinction rate is now. We don’t have the data to calculate it. We don’t know if it is rising, falling or staying the same.

    We… don’t… know…

    I believe that the extinction rate is rising, myself, although limited to large mammals and birds, smaller amphibians and plants and fungi with small geographic ranges. But that’s just conjecture based on how we’ve carved up the planet, not on data.

    Because there is no data. The guesses you refer to are educated and made by people probably much smarter than I am. But they are guesses.

  398. dhogaza Says:

    “global warming will be piling on top of damages due to other human changes to the biosphere.”

    How do you ‘know’ that.

    Read Dr. Harvey’s post *carefully*, for *comprehension*. He touches on it there. It’s not really that hard to understand, especially for a brighter-than-everyone-else-in-the-world polymath like yourself.

    “. Warming will be more rapid and is already more rapid than seen in quite a long time, ”

    Incorrect

    Denialism at this level is just hard to comprehend. Yeah, I accept that hockey stick reconstructions, while not perfect, are largely correct.

    The rest is incomprehensible.

    “3. this [thus far, impact from global warming is dwarfed by other human impacts] is totally a mainstream view you’ve put forward.”

    Yeah, well, whatever. Harvey touched on that in his post, too.

  399. dhogaza Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    Because there is no data.

    Yes, there is data. It’s incomplete, but not non-existent.

  400. jakerman Says:

    Fuller:

    jakerman, I will repeat myself–we don’t know what the extinction rate is now.

    Appealing to a lack of an exact figure is a furphy Tom. We don’t know the exact figure for people currently dying of preventable disease either but we can calculate an our best estimate by sampling and extrapolation.

    Fuller continue:

    We don’t know if it is rising, falling or staying the same.

    Another furphy Tom. We don’t know year to year but we know from assessment to assessment, and the overwhelming evidence point to rising extinction rates from assessment to assessment.

    Because there is no data.

    Imperfect data is not “no data”, and when our estimate give results that range from more than 50 times increase to 3 orders of magnitude you don’t need perfect data to detect significance.

  401. Jeff Id Says:

    You guys have been fun. But I think we’ve beat the thread to death.

  402. chek Says:

    Deny that data exists, then when that tactic fails, deny it means what it says, then when that tactic buckles, deny that we can understand the implications or act on them.

    It’s quite easy to tell science based opinion from those who get their wordbites from McIntyre’s tripe and mash stall.

  403. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Id, started claiming that AGW was good for biodiversity and claimed research supported his position. (Id did not produce this research but its logical to assume it was from the field of Ecology]

    Jeff has moved to claiming (without resort to research) that:

    In my opinion, global warming is the #1 lowest threat to the critters of the world that humans present.

    What changed? We move from AGW being good for biodiversity to being the least threat. Jeff Id did not support either claim with evidence (let alone strong evidence that outweighs the contrary).

    However evidence was presented to Jeff ID, contrary to his preconceived position. What was Id’s response? Did he adjust his position to suit the facts? Partially. He moved from relying on Ecology literature (from when he thought it suited his position) to writing-off the field.

    What was the revelation that lead to Id’s change? Was it that that someone made at calculation about 3% of fish loss being due to global warming? Nope, Jeff Id already knew that fact (And still appealed to Ecological science). His dismissal of the field of Ecology came when he was challenged with evidence which conflicted with his claims. Ecology good when it supports Id, ecology bad when it doesn’t support Id.

    This the second of two major fallacies, the first being Jeff Id’s playbook piece

  404. jakerman Says:

    Having come down on Jeff Id for his fallacious treatement of the evidence discussed by Jeff’s Harvey’s, I also want to acknowledge that Jeff Id appears to be a competent person in his field. And (as Fuller cited Darwin) that correcting an error is an important contribution to our understanding.

    Thanks for your work Jeff in O’D10. Pitty about all the anti-science guff that has followed it up.

  405. dhogaza Says:

    You guys have been fun. But I think we’ve beat the thread to death.

    Noted that you’ve not actually made any attempt to back up your wild notions with cites, despite saying things like “there’s tons of published literature to support me”, and faced by cites showing that you might be mistaken.

    In other words … hand-waving on your part … can’t take the heat, off you go.

    Enjoy camping out at WUWT. All those people with high school degrees disproving most of modern science are undoubtably right, because if they are, it supports your stone-aged political philosophy.

  406. dhogaza Says:

    Having come down on Jeff Id for his fallacious treatement of the evidence discussed by Jeff’s Harvey’s, I also want to acknowledge that Jeff Id appears to be a competent person in his field.

    He’s what used to be called a slide-rule pusher…

    Nothing wrong with that, but no one real believes that the average engineer is smarter and more competent than the average academic scientist except for some average and above average engineers.

    (I’m a fairly accomplished engineer in my own field and have no such fantasies regarding scientists)

  407. dhogaza Says:

    What changed? We move from AGW being good for biodiversity to being the least threat. Jeff Id did not support either claim with evidence (let alone strong evidence that outweighs the contrary).

    Good catch … the Gish Gallop…

  408. MarkB Says:

    dhogaza: “Noted that you’ve not actually made any attempt to back up your wild notions with cites”

    Seems to be a common theme. Tom Fuller appears to take a similar approach. It works well among the crowd of nuts who crave their sort of arguments and never question it. Time not taken to find reliable sources can be spent pulling more unqualified opinions out of the air and passing them off as facts, or creatively smearing a few scientists, and getting the choir to sing in unison.

    Of course, references can be spun and misrepresented (WUWT does this on a regular basis as seen in the link above).

  409. Jeff Harvey Says:

    Tom Fuller uses the tried and trusted contrarian strategy that if we do not know exactly what the extinction rate is, then there the problem may be vastly exaggerated.

    The point is this: we KNOW that humans have reduced the extent of global tropical forests by about half since 1950. We KNOW that these are the most genetically diverse systems on Earth. We also KNOW that many tropical taxa have very limited global distributions. At the same time, we KNOW that the rate of habitat destruction in species-rich biomes is not decreasing. Against this background we do not have to describe every species of invertebrate or to know their ecological relationships with other taxa in food webs to know that we are losing genetic diversity at rates unseen in at least 65 million years.

    An analogy is that I do not have to have counted every grain of sand on a beach to know that if the waves come in, a great many will be wahsed away. The fact is that humans have generated a mass extinction event and that climate change is an important component of it when synergized with other anthropogenic threats.

    Lastly, I apologize for calling this the ‘lion’s den’. Its a grewat web site, now that I have spent more time reading!

  410. Bart Says:

    Jeff Harvey,

    I was just going to comment on you calling my blog “the lion’s den”, but I see now that you’ve rectified that statement yourself. The difference is in the comments sections: While I try to moderate overly accusative/derogatory language (perhaps not as diligently as of late), I welcome other opinions to be voiced here, though it definitely has pros and cons, as I considered “the value of open debate” before.

    What I take from your earlier comment is this:

    – Biodiversity depends more strongly on the rate of change of climate than on the actual climatic state (i.e. whether “warm” or “cold”).
    – That is consistent both with evidence from the past and with theoretical considerations
    – Biodiversity is already being stressed (by multiple anthopogenic stressors, of which climate change is one), and this stress is likely to increase as (the rate of) climate change will increase. (i.e. future projected biodiversity loss is much stronger than current biodiversity loss)

    Is this a fair paraphrasing? I’m esp interested in the second point in my list, which looks central to the foundation of the argument.

  411. Bart Says:

    Neven, sharper,

    I’ll take up the topic of how climate sensitivity estimates may or may not depend on aerosol forcing later this month. Knutti (2008) is relevant to that.

  412. Bart Says:

    Kate chimes in on extinction and climate change.

  413. jakerman Says:

    Thanks for the link Bart:

    a warm planet tends to be less favourable to life than a cold one, as a 2008 study in the UK showed. The researchers examined 520 million years of data on fossils and temperature reconstructions, which encompasses almost the entire history of multicellular life on Earth. They found that high global temperatures were correlated with low levels of biodiversity (the number of species on Earth) and high levels of extinction, while cooler periods enjoyed high biodiversity and low extinction.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full.pdf+html

  414. Jeff Harvey Says:

    Again I wish to apolgize to Bart, who I know is one of the ‘good guys” in this debate. I was mistakenly under the impression that this site was a contrarian one, and I have little tiem for them.

    As to your questions, Bart:

    Biodiversity evolved to riotous diversity when conditions were relatively benign and (climatologically speaking) not particularly warm. I would like to point out that the debate over what conditions favor rapid evolution and maintenance of high diversity are still disputed: change is also important, because is drives adaptive radiation and speciation, although climatic stability does not chellnege species to respond to this threat.

    But, as you correctly infer, species are genetically equipped to respond to changes within certain metabolic and physiological (intrinsic) and abioitc (extrinsic) boundaries. There is no doubt that warming will benefit a great many species, but that another great many, and probably more, will be deleteriously affected by warming. The prognosis is difficult to fully elucidate but is not good. This is because different responses by different species will lead to asymmentry in species interactions and it is these interactions which are vitally important in maintaining the integrity and stability of food webs and ecosystems.

    For their part, the contrarians, as is their habit, cherry pick a few studies showing positive responses of a few plant or animal species to a warmer or C02 enriched world, but they ignore a vastly larger body of literature with opposite conclusions. A good analogy can be made with respect to the costs and benfits of invasive species in native ecosystems. A recent study in Diversity and Distributions found that many birds benefitted from an invasive berry-producing plant which provided a vital resource during winter for several species of songbirds. But there are literally many hundreds of other studies with plants alone showing that invasive plants are a threat to native biodiversity through a range of processes and mechanisms. You can bet that the contrarians would highlight the one posititve study whilst ignoring hundreds of others with opposite conclusions. By now we know this is a tried-and-trusted contrarian strategy.

    The fact is that the current rate of warming, and its concomitant effects on important paremeters like rainfall, will differentially affect communities from the bottom up. Planbts will respond in a species-specific fashion, with longer lived K-selected species doing badly and short-lived ephemeral r-selected species probably doing better. As these effects cascade through food webs, we will see them unravel and fray, undermining the strength of emergent prpcesses such as nutrient cycling and productivity, and hence resilience. Humans are effectively conducting a giagantic, non replicated, global experiment, which is juxtaposed (and synergized) with a wealth of mother threats we are inflicting on complex adaptive systems. And let us not forget that the effects of altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere – through rapid rises in C02 – will also differentially affect plants and their primary and secondary metabolites, with consequences felt throughout entire food webs.

    Chanes in precipitation patterns across the Amazon as a result of climate change are of profound concern, because if this continues and the great forests are decimated then this will undeniably generate an extinction spasm that is too horrific to even contemplate. Again, changes that would normally take many hundreds of years (at the very minimum) and usually many thousands are being inflicted on natural systems in the course of a human generation. And to reiterate, this is occurring in combination with the many other human assaults I alluded to in earlier post. You would be hard pressed to find any population or systems ecologists who do not consider climate change to be an immense threat to biodiversity.

  415. J Bowers Says:

    @ Jeff Harvey, thanks.

    Briefly going back to Greenland and Antarctica, TWTB has an update on ice sheet decay:

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheet-decay-update/

  416. Jeff Id Says:

    Jakerman,

    My opinion has not changed one bit. Of all things the few tenths of a degree of temp change is probably the most minor effect humans can be blamed for on ‘biodiversity’. It is consistently exaggerated in the literature, for instance the comments on rainfall are based on papers which like hurricane bs, have repeatedly been shown to be unfounded. It makes me crazy that people buy into it so completely but what can I do.

    Bad stats, bad models followed by bad conclusions with great certainty.

    Note this rational claim by Jeff Harvey

    “There is no doubt that warming will benefit a great many species, but that another great many, and probably more, will be deleteriously affected by warming.”

    (after some broad brush assumptions and false statements that people like me are somehow fooled by a few studies or unable to grasp the nuance of some silly point) Followed by the certainty of conclusion:

    “As these effects cascade through food webs, we will see them unravel and fray, undermining the strength of emergent prpcesses such as nutrient cycling and productivity, and hence resilience. ”

    All he knows is that people have told him of warming. There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere. First, you have to assume that the mild measured warming is man caused – which many of us are not convinced that the measured warming is even 50% man caused. (See how he reacts to that) Second, you have to sort out all the other pressures caused by other effects. It’s like the scientists still pushing that kilimanjaro snow cap vanishing is by warming and never really noticing that the whole damned rainforest surrounding the mountain has been flattened.

    Over-certainty on AGW, over-certainty on climate history, over-certainty on weather effects, over-certainty on species response.

    meh.

  417. Sou Says:

    Thank you Jeff Harvey. This topic merits more exposure and discussion, particularly the impacts.

    (Although facts don’t mean tuppence to the Toms and JeffIds of the world who don’t let facts get in the way of a good yarn, there will be lurkers who benefit from your years of research.)

  418. J Bowers Says:

    Jeff Id — “It’s like the scientists still pushing that kilimanjaro snow cap vanishing is by warming and never really noticing that the whole damned rainforest surrounding the mountain has been flattened.”

    Sorry, Jeff, but can you cite scientists (especially plural) actually saying this, or are you thinking of Al Gore and Greenpeace (who are not scientists)?

    Sorry to quote from Desmog, but the American Scientist article’s link is broken.

    University of Washington climate scientist Philip W. Mote, co-author with Georg Kaser of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine, said most scientists who study Kilimanjaro’s glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano’s poster-child status.
    […]
    “Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change,” said Mote, who doesn’t want skeptics to use his and Kaser’s article to debunk broader climate-change trends.

    He emphasized that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the melting away of nearly every other glacier around the globe. “Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study.”

    Perhaps you’re just proving him right?

  419. J Bowers Says:

    Desmog link:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/mt-kilimanjaro-is-a-bad-example-of-a-point-well-taken

  420. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Id writes:

    akerman, My opinion has not changed one bit.

    Funny thing is Jeff, that an anti-science approach seem to inoculate people from that very thing.

  421. William Says:


    Jeff Id Says:
    February 18, 2011 at 15:32

    Jakerman,

    My opinion has not changed one bit. Of all things the few tenths of a degree of temp change is probably the most minor effect humans can be blamed for on ‘biodiversity’. It is consistently exaggerated in the literature, for instance the comments on rainfall are based on papers which like hurricane bs, have repeatedly been shown to be unfounded. It makes me crazy that people buy into it so completely but what can I do.

    Bad stats, bad models followed by bad conclusions with great certainty.

    Note this rational claim by Jeff Harvey

    “There is no doubt that warming will benefit a great many species, but that another great many, and probably more, will be deleteriously affected by warming.”

    (after some broad brush assumptions and false statements that people like me are somehow fooled by a few studies or unable to grasp the nuance of some silly point) Followed by the certainty of conclusion:

    “As these effects cascade through food webs, we will see them unravel and fray, undermining the strength of emergent prpcesses such as nutrient cycling and productivity, and hence resilience. ”

    All he knows is that people have told him of warming. There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere. First, you have to assume that the mild measured warming is man caused – which many of us are not convinced that the measured warming is even 50% man caused. (See how he reacts to that) Second, you have to sort out all the other pressures caused by other effects. It’s like the scientists still pushing that kilimanjaro snow cap vanishing is by warming and never really noticing that the whole damned rainforest surrounding the mountain has been flattened.

    Kilimanjaro was the most picturesque glacier referred to, but he also reference several others about which there is no debate.


    Effects of Global Warming

    * And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago.

    Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.
    * This is happening in Glacier National Park. I climbed to the top of this in 1998 with one of my daughters. Within 15 years this will be the park formerly known as Glacier.
    * Here is what has been happening year by year to the Columbia Glacier. It just retreats more and more every year. And it is a shame because these glaciers are so beautiful. People who go up to see them, here is what they are seeing every day now.
    * In the Himalayas there is a particular problem because more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers. Within this next half century those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a very serious shortage because of this melting.
    * Italy, the Italian Alps same site today. An old postcard from the Switzerland: throughout the Alps we are seeing the same story.
    * It’s also true in South America. This is Peru 15 years ago and the same glacier today.
    * This is Argentina 20 years ago, the same glacier today.
    * 75 years ago in Patagonia on the tip of South America, this vast expanse of ice is now gone.

    I will give him a pass on that, it’s mostly correct.

    The models are not ‘bad’. They are the best we have, and they have been amazingly accurate for what they are trying to model. The stats are not ‘bad’, the conclusions are not ‘bad’. The stats are what we are given, it’s like all data collection, it’s not a matter of ‘bad’, it’s a matter of having to use what you are given. The conclusions have been mostly correct. What the nit pickers miss is that it has warmed, and it cannot be explained by ‘natural’ processes.

    To say that it is just a few tenths of a degree is one of the most basic ‘skeptical’ errors. For one thing, this is just the start of the centuries of change to come, we are only about 30 years into the real warming. The global average is a very crude, but simple, representation of what is happening in the biological world. Hidden behind those averages are extremes. Evolution means that many animals adapt to exploit their environment to the maximum that they can. This results in many living on the ‘edge’ of the temperature extremes. Raise that temperature on an extreme day, and you will see mass die off events. It won’t add much to the global average, but it will have serious consequences for the animals that experience those extremes.

    “Flying-foxes do not cope very well in
    extreme temperatures. Their ability
    to fly long distances means they can
    usually avoid the extremes of summer
    and winter by migrating. Although
    flying-foxes do have behavioural
    mechanisms for cooling themselves
    down, severe heat events (eg where
    temperatures reach over 40ºC for
    more than one day in a row) have been
    known to result in thousands of flyingfoxes
    dying of heat stress. This can be
    exacerbated if circumstances (such
    as scarce food or forced relocation)
    have forced flying-foxes to camp in a
    site that may have less than adequate
    shelter. At the other end of the scale,
    black flying-foxes that used to be
    found primarily in northern Australia,
    but are now shifting southwards, are
    used to warmer temperatures. As far
    south as Sydney, individuals have been
    sighted with frostbitten ears, and some
    seem to have died from these cooler
    temperatures.”

    http://www.wpsa.org.au/pdf/wildlife/Flying_Fox_Article_June2010.pdf

    They are moving south to escape more common extreme heat events that cause mass die offs, but down in the cooler areas, there are still cool temperature events that kill them as well. They are cornered, with nowhere to hide. This is only one species.

  422. jakerman Says:

    Jeff Id wrties:

    All he knows is that people have told him of warming. There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere. First, you have to assume that the mild measured warming is man caused – which many of us are not convinced that the measured warming is even 50% man caused. (See how he reacts to that)

    Jeff Id, you may have forgotten that Dr Harvey does not need demonstrate warming is AGW to overturn your blanket claims that warming is good for biodiversity.

    Then we could look at the evidence that most of the warming is AGW and balance this against the evidence that its not. That is what scientists do. And we know which side the weight of evidence is falling.

  423. gryposaurus Says:

    Jeff Harvey,

    I find the easiest way to communicate the species problem is to discuss the uncertainty in the ecology as a whole. Skeptics tend to discuss it in terms of a simple math problem. Some will die and some will live. But the way in which the ecology works, with it’s delicate balances 1) makes the simplicity of that statement incorrect and 2) makes the cherry-picking look like silly contrarianism.

    IOW, +1 -1 ≠ 0 in this case. Is that a fair way to discuss this?

  424. jakerman Says:

    Jeff It

    Bad stats, bad models followed by bad conclusions with great certainty.

    Show us how this relates to Jeff Harvey’s evidence.

    While we wait I’ll give an example of anti-science:

    A warmer world will produce more food, biodiversity and a nice place for people and critters to live. Polar bears might be mad, but life is hard. And again, we don’t have the technical ability to prevent it. That’s it.

  425. Sou Says:

    Of course, it’s not just the direct temperature effects that will impact plant and animal and other life.

    In our region, bushfires are increasing in frequency and extent. The fire-fighting services concentrate their efforts on the boundaries of national parks, giving priority to protection of private land, commercial forests and buildings. This means that fires are left to burn inside the national parks.

    Between 2003 and 2009 a very large proportion of the area of native forest in Victoria (Australia) was burnt in one or other fire (hundreds of thousands of hectares). Some species restricted to those areas may already be lost.

    As drought and associated extreme heat waves become more common, bushfires will continue to burn these special habitats over and over again. The mix of species will change and some will certainly be lost (undoubtedly including some that will never have been recorded).

    I understand that insects and diseases are posing threats in other parts of the world, as a direct or indirect result of climate change.

  426. Bernard J. Says:

    I am late to this party and thus I appear to have missed Jeff Condon, who seems to think that he knows more about ecology than do ecologists. I’m sure that he would have something to say if I stereotyped engineers and tried to tell him that ecologists know his field better than he does himself…

    Anyway, I see that Jeff Harvey has already made some points on the matter of biodiversity vulnerability to ecological instability and to rapid environmental change, so there’s probably no point going over the same territory again. I’ll make a couple of quick observations though.

    Homeotherms are freed from the relationship between many biochemical reactions and temperature by their on-board thermostasis. This thermostatis ensures that they are already functioning optimally in the environments to which they are adapted, and that where they are in equilibrium with their bioclimatic niches any further warming will shift them outside of their optima. As Jeff Harvey points out, chasing new niches toward higher latitudes or altitudes is in many cases infeasible, or impossible.

    Evolution to tolerance of new temperature regimes is unlikely in many cases, as the human-induces warming that will follow continued carbon emissions will occur faster than mman homeotherms can adapt. Such adaptation requires a suite of biochemical modifications, not the least of which is the shift in the enzymatic temperature optima that dictates temperature preference. Enzymatic temperature-response curves are generally bell-shaped, and linear increments of temperature shifting away from the temperature-optima result in ever greater functional movements of enzyme activity away from activity-optima.

    And this is completely apart from the physiology of heat retention/shedding, which again requires evolutionary scales to time for adaptation, rather than the industrial scales of time imposed by human carbon emissions.

    Poikilotherms have their own, often separate, vulnerabilities to increases in temperature. Whilst there is a more closely correlated relationship between energy usage and temperature in poikilothermic taxa, this still occurs only within a narrow range, and one dependent on many accompanying environmental cofactors such as light, oxygen, water and food availability. If the temperature/biochemical activity relationship were not so complex else there would be huge biodiversities in arid regions as well as in rainforests, and such is obviously not the case.

    And as Jeff Harvey pointed out and I reiterated above, the likelihood of significant areas of suitable new habitat emerging to follow shifting temperature profiles is very low whilst humans are around. If we as a species become exinct ourselves, or at the least if our societies do (a very significant possibility over the scale of centuries or millenia), then there will be a greater opportunity for ecosystem regeneration, but many species will still blink out from extinction debt incurred generations earlier. If Condon and Fuller are sceptical that extinction rates are currently rising, they should be in no doubt that rates of extinction debt are currently red-lining.

    Of course, by this time it’s a philosophical matter – at least, for humans…

    But back to those poikilotherms.

    One of the things that characterises many of the cold-adapted aquatic/marine taxa is that they are vulnerable to decreased oxygen solubility in warm water. Add this to ocean anoxic zones forming from thermal stratification and from agriculturally-induced eutrophication, and there’s a whole mess of biodiversity loss all by itself.

    And then there’s the temperature-dependent gender selection of many reptiles. Warming of several degrees celcius will be enough to incur in a population an extinction debt within subsequent decades, even if the species manages to struggle on for centuries.

    Of course, it would be remiss to not mention the impact that carbon has on ocean pH. Acidification presents a huge challenge to calciferous species, including the calciferous diatomic taxa that form a large portion of the base of the trophic (and oxic) chains.

    However, I am relieved to have found out from Condon that all of this is now redundant science, and that the biosphere will power on swimmingly with all of the extra heat, carbon dioxide, and hydrological shifting that humans are bestowing on a fortunate planet.

    Oh, goody.

  427. Bernard J. Says:

    Aw heck, I can’t resist the sterotype. This was sent to me last week…

    A biologist, a physicist, and an engineer go duck hunting. They are stalking along the shore of a lake, when suddenly a duck flushed from the reeds.

    The biologist, being very familiar with natural duck behaviour and with the patterns of duck flight, takes careful aim… BLAM!!! He just misses, a little to the right.

    At almost exactly the same moment, the physicist quickly calculates the distance, the velocity of the bullet, the velocity of the duck, corrects for wind and air resistance… BLAM!!! He just misses, a little to the left.

    The engineer starts jumping up and down excitedly. “We got him! We got him!”

    …but wait! There’s a sequel to this joke!

    Miracle of miracles, our hunting party succeeds in downing a duck. They return to the campsite, where their philosopher friend has been waiting for them. Triumphant, they show the philosopher the duck.

    The philosopher looks up from his book. “Hmmm, well, how do you know it’s a duck?”

    The biologist is taken aback. “Well, just look at the morphology,” he says. “It has feathers, a duck’s beak, a duck’s wings…”

    The physicist doesn’t quite know what to say either. “I guess we could take a DNA sample from the bird and run it to the lab…?”

    The engineer just shrugs. “We went hunting for ducks. Therefore, it’s a duck.”

  428. Bernard J. Says:

    Ah, so Condon has not left the building…

    “There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere.”

    Hmmm, tell that to the temperature dependent reptiles in many parts of the world that are starting to look decidedly shakey. For example, even if New Zealanders can keep introduced rats and mustelid carnivores away from their remnant populations of tuatara, the reptiles are unlikely to survive too far into the future without human management because of shifts in the animals’ gender ratios.

    And Kilimanjaro? Coincidentally, I used this example yesterday, in exactly the same context – that scientists had the cause of snow-loss wrong…

    Erm, who do you think it was that actually figured out that deforestation has contributed to the snow loss?

    Engineers?

  429. Sou Says:

    Just checked and I was incorrect about the area burnt in Victoria between 2003 and 2009. It was not just hundreds of thousands of hectares.

    2003 fires: 1.3 million hectares
    2005-06: 160,000 hectares
    2006-07: 1,200,000 hectares
    2009: 430,000 hectares (and 173 human lives lost).

    Total area burnt between 2003 and 2009: around 3 million hectares.

    http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-D79E4FB0C437E1B6CA256DA60008B9EF?open

    (While some might say, sheesh! that’s 14% of the entire State of Victoria, there might be others who will say – what’s the problem, that’s only 14% of the State of Victoria.)

  430. Majorajam Says:

    Jeff Id,

    I wonder how you manaed to miss, as it is clear by your weak-kneed response that you did, that Dr. Harvey’s conclusion regarding net ramifications of AGW for the biosphere follows directly from the following very clear statement:

    This is because different responses by different species will lead to asymmentry in species interactions and it is these interactions which are vitally important in maintaining the integrity and stability of food webs and ecosystems.

    This itself, of course, follows directly from the statement that you gave the skeptic seal of approval: namely that some species will profit by increased C02 and warmer climes while more species will suffer deleterious consequences.

    This is simple, simple stuff my friend. Knowledge that I assume one assimilates when one has developed an expertise in the field as Dr. Harvey has. Stuff that your average person of reasonable intelligence shouldn’t have much trouble following when one actually knows the first iota about ecology. My skeptical instinct has me wondering that this latter category includes you.

    Of course there is an alternative explanation for how you missed it. Namely that you read Dr. Harvey’s post not actually with the intent of understanding it, but looking for words and phrases to lift out as you formulate a rebuttal. Hence, you didn’t understand it. As jackerman has pointed out, this is not a scientific approach. Nor does this sound like the behavior of a skeptic. My skeptical instinct is not buying the prospect that you possess a skeptical bone in your body.

    Fyi, as it seems you need a primer, skepticism can include things like reading with wariness based on what one thinks they know ex ante provided that they are actively aware of the basis for those judgments and attendantly that it could very well be wrong. This helps to explain why people keep track of things like reputations, and why, e.g., I no longer feel compelled to investigate Steve McIntyre’s claims. But also why reputations are not reason enough to dismiss things, especially when they sound plausible. For example, I didn’t dismiss out of hand O’Donnell’s tirade, as it sounded plausible to me. As I wrote on Realclimate, I’ve yet to ascertain whether this was something to be proud or ashamed of.

    All of which is to say nothing of your selective application of uncertainty (i.e. it is understated in all claims of mainstream scientists, and inapplicable to all of ours). But this is so well documented, it’s really not worth revisiting. What I will ask is if you even understand this comment of mine upthread:

    what really gets me in all this is the conceit of believing that there is a greenhouse effect, that there are gross positive feedbacks, in some cases large ones, and that the uncertainty that remains past these established facts is a case not to act.

    regarding what is being said between the lines, and what that means for the impact of uncertainty on what we ought to do about AGW from a policy standpoint. Hint: it bears no resemblance to the fallacious arguments from ignorance that you and the rest of the skeptics, not to mention Judith Curry, would most readily recognize.

  431. MapleLeaf Says:

    John Cook could start a “Condon Myths” series using statements made by Condon on this thread…..maybe I’ll suggest it.

  432. Jeff Harvey Says:

    Jeff Id writes, “Of all things the few tenths of a degree of temp change is probably the most minor effect humans can be blamed for on ‘biodiversity’”

    Its not a few tenths of a degree. This is the GLOBAL mean. In some areas it is a lot more than that. And there have also been dramatic changes in precipitation regimes as well as in the composition of the atmosphere.

    The problem is that laypeople like Jeff Id THINK they know more than they actually do. The more he writes, the more he digs a deeper pit for himself. Larter he opines, “There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere”. This is a totally ignorant remark. It assumes that the effects of warming on biodiversity will be instantaneous. The same logic is applied by those anxious to downplay the effects of habitat destruction on biodiversity. They expect the loss of ‘habitat area x’ will almost instantaneously result in the ‘extinction of species y’. But of course it does not work this way. Demographic changes take time. This is what is known as the ‘extinction debt'; species decline after some perturbation unti, they either reach a new ‘relaxation point’ (with stable or unstable dynamics) or they continue to decrease until the species dieappears. In TSE, Bjorn Lomborg claimed that not a single species of animal in the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil was ‘officially’ extinct as a result of habitat destruction there; what he did not mention is that a large number of species in this biome aare teetering on the brink of extinction and many had not been seen for more than 30 years and were probaly extinct. The IUCN is a conservative body and does not classify a species as being ‘formally’ extinct until it has not been recorded in the wild for at least 50 years. And off course species are being harmed by warming. The Pied Flycatcher is declining over much of western Europe as a result of climate change that is causing asynchrony in interactions with its main spring food, caterpillars. Similar findings are being reported with other birds and mammals. Specialist butteflies are declining in northern Europe because they are being desynchronized with the ranges of their main food plants. Invasive plants from the south ar eposing a threat to native plants from the north. There are many similar examples. And since the field has not yet been intensively studied, its logical to assume that these examples are likely to be widespread.

    Jeff Id is therefore speaking utter nonsense.

  433. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dr. Harvey, just to warn you, you are trying to reason and present scientific evidence and thinking to a classic Dunning-Kruger victim…it is an exercise in futility.

    What is worse this person just published a paper in a prominent climate journal….the mind boggles.

  434. Tom Fuller Says:

    What seems utter nonsense to me is pretending that we have an estimate of extinction rates relative to a baseline. It’s inventing numbers and percentages to win a bet.

    Again–we do not know how many species exist. Estimates range between 1.5 million and 8 million.

    We do not know how many species went extinct in a given time frame in the past.

    We do not know how many species are going extinct at present.

    The stupidest part is it’s unnecessary. The saddest part is this will harm efforts to protect biodiversity in much the same way that garbage statistics have hurt efforts to address climate change.

    At some point you may realize that people like Jeff and myself do not disagree with your goals. It is your tendency to continuously and without fail choose the absolutely stupidest strategies and tactics for achieving them that sparks our reactions.

    The fact that Harvey can call me a contrarian in his first encounter with me, no doubt encouraged by the mindless mouth-foaming of the usual gang of idiots, is just evidence of the correctness of my belief.

  435. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    I look forward to your new post that you alluded to above.

    To stay on topic I hope you have also noticed that with the release of “The Spectator” diatribe, all of the authors in the journal paper which is the topic of this thread (O’Donneel, McIntyre, Lewis and Condon) have now engaged in unprofessional, unethical and inappropriate behaviour and actions.

  436. J Bowers Says:

    Tom Fuller — “Again–we do not know how many species exist. Estimates range between 1.5 million and 8 million.”

    So, loss of biodiversity could be really bad, or, really, really, really, really, real bad?

    Tom Fuller — “At some point you may realize that people like Jeff and myself do not disagree with your goals.”>/i>

    You mean people like you and Jeff Id, not Jeff Harvey?

  437. Neven Says:

    It is your tendency to continuously and without fail choose the absolutely stupidest strategies and tactics for achieving them that sparks our reactions.

    Tom, feel free to devise better strategies and tactics and implement them.

  438. Sou Says:

    Well, Tom F. has said that he supports a carbon tax, so I expect he’s saying that Jeff (Id?) also supports a carbon tax. Which is probably news to Jeff Id. And maybe some other people here support a carbon tax – but we don’t know because it hasn’t been discussed on this thread.

    Tom F hasn’t explained who ‘you’ is, let alone what the ‘absolutely stupidest strategies and tactics’ are.

  439. To Fuller Says:

    Bowers,the argument you seem tobe making is that because you are concerned about biodiversity it’s okay tomake stuff up. That’s how you lost the climate wars. Do you really wnt to do it again?

  440. MapleLeaf Says:

    We lost the climate wars? Yet more projection form the contrarians.

    And when did eminent scientists studying biodiversity and extinction, or climate scientists for that matter, “make stuff up”?

    This whole inane game of torturing the fact that we do not now everything being to mean we know nothing and therefore cannot act is ridiculous in the extreme.

    Now back to the Climate***** clan behaving badly….

  441. MarkB Says:

    TF: The fact that Harvey can call me a contrarian in his first encounter with me, no doubt encouraged by the mindless mouth-foaming of the usual gang of idiots, is just evidence of the correctness of my belief.

    The above would be evidence of a nonsequitur.

    TF: That’s how you lost the climate wars.

    What are the “climate wars” (I understand global warming is a national security threat multiplier), and how do you know such “wars” are over?

  442. J Bowers Says:

    Fuller, what did I make up? On losing the climate “wars” (funnily, I thought it was a debate), I think you’re the one making stuff up…

    * Jan. 31, 2011 – Public belief in climate change weathers storm, poll shows
    * Sep. 8, 2010 – Large Majority of Americans Support Government Solutions to Address Global Warming
    * Jan. 5, 2011 – Scientific American -“Bulge” in Atmospheric Pressure Responsible for Cold Winter Amid Global Warming (read the end)

    * Aug. 2010 – Stanford poll: The vast majority of Americans know global warming is real Florida, Maine, and Massachusetts residents agree: Global warming is here and we’re causing it
    * Feb. 2011 – 63% of Americans say “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water”

    Speptics = fringe.

  443. Jeff Harvey Says:

    Tom Fuller,

    I think that you’ve demonstrated your colors here and in past comments you’ve made. That’s my opinion, anyway. What is also my opinion is that you are well out of your depth in discussing the issue of biodiversity loss. My advice is to keep out of it, before you make yourself look sillier than you already have.

    IMHO you seem to suggest that without 100% unequivocal proof of a mass extinction, that there is no problem. I have seen this trick used to deny a range of human threats to the environment: acid rain, climate change, etc. And you are wrong to say that the estimate of species richness is 1.5 to 8 million. It is actually 5 and 80 million, depending upon whom you ask. But I digress.

    There is little doubt that we are well into a mass extinction event. Let me be more specific. We KNOW that between 10 and 40% of well-known species (vascular plants and vertebrates) are threatened with extinction. This includes at least 1100 species of birds, and excludes many others that are in terminal decline. Given that most tropical species have limited ranges, typically much smaller than in temperate biomes, and that they do not move around much within their ranges, then the loss of even fragments of tropical forest can be an ecological disaster. As the paper in Science revealed a few weeks ago, there have been two once-in-a-century droughts in the Amazon since 2005. These will be calamitous for the region’s biodiversity if this trend continues.

    The planet has already lost some 50% of its wet tropical forests. Where do the species that lived in them go once they have been destroyed? We have also fragmented great expanses of landscape, and we know from Diamond’s work in the 1970s and 80’s that many species adapted to contiguous forests will not even cross open roads to disperse to new habitats. Area extinction models of exponential decay have been remarkably accurate in estimating rates of extinction of well-known taxa. So it should be clear by now that a huge number of species have been lost without ever being formally described.

    I would like to ask Tom Fuller what unique qualifications he possesses in the field of ecology. I would also like to ask him if he agrees that the empirical evidence suggests that much of the planet’s biodiversity is in trouble. Or, as with climate change, should we wait until every last scrap of evidence is in before drawing a conclusion? Of course by then it will be way, way too late, and our species will have already become the most notable victim of the current extinction spasm.

  444. tom fuller Says:

    Bowers, you lost cap and trade here and in Oz. UK closing warmist quangos. Notice Americans want to protect air and water. What’s missing? Hell, Tobis says you lost.

  445. tom fuller Says:

    Harvey, you seem determined not to understand me, so this is probably useless, but here goes nothing.
    I am concerned about these issues. Inventing statistics like 50,000% above baseline extinction levels does more harm than good.

    Is that simple enough for you?

  446. MarkB Says:

    If TF defines “climate wars” as something to do with public opinion, or support for/against policies for reducing emissions, he also might want to pay attention to his state for starters.

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)

  447. MapleLeaf Says:

    Dr. Harvey:

    “I would like to ask Tom Fuller what unique qualifications he possesses in the field of ecology. “

    As I said before Dr. harvey, you are dealing with D-K victims.

    In ‘cheering’ news, the USA could loose the EPA, and NOAA and other government agencies delaying with the biosphere could face major cuts.

    I guess Republicans and Tea Baggers at least (i.e., not all Americans) do not care much for high water and air quality or weather forecasts and warnings or…it is a rather long list.

  448. tom fuller Says:

    harvey doesn’t answer my questions, why shouldd I answer his?

    Maple Syrup, when you hand republicans a club and wear a shirt that ssays kick me please, don’t come whining to me when they use it. I’m a democrat.

  449. MapleLeaf Says:

    Fuller, said “Notice Americans want to protect air and water.”

    That is not necessarily true, and it probably won’t be true if the tea baggers and Republicans have their way. But that is evidently not Palin et al’s fault in some peoples’ minds.

    Anyhow, this thread is mean to be about the transgressions of O’Donnell et al., not an opportunity for Fuller and Condon to talk through their hats.

  450. MapleLeaf Says:

    Fuller “please, don’t come whining to me when they use it”

    I was not speaking to you specifically or whining to you. Contrary to what suffering from the D-K effect might lead you to believe, the world doesn’t revolve around you.

  451. Tom Fuller Says:

    Gee, I’ve never seen someone admit defeat so slyly.

  452. Tom Fuller Says:

    That’s not true. Tobis moved an entire post, closed the comments and hid it away.

  453. MarkB Says:

    “and wear a shirt that ssays kick me please”

    I picture TF wearing such a shirt when reading most of his trollish posts. And the command on the shirt probably is more effective in his case than reasoning.

  454. Tom Fuller Says:

    MarkB, glad I can feed a fantasy life that is already far richer than anything reality seems to provide you. Enjoy!

  455. MarkB Says:

    TF, I assume you’re real, unless you’re IBM’s throwaway equivalent of Watson. I suspect internet trolls would be relatively easy to program. It requires nothing more than simplistic analysis of any text, shallow responses that don’t really address anything, and a database containing a variety of canned lines.

  456. Tom Fuller Says:

    Dude–Watson winning seems like as big a deal as man landing on the moon!

    And yeah, when corresponding with slugheads like you and Maple Syrple, it’s tough to stay focused, especially when you ignore substantive comments in order to use your 3rd grade insults.

    But then, even your betters don’t respond to substance:

    We don’t know how many species there are today.
    We don’t know how many species there were at any given point in the past.

    We don’t know how many species go extinct at present.
    We don’t know how many species went extinct at any point in the past.

    Therefore, statements we make regarding extinction and threats to biodiversity should not have numbers or percentages attached.

    We don’t need numbers or percentages to point out the risks to species. We can use flagship examples from differing genera and say ‘we are worried that this will happen to more and more species as global warming changes their habitats faster than they can adapt.’

    Not too difficult, is it? Go back to your Playstation and let me know when you are finished fantasizing.

  457. J Bowers Says:

    Fuller (as we’re doing surnames) — “Bowers, you lost cap and trade here and in Oz.”

    Fine. I don’t like it. Checked out what China recently announced in their five year plan?

    The Kochs, the Singers, the Lawsons of this world will be dead of natural causes soon. Know what happens when you exclude over-65s from opinion polls? The 63% accepting the science jumps to 91%. The writing’s on the wall, you just ain’t seen it. Wait until the Arctic sea ice melts one summer.

    Fuller — “UK closing warmist quangos.”

    Stop press – Tories break election promises! Not news, not unexpected, not permanent. They just tried to sell of our forests, too.

    Fuller — “Notice Americans want to protect air and water. What’s missing?”

    Either your cognitive skills or the ability to click on a link:

    83% favor passing a clean energy bill this year

    Sceptic = loser

  458. Tom Fuller Says:

    Checked out China’s projected use of coal for the next 50 years?

    Sceptic = loser. Is that the warmist idiot’s replacement for ‘neener, neener, neener? If so, I’ll tell the next skeptic I meet.

  459. Majorajam Says:

    The Fuller’s propensity to beat his chest about events he’s had no hand in is indicative of some pretty deeply rooted pathology. The man has taken up permanent residence in a world of fancy. If I were you all I wouldn’t waste your time.

  460. Tom Fuller Says:

    Yawn. Dull and unimaginative–I suggest that MarkB is living in a fantasy world and MajorJam (meet Major Tong, or Major Major for that matter) suddenly wants to say I’m living in a world of fancy.

    My niece does better on a regular basis.

  461. J Bowers Says:

    Fuller — “Checked out China’s projected use of coal for the next 50 years?”

    Checked out China’s set to invest $512 billion in building up to 240 nuclear plants, their investment of $175bn in a “nuclear city”, and how they’re investing ~$12bn a month in renewable energy? Ever heard of a Renewable portfolio standard? China’s got one.

    If I were American, Fuller, I’d be more concerned about other matters:

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12999

  462. Tom Fuller Says:

    Even with all that nuke and all that green stuff, the amount of extra coal they are going to burn will exceed today’s global consumption.

    But hey, who needs quantitative thinking when God has told you you are right. Or Al Gore.

  463. Deech56 Says:

    Is that really Tom Fuller commenting here today? The posts with that name (with various spellings and capitalization) are just too bizarre even for him.

  464. Tom Fuller Says:

    Deech, those posts are mine from a mobile device with a quirky (as oppposed to QERTY) keyboard. Bizarreness, like the tallness of aunts, is something that each individual should decide for themselves.

  465. J Bowers Says:

    But hey, who needs quantitative thinking when God has told you you are right. Or Al Gore.

    The day you pay me a compliment, Fuller, will be the day I know I’ve got it all wrong.

    BP Energy Outlook 2030:

    There is a clear recognition within China that it needs to move away from its heavy dependence on coal. Environmental constraints (local air pollution as much as climate change concerns) and the rising cost of domestic coal resources are expected to curb Chinese coal growth.

    http://realneo.us/content/welcome-bp%E2%80%99s-energy-outlook-2030

    China may well be forecast for 77% of world coal demand growth by 2030. A lot can happen between now and then.

  466. Tom Fuller Says:

    And I hope it does. But I ain’t betting on it. The social compact over there is brutally simple. My little emperor gets a good job, you get to stay in power. They are willing to live with brown skies for now.

  467. jakerman Says:

    Fullers asserts that the extinction rate data is not good enough. Fuller doesn’t specify good enough to determine ‘what?’ Perhaps he assume he can write off the data for any purpose?

    If the purpose is, ‘to determine if extinction rates are critically high?’,then there is sufficient data. That is because the detected rise in extinction rates is so high levels is so high (ranging from 50 to 1000 time) higher than the background fossil rate. That is orders of magnitude higher than the error range in our data.

    If the purpose to determine if we are still increasing extinction rates, we can estimate that from the rate at which we are destroying our richest ecosystems.

  468. Jeff Harvey Says:

    Fuller,

    All you are doing is showing your D-K tendencies to the full.

    Do you agree with Jeff Id that warming will benefit biodiversity? I ask you this since you and him to agree on a number of issues. Of course such an assertion is nonsense, but I’d like to see if you will call him out on it.

    As I said before, we don’t need to know how many grains of sand there are on a beach to know when the tide comes in, many will be washed away. The same is true for genetic and species diversity. Humans have eliminated half of the world’s wet tropical forests. With them have gone a huge number of taxa that were never formally classified.

    By the way, have you ever read the Hughes et al. (1998) article in Science which estimates the loss of approximately 30,000 genetically distinct populations per day? No, I thought that you hadn’t. Have you also read any of the articles by the likes of Pimm, Brooks, Balmford et. al. what have evaluated the accuracy of area-extinction models using the classic theory of island biogeography as originally formulated by McCarthur and Wilson (1967?). Or the revised models of Soule and Terborgh? No, I thought you hadn’t. How would you compare and contrast the theory of island biogeography with Hubbell’s ‘ neutral’ model?

    Of course you’ll dismiss all this because you don’t understand it. So why should I waste my time on you?

  469. Tom Fuller Says:

    Harvey, yes I’ve read that. No, I don’t agree with Jeff on warming being good for biodiversity. We disagree on a lot of things, but I like him because he’s honest–one of the few on this thread that doesn’t make stuff up. That includes you.

    You make really stupid assumptions on what I have or have not read and are gleefully eager to assign characteristics to me based on what–comments on a blog?

    You can’t answer my questions. Not because you don’t know the answers–you do. Hughes et al did not count either living or extinct species. They estimated. And that’s fine. But then fools like jerkerman get to call it data without any qualification.

    You are innumerate and you throw numbers around like a major spreading jam. Perilous tendency.

  470. Tom Fuller Says:

    Harvey, a correction. I thought you were referring to Jennifer Hughes’ paper with co-author Paul Ehrlich, but that was 1997. Can you point me to the correct Hughes article? That is, if it’s any better than the 1997 fantasizing. Obviously you wouldn’t be using that as support.

    Sorry–for a minute there, you might have thought I was literate, or something.

  471. Jeff Id Says:

    Jeff Harvey,

    “Its not a few tenths of a degree. This is the GLOBAL mean. In some areas it is a lot more than that. And there have also been dramatic changes in precipitation regimes as well as in the composition of the atmosphere.”

    Ya see Jeff, I do know how much warming has happened all over the globe, having plotted it myself using multiple different methods. I’m also fully aware of several effects including UHI and standard variance that DO exacerbate the measure. I’m just not slow witted enough to assume it is anything that the planet hasn’t repeatedly experienced over the past several thousands of years. I also happen to know very good and well what paleoreconstruction math, data and general methods do to the historic variance. Spend some time with Christiansens recent, Zorita 04 and even some of the original McIntyre papers for lessons on variance mashing. If you don’t like that stuff, try my own work here:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-posts/

    It might be a little math intensive but I simplified it as much as possible.

    “The problem is that laypeople like Jeff Id THINK they know more than they actually do. The more he writes, the more he digs a deeper pit for himself. Larter he opines, “There has not been one single example of anthropogenic warming causing harm to a species on this planet anywhere”. This is a totally ignorant remark. It assumes that the effects of warming on biodiversity will be instantaneous.”

    NO it does not. That is completely ridiculous. In fact, I fully believe warming has affected species locally, although I’ve yet to read a convincing study, I’ve read many papers attributing various effects to warming. Most to anthropogenic warming, although again I say there is not ONE single proof that AGW has caused any change to any species outside of what would naturally happen.

    It is you who assumes too much about the people you are talking to, including motive. I’ve yet to read the climate science paper I couldn’t understand, what I can’t understand is how such a large group refuses to look critically at their own OVERREACHING and WILDLY unfounded conclusions.

    The ‘damage’ papers from AGW are far too often written by the witchdoctors of present day.

    I’ll write it again, warmth opens land for animals and plants to grow. See. More animals and plants means more biodiversity. Certainly you can make the case that if change is too fast then it will be a problem, but you have to be nuts to assume that with all the other pressures humans put on critters, you have measured it EVER. Just completely over the top nuts.

    Of course, if you have a preferred paper to prove me wrong and that there is ONE case where AGW has proven to affect a species negatively, I’d like to see it. I’m wrong a lot, so that is my challenge.

  472. William Says:

    Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Jeff Id to produce his evidence that this is all a leftist conspiracy.

  473. William Says:

    “Of course, if you have a preferred paper to prove me wrong and that there is ONE case where AGW has proven to affect a species negatively, I’d like to see it. I’m wrong a lot, so that is my challenge.”

    I just gave you an example, the Flying Fox.

  474. Tom Fuller Says:

    IUCN list of species gone extinct since 1500 C.E.: 784 (2006)

  475. William Says:

    There is also the obvious one of the Polar Bear. They need ice to live, and that is reducing every year, even though the global average is only reduced by a ‘few tenths of a degree’. That should be a wake up call. That there is a definite trend of ice reducing, even with such a small change in the global average.

    There was a planet covered with life in the great warm period of the dinosaurs, but to get to another period of change like that, there will first have to be a mass extinction, because evolution does not handle rapid change so well, it needs time to do it’s job. And when it does happen, something different comes out the other end than what went in.

  476. dhogaza Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    I don’t agree with Jeff on warming being good for biodiversity. We disagree on a lot of things, but I like him because he’s honest–one of the few on this thread that doesn’t make stuff up.

    Interesting juxtaposition between JeffID’s “warming’s good for biodiversity” and Fuller’s “he’s honest, doesn’t make stuff up”.

    And Fuller wonders why we dump on him …

  477. Tom Fuller Says:

    Yes, William, the iconic polar bear, photoshopped in peril in every paper and magazine on the planet. Poor polar bear.

    Poor polar bear, with conservative estimates of a population that has grown beyond 25,000 from the (very hazy) estimate of 5,000 in the 60s.

    Poor polar bear, whose realy problem has nothing to do with global warming but with the unfortunate propensity of another type of charismatic megafauna to shoot them dead, often from helicopters, to the tune of 1,000 per year.

    Poor polar bear, who the Nunavit have said is increasing too rapidly, so rapidly in fact that they have petitioned for its removal from the threatened category so they can shoot more of them.

    If you want more polar bears, don’t shoot them.

  478. dhogaza Says:

    Yes, Tom, we know that putting polar bear populations under regulated hunt regimes has caused their populations to grow from the earlier trough, just as has happened with cougars for exactly the same reason.

    This doesn’t mean that they don’t need sea ice to thrive.

    Here’s the deal, Tom: either you’re dumb or dishonest.

    And I don’t think you’re dumb.

  479. MapleLeaf Says:

    If only the D-Ks would actually read more (and follow the links provided to them up thread) rather than spouting and citing their own blog “science”:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/362/1477/67.full

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/894.abstract

  480. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Syrup, links to papers should be used sparingly on the pancakes, with an explanation of why they are used and the message you hope to be obtained. Otherwise, they sit there unclicked, alone and unloved.

    Be sure and tell the person who is reading this to you, okay?

  481. William Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    I don’t agree with Jeff on warming being good for biodiversity. We disagree on a lot of things, but I like him because he’s honest–one of the few on this thread that doesn’t make stuff up.

    Let him show how he hasn’t made stuff up about a left wing conspiracy. He never answers that question.

  482. Tom Fuller Says:

    I’m not stopping him, William. Heck, he may think I’m part of the left-wing conspiracy (just funnin’, Jeff). Oh, wait–I might be. I’m trying to get you dunderheads to shut up so that we can use actual facts to try and restore credibility to progressive thought in general and environmental issues in particular. That’s what passes for left wing these days. And there are a few others out there like me–and we communicate. So it’s a conspiracy!

    Jeff was right all along.

  483. jakerman Says:

    IUCN list of species gone extinct since 1500 C.E.: 784 (2006)

    News flash: science has a tool called sampling.

  484. MapleLeaf Says:

    And some people cannot even be bothered to click on a hyperlink…lazy..lazy..lazy.

    Mr. Condon asked for one example, the links above provide four, and that is just a start, pity he is too lazy to do some of his own searching.

    Now, let us all not forget the documented negative impact of lowering pH on some corals and other ocean dwelling species. This is about more than just warming.

  485. Sou Says:

    Jeff Id has referred us to himself and McIntyre, the anti-science artful dodgers. Then keeps contradicting himself by saying that warming will have adverse effects, that it will ‘open the land up for animals to grow’ and that it means ‘more biodiversity’. He ‘has yet to read a science paper he doesn’t understand’, but in the same post illustrates his lack of understanding of the science as described on this thread by Jeff Harvey and Bernard J.

    While Tom Fuller pretends he agrees that humans are causing the planet to warm and that humans need to rein in CO2 emissions, but at the same time derides left, right and centre any paper, blog article or comment that says that AGW is harmful.

    If a person only read this thread they would think it difficult to find two people who better illustrated the Dunning-Kruger effect, and who were less self-contradictory. But if a person were to visit blogs catering for AGW deniers they’d discover that Jeff Id and Tom F have quite a bit of company in being irrational, inconsistent and plainly in denial that humans could possibly affect the earth’s climate.

    Is it that their anti-government and anti-social stance shapes their ‘beliefs’ and ensures a sharp cut-off at a point in the chain of their logic? (Jeff Id cuts out earlier in the logic chain than does Tom F.) Or is their inconsistent political stance just another consequence of the limited mental acuity they’ve demonstrated in this thread?

  486. Tom Fuller Says:

    Do tell, junkerman. Here’s another news flash. I don’t object to people using a sample and extrapolating from it. When you don’t have the data you have to do it. Because sometimes you have to make decisions despite real uncertainty.

    What I object to is fools mistaking extrapolations for data and presenting them as facts. Which is what you do and why you are part of the problem.

  487. Tom Fuller Says:

    Slewfoot Sou, what I deride are fools like you.

  488. Sou Says:

    Sentence should read: “If a person only read this thread they would think it difficult to find two people who better illustrated the Dunning-Kruger effect, and who were more self-contradictory.”

  489. Tom Fuller Says:

    You should fix the rest of your rant as well.

  490. Tom Fuller Says:

    Maple Syrup, you are confusing conjecture with fact again as far as oceanic PH levels. But don’t worry. When sea level rise swamps us all we can use it as a base for shampoo.

  491. J Bowers Says:

    Tom Fuller– “Poor polar bear, with conservative estimates of a population that has grown beyond 25,000 from the (very hazy) estimate of 5,000 in the 60s.”

    Cite your source for that. USGS?

  492. Tom Fuller Says:

    Look it up. It won’t take more than 30 seconds. Paste the text into google and hit search.

  493. MarkB Says:

    Tom Fuller: “Slewfoot Stu”, “Maple Syrup”, “Junkerman”

    Sticks and stones.

    Jeff Id: “I’m wrong a lot”

    With that rare snippet of factual content from Jeff Id, I’m done for the evening. Have a good weekend everyone.

  494. J Bowers Says:

    Oh crap, it’s from Lomborg. Here it is debunked:

    Data from the 1st meeting of the polar bear specialist group in 1965 were as follows (link):
    “Scott and others (1959) concluded that about 2,000 to 2,500 polar bears existed near the Alaskan coast. By extrapolation they arrived at a total polar bear population of 17,000 to 19,000 animals. Uspensky (1961) estimated the world polar bear population at 5,000 to 8,000 animals. Harington (196+) has given an estimate of 6,000 to 7,000 polar bears for the Canadian Arctic and believes the world polar bear population is well over 10,000.” In the book of Uspenskii (1979; reference above), various estimates of the world population from the period 1957 to 1979 range between 10,000 and 20,000, with the 1957 estimate being in the upper part of this range.

    We see that the figure of only 5,000 bears goes back to Uspenskii (1961), who however gave a range of 5,000 – 8,000, not just 5,000. Other contemporaneous estimates are much higher, and in 1979 Uspenskii himself had raised the estimate for that period to near 20,000. It is therefore rather obvious that Uspenskii´s first estimate was too low. In the proceedings from the 3rd meeting of the polar bear specialist group in 1972, we read in the paper by Thor Larsen on page 61 (link): “Comparison between air and ship counts showed a great discrepancy between the two counting methods. Absolute air counts of polar bears must be considered very unreliable. Previous world wide estimates of polar bears are also unreliable, because of the lack of evaluation of the methods used, and because a census by one method in one particular area, cannot be used in a world wide estimate. Merely by summarizing the various national counts, which still must be considered inaccurate, one reachs the conclusion that the world´s total polar bear population is probably closer to 20 000 animals, than to the lower figures often suggested.”

    In conclusion, at their lowest point in the 1950s and 1960s, the global polar bear population could very well have been about 18,000 animals (Scott and others 1959) or close to 20 000 (Larsen 1972). Today the global population is estimated by the polar bear specialist group at 20,000 – 25,000, which means that the increase from earlier figures is close to nil and hardly significant. Lomborg (and other climate skeptics) misuse the figures by citing the lower limit of the lowest of the former estimates (5,000) and the upper limit of the present estimate. That, of course, is not an acceptable presentation of the available evidence.

    In general, many of the polar bear populations have increased after the introduction of stricter hunting regulations during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, although the exact size of that increase is not known.

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitBchap1.htm

    Busted. Look up the USGS polar bear survey, Tom, you might learn something. Not the 2002 one, but the more recent one.

  495. tom fuller Says:

    MarkBB, don’t stay out past bedtime. See bowers with google you can choose the result that confirms your bias. Ain’t life grand?

  496. dhogaza Says:

    Huh, I didn’t realize the 5,000 number was a cherry-pick that’s far too low, though it does make sense.

    it’s not like your typical bambi-shooter makes it up to the far north during the proper time of year to hunt polar bear. It’s mostly a subsidence hunt with a smattering of trophy hunters who can afford the expense.

    This is the part they want you to ignore:

    In general, many of the polar bear populations have increased after the introduction of stricter hunting regulations during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, although the exact size of that increase is not known.

    Habitat destruction would reduce the hunt mortality figures to zero, too!

  497. dhogaza Says:

    So Fuller’s not “read all the papers”, he’s just read Lomborg, figures.

  498. dhogaza Says:

    Tom Fuller:

    Do tell, junkerman

    Calling someone a member of the landed nobility of Prussia is insulting how, exactly?

  499. William Says:

    Tom

    Demand evidence from the left, but not Jeff’s conspiracy theory. Why does he get a free pass?

  500. dhogaza Says:

    Demand evidence from the left, but not Jeff’s conspiracy theory

    It’s called thread hijacking.

  501. Sou Says:

    @ dhogaza, I read Tom F as saying that jakerman is an awesome teacher, that Maple Leaf is good enough to eat and that I succeeded in cutting out Tom’s legs from under him :)

  502. dhogaza Says:

    Oh, I see, Sou, you kneecapped him with a hockey stick!

    Mann et all, or a wooden one? :)

  503. Sou Says:

    Lol – Bart is probably asleep or he would have put a stop to our shenanigans :)

    I’ll behave from now on :)

  504. jakerman Says:

    What I object to is fools mistaking extrapolations for data and presenting them as facts. Which is what you do and why you are part of the problem.

    Tom, why attack this strawman? Why not instead address the extrapolation of data that is used to estimate an extinction level range?

    Your facts have moved Tom, you started claiming there was “no data”.

  505. Rattus Norvegicus Says:

    I think Tom is right about the proper date of the paper. But that said, I do not see anything to really strongly disagree with in it. They state *in the abstract* that it is a crude estimate of extinction rates, but it does seem to be firmly based on island biogeography theory, something which is well established in the literature. BTW, the paper has been cited 271 times according to Google Scholar, not bad. Obviously other scientists have found it to be useful.

    But you really should be familiar with the theory. I can recommend a book by Soule (one of the authors cited by Jeff Harvey on this point). It is called “Ghost Bears” and is well worth reading for an introduction.

    As for your cite of the IUC numbers my guess is that those of for “well known species”. These are basically species which you can see and describe easily. Research by Wilson and others show that in the tropics at least, many, many more arthropods face extinction or have gone extinct. Another thing which you fail to realize is the relationships between trees and mychorizzal (probably spelled wrong) fungi, which provide and important path for trees to be able to assimilate nutrients from the soil into their root systems. Without these organisms trees just can’t grow. Have fun restoring deforested areas if these organisms are gone.

    Read and learn, you might change your mind, but I doubt it.

  506. Tom Fuller Says:

    Janchorman, lest you misunderstand, what I object to is not their extrapolations. It is your pretending their extrapolations are data backed by evidence. (Hmm. What else does that remind me of?)

    As for the Norwegian Rat, differing locales will face differing pressures. There is no doubt that species are going extinct and it is just probably common sense to think that the number of species is going up. But that’s due to man’s expansion of numbers, range and impact on the environment. I also think it’s been going on for 50,000 years, intensifying 13,000 years ago. Jeff Id has a partial point in that some areas will be advantaged by regional warming. I disagree with him about it being a global benefit.

    As for changing my mind, not if it means ending up like the Stepford Warmists in evidence on this thread.

  507. jakerman Says:

    Janchorman, lest you misunderstand, what I object to is not their extrapolations. It is your pretending their extrapolations are data backed by evidence.

    You expose yourself further with this comment Tom, their extrapolations are backed by evidence its the sampling that informs these.

    Its an evidenced based range.

    Dear oh dear Tom.

  508. jakerman Says:

    I’d better be pedant proof,

    The evidence is the data collected with the scientific sampling.

  509. dhogaza Says:

    It is your pretending their extrapolations are data backed by evidence.

    Something even a fifth grader could understand: They’re extrapolations back by data, and never has anyone said anything different.

    Deeper parsing:

    data backed by evidence.

    One dictionary definition of evidence:

    “Law . data”

    Dear, oh dear …

    Synonym of data: “evidence”

    Dear, oh dear …

    D

  510. Tom Fuller Says:

    Did you read the paper? Really? Do you really want to trade quotes on this? It’s late and I’m tired.

    “Using three estimates of global species numbers (5, 14, and 30 million) (16–18, respectively), we arrive at three estimates of the total number of populations: 1.1, 3.1, and 6.6 billion populations.

    It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of population diversity, yet there is reason to believe it is conservative.”

    “The most likely source of inflation of the total population diversity estimate is the quantification of species’ range size. The shaded areas of the distribution maps are very rough and virtually always encompass unsuitable habitat where populations do not occur (22). Also, most of the sources we used were limited to temperate regions, even though it is estimated that two-thirds of species diversity exists in the tropics (23). This regional bias may inflate the population estimates, given that in some taxa species’ range sizes tend to increase toward the poles (24).”

    “Perhaps the most prominent source of bias in our estimate is the taxonomic focus inherent at each step. Arthropods comprise an estimated 65% of the planet’s species, whereas birds account for probably less than 0.01% (17). Of the available data on population structure, however, arthropods and birds accounted for 22 and 13% of the species, respectively.”

    “Estimates of current species extinction rates are largely based on species-area relationships and the rate of habitat loss due to deforestation (1, 26). Given the current rate of tropical deforestation of roughly 0.8% per year (27), the rate of committing tropical forest species to extinction is predicted to lie between 0.1 and 0.3% each year (28). Assuming that there are 14 million species globally and that two-thirds of all species exist in tropical forests, tropical forest species diversity is declining by roughly 14,000 to 40,000 species per year, or two to five species per hour.”

    Extrapolation. Not data. I am not faulting their work. Add up their uncertainties and is not data. It is science. It may well be good science. But until someone takes a patch of land in the rain forest and does a species count year after year, their extrapolation is just that.

    And for you to take all their initial assumptions and put their results forward as fact is as anti-scientific as anything I have ever seen. You are trying to make a Mann-sized error. He screwed climate science. What is it you are trying to screw? I swear there are times I think you people are paid by Big Oil, or are secretly plotting to make sure nothing ever gets done for the environment.

  511. Tom Fuller Says:

    Jokerman, change their initial assumption from 14 million extant species to 5, which is one of the estimates they considered in their brief. Tell me how many species are ‘going extinct every hour’ now. And tell me what has changed in the real world to cause this incredible lowering of the decimation of our biome?

    Do you get it, Jokerman? Or can you do the math?

  512. jakerman Says:

    “three estimates of global species numbers (5, 14, and 30 million) (16–18, respectively)” Data based on evidence.

    “three estimates of the total number of populations: 1.1, 3.1, and 6.6 billion populations.”

    Data based on evidence.

    “it is estimated that two-thirds of species diversity exists in the tropics”

    Data based on evidence.

    “Arthropods comprise an estimated 65% of the planet’s species, whereas birds account for probably less than 0.01% (17). Of the available data on population structure, however, arthropods and birds accounted for 22 and 13% of the species, respectively.”

    Data based on evidence.

    ““Estimates of current species extinction rates are largely based on species-area relationships and the rate of habitat loss due to deforestation (1, 26).”

    Data based on evidence.

    “Given the current rate of tropical deforestation of roughly 0.8% per year (27), the rate of committing tropical forest species to extinction is predicted to lie between 0.1 and 0.3% each year (28).

    Data based on E

    “Assuming that there are 14 million species globally and that two-thirds of all species exist in tropical forests, tropical forest species diversity is declining by roughly 14,000 to 40,000 species per year, or two to five species per hour.”

    D b o E.

  513. Tom Fuller Says:

    Okay, Junkman–you are evidently completely incapable of actual thought. You go ahead and do for biodiversity what Mann did for global warming, and let the Republicans go to town on it forever.

  514. Tom Fuller Says:

    “There is no comparable work relating numbers of populations to area. Although a wide range of relationships could be justified, depending on the spatial and time scales considered, in the absence of information we use the simplest and most intuitive here: namely, that changes in population diversity and area correspond in a roughly one-to-one fashion in ecological time.”

  515. jakerman Says:

    Tell me how many species are ‘going extinct every hour’ now.

    Evidence suggest the current rate is high compared to background fossil recored. In a range 50 to 1000 times higher. This level is significant despite the imperfect availably to data.

    And tell me what has changed in the real world to cause this incredible lowering of the decimation of our biome?

    Habitat destruction, and to cite Dr Harvey:

    The planet is now dominated by a bipedal primate which co-opts more than 50% of freshwater flows and 40% of net primary productivity. Our species has simplified the planet biologically through the combined effects of paving, ploughing, damming, dredging. logging. slashing and burning, mining, dousing in synthetic pesticides, biologically homogenizing (e.g. through invasive species), altering the chemical composition of the air and water, and through various other forms of pollution. We know that genetic diversity is being lost at rates unseen in 65 million years, and against this background we are challenging an already impoverished fauna and flora to respond to climate changes that are unprecedented in perhaps tens of thousands of years.

  516. jakerman Says:

    Okay, Junkman–you are evidently completely incapable of actual thought.

    There is always abuse when you got nothing else hey Tom.

    Some advise, you can criticise the evidence that supports this range, but its is futile to deny there is evidence and data used to estalish this range.

    Sorry Tom, you’ve committed yourself to a foolish line of argument.

  517. jakerman Says:

    Thanks for the display Tom, go have a lay down.

  518. Tom Fuller Says:

    You not only cannot think, you cannot even read. Their assumption of 14 million extant species led to a conclusion of ‘two to five species’ going extinct per hour. You can save biodiversity, Jerkwater. Just have them use one of the other common assumptions that they considered and did separate calculations for. But didn’t report, because the headline wouldn’t have been as gory.

  519. Tom Fuller Says:

    Is Monckton paying you?

  520. jakerman Says:

    Yes Tom, you’ve obviously got this topic as under control as your temper. Go lay down and come back fresh.

  521. jakerman Says:

    My ‘yes’ reply was my tongue in cheek reply to Tom at 7:32. But fits equally tongue in cheek with Tom at 7:33.

  522. Tom Fuller Says:

    This is the triumph of ignorance:

    ““three estimates of global species numbers (5, 14, and 30 million) (16–18, respectively)” Data based on evidence.

    So they consider three hugely divergent estimates, and pick one out of the air without declaring why. Where is the evidence? I see no evidence that would support such divergence.

    “three estimates of the total number of populations: 1.1, 3.1, and 6.6 billion populations.”

    Data based on evidence.

    “it is estimated that two-thirds of species diversity exists in the tropics”

    Estimated. Doesn’t say what evidence was used. Perhaps because their study WASN’T IN THE TROPICS. Evidence.

    Data based on evidence.

    “Arthropods comprise an estimated 65% of the planet’s species, whereas birds account for probably less than 0.01% (17). Of the available data on population structure, however, arthropods and birds accounted for 22 and 13% of the species, respectively.”

    Data based on evidence.

    ““Estimates of current species extinction rates are largely based on species-area relationships and the rate of habitat loss due to deforestation (1, 26).”

    Data based on evidence.

    “Given the current rate of tropical deforestation of roughly 0.8% per year (27), the rate of committing tropical forest species to extinction is predicted to lie between 0.1 and 0.3% each year (28).”

    Given? The rate of deforestation has dropped dramatically. What does that do to their figures? Where is the data? What is the difference between 0.1 and 0.3% per year and how come it isn’t published? Because of the following, of course.

    Data based on E

    “Assuming that there are 14 million species globally and that two-thirds of all species exist in tropical forests, tropical forest species diversity is declining by roughly 14,000 to 40,000 species per year, or two to five species per hour.”

    What word starts this sentence? There are two assumptions here that are not based on evidence: 14 million species and that two-thirds of all species exist in tropical forests.

    D b o E.

    D b o E. What is that? Dumb bastards over easy?

  523. Tom Fuller Says:

    Now a new paper, published in Biotropica, argues that the most dire of these projections may be overstated. Using models that show lower rates of forest loss based on slowing population growth and other factors, Joseph Wright from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau from the University of Minnesota say that species loss may be more moderate than the commonly cited figures.

    …”On the basis of these lower rural growth rates, Wright and Muller-Landau argue that deforestation rates will slow. Overall, their model projects that net forest cover will not change much between now and 2030, though primary forest will be replaced by secondary forest.”

    …”They argue that many species currently at risk from habitat loss will not go extinct in the end and instead will benefit from the projected abandonment of agricultural lands and subsequent regrowth of secondary forest in the absence of rural farmers practicing swidden agriculture.”

    …”The authors concede that while secondary forest is not as biodiverse as old growth or primary forest, in a historical context tropical forests have retreated to small areas before, namely during the Ice Ages under the refugia hypothesis. Further, they say, forest species that exist today have managed thus far to survive extensive hunting and land-clearing pressure from large sustained indigenous populations in the Amazon, Congo, and New Guinea.”

    The paper is vigorously criticized by scientists, but has not been refuted.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0206-biodiversity.html

  524. jakerman Says:

    So they consider three hugely divergent estimates, and pick one out of the air without declaring why.

    That’s better Tom, go with the science question, and drop the dead-end claim that there is no data and no evidence.

    To answer this question, I suggest you ask the authors, if that is in fact what they did.

    Given? The rate of deforestation has dropped dramatically. What does that do to their figures? Where is the data?

    Don’t know Tom, but I suggest to check cited publication #27 to see if their data is supported by the evidence they claim.

    There are two assumptions here that are not based on evidence

    Consistent with by comment that the data is imperfect, and certainly does not mean there is “no data” and no evidence.

  525. jakerman Says:

    Now a new paper, published in Biotropica, argues that the most dire of these projections may be overstated.

    Sounds plausible, we’re dealing with large ranges and uncertainties. Even the middling projections are bad enough.

  526. Tom Fuller Says:

    “Assuming”. “Given..”. “Predicted”

    Yeah. Evidence.

  527. MapleLeaf Says:

    All,

    Maybe this biodiversity discussion should be continued on the most recent open thread.

    And maybe in Tom’s first post he can explain to us how the pH (not PH) scale works and explain (using reputable scientific sources) why lowering PH (aka ocean acidification) is a non issue.

  528. Tom Fuller Says:

    “Before you can estimate how many species are being lost due to human induced global changes, you have to have some idea of how many species there are. The problem is that no one knows exactly how many species currently live on earth.

    The most commonly quoted estimate is somewhere between 30 and 50 millions based on Erwin’s (1988, 1997) study of tropical insects. This estimate is controversial and politically charged because the larger your initial estimate, the larger the estimated species loss. You also have to take into account that Erwin himself did not present this as a definitive number, but presented his estimate in an effort to spur further research. Let’s look at how this number was arrived at.

    Erwin initially centered his study in Panama. His method was knock down fogging of insects in the Tropical forest canopy. In other words, he selected certain trees and fogged them with insecticide. The dead insects falling out of the tree canopy were caught in plactic tarps and later identified to species.

    In his initial study, Erwin sampled from 19 trees of only a single tree species Luehea seemanii . Sampling was carried out over the space of three seasons (early rainy, late rainy, early dry, late dry) in order to estimate seasonal changes in species diversity. [ASIDE: Some organisms subdivide their niche space temporally as well as physically. In Plattsburgh there are three species of mosquito which appear at different times of the year (spring – early summer, summer, late summer – fall). This serves to decrease competition and results in a greater species diversity. ]

    Erwin found 955+ species of beetles, excluding weevils in his samples. That’s the hard data, now the estimating begins!

    Based upon other evidence (studies from Brazil) he assumed that there should be as many weevils as there are leaf beetles. As a result, he added 206 assumed weevil species to his count (now 1161), and for simplicity rounded the number up to 1200 species of insect per tree species (remember, he only sampled the one tree species).

    Now 1 hectare (10,000 square meters) of rich tropical rain forest can contain as many as 245 species of trees, but 40 to 100 species is a more common estimate, so Erwin used 70 tree species per hectare as an average. This is important, because we now have to consider the degree of host specificity in the ecology of insect species. [ASIDE: Host Specificity is defined as a case in which a species is in some way tied to the host tree species and cannot exist without it.] Now things get very interesting, because there is really no data available to allow us to judge the proportion of host specific insects per trophic (feeding) group! Erwin isn’t trying to pull a fast one, he’s simply using his best (educated) guess to fill a hole caused by a total lack of data (as I noted earlier, he’s trying to get people to do research to test his assumptions).

    (cont.)

  529. Tom Fuller Says:

    “Now remember, his total number of canopy species in Luehea is an estimate, his “% Host specific” is a guess, so obviously his total number of Host-specific species can be considered shakey at best.

    Keeping all this in mind, he arrives at an estimate of roughly 163 host-specific species (on Luehea), or about 13.5% of all his beetle species. That means that the other 1,037 species (86.5%) are transient (possibly moving freely from tree to tree). Now if the number 163 host-specifics is about average per tree species, then with roughly 70 tree species per hectare he estimates a total of 11,410 host-specific species of beetles per hectare (163 host-specifics/tree species X 70 tree species/hectare). Add the 11,140 host-specifics to the 1,037 transient species and we arrive at roughly 12,448 beetle species per hectare in the canopy. Now by most estimates beetles make up about 40% of all insect species, so we can make it into an equation:

    40% X (total number of Insect species in canopy) = 12,448.

    If we solve this simple equation, we arrive at an estimate of 31,120 species of insect/hectare in the canopy. Erwin then estimates roughly 1 insect species living on the floor of the forest for every 3 species in the canopy, or roughly 10,269 species/hectare of forest floor. Add the canopy number to the floor number and we get 41,389 species of insect per hectare for this Panamanian seasonal forest.

    If we use Erwin’s numbers for a world-wide estimate, we will get 162 host-specific beetle species times roughly 50,000 species of tropical trees equals 8,100,000 species of beetle. Remember that the beetles are roughly 40% of all insect species, so we need to add in an estimate of the other 60% which gives us 20,250,000 insect species in the canopy world-wide. We then add the estimate of forest floor living insects (remember, 1/3 of the number in the canopy) for a grand total of 30,000,000 species of insects!

    More recently, based on work in Manaus, Brazil and Tambopata, Peru, Erwin has upped his estimate to 50,000,000 species of insects!”

  530. Tom Fuller Says:

    Before we briefly examine attempts to determine modern extinction rates, we need a frame of reference. We can get that from the fossil record, especially in terms of what are called backround extinction rates – the constant rate of extinction through time. Raup (in our text) estimates that individual species last about 10 million years before going extinct. If we use this estimate, and assume 10 million species on earth today (you can adjust this upwards if you would rather use 30 or 50 millions), then we would expect to lose somewhere between 1 and 10 species per year just due to natural causes. This comes out to between 0.00001% and 0.0001% of our total number of species per year, or 0.001% to .01% per century. We would however expect, under natural conditions that this would be balanced by the evolution of new species, leading to little net loss. For comparison, it is interesting to note that some observers have claimed a current extinction rate of ~ 1% per century which is anywhere from 100 to 1000 times greater than Raup’s estimated backround extinction rate!

  531. Tom Fuller Says:

    Source for the above: http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.wolosz/howmanysp.htm

  532. jakerman Says:

    “Assuming”. “Given..”. “Predicted” Yeah. Evidence.

    Your back to that losing argument again Tom? Trying to argue “no data” and no evidence?

    “Assuming”. “Given..”. “Predicted” are acceptable terms dealing with data and evidence in scientific publications. That is part of science.

  533. jakerman Says:

    The most commonly quoted estimate is somewhere between 30 and 50 millions based on Erwin’s (1988, 1997) study of tropical insects.

    Estimates have moved on using different data and evidence:

    three estimates of global species numbers (5, 14, and 30 million) (16–18, respectively)

    Science asymptotes toward the truth.

  534. J Bowers Says:

    Fuller — “See bowers with google you can choose the result that confirms your bias. Ain’t life grand?”

    Says someone who appears to have fallen for Lomborg’s Cornucopian BS hook, line and sinker.

  535. Bart Says:

    Let’s move the discussion about biodiversity to the new thread. I tried to assemble some of the main arguments of Jeff vs Jeff over there.

    And while I’m at it, let’s try to re-focus on the substance and leave the bickering for what it is (boring).

  536. Sou Says:

    Tom F has quoted huge slabs of text above and raises queries like:
    “it is estimated that two-thirds of species diversity exists in the tropics”

    Estimated. Doesn’t say what evidence was used. Perhaps because their study WASN’T IN THE TROPICS. Evidence.

    Tom shows no evidence that he understood the above article properly (it was based on a review of literature and was not a field study in the tropics or anywhere else), nor that he examined the citation provided by the authors as a reference for species diversity:
    P. H. Raven, Bull. ESA Spring, 4 (1983)

    Neither have I because I don’t currently have access Bull. ESA Spring (1983). But having read the article he extensively quotes and seen the caveats the authors provide, I have to say that this and probably all Tom’s other calls for ‘evidence’ etc are nothing more than what I see commonly referred to as ‘hand-waving’.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5338/689.full#xref-ref-23-1

    I agree that estimates of global populations of all species are difficult.

    Heck, estimates of national human populations are difficult even with national census, let alone estimates of the worldwide human population. But people still make such estimates based on imprecise data and use these estimates in making all sorts of decisions.

    Difficult doesn’t mean it’s not worth progressively adding to our knowledge of species diversity, population sizes, spread and rate of extinction.

  537. Sou Says:

    Bart, our posts crossed. If appropriate, feel free to move my comment over to the biodiversity thread as well.

    Thanks.

  538. William Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:
    February 17, 2011 at 20:58

    Dhogaza,

    Still no science from the contrarians and still no substance to back up their assertions about ice loss or impacts of AAGW…..and they claim that we are trolling ;) And we are not their librarians, but I’ll help– Jeff et al. should read some of the papers here on the impacts of AGW.

    But in some people’s minds, citing science is considered ‘trash’, and carries apparently less weight than unsubstantiated opining. The mind boggles.

    For some really good “trash” talk about scientists go to Climate*****:

    This reminds me of the old time sport of bear baiting. Poke something hard and long enough and see what sort of a reaction you can provoke. A guaranteed fun time for all.

  539. William Says:

    Still waiting for Jeff Id to prove his leftist conspiracy theory.

  540. willard Says:

    In case someone was wondering when the thread derailed, here is the last response from Jeff Id that relates to this thread, almost w week ago, on the February 15, 2011 at 23:20 CET:

    ***

    Bart,

    Why so intent on critiqing S09 rather than using your energy more constructively to provide the best possible reconstruction?

    A good question. I suppose that some of the press releases had something to do with it:

    http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=46448

    The attempt to dramatically change the story based on what looked to my eye to be immediately faulty. Knowing what you know about ground station trends Bart, how would you have reviewed S09. I would have let it go except Steig was too cocky and dishonest about access to the data and code initially. Dhog probably was there mocking me about that. He later released his data, but never the code for his work. I was genuinely interested if he was right at the beginning. Later, every step became a battle. Every blog post wasn’t worth reading, every critique a trick for my readers. Eventually things settled down and we attempted publication.

    But there is actually more reason. The Chladni patterns are oft mistaken for coming from climatological origins in literally hundreds of climate papers. RegEM is being used more regularly for these types of methods, often by people with little understanding of the meaning — something from both the papers and reviews Steig had little of. If you followed the statistical conference in Scotland this year, I think there were dozens of papers seeing patterns in PCA trends. If climate science is really serious about this stuff – as the endless govt funded publications show – it is important that improved methods are demonstrated.

    Source: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%e2%80%99donnell-peer-review-solid-scientific-basics/#comment-11118

  541. willard Says:

    Eli said earlier:

    > Unless the authors of O’D et al get their act together this is just going to be another remember Yamal, when McIntyre (curious he is always involved in these things) HAD the data, but wanted it hand delivered by Briffa and not from the owners of the data who had given it to him. McIntyre and Co have a real history of engendering trust.

    A link always makes remembering easier.

    In his reply to Michael Ashley by Steve McIntyre, dated Oct 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM, we read:

    > [I] already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004.

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/05/yamal-and-ipcc-ar4-review-comments/#comment-197561

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: