It’s by not calling out exaggerations that feeds scepticism. The greater the silence, the louder or more visibly active the ‘skeptosphere’. It’s all perfectly normal. 

I think the reason most climate scientists are loathe to call out the exaggerations of their colleagues is because they can be punished for doing so.  Warmists have enough power to harm the career of a scientist who opposes them.  I think the existance of skeptical bloggers  encourages climate scientists to call out exaggerations of their colleagues. Go back to the 1990′s when these skeptical blogs didn’t exist.  At that time there was less willingness to call out exaggerating colleagues, not more willingness.

The hype is in the nature of trolling for federal funds.

It’s not limited to climate academics or even academics for that matter.In order to expend public funds there needs to be a problem or a potential problem. Nobody is going to pay for a study of a non-problem.

Here we go…http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts/nonmelanoma-skin-cancer-incidence-jumps-by-approximately-300-percent

Recently released data show an alarming increase in skin cancer incidence:

My 80+ year old mother was recently diagnosed with skin cancer…she thought it was just an old age spot.

Keith – Off topic -  maybe I should send this to you via email, but  I thought that some folks might find some of these links interesting:

A while back you asked for examples when I spoke of collaborative stakeholder dialog as a political process with positive outcomes. When I responded with urban planning, you seemed to downplay the extent to which that is political in nature? I’m not sure I agree. Along those lines (don’t know if you’re already familiar with this):

http://www.princeton.edu/successfulsocieties/content/focusareas/CI/oralhistories/view.xml?id=267

A project involving a  former academic (mathematician) who won the Curry Stone Design Prize as mayor of Medellin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Fajardo

http://www.currystone.org/projects/project01.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgiUMimrGgU

http://currystonedesignprize.com/winners/2009/transformative_public_works

I guess I took a bit of a “poetic license” with the “that I’ve seen,” comment in the earlier thread. Of what I have seen at a directly personal level, I’m referring to the settlement of local zoning disputes and a couple of “design charettes” I’ve been involved with. None of those processes  that I’ve been directly involved with were particularly formal or extensive, or
something I could really reference.

Other than that, I don’t have anything to offer that would be better than anything I’m sure that you could research far more effectively than I could. Although this Google hit refers to the kind of thing I’m discussing (click on the case studies tab).

http://pgexchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156&Itemid=151

harrywr2,What is the “problem” that, for example, the Large Hadron Collider (cost $9bn) is meant to solve?

Now here’s the kicker that suggests that investigators are part of the problem. Nearly all of the press releases included investigator quotes. This is not in itself surprising; investigator quotes would seem to be a prerequisite for even a halfway decent press release. What is surprising is that 26% of these investigator quotes were deemed to be overstating the importance of the research, a number that is strikingly similar to the percentage of press releases judged to be exaggerating the importance of the research (29%). Indeed, at one point Woloshin et al characterize the tone of many of these investigator quotes as “overly enthusiastic.” 

There is not enough negative feedback in the system from over-hyping your findings.  Chances are you are more likely to benefit from this hype than have it come back to bite you.  And of course there is the argument that everyone is doing it, so I must do it too.  Nice guys finish last.

And when everyone is doing it, eventually the stars of the show will be trapped by it and eventually persecuted.  The net effect will be loss of public confidence.  

Look at doping in cycling.  it eventually took down Lance Armstrong.  It is an assumption that a star cyclist is doping now, no evidence necessary.  And that assumption is probably correct.

Likewise these sensationalist findings are routinely ignored now, or best case make their way to page A11.  It is a black eye for all of academia and science.  Press releases are a way to get around an already co-opted peer review system.

Collective trust in science is being lost, that is the real emergency here.  At some point when the budget constraints really hit, people are going to begin seriously asking what all this research funding in academia is returning on the investment.  That question is getting harder and harder to answer, and that is a shame.

“With respect to climate science, because of the the ugly politicized
nature of global warming, most climate scientists are loathe to call out
the exaggerations of their colleagues or their vocal blog allies.” So the evil deniers make them do it? If there’s one thing you can say about the entire field of climate science, it’s that they have never been willing to speak out with integrity when one of their own gets caught telling porkies. And that fact, more than anything else, has driven the increase in skeptic numbers. When you won’t show a modicum on integrity when it counts, you don’t deserve to be trusted.

Geeze, Tom. Just a link will do. When I use The Google, the polls I’ve seen show overall trust in science to be pretty constant.

Of course, People can cherry-pick data, argue from assertion, and scare-monger all they want. And you’re entitled to do so also. I would like to see some data if you have some – cause I don’t see the evidence for your claim.

Just pick from your vast list of links and show me the evidential basis you have for your assertion of a “collective loss of trust” that you use to justify declaring a state of “emergency.”

In the meantime, should we call in FEMA?

I’m touched by your concern about my happiness, Dean. It’s true that one link might not make me happy, but it would be a place to start. Do you happen to have a link? I’ve got FEMA on hold and I need to tell them what to do.

Joshua,

I’m sure you have seen this before, thus my snark.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765564017/Conservatives-increasingly-distrust-science-study-finds.html?pg=all 

I’m sure you will now be satisfied that my assertion is truth, right?

Academia and the social sciences are liberal by over a 5 to 1 margin, higher in many cases.  When science gets increasingly politicized, this would be one expected result.

Even conservatives want environmental science they can trust.  Liberals should be concerned about this if they actually want to make progress on climate change and other environmental issues (even though calling Republicans anti-science is so much fun).  Some will dismiss this loss of trust with unidirectional motivated reasoning theory, but that won’t help pass carbon taxes anytime soon. 

@ 18 BBD – it’s not so much an issue of “trust in science”, it is more seeing whether those who have staked out a position on an issue will countenance the crazies on their side.

For instance, I can tolerate an “intelligent design” believer, no matter how weak I believe their position is, because who the hell really knows how the universe came into being? However, if that same intelligent design proponent will not stand 100% in opposition to the 10,000 year old Earth whackos, then it’s clear that they will support scientific piffle & so all arguments they forward can be gleefully vetted & exposed; they have forfeited their “person of science” privileges.

In that regard WMC and Real Climate deservedly get a hat tip on the mathane emissions from the “skeptic” crowd

So, Tom – You did find one study. Congrats. So let’s look at it a bit more, shall we?

Trust in scientists dropped  in one group, defined strictly by political affiliation, that comprises 34% of the American population. Not across nations. Not moderates (or liberals). Conservatives only, only in this country, and only. 34% of the population. Over 41 years.

How much do you think that 25% drop among conservatives (only) affects the degree of trust when you consider the entire world  population? How about the U.S. population?  How much has the % of total population that trusts scientists dropped when the drop was by 1/3 among 1/3 of the American population? Enough to call a state of “emergency?”

Do you suppose that conservatives have stopped trusting in medical science, since that the problems with the research literature in that field is quite well identified? Hmmm. Maybe there’s something else other than a basic distrust in academic research and science journalism? So maybe it isn’t quite a “black eye for all of academia and all of science?”

Well, FEMA just got back to me. They don’t agree that it’s an emergency. They said something about “motivated reasoning.” Any idea what they were referring to?

Ironically – some interesting stuff if you read the actual study rather than the sensationalized account of it in the media. Gems like this:

For example, on fundamental ontological questions about who we are and how we got here, conservatives are far more likely to doubt scientific theories of origins, including theories of natural selection and the Big Bang.

Hmm. I wonder if the growth of the religious right might be a factor in the decreased trust in science among conservatives? Ya’ think?

and this:

In general, results are consistent with claims of the politicization thesis and show that conservatives experienced long-term group-specific declines rather than an abrupt cultural break.

So – this has been happening for a while and at a gradual rate? But I thought it was because of climate scientists and recent, poor reporting from science journalists?

And there’s this:

Relating to the second pattern, when examining a series of public attitudes toward science, conservatives’ unfavorable attitudes are most acute in relation to government funding of science and the use of scientific knowledge to influence social policy (see Gauchat 2010). Conservatives thus appear especially averse to regulatory science, defined here as the mutual dependence of organized science and government policy.

Hmmm. Is that what FEMA meant by  “motivated reasoning?” I’m thinking I’m going to return those supplies I picked up for building my emergency bunker

http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

Tom -

I stated trust was being lost.

Dude, you said it was an “emergency.” And you said it was a “collective loss of trust.” And you said that it was a “black eye for all of academic and all of science.”

And in response, I pointed out that scare-mongering about scare-mongering doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Does the politicization of science concern me? Yes, it does. And so does scare-mongering about scare-mongering – particularly when it is part of the politicization of science.

And yes, Tom – I completely agree – motivated reasoning affects everyone.

And this is excellent, Tom:

“…and then dismiss it using the “clever” social science motivated reasoning defense.  This universally works for you (and only you) in any debate your arguments are weak in. “

Did you read the actual study that you linked to? Did you read the extensive discussion in the study about the influence of motivated reasoning in the findings? So actually talking about the study’s findings in some depth is me “using the ‘clever’ social science motivated reasoning defense?”

And speaking in some depth about the actual findings of the study is something that “universally works for [me] (and only [me]) as a sign of the weakness of my arguments?I guess, instead of actually talking about what the study says, I should have just focused on the sensationalized media article that you linked to, eh?

Classic, bro.

Yes Tom – my arguments are getting weaker…

BECAUSE I ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE STUDY WHEN I TALK ABOUT WHAT’S IN THE STUDY!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!

Joshua, too bad you can’t be as concentrated on the actual topic of a post…

Malthus. Watergate. Much more interesting.

The truth is out there.

A second thought: if telling the truth ‘gives ammunition’ to your opponents, shouldn’t you start looking in the mirror? I understand this argument – I’ve never understood having the nerve to say it in public, as frequently happens.

willard @34: 
+10000000

(mt, if you’re lurking: I am not now and never was a Pythoneer. sometimes hyperbole is called for.)

(31) Tom Fuller -

I think I might have ADD.

But here’s a suggestion. Why don’t you post at the tops of threads which topics you think I should or shouldn’t be talking about so that I can follow your instructions?

That way you would have to (rather ironically, I’d say) write “off-topic” posts whining about my “off-topic” posts, whether I use bold, etc.

Joshua,

I believe the topic of Keith’s post is “the sensationalist impulse” of the media when promoting (perhaps in a technical sense [1]) climate science news.

In other words, Keith is talking about climate hype.

In what way could you say that what you’re not talking about climate hype?

Please inspect your own motivated reasoning. And if you have time, please do a more general public self-criticism.

The hype is out there.

The hype is inside us.

The hype is us.

[1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1702909842

And that’s the problem with the conversation as it stands today. For some reason willard thinks that the media writes press releases, as opposed to the institution or scientists announcing the results.

But as long as a shirt gets ripped it’s okay–all gist for the mills, all another head for the never-ending tumbler.

Some might notice Keith’s remarks about how Andrew Revkin, a member of the media, served as an effective counterbalance to the press releases overhyping research results and climate alarmism.

Some might notice his calling out Orac and Connelly in the same vein.

Willard–the hype is inside you. The hype is you. You are the poster child, you and your running mates here, about how attempts to counter the hype are resisted by fools who will go to any rhetorical length to change the subject.

The subject being hype by the climate establishment that needs countering and noting the instances where the countering actually occurs.

What Keith didn’t write, but I would like to note, is that countering climate hypesteria is apparently only effective when it comes from figures either associated with the consensus (Revkin, Connelly) or from figures generally outside the climate conversation (Orac).

Let the cloud of confusion continue! Onward with shirt ripping! Groundskeeping! Overton Windows! Dunning Kruger! On to Obscurity!

Can’t have a real discussion, can we now?

What Keith didn’t write, but I would like to note, is that countering climate hypesteria is apparently only effective when it comes from figures either associated with the consensus (Revkin, Connelly) or from figures generally outside the climate conversation (Orac).

I have said on more than one occasion that I think that Keith’s discussion about the climate hype is important and useful. In case you missed that, I’ll say it again.

I think that Keith’s discussion about the climate hype is important and useful.I also think that it is useful to note where his posts generate scare-mongering about scare-mongering and sensationalism about sensationalism.

If you would like to have a discussion about potential limitations and/or strengths of Keith’s approach those issues, I’m game.

#32

it does seem to me that if a poll shows a drop in trust in science
specific to one particular political grouping then there is at least a
possibility that the problem might be with that political grouping
rather than with science..

The problem with that theory is this quote from an article on the study  http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112505071/study-finds-conservative-trust-in-science-declining/

“That represents a dramatic shift for conservatives, who in 1974 were more likely than liberals or moderates (all categories based on self-identification) to express confidence in science,

Conservatives went from the most trustful of science to least trustful.

I guess we could somehow speculate that conservatives  have changed dramatically in 38 years.

Dear old mom has been a news editor for 50+ years. She is clear about what has changed in the last 30 years. The Watergate debacle along with 24 hours news changed journalism towards a get it first focus. First reports are frequently wrong.

Science journals have always been filled with peer reviewed articles that were refuted by another peer reviewed article in the next few issues or within a few years.

What has changed is the ‘main stream media’ picks things up faster, before they have a chance to be fully vetted within the broader peer community. I.E. A study by Dr James Hansen published in PNAS is reported in the New York Times before Dr Lindzens copy of PNAS arrives in the mail.

As a conservative I can agree with Chris Mooney that conservatives tend to be slow to accept new ideas…I would say that is because most new ideas end up being bad ideas(not all, just most). The faster news cycle has exposed conservatives to more science that hasn’t stood the test of time within the peer reviewed community…this has resulted in conservatives putting science in the same mental box as ‘new ideas’. We like things that have stood the test of time.

Joshua,

I was intentionally poking you with a stick because you have embraced motivated reasoning a little too much.  We have all intuitively known about it since 5th grade.  The fact that someone came up with a 7 syllable phrase for this phenomenon is *trivial*, not a discovery of merit.

What is interesting is the evidence, not why someone might prefer his cherry picked evidence more than your cherry picked evidence.

With that, I conclude my lifetime discussion on the motivated reasoning topic, it is not very interesting.

If you think it is interesting, well, you would think that wouldn’t you? ha ha.

You can now have the last 10,000 words on the subject.

Joshua,

Please note the dots in #50, and the fact that it just throws another spitball.

And to prevent future shirt rippin’ about the word “spitball”, here’s the source:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922148074

Yeah, Joshua, when being off topic is the name of the game, don’t get distracted by people pushing back on climate hype or anything like that… 

And by all means stay current on the catch phrase of the day. Inside baseball expertise makes you look as hip as tweens texting random collections of letters. OMG! #50 uzd sptbl!

How often does willard coach you through the vagaries of trolling?

Tom -

I was intentionally poking you with a stick because you have embraced motivated reasoning a little too much.

Right.

I feel like such an idiot. I didn’t realize how easily you played me. You inaccurately characterized a trend in public opinion, and lamely used a study that specifically talks about the role of motivated reasoning  as evidence for your sensationalistic characterization, because you wanted to make the point that I talk about motivated reasoning too much.

Why do I even bother? You’re like 20 steps ahead of me! 

If only I had your self-awareness and understanding of the real world, I would save myself this kind of shame I’m feeling right now.

Tom Fuller -

Last comment from me on the topic that you seem to think is so important to discuss – and which of all the things discussed in this thread, ironically, is obviously the one that is objectively most “off-topic.”

Yeah, Joshua, when being off topic is the name of the game, don’t get distracted by people pushing back on climate hype or anything like that”¦

Heretofore, you should know that I never, ever, have any illusion that by posting on something, I can “distract” you from your important work of posting comments on blogs, saying more or less the same things you’ve no doubt said over and over in previous blog posts.

Of course, you won’t believe this – but I also have no intent of “distracting” you from what you apparently think is your important work. First, I can only imagine what kind of an idiot would be so easily “distracted,’ – and I don’t think you’re an idiot.

Second, I don’t, in the least, have any concern over whether, if you post comments on topic A as opposed to topic B, it has any meaningful importance in the real world in any sense. So I not only never think that writing a post will “distract” you (or anyone else), I also would have no reason to want to “distract” you. Stop smelling yourself, dude. You really aren’t that important!

I would like to discuss issues with you. Especially when you freaking bring them up:

We may end up in a world where each microdomain is the territory of a handful of experts and silos will prove to be impenetrable walls to cross-disciplinary work. That’s an exaggeration of course, but how much of one?

And I promise you, if you choose to scroll past my comments, or if you choose to do your important work of noting whether or not I use bold when I write my comments – I won’t be offended either way.

Yet another spitball in #43:

And that’s the problem with the conversation as it stands today. For some reason willard thinks that the media writes press releases, as opposed to the institution or scientists announcing the results.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie can read my mind.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie reads my mind on the very next sentence after he whines about communication.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie has succeeding is attacking me while whining about communication.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie still asks for a real conversation.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie could lead by example.

For some reason, Groundskeeper Willie instead chooses to plug in this week’s hurly burly.

That’s a lot of spitballs.

Joshua,

Have you noticed how #42 was not directly addressed, and instead we get a reiteration of the claim that #42 refuted?

I know you spotted this one:

Yeah, Joshua, when being off topic is the name of the game [...]

There is also this other rhetorical question:

How often does willard coach you through the vagaries of trolling?

Since one trolls by being OT, this begs that you are OT, something you rebutted in #42.

Now, when someone insists in claiming something that you rebutted, without owning up the obligation to address your rebuttal, do you feel you need to have a conversation with that person?

***

Here’s a prediction, Joshua: Groundskeeper Willie will try to poison the well, and then whine that the well is being poisoned. He already did elsewhere. He oftentimes does that.

Perhaps I can safely assert this:
 
Hyping premature conclusions that are later overturned certainly won’t help society’s trust in scientists and/or their conclusions.Beyond that, I’m still not convinced that “trust” in science is the problem.  On the contrary, the last thing we need is public trust in scientists and their conclusions.
 
Science is about verification, not trust.  It’s about subverting the limitations of humans’ senses and biases.  If trust were the hallmark of science, then science as we know it would fail.   
 
To some extent, that’s already happening.  People (both scientists and the general public) throw around study conclusions without even the slightest consideration of the constraints of the study, let alone a simple critical assessment of its conclusions, as though the lone fact that the study was produced by a scientist ensures validity.  The constant gnashing over “peer-reviewed” studies reflects a similar mentality.   
 
Perhaps the real problem is not the lack of trust, but the growing emphasis placed on it.
 

I actually quoted Chomsky as saying that those in authority should not be trusted and should be challenged… As a fan of his work on the media (and linguistics) I’m surprised you would think he would be used as a spitball. 

Really trying to get traction with your new toy word of the day… Anything to avoid talking about pushing back on climate hype. Noam would be shaking his head in sad disgust.

Trust is not being lost. It is safe to proceed with violating FOIA law. Full steam head. Trust is not being lost. It is safe to go after more heartland documents. Full steam ahead. Trust is not being lost. Please, hide more declines.

You know I have a certain affinity for the argument that those who want to pollute the atmosphere with C02 have a burden to prove that their actions are safe.

It’s clear to me that since the science wasnt hurt by climategate and that trust wasnt impacted a whit that certain behavior can now be deemed safe. It is safe, I would argue to continue with business as usual. Folks will have to prove the danger in violating FOIA law, prove the danger in stealing documents from dopes like heartland, prove the danger in refusing requests for data, prove the danger in producing dodgy graphs. The real lesson of climategate is that we can get away with this shit with no damage whatsoever. That’s the same lesson from the Gleick incident. Their is only one way your tribe will hold you to account. Post weiner pics on Twitter.

Let me put it a little bit stronger. What we’ve seen in climategate is this. There is no downside whatsoever for the cause, its all upside. Those who believe in the science will forgive, look the other way, attack the messenger, create apologia. They will still trust no matter what. Those who disbelieve already disbelieve. There is no practical point in avoiding the kind of behavior we saw in climategate, in fact, we should demand MORE of it. 3 years after, and look how far we’ve come!
Mann push the envelope but Gleick absolutely proved the point. Anything goes. except weiner pics, dont post those.

jim (63) -

Hyping premature conclusions that are later overturned certainly won’t help society’s trust in scientists and/or their conclusions.

Agreed. It seems obvious that it couldn’t help, and likely it will “hurt” (not yet getting to your point about “trust”) to some degree. I will also note, however, that ever hyping  (is it possible to under hype) the impact of premature conclusions that are later overturned will also not help.

Beyond that,
I’m still not convinced that “trust” in science is the problem.  On the contrary, the last thing we need is public trust in scientists and their conclusions.

Blind trust is not the same thing as trust. I think that you make a good point. Skepticism about the biases of scientific output are positive in balance. However, there can be potential downsides to a lack of trust. Use the example of vaccines or GMOs if you’d like. Perhaps blind trust is the last thing we need. Trust derived from resolved skepticism would be a good thing.

But perhaps along with evaluating the existence of trust, or lack thereof, it is important to look at all of the factors that influence why the public trusts or distrusts science.

Science is about verification, not trust.  It’s about subverting the
limitations of humans’ senses and biases.  If trust were the hallmark of
science, then science as we know it would fail.   

Unless science is both conducted and evaluated by robots – trust will necessarily be a part of the process. That isn’t to diminish the importance of verification in the scientific process – but to point out that blind faith in the ability of any humans to conduct science without any influence from biases is wholly unrealistic, and in fact, unscientific (where is your verified data that show that science has ever been conducted w/o an element of trust in play?)

To some extent, that’s already happening.  People (both scientists and
the general public) throw around study conclusions without even the
slightest consideration of the constraints of the study, let alone a
simple critical assessment of its conclusions, as though the lone fact
that the study was produced by a scientist ensures validity.

Of course science will fail, to one extent or another. That is a given, and it always has been. Is science failing more now in that regard than it ever has in the past? I tend to think not. I think the bigger problem may be twofold: (1) the expectation of some that science is infallible or, (2) overstatements, based on motivated reasoning, that some groups to the exclusion of others think that science is infallible. (3) using the criterion of absolute infallibility, as opposed to relative rates of failure, as a measure of science. 

People (both scientists and the general public) throw around study
conclusions without even the slightest consideration of the constraints
of the study, let alone a simple critical assessment of its conclusions,
as though the lone fact that the study was produced by a scientist
ensures validity. 

I agree that there should be more open examination of uncertainty and limitations of scientific studies. However, I think that your characterization there is overstated as a generalization (and as generalizations, such characterizations may have an unnecessarily detrimental impact). Again, also, while I acknowledge what you describe as a problem – how would you evaluate the weight of that problem against the previous alternative of having less science conducted by fewer people? Was society less well-off when, as you seem to think, there were fewer studies being thrown around without even the slightest consideration of the constraints or critical assessment of conclusions?

The constant gnashing over “peer-reviewed” studies reflects a similar mentality.   

I’m not sure exactly what that means. I assume it is a reference to the expectation of “realists” that science be validated by peer review, but is your argument that an expectation of peer review, in balances, reduces the amount of valid science produced? 

Perhaps the real problem is not the lack of trust, but the growing emphasis placed on it.

I think that is one problem. I think that another problem is elevating just one problem in importance to the exclusion of examining other, many of them related, problems.

gt; Chomsky actually thinks that authority is inherently legitimate and that the burden of proof is on those opposing authority.

Not at all, that just means our Groundskeeper Willie has not quoted Chomsky, but a Wikipedia entry.

Just a small detail, not unlike when Stephen Lewandowsky says that Steve has testified to the “UK Parliament”, when he only sent one or two memoranda. Cf.

http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2012/09/here-there-really-be-tygers.html

In that Chomsky video, at around 4:00, we can see that Chomsky does not mind citing the work of his coworkers at MIT from climate science, whose models was “too optimistic” since they did not take into account stuff like methane.

Considering who Chomsky says he believes profit the most from climate hype, to use his name for own’s own climate science scapegoating is more than just a spitball. But we’ll stick to this euphemism for now.

willard -

Let’s have a contest. We’ll see who can spot which of Tom’s posts have the highest % of spitballs (steven’s would require too much time to catalog them all) . I’ll go first:

Science has never been in better repute.

They’re winning the glorious battle!

Any stains on their white coats are exclusively from tomatoes thrown by
anti-science conspiracy theorists”“never from their own behaviour. 

They’re winning! 

OK. Let me add that up.  That’s 4 for 4. Four sentences and four spitballs. 100%. That’s a pretty tough mark to better. The only chance for  you is if he writes a longer post.

Joshua,

You already found the reddest herring. I can’t top that. Here’s instead another Chomsky video:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30942627318

In this video, we learn about the basic principle of anarchism according Chomsky.

This principle might be interesting to you, because it seems that we have people invoking this principle without thinking that their own work needs to satisfy the very same principle.

I’m sure that this kind of self-reflective quandary appeals to you.

willard:

This principle might be interesting to you, because it seems that we
have people invoking this principle without thinking that their own work needs to satisfy the very same principle.

Hmm. Interesting. To a certain extent, we may have on our hands people staking out positions that are effectively, although I doubt in intentionally, anarchist.  (Not that the same probably don’t exist on the other side as well.)

It would be easy to be too strong with that characterization, however. I go back to the difference between positions and values. I highly doubt that anyone here has a true anarchist value system. People get locked into positions sometimes. You know, motivation and reasoning. And all that.

Joshua: Let’s count spitballs.

Before or after we play games of moral equivalence and cry “Mommy, mommy, they do it toooouuuuuu/did it fiirrruuurrssttt?”

That’s the way to talk sense about hyping climate science. That’s the way to talk sense about pushing back against it.You go kiddos.

I see a distinct difference in the kinds of trust one can have for science.  Even in environmental science I pretty much trust they can count the number of mosquitoes and track the thermometers with reasonable accuracy.  

Where environmental science goes off the rails:

What do these numbers mean (extrapolating a trend)?

When unclear data is statistically analyzed / filtered in order to produce a “clear” result.

Tread very carefully when papers go down this road.  Here we have a litany of examples of poor science.  Even high profile examples of poor science such as the HS are tolerated (usually by silence) to the detriment of the entire field.  Professional courtesy.

So when you look at the sausage making up close, you tend to lose a little faith in the process.  And when the response trotted out once this is exposed is that “this is the way it has always been done”, well it doesn’t inspire more confidence.   

There is an anniversary coming up… and more emails to be revealed…

#52,

It may be too simplistic to: 1) assume a growth in “sensationalism”
without evidence and, 2) assume that any growth in “sensationalism” is
mere a product of  the “MSM?” “Picking up things faster” does not
necessarily = a growth in sensationalism.

Please Joshua, my mother has been dealing with ‘junior reporters’ since before either one of us was borne. Post Watergate they all want to ‘get the scoop’. She has to threaten them with being fired to get them to ‘slow the story down, let the facts unfold’.

If one focuses on ‘being first’ to report something then your biases are going to creep in because you are reporting with less then a full set of facts. There is an almost universal belief among the public on both sides of the political spectrum that the MSM is biased.

In late 2004 my #2 daughter was in beautiful downtown Samarra, Iraq busy getting shot at….Mt St Helens blew off a little steam, within an hour I was contacted by the American Red Cross on behalf of my daughter inquiring about my safety. 

The story of a ‘massive explosion’ hit the other side of the world before the local geologists could manage to organize a press conference and put some context to what was happening.

I haven’t watched Television news since. 

Here is an interesting survey

http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest-news/details/28808/

“Only 21 percent of Americans now express ‘a great deal’ of confidence in television news. That is the lowest score ever, dropping from the 46 percent level when Gallup started asking this question in 1993. Declines in confidence are found across all age groups and political affiliations. Given the recent performance of TV news, further deterioration in confidence is inevitable.”

why are trolls confused when they end up covered in spitballs?

there are two simple counter measures for trolls.

1. dont feed
2. over feed.

Counter measure 1 is preferred when the troll is disrupting a conversation that you actually want to have. Counter measure 2 is preferred when the food fight is more interesting than the original topic.

bottom line. we want more hype in climate science. Let’s not discuss it, let’s just get busy.

#67

It is perfectly possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that claims of widespread loss of trust in science are greatly exaggerated – they are different questions. Similarly it is possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that many criticisms of those individuals have been inaccurate and/or unfair, or that those actions are being used to make unreasonable generalisations about an entire field of science. That is not the same as defending the unjustified actions or saying that “anything goes”. And sometimes people just disagree over the interpretation of others’ behaviour.

Of course there have been very strong criticisms made of Gleick in particular, but you seem to want to ignore these as it doesn’t suit your argument.

#47I don’t see any contradiction between my comment and the paragraph you cited. We know that Conservative opinion changed relative to that of other groups, the question is why?

I’m *hopeless* with anniversaries, so I’ll sing it now, before I forget:

Happy Birthday Dear Climategate

Happy Birthday too yooooo

#92

After re-reading Keith’s post I have to take issue with his point. Why are we so fortunate to have Revkin, Orac, and Connolley “pushing back” against climate hype? Why are Lindzen, Pielke Sr. and Christy not sufficient for the task?

Indeed ““ perhaps they could start with overhyped claims of, say, low climate sensitivity or flaws in the surface temperature record.

Harry -

“Only 21 percent of Americans now express “˜a great deal’ of confidence in television news. That is the lowest score ever, dropping from the 46 percent level when Gallup started asking this question in 1993. Declines in confidence are found across all age groups and political
affiliations. Given the recent performance of TV news, further deterioration in confidence is inevitable.”

Consider the possibility that while the news cycle is shorter, in fact, accuracy in reporting has not diminished, and may have possibly even increased. Consider the possibility that distrust in reporting is not exclusively because the reasons you attribute, but because of of two other possible reasons as well: (1) increased scare-mongering about inaccurate reporting that was there all along and, (2), increased exposure in the media about the type of inaccurate reporting that was there all along.

Do you really think that the media was more accurate 50 years ago than it is now? Less prone to bias? Perhaps the increased distrust is simply a function of greater media exposure, not a qualitative diminishment in accuracy – let alone a diminishment in accuracy simply as a function of a faster news cycle.

I am not justifying sensationalism. I am asking for evidence that connects cause with the effects you are describing. Where is your evidence, other than what your mother tells you, that on the whole reporting is less accurate than it was in the past, say during the time when William Randolph Hearst influenced media? It is true that in recent decades there has been a kind of proliferation of consolidation in the media – but that is certainly mitigated by the simple fact that people get their information from all sorts of sources these days. To the extent that people are getting their news from other sources, your attribution of the problem to the “MSM” makes less and less sense.

Are you saying that there should be tighter, centralized control about what does or doesn’t get reported? ‘Cause given my assumptions about your politics, that would be quite fascinating. Of course I would agree that more due diligence in reporting, as in science, is a good thing. But as AA succinctly describes in post #91 – folks are making huge logical leaps here.

Sorry willard. I hit Submit too soon

# 102

It’s really a no-brainer who to trust.

Yup. We’ve got a simple choice:

In the red corner there’s scientific consensus that has emerged after decades of what everyone except contrarians, ‘sceptics’ and deniers accepts was the usual scientific dog-fight. 

In the right corner there’s a few die-hards who haven’t managed to make a scientific case but bang on regardless.

> Lindzen, Pielke, and Christy present their case with composure [...]

How many examples would be enough to prove that this claim is a bit hyped?

Why take Mann?

Lindzen, Pielke, and Christy present their case with composure

I can present my claims with composure. Now I know that this is the winning formula I will stick to it.

#94 indeed. I can’t even understand what Mosher is trying to say in #84 at all. Is he being sarcastic or what?

By chance mt comes along: our impredictible Groundskeeper Willie can ignore #106 and reenter the ball.

The trophies won’t be handed out for another 30 years. 

Yes. They will either read “ha ha, you dumb-dumb scientists were all wrong” or “wow, we totally fucked ourselves.”

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, right?

mt @ 109

I can’t even understand what Mosher is trying to say in #84 at all. Is he being sarcastic or what?

Damned if I know. TF has been saying odd things recently too. Perhaps they are distracted by party planning for the forthcoming anniversary. Mosher’s apparently cautionary #90 made me wonder.

“It is perfectly possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that claims of widespread loss of trust in science are greatly exaggerated ““ they are different questions. ”

Name one individual who was not justified in their actions. One! they were all vindicated. If given the chance I am positive they would act the same. Their behavior is an example of how people should behave. Our trust in them has been enhanced if anything.

“Similarly it is possible to consider that the actions of certain individuals were not justified and also believe that many criticisms of those individuals have been inaccurate and/or unfair, or that those actions are being used to make unreasonable generalisations about an entire field of science. ”

what actions? by whom. Recall that they were all exnorated. The beauty is that the skeptics make stupid mistakes now of impugning the whole field.
Climategate is so winning! please take more mails!

“That is not the same as defending the unjustified actions or saying that “anything goes”. And sometimes people just disagree over the interpretation of others’ behaviour.”

But anything DOES GO. why, we could make bogus surveys and no one would care.

“Of course there have been very strong criticisms made of Gleick in particular, but you seem to want to ignore these as it doesn’t suit your argument.”

Gleick was also winning! look at where he is now. The result was all good. Heartland stepped on their dick. We need more Gleicks! look at the facts man.

(116) Harry -

I’m not doubting the importance of your mother’s experiences, or her expertise. It seems that you are rightly proud. I am saying that if you have some validated evidence that in balance, reporting is less accurate or biased, or more sensationalist than it was, say, during the Hearst News Empire, I’d love to see it. My impression of the news reporting during the Hearst News Empire is that it was quite biased, and quite sensationalistic. Certainly we know that despite the impression that TV news was more reliable, say, during the late ’60s, there were many, many claims that it was heavily biased then, and we can certainly both think of ways that the reporting it did on various issues was quite slanted.

I am saying that if you have some evidence that sensationalism of “The MSM” influences public trust in science more than, say, scare-mongering about the inaccuracy in reporting, I’d love to see it.

I am saying that if you have some evidence that shows some correlation  between public trust in the news media and the accuracy of public understanding of science-related issues, I’d love to see it (it would be hard to measure, but my guess is that in general, the public has a more information on, and a more accurate understanding of science-related issues than it ever has in the past in spite of the fact that they have less trust in the reporting. And that would also be in spite of the efforts on the part of Creationists to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, and in spite of the efforts of folks like Akin to spread disinformation about women’s health, etc.).

There were other issues I raised in response to your posts also – questions about your reasoning.  Maybe you might consider addressing some of them? Again, I can assure you that I believe that your mother’s career was quite notable and that her insights are valuable.

There’s certainly a name for your gambit, Joshua.

Stephan Lewandowsky is hyping his climate science. I am pushing back. 

He did not commit a crime, as did Peter Gleick. It’s more… Mannian.

Let’s now recall with horror the recent accomplishments: Peter Gleick forging and stealing documents. Phil Jones advising colleagues to delete emails in advance of a FOIA request. Rajendra Pachauri suppressing details of an error in AR4 while bidding on a related study for his consultancy. Michael Mann lying to Congress about his use of R2 verification. 

Welcome to the Pantheon, Stefan Lewandowsky

Who should we trust?

Joshua,

You are free to call harrywr2′s quote a strawman, since it rests on a caricature of your own position.

The theme of this caricature is Plain Folks. While Plain Folks is often seen as a propaganda technique, I’m not sure harrywr2′s using that in that way. I tend to believe that harrywr2′s mostly sincere with his arguments.

The logic of harrwr2′s argument is also a false dichotomy. There is no need to choose between his mother’s testimony and some sociologists’ studies.

Dialogically speaking, you and harrywr2 are getting to a fixed point, where you say A, he says B, you repeat A, he repeats B. If

***

In chess, when you reach that kind of state, the position is agreed to a draw, unless you can manÅ“uvre in the hope of making progress. In fact, to more space you have to move your pieces, sooner or later the position of your opponent will deteriorate. Sometimes, that’s enough to bring about a winning position. Most of the times, the defender slips, since it’s harder for him to come up with good moves,

I believe that the same applies to discussions. Take our Groundskeeper Willie. He never defend his pieces, so we take them. He keeps repeating the same moves, so we counter them, while making progress on another front. Sooner or later, all his pieces fall off the board. Then he rips off his shirt.

I never met a player who got better by ripping off his shirt after losing material.

Proofs by assertion are cheap.

Joshua,

So, we now have a perfect illustration of getting caught moving back and forth the same pieces.

Groundskeeper Willie keeps hammering that I have no name (I thought it was willard, but I might be biased) and that no one should trust me.

I believe that the best way to respond to an ad hominem is to tell that it’s an ad hominem while unraveling one’s planned moves. My next moves are aimed to show how Groundskeeper Willie loses momentum, while I gain some space: my #127 recalls that he does not justify his claims (he seldom does), and my #128 explains why he keeps repeating over and over again the same attacks: it’s a communication technique that has a proven track record of efficiency.

That it could be used in a rational discussion is another issue altogether.

So, while Groundskeeper Willie keeps hyping his bad hominem, I can unfold propaganda techniques to help everyone see where his comtemptuous hype comes from.

A nice exchange, if you ask me. But I might be biased.

You may notice that the non-emphasized part of the quote can now be used to respond to his naming and shaming of Stephan Lewandowsky.

An added bonus for this step-by-step progress is that Groundskeeper Willie can’t stall me in a food fight. As hard as he could try to poison the well, and whine about poisoning the well of course, we still are having a conversation that leads somewhere.

Where, you may ask? Good question. Elsewhere to have a better view while waiting for Godot, perhaps.

Harry – (#124)

Joshua, we have always had very specific publications that were obviously deliberately biased.The problem in the “˜modern era’ is that the norms of journalism don’t protect well against inadvertently introducing bias when no bias is intended.If the focus is on “˜getting it
first’ rather then “˜getting it right’ then bias will be introduced. There isn’t a way for anyone to write a quick article on anything other
then to rely on rely on preconceived biases.  It’s mentally impossible to do otherwise.The time it takes to write a balanced article on something as complex and difficult as to whether there should be a stop sign on a residential side street takes at least a week. Anything less and what you get is a personal opinion about the usefulness of stop
signs.

Please understand that I agree with all of that. I don’t say that what you describe there isn’t a problem.

I am merely questioning whether there is a trend that affects overall balance, and which is then explanatory for public opinion about science, or about journalism. My guess is that in balance: (1) the public is exposed (in an absolute sense) to more valid reporting than it used to be (which doesn’t mean that the ratio of inaccurate to accurate reporting is more or less than it used to be, although I suspect that it may well be more now) or that, (2) the public is better informed than it used to be on science issues.

That is not, in any way, a statement of approval about “hyped” science or “hyped” reporting. The problem with peer review biasing science towards “significant” and “positive” findings is real, IMO. So is the problem with sensationalism in the media.

However, I go back to the same question of whether hyping about hype isn’t also a significant issue (particularly if my speculations about overall balance are correct). I also return to the questions about what other than inaccuracy in reporting, or problems with “The MSM” are fully explanatory for loss of trust in reporting or loss of trust in science. I have articulated other factors that I think need to be addressed. I have done so repeatedly. And I have noted, repeatedly, that the very article that Tom Scharf referenced (and that you later addressed in your comment) to support his hyping about loss of trust in science dealt directly with one of those issues – motivated reasoning.

What I am arguing here is that those issues shouldn’t get dismissed. Addressing those issues would be needed to validate any analysis. To not address those issues would fail a basic test for skepticism. I am not saying that hyping by the media and scientists is not a relevant issue!

Joshua, you’ll need to define hyping about hype if you want to continue this game.Were reports of the imminent demise of polar bears hype? How about the geographic expansion of malaria? The attribution of glacial decline on Kilmanjaro to climate change? What about Hansen’s description of Manhattan in either 20 or 40 years? Was that hype? Was not the artificial heating of the Senate room where he gave testimony hype?How about the ABC television documentary depicting hell on earth due to climate change? Was that hype? How about scientific papers predicting smaller sheep, extinction of toads, etc.? And is mentioning this small fraction of the total hyping about hype, or do you want a longer list?

I have to say, willard, it is almost as if you’re writing Tom’s script, and he’s reciting it without being aware that you’ve written it.

Do you think this is another one of his that he isn’t telling us about? (How bizarre was that, anyway?)

That was supposed to read “Do you think this is another one of his “experiments” that he isn’t telling us about?

Of course, that was in reference to his bizarre “experiment” that he was conducting at around post # 407 in the “This is what actual climate progress looks like” thread.

Joshua,

Our Groundskeeper Willie’s on the verge of ripping off his shirt, so I don’t think that he has the luxury to experiment right now.

See his reply in #131. I am supposed to desperately want the conversation somewhere. How the hell can he justify saying that? He can’t, so he just asserts it. He can’t for I just told you that the main strategical mistake is for the discussion to be brought to a halt. The position is so overwhelmingly beyond hope for him that only a stalemate can save him.

So my sole objective is to make sure the conversation gets going. It can go anywhere, really. I don’t care much: I can follow him wherever he wants to go. We could talk about Orac, for instance: how the hell is he supposed to be a parangon of lack of hype? He’s a blogger with an attitude, sometimes as curmudgeon as Eli! We can talk about Stephan Landewosky. As if I care if we don’t talk about him. Or Climategate. Or Phil Jones. Or Pachauri. Are we supposed to be afraid?

There is also this repetition: I am OT. I don’t think I am that much. The topic is climate hype in the media. I’m writing on a blog about climate hype on blogs, in response to Groundskeeper Willie’s spectacular hype: repeated, abusive, shameless, unjustified, irrelevant, destructive, and oftentimes already proven false.

You want climate hype? Take most of his comments attacking me.

Ok. Perhaps Keith had not intended this discussion. I don’t believe I’m preventing anyone to have such a conversation. What I believe I’m preventing is Groundskeeper Willie poisoning the well. And, in that comment, yet again, he whines about the well being poisoned.

Finally, note how the shirt starts to rip:

But it’s all to prevent a real discussion of what the author of this blog intended as its subject. Which is the repeated and regular phenomenon of those supporting the climate consensus hyping their claims and the efforts of those who think the consensus is wrong to prevent them from presenting hype as reality.

Sure. As if I could ever succeed in stopping anyone to talk about Lewandowsky, Climategate, Pachauri, Jones, Mann, or Gleick. As if I was defending any of these individuals. As if “those who think the consensus is wrong” was not merely a self-serving abstract entity. As if the purpose of this very blog post was to make sure we have a conversation to prevent someone, somewhere on the Internet, to be wrong.

God, can our Groundskeeper Willie be melodramatic. We’re just waiting for Godot. I can appreciate all kinds of comments, including Tom C’s last. He put some effort in that comment. It has zest and gusto.

As long as we keep the conversation going, I don’t mind much. Groundskeeper Willie’s just hanged some more pieces with his #131. We just need to continue playing and they’ll fall off the board all by themselves.

Ok. Perhaps Keith had not intended this discussion.

In one of Tom’s tantrums of calling me a troll, Keith weighed in to note disagreement.

Of course, the fact that the blogger himself disagreed with Tom’s assessment doesn’t diminish Tom’s need to repeatedly make the accusation.

Bizarre. Must be an experiment. What other explanation would be possible? Pod people?

Keith may not think you’re a troll. He may not think it politic to label you a troll.

But troll you are.

The kids haven’t said Schwing for twenty years. Dana Carvey and Michael Myers are in their 50s, as is Kim Basinger.

Hard to drop the subject when the consensus team keeps denying it happened, it meant anything, it was wrong, it was criminal. Hard to drop the subject when the consensus team keeps trumpeting the whitewash investigations as proof that there was no wrong-doing. Hard to drop the subject when analysis of it is enough to get damned to hell and receive the well-meaning advice to shut the fuck up about it.

You want the subject to go away? Admit what happened, apologize for it, admonish (not punish) those who acted wrongly and put procedures into place that will make it less likely to occur again.

Duh.

Mosher,

Name one individual who was not justified in their actions. One! they were all vindicated. If given the chance I am positive they would act the same. Their behavior is an example of how people should behave. Our trust in them has been enhanced if anything.

Phil Jones was not justified in telling people to delete emails and letting his personal gripes with other individuals cloud his judgement. UEA/CRU as a whole was culpable for not treating certain FOI requests properly and their general attitude towards FoI.

Gleick was also winning! look at where he is now. The result was all good. Heartland stepped on their dick. We need more Gleicks! look at the facts man.

As I pointed out, many people on my side have condemned Gleick’s actions, the authorities have evidently decided that there are no criminal charges to be answered – that’s a matter for them. If you are looking for people who take a relaxed view of the theft of informaton then maybe should should point your gaze elsewhere.

Andrew Adams,

I forgot to mention that the healing process started a year and a half ago.

Things takes time, or so it seems.

Just think about all the shirts we might save.

We interrupt this fascinating program to mention Keith’s tweet:

John Nielsen-Gammon eviscerates Steve Milloy. Life is too short such thankless work, but somebody’s gotta do it.

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/09/american-thinker-jumps-shark-publishes-steve-milloy/

Please do not react to my comment. It has nothing to do with climate hype. The simpler proof is that it does not mention of Jones, Mann, Pachauri, Gleick or Landewosky.

Oh. Shoot. I just did.

OK. My comment was OT until I mentioned Jones, Mann, Pachauri, Gleick, or Landewosky.

Let’s make the comment a bit more on-topic:

Jones. Climategate.

Mann. Climategate.

Gleick. Twat.

Pachauri. Pulp fiction.

Landewosky. Got Gleicked.

When will we read that Landewosky got Gleicked?

Joshua,

Please stop being such a blowhard.

Most of the time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Take your “team”: do you know where does it come for?

It comes from here:

I thought it would be fun to think up lines for the hockey team. I’ve toyed with different ideas. Do you put the grizzled veterans – say, Jacoby and Hughes – on defence. Or do you keep the main lines together – Mann, Bradley and Hughes on one line; Jones, Briffa and Osborn on another? How do you work in the “rookie”, Rutherford? Who plays goal? Do you make up a tree ring line? I’m a little worried about their skating skills. It looks like Mann can skate backwards, but what about Hughes?

What should the team be called: the Kyoto Flames? the Blades? the Heat? So many decisions, so little time.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5874729706

If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about the Kyoto Flames.

But you’re not.

So it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, most of the times.

You’re such a blowhard.

Willard -

There is an “e” in team. There is an “e” in hype. Coincidence?

Yeah, well, you’re at troll, so obviously you’d think so.

Andrew Adam @ 104 - I agree that the papers you cite were hyped beyond their significance (although the jury is certainly still out on Watts et. al.) But there is hype and there is Hype. Small h hype is when the conservative blogosphere is atwitter.  Capital H Hype is when Al Gore wins an Oscar and Nobel prize for stringing together highly doubtful claims of impending doom in a movie.  Hype is when every news outlet on every day carries some wild claim about “melting poles” or “more hurricanes” etc. despite easily obtained evidence to the contrary.

JFP – (158)

Do you think it likely that with both groups resorting and continuing
dogmatic assertions will change except from exhaustion or boredom? I don’t.

I don’t either. The climate debate is a proxy (mostly a political proxy) for long-standing grievances. But referring back to the other parts of your post, do you think that there might be something, theoretically, even if implausible in the real world, that might cause a movement away from dogmatism?  

Suppose Mann et al. had been found guilty of scientific misconduct – with deliberate manipulation of data for the purpose of deception. Do you think that in any real sense, anything would have been different?

I think that this goes back to our discussion on the other thread. IMO, pointing to any one particular skirmish or incident or group of individuals or even scientific aspect of the debate, inevitably results in missing the forest for the trees. Even approaching any resolution in any of these discrete elements only causes spin-offs of further food fights. These are the same underlying dynamics that play out in many different lunchrooms involving many different issues. .

My belief is that focusing on anything other than the underlying dynamics amounts to tail-chasing. Not that focusing on the underlying dynamics hasn’t also played out as jell-o flinging. It most certainly has. But maybe at least there is some potential benefit with that focus?  Certainly, IMV, failing to recognize how the climate debate is just one lunchroom in a palace of lunchrooms misses important context?

Hi Andrew Adams,

If I can step in front of Steve, I did see quite a few from the consensus team lament Gleick’s actions. But not the morality of them. Most were like Stefan Lewandowsky, who wrote that it was a matter of personal judgement on whether Gleick should have gone so far in defense of the True and the Good. 

Typical of the consensus reaction to Peter Gleick’s actions is Professor Tobis. His post titles or ledes at P3 are:

In Defense of Peter Gleick, MucrakerNew Lows: “Is tricking Heartland into sending some documents really any worse than hacking into a server at CRU and stealing a bunch of emails? I don’t think so.”

Double Standards: “Scientists are held to an impossibly high standard, while Heartland and others are able to get away with murder (figuratively speaking of course).”

The Morality of Unmasking HeartlandPeter Gleick is Still a Good ScientistEthical Considerations Regarding Heartland/Gleick: “History may well judge Gleick in a positive light, but that will only likely happen if the potential for good caused by his action is realized. That has yet to be determined.”

I think it is a contemptible ethical position put forth by Professor Tobis. I also think it is absolutely consistent with his approach to other climate-related controversies, including some started by Professor Tobis himself.

I also think it is a good representation of the overall reaction to the Gleick affair, and also a good representation of the consensus team’s reaction to other such controversies.

And I think it is this morally blind approach to values and performance–that anything goes because of the rightness of their cause–that has created much of the long-lived rancor that has made conversation more or less impossible. 

Damning Steven Mosher to hell and telling him to Shut The Fuck Up because he and I wanted to put the Climategate controversy into context and give interested readers a chance to see the actual emails with a timeline of what was happening and what else was being said at the time? That’s the same lack of ethics that excuses Peter Gleick, that thinks destroying evidence of wrongdoing is an oops, that getting an editor fired is just roughhousing.

So I don’t think appeals to everybody’s better nature are really going to be effective. When I advanced the idea that we agree on sensitivity of 2.5C just so planning could begin, the skeptics didn’t trust the alarmists to honor it. The alarmists didn’t trust me to advance it. It quickly died.

There is a moral blindness on your side, Andrew. You seem to be one of the few reasonable voices in the blogosphere speaking for your position. Do you agree? If so, what do you think can or should be done to reclaim some level of ethical parity?

John F. Pittman,

Thank you for your comment.

I’ll be back later for a response.

Please take the time to go read John Nielsen-Gammon’s post mentioned in #153. It has something for everyone. For instance, he sounds a bit lukewarm about Milloy’s hype about water vapor.

Until later,

w

The Rabid Reaction Team arrives on schedule. But willard has a point. Tobis only wrote seven posts in defense of Gleick. He was joined in his parade of moral blindness by his co-authors. I didn’t note that in my comment.

> Tobis only wrote seven posts in defense of Gleick.

Citations needed.

Joshua:”My belief is that focusing on anything other than the underlying
dynamics amounts to tail-chasing. Not that focusing on the underlying
dynamics hasn’t also played out as jell-o flinging. It most certainly
has. But maybe at least there is some potential benefit with that
focus?  Certainly, IMV, failing to recognize how the climate debate is
just one lunchroom in a palace of lunchrooms misses important context?” Is this is your own dynamic speaking through your metaphorical mouth that you cannot possibly control?  It sounds like classic female domestic argument: the real issue doesn’t matter, it’s the tone of your voice and your underlying emotional feelings that matter.  That’s your point, right?  We are controlled by our politics with masks our underlying gender leaning with right wing = male and left wing = female.    Your solution is to be locked in an endless argument until the other side gives up when he can’t stand it anymore, has forgotten what the argument was about and just wants to get a piece of tail.  The problem with this strategy is that you end up engaging with outlier female thinkers on the other side.  Enjoy your endless loop.

John F. Pittman,

Thank you for your answer.

I believe that #170 shows quite splendidly what I wanted to conclude in my response to you. And I finally have some time – virus scans are such a bore. So here goes:

If contrarians had a whiff of an understanding of scientists, they would realize that all this hype hunting is just a waste of time. John Nielsen-Gammon attests having wasted time writing as much pages as the hype he had to review. You’re just telling me the same thing: why bother?

This interpretation is even generous: perhaps contrarians do exploit this trait, and are using it to create more hype about their righteous hindsight.

If contrarians could grasp a modicum of what Kuhn held in his **Structure**, they might understand that most revolutions happen by inertia. Simply put, scientists die. Wrong scientists are being ignored. (Think of them as being percieved as trolls.) The lack of citations kills their posterity.

People interested in science might very well consider that this is enough. But no. Not only we must endure perpetual shirt rippin’, everyone must rip off his own shirt. Or else he’s just a stooge for the contrarians’ scapegoats.

So that would be my conclusion. Later I’ll tell you how I reach it.

I point at this from #173:

People interested in science might very well consider that this is enough. But no. Not only we must endure perpetual shirt rippin’, everyone must rip off his own shirt. Or else he’s just a stooge for the contrarians’ scapegoats.

And I point to #172, which I had not the chance to read before writing #173.

That is all.

Still drunk, Marlowe? Maybe some day you’ll be able to string two coherent sentences together. But not today. You’re not a moonlighting economist. You’re a moonshining economist.

JFP – (166)

I think that just as those who want to claim CO2 cannot be a GHG have been marginalized, though unquiet,

I see this claim made quite often. It doesn’t seem accurate to me.

If I go to a non-climate blog site, I often read arguments from rightwingers that ACO2 cannot be a GHG – both in a sense of pure physics, but also as an issue of scale. Further, I see related arguments that even if it were a GHG, the effects would not (definitively) be harmful but beneficiary. Now despite claims made by “skeptics” in the blogosphere that these arguments have been marginalized, the real world I see – anecdotally – does not bear that out.

Further – even within the “skeptical” blogosphere, I often see arguments of both types I described made. I also see arguments such as that  the Earth has intrinsic mechanisms that ensure homeostatsis within a certain range. They are made by seemingly intelligent people with what seems like a lot of technical expertise. This stands in stark contrast to claims by some “skeptics” that “skeptics” don’t doubt that ACO2 can, and in fact is, altering the climate – but the only arguments are about levels of certainty as to what extent. I can see a difference in the bottom line of the arguments, but I can’t see a difference w/r/t how the arguments are structured. In both cases, it is people claiming expertise and insight that enables them to see past the biases and hype of the “climate community.”

The last piece is the inherent contradiction of “skeptics” who claim that they don’t doubt that the Earth is warming (and further that ACO2 is influencing that trend to some degree), but who systematically doubt any metrics that show that type of warming. They say that there is no such thing as a global average temperature. 

So – we are in agreement in some ways as to how progress will be forwarded  (faster than physical evidence so completely unambiguous that the public will be fully convinced one way or the other — probably not  likely for another  100 years?) by marginalization of those who are clearly motivated in their reasoning – I disagree with the asymmetry that you seem to see as to how much that has already happened. As far as my view of the debate is concerned, I don’t think that a full marginalization of the extremes can take place unless “skeptics” deal openly and explicitly with the obvious political linkages. That would go for both sides, of course – but my particular focus is on what I see as near complete intransigence on the “skeptical” side in that regard. Lip service is paid sometimes, by some “skeptics” – but true acceptance of the phenomenon is lacking. 

Anyway – I’m going to be “out of the pocket” for a while. I have to attend to matters of real significance that have been building up. I will check back for your response, but will likely not get back to you for a while. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with you.

Howard – (171) One more comment before I shut it down. I wanted to let you know that your #171 post is fascinating. Sometimes the mind of  climate debate combatant is truly a thing to behold.

Also – I could not quite tell if you realize this or not – but my reference to tail-chasing was meant in the sense of  how a do chases it’s tail – not in the sense of men chasing tail. 

“female domestic argument” 

= Priceless.

Keith

do you think this  article qualifies as ‘climate hype’?

Melting of white Arctic ice, currently at its lowest level in recent history, is causing more absorption. Prof Wadhams calculates this absorption of the sun’s rays is having an effect “the equivalent of about 20 years of additional CO2 being added by man”. 

when does a piece of journalism go from being ‘hype’ to…something else? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts….

@ 184 Tom Scharf

My theory on CS is that it is currently in the “not knowable” category. It does not rise to the level of actionable intelligence. Consider determining whether it will rain 57 days from now.  Some quick initial estimates can be made on historical records and the most recent trends. However all the PhD’s and computer cycles on earth will not get you much closer than the initial quick estimate. Irreducible complexity. Chaos rules in certain problems.

So how to go about reducing uncertainty? Why not use past climate change? Look at the last glacial maximum and the late Holocene, both periods of brief (several ka) relative stability when the climate systems was in quasi-equilibrium with its boundary forcings:

Fast-feedback climate sensitivity can be determined precisely from paleoclimate data for recent glacial-interglacial climate oscillations. This is possible because we can readily find times when Earth was in quasi-equilibrium with its ‘boundary forcings’. Boundary forcings are factors that affect the planet’s energy balance, such as solar irradiance, continental locations, ice sheet distribution, and atmospheric amount of long-lived GHGs (CO2, CH4 and N2O).

Quasi-equilibrium means Earth is in radiation balance with space within a small fraction of 1 W/m2. For example, the mean planetary energy imbalance was small averaged over several millennia of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, which peaked about 20,000 years ago) or averaged over the Holocene (prior to the time of large human-made changes). This assertion is proven by considering the contrary: a sustained imbalance of 1 W/m2 would have melted all ice on Earth or changed ocean temperature a large amount, neither of which occurred.

This provides the basis for an empirical estimate of climate sensitivity that:

[...] incorporates all fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. In contrast to climate models, which can only approximate the physical processes and may exclude important processes, the empirical result includes all processes that exist in the real world ““ and the physics is exact.

Emphasis added. This approach provides an empirical estimate of ~3C. Perhaps the reason that ‘very little gain on CS has been made in the last decade and very little is expected in the next decade’ is that the most likely value is looking more likely than ever. 

***

Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change

Why not comment on the substance instead of spitting?

Apparently for some, Marlowe.

I actually like Oliver…

Oh, yes, by all means–a citation!

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/moving-the-debate-forward-tom-fullers-league-of-2-5/ 

Hi Tom,

Firstly, some points about the illegality (or otherwise) of certain people’s actions. IIRC the ICO said that Jones’s actions constituted a prima facie breach of the law, which seems fair to me. In the absence of an actual investigation we can’t assume that a prosecution have occurred but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that Jones’s request to delete emails was probably unlawful. Mann forwarding Jones’s email is neither here or there as Mann is not subject to UK FoI law.

Norfolk police have stated categorically that the “climategate” emails were obtained as a result of a computer hack, and this would undeniably be illegal regardless of who was responsible, so there is no reason not to consider it an unlawful act.

My instincive reaction on reading of Gleick’s actions was that they were probably unlawful, but we are six months on and there is no sign of charges being brought. I would still be inclined to describe them as legally dubious even if they were not outright illegal.

Secondly, here are some reactions from some well known names on the “consensus” side

“Gleik’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test.” – Gavin Schmidt

“we should never condone the illegal obtaining of documents (or falsification of documents if this happened). The actions by Peter Gleick were immoral, irresponsible, and possibly illegal.” Chris Colose

“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.” – James Annan

I could find more examples, but I also accept that not everyone on the “consensus” side  shared those sentiments and some did think Gleick’s actions justified. I will return to this point later on.

WRT MT’s views, as Willard has alluded to, the passages you quote above from P3 were written by Dan Moutal, not MT. In any case I don’t see team as constituting “moral blindness” and I find little in them to object to.  In the piece “Ethical considerations regarding Heartland/Gleick” Dan concludes

I condemn both the CRU hack and Gleick’s actions. In my books both were wrong. It is as simple as that, though it is worth applauding Gleick for publicly admitting his mistake. But this means that I wont begrudge Heartland if they decide to file a suit against Gleick. After all I would be fully supportive of legal action against the CRU hacker.

That seems pretty clear to me. Some might object that Gleick’s actions should have been condemned on their own terms, there was no need to bring Heartland into it; I would disagree – it’s reasonable for Dan to make a comparison with another case where information was obtained by dubious means, and many of the people who have condemned supposed law breaking by Gleick have condoned probable law breaking by the climategate hacker. YesButClimategate can work both ways.

Not that I consider such condemnation to be the only morally defensible position. MT’s position does seem to be more equivocal, in any case he is here and can defend himself, although I would disagree with him on one point regarding Climategate, which is that once the information was out there I think people were entitled to draw conclusions based on it, and you were entitled to write your book.

Personally I have said before that Gleick was wrong to do what he did but I don’t accept the absolutist argument that actions such as his are always wrong and the only morally defensible argument is to condemn him unreservedly. I think that obtaining information by deception can sometimes be justified if there is a genuine public interest in it being revealed – if there were an absolute moral or legal embargo on doing so many journalists would not be able to do their job and many important stories would not see the light of day. Therefore one does have to make a judgement based on the specifics of the particular case, although with the proviso that whatever the morality of the person’s actions they have to accept the consequences, legal or otherwise. In Gleick’s case I do think Heartland was a legitimate target and I have no sympathy for them, and the information revealed was IMHO in the public interest, but I’m not sure it really justified the deception involved and given Gleick’s position it was in any case completely inappropriate for him to behave as he did. As I said above some people have disagreed, I can understand that they might take a different view of the balance between the means and the end involved and I don’t think it’s a fundamentally immoral position, but they should consider the impact which Gleick’s actions could have had on his colleagues and the institution he worked for. For that reason I also think it entirely right that other scientists such as Schmidt (where they have expressed a view) should not condone Gleick’s actions. One could make a comparison with a certain high profile “skeptical” scientist who has praised the CRU hacker. None of this means it is wrong to take pleasure from Heartland’s discomfort – organisations which willingly disseminate misinformation deserve to be discredited in the way they have been (not just as a result of Gleick’s actions).

Joshua saying CO2 or ACO2 cannot be a GHG ignores repeatable experiments. Your point of issue of scale relates to the fact our ability to measure ECS is indirect and there is a wide range of possible values. In other words, scale is a valid scientific controversy if stated correctly. The harm or benefit of CO2 or temperature is a matter of asumption, as it has not happened yet, and claims of either harm or benefit share a speculative foundation that can be and should be examined. I did not claim these were marginalized; I only claimed the first. That the earth has homeostatic tending mechanisms is not unscientific. The rate of heat rejection at the TOA from an increase in temperature or the increase in heat transport when humidity in a control volume increases are two such; it is the total effect that is argued, and we are just now getting measurements to start resolving some of these issues. I know some who argue with  certainty on both sides of the issue. That does not mean several things. One is that they are right. That they are necessarily being scientific about it. It also may mean the opposite, that someone is correct and some one is being scientific. I see this on both sides. In cases I know about most of what I see on both sides are taking low probability scenarios and stating as though they are certain to happen on a speculative subject. The speculation may be a value such as ECS, or it may be assumptions such as harm or benefit. In either case it has not happened, or if claimed to have happened the data and conclusions are arguable in a scientific and correct manner. Often the argument is more along the lines of Bayesian or frequentist. On temperature, I hope you would realize that a mass and energy balance is necessary for the correct accounting of effects of water vapor rather than just temperature, and we are just now getting good information with respect to energy balances in the atmosphere on scale to resolve issues with GCM’s, at least according to some. There are other methodological issues with GCM’s that have yet to be resolved such as mesh size. Where you see near complete intransigence on the “skeptical” side about politics, I see the near complete intransigence on the “activists” side about policy based on a Bayesian confidence level that methodological errors in such as the temperature proxies calls to question that the climate community refuses to address that I find is due to the institutionalized bias. I find true acceptance of our limitations in prediction and measurement is so anathema to what I call the “catastrophicists” that they throw whole sections of the IPCC out without admitting to how that would effect the consistency or liklihood of their claims. I see a lot on both sides. Choosing either of these poor sides a bad choice. There are better choices in middle, typically close to where the IPCC is. Except of course where they let in individual or institutional bias.

Tom

I like Bart’s distillation:

Any realistic change in our scientific understanding is not going to change the needed policy response, at least not in the short to medium term (~decades). As Herman Daly noted: “If you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter.”

#131 Joshua

I am merely questioning whether there is a trend that affects overall
balance, and which is then explanatory for public opinion about science,
or about journalism

The first thing that Capitol Cities/ABC News did when they bought the Larsen’s regional publishing business in the 1990′s was cut newsroom staff in half.  Try covering two separate 25,000 person municipalities with a single reporter. That’s two sets of school board meetings, two sets of town council meetings, two sets of fire departments, two sets of police departments etc etc etc. It can’t be done and the papers quickly became worse then supermarket tabloids.The Seattle Times (my only daily newspaper) has one reporter covering the 18 municipalities with a total population of 330,000 East of Seattle collectively known as the East Side…which has a land area larger then Rhode Island. They got a 2012 Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism though.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook continues to be grim. Another 8% decline in employment in journalism over the next 10 years is expected.But employment in public relations is expected to increase 21 percent.Just looking at employment numbers I just don’t see how it’s possible to avoid ending up with ‘journalism by press release’.Regurgitating press releases is a cheap way to produce content. It only takes a few minutes.To the degree the public is being fed ‘news by press release’ they should rightly take it with a grain of salt and it appears they are taking it with a grain of salt.Reporters have families and children who need braces and college educations and all that costs money that the ‘media’ has been unsuccessful in finding for the last couple of decades.Even if I look at someone who is a reasonably well respected  science reporter for the NY Times like Andrew Revkin…he has a day job at Pace University.We get what we pay for…

Hi Andrew, I think you make the best of a bad case and I expected no less.

I don’t think it’s possible to play the moral equivalency game between different events, individuals or organizations. Who’s worse ends up being judged by prior opinions.

I believe however that it is possible to evaluate who should be held to firm standards and my view is that those with power must in fact be accountable for the power they wield.

As for the leak of Climategate, I would have been happy not to write my book. But not because the leak didn’t happen. 

I would have been happy not to write the book because Jones didn’t ask others to delete emails, the Team didn’t get an editor fired, they didn’t violate submission requirements for AR4, Jones didn’t cover up the provenance of the climate stations used for his 1990 Nature paper, etc.

At the end of the day, policy makers made policy decisions that cost money and changed people’s lives based on data that was far more uncertain than they were led to believe.

This is something the consensus side has yet to confront.

Tom, TomC,Will respond in the morning as it’s time for bed.

while i realize this is OT, I’d still like to know how Fuller knows the CRU emails were the result of a leak rather than a successful hack. Am I the only one who thinks that the Norfolk police should be talking to him if we are to take his comment @172 at face value

The person who leaked these onto the internet (yes, leaked, not hacked) was wrong to do so.  

> [T]he idea of a whistleblower is in play here, whether you like to admit it or not.

It was in play the second “a miracle happened”:

Obviously, any whistleblower who was caught and prosecuted would defend himself or herself under the above provisions of UK Whistleblower legislation. It’s pretty easy to see that the behavior of the Team would be put on trial. I doubt that the University would simply concede that the conditions of section 43B were met and then try to argue that the disclosure was excessive (thereby not finding a safe haven under 43G or 43H.)

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/21/uk-whistleblower-legislation/

Since the second release of emails, and now considering the promise of a next one, to claim that the case of the Miracle Worker falls under the UK whistleblower legislation might be made, but only after we “turn it to the lawyers” first. Incidentally, I asked twice RickA for his opinion. As far as I know, he never answered back.

Please note the parts of the law regarding “good faith”.

Time for more spitballs:

Considering you made 6 comments [1] on the post titled The League of 2.5 at Bart Verheggen’s weblog, I’m curious about your need for citations.[2]

Or maybe you’re just completely without honor, trying once again to interrupt adult conversations.[3]

[1] The thread cited barely bears any resemblance to any diplomatic thriller we were promised to read. My comments were all drive bys, the last one being this:

> [W]hen it comes to scorekeeping on the larger real world, we’re abysmally, shamefully ““ and dangerously ““ ignorant.

Source: http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=114

which might have bearing on reality than any advertized diplomacy

Let also note that the thriller also spans at Tony’s (via PDA) and here at Keith’s, the latter we have no link here yet.

[2] Even if I knew which thread was relevant, not citing it just looks fishy, more so considering all the due diligence rhetoric we’re being served. Other readers might need to know to what the diplomatic thriller refers, to make their own ideas of its importance.

[3] More bad hominems when simply providing a link was needed.

All in all, more spitballs to hide another misrepresentation by Groundskeeper Willie.

Talk about honor and adulthood.

All your comments are drive bys, willard. Why should that one be any different?

Anyhow, you asked for a cite as if you didn’t actually believe me. Even a drive by shooter has to stay on the road, so I thought you might have some trace memory of where you leave your willard droppings. Guess not.

Three more spitballs in #213

1. Groundskeeper Willie can’t read my mind.

2. Citations are the readers’ data. Providing citations is an essential courtesy. And to repeat what has been said in #211, I believe I’m not the only interested reader. That the diplomatic thriller was only a fantasy only justifies the best practice of providing citation even more.

3. That I make only drive-bys is provably false. Groundskeeper Willie has no answer to #173, #209, and #214, comments that I believe refute important variations of the lukewarm gambit.

No wonder that we have all these spitballs.

Andrew, if you do make your way back here, I’m ready to talk about Peter Gleick.

First, let’s make sure we agree on what he did. He has admitted obtaining confidential documents under false pretenses. Although this is now fobbed off as pretexting, it is both unethical and illegal. His actions are made worse by publishing them.

Second, it is my belief that he forged the document that he passed off as their forward strategy. His explanation that he received it from someone else does not hold water for me. That is obviously criminal, and his culpability does not change if he in fact received a forgery and published it. If he wants to prove me wrong, he should name the forger if it is not himself.

For me the reaction from the climate consensus community is abhorrent. You cited the criticism he received from a handful within the climate community. 

However, many others made exculpatory statements–this one from Greg Laden is typical (http://gregladen.com/blog/2012/02/peter-gleick-the-heartland-revelations-and-situational-journalism/): “By next week or next month, the realities of Heartland’s anti-science and anti-education strategies will be an enduring truth while the vilification of specific actors in this drama will have lost its impetus and unsavory luster. My respect for Peter Gleick is unmoved. He is a great scientist, an excellent communicator, a brave guy and a crappy journalist.”

Grist did a lot of the work collecting other comments: “Steve Zwick, the managing editor of Ecosystem Marketplace, called Gleick ”a good man, frustrated by years of obfuscation and distortion” and said “he puts truth above self-interest.” At DeSmogBlog, which published the Heartland documents, Richard Littlemore called him a whistleblower (a term generally reserved for someone working within an organization who brings wrongdoing to light). And Scott Mandia, a climate scientist who co-founded the Climate Scientist Rapid Response Team, wrote that Gleick “is the hero and Heartland remains the villain.”

I’m glad you caught my error in attributing to Professor Tobis statements made by his co-author Dan Moutal. However, after initially condemning Gleick’s actions, Professor Tobis has walked it back to something like, “Was the spotlight on Heartland worth it, given how hard they will try to beam it back on Peter, and how much damage they have already inflicted in return? Time will tell…” He said he agreed with another blogger, posting his comments on P3, where he said, “As I read many of the stories on Peter Gleick’s pranking of the Heartland Institute (see this Guardian story for a pretty good summary), I find I mostly agree with Joe Romm who basically says that this is peanuts compared to what Heartland and their ilk are doing to our future planet with their obfuscation campaign.” Tobis commented that that was how he read it, too.Since the initial wave of news coverage has abated, Gleick has been reinstated to his position and has made several public speeches. He has suffered no consequences for his actions and has been welcomed back to the bosom of the consensus as a hero. Naomi Klein compared the Heartland email incident to Heartland’s favorite hobbyhorse, Climategate: “Still waiting 4 whoever stole thousands of emails from climate scientists 2 show an ounce of Peter Gleick’s honesty.”

Steve Mosher above parodied the situation quite deftly. If there are no consequences for criminal behavior, do you really think it will diminish?

The general public has not followed this, nor should they really be expected to, in my opinion. But in terms of reaching across the aisle, events like this diminish any chance of it happening. Heartland did not wither and blow away. Do you think what happened to them will cause them to moderate their tone or criticism of the consensus? Much like Marlowe asking me for information above, you could expect to see only more entrenchment and hostility.

Peter Gleick. Phil Jones. Rajendra Pachauri. Michael Mann. How many more before your team learns?

@ my esteemed logician

while you are no doubt wise in many things on this last point I must strenuously disagree. the best way to deal with an army of goblins is a well-timed and properly positioned AoE attack.

That is all.

Tom F,

There are certainly significant differences between Climategate and the Gleick affair, and people might legitimately conclude that based on weighing up the respective wider good from the information being released that the hacker’s actions were justified but Gleick’s were not. As I said in my previous post Gleick’s actions do have to be viewed in the context of the position he was in, not because he wields any “power” as such but because his actions could bring disrepute on his institution and fellow scientists. By that same token I think there are certain constraints in general which should apply to working scientists who are involved in the climate bunfight which would not apply, or at least not as strictly, to the rest of us, but that doesn’t just apply to those on the “consensus” side. But in the end dishonest behaviour, exaggeration or distortion of facts, “hype” or whatever deserves to be called out whoever is doing it. It’s not a defence to say it matters less than if the other side does it, although I also acknowledge the natural tendency to be more forgiving towards those whom we agree with than to those we don’t.

Much of the criticism of Gleick’s actions has been based on an absolutist moral stance that obtaining information through lies and deception is wrong, full stop. Again, I think that’s a perfectly respectable point of view but it is very difficult to reconcile with support for the actions of the hacker, which is why in that context it is valid to bring up climategate and also why people are so eager to pursue the “whistleblower” meme. As I said above if people want to defend the hacker’s actions that’s fair enough but they should at least be honest about exactly what they are defending.

Willard,

Not being well versed in the study of ethics I can only say that I agree that the ethics of Gleick’s actions, and indeed the hacker’s, are somewhat murky and can’t sufficiently be addressed though either a strictly consequentialist or a deontological approach. And I say this the authority of someone who looked up those terms on Wiki ten minutes ago. 

I agree with your point re improving institutions. I think that if some good is to come out of Climategate it will be in this area and it is an issue on which there should probably be much agreement between the different sides. There could also be interesting discussions to be had about issues such as openness in science and FoI. Unfortunately another effect of Climategate is that relations between participants in the climate debate have been poisoned even more than they were before and we have reached an impasse whereby battles are still being fought over behaviours in the past. One side feels that they cannot move on until certain wrongs are properly acknowleged and apologised for, the other side does feels they are not obliged accept certain interpretations of events and is angered by the refusal of the other to move on.

I do see evidence of personal vendettas against Jones, and (more so) Mann. In the latter’s case it is probably fair to say he has not gone out of his way to minimise the personal animosity.

Andrew – I disagree.  That fact that the leaker/hacker/whatever focused on the FOIA issue is clear indication of a whistleblower intent.

willard i’m a pacifist at heart and frankly don’t want to risk getting an arrow in the knee taking on the evil horde. i’ll leave that to Joshua and Andrew who are much braver than I .

Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Marlowe!

#214 Willard

If what we want is a personal vendetta, then of course what Jones did matter a lot.

It is customary in matters of great public import that when someone causes a black cloud to be formed under one sides good name/argument that we throw that someone under the bus. Jones,Mann et al are indeed a distraction which is why any sensible cause would throw them under a bus.

Andrew – Point well taken about technicalities of the hacking offence and whistleblowing.  My point is that whoever did it thought that wrong-doing was going on and, indeed, it was.  I’m waiting for someone to tell me what wrongdoing Heartland stands accused of.

If you examine the status quo, you must ask the question of who benefits the most if things stay the same with respect to all the hype?

Climate change has become toxic in American politics.  Even the Dems don’t want to touch it anymore.  A zillion speeches at the DNC and the most it got was Obama saying it wasn’t a hoax.  I guess I’m on Obama’s side.  Action from the US is dead in the water for probably a decade minimum.

So who needs to change their behavior if they want change in the status quo?  Certainly not the skeptics.  They are *winning*.  And it certainly isn’t because of their vast resources, excellent coordination, and brilliant strategy.  Environmentalism is suffering from self inflicted wounds, and their response appears to be to use even bigger guns now.

My advice is to use this down time to work on this part of the equation:

Percentage saying news of global warming exaggerated 1997:

Rep: 34%

Ind: 35%

Dem: 23%

Percentage saying news of global warming exaggerated 2012:

Rep: 67%

Ind: 42%

Dem: 20%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx 

When you examine the trends, they don’t change very quickly.  Instituting a ten year plan for environmentalism would make sense.  It’s a tough haul to convince the natives that banging the hype drums isn’t working.

Daily dose of climate hype and attempt to push back:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html 

Now why didn’t we think of that for our book? Get our friends to write reviews and edit them… instead, we had negative reviews from the Climaterati posted before the book was on sale.It’s the Chinese water torture effect–it seems like it never stops.

Tom Scharf,

Please explain how I “go with a victim”. The process naming and shaming the persons to which I alluded runs without my help, as far as I know.

Don’t forget that I’m just a gardener. Perhaps you’re mistaking me from someone who would write a blog post entitled **Lewandowsky Was Gleicked**?

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/30650978390

Some day, I’ll learn to write Lewandowsky properly.

And it certainly isn’t because of their vast resources, excellent coordination, and brilliant strategy. 

And it certainly isn’t because “adding energy to the coupled atmosphere-ocean system is changing the climate in unpredictable ways, a process which will accelerate unless we make fundamental and wide-ranging changes to how we generate and use energy” is inherently a harder sell than “everything’s fine.”

I was just getting used to ‘Landewosky’.

 Been busy all week with return-to-school madness and other obligations. Posting and other regularly scheduled programming to return on Monday. I’ll catch up with this thread over the weekend, too.

Gee BBD, why do paranoid loons get to guest post while paragons of sanity get booted off the blog?

The irony pills are in the cupboard.

Some hype, some pushback:

http://planet3.org/2012/09/06/a-line-by-line-response-to-mitt-romneys-climate-response-to-science-debate-2012/

Or some pushback against pushback.

Or some hype against pushback.

Or some hyped pushback against hyping pushed back.

So many questions, so little time.

Some more pushback:

Dear FOI Team – Cabinet Office,

Thank you for your reply. I am surprised that you believe that the
cost limits will be surpassed.

I understand that you have a duty to help and assist me in
formulating a request that will not exceed the statutory limit. To
that end could you please provide a list of all Cabinet Office
ministers and officials who were involved in the Climate Change
Act.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/climate_change_act_and_the_royal_2#outgoing-209134

The public servant might have an intuitive grasp of parsomatics, since he asks:

Before we are able to offer a response to the request please can you provide clarification on what you mean by “˜involved’.

The clarification is provided by way of a more precise term:

Dear FOI Team – Cabinet Office,

By “involved in” I mean “worked on”.

Then it seems all this pushback will get settled by phone.

For the amateurs of water-drop torture and comedies of menace, that’s a great loss.

Dave H,

I believe your suggestion has merit, considering Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, courtesy of Ron Broberg:

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Mann Jones Schmidt Trenberth

Do you get it now?

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24472458681

Gee, did their shirts get ripped or are you doing it on their behalf?

Tom Scharf,

René Girard offers a perspective of scapegoating that might deserve due diligence,:

Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard#Violence_and_the_sacred

We could say that harrywr2′s intuition coincides with René Girard’s.

Victimization and self-victimization should not be conflated. Auditors might not wish to go there, and prefer to return to their pushback on SkS and Mann. But if they do insist, we might have to watch the best reruns of Groundskeeper Willie’s shirt ripping.

We might be rehearsing a comedy of menace that has been told time and time again, while waiting for Godot.

Tom Scharf

#239 Scapegoat = victim.

I thought that was willard’s point. The personalise-and-demonise tactic victimises specific scientists.

willard, have you come across this?

Tom

Who cares about Mann? If you want to argue the science, then argue it. Overturn the standard position. Reinvent atmospheric physics. Dare to be different.

It would be interesting to know the difference between Shub’s piece at Bishop’s and a political hit job.

willard @ 264

PS: No, BBD. Have any relevant quote for the auditing sciences?

No, it was a just a conversational aside, not a matter for the auditors. The Girard quote reminded me of Carvalho’s little masterpiece of scapegoating fiction and I wondered if you had read it.

BBD,

Thanks for the pointer. I’ll try to fetch it when I have the round tuit. Having problems finishing **2666**. **The Road** is awaiting, restarted to read **Mindsight**.

Speaking of mindsight, would you characterize #262 as a CA Karaoke?

@262Continous pearl-cluthing is the only option when the reality is that crticisms of Mann’s statistical technique amount to little more than a theoretical quibble.  Use the alternative technique and what do you get – a hockeystick.The hockey-stick is in the data, as has been denonstrated with a range of other studies using different proxies and techniques.But as there is little real interest in the science, attacks will continue on Mann; his book , his reviews, his whatever……

My point earlier is that “skeptics” have successfully personalised things to the point where Mann is shorthand for the hockey stick, and criticism of either affects both. But what about Bradley and Hughes? If Mann is a fraud so are they, and if you believe that you should have the guts to say so, and not lazily concentrate on Mann. Ultimately, avery prominent publication that runs afoul of “skeptics”  has the author denigrated as a fraud or incompetent, and that’s easy if “skeptics” are allowed to target individuals. If every time a personal attack emerges an exhaustive list of all others that have been directly or indirectly dismissed as incompetent, doesn’t the “skeptic” position lose some of its power? Doesn’t the sheer number of scientists that must be “incompetent” for the “skeptic” to be right expose the conspiracy thinking they so dearly want to avoid association with? 

“a theoretical quibble”

Whose impacts were overblown in a study which conflated effects, skipped the analysis part of time-series analysis and fed an entire biological signal; deterministic, stochastic, trending and stationary components into an ARIMA function. But “shoddy statistics”, “crying out to be audited” and “hype” are reserved for Mann.

@274If that’s the case Tom, the Mann et al study should stand out like a sore thumb  – it doesn’t; multiple subsequent studies have replicated the results of Mann et al.Get over it.

The Mannean hockey stick is a feeble thing. Try these for size. Believers in a global, synchronous MWP will note the increase in radiative forcing.

Shorter nullius:

We libertarian pseudo-sceptics have to make a song and dance about the hockey stick because it’s all we’ve got. And in the context of the entire scientific understanding of CC, it is nothing much. Oh, and we need to bury BBD’s inconvenient observations under a great waffling screed, quick-sharp. Because we have no answer to those observations. Oh and word placement: we need to say ‘Cargo Cult science’ again. It’s been too long, and these repetition tactics only work with diligent application.

Nullius, you mean “Mann, Bradley and Hughes all knew it was wrong”. 

#285,

It’s not clear whether Mann told his co-authors what was going on at the time.

There’s also Timothy Carter, whom we could chop into quarters.

Lazar,

Note #284.

#275,

#278,

#281,

Seems that Groundskeeper Willie’s new guru prefers chicken and eggs questions to your #277.

Returning on MBH, a new research on MBH has been published. An open question by TCO, a commenter that got banned from CA:

What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications? How do the journals compare?

How did MBH amend the gaspe series and do you think it is better to use their version of Gaspe or the other (and why)?

http://climateaudit.org/2005/01/27/new-research-published-on-mbh98/

Two open questions.

Two possible answers to the first one.

Political hit job.

Karaoke.

BBD,

Here’s your first sentence of your #265:

Who cares about Mann?

I like your Dare to be different, btw.

Now, look at the very next comment:

Funny how that works. Sceptics are bz Vilifying und Viktimizing your pure heroes.

Funny how that works indeed. We could barely recognize that quote as a response to the first one. Please tell us: was Mann your pure hero? I’m sure you still have your teen posters on a box somewhere. Please find it and report.

I want to see a goatee.

Please don’t wait until the rooster crows three times, or else you’ll never forgive yourself.

Dave H,

There’s a simpler way than to wait for Nullius’ courage. All we need is to remind him of this:

We can only speculate as to the reasons for this, but it doesn’t require a conspiracy. All it requires for each individually to make the decision that the reputation of the science on which their own personal career and political influence depends is more important than following strict scientific method. They’re also reliant on the goodwill of their professional colleagues for doing their job. They gamble, thinking that it’s OK because they believe it is true anyway.

As soon as we posit a cargo cult of nobly corrupted scientists, you can connect about any name you want in the network analysis you’re suggesting we should do.

Let’s call it the invisible hand of noble curruption. I’m sure libertarians will like it. Let’s hope our good Bishop is paying attention.

Have you read his political hit job, by the way? There are nice quotes in that pamphlet.

#292,

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

We know that Mann was the one who held the data, and performed the calculations. We don’t know for sure whether the other two knew – although as senior authors they certainly should have done.

Journals (particularly the more ‘snooty’ ones like Nature) have a tendency to discount new and unknown authors, so it is a common practice for more experienced scientists to put their names on their papers to get them published, until they’ve built a reputation. Since Mann was only granted his PhD in 1998 (in somewhat odd circumstances), it’s quite possible that Bradley and Hughes only participated to get this newbie’s paper into Nature, where it would have more impact. From fresh-faced postgrad in 1998 to a lead author on chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report published in 2001 (which included the famous graph in section 2.3.2.2), Mann floated to the top of his profession with remarkable speed.

It’s easy to assume now given Mann’s fame and stature that MBH worked as equals, but that’s not how it was at the time. I agree that Bradley and Hughes bear some responsibility. But we have no evidence that they checked Mann’s numbers before publication, any more than Nature’s peer-reviewers did. Presumably everyone was assuming that somebody else had done it – the senior authors assumimg the journal would check, and the journal assuming the senior authors would have made sure it was right. Professors are busy people, and surely have more important things to be doing…

nullius

You’re still assuming there’s only one sort of radiative forcing, and only one sensitivity. The climate system is not one-dimensional.

This is a weak misdirection. Are you going to make the same mistake as Dave H who doesn’t understand that internal variability and sensitivity to external forcing are flip sides of the same coin? Are we in for another bravura display of libertarian physics? Or are you going to admit that a global, synchronous MWP in response to very small changes in forcing (be they internal, external or a coincident mix of the two) *requires* a climate system sensitive to radiative forcing or it could not have happened at all?

#296,

“Still, it would be interesting to have Steve’s answer to the first one. Unless you can provide quotes, I’m not sure how your mental attribution can help us.”

The reference is to the start of chapter 6 in Montford. The GRL paper was in reply to MBH99 published in GRL, which is a more prestigious journal. The E&E paper was a favour. Not that it matters – journal snobbery is just more ad verecundiam argument.

“Besides, your answer to the second question kind omits the fact that we’re talking about 100 years of data, not the whole reconstruction.”

I was talking about the particular 100 years that included the MWP, which is the issue at question.

But if you like, the r-squared cross-validation scores for the rest of the reconstruction were:

1400-1449    0.018
1450-1499    0.010
1500-1599    0.006
1600-1699    0.004
1700-1729    0.00003
1730-1749    0.013
1750-1759    0.156
1760-1779    0.050
1780-1799    0.122
1800-1819    0.154
1820-1980    0.189

Figures are from Wahl and Amman’s famous ‘Jesus paper’.

Don’t let nullius direct this exchange. He can sit there with Montford’s book on his desk and keep you all talking about *nothing very much that matters* all afternoon. It is called misdirection and relies on false equivalence. MBH98/99 != climate science as a whole.

This is the obligate tactic of those who have no scientific case but are required by their political beliefs to reject Stern’s view that global warming is ‘the greatest market failure the world has ever seen’. In other words, libertarian ideologues.

BBD,

Bishop’s political hit job provides an interesting read.

Pushback against his hype is entertaining too. For instance:

Bishop Hill,

“˜fess up. You missed there being two NAITRDB PCs. The mistake may not even *matter* (I certainly couldn’t care), but it’s there and it needs correcting.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/comment-page-9/#comment-13759

You’d be interested to read Shub’s opinion of Bishop’s karaoke in that same thread:

Montford’s book is quite the neutral thing

DaveH’s question was quite good:

What was the title again?

Shub giving his neutral appreciation of Bishop’s book.

Shub having a guest post at Bishop’s.

Hmmm.

Would you think that Steve primed our good Bishop, by any chance? In a karaoke kind of way, so to speak.

Too bad we don’t have anything from the backchannels.

Here’s the lede of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s:

Although Nature had declined to publish [M&M]‘s critique of MBH98, it was clear to both sides that the debate was not over and that they would attempt to have their work published elsewhere. [S]o long as his arguments got somewhere, McIntyre was reasonable content.

We can suppose that the last sentence is an indirect report of a written communication. It could be interesting to have that document. Just to make sure: due diligence and all that.

Compare and contrast that answer with Nullius’ #301.

I’m sure DaveH must be asking himself: but what’s the title of that chapter, again?

Here it is:

Fighting Back

Yup.

Rhymes with “pushing back”.

#308,

Your side.

Make me do it.

Please stop making me do it.

I just can’t resist.

It’s beyond my control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjUmvHBgHr0

#310

Doing a favor. Fighting back.

Venus and Mars.

Is playing stupid out of your control too?

***

Will quote later.

Lazar,

Before quoting relevant parts of Bishop’s political hit job, I’d like to remind you of these questions:

Bishop Hill,
I think you ought to state”¦

a) what series were dropped by Mann (2003), according to their account

b) which series are considered “key indicators” and the source(s) for those claim(s)

c) any disagreements with a) or b)

Have you got any answer yet? I believe this requests is two years old.

Would you consider Please tell us that MBH98 is rubbish as a valid answer to your question?

Why do you defend MBH98?

I don’t need to ask why you do beat your wife. That’s none of our concerns, right now.

As willard dribbled upthread, Climategate is an extremely apt example for Climate Hype and Push Back.

Offhand I cannot think of a study that was hyped more than that which resulted in the Hockey Stick chart. Its authors were so proud of it they called themselves the Hockey Team. It appeared six times in AR3 and was behind Watson (Houghton?) for the press conference announcing the report’s release. It accompanied seemingly every story on climate change for years and has been published hundreds of thousands of times.

It was wrong. Its authors knew it was wrong. When those of other opinions tried to show it was wrong, that’s when the real pushback began. And it was the Consensus Push Back against legitimate criticism of a study the Consensus knew was fatally flawed that led to Climategate.

Of course these fools want to claim that Mann doesn’t matter and that half the Hockey Stick is right. They screwed the pooch thoroughly and wasted incredible amounts of time defending the indefensible.

That’s why they can’t let it go. Once Mosher used the word in a parody comment it served as a taunt for some much time, energy, good will and support that was wasted in defense of bad science, bad politics and bad public relations.

So now they invent new vocabularies and push the argument into the realm of post modernism. BBD brings arguments over from a blog where he was banned. Willard champions Derrida as a new icon of climate science. Oh–sorry. He wants to minimize a crime that brought phony science to policy makers by putting the word ‘unprecedented’ in quotes. He wants to minimize a violation of the law committed to hide the fact that policy makers were misled by putting the word ‘delete’ in quotes.

As surely as a dog returns to its vomit, they circle back to the same feeble justifications. Those with more sense in the consensus (there is very little sense in the consensus…) at least shut up about it.

Instead, they have held on to the same strategies and tactics that insure their folly is repeated.

NiV, your explanations and arguments are clear. They are also unchallenged. These idiots cannot argue the facts. They are forced to turn elsewhere, to the realms of conspiracy, irrelevance and political disposition.

I hope you save your recent comments. You’ll have the opportunity to use them again and again, as these idiots have been stumbling through the same minefield for three years.

Willard–BBD–Joshua–wake up, Marlowe–on to victory, men of the Glorious Seventh!

That’s weak, willard. Even by your low standards. Weak.

You have nothing against #316 except ripping your shirt.

Please go ahead. See if I care.

You simply can’t win that one.

> NiV, your explanations and arguments are clear

Absolutely. Lots of evidence-free speculation about Bradley and Hughes, and their possible rubber-stamping, general incompetence and/or outright intentional fraud in contributing to their own paper. Its great stuff. Anything to put the focus back on Mann, who is – as we know – convenient shorthand for Everything Wrong With Climate Science. Except when someone else is.

Nullius is very fair and even-handed too, in his offer to allow progress and productive discussion to continue if we’ll just be reasonable and Cede To His Demands 100%. One wonders why he wastes his time in this thread when he could be resolving geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East with balanced argumentation like that.

You’re not making it any better, willard. Do your little song and dance to those living in energy poverty in Germany and the UK. See how they like it.Their leaders trusted Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick. They implemented expensive initiatives to change their entire energy infrastructure.

Now those decisions are being revisited. Germany is now building 23 new coal fired power plants. The UK just appointed a conservative Tory to slow down installations of wind.You idiots aren’t helping.

You mean, “… trusted Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and the Hockey Stick.” 

#321,

“Anything to put the focus back on Mann”

If you want to blame Bradley and Hughes as well, I have no objection. The problem is the paper, that it passed review undetected, and the continued defence of it. I’m not interested in playing personalities.

“Nullius is very fair and even-handed too, in his offer to allow progress and productive discussion to continue if we’ll just be reasonable and Cede To His Demands 100%.”

You misunderstand. I’m quite happy for you to carry on defending Mann’s mistakes. It gives me endless opportunities for polishing my points, which I find very enjoyable.

I only offer the advice in the sure and certain knowledge that you won’t take it.

#323 Tom Fuller

The UK just appointed a conservative Tory to slow down installations of wind.

If you are going to make the numbers work for nuclear power then the nuclear power plants are going to have to own off peak. The problem with wind is that 1/2 the time it blows it is off peak.Absent a breakthrough on energy storage or a societal change in energy consumption patterns wind power and nuclear power can not economically co-exist.

No Dave H, the rise in fuel poverty is due to repeated rate rises by utility companies authorized by the government to recapture capital costs of green energy installations and payment of feed-in tariffs. The economy sucks all over Europe. But only those countries with extensive expenditures on green energy (Spain, Italy, UK and Germany) are seeing huge rises in energy poverty and energy costs.

DaveH,

Please also note how dropping water drops on Mann’s forefront was reaching an empty tank by #326, which we can predict won’t be addressed, Lazar being so less irresistible than Michael.

So we need another tank to leak our waterdrops.

Now it’s me.

Or people like me.

I’m the reason why people die.

So we must presume that he’s here to save these people.

I thought he was here to profit from the Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland and make his SEO advisors sing and dance.

No, he’s here because life’s at stake.

Reminds me of Carnivàle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8shFecDr4Bc

Drip.

Drip.

Drip.

So, what’s coming next?

The Wegman Affair, perhaps.

Perhaps some Tiljander.

Why not some Antartica stuff.

Or the relationship between anonymity and honor, it’s been a while.

Models, perhaps: I’m starting to miss our Knight of Ni.

RC moderation, perhaps: is Gavin honest?

Surface stations? Hmmm. I doubt it: there is that Muller remark about statistical pedantry.

The existence of a surface temperature. Now, that would be an interesting one. I’m a sucker for ontological proofs.

Perhaps we could just return to the discussion about morality. Nullius is there. I like his view that it’s all esthetics and utility calculi. Should be fun to compare with #203, which we’re waiting to pay due diligence.

Perhaps some more G. When will we read **Lewandowsky Was Gleicked?**

Or Pachauri. We only mentioned him a few times.

Perhaps mt should jump in. His comments usually provide the appropriate exits for Groundskeeper Willie.

Speaking of which, there are still spitballs above we could pick up about that.

So much to do, so little time.

With some effort, we might be able to incorporate the whole Dutch book of gaming theory.

As promised, here’s the Bishop’s quote:

[M&M] felt that they owed Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen a favour – it was them who had taken the risk on publishing them in the first place and now they were attracting so much attention, it only seemed fair to give her a small payback [...]

This quote appears on p. 151-152 of our good Bishop’s political hit job, for which Nullius provided an incomplete karaoke.

The emphasized part of the quote and the title title of the chapter, viz. Fighting Back, should provide a more complete response to TCO’s question made in 2005.

But as it stands, the response is still incomplete. The main reason, at least if we read our Bishop’s karaoke, is that

The issues around MBH98 were so comple that there was no shortage of material and the extra space would allow them to develop their arguments as fully as were necessary.

Indeed. And let’s not forget that blogging can provide quasi-infinite space, in case more needs to be said for more pushback.

Let’s not forget the quote at the beginning of the chapter, titled Fighting Back:

Universities incline wits to sophistry and affectation.

Speaking of which, we should mention that the Auditor:

Studied pure math in a hard program; Wahl studied divinity.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922322528

The auditor is being modest here: he studied at Oxford, in the PPE program.

Anyone who read Oxonians should believe him.

DaveH, your position on energy poverty may indeed be nuanced. However, it is wrong. The factors you describe were common to Europe. The factors I described are specific to areas where the incidence of fuel poverty is higher.

I guess nuance is more important than facts for some. You might use that as a basis to form an hypothesis of why we are where we are today.

Wee willie, you might have acknowledged that after I discussed the value of argument against self interest on the thread you link to, Dave H responded with a counter factual example which I acknowledged as validating his point.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t care what you think of Mann, the Hockey Stick, me or anything else. You’re a toll and a fool. I do care about how the issue is faced and dealt with outside the world of blog commentary.

@ 324 John F. Pittman

Unfortunately BBD, one can go to google scholar and insert long term persistence phenomena climate and get a multitude of peer reveiwed literature that examine this.

Long term persistence phenomena such as what, exactly? You need to be *much* more specific or this is just saying stuff. And I’m not buying.

Tiny, very long term forcings ‘smaller than our measurement capability’?? You aren’t talking about *mystery forcings* by any chance? What kind of forcings are ‘smaller than our measurement capability’(!)? We could easily measure changes in insolation at high NH latitude as under Milankovitch, so I don’t accept this either.

Think Bern model, or Milankovitch cycles for forcing wrt ECS, rather than CO2 or  orbits.

Eh? Orbital forcing and Milankovitch forcing are used interchangeably where I come from. Admittedly the 83 – 123ka ‘Milankovitch cycle’ governing glacial terminations is obliquity (it’s 2x or 3x the 41ka obliquity cycle), but obliquity modulated by precession and orbital eccentricity. The high latitude NH summer insolation maxima generated by the interaction of all three are apparently sufficient to trigger a chain of feedbacks leading to deglaciation. These feedbacks include GHGs (mainly CO2, CH4 and water vapour).

Your strangely muddled comment does not address the original point: that all known climate behaviour demonstrates that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative forcing. This holds true from interannual wiggles caused by variations in internal forcing all the way up to deglaciation under orbital forcing.

I point to this in #323:

Do your little song and dance to those living in energy poverty in Germany and the UK. See how they like it. Their leaders trusted Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick. They implemented expensive initiatives to change their entire energy infrastructure.

And I point to this in #341:

The fact of the matter is that I don’t care what you think of Mann, the Hockey Stick, me or anything else.

Blinded by anger, or just as memoryless as a Markov chain?

In any case, let’s note the emphasized spitball. Michael Mann Made Germany Do It.

It’s very tough to believe that Groundskeeper Willie takes himself seriously. It’s almost incredible:

http://planet3.org/incredibilism/

Indeed, by posing my offer it should be apparent that a)  Nullius’ offer is empty, but dressed in the trappings of reasonableness to cast its refuser in a bad light, and b) there are no such totemic “skeptical” publications that anyone would care enough to concede on. The nearest equivalents all relate in some way to Mann (sole purveyor of fraudulent hockey sticks!) so making some kind of MBH trade-in for one of those would be pointless. 

Dave H,

In fact, considering the number of studies in both sets, contrarians have no incentive for one-on-one trades.

Speaking of contrarians, here’s evidence that they form a us

Money quote:

[M]ake an argument that you can get killed on, and you will kill us [contrarians] all. [I]f you lose credibility on this issue, you lose the issue.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31140226298

This non-Feynmanian way of seeing the scientific process, advertized in a pow-wow sponsored and organized by the Heartland Institute.

This fact should point at the beginning of an answer to the moral question set up in #233.

BBD It does not matter that you are not buying, I was explaining my position. What I offered was free. What I stated was to unknown unknowns. The possibility of these small forcings are not only known, but as stated, it is like the assumptions of the Bern model. You state “we could”, please provide a link that “we have” and that it invalidates my statement, otherwise this is just an assertation and without that link a strawman or some such that I am reasonably certain Willard or Joshua could give a latin or such name to it. But I will answer your question about “   What kind of forcings are “˜smaller than our measurement capability’(!)?” There are plenty and the Bern model has some, but note they are stated as assumptions. If there is a small but constant forcing that occurs over geologic time spans, and if it is not recognized, it will not be accounted for. And if it reverses and is big enough, it can invalidate the concern that the Greenland or Antartic sheets will contribute more than a few meters of sea level rise after a thousand years of warming. This problem is known and an example of this is the Bern model where it is beleived that we have enough inforrmation to assert that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years, because we do not have a depletion that negates it. Note that this is not a measurement, but an assumption of what is known. It is assumed that the relevant relations have been measured and quantified, but because it has not been directly measured, it is still an assumption and can be invalidated. My point is that within the confidence intervals all known climate behavior there is quite a broad spectrum due to proxies rather than direct measurements. There are extensive measurements for some quantities for 30+ years. However, for a mass and energy balance, only have about a decade for ocean. Once again, to do a mass and energy balance at present requires assumptions. Data can invalidate assumptions. This applies to the MWP and applies to the IPCC AR4 Ch 9 methodology. I note for our groundskeeper you keep throwing spitballs rather than discussing the basis of my argument, AR4.

Willard if you can get Keith to send me your adress I will send you my copy of crutape letters. I have already read it.

JFP

In other words, you are just saying stuff. This is tedious, and I’m not buying.

John F. Pittman,

You can find my email on my tumblog.

Thanks!

@willard, yes there is certainly a numeric reason not to start playing go fish with publications. Plus, I can see myself eventually being asked to trade a Foster & Rahmstorf for G&T or something. 

person*.

Willard please make sure it is a troll and not a gremlin, sometimes mistakingly identified as a goblin. I wonder if the creators of “Gremlins” missed a motiff moment by not having one of the kids hit a Mogwai with a spitball and a whole explosion of  “American horror comedy” then ensues. ”Enquiring” minds want to know (SM).

John F. Pittman,

I’m wondering that too. Not only GW has no honor, but he acts like a Markov chain.

Among these warriors, Groundskeeper Willie can remind me of Me Too

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm

Too bad Nullius went silent, but I’m sure GW will find another guru to form another dynamic duo.

That GW is a little Me Too who throws too many spitballs for his own good can explain why I indulge playing Big Cat with him, while making sure he does not poison the well by dropping water drops one anyone’s head too long.

Please bear with me until I find the wisdom to become a Kung Fu Master, which I hope will be soon enough…

PS: My email is languageisasocialart at a popular G service.

I do love the Flame warriors site. I hope Joshua understands that humor often requires  a POV or “motivated reasoning.” I would try to beat up on him for not being here, but he said he had other things to do. I tried to send you email with a caution to others if it went astray. Perhaps if you get it, you will appreciate the caution. Perhaps if it went astray they will. LOL

Yes, that’s a great site. I just noted this one:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

He’s almost wearing a Markov chainmail.

If you want to mock me, please have a look at Archivist and Philosopher.

wrt ferouscranus Willard, you do know “”Hey you beat OManual to the top! How’d that happen?Oliver K. Manuel | September “”??I hope you do; no climate blogger should not have read OManuael at least once. I note for net warriors that ferriccranus would probably be better because of solubility equalibria. If ”Archivist and Philosopher” is an invitation to mock you, I decline. Mirrors, pots, houses, etc.

So, for the sake of argument, lets say that O’Donnell et al 2010 demonstrates that Steig et al 2009 is wrong. Do we now say that that earlier paper is “rubbish, that should not have passed peer review”? Or would that be hype? 

Lazar,

I believe the authors of O10 are still wondering whether they refute, rebut or repudiate S09:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3216471894

Dave H, no, it does not mean that Steig 2009 was rubbish. It means the hype surrounding it was. O’Donnell 2010 was partially motivated by showing the hype was wrong. That it provided useful input that would help Steig in the future is good for all of us. 

Sometimes the sum of human knowledge increases because of personal gripes and grudges.

“Sometimes the sum of human knowledge increases because of personal gripes and grudges.”That is a happy thought, perhaps some scientists would agree.

JFP – (#197)

As it happens, I have a couple of minutes and looked at the last couple of posts – I’m not going to take the time to understand your reference about having a sense of humor – but ironically – I think that having a sense of humor about our own motivated reasoning is key to productive dialog.

As for your earlier post in response to me:

Joshua saying CO2 or ACO2 cannot be a GHG ignores repeatable experiments.

I read some “skeptics” try to say that other “skeptics” aren’t accepting proven physics – but when I look at their arguments in more depth, I mostly see the same basic “appeal to authority” that I see those very same “skeptics” complaining about with “realists.” It’s all a mess, IMO. “Skeptics” who say that they aren’t nutters also say that ACO2 as a GHG hasn’t been proven empirically even as they say that they don’t doubt that ACO2 is a GHG (they only doubt the the degree). It’s all a mess.

As for your technical explanations – none of it comes as anything new to me. Not to say that I don’t appreciate your knowledge or your explanation. But believe me, I have read essentially all of that before. It all has a certain degree of plausibility when properly qualified as far as I’m concerned (as someone without the background or intelligence to assess the science in-depth) but: (1) I see many “skeptics” state certainty where you are stating qualified conclusions. In  that sense, you can’t claim that the nutters have been marginalized, because I see them all the time on threads in the “skeptosphere” where supposedly nutters are marginalized and. The distinctions that some “skeptics” try to draw between nutter “skeptics” and “rational skeptics” seems completely arbitrary, IMO> And I have been looking at those explanations for quite a while now;  (2) as an ironic twist on #1, I see  many of the nutter “skeptics”  and the “rational skeptics” alike constantly misreporting the certainty of the “climate science community.” How many times do you read “the science is settled” as a derisive statement coming from “skeptics” when it is rare indeed that it was every stated by climate scientists who think it probably that ACO2 is most likely responsible for most recent warming? 

I see this on both sides. In cases I know about most of what I see on both sides are taking low probability scenarios and stating as though they are certain to happen on a speculative subject.

Bingo. And this happens not only in this debate but any debate with the same kinds of social, cultural, and political ramifications, and there are easy to identify reasons why this happens. It most certainly does not happen only among the “marginalized” on either side of the debate. On both sides of the debate, combatants refuse accountability for (IMO) overly-certain statements by other combatants.

Often the argument is
more along the lines of Bayesian or frequentist.

I think that most of it boils down to presumptions and assumptions and “priors” – and that those presumptions/assumptions/priors are largely influence by motivated reasoning.

 Where you see near complete intransigence on the “skeptical” side about
politics, I see the near complete intransigence on the “activists” side about policy based on a Bayesian confidence level that methodological
errors in such as the temperature proxies calls to question that the climate community refuses to address that I find is due to the institutionalized bias.

I understand what you’re saying there and largely agree. My point is that the political influences exist on both sides – and in turn create confidence levels (Baesian or otherwise) that are either ill-considered or poorly expressed, or exaggerated by the other side.  As a skeptic, I fully appreciate your point about the influence of institutional bias. Institutional bias always as to be dealt with when you’re examining the output of an institution; however, as with many of the arguments I see in virtually all of these threads, some people allow a “schtick” about institutional bias to have an outsized influence on their conclusions. I can’t really say with you because I still haven’t researched the documents as you said I should do to understand your argument. However, I do believe that I have seen occasions where you overestimate the influence of related variables without giving full consideration to mitigating of conflating variables; for example, the overconfidence about the  influence of nutters on the “realist” side and overconfidence about the marginalization of nutters on the “skeptical” side.

Joshua, I like Oliver Manuel. I don’t read his comments. I don’t like Monckton. I don’t read his screeds. I like Morano. I don’t take his blog seriously and I don’t respect his role in Swiftboating John Kerry.

I’m not a skeptic, but I think most skeptics I correspond with and/or read share and could extend that list.

BBD Lukewarmers like me hide behind the science in AR4, and like to point out how many “alarmists” either Swiftboat the IPCC, or throw it under the bus when someone like me points out just what the CI’s, assumptions, and methodology are in AR4. They shoot the messenger, me, for invoking AR4, yet claim to revere the messenger AR4. Bit contradictory. But then Joshua and I agree on a lot. Go figure.

Where’s the published, widely accepted body of work supporting a low ECS? That’s all you need to be taken seriously.

BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.

> Go figure.

I believe there it has something to do with the fear of being forced of taking up a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken desert in a furnace-like temperature through a cloud-like dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go.

The Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland continues to exert its inexorable march:

http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/

Contrarian Me Toos, open your water-dropping valves!

It will certainly not please Professor Lewandowsky. Who should be hiding somewhere right about now.

Steve McIntyre has outdone himself. What a mass of pointless verbiage.

Steve’s just repeating a familiar pattern – fail to understand a topic, and make accusations and insinuations based on that misunderstanding.He popped up at Stephans and did his usual ask-a-score-of-vague/pointless-questions. 

JFP (382)

Yes, “…mitigating or….”

I have to ask, if you have not read what I have linked, how can you
conclude that I am not giving full consideration if you have not read what considerations I am pointing to and arguing? FYI,

What I can’t evaluate are your arguments about the degree of institutional bias that you speak of w/r/t the IPCC. As a skeptic, I consider it a baseline assumption that some degree of institutional bias must exist – and think that anyone who argues otherwise fails a basic skeptic test. As opposed to the vast majority of “skeptics” I’ve encountered in these online climate debate fora, you strike me as someone who has examined those biases with a serious intent and with a serious understanding of confirmation bias, and intent to control for your own biases. You stand in a solid contrast to folks like, say, the Tommy Trio we see here at CaS. As such,  I’m not inclined to dismiss your arguments about the IPCC’s institutional bias without having done the necessary legwork.

What I was speaking to in my conclusions about what you don’t give full consideration to – was in light of our  discussions about political bias, the impact of motivated reasoning more generally, the extent of marginalization of various viewpoints among “skeptics,”  the determination of a meaningful origination  in the partisan wrangling with the activities/work of the IPCC, etc. 

I see those all to be mitigating factors to the institutional bias you speak of – so even while I can’t speak to your conclusions about the extent of the institutional bias with the IPCC (they may be overstated, but I can’t say), I have a strong impression that you haven’t balanced the overall impact of those biases fairly if you haven’t give proper due to mitigating factors.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/28699887875

willard (#402)

Same ol’, same ol’.

I never realized that there were so many adolescents in the world. If I lived only in the climate blogosphere, I’d think that the entire universe was a junior high school cafeteria food fight.

#405

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.

Kirk Vonnegut Jr.

Typical flurry of hand-waving. Looks like Mac scored again.

Me three!!

Steve’s caricature of Lewandowsky’s disagreeable essay…

“Little noticed at the time was Lewandowsky’s caricature of what
sceptics actually believe ““ a caricature clearly serving to dehumanize
his targets.  Consider that, for example, Richard Lindzen, the leading
skeptic, unequivocally agrees that temperature had increased [...] However, in his editorial, Lewandowsky characterized climate sceptics
in terms of an opinion that (in my reading) is not held by the
overwhelming majority of blog readers: a disbelief in even the warming
observed in the satellite record as follows, described by Lewandowsky as
follows:

The further fact that the satellite data yield precisely
the same result without any surface-based thermometers is of no
relevance to climate “sceptics.””

Auditors may beware omitted context… Lewandowsky:

“Likewise, climate “sceptics” obsessively yelp at the alleged frailties
of the surface temperature record and accuse respectable scientific
agencies of “fudging” data, oblivious to the fact that multiple
independent analyses of the temperature record give rise to the exact
same conclusion. The further fact that the satellite data yield
precisely the same result without any surface-based
thermometers is of no relevance to climate “sceptics.” It is also of no
relevance to climate “sceptics” that their claims about the absence of
global warming are logically incoherent with their simultaneous claim
that humans didn’t cause the warming.”

Arguably the final sentence supports Steve’s caricature, but the reference to satellite data pertains also to the first sentence. Is the claim that skeptics hype “alleged frailties of the surface temperature record” a caricature? Jo Nova is the first skeptic mentioned in Steve’s post; here’s what she writes in page 7 of her publication, “The Skeptic’s Handbook”…

“The main “cause” for global warming is air conditioners”Oh dear.

Is the claim that skeptics falsely accuse scientists of fudging the surface temperature record a “caricature”?

Steve references “The opinions of the most prominent bloggers regarded by warmists as “sceptical” (Anthony”

Perhaps Anthony Watts no longer believes that NOAA scientists removed ‘cool’ high altitude stations to “deliberately” create a false warming trend. It is hard to tell since that claim was sent down the memory hole.

f* comment queue

Keith, *loads of comments in the moderation queue, please delete them all.

Lazar,

Thank you for your kind words. I have at least two essays related to Good Science. The first [2] introduces de concept of scientific opposition research. I can recall it, since it’s hype and it triggers the Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland.

Good Science appears in Bishop’s book.

In pages 27-28 of his book, our neutral (h/t Shub) Bishop introduces Deming and his research using this description:

Deming had recently created a temperature reconstruction for the last 150 years, based on boreholes in North America. In his study, he concluded that North America had warmed somewhat in the period since 1850, but had little to say bebond that. This was good, solid science but not the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Here are some expressions in the following sentences:

“considered highly important in climatic science circle”

“with the expectation that temperatures were being driven upward”

“storyline of rising temperatures”

“global warming industry”

“who [the global warming industrialists] thought they saw”

“they thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science”

“flash of light ["¦] murky shadow”

“the aim was to erase it in the climatological record in its entirety”

My interest here is not in the Deming affair as such [1], but in the function of portraying Deming as doing “good, solid science”, immediately before the intriguing portray of consideration, expectation, storyline, industry, and other institutionalized thought processes and interests. Andrew Montford is not known to be knowledgeable in borehology. The statement of his opinion regarding Deming’s work deserves due diligence. As the Auditor might ask his readership to ponder: why?

Here’s my hypothesis. Montford is framing the Deming affair as the story between a noble scientist versus global warming industrialists. One (or two, if we count Richard Lindzen) against a powerful multitude. A sudden revelation of tainted intentions. Pure light among the murky shadows of climatology.

We can see that defining “good, solid science” is quite secondary. We’re not into the realms of scientific criticism, but more something like scientific opposition research.

The way scientific opposition research operates deserves due diligence.

[1] The Montford Dossier certainly deserves due diligence. For instance, it is claimed that “Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck.” But note 12, which follows this claim, points to an Arxiv document authored by Lindzen. There is one mention to Overpeck in that document: a signature to an international conference invitation. The only mention of “getting rid” of MWP cites (Deming, 2005) as authority. Here is when the Auditor might revive yet another introduction to check-kiting.

[2] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15401067079

Lazar,

Here’s the second essay about Good Science, which was in response to Me Too’s old guru:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/16433124640

By chance Big Dog Steve’s line jumps on the ice to save the week.

Hmmm. Make that #420, not #422.

Nullius #420,

“MBH probably should have been rejected because it wasn’t replicable”

How ‘should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?

Why ‘should’ a lack of sufficient detail lead to recommendation for rejection over requests for revision?

How does MBH98 rate for methodological detail relative to standards for Nature publications?

“and if it had been made replicable it would have been rejected for obvious errors”

Had MBH98 provided extra detail for the purposes of replication, what
are the “errors” that then would appear “obvious” to reviewers, and how
would it make obvious…

“conflicts with previous work on the temperature-sensitivity of stripbark bristlecones”

?

“#376, Suppose method 1 is “˜plotting a curve’ and method 2 is “˜adding error
bars’. Is adding error bars better than simply plotting a curve”

How do you judge one relative to another?

“because it only reveals that the curve is meaningless”

How does bounding a curve reveal it to be meaningless?

“Would you therefore prefer the curve to have no error bars?”

How does this follow? I do not prefer curves without error bars.

“#417 [...] I am told the standard in climate science is not to draw conclusions
from intervals of less than 30 years. Although the rule is bent,
sometimes.”

I was unaware that the decision making of a Bishop follows the statistical properties of a coupled climate system! Maybe we should heed the warning…

“Let’s not forget that if you point at things as if they were deeply
significant, people will invest them with significance without you
having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very
postmodern.”

Nullius, whether or not you want or expect someone to satisfy your condition does not change that you have outlined it as a condition. Also, you say you never said that MBH should not have been published, but also that it shouldn’t. Round and round we go. 

> If you point at things as if they were deeply
significant, people will invest them with significance without you
having to explain what you’re talking about. Neat technique. Very
postmodern.

Sometimes, this technique is called dogwhistling

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/dogwhistling

One could almost call that technique the CA business model.

Other times, it could simply be a way to pull one’s punch to save another’s face.

Was there something that needs to be clarified in #337, Nullius? I can own everything I implied there.

#425,

“How “˜should’ reviewers have judged MBH98 to be not replicable?”

By considering the steps they would need to take to replicate it.

‘First, download your data…’

“Why “˜should’ a lack of sufficient detail lead to recommendation for rejection over requests for revision?”

Requests for revision would have been fine, too.

#427,

I didn’t outline it as a condition. I said that until you stop trying to defend the indefensible, I’m going to keep on having fun poking at it. It’s not any sort of offered deal or demand; just an observation. And a pretty obvious one at that.

#429,

Really? But if you just dance around and pull all your punches, people will eventually begin to wonder if you could have landed them.

Thanks for your consideration, but as I’ve said often the purpose of debating people who disagree with me is to test my beliefs and find out if I’m wrong. In the long run, it’s no kindness not to let me know.

If you’re doing it just to be irritating, that’s fine. I don’t mind that. But if you do actually have a point and was expecting me to spot it, you perhaps ought to know that I didn’t.

Input your comments here…

FWIW, it’s now becoming clear that Lewandosky is utter crap. If I worked at or attended the University, I’d be really pissed/embarrassed.

@ 420 Nil by mouth:

Why start at interannual? It was cool here yesterday, it was warm today. The temperature change was 3 C. So that would indicate massive sensitivity to CO2, since the change in CO2 over a single day was tiny and the change in temperature huge.

I cannot believe you actually misunderstand this so badly so you must be playing silly-buggers. If you were half as clever as you imagine, you wouldn’t because you would understand that it makes you look, well, like a prat, really.

#430 Well said.  

I understand throwing red meat out to rally the base, but at some point you have to accept that the other side gets a vote too, and you need some portion of that vote to get what you want if you don’t have a solid majority.  Plan accordingly.

Demonizing of the other side seems to be 90% just lashing out from frustration as far as I can tell.  Some of it is simply misplaced aggression due to their inability to accept their own failures, and the hesitance to perform true introspection.  This is universal and can be applied to different political causes. Successful political causes overcome this. 

Declaring yourself “holier than thou” is indeed a treacherous path to take to success.  It makes for a target rich environment for the opposition.  Your job is harder, theirs is easier, what is gained?

To make matters worse in the USA, the environmental movement has become a complete captive of the Democratic party.  Although this has always been the case more or less, the polarization has increased as we all know.  The downside for environmentalism is that the Democrats need to do almost nothing in order to maintain this vote.  The threat of environmentalists voting Republican is nil.  

Thus AGW (the greatest moral challenge of our time!) became politically toxic even to the Democrats.  The platform drives away moderates arguably due to the hyperbole used and the confounding co-opters such as climate justice etc.  

If it would help them get votes, they would be talking about it.

The most curious part of all is the seeming insistence to “stay the course” in spite of all the direct evidence that it isn’t working.  This just screams for new leadership.  My advice is to move in the direction where moderate environmentalist is not an oxymoron.

John F. Pittman @ 389

BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.

This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS.

I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.

I’ll make you a concession though: I should have said personalising and smearing. Smearing is a better word for what you engage in than demonising.

Smearing.

Citation, please.

BBD,

Since you like books, I wonder if you know what “puritan legalism” means:

Another theme is the extreme legalism of the Puritans and how Hester chooses not to conform to their rules and beliefs. Hester was rejected by the villagers even though she spent her life doing what she could to help the sick and the poor. Because they rejected her, she spent her life mostly in solitude, and wouldn’t go to church. As a result, she retreats into her own mind and her own thinking. Her thoughts begin to stretch and go beyond what would be considered by the Puritans as safe or even Christian. She still sees her sin, but begins to look on it differently than the villagers ever have. She begins to believe that a person’s earthly sins don’t necessarily condemn them. She even goes so far as to tell Dimmesdale that their sin has been paid for by their daily penance and that their sin won’t keep them from getting to heaven, however, the Puritans believed that such a sin surely condemns. But Hester had been alienated from the Puritan society, both in her physical life and spiritual life. When Dimmesdale dies, she knows she has to move on because she can no longer conform to the Puritan’s strictness. Her thinking is free from religious bounds and she has established her own, different moral standards and beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter

Poor Hester.

Have you read the book, by any chance?

Only one distraction, willard? You’re slipping. Usually you would have three or four comments to pull attention away from the usual train wreck. Have you renewed your troll license recently? Attended refresher training? 

willard

Thanks for the instructive quote. I have not read TSL or indeed anything by Hawthorne (I blush). The C19th American novel is not my forte. This is no excuse, but it is offered as one.

Name one instance from the book where I personalized, demonized or smeared anyone. You have the book. You claim to have read it. You have made a damaging accusation. I say you are a deliberate, malicious liar.Find a quote from the book where we demonize, personalize or smear anyone.

I can’t wait for John’s copy to arrive. Seems that we can **See Inside** at Amazon.

An interesting title for Chapter Four:

A paper in purgatory

Now, what’s the Purgatory, again? According to thy Wiki:

Purgatory is the condition of purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state of grace are believed to be made ready for Heaven.

Reminds me of that song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU

Heaven is a a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

Must be tough to write more than one song about such a place.

What’s the title of Chapter six, again?

And Chapter seven’s title is?

Chapter Three ought to be interesting:

The Devil and Mr. Jones

Are we sure that they’re two different persons?

Feel free to tell us all, willard. Chapter 6 is ‘An Army of Davids.’ Chapter 7 is ‘Hell Week.’

Please feel free to use quotes. Such as,

“We are tough on the scientists we call The Team, and we think deservedly so. But we want to stress from the outset that we do not for one minute believe there is any evidence of a long-term conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming, by The Team or anyone else. What we find evidence of on a much smaller scale is a small group of scientists too close to each other, protecting themselves and their careers, and unintentionally having a dramatic, if unintended, effect on a global debate.”

Who personalized the debate: Hmm. Maybe Tom Wigley: “I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time.”

There’s an interesting title for the section starting at p. 111. Which is it?

Tom, see 448. Remember that we are discussing your partisan, distorting account of other people’s stolen private correspondence. The whole thing is a calculated smear of ‘The Team’. You really can’t go round calling me a liar for pointing this out. And you did call ‘The Team’ criminals – and extend that accusation to many other scientists. Did you not accuse the field of ‘malpractice’? Are these not smears? (Actually, they are probably libels, but let’s not worry about that).

I notice that in the final pages you make your usual nonsense claim that ECS is 1.5 – 2C. Please provide references to the established body of work supporting this. 

As for tone, willard has helpfully provided some of the rather… motivated chapter titles. You set the general tone early; on p. 18 we find this:

As you will see in Climategate, untruths get recycled by both the great and the good – when they think no-one is watching them. 

And you bookend your distorting presentation in the same tone. On p. 179, we find this:

The Real Crime in Climategate

[...]

The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and paleoclimatologists whose emails and files were leaked to the public.

[...]

And the crime is malpractice. Deliberate and conscious malpractice. And since they arrogated the power unto themselves to diagnose the disease and prescribe a cure, they might also be charged with practicing medicine without a licence.

I’m out for the rest of the day so have fun.

willard

P110 in the paper edition has a section entitled ‘Auditing the IPCC process’. Is that what you are referring to?

@ 466 willard

Is it truly your belief?

Yes, and may God have mercy on my soul

Tom, when you get back, can you explain further:

The criminals are not limited to The Team

You say here:

It is an accurate description of a phenomenon we are witnessing today.Liar.

The ‘it’ being criminality. You are saying that climate scientists in general are criminals and that they are engaged in criminal behaviour today. You stress that this is an accurate description.

This is more than a smear. It is a serious accusation. I cannot see how pointing out that your book is a calculated attack on the integrity of an entire field of science is a lie. This is why I still want some examples of me *telling lies*. As yet, you haven’t provided any, but you have called me a liar several times again. This is not very helpful.

BBD,

No, I’m referring to the next one:

GISSTEMP: The Sacrificial Lamb

Thy Wiki saith:

A sacrificial lamb is a metaphorical reference to a person or animal sacrificed (killed or discounted in some way) for the common good. The term is derived from the traditions of Abrahamic religion where a lamb is a highly valued possession, but is offered to God as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of Sin.

Perhaps the crime is just a metaphor, like demonization and sacrificial lamb.

willard @ 477

You’ve unlocked the whole text for me

Although the Screwtape/CRUTape thing is a pretty big hint.

JFP

People are rationalizing organisms, not rational (short version - all suffer from motivated reasoning.) The rational response of low probability of low ECS is 1.2C per AR4.

I’m sorry, I’m still not clear what you are saying here. Yes, the probability that ECS is at the low end of the range is low. And…?

willard

From Tom’s book (p. 8)

We take some comfort in the old story by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape, the wise demon, advises Wormwood, the apprentice, on how to corrupt a British man’s soul and secure for him a place in hell. Although Screwtape’s advice is both sage and sordid, the plot fails and the British man ends up in heaven. We hope the CRUtape letters chronicled here eventually provide a similarly satisfactory ending.

Well, I have made several points to this. But you demanded that I support my position. I did. So I consider that your opposition to me is baseless unless you reformulate it. The point of motivated reasoning is, and I may be mistaken, is that you took me to task for being incomprehensible and needed to be specific. Hey, Willard can I point that he challenged me, and after I support my position he claims a version of amnesia without tripping a logical fallacy?  That I put in motivated reasoning for Joshua who has been part of this converation is what I have done several times.                       BBD stated in 441 after my post in 389 where I state “”BBD if that comment is for me, that value is a low probability in AR4. That it is low but in AR4 means there is a wide body of accepted work according to what I post and state.”" :  BBD 441             “This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS. I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.”"                     Even though I kept repeating in this and other threads my low probability ECS is from Chapter 9 AR4 WG1.     BBD at 337 states “”Where’s the published, widely accepted body of work supporting a low ECS? That’s all you need to be taken seriously.”" I provided it; that it is a low probabilty does not mean it is unsupported.

JFP

What I was asking for was a a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’
argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.

You are a lukewarmer, yes? So what is the scientific basis for your position? Please provide references.

BBD,

It would be interesting to find some kind of correspondance between the letters and virtual-world entities. Take for instance the last letter:

In the last letter, it emerges that the Patient has been killed during an air raid (World War II having broken out between the fourth and fifth letters), and has gone to Heaven. Wormwood is to be punished for letting a soul ‘slip through his fingers’ by being handed over to the fate that would have awaited his patient had he been successful: the consumption of his spiritual essence by the other demons.

We now have the proof that if Al Gore invented the Internet, C. S. Lewis prophecized climate blogland.

Now BBD is asking me to acquiesce to his unstated victimization by claiming that he was asking for something he did not state. Normally this would not be a problem because I think a little leeway in conversations is appropriate. But in this case I have to use BBD against BBD. In BBD 441 “This is incomprehensible, but it doesn’t matter. Be specific. Reference five widely accepted studies in reputable journals supporting the case for low ECS. I’ve noticed that although I have asked for specific references supporting several of your statements now, you have yet to provide a single one.””           d   He accuses me of being incomprehensible when he expects me to read his mind, and though I have repeated it, my statement is based on Ch 9 AR4. He continues to deny what is said though I posted the exact passage. Now once again he is asking for references about my lukewarmism, not realizing I already have. But note, this is after I have supported my position as I support it. It may be necessary for BBD to think that the most probable has to occur, but it is not what CI’s mean. Perhaps the problem is that BBD’s motivated reasoning as to what constitues a lukewarmer is determining his statements and requirements that I be able to read his mind. I can’t. I responded to what he wrote.   t 

JFP

Steady on old chap. All I asked for were references to a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’ argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high.

If you don’t have them, fine. At least we know where we stand.

Willard, I just want to use the correct language. I have pointed out my position with quotes, and that I met his requests by posting what he asked. BBD is demanding that I respond in a manner I never argued. I keep responding according to what I claim and BBD ignores his own posts and takes me to task for things I did not claim. Did I mention he is asking me to defend something I have not claimed. Anyway, will get the book at to you tomorrow if all goes well. If not then Tuesday.

No BBD that is not what you asked. I have posted that this is not what you asked in your own wordsd. That “we know where we stand” is not the problem, nor what you have asked, nor what you have stated. You DID NOT ASK for ” references to a widely accepted body of published studies supporting the “˜lukewarm’ argument. Specifically that the probability of ECS being at the low end of the range is high. ” a  You are editing reality. If you had asked, and some do, I would, and I have pointed to the intrinsic and extrinsic assumptions that any high probablility must have due to the copnstraints of what we know and what we have to assume. You most certainly did not use the word “specifically” wrt to a high probablity for low ECS. You are making stuff up.

Oh, forgot to add: yes, strawman sounds about right. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Willard any one who wants to support 3 C is welcome to do it. That does not mean that I am making an incorrect argument. He did not ask me to justify what you say until after claiming that I did not have a reference.  There are reasons I post about the 1.2 C range. Please consider, if it was not relevant, why would the IPCC with its mission to determine AGW/CC exists and as a prerequisite of Rio, be harmful, include it in their WG1? I am not constraining it even more than the IPCC. It is in WG1. I am not making a bet. I don’t need a criteria to exclude above the 2-3C range, it is included or excluded by what happens in the future. If ECS turns out to be 1.2C, the IPCC will be correct; and the 2 to 3C will be excluded by what really happens. The authority for my 1.2C is the same for the 3C, if one uses AR4. The IPCC takes all models. When lukewarmers point this out, I have noted, this is by memory,  they get “It is not according to IPCC.” When others do the same, they are given Kudos. I am agnostic.

JFP

Lukewarmer ≠ agnostic.

If you want to know I do tend to think ECS has a good probability to be 2C or less. But If we discuss we discuss. No mindreading or unequal asumptions.

#431

Let’s not pull any punches, then.

TCO asked a set of questions in January 2005.
Nullius considers these question fair.
Steve has yet to answer these questions in the comment thread of that 2005 post.
We are in September 2012.
These are facts. I find them noteworthy.

First round.
The first question is: What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications?
My first hypothesis: political hit job, karaoke or both.
The expression “political hit job” has been used by Groundskeeper Willie in a similar context.
The expression “karaoke” has been used by Steve in a similar context.
Nullius’ hypothesis: M&M did E&E a favour.
Note the discreptancy between my hypothesis and Nullius’.
End of first round.

Second round.
I ask Nullius to provide evidence for his hypothesis.
He armwaves at the beginning of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s book.
I quote the first paragraph of that chapter, and underline the title: “Fighting Back.”
In that quote, we learn that Nature rejected the first version of what became two papers.
We also learn that Steve would have wanted to publish in Nature, but was long as it got somewhere, he was satisfied.
Note again the discreptancy between our mutual readings.
End of second round.

Third round.
Nullius rejects the relevance of this quote and armwaves a more specific cite.
I quote the part where the “favor” is being evoked.
In that very same passage, we underline “payback”, if only for rhyming effect.
We also quote the preceding paragraph, where it was said that the issues were complex.
In the text, this reason is being given priority over the “favor”.
End of third round.

So here’s a run down of the justifications. The rejection by Nature to publish M&M’s response initiates the process whereby two papers get written and published. The complexity of the issues justifies the publication of two separate papers, and the publication at E&E’s justified as a favor. There is also a third related publication.

This is the official storyline.
But look at the paragraph’s title.
And consider this:

TCO’s questions have been asked in the blog post just before the official launch of CA.
The title of the blog post is **New research published on MBH98**.
This blog post has been mentioned at the end of Chapter 6 of Bishop’s book.
This Chapter is called **Fighting Back**.
The relevant section is called **Announcement**.
The URL has not been mentioned in Bishop’s book.
These are facts. I find them noteworthy.

Here is the paragraph, p. 175:

By January, with the papers accepted for publication and nearing print, McIntyre was ready to tell the world that he and McKitrick were about to start their fightback [sic]. He hosted up an article on his Climate2003 website announcing the publication of no less than three papers about the Hockey Stick – in GRL, in Energy and Environment and a third article in a Dutch popular science magazine.

They do not say why they published something in NWT.

Let’s return to our question.
What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications?
First, the big Nature blow could not be dealt.
Second, by publishing two papers, karaokeed here and there, M&M could amplify the “area of effect” (h/t Marlowe) by using more space and different channels.
Third, they could payback a debt they owed.
These tactical moves form what I would call a rationale for the publication of these articles.
The overall strategy was to **fight back**.
This points to a political hit job with some karaoke more than favoritism, favoritism which also points to a political hit job anyway.

This interpretation follows from the very material that Nullius cited.
I believe that it renders more justice to TCO’s question than Nullius’ minimal reading.
I believe it follows quite directly from reading the Bishop’s book.
A book which is more obviously an hit job, but for another political sphere.
M&M were in a scientific warfare, our good Bishop is into an economic warfare.

How our good Bishop hyped his economic warfare deserves due diligence.
The Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland requires some pushback.

Here’s the second post from CA, the first being an Hello World:

There has been extensive coverage of our research in the National Post, a leading Canadian newspaper, over the last few days. [...] On a personal basis, this coverage has been very gratifying, since my friends and family are not academics and being covered in the National Post seems much more tangible to them than publication in Geophysical Research Letters.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/03/national-post/

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China, and other countries lasting from about AD 950 to 1250. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

JFP (430)

In general it is a political battle generally drawn on the lines of those who maximize the value of (self) freedom (Group A)versus those who maximize the value of the greater good (Group B).

I that is a bit of a superficial categorization. It serves as a workable construct for further discussion, but to really get to my arguments at a more meaningful level, it will be necessary for us to unpack that a bit.

If you mean recognizing motivated reasoning as real and should be considered a mitigating factor, then my opinion is that such is not a mitigating factor, but something to be avoided.

Yes, it is something to be avoided. But it is also needs to be examined as a mitigating factor against arguments asserting IPCC institutional bias as a dominating force in the debate. Maybe to put that in a less argumentative framework – it needs to included in analyses that examine the influences that have brought the debate to the stage that it’s at.

Further, due to what was considered a failure of the commons in the above political hierarchy, risk management is rewritten to exclude one of the tools that Group A used, and declare the
moral ascendancy of what Group B desired.

I don’t seen how this is consistent with your next topic:  I would argue that both sides declare moral ascendancy (as you later state). But that has been true forever. It goes back to the very principles of motivated reasoning. You can’t accept the principle of motivated reasoning and then argue that a perspective of moral superiority is applicable to one group and not the other. Reading these threads or those at Judith’s will easily demonstrated that the claims from many “rational skeptics” – and not just the supposedly marginalized nutter ‘skeptics”-  are constantly filled with claims of moral ascendancy. You are a very unusual participant in that respect. The same forces that lead to such attributions now were in play at the very beginning of the debate. They were present in the antecedent arguments. Claims of moral ascendency are intrinsic to these kinds of debate, no matter which side

The IPCC was formed and this
approach/history has institutional bias. At this point, I see a lot of what the skeptics, even those who I think are marginalized, are doing is
to attack through various means not so much the science but rather theassumed or pontificated moral ascendancy.

In other words, a proxy battle
where it appears to be the science. From my point of veiw both are engaged in motivated reasoning.

So we are in agreement. If so, then I don’t see why you earlier said that one group first claimed moral superiority. These dynamics are intrinsic not only to this debate, but in countless other, similar debates. People interpret science one way or the other based in a fundamental way on a sense of their moral superiority, and then reverse engineer back from their interpretation of the science to reinforce their sense of moral superiority. I is a viscous, self-reinforcing cycle.

From a pratical point, if AGW/CAGW/CCC is a problem, then I object to losing a useful tool so that Group B can claim ascendancy over Group A.

Agree. And the reverse is also true.

This is why I see little need to bang on about a lot of scepticism. I understand the nature of the proxy battle. In terms of the failure of the commons, I understand both sides. However, I do not agree with, nor think it is wise to exclude by pontification a large fraction of humans and what they can bring to the table. But since this has been done, the IPCC and the concensus have
raised the standard they must meet, rather than lower it. The standard was hard enough when it was simply “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Now they must meet the first standard and another, they must keep the moral high ground.

I agree. But I believe that the same principle must be applied on both sides of the debate.

In that respect. Climategate was worse in context. It is my opinion that skeptics have fought a successful moral battle by using science as a proxy, and are seriuosly challeging the IPCC as a moral figure in the debate of AGW.

The battle involves far more than what lies on the surface of the debate – on both sides. The moral battle about the science of AGW is inextricable from the political context; for example, libertarian ideology about governments, environmentalist ideology about protecting nature, etc.  Both sides use science as proxy, and both sides use many other weapons as well..

If they are not successful now, I beleive the sceptics will be later. The IPCC and such endevours as the investigations into Climategate that did not investigate what persons such as myself investigated, means that
sceptics are being spoonfed ammo.

The “skeptics” can manufacture ammo: It matters little what the “realists” do in that regard. That isn’t offered as a defense of tribalism among “realists.” Tribalism is destructive on both sides – but the tribalism on one side cannot be viewed as merely a response to the tribalism on the other side, IMO. When someone does so, they are ignoring the fundamental roots of tribalism that lie in the phenomenon of motivated reasoning.

All I can say is with friends like these, the IPCC needs no enemies.

The enemies were not conceived by the actions of the IPCC, Copenhagen 2009, Chavez, etc. In point of fact, the amount of opposition weaponized by the phenomena you list is pretty small, IMO. For the most part, only climate warriors are focused at that level of the detail. IMV, many “skeptics” rather wildly inflate the impact of these issues. Consider the possibility that your “schtick” is the institutional bias of the IPCC. Assuming that your identifications of that bias is accurate – it is possible that the weight that you give to that one variable becomes outsized?

Tom

Instead of answering the questions I asked yesterday, you responded with a question (naughty) and ran away (cowardly and evasive). On eventually returning, you carry on with the abuse (naughty) but do not answer the questions (evasive and dishonest). Let’s remember that this arose because you – for no reason at all – started calling me a liar upthread. I object to shit like this from such as you, so we will now continue where we, or rather you, left off, at # 472. You claim that your distorting, partial book does not personalise and demonise certain scientists.

Which personalizes whom? Which demonizes whom?

You list The Team on p.19 in the section entitled “˜Meet The Team’:

You name Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones, Briffa, Jacoby, Schweingruber, Rutherford, Crowley, Osborn and “˜perhaps others who float in and out’.

You say:

The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and paleoclimatologists whose emails and files were leaked to the public.

So you personalise as listed, and demonise (I suspect actually libel) the named individuals who you characterise as “˜criminals’.

Can you explain further:

The criminals are not limited to The Team

You say here:

It is an accurate description of a phenomenon we are witnessing today.Liar.

The “˜it’ being criminality. You are saying that climate scientists in general are criminals and that they are engaged in criminal behaviour today. You stress that this is an accurate description.

This is more than a smear. It is a serious accusation. I cannot see how pointing out that your book is a calculated attack on the integrity
of an entire field of science is a lie. This is why I still want some examples of me *telling lies*. As yet, you haven’t provided any,
but you have called me a liar several times again. Now it’s ‘loser’ as well. This is not very helpful.

BBD, sorry if you think spending the day with my wife at Golden Gate Park is running away. Sorrier still that you continue to lie about what I wrote in the book.

I’m going to have to be more disciplined with you, willard and Marlowe. Much like I did with another commenter two years ago, this will be my last comment to either of you, no matter what matter of tripe you spew.

It’s really easy to see why you get banned from blogs, BBD. No matter how many smiley emoticons you use, you are Oliver Manuel without the charm. You are obsessed with Hansen’s guess at 3C sensitivity and believe it is the only metric that matters in climate discussions. You have shown yourself willing to bully, use abusive language and lie. I want nothing more to do with you.

Willard, your pretense is far more sophisticated but at the end of the day you are the same. You have shown yourself to be more malicious than BBD–just subtler in your approach. I want nothing more to do with you. 

Marlowe, there was a time when you had something to contribute to the discussion. That time was long ago. You’re cruder and meaner than willard, but that’s because your trollery is tactical while his is strategic. 

I hope I am sufficiently disciplined to hold to this–the only reason I’m posting this as a comment is to remind me of it when you three tempt me to respond to your asinine crap.

At the end of the day, none of what you three write is worth it.

#514 BBD

I ask as I am unaware of any widely accepted scientific basis for a belief that ECS is below 2C and would be interested to learn more.

Here we go published in science in November 2011 -

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract

we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced
uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K as the 66% probability
range, which can be widened using alternate assumptions or data subsets). 

And before you go off and quote Hansen’s latest study here is his 1984 study

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2.

There is nothing new about scientists defending their theories till death. There are plenty of studies suggesting a lower then 3C climate sensitivity, and plenty of counter studies defending a 3C climate sensitivity. It’s not ‘settled science’

Tom

So, no answers eh? Looks like Tom has been exposed – yet again – as the one telling porkies. It’s really easy to see why you get banned from blogs, BBD.

Another childish misrepresentation. I’ve only ever been banned from the one, although I did get banned twice , for the same reason: BH won’t tolerate me asking awkward questions about the GWPF. Auditors take note.

harrywr2

This is old news. Schmittner et al. (2011) is flawed – it’s estimated LGM global average temperature is too high, hence the reduced sensitivity estimate. Even co-author Nathan Urban subsequently contributed to a study using observational data and a perturbed ensemble of the UVic model and got a best estimate of  only slightly below 3C. 

There is nothing new about scientists defending their theories till death.

So Hansen *improves* the best estimate of ECS by *lowering it* from 4C to about 3C (the emergent value from modelE is 2.9C IIRC) and he’s ‘defending his theories to the death’? FFS.

There are plenty of studies suggesting a lower then 3C climate sensitivity

There are none that I know of which are widely accepted that demonstrate a high probability that ECS is significantly below ~3C. As in below 2C. As in my request to JFP that you have taken upon yourself not to answer. Please don’t make this claim again unless you provide at least five references to back it up. I’m fed up with this endless saying of stuff. Put up or shut up.

#522 Marlowe,

Being optimistic within a range filled with uncertainty is not being ‘wrong’. It’s just ‘being optimistic’.

The endless accusations of somebody being ‘wrong headed’ for ‘thinking’ that climate sensitivity is low get tiresome. If I say I ‘think something’ then that is offered as an opinion. It’s different then saying ‘I know something’.

Pure radiative physics says that the amount of warming that should have occured from CO2 alone given the emissions of C02 from 1880 to present all other things remaining equal should be about 0.8C. 0.8C is about what has been measured. To get above that 1.2C climate sensitivity number you need to find a lot of heat in the oceans. Unfortunately, our ocean heat content measurements aren’t exactly good because sailors avoided sailing below 40 degrees South. Argo has only been in place for less then 10 years.

harrywr2

Comprehension issues or WTF?

I repeat: Please don’t make the nonsense low ECS claim again unless you provide at least five references to back it up. I’m fed up with this endless saying of stuff.

You want a scientific argument about a scientific matter you need *references*. Or you have *nothing*. The difficulty certain commenters here have getting this into their skulls is jaw-dropping.

It is a simple enough concept.

Marlowe

That’s not all harrywr2 is neglecting. I went through this exact misconception with him in painful detail several months back. Now he’s acting like the conversation never happened. Now, if I can remember it nearly perfectly, why TF can’t he? What’s going on? Is he losing his memory or being disingenuous? Perhaps harry can tell us why he is repeating the same old crap from months ago?

I’m all ears…

willard -

Speaking of “marginalized nutter skeptics” might be dehumanizing.

Thanks. I should clarify. I don’t think they are nutters. I think they are smart and knowledgeable people. I am rejecting to the argument from some who assert that they themselves are, in comparison,  “rational skeptics.” In particular, I reject those arguments when they rest on a charge that the Sky Dragons, or whomever, rely on ideas that lie outside the bounds of accepted mainstream science. I think the logic behind my objection there should be pretty obvious. 

As someone w/o the knowledge and the brains, I look at all the scientific arguments and think that they all, at least to a large degree, display a certain kind of logical consistency, internally. I cannot judge the scientific arguments. But when those Sky Dragons, or whomever, then rely on facile or specious arguments in other realms, as I see so often in climate debate threads, I have to make assumptions that said folks are likely susceptible to motivated reasoning, and further, fully unable to control for the effects of such an easily found influence that corrupts scientific analysis.

BBD,

Is there a complete bibliography somewhere on climate sensitivity?

If not, someone ought to do one.

There are many online services to maintain collective bibliographies.

Connotea is one:

http://www.connotea.org/

Might be useful against hype.

This thread is classic.http://imgur.com/pjxqR

BBD I am not your lap dog. FYI I just had a procedure today that took a lot of my time last night and well into the afternoon. I have not recovered. As far as I can tell you are reverting to a dishonest conversation. I could be dead for all you know and you are making demands. I point this out that you include only refrences. I stated it would include other items such as assumptions, basis, and I have done so above. So now I demand with the same reasonableness, you MUST demonstrate Tebaldi and Knutti’s Royal “B” has been invalidated.

JFP

It has been painfully obvious for a long while that you have nothing. I repeat what I was forced to say above:

You want a scientific argument about a scientific matter you need *references*. Or you have *nothing*. The difficulty certain commenters
here have getting this into their skulls is jaw-dropping.

It is a simple enough concept.

No references = no more bullshit claims.

Speaking of “marginalized nutter skeptics” might be dehumanizing.? The dehumanizing complaint I may agree with. But I use this phrase as to their arguments, so that others know whom I mean. I don’t know these people and if I was at a game, I probably would share a beer and an afternoon of relaxation. But their arguments do not reflect what has been measured. If they were arguing that there were some bias in the measurement, some other explanation I could discuss.

JFP

You have no references, no real idea what you are talking about and you cannot even spell ‘consensus’. You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. For goodness sake go to bed and recuperate from whatever the doctors did to you.

Perhaps a dead dog, PDA, perhaps a dead dog.

The song that springs to my mind when looking at your satirical montage:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/27981918010

So the Blackcap Barons toss a coin to settle the score.

John, Joshua,

Just in case there is a glimpse of chance that I somehow am not making myself clear: My point was that a nutter was still a human, while a dragon does not even exist.

Not a problem willard. I  do use the term nutter in a specific case as a recognized generality regarding someone’s position. I do not regard them as sub human. I find their arguments as mythical as the dragon. YMMV.

Fortunately, some science bloggers have an independent and irascible streak.

Reading Back Keith’s post, perhaps we should also mention the way hype can be “deemphasized”, so to speak, to borrow a brokering term.

Let’s recall the neutral Bishop’s description of Deming’s work in his political hit job:

Deming had recently created a temperature reconstruction for the last 150 years, based on boreholes in North America. In his study, he concluded that North America had warmed somewhat in the period since 1850, but had little to say beyond that. This was good, solid science but not the stuff of newspaper headlines.

For the sake of expediency, we’ll assume that Demind really did not say anything beyond what is purported by our neutral Bishop.

Searching a bit on the “Getting Rid of the MWP” theme, which seems to have a pivotal role in our neutral Bishop’s political hit job, and also seen in loci classici of the auditing sciences, I stumbled upong a 2006 written statement by Dr. David Deming to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Here is the conclusion of this statement:

Earth’s climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.

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

We can note that Dr. Deming has a little more to say beyond what our neutral Bishop

Considering the way adversaries of Dr. Deming have been portrayed in that political hit job (ut supra), we could very well surmise that our neutral Bishop might have deemphasized some hype, or to use a neologism inspired by Eli (personal correspondence), de-hyped.

Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.

willard

It’s interesting that Deming appears to be the originator of that most powerful denialist meme: that someone on ‘The Team’ actually said ‘We’ve got to get rid of the MWP’.

See THSI (p. 28): 

[Deming:]With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

The original source is an article by Deming on the SEPP website (a bastion of neutrality if there ever was).

Yet there is *no evidence* that this email ever existed. We have only Deming’s claim. And given who his mates are, his claims cannot be given any weight unless backed by evidence.

I don’t think anyone ever said ‘we have to get rid of the MWP’. I think this goes beyond hype and into the realm of saying stuff. Even fabulism. I could be convinced otherwise, but only by evidence.

BBD,

Since you are a fiction enthusiast, you will surely appreciate Deming’s taste:

In State of Fear, Michael Crichton takes the thesis he first espoused in Aliens Cause Global Warming and expands it through the vehicle of a fictional thriller. Fiction can be used very effectively to promulgate social and political causes. Classic examples include Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (1957).

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm

Associating Soon & Baliunas to YesButGalileo was refreshing.

We also see that Deming has a knack for other aspects of the medieval times. We find this quote from Paracelsus about the academia:

I was brought up in the garden where the trees are mutilated.

That does not inspire trust in ringology.

willard

Associating Soon & Baliunas to YesButGalileo was refreshing.

I had to smile when I saw that this morning (I should chase up more such references for the sheer fun of it).

For the amusement of others, here’s Deming on S&B and Galileo:

Soon and Baliunas had committed the cardinal sin of violating the new consensus. They were not the first scientists to get in trouble for violating consensus. In the 17th century, an irascible Italian mathematician made people even angrier.

Deming is quite a character isn’t he?

BBD,

Words fail me.

I believe I am having an epiphany.

Here’s what our neutral Bishop says of Deming:

Deming had recently created a temperature reconstruction for the last 150 years, based on boreholes in North America. In his study, he concluded that North America had warmed somewhat in the period since 1850, but had little to say bebond that. This was good, solid science but not the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Contrast this with thy Wiki’s page on Deming:

In a 1995 paper published in the academic journal Science, Deming reviewed published analyses of borehole temperature data in North America and concluded “the magnitude of the observed warning…is still within the range of estimated natural variability…a cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activities and climatic warming cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.”

Contrasting these two quotes leads to these questions:

Q1. Is D95 a review or a reconstruction?

Q2. What is D95′s exact conclusion?

The second question is interesting, because of what our neutral Bishop’s transition:

[W]ith a storyline of rising temperatures published is such a prestigious publication, he also attracted the notice of some of the most influential people in the global warming industry, who thought who saw in Deming a valuable new recruit to the cause.

This is what Deming basically says in his Chrichton essay, not for from when he says being interested in the truth, only but the truth. Or something like that.

But look at this other anecdote:

The week the article appeared, I came into my office one morning to find a voicemail message from a reporter for National Public Radio. [Then Deming fantasizes.] But all of my fantasies were immediately dispelled. The reporter focused in on the last sentence in the Science paper. He asked me, did I really mean to say that? Did I really intend to imply that the warming in North America may have been due to natural variability? Without hesitation, I said “yes”. He replied, “Well then, I guess we have no story. That’s not what people are interested in. People are only interested if the warming is due to human activities. Goodbye.” And he hung up on me. It was my first realization that the media intentionally filter the information the public receives.

I believe there is a tension in that storyline.

The climate industry approaches Deming because of his study. A journalist approaches Deming to confirm that he does not believe in AGW. It seems that the climate industry is being schooled where a journalist is not, don’t you think?

***

So here comes the story of my conversion, to echo Keith’s new theme.

Until this last week, I thought Deming was exactly the guy portrayed by our good Bishop. But now, reading that tension in the storyline, I was not so sure. That’s why this morning I took a look at thy Wiki’s page for Deming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming

Here is a quote from an op-ed he wrote in 1994, a year before the climate industry tried to subdue him:

[T]he Second Amendment safeguards an individual right; the militia consists of people who have a right to keep and bear arms.

So Deming seems to have other scientific interests than Galileo and Paracelsus. In any case, his pursuit of the truth seems to lead him in a debate over gun control in The Oklahoma Daily, where he says:

I just want to point out that Kletter’s ‘easy access’ to a vagina enables her to ‘quickly and easily’ have sex with ‘as many random people’ as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let’s hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs.

This sounds like an anatomically correct claim. The correctness of that claim in other fields is left as an exercise to the reader.

There are many scientific contributions from Deming in his Wiki entry.

So here comes my epiphany. I really thought we had finally found a noble scientist solely interested in the truth. Our good Bishop’s storyline made me conclude that. But now, considering some missing evidence, I am not sure anymore. The correctness of our neutral Bishop storyline cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.

BBD people do take the same information and advocate as much as 10C though that is outside the range I posted. I point out to these, just as I pointed it out to you,  for “my” position that these are low probability events. I take exception to the claim or implication that these HAVE to occur. I do not state ‘mine” has to occur. That you do not understand the science of AR4, or read what I state is not my problem. You state your POV well. You state one of the POV that someone can get from AR4. This does not preclude other POV. Please note that it is not I that came up with these numbers. If you want to take the IPCC to task for formulating that range in the normally accepted standard of science and statistics, go do it. My points and reasoning still stand, becasue they are what is stated in AR4. Your  “”The ~3C best estimate for ECS derives from paleoclimate behaviour as well as observational data.”" ignores what I posted and is stated in Ch 9. Paleoclimate and models are based on observational data and are not truly independent requiring both Paleo and models to be in agreeement lest there is a circular argument in order to have confidence. Such as confidence that the most likely range is 2C to 4.5C. The necessity of using recent observational data and TCS in order to have confidence in ECS is also in Chs 9, 10. Your “”. Claiming that a flat trend for a decade or even two demonstrates that ECS is over-estimated is mistaken and misleading. ” contradicts what Santer, IIRC, said about 17 years, and it contradicts what the IPCC said in Ch 10 of AR4 wrt natural variability.

willard

I will look at this after supper. I have (finally) realised why your leitmotif has recently been just a vocabulary thing. I tumblrd across it eventually. Call it overdue diligence.

willard @ 564

September 4 2012?? And still coming out with this stuff? I’m shocked.

- P. 10: Lamb’s sketch used in FAR ho-hum.

- P. 11: That’ll be Huang, Pollack & Shen (1997) being misrepresented in the usual way. See HPS (2008):

The initial purpose of the present paper is to clarify and resolve this apparent change of perspective in our work between HPS97 and HPS00. Although science certainly allows for abandoning earlier results in favor of later results, in our case there is a different explanation. The fundamental difference between HPS97 and HPS00 is that they do not analyze the same data. Below we describe their respective datasets, and show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century.

And specifically on the methodology of HPS97:

The consequence of excluding the upper 100 meters is that the 20,000 year reconstructions in HPS97 contain virtually no information about the 20th century. As the authors of HPS97 we can be criticized for not stating explicitly in the abstract and figure caption that the “˜present’ (the zero on the time axis) really represents something like the end of the 19th century, rather than the end of the 20th century. At the time we published that paper our focus was on trying to extract a broad-brush representation of Late Quaternary surface temperature variability that might be overprinted on the ensemble of world-wide continental heat flux measurements. We did not anticipate that a comparison of late 20th century and Medieval Warm Period temperatures would later become a contentious issue.

- P. 12: Deming, well, we’ve been there. I’ll get my gun.

BBD,

Note that the 2012 date is not the date of the presentation. The presentation might resemble the support material for this:

Ross McKitrick and I will be making two presentations in Washington on May 11 [2005] sponsored by Cooler Heads Coalition/George Marshall Institute: 12.20 at the National Press Club and 3 pm somewhere on Capitol Hill.

You can search any WordPress archives by year, month, or day. Just add or shorten to the year, the month, or the day.

Note that CA has officially opened in February 2005.

Since you like Lamb’s sketch, you can find it on p. 34 of the Wegman Report.

Here’s the caption that Wegman added:

Discussion: In Figure 4.5, we have digitized the temperature profile as presented in the IPCC Assessment Report 1990. The early period between 1100 to about 1400 of above average temperatures is known as the Medieval Warm Period and the period from about 1500 to 1900 is known as the Little Ice Age. The 1990 report was not predicated on a global warming scenario. It is clear that at least in 1990, the Medieval Warm Period was thought to have temperatures considerably warmer than the present era.

It seems that the two sentences emphasized is de-hyping some kind of inference, inference we may read into our neutral Bishop’s political hit job, just a bit before his neutral coverage of the Deming affair.

willard – thank you for setting me straight about the date-stamping on the pages.

Cooler Heads Coalition *and* George C Marshall. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound… But of course there’s no such thing as organised confusion sponsored and disseminated by  right-wing ‘think tanks’ and of course our heroes are neutral seekers after truth and penitence.

Glad to see the Wegmann Report continues to exemplify the highest standards of scholarship (actually I admit I knew that the Lamb sketch was to be found therein).

IIRC SM said that he set up CA in response to RC (itself launched Dec 2004). But wasn’t RC a response to contrarianism in general and MM in particular? (I may be wrong about this, but it is my impression).

Now that it’s over Keith and you have moved on to beating other environmentalists, mayhaps you might moderate Eli’s short, but inoffensive comments here. 

willard – “…political hit job against Lewandowsky “.  So you think that Lewandowsky’s paper is a good one?

Ah yes, it was “deal a mortal blow”.  I agree with Steve.  It’s really not hard to imagine someone who has been proven to want to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP would also say to someone in conversation that he wanted to “get rid of” the MWP.  So, my point to BBD – who in #555 wanted some evidence of Overpeck’s saying “get rid of” –  was that I think Deming is telling the truth and that the circumstantial evidence is quite solidly on his side.  So, thanks willard.  I would have tracked that down myself, but I have a job, which I doubt can be said of you.

Tom C,

Thank you for your kind words.

I doubt that your Knight of Ni strategy has anything to do with your having a job or not. I also have a job (though I was on vacation these last weeks), so I’d be glad not to have to find you the shruberry you keep asking for. And in exchange of finding that CA thread for you, I’d like you to answer the questions in my last comment.

***

Also, please note the complete sentence:

In reading Valerie [Masson-Delmotte]“˜s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too ““ pure rubbish.

As a sceptic yourself, do you cite the MWP as a natural analog for current warming?

There certainly is something along these lines in our neutral Bishop’s political hit job.

And we could even hear that something along these lines are being whistled in Wegman’s caption of Lamb’s sketch in his report, a feat we can since we’re on the Internet and we’re all dogs, alive or dead, like John F. Pittman could be.

It would Overpeck trying to push back against what he believes is uninformed hype?

To that effect, let’s note this part of the quote in Steve’s update where the intention is laid down:

MY COMMENT ON “NAILING” WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN’T. [...] THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE DON’T INTRODUCE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END, THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN MORE WAYS THAN TWO.

So it seems there are many valid ways to look at the MWP. But there are other ones that are not. Which ones are they?

Is it true that people keep hyping the MWP?

In any case, we do witness some commenters running away with the “deal a mortal blow”. I must admit that it does look like it’s what you are willing to do right now.

Not unlike that “whistleblower” thing, incidentally.

But maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.

willard – There is substantial evidence that the WMP was not confined to a portion of the nothern hemisphere.  I also find it highly implausible that a local climate abberation would persist for some 200-300 years.  The existence of the MWP does not argue against current warming being anthropogenic in origin.  It does argue against alarm.  Thus, if you are promoting alarm, it must be “gotten rid of”, “dealt a mortal blow” etc.

Tom, before replying (if you do), please repeat to yourself ‘regional’ and ‘asynchronous’ a few times. You do grasp that this does not mean the same as global and synchronous, as in ‘global warming’, don’t you? I stress this as I have encountered many sceptics who don’t appreciate the distinction at all.

Tom, you need to read the words. Deming is misrepresenting Overpeck. This is a *classic* pseudo-sceptic non-argument. And you know what? It’s boring.

Sorry – see # 567 above for the quotes from Huang et al. (2008).

Tom C,

Thank you for answering one of the three questions I asked.

Sadly, your answer only asserts what you believe. There is no justification, no evidence, only some kind of proof by assertion. It would be interesting to know why you think that Steve’s not doing a political hit job at CA.

There are lots of claims in #581. Susbtantiating these claims should take some time to do, more so for a guy that works as much as you do. Take your:

There is substantial evidence that the WMP was not confined to a portion of the nothern hemisphere.

That must mean you did study that question. You read papers about that. Perhaps you collected data and ran some code too?

And there’s also this other claim:

I also find it highly implausible that a local climate abberation would persist for some 200-300 years.

Now, is that an argument? Sounds like one. If that’s an argument, you read it somewhere, perhaps. Where?

And then we get to this:

The existence of the MWP does not argue against current warming being anthropogenic in origin. It does argue against alarm.

I’m not sure how the existence of the MWP (which I don’t think is being questioned by Overpeck, by the way, only the myths about it) argues against alarm. Would you expand on that line of reasoning?

But I sure am hearing you loud and clear why you think all this vocabulary business matters:

[I]f you are promoting alarm, it must be “gotten rid of”, “dealt a mortal blow” etc.

So that was the point of Deming’s quote, ain’t it?

Now, what I find interesting that what you’re claiming here is never stated on CA, and only dogwhistled. By chance Big Dog can rely on Me Toos like you.

In any case, maybe all this is a vocabulary thing. So let’s make make sure we do agree about the meaning of the term “political hit job”. Here’s an instance that some found a political hit job.

http://init.planet3.org/2010/10/judith-curry-born-beyond-shark.html

Do you think this is a political hit job? Why?

And since you do seem to believe that L’s study is a political job. Why? You have read it, I presume. And ran its code. And reached your conclusion independently from anything that was said.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps your work prevents you from paying any kind of due diligence. Perhaps you don’t have the time to justify any your claims in #581 and to answer my questions. Perhaps your job is only to play the Knight of Ni game while inserting the appropriate words and the appropriate memes, after all.

I don’t understand why word placement specialists waste time using ad hominems like that. Its motivational effect goes against their very line of business. I thought that Convervative mind framers were more disciplined.

Maybe that’s just a myth that must be destroyed too.

Tom C,

You never made the mistake you think you made. All you did is try to use my name to place your plain memes and your plain words. Better of luck in your populist word placement.

harrywr2,

Thank you for your #578, which brings many issues that are worth paying due diligence.

Sometimes, Steve sounds like he’s agnostic. That’s what I like about him, for I share this attitude. I don’t believe I need to have an opinion about the climate, and if I had one, I know what its worth would be. The only related belief I’m willing to fight would be my believe in inference to scientific explanations.

Some other times, Steve sounds like he’s a contrarian. Incidentally, this contrarianism is also seen in his busniess endeavours. Take for instance how Trelawney promoted their venture:

Trelawney is focusing on niche opportunities where [:] past flow-through expenditures have resulted in successful advanced underground exploration without leading to production. ["¦] Previous operators lacked the underground operating experience to develop and operate the resource, but the resource did not meet search parameters of large operators.

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5676145404

I don’t know if that endeavour is still pursued, but I’m sure you’d agree with me that there exists an investment style that we dub “contrarian”.

You say you do not understand why his celebrity match (tm Eli Rabett) with Lewandowsy has some political intent. I believe it is political, at least in the sense that it helps Steve put a wedge between the skydragons and his position of the own from his own network. Steve’s posts do contain a fight about the meaning of the word “skeptic”.

Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing. Maybe it’s more than that. There is something like branding going on in this debate which lies beyond pure brand management. I believe this is the first time that Steve sells CA as a skeptical outlet. The leading skeptic he mentions is Lindzen.

We already know that Steve likes Dick. We also already know that he’d like to have an engineer-level derivation that would take into account water vapor. We also know that CA is about institutions reformation. Perhaps this there is a way to sell that position that does compete against the established one. But to say that CA is a skeptical blog might not help maintain this appereance of neutrality.

In any case, what we know of CA points to some kind of political warfare. Like I said earlier in #507, there are different kinds of political hit jobs. Invoking Steve’s political affiliation seems to create an equivocation between these kinds of hit jobs. It’s quite obvious that our neutral Bishop’s political hit job has a more important economical dimension than CA’s. But CA does have many political dimensions. The two I mentioned so far, viz. institution reformation and branding.

Finally, I do agree with you:

Someone trying to dress up Saul Alinsky tactics as science deserves skewering.

I could not have said it myself.

I think for Steve Mc its about vanity. plain and simple. the fact that he serves as a very useful idiot for conservative pols around the globe probably doesn’t concern him much. he doesn’t seem like the introspective type. i’d go so far as to say that he’s in denial about the impact the his efforts over the years have had in aiding and abetting counterproductive discussions about climate policy. 

Lazar,

Yes, Huybers’ argument sounds like one, while M&M’s argument against Huybers could very be considered argumentative by MathOverFlow’s standards. TCO likes Huybers’ style and I trust TCO’s flair for that kind of thing.

Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.

To return to the Deming affair, look how he’s using the getting rid meme in 2006:

One of the two Coordinating Lead Authors of the IPCC Paleoclimate chapter (chapter 6), Eystein Jansen ““ the other is Jonathan Overpeck of “Get rid of the MWP” fame ““ was asked about the Mann Hockey Stick and M&M criticism by a Norwegian newspaper yesterday.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/13/ipcc-paleoclimate-lead-author-on-mm

From this comment, we can infer that the meme was already a meme by 2006.

Lazar,

Perhaps you have not checked the CA series on Huybers. It starts there:

http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/16/369

Lots of interesting tidbits there

- The concept of outflanking deserves due diligence.

- The business proposal from M&M to Huybers is quite revealing to me.

- The sell and buy comment is also quite constructive (wink, wink).

- TCO’s on his best behavior in that thread. Even David Stockwell has to side with him on one issue.

- The overall discussion in the comment thread is quite interesting.

- This gem by Steve:

Originally tree rings were used for dating other things, because their high-frequency patterns were distinctive. Or if they were applied to climate, it was to study precipitation, especially in the American Southwest. It’s only in the past 10-15 years that there have been real attempts to extract temperature information from them ““ a project associated with core Hockey Team: Briffa, Cook, Jacoby, Hughes, Schweingruber.. In fact, you can almost define the Hockey Team as people trying to get a temperature history from tree rings.

A cynic might even point out that there was more money for studying tree rings if you hooked it up with climate change, than in dating pueblos. Sort of like adding in a terrorism angle if you’re looking for government funding for municipal works.

This is one of the thread that got me hooked, incidentally. I found characters showing competence and humanity. Too bad it’s not always like that.

Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.

Fritts, H. C., Blasing, T. J., Hayden, B. P., and J. F. Kutzbach (1971), Multivariate Techniques for Specifying Tree-Growth and Climate Relationships and for Reconstructing Anomalies in Paleoclimate, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 10, 5, 845-864.

“One approach to the study and evaluation of possible future climates is a study of past climate. A long climatic record can serve to identify the range of possible climates and the characteristics of possible climatic “modes.” The work of Lamb (1963, 1969) and Lamb and Johnson (1966( has served to establish estimates of the characteristics of natural climatic variability for the past thousand years. This work, however, is largely restricted to the North Atlantic-European sector and knowledge of climatic variability elsewhere in the the Western Hemisphere is less quantitative. Although prediction of climatic changes remains a task for the future, some estimates of “possible” climates would be useful for planning purposes. Furthermore, as sophistication in the modelling of present climate is achieved (e.g., Manabe et al., 1970), it becomes essential that accurate maps of past climatic patterns be available for making comparisons (Sheppard, 1966). Finally, the need for a clearer understanding of “natural” modes of climatic variability is enhanced by recent hypotheses regarding man’s inadvertent role in changing climate. That is, knowledge of past climatic variability may help to discriminate between “natural” and “man-produced” or “man-accentuated” changes.”

Lazar,

Yes, perhaps Steve was just a bit too cynical in that thread. The next one was, in his opinion, his best, a post from which my favorite sentence is this one:

This is off topic for the purpose of replying to Huybers, but, since it’s my blog, I guess I can digress.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/09/17/huybers-2-re-scaling

This might be the first time Steve begins to “meander”, as TCO would put it. Speaking of which, I believe this comment wins the thread:

It bothers me, that I’ve answered practically every thread of yours including the old ones and not the one that you consider best. Oh well”¦time to put my dress back on”¦

Just a bit below, TCO suggests to Steve that he publishes something more formal, and Steve expresses the wish for help. Just a bit after that, UC appears. Perhaps he appeared before that, but it’s the first time I noticed him. God forbid me to imagine where would be CA without UC.

Also, please note this acknowledgement from Ross McKitrick:

“So one could do it either way, but yours is slightly preferable?” Yes, “preferable” in the sense that covariance PCs have a more direct interpretation in terms of the underlying data. I don’t know what I’d say with a gun to my head (probably “Go ask Steve”), but if a student came to me with this data set and said he wants to extract PCs from it I’d say use the covariance matrix. “So one could do it either way, but yours is slightly preferable?” Yes, “preferable” in the sense that covariance PCs have a more direct interpretation in terms of the underlying data. I don’t know what I’d say with a gun to my head (probably “Go ask Steve”), but if a student came to me with this data set and said he wants to extract PCs from it I’d say use the covariance matrix. I’d also point out that the computer just pops out lists of numbers: it’s up to the researcher to show what, if anything, they mean.

Besides that, nothing much get said. I could report more findings if you wish, Lazar, or drop me an email at languageisasocialart at G &tc.

willard

If the whole hockey stick ‘controversy’ is simply ‘look, a squirrel’ why engage? There are more relevant things to consider: area subject to extreme hot summer events, Arctic melt rate, Greenland albedo flip, thinning of WAIS marine ice shelves etc.

Nil by Mouth cries squirrel to good effect. Pointing out the irrelevance works well as a counter. Furthermore, if the nay-sayers claim natural variation is responsible for modern warming it is up to them to demonstrate the mechanism(s) in operation. If they cannot – and they can’t – we are left with GHG forcing and parsimonious reasoning. 

BBD,

You’re asking the question about the significance of the hockey stick. Back in March 2005, Steve tried to answer that question by writing a blog post with the title **The Significance of the Hochey Stick**.

Here’s what he says:

Recently, as the hockey stick looks more and more splintered, some climate scientists have argued that the hockey stick graph was merely incidental in Kyoto promotion.

As someone with actual experience in business promotions, this proposition has seemed peculiar to me, since the hockey stick graph was displayed so prominently by IPCC. This view was re-inforced by an interesting essay by David Deming here.

To understand the role of the hockey stick in Kyoto promotion, one need look no further back than the IPCC Second Assessment Report in 1995. The millennium temperature history portrayed in that report is shown in the diagram below.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/03/16/the-significance-of-the-hockey-stick/

Steve then recalls the Deming Affair.

Our neutral Bishop’s political hit job is a simple karaoke of that blog post in march 2005. Except perhaps for the fall of Steve’s post:

When I showed this picture to the Toronto Geological Discussion Group, all familiar with mining promoters, it was impossible to avoid comparing Houghton to mining promoters that we know.

The discussion that follows in the comment thread is relevant to your other question. Andrew Weaver reminds Forrest Gump to Murray Love. Steve agrees. The John Hunter takes objection to the significance of the hockey stick. John A tries to bully him about some technicality. John A insists. Murray Love shows some more contempt. Et cetera.

Witness how the trollification proceeds. How the most important questions gets unsettled. How the Deming Affair gets forgotten.

So let’s recall the evidence:

1. Bishop Hill wrote a political hit job.

2. Bishop Hill karaoked Steve in doing so.

What do you conclude? Somehow, saying

3. Steve is only interested in science stuff.

Does not ring true to me. The Deming Affair suffices to show that this is a myth about CA. This myth is as important as the myths surrounding the MWP.

But I’m willing to contemplate the possibility that this may only be a vocabulary thing.

BBD,/p>

Indeed, the debate about proxies is a proxy debate.

Please look at how our neutral Bishop carries his explanation of the relevance of the MWP in his sections **Climate Science** and **The Medieval Warm Period becomes less warm**, pp. 23-27 of his political hit job.

Provide the quotes you like best, then I’ll show you mine.

willard

Some quotes:

p. 26:

In other words, the understanding of world climate histor propagated to the public by the IPCC was based, not on any understanding of global climate, but on the records for just one part of England [the CET]: an odd situation to say the least.

So the ‘global MPW’ as misrepresented in FAR caption (see footnote p. 26) was *regional*. But then:

p. 26:

[Hughes & Diaz] conclusions were that temperatures *had* been higher in some parts of the world [...] However they emphasised that these warm periods seemed to have happened at slightly different times in different places. This suggested that the warmings had probably had different causes. [...] If they [H&D] were right, then it would only be possible to conclude that the Medieval Warm Period was, at most, a series of regional warmings.

So far, so confused. So what ‘MWP’ is all the fuss about? What was there to ‘get rid of’ as Deming claimed? But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory:

p. 27:

However, behind the scenes climatologists were busy, and a short time after the Hughes and Diaz paper was released, the public got a brief glimpse of what was happening. It was not at all as it should have been.

And then we get Deming’s misrepresentation of HPS97 and his misrepresentation of Overpeck (?) or the paleoclimate position, at any rate.

All is not at all as it should have been.

BBD,

Cf. #419. Look for Check-Kiting.

This hermeneutical result has been independently reproduced by Frank O’Dwyer:

http://frankodwyer.com/blog/2012/02/23/review-of-the-hockey-stick-illusion-part-1/

BBD,

I believe your #612 underlines an important tension in our neutral Bishop’s storyline. That’s the second one, the first being outlined in v. #561. Here is a first quote, p. 24:

The so-called “Medieval Warm Period” was extremely well represented in medieval annals and other documentary sources and it had come to have at least some impact on the public imagination.

Then the Vikings do Greenland, the Little Ice Age, then the Vikings’ return, Golden Horn, Breughel the Elder’s paintings, etc. Then this, on p. 25:

So at the start of the 1990s nobody was going to take issue with the story that the IPCC was telling — of Medieval Warm Period givign way to Little Ice Age before another gentle warming was ushered in.

But here comes the tension, as you recall it. The origin of Lamb’s sketch was not given. It was more a cartoon than anything. It’s an antiquity. That work was based on Central England Temperature Record.

et’s skip Hugues & Diaz 1994 and go straight to the paragraph you quote, a paragraph, we should note, just before the section entitled **The Deming Affair**. Let’s add at the two sentences you omitted:

This was one paper in a single volume of review articles. It would take more than that to overturn an [sic.] well-entrenched paradigm. It However, behind the scenes climatologists were busy, and a short time after the Hughes and Diaz paper was released, the public got a brief glimpse of what was happening. It was not at all as it should have been.

These two sentences are interesting for two reasons. The second one shows the tension: The MWP is common knowledge, more than that, it’s a paradigm. And yet is based on antique research, an antique research Hughes and Diaz reviewed, to find something that has the power to shatter that paradigm.

Something’s amiss. Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing.

Please note that our neutral Bishop seems to know the distinction between a lichurchur review and innovative research. This distinction will be lost, or so it seems, when telling the tale of the Deming affair.

BBD,

Before returning to the paragraph about Hugues & Diaz 1994, here’s the opinion of a medievist:

It really gets to me that the argument against action on climate change makes so much of this. The argument being that, if the medieval warm period is ‘true’ and there really were Vikings farming now ice-bound lands on Greenland (irrespective of what the rest of the world may have been getting weather-wise…) then the military-industrial complex ™ hasn’t necessarily caused the current climate rise and so our lifestyle needn’t change hurrah! [...]

Firstly, it assumes that plural causes of climate change do not operate simultaneously, which obviously need not be true. [...]

Secondly, it’s not just climate change that urges a lifestyle change [...]

Thirdly, and much more importantly, it doesn’t flaming well matter what’s causing the temperature rise, it’s still happening.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/121964.html

Perhaps it’s just a vocabulary thing.

willard

Thank you for these links. With your unsettlingly panoptic perspective you will probably already know that I always argue (eg with Nil By Mouth) that the MWP is irrelevant to discussion of modern warming. Except in that it is an indication that the climate is sensitive to small changes in radiative forcing – be they external or internal.

willard

Mr Mashey rocks and rolls. I enjoyed his work on the Heartland Institute too. Very much.

As far as I am aware, Lamb’s sketch did not appear in the SAR . This is most troubling. Checking back to the CA article, I discover that I did not read attentively. When was that [update 2012] made? Do you remember? Was it very recently…? I don’t remember noticing it last time I looked, but then my mind may be going.

Mash,

Just caught your comment.

While thinking about it, perhaps I should follow onto my story. We were getting to H&D94, which gets mentioned there:

There are two periods which have received special attention, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These have been interpreted, at times, as periods of global warmth and coolness, respectively. Recent studies have re-evaluated the interval commonly known as the Medieval Warm Period to assess the magnitude and geographical extent of any prolonged warm interval between the 9th and 14th centuries (Hughes and Diaz, 1995) [...]

“Recent studies” here appears to be merely Hughes and Diaz [1994]. This study does not withstand any sort of close scrutiny. Hughes is the H co-author of MBH.

I’m not sure where the claim that “H&D does not withstand scrutinity” gets evidenced, but nevermind. What we now know is that our good Bishop’s karaoke considered that H&D94 was a review.

It makes sense to cite a review as a reference to “recent studies”, if H&D94 was a review, of course. Was it? Too bad scrutinity has not been paid to H&D94 in that blog post.

I’ll quote our beloved Bishop’s karaoke later.

Mouth breathers please note: http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/30/more-on-the-iconography-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7/

Instead of second-guessing why my comment is stuck, here’s a link to the original:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/32744205518

PS: You can delete the delayed comment, Keith. The quotes were off.

I point to this:

The IPCC 1990 graph is an important reference point. Ross and I have used it in presentations ["¦] We said loud and clear that this is what the specialists thought in 1990 “” providing a specific reference to IPCC 1990.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100306133755/http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/08/swindle-and-the-stick/