I will at least read the book before commenting. It would make for a better informed discussion if everyone else did the same before shooting from the hip.
tonyb
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason
Mosh
It would be interesting to get your take on the Kimberley data on page 87 of Chapter 4-the one you described as ‘pitiful.’
tonyb
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Michael Tobis
To my recollection Lamb knew nothing about how to extract periodic components from a broadband signal and did so incorrectly.
He was erudite and an important founder of paleoclimate; his magnum opus is rather interesting and unlike most here I have read it. Also unlike most here I know something about spectral analysis. Lamb’s mathematics was naive and his calculations about periodicity are justifiably not considered relevant.
I seem to recall writing a longer explanation but I’m not finding it. But I wrote in 1997 shortly after reading it that “Lamb is not considered a reliable source these days. He was a very interesting man and writes remarkably well, but his grasp of statistics was weak, and some of his graphs are, well, bogus. He simply overdrew his conclusions in many ways.”
Lamb is an odd hook on which to base a criticism of modern science.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by ristvan
Tonyb, I did research this. So did Steve McIntyre, in a different way at a different time. So far as either of us can find (and I no way place myself in SteveMc’s league except for complusive data searching), Callendar 1938, presented to the RS by proxy by Dr. Dobson F.R.S. since Callendar was a ‘mere engineer’, is the first precise description of log(CO2) AND the first realistic estimate of ECS ~ 1.7. An intellectual tour de force. Essay Sensitive Uncertainty.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by JCH
Vaughan Pratt once posted about a ~17th-century Swiss intellectual/scientist who theorized the sky acted like a greenhouse.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by ristvan
MT, it would be greatly appreciated if you would guest post more here. As an econometrician, I know a fair (but rusty) bit about spectral analysis- and a bunch of orher stats stuff. So your assessments of both odd hooks and modern science would be interesting to evaluate. So far, the modern (climate) science stuff is not doing so well. Even by first year college standards.
The new Stanford paper applying 1940’s aurocorreleation techniques to the 21st century pause? Gimme a break. We learned better than that as undergrads in the 1970’s. Please show your homework.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Steven Mosher:
yes. since I wrote a HISTORY of what skeptics were arguing that would be the case. And he seems stuck in 2009 as well..
Um… no. That’s not what you described your book as, at all. You did not describe your book as merely a history of what skeptics were arguing, and none of the context of your claims about the surface temperature record implied you were merely describing what people had said about it.
But sure, keep making excuses. Don’t own up to your mistakes.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Joshua
PE –
As a general rule, I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments because they can be applied ubiquitously. They lack real world limits and restrictions.
The bar seems pretty high here, so in that sense while I don’t support it, I don’t think that it’s something that viably justifies outrage.
That said, of course it’s exploitative to hold concepts such as “massive campaigns to mislead” hostage in unrealistic goose chases where the main function is to advance political goals.
I think that the bar is so high here that legal success is unlikely and it’s more than likely a political maneuver – but it is on the part of people who are legitimately concerned about something they see as being a very important social cause, so while I don’t support it I’m not outraged by it. And of course, we might have said a massive campaign to deceive would have been unlikely in the tobacco industry prior to certain evidence that later came to light.
in the end, I see no likelihood of major harm to be done. And the problem of political over-reach on the part of the RICO initiative is equally balanced, IMO, by the hand-wringing and pearl clutching that’s emanating from the “skeptics” camp 24/7 since the letter – where “skeptics” seem to me to be trolling for a reason to self-victimize.
Consider the hand-wringing about the Representative Grijalva initiative. The rhetoric from “skeptics” was similar to the “death warrant for science” that we see here. In the end, it fizzled.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Stanton Brown
Anyone who thinks studies are “certified” by the peer review process is insane. I don’t care if they write books, blog posts, or children’s fiction.
And this insanity goes way beyond this author. It infects the entire scientific establishment. This insanity is why science, as an institution, is completely untrustworthy.
Science has no credibility because it has no quality control. People who embrace crap, like the hockey stick, without ever giving a thought to checking it are reckless in the extreme. They should never be trusted.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Joseph
This insanity is why science, as an institution, is completely untrustworthy.
So people who trust science are insane? Man that is harsh..
↧
Comment on RICO! by jim2
Climate scientists don’t KNOW anything actionable now, Jim D. What on Earth makes you think any scientist in the ’80’s knew anything that was actionable.
No one knows, Jim D. No one.
↧
Comment on RICO! by jim2
Follow the Money, as always.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by jim2
Stanton, don’t tell Joseph about the stats on bad science papers. His head might explode.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Arch Stanton
You tell them, mt.
Scientist know how to fool proof models, for the EPA and CAFE. What’s going to be next you need to wonder.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason
Michael
What do you consider to be his magnum opus? If you read it in 1997 are you talking about the second edition of ‘Climate history and the modern world’ first published in 1982? He did of course carry out a great deal of valuable research and this was just one publication amongst very many.
Here is a list of his numerous publications;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/lamb_hh.htm
Lamb was the first director of CRU in 1972 and remains an outstanding source of information on climate. I would recommend anyone unfamiliar with his work to buy ‘Climate history and the modern world’ which they will find interesting, well referenced and still relevant.
His painstaking research on historic climate reconstruction and lack of ability to respond to his critics due to his death in 1997 means that those uncomfortable with his research find him an easy target to criticise.
tonyb
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Steven Mosher
Brandon
‘Um… no. That’s not what you described your book as, at all. You did not describe your book as merely a history of what skeptics were arguing,
#############
note that NO where have I said it was MERELY a history.
its largely a chronology at least that is the way many people have described it to me. since CG is a story about FOIA and NOT THE SCIENCE.. you have to tell the story of willis’s FOIA and that means recounting the history.
and none of the context of your claims about the surface temperature record implied you were merely describing what people had said about it.
Go ahead and quote where I take positions. That was 2009 and if my positions have changed I will gladly explain.
Basically today I think there are still issues with micro site, UHI and adjustments. So go ahead quote where I explicitly state my position.
as usual you read into things when you want to and and read literally
when you want to.
But go ahead.. what claims did I make? Now too be sure I am sure some of my positions have changed because I actually started to do my own work after watching jeffId .. but go ahead.. my positions as you “see” them.
I’ll make it easy.
My position on data sharing, then and now
My position on CRU methods then and now
My postion on UHI then and now
my position on microsite then and now
my position on adjustments then and now
my position on the great thermometer drop out then and now
my position on essex then and now
my position on satellites then and now
my position on sampling then and now
go ahead.. with quotes
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason
Those unfamiliar with Callendar’s seminal 1938 paper will find it referenced and elegantly refuted here by Giles Slocum in 1955
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Arch Stanton
What was dumped, again? Phil Jones, was the AGW historian. What did he know and why did he dump it? Right, it was to ‘save’ space. You must know all by now, Steven.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Book Review: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science | wryheat
[…] Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has introduced a new book by Alan Longhurst titled Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science. You can read Curry’s extensive remarks here. […]
↧
Comment on RICO! by Sintetia » Sobre los cajones de sastre en la economía (y III)
[…] Lo es porque las amenazas desde la política a los científicos que no sigan la senda “adecuada” son creíbles (casi siempre). […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
