Phatboy, you should read a bit more before spouting off. Perhaps starting with the research of Dr. Jennifer Francis from Rutgers:
Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger
Max_OK:
Brandon, my graph is deceptive if you fool yourself into believing it’s deceptive because you want it to be deceptive, but is that fair minded? Your graph should be correct if you start with the latest month’s data and work back to the number of months in 16 years. Yes, there’s not much difference in what our graphs show.
To make sure I understand you correctly, are you’re claiming it is not deceptive to ignore the last eleven months yet you are showing date from “over the last 16 years”? That’s what it sounds like, but I’d hope not. Your graph was certainly deceptive. I don’t think it was intentional, and I don’t think it made much of a difference, but it was deceptive.
Brandon, if you are looking for trends, I don’t see anything special about the last 16 years. Perhaps you think it’s a Goldie Locks period, not too short, not too long, not too distant, not too recent. But will you explain exactly why you chose it rather than some longer periods going back farther or some shorter but more recent period?
Huh? I didn’t pick 16 years. You guys were already talking about it I’ve repeatedly criticized the use of OLS over such short periods (especially cherry-picked ones like this). Heck, that’s why I spoke up! My main point was the “trends” you show are meaningless given the uncertainty in the data being used. I’d criticize you just the same if you had showed “cooling trends” this way.
To be clear, you choose to make a point based on 16 years of data. I pointed out the data was too noisy to support your point. You responded by… criticizing me for choosing to use your chosen data.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger
Peter Davies:
Max_OK I don’t have any trouble with what you have graphed.
I’d have had no problem if he had said what he was graphing rather than saying something else.
Brandon tends to get caught up with his interpretation of what has been said and is difficult to debate with.
As often as I hear this, I almost never have anyone challenge my interpretations. I get criticized for them somewhat regularly, but I’m rarely told how they’re wrong. It’s weird.
15-16 years data is predictive dross in any case.
Which was my point. Max_OK claimed the data showed warming trends by relying on bogus lines. The “trends” he showed were nowhere near statistically significant. Despite that, he offered them as a rebuttal to David Springer saying there has been “no significant global warming” for 16 years straight.
In other words, you’re agreeing with me. Max_OK was wrong. He offered a graph he claimed rebutted a point when in reality that graph only did so if we completely ignore uncertainties.
I find it mildly amusing you posted supporting Max_OK and criticizing me yet you agree with my main point that criticizes Max_OK.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Barry Woods
Happy New Year everyone.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Tonyb
R gates
I spend some 300 dollars a year on pay walled papers for my research purposes. Most of them aren’t worth the money. Why should I pay good money in order to look at the paper you linked to? It probably uses models rather than observations anyway.
Incidentally what was interesting about the 1930′s and 1940′s is that the Antarctic was warming up at the same time as the arctic. That isn’t happening now, why do you think that might be?
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger
Max_OK:
Brandon, JC’s previous topic was about fooling one’s self, or self-deception. Some poster’s confessed to doing it. I think JC believes self-deception isn’t a good thing. But to stop fooling yourself, you must first admit you do it. Being honest with yourself might be hard for you, but could be worth the struggle.
Interestingly, this is a subject I am well-acquainted with. I started looking into it when I was a little kid. You see, I am not capable of self-deception. That created a lot of problems for me as this world relies upon self-deception to keep going. I experienced a great deal of grief, pain and confusion because I didn’t get that.
For example, I kept believing Santa was real long after I knew the idea of him didn’t make sense because I couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of everyone in the world lying to me. I was shocked to find out all the people who told my lying was bad had spent my entire life lying to me (and this isn’t the only instance). That didn’t make sense to me then, and it still makes no sense to me now.
I cannot hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. I cannot fathom how anyone could. It makes no sense. To me, it seems to be a sign of insanity.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Ron Manley
My belated vote for the main item of the year was a paper by Zhou and Tung. They suggested that climate was driven by the Antantic Multidecadal Oscillation and an anthropogenic element. The significance of the paper, which they did not really explore, is that the declining AMO explains the pause in global temperatures, that the temperature may stay flat for a few more decades and, as half of the rapid increase from 1975 to 2005 was caaused by the AMO not humans, models have overestimate projected temperature increases by at least a factor of two.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Steven Mosher
Cherry picking the pause.
Why do fake skeptics fail to look at all the data comparisons.
This reminds of this fall as we approached the record in ice melt in the arctic and skeptics ( like goddard and some at WUWT ) started to focus on IMS charts.. until IMS charts showed the record.
The evidence for a pause is pretty shakey. That’s not to say “There is no evidence for a pause” There is evidence For a pause, there is also evidence Against no pause. To conclude, dogmatically, that there IS a pause requires one to avoid certain data. To hide the incline as it were. Finally, people need to stop fitting straight lines to data and talking about “finding” the trend. Jeez, where are the real skeptics.
↧
Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Beth Cooper
J ferguson,
just returned from New Year Celebration, fireworks and champagne.
Re trial and error elimination, Karl Popper on error elimination by
way of tests argued that ‘ the main difference between Einstein
and an amoeba ( as described by H S Jennings) is that Einstein consciously seeks for error elimination. He tries to kill his theories:
he is consciously critical of his theories which, for this reason, he
tries to formulate sharply rather than vaguely. But the amoeba
cannot be critical viv-a-vis its expectations or hypotheses; it cannot
be critical because it cannot face its hypotheses, they are part of it.’*
Only objective knowledge is criticizable, subjective knowledge can
be criticized only when becomes objective, and it becomes objective
when we state what we think as a conjecture: and even more so
when we write it down as a proposition. And I guess even if we
try to inocculate our own theories and fool ourselves, once they’re
out there others will criticize them if we do not.
*(Objective Knowledge An Evolutionary Approach Oxford1979 Ch 1)
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger
By the way, my above comment may come across as arrogant to some people. I don’t mean it to. I’ve just spent years trying to understand this subject, and everything I’ve seen indicates I’m just different. However, I want to stress something: I do keep an open mind. I accept the possibility I am just so good at fooling myself I haven’t noticed. As such, I’ll happily engage in any effort to test my beliefs about myself.
Incidentally, I think a lack of self-deception is a good thing in the sense that it is rational, but I think it is a terrible thing overall. Not being able to lie to yourself makes life so much more difficult. For example, imagine being an eight year and hearing these two sentences: “All humans are equally important.” “I feel terrible about the guy down the street who died in a car crash today.”
The implied morality of those statements is highly disturbing. It basically says we don’t care about the person down the street because he’s a person; we care because he’s close to us. His death isn’t tragic because it is a death; it’s tragic because he’s close enough to remind us of our own mortality.
Or for a more humorous example, think about how often people complain about politicians in the United States. If people held their elected officials accountable, politicians would change overnight. That means people are blaming politicians for what it ultimately their own fault.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by The Skeptical Warmist
Paul Vaughn,
Thanks for that link. I wasn’t aware of this newer paper.
Happy New Year!
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Brandon Shollenberger
Steven Mosher:
<blockquote>Why do fake skeptics fail to look at all the data comparisons.</blockquote>
I imagine for the same reason people of all groups do: confirmation bias and/or self-deception.
<blockquote>The evidence for a pause is pretty shakey. That’s not to say “There is no evidence for a pause” There is evidence For a pause, there is also evidence Against no pause. To conclude, dogmatically, that there IS a pause requires one to avoid certain data. To hide the incline as it were. </blockquote>
This is partially a matter of semantics. There is definitely no conclusive evidence for a literal pause in warming. However, many people use "pause" to mean a pause in apparent warming. As in, "For whatever reason, we're not seeing an increase in temperatures right now."
The reverse of this is true as well. How many times have we heard about warming over the last X years? Those statements aren't meaningfully different when it comes to examining what there is evidence for.
<blockquote>Finally, people need to stop fitting straight lines to data and talking about “finding” the trend. Jeez, where are the real skeptics.</blockquote>
It could be worse. They could be doing <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/2011-temperature-roundup/" rel="nofollow">this</a> instead.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Tom
Mr. Tonyb, to run IPCC…HAPPY NEW YEAR
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by Steven Mosher
“The transition from mitigation to adaptation to extreme events is my top story. ”
+1.
The question is will people see the opportunity to shift the debate.
The extreme –but not unprecedented–events of the past year illustrated that fears about the long term impacts have distracted policy makers and planners from taking proper action to prepare communities for the weather of our parents and grand parents. We are unprepared for the weather of the past, much less the weather of the future. If we take the science of AGW on its face, we know this: We know the next 30 years of weather are already destined. That is, no amount of mitigation can change the dynamics that drive the short term weather. And we have a choice: spend time, money and political captial on trying to mitigate effects in 2100, or find ways to build more resilient and adaptive communities today. It looks short sighted to tackle the problems of the past and the immediate future, but 20 years of fighting over global mitigation policies is costing lives.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by tonybclimatereason
Mosh said
“But as we learned at WUWT melting ice has nothing whatsoever to do with how warm it is. Its wind and storms that melt ice. ”
As we were talking about Viking farms are you suggesting these were on the ice? Come now Mosh, you can have it both ways as arctic ice melt is caused by wind, storms, currents and warmth amongst other factors. Viking farms are surely evidence of warmth?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by Mickey Reno
Excellent article, Dr. Curry. Thank you.
David Wojick wrote: One cannot actually fool one’s self because when you fool someone you know you are doing it
David, while I generally agree with most of your opinions, this has to be one of the more questionable things you’ve written.
Feynman didn’t intend to imply intentional plotting or actively conspiring to deceive ones own self or others when he wrote that. He only meant that we can easily come to believe as scientifically true, things that are not yet in evidence, or even things that are demonstrably false, because we have imperfect brains, with complex and competing motivations. He’s warning that we are all incapable of being 100% objective, that each scientist should be aware of his own biases and motivations, and they should be circumspect about all conclusions. He was warning that we’re all capable of confusing faith (of any kind) with scientific learning.
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
And that was a slow year, even for slubbers.
What’s mt’s meltdown, again?
↧
↧
Comment on Year in Review by David L. Hagen
Putting America’s Tax Hike In Perspective
Tax increase:
$ 62,000,000,000
2011 Deficit
$1,089,000,000,000
Tax increase = 0.057% of Budget Deficit
Houston – We have a problem!!!
Consequence – NO money to “control climate”!
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
Gotcha there
He seems not to know what a “tab” is. Language problem?
↧
Comment on Year in Review by willard (@nevaudit)
Hansen’s train of thought’s so 2007, BTW. Twas 2009 too.
↧
