Boom, you nailed it Dr. Curry. You finally called out Mann personally for his own slanderous attacks, in a public debate, as clear as day. Just wow. Fantastic voice quality too and blunt confidence. This is a huge PR advance for taming the monster that allowed the likes of the Marcott 2013 faux hockey stick to appear even in top journal Science, there being utterly no blade in any of the input data (!).
Comment on Trial of the century? by NikFromNYC
↧
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by manacker
Reverend
You are wrong
Joe Romm’s epithet of ‘the most debunked climate scientist on the planet’ doesn’t count for a hill of beans.
Just look at the other drivel the guy writes.
Being insulted by Romm is the best compliment one can receive.
As a matter of fact, it is very clear that ‘the most debunked climate scientist on the planet’ is Michael Mann (back to the topic here).
Max
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by KNR
Small point ‘Bob ‘fast fingers ‘ Ward has zero credibility as a climate scientists, he is fact a paid ‘shrill merchant’ working to make a very rich man richer still . So if only ‘climate scientists’ ,and certainly not those with vested interests, should be allowed debate the subject . Why was Bob?
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by ianl8888
Only slightly O/T
This is for Jimmy old bean D and those who like post-hoc rationalisations
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/03/Pausecauseopt-2.pdf
Mucho “explanations” for the hiatus (even that is *no* hiatus). One can pick and choose here like shopping in a supermarket :)
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by Bart R
Skiphil | March 26, 2014 at 10:51 am |
GaryM | March 26, 2014 at 11:25 am |
Matthew R Marler | March 26, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
Still with the point missing.
If you all really find Dr. Curry’s plight so compelling as Dr. Mann’s situation, one suggests you hold a double standard.
This doesn’t make Dr. Curry’s opinions about free speech less valid as opinions in general, however Dr. Curry’s flagrant double standard elsewhere (http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/22/week-in-review-17/ re: Lewandowsky censored) about free speech most certainly do make their validity questionable with regard to her in particular.
That Bob Ward was so dull as to have failed to call out Dr. Curry on this hypocrisy, and the Beeb presenter so dimwitted as to have missed it, makes Judith’s performance seem to rise head and shoulders above extraordinary underachievers.
↧
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by KNR
Any one has right to call Mann’s work what it is , which is cr*p , all Mann has to do to prove them wrong is do what he should have done all those years ago , release ALL the data needed for its reproduction in the manner he claims to have done it . Or in other words the behaviour that is both expected and demanded of a undergraduate student handing in an essay.
The guys own ego will bring him down , now that what you call irony , and when it does its a mark of man that we will be surprised to see just who lines up to kick him on the way down.
↧
Comment on EconTalk: Christy and Emanuel by Bart R
naq | March 26, 2014 at 10:14 am |
One of the great things about Swanson’s Law: if 1/3rd of the current price of equipment is paid for by the taxpayer, and the cost of the whole drops to 1/30th, then the taxpayer can stop propping up the infant industry. Everyone wins.
Just imagine the bellyaching if Big Fossil had to pay for the gifts of land and lost the tax holidays and other forms of propping up it enjoys?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bart R
John Carpenter | March 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
Ahhhhh.
So what you’re saying is, despite all the evidence, the facts available, the two sets of independent investigators independently finding that there were no ethical breaches, despite the peer review being passed and the substantial scrutiny of the entire regular expert readership of the journal (perhaps fifty or sixty individuals, say, even though they’re only psychologists, so hardly count), you’d rather believe that the only aspect remaining, the threat of costly legal entanglement for a publisher that just scrapes by as it is, couldn’t possibly be the reason because for you, all publishers are virtuous knights of the holy mission of upholding science against all threats?
Uhm. Dude. Read a bit less Cervantes. Or at least don’t read it literally, as everyone ought of course read Cervantes.
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim D
pokerguy, it took a while, but finally I got the point across to Don, and perhaps others, that JC had not answered the actual question asked by Ward. Mission accomplished.
↧
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by curryja
This discussion seems rather pointless. Only about half of the discussion that was recorded made it on the air, BBC clearly picked the statements that were most interesting and relevant. In fact my statement (that is the topic of debate here) was actually used in the opening for the entire News Hour show. So the BBC found my statement interesting and relevant; does it matter whether or not I answered a question from Bob Ward?
A second point is that Mark Steyn did not actually call MM a ‘fraud’
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by manacker
John Carpenter
Jim Cripwell has asked you a specific question:
Has the IPCC followed THE scientific method in claiming that we know with 95% certainty that various things are going to happen as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere?
A definition of the “scientific method”:
scientific method
noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
An essay “An Introduction to Science” discusses the application of the “scientific method” as follows:
http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/schafersman94.pdf
The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasoning (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one’s beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking.
So it is clear that empirical evidence is a cornerstone of the scientific method, without which a hypothesis remains simply an untested hypothesis.
The scientific method involves four steps geared towards finding truth (with the role of models an important part of steps 2 and 3 below):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena – usually in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to quantitatively predict the results of new observations (or the existence of other related phenomena).
4. Gathering of empirical evidence and/or performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments, in order to validate the hypothesis, including seeking out data to falsify the hypothesis and scientifically refuting all falsification attempts.
How has this process been followed for the IPCC hypothesis (as specifically outlined in its AR4 and AR5 reports) that AGW has been responsible for most of the global warming observed since 1950, that this reflects a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity in the range of 1.5º to 4.5ºC (mean value 3ºC) and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from global warming and its effects and impacts, a hypothesis commonly referred to as “potentially catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse warming” or CAGW?
√ Step 1 – Warming and other symptoms have been observed.
√ Step 2 – CO2 has been hypothesized to explain this warming.
√ Step 3 – Models have been created based on the hypothesis and model simulations have predicted strongly positive feedbacks leading to estimates of major future warming.
X Step 4 – The validation or falsification step (with empirical evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation) has not yet been performed.
As Richard Feynman has pointed out, a hypothesis, no matter how well it is formulated or by whom it was thought out, remains an untested hypothesis until it has been tested by empirical data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
The empirical data that have been recently observed (the “pause” in warming) have demonstrated that our planet has not warmed recently despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, thereby tending to falsify the hypothesis that AGW is a major driver of our climate and thus represents a serious future threat. We will see how long this pause lasts and if or when it becomes clear that the pause is a falsification of the CAGW hypothesis.
But, in any case, until the testing step is successfully concluded, the CAGW premise remains an “uncorroborated hypothesis” in the scientific sense. If the pause in warming continues for an extended period despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, it may even become a “falsified hypothesis”.
So the flaw of the CAGW hypothesis is not that several scientific organizations have rejected it, it is simply that it has not yet been confirmed (or rejected) by empirical evidence from actual physical observation or experimentation, i.e. it has not been validated (or falsified) following the “scientific method” .
Mosh can rationalize until he is blue in the face that model outputs are really a form of empirical evidence, but we all know that this is simply blustering, because model outputs are only as good as the input assumptions.
Others may appeal to “post-normal science” or argue that there are “several scientific methods”, but these are simply rationalizations for by-passing the scientific method.
Jim Cripwell is right. (And so was Richard Feynman).
Max
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by bob droege
Me, I have a job, somewhere between science and the practice of medicine.
I just want a loud mouthed buffoon to get his asshat handed to him in court.
I think that could go either way.
↧
Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Bud Man
Great article, thank you. You said the article begged the question as to whether 2C of warming would be more or less serious than 2C of cooling was back in the 1600s. I would say that the effects of a far larger population, pollution, the presence of species-threatening weapons, and general global integration confound the question so much that it’s not really a very helpful question to ask on its own. It would be interesting to try to work out what 2C of warming might have caused back then – much less of a problem than 2C of cooling, I would guess, as the effect on harvests would probably not be as dramatic – then compare both scenarios to our present world.
↧
↧
Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Robert I Ellison
‘In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near such a point.’ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0253.pdf
Sensitivity is dynamic – it is low away from tipping points and high at or near such a point.
Tipping points happen on decadal scales and seem related to small changes in solar activity – especially UV. They are quite natural. They happen of course on longer scales with changes in thermohaline circulation and related feedbacks in ice and snow.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. We place strong emphasis on using isotopes as a means to understand physical mixing and chemical cycling in the ocean, and the climate history as recorded in marine sediments.’ Wally Broecker
In the longer term – changes in ice and snow and therefore albedo dominate the energy budget. In the short term – the evidence shows a large role for cloud changes.
The current cool decadal mode seems likely to last for 20 to 40 years from 2002. This is a new way of thinking about things – the correct way – abrupt climate change rather than global warming. Understanding how the global system actually works is a prerequisite to understanding anthropogenic influence. Simplistic global warming memes are so last decade.
The Aussie argues for practical and pragmatic mitigation in a multi-gas strategy in a context of strong economic development and accelerated technological innovation. Something that is likely to be effective – in strong contrast to the failed strategies of carbon taxes and caps.
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by Jim D
If he is charging fraud, Steyn would have to put up evidence of that in the trial. As defendant, the burden is on him to show it is not just libel, which means it is fact-based. If he has such evidence for his accusation, he hasn’t given a clue what it is yet, and explained how all previous scientific inquiries missed it. I can see a grey area here, where he can get out by truly believing some evidence that turns out to be bogus, e.g. something he read on a blog. I don’t know if gullibility would be a defense.
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot
Ethics.
It is ethically wrong to make a fraud accusation in public which you cannot back up, and then refuse to apologize.
It is ethically wrong to double down and when asking to prove your claims in court, to try to wiggle out of it by getting the case dismissed.
It is ethically wrong to support and applaud such a miscreant.
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot
just another variant of “atheists are horrible, so god must be true”.
Next.
↧
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by Natalie Gordon
I too have become turned off by the alarmists. They have completely undermined my ability to judge their work objectively as a scientist because their behaviour seems so contrary to everything I have been trained to believe science is about. (Judith here being a notable exception.) I once asked an innocent question about the ice pack related to the nature of an extrapolation because I was kind of wondering about it after a seminar and instead of a straight answer I was immediately accused of being in the pay of big oil and invited to leave the seminar. I am heartily sick of having my questions answered with wide eyed horror and “but 97% of all the good scientists agree…..” As for Mann versus Steyn, Mann should put his full dataset out there with everything in a publicly available form, answer all the accusations once, and then sit back and let his work speak for itself. If you have to sue a journalist to protect your science, you have problems way beyond anything any mere journalist can stir up.
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by manacker
Michael
Ready, fire, aim, OUCH!
You just shot yourself in the foot.
The “2011 memo”, which you quote, does not forbid “running:
debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics when covering climate change stories”, as the recent directive by BBC executive, Alisdair MacLeod does.
Give up on this one, Michael.
You are only making yourself look more foolish.
Max
↧
Comment on Trial of the century? by lolwot
The idea that a judge will look at the force with which Steyn made his “fraudulent” accusation and conclude he didn’t believe it, or was ignorant of what he was claiming is a riot.
Sometimes I read WUWT and see the same self-delusion on display. It’s like for god sake stand back and look at the situation objectively. You can’t do it with climate but you’d think you could stand back and look at a court case and how your skeptic breathren are reporting it and think “hmm hang on this sounds like a load of bull”.
Skeptics have even taken to calling it the “trial of the century”. I mean really, this will be the biggest trial of the 21st century will it?
Why do they do that? Why do they call it that? It’s because they NEED this to be super important because they need it to be a big trial about FREE SPEECH so as to avoid having to face the music that Steyn just cannot back his accusation up in a court of law with evidence.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
