Hi Doug, you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis but that is not the way to get the Nobel Prize that Professor Claes Johnson and you seem to be hankering after. As I said on 8th Feb. “ .. here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication .. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you .. ”.

If your hypothesis is accepted by an appropriate number of recognised top physicists (but please don’t hold your breath) then you and Claes could be in for not only one but two Nobel Prizes (http://www.nobelprize.org/). I suppose that they will then have to posthumously remove Plank’s 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and transfer it and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from Al Gore and the IPCC (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/) to Claes and you.

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

Hi Doug, you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis but that is not the way to get the Nobel Prize that Professor Claes Johnson and you seem to be hankering after. As I said on 8th Feb. on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread “ .. here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication .. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166932).

If your hypothesis is accepted by an appropriate number of recognised top physicists (but please don’t hold your breath) then you and Claes could be in for not only one but two Nobel Prizes (http://www.nobelprize.org/). I suppose that they will then have to posthumously remove Plank’s 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and transfer it and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from Al Gore and the IPCC (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/) to Claes and you.

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

Well I didn’t claim Greenpeace etc. were transparent. I was talking about non-specific lobby groups and think tanks in that paragraph.

However, I would say that funding my lots of small individual donations counts as transparent because influence of any individual donor is minimised (though it would be nice to see numbers of donors of big amounts).

I’m not a donor to any of the groups I mentioned, but (quick look at accounts on web) 90% of FoE’s 2 million funding is from individuals. 95% of Greenpeace’s rather larger funding is from individuals at 77 euros each (so they have 2.5 million donors).

My latest painful infinity thoughts:
If you play an infinite number of games of solitaire, will you have somewheres therein an infinite sequence of wins? Of losses? Both? Every possible hand will be repeated an infinite number of times, of course, but will there be an infinite sequence of repeats of each hand?

WHT, you will most assuredly NOT find cancellation. Also, bear in mind that if you do the calculations, you will have the actual numbers summarized in the color-contour graph. I’ve linked to the data above. You can ask for help if you get stuck, but my availability drops off sharply again after today as I’m working serious hours the next several days starting tomorrow. I sincerely hope Dr. Curry will try these calculations – or at least delegate them to a talented research assistant &/or grad student. It’s important to realize that temporally-global methods will FAIL (hard underscore); windowing is ESSENTIAL. Not only is windowing essential, the role of the SHAPE of the complex envelope is KEY to sensible interpretation, so a firm handle on correlation & regression diagnostics fundamentals is absolutely indispensable, as is a firm foundational handle on the effect integration across harmonics. Regards.

It is painful to learn but maybe Westerners are the descendants of monkeys…

When the consensus monkeys start throwing around labels as if they were feces, it’s not hard to imagine the connection.

I tucked this to a Bishop Hill thread a couple of days back but since it uses a list from this JC post perhaps it chould be copied here as well … just for the record.
***
I’ve decided to put in the hard yakka and document how the climate doomsday blogosphere have responded since the Heartland Institute’s statement that at least one of the documents is a forgery.

The following are the various ‘updates’ and ‘disclosures’ that try to put the best spin to the notion that the narrative in the key ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy’ document is correct even though the document itself is fake.

I’ve used the list in Judith Curry’s “Heartland” post which helpfully provides a collection of views on this ‘ShrillGate’ investigation. [The comments within square brackets are (mostly) mine]

1-Brendan DeMelle, Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine, DeSmogBlog (links to all of the leaked documents):
[No update yet. This post still reports and holds on to the forged document as 'article of faith'. The key document is extensively quoted in the post without any regard to the Heartland Institute's statment that it is fake.]

2-Chris Mooney, “Dissuading Teachers From Teaching Science”: The Leak of Alleged Heartland Institute Documents, The Intersection:
“Update: The Heartland Institute has put out a statement, claiming that “Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.” This post has been updated accordingly.”

3-Joe Romm, Heartland Documents Reveal Fringe Denial Group Plans to Pursue Koch Money, Dupe Children and Cultivate Revkin, Climate Progress
“UPDATE: I have updated this post. Heartland has not denied the authenticity of any of the excerpts now quoted here. They assert these documents were acquired through trickery and are asking people not to write about any of this — but that plea sounds like more satire given what they wrote about the stolen Climategate emails:” [Title of the post has been changed to remove "Cultivate Revkin"]

4-James Hrynyshyn, The Heart(land) of the Denial Campaign, Class M
“UPDATE: Heartland claims that “at least” one of the leaked documents is false. But considering that there is nothing in any of the documents that is inconsistent with what we already knew about the Institute, it seems reasonable to remain skeptical about the denial. After all, denying is what the Heartland folks do best.”

5-Leo Hickman, Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism, The Guardian
“Updated: Leaked internal documents from US thinktank expose funding and policy strategies against climate science. UPDATE: 8.47pm The Heartland Institute has now issued a statement claiming one of the documents – “2012 Climate Strategy” – is “fake”.”

6-Suzanne Goldenberg, Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science, The Guardian
[No specific 'update' attached to the article but article history shows several changes. The forged document is quoted.]

7-Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed, DeepClimate
“[Update Feb. 15. Several news outles (e.g. the Guardian) are reporting that Heartland has branded one of the Heartland documents, the 2012 Climate Strategy, to be a forgery. (See also the Heartland press release). Since its authenticity is in question, I have decided to remove quotes from it as well as the link to that particular document. The Heartland projects discussed remain the same. I have removed one paragraph quoting the "expanded communication strategy".]”

8-Greg Laden, HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute’s Insider Reveals Secrets, Culture as Science — Science as Culture
“Disclaimer: The Heartland Institute is now claiming that these documents have likely been altered or faked, and are threatening to pursue criminal and civil charges against all bloggers who posted comments on them or links to them.

I can not prove that these documents are real or fake. I will certainly pass on to you any information that comes along about this. Have a look at the documents and make up your own mind (before I am forced by guys in suits to take down the links).” [The final sentence before this disclaimer reads "I'm have a hard time stifling the "bwahahaha."]

9-Greg Laden, The Meaning of Heartland Gate, Culture as Science — Science as Culture
“Disclaimer: The Heartland Institute is now claiming that these documents have likely been altered or faked, and are threatening to pursue criminal and civil charges against all bloggers who posted comments on them or links to them.

I can not prove that these documents are real or fake. I will certainly pass on to you any information that comes along about this. Have a look at the documents and make up your own mind (before I am forced by guys in suits to take down the links).”
[He has managed to stifle the "bwahahaha" this time]

10-Brad Johnson, INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax, Think Progress: Green
[No update]

11-Peter Sinclair, How is Joe Bast Like Joe Camel? Looks Like We’re Going to Find Out….., Climate Denial Crock of the The Week
[No specific update, though the post shows awareness of the Heartland Institute's statement]

12-Michael Tobis, Is Turnabout Fair Play?, Planet 3.0 — Beyond Sustainability
“RESPONSE: Heartland is challenging the veracity of the document containing all three of the most damning statements. I have no information about the provenance of these documents. Again, people who ought to know are saying that they are plausible, but that is hardly a proof of authenticity.

Heartland’s aggressive approach is interesting given their past position on the CRU hacking.

My main interest here is in trying to establish some good for the goose and good for the gander rules. Some people on both “sides” are reluctant to see any equivalence. Heartland, not surprisingly, is among them.”
[The final response after many updates]

13-Shawn Lawrence Otto, Climate Denial Bombshell, NeoRenaissance
“Once again, this approach is not based on science, but on doing the dirty work of vested interests to make rhetorical arguments to protect those interests regardless of what the science may say.

Thus while Heartland has expressly denied the authenticity of the Strategy document, it does nevertheless seem to be essentially in line with the strategy as actually put forth in their undisputed budget and fundraising documents.”
[In other words, "Although the Protocols of Elders of Zion is complete forgery, we know very well what those Jews are up to"]

14-Jonathan Eisen, Leaked insider docs from Heartland Institute goal: “dissuading teachers from teaching science” (ps hey Scholarly Kitchen do you support this?), The Tree of Life
[Many updates but none that clearly states the key document might be fake]

15-Zachary Shanan, Fossil-Fuel-Funded Think Tank, Heartland Institute, Exposed (Deniergate? Heartlandgate? Pick a Name), Clean Technica
“Note: The Heartland Institute has confirmed in a public statement that it sent board materials to an unintended person, but states that the “Climate Strategy” is a fake. DeSmog blog notes, however, that some of the components of the Climate Strategy have now been independently confirmed. “The DeSmogBlog has received no direct communications from the Heartland Institute identifying any misstatement of fact in the ‘Climate Strategy’ document and is therefore leaving the material available to those who may judge their content and veracity based on these and other sources,” Richard Littlemore also writes. The Heartland Institute reports that its president “still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.” As such, I’ve removed the initial post quoting the documents and other coverage around the net and will just keep this page updated with new pieces on the story as they are published on sites looking into it further, or by the Heartland Institute itself.”

16-Phil Plait, Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin, Bad Astronomy
“[UPDATE: Heartland has confirmed that some of the documents are real, but claims the strategy document, which I quote below about teaching strategy, is faked. This claim has not yet been confirmed or refuted. DeSmogBlog has more info.]”
[Phil Plait denies that he is a member of the crazy climate doomsday cult. As of this moment, his claims that he is a skeptic has not yet been confirmed nor refuted]

17-Christian Hunt, Undermining the IPCC, keeping opposing voices out, dissuading the teaching of science – Heartland in its own words?, The Carbon Brief
“UPDATE: The Heartland Institute have stated in a press release that one of the leaked documents is a fake. Specifically, they claim that the memo that contains the first three quotes highlighted below was fabricated:

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We’re happy to take the Heartland Institute’s word on this. We have clarified below which quotes were from the document Heartland have identified as a fake. We’re also happy to apologise to the Heartland Institute for attributing quotes to them which were taken from a faked document.”

18-William Connelly, Heartland, Stoat
“[Update: in all fairness, I should point out that Heartland are currently claiming that some of the documents are fake. The truth or otherwise of this is yet to be determined.]”

19-Keith Kloor, Climate Skeptic Organization Feels the Heat, Collide-a-Scape
“UPDATE: The Heartland Institute, in response, claims:

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

Well this story just got a whole lot more interesting.”

20-Steve Zwick, Blog reveals Climate Change Denier Group’s CorporateBackers, Forbes
“NOTE: This piece was initially posted at 11:48 GMT; it was updated at 12:14 GMT to incorporate Heartland’s response.”

21-Will Nichols, Will Heartland Institute scandal force transparency on corporate donors?, BusinessGreen
[No apparent update]

22-J.A., Trouble in the Heartland?, The Economist
“Access Denied / User Login” [It seems the economist has completely pulled off the post form its blogs. However a google search shows the article begins with "ASSUMING they are authentic, the trove of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute,..."]

23-Richard Littlemore, Mashey Report Confirms Heartland’s Manipulation; Exposes Singer’s Deception, DeSmogBlog
[No update. The post sticks to the narrative in the forged document in other words and with more not-so-fresh evidence!]

24-Canucks On Heartland Institute Payroll, Big City Lib Strikes Back
“Update: It should be noted that the Heartland Institute disputes the authenticity of the “strategic document” from which these quotes have been taken. While the general the content of the document–Wojick’s writing up a set of course modules and etc.–has generally been confirmed, some of the more inflammatory wordings (“dissuading teachers” etc.) may be in question.”

25-Katherine Stewart, The new anti-science assault on US schools, The Guardian
[Not relevant. Posted before the Shrillgate]

26-Jess Zimmerman, How the Heartland Institute plans to wreck education, Grist
“Update: Heartland has released a statement, saying that “some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.” New York Times writer Andrew Revkin, one of the journalists mentioned in the Heartland documents, told Politico that “he’s been able to confirm that the documents are legitimate.” However it turns out, at least we got to see the Climategate-boosting Heartland Institute complain that “honest disagreement should never be used to justify … criminal acts and fraud.” [Still dazed and confused even after some reflection]

And so the list ends.

One of these days I’m gonna get paid for this work.
****
PS. Since I’ve never figured out how to copy&paste a text with all the HTML tags, italics and bolds, I’ve decided to number the list this time for greater clarity.

Can you please clarify exactly which articles?

Ghil 2008 explains the problem nicely (this was an invited paper to the 250 euler conference ) CLIMATE DYNAMICS AND FLUID MECHANICS:
NATURAL VARIABILITY AND RELATED UNCERTAINTIES 2008.

Parts of interest are

We have shown, for a stochastically perturbed Arnol’d family of circle maps, that noise can enhance model robustness. More precisely, this circle map family exhibits structurally stable, as well as structurally unstable behavior. When noise is added, the entire family exhibits stochastic structural stability, based on the stochastic-conjugacy concept, even in those regions of parameter space where deterministic structural instability occurs for vanishing noise

Clearly the hope that noise can smooth the very highly structured pattern of distinct behavior types for climate models, across the full hierarchy, has to be tempered by a number of caveats. First, serious questions remain at the fundamental, mathematical level about the behavior of nonhyperbolic chaotic attractors in the presence of noise. Likewise, the case of driving by nonergodic noise is being actively studied

Second, the presence of certain manifestations of a Devil’s staircase has been documented across the full hierarchy of ENSO as well as in certain observations Interestingly, both GCMs and observations only exhibit a few, broad steps of the staircase, such as 4 : 1 = 4 yr, 4 : 2 = 2 yr, and 4 : 3 _= 16 months.

and theorem 3b

Before applying this result, let us explain heuristically how a Devil’s staircase step that corresponds to a rational rotation number can be destroyed” by a sufficiently intense noise. Consider the period-1 locked state in the deterministic setting. At the beginning of this step, a pair of fixed points is created, one stable and the other unstable. As the bifurcation parameter is increased, these two points move away from each other, until they are pi_ radians apart. Increasing the parameter further causes the fixed points to continue moving along, until they finally meet again and are annihilated in a saddle-node bifurcation, thus signaling the end of the locking interval

Thanks again Steven.

I wasn’t suggesting the UHI figures were widespread across the globe; only that the scientists in the specific study cited seemed to conclude that almost half of S. Korea’s *measured* warming in recent decades was down to UHI, so it seemed like an opportunity to cross-check BESTs interpretation with a local study, which might prove interesting.

Shame we haven’t got any figures from N. Korea.

cwon14

Please leave JC alone.

Are not you grateful she does not have a BoreHole (http://bit.ly/znRgcT) like in RealClimate who don’t post opposing views?

At realcimate, you are lucky if your post is sent to the BoreHole, as it is usually simply deleted. They love deleting, for the “cause”.

I think we need a Godwins Law for Lysenko.

While it is not my style to comment on personalities on this blog (or anywhere else, for that matter) I found cwon14′s comment quite clear to the effect that Joshua deliberately creates a distraction when Green/Neo-Marxism is linked to AGW but I don’t agree with that.

I believe that Joshua just likes to have a good argument and that he is a lot brighter than he lets on. I am not all that sure he should be classified as either pro AGW or anti AGW because I think that he may just be pro science and anti logical inconsistency.

Punksta,
OK, first, Dr. Mann wrote the paper in question, and Dr. Jones made the comment about hiding the decline. So, what is it that you think Dr. Jones is admitting doing?

BTW, the decline in correlation between proxies and measured temperatures (the divergence problem) is also mentioned in the original article. It was also well known by most of the intended audience. So, what are you talking about?

Note, I deliberately did not mention Lysenko in my post

Yes, I was thankful for that small mercy.

Sadly, William followed Mike’s example.

@maksimovich (February 18, 2012 at 3:37 pm)

From your Vecchio, Capparelli, & Carbone (2010) lead, tracked this down:

Stine, A.R.; Huybers, P.; & Fung, I.Y. (2009). Changes in the phase of the annual cycle of surface temperature. Nature 457, 435-441. doi:10.1038/nature07675.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Stine_2009.pdf

They’re looking at an interesting problem, but they’re way off-track. I think some readers here will find their reference to IPCC model failings interesting, even if those readers have little or no interest in actually lifting a finger to help better understand & appreciate natural variability.

One day, some might wake up to the fact that no one has any right to post whatever nonsense they want on someone else’s blog.

That’s why you can start your own blog, and rant and rave to your hearts content.

And, yes, I don’t want to see the Australian economy suffer because of the carbon tax and the effect that will have on everyone here, including my children, grandchildren etc.

That’s why I spend time writing to politicians and hoping (non-Christian) Julia Gillard will be out of the PM position sooner rather than later.