Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

$
0
0

FOMD wrote, in apparent ignorance,

” TJA advocates “pick the individual paper that most strongly backs up the hockey stick”

But that’s not what rational folks do, is it TJA?”

Tell that to customs inspectors, Fanny. They often do not check every package in a shipment – most often samples are taken, but certainly not from every package.

If you had no worry, then you could pick one at random. Since TJA knows you have reason to be worried, having already looked into the matter himself, it’s a generous offer he extends to you.

Pick your best. Or look even more like a loonie windbag.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Beta Blocker

$
0
0

Skiphil, as further background for what I said above, and repeating what I said on CA a few days ago, after eight years of following the debates concerning the scientific validity of the Hockey Stick, I have reached my own conclusion that the Hockey Stick is a contrived analysis product which is brilliantly and exquisitely crafted to reach conclusions which are indispensable in promoting AGW theory to agendized government agencies and to the general public at large.

Having once been a QA auditor in a scientific organization, I can say that on the surface, the Hockey Stick has the look and feel of professionally done science — but only on the surface.

Digging deeper into the Hockey Stick’s nooks and crannies, using the material Steve McIntyre and others have collected over the last eight years, reveals the kinds of data pedigree issues and the kinds of analytical methodology issues which, in their total aggregate, lead me to conclude that the Hockey Stick is most certainly a product of contrived research – contrived in the sense that both the foundational data and the analytical processes have been consciously cherry-picked and integrated in a way which guarantees that only one outcome is possible, a Hockey Stick shape having a long pronounced handle with a short but very strong blade at its tip.

Further, when one examines the analytical approach which has been employed in producing the Hockey Stick, doing so from a strict QA auditing perspective, one eventually comes to realize that the considerable bulk of the analytical approach is actually a facade whose purpose is to give the Hockey Stick the look and feel of Real Science while at the same time having sufficient methodological density and opaqueness so as to discourage someone who reviews the work from digging too deeply into the substance of the analysis. As a former QA auditor working in a scientific organization, there is no other conclusion I can reach when I look at both the weight of the evidence and the substance of the evidence that Steve McIntyre and others have collected.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Stephen McIntyre

$
0
0

JD, I recently re-examined Mass v EPA in the course of looking at EPA’s denial of reconsideration petitions (cited in Mann v Steyn). I was amazed both by misrepresentations by the movants and the weakness of the EPA resistance. Not on the climate science front, but on their failure to properly adduce the history of the act. It’s almost as though the EPA tanked the case. But this is a long story that needs to be discussed separately.

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Thank’s for the reference to Schlosshauer. His book seems to discuss extensively issues I was pondering about 40 years ago while reading many different books on QM and also trying to find ways to teach QM when I was given that task very early in my career.

This seems to be a book, I’m prepared to pay for just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by darrylb

$
0
0

Fan– a question for you
Because the results of the determination of temp records by proxy methods is probably quite important in determining worldwide actions, do you believe the scientists involved should take care to be as accurate as possible in determining their results?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan

$
0
0

It is neither personal nor political. For the sentient among us, we understand that only Mann is suing so who co-authored his works is irrelevant to the topic – Mann’s case.

Read it again so you can better understand that fact.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by TJA

$
0
0

It is not generosity, it is frustration. I have been through these papers more times than I can count, and every time they always clam up, the way FOMD, the ironically named FOMD, BTW, seems to have, or they say I picked a weak one.

This is his chance to get me to shut up about it!

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

playing dumb and dumber

“In response to Brandon’s point, Mann revisited these issues in Mann et al 2000 (Earth Interactions) and in this post-MBH99 article, reiterated false claims of Mann et al 1998. It also included a highly deceptive purported demonstration of “robustness”.”

Mann’s porkies. deceptions, falsehoods, omissions.

Brandon’s Point: there be falsehoods
Brandon’s take: don’t fuss around, call it fraud.
Steve’s point: there be falsehoods
Steve’s take: I don’t call it fraud.

So, yes, you can ignore the fact that Steve talks about Brandon’s point,
there be falsehoods, and conflate the fact with the interpretation of the fact.
You can play dumb and dumber. Usually, you play dumb better than this.

Mann mislead. he told untruths. Did he commit fraud? See how that is an open question? So, yes, Steve and Brandon ca agree on the fact and disagree on the fraud question. Just as Brandon and I disagree on the fraud question.

How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.

But you can be un charitable and force any reading you want. Why?
because the meaning is not controllable. You are free to say any stupid thing you like to and usually do.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Richard (rls)

$
0
0

Rob: Thank you. I still don’t see the MWP. Why not?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by omanuel

$
0
0

Whatever the outcome, this court case will provide reliable information on reality – a reality that most skeptics do not want to accept.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

TJA This is his [FOMD's] chance to get me to shut up about it [hockey-stick blades]!

LOL … TJA, please let me encourage you to learn *MORE* about hockey-blade climate-science!

For me a personal favorite hockey-stick triptych (albeit a rather unspectacular one) is the following:

• The undoubted CO2-driven heat imbalance that radiation transport theory predicts (many sources), in union with

• The undoubted “hockey-stick” of increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels (many sources), in union with

• The undoubted “hockey-stick” of borehole temperature anomalies (many sources)

Temperature trends
over the past five centuries
reconstructed from borehole temperatures

Subsurface temperatures comprise an independent archive of past surface temperature changes that is complementary to both the instrumental record and the climate proxies.

Here we use present-day temperatures in 616 boreholes from all continents except Antarctica to reconstruct century-long trends in temperatures over the past 500 years at global, hemispheric and continental scales.

The results confirm the unusual warming of the twentieth century revealed by the instrumental record

Individually, each of these three lines of evidence is strong. Collectively, they are *VERY* strong!

Now, it might be objected that the “CO2 hockey-stick blade” is sharper than the “borehole hockey-stick blade”. But that’s the point, eh? The borehole data provide a low-pass filtered view of Earth’s temperature record!

In consequence, the borehole data are robustly immune to many of the artifacts that plague the historical record, the satellite record, the meteorological record, and the paleo-proxy records. That’s why these data are attractive (to me) despite their rather coarse time-resolution.

This is *NOT* to say that scientific understanding of climate-change rests solely on borehole data … the borehole data are just one small part of the overall climate-change picture.

TJA, it is a pleasure to assist your quest for climate-change knowledge!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

Since it’s my point being discussed, I’m going to step in. Neither of you is right about what my point is. My take is not:

Brandon’s take: don’t fuss around, call it fraud.

I don’t care if people call it fraud. I’ve said so many times. I don’t find the issue interesting. People can call it whatever they want. We can discuss what Michael Mann did without using the word “fraud.” I usually do because the word “fraud” tends to become a distraction.

My “take” is quite different. My stated issue is with people saying Mann is innocent of fraud. I don’t think they should do that. I think there is too strong a case to be made for fraud to claim Mann is innocent. Refraining from accusing Mann of fraud is fine, but it is very different from saying he is innocent of fraud.

How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.

I don’t think this is true. I don’t think Steve McIntyre would necessarily state his belief on this issue. I think he, like many people, might believe things about a person he isn’t comfortable saying out loud. I don’t expect people to always state their views on an issue.

To my knowledge, McIntyre and I don’t disagree on this issue. We might, but I’ve never seen him say anything which indicates to me he does.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

$
0
0

JD,
But isn’t this an exceptional circumstance due to the enmity that Mann has aroused in a sizable population and even more exceptional in that Steve has so well informed the public over a long course of unheard-of diligence ?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

$
0
0

Scratch “unheard-of”
“Unprecedented”.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK

$
0
0
Y'know, discussion here, amplified in/during the Steyn trial (if it ever happens), may well go a long way towards firming up what we expect of <i>"scientific policy advice"</i>. When governments rely on such advice for decisions that impact lots of people, people have a right to expect <b>something</b> in the way of integrity in behavior, with legal recourse if it's not forthcoming. Question is: what? We know what the Mann crowd wants: if it supports their agenda, anything goes, if it doesn't, it's open to attack on every little nit-<strike>picking</strike>puking detail they can find. Any sort of attack. In whatever venue they can shop for. From <a href="http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud" rel="nofollow">Steyn</a><blockquote>But, if you're a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you'll be cut off like Briffa's tree rings. I've been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That's why I'm playing this one differently from the Maclean's case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn't seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it's over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads.</blockquote>What are the implications for <i>"scientific policy advice"</i>, either way?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by rls

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Schrodinger's Cat

$
0
0

Judith, I sense from your comments that the old fashioned approach (thinking, theorising, calculating) give more understanding and insight about mechanisms than the more automated modelling which is probably faster but may short circuit a certain amount of thinking.

Am I reading too much into this? I tend to think that both approaches have significant benefits but the absence of the old fashioned approach loses something.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by John Smith (it's my real name)

$
0
0

FOMD
I am trying to study
My impressions of MM are so far not good … don’t think I’m deranged (yet) nor particularly ideological

honest question for you …
is there a stasis or “sustainable” point for the climate that would be “natural” and where is it?
Gavin S. seems say on RC that the that without human disruption recent temps would have cooled 30% (comments in response to Judith’s 50-50 post)
Is that good?
thanks for your patience, new to this issue

P.S. as a regular person trying to learn, that “denialist” thing really turns me off (very ideological)

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images