Charlie Martin is looking through some of James Hansen’s emails and found this:
[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
So he is trumpeting this approach as an innovation? Does he really think he has a better answer because he has extrapolated station measurement by 1200km (746 miles)? This is roughly equivalent, in distance, to extrapolating the temperature in Fargo to Oklahoma City. This just represents for me the kind of false precision, the over-estimation of knowledge about a process, that so characterizes climate research. If we don’t have a thermometer near Oklahoma City then we don’t know the temperature in Oklahoma City and lets not fool ourselves that we do.
I had a call from a WaPo reporter today about modeling and modeling errors. We talked about a lot of things, but my main point was that whether in finance or in climate, computer models typically perform what I call knowledge laundering. These models, whether forecasting tools or global temperature models like Hansen’s, take poorly understood descriptors of a complex system in the front end and wash them through a computer model to create apparent certainty and precision. In the financial world, people who fool themselves with their models are called bankrupt (or bailed out, I guess). In the climate world, they are Oscar and Nobel Prize winners.
Update: To the 1200 km issue, this is somewhat related.
Shills,
where is the empirical study that covers an entire ENSO cycle showing the relationship of multiple pairs of stations with distances of up to 1200 kilometers separating them??
It doesn’t exist. Suggestions by Hansen that these relationships are somehow proven are total Moose droppings. The only thing we can be relatively sure of is that claimate changes when and as it wishes. A relationship established over 10 years can reverse over the next 10 or simply wander at random.
Keep following the Pied Piper!!!
Jeff Id,
“…but how many does it take before people wake up to the insanity.”
It appears that it will take many, many more. I’m afraid that the average person just doesn’t understand the limitations of climate models as they exist today. It’s like trying to convince your 12 year old to like math…
(sorry maybe your kids liked math…mine don’t)
@ Papertiger:
you say: ‘When you just drop your shit pellet without comment or direction you have to expect that people will assign you with a motive.’
You don’t understand the line? Well, The paper was given as a more reliable measure of the issue compared to some news articles. The ‘switch’ is something you claimed and i don’t know why. The graphics in the paper describe data, i was being patronising.
you say: ‘I gave it about ten seconds more thought then it deserved, that’s my theory.’
What do you mean?
@ Hunter:
you say: ‘but if parsing makes you feel better, great.’
Well that’s a huge amount of what the denialists do; analysing emails, condemning people with little quotes. Maybe we wouldn’t feel the need to defend certain phrases if denialists didn’t bring them up in the first place.
you say: ‘Do you agree then that your understanding is deficient to comprehend AGW, and that you are simply making a decision based on faith in authority?’
in many instances, yes. (oh no! appealing to authority!)
@ kuhnkat:
The data comes from time periods greater than ENSO cycles. If the methods used still seem doubtful (I haven’t a clue) I suggest you do something about it. Submit a paper.
****”Do you agree then that your understanding is deficient to comprehend AGW, and that you are simply making a decision based on faith in authority?”
Only if you do, hunter. The difference is that my “authorities” are world renown experts and I am willing to admit I do not know enough.
And, of course, I don’t know how many times I have posted this, but I don’t necessarily believe in AGW. I know that I don’t know – as opposed to the majority of the amateur deniosphere which made up its collective, monolithic brain the moment it perceived a political slant to the issue. Example: the above post by Mr. Meyer. It is pretty clear he has not read the original source and it is fairly likely he would not understand it if he did.
****”I’m afraid that the average person just doesn’t understand the limitations of climate models”
And you do, Steve? Are you a climate physicist?
Shills,
>you say: ‘Do you agree then that your understanding is deficient to comprehend AGW, and that you are simply making a decision based on faith in authority?’
in many instances, yes. (oh no! appealing to authority!)<
And this is why there is no point in talking with you. You simply parrot what scientists you agree with say (and why you agree with certain scientists in particular is personal issue that could be the topic of discussion at another time). You don't actually understand what you're talking about, nor do you seem particularly interested in attempting to further what limited understanding you have.
The end of your post is the perfect example. Why would you say, "If the methods used still seem doubtful (I haven’t a clue)?" If you have no clue about how good the models are, why are you here defending them? Because you like guys A-F and M-T that have Ph.D.s and say you should believe them?
Someone brings up how terrible the models are, asks for the paper proving this 1200 km correlation, and your basic responce is "yes there is one and they do that, but I don't know what it is, and if you don't like it do something better," as if that somehow supports your case or weakens kuhnkat's point?
Pretty much every thing you say is some combination of appealing to authority, popularity, circular reason, argument from ignorance or out right red herrings.
*****”You simply parrot what scientists you agree with say”
Be fair, Wally. Even if this is true, you and the rest of the deniosphere are pretty good Psittaciformes yourselves. The difference is that you parrot a small business owner from Phoenix,Az, not several thousand expert scientists pursuing climate science on the world stage. Pretending that you and your ilk are the rational, objective, independent-thinking ones sounds pretty funny out here.
If you are such a clear headed expert, Wally, why aren’t you publishing your work for the world to see?
And is it so hard to believe that someone with the expertise, years of work, and authority of a PhD should be listened to? Really? Do you doubt your family doctor? Or your construction engineer? Or your JDs when they talk about constitutional law? Or your army generals coming back from Iraq? I’m betting not. I’m betting that you, like the rest of the Western World, relies on the expert opinion of a few well-trained individuals except when their opinions do not confirm to your political agenda.
*****”Pretty much every thing you say is some combination of appealing to authority, popularity, circular reason, argument from ignorance or out right red herrings.”
Even if this is true, Wally, pot meet kettle.
Pseudo-Hunter,
“Lance – wow, you really fucked up that calculation.”
Yeah, I admitted that remember?
“Time of day is no excuse for making an error of that magnitude.”
Really? Inverting the order of two numbers in a calculator at two in the morning in a quick follow up post on a blog is an inexcusable error? Oh and I said the the distance was 17% of the earth’s pole to pole distance when the real number is 6%. That is of the same order of “magnitude” since you used that word.
“It shows that you have no scientific intuition at all.”
That’s funny because I have a degree in physics and have taught mathematics and physics at a major university for more than ten years, but if you can make that snap judgement based on inverting two numbers in a calculator at two in the morning maybe I should quit.
Then again I have read your posts and perhaps you should quit substituting invective for rational discussion.
@ Wally:
You say “If you have no clue about how good the models are, why are you here defending them?
Firstly, a lot of what I say on this blog doesn’t go into the science much at all. A whole heap of the stuff that comes up on this blog isn’t science, but easy-to-understand BS. My posts on this thread about the extrapolation stuff haven’t discussed the qualities of it but rather to show that the technique was not a clandestine ‘trick’ but out in the open.
you say: ” “yes there is one and they do that, but I don’t know what it is, and if you don’t like it do something better,” as if that somehow supports your case or weakens kuhnkat’s point?”
I don’t have a case on this stuff and I never claimed to. kuhnkat’s criticisms could be worthy (and hence should def. be seen) but I don’t know. But what i do know is that pretty much all the crap you guys say (whether good science or bad) is worthless unless the scientists look at it. That is one of my points; No one gives a shit what you guys think, yet. Contrary to Hunter’s belief, skeptics are not winning. If you want to change this then you guys have to do something. I really encourage you.
Wally, I know how you feel about me and appeals to-what-not-fallacy. I disagree, but what difference does it make…
Pseudo-Lance: you continue to miss the point. You made a fantastically stupid error in a calculation that anyone with half a brain could have spotted. You worked out the wrong number, and then you misreported that number. But OK, get over it and deal with the real issue of your even more stupid mistake. You think that just because 1200km is quite a long way according to some arbitrary criterion that you have yet to specify, then temperature anomalies can’t possibly be correlated over this distance. I showed you the observational fact that they are. You have yet to respond. I wonder why.
Hunter (the catastrophic AGW believer)
First, why don’t you just use a name that no one else is using instead of disruptively miming another poster? If you really want to engage in rational discussion this would be a good start.
Second, try making it through one post with out calling people names. That would also increase your credibility.
Third, I haven’t responded to your link because I haven’t finished reading and analyzing it yet. Was there a time limit? I said I would read it and I will. Your “I wonder why” remark is just more reason to ignore you instead of reply to you.
Is that what you want?
I rarely use the word “troll” to describe blog posters but you are exhibiting many of the characteristics of the classic concern troll. Are you just an attention seeking bomb thrower or do you wish to engage in rational discussion?
If it is the later you would be wise to attenuate the name calling and increase the rational responses.
Lance (the wilfully ignorant one) – it really doesn’t take long to look at the paper, and the graphs which show correlations between station anomalies versus distance. Why did you even start to pass comment on the issue when you were completely unaware of the seminal paper on the topic?
Love your absolute absence of a sense of irony by the way.
hunter,
More insults huh?
I have never in my years of internet blogging killfiled anyone but you are really tempting me.
I have “looked at” the paper. Any scientific paper worth reading is worth spending a few days reviewing and digesting.
Also why the insistence on using someone else’s name?
Now try to answer without insulting remarks. I’ll bet you could do it if you really concentrated.
“Another classic of fuckwittedness, borne of intellectual inadequacy combined with pathetic laziness. You haven’t bothered to read a single one of the papers published by Hansen and his group over the years which describe their methodology.”
Why is it that these catastrophists always start to bully people who might think otherwise? Is it in their genes to be so pedantic? Fersure it doesn’t make their arguments stronger, so what is it then? Fear?
****Are you a climate physicist?
No I’m not. That doesn’t invalidate my statement. Do you think the average person understands the limitations of climate models Waldo? Certainly climate models have limitations. No one is claiming they are infallible. I’m not anti-model. I just don’t believe that, as they exist today, they are able to make precise projections on a century scale.
Here’s a great paper on precision vs. accuracy by Pat Frank. Very articulate, well reasoned argument.
http://tinyurl.com/635bf8
about shills
he says, “The graphics in the paper describe data, i was being patronising.”
no shit.
Now what kind of business could you be in where the product is condescension, and the swift delivery of government forms without comment or directions?
File clerk at the department of patronization possibly?
No – too big a title. This guy is bringing his work home with him, and practicing his skill sets on his free time.
Assistant file clerk at the department of patronization – looking to move up the ladder.
I imagine his boss called him into the office recently and said,
“Shills, there’s an opening for the file clerk position coming up soon. We like you, but Miss Rodriguez has displayed exceptional bitchyness lately, and you have been reported as borderline helpful on occasions. As it stands now we’re leaning toward Rodriguez.
Maybe, if you practice your patronizing on your own time, and show improvement at work in the next two week…
It wouldn’t hurt your chances.”
Waldo,
Circular reasoning and arguments of authority obviously fulfill you, so I leave you to your self-fulfillment.
Lance,
My little shadow, like the other trolls who post here, perfectly deomonstrate the mixture of dependency on authority and inability to critically review information that are important hallmarks of popular delusions.
Here is a book, in publication since 1841, taht sums it up better than I can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
I think this quote sums up the group think at the heart of AGW, and the actions of our favorite trolls, quite well:
“”Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” “
Shills,
“My posts on this thread about the extrapolation stuff haven’t discussed the qualities of it but rather to show that the technique was not a clandestine ‘trick’ but out in the open.”
That’s nice that its “out in the open,” but that doesn’t make it a good statistical method. So who cares? This is you making red herrings again.
“kuhnkat’s criticisms could be worthy (and hence should def. be seen) but I don’t know. ”
So your commenting these extrapolations, mostly defending them, if only because they aren’t “tricks” but you don’t know what they are really are or if they are valid extrapolations…ok…then you say:
“But what i do know is that pretty much all the crap you guys say (whether good science or bad) is worthless unless the scientists look at it.”
Well sorta, what is said in the comments of this blog is likely completely worthless. But you shouldn’t assume everyone commenting here leaves it at just blog comments. For one people commenting here are likely to vote with these criticisms, and if enough people inside and outside climate science continue to critisize the science, eventually the BS passing as science will be rooted out. Anyway, all that said, what does this actually have to do with the points being made? Again, you are just making red herrings.
“If you want to change this then you guys have to do something. I really encourage you.”
Well, I’ve already picked a scientific field that has KNOWN human health consequences, working on the development of your spine and regeneration. May, one day, when I’m done doing work on something that actually benefits mankind, I’ll work on debunking the BS in climate science.
“Wally, I know how you feel about me and appeals to-what-not-fallacy. I disagree, but what difference does it make…”
What you are doing isn’t a matter of opinion. Making a red herring is making a red herring. You can disagree if you want, but you’d just be wrong. And if you’re so sure this entire blog and comments makes no difference at all, why are you here wasting your time telling us so? I suppose its just entertaining to come on a blog and tell people what they are doing won’t change anything? Regardless, if that’s all you have, what’s the point? What does THAT change? We could all sit here and argue what you or I are saying on this blog doesn’t change anything…
Waldo,
“The difference is that you parrot a small business owner from Phoenix,Az, not several thousand expert scientists pursuing climate science on the world stage.”
You’ll have to point out where I actually just defer to what the author of this blog believes, rather then use the data he pressents to support my own argument. This is a large difference. Group A just says, “thousands of scientists say X, so X is right” while groub B says, “those guys are wrong because of M, N, O, and P.”
“Pretending that you and your ilk are the rational, objective, independent-thinking ones sounds pretty funny out here. ”
Funny, why? Make your case.
“If you are such a clear headed expert, Wally, why aren’t you publishing your work for the world to see?”
Because I’ve chosen take my clear headed expert brain into a more important field?
“And is it so hard to believe that someone with the expertise, years of work, and authority of a PhD should be listened to? Really? Do you doubt your family doctor? Or your construction engineer? Or your JDs when they talk about constitutional law? Or your army generals coming back from Iraq? I’m betting not.”
Oh Waldo, how the little things that make such a huge difference are lost on you. I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to them, I’m saying their arguments have to make sense and be back by the data. If my doctor tells me to rub snake oil on my broken leg instead of a cast, I’m not going to just believe him. In fact, with just about every medical treatment I (or my wife or son) undergo, I do my own research. I don’t just go through life believing what any individual that has accuried the expert tag says. I could be called an expert in my field, but even I wouldn’t just take my own word for it, I want to see the data and a rational argument from that data.
“Even if this is true, Wally, pot meet kettle.”
Again, please point out the specifics. And this “you do it too” argument…you guessed it, another fallicy.
*****”You’ll have to point out where I actually just defer to what the author of this blog believes, rather then use the data he pressents to support my own argument.”
Potato, poe-tah-toe, my friend. You are still a parrot, albeit an intelligent one.
****”Make your case.”
Been making it for several months now – I have instituted a personal policy of not rehashing what I’ve already posted because then we just go in circles. On this particular thread I might point to your riposte on March 14, 9:21pm: there you accuse Shills of not being able to pinpoint peer-reviewed literature which you yourself have clearly not read, probably do not sufficiently understand, and are parroting Mr. Meyer’s vague and unspecified interpretation of science he has no first hand knowledge of and which probably would not sufficiently understand to challenge anyway if he did(a post, by the way, which is based on second-hand knowledge provided by another amateur blog-poster who did nothing more than read an illegally hacked email). So I hope you understand why it seems so irrational to some of us when you make claims about how unfounded, circular, etc. we, those that are not entirely convinced by CS and the like, are.
****”I’ve chosen take my clear headed expert brain into a more important field.”
So why are you bothering other experts working in their fields? I am willing to bet that you would have a very different reaction to a bunch of amateurs on your turf than you seem to expect from Mann, Hansen, et al.
****”I’m saying their arguments have to make sense and be back by the data”
Well, we’ve been down this road before. But I’ll say it again: the IPCC, whatever its faults, is extraordinarily transparent. The deniosphere reminds me of Area 51 fanatics: rational evidence is simply proof to these people that the real evidence is being hidden from them. Same with the deniosphere.
*****”with just about every medical treatment I (or my wife or son) undergo, I do my own research.”
Oh God, I hope you are not so dumb as to actually put this into practice. And I hope that if your “research” tells you that hacking cough is really bronchitis and not the lung-cancer your oncologist diagnosed you think good and hard about expert opinion. (Really, Wally, this is the silliest thing you’ve posted yet – and it is fairly apparent that you are a very intelligent person, just bullheaded).
*****”I want to see the data and a rational argument from that data”
What are you doing here then? As I mentioned, Mr. Meyer’s reasoning is based on a blog-post from a pretty vague email. Why aren’t you concerned about “data” in this instance. Come on! Call Mr. Meyer to task!
****”please point out the specifics”
Pot meet kettle. See above.
Only fools simply accept what physicians tell them:
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/best-hospitals/2009/12/10/how-to-get-the-right-diagnosis-why-doctors-goof.html
This quote, in particular, demonstrates the fallacy of accepting arguments by authority:
“Worse, misdiagnoses lead to an astounding 40,000 to 80,000 hospital deaths every year, according to a March paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association—plus an uncounted number due to mistakes in the doctor’s office. In fact, some 5 percent of autopsies find a condition missed by doctors that, if treated, might have saved the patient’s life.”
AGW promoters are practicing without any formal commitment to ethics, and are deomonstrated to ahve huge conflicts of interest.
the answer to how large is the foolishness of AGW true beleivers is seen clearly in our littl trolls daily.
Think about it: you analogy would suggest that hospital deaths could be avoided if people began diagnosing themselves (as you are attempting to do with climate physics). Do you really want to make that analogy? No one said science is perfect, as nothing human is, but I would suggest that expert opinion should be left to the experts, particularly in regard to the really important stuff. Once again, I hope, hunter, that you are not so dumb as to take your own word over that of a doctor, particularly if your general critical thinking and research skills are represented here on CS.
Not at all, my trollish friend.
Perhaps you are not deliberately utilizing a fallacy, and so are simply making one.
I am suggesting that the scientists, like Spencer, Lindzen and Christy, and others, who point out that historic variations easily contain the climate varations of the past ~150 years, and that the climate has not demonstrated the dramatic positive feedbacks required to make AGW work, are diagnosing the situation far better than the alleged consensus where you depend on so heavily.
But really, besides driving up traffic, you actually contribute nothing of any substance at all.
Your circular, self-defeating posts and feeble attempts at snark are unoriginal, ill informed and simply reiterate your inability to critically review anything that counters your dogma. Why do you bother?
My little shadow’s deomonstrations of psychiatric need are at least original in their pathetic inability to reason,and are basically pleas for help. Yours are simply boring and derivative.
*****”Spencer, Lindzen and Christy, and others,…are diagnosing the situation far better than the alleged consensus where you depend on so heavily”
How do you know this? How do you decide that the opinion of one group of scientists is more viable than another group of scientists?
They are doing a better job because they are not making wild conclusions based on trivial evidence.
They are doing a better job becuase they do not erase past history, like the MWP, to make their case.
They are doing a better job because they are willing to buck a huge and vicious consensus.
They are doing a better job because betting against apoclayptic claims has a 100% success rate.
They are doing a better job because AGW promoters, instead of dealing with their points, attack them.
They are doing a better job because they admit they could be wrong.
When in doubt, go against the group that depends on endless headlines of doom.
@ PaperTiger:
‘about shills’
well…well…OH YEAHH!!? (WTF are u doing?)
@ Wally:
you say: ‘ but that doesn’t make it a good statistical method. So who cares’
It makes it ‘out in the open’ which the blog was not admitting. It also indicates that the method has been seen and probably judged by others.
you say: ‘what does this actually have to do with the points being made? Again, you are just making red herrings’
My original response to Kuhnkat was to express his concerns to the scientific community because they will not know otherwise, and his thoughts findings would be wasted.
You say: ‘You can disagree if you want, but you’d just be wrong.’
So prove to me that I am making these fallacies. Prove that I am intentionally trying to divert attention from the issue.
You say: ‘We could all sit here and argue what you or I are saying on this blog doesn’t change anything…’
I like trying to correct the crap I can identify here. I like arguing. I might convince some peeps who are one the fence and stumble onto this blog. Currently, the political world is in some support of AGW theory, so if this blog does nothing than I’ll be happy.
And dude, what is with your warped understanding and obsession with logical fallacies? Not only are you often incorrect in your judgement but you blow them up to enormous significance.—OH MY… could it be…that your obsessive judgement of red herrings…is a red herring!! (I really don’t give a shit)
Anyway, where is your peer-reviewed evidence for a lack of all the observed warming, and extreme wheather? (RED HERRING!!!!)
Seeing as this thread has reduced to the skeptic’s central argument of accusing the AGWr’s, or similar, of logical fallacies, I may has well evoke the central argument of the AGWr’s: What good evidence do you have that casts doubt or seriously damages the central theory? (RED HERRING!!!)
Shills,
It is OK to get frustrated.
Try this: Try to figure out why Manhattan, which Hansen predicted to be under water by now, experiencing changes in vegetation growth by now, all due to AGW, is not.
Try to figure out why you think a ~1o change over ~100 years is significant or notable or dangerous, when history shows it has happened before.
Try to figure out why AGW promoters had to erase the MWP from history in order to make today seem warmer.
Try to figure out why the IPCC errors all work to over state the risk of AGW.
Try to figure out why a mehtod that is deeply flawed, like the IPCC, can still be considered reliable.
As to climate scientists who are bailing, in addition to the ones I mentioned, you can add. Judith Curry:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/article_view?searchterm=michael%20mann&b_start:int=0
I particularly like this quote of hers, in full:
“Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda—Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that—so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.”
So perhaps it is time for AGW believers, who are serious about the science, to stop parrotting AGW promoters and to start applying critical thinking skills, instead of apologetics, to the topic?
Shills,
please post links to the papers or summaries of the papers you THINK supports your side of the issue.
Lance:
“I have “looked at” the paper. Any scientific paper worth reading is worth spending a few days reviewing and digesting.”
It really doesn’t take that long to look at the graphs. And the paper was published 23 years ago. You seem quite happy to form an opinion without even a passing familiarity with the important literature. Remember, you waded into the discussion by saying “The basic idea, that interpolating temperature anomalies based on station data more than 1,000 km away, is a tough sell“. The observational fact of long-distance temperature anomaly correlations has been established for more than two decades. You chose to be ignorant, and you chose to form an opinion in spite of your ignorance. In what way is that not stupid? If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to start forming opinions based on evidence and not prejudice.
“Also why the insistence on using someone else’s name?”
Since when were names unique and specific to one person only?
Shills,
since you apparently support the consensus science, I would remind you that it is accepted by the modellers, Hansen, Jones… that temps rise faster as you approach the poles.
Obviously there is a real issue with this with the south pole, but, does seem to be reasonably accurate currently with the north pole.
Exactly how does this fit with being able to use stations 1200km apart in latitude to adjust each other work again??
“making wild conclusions based on trivial evidence.”
Really? Seems that the evidence is fairly substantial. Lots and lots of evidence. You just don’t want to admit it.
“do not erase past history, like the MWP, to make their case.”
Nope. Wrong. Places like Real Climate, IPCC reports, NOAA, even Wikipedia and Al Gore deal with the MWP as a real issue. Your claim is only possible because you spend all your time in the cyber-deniosphere. You either just lied or are just plain ignorant about information that it took me less than a minute to google.
“willing to buck a huge and vicious consensus.”
Oh, so now there is a consensus? The other way to say this is that Spencer, Lindzen and Christy are outliers, and that the main body of knowledgeable people disagree with them, including international governmental panels, but you would still rather follow the outliers. Why? I suspect the reason is political, pure and simple, because I am fairly sure you do not understand or even read the real science involved (if you did, you’d know about the MWP). And “vicious”? LOL
“betting against apoclayptic claims has a 100% success rate.”
As does creating a hyperbolic claim – or, perhaps, we are dealing with the potential for very big ecological concerns. Or perhaps the scientists in question are pointing out something happening in the atmosphere because of human activity, and rather than dealing with the issue you make claims based on absurd strawmen arguments and then counteract your own reason with something like…
“because AGW promoters, instead of dealing with their points, attack them.”
Oh please. The irony is rife here – you mean Hansen, the IPCC et al are not attacked on every count? Pleeeease.
“they admit they could be wrong.”
Good for them. That’s admirable. Could it be they are wrong? Could it be that Hansen et al have enough faith in their science that they do not feel the need to assuage the amateur deniosphere?
“depends on endless headlines of doom”
So now you don’t like hyperbole. Good for you. What are you doing here then?
The most interesting thing about you, hunter, is that you will echo back such things as “Orwellian,” “parroting,” and “critical thinking” after other people on the thread have also used them. That is a very interesting trait and I do not know what to make of it. Weird.
Waldo,
I’m going to skip the first part of your post because frankly its a waste of time, other than to ask, how am I to read and understand literature that doesn’t exist?
“So why are you bothering other experts working in their fields? I am willing to bet that you would have a very different reaction to a bunch of amateurs on your turf than you seem to expect from Mann, Hansen, et al.”
I’d be thrilled if my field got the attention AGW does, and I would certainly not become defensive when people started questioning my work. I know the limitations of what I’ve found and to what extent my hypothesis is supported by facts. If the “amatuer” brought up a good critisism, I certainly wouldn’t ridicule them as an amatuer instead of answering their critisism. In fact the department I’m in was created to bring together “experts” from a variaty of fields. When one of those experts from a different field asks a question, or believes my work is insufficent, I take the comments and try to improve. That is completely different from what is seen amoung the AGW community. In that field critisisms are met with various attacks including things like “are you anti-science?” In the end, if Mann and Hanson can’t explain their work to “amatuers” who can they explain it to?
“But I’ll say it again: the IPCC, whatever its faults, is extraordinarily transparent.”
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn’t mean their arguments make sense.
“And I hope that if your “research” tells you that hacking cough is really bronchitis and not the lung-cancer your oncologist diagnosed you think good and hard about expert opinion. (Really, Wally, this is the silliest thing you’ve posted yet – and it is fairly apparent that you are a very intelligent person, just bullheaded).”
Sigh. So I shouldn’t actually take the time to educate myself, particularly when I’m already in the biomedical field, and depending on the topic and the doctor I stand a good chance of actually knowing more about a disease/treatment then they do? If my doctor thinks I have lung cancer, he likely has an X-ray, CT scan, MRI, and/or blood work to prove it. And that’s the point, I want to see those things. I don’t go into a doctor’s office or take a treatment not understanding, at least to some extent, what the problems are likely to be, the evidence supporting that, and the pro’s and con’s of various treatments. If you think this is silly and bullheaded, I suppose there is little point in talking with you. If you’re committed to this mindset that if person X tells you Y and Z degree then there is no chance they are wrong, I suppose I can’t convince you otherwise.
“Pot meet kettle. See above.”
Still waiting for you to point out where I used an appeal to authority, popularity, red herring, or circular reasoning….
Thanks Hunter for the support on trusting doctors. They are certainly great resources, but to pretend they are perfect or a little bit of your own thought and research couldn’t help is idiotic. Further to claim that someone that does this is silly or bullheaded is insane. And I suppose I’d have to bring up the definitions of insane and idiotic and more formally make this argument or else Waldo is going to tell me pot meat kettle again, but I don’t really care to and as Shills would argue, it doesn’t matter anyway….
Shills,
“How do you know this? How do you decide that the opinion of one group of scientists is more viable than another group of scientists”
Ah yes, and this is the problem with the appeal to authority right? If one authority says A and the other B, who’s right? Certainly we can’t think for ourselves and determine who makes the better case….gosh darn that would be hard…
Shills,
Again skipping to the important stuff:
“So prove to me that I am making these fallacies. Prove that I am intentionally trying to divert attention from the issue.”
So, someone makes an argument you say in return “what i do know is that pretty much all the crap you guys say (whether good science or bad) is worthless unless the scientists look at it.” You think that adresses the argument being made, instead of bring up a completely different topic (in this case, how to bring about some kind of “change”)? Really now, I pointed these things out at the time, if you weren’t paying attention or don’t understand, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t done or that it was done insufficiently.
“I like trying to correct the crap I can identify here. I like arguing.”
And I’ll just argue, like you did, that what you say doesn’t matter. Now this is some fun arguing…
“could it be…that your obsessive judgement of red herrings…is a red herring!! (I really don’t give a shit)”
You “giving a shit” doesn’t matter, and no pointing out red herrings is not a red herring.
“What good evidence do you have that casts doubt or seriously damages the central theory? (RED HERRING!!!)”
Or more importqantly, false burden of proof.
****”how am I to read and understand literature that doesn’t exist?”
Perhaps you should wait for it to exist before you challenge it.
****”That is completely different from what is seen amoung the AGW community”
So the AGW camp does not react the way you’d like them to. Wally, do you suppose the anti-AGW field is perfectly reasonable? Do you think people like Mr. Meyer, hunter and the rest of the tribe here approach AGW with a balanced, objective, scientific, respectful manner? Or do they simply launch on any unfounded attack no matter how irresponsible it may be -like, oh I don’t know, a cross-posted blog based on an illegally hacked email? Once again, please don’t play the reasonable one here. It might be possible that the AGW community is reacting to the very vitriolic, reactionary, politicized nature of the anti-AGW deniosphere.
****The transparent nature of AGW research “doesn’t mean their arguments make sense.”
Doesn’t mean they are nonsensical either. It would seem to indicate that they are more honest than the majority of people here, however.
****”I don’t go into a doctor’s office or take a treatment not understanding, at least to some extent, what the problems are likely to be, the evidence supporting that, and the pro’s and con’s of various treatments”
Good for you. Here’s praying for your prostrate.
*****”If you’re committed to this mindset that if person X tells you Y and Z degree then there is no chance they are wrong, I suppose I can’t convince you otherwise.”
Never wrote that. You wrote that. Strawman. And a red herring. But since you brought it up – all else being even, I’ll go with the person with the Z degree over the lay person. And I suspected you were something like a biochemist, but that still makes you a lay person in the field of climate physics. So I’ll have to defer to Hansen et al. Appeal to authority? Sure. That’s why we have authorities.
But this –
****”I would certainly not become defensive when people started questioning my work”
I simply do not believe, my man. Certainly not based on these blog posts in any event. It is easy to write that now, when your field is not getting the attention that AGW does, but I am willing to bet the farm that the minute your research becomes politically charged, your image and name excoriated across countless ill-natured, poorly reasoned web-pages, and your expertise challenged by people who do not properly understand your discipline, you would become as defense as anyone you are now challenging – a defensiveness which, by the way, is not terribly apparent. I go to Real Climate or read Hansen’s essays online and they are far more restrained and reasonable sounding than anything I’ve seen here. This is what you are not taking into account.
By the way, your reliance on Mr. Meyer’s blog is a de facto appeal to authority. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a “popular” perception of the AGW camp.
And this –
****”Certainly we can’t think for ourselves and determine who makes the better case….gosh darn that would be hard…”
Is self-delusion. Wally my man, you, like your colleagues on CS, are entirely towing the party line. But to answer the question: no, you do not have the requisite knowledge to “think for yourself” in this regard. If the world worked this way I could “think for myself” on construction engineering or brain surgery or music history or whatever. But instead we have experts on things like engineering and music and biochemistry. It takes an expert even to approach AGW science. And no one here has anything approaching that. Besides, this is a red herring. And then besides that even, this was a response to hunter’s appeal to authority.
@ Hunter (denier one):
Hansen’s manhatten line, was from an interview, not science lit.
All that ‘try figure out…’ are skeptic’s claims, without good evidence. I asked for good evidence, something from peer-rev. lit.
Curry. now we are getting somewhere. Good for you. Let’s keep an eye on her and see what she does. She still believes AGW, She agrees mostly with WG1’s science, but has issues with certainty tests. Does she support many of the skeptic’s arguments? More importantly, lets see what she publishes.
@ Kuhnkat:
For support of AGW, see the IPCC.
you say: ‘Exactly how does this fit with being able to use stations 1200km apart in latitude to adjust each other work again??’
Dunno.
Wally:
You say: ‘ I don’t go into a doctor’s office or take a treatment not understanding…’
‘understanding’ is a key word. The problem is that you don’t understand any of the science you claim is bogus. Would you refuse treatment for a condition you don’t understand even though every second opinion you get says you should get it?
” ‘How do you know this? How do you decide that the opinion of one group of scientists is more viable than another group of scientists”
Ah yes, and this is the problem with the appeal to authority right? If one authority says A and the other B, who’s right? Certainly we can’t think for ourselves and determine who makes the better case….gosh darn that would be hard…”
Firstly, not my line. Secondly comprehending the data all sounds good, but likely no one here can.
You say: ‘red herring blah blah…’
So when is making a separate point a red herring or just a separate point? You don’t know because you don’t know what a red herring is. If you did you wouldn’t keep spewing this crap. Wow you write so much crap about your fallacies but never seem to have any good evidence against AGW theory.
You say: ‘Or more importqantly, false burden of proof.’
Fine. For my evidence go to the IPCC or other syntheses of the science. Do some damage.
Waldo,
To the contrary, ~1o over a century is the definition of trivial.
Not one bit of fear mongering the AGW prmotion community has offered is any different.
Not one event, not ice in the Arctic, storm strength or frequency, rain, drought, flood, sea levels, pH, etc. etc. etc., is as AGW promoters claim.
Shills (the gullible true believer),
So you are OK with Hansen lying- and sticking to that lie over decades, as long as it is not in a peer reviewed journal?
and Curry is an answer to your assertion that no climate scientists are severely doubting the AGw dogma. Even though Spencer, Lindzen, and others have done so for years, but that was too inconvenient for you.
Shills,
>’understanding’ is a key word. The problem is that you don’t understand any of the science you claim is bogus.<
Please demonstrate that to me. Right now this just a blind accusation.
"Would you refuse treatment for a condition you don’t understand even though every second opinion you get says you should get it?"
This would never happen if it was a legitamate treatment, and if I somehow couldn't understand it, I would be very concerned, and possibly forgo treatment yes.
"Secondly comprehending the data all sounds good, but likely no one here can."
HAHA, right, so now your argument has become, "you're all just too stupid to get it." And yet again this is unsupported claim. Plus, if you think we are missing something, by all means explain it to us. I have a B.S. in physics and biology and am finishing a Ph.D. program in developmental genetics. Certainly I'm capable of comprehending this, if someone would just explain it to me, right?
"So when is making a separate point a red herring or just a separate point?"
If its intended to divert attention away from the original point, its a red herring. So when someone makes an argument that A follows from B, and you discredit the individual because he's doing anything you find important, that is a red herring. You've changed the argument from discussing the acutall science, data, etc., to now discussing what to do about it, or how to bring about change. Now if you want to do that, I suppose that's fine, but it also means the arguments we've been making are going unchallenged. All you can do to challenge them is to try and change the subject. Got it?
"For my evidence go to the IPCC or other syntheses of the science. Do some damage."
Oh, those IPCC reports that are getting dragged through the mud because of some new unsubstantiated cliam seemingly every week? I think others that have dedicated more time to this than I am willing to are doing plenty of damage. I'm happy to argue with you in this little blog, where, according to you, nothing we say really matters.
“To the contrary, ~1o over a century is the definition of trivial.
Not one bit of fear mongering the AGW prmotion community has offered is any different.
Not one event, not ice in the Arctic, storm strength or frequency, rain, drought, flood, sea levels, pH, etc. etc. etc., is as AGW promoters claim.”
hunter, even I know that there is evidence for all these things. It’s just like the MWP – you simply don’t know what the AGW camp is saying. Step out of the deniosphere, son, it would do you some good. It would do you, and Wally, and ADiff, and certainly Mr. Meyer some good. Although I am very well aware that nothing will change your minds.
Well, off for some fun – see you all in a couple of days.
Waldo,
I hope you enjoy yourself greatly. And take all the time you want.
Cowardly troll.
Funny, isn’t it. In all of the blathering from the denying idiots, no-one can offer any reason why temperature anomalies should not be correlated over distances of 1200km. No-one can offer any observations that contradict those presented in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. No-one can do anything except bleat. I wonder why.
Come on, deniers, surprise us – give us a substantive objection. Something from the scientific literature. I wait with bated breath.
Hunter, the correlation coefficient at mid-high latitudes was .5. They call this a “high” correlation. I would disagree, I would say .5 is just ok, and its certainly not enough to simply extrapolate the temp anaomolies in one spot 1200km away. If the correlation coefficent was <.8 (or maybe .7), I could buy that. I also don't see a measure of their confidence in the correlation coefficient anywhere. Now many scientists neglect doing that, and in some cases with high N and R^2 are both high, its a safe assumption your confidence is also high (again I'm thinking .8ish for R^2). But if we're talking about a coef. of .5, I'd like to see one. If they are extrapolating off of a coef. of .5 and a boarderline significant coef. besides….it's complete crap instead of being just a modestly educated guess.
Warren,
I enjoy reading your posts and have been doing so for about six months. I am, however, a first time commenter on your blog. I have to hope this string is not representative of the comments you normally get. It’s a total gong show. You’ve got identity theft so you can’t tell who is who. I won’t even comment on the posts.
Friendly advice, banish this group to another dimension. Let them fight it out to the death on a daily basis. They seem to thrive on it.
The question of whether the Antarctic as a whole has warmed or cooled in recent decades has been
considered in a number of papers. Raper et al. (1984) attempted to derive the mean annual temperature of
the Antarctic continent by computing an areally weighted mean of the station data and found that there had
been a warming of 0.29 °C decade−1 for 1957–82, a result that was significant at the <5% level. Doran et al.
(2002) derived annual and seasonal temperature trends (1966–2000) for the Antarctic using the University
of East Anglia HadCRUT data set and claimed that there had been a net cooling of the entire continent over
this period. However, Turner et al. (2002) argued that it was not possible to derive a trend for the whole
continent because the limited amount of data had to be extrapolated across unrealistically large distances.
All the above studies have been based upon monthly mean near-surface temperature data from a limited
number of Antarctic climate data sets assembled by individual workers or research groups.
http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/physicalscience/reader_turneretal.pdf
@ Steve E
The open nature of climate skeptic is useful in showing the character of the proponents and antagonists.
Aren’t the warmists on display here awful? The absolute bottom dwelling dregs of society. You would never know this or even suspect it, if you couldn’t see it with your own eyes.
You can’t see the irrational ugly side of the warmers on the moderated sites. It’s excised. You are saved from seeing the cancer of their mental depravity for the sake of propriety.
Well personally I don’t want control of the planet falling into the hands of vermin like waldo, hunter (the fake one), or shills for the sake of politeness.
Thank you papertiger. Your post at 7:02 made me think about my previous post. It was thoughtful not ad hominem and relevant to the host’s original post.
You’re quite right when you talk about the ugly side here, I spent some time on the weekend at William Brigg’s site in conversation/debate/argument with the likes of Gavin and Lucia, two people at the forefront who at least responded to honest questions without hysteria. Given their time constraints, both tried to address issues raised by all, albeit Lucia responded directly to each poster and Gavin responded to the host.
As for vermin, I’ll leave them to Orkin/PCO pest control.
@ Hunter (denier):
You say: ‘So you are OK with Hansen lying- and sticking to that lie over decades, as long as it is not in a peer reviewed journal?’
No. I doubt the source.
you say: ‘and Curry is an answer to your assertion that no climate scientists are severely doubting the AGw dogma’
When did I say that no scientists are severely doubting AGW dogma? I don’t think Curry ‘severely’ doubts the science. But I’m not sure what her nuanced position is.
Wally
You say: ‘This would never happen if it was a legitamate treatment, and if I somehow couldn’t understand it, I would be very concerned, and possibly forgo treatment yes.’
You would forgo the treatment, even though every Dr says you should take it? What is your reasoning behind this?
Re. red herring stuff:
you say: ‘All you can do to challenge them is to try and change the subject.’
No. I addressed the argument:
(march 15 12.23): ‘I don’t have a case on this stuff and I never claimed to. kuhnkat’s criticisms could be worthy (and hence should def. be seen) but I don’t know.’
then I moved on. No red herring.
YOu say: ‘Please demonstrate that to me’
Well, I can take a few quotes here and there (context doesn’t matter) or a few little mistakes in your publications and make sweeping condemnations on your capabilities. Plus, my ability to think for myself and my lay-person knowledge about you is surely more robust than any objective evidence you can give me (no matter how much of an expert on yourself you claim to be). All this is woven into my general belief that you would lie about yourself for some sought of personal gain (I have no evidence for this but it’s true).
You say: ‘Oh, those IPCC reports that are getting dragged through the mud because of some new unsubstantiated cliam seemingly every week’
And of the genuine ones, how much damage has been done? Not much at all. How many issues have arisen about wg1. None I know of. AGW theory is pretty solid.
@ Papertiger:
That 2002 turner paper seemed to be questioning some extrapolation method giving a cooling trend. Regardless of that, newer papers seem to detect overall warming in Antarctica.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/
Chapman W.L. & J.E. Walsh, (2007) A synthesis of Antarctic temperatures. Journal of Climate, 20, 4096-4117.
Monaghan A. J. et al., (2008) Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D04105.
Goosse, H. et al., (2009) Consistent past half-century trends in the atmosphere, the sea ice and the ocean at high southern latitudes. Climate Dynamics, 33, 999-1016
“Hunter, the correlation coefficient at mid-high latitudes was .5. They call this a “high” correlation. I would disagree, I would say .5 is just ok, and its certainly not enough to simply extrapolate the temp anaomolies in one spot 1200km away.”
Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you didn’t read the paper properly. The correlation coefficient at mid to high latitudes is almost 1 for nearby stations, and drops to 0.5 at an average distance of 1200km. The weighting assigned to a station’s recorded temperature, when calculating a temperature for a given spot, varies linearly with distance from 1 at 0km, to 0 at 1200km.
The concept is really very simple, and the paper was pretty well written. Why are you and so many others having trouble grasping it? It’s almost like you don’t want to understand, isn’t it?
Shills,
Skeptics, unlike true believers, actually check stuff out.
Here is Hansen’s interview by Rob Reiss, an AGW promoter who totally backs your faith:
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html
This exchange is interesting:
” Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” ”
And so is this one:
” Does he still believe these things?
Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.”
Now Rob is your guy. He makes a living by claiming that weather events are proof of AGW.
I do notice that when challenged on your faith, you think declaring ignorance is a good defense.
Interesting.
hunter (the disgusting twit),
Please keep up the good work. It would not be possible to pay for someone to show the non-credible nature of AGW better than you do for free, each time you bang away at your keyboard.