The Blackboard

I put “I can’t believe Ph.D.s actively engaged in research behave like this.”

But I can believe it. I just wish I couldn’t…

May I suggest a “who cares?” option?

lucia:
“But what’s with Gavin suggesting that Roger accused him of being a liar and a thief?
I’m pretty familiar with Roger’s criticisms of Gavin; I don’t think Roger’s criticism rise to calling Gavin a liar or a thief. I’m aware of last year’s “Trouble with Harry” incident, where I interpret Roger of describing Gavin as failing to givecredit to those who first discovered

But what’s with Gavin suggesting that Roger accused him of being a liar and a thief?”

As for the liar part, I think Gavin is refering to this post. I don’t see how you can read that and NOT see that RPJr calls Gavin a liar.

“Hockey Stick Gets Personal: Lies from Real Climate”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......-from.html

Psychologists could have fun analyzing the combatants. My sense is a whole lot of projection is going on — and more on one side than the other. Serious adults work to a conclusion, even if it’s disagreement; children like merely to make a mess. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

As a rank amatuer, I find it entertaining AND instructive. A double-whammy!

Gavin– People who don’t care probably won’t take the poll!

WTH–
Could you clarify. Which post is “this post” where Roger supposedly called Gavin a liar or thief? and which words in “this post” say that?

From the results so far I can see that very few regulars here go to conferences!

(P.S.: If it weren’t for the observational evidence I’d have gone for the “I can’t believe Ph.D.s…” choice).

Ok– The link wasn’t in the email. I see the link now. Also, yes. Roger posted what Gavin said about SteveM. What Gavin said was clearly false. Roger called what Gavin did a lie. The only other possiblity is that Gavin was mistaken because he was sloppy and didn’t check.

So, yes. Roger said Gavin lied.

Oddly I’m not sure that’s quite the same as calling him ‘a liar’ — but the difference between someone uttering a lie and being a liar is a nuance so subtle few would count any difference. (Sometimes, people only call those who habitually lie “liars”. But… that really is subtle. That said: it looks like Roger showed Gavin posting statements about SteveM which were untrue and called that action “lieing”. )

Lucia:

This is the post:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......-from.html

Both the title:
“Hockey Stick Gets Personal: Lies from Real Climate”

And this sentence (after the block where he quotes McIntire):

“Gavin’s outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars.”

Is that not calling Gavin a liar? I don’t see how it could be read any other way.

WTH:

As for the liar part, I think Gavin is refering to this post. I don’t see how you can read that and NOT see that RPJr calls Gavin a liar.

I could come up with a list of RealClimate Posts where it is definitely clear that Gavin is being intellectually dishonest. Sorry for Gavin that people notice this.

Indeed, the mere act of editing other people’s comments and then replying to the changed-meaning is itself an intellectually dishonest practice.

Is that not calling Gavin a liar? I don’t see how it could be read any other way.

Yes it is. But it’s unfortunately an accurate characterization.

Now Gavin gets his feelings hurt because we notice that he’s lying!? Wow.

Roger states in the blog:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......-from.html

“Gavin’s outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin’s most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn?”

Now, I’m not saying Roger isn’t correct….

WTH (Comment#23406) November 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

This is the post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot&.....-from.html
…
Is that not calling Gavin a liar? I don’t see how it could be read any other way.

So let’s cut to the chase: was the statement true or not?

WTH–
Yes. I get these by email and they includes about 5 links at the end. I overlooked the one you included. I answered above. Roger posted what Gavin said SteveM posted, he posted what SteveM acutally posted. It was clear Gavin utterly mischaracterized what SteveM posted.

Roger called what Gavin wrote “a lie”. I had forgotten that episode.

My response was this by the way:

I’ve seen much worse behavior at conferences.

And I would amend this with “at department seminars”. That is probably where the worst behavior gets exhibited.

As one colleague puts it, if there isn’t any passion displayed over somebody’s apparently controversial results, that’s a really bad sign.

It means that nobody cares.

oliver–
Agreed. I’ve seen some quite remarkable behavior at department seminar and conferences.

lucia :

I was typing my last post and didn’t see your response that you saw it.

OK, I see where you might read a bit more nuance into that, but hey – we are talking blogs here…

Carrick & oliver :

I’m not defending Gavin, and that wasn’t my point. What Gavin said was inacurrate, so you could call that a lie and I’m not saying RPJr was inaccurate or wrong in calling it a lie. My point was letting Lucia know that RPJr had said Gavin lied and that might be the post that Gavin was refering to.

WTH– Agreed. Gavin and others are certainly justified in saying Roger called him a liar. The difficulty is that if Gavin links the post where Roger did that, many who read Roger’s post are likely to characterize the situation as “Gavin lied and Roger called him on the lie.”

I voted for the pie meet-up and volunteering as Roger’s second.

But can anyone here who is well-versed in the relevant atmospheric physics tell me if there is anything in the conclusions of Klotzbach et al. that is fundamental in terms of issues like climate sensitivity e.g. or is this current spat between the Rogers and Gavin a dispute over something that’s really fairly minor in terms of the theory?

Given the level of vitriol that Gavin has spewed at Roger over the past year, I think Roger’s offer at collaboration is quite the olive branch. Of course, Roger had to know how slim the chances of Gavin accepting are.

No one likes to be called a liar. Especially when it can be proven to be true.

Lucia,

Roger posted what Gavin said SteveM posted, he posted what SteveM acutally posted. It was clear Gavin utterly mischaracterized what SteveM posted.

No, that doesn’t follow. Gavin was not referring specifically to the quotation that Roger posted. It’s conceivable that someone could post “This is a cherry-pick” then post “This is not a cherry-pick”. Referencing the latter would not prove that a statement referencing the former was a lie (or mischaracterisation).

I’m not calling any judgement on this, just pointing out the issue for now.

Numenius–
The abstract says this:

Abstract
This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

By convention,the abstract highlights the main, i.e. most important results.

Like the abstract, the conclusion also focuses on the inconsistency of data sets.

The paper also tries to explain why the we are seeing statistically significant differences between the different data sets. The authors may or may have correctly identified the reason for the inconsistency. But being incorrect on the reason would not negate their main result which seems to be that the data sets are inconsistent.

Simon

Roger posted what Gavin said SteveM posted, he posted what SteveM acutally posted. It was clear Gavin utterly mischaracterized what SteveM posted.

No, that doesn’t follow.

In my statement that you quoted, what doesn’t follow? Roger did post something Gavin claimed about SteveM said. What Gavin posted did utterly mischaracterized what SteveM said. So… what part of that statement doesn’t follow?

Now on this:

Gavin was not referring specifically to the quotation that Roger posted….

True. Gavin did not link to anything to support his claim Roger called him a liar. WTH’s guess about which statement bothered Gavin might be wrong. Maybe Gavin is accusing Roger of calling him a liar under some other circumstance.

Are you aware of other posts where Roger might have called Gavin a liar? If so, we can go read them and see what we think.

Minor nit: it is spelled Weehawken with an ‘e’. Also, Gavin’s a worm.

Thanks. I fixed the spelling.

Lucia,

Roger did post something Gavin claimed about SteveM said.

Yes, he posted this:

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that [Keith] Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

We do not know from that what ‘declaration’ Gavin is referring to.

What Gavin posted did utterly mischaracterized what SteveM said.

It would mischaracterise the statement of SteveM’s that Roger posted. What doesn’t follow is that it did mischaracterise the ‘declaration’ that Gavin is referring to, whatever that might have been (and I don’t know – perhaps he dreamt it).

It’s obvious enough that Gavin was not referring to the statement from SM that RP posted but to something else. So, the fact of Gavin’s statement being in conflict with the SM statement quoted by RP is irrelevant to whether or not Gavin was lying about the ‘declaration’ that he was referring to (whatever that might have been).

Lucia — but what are the implications of the differences between the surface and satellite records in terms of the broader theory? Or to put it another way, is Gavin being disputatious here because it’s just his general nature, or is the conclusion of the paper important enough that Gavin feels he really needs to attack it?

It is quite clear that Roger was right and Gav wrong. Not only do we have the quote that Roger pointed to, but also SteveM’s in-line response to a comment (also predating Gav’s accusation) saying “…the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection – in this respect, perhaps and even probably by the Russians.” So SteveM was consistent throughout.

Having said that, I think it was a bridge to far to accuse Gav of lying. It was a misstatement, yes, but an inference also made by some others who were not reading SteveM clearly. It probably would have benefited Roger in the long run and in terms of future cooperation if he had been satisfied with simply calling this an error. (However, once Steve’s prior comments were pointed out to Gav and he refused to withdraw his allegation, well that’s a different story…)

What the hey? What’s with the reference to bruised feelings in Gavin’s response to the paragraph he struck entirely? Talk about a non-sequitur! Roger didn’t say anything about his feelings being hurt. My impression is Roger’s hide is thicker than mine (and that’s saying something.)

Lucia, DO ( delayed oscillator) tried the same tactic with me. I made a substantive point about an inconsistencey of his and ask him a simple question. rather than admit his error or clarify ( as someone like you would do) he played the “I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings”

Also, I find it funny that Gavin and other @ RC condemn steveMc for the commenters there while they let the pack run wild at RC.
But life isnt fair and neither are the climate wars

Simon–
But we know more than than you claim we know because in his accusation, Gavin provided a (nofollow) link to the post in which SteveM presumbly made the claim Gavin puts in his mouth.

We can click the (nofollow) link and see that SteveM didn’t make that claim gavin puts in his mouth anywhere. Roger shows SteveM has said precisely the opposite of what Gavin claims he said.

Still, you are correct in the sense that Roger didn’t necessarily show that Gavin mischaracterized what SteveM has actually said. It’s possible that Gavin read SteveM making that accusation in some other post, intended to the other post where SteveM might have made the claim Gavin puts in his mouth. Or maybe Gavin just felt the urge to post a link to some irrelevant post thereby making himself appear to be lodging false accusations.

If so, instead of whining that someone accused him of lieing, he could rebut the accusation by providing the correct link and posting a quote. Then we would all see that Gavin did not lie.

WTH:

What Gavin said was inacurrate, so you could call that a lie and I’m not saying RPJr was inaccurate or wrong in calling it a lie. My

Yes I agree with your point.

It would have been better to characterized it as “inaccurate” I suppose, since calling it a lie impugns motive (you have to say something with intent to deceive for it to be a lie). Especially in a case like this where misunderstanding of Steve’s point was certainly possible.

And Simon… you’re starting to get a bit smelly here with this latest bit of spinning on your part. Open a window or something.

Numenius–
I have no idea. Clearly, there is something in the subsidiary discussion that bothers Gavin a lot. I’d have to sit down and pour over the paper to figure out if it’s “dangerous” or “wrong headed” or something.

As I pointed out on CA, the blog @ RC and those associated with it are actively rewriting history in real time through their comment editing, comment blocking, policies.

There is probably a neat little service/app one could create to track and monitor the thought police in an automated fashion.
the best we can do now is to cross post and do what lucia has done.

brid (Comment#23424)

SteveM was consistent throughout.

Well, actually no, he wasn’t.

Post 185, Sept 28th:

I’d be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.

He then edits that on Oct 4th with this comment:

Note: Oct 4 – as noted in other posts and comments, it was and is my view that the selection of cores was done by the Russians and not by CRU.

So, maybe he changed his mind, he certainly changed his statement. “CRU cherrypicking” was explicit at the time.

He stated that CRU had cherry-picked. That is no lie.

Personally I’d cut SM the slack to reconsider his statements, fair enough, but then personally I wouldn’t call someone a liar for responding to earlier statements.

Lucia,

We can click the (nofollow) link and see that SteveM didn’t make that claim gavin puts in his mouth anywhere.

See my previous post

Brings up an interesting point. If you purposely edit a comment on your blog that perverts the original comment to cast the writer in a bad light does that count as slander/libel? Sounds like there are a number of people that might have a legal suit against Gavin.

Simon… hmmm…. ok. Yes.

The Sept. 28 post, read in isolation could be interpreted to make Gavin’s statement true. That said, given all the stuff surrounding, I would not have interpreted it to mean what Gavin interpreted it to mean. But yes, if the interpretation is at all possible, Gavin did not ‘lie’– but I would say he mischaracterized stevem nevertheless. (After all, you do have to read a blog comment #185 in a long blog post in context of the previous and following conversation. )

I should say that since these things bother Gavin so, Gavin would do well to take screen shots, link to the specific comment and quote the specific statements on which he bases accusations like the one he levied against SteveM. (Had Gavin given specific links, we could all have more information to judge this food fight.)

BarryW–
In some jurisdictions, there is something called “false light” which is different from libel or slander. I learned about that at The Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/p.....e-the-law/
(That link describes a sort of hilarious suit, in the sense that an FL law professor filed it but the grounds for the suit did not exist in FL.)

Evidently, Florida doesn’t recognize false light though.

Here is what Gavin said, as posted on Roger Pielke Jrs blog:

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that [Keith] Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

Focus on this “to give him the signal he wanted”.”

Where exactly did McIntyre ever make the claim that the reason that Briffa selected a subset of the Russian data was so it would “give him the signal he wanted”???

If you can point me to that, perhaps my BS meter will stop going off. Thank you.

Simon Evans,

You point to a single in-line comment which, if read out of context, suggests that the CRU cherry picked. However, prior to Gav’s allegation we have two explicit comments from SteveM saying he was not accusing the CRU of cherry picking plus we have the original lead post which looked at the evidence behind why the series was picked Not only did SteveM post his explicit view on his own blog but also on WUWT. And all this was done before Gav’s allegation. You don’t think that gives context to the quote you cite? You don’t think Gav should have given some weight to those comments?

I am quite prepared to cut Gav some slack for taking the incorrect inference at first. I said so plainly in my earlier comment. Mistakes happen. But his refusal to retract (or even moderate) his reckless allegation does him no credit. Don’t you agree?

Lucia,

I’m not defending Gavin here – I think his comment was intemperate and not ’secure’ enough, and I agree that it was actually pretty d’oh not to pin whatever he wanted to say to a quotation from SM. On the other hand, you will gather what I think about RP…

It’s interesting to reflect upon the response to SM’s post, though. It must be seen that if Gavin is to be accused of presuming that SM was implying cherry-picking then so too should various newspaper columnists, along with a bevy of posters on CA. I don’t see RP accusing Melanie Philips of being a liar!(UK Daily Mail – she wrote an article headlining ‘fraud’ in response. I’m pleased to say that SM posted a ‘correction’. The article has since been removed, so I can’t link).

You say post 185 was a long way in, but I remember reading it when it was posted. I had been trying to figure out exactly what SM was suggesting was “disquieting”. When I read it, I certainly concluded that he was then saying exactly what he said there. As I’ve said, I’m fine with SM reconsidering his wording. I’m not fine with RP making the ‘lie’ accusation, which implies a deliberate falsehood in full knowledge of its falseness. An appropriate response to Gavin would have been that 1)he needed to update himself on SM’s views or 2) he had misunderstood what SM was saying, he was thus a silly person, and so he should retract. Stating that Gavin had lied is, I would guess, itself a lie, since I believe that RP knew (beyond reasonable doubt) that Gavin did not know that SM was not implying cherry-picking.

So, Imv, the most likely case is that 1)RP is the liar, 2)GS jumped to a false conclusion, 3)SM adjusted his statements, which caused confusion.

brid (Comment#23437)

Brid,

You’ll see from my response to Lucia above that I think it would be appropriate for Gavin to retract his presumption. However, I think it would be all the more appropriate for RP to retract his accusation of lying, which I think is entirely baseless (unless you think there is a case that Gavin knew he was making a false statement), is most likely to have been known to be thus baseless, and would thus itself be a lie.

Simon Evans,

I said in my very first comment that I thought it was a mistake for Roger to accuse Gav of lying (at least at that stage). However, as I have said twice, SteveM explicitly stated on a number of occasions before Gav’s allegation that he was not accusing the CRU of cherry picking. Posted on his own blog and on WUWT. When this is pointed out to Gav, and he refuses to retract his allegation, well then I think it is fair game to question his motives. You may not want to call it lying, but if it looks like a duck…

Simon Evans,

Are you a ‘fence sitter’ or a ‘brownnose’, Its quit e difficult to decide.

Simon–

Stating that Gavin had lied is, I would guess, itself a lie, since I believe that RP knew (beyond reasonable doubt) that Gavin did not know that SM was not implying cherry-picking.

Huh? Why do you believe Roger knew Gavin did not know what SM clearly said? What’s Roger supposed to know? That Gavin did not read the post, the majority of the comments, but somehow might have focused on two words buried in comment 185? And that Gavin did not read further to place comment 185 in the context of the rest of the post? And so Gavin in all honesty thought those two words in 185 translated into:

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that [Keith] Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

Steve may have used the word “cherrypicked” in comment 185 and associated it with CRU, but he hardly “declared” Briffa picked through the data to give him the signal he wanted!

Dave Andrews (Comment#23442)

There is no fence to sit on, Dave. And anyway, it’s of no consequence what you decide I am. We’re not canvassing votes for an election. If you think my posts are worth reading, then go ahead, if not, then skip them.

[Btw, are you a homosexual or a child abuser? (just illustrating the fallacy of presenting a false dilemma).]

The above string provides an interesting contrast to the interactions that are the fountainhead of the string, i.e., the interactions between Roger and Gavin.

The above strikes me as the heated discussions one sees among lawyers in the courtroom prior to their retiring to a local bar and buying each other a drink. The interactions between Roger and Gavin are more like those of spouses in the middle of an ugly divorce. On at least one side there is deep, deep animosity and words are designed to draw blood and demean.

What I would really pay money to see is a verbal duel between SteveM and Gavin – a kind of ultimate debating death match.

Hmm, Lucia makes a good point. Maybe I am being too harsh on Roger. What is the blog etiquette burden of proof on Roger to submit that Gav’s misstatement was intentional: beyond reasonable doubt (as in a criminal case) or balance of probabilities (as in a civil case)? If we go with the latter, Roger may have been justified in his claim.

As a matter of etiquette and courtesy, as well as in the interest of future cooperation, I think it is better to be more cautious in these claims.

Bernie,

If you want to see Gav participate in a global warming debate, look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....mp;index=0

Not Gav’s finest moment.

Who really cares? Everyone will rant and rave about it, but will not do anything about it.

Lucia,

It seems simple enough to me. For Gavin to lie he must know he is making a false statement. To be justified in saying that he lied, one must know that he knew that.

Consider the dates and times:

SM posts “Yamal@ A Divergence Problem” at 10.21 am, Sep 27th.

There follow multiple posts from others making the explicit accusation that Briffa has cherry-picked. SM does not state an opposite view.

SM posts comment 185 at 11.26pm on Sept 28th, stating “CRU cherrypicking”

SM posts comment 254 at 9.42pm, Sept 29th, stating “It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked” (what does the ‘crudely’ qualifier amount to, btw? So they did cherry pick but not crudely?)

GS posts his “allegation” on the morning of Sept 30th (the first comment is timed at 9.30am), as part of a longer lead post.

RPjr accuses him of lying at 2.40 on October 1st.

You seem to presume that SM’s comment “buried” in post 185 is somehow not consequential but that SM’s comment “buried deeper” in post 254 should have been picked up by Gavin before he wrote his RC post for the following morning. I do not think there are grounds to presume that he did read it before he posted, and for Pielke to accuse him, the next day, of knowingly making a false statement is unacceptable presumption.

What happened thereafter, of course, is much to do with the digging in of heels.

Simon–

You seem to presume that SM’s comment “buried” in post 185 is somehow not consequential but that SM’s comment “buried deeper” in post 254 should have been picked up by Gavin

Huh? No. I am presuming that since Steve never made the very strong accusation Gavin claimed he made, Gavin had no basis for that very strong accusation.

You give Gavin a scrap by finding 185, which is buried and which needs to be stretched dramatically to justify what Gavin claimed. Moreover, if Gavin was reading so carefully as to find those two words, and was going to post is rather dramatic inflation of it, he should have read the entire thread. SteveM’s comments are highlighed in pink and if he’s actually trying to discover what SteveM meant, Gavin should have been able to find the full paragraph of elaboration.

In fact, Gavin’s accuation goes well beyond what can be justified by merely saying “cherry picked” in 185!

So, I don’t know how you can you think it plausible Gavin did not know amplified and distorted what SteveM said. That is… unless Gavin has poor reading skills or didn’t really bother to read it? And didn’t double check when he posted?

Of course both of the latter may apply and Gavin may not have known what he said was false. In which case, he did not lie but only because he took little care when flinging around accusations.

Now, with respect to Roger: Earlier, you went further than saying Roger made an unacceptable presumption. You said you guessed Roger was lieing.

But why guess that? Why do you think Roger knew Gavin did not know that what Gavin said was untrue? How in the world would Roger assume that Gavin had misread so seriously and so thought he was telling the truth?

I really don’t see how it’s possible to clear Gavin of lieing and not clear Roger lieing.

Simon Evans (Comment#23449) November 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

You miss some things in your review of the facts, but lets assume you got most of it right. Gavin made a claim about what SteveMc said that was ungenerous and selective at best and a lie at it’s worst. We don’t know what gavin read, when he read it, and how he understood. Acusing anyone of a lie is tough to prove, especially when the basis of determining that is an understanding of the mental state when the statement is issued. But now, given that all the quotes are out there and given that gavin Could read them if he chose to what do we call it? Should he retract what he said about SteveMc? qualify it? explain his mental state?

Maybe gavin didnt lie? maybe he did. Maybe he just refused to dig very deep ( like with his posting of Tom Ps bogus charts) maybe he has moved on. I will give him a pass on the lie. But he is not very rigorous in the claims he makes in posts. I will give you a personal example.
A while back in a thread on RC ( 1934 thread) I asked gavin for the GISSTEMP code. he replied that it wasnt much code, something that could be done in a page or 2 of matlab. When the code was finally released it amounted to 10,000 lines of fortran.
I asked gavin if he would admit his error and correct it. It was clearly longer than 2 pages of matlab and could not be replicated in about 2 pages of matlab. This was an error on his part. If he lets an error like that stand, what do we call it? a lie. Well, AT THE TIME he believed it to be true. But now, he knows it to be false. Letting a false statement stand without correction.. what do YOU call that? don’t lie.

I take it Simon is often wrong.

“Oh Thou, who didst with Pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in, …” O. Khayyam

There seems to be a lot of this about these days.

It seems to have become legitimate try to catch somebody in a well baited trap and render that as reason for altered judgment on other points by dint of lowering reputations. Or maybe, in this case, to claim that someone has fallen into a trap for the same ends.

I seriously to not believe that S.Mc. accused Briffa of turpitude or anything like that, but there was inevitably a credibility void about which people could make up their minds.

As for Gavin, I do not know if his information regarding S.Mc’s analysis was any better than secondhand or thirdhand. To lie one must at least be acquainted with the truth.

I think that there is an improtant word that needs to be unstuck from the collective throat and used when it is opportune.

“Sorry”

It is the best invitation to move collectively on. Whether scientist A, or Scientist B, gets is caught in an apparent lie will not alter the science one jot.

Another thing that I simply fail to comprehend is the blog castle mentality. Why-O-Why can people not engage with their inner ambassador and actually show up on a rivals blog and persuade by weight of evidence as a first resort.

I do know that this is not straightforward on some blogs due to editorial policies, as is often highlighted, and hats off to those that do persevere only to have their input manipulated.

S.Mc. proclaims an open “have your say” editorial policy, and I believe him, but sadly the only benefactor that I am aware of self-imploded.

There is a desperate need for popular open blogs, maybe doubly skeptical blogs, for we, the doubly skeptic.

Right now, The Blackboard seems to be about the best I have found.

As for S.Mc. I admire his high risk, tightrope walking approach, publishing his seemlingly, “stream of analysis” articles. He is perhaps the Kerouac of statistics. I just pray, he doesn’t step into those pitfalls and gins.

Alex

“Gavin– People who don’t care probably won’t take the poll!”

Did you just call me Gavin?

Yes, but how will we know how many people don’t care? I demand that my apathy be counted!!!!

Re: Boris (aka Gavin) and Lucia.

If not “don’t care” how about “none of the above” it would have got my vote.

Alex

Simon Evans (Comment#23449) November 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

You miss some things in your review of the facts, but lets assume you got most of it right. Gavin made a claim about what SteveMc said that was ungenerous and selective at best and a lie at it’s worst. We don’t know what gavin read, when he read it, and how he understood it. Acusing anyone of a lie is tough to prove, especially when the basis of determining that is an understanding of the mental state when the statement is issued. But now, given that all the quotes are out there and given that gavin could read them if he chose to what do we call it? Should he retract what he said about SteveMc? qualify it? explain his mental state?

Maybe gavin didnt lie? maybe he did. Maybe he just refused to dig very deep ( like with his posting of Tom Ps bogus charts) maybe he has moved on. I can’t say he lied. His form of dishonesty is a bit harder to nail down. I will give you a personal example.

here’s are exagerations:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ment-46461
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ment-47337

here is an example where he snipped my argument because it pointed out how having the code is critical to disambiguate the textual description of the algorithm

http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ment-47296

http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ment-46931

or here. gavin went to great lengths to denigrate my “free the code” effort. And in this response he says that gisstemp can be emulated.

http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ment-47429

he replied that it wasnt much code, something that could be done in a page or 2 of matlab. When the code was finally released it amounted to 10,000 lines of fortran.
I asked gavin if he would admit his error and correct it. It was clearly more complex than he represented and had issues NOT DOCUMENTED in the papers. it was longer than 2 pages of matlab and could not be replicated in about 2 pages of matlab. This was an error on his part. If he lets an error like that stand, what do we call it? a lie. Well, AT THE TIME he believed it to be true. But now, he knows it to be false. Letting a false statement stand without correction.. what do YOU call that? don’t lie.

argg that was weird how did my post show up twice like that. Obviously take the second one as I added the documentation for you all.

lucia,

No. I am presuming that since Steve never made the very strong accusation Gavin claimed he made, Gavin had no basis for that very strong accusation.

You give Gavin a scrap by finding 185, which is buried and which needs to be stretched dramatically to justify what Gavin claimed. Moreover, if Gavin was reading so carefully as to find those two words, and was going to post is rather dramatic inflation of it, he should have read the entire thread.

I have no idea whether he read 185, nor 254. I wouldn’t make a presumption either way. Why is his statement an “inflation ” of it anyway? Are you arguing that picking for a signal is worse than cherry picking? Huh?

and if he’s actually trying to discover what SteveM meant, Gavin should have been able to find the full paragraph of elaboration.

You seem to have missed my point. How do you know he didn’t write his RC post before he could have read that? He might have gone out for dinner that night, spent some time with his family, who knows? There had been two and a half days on CA with all the accusations against Briffa and no such clarification from SM yet you’re holding him accountable for not having picked that up before he posted? And if he had read it, do you honestly think he would then have deliberately lied, knowing that SM’s statement to the contrary was there for all to see afterwards? How stupid do you imagine him to be?

So, I don’t know how you can you think it plausible Gavin did not know amplified and distorted what SteveM said.

Well, I thought myself that was exactly what SM was implying, especially considering the stream of posts stating the same with no intervention from him. So, I find it highly plausible that Gavin thought as I did. You may differ!

Of course both of the latter may apply and Gavin may not have known what he said was false.

I don’t know how you can think it plausible that he did know it was false!

Now, with respect to Roger: Earlier, you went further than saying Roger made an unacceptable presumption. You said you guessed Roger was lieing.

If Roger sets the bar this low for accusing someone of lying then I’ll jump over it!

Why do you think Roger knew Gavin did not know that what Gavin said was untrue? How in the world would Roger assume that Gavin had misread so seriously and so thought he was telling the truth?

Because 1) I don’t think Gavin’s ‘misreading’ was ’so serious’ – it appeared to be everyone else’s reading too, including mine (until I read 254, when my reading became that SM thought they had cherry picked but not crudely!) and 2) to assume that he was knowingly saying something false which could be shown to be false by reference to 254 makes the subsidiary assumption that he is a massive idiot. Now Gavin may have his faults, but he is not lacking in savvy, I think.

Therefore I think it extraordinarily unlikely that Roger believed Gavin was knowingly saying something false (if I said he knew he wasn’t then that was sloppy – but I’d think it beyond reasonable doubt).

steven mosher (Comment#23456)

Steven,

Should he retract what he said about SteveMc?

I think I’ve already said so. However, I think it would be reasonable to comment upon the length of time that such a ‘misunderstanding’ was rife on SM’s blog and the consequent publication of the same ‘misunderstanding’ in various newspapers.

As for your further examples, I can only comment on what I’ve come across. I don’t doubt your frustration, though (and I’ll remind some readers that I was moved earlier today to apologise for calling Gavin a “wanker” ).

Lucia, sorry about the formatting in my last.

Jeff Id (Comment#23452)

I take it Simon is often wrong.

You think that’s a mature contribution to this discussion? Grow up.

After reading this thread I have to wonder if Gavin Schmidt actually does ANY work at the GISS…besides wasting US “stimulus” funds on Model E runs for the IPCC…

Nah…he’s too busy blogging.

Simon:

Are you arguing that picking for a signal is worse than cherry picking? Huh?

Of course it’s worse.

An example of (deliberate) cherry picking would picking your best data and using it to represent all of the runs.

Gavin is claiming that Steve McIntyre claimed that Briffa “picked for a signal”.

That would be not just cherry picking, that would be outright fraud.

Simon,

I think it nails it right on the head.

Often wrong = sophistry.

–I take it Simon is often wrong.

To quote a famous long gone sophist – Capice now?

Sorry Lucia and others, snip this if you want. I’m sick and to be honest, a little grumpy with people.

Simon Evans,

“Lucia,

I’m not defending Gavin here …”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CHOKE GASP!!!

Carrick,

I think I’ll give up. RP Jr is clearly a very lovely person for declaring that Gavin was lying, that is knowingly stating a falsehood, since it is totally right to presume that Gavin read post 254 before promulgating his deliberate lie. Gavin is clearly a very wicked liar for having understood what just about everyone else understood to have been the implication of SM’s post and his two and a half day failure to correct the explicit statements of that implication, during which time various newspapers were publishing accusations of fraud against Briffa in response to SM’s post. SM is unassailably correct in all of these matters, and the fact that he didn’t get around to clarifying what he thought, having first made clear that he thought it was “CRU cherrypicking”, before clarifying that he thought the opposite, until the night before Gavin posted, is just a matter of the great man having other great thoughts on his mind.

Glad that’s all cleared up then.

Propaganda rules.

Jeff Id (Comment#23462)

Have you just learnt the word sophistry, Jeff? You seem to be showing it off as if you’re rather proud of it. I think I probably knew it from the age of about 13, a time of immaturity which your posts are reminding me of.

If you want to cut out your puerile snipes I’ll stop responding on your level.

The whole idiotic argument is based on picking data which matches temperature. IT’S STANDARD IN THE FIELD!!

It’s done several ways.

Multivariate regression

Gavin doesn’t lie. He just doesn’t care when he gets the facts wrong when it comes to McIntyre.

The whole argument between blogs is idiotic in its inception. Steve says someone may have sorted data. BUT IT IS STANDARD PRACTICE IN THE FIELD. Entire papers are based on it.

What’s more — they absolutely did sort the data. Although I’ve got no idea what the criteria were. Two of probably 25 trees were used from JAH. YAD was similarly sorted for Yamal. This means that —- Steve was 100% correct, someone sorted the data. This came from the experience of knowing that nobody EVER walks into the field and cores TWO friggin’ trees.

The fact that this is obvious means that BRIFFA ALSO KNEW FULL well he was missing data in YAMAL. Does anyone imagine Briffa couldn’t figure that out???

Wow. BP is too high.

So we have people who sort data for a living and someone suggests that the data may have been sorted AND SUDDENLY IT’S A HUGE OFFENSE!!???? WTF people?? Think about it!! These people know damn well they shouldn’t sort data, yet that’s what they do for a living!!

Multivariate methods – Fit data to temp curves.

These methods de-weight non-temperature curves or flip them to match. EIV is a good example but there are also RLS and TRLS methods which do the same thing. Think of it as sophisticated analog rather than true false binary data sorting.

Mannian CPS

This method weights different series differently depending on variance. High variance surface tempearatures are required to make good unprecedented signals so HadCRUT is the preferred dataset. Analog data sorting.

Mannian CPS

Data is physically scrapped that doesn’t match high growth in recent years. Variance is amplified ala VonStorch. Binary data sorting.

Mannian PCA

Data is off center, shifting HS proxies to the first PC. Sorting again the rest of the data to the back. Analog data sorting with unusally lucky effect.

Yamal RCS

Non – homogenous data is used with a single RW correction curve. Yamal data which doesn’t fit the standard (non-homogenous) is amplified resulting in overweighting a few series and an enormous blade.

Analog data sorting.

——-

It’s ABSOLUTELY standard in the field, how scientists feign offense even if it were flatly stated that the data was sorted is beyond me.

That first comment was partially written and it posted for some reason.

Can you improve that first paragraph? And I suspect you mean “inline” rather than “line” comments.

And, readers, go ahead and try to vote. It says the poll ended but it’s not Sunday yet…and I think it accepted my vote.

As I said before, Gavin is projecting here.
How many times has he called others a liar?

As for cherry-picking, Gavin certainly went through and cherry-picked the quotes he wanted to achieve his desired result of making Steve look bad.

While it’s not an accusation of lying, just explaining Yamal as ‘Steve McIntyre added in data he found on the internet’ is pretty bad.

Simon,

Since you have such an adult attitude and an apparent genius level vocabulary. Perhaps you can respond to the obvious point that much of published paleoclimatology is open and intentional data sorting and therefore Steve’s comment about potential data sorting cannot in any form of reality be an insult.

Surprise me.

As usual, the comments seem to have deteriorated way beyond anything remotely connected with the original question (the poll).

However, my comment reverts to that poll – specifically, that there is nothing unusual, abnormal or strange about this kind of “food fight” between scientists. I base that statement on 40+ years of working with, for and around atmospheric scientists and astronomers. I long ago stopped finding it upsetting. Rather, I started finding it amusing when I realized that it was usually the result of one (or more) of the participants having never grown emotionally beyond the level of a three year-old spoiled brat whose ice cream cone had been eaten by the dog. That also sometimes applies to some of those who comment on blogs. YMMV

Simon:

I think I’ll give up. RP Jr is clearly a very lovely person for declaring that Gavin was lying, that is knowingly stating a falsehood, since it is totally right to presume that Gavin read post 254 before promulgating his deliberate lie

Right Simon, because it’s an either-or proposition right?

Well, not really.

Pielke shouldn’t have said that Gavin was lying—as I have already pointed out above—because that impugns motive where that isn’t known.

But cherry picking is also not the same thing as “picking for a signal”. The later smacks of fraud, the former just of error. So both Gavin and you are wrong on that.

Simon Evans (Comment#23459) November

“As for your further examples, I can only comment on what I’ve come across. I don’t doubt your frustration, though (and I’ll remind some readers that I was moved earlier today to apologise for calling Gavin a “wanker” ).
”

You will all note that Simon has just done the same kind of thing Gavin did by making this about my feelings and refusing to dig.( Rp jrs feeling being hurt). Do you all se this pattern?
I make factual claims. I back them up with posts that simon can read. I ask him a question. He avoids it all and comments on my feelings–Which he CANNOT observe. My post says NOTHING about my frustration. In fact, I’m not frustrated. I’m quite happy to expose Simon’s behavior. I want to know Simon,
Assuming the facts are as I have described them. Gavin said that Gisstemp could be emulated in 2 pages of Matlab. It was 10K lines of fortran. Download it if you doubt me. I wrote him a comment after the code came out and pointed out this error of his and he refused to correct it. Now,
answer me this. Answer this question. Don’t speculate about my feelings. answer this question. If gavin posts a reply that is factually incorrect and that is pointed out to him and he REFUSES to correct his error. what do you call that? a lie? he now knows what he said was wrong, but he refuses to correct or even acknowledge his error. Is this someone you would trust? it’s no longer simply an error or lack of judgement. he now knows, yet he lets his statement stand. what do YOU call that Simon? don’t evade. dont move on. dont make it about me. This is about your
perspective. answer.

lucia (Comment#23434)

Seems more like defamation might apply. I browsed through the case from your reference and came across a definition of defamation by the juxtaposition of true facts to create a false impression. Given that Roger has a professional reputation to protect, misrepresentation by deletion of key words or sentences would seem actionable.

Where is the poll where I can vote for Jeff Id and Steven Mosher?

Jim Owen –
I agree food fights between scientists aren’t unusual. The web does permit more people to witness it.

DonB– Hmmm… I may need a poll on “best climate blog commenter”!

Both Gavin and Roger (and especially Gavin) take themselves a bit too seriously.

With regard to food fights between “serious” researchers, this is in my experience (unfortunately) not at all uncommon. What is different with blogs is that the hostility and petty behaviors are on display, while normally most of this goes on out of public view. Researches trying to get other people demoted, disciplined or fired as a result of disagreement is for certain common. Purposely excluding people who disagree with you from attending meetings or from getting their work published is also apparently common.

That PhD researchers are (for the most part) smart and educated does not automatically mean their social maturity is any greater than that of most 13 year old girls; based on my experience with both groups, I’m not sure which group has on average more social maturity.

Brid (#23447)
Many thanks for the video of the iq2 debate. It was interesting to see Gavin in action. Based on his performance in the debate, I am not sure that Gavin is quite as facile in the wit department as he would like to be. The turnaround in voting on that evening has to be seen to be believed. One explanation for the dramatic change in voting from clearly against the motion that Global Warming is Not a Crisis is that the audience – like a jury – did not like Gavin’s demeanor. He was IMHO condescending, used silly metaphors and analogies, accused his opponents of essentially being liars or tools of special interests and dripped sarcasm – which we all know is the lowest form of wit. I have no doubt that SteveMc would be less inhibited than messrs Crichton, Lindzen and Stott.

Bernie–
I’m not going to listen to it again…

I actually think Gavin is very intelligent and witty. However, I think he probably took some very bad advice when preparing for the debate. (In my opinion, there is a lot of very, very bad advice on how to communicate circulating around activist circles.)

If I recall correctly, I thought Gavin contributed to his sides loss in the debate because he

a) told the audience flat out that if they wanted to read the science they could visit his blog
b) tried to ‘rebut’ the arguments from the other panel by labeling them as logical fallacies while providing no evidence they were logical fallacies.
c) decided to discuss conspiracy theories

The effect of a,b, and c was respectively to
a) insult the audience by ignoring that they might be busy and had budgeted their time hear the science now rather than to be told to surf the net randomly later. (He also gave the impression the science supporting “crisis” might not be that strong– otherwise, why not mention those points that support the diagnosis of “crisis” to the audience during the debate itself?)

b) give the impression that he didn’t listen to the other sides points and might be unable to craft specific counter arguments and

c) give the impression he thought the strongest argument supporting the notion that warming is a crisis was the existence of a “conspiracy” trying to prove the opposite. (Moreover, in this specific debate setting, Michael Crichton known to have made oodles of money from fiction and movies would strike any audience as an odd candidate for a “conspirator” motivated by money!)

None of Gavin’s debate choices were wise. Had he highlighted his strongest scientific arguments (possibly mentioning links to his blog for further detail), they might have won. Had he specifically countered even one argument on the other side (or explained how it is a fallacy), the crisis side might have won. But he didn’t do that.

Mosher asks:
“Do you all see this pattern?”
Yes, we do. And straying from factual discussion is EXACTLY what lucia is pointing at in Gavin’s poor debating performance.

“However, I think he probably took some very bad advice when preparing for the debate.”

The main mistake is agreeing to debate. All a skeptic has to do is say “CO2 rises after temperatures rises in the ice core record.” Now you have to discuss the difference between feedback and forcing, explain how ice ages work, explain how greenhouse gases work, possibly go over the evidence that the current CO2 rise is man made, and a few other points just to rebut one sentence. And even then, I’d say only a small percentage will “get it.”

Which is, of course, why deniers like Monckton always want to debate. It’s easy, especially when compared to science.

Anyone trying to make RC out as ‘nice guys pushed to the edge’ is simply rationalizing.

Boris–
Actually, a debate might have been a good idea. But the question was also bad. They could have debated whether recent warming was due to man’s activities and bound to increase. Instead, they debated “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”.

I think one of the debaters on Gavin’s side felt compelled to explain the definition of “crisis” to the audience. Here is the dictionary definition:

1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
2. a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.
3. a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person’s life.

If the audience could be prevailed to apply definition (1), which is merely a turning point which could be resolved for better or worse, that would help Gavin’s side. In this case, all Gavin’s side has to show is global warming would result in things changing (with, according to the definition, the possibility it could improve things!) All that Gavin’s side would have to show is that warming will change things. Well… it will!

On the other hand, if the audience, interpreted the question using definitions (2) which includes the notion of instability of danger, that was less favorable to Gavin’s side. They have to prove that there is danger, and that there would be decisive change.

I suspect in context of the debate, the audience thought only definition (2) made sense, and being given a little language person lecture about the definition may have either pissed them off or provoked eyerolls. It also probably made some think: “Oh. If this guy is wasting his allotted time explaining ‘crisis’ can have such a mild connotation, then he must think the case that global warming is a definition (2) type crisis is pretty weak.”

Once again: a bad decision.

lucia contemplates:
“I may need a poll on “best climate blog commenter”!”
.
Will quatloos be awarded accordingly?
And … can we vote on “worst” as well? And take away quatloos?

Lucia:
I also believe that Gavin is a very smart guy.
We are in agreement as to what Gavin did that led to the audience’s reaction. However, the pattern of Gavin’s behavior in the debate is in my mind too consistent with his comments at RC and his responses to Roger and others who disagree with him. I am, therefore, less inclined to believe that the response was to Gavin’s choice of debating tactics and more to who he is as defined by the actual behavior you eloquently summarized.

The debate was interesting because the proposition was in my opinion correctly framed: Is global warming a crisis or not? It has to be a crisis to justify the draconian solutions and the price Hansen et al seem to champion. That sets the bar at a high level and the observational data presented by Gavin et al clearly did not persuade the audience.

And … can we vote on “worst” as well? And take away quatloos?

TCO vanished. If we can’t put him in the running, the race could be tight!

Bernie

he debate was interesting because the proposition was in my opinion correctly framed: Is global warming a crisis or not? It has to be a crisis to justify the draconian solutions and the price Hansen et al seem to champion. That sets the bar at a high level and the observational data presented by Gavin et al clearly did not persuade the audience.

I agree that’s an important question. However, I think it would have been in the interest of the “it is a crisis” side to debate the question they usually want to debate which is: Does the preponderance of the evidence point to recent warming being caused by man?

Then, they would have a good chance of pointing to a victory. In contrast, they agreed to a question including the word ‘crisis’. Whether they like it or not, the mostly educated english speaking audience was going to interpret the word “crisis” for themselves — not go with the mr. language person definition the activist side tried to feed them. This meant to win the audience vote, the activist side was forced to advance and support what amounts to an alarmist position. They didn’t step up to that. They lost.

Since the precise topic in any specific debate is often obscured as the story is related in the news on blogs etc, the activists loss was and is often interpreted as just “skeptics beat activist on global warming” rather than “skeptics beat activists when debating the more alarmist interpretation of global warming”.

Jeff Id (Comment#23475)
Simon,
…Perhaps you can respond to the obvious point that much of published paleoclimatology is open and intentional data sorting and therefore Steve’s comment about potential data sorting cannot in any form of reality be an insult….

If I want to tell what the temperature is I’d do well to choose a thermometer rather than a barometer. Steve’s comment was about “cherrypicking”. Are you suggesting that he is making no particular criticism of Briffa, but rather that his reservations are general concerns regarding palaeoclimatological methods? If so, can you account for the following comment:

If you can get a single dendrochronologist to support Briffa’s use of 10 trees in 1990, I’ll be flabbergasted. They will be astonished and appalled at the procedure. The young dendros will be wincing and some of them will probably be bit shell-shocked at this news. It’s very embarrassing for the field. I don’t expect any of them to announce their disappointment (we’ve encountered the silence of the lambs phenomenon before), but make no mistake: no young dendro will stand up for what Briffa did here. (post 220)

SM’s statement was of “CRU cherrypicking”, the outcome of which was the use of the chronology which he criticises above. It has become clear that Briffa did not pick these trees. If you wish to criticise his choice of this chronology – perhaps you consider it inadequate – that is another matter. I understand the charge of cherry picking to be that of picking for results (that is, picking for a signal that suits a preconceived hypothesis rather than picking for a clear signal of any kind). Perhaps your understanding of the term is different.

steven mosher (Comment#23480)

I want to know Simon,

Assuming the facts are as I have described them.

I will. However, I am not qualified to judge whether or not “The GISTEMP analysis is orders of magnitude less complex and could be emulated satisfactorily in a couple of pages of MatLab.” (Gavin’s words, which you are referring to).

Gavin said that Gisstemp could be emulated in 2 pages of Matlab. It was 10K lines of fortran. Download it if you doubt me. I wrote him a comment after the code came out and pointed out this error of his and he refused to correct it. Now, answer me this. Answer this question. Don’t speculate about my feelings. answer this question. If gavin posts a reply that is factually incorrect and that is pointed out to him and he REFUSES to correct his error. what do you call that? a lie? he now knows what he said was wrong, but he refuses to correct or even acknowledge his error.

I’d call that a lack of integrity and a sorry neglect of intellectual honesty. Did he restate that it could be satisfactorily emulated in a couple of pages of MatLab? If so, then he should either show his workings or else that would be a lie if he knows it’s not true.

Is this someone you would trust?

No (presuming your assumption). There are other players in this game that I don’t trust for the same reason – refusal to acknowledge or correct false or misleading statements.

it’s no longer simply an error or lack of judgement. he now knows, yet he lets his statement stand. what do YOU call that Simon?

This seems like a repetition, so I think I’ve already answered.

don’t evade. dont move on. dont make it about me. This is about your perspective. answer.

Please get back to me if you think I have done any of those things.

Re: TCO being off-the-scale bad:
May I suggest a log transformation? That will keep the TCOs from falling off the bottom end of the chart and will also give us some separation between the Steven Moshers and Jeff Ids.

Boris (Comment#23496) November 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Agreed the mistake is in agreeing to debate. Why in god’s name would you agree to debate with people who argue facts by saying they are sorry for hurting your feelings? Why would you debate with people who refuse to acknowledge that they got Tiljander upside down. Why would you debate with people who can’t even admit they misestimated the complexity of Gisstemp? Why would you debate with people who won’t even say your name? Why would you debate with people who won’t admit even the most minor mistake?

hehe.

Lucia:
I agree, but without the alarmism there would be little need for a debate. It is the alarmism that has provoked me and I would guess many others.

steve mosher–
The answer to all your questions is: If you get those people to debate, you are likely to clean their clocks.

All the actions you describe are generally embraced by those who either a) have the weaker position, b) can’t think on their feet or c) both.

Bernie–
The insertion of the word “crisis” was probably necessary to draw an audience. Nevertheless, since fleeing debates is seens as a negative, the activist side might want to sit down and craft debate questions that sound interesting and for which a “activist won” falls more inline with the consensus position rather than the alarmist position.

When the only way to win is to advance arguments to support alarming notions that are not the consensus, the activists have a very strong risk of losing. Granted, if they behave as stupidly as they did in that youtube debate, they might even lose on a more moderate question. But, there really is no point in setting the bar so high for themselves.

Simon.

“I’d call that a lack of integrity and a sorry neglect of intellectual honesty. ”

That’s fair, thank you.
I’m sorry I pounding my fist a bit. I’m seriously thankful because I was struggling with what to call it. Frankly, I don’t mind when people lie. That sounds strange but really you can’t lie and survive on the blogs. I mean outright lie. Lie so that people can really know you are telling lies. But it’s the lack of integrity that is so hard to pin down. After Hansen released the code, after months of fighting and bitter words
( plenty on my part, rest assured) I suggested that everyone on our side show some class and thank, sincerely thank, Hansen on RC. Those thank you notes…blocked. I can handle a liar, but people who lack integrity are much more pernicious. Liars are easy to calibrate. Don’t believe a bleeping word they say. Those who lack integrity are a much more diabolical lot.

Again, thanks for your straightforward answer.

lucia (Comment#23509) November 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am

If there is a fair and impartial judge, sure. But I’m not talking about formal debate. Now you know what its like when you get into it with Andrew KY and he refuses to acknowledge that you scored a point. Or arthur smith or nick stokes ( sorry guys). On one hand you are having this debate with people who seem rational and civil and you score a fair point and they just refuse to acknowledge it. Especially when they have an engineering background and work in areas where we routinely say “I was wrong, that won’t work.”

lucia (Comment#23509) November 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am

And yes, you are likely to clean their clock. Where’s the fun in that? Seriously, folks would you rather beat Gavin in a debate or Lucia? That’s the real poll question.

steven–
I don’t have a broad enough background to be a good debater in climate change. I can discuss a very few focused issues.

Anyone who selectively edits a post they are replying to is being knowingly deceitful in the way they represent that exchange to others. It is well documented that Gavin and others at RC have done this on multiple occasions. I don’t trust them whatsoever.

Brid (#23447),

Another thanks for the video link.

Gavin should consider the old Jon Stuart line:

“George Bush speaks English as if it were his second language, but Al Gore speaks English as if it were OUR second language.”

If Gavin could stop showing by word, deed, and attitude that he thinks climate science is both infallible and beyond the capacity of anyone outside the “AGW science consensus” to understand, then he would be a more effective spokesman for AGW. He talked down to the audience as if they were a bunch of six year olds…. just like Al Gore does in every public pronouncement. A clear admission by Gavin that there are substantial uncertainties in climate science and, in particular, very large uncertainties in the predictions of GCM’s, would improve people’s perceptions of him.

The turn-around in the audience vote was terrible news for the AGW side: it suggests that they will lose any reasoned public debate if one is actually allowed to take place.

I found the most damaging issue the complete unwillingness of the AGW group to admit that AGW is just one among many problems that are of legitimate public concern. AGW needs to be included on a prioritized list, not treated as so important as to be immune to prioritization. They will always lose any debate when they will not admit that AGW may not be the most import problem the world faces.

But Lucia, they are, in Thomas Sowell’s telling phrase, the “anointed.” It will not matter how the proposition is worded. They see their cause as righteous – and, therefore, they cannot be wrong, they cannot be beaten. Those who do not agree are clearly benighted or “evil.” Hence the amazing hubris with which they responded to Crichton, Lindzen and Stott. Gavin’s caricaturing of the opposing arguments is a reflection of his failure to acknowledge the valid motives of the opposition and the fact that, like Roger and Steve – he who cannot be named -McIntyre, their positions may actually has some legitimacy. This approach to debating is straight out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and is, of course, antithetical to scientific and civil discourse.

Boris:

The main mistake is agreeing to debate

Actually this is a major public relations blunder.

Your real problem is your case is much weaker than you are claiming (to the point where you have to ignore the science by calling it’s results “too conservative” to get to some of the more outlandish alarmist claims), and when you are forced into a dialog about the basis for your statements of fact, they are shown to be completely wanting.

Bernie–
I’m not familiar with actual named debating methods. Does Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals ever work in a face to face debate structure? In front of a live audience? Because when I watched that debate, I just rolled my eyes and wondered how in the world the activist side imagined they could possibly win with two out of three debaters wasting so much of their time a) not supporting their case and b) insulting the audience.

I also read Gavin’s self assessment. He soooo mis-identified what went wrong. The problem was not the scintillating entertaining personalities of Chrichton, Stott and Lindzen. It was really bad debating tactics on his side of the table.

Carrick #23427:

Yes I agree with your point.

It would have been better to characterized it as “inaccurate” I suppose, since calling it a lie impugns motive (you have to say something with intent to deceive for it to be a lie). Especially in a case like this where misunderstanding of Steve’s point was certainly possible.

Well sure if your intend to be exact and perfectly correct, but in that case it would be very difficult to say “lie”. However, if the intent is to imply motive or at least suspicion of motive, then using lie seems to me acceptable. Given Roger’s previous criticisms of RC, the idea that his intent was calling motive into question fits IMO. On top of that the question of motive does seem to have at least some merit to it.

With that, I find Roger’s actions perplexing. He says he wants to see more meaningful and cooperative exchanges – his offer to collaborate with Gavin (where the whole lying discussion stemmed from). But Roger has poisoned that well as Gavin’s response shows. I find it difficult to believe that Roger actually expected Gavin to accept his offer. Perhaps Roger had some hope that he might accept or maybe he is just nave, I don’t know, but it is easy to take Roger’s offer in a cynical vein.

Lucia:
Is Alinsky’s approach in an open debate format effective where the audience is well informed and somewhat impartial is an excellent question. My guess is that like many debating and sales techniques, e.g., the presumptive close, once you recognize what is happening it is not only ineffective but counter-productive. Similarly, when you point out, as Gavin did, various debating tricks that the other side may be using, you had best make sure that you are not engaging in the same or even more outrageous tricks or fallacious arguments.

Can you provide a link to Gavin’s post mortem?

Bernie–
Here is the announcment:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ng-debate/

Here is Gavin thanking people for suggestions and giving people a post mortem:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....east-side/

Gavin’s view:

Our side played it it pretty straight – the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how ’scientized’ political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word ’scientized’!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel).

What Gavin descibes as “how ’scientized’ political debates abuse science, I describe as “throw out a conspiracy theory”, “baldly accuse all counter arguments of being logical fallacies without explaining how or why the arguments relied on any logical fallacies” and “advance no positive argument of your own.”

I think his summary of the arguments on the “no crisis” side of the table illustrates that he simply doesn’t listen to or grasp the gist of the counter argument. (The alternative is he does listen and grasp, but in that case, his mischaracterization involves the word “lie”.)

I also like this

The organisers asked us afterwards whether we’d have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no.

Well, I’d have adviced him to not waste time with the conspiracy theory, and, if he thinks one of the arguments advanced by the other side of the table, present the counter argument. Don’t just label it!

Anyway, you can read Gavin’s whole post mortem and form your own opinion.

“I also read Gavin’s self assessment. He soooo mis-identified what went wrong.”

He “soooo mis-identifies” a lot of things, including the wide uncertainty in GCM projections and the legitimacy of data and analyses which call GCM projections of extreme future warming into question. His loses the debate for the same reason that zealots usually lose debates: people just don’t trust him or his analysis, and with good reason.

Lucia:
Many thanks for letting this thread go so long. Gavin should be better prepared for his next debate!

“The organisers asked us afterwards whether we’d have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no.”

Puh-leeze.

Bernie suggests:
“Gavin should be better prepared for his next debate!”
How could you conclude this, given he “mostly” wouldn’t change a thing?

steven mosher (Comment#23511)

Steven,

Thanks. Incidentally, I understand that when I used the word ‘frustrated’ you thought I was referring to feelings – it’s a common sense of the word. However, I had in mind a description of events, as in “I was frustrated in my efforts to access the data”.

I’m disheartened by all the accusations, attitudes and personal point-scoring. It tells us about the people involved, but tells us nothing in itself about the climate. Still, I guess one goes on looking for some signal out of all this noise .

bender:
My tongue was in my cheek wrt the likelihood of Gavin changing his behavior. On the other hand, Lucia’s advice will help IF followed.

“I guess one goes on looking for some signal out of all this noise”
.
I’m still waiting for some signal from you on questions that were asked on the cherry picking thread. Until then … your noise serves what purpose, exactly?

This has been interesting, Lucia. You may think I am going far afield…

Many people believe the recent and ongoing financial and economic crisis was mostly fathered by a belief in the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), which has been discredited. That is, EMH influenced horrific risk models to be created, and persuaded regulators that no asset or credit bubbles could possibly be created, since rational, well informed investors, acting in their self interest would not allow that, hence no regulation was necessary. Boston money manager Jeremy Grantham, writing in the introduction to Andrew Smither’s new “Wall Street Revalued,” has wonderfully illuminated the 30 year period when EMH was the dominant economic theory, and any academic wishing tenure would not rock the boat by even attempting publication in the main journals where gatekeepers banned heretics. In another venue he has talked of EMH supporters jumping through intellectual hoops, trying to make the data fit a theory.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar with respect to climate science?

There were no blogs that I am aware of in the glory days of EMH, and perhaps these blog food fights will accelerate the process of advancing science.

I posit that Gavin, Michael Mann, etc. (add in the rest of the RC team here) have repeatedly engaged in dishonest behavior. I’ve also said I don’t trust them. For those reading this who do, I’d like to hear you explanation of why you do?

Thanks!

Simon Evans, yes cherry-picking accusation is used in multiple ways, some by Steve and some not.

You can cherry-pick trees that produce a hockey stick when producing your chronology.

You can cherry-pick which chronologies you will use to make a temperature reconstruction. So Yamal instead of Polar Urals.

You can have an algorithm that cherry picks the proxies that match the recent temperature record.

bender (Comment#23533)

I’m still waiting for some signal from you on questions that were asked on the cherry picking thread.

I have now answered your question there, which I hadn’t seen before (I don’t check every old thread, so if your post was not in the ‘Recent comments’ list when I visited the blog then I won’t have seen it).

MikeN (Comment#23551)

Your description sounds to me like picking of all kinds rather than cherry picking. My understanding is the same as here:

“Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Simon Evans:
Great. Thank you. So if David Deming did not lie, then do you think he did not tell the whole truth? I mean, what is it exactly you doubt about the suggestion that there was a suggestion that the MWP should be disappeared?
.
I know that conspiracies are impossible to prove and so are usually hardly worth discussing. But in this case we have hard evidence of a possible conspiracy to adjust the scientific record. And though an alleged email doesn’t prove anything, it certainly provokes the imagination.
.
I’ll drop it in a heartbeat if you can show me (1) any statement by Jonathon Overpeck that neither he nor any of his associates have ever made such a statement, or (2) any statement by Deming repealing his allegation.

Don B (Comment#23535),

An interesting point.

Markets are never completely efficient (how can they be, human emotions are involved!), so there will always be distortions/deviations from what efficient market theory predicts.

But I think it is important to note that the recent financial melt-down was primarily caused by a lack of accurate data that the credit markets could use to efficiently evaluate new “credit products”. The “toxic” credit products were difficult for most people (even most experienced professional investors) to accurately evaluate for risk, and those creating/packaging these toxic credit products had every motivation (that is, personal gain) to keep the true risk level obscured from critical analysis.

So this is in fact very much a parallel with the current state of climate science. I note that climate scientists are unwilling to disclose the most basic data and analysis methods, thus making it difficult/impossible to challenge, avoid discussions of any analysis which conflicts with their own, and work to discredit by any means available all data which could call into question the validity of extreme projections.

In short, many well known climate scientists choose to obscure rather than disclose, to confuse rather than clarify, and to discredit rather than discuss. They are attempting to make sure the “market” of public opinion does not have adequate information to evaluate the quality of their “product”. If people buy their “product”, it will not be a failure of the market of ideas to efficiently evaluate information, it will be the result of an effort by a few to mislead the market with erroneous information.

SteveF (23561)

I do not disagree with you. My thinking was more on the herding which accompanied EMH, and herding in AGW, which drives conformity as people worry about career risk. And then there are the gatekeepers which prevent dissenting opinion, as seen in today’s article about AGU’s cancellation of a presentation.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2.....again.html

bender (Comment#23559) November 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am

Simon Evans:
Great. Thank you. So if David Deming did not lie, then do you think he did not tell the whole truth? I mean, what is it exactly you doubt about the suggestion that there was a suggestion that the MWP should be disappeared?

Well, what would be the whole truth? The whole of the email? The context of it being sent? Who sent it? What “we” means?

I asked if there was evidence of the email, you’ve pointed me to Denning’s testimony, for which thanks. I don’t know how much to make of his testimony without knowing more about it, as indicated. I certainly don’t think it’s grounds to impugn the motives of anyone other than whomever was the author of the email referred to.

In any investigation of such a matter the questions I’ve asked above would be pursued along with others. Without satisfactory further knowledge the testimony would class as hearsay (regardless of any judgement as to its truth or not), which, as you’ll well know, would not generally be admissible.

So, it seems to me a very thin basis to build a conspiracy theory upon, but YMMV.

Simon:
A printout of an email is “hearsay”? I don’t think so.

bender,

What printout? Did I miss something?

Btw, bender, did you notice that Deming gave two different versions of supposed quotations from the email he refers to in his testimony? Viz.:

“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

and:

It had to be “gotten rid of.”

How reliable do you think the testimony of a witness is who supposedly ‘quotes’ in such a conflicting manner? They can’t both be accurate!

Not to mention the rest of his unsubstantiated assertions. I found this particularly amusing:

the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

Give me a break!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....3a85e8a07e

Simon –
Given that the folks at RC have been shown to delete and edit posts that they reply to – why do you put any trust in what they say?

Btw, bender, did you notice that Deming gave two different versions of supposed quotations from the email he refers to in his testimony? Viz

One thing that the police and others look for in detecting prevarication is an excessive consistency. The liar has concocted and memorized his story. If asked repeatedly, he will reply with the same answer verbatim. The truth teller’s story will vary. The liar does not want to be caught in a contradiction. The truth teller is using his imperfect memory to recall incidents that may be long in the past. Details will vary.

Similarly poor liars will reply slowly and with a fixed stare. They think that making eye contact increases their credibility. It does not. So lots of things that people think indicate lying do not.

Simon, I’d seen that reported and thought nothing of it. You think otherwise?

Lucia,

You wrote: “I don’t think Roger’s criticism rise to calling Gavin a liar or a thief.”

He did accuse Gavin of stealing anhd plagiarism, which is the academic analogue to being a liar or a thief. The impression Roger left was not very far off from how Gavin interprets it in his in-line reply if you ask me.

Bart– I realize Gavin may well ramp-up criticisms in his mind. Evidently, you ramp them up also. If Gavin’s gripe is Roger called him “X” he should say Roger accused me of “X” not “y”. Like it or not, plariarist does not mean thief.

bender (Comment#23587)

Bender, I don’t make much of it, but it suggests the possibility that he’s ‘quoting from memory’ or possibly summing up his impression. Without the email correspondence itself one can’t know.

TerryMN (Comment#23581)
Simon –
Given that the folks at RC have been shown to delete and edit posts that they reply to – why do you put any trust in what they say?

I think I’ve said enough times on threads here that I don’t like their mod policy. I’ll put any trust in what they say by the same standards as I’ll put any trust in what Steve McIntyre says, for example – a robust, evidenced case should be respected whoever makes it. As for attitudes, snark, questioning of motives, manipulation of agendas – I don’t think much of that stufff, wherever it shows up (including in any posts of mine!). I don’t think we should simply decide who to trust in all of this, since the person whose judgement you trust might turn out to be wrong. One thing seems clear to me – AGW analysis won’t turn out to be wrong because of RC’s approach to discussion threads.

Are those semantic games you’re playing?

Bart
You’re asking if I’m playing the semantics game?!

Simon – thanks. From my perspective, trust becomes an issue when people don’t show their work. I don’t need to trust Steve Mc’s analysis, because his work (data and code) are right there to check, run, and refute. The code is either correct or not – same with Jeff Id, Hu, Ryan, and Lucia (on the math-heavy posts). Same thing could be said for Tamino on some posts (until someone checks his work, finds a problem, and he goes into a snit and bans them .

This practice is never followed at RC (ie here’s the data, here’s the code, here’s the conclusion) – you only get “we did a study, here’s the conclusion, trust us, we’re scientists.” When that’s the case, I need to use other behaviors exhibited in order to decide whether or not the “trust us” has value. Beyond the moderating practices, the situations around the Harry station, Steig corrigendum, upside down Tiljander, etc all require the reader to believe a fantastic set of circumstances in order to believe that they were not behaving dishonestly. JMO, YMMV – cheers.

Simon Evans, all of the examples I gave are of cherry-picking.

Simon asks:
“How reliable do you think the testimony of a witness is who supposedly ‘quotes’ in such a conflicting manner? They can’t both be accurate!”

I was assuming one was more or less a quote and that the other was more or less a paraphrase. In which case they, as approximations, could both be accurate enough to be considered reliable. But you’re right: full disclosure would be better.

TerryMN (Comment#23609) November 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am

I tend to associate myself with your remarks. The arguments about who is lying and who is telling the truth, lies of ommission and commission, lack of integrity, hyperbole etc etc all of these discussions about who to trust, who not to. These all fade into the background when you focus on the simple factual questions.
Questions a non scientist can answer.

1. Is the data AS USED available to me.
2. Is the code AS USED available to me.

If not, then END OF DISCUSSION. As a reader I have a rational obligation to suspend judgement. Hadley says it’s warming.
I asked for the data. they said no. I asked for the code. they said no. In my world I have every right to say “I don’t know if its warming or cooling, because hadley hasnt met the very basic requirements of a GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE DISPLAY. Period.
end of discussion. There is no issue of trust. there is no issue of instrument calibration. there is no statistical issue. there is no issue of bias. there is no personality. there is no appeal to other evidence. They fail. I don’t even have to read the papers. don’t have to read the CVs. None of that. F. next.

It seems the mathematical physicists can pull the table cloth out from the food fighters.

Demetris Koutsoyiannis in a billiant paper has brought science back to the table.

A random walk on water

According to the traditional notion of randomness and uncertainty, natural phenomena are separated into two mutually exclusive components, random (or stochastic) and deterministic. Within this dichotomous logic, the deterministic part supposedly
represents cause-effect relationships and, thus, is physics and science (the “good”), whereas randomness has little relationship with science and no relationship with understanding (the “evil”). We argue that such views should be reconsidered by admitting that uncertainty is an intrinsic property of nature, that causality implies dependence of natural processes in time, thus suggesting predictability, but even the tiniest uncertainty (e.g., in initial conditions) may result in unpredictability after a certain time horizon. On these premises it is possible to shape a consistent stochastic representation of natural processes, in which predictability (suggested by deterministic laws) and unpredictability (randomness) coexist and are not separable or additive components. Deciding which of the two dominates is simply a matter of specifying the 15 time horizon of the prediction. Long horizons of prediction are inevitably associated
with high uncertainty, whose quantification relies on understanding the long-term stochastic properties of the processes

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-s.....-2009.html

maksimovich (Comment#23633),

That is great paper, and a worthwhile read.

Often wrong,

understand the charge of cherry picking to be that of picking for results (that is, picking for a signal that suits a preconceived hypothesis rather than picking for a clear signal of any kind). Perhaps your understanding of the term is different.

That is exactly what climatology does. Your comment about thermometers vs barometers is a perfect example. If you understand sorting by correlation yet can’t see the problems with sorting by correlation you are in denial and will be impossible to convince.

I said surprise me, why is this not a surprise?

Jeff Id (Comment#23689) November 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Often wrong,

Grow up. Jeff. When you’ve chosen to stop behaving like a child then I’ll respond to any points you have to make. Until then, enjoy your playground.

Simon, you are not an honest debater. Couch it how you like but I see through you like a window. No substance.

I like the idea of isomorphism between the recent financial crisis and the climate “science” where the main engine for action is provided by incomplete , hidden and partly or totally wrong information .
.
Recently I heard a brilliant physicist who will stay unnamed to say that he considered that the best way out of the tangled and heavily loaded climate debate is to surrender .
As his scientific opinion is more along the sceptical line (e.g there is room for some CO2 influence but it is negligible , the scientific findings are confused and we have much more serious things to worry about) , by “surrendering” he meant for the sceptics to give in .
Actually he recommended to give overwhelming support for the “precaution principle” in all its interpretations .
.
So for instance don’t cut CO2 by 50% , cut it by 80 % .
Not in 50 years as it would be too late but in 30 .
Don’t say that it is the priority for mankind but vote and enforce strict laws that achieve these targets .
If it is necessary to restrain personal liberties and ban products which contribute to CO2 emission then restrain and ban .
Vote budgets that will increase solar , wind , nuclear and geothermal power generation in the same tempo as you will ban and close coal , gas and oil plants .
Restrain and limit plane and car travels with the ultimate target that they will only be allowed with special permission for all CO2 emitting transport means .
If there are countries who don’t decrease CO2 emission then ban their products or tax them in a dissuasive way .
.
Now let’s hope that one (or several) country will elect or appoint for the less democratic systems a government which will do exactly all of the above VERY soon .
Like in science , when a theoretical debate can’t be decisively closed , there is nothing better than an experience .
The best proof that the Marxism is an inhuman and economy destroying theory was not given in the thousands of books opposing it but by the people themselves when they put their marxist leaders on trial or simply shot them .
The experience decisively and conclusively falsified the theory .
Unfortunately millions paid for the experience but it couldn’t be avoided .
We would then only need to observe our hypothetical country putting in application all political and environmental targets as described by their supporters today .
If within 5 – 10 years people demand the interdiction of any green party and put their environmentalist leaders on trial (hopefully don’t shoot them) then the experience will give a conclusive result .

Jeff Id (Comment#23699)

You just get funnier, Jeff! Now you appeal to standards of honest debate in yet another post where you resort to silly insults! Are you a self-satirist?

Cut out the stream of ad homs which you have adopted since I questioned, on another thread, something you’d written. You can react to being questioned without behaving in this way, Jeff.

Incidentally, here’s another example of something you shouldn’t do if you want to be considered an honest debater -

If you understand sorting by correlation yet can’t see the problems with sorting by correlation you are in denial…

Spot the straw man there, Jeff? Where have I ever said that I can’t see such problems, hmm?

If you want to engage in honest debate then you’ll need to cut out attributing views and attitudes to other people which they do not hold and learn to play the ball not the man. When you’ve got the hang of it I’ll be happy to engage in any debate that you want.