I comments on More Artful Graphs from Monckton PaulM suggests I should email Monckton to discover the basis for the lavender lines Monckton tells readers convey the IPCC’s current projection for warming from 1980-now. My reading of the document indicates the IPCC ‘projection/hindcast’ for the period shown is better represented by the dark blue line.
I have criticized Monckton’s representations of the IPCC projections before. If he keeps posting these mystery graphs with little explanation for the provenances lavender lines, I will likely criticize him again. PaulM and I are likely to disagree about my duties vis-a-vis asking Monckton each time
So… I think a poll is in order.
The Poll
What about after the poll
If you vote for me to email Monckton, I’ll do so. If you want me to post his reply verbatim, I will warn him. However, I will only post his reply verbatim if he give me permission. (I will inform on whether or not permission is granted. Oh… and I guess this goes without saying, I’ll expurgate anything that really truly might need to be expurgated. But, I doubt there would be any need.)
The poll closes Valentines day. We expect that to be a cold day in Chicago. I shiver in anticipation!
FYI: The poll reads, “Poll Ended. Click to view results.”
Bruce
Exit poll ;>)
Your vote makes a difference… mine lifted the No Hoot from 50% to 67%. … LoL
Thanks BDAABAT. I figured out the problem. It was what my my brother in law calls the I D 10 T problem on my part. (But, I’ll just claim cut and paste error.)
My vote was unique! 🙂 (And it wasn’t the no.)
I’ve emailed Monckton in the past and received a reply, so go ahead and give it a try!
Chris–
I’m sure he’ll answer if I email. The question is: What will the answer be? And will he want it posted?
If you knew what the answer was going to be, you wouldn’t need to email 🙂
The one thing I would like to see is some civil discourse in these discussions. The Team and Hansen don’t seem to believe in it (at least with non-fraternity memebers). Sometimes people think everyone knows the background of a given discussion and forget to provide context, or they think it’s irrelevant. Simple courtesy to ask before criticizing. I hope you get a civil and informative response.
BarryW (Comment#10294)
The one thing I would like to see is some civil discourse in these discussions
That’s admirable!
The Team….
Hang on – is that civil? No, I don’t think so!
Lucia:
My wife owns some land on a high hill in the Philippines – the municipal cock-pit is located at the bottom of that hill. Since Lord Monckton and George Monbiot can be described as birds of a feather (although I must admit I find Monckton’s plumage more appealing), what if I offer them both hospitality in a tropical locale? Might we not just kill two birds with one stone, as it were? We might even recover our expenses by televising the whole thing live from the P.I….. a 21st century Thrilla in Manila… well from an outlying province, actually…. but why let facts get in the way of a great story line?
Simon Evans,
Good call! The chap who dared to introduce the term should be vilified by all right-thinking civil discoursers!
Have at it lad.
Simon Evans (Comment#10296)
And what was not civil about the comment? The Team nickname has been around for awhile. If you find that offensive I’m sorry, it was referential not pejorative. As for the fraternity comment, that is basically what they have said by looking down on those not of their professional circle and calling them amateurs and jesters. And I was not speaking to them, but about them and their level of discourse which I do find uncivil.
BarryW (Comment#10301)
Barry, I had always perceived the ‘Team’ reference as being pejorative, but I see now that Earle Williams has pointed me to the source of the reference and I feel I should now retire for several months at least in order to catch up on past episodes 😉
I dunno – perhaps coming rather late to the soap opera I have perceived it to be a sneer, suggestive of a lack of integrity, shall we say…..
Incidentally, I agree that responses at RC/Open Mind are often uncivil, if that’s what you mean. Mind you, I can’t help thinking that some agents are engaging in cynical misrepresentation, so I’m inclined to have some understanding of incivility in response to it. The whole debate has become very mucky and, as someone said “It’s not good for Earth Sciences”.
Simon–
I knew Mann was the originator, but I think at this point, “the team” is sort of intended as a sneer.
Mann is really bad at coining terms, really bad. I don’t know if he realized that the term “hockey team” might make people imagine this:
Are you guys seeing Sarah Palin ads? The self proclaimed hockey mom? Let’s face it, hockey has a certain image.
I came into the climate debate in 2003 without living through the long history. The Hanson brothers are more familiar to Canadians by osmosis than Hansen and oddly enough, while I was much amused by the idea of facing a “Hockey Team” when Mann first introduced the term (e.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=276 as my first notice), I’m embarrassed to say that I was unaware of Hansen’s connection to the Team at the time. My first discussion of Hansen wasn’t until much later http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=833 (although others mentioned him from time to time at CA before then). Otherwise I would surely have had some fun with the idea of Hansen and the Team.
The irony of missing this connection becomes even sharper because Hansen’s Bulldogs (Tamino, and, in matters Hansen, his original bulldog, Gavin, who is especially alert for perceived slights against Hansen, the defence of which made up a noticeable portion of RC posts in the first two years) are a sort of internet avatar of the Hanson Brothers line.
I’ve mostly used the term Team to denote the spaghetti graph collective. Perhaps the term has become more pejorative over time, but originally, as set out in Mann’s original presentation, it was intended by then to convey the pointlessness of contesting any of their findings. Re-reading the Mother Jones article, I am annoyed once more by the peculiar logic. Mann argues that criticisms of his article are “wrong” because other articles “get” the same result. Our own findings have always been very specific. Each article has to stand on its own merits. WE didn’t argue that methodological problems (be they PCs or bristlecones or verification stats) in MBH meant that Jones et al 1998, for example, had the same problems. But likewise just because Jones et al 1998 may have got a similar answer didn’t mean that the MBH methodological errors were not real.
I think that the term Team caught on, precisely because the “Team” chose to argue on the basis of authority and, to this day, have never squarely dealt with criticism, but, have instead, always substituted paraphrased caricatures.
Lucia, Simon
The “team” reference has been used in both senses much the way the computer term “hacker” has. Hacker once referred to someone who could quickly write chucks of code to get tasks done. It’s now become pejorative as to someone breaking into computers (cracking) because of the ignorance of those outside of computing, but we’re stuck with it. I’m just stubborn enough to continue to use it the original way.
Having brought up the movie Slap Shot
Slap Shot…. we all know the only way to properly end a hockey brawl. The only team member with any finesse need to take it all off:
Ok…now I’m going to have to rent the movie again.
You’re not going to get a straight answer from Monckton anyway, so emailing is pretty pointless.
Boris, don’t be so negative. If Monckton’s response doesn’t make sense, I’m sure Lucia will point that out to him.
Boris–
It’s not necessarily pointless. The current voting seems to indicate I will end up emailing and posting. If so, we will all get to read the answer (or discover none was forthcoming). Each reader can decide if the answer they think the answer is straight.
I cannot imagine that you would not ask that question. You have an alternate result. Monckton asserts that the lavender bars represent the IPCC projections. An assertion is an offer to provide evidence or proof. He made the offer, take him up on it.
Personally, I think Monkton deserves the presumption of innocence. I expect a reasonable accounting. Taking a vote on whether to ask the question is somewhat pejorative. Really, it’s not like you are asking a member of the team to explain something.
The IPCC projections for 2100 are something like 1.1 C to 6.4 C with 3.4 C considered the most likely. (Was it 1.4 to 6.4 for SRES A1?)
3.4 C per century is 0.34 C/decade, which I note he even has marked on the graph. I think that’s it.
Why a poll? As the Nike ads say, just do it. Regarding Boris’ comment, what else would you expect:
A man of words and not of deeds,
Is like a garden full of weeds,
And when the weeds begin to grow …
Pluck them out or wait for snow.
Darwin–
The poll is to see what people generally think. My inclination is : Don’t give a hoot. The only theories for where Monckton got his numbers would indicate that they are inapproriate values when used to compare to data during that period. No one can come up with any legitimate reason for projections of those magnitudes when used to compare to the data Monckton selected.
The italics are important, because… sure… we can all connect the temperature at 2000 to the one at 2100 and draw a straight line. But the IPCC specifically explained the trends from 2000-2030 are lower than later on. So…
Anyway, given the current vote, it looks like I’ll be emailing Monckton. We’ll see what his answer is.
Well… if you don’t post his response then some one might come to the conclusion that you have a secret email thing going on with Monckton.
MikeC….
Oddly… enough…
I got an email this at 1:10 pm. I responded. I did things during the afternoon… and get this: Ate dinner at 6 pm. I returned to the computer at 9 pm and an email with a time stamp of 6:06 pm was in my email inbox.
I began to write a response to Monckton’s second email, and then your comment came in.
So, yes there is an “email thing” going on. But, it’s not a secret.
Most of the time delay is simply that it’s the weekend. My husband is home, my in laws came over and I was too busy to organize and proof read. I’ll be posting tomorrow.
Lucia and Monckton sitting in a tree…