The other thread has gotten long. Luckily, David Schnare gave me an excuse to shift the discussion to a new thread by alerting us to ATI’s new 15 minute long video about the Climategate emails and the ATI civil action narrated by the handsome Chris Horner:
230 thoughts on “ATI video.”
Comments are closed.
Humm…
Yes, he is good looking; if I was a single girl past 35 I would probably go out with him, but I am not. 🙂
Sly, manipulative, dishonest, and that’s only the first sixty seconds. People want to support them?
Then they invoke Thomas Jefferson, and the great American tradition of slave ownership and having a bit on the side with the cute ones.
SteveF–
I’m pretty sure he’s married. (When I met him at Heartland, he mentioned kids.)
I’m going to make a wildly jump to conclusions, assume he’s a social conservative and tell any single girl’s past 35 that they are probably out of luck.
Lucia,
“tell any single girl’s past 35 that they are probably out of luck”
On this subject, you never know…. really.
This conversation is unbecoming for a science blog. We need Chris Mooney to add psychiatric/psychological science stature to the subject.
Bugs,
.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
.
You’re right Bugs, he was a shallow, thoughtless, evil, and despicable man who never contributed anything to humanity. Most outspoken climate scientists, indeed, almost all of today’s well known ‘progressives’, are no doubt far better and more accomplished people than old Tom J.
.
But maybe (just maybe) an honest appeal to our better selves is hidden there in Tom’s words.
#94684
“You’re right Bugs, he was a shallow, thoughtless, evil, and despicable man who never contributed anything to humanity.”
And as rightly happens to such people, UVa has put his emails online 🙂
Nick, that’s really funny. So funny I’m going to use it in my next brief to the court.
bugs (Comment #94685) “Sly, manipulative, dishonest, and that’s only the first sixty seconds.”
First sixty seconds? I presume you are talking about Michael Mann and his warmist/alarmist cohorts, which seem to include you.
No the dishonesty and manipulation unfortunately has lasted for far more than 60 seconds.
But there is always time to reform, even the thief repented on the cross. Some alarmists have recanted:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
Bugsy must be a pomey reactionary royalist. Still mad at those presumptuous, uncouth rebels. You have sunk to a new low, bugsy.
snap. thomas jeffersons mails.
if the court needs a special master to go thru mails
im available for free.
The rancor is strong with this one.
I think it was very dishonest and manipulative of ATI to use a handsome and distinguished actor to portray their guy, juxtaposed with unflattering stock photos of Mikey Mann. To be fair they should have generously photo-shopped that bald-headed, beady-eyed, arrogant looking little putz.
Mr> Monfort: I think you missed a “/sarc” tag at the end of your last post. He is a “bona-fide” attorney with a JD degree from Washington Univ in St. Louis, MO. If he wasn’t legit then the ABA (American Bar Association) would be all over the ATI for misrepresentation of the facts.
I didn’t invoke a slave owning hypocrite as a model of American aspiration. Someone who kept his own children as slaves. But hey, if you are willing to be tolerant of human foibles, so am I. I hope the ATI don’t decide to do a hit piece on him. After you see how they can selectively quote Al Gore and Michael Mann, their tactics would leave poor Thomas coming off looking much, much worse.
bugs remains one of the few fixed stars in this ever-changing world. I sometimes think of him as Mann’s own Renfield, loyal to the point of insanity.
Others may see complex policy, legal and scientific issues where bugs sees only a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Who else would feel the need to trash that notorious slave-owning promoter of indifference to planetary warming T. Jefferson in lieu of getting the point of the thread?
The climate may be ever-changing but bugs is forever in ideological amber.
To be fair, the first 60 seconds or so suggests that:
1) Only one study shows any tropospheric warming.
2) Gore showed Mann’s hockey stick in his movie.
3) Jefferson’s temperature measurements were less biased than instruments on airport runways.
The first two are just wrong, and the third is a bit of a red herring because (as far as we can tell) there isn’t a significant airport bias, and Jefferson only measured temperature at a specific location which is of limited use (though his data is included in the Berkeley Earth project along with other colonial-era records).
Zeke–
That’s a much better way to critique the first 60 seconds than by grousing about Thomas Jefferson.
Zeke – re 2
see
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/10/al-gore-and-dr-thompsons-thermometer-2/
Past the first 60 seconds there’s
1) The spotlight effect on the Phil Jones email to Mann, obscuring the “to:”, suggesting to viewers that Mann wrote that email and
2) The claim that Dena Bowers was fired for using her university email account for private email. I’m pretty sure UVa doesn’t care if you email your wife from your work account.
1 was extremely innovative, suggesting that ATI is worth watching in the field of deception.
clivere,
Fair enough, but the scene in question was showing the classic ice core temp/CO2 record, not the hockey stick.
Two questions:
Which “alarmist” thinks the CRU emails came from a whistleblower?
And
Who claimed that the hockey stick was a “smoking gun”?
Lucia,
If I were to grouse about Thomas Jefferson, I might remark that the man sometimes considered America’s first athiest is not an ideal role-model for the American Tradition Institute :-p
Zeke –
I don’t see how you would consider Jefferson an atheist. Phrases like “endowed by their Creator…” come to mind.
At Monticello, I heard him described as a deist. I read this as more comparable to UU than atheism.
Zeke–
True enough. Although I’ve read that quite a few evangelicals do not believe Jefferson was an atheist. That said, I’ve met religious people who insist on explaining to me that I can’t possibly be an atheist.
Zeke – you obviously did not read the full post.
Al Gore used the wrong graphic in the film and book. He thought he was showing the ice core record but instead mistakenly chose the MBH graphic which was contained in the same figure in Thompsons original paper. An easy error to make but a bad one which was never picked up despite the huge budget.
clivere,
I read the post, and realize that I was incorrect in saying that the Hockey stick was not shown in Gore’s movie. However, I did still point out that the ATI video appears to imply that Gore is showing Mann’s hockeystick when the curve displayed on the screen is ice core records.
HaroldW,
Diest or agnostic (or skeptic/rationalist) is probably more accurate. That said, he really didn’t pull any punches when criticizing the religious establishment at the time when he wrote things like:
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
Deists believed in a hands-off God–a watchmaker God. Even Thomas Paine wasn’t a full on atheist.
Thanks, Gil. You remind me of a teacher I had in the third grade. She was very stern and incredibly ugly. Do I need to tag this one?
“Then they invoke Thomas Jefferson, and the great American tradition of slave ownership and having a bit on the side with the cute ones.”
Of course, Old TJ will do when there’s a need to shore up that wall between church and state. Polemicists don’t take a backseat to climate scientists when it come to cherry-picking.
The video is heavy on the blatant propaganda. A straight discussion of the merits of their case would have been more interesting. And lose the stupid annoying background noise. Does he talk that fast in court?
Don–
He probably talks that fast. I talk fast. I think it might be a “feature” of much of the midwest. St. Louis isn’t that far from Illinois.
But I too found the background music heavy. I don’t mind having some, but I think people making videos often over do the volume. In my opinion, the music needs to be quite a bit quieter than the narration.
I’d also like a bit more on the merits of the case. Mind you, I’d prefer that in writing. I image if I were really motivated I’d get a hold of the briefs.
But I’m not that motivated.
I’m happy to mostly observe the case is going on, noticing key events, and commenting on policy preferences, people’s value judgements and saying what, given available information, seems plausible to me. But really, there’s an awful lot outsiders can’t know.
So, for example: I think that a 10/1 ratio of exempt/non-exempt emails sounds ridiculously implausible. But I haven’t seen the emails that were found on the back up server. Maybe there is some reason that ratio is correct. I think UVA should state the reason a particular email was exempt when finding it exempt. For example: “private student record”, “proprietary information” etc. Stating that wouldn’t take any time because they had to identify a reason in the first place. All they need is to record the reason in an excel spreadsheet, database, lined pad of paper etc. I think some of the theories about why it’s ok for UVA to send Mann the emails but withhold from others make no sense while some sound like they might be reasonable. (Examples: The idea that it’s ok to send emails to Mann because he might be considering accepting a job offer for chaired seat results in a ‘shared interest’ brought up on the other thread strikes me as nuts-o. In contrast, the idea that UVA might need to get someone who can identify what’s proprietary for their legal case might not be so nuts. )
But I even when I have opinions on policy, I admit I don’t have any background in FOIA case law. So I have no idea how the judge is going to rule on these things.
lucia,
I have read some of ATI’s account of what is transpiring on their website. My overall impression is that much of what was turned over to them consisted of spam adds for special offers on halloween costumes, baldness cures, viagra and such. We don’t know how many of those ads Mikey replied to, but I guess those emails would also be included, unless deemed proprietary. And apparently, the bulk of the unreleased emails are claimed to be exempt, because they are proprietary.
I believe that the judge has indicated he is not impressed with UVA and Mann’s whining about privacy, academic freedom, and the meanness of ATI. They have already gone past whether or not non-exempt emails should be released. They are just haggling over what truly falls under exempt status, and they will very likely revisit the waiver issue. A lot more of the emails are going to see the light of day.
Based on my reading the judge is not particularly impressed with defenses involving “academic freedom” nor “backbone of science”.
In court, I’m sure both sides lawyers say they totally understand that exempt emails will not be released and non-exempt emails are to be released. The arguments are over what based on the FOIA statute is exempt, over which activities UVA can charge ATI for, whether costs are overly inflated and whether the response is sufficiently quick.
By sending Mann stuff, UVA managed to introduce the interesting feature of whether, under the VA statute VA can send any member of the public information while refusing it to others. There are some interesting tweaks in that question. On the one hand the emails once were in the possession of Mann and now he’s joined the civil action. On the other hand, Mann isn’t even a resident of VA. So ordinarily they would refuse to fill his FOIA requests on that ground.
lucia (Comment #94744) April 26th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
“On the other hand, Mann isn’t even a resident of VA. So ordinarily they would refuse to fill his FOIA requests on that ground.”
Mann did not make an FOIA request.
Mann is not any member of the public, he is the writer and receiver of those Emails. They are not showing Pat Michaels Emails to Michael Mann.
Eli–
Thanks for jumping in to rebut an argument no one made.
It remains to be seen whether the fact that Mann wrote, received and accessed those emails while an employee at UVA makes any difference whatsoever under the statute. As a policy matter, I would think it ought not to make any difference. As a legal matter, I don’t know. ‘
Nick-
I think what I wrote communicates the notion that if he made FOIA requests, UVA would refuse them on the grounds that he is not a resident of Virginia. But if that was unclear, it was that was what I was thinking.
As it happens, UVA gave these emails to a member of the public who is not eligible to request under FOIA without even requiring the formality of an FOIA request.
So are you asserting (and Eli is sure that you are, but he just wants to make sure) that any email or other communication or document that is prepared, sent or received through the University Email system must be disclosed if there is an FOIA request (exempting specific exclusions such as student information)?
Just want to make sure
And if so, how much you wanna bet on that?
Zeke:
No. The video implies an e-mail written in the past shows scientists believed such. That’s nothing like what you describe.
I’ve watched the first 60 seconds half a dozen times, and I haven’t seen anything like this in it. Could you clarify?
Oh noes. They kind of sort of imply Gore is in front of the hockey stick graph when he’s in front of another graph, which anyone who knew anything about the controversy would recognize as not being Mann’s hockey stick. And to anyone who didn’t know about the controversy, the distinction in the ATI video would be meaningless.
Eli
Who are you asking? Why would you develop the theory that someone is asserting this? Obviously, exempt email and communications are exempt. No one has disputed this.
lucia,
Have you noticed how those little fellows lurk in the high grass, until they think they have spotted a gotcha. And if they have to wait too long, they just make up an intention and project it into the mind of their target. Nicky and the wabbette are making fools of themselves here.
The emails are, and always have been, the property of the people of VA, period.
Going on the barrage of selective cherry picks and sound bites from the video, the ATI is not interested in the truth of anything like it. They just want more dishonestly assembled and misrepresented fodder for their propaganda machine. If they had anything of substance to back their case, they wouldn’t need to resort to such lies and deviousness to make their case against AGW.
The only tradition they seem to represent is the American huckster who thinks there is a sucker born every minute.
Don–
Quite honestly, rereading Eli’s question, I’m not sure what he’s asking nor can I begin to find a hidden point in the question. Perhaps he’ll return and clarify– but clarity is not Eli’s strong suit.
Don Monfort (Comment #94754)
“The emails are, and always have been, the property of the people of VA, period.”
I wonder if Judge Sheridan thinks that his emails are, and always have been, the property of the people of VA, period.
Nick-
Judge Sheridan may think the emails he sends and receives using his work account are the property of the people of VA. He may think those written by the governor and attorney general of VA are the property of the people of VA too.
Likely, he thinks emails he sends and receives using a @gmail.com or similar account are his own.
But since I’m not a mind reader, I can’t be sure.
I will say this.
however it all turns out this conversation beats the hell out discussing ‘back radiation” with a sky dragon.
In the end a court will decide. Maybe some laws/regulations/proceedures will get re written so this nonsense happens less frequently in the future.
For Uva’s sake, for the sake of science I hope.
1. they win
2. if they lose, the mails they are protecting have nothing too
bad in them ( err mann being Mann doesnt count as bad )
Worst case would be to lose AND for the mails to contain something above and beyond what we already know.
1. you wont find mann engaging in any fraudulent behavior
he believes in what he writes
2. You might find him “strategizing” about journals and reviwers
3. You might find him saying nasty things things
Speculate. Whats the worst that could happen.
whats the best?
Why for the sake of science? I don’t think UVA’s losing would hurt science one bit. Scientists will continue doing science. If anything releasing the emails would help by making people aware that, ultimately, many things are publicly accessible.
This could, for example, include making reviews of journal articles ultimately accessible to those who really want them and spur a more open review process. That’s all to the good in my opinion.
Which of Judge Sheridan’s emails are you talking about Nicky? Emails he produces on the public dime, belong to-guess who Nicky-the public.
“The Virginia Public Records Act (Code of Virginia §42.1-77.) defines public records:
“Public record” or “record” means recorded information that documents a transaction or activity by or with any public officer, agency or employee of an agency. Regardless of physical form or characteristic, the recorded information is a public record if it is produced, collected, received or retained in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business. The medium upon which such information is recorded has no bearing on the determination of whether the recording is a public record.”
Maybe you have found something to indicate otherwise, while you were lurking in the tall grass. Let’s see it, Nicky. Or maybe you have found some obscure exception to the rule. Whatever. you are not serious. You’re just gaming. You used to have some integrity.
Steven,
UVA’s stonewalling is not doing anything good for the reputation of science.
we are heading to a position where we tell university folk:
– if you are working on an offical project, any of your emails will be publically available – so be aware
– if you are conducting research which is not publically funded, please be aware that any of your emails might be deemed public
remember that there remain possiblitlies for voice communication that are, so far, not yet recorded
re diogenes
I know Aust isn’t the US but I was involved in a public/private joint research project from 1990-2007 and we had to sign an IP agreement and it stated that all communication between the JR staff and between JR staff and the private and public organizations (uni and governemnt depts) involved in the JR whether written, electronic or recorded was the property of the government. When the project finished all records had to be collated (including emails) and stored at one of the university partners as goverment property (I can’t remember for how many years but it may have been 7)
Andrew
bugs is quick to slander. Very revealing. We don’t know that Jefferson ever slept with anyone but his wife. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032467/Study-doubts-claims-Thomas-Jefferson-fathered-slave-Sally-Hemings-son-Eston.html
Now I don’t know if one of the founders of the modern Democratic Party did or didn’t sleep with anyone. I do know that it isn’t germane to a damn thing that ATI and Horner are saying. Or to the climate debate in general.
This kind of garbage does say a lot about Bugs, though. A lot.
Stan,
Coincidentally, at Physics Today, in a post on the usual hand-wringing about the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature, there’s an interesting single comment. Nature magazine is accused of…gasp…distorting the science to paint a politically correct and pleasing picture of the Hemings/Jefferson relationship.
“In 1998, in headlining a somewhat muddied but not dishonest DNA report, Nature’s editors took its legitimate conclusion — that a Jefferson had fathered Sally Hemings’s last child — and distorted it into a headline that misinformed the planet: “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child,†as if from among more than two dozen male Jeffersons in Virginia at the time, the DNA evidence had pinpointed Thomas. Even today, well more than a decade later, that report is regularly mischaracterized as having outright proven paternity by Jefferson. Nature’s editors’ failure, or malfeasance, permanently skewed public understanding.”
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/thedayside/2012/04/testing-editors/
Who needs facts when one “knows” what happened?
Stan says “We don’t know that Jefferson ever slept with anyone but his wife.”
“We” don’t “know” that Jefferson slept with his wife or Sally Hemings but the evidence supports the assertion that he did.
“Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson’s records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings.”
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account
JohnM-
I have long been aware that the DNA evidence does not pinpoint Jefferson. It could have been one of his cousins. But…. having lived in Latin America during a time when there were household servants, I always figured it was more likely than not Thomas’s child.
The Arnold Schwarzenneger story did nothing to make me think Thomas’s paternity less likely.
Lucia:
It’s my understanding that any emails I send from a private account that are related to the work that I am being paid for are intellectual property of the university. It would be at best an unethical thing to try and hide from the university conversations related to your work (which you might be receiving remuneration for). At worst, it may be illegal and and a dismissible offense.
“The Arnold Schwarzenneger story did nothing to make me think Thomas’s paternity less likely.”
So that’s why Jefferson is sometimes referred to as “The Declarator”.
🙂
Carrick–
Yes. But if you send an email to your wife discussing your kids bout with the flu and use Gmail.com, that email is private.
Lucia, yep agreed.
Reasonable expectation of privacy applies here. (I personally never treat anything sent by email as if it can be trusted as private. Things that are really important to keep confidential, like documents that are required to remain confidential by our sponsors, are routinely password protected.)
diogenes,
UVa already tells that to IT users, at least something very similar:
http://its.virginia.edu/pubs/docs/RespComp/resp-comp-facstf.html#email
lucia:
To an extent. If you send that e-mail while at work, you are not guaranteed its privacy as your workplace can monitor what happens on its network. It’s even possible it could be FOI’d if your workplace logs it.
It’s not likely to come up, but it is something which can happen.
bugsy,
UVA is not properly ashamed of Thomas Jefferson. You better organize a posse of your fellow America-hating left-wing loonies and go over there and tear down that statue:
http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/IntroducingUVa+pl.swf
I don’t hate America, I’m just pointing out the humbug that ATI uses in that video. There are some great American traditions, hucksterism is not one of them. Nor is the political ‘hit piece’ type of video of which this is a prime example. It uses music, fast cutting, sound bites, repetition, misrepresentation, appeals to ‘feel good’ values, smarmy narration. If the ATI has such a good case against AGW, why does it have to descend to vaudeville antics instead of evidence.
bugs–
This video doesn’t purport to be the case against AGW. It’s about the emails.
But equally, by your logic, if CAGW people had a good case for CAGW, they wouldn’t make videos of polar bears falling from the sky or kids being blown up and having their guts splattered over their classmates.
Brandon–
Yep. If they log it, it could end up shared. But many workplaces don’t log everything.
Lucia,
“That said, I’ve met religious people who insist on explaining to me that I can’t possibly be an atheist.”
Me to. But more often, I met “progressives” who claim that I can’t possibly be a thoughtful, principled, and moral person and disagree with them… on any subject related to public policy. Religion and related thought processes tend to blind people to reality.
Lucia:
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Everything that gets sent gets transferred to the server before being mailed via e.g., SMTP, and it is not deleted after that. The mail server gets routinely (incrementally) backed up, and anything on it gets stored.
We had archives going back to when the computer system first was turned on (of course in those days, that was all of your files, not just emails).
On other hand I’m guessing emails to your spouse would be exempt from FOI, unless they were related to a legitimate FOI request.
“This video doesn’t purport to be the case against AGW. It’s about the emails.
But equally, by your logic, if CAGW people had a good case for CAGW, they wouldn’t make videos of polar bears falling from the sky or kids being blown up and having their guts splattered over their classmates.”
Those videos, (I haven’t seen the first one), are not the case for AGW. They are independently produced videos by people who are not scientists and are not producing evidence.
The ATI video is a hit piece against AGW. It takes sound bites and inserts them out of context, without any reason other than to denigrate. The opening sentence is an attack on climate science, that has nothing to do with emails, other than to indicate why they want Mann’s emails. They want to cherry pick sentences, and twist them to their own meaning. They aren’t interested in evidence or science, they want more fodder for their attacks.
Every email they referenced, they misrepresented. Science has produced several, completely independently produced temperature records. They all tell the same story. Their is no fraud or misrepresentation of the warming that is measured and is happening.
The first claim.
“Emails leaked in climate gate 1 and 2 show a contempt for peer review and the realisation that their data does not support their conclusions without being fudged”.
Then they do a sly and dishonest cut to Al Gore saying “so, that seems pefectly OK”. Gore was not commenting on their claim, the emails, or anything like that. Just a hit piece.
The comment from Thorne is to do with the tropical troposphere, which is much harder to measure than the surface temperatures. There is not a long history of many measurements because it’s around the tropics up in the atmosphere. There have been problems with measurements because many of them are from rapidly rising balloons that don’t have accurate height measurements.
It’s a complex area, with a history of uncertainty. What is more reliably measured, and good enough to say that there is warming, is ignored. And that’s just the first claim. It’s downhill from then on.
“Those videos, (I haven’t seen the first one), are not the case for AGW. They are independently produced videos by people who are not scientists and are not producing evidence.”
That description (insert “not the case against CAGW”) fits the ATI video, bugsy. It’s counter-propaganda. It’s no more dishonest than Al Gore’s alarmist BS. That puts it in Nobel Prize winning territory.
bugs
Huh? Just ‘Huh?’
If you want to say you think the ATI video is heavily spun and political, ok. But I don’t see how you can partition it from the polar bear falling category in terms of “independence”, or “not producing science”. I don’t know what criteria you consider “independently produced” vs. “depedently produced” because I don’t know who these things would “depend” on.
Groups make videos to get their message out. This is in that category. The falling polar bear ones are in that category. Neither are NOVA specials.
Every venue, book and video targets some audience. The ATI video targets what audience? The Mann book ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” targets what audience? Lucia’s Blackboard targets what audience?
My assessments are, respectively:
-General Voting Public (not just in USA)
-IPCC centric activist and scientists
-??? (Lucia – who do you target?) I think you target retreats from extremes, at least in the climate science discourse.
Personal Note: Lucia, will you attend ICCC-7 in Chicago? I will.
John
If I can go for free. It’s fun– but not fun enough to pay a large amount. 🙂
Now that the “anonymous donor” doesn’t give as much, I suspect they won’t let bloggers in for free. 🙁
Lucy,
I am sorry to hear you probably won’t go to ICCC-7, I would have liked to meet you.
Fortunately, I am just retired so have time and fortunately my madmoney ‘fun’ budget covers 2 or 3 such conferences per year.
John
bugs (Comment #94782),
Is happening… or WAS happening?
We can always organize a get together for those living near Chicago. There are plenty of us around and I’m sure lots of people would be willing to get together for a drink on the weekend.
lucia (Comment #94786),
Read the media registration page before giving up;
http://climateconference.heartland.org/media-registration/
It clearly states: “Bloggers welcome.”
Maybe bloggers do get in free. 😉
Lucy said “We can always organize a get together for those living near Chicago. [ . . . ]”
– – – – –
Lucy,
Would be nice to associate real people face-to-face with blog comments . . . . : )
I am based in NY and CA so not much Chicago hanging out available to me . . .
John
Ahh! thanks Skeptical. I’ll sign up. Also, I think we need to get the Chitown area people together on Sunday May 20.
I don’t care about slick production values. Showing polar bears in trouble, the photos of the drowned bears with sad music – that’s okay as long as it’s factual. It’s the lies that bother me in ATI’s smarmy video, like the claim that Cuccinelli wanted Mann’s files to help defend against a potential fraud. There’s no reason to take this video seriously, and I stopped watching at that point.
But I do agree that Horner looks like a lawyer stereotype – I strongly encourage a career change to acting.
John– It looks like bloggers get in free. We just don’t get meals (which is fair enough!) I wrote a post — maybe we can generate interest in people getting together. I know there are readers in Evanston, Naperville, Lisle, etc. With luck, we might get a half dozen together for coffee, beer, donuts– depends on the time of day!
Brian–
I strongly suspect this wasn’t factual.
I don’t think that’s a lie. I suspect Cuccinelli did want them for that reason and I think Horner wants them for that reason.
I think they are unlikely to find evidence of fraud, but I think they want them for that reason.
The guy could do commercials, tv whatever. (FWIW: One of my uncles did commercials on the side. John was in advertising. The customer didn’t like any of the actors who showed up, turned to him and said, “We need someone who looks like you!” My other uncle put himself through college as a body double for an actor. I can’t remember which. I remember asking Mom if Uncle Bill really did that or if it was a fib, and she said it was.)
I strongly suspect this wasn’t factual.
What makes you think that? Don’t tell me you believe all that ‘No animals were harmed during filming’ BS 😉
lucia:
Definitely. I just wanted to offer a word of caution and clarification. People have lost jobs because of things they put in personal e-mails on personal account they composed at work. I know in one case, it was ruled because the individual wrote the e-mails on their work network (and the company had a clear policy that all network activity could be monitored), it was ruled the individual didn’t have an (full) expectation of privacy, and thus it was a lawful termination.
As for “personal” e-mails getting shared, I’ve never heard of it happening because of an FOI request, but I do know it’s happened in discovery for court battles.
Anyway, the basic point is you are free to have “personal” e-mails as much as you want, but as soon as they start infringing upon your job, they may no longer be personal. Carrick:
Not all e-mail is sent to the mail server. It’s quite possible to send an e-mail through a browser without the mail server ever getting involved. If you do so, the mail server won’t log anything.
The traffic could still be logged at other points for other reasons, but you cannot assume all e-mail will be routed through the mail server.
John Whitman:
I don’t know. I think I might prefer my imagination’s depictions of people on the internet to reality. And I’d hate to imagine how disappointed people might be if they met me in person. Well, disappointed, or freaked out!
Brandon–
I know what you mean. But sometimes it works the other way around. You would not be disappointed with Donna LaFramboise. She’s gorgeous! Her photos don’t do her justice.
@bugs (Comment #94755)
“Going on the barrage of selective cherry picks and sound bites from the video, the ATI is not interested in the truth of anything like it. They just want more dishonestly assembled and misrepresented fodder for their propaganda machine. If they had anything of substance to back their case, they wouldn’t need to resort to such lies and deviousness to make their case against AGW.
The only tradition they seem to represent is the American huckster who thinks there is a sucker born every minute.”
Gleick,
Gleick,
error,
error,
sorry Lucia, PC problems
I don’t know. What if my mind prefers to associate people on the internet with famous television/movie characters? It doesn’t matter how beautiful Michael Tobis might be, he could never live up to a mental image of General Buck Turgidson…
lol at Brandon…..and his precious bodily fluids
lucia (Comment #94784)
The ATI video is a hit piece, using devious editing methods and misrepresentations to attack individuals.
The polar bears is an image attacking no individuals. It is actually put out by an organisation that is protesting the rising use of air transport in Europe. It is not even directly about global warming.
bugs
Bah hahahahahah!
What circumstance other than global warming would link air transport in Europe and polar bears? In-flight meals? Falling blue ice??
Read their website. They say they are a lobby group concerned about the increase of aviation in Europe.
http://planestupid.com/aboutus
I am beginning to feel sorry for bugsy. He is a glutton for punishment.
http://www.officeplayground.com/Bozo-Bop-Bag-P141.aspx?utm_source=shareasale&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_term=1380&utm_campaign=affiliate&utm_source=shareasale&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=affiliate
Feel whatever you want.
What we have is scientists, who are not conspiring to bring down Western civilisation, being dragged into a political cesspool, and science is being dragged down with them.
bugs –
It may be true that some scientists are being dragged into public controversy (it was ever thus) but most of the 32,000 climate scientist we have never heard of (and never will).
Also, a fair proportion (it was ever thus) are literally gagging for public acclamation and notoriety.
Thirdly, those of us who hang out on climate blogs not only have a vastly distorted picture of the ‘controversies’ in the climate debate but are outnumbered about 5 to 1 by the scientists themselves.
Also, those of us outside the United States are perpetually amazed by how polarised and partisan Americans are about their climate ‘debate’ [OK, in the UK we’re pretty partisan too]
I think world-wide and in general, science is actually unaffected by what is happening to half a dozen climate ‘scientists’.
Anteros (Comment #94814)
A point that interests me as well. The fact is, that by persecuting these few scientists, the whole of the science of Global Warming can be broken, in the public mind at least. I have wondered why it is that the focus upon so few individuals and papers is considered to be enough to disprove something that is now standard University education.
I don’t believe the few are gagging for notoriety and acclamation. Jones, for example, seems to be someone who is very shy and avoids publicity.
Every country seems to have it’s own experience. The USA is still the worlds largest economy, and military power. What happens in the USA affects the rest of the world. The Conservative Government in the UK has a far more ‘liberal’ policy in regard to global warming.
Also worth mentioning that Monckton in the UK is relegated to the lunatic fringe of politics. The mainstream Conservatives don’t want to be associated with him.
Sort of like Al Gore and most Dems in the US.
bugs–
I’m no fan of Monckton.
But your IP is not in the UK. I tend to take what people from country X say about what people in very far away country Y think with a grain of salt.
“But your IP is not in the UK. I tend to take what people from country X say about what people in very far away country Y think with a grain of salt.”
I’m sure most people reading this blog take everything Bugs says with more than a grain of salt anyway but thanks for the info, I’ll add a couple of extra spoonfuls 😉
lucia (Comment #94819)
April 28th, 2012 at 6:08 am
I know you’re not, but he has been a speaker at the ICCC. I’m just going on the evidence. Monckton is regarded as a joke in the UK, (looking at who will have him as a candidate for elections), but Heartland thinks highly of him (they have had him as one of their speakers at the conference you are about to attend).
Thanks to bouncy bugsy for giving me another excuse to drag this out again:
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/10/new-rasmussen-poll-sends-al-gore-into-meltdown/
ATI isn’t doing hit pieces because they are waste of time, they are doing them because they work. Opinion polls on what the general public think of science are only telling you what the opinion of the general public is about science. They tell you nothing about the science.
The most damaging hit piece of all was Climategate. Perpetrated by an insider. Necessitated by stonewalling climate scientists evading accountability.
You have no evidence at all it was an insider.
Considering the first place the files appeared was when Realclimate was hacked, there is evidence to suggest it was done by computer hackers.
The ‘climategate’emails show no evidence of fraud. The ATI hit piece in it’s reference to the emails shows just how a problem with a proxy can be twisted, deceptively, to imply to the public that the actual temperature record has been manipulated fraudulently. Like I said, hit pieces work, even though this one in particular seems to be so gross, manipulative and juvenile you would think the response of the average person on viewing it would be to puke.
“Hey, we aren’t like climate scientists, we refer to Thomas Jefferson. Where does the IPCC do that? I thought so.”
Bugs
The reasons I tend to think people in country “Y” are not good sources of what people in country “X” think include
1) they are not in a good position to collect evidence
2) I’ve noticed that when people in Australia, the UK, France and so on tell me what American’s think they are often woefully incorrect and
3) If those people tell me they know based on evidence, it often turns out their “evidence” is what other Australians, Brits or French think people in the US think.
Your ‘evidence’ is odd. Many, many Americans who are totally unelectable and who no party would slate are not considered jokes. I would assume this general thing holds in other countries. But maybe someone who lives in the UK can let us know whether all people who are unelectable or lose races for office are considered jokes in the UK.
Out of curiosity: Has any poligical party in ‘insert your country here’ approached you requesting you run for an important office as a candidate on their ticket? If not, does the fact they did not make you a joke?
He appears to be scheduled for the upcoming conference too.
I am not considering running for office, no one has asked me to run for office. Monckton is very keen to get elected, and has been touting himself around. They only group that will have him are a fringe group of nutters, where he fits in quite comfortably, with no hope of being elected.
Anteros,
“I think world-wide and in general, science is actually unaffected by what is happening to half a dozen climate ‘scientists’.”
.
More than that. World-wide and in general, nothing is much influenced by climate science beyond a bit of pious lip-service, and head bobbing about the plight of polar bears. And some wasted money on ‘alternative’ energy, of course. The Indians have basically said they are not interested in any discussion until 15 years from now, after their energy production has doubled or even tripled. The Chinese are building coal fired plants at a rate that overwhelms any plausible capacity for the rest of the world to reduce CO2 emissions, and those plants will operate for 25 – 35 years or more. The rest of the world is not even seriously trying to off-set Chinese increases in CO2 (no more nuclear power in Germany, for example). Climate scientists themselves continue to jet off regularly to exotic destinations for scientific conferences, creating enormous personal carbon footprints (paid for by the public)… yet insist on scolding everyone else about how much they must reduce energy use. Please, don’t be such jerks.
.
“Climate activists” like bugs and his ilk aren’t serious either… the loudest screams from that group should be for rapid construction of non-emitting nuclear power plants, yet there is not even a peep; they doth protest not nearly enough to be even slightly credible. What the “climate activists” seem to want most is for people to stop, well, behaving like people, and accept a dim future of poverty and minimal economic activity for themselves and their descendents. Not since Marx and Engels has anyone been so delusional about their ability to force people to become what they are not.
.
When the activists start offering solutions which are consistent with much greater (rather than much reduced) global wealth, they may gain influence. At present they are trying to sell pricy goose down parkas to poor people in tropical Africa; it’s comically stupid and will never work.
Bugsy, could a certain insider at CRU also be capable of gaining access to the RC servers? Or lacking that ability, have accomplices that could do it? That they first showed up on RC is not evidence that it was not an insider, who originally obtained the emails. Logic is not your strong suit, bugsy. It’s resilience. You just keep bouncing back.
As a UK citizen, I suspect that only a limited number of my compatriots have any idea of the existence of Lord Monckton. Unless they are interested in the affairs of UKIP – a minority party with no representatives in the House of Commons – or are interested in the climate change debate, or the internal affairs of Margaret Thatcher’s governments, there is no reason to suspect that they would know very much about him. I doubt that there is any evidence to suggest that he is widely considered to be a joke.
I just did a name search on the Daily Telegraph’s web-site. Apart from articles written by him or mentions in James Delingpole’s blog, which is mostly to do with climate change, there is hardly any coverage of him or his activities. His name gets about 100 mentions in 5 years.
Regarding UKIP, in the 2009 European elections they won as many seats as the Labour party – which suggests that they are a growing force rather than a joke.
bugs (Comment #94828)
April 28th, 2012 at 9:02 am
You have no evidence at all it was an insider.
################
there is in fact testimony given on this issue. That testimony, by CRU insiders, points to two possibilities.
An insider, who would have had the tools to decompress the back up server. Or a very sophisticated outsider.
There is other evidence as well. for those who know where to look, how to look, and what to look for.
My # 1 suspect has been shared with others long ago. We will see how things pan out as time goes by.
You see bugsy, Mosher is a lot smarter than you are and he is telling you in his cryptic manner that it’s most likely an insider. I will decipher his comment for you:
-it’s either an insider, or a very sophisticated hacker
-Mosher has named his suspect to others, long ago
-he don’t have a clue about who the random hacker might be:therefore, he has named an insider
Please correct me if I am wrong, Steven 🙂
Here in the US we have tons of people who try run for office and cannot get slated by a mainline political group. Some of these people try repeatedly but don’t appeal to voters. They lose during the primaries. Not getting slated is not evidence they are nutters. It means people like other candidates better.
BTW: The fact that you don’t like a political group or it’s got few members is not evidence they are a group of nutters.
don.
i came up with a prime suspect on day one.
and a motive.
since then additional clues confirm.
especially in motive area.
this has nothing to do with a cause like agw
lucia:
As an addition to this, many candidates in primaries know they will never win. However, by joining the race, they can influence the debate/eventual platform, and they consider that a good thing. They don’t survive the process, but some of their ideas do.
Of course, others think they have a shot when they obviously don’t (fools or nutters). Others just enjoy the attention. Others use it as a form of self-promotion to help them “down the road.”
So forth and so on. Some people seeking office who’ll never win are nutters, but most are not. Personally, I think once you get outside the local levels, you get just as many nutters who do win as who don’t.
Bugs
If what we learned from the CG1 and CG2 emails had occurred in the private sector, those involved would have been prosecuted -and convicted- for fraud. Think Enron or the Vioxx clinical trials: in both cases those convicted are doing 25 years or more behind bars. Fraud is fraud and that includes Tiljander-series-spliced-in-upside-down “climate science” a la Mike Mann, which is like showing liabilities as assets on the company’s books. Get your mind around that, once and for all, move on and try coming up with something coherent to say.
Steven,
OK, you didn’t say I am wrong. I will decrypt your latest message:
We are talking about an insider. If the motive is not AGW, then it’s got to be either a personal grudge against little Phil Jones and his crew, or an FOI functionary at UEA, or some other conscientious employee, who blew the whistle because of the illegal stonewalling of the FOI requests. The FOI whistleblower angle is the far more likely motive.
I will interpret silence, or any further cryptic messages from Steven, as confirmation 🙂
tetris,
You are unfairly taking the Climategate emails out of context. They are private, unguarded, candid conversations. It’s the public pronouncements of the Climategate scientists that count. It’s like the Italian-American fellows nominally in the olive oil business, who get targeted by government wiretaps. Is that really fair? Everybody says things in private that they wouldn’t say in public. Whacking somebody could have any number of meanings.
For what it’s worth:
I’m from the UK and I’ve never heard of Monckton, other than on the climate blogs. Having encountered him in blogland, I personally think he’s a slimy piece of work, and I don’t bother reading anything he writes anymore. Similarly, I didn’t bother watching the video above, on the grounds that it would probably be a pointless propaganda piece.
I’m a sceptic, BTW.
Mosher, is your prime suspect Wigley?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_which_one_blew_the_whistle/
http://junkscience.com/2011/11/29/climategate-2-0-wigley-to-briffa-are-you-hiding-something/
Don Monfort (Comment #94842)
I repeat, the claim made in the ATI video is that the temperature record has been fraudulently manipulated. There is no evidence for that, anywhere, including emails. That is, a problem with proxies, which are about as difficult a data source as you could wish to have, has nothing at all to do with the temperature record.
bugs:
Are you trying to say the temperature record does not include things like reconstructed records from ice-cores?
I am referring to the temperature record, as recorded.
The proxy record is not recorded, it is derived. The “hide the decline” was not an attempt to hide cooling, it was an attempt to deal with proxies that showed cooling when the measured record was showing clear warming.
There was no cooling in the record being fraudulently hidden from us. There was one type of proxy showing cooling when we knew it was warming.
Thanks for repeating my comment, bugsy. I agree that proxies don’t necessarily have anything to do with the temperature record. Sometimes proxies go thisaway, while real temps go thataway. It’s why we need nature tricks. But I would like to see your proof that there is no evidence, anywhere, that the temperature has been fraudulently manipulated. We will know more about that when the 12,000 emails that UVA and Mann are desperately hiding get ordered to be released by the VA courts.
Niels,
The Mosher said AGW was not the motivation. It’s not Wigley. He is one of them.
The temperature record is also derived, bugsy. And it is manipulated.
bugs:
In other words, you’re using some strange choice of semantics which contradicts all normal usage instead of just adding “instrumental” before “temperature record.”
As is the instrumental temperature record.
As another matter of semantics, proxies couldn’t show cooling when there was none. It’s hard to show something that isn’t there.
I am just trying to differentiate between what has been measured directly with instruments designed to measure temperature, and proxies, which are far less accurate. The temperature recorded with thermometers are far more accurate than using proxies.
The “hide the decline” was in reference to proxies that had tracked the 20th temperature recorded reasonably well, but then showed a drop in temperature in the late 20th century when it was know it was warming. It was not in reference to the thermometer recorded temperature, which is what is continually inferred or stated. Such inferences like that, as made in the ATI video, are lies.
I can’t prove a negative to you. You show me the evidence of fraud.
The BEST was the great hope of skeptics that the temperature record would show evidence of fraud. All it did was show that the best efforts of scientists were telling the same story of 20th century warming, no fraud. Despite years of snide insinuations from sites such as CA and WUWT.
And people complain about Eli.
The comments from FOIA, and the timing of the release of the files, all point to an anti AGW agenda.
bugs:
I’m aware. As I pointed out, there is a simple, and commonly used way to differentiate between the two. This way is different than the way you used, which was to use a phrase that is commonly used to cover both of them.
That is true, but it doesn’t change the fact the instrumental temperature record is derived, something you implicitly disputed.
Let me offer you some unsolicited advice. The next time you’re in a situation where you use unclear wording, and somebody points out your lack of clarity, you should just acknowledge it. If they tell you a way to be clearer, you should consider adopting it. I believe you’ll find it far more effective than your current strategy.
Yes bugsy, the proxies work pretty good if you select the right ones, and discard the ones that don’t give you the desired results. But sometimes nothing works out so you gotta use the old nature trick.
Bugsy, you were the one who said there is no evidence. What evidence do you have that there is not evidence? You need to support your handwaving with some facts, bugsy.
Bugsy, the files were released when it became apparent to the whistleblower that UEA was going to keep up the stonewalling, even though they were breaking the law. My guess is that Mosher’s well-informed guess is that one of the FOI guys at UEA decided that the people had a right to know.
Bugsy, you are having trouble because you are not as smart as the rest of the people here.
“That is true, but it doesn’t change the fact the instrumental temperature record is derived, something you implicitly disputed.”
It all depends how you want to slice it. The temperature record is measured using instruments designed to measure temperature, the proxy record is not. This is all a trivial distraction from the claims made by ATI that are deceptive. The reference to hide the decline was to proxies that were not tracking known warming, but were showing cooling instead. The decline was not a reference to the temperatures measured with thermometers, which are far more accurate.
“Bugsy, the files were released when it became apparent to the whistleblower that UEA was going to keep up the stonewalling, even though they were breaking the law. My guess is that Mosher’s well-informed guess is that one of the FOI guys at UEA decided that the people had a right to know.”
Your guess is not evidence. The timing of the release of the files is. The first time might have been attributed to coincidence, two times the files were released just before major Climate conferences. That is not about FOIA, that is about attacking Climate science and actions based on it.
bugs:
No, it doesn’t.
First, I want to point out you’re insisting on using terminology which is deceptive and confusing. You’re obviously aware of the problem with it, since you’ve read my comments about it and responded to them, so I’m at a loss as to why you would continue it.
Second, you can say individual station records are measured, not derived (I’ll even forgive the fact this isn’t necessarily true), but you can’t say the temperature record is measured. It is derived, no matter how you slice it.
What you call “a trivial distraction” is what is known in the legal world as “unclean hands.” The idea is your accusations of deception have no value as long as you are guilty of deception in the process of making them. By acting in bad faith, you lose any standing to make accusations against others.
Of course, this isn’t a court room. If you’d like, you are free to be deceptive and confusing while accusing others of being deceptive. I am also free to point out you are being deceptive and confusing. And people reading are free to listen to what I say, and consider how it influences their perspective of you.
So you will avoid my point, by focussing on a pointless distraction. You know what I am saying, you know what my point is.
Let’s say that the temperature record is derived and not measured, with the thermometer based one being more accurate than the proxy derived one. Are my hands clean now?
The point made by the ATI is false.
bugs:
I specifically accused you of deception in regard to your use of the phrase “temperature record.” You now repeat the exact usage I criticized and ask if you “correcting” a different point makes your hands clean.
I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve simply only watched 90 seconds of the video. To address what you’re talking about, I’d have to sit through more of the video you call deceptive. I’m willing to do that, but I’m not particularly inclined to do it at the behest of someone who is acting in a deceptive manner as I can have no expectation of a reasonable response to anything I might say.
If and when your behavior is such that it warrants more effort on my part, I’ll watch the video and see what I think of your argument. In the meantime, requiring people behave honestly before discussing an issue with them is not avoiding anything.
Bugsy, I don’t want to embarrass you by repeatedly reminding you that you ain’t as smart as the rest of the people here, especially Mosher. He says that it ain’t about AGW, so we have to give his highly-educated and well-informed opinion much greater weight than yours. After all, he did quickly finger Gleicky as the faker, out of all the 7 billion people in the world.
I don’t recall the finer details of the initial Climategate release, but it seems to me that it coincided with UEA turning down lawful FOI requests. And the files released looked like they were prepared in response to FOI requests. Some FOI guy with integrity did not like being bulldozed by the team, bugsy. That’s my theory. A very brief search turned this up:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/
I am sure that if Mosher wanted to waste some time, he could explain his reasoning to you.
Also, Brandon is way out of your league. You better ignore him, until you can score some points against me. Work your way up, bugsy.
Don Montfort,
“The Mosher said AGW was not the motivation. It’s not Wigley. He is one of them.”
One of “them” could have no other motives than AGW?
Tom Wigley in the mails talking about Yamal:
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:57:57 -0600
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds…
.
.
.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons—but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.
—
On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations—but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity—compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. […]
> > Tom.
FOIA doesn’t like the deceptions either. He thinks climate science is too important. Same feelings Wigley has expressed:
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
Motive: to get rid of the lies, dishonesty and deceptions in this branch of science.
That’s not agw is it?
Niels,
Mosher said: “this has nothing to do with a cause like agw”
I am sure he knows more about it than you or I. Google Steven Mosher Climategate:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022057/steven-mosher-the-real-hero-of-climategate/
“Steven Mosher is to Climategate what Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate.”
“We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.â€
Whoever wrote that could be agnostic on the science but POed about the illegal stonewalling of FOI requests. My guess is it’s a FOI functionary at UEA, who wanted to follow the law and release but was run over by the Team.
I would be perfectly happy if it is Wigley, but why would he put his own emails out there when they reveal that he says things in private that he doesn’t have the guts to say in public. He looks as bad as the rest of them. He is as complicit in hiding things as any of the others. And what about this:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-2151-jan-2005-tom-wigley-suggests.html
My recollection is there was a similar email from Wigley saying that Pat Michaels needed to get his Phd revoked.
Don Monfort:
Err… politicians use this trick. It’s the embarrassing “oops the mike was left on when I said what I really thought” trick.
Wigley might not be able to say publicly what he’d like to say, because it would mean a complete and total loss of funding. Say them in private emails that get “leaked”… and it’s all good.
Capice?
If you want to see how snotty they can get just look at the response that Vincent Courtillot received for winning the Arthur Holmes Medal…. for his work in geomagnetism.
The climate crowd was not pleased, because he had recently made politically incorrect remarks about climate change.
And unabashedly pushed papers from his own institute in the journal he edited.
Yes Carrick, I forgot about that well-known politician trick, where they pretend not to know a mike is on, so they can say something embarrassing. And then they say “Ooops!”, which makes what they said not embarrassing, but cute, and endears them to the voters. Many a political career has been made with that ploy.
You are in busgyland with this one, Carrick.
Toto,
From your link:
Proving once again, it’s risky to fool with “Big Climate”.
Wigley came across in the emails as of two minds. He was willing to complain about deceptive presentation (I can only imagine Mike Mann’s blood pressure reading some of Wigley’s messages), yet also said some things the made him seem to be going along to be ‘part of the Team’. I would not finger Wigley as the likely leaker, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if he were. An IT professional has always seemed to me the most likely candidate: access and skills already there… all that’s missing is motivation. Maybe there was a closet skeptic in the IT group at UEA. 🙂
“Proving once again, it’s risky to fool with “Big Climateâ€.”
.
Yup; they go all out to retaliate and punish when a scientist “jumps the shark” and states publicly that global warming is anything less that an absolutely certain existential threat to all life forms.
Re: tetris (Apr 28 11:25),
Would you please provide the name(s) of anyone from Merck who went to jail because of Vioxx. As far as I have been able to determine, the only criminal charges that were filed were against the corporation and those were settled by a fine.
John M:
Yep.
As I pointed out on James blog, VCs ethical behavior as an editor has nothing to do with his geomagnetic research. [Nor do his views on climate change, or the paper he wrote that so enraged Pierrehumbert and others.]
Nor were the rules that the complaints are about even in place at the time when VC was an editor, but let’s never mind small technical details like this when sliming people who’s scientific views we disagree with, and even find politically inconvenient.
I’ve seen far worse flagrant violations from editors that this.
“Yup; they go all out to retaliate and punish”
Huh? One blogger grumbling?
Nick, I think it’s this part
that people are referring to, not Raypierre’s hit pieces in RC. (Part I and Part II.)
Somebody went to an extraordinary amount of work to smear VC here. (Shades of Mashey and his hit pieces on Wegman. Let’s focus on ethics, because unlike them, we’re ethical, right Peter Gleick?)
This is also a good read
My favorite quote from it:
RayPierre paraphrases Clinton in Part II” “It’s the physics, stupid.”
No. It’s the politics.
Pasotti’s Science article is the gift that keeps on giving for those who like irony. There is this little gem:
Is “known to be linked”… how?
Using all of that satellite data from 1950-1970 right?
“The proxy record is not recorded, it is derived. The “hide the decline†was not an attempt to hide cooling, it was an attempt to deal with proxies that showed cooling when the measured record was showing clear warming.
There was no cooling in the record being fraudulently hidden from us. There was one type of proxy showing cooling when we knew it was warming.”
These types of discussions often quickly roll off the tracks when the peripheral issues get more attention than the basic one.
The problem was and remains to this day to be simply that a divergence in the proxy response points directly to the validity of the proxy being very much in question. If one cannot explain and show the physical reason for the proxy failing to respond to the modern temperature increase the whole historical proxy response is in doubt. It is not simply the dendro proxy response but also non dendro proxy responses as admitted in Mann (08) that suffer from divergence. Tacking the instrumental record onto the end of spaghetti graphs of many proxies is deceptive as it can cover up the divergence problem and incorrectly put the validity of the instrumental record and the proxy responses on the same footing.
Those who defend these methods, to which I have objected above, are either not understanding the problem or simply into denial. I am certain that there are a number of climate scientists who appreciate the significance of the divergence problem and who would laugh at some of these defenses of obscuring the problem. The true scientist, as opposed to the scientist/advocate would not hesitate to remind of a problem like divergence and look for possible explanations without ruling out of hand the possibility that the proxies can fail when tested out-of-sample.
Kenneth Fritsch:
Beyond that… it’s plain embarrassing to watch people claiming to be scientists trying to argue how the divergence doesn’t matter, and how it’s OK to hide or delete results that are detrimental to your argument.
Briffa’s truncating his data to avoid the parts where they diverged is an example.
Questions for genuine skeptics: Would he have truncated the graph where he did, if he saw agreement? Would he have deleted that portion of his reconstructed series from the NOAA archive if they didn’t diverge?
How isn’t this a form of fraud? (And why doesn’t this matter more than failing to catch one of your students plagiarizing text?)
#94890
“The true scientist, as opposed to the scientist/advocate would not hesitate to remind of a problem like divergence and look for possible explanations without ruling out of hand the possibility that the proxies can fail when tested out-of-sample.”
Here’s a true scientist doing exactly that. Briffa et al, PNAS 1998Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
“Also, where dendroclimatology is concerned to reconstruct longer (increasingly above centennial) temperature histories, such alterations of ‘normal’ (pre–industrial) tree–growth rates and climate–growth relationships must be accounted for in our attempts to translate the evidence of past tree growth changes. ”
And Carrick “Briffa’s truncating his data…”
He didn’t truncate his data. He discontinued the plot after 1960 because he didn’t believe it correctly represented temperature. He had published numerous prominent papers, including the above, to say why he thought that. If he doesn’t believe that, do you think he should have published a graph representing those numbers as temperature, believing that to be untrue?
Nick:
Excuse making.
Carrick, it’s not excuse making. There’s a simple question there. I’ll repeat it.
If he doesn’t believe that, do you think he should have published a graph representing those numbers as temperature, believing that to be untrue?
I am with nicky on this one. You can’t expect them to show proxy data that doesn’t match up with the temperature record. That would raise all sorts of inconvenient issues. Look at what some smarty pants said above:
“The problem was and remains to this day to be simply that a divergence in the proxy response points directly to the validity of the proxy being very much in question. If one cannot explain and show the physical reason for the proxy failing to respond to the modern temperature increase the whole historical proxy response is in doubt.”
See what I mean? More persecution of honest, hardworking climate scientists.
No, it is excuse making. Simple as that. We’ve covered this territory enough times, and your cover story for this unethical conduct doesn’t hold water. Pull the other one.
Nonetheless,
He should show all results, including those that are adverse to his hypothesis that proxy reconstructed values using his algorithms are a measure of temperature:
Because those adverse results speak to the veracity of his hypothesis that his proxy reconstruction is a measure of temperature of course he should show them.
Nick Stokes loves his petty rhetorical tricks:
This is what is called a false dilemma. People say the divergent data should not have been hidden. Nick Stokes would have you believe this means they would require that data be promoted as representative of temperature.
Of course, nobody could sensibly believe those are the only two choices. Pretty much everyone would understand there are other possibilities. For example, all the data could be shown, and the divergent part could be shown in a different format (such as dashed lines). The document and figure could then explain that data was suspected of being contaminated somehow, and thus wasn’t believed to be representative of temperature.
This would show the data, inform the readers of the “problem,” and let them decide whether or not the divergence caused them to have less faith in the rest of the series.
But hey, intellectual honesty isn’t something we can expect.
#84898
“Because those adverse results speak to the veracity of his hypothesis that his proxy reconstruction is a measure of temperature of course he should show them.”
Well, he did. In the 1998 PNAS paper for example (Figs 3 and 5). Or in the 2000 QSR paper, Figs 1 and 2. Right up to date, with discussion of the divergence and its implications. Yet you say he’s “truncated the data” and is guilty of fraud.
Your complaint seems to by the AR3 report. That is a summary document. It had about half a page on tre-rings, and two graphs (Fig 2.20 andFig 2.21). They were multi-proxy representations of temperature. They are not seeking to establish there and then the validity of the component methodologies. For that they properly refer to the original papers, which in Briffa’s case at least give ample coverage. And they (AR3) do explicitly warn of the issue:
“There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a).”
This is not fraud.
Nick:
Fraud is a bad choice of words (maybe it should be a Lucia banned word) because it assumes motive, and I can’t say the motivation of the deceptive figure and deleted data was to deceive (a necessary criterion for fraud). I’ll blame that on me being tired, but I shouldn’t have used the word.
How about just un-f**king-believably sloppy?
Brandon:
Unfortunately there is something to what you say here.
If anybody could in the same paragraph criticize Spencer or Lindzen and condone Briffa for the exact same behavior, it would be Nick.
Of course I use “un-f**king-believably” in the spirt intended here. (Need I mention NSFW?)
“But hey, intellectual honesty isn’t something we can expect.”
The intellectual honesty is apparent in the results. It’s warming, perma frost that was regarded as permanent is melting, other proxies confirm the ‘hockey stick’. ( You will note in the ATI video they get the hockey stick around the wrong way. )
Science is out of the comfort zone of the laboratory, it’s now dealing with many areas where the data is difficult, transitory, hard to find. If they wait till they have 100% conclusive proof, it is already too late to offer all the options to the problem that were available.
So how about the intellectual honesty of this McIntyre post?
http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/23/moberg-satellite/
He slams the use of CRU data, and demands they use the satellite data, because ” post-1980 satellite temperatures are high but not off the charts “.
Guess what, by McIntyres own standards, once the satellite errors were corrected, the temperature record is “off the charts”.
CRU has since been revised, to make the temperature record according to them higher, not lower.
Nick Stokes (Comment #94887)
“Huh? One blogger grumbling?”
No Nick, not just one blogger grumbling. Look at what Team members have to say about Judith Curry…. that firebrand right wing “denier” and formerly respected member of the “community”. These guys are politically motivated; they clearly act to discredit and damage any scientist who does not tow the party line on global warming (their escapades are plainly shown in the UEA email messages). They refuse to countenance anyone who doubts the magnitude of the danger they believe global warming poses, or even any climate scientists who will engage the public in an open forum. For them it is ~100% about the desired policy outcome. When I see you tirelessly defending indefensible behaviors by politically motivated climate scientists, I can only believe that you inhabit some world I have not experienced in my 60+ years… and I have traveled widely. I find your take on vocal climate scientists strange, very strange.
Yeah, why should scientists have the right to complain about terrible papers and BS arguments? I just know that it’s all political because I read some emails once.
Curry is talking cr@p. They called her on it. The “Uncertainty Monster” has been with science from the dawn of history, it’s hardly her discovery. The certainty is good enough to have decade by decade increases without a decrease.
If she is really that concerned about uncertainty, it works both ways. The temperature could get much higher than predicted.
We’ll I’ve met Mockton.. And Ben Pile had to drag me away from a little heated discussion, because he irritated me so much..
UKIP are without any Member od parliament, with anumber of MEP’s (by prop represenation) and if he party is not quite a joke. a few of the leadership figures are.. and I would include monckton..
Because of this, and his association with CAGW scepticism, it is very hard for anybody in the mainstream UK parties tohave been sceptical of climate change, as they risked being labelled a climate sceptic nutter / fringe politician like Monckton..
That said, he can speak well, has a grasp of presentation, etc and with out the political association backage, is a good communicator, (thats’ why he does well in the USA/Aus) allbeit with a certain style that irritates me.
Boris:
Apparently they don’t…if the papers contain the right Message.
You routinely attack people on this blog, myself included, for daring to point out problems with terrible papers and BS arguments.
Who would have guessed that after hounding CRU for years about their temperature record, McIntyre didn’t call them on underestimating the global average. He was determined to prove they were over estimating it. How many skeptics complained about that.
I like how the bleepout for “crap” became an email hyperlink. It almost looks intentional.
bugs:
Conclusive proof of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” you mean?
The real crux for CAGW activists is convincing people to make massive changes to their economic infrastructure when the preponderance of evidence points against CAGW.
You might have had a chance if the “most likely scenario” indicated CAGW type warming (greater than 4°C/doubling), but anything under 3°C/doubling…which is what the science is moving towards…we are better off with a combined strategy of mitigating and adapting to the changes than solely trying to mitigate them.
bugs:
You mean underestimating it [*] for a ten-year period, but remaining within the uncertainty bounds of the other series?
Yeah, he should call them out on that. LOL.
[*] I use bugs term here, but I don’t think it’s scientifically demonstrable that CRU is actually too low. The main difference between it and GISTEMP, which is the only one running substantially high, is GISTEMPs untested and currently untestable extrapolation method.
bugs (Comment #94911) 
April 30th, 2012 at 6:06 am
That doesn’t really help the (standard) CAGW argument. As Carrick points out, typical mitigation strategies call for massive infrastructure changes. This could, in principle be justified if there were a reasonable assurance that the associated costs would “pay off” in the long term. For example, the projected warming is 4°C by 2100 with damages, but if we spend $X on (whatever strategy) now, then the warming will only be a “safe” 2°C. However, if it turns out that after spending $X we have in fact reduced warming from 6°C to 4°C, then maybe we should have saved $X for something else. The upshot is that uncertainty matters on both ends of the “catastrophe” scale.
Nick Stokes (Comment #94893)
“Here’s a true scientist doing exactly that. Briffa et al, PNAS 1998Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?”
Nick, that title is very telling and indicates to me that the authors either miss the point of the divergence problem or would rather not face it head on. The wording in the title assumes that the proxies were responding more or less correctly to temperature in times past but are failing in modern times. How would one know that the proxies were once valid without having an independent measure of temperature as provided in the modern times by the instrumental record?
It is rather obvious that climate scientists working in these areas might have something to lose by a refutation of the proxy responses in the past and thus they might be hesitant to look past a limited search for finding a modern explanation/exception for the proxies.
In my mind the divergence, which by the way is not confined to dendro proxies but also non dendro ones as noted in Mann (08) and is apparent when proxies are graphed separately and without attaching the instrumental record to the end, points to some methodological weaknesses in the way the current science community deals with proxies and do temperature reconstructions.
First, the proxy selection process is not defined by an a priori criteria that is based on good physical reasoning, but rather is apparently one of in-sample testing and selection. Divergence is a logical outcome of the use of in-sample testing. We do not see the samples that are rejected because those samples are assumed not to be good thermometers in-sample. Second, there appears to be a great hesitancy in the face of the divergence problem to bring proxy measurements up to date. Going back to same site and taking measurements to extend the proxy series would in effect provide at least some out-of-sample data. Third, divergence as it appears in some proxies and not in others appears to agree with what one might expect from an ARIMA model with a fractional d value, i.e. long term persistence.
The use of spaghetti graphs with the instrumental record tacked onto the end is very much in the spirit of climate scientists not facing the divergence problem directly and failing to do work in the areas I have noted above and in using the title of the paper as noted above that incorrectly assumes the past proxy responses are valid. The approach might be best described merely as being wrong-headed, but it is what it is.
Bugsy, you are wanted back at RC headquarters for R&R (repair and re-indoctrination). Your mission has been aborted. You are doing more harm than good for the cause.
I don’t attack, but merely point out that your complaints about Mann are ticky-tack despite the loud indignation.
Oliver:
This is wrong wrong wrong. It would be even more worth it to prevent a 6 degree warming and settle on 4 than preventing a 4 degree warming and getting a 2.
Kenneth
I just wonder how the stokesians will wriggle out of your last comment 94931. It seems to me to have nailed the intellectual prevarication of the paleo-temperature reconstructions but I am sure that there will be some wriggle-room for the determined obfuscators and deniers.
Boris,
Really that wrong?
Here’s an made-up scenario: due to 4°C projected warming you spent some of your money mitigating CO2 and some of the rest building up your sea wall for the sea level rise due to the remaining 2°C. However, what you found out was the rise was still 4°C, so while it was beneficial to reduce CO2, the Greenland ice falls off anyway and the fisheries collapse, and you really wanted to do was move your cities and start churning out Soylent Green.
bugs:
That post is perfectly honest. You however, are being dishonest. Or you’re just incapable of reading simple sentences. Either way, you’re flagrantly making things up when you say:
McIntyre didn’t demand the use of satellite data, so he couldn’t possibly have demanded it for that reason. You’ve now reached the point of pulling things out of thin air.
At the point you start making specific accusations based on absolutely nothing, you have to realize you’re doing something wrong.
I think Judith Curry may have learned a lesson on the uncertainty of climate science results when she made some bold estimates about future tropical storm activity that she might later have regretted making.
I would agree that the discussion of AGW suffers a major weakness, in not only climate science predictions, but also those related the policy on climate and AGW. Even if one accepted the current range of estimated future warming touted by the IPCC, for it to mean anything with regards to policy would require translating that warming into estimates of the consequences of that warming be that good, bad or indifferent for mankind. The latter estimates are much less well handled than the former.
Further of critical importance to policy is estimating the uncertainty for a quantified success for the policy if implemented and the possibility of the well known unintended consequences that often turn large government programs into failures.
McIntyres motivation is publicly stated.
“His late return would shake the academic world to its core. One day, McIntyre came across a curve that seemed all too familiar to him. It was the famous hockey stick curve (see graphic), with which US climatologist Michael Mann sought to prove that, during the last millennium, temperatures have never increased as sharply as they are rising today.
But McIntyre was suspicious. “In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you.”
The stubborn Canadian pestered one scientist after another to provide him with raw data — until he hit pay dirt and discovered that the hockey stick curve was, in his opinion at least, a sham.”
That “off the scale” claim is what he is seeking to disprove all along. The temperature cannot be off the scale, because, if it was, then he has been wrong from the start. So he does his usual insinuation of incompetence, points out the satellite record is nowhere as high, and never, ever does he question the satellite record. So much for his super auditing skills. Whenever the evidence is not what he wants to question, when it’s what he wants to see, he loses super powers of auditing, and just accepts things without question. He has done this numerous times. When you look at the standards he demands of others, and the insinuations he makes about them, he fails to meet that same standard himself.
bugs, you made a false accusation against Steve McIntyre, and when it was pointed out, you simply ignored the issue. I have no interest in dealing with your dishonesty any further.
But by all means, feel free to continue wasting your time making outlandish accusations which show nothing more than your own failings.
I have made no false accusation. It is right there. He was wrong. He was dishonest, hoist on his own petard. When there were multiple temperature records out there, all going “off the scale”, he chose the only one that would fit his preconceptions, that only one that would deny there was a hockey stick blade, and the only one that was wrong. CRU was showing a hockey stick blade all along, he hounded them for years about it, could not accept it was correct. Show me where he had any doubts about the satellite record, he has none there. He accepts it without questions. No audits, demands for code. (Last I heard, the code has still not been released). Yet, because they agree with his ‘skepticism’, he does not ‘audit’ them. That is dishonest.
“That post is perfectly honest. You however, are being dishonest. Or you’re just incapable of reading simple sentences. Either way, you’re flagrantly making things up when you say:”
Then tell me, what is wrong with that post?
bugs….Steve McIntyre is on record as saying that if someone wants to learn about climate change, then they should go to the IPCC reports. My take is that he agrees that global warming is happening. He would just prefer that attribution to humans be demonstrated by good maths rather than Mann maths or Briffa bodges or Jones’s sheer incompetence.
The fact that no skeptics were hounding UAH with FOIA requests while simultaneously praising that data set is pretty clear evidence that skeptics are only skeptical of what they don’t like.
Re: Boris (Apr 30 16:34),
I believe that’s called confirmation bias and it’s a human failing not limited to CAGW skeptics, as should be obvious from the comments on this and many other threads.
Re: diogenes (Apr 30 16:23),
Please stop feeding the troll.
Billc (Comment #94922)
April 30th, 2012 at 8:09 am
Did you try sending an e-mail? Maybe bugs would have responded.
DeWitt:
It’s not just confirmation bias, I think. After all, UAH really isn’t in disagreement with any of the other series, which is especially interesting, given that it is measuring a different mean elevation height.
I think most people believe they know how a thermometer works. Radiometric measurements OTH probably seem a bit daunting to try and dabble in.
UAH was at one time the outlier and held as superior by most skeptics. I’m pretty sure that McIntyre’s post was made before the papers in Science that pointed out flaws in UAH’s handling of satellite drift (those also appeared in 2005).
Also during the time when UAH diverged strongly with the surface record, people like McIntyre always talked about how satellite records were better. They never mentioned RSS, however.
There just aren’t that many differences between RSS and UAH. (Other than what seem to be step function changes that are suggestive of an artifact in one or both products.)
UAH is the more heavily publicized product, and besides it has the skeptic Roy Spencer as a spokesperson, so skeptics are naturally more prone to accept his word that people they see as being part of a political movement. Nonetheless if they were hoping for a different picture that the surface record, statistically speaking, it’s a wash.
OTH, climate alarmists never criticize RSS (or Michael Mann or Keith Briffa or Phil Jones or …), so there you have it.
Boris:
And of course, by “people like McIntyre,” Boris means, “Unnamed people who share some vaguely similar traits with McIntyre, but not including McIntyre.” Because Boris isn’t like bugs. He wouldn’t flagrantly make stuff up…
Right?
“And of course, by “people like McIntyre,†Boris means, “Unnamed people who share some vaguely similar traits with McIntyre, but not including McIntyre.†Because Boris isn’t like bugs. He wouldn’t flagrantly make stuff up…
Right”
Read McIntyre’s blog. Plenty of people agreeing with him there.
diogenes (Comment #94964)
April 30th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
When the CRU was set up, it was trailblazing climate research into new areas. Jones was a part of that team from the beginning.
The work they have done appears to have stood the test of time, despite years of denigration, questioning of competence and being held up as objects of ridicule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
McIntyre claiming the satellite record is better is there in the link that bugs provided.
As for RSS vs. UAH, yes they are very similar now. Not so before 2005.
I’m not criticizing UAH temperature record, (now), it seems to be mostly debugged. I will criticize Roy for his latest effort, which seems to suggest the US is not warming, and it’s all UHI.
bugs (Comment #94985),
“Mostly” is right. There are still issues with their tropics anomaly.
@Brandon
“And of course, by “people like McIntyre,†Boris means, “Unnamed people who share some vaguely similar traits with McIntyre, but not including McIntyre.†Because Boris isn’t like bugs. He wouldn’t flagrantly make stuff up…
Right?”
Like Bob Carter, who will be speaking at the upcoming NIPCC, back in 2005, who believed the satellite record,( by which he means not RSS), is better than the surface temperature records, which are biased by UHI.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/climate-change-response/3447718
“The surface temperature record, we know that that is biased by the urban heat island effect whereby the towns and cities that we live in generate heat locally, and although the curve that you see reproduced in the newspaper or on television is corrected for that curve, there are many, many scientists who believe that the correction is not adequate. At the same time, it conflicts with independent estimates or measurements that we have of changing temperature made in the atmosphere by satellites and weather balloons. “
Yeah, I usually spell Carter as ‘M c I n t y r e’
Apparently Boris does too.
Bugsy, you need to take your crew over to haunt this heretic for a while:
http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature
Don’t forget to stop by RC to get your talking points. Chris Colost, Wannabe Junior Climate Scientist , has a post there with predictably fawning comments that should help you.
Earle Williams:
But don’t forget, Boris also said:
Of course, anyone who reads that post will see McIntyre claimed nothing of the sort. These are the two sentences he wrote about satellite records:
McIntyre observed the difference between two records. That’s it. Boris claims this is saying “the satellite record is better,” which is obvious nonsense. It would appear Boris is just as willing to make things up as bugs. Fortunately, he doesn’t go as far as bugs who said:
Brandon, if you can’t see the appeal to emotions in the phrase “off the charts” then I can’t help you. The intent is clear, it fits in with McIntyre’s own words describing his motivation for founding CA, as I quoted earlier.
“But McIntyre was suspicious. “In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you.—
He doesn’t accept that, he believes it is fraudulent, that scientists are ‘palming something off to you’.
As for mentioning Carter, the question was asked by you, who are these people like McIntyre. So I provided you one, Bob Carter, it was a common meme before the UAH satellite record was adjusted that the satellites were providing a better quality temperature set than the land surface record. You asked for who ‘people like McIntyre’ was, I gave you an example. Then you complain. Carter will be giving another presentation at the NIPCC.
bugs…take your meds and maybe you will feel better tomorrow
Bugs,
Let’s see if we can get you to focus.
Where does McIntyre “demand” that satellite data be used instead of CRU?
John M, I wouldn’t get your hopes up. Just look at what bugs said in his last comment:
I never once asked who “people like McIntyre” were. If bugs is still flagrantly making things up, do you really think he’ll go back and correct anything?
Brandon forgot this sentence from McIntyre’s post:
The whole point of that post is that climate scientists were cherrypicking their data set, which might be biased high because of UHI. Ergo, satellites are better.
Boris:
When I decided to quote sentences about the satellite records, I forgot:
Which says nothing about satellite records. I’m just an idiot like that. I saw a sentence about something other than satellite records, and I decided not to include it in my collection of sentences about the satellite record.
It’s true. Saying there may be problems with one data set means you’re necessarily saying another data set is better. When I say the St. Louis Rams suck, I’m clearly saying my high school foot ball team was better.
Oh wait. That’s not how it works. Discussing potential problems with one thing does not mean you’re claiming it is worse than something else. Especially not when you offer no judgment on the quality of that something else.
Or maybe I’m wrong. I could be senile, like Boris seems to think.
“Or maybe I’m wrong. I could be senile, like Boris seems to think.”
I think the word you are looking for is “Disingenuous”.
“I never once asked who “people like McIntyre†were. If bugs is still flagrantly making things up, do you really think he’ll go back and correct anything?”
Correct, you said
“And of course, by “people like McIntyre,†Boris means, “Unnamed people who share some vaguely similar traits with McIntyre, but not including McIntyre.†Because Boris isn’t like bugs. He wouldn’t flagrantly make stuff up…
Right?â€
You said it, I provided you with a name.
As for McIntyre and the CRU
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aclimateaudit.org+CRU
You think he might have a thing for the CRU? After all his bluster and OCD behaviour towards them, their CRUTEMP is correct, the temperature is “off the charts”. The ‘hockey stick’ has a blade.
Check out new WUWT post about the case.
Did bugs just sort of admit to making things up, without actually admitting to it? I guess that’s a step in the right direction.
Bugs
I do enjoy talking to toddlers. But you have not yet reached that stage. Your original post pointed back to 2005. That is a long time for climate science. Phil Jones has just revised the global temperature record again,,,because his methods always stand the test of time, as you reminded me before.
The question is…why do folks such as you, Boris, Nick Stokes feel the need to deny that “we got it wrong”. We now have better evidence and this is a better guide to what is happening.
Why can you not accept that knowledge can increase over time? Are you stuck in some kind of Galenistic world where we know everything, and therefore any change means that the world is destroyed?
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #95049)
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Did bugs just sort of admit to making things up, without actually admitting to it? I guess that’s a step in the right direction.”
Brandon, perhaps you could just address the point you raised. By nitpicking, you don’t have to admit that ‘skeptics’, like McInytre, said that the UAH satellite record was more accurate, and should be used in preference to, the CRU temperature record. But if you keep nitpicking, you don’t have to address the actual substance of the debate here.
Bugs,
Again, try to focus…
You now say “should be used in preference to”.
What happened to “demand”?
diogenes (Comment #95050)
I have always thought that knowledge increases over time, the ‘skeptical’ tactic has been that if the complete science of climate is not presented in full, and correctly, the first time, then the scientists are incompetent, or even worse, fraudulent. Just look at the comments on the problems with proxies in this thread.
The CRU temperature record is being revised, but the narrative is showed about the land based thermometer temperature record is consistent. To use McIntyre’s own words, it is “off the charts”.
Bugs…I would love to play bridge against you. You would be so easy to cream.
diogenes
For some reason, your reference to bugs playing bridge brings the term “declarer’s partner” to mind.
John M:
And that is why I don’t bother to respond to bugs anymore. He may call it nitpicking, but expecting people to actually make truthful statements is something I do in exchanges.
bugs:
I”ll bite.
Do you have a link where McIntyre said that “the UAH satellite record was more accurate, and should be used in preference to, the CRU temperature record”. Or is this another fabricated claim on your part?
BTW, pointing out glaring factual misstatements that you’ve made isn’t the same thing as “nitpicking”. JFYI.
You honestly can’t detect the snark in this.
“To even contemplate use of Moberg, the Hockey Team has to rely entirely on the splice of CRU records, rather than satellite records.”
In case you missed the point of McIntyre’s post, he makes it clear at the end.
“Phil Jones’ construction of temperature data sets has been financed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Whether the CRU data sets are right or wrong, they need to be audited. I don’t see why the Hockey Team should be exempt from audit standards.”
He says the CRU “need to be audited”. They need to be audited. The satellite record, on the other hand, does not need to audited. Presumably because it is not “off the charts”, even though it turns out it was the record that was wrong.
Bugs,
Again, try to focus.
Where did McIntyre say the satellite record didn’t need to be audited? Was it the same place he “demanded” it be used instead of CRU?
Read the topic. There are only two temperature records he uses, CRU and UAH. One tells him what he wants to hear, the other doesn’t. He says the CRU “need to be audited”. He makes no such statement about the UAH.
If you can’t read the ‘snark’ in this
“To even contemplate use of Moberg, the Hockey Team has to rely entirely on the splice of CRU records, rather than satellite records.â€
then I can’t help you.