23 thoughts on “Happy Hour: Time to Play!”

1. tl;dr

   Doesn’t the Heisenberg principle come in to effect? I know I’m being watched so I’ll modify my behaviour…?

2. AJ–
   Well… yes. Which is an interesting notion for a survey.

3. lucia (Comment #699)
   February 8th, 2008 at 10:05 am

   In reviewing your comments over time, I found this comment which cast doubt on average global warming if there was not a significant measurable increase in world temperature by 2013. As global temperatures are now at documented levels significantly greater in the last decade or two, are you prepared to acknowledge by your own criteria that AWG is indeed occurring?

4. Who’s the unwatched control group? Carrick, Mosh, Brandon S?

   Nah, Must be Nicky S.

5. Doug Rasmussen,

   The way you word that it sounds as if you are suggesting I’ve claimed global warming is not occurring. I’ve always said that global warming is occurring.

6. “Doug Rasmussen”,

   Your comment sounds like very form-letterish. Generalizations and slogans. Just sayin’.

   Andrew

7. Doug,

   I believe people misunderstood you. Everyone here understands that CO2 warming is a real effect and that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by people. Thus Anthropogenic Global Warming is clearly true. No dispute there of course.

   But what you referred to in a clever slight-of-hand was AWG, or Alamrist Warmanista Globalitis. Which is an entirely different manifestation of a psycho-gaian personality disorder caused by left-wing anti-industrial extremism. Symptoms include failure to understand that observations trump models, natural is not always beneficial, and the ability for climate to change over time on its own.

   I’m surprised that Lucia bit on it. 😀

8. Dear Doug Rama Lama Ding Dong,

   I will assert that for this century that global surface temperatures will increase linearly at about 0.13C per decade. I believe this a much more defensible position than around 0.2C per decade as per the IPCC AR4.

   Does that make me a denier?

   Sincerely, AJ

9. This is starting to feel like conspiracy ideation.

10. For how long has “ideation” been a word?

11. Maybe the data from the survey isn’t what’s going into the study at all, maybe they’re watching our combined reactions to the study and then they will write a study based upon it?

    Anyways, that being said, from what I’ve seen from the “Team”, there’s no such thing as an unpickable cherry. They’ll make whatever point they want to make regardless of where the data leads them.

12. j feruson 112801

    Apparently for a long time: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideation

13. since 1818 is a long time. one needs frequent reminding that he isn’t as literate as he might think. OR, he might be reading the wrong stuff.

    thanks, john

14. Thanks Lucia – that will make for less “biased” statistics.

    Jeff Condon
    Re: “Thus Anthropogenic Global Warming is clearly true.”
    Please clarify: Do you mean there are known anthropogenic effects and
    1) The magnitude is not known
    2) The magnitude is too small to distinguish from chaotic climate
    3) The magnitude is minor (e.g 5-50%) or
    4) The magnitude is major e.g. > 50%?

    The survey assumes 4) and does not clearly distinguish 1-3.

15. j ferguson: “since 1818 is a long time”

    For this poll, the real question is, how long has “zero” been a word?

16. David,

    I don’t know the magnitude and can’t prove we have measured it but there is warming from added CO2 based on known physics. Also we see a signal in the temp records running at the low edge of prediction.

    That isn’t a ‘hedged bet’ it is simply an observation. The survey’s first question assumes 4 but the second question does not. If the measured warming is not >50% from man, observation is wayyyyy off from the models.

17. The first use of ideation appears to be from Coleridge. The second from Mill. (The OED is great!)

    1818 S. T. Coleridge Notebks. (1973) III. 4445 Reality, as a primary Self-revelation or Idea having itself for its Object or Ideation.

    1829 J. Mill Anal. Human Mind I. 42 As we say Sensation, we might also say Ideation; it would be a very useful word… Sensation is the general name for one part of our constitution..Ideation for another.

18. “Anyways, that being said, from what I’ve seen from the “Team”, there’s no such thing as an unpickable cherry. They’ll make whatever point they want to make regardless of where the data leads them.”

    Explains much about this line of thread.

19. Scott Basinger (Comment #112805)
    May 11th, 2013 at 11:52 am
    Maybe the data from the survey isn’t what’s going into the study at all, maybe they’re watching our combined reactions to the study and then they will write a study based upon it?
    Anyways, that being said, from what I’ve seen from the “Team”, there’s no such thing as an unpickable cherry. They’ll make whatever point they want to make regardless of where the data leads them.
    #############

    Of course one can write a paper on the reactions to it. very fertile ground.

20. “Of course one can write a paper on the reactions to it. very fertile ground.”

    Lots of organic fertilizer in these parts.

21. http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013-discussion.html

    Cook et al have another paper under discussion. As well as undermining his data collection you could also go participate in the open discussion of the paper at the journal. Seems like SkS brand of slagging off scientists is heading for the peer-reviewed literature.

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013.pdf

22. HR, I saw that paper not too long ago. I found it hilarious. It reads to me as nothing more than, “Here we criticize a bunch of papers we dislike.” I’m not that familiar with most of the work in it, but the commentary on McIntrye and McKitrick’s criticism of the hockey stick is staggeringly stupid.

    I’ll see if I can find some of the quotes that made me laugh.

23. Ah, yes. That paper bemoans a “lack of openness and transparency”:

    Another problem was the lack of openness and transparency, which prevented finding out why the conclusions in some of these cases differed to attempts to replicate (Le Page, 2009). However, in the absence of real replication of the analysis on which these rest and recognised journals in which to publish and share the replicated results, the discourse has been superficial and dogmatic.

    Failing to address the fact the problem they’re talking about is caused by the behavior of the people on their own “side.” To add to the humor, they defend Mann’s supposed openness and transparency saying:

    The source code for the Mann et al. (1998) analysis has been available on-line since 2005, although there have been accusations of not sharing the data and the code.

    This is funny, in a disturbing sort of way. Mann repeatedly refused to share his data and code. He only shared it because he was (basically) forced to. The authors of this paper portray the situation as the exact opposite.

    But it gets worse. The paper conveniently refers to the “source code for the Mann et al. (1998) analysis.” However, that section of the paper is discussing “the reconstruction carried out by
    Mann et al. (1999, 1998).” They started by talking about MBH99 and MBH98 which, combined, gave the iconic hockey stick. They then only talked about the code for MBH98. Odd, right?

    Not really. There is source code for MBH99 that has never been released. The authors had to restrict themselves to discussing MBH98’s code if they wanted to avoid giving any credence to their opponents.

    The shape of each individual PC, on the other hand, is less relevant as the regression analysis weights 5 the different PCs according to how well they match the calibration data.

    They say the shape of each PC doesn’t matter so much, as long as that shape matches the “calibration data.” In other words, as long a PC has a blade, it doesn’t matter what its overall shape is. That’s basically praising the screening fallacy.

    Another point is that the actual “blade” of the hockey stick graph were not a result of the PCA, but consisted of instrumental data which had been added to the reconstructions (Mann, 2012).

    This is a hilarious idea. They’re basically saying the “blade” of the hockey stick is due to instrumental data being added to the reconstructed “shaft.” If that were true, it’d mean reconstructed temperatures show… a flat line. What kind of defense of Mann’s work is that?

    there is also a long Wikipedia entry on this
    topic: “Hockey stick controversy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey stick controversy.

    Oh no, they didn’t. Wikipedia?

Comments are closed.