Piss weak opinions such as yours are what compel me to do what is frowned upon by the less than polite society of intelligentsia, to openly critique the holy screed of the Church of Climatology.
Steve McIntyre has never published an alternative proxy reconstruction as you imply. All he has done is demonstrate that Mann's work is balls; on multiple counts.
There are plenty of papers that claim to reveal hockey sticks. There are plenty of papers that reveal MWP/LWP ups and downs not unlike current temps. McIntyre has never authored any such paper
Whether or not McIntyre has a professional history in heavy industry is utterly irrelevant. Just a adhom/appeal to authority irreverent fallacy. Are you trying to imply McIntyre is somehow involved in a fossil fuel conspiracy? haha. You realise mining and fossil fuel are not even the same thing right? Arguably fossil fuel is mined, and some mining processes are energy intensive, but I suspect you are probably doing something alot of lightweights do, interchanging them as though they are equivalent.
McIntyre, unlike Mann is skilled in statistical methods. This is relevant
McIntyre, unlike Mann understands his intellectual limits and routinely defers to and seeks expertise of actual experts in statistical methods. Again unlike Mann. i.e. his regular co-authors, e.g. Mckitrick (economics professor) and many others.
*all* of them? Climate Science, where exaggeration is so institutionalized it's one-eyed advocates are not even aware of when they are indulging in it.
The data fails to track what they hope it tracks, so they go on a fishing expedition seeking for some sort of discriminator so they can further throw out 'inconvenient' data.
Firstly, the discriminator has little explanatory power.
Secondly, the _retained_ southern tree ring data is polluted with a species that is _sensitive_ to fertilization. They retained data that has other signal influences, instead of removing it.
Instead of eliminating the unwanted signal as all the hand waving implies, they explicitly rely on it to get the shape they need.
But at least it creates the shape they wanted.
Fact is tree are dubious thermometers, and that the 'climate team' continue try to polish this turd speaks volumes about the quality of their professional output.
A long term project implies that a viable plan is in play. Mars colonisation is a bride to far at this point in time.
When Elon Musk said 'I'm planning to retire to Mars', that is a personal vision and goal. It is inspiring, I wish him well.
But when Branson says ""In my lifetime, I'm determined to being a part of starting a population on Mars,"; he is ego tripping. What's the first city on Mars going to be called? Bransonville? Join the back of the queue of all the othe snake oil salesmen and ego trippers promising to deliver Mars; who all somehow manage to get a story on slashdot every month or so. Impressed? Not one bit.
"Alarmist" is an "alarmist". Whether or not it is a neo Malthusian predicting ruin of civilization via environmental cataclysm or a neo conservative predicting national ruin because of progressive/left wing policymaking.
An "alarmist" is anyone who irrationally clings to a conviction of ruin and fails to acknowledge the presense evidence that contradicts their position.
Nice try, trying to characterize your ideological opponents as rabble rousers.
Of course whenever or not climate change is anthropogenic is important. The faithful assume it is, and ergo it logically follows that decarbonisation is a meaningful and effective mitigation strategy. But if it isn't anthropogenic then decarbonization may be ineffective. So a disupute over whether or the 'A' in CAGW is reality is an important dispute to resolve.
I find a number of tacit assumptions in your post while 'deniers' such as myself wish to explore more carefully a) relevant metrics of the global climate system (i.e. temp) are predictable, b) it is in our power to steer and influence those metrics and c) we are unwittingly steering it towards a configuration that will significantly harm ourselves.
Your 'denier' strawman fails to capture the true concerns of most 'deniers', that for myself at least essentially want I want is a rigourous and thorough cost/benefit analysis that doesn't read like unhinged doomsday environmental activist advocacy.
Why has Sweden said "no" to ever offer? What would Sweden be willing to do to talk to Julian? Anything? They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual.
The only plausable explanation I can think of is that Sweden wish to save face. They wish to demonstrate that they are not USA lapdogs which is why they are pursuing the interview on their own soil, with every intent of letting Assange on his way if they feel there is no crime worth pursuing; maybe they've probably already decided this is no crime to pursue but they want to go through the theatre of it. They do not wish to make guarantees because this means they are permitting themselves to be treated in bad faith and saving face means forcing your antagonists to treat you in good faith. Imagine if a guarantee is given, Assange supporters would say something along lines of that without the guarantees Assange was good as gitmo'd; an insult to Sweden. Is my explanation plausable? I don't know. The dynamics of mere observation of this drama have in all probability modified both the goals and strategies of all the agents involved.
So you defend USAs 'outlier' health care system by leveling withering criticism of a persons assumed financial situation, when you don't even know the persons real name, let alone their actual financial position or life situation. Stay classy proud citizen of glorious nation of USA.
Believe it or not, it's perfectly possible to get work done without turning everyone into emotional robots
Agree. There are limits, and sexual harrassment is over the line
No True Professional would do something that I object to!
So you strawman my argument by insinuating that I am employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you actually have a sound reason why acting like an clown in your workplace and having no outward pride or respect in what you do is ideal conduct, by all means share your insights.
Work is not supposed to be about fun and hyjinks, it is place where you are supposed to cultivate and practice your professional focus. It's about professional self respect, respect for your workplace and respect for your colleagues.
I once worked in a country where work culture is that lines between work and life are very very blurred. Office romance and sexualisation of the workplace was common and accepted as normal. Being the foreigner, got hit on by women and gay men all the freaking time. Worst work environment ever. I know sounds ace, initially it was quite flattering, but it got very tiresome very quickly. Heading off the work, I just want to focus on how to squeeze more ms out of a DB query, but know at some point during the day I am going to get sexually harrassed. Sex and romance is something you pursue outside of work.
Firstly, Cook was published 5 years after the email 'Mike's nature trick'. So they were shooting from the hip assuming the divergance problem can be ignored.
Secondly, Cook in no way is the final word over the controversy as to whether or not tree rings make good thermometers. It doesn't explain the cause of the modern divergance problem. It does not provide anything to bolster (or diminish) trust that tree rings are a good temp proxy. All it does is provide a pretext to disregard modern, inconvenient, data.
Steve McIntyre critiques the Cook paper on a number of levels. Namely that the breakdown Cook uses separates out trees that are well understood to respond to Co2 fertilization. If you consider only trees that do not respond to fertilization, the divergance problem actually persists. Implying that Cook rationalisation is actually a red herring. http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/cook-et-al2004-more-cargo-cult/. His post though is quite unstructured, incomplete and difficult to parse.
What is omitted is that the Biffra reconstruction post 1960 diverages from the instrumental record and other displayed proxies. This uncomfortable fact is swept under the carpet by truncating Biffra data and not revealing that this was done. And when challenged on this, the excuse proffered is that the awesome power of global warming is the cause of the divergance (without ever bothering to verify that this justification has any scientific support).
As for plotting instrumental data on same chart as proxy data. I personally would hope that most professional scientists would caution against such practice as proxy data does not have same frequency response characteristics as instrumental data. Palming them off as equivalent by plotting them on the same chart is poor work. Further bolstering accusations that advocacy, not discovery where principally on the scientists minds when putting this graph together.
'Mike's nature trick', is arguably a case of data manipulation through omission and obscurity. By cutting data off at an inconvenient point and substituting data obtained from an entirely different methodology to visually obscure on a chart how key data diverges and fails to correspond to what they claim it corresponds to . An honest broker would admit that the data may not necessary represent what they hope it represents. Instead the say the data is perfectly fine up until the point where it was not fine but it is a-okay to hand wave the problem away and make up some untested, unverified excuse why that bit can be ignored.
Professional conduct that certainly falls short of what R.Feynman advocated: " It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it"
Now you could argue this is nit picking and I guess it is. But this is not some inconsequentual field of science. It has global political ramifications as folk are trying to radically deconstruct and reconstruct our global society in order to dodge the CAGW bogeyman. Personally, I would prefer if there were more people of R.Feynman's calibre involved in the discovery and analysis process. The climategate emails reveal that there are not.
Given that the mods received my original comment favourably, your argument is not very compelling. As for whether or not looking stupid should be a concern, it comes down to how important it is to you to win the respect of people who so readily and passionately castigate you over minor infractions and trivialities. I only covert the respect of people I in turn respect. Though I will happily call out uncivil conduct, sometimes with a tone proportionate to the original behaviour.
If such precision is important to you, then do as you must I will do my best to accommodate the delicate sensitivities of the arrogant masses and be a little more careful when posting comments. I personally don't take any issue with such critique. But if anyone feels the urge to be snarky and unnecessarily rude about these sort of things, then they need to expect their attitude to be repaid in kind.
I genuinely appreciated the learn. Charlatan it is; yes I agree looks much better. Try not to get too upset because I reciprocated an equivalent level rudeness and arrogance that you initially expressed by pointing out my innoculous spelling error. Very classy behaviour on your behalf considering many visitors to this site are ELSers. ( English happens to be my first language and I freely admit that inspite of that I am a quite clumsy with it. )
Thanks for the free tip. I always appreciate it when intellectually superior people condescend to take a few moments of their precious time, usually employed in the grand betterment of humanity, to point out my minor errors and mental deficiencies. It is a humbling and awe inspiring experience. Thank you again.
Several articles on/. along these lines recently. Humble beginnings from actual private space enterprise closely followed by science fiction from space charletons.
The Apollo mission represents an inspiring and extraordinary human achievement; a significant positive legacy of USA's post war boom and technological confidence.
In contrast, Mars One seeks to breach the next obvious formidable human frontier by making the endeavour a reality TV show. Do you feel this approach trivializes and cheapens the human endeavour or are you personally at complete peace and comfort with this? Assuming you are successful, do you think your historic achievement will reflected upon an in a negative light in generations to come?
The alternative to 'cult of expert' is not 'villification of experts'. Your insinuation is a false dichotomy.
It is reasonable, in my world-view, to expect transparanency and clarity from experts. But the 'cult of expert' implies asking for these things is impertinent and impolite. I find this ludicrous. My own profession, computer programmer, I am very, very passionate about my profession : it is my life's focus. I am completely at ease with people outside my profession looking in, scrutinising, questioning, inquiring, praising and criticising, getting upset about all wasted money during dot-com boom for example. I personally thrive on scrutiny and analysis; it sharpens my mind and it in particular sharpens my mind how the broader community views my profession, my outputs and the value that I offer and how I can further improve upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, grafting proxy data and instrumental data together, without regard for their frequency response behaviors.
Gee and you guys wonder why nobody takes you warmists serious any more.
Hint: try reading the abstract
So calling out your smug ignorance and broken logic is 'ranting' apparently. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
Piss weak opinions such as yours are what compel me to do what is frowned upon by the less than polite society of intelligentsia, to openly critique the holy screed of the Church of Climatology.
*all* of them? Climate Science, where exaggeration is so institutionalized it's one-eyed advocates are not even aware of when they are indulging in it.
The original hockey stick relies on broken PCA.
Of course other hockey sticks have subsequently been teased out of the data, therefore Mann's hockey sticks were right all along. Quant Suff.
The high latitude argument is frivolous.
The data fails to track what they hope it tracks, so they go on a fishing expedition seeking for some sort of discriminator so they can further throw out 'inconvenient' data.
Firstly, the discriminator has little explanatory power.
Secondly, the _retained_ southern tree ring data is polluted with a species that is _sensitive_ to fertilization. They retained data that has other signal influences, instead of removing it.
Instead of eliminating the unwanted signal as all the hand waving implies, they explicitly rely on it to get the shape they need.
But at least it creates the shape they wanted.
Fact is tree are dubious thermometers, and that the 'climate team' continue try to polish this turd speaks volumes about the quality of their professional output.
s/bride/bridge/
A long term project implies that a viable plan is in play. Mars colonisation is a bride to far at this point in time.
When Elon Musk said 'I'm planning to retire to Mars', that is a personal vision and goal. It is inspiring, I wish him well.
But when Branson says ""In my lifetime, I'm determined to being a part of starting a population on Mars,"; he is ego tripping. What's the first city on Mars going to be called? Bransonville? Join the back of the queue of all the othe snake oil salesmen and ego trippers promising to deliver Mars; who all somehow manage to get a story on slashdot every month or so. Impressed? Not one bit.
"Alarmist" is an "alarmist". Whether or not it is a neo Malthusian predicting ruin of civilization via environmental cataclysm or a neo conservative predicting national ruin because of progressive/left wing policymaking.
An "alarmist" is anyone who irrationally clings to a conviction of ruin and fails to acknowledge the presense evidence that contradicts their position.
Nice try, trying to characterize your ideological opponents as rabble rousers.
What an artful strawman.
Of course whenever or not climate change is anthropogenic is important. The faithful assume it is, and ergo it logically follows that decarbonisation is a meaningful and effective mitigation strategy. But if it isn't anthropogenic then decarbonization may be ineffective. So a disupute over whether or the 'A' in CAGW is reality is an important dispute to resolve.
I find a number of tacit assumptions in your post while 'deniers' such as myself wish to explore more carefully a) relevant metrics of the global climate system (i.e. temp) are predictable, b) it is in our power to steer and influence those metrics and c) we are unwittingly steering it towards a configuration that will significantly harm ourselves.
Your 'denier' strawman fails to capture the true concerns of most 'deniers', that for myself at least essentially want I want is a rigourous and thorough cost/benefit analysis that doesn't read like unhinged doomsday environmental activist advocacy.
Why has Sweden said "no" to ever offer? What would Sweden be willing to do to talk to Julian? Anything? They don't even seem overly interested in actually talking to him. They seem to want one and only one thing, to get him on Swedish soil at all costs. That seems very very unusual.
The only plausable explanation I can think of is that Sweden wish to save face. They wish to demonstrate that they are not USA lapdogs which is why they are pursuing the interview on their own soil, with every intent of letting Assange on his way if they feel there is no crime worth pursuing; maybe they've probably already decided this is no crime to pursue but they want to go through the theatre of it. They do not wish to make guarantees because this means they are permitting themselves to be treated in bad faith and saving face means forcing your antagonists to treat you in good faith. Imagine if a guarantee is given, Assange supporters would say something along lines of that without the guarantees Assange was good as gitmo'd; an insult to Sweden. Is my explanation plausable? I don't know. The dynamics of mere observation of this drama have in all probability modified both the goals and strategies of all the agents involved.
So you defend USAs 'outlier' health care system by leveling withering criticism of a persons assumed financial situation, when you don't even know the persons real name, let alone their actual financial position or life situation. Stay classy proud citizen of glorious nation of USA.
Believe it or not, it's perfectly possible to get work done without turning everyone into emotional robots
Agree. There are limits, and sexual harrassment is over the line
No True Professional would do something that I object to!
So you strawman my argument by insinuating that I am employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you actually have a sound reason why acting like an clown in your workplace and having no outward pride or respect in what you do is ideal conduct, by all means share your insights.
Work is not supposed to be about fun and hyjinks, it is place where you are supposed to cultivate and practice your professional focus. It's about professional self respect, respect for your workplace and respect for your colleagues.
I once worked in a country where work culture is that lines between work and life are very very blurred. Office romance and sexualisation of the workplace was common and accepted as normal. Being the foreigner, got hit on by women and gay men all the freaking time. Worst work environment ever. I know sounds ace, initially it was quite flattering, but it got very tiresome very quickly. Heading off the work, I just want to focus on how to squeeze more ms out of a DB query, but know at some point during the day I am going to get sexually harrassed. Sex and romance is something you pursue outside of work.
Firstly, Cook was published 5 years after the email 'Mike's nature trick'. So they were shooting from the hip assuming the divergance problem can be ignored.
Secondly, Cook in no way is the final word over the controversy as to whether or not tree rings make good thermometers. It doesn't explain the cause of the modern divergance problem. It does not provide anything to bolster (or diminish) trust that tree rings are a good temp proxy. All it does is provide a pretext to disregard modern, inconvenient, data.
Steve McIntyre critiques the Cook paper on a number of levels. Namely that the breakdown Cook uses separates out trees that are well understood to respond to Co2 fertilization. If you consider only trees that do not respond to fertilization, the divergance problem actually persists. Implying that Cook rationalisation is actually a red herring. http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/cook-et-al2004-more-cargo-cult/. His post though is quite unstructured, incomplete and difficult to parse.
What is omitted is that the Biffra reconstruction post 1960 diverages from the instrumental record and other displayed proxies. This uncomfortable fact is swept under the carpet by truncating Biffra data and not revealing that this was done. And when challenged on this, the excuse proffered is that the awesome power of global warming is the cause of the divergance (without ever bothering to verify that this justification has any scientific support).
As for plotting instrumental data on same chart as proxy data. I personally would hope that most professional scientists would caution against such practice as proxy data does not have same frequency response characteristics as instrumental data. Palming them off as equivalent by plotting them on the same chart is poor work. Further bolstering accusations that advocacy, not discovery where principally on the scientists minds when putting this graph together.
'Mike's nature trick', is arguably a case of data manipulation through omission and obscurity. By cutting data off at an inconvenient point and substituting data obtained from an entirely different methodology to visually obscure on a chart how key data diverges and fails to correspond to what they claim it corresponds to . An honest broker would admit that the data may not necessary represent what they hope it represents. Instead the say the data is perfectly fine up until the point where it was not fine but it is a-okay to hand wave the problem away and make up some untested, unverified excuse why that bit can be ignored.
Professional conduct that certainly falls short of what R.Feynman advocated: " It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it"
Now you could argue this is nit picking and I guess it is. But this is not some inconsequentual field of science. It has global political ramifications as folk are trying to radically deconstruct and reconstruct our global society in order to dodge the CAGW bogeyman. Personally, I would prefer if there were more people of R.Feynman's calibre involved in the discovery and analysis process. The climategate emails reveal that there are not.
Given that the mods received my original comment favourably, your argument is not very compelling. As for whether or not looking stupid should be a concern, it comes down to how important it is to you to win the respect of people who so readily and passionately castigate you over minor infractions and trivialities. I only covert the respect of people I in turn respect. Though I will happily call out uncivil conduct, sometimes with a tone proportionate to the original behaviour.
If such precision is important to you, then do as you must I will do my best to accommodate the delicate sensitivities of the arrogant masses and be a little more careful when posting comments. I personally don't take any issue with such critique. But if anyone feels the urge to be snarky and unnecessarily rude about these sort of things, then they need to expect their attitude to be repaid in kind.
I genuinely appreciated the learn. Charlatan it is; yes I agree looks much better. Try not to get too upset because I reciprocated an equivalent level rudeness and arrogance that you initially expressed by pointing out my innoculous spelling error. Very classy behaviour on your behalf considering many visitors to this site are ELSers. ( English happens to be my first language and I freely admit that inspite of that I am a quite clumsy with it. )
Thanks for the free tip. I always appreciate it when intellectually superior people condescend to take a few moments of their precious time, usually employed in the grand betterment of humanity, to point out my minor errors and mental deficiencies. It is a humbling and awe inspiring experience. Thank you again.
Several articles on /. along these lines recently. Humble beginnings from actual private space enterprise closely followed by science fiction from space charletons.
The Apollo mission represents an inspiring and extraordinary human achievement; a significant positive legacy of USA's post war boom and technological confidence.
In contrast, Mars One seeks to breach the next obvious formidable human frontier by making the endeavour a reality TV show. Do you feel this approach trivializes and cheapens the human endeavour or are you personally at complete peace and comfort with this? Assuming you are successful, do you think your historic achievement will reflected upon an in a negative light in generations to come?
Who is advocating villification? Not I
The alternative to 'cult of expert' is not 'villification of experts'. Your insinuation is a false dichotomy.
It is reasonable, in my world-view, to expect transparanency and clarity from experts. But the 'cult of expert' implies asking for these things is impertinent and impolite. I find this ludicrous. My own profession, computer programmer, I am very, very passionate about my profession : it is my life's focus. I am completely at ease with people outside my profession looking in, scrutinising, questioning, inquiring, praising and criticising, getting upset about all wasted money during dot-com boom for example. I personally thrive on scrutiny and analysis; it sharpens my mind and it in particular sharpens my mind how the broader community views my profession, my outputs and the value that I offer and how I can further improve upon it.