the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Artifacts

Posted by Jeff Id on August 27, 2009

Today a post from Curt brought my attention to the VonStorch 2004 paper where some of the same effects I’ve been discussing are covered. Recently a new blog called climatesight clipped my post which addressed the specious claims about conservatism, skepticism and denial. The claimed reason it was clipped was appparently due to a lack of references. When I inquired which points required references those questions were clipped too. If I was a naive person, I would consider that the two links back to the hockey stick page at the top here were the problem but actually, she likely saw me as too dangerous to her cause. Tamino’s training her well for her future climatology career where censorship and obfuscation go a long way.

Still extra references to base your work on are often good, and several papers have been published demonstrating and discussing the some of the effects that I’ve demonstrated here. I find most of them far to understated for my liking but at least they make the point.

Here’s a quote from VonStorch and Zorita 2004 (VZ04) my bold.

Hints of the underestimation of lowfrequency variability by empirical reconstruction methods have been found in previous studies, based either on short data sets (17) or climate simulations with fixed external forcing (23). In a study based entirely on an instrumental data set (17), the spectrum of the difference between the reconstructed and observed global mean annual temperature is, albeit consistent with a white noise assumption, slightly red. In a further analysis of an instrumental data set and data from a long control simulation with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory climate model (with constant external forcing) and a relatively short simulation of 143 years driven by varying external forcing (23), the spectra of the temperature differences from the analysis of control simulation are red (although again statistically compatible with white noise assumption). In this externally forced simulation, it was found that the temperature reconstructions are biased if the external forcing leads to nonstationary behavior in the verification period. In a long control simulation (1000 years) with the model ECHO-G (24), the spectrum of the reconstructed annual global temperature underestimates the spectrum of the simulated global temperature at very low frequencies.

The low frequency signal underestimation has been the driving factor behind several posts here. Without mincing words, I can say that many papers suffer from this effect guaranteeing a demagnification of historic variance. We’ve been the beneficiaries of unprecedented ice levels, sea levels, hurricanes and temperatures from proxy based reconstructions. The point which is so upsetting is that the effect created by the math is well known yet is continually repeated unchecked in different forms.

Blogland is the public and the Air Vent is lucky enough to have an educated audience here. I’m proud of the fact that more people link here from CA than the less technical WUWT despite the superbowl status of WUWT which is one of my favorite blogs. There is a bit of math here which doesn’t have the public impact of a flawed temperature record. The reason I bring CA readership up is that the math behind many dozens of reconstructions is fatally flawed. I’m talking about whole piles of hockey stick papers which have problems in the math. Every time I read unprecedented in regards to climate, I immediately jump to bad math. Hockey sticks aren’t technically fun like Dr. Steig’s Antarctic paper which presents double the actual warming trend but rather dozens and dozens of lame-ass reconstructions from every kind of proxy.

How can you fight those kinds of numbers? We read in blogland repeatedly, how can you be right and all these respected scientists be wrong? From my perspective it’s obvious and I’m asking, why does the situation exist? How is it that these people are letting this horsecrap through peer review. Why are scientists publishing these flawed reconstructions?

What’s more, How do you get people excited enough about it to pay attention?

I wrote an IMO gorgeous post earlier today which took several hours of math and several months of foundation, it demonstrates what happens to hockey sticks which didn’t receive much attention. There isn’t enough shock value but if people were to look more closely, the whole family of hockey sticks are jeopardized by the result.

There are a couple of posts on CA which also looked at the detail and some that were more general along with a criticism of the VZ04 paper which I believe to be correct. Wahl and Amman also criticize the paper for what appear to be the same reasons HERE. I note again that Steve wasn’t given credit despite pre-dating Wahl and Amman by about a year.

I’ve not sufficiently reviewed all the commentary on MBH98 to have an opinion on the reduction of the historic signal variance, however there VZ04 addresses more than just that issue.

A further question is whether the limitations we have found are common to regression methods in general. Thus, two further approaches were tested. In the first, local temperatures were estimated by a linear regression from pseudoproxies, and the local temperature estimations were spatially averaged to derive the NH temperature. This method mimics the situation in which, for example, local dendrochronologies calibrated in terms of local temperature are just arithmetically averaged. In the second approach, the pseudoproxies at the various locations were directly simply averaged. This is more similar to the borehole methodology (16). For the first method, we found qualitatively similar but quantitatively even worse problems than with the MBH98 method; that is, the underestimation of lowfrequency variability for a given amount of noise is greater than for MBH98, whereas the second method returns good estimates of NH temperature, with very little loss of variance.

What this whole paper is discussing is the rationale behind the loss in low frequency variance (temperature signal amplitude) in pre-calibration range reconstructions. It was discussed on the Nature blog Climate Feedback which disgusts me in that the Soros funded Climate Progress is recognized as a climate blog yet CA is referenced under the asinine heading of ‘skeptics’, industry, marginalized views. Someday Nature’s blog is going to get a vent.

The VZ boys pointed out several other sources which discuss the same effect.

Moberg

The national academy of science Which did a terrible job IMO yet at least discusses the problem.

and apparently 3 papers from the EU general assemlby.

The point I’m making is that this effect is well known and when an advocate in blogland tells you it’s not about Mann’s hideously bad work there are many papers that create hockey sticks, remember they are all nearly the same thing in different clothes. Temperature reconstructions are important, as are sea ice reconstructions and hurricane papers. And these proxy calibration/sorting methods give unprecedented whatever you want, every single time. Those who can understand this effect and are open minded enough to report it, need to help make an effort to be certain that numbers of scientists and professionals weighing in are weighted in the favor of the truth.


54 Responses to “Artifacts”

  1. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Jeff,
    I left this over at climatesight.

    26.
    Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    August 27, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

    I don’t want to eliminate all comments by skeptics. That would be too close to censorship because of what they’re saying, not how they’re saying it – and it would be all too easy for them to accuse me of such. As long as they’re respectful about it, I want to be open to what they have to say.

    And because I have previously deleted skeptical comments which were aggressive, I feel obliged to hold the statements I agree with to the same sort of scrutiny, which is why I have warned several well-meaning and accurate commenter about abiding to the no-aggressive-comments policy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive

    psychologically and physiologically. Some research indicates that people with tendencies toward affective aggression have -lower IQs- than those with tendencies toward predatory aggression

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertiveness

    places that uses Assertiveness well is the airvent and the blackboard
    they are not deniers but looking for the truth.
    RC, (Openmind?)tammys tend to be affective aggressive.
    If you can keep truely an openmind, the light to which what is real will come to you.
    Good luck

    well it get clipped or well it go through?

    http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-3/#comment-796

    I use my high brow collage class, I hope it does not piss her off.
    I love the name Kate BTW!

  2. Tony Hansen said

    So to make a comment one must use references.
    And I suppose that the referenced works must be of a certain standard.
    If one were coming from the warmer side of the debate – just what would be the seminal, unimpeachable papers that one could use as a reference?

  3. MikeN said

    rational->rationale

  4. Dano said

    So to make a comment one must use references.

    I believe the standard is the millenia-old “you must back your claim”. As the topic is limited to scientific subjects, there should be no issue. I can type no slower than that. Surely 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999975% of the population understands this and the italicized was merely written for the record as ‘must find some reason, any reason, what can I say to complain’ and not serious.

    Best,

    D

  5. Jeff Id said

    The problem was that the comment she clipped was referenced. When I asked what needed more reference that was also clipped. So I put this one on her thread which was clipped because it was inflammatory.

    you better be able to back it up.

    This is a false argument now that allows you to hide behind a mask of reasonableness. After my post was clipped (which did not relate to the sun), you gave this as an excuse as well.

    You abuse the policy for random censorship of things you don’t understand. I made no reference to science which I cannot back up. In fact most of what I wrote regarding science was in the two links to tAV is standard knowledge in the mainstream paleo community.

    Your clipping of the post that I took my time to write was arbitrary. The fact that you hide behind a randomly applied policy with dishonest intent is disgusting.

    When a person is dishonest about small things, they are often dishonest about the big ones too. Tamino is training you well young padawan.

    —-
    It was clipped with the statement [inflammatory] so I followed it up with:

    It was inflammatory because you were not honest.

  6. timetochooseagain said

    She’s just being a gatekeeper. In warmer court, you have to play by the rules of the game as they see them. Unfair? Yup. It’s called Home Team advantage and advocates will make full use of it.

    But as far as scientific etiquette goes, that crap doesn’t fly.

  7. Jeff Id said

    I left this one cause she asked me to be nice. She wrote that M08 was done without tree rings which is untrue from my memory. Most of the series in the SI were tree rings.
    ==================
    Mann 08 was almost entirely tree rings.

    They used 51 series to infill (paste on) data in the calibration range. That data was then used to validate the proxies as temperature. An obvious no no which should never have cleared peer review.

    In fact the Briffa MXD latewood series were chopped back because the data was clearly unrelated to temperature (divergence) and new data was pasted on. The nice thing about Mann is that he’s been open with his code lately.

    My links before are well referenced used actual Mann08 data and math from the paper itself.

    Nice enough? Any references needed?

  8. Chris S. said

    “In fact most of what I wrote regarding science was in the two links to tAV is standard knowledge in the mainstream paleo community.”

    An therein lies your problem – why link to tAV when (if whatever you wrote was standard knowledge) you could have linked to the paleo papers which cover it?

    You then follow up by claiming she is 1) dishonest and 2) being “trained” by someone else.

    If I was to come here claiming you were Watts’ lickspittle & rountinely lied about your depth of understanding I’d expect to be clipped or deleted. Same applies here

  9. Jeff Id said

    #8, You don’t mind if I disagree hopefully.

    My original post was mostly on the assumptions in her head post based on what conservatives think. I bolded and addressed her comments. At the end of probably 50 lines I left one comment that went like this.

    ——–
    Kate,

    As you are a budding climatologist, consider the following two links on the Mann08 hockey stick. They are important because they use a method of data scrapping which all climatologists should reject. Part 1 lays the foundation for #2.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/histori-hockey-stick-pt-2/

    They prove the hockey stick in Mann 08 is nothing but mathematical distortions. Full source code is presented and documented. The results stand uncriticized.

    ————
    So if my presentation of variance reduction in a historic signal was inappropriate somewhere, would you mind telling me where? What about a request for documentation instead of censorship? You can cliam that her policy says you must have references, however, if you read the thread it’s full of statements which have no references.

    Then she claims that if you say something here you had better be able to back it up.

    Do you think I cannot back up my claim

    It’s dishonest censorship behind a mask of reason. She can change if she chooses.

  10. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I continue to wonder way you take the time and bother to discuss these issues with blogs and individuals who are not interested in a full accounting or discussion of the many climate science papers that are great material for analysis.

    When these people indicate that they have a “faith based” view of these papers and that the science is settled, they mean it.

    There are plenty of Dano’s (although as I recall Dano often makes some lame attempt to be cute and then leaves) around to take the main discussion into some very peripheral hinterlands. Oh, yes everyone can have an opinion about a lawyerly view of what censorship is and what a good technical discussion should consist of, and, in fact, defend any level of censorship for any number of reasons, but my point is: why should we care in the context of the larger picture of attempting to get at the truth.

  11. Jeff Id said

    #10 It starts with looking for an honest discussion with a believer. I’ve been to a dozen believer blogs and they all seem to find ways to censor dissenting views. Kate’s is the most clever as she uses a disguise of peer review to arbitrarily clip posts but it is also the least honest as not one of my comments has made it through including the one which asked. Which portion of my comment needed citation? — that was the whole post.

    So then I get pissed off. I hate liars. They disgust me and deserve to be pointed out to be the charlatans they are. So far my opinion is that Kate is dishonest and she has placed a big hurdle in front of herself to get out of it.

    So why you ask. Because I’d really like to have a discussion with an honest believer of the mainstream politicized doom and gloom conclusions. There just don’t seem to be any I can find. I have an enormous list now of dishonest ones who clip any real debate at the first sign of an IQ point.

  12. Jeff Id said

    Actually, I never got the impression that Counters was dishonest. Perhaps that’s the blog.

  13. Jeff Id said

    I put this in her thread now.

    It wasn’t the same comment. You’ll note I did address the SINGLE point you had contention with before in the FIRST sentence. Why would you imply that it was the same?

    I’ll try again.

    The primary reconstructions of Mann 08 are almost entirely tree rings.

    Do you need a reference to the SI for this. There were 484 accepted proxies which passed correlation in Mann08 SI. About 90% were tree ring width data. If you want I’ll copy the excel sheet and tell you which column to take the data from.

    They used 51 series to infill (paste on) data in the calibration range. That data was then used to validate the proxies as temperature.

    Reg EM was used to infill the data. How can I reference what is clearly spelled out in the reference we’re discussing? Do I need to quote the words or cite the code? I note others aren’t expected to do this.

    The RegEM algorithm of Schneider (9) was used to estimate missing values for proxy series terminating before the 1995 calibration interval endpoint, based on their mutual covariance with the other available proxy data over the full 1850–1995 calibration interval.

    Do I need to name the series which had data over the 1850 – 1995 before infilling?

    An obvious no no which should never have cleared peer review.
    Am I allowed to say that? There is no reference for bad math so what can I say?

    In fact the Briffa MXD latewood series were chopped back because the data was clearly unrelated to temperature (divergence) and new data was pasted on. The nice thing about Mann is that he’s been open with his code lately.

    Quote from the SI

    Because of the evidence for loss of temperature sensitivity after 1960MXD, data were eliminated for the post-1960 interval. The RegEM algorithm of Schneider (9) was used to estimate missing values for proxy series terminating before the 1995 calibration interval endpoint

    Mann’s code is on his website, if you require a link as a reference for that I will be happy to provide it.

    My links before are well referenced used actual Mann08 data and math from the paper itself.

    Nice enough? Any references needed?

    There I have referenced every comment regarding the paper I have previously referenced.

    Now can I post here?

  14. woodNfish said

    Hey Jeff – maybe Kate is a Kunt, and not worth your time. Experience tells that warmers are not interested in facts or the truth. (redundant?) I’ve also heard that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over the same way and expecting a different result. Don’t make yourself crazy, bud.

    You shouldn’t expect much from Nature or Science either – they are both completely dishonest journals that do not deserve their reputations.

    You can clip this if you like for my first sentence, but I’m tired of these assholes. They are costing me money and they are out to destroy my children’s future. Hate really doesn’t describe what I feel for these bastards, rage might be more appropriate.

  15. Jeff Id said

    I clip very few things here. In about 8000 comments less than 20 have been clipped. Probably less than 10 actually and probably 50 of my own. All the others clipps were for cussing or a couple from TCO who would just attack and attack SteveM saying the same thing over and over. None of those were for disagreeing.

    In case you wondered, mine were clipped for excessive venting.

    So you need to be careful here, the comments live forever and are almost completely un-moderated.

    I think Kate has earned a vent because she lied in her thread about my posts. The whole thing was an obvious effort to discredit me by deceiving people about what I was saying. I saved almost everything so I can make a mess out of it.

    I’m sick of the AGW crowd pretending to be scientists too, but I gave her many chances to be honest and she wasn’t. It got so bad that she wouldn’t even let me post direct quotes from Mann08 claiming that somehow the quotes were criticisms. It was all done in an effort to make herself look good while bashing me.

    I’ll probably point it out in a post and move on. That way there will be Id reviewed literature on the quality of the blog.

  16. Mark T said

    Jeff Id said
    August 28, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    I think Kate has earned a vent because she lied in her thread about my posts. The whole thing was an obvious effort to discredit me by deceiving people about what I was saying. I saved almost everything so I can make a mess out of it.

    As Stan pointed out in one of your other threads, that is a tort, and subject to legal liability not unlike defamation (libel). Even though your name is anonymous, you are a “public” blogger so there is some reputation that could be damaged.

    Just sayin…

    Mark

  17. Jeff Id said

    It’s a good point Mark. She deleted my comments and publicly stated they were different than actual. In my opinion they were intentionally mischaracterized.

    She’s even saying my last post implied that all of Mann08 was flawed and I should have to find new peer reviewed literature to state Mann08 is flawed in return for the privilege of discussion. You can see my post in 13.

    She’s made several assertions which aren’t supported by the facts all designed to make me look bad. I’ve left a nice reply to my recent banning.

    It feels like it’s my personal calling to insure people realize what that blog is. hehe.
    ——————-
    It doesn’t really matter to me what she says. I will probably let people know she cannot be trusted though.

  18. timetochooseagain said

    Jeff should start a “warmists exposed” thread or something.

  19. John F. Pittman said

    Jeff, I think you will see more of this behaviour rather than less. Looking at the history of the contentions, one of refuges of the warming activists had been the gauntlet of having peer- reveiwed papers that disagreed with the activist’s position published somewhere. As skeptics have taken up the gauntlet, and are examining the underpinnings (mainly assumptions) and showing conclusively that the validity of these assumptions definetly challenge the claims of “robustness”, this “taking up” has not only taken a refuge from them, but has also undermined the essential political claim that “the science is settled.”

    Recently, this has been documented in the study that indicated that skeptics, with their blogging, were doing better than governments spending orders of magnitude more money. The improvements of quality and quantity of examinations must be frustrating to the activists. I beleive it was Dr. Curry who pointed out that the climate community was unprepared for the M&M critique from two unknowns (ITO) in an relatively unknown journal. Its traction and later validation by emminent scientists polarized the community.

    Fast forward to today and see more blogs by professionals taking on critical evaluations of basic premises or assumptions. “Handwaving” that had in the past been successful and a quick path to publication if the results were novel, now is becoming a virtual albatross around the practitioners’ collective necks.

    The most frustrating condition for the activists must be that each chink exposed undermines the ediface (the science is settled) and re-inforces that skeptism is healthy. This leaves even the general public noticing that stonewalling and censorship is not healthy for science, and who is engaged in it. In this respect, their politics face a double whammy of the ediface is showing cracks, and the general public dislikes the tactics of the activists.

    After all, how many times do you have to hear how you are the cause of armegeddon, and start shrugging your shoulders, because you still have to eat, and you still have carry on your life. Oversaturation by the pre-emptive strike method leads to cynicism. There was a paper that the UK paid a firm that adviced advertising consultants why their ad campaign failed. It was about 2004. If someone has a link; it was a great article. You will be able to see where the activist are following this plan and where they didn’t. You will also get a feel that one of the recommendations has exploded in their faces.

  20. Layman Lurker said

    Just posted the following at climatesight:

    Kate. Personally I thought you were being a little unfair to Jeff. There is a lot to be gained by being a little more liberal with your moderation policy to allow some discussion. Extending the logic you applied to Jeff, I could argue that Lindzen has shown that observed outgoing radiative flux refutes the postive feedback and climate sensitivity suggested by climate models – and no one here would be allowed to argue with me unless there is a more recent study to reference.

    Jeff was trying to show that there is support in the literature for his analysis showing that proxy reconstruction methodology distorts the true signal. The reference is relevant in spite of it pre-dating Mann 08 because the same scaling and calibration methods are employed in Mann 08.

    I respect that you can run your blog however you see fit, but FWIW arguments are what science is all about. Jeff was trying to make an argument and IMO has a vaild reference to support it – whether it predates Mann 08 or not.

  21. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    #
    Jeff Id said
    August 28, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

    [inflammatory]
    #
    Jeff Id said
    August 28, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

    [inflammatory]
    #
    Jeff Id said
    August 28, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

    [completely random]
    #
    Jeff Id said
    August 28, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

    [inflammatory]

    Nice work boss!!!!! lol

    She let my post through even though it clearly attacks RC and open(closed)mind!
    well I did go a little over her head (I,Q, wise) But I did follow her policy.
    I think she does not want the technical stuff as she can not possibly understand anything in regards to math ETC. what i find hellerious is the fact that SHE IS GOING to collige to become a sceintest?

  22. gt said

    First time posting here. I don’t see why you need to feel validated by having your comments approved in an alarmist’s blog. I look at her articles the last few days and I don’t think she’s adding anything of substantial to the AGW debate. All she does is to quote other people (the “usual suspects” of AGW proponent) and throw in her snide and cheeky observations here and there. Lame stuff, really. Even Tamino is attempting to “contribute” with some modeling that is being systematically trashed by Lucia. Keep up the good work at tAV and care less about why your posts weren’t accepted in some obscure website.

  23. Jeff Id said

    Tim,

    She said basically I needed to cite my work which in #13 was very cited. Then she said I implied the whole paper was wrong and if I wanted to post I would have to find a paper refuting Mann08 so that I could have the privilege of discussion with a college student. We’ll it’s been about 1 year now and that would be pretty short for any rebuttal paper.

    So I left this.
    ————————————
    Well, that’s clear enough. You cut my posts by assigning a conclusion which didn’t exist. Then assign the explicit requirement that I search peer reviewed literature for a reply specifically addressing the conclusion assigned to me by you. Everyone knows it will take more time for the criticisms to be published even if people feel like wasting the time.

    Whats more, others here may cite other pertinent papers or even make comments without citation, I cannot. Sounds reasonable. I’ll do a post on this sometime to point out what to expect here.

    I’ve been looking for an advocate site which allows reasonable discussion for over a year now so I can recommend them and link people. You sounded good at first but I’m still at a loss.

    Since your policy has been explained and follwed to the letter and I am still clipped there is no choice for me but to conclude you are a dishonest charlatan.

    ———-
    She said inflammatory.

    ———-
    I said.

    True though.
    ———
    She said
    Inflammatory.

    ———-
    I said,
    The sky is blue.
    ———-
    No answer for a long while.

    I said
    Just kidding about the last post. You take yourself far too seriously. I’m gone.

    ———
    She said.

    Completely random
    and
    Inflammatory.
    ———
    The end.

    Blogland is fun but I was just pulling her chain a bit. After all she if wants to pretend to be intellectually honest I’m not going to let her run me over completely without response. My first post was clipped unreasonably and it just got worse from there.

    We’ll see what kind of mood I’m in later.

  24. Jeff Id said

    Gt, you’re right.

  25. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    sorry, i hit submit … doh…

    here is a paper that I referenced to

    http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/189

    does it not describe RC and tammys to a tea?
    “affective” (impulsive, unplanned, overt, or uncontrolled)
    “affective” aggression were more likely to have lower IQ, to receive neuroleptics or lithium, and to have a chart diagnosis of schizophrenia

    This requirement of per reviewed is clever.
    not many papers are out there that are newer than 2000 and are on global cooling.

    Jeff, I don’t think you can find a warmer that will argue to point, as it is mute anyway,
    it is about control and they don’t think it means turning off electricity ie no flush toilets, no refrigeration, no driving cars, no movies – CDs – dvds – I-PODS,no phones – cellphones
    no heat, no air.
    no malls, they have a very small view, very small I,Q,
    No coal fired electricity i.e. no power any where ,…,,,.. the grid is shut down.

  26. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Jeff,
    Tx for posting your post LMAO!

    no the sky is Charlotte green!

    What I find fascinating is the hiding being done by them.
    obfuscation?

  27. Chris S. said

    Re #9 From the comment policy at climatesight: “Blogs don’t count.”

    It’s easy, all you have to do is 1) read the comment policy. 2) Publish your claims in the peer reviewed literature.

    Oh but it’s all one big conspiracy theory isn’t it… #14 Made me literally LOL. Is this the level of reader you aspire to?

  28. Jeff Id said

    I didn’t post blog links or my own work, gave a fully referenced post, offered to search for more if necessary and was still clipped with the claim that I had made reference to my own work (false), I had not cited my conclusion (false), my post was angry (false) and I had concluded M08 was a bad paper(false in this post).

    How do you explain that big guy? Is that above your level or readership or is it possible that little Kate may have not wanted reasonable discussion?

  29. Mark T said

    Is this the level of reader you aspire to?

    At least a half a step above your level, apparently.

    Mark

  30. Mark T said

    Note, btw, that Jeff lets you post, Chris S.

    Mark

  31. Jeff Id said

    [snip-venting]

  32. Dave said

    Jeff-

    I guarantee you those guys love it when they get you into whining mode. Your constant whining about mistreatment at blogs whose MO is using deletion and editing to make skeptics look bad makes me wonder about you. They’re obviously not interested in scientific truth, so why do you continue to go there to try and force feed it to them? IMO, you would be much better off reading their blogs, posting criticisms here at tAV, and letting them come here to your place to have a truly open and uncensored debate.

  33. curious said

    Jeff – I had a look at the Climatesight blog just now. It’s not a science blog – IMO it is not worth having a discussion there with the editorial line being taken. For example:

    “Climatesight
    August 29, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
    Okay, if Loehole et al is really that good, it would be published in something other than Energy and Environment. I’m still skeptical about this. I can’t evaluate on the basis of science – I’m not a scientist (yet) and so can’t properly make up my mind about which argument works – so I have to go by credibility. And Mann 08 still wins in my mind.”

    Unable to distinguish which argument works there is an arbitrary decision to go with “credibility” – ie publication. I wonder if she knows of some of the cases where publications have been based on faulty work?:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7116/full/444123b.html

    or

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090401/full/458561b.html

    I found those trying to track down the guy who faked results in semiconductor research and kept putting them in paper after paper. It was a story I heard a while ago and can’t remember the details but I think at the time he was feted and could do no wrong. No doubt someone will know the proper story. I agree with Gt and Kenneth above – I think “Climatesight” will fizzle out unless there is a change in policy. Even then I’m not sure what it will offer that is new/interesting.

    .

    And for info. there is another Curious posting there so I’ve left this:

    “curious @ August 24, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

    Hi curious – do you mind using another name for posting? I post as “curious” on some of the climate related blogs and it can cause confusion to have two posters with the same id, especially if they have confilciting views. Thanks”

    Same thing happened on RC a while ago where I don’t post.

  34. Jeff Id said

    Several good points here.

    Dave, you make a convincing argument. I’ve been looking for a good advocate site it’s probably not a good use of time.

  35. Dave said

    “I’ve been looking for a good advocate site it’s probably not a good use of time.”

    I, too, looked for one when I first became interested in “global warming,” in the interest of balance. Quickly came to the conclusion that the search was futile. The behavior at RC, started and run by prominent climate scientists, was a real eye opener.

    A suggestion: dedicate yourself and this blog to the advancement of the science through cogent criticism of research (and perhaps other blog posts) when it is due. Allow and encourage dissent as long as it is courteous (no foul language). Do not censor or edit comments. In other words, be the opposite of what they are. Rational, reasonable people, with an interest in the truth, will come here and be impressed.

    The only advancement that occurs when skeptics visit blogs like RC or Climatesight is the advancement of their cause. You are, purely and simply, fodder.

  36. gt said

    Haha, exclusively for you Jeff Id on what I found in Mike Tobis’ blog:

    climatesight said…

    “Sure enough, when you actually start counting, the number of naysayers turns out to be, well, puny.”

    I believe it was Joe Romm who said that skeptical scientists “remain a group small enough to fit into a typical home bathroom.”
    August 26, 2009 6:45 PM

    From the lady who demands bloggers to provide “peer-reviewed” reference on her own blog, as she’s busy making random cheap shots at others’ blog.

  37. timetochooseagain said

    36-Master Bath or a water closet? I makes a bit of a difference.

    And I wasn’t aware that several hundred guys could fit in a bathroom.

  38. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Dave, I totally agree with the content of your posts on this matter.

    It would appear that the lady running the blog under question is only capable of “faith based” climate science evaluation. This is not an uncommon attribute of many bloggers and posters and most at one time or another admit or let slip that that is their position – I favor the consensus POV because I am not able to judge and the consensus has a better chance of being correct. Notice also that it is not climate scientists, in general, that they have to defer, but only those belonging to the consensus, while putting down (and often harder than their consensus scientists would which I think comes from the faith based part of their leanings) those with alternate views – because, well, they are not part of the consensus.

    Why would one have expectations of engaging these people in a technical discussion and why would it be so unexpected that these people would tend to go off topic and want to discuss very peripheral issues unrelated to the technical subject at hand?

  39. DeWitt Payne said

    If you further qualify to ‘skeptical prominent scientists willing to go public about their skepticism in a big way’ Romm may not be too far off.

  40. Jeff Id said

    Dave and Kenneth,

    I agree with you both. I feel a little bad about giving Kate a hard time she turned out to be pretty young. She’s still claiming that quotes from Mann08 are my work and is apparently too young to step back rationally. I was tough on her though.

    I’m currently trying to recover from another bout of disgust for the truly Marxist leanings of our ignorant youth. The girl doesn’t even know she’s a communist. What do the kid’s think, socialism has a bad message? It has a wonderful message with awesome possibilities, and a crap outcome. Her rant on conservatism is actually the reason that I was clipped,it had nothing to do with blog policy. My second third and fourth posts were just attempts to test her honesty about her policy – again I didn’t realize she was that young. She said she wanted to be a climatologist so I assumed college.

    My very first post simply went down several items and explained how she had conservatism wrong. Nothing strong worded, just the basic difference on how conservative (Libertarians) view government refuting some of the content of her post. It ended with a kind worded suggestion that she check out the hockey stick links. – Snipped.

    She seems to think you must be stupid and drive an old pickup truck to be conservative, yet she’s completely ignorant of the real world. How do we make kids like this?

    I’m trying to leave her alone but the temptation to trash extreme leftists is strong. This one’s really not worth doing though – yet. I feel sorry for her.

    Let’s hope she doesn’t vote.

  41. Jeff Id said

    It seems only fair to let kate have her say. I don’t agree with this but here’s what she wrote.

    Layman Lurker – you didn’t read the comments where he called me a “dishonest charlatan”, among other things! His “expulsion” was almost entirely due to his personal attacks on me – none of which were published in his blog, like his other comments were. I’m not going to spoon-feed people who treat me like that. If Jeff wants to make a scientific argument which is more complicated than “my basic conclusion is this, here’s a scientific report which found the same thing”, that’s fine, but this really isn’t the right place. I’m just a lowly high school student and I can’t begin to assess arguments on their content – I have to go by credibility. A blog which is run by actual scientists may be a more appropriate place for such technical discussions.

  42. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I’m currently trying to recover from another bout of disgust for the truly Marxist leanings of our ignorant youth. The girl doesn’t even know she’s a communist. What do the kid’s think, socialism has a bad message? It has a wonderful message with awesome possibilities, and a crap outcome.

    Jeff ID, I think you go a bridge too far in labeling people communists and socialists. I would suggest that many of these people would be better termed Social Democrats. What they have in common with socialists, communists, and fascists – for that matter – is an abiding faith in government to solve most problems.

    Some of these young (and older) people who apparently disappoint you in things political and to do with climate science do not have a very comprehensive view of either and are actually not going to provide much of challenge. When they can judge for themselves and are not merely mouthing what they hear from a consensus view (and, yes, their political views are closer to the consensus then yours or mine) they are perhaps ready for a serious discussion and a learning experience.

    I think a better strategy in dealing with people like this young lady is to ask some questions which would better classify their view, be it on climate science or politics. For example, ask her what her views are on the unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare and our sky rocketing national debt and what she would recommend to fix it. If she replies that she would nationalize all of our commerce and banking through revolution she might be a communist. If she replies she would do the nationalizing through the elective process and changing the constitution (by amendment or judicial interpretation) she might be a socialist. If she says we need to save both at all cost even if we need to tax the population into chronic economic underperformance she is probably a Social Democrat.

  43. Layman Lurker said

    I think Kate is just a kid who has bought into the consensus but doesn’t fully understand the big picture yet. Unfortunately, it seems she is not going into this with an open mind and sheltering herself from opposing view points with her “credibility” rationalization and other flawed logic – sadly indicative of confirmation bias before she is even mature enough to even assess the science properly.

  44. Mark T said

    Kristen Byrnes was (is still?) in high school when she wrote Ponder the Maunder. I think, however, that Kristen is a little beyond her age in her willingness to attempt to understand the science, rather than appeal to authority (and consensus, however imaginary).

    That said, the excuse “I’m just a lowly high school student” is endemic to all of our society, not just at the high school level. People would rather go with the flow (as they see it), because opposing the flow is hard to do: it forces people to ask questions that may have unappealing answers.

    Mark

  45. Dave said

    Re: Layman Lurker said

    August 31, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    My guess would be that she’s a “sophomore.”

  46. Dave said

    Kate-

    Some unsolicited advice from an old fart: Use this time in your life to inform yourself rather than trying to inform others. You will save yourself considerable embarrassment later on.

  47. timetochooseagain said

    I’m a College Freshman. I don’t think there is any excuse for being an ignorant young person. Your capacity to learn diminishes with age, and yet people waste it and get smart when they are older (and it is much harder).

  48. j ferguson said

    Now being an ignorant old person,(IOP), having not evolved a lot from being an ignorant young person,(IYP), the only difference between the two that I can see is that when I was an IYP, I didn’t realize how ignorant.

    But then my rate of learning was always lousy and hasn’t improved or for that matter gotten much worse with age. What has improved is my skill at emulating intelligence.

    In the notes to History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon remarks on his requiring three readings to understand anything. I wish I’d known I wasn’t the only one when I was a kid.

    BTW, could anyone point me to a way to get Mann et al. 98 in its entirety without buying it from Nature?

  49. Jeff Id said

    #48 Wise post, nice emulation :D.

    Here you go, this ought to suck a couple of IQ points away.

    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

  50. j ferguson said

    Thanks much Jeff,

    TimeToChooseAgain, what you’ve said seems agreeable but for one thing. I’ve found that when I read in a familiar subject, my learning capacity isn’t stressed as much as when I was younger because I will already know a lot of what I’m reading and consequently need only concentrate on the stuff that surprises me.

    Regrettably, “familiar subjects” does not yet include climate studies. I’m unlikely to catch up on the maths (why is it plural?) or the statistics – although I’m gaining on those. I’ve found that taking little on faith can really slow you down.

    I am very very grateful to Jeff and the commenters here, at Lucia’s, and CA who try not to be obscure. You may find when you get to my age, 66, that getting into things you know nothing about is a lot of fun. For me, and maybe the polity at large, it might not be a bad thing to have a good handle on where this calamitous AGW idea comes from and how solidly based it is.

    Finally, it’s OK to be an ignorant young person so long as you are trying to do something about it. Writing and talking isn’t bad either because someone may be kind enough to straighten you out where you need it, so let Kate be straightened out, if she’ll allow it.

  51. Andrew said

    50-The biology of a person’s learning capacity is obviously different from what happens in the real world.

    And Maths is plural if you are British (I’m not but like to say Maths from time to time) Math, singular, is American.

    (And yes, I’m TTCA).

  52. j ferguson said

    Andrew,
    “…Biology of a person’s learning capacity…what happens in the real world.”

    Expand on this a little ’cause I don’t begin to understand what you’re getting at.

  53. Jeff, this post on VZ a couple of years ago has (IMO) an interesting analysis of the impact of different multivariate methods on the recovery of “low-frequency” variability in the relatively “tame” VZ pseudoproxy network (i.e. leaving aside the issue of “bad apples”). http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=733

    What causes the loss of the recovery of low-frequency variability from a pseudoproxy network containing a common signal is a sort of “over-specialization” in assigning weights. This leads to a situation where there are both positive and negative coefficients. As a result, the noise isn’t cancelled out as sqrt(N). OLS of the target against the proxy network is the “worst” method and simple methods like averaging work much better. In a situation where the noise additions vary in amplitude, a PC1 is actually a pretty good method of extracting the common signal – and ANY addition of the PC2 and lower PCs worsens the result.

    Check out the post; it stands up pretty well.

  54. timetochooseagain said

    52-My understand is that, much like the rest of the body, the brain is greatly effected by aging. As we get older, our mitochondria appear to function more poorly, and this appears to be connected to increasing damage to nuclear DNA through oxidation. Neuroinflammation also goes up with age. None of this is very good for cognition, memory, etc.

    I’m not saying one becomes less intelligent with age, or less knowledgeable. That almost never is the case, except when memory loss and cognitive decline outpaces the normal process of learning over time. But it is never easier to absorb and retain information than when you are young. The problem is lost opportunity, really.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: