Posted by Jeff Condon on June 26, 2010
One of the biggest problems with my personality is that once I’ve figured something out, it’s no longer fun. I don’t really care after that and begin looking for something new.
Still though, the fact that the uninformed can claim to have informed opinions with little supporting knowledge drives me wild. Sure I’ve made my mistakes, ya think ya know something and later find out that um — I don’t know as much as I thought — I’m 41, just try to get this far and not screw up…..we all have. Recently Art Smith attacked Climate Audit and Steve Mosher on a misrepresentnation of a ‘trick’ performed by government funded ”scientists’ with respect to climate. Now since they are “tricks”, and their detials are not fully disclosed, it might be difficult to figure them out.
I wrote this post to him after declaring in a fit of grumpiness that he didn’t have the ability to figure out ‘hide the decline’.
Your implied accusations of “intentional” misstatements by Steve Mosher and CA disgust me. I’ve watched these people for some time now with a skeptical eye, and have done more double checking and confirmation than you have the wherewithal to pull off.
Yup, it was overly cocky.. but I was grumpy with Arthur’s obfuscation and it got the best of me. Sorry… ish. Not a proud moment. It isn’t like I believe I have the keys to knowledge but when people pretend to not notice bad science – while claiming to be informed, it sends me over the edge. Gotta work on that, but it is the title of this blog.
So today, when reviewing Arthur’s blog, I noticed he enjoyed the traffic from CA and continued with his posts on the topic.
Arthur is very very clever. The man has enough IQ to run over anyone but I believe he also has an agenda and has not been honest with his readers. Consider this statement about Mosher’s lies..
But the tricky cases are those who are much more subtle in their nonsense. Making stuff up is easy. Making stuff up that on the face of it looks somewhat plausible does take a bit more skill.
Now this came after he dissed a bunch of smart skeptics who he doesn’t believe have the qualifications of Mosher. Without comment on the others, anyone who has read Mosh’s comments knows damned well that Mosh has unique skills — don’t let it go to your head Steve hehe..
Arthur is more than capable himself and has far deeper commitment into winning a war than my first comment to him justifies. What disturbs me is that I don’t believe he’s an honest man at this point. As most here know, of all things in blogland, I hate intentional deception.
First, he called Mosher a liar with respect to the manipulation of Briffa’s hide the decline data, attaching CA to the claim. Then he claimed CA wasn’t part of his post, now he claims that he doesn’t have the expertise to tell if ‘hide the decline’ is perhaps false.
I challenged him on his post on that exact topic… and I was …snipped… oh my.. not again!!
Apparently the reason was that I was OFF TOPIC, how standard and incorrect!!
Yes, see the Policy link top right. If you have something to add, think about it and state it clearly before you post, and make sure it’s on the topic. I’m not interested in religious wars. Your comment, as I recall, seemed to have serious trouble distinguishing fact from opinion, and I’m not interested in spending my time explaining the difference to you if you don’t see it yourself.
Originally, my challenge to the doc was:
Since I have now read your bio and realize you should have the ability to analyze what was done here, I would be a lot more comfortable with you if you made some properly critical statements of any of the methods used to ‘hide the decline’. Certainly, as a physicist, you never simply deleted data which didn’t have the result you wanted – without any physical explanation as to what went wrong with the experiment at least.
We’ve all taken bad data but certainly when you realize that climatology can only verify this data is actually temperature in any way, by its correlation to temperature, deletion of the inconvenient verification portion to make a historically flat signal is inappropriate- — right?
Have you ever deleted a portion of a signal without explanation for the problem? The values taken were certainly not outside of reason for tree rings, they just weren’t in the increasing trend that climatology prefers. So even if all of what you said about ‘extensive’ disclosure were true – which it isn’t – all of the methods proposed are on their face – bad science – agreed?
It’s a cuter comment than it sounds because the doc was trying to claim he had done the same thing in his past.
This happened to me in one of my earliest publications, where I produced a graph of a theoretical curve regarding behavior of electrons in a quasicrystal, and then realized that the portion of the graph close to zero was meaningless because of an approximation I had made. So that portion is “shaded out” in the published article – I dropped the data because I knew it was not valid.
Well the doc replied kindly with this junk (truncated when he switched to Mosher again), obviously my references to the intent of most popular temperature reconstructions was missed.
I do not agree they are “on their face – bad science”. Scientists make judgment calls all the time. It would take experience in the specific field, which I do not have, to tell whether it was “bad science” or not. People who seem to have more experience in the issue have come down on both sides. In very general terms, from my own experience in science, “on their face”, removal of data that is on one side or another of a clear range of parameters (like date) is far less of an issue than removal of data that is otherwise indistinguishable from or in the center of a range.
In any case, this issue of whether the data removal was justified is clearly a matter of *opinion*.
Lesseee, the doc had enough ‘experience’ to make this claim:
Figuring out that the “plausible” stuff is just as much nonsense as the obviously wrong takes considerably more work, and some of these actors tend to make a lot of work for those of us trying to defend real science.
But not removal of data?
The ‘Real Science’ …
I can tell you that this guy has no idea what Climate Audit is about, what Mosher is about an even less so what tAV is about. I’m seasoned enough on the internet to know he won’t care what the truth is and will stick to his story, however, like many here, I don’ t like to let his “lack of knowledge” stand unchallenged.
I wrote politely to him to challenge on the fact that deletion of hide the decline data was in no way ‘opinion’. In exchange, he snipped my politely worded comment. Gone, to oblivion. Apparently not because he could not argue it, it just wasn’t worth his readers seeing. 2 guesses as to how he votes!
Anyway, since we cannot read it, my comment made the following points:
- We who have collected data have all deleted data that we knew was bad for poor instrumentation or some known incident that caused trouble or wildly out of range data with no explanation..
- have you ever deleted data which was in range, instruments were working fine and nothing seemed to be amiss except that it wasn’t what you expected? – snipped.
If you have enough experience to call or strongly imply Steve Mosher a liar, and to claim that ‘hide the decline’ was extensively discussed in literature – which it wasn’t beforehand – then I’m certain you know the origin of this data.
The deletion of data from working instruments which doesn’t agree with a pre-determined temperature rise without physical explanation and without the data being out of a normal range is not a matter of opinion.
My only remaining conclusion must be that Arthur knows very well that what they did was extraordinarily wrong but will defend it anyway. Why else would my comments not be allowed?
Another leftie blog with dishonest content, how rare…….