the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Lewandowsky – Strike Two

Posted by Jeff Id on February 6, 2013

Hat tip – Skiphil.

So Dr. Lewandowsky did it again.   He, and his coauthors, falsely used my name in order to support some kind of psychology paper on climate skeptic bloggers titled – “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.” There were a lot of false (and funny) claims against bloggers on the internet, however, the Lewandowsky team chose to again single out my name in particular regarding specific false attributions of beliefs regarding the global temperature record. Readers will recall that in his previous contributions to scientific understanding, Lewandowsky et al. had made the claim:

and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

Being surprised at the accusation, I pointed out in multiple emails to Dr. Lewandowsky that the Air Vent blog has published many articles using those exact records (here for instance) both on line and in peer-reviewed literature and no such claim regarding global temperature had ever been made by me. I have even created on-line global temperature results which have been compared favorably to many of the professionally funded series by others publishing global temperature series for climate science. A short chain of emails ensued where I explained in detail how my scientific positions have never supported his accusation.  After a short while, with no hope of resolution, I was forced to go directly to the editor of Psychological Science, who eventually agreed to remove the citation.

Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

Like pulling teeth right?

Humorously, the Air Vent was the single blog which made the citation list.  I am not a naturally vindictive person so I took the editor at his word and let the matter rest.  I have not had time to  follow through as to whether the citation removal was completed, however Stephan Lewandowsky has continued to link to the unpublished original, University of Western Australia hosted, libelous document.

It seems that Lewandowsky is apparently less forgiving than I have been.  He recently published a new paper based on blog reactions to his previous scientific breakthrough.  This new paper astoundingly contained an even less supportable claim:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”

My bold!

I would link to the paper, except that his new editors were far more rational than Eric Eich, and on notification, have simply removed the paper from publication.   They have additionally agreed to remove the false reference before any publication continues. Original link here.   I am impressed with the quality of the Frontiers in Psychology Journal response, and  hopefully Lewandowsky will now let the unfounded personal attacks rest.

As Dr. Lewandowsky and his team were aware, the conspiracy claims against me regarding the adjustment of temperature records were unsupported.  This is was a psychology paper of which I am at least an “alleged” subject.  A misrepresented data point, like so many other bloggers, who’s identity was unethically revealed.   Since I did originally take the time to inform Lewandowsky of my actual opinions on temperature records, and since he was fully aware that the article in question did not support his claims, it is my opinion that Lewandwosky and his coauthors intentionally introduced false data into a peer-reviewed paper.  Ironically for a paper on conspiracy ideation based on others (read non-authors) pre-conceived bias, the authors scientifically irrational accusations were completely unnecessary to the point their paper purports to make…..

.. unless one believes in the Lewandowsky conspiracy.


137 Responses to “Lewandowsky – Strike Two”

  1. omanuel said

    Jeff, thank you for helping expose the Climategate scandal in 2009. That chapter is finally coming to conclusion:

    Conclusion: “We are connected physically and spiritually to the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of lives and worlds at the core of the Sun. Fear of that source of energy [1] persuaded world leaders to insert, on 24 Oct 1945, the UN between mankind and the Creator that endowed us with inalienable rights to establish governments to protect our Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339

    1. Oliver K. Manuel, ”Neutron Repulsion”,
    The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012):
    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

  2. Anonymous said

    While the full article is no longer on the journal website, comments there by John Cook point to the pdf at Shaping Tomorrows World with the erroneous statements and citation.

  3. toto said

    #2: Oh yeah. And when we follow the citation to the original post, we read the following:

    The reason that people are so interested in global temperatures is that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record.

    So basically Jeff’s indignation turns on that “only” word. He didn’t say that the record show warming “only” because of adjustments – he just said that “most” of the warming comes from adjustments. Colossal difference!

    BTW, if we read a bit further we notice such totally non-conspirationist statements as:

    So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened.

    Clearly only a deranged mind would read an accusation of fraud in these statements.

    • Toto,

      I have not claimed that adjustments were illigitimate — ever. Do you claim that they don’t exist?

      • > I have not claimed that adjustments were illigitimate

        **Global Temperature Records – Above the Law** was the title.

        In the first paragraph, the auditor’s scare quotes:

        > We don’t know what ‘adjustments’ were made to these records.

        The fall of the article was:

        > Maybe we should just shut up, pay our taxes and trust Phil Jones and this Team of perfectly honest individuals.

        But the sentence that might be the most decisive is this one:

        > So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened.

        You sure can’t say that this sentence contains a claim according to which you consider this process “legitimate”, Jeff.

        • Jeff Condon said

          Willard,

          Your comment is silly. I was accused of a very specific claim which I have never made. Just because you (head in somewhere) refuse to disaggregate between complaints about openness of the science, and whether temperature records were adjusted illegitimately, doesn’t make Lewandowsky’s libelous claims true.

          e.g. A scientist above examination of the law….

          Phil Jones is the same one who participated in the process to chop off data they didn’t like in climategate “Hide the decline” and replaced it with data they did. I don’t know who finally signed off on the graph but everyone knows that this was clear cut fraud designed to hide the utter failure of proxy temp reconstructions. He is also the man who, regarding temp records, was responsible for this beauty:

          “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

          In my opinion, Phil Jones is not an honest scientist, nor is he a good one and even if he were, science isn’t about hugs and trust, it is about verification.

          In my opinion, this blog has helped the field progress toward openness, which was the OBVIOUS complaint of my original post. If you want TRY to beat me up about something, here are a few facts which you may find useful and more entertaining:

          I have made the claim that many forms of hockey stick math are intentionally designed to create “unprecedented” temperatures in obfuscatory manner. I have also participated in the repair of an Antarctic temp reconstruction – which in my opinion was flawed unintentionally but still flawed. I have made the claim that fish are not shrinking due to global warming,direct warming by energy release is not going to be measurable in the foreseeable future, biofuels and wind farms do nothing useful, and that nobody has demonstrated one single negative consequence from anthropogenic warming to date.

          That should be a more constructive topic for your trolling time. :D

        • Carrick said

          Wiliard, none of the cherry picked sentences mean what you want them to mean.

          The content of Jeff’s article, if you think about it deeply (which I’m afraid would represent a new pattern for you, as an internet denizen at least, as you are glib and quick to shoot off rhetoric without much real depth of thought and assume everybody around you is similarly afflicted), is not that there is anything necessarily wrong with “the” adjustments, nor that adjustments are not needed (notice I didn’t say “the” adjustments, pointing out nuance for the nuance deprived), but that “the” adjustments at the time were, in Jeff’s opinion, not fully available for review.

          This was certainly the case for CRUTEMP data, since regardless of where the adjustments were coming from, the unadjusted data that they are coming from were unavailable for comparison.

          “Above the law” doesn’t automatically imply “illegal”, I’ll let Jeff if he cares to expand further on what he think that does mean.

          For mean, it just means you, as a scientist, aren’t confined by the norms of your community; that you aren’t held to normal standards of accountability, and and even when irregularities are found, you aren’t held to the same standards for reprobation as others in that group would be. This is actually a prevalent pattern within society; to me the notion that climate science is immune from it is risible. (WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.)

        • Dear Jeff,

          You were right to say that Lew went a bridge too far. Had Lew known whom he was facing, he might have used a more quantification. More importantly, he should not have used “claim”. “Dogwhistle” would have sufficed.

          But please do not go as far as to play Innocence Abused here. Your overall work speaks for itself. And now, your reaction is not helping: witness your dodge of Zeke’s question.

          “Bold claims” don’t hide under pussyfooting very well.

          • A more circumspect quantification, that is.

            Had I read toto’s comment in full before commenting, I would not have.

            Let’s just say that I independently reproduced toto’s result.

          • Yeah, Jeff–This is Willardism at its finest.

            Lewandowsky (or anybody): Jeff Condon lied. He said A.

            Jeff. No. I did not say A.

            Willard. Technically no. But you said B, C &D which implies belief in A, hence Lewandowsky is morally correct if technically wrong.

            Jeff: B, C & D are separate comments about separate subjects which have nothing to do with A.

            Willard: Don’t play innocent. You are evil. And I will prove it by posting half-sentence segments on Never Ending Audit. You’re doomed, evil man–doomed!

          • Carrick said

            Willard is now using the “hide behind lingo of uncertain interpretation” ploy now.

            Clever, clever willard. We’ll never notice that. :roll: Of course nobody will know what he was actually trying to say, because he never said it, and will wonder what level of “sting” they were appropriately supposed to have felt.

          • > Hence Lewandowsky is morally correct if technically wrong

            No. And I told him so.

          • Carrick and Groundskeeper Willie’s trolling me back in that conversation might not be wise.

            If you let my comment stand, I won’t be back. It is a fair comment.

            Please answer Zeke’s question, Jeff.

          • Carrick said

            willard:

            Carrick and Groundskeeper Willie’s trolling me back in that conversation might not be wise.

            Once again willard has left the playing field, nobody the wiser what he meant.

            kek.

          • Carrick said

            Willard:

            Please answer Zeke’s question, Jeff.

            Which question: “What’s for dinner?” or “what time is dinner?”

          • If you insist, dear Carrick:

            Definition of ILLEGITIMATE

            1: not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other
            2: not rightly deduced or inferred : illogical
            3: departing from the regular : erratic
            4
            a : not sanctioned by law : illegal
            b : not authorized by good usage

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegitimate

            There are hints of #2 (“convoluted”) , #3 (“as a young man”), #4b (“above board honest science”).

            You’re messing with somebody else’s business here, thug.

          • Carrick said

            If willard meant this question “You still believe that “the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record” even though your own reconstruction using raw data finds similar land trends?”

            It’s been answered, and willard still can’t read.

            In any case, I object to Zeke’s framing as the two issues he raises aren’t actually mutually exclusively. I was left shaking my head, I thought Zeke understood this better than he does:

            Large adjustments can provide more of the signal, for example TOBS and homogenization, and if one develops his own algorithm find a similar mean trend.

            This mean that either reconstruction is correct. It does rather substantively cut off at the knees any claims that the original adjustments were fraudulently made though.

            Again, saying large corrections have been made doesn’t imply they are fraudulent or even unnecessary. If they are correctly done, the fact they are large signifies they are necessary.

          • You’re already repeating yourself, Carrick.

            The only time this is a good strategy is when you built a fortress.

            If you continue like that, I’ll control all the key squares.

            ***

            Please read Jeff’s 2009 post again.

            Pay special attention to the adjectives it contains.

            I’ll be back later.

          • Carrick said

            thug? Good grief you are such a silly person.

            You could save us time and energy by telling us why you copied and pasted the definition of illegitimate. It took me a minute to figure out you weren’t even referring to Jeff’s original post, but to a comment he made here (at least I assume that, since you never told us, a characteristic of your method of discourse that has left you in a permanent state of moderation at least on one blog)…

            I’ll just note that in science, it is an assumption that is explicitly made that people are not acting with poor motives, and it is met with approbation to “presume motives” when addressing another person’s methods, analysis, etc.

            So I’d suggest taking the logical intersection of your copy & pasted definition and “no assumption of ill motives” and see what you find.

            My answer is “illegitimate” would just mean “improperly done”.

            I realize that advocates like yourself, who see everything through the lens of advancing a specific agenda, would start with assumption of motive and work backwards from there. For you it would be a synonym for fraudulent no doubt. However context does matter.

            If I saw Joe Romm write illegitimate, I’d have no question he meant it as a slur, since everything he writes is a slur.

            Really this difference in worldviews does explain why you have no problem taking Jeff’s post in the most negative possible light, and why you might be perplexed why others wouldn’t see it similarly to you.

          • It’s a bit late to back down, Carrick.

            Illegitimate does not imply “illegal”, as you have hinted a few times now.

            Illegality is a strange concept in science, although this reminds me of a few posts at Steve’s.

          • > It took me a minute to figure out you weren’t even referring to Jeff’s original post [...]

            I was: I even mentioned adjectives.

            ***

            When building up a fortress, one should seek to reduce contact points. Carrick prefers to open up the position, e.g. motives, advocacy, Romm, world views.

            Our bully lacks discipline.

          • Carrick said

            willard:

            It’s a bit late to back down, Carrick.

            Back down on what? As usual, I’m left with that wtf feeling upon reading your obfuscations.

            Illegitimate does not imply “illegal”, as you have hinted a few times now.

            It can mean illegal, from your own definition “a : not sanctioned by law : illegal”. So it may or may not imply “illegal”, slo whether it does depends is context dependent.

            Anyway, I’ve not hinted it implies illegal since it can and I’ve said as it should not be viewed in this context as either a suggestion of impropriety or illegal behavior.

            Illegality is a strange concept in science

            No idea what you are trying to say. Try saying it again a bit more carefully.

            Certainly activities that one performs in science are still governed by societal rules. In the US, we are now required to take a course and remain accredited in “responsible conduct of research”. Legal issues are prominently raised in that course: human subject participation in experiments and financial conflict of interest are two that come to mind immediately.

          • Carrick plays dumb with talent:

            > Certainly activities that one performs in science are still governed by societal rules.

            Indeed, but to speak of legality in science is at best metaphorical.

            Our discussion is not about science, but about societal rules that surrounds it.

            To underline this is important, since it prevents decoy moves like:

            > I’ll just note that in science, it is an assumption that is explicitly made that people are not acting with poor motives, and it is met with approbation to “presume motives” when addressing another person’s methods, analysis, etc.

            Not that it would ever prevent Carrick to make such moves.

            That boy’s got talent.

          • > Anyway, I’ve not hinted it implies illegal since it can and I’ve said as it should not be viewed in this context as either a suggestion of impropriety or illegal behavior.

            Here’s what Carrick said:

            > “Above the law” doesn’t automatically imply “illegal”[.]

            For this remark to be relevant to our discussion, the concept of illegality must be relevant too.

            This analysis of “above the law” undermines the justification of the word “illegitimate” as “illegal”.

            As if Lew meant “illegal” when he said “illegitimate”

            ***

            A fraud is an illegal activity. Here are two quotes in this thread that contain the word “fraud”:

            > I don’t know who finally signed off on the graph but everyone knows that this was clear cut fraud designed to hide the utter failure of proxy temp reconstructions.

            Here’s another one:

            > I realize that advocates like yourself, who see everything through the lens of advancing a specific agenda, would start with assumption of motive and work backwards from there. For you it would be a synonym for fraudulent no doubt. However context does matter.

            Context does matter.

            ***

            Notice this other gem:

            > For mean, it just means you, as a scientist, aren’t confined by the norms of your community; that you aren’t held to normal standards of accountability, and and even when irregularities are found, you aren’t held to the same standards for reprobation as others in that group would be. This is actually a prevalent pattern within society; to me the notion that climate science is immune from it is risible. (WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.)

            If Carrick wished to prove Lew right, he could not have said it better.

            Well, yeah, he could have, but the emphasized bit sounds good enough.

            Not that the emphasized bit claims anything, mind you.

          • Jeff Condon said

            Sorry for the lag time folks, I went to town with the kids and looked at ice carvings, then I punched nice neat 0.308″ holes in paper at a rate which our president apparently finds objectionable.

            Wow Willard, your writing in this thread is impossible to decipher. Please take more care because I cannot follow your side of the discussion Carrick at all. I honestly don’t have a clue what point you were trying to make.

            Regarding your comment to me, I don’t pussyfoot here … ever. If in doubt, check the title of the blog. I have absolutely no inclination to hide any of my opinions so your comment to me is also confusing.

            If you feel I dodged a question, I honestly cannot identify it. Please copy and paste what you “think” I didn’t answer and I will attempt to be more clear for you.

          • Jeff,

            Zeke said you were making “bold claims” in 2009. He then surmised that your views somehow evolved. You respond by saying they’ve not changed much. Something’s wrong with this picture.

            Your answer to Zeke, which Carrick repeated here and there, is this counterfactual:

            > If the adjustments are necessary fine, let’s make sure that we understand the full rationale for them and not hide it from those investigating the problem.

            By reading this 2009 post, you do seem to convey that there are not no such “full rationale” at the time. In fact, you do seem to go so far as to say that there can’t be anymore. Make sure the adjustments would be considered legitimate, we’d need the data. But the data got deleted, and you do claim:

            > As a young man doing research, the first thing we learned was to record our raw data in detail. Results must be reproducible from scratch or you are not doing science.

            you do seem that something is illegitimate in at least one meaning of “legitimate” that seems kosher in our context. If your views have not evolved on this matter, you still claim that.

            According to this story, it is not possible, to ever falsify that counterfactual anymore. So your counterfactual rests does sound like an assertion. This is why I’m saying you’re pussyfooting with Lew’s sentence.

            I can clarify what I’m saying if need be.

            ***

            Take it from the other end: what should Lew say to do justice to what you were (and perhaps still are) claiming in 2009?

          • Sorry for the typos. I need a break. I’ll be back tomorrow.

          • Carrick said

            Jeff, I’m afraid I’ve lost track of what point Willard’s trying to make as he seems to contradict himself and wrap himself into a pretzel on several occasions. I’d put money he’s lost track of the plot himself.

            It’s odd for all of that he quote mined that he left out the full paragraph in question:

            So my question is, if they have all the ‘adjusted’ data and all these ‘adjustments’ are above board honest science, why don’t they provide a station and dataset list so that objective observers not paid 22 million dollars over 19 years can’t review it. We shouldn’t forget this reply from Phil Jones to earlier pre – FOIA requests for the data.

            Which seems to be the key issue in contention. Seems like a valid question to me.

            It’s also a bit weird to suggest that calling Phi Jones massively funded is … well I’m not sure what the point of that is.

            He also seemed confused with the point of my comment on the phenomenon of “above the law” as it relates to science and advocacy. You made a similar point here:

            Maybe we should just shut up, pay our taxes and trust Phil Jones and this Team of perfectly honest individuals.

            Unless I see something more sane, I’ll stick this one out and let him have the field with his ad hominems, and go much on a salad. Mayhaps.

          • Jeff Condon said

            Willard,

            It seems that you don’t like the tone of my 2009 post, but can’t seem to find a scientific problem with the content.

            I suppose that tone could be something rational people may disagree on.

            Please stop reading the tea leaves for Ouija messages and tell me the question you want answered. I will answer that question.

          • Jeff Condon said

            Carrick,

            Your patience with Willard is unusual. I truly have a lot of difficulty following any single one of his points. Mark T would have chucked the thread to the wind by now.

          • Jeff,

            I could not care less about your tone. If I cared about your tone, there would be no reason to be here. Your tone is your brand. This would be either too easy to do, and quite useless.

            Your 2009 post contains “bold statements”. Not “bold” as in “containing strong language”. Bold as in:

            > [T]he large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record.

            and

            > So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened.

            et cetera.

            These are bold statements indeed. The last one made Zeke ask:

            You still believe that “the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record” even though your own reconstruction using raw data finds similar land trends? Or were you narrowly referring to the difference between GISS and other records (e.g. their arctic interpolation, which I wouldn’t consider “large positive adjustments” per se)? Sorry if I’m misinterpreting your position, but the original post seems to be making a rather bold claim.

            As emphasized, this question asks about a belief, Jeff.

            Here’s your answer:

            At the time, the data we had on tobs and other adjustments exceeded the halfway point of the trends over the full record length (not the recent 30 years). I have not checked this value myself but accepted someone else breakdown of the corrections. If it is somewhat less, that’s fine too. Either way, some adjustments are necessary so that I’ve never held the position that they were illegitimate or even unnecessary.

            My position was, and is, if the adjustments are necessary fine, let’s make sure that we understand the full rationale for them and not hide it from those investigating the problem. CRU used to be the most cited source of global temperatures yet nobody really knew what was in it.

            All you’re saying is that if the adjustments are OK, you’re OK with them. This counterfactual is empty, Jeff. Where’s your statement of belief, Jeff?

            ***

            Do you still believe that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record, yes or no?

            ***

            You should not pussyfoot like that, Jeff. This ain’t your style. You’d need practice.

          • Jeff Condon said

            Thanks for clarifying, I think I see your problem Willard.

            Here are the two questions I can make out from your post.

            “All you’re saying is that if the adjustments are OK, you’re OK with them. ” – Of course! Who wouldn’t be ok with that?

            “Do you still believe that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record, yes or no?”

            Yes. The trend to which I was referring was to the full record length trend which is over 100 years. The trend which AGW is primarily interested in is in the last 40 years and this shorter trend is mostly instrument trend created mostly by actual warming. As I have also pointed out, I did not verify the adjustment magnitude calculations. If someone were to convince me that it were less than half, I would gladly revise my statement to say a large portion of the trend is adjustment. My belief is that Zeke didn’t continue to discuss it because once he figured out what I was saying, he agreed so it was no big deal.

            I don’t believe these statements are contentious or even unusual within the field of climate science.

            As to no pussyfooting, this isn’t my style either but you asked for it. I think you are an ignorant man looking for anyone to attack. Just like Lewandowsky, you did not realize that these adjustments even exist so my claims look to you like conspiracy, when actually they are just statements of fact. Now, because Lewandowsky and you have attacked and shown your knowledge level, everyone who reads here can see just how ignorant the two of you are about climate science thermometry.

            Look at the bright side, at least you didn’t do it in a peer-reviewed publication.

          • Jeff,

            Thank you for your candid answer.

            1. We now know that you still believe that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record. This could help Lew modify what he wrote about you. Were he to correct himself and say:

            > Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming mostly because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009).

            your actual op-ed would have to rely a bit more on the first of Lew’s papers to get the ball moving. This was toto’s point when he said:

            > So basically Jeff’s indignation turns on that “only” word.

            I believe, a point you seemed to have ignored by threwing the “illegitimate” tackle.

            ***

            2. I also acknowledge your avowal of pussyfooting:

            > As to no pussyfooting, this isn’t my style either but you asked for it.

            This contradicts what you said to me earlier:

            > I don’t pussyfoot here … ever.

            By chance, you only said this on a blog. You now should say something like:

            > I only pussyfoot when people asks for it.

            Speaking of which, I believe you were pussyfooting in your answers to Zeke, which predate my first comment here. So I’m not sure how I can Make You Do It when I’m not there, an immature excuse to say the least Are you saying that Zeke “asked for it”?

            ***

            3. Speaking of my first comment here, let me remind it to you again:

            You were right to say that Lew went a bridge too far. Had Lew known whom he was facing, he might have used a more quantification. More importantly, he should not have used “claim”. “Dogwhistle” would have sufficed.

            But please do not go as far as to play Innocence Abused here. Your overall work speaks for itself. And now, your reaction is not helping: witness your dodge of Zeke’s question.

            “Bold claims” don’t hide under pussyfooting very well.

            I asked for this comment to stand. Carrick insisted. I responded.

            I believe that my comment still stands. You can see that the first two parts provide sufficient ground for it.

            ***

            4. We certainly could continue our conversation, We could try to formulate a statement you’d wish in Lew’s papers. We could try to reconcile Zeke’s impression with your “no big deal”. We could also try to inspect your counterfactual, for instance by wondering how it could realistically possible for someone to convince you that it were “less than half”. (My guess is that it’s not possible and that your counterfactual is quasi-metaphysical.)

            You could continue to try to make big tackles and impressive dances afterwards. Meanwhile, I could entertain your readers by describing all these ClimateBall tricks, which result from millions of years of evolution. Speaking of which (i.e. the tricks), you have no evidence that:

            > you did not realize that these adjustments even exist.

            I can assure you that I did follow bender’s advice and “read the blog”, which contain many similar stories. Since Eli’s here and perhaps still Groundskeeper Willie, I will recall this thread:

            http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/11/infra-digging-michael-tobis.html

            ***

            Now, does that make three strikes?

            Never mind.

            In the spirit of sportsmanship, I would agree with Zeke’s suggestion to mention Goddard instead of yours, a suggestion I will forward to Lew.

            Until later,

            w

          • steven mosher said

            willard

            “Indeed, but to speak of legality in science is at best metaphorical.”

            Well you might want to reconsider that. In some sciences, particularly in the one that Lewandowsky practices, the concept of legality is rather at the heart of experimental design. Now, imagine that the first paper is just the set up for the second paper. That is, the first paper is actually the experiement used to collect data for the second paper. Conducting an experiment on human subjects is governed by law.

          • Sue him, Moshpit. See if I care.

          • Steven Mosher said

            Willard,
            How is your sentence “Sue him” responsive to my claim.
            You made a statement about science and the notion of legality.
            I pointed out that in Lewandowsky’s field the notion of illegal research is kinda central
            to the whole enterprise. In australia you have laws that must be followed. Science is
            not above the law because science is just behavior and sometimes that behavior is
            governed by law– human subjects, data quality act. Now, in one’s application
            to conduct research on humans it is probably important to be truthful. That is all.
            As for suing him or taking other legal courses. That would be a bad move. Lewandowsky is using one of the tools of
            conspritorial ideation by playing the victim.
            A lawsuit would just feed that lie. Think more diabolically. Lawsuits are for tools like Horner and Mann. Lawsuits put the matter in the hands of judges and juries. Blog posts put things in the hands of readers. Both sub optimal. That is all.

          • Jeff Condon said

            Willard,

            Were I an attorney, I could only think of one reasonable reply.

        • omanuel said

          Willard,

          If you’re looking for evidence of deception in science, watch this

          a.) 1998 CSPAN News video [1] on the belated release of xenon isotope data that were collected in 1995 as the Galileo probe plunged into Jupiter, this

          b.) Brief summary [2] on the importance of those data for understanding Earth’s heat source – the Sun, and this

          c.) Condensed paper [3] showing that neutron-capture cross-section data from the 1957 B2FH paper confirmed the conclusion NASA was still trying to hide four decades later.

          [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco

          [2] “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, abstract 5011 (1998): http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

          [3] “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections,” 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), paper #1033, Houston, Texas, (March 14-18, 2005)
          http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1033.pdf

    • page488 said

      Read your bold in your own post

    • Carrick said

      Seriously you guys are too funny. No reasonable person would read your quoted text as an accusation of fraud. Next time read it before you cut and past it. It says nothing of the sort.

      However, many of us deal with model-based corrections to data an know that these are often fraught with error, even when the thing you are trying to model, isn’t human behavior related.

      Most people agree the corrections to the data are large and therefore necessary. Oddly most people who accept that they are necessary never make the next step in their reasoning, which is, how good are these corrections?

      Lewandowsky should be studying that instead of his own brain fever, it’d be a more productive use of his time.

      • Jeff Condon said

        I don’t understand the lack of differentiation between illegitimate adjustments and actual adjustments. The really funny thing about this whole episode, is that Lewandowsky’s accusation proves that he is so utterly ignorant of climate science that he is unaware that the corrections actually exist. Claims that they do exist are therefore automatically illegitimate and a “conspiracy”!!!

        “Stupider” really needs to be added to the dictionary.

        • Carrick said

          Oddly they find a problem with groking that if adjustments are most of the signal, and if real, they are absolutely necessary. There’s even a big SkS article endorsing time of observation.

          That said, isn’t it kind of ironic that Cook is a coauthor on this manuscript?

          • Jeff Condon said

            That is kind of a big deal. They even discussed the magnitude of the adjustments, yet when I write the same thing…

            If I have some time, “another dissection of reality” may be the next post.

          • Carrick said

            Lewandosky is obviously a psychologist with little understanding of the physical sciences, and the second author is a cartoonist.

            What can I say but “parade of clowns”? It would be humorous if, not wait, it’s humorous.

            (The fact that Eli on his blog thinks this is some major nail in the coffin of, well, anybody—that just makes this even more comically goofy.)

    • Steven Mosher said

      Toto, willard and others all need to learn how to read an interpret texts.

      Rule #1. The dictionary does not govern the meaning of terms. It sure would be nice if it did because then I would have an algorithm to figure out what you mean.

      Rule #2. you cannot understand a text in isolation.

      Rule #3. The author doesnt control the meaning. Jeff writes one thing, and lewandowsky can take it any way he wants to, and did.

      Bottom line you won’t get to the bottom of this by looking at the text and there is nothing outside the text to guide your reading, well nothing definitive or foundational.

      A more interesting question is this:

      Jeff provided Lewandowsky with more text that calls into question Lewandowsky’s interpretation of Jeff’s post. Lewandowsky refuses to accept that evidence.
      He doesnt look for a better example ( like Goddard ) but he stays with his original claim.

      I find this odd. Why does he reject jeffs additional evidence

      NS: nihilistic skepticism?
      MbW: Must be Wrong
      UCT: unreflective counterfactual thinking.

      This is the question willard should put to Lewandowsky. Given the totality of evidence, given that we reason to the best explanation, why does Lewandowsky reject the additional evidence Jeff supplied about his views. And, given that there are much much clearer examples, examples where the author would agree that he made a fraud charge, why did Lewandowsky persist in using Jeff. It may make sense, but as it stands there is one way to explain it, maybe more. Don’t indulge in speculation. That would be NoA.

      • steven mosher said

        I will add another thing.

        There is clear documentary evidence of Dr. Loo playing the victim ( conspiritorial ideation ) and it’s hyperbole.

  4. Steven Mosher said

    Toto. You need a reading lesson and a logic lesson.

  5. [...] Lewandowsky – Strike Two [...]

  6. Glenn Tamblyn said

    Jeff said in the previous post, cited here by others: “the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record.”

    No they don’t Jeff!

    Most of the signal in the GISS (and other) records comes from Sea Surface Temperatures – 70% of the Earth’s surface so 70% of the signal. You know AREA WEIGHTED AVERAGES and all that.

    So ‘most’ of the warming comes from adjustments? No it doesn’t – simple maths.

    So here is a hypothetical question for you Jeff:

    If the bias introduced by the switch from Thermometers to the MMT’s had actually introduced a warm bias, that the MMT’s were reading higher than the thermometers, requiring a cool adjustment to the data, can we take it as a given that you would be just as strident and vociferous in your criticisms of nefarious ‘cooling adjustments’?

    • Glenn,
      The adjustments are well known. The question isn’t whether they exist but whether they are correct, and I have never claimed that they were either incorrect or illegitimate.

      TOBS is a funny thing, if you have the skill, spend some time considering if it makes sense.

    • Manfred said

      Glenn Tamblyn, that may be not true as well.

      Sea surface temperatures are adjusted a lot as well, the main adjustments are due to change of the measurement method (bucket, insulated bucket, ERI inlet, buoyes…). The size of these (in sum upwards) adjustments is a substantial part of the total temperature increase of 0.3K since the previous cyclical high in the 1940s.

      Approximately 1/3 of this increase in due to the following overwriting of metadata. I leave it to anyone to decide, if overwriting of 30% of metadata is warranted by this explanation:

      Here is the overwriting of meta data:

      “It is likely that many ships that are listed as using buckets actually used the ERI method (see end Section 3.2). To correct the uncertainty arising from this, 30+-10% of bucket observations were reassigned as ERI observations. For example a grid box with 100% bucket observations was reassigned to have, say, 70% bucket and 30% ERI.”

      This is supposed to be the justification:

      “It is probable that some observations recorded as being from buckets were made by the ERI method. The Norwegian contribution to WMO Tech note 2 (Amot [1954]) states that the ERI method was preferred owing to the dangers involved in deploying a bucket. This is consistent with the rst issue of WMO Pub 47 (1955), in which 80% of Norwegian ships were using ERI measurements. US Weather Bureau instructions (Bureau [1938]) state that the \condenserintake method is the simpler and shorter means of obtaining the water temperature” and that some observers took ERI measurements \if the severity of the weather [was] such as to exclude the possibility of making a bucket observation”. The only quantitative reference to the practice is in the 1956 UK Handbook of Meteorological Instruments HMSO [1956] which states that ships that travel faster than 15 knots should use the ERI method in preference to the bucket method for safety reasons. Approximately 30% of ships travelled at this speed between 1940 and 1970.”

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf
      http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/

  7. The original 2009 post was a bit off the mark. That said, Jeff has done work in the three years since that has changed his view of the impact of adjustments (at least globally). Being able to change one’s views, even when the results militate against one’s preconceptions, is the sign of a good scientist. Lewandowsky was out of line in citing Jeff as the poster child of temperature record critics (he could have picked on Steve Goddard, for example).

    • Zeke,

      Kind words but my views have not changed much that I know of. You have to realize that the context of the 2009 post was to get the jokers to tell us which stations were being used in their result. The trends were available in multiple datasets, UAH and RSS had a greater separation from GISS at the time, I believe cru had the highest land trend at the time yet couldn’t tell anyone where the data came from. Posts like that triggered several events which led to the release of proper lists and the placing of data on line for replication. I didn’t know or believe that anyone had done anything illigitimate, so I didn’t write that anyone had. Only Lewandowsky made that claim.

      Now that we know which data was used, we can judge which series are better and look directly at the problems.

      Berkeley should have the best results now but I have pointed out to the BEST group that the CI calculation, while clever, is flawed. You cannot rescale individual series within the jackknife calculation – it violates the basic assumptions of the original formula. So far, nobody has even replied to this point. I’m not sure anyone on the team has figured it out yet, despite it being explained to them. Again, it probably won’t make much difference but until it is addressed, it is not accurate.

      • page488 said

        Go get ‘em, kid!

      • Jeff,

        You still believe that “the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record” even though your own reconstruction using raw data finds similar land trends? Or were you narrowly referring to the difference between GISS and other records (e.g. their arctic interpolation, which I wouldn’t consider “large positive adjustments” per se)? Sorry if I’m misinterpreting your position, but the original post seems to be making a rather bold claim.

        • Jeff Condon said

          At the time, the data we had on tobs and other adjustments exceeded the halfway point of the trends over the full record length (not the recent 30 years). I have not checked this value myself but accepted someone else breakdown of the corrections. If it is somewhat less, that’s fine too. Either way, some adjustments are necessary so that I’ve never held the position that they were illegitimate or even unnecessary.

          My position was, and is, if the adjustments are necessary fine, let’s make sure that we understand the full rationale for them and not hide it from those investigating the problem. CRU used to be the most cited source of global temperatures yet nobody really knew what was in it.

          As another example, the Byrd Antarctic AWS data was recently updated with large positive and negative step corrections. These may also be necessary, but the step size and method leave me with questions that don’t seem to exist in literature on on line.

        • Carrick said

          Right Zeke, Lewindowsky isn’t even slightly out of line, but Watts was?

          Interesting standards you have there for which behavior you defend and which you call out. Interesting as in “uncritical and biased.”

        • Eli Rabett said

          Zeke, is this about the teleconnections in temperature that Hansen uses to extend arctic data from stations?

      • Kenneth Fritsch said

        Temperature data sets and adjustments must surely be considered a work in progress. BEST land series differs from GHCN land series and the performance in benchmarking, depending on test, can differ between data sets. GHCN increased the century temperature trend for the past 100 years or so by 0.13 degress C on going from one version to another in the past year.

        I personally think that the satellite temperature records need more scrutiny then those records have been receiving. That does not make me a denier as progress could show the temperature trends going in either direction or remaining the same. What bothers me is when the implied conclusion in this matter is that the science is settled and we stop looking for potential problems.

  8. Anonymous said

    Zeke,
    (he could have picked on Steve Goddard, for example).
    That would require him to do research and learn which arguments are made and who makes them.

  9. BobN said

    “Conspiracist ideation”, Seriously??? That’s just academic jabberwocky.

  10. Don B said

    “The fourth name on the new Lewandowsky paper is Mike Hubble-Marriott, from “Climate Realities Research, Melbourne”. What isn’t listed on the paper, is that Mike’s “climate research” is published under the anonymous moniker of Mike, on a site called WatchingTheDeniers A site incidentally, which is linked in the paper. Perhaps they ought to have disclosed that?

    Climate Realities Research has no website, it doesn’t appear to be a registered business, and Googling doesn’t shed any light on it. Just how serious is his research?

    “Mike” gave it away on The Conversation blog a long time ago, sort of, saying “my real name which is Michael Marriott – thus, any charges of anonymity can be dealt with.” Hubble-Marriott, or Marriott, what’s the difference? Hmm. (See Watching the Deniers) In his other life, he worked for a law firm as an information services manager. Perhaps he still does? But now apparently he’s a climate researcher. OK.

    I’m not fussy about qualifications, there are plenty of Profs who can’t think. But Lewandowsky and Hubble-Marriott think qualifications are all that matter. Hypocrisy anyone?”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/lewandowsky-dismisses-bloggers-but-they-are-his-research-team-who-is-mike-hubble-marriott/

  11. phi said

    Jeff Condon,

    “…if the adjustments are necessary fine, let’s make sure that we understand the full rationale for them…”

    That’s the problem, adjustments probably don’t lead most of the warming, but they are not understood. Not understood by a psychologist is in the order of things, not understood by those who implement them is much more troublesome. What is not understood is precisely why they always provoke an artificial regional warming. By default, we should expect a random effect on trends. This is not the case, this singular phenomenon must therefore imperatively be justified. In the current state of scientific knowledge, the only rational and pupished explanation and is found in Hansen et al. 2001. The implication is that adjustments are currently illegitimate.

    • Jeff Condon said

      “That’s the problem, adjustments probably don’t lead most of the warming”

      From others work, the adjustments were slightly greater than half of the trend in the full length global temp record. As I wrote before, I have not verified this myself but I don’t believe it is a terribly contentious claim. The ocean records dominate the signal and ‘require’ a large amount of historic correction.

      Of course, AGW folks are primarily interested in the recent 30-40 years due to model results, and there is no doubt that most of that trend comes directly from the instrumental data.

      • phi said

        “Of course, AGW folks are primarily interested in the recent 30-40 years due to model results, and there is no doubt that most of that trend comes directly from the instrumental data.”

        Yes, it’s true. But two things:

        1. While temperatures rise from 1980 to 2000 is only slightly affected, it is ultimately only a period of 20 years completed 15 years ago.

        2. Without adjustments and taking into account the margin of estimate for the bias, the warming of the late twentieth century loses all its historical singularity.

        • Carrick said

          I think phi has his valence back asswards.

          If the effect of bias in trend adjustments is to increase the temperature trend prior to 1980, when is the period that climate researchers mark the period of significant AGW (meaning the warming can no longer be explained without invoking anthropogenic forcings), then that artifactual temperature trend will make the warming during the period where it is thought to be primarily anthropogenically forced to look less singular not more.

          • phi said

            “If the effect of bias in trend adjustments is to increase the temperature trend prior to 1980…”

            I did not say exactly that, the bias appears likely in the early twentieth century and is still there in 2013. This is a bias on the secular trend. Simply put, the temperature increase of the late twentieth century is real and can not be explained only through this bias.

            “…then that artifactual temperature trend will make the warming during the period where it is thought to be primarily anthropogenically forced to look less singular not more.”

            So, no. Over the period 1900-2012, the 1980-2000 warming does not even distinguish from that of 1920-1940. The effect of the bias is to consider on a multisecular scale.

          • phi said

            I would add that the important point is that adjustments are illegitimate. I guess this is accepted?

          • Carrick said

            I’m not really following you now phi. I said that the largest adjustments occurred prior to 1980, not you, and that when one takes that into account, this does suggest that the effect of the adjustments, if they were illegitimate, would be to make the warming post 1980 less singular.

            And no, I don’t accept that the adjustments are not legitimate.

          • phi said

            “And no, I don’t accept that the adjustments are not legitimate.”

            This does not change much. As I showed above, in the present state of scientific knowledge, adjustments are illegitimate.

          • phi said

            One last thing, the largest adjustments may well be before 1980, it does not mean that the bias in their origin has declined. All this is explained in Hansen et al. 2001.

          • Carrick said

            phi:

            This does not change much. As I showed above, in the present state of scientific knowledge, adjustments are illegitimate.

            Technically, you didn’t “show”, you “argued”. To show is to prove a conjecture, you’ve merely conjectured then made a plausibility argument.

            And of course I don’t accept that your conjecture is correct (of course that is different than accepting that it is wrong), and even if it is correct, I don’t think your plausibility argument itself is valid.

            One last thing, the largest adjustments may well be before 1980, it does not mean that the bias in their origin has declined. All this is explained in Hansen et al. 2001.

            Perhaps you should explain what you meant there, as I have no idea.

            My point is that the magnitude of the adjustments was larger during periods (pre 1980) where model (NOT GCM) and analysis tests us larger adjustments are necessary. Plainly, any bias introduced by adjustments should be larger during the period prior to 1980, than in the period since then.

            If you are arguing, and I think you are, that adjustments introduce an artifactual warming, then the effect of repairing the algorithms to remove the artifactual warming would be to reduce the amount of warming during the period where anthropogenic forcing was not so dominant.

            That is, AGW would look even more “singular” were the adjustments made properly than they do now if you are correct about the adjustments not being “legitimate”. This was the key point I was trying to make, the rest of the discussion we’ve had being periphery to that “take home point”.

        • phi said

          “Technically, you didn’t “show”, you “argued”.”

          I showed. The character of adjustments is presently only explained by an article not refuted concluding to the illegitimacy of such adjustments.

          “Perhaps you should explain what you meant there, as I have no idea.”

          This is explained in the reference I gave. Discontinuities indicate a bias a posteriori.

          • Carrick said

            That word “show” in science means something different than what you think it means. I’ll leave it at that.

            This is explained in the reference I gave

            Word of advice: you should never give a reference and leave the idea that you are trying to express left inside of that reference. I suggest using references to bolster your arguments, not make them for you.

            Why do you assume “discontinuities indicate a bias a posteriori”. Ever hear of a station move?

        • phi said

          I said that I had shown, not that I had demonstrated.

          Hansen et al. is sufficiently clear and known that I did not need to repeat the demonstration. It is to those who tinker adjustments regardless of recognized scientific knowledge to justify their actions.

          “Why do you assume “discontinuities indicate a bias a posteriori”. Ever hear of a station move?”

          Obviously, you argue without even having read Hansen et al. 2001. You are not responsible for homogenisation and therefore excusable. But at least have the decency not to talk about what you do not know.

          • Carrick said

            I am not a mind reader and don’t know what you take or don’t take from Hansen. I will judge you by the words you write, not the unknown ones you refer to in another manuscript, having no idea which words you use or don’t use, and which concepts you understand or don’t understand. As I said, if you understand a topic you should explain it, not point to another source.

            If you don’t understand it, just say “I think this says XXX -> reference”. I can’t take you serious at this point if you continue to slide responsibility for your own statements to another author.

            Cheers.

        • phi said

          I explained whatever there was to explain in my first message to Jeff Condon (# 11). If you do not understand or do not want to understand, I can not help you. This discussion has no more sense.

  12. Carrick said

    willard:

    Pay special attention to the adjectives it contains.

    Um. no.

    You elicit your own argument and explain how you got to your interpretation.

    I’d dare say it would involve a fair amount of “assumption of motive” of Jeff’s part. At some level I think you are aware of this, otherwise you’d be a lot more explicit and a lot less nebulous and “too clever” in your wordings.

    You don’t see ANY irony that it’s okay for you to judge somebody’s motives to find them guilty of .. judging other people’s motives?

    Seriously, without the circularity in your own reasoning, there wouldn’t even be a conversation right now, so for that,we thank you. ;-)

    • #YouQuarterbacks, when you see someone who tries the divide and conquer trick, like Carrick does like now, it’s important to keep the eye on the ball.

      We’ll note that Carrick says this:

      > You elicit your own argument and explain how you got to your interpretation.

      just before saying this:

      > I’d dare say it would involve a fair amount of “assumption of motive” of Jeff’s part.

      without argument, except perhaps the sentence that follows:

      > At some level I think you are aware of this, otherwise you’d be a lot more explicit and a lot less nebulous and “too clever” in your wordings.

      which does exactly what is being portrayed as kinda bad.

      ***

      I’m not sure on what grounds Carrick can claim that I need to assume any motive. Perhaps it is because he himself indulges to impugn motives to me. Perhaps it is because he read Jeff’s post and found for instance:

      > The reason that people are so interested in global temperatures is that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record.

      > To counter that Phil Jones colluded with government officials to ignore the law.

      > [I] bolded the important bit and decided to leave the emails up so you can see the DOT GOV’S of the people who were notified of this apparently illegal activity.

      > The interesting point is that it also seems each time they come across a new dataset it is simply replaced. So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened.

      These sentences are from Jeff’s very first paragraph alone. The intentions attributed vary from one instance to the next, and are irrelevant to my point. My point is this: there is no need to attribute any motive to observe that Jeff did attribute motives.

      ***

      But that’s just a monkey wrench Carrick threw. Here are the adjectives in that blog post:

      Young man. Raw data. Reproducible results. Reasonable degree. Large positive adjustments. Higher slope CRU record. Reasoned expert. It got so bad. Important bit. Apparently illegal activity.

      Raw data. Important global temperature set. Interesting point. New dataset. Systematic choosing of ever warmer records so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened.

      ‘Adjusted’ data. Above board honest science. Objective observers.

      It sure sounds different now doesn’t it.

      Massively funded. ‘Raw’ data discarded each time they have a ‘better’ version.

      Trust so blindly. Known flaws.

      Here is a plot of how the US temperature record is corrected. Corrected station. Curves hidden in plain sight for years.

      Perfectly honest individuals.

      ***

      Readers will judge if I needed to impugn any motive to show Jeff’s adjectives. Now, what would be Jeff’s claim in that post? My own impression is that Jeff has built a counterfactual case.

      More on that later. Let’s wait until Carrick tries to divide and conquer that comment.

  13. Carrick said

    willard:

    I was: I even mentioned adjectives.

    You could learn to write a bit more clearly if you wanted to be taken seriously. Start with cut and pasting for clarification rather than effect.

    Our bully lacks discipline.

    Typical verbal bully. Accuse others of your own behavior then claim victimhood.

    Tell us though with words intended for clarity in what sense I am a bully and in what sense I lack discipline. Try using an actual series of carefully constructed sentences instead of your attempts at pithy one liners.

    In any case, if you take it as bullying when somebody is being critical of your words, there is a solution: be more careful of what words you use. I’m hardly the only one who has suggested this notion to you.

    (Or as I like to say… if you don’t like being squished like a bug, stop acting like one.)

    • Carrick lacks discipline by opening up the game by injecting topics in the discussion. He gets entertaining ad hominems at the price of handing me gaps to run into. I already said so.

      The point I’m commited to is a valid one. Instead of just accepting it, he’s going for the big play and the domineering dance. Carrick’s modus operandi, here and elsewhere, is that of a bully.

      Since my point is easy to make (I mean, come on, who do you think you’re kidding!) all I need to do is to dodge Carrick’s monkey wrench and keep my eye on the ball. Not only can I dodge, but I can respond in kind. As long as he’s touchdown dancing, I can move the ball forward.

      The ball is what Jeff conveyed in 2009, and what he conveys in general, since we now know that his thoughts on all this have not evolved much. It is not me, however hard Carrick would try to make it so.

  14. Carrick said

    Willard:

    Our discussion is not about science, but about societal rules that surrounds it.

    Is this “our” in the sense of you and your tape worm, or “our” in terms of you and me? Because if it’s not the latter, then “our” should have been “yours” which isn’t necessarily the same as “mine.” Speaking as plainly as I can, you may decide that the discussion only pertained to “A”, but other people don’t have to make that same determination.

    Not that it would ever prevent Carrick to make such moves.

    That boy’s got talent.

    More silly tripe.

    gak.

  15. Carrick said

    willard:

    For this remark to be relevant to our discussion, the concept of illegality must be relevant too.

    It does imply there is a word law that it is above. And as I pointed out there is. Then you tried to see how many nuances you could balance on the head of a pin.

    This analysis of “above the law” undermines the justification of the word “illegitimate” as “illegal”.

    Lack of clarity of thought leads to lack of clarity of words, and now we see exposed the source of lack of clarity in your words.

    Because it exists, doesn’t mean it’s germane to a particular context. It isn’t.

    As if Lew meant “illegal” when he said “illegitimate”

    Who knows what you mean here, muddy writer.

    • If we agree that Lew’s “illegitimate” did not mean “illegal”, talking about legality is quite irrelevant.

      Then, we can’t dismiss Lew’s “illegitimate” with something like:

      > “Above the law” doesn’t automatically imply “illegal”.

      And this is the only relevant meaning that would make Lew’s sentence libelous.

      All the other relevant meanings might well characterize what Jeff’s conveying in his blog post.

      For instance, when Jeff talks about being “above the law”, he does not seem to imply any kind of legimacy.

      On the contrary, in fact.

  16. Carrick said

    I’ll pick and choose which portions of willard’s word salad to respond to here. It’s not like there’s any coherency in any of it.

    willard:

    A fraud is an illegal activity

    No, it’s not. You seriously need to stop while you’re behind, it’s just getting worse not better:

    From the dictionary (which you can mysteriously cut and paste from when you think it helps your cause):

    a) Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
    b) A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

    What you state is false, so what you conclude from this is falsified. Either are possible in the quote you selected, but the automatic presumption that it is (a) just shows had bad your shoddy thinking is.

    WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.

    If Carrick wished to prove Lew right, he could not have said it better.

    Well, yeah, he could have, but the emphasized bit sounds good enough.

    If you wanted to know what I meant you could have just asked. .

    The predictable part is where science intersects with advocacy.

    Is that really not an obvious statement?

    • An activity is not a person nor a thing, so (b) does not apply. You don’t accuse someone of being a fraud. You just tell that he is.

      Let Carrick enjoy his touchdown dance nonetheless.

      ***

      The “obvious statement” is better understood in its paragraph:

      > For mean, it just means you, as a scientist, aren’t confined by the norms of your community; that you aren’t held to normal standards of accountability, and and even when irregularities are found, you aren’t held to the same standards for reprobation as others in that group would be. This is actually a prevalent pattern within society; to me the notion that climate science is immune from it is risible. (WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.)

      I think the “it” in the last sentence refers some kind of immunity for the climate science. The last sentence says that this immunity is entirely predictable.

      This kind of claims sure interest Lew.

  17. Carrick said

    Willard, re this seriously, you hardly are in a place at this point to argue about the use of ad hominems. Does the word Chewbacca mean anything to you? It should..

    That’s certainly bullying behavior.

    As to keeping your eye on the ball, is that what you call all of the drek you’ve spewed? You are doing everything to duck the original topic of conversation here.

    re this

    Now you’re substituting what somebody else said for my words.

    I’m not arguing that what Lewindowsky says meets the criterion for libel, just that it meets the one for being wrong.

    More to the point, Jeff is right that the temperature data are adjusted and I would go further and say that the adjustment is necessary. Whether they are accurate enough depends on how these adjustments are known. If they are not known, their veracity is uncertain.

    Since you insist on staying on topic relative to this bit, here’s Lewindowsky’s comment again:

    and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming

    That’s the specific charge from Lewindowksy.

    If Jeff Id wants to talk about his views of Phil Jones and CRUs obstruction of attempts to obtain FOI data, that may or may not be an accurate characterization, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

    Relating to this full paragraph, which you think somehow rescues you, full paragraph:

    “Above the law” doesn’t automatically imply “illegal”, I’ll let Jeff if he cares to expand further on what he think that does mean.

    For [me], it just means you, as a scientist, aren’t confined by the norms of your community; that you aren’t held to normal standards of accountability, and and even when irregularities are found, you aren’t held to the same standards for reprobation as others in that group would be. This is actually a prevalent pattern within society; to me the notion that climate science is immune from it is risible. (WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.)

    You also said “The last sentence says that this immunity is entirely predictable.”

    Again you can’t read.

    Actually what it says is “WHERE it is found within climate science is entirely predictable too but that’s for another thread.) Here it is found in the previous paragraph to be “above the law” behavior. The IMMUNITY I referred to is that mystical state of somehow being above mere human that climate scientists seem to have, at least according to you advocates.

    The point I was making was idea that the climate science wouldn’t suffer from the same foibles of human nature as any other human endeavor is itself risible. How any of that helps Lewandowsky… well we know he’ll deliberately mischaracterize other people if it helps his “cause” and you guys will applaud that, so I do see your point.

    I won’t respond to the other because you’re smelling like ass on that, and I don’t want to get any of it on me.

    • > The point I was making was idea that the climate science wouldn’t suffer from the same foibles of human nature as any other human endeavor is itself risible.

      Of course it is ridiculous to think so. Why attribute this belief to others, then?

      This mental attribution serves a function of the same kind as this:

      > How any of that helps Lewandowsky… well we know he’ll deliberately mischaracterize other people if it helps his “cause” and you guys will applaud that, so I do see your point.

      To answer this rhetorical question: this helps Lew because he’s collecting stupid lines like this.

      Please keep them coming, Carrick!

      • Carrick said

        Why attribute this belief to others, then?

        Um … reading comprehension issues again? How do I attribute this belief to “others”?

        I don’t think you understand what I wrote even now.

        To answer this rhetorical question: this helps Lew because he’s collecting stupid lines like this.

        It wasn’t a question, so it couldn’t be a rhetorical question. (The sentence starts with the implied preposition “at to”. For it to be a question, rhetorical or otherwise, it would need to end with a question mark.)

        Please keep them coming, Carrick!

        There’s nothing in what I said that would benefit him relative to the statement that “well we know he’ll deliberately mischaracterize other people if it helps his ’cause’”.

        He’s clearly an advocate, advocates do this. Nothing to be shocked by with this suggestion.

        The fact he pretends, when he writes this tripe, to be acting as a researcher is the part that bothers me… it’s inherently dishonest behavior on his part. The fact that he gets cheered for it… that’s a bit creepy.

        • Carrick said

          Relative to this, then I’ll let it go, said the dog with a bone:

          Why attribute this belief to others, then?

          Just to help willard a bit, I did start the sentence with “for [me]” . I did originally mistype me as “mean”. Hopefully that didn’t lead to a melt down of the cloud computer.

          • The belief Carrick attributes to other is this one:

            > That the climate science wouldn’t suffer from the same foibles of human nature as any other human endeavor is itself risible.

            This was why it precedes the comment Carrick tries to misinterpret. We can forestall this next move: an idea is not a belief. The response: perhaps, but for this idea to have any relevance in our conversation, it must be attributed to people, i.e. as what would presume his strawmen of the moment.

            Carrick’s follows his “playing dumb” tackle, getting better and better along the way.

  18. Mark T said

    There is a point, Jeff, at which nobody could legitimately accuse you of hypocrisy for snipping posts that amount to nothing constructive. He’s clearly got an axe to grind….

    Mark

  19. Laurie Childs said

    Clearly??? At this point we don’t even know whether he has an axe, let alone whether he wants to grind it. As usual with this poster, it’s anybody’s guess. Heroic effort Carrick, but a complete waste of your time nonetheless.

    • Mark T said

      I did not say it was well defined or even legitimate under the assumption of ideological bias… ;)
      Mark

      P.S. Jeff is right, Carrick has more patience than I.

  20. curious said

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. The priorities we use when merging data from the same station from different sources are discussed in some of the literature cited below. Parts of series may have come from restricted sources, whilst the rest came from other sources. Furthermore, as stated in http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ we have never kept track of changes to country names, as it is only the location and the station’s data that are important. So, extracting data for a single country isn’t always a simple task.

    etc

  21. blueice2hotsea said

    I have no theory to explain Lewandowsky’s behaviour other than he is an ass. But this can’t be so, can it?

    Maybe Lewandowsky will contact you and clarify the misperception.

  22. Eli Rabett said

    Carrick clearly needs practice.

    Here for example isf Jeff, commenting on the investigation of the CRU hack by the police which resulted in Tallbloke’s computers being seized:

    “Why are they investigating the bloggers on the fraud rather than the fraud itself? – no I don’t use that word very often.”

    • Carrick said

      Again we’re talking about this: “and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).”

      Or at least I was.

      Since you are Jeff’s blog, you can ask him what he meant.

      Given the context, I suspect it had to do with some of the shenanigans with “losing” emails, and soliciting others to “lose” theirs. Not so much whether adjustments were necessary or not.

      I wouldn’t use the word “fraud” there, but the appropriate word choice to use in that context is not germane to anything I’m commenting on.

      You might talk to your friend Lew and see if he understands adjustments are made, that they are large and that they are, if legitimate, necessary. Because they are large, one should always be a bit querulous as to whether they’ve been done properly.

      The reason I say this is many who are advocates for a cause often don’t understand details of this sort, and when they see words like “adjusted temperature” may not realize that the adjustment are real ones (even if not above the board in the sense that it is not open for scrutiny, a necessary stipulation for science to progress).

      That the people who were making the adjustments fought to allow the adjustments to be seen publicly raised a red flag for many. In retrospect it’s now apparent that Jones was’t making the adjustments and what he was really hiding was the fact he had no idea how good the adjustments were himself. It seems to me he had failed to audit his own product, and was trying to protect that fact from scrutiny.

      • Eli Rabett said

        You, and Jeff, extended the same courtesy of asking them what they meant, to the folk at the CRU (see Mike’s Nature trick) Eli is sure.

        • Carrick said

          I have no question what was meant. Phil left no doubt.

        • Jeff Condon said

          Eli,

          We were discussing the obvious trickery of chopping off the Schweingruber data here and at CA well before the rest of the world became aware of it. Hide the decline meant exactly what it said, it was just written clearly enough that even the most die-hard lefties could figure it out. It is disingenuous to present it in any other way.

  23. Carrick said

    * Since you are on Jeff’s blog

  24. hunter said

    One of the early discoverers of fossils was convinced they were the handiwork of God….sort of early, rejected editions of creation. he was some sort of British landed gentry….someone as useless as, say, an academic in soft science today. The only thing that derailed this English self-declared intellectual was when his workers started manufacturing faux fossils and signing them ‘Yahweh’. It would appear lewandowsky is playing the part of faux intellectual and counterfetier all in one package. It would be so much fun to sting him and his pals……

  25. Graeme said

    Hunter were you perhaps referring to Edmund Gosse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gosse

    In charity, I guess you were not. If you were, everything you say about him is wrong. On the other hand, your description of a member of the landed gentry seems to characterise Darwin quite well. He was, obviously, useless, because you say that he was- since he was one of the landed gentry he must have been a member of the soft sciences, right? But then, netither Gosse nor Darwin “self-declared” themselves as intellectuals. Perhaps you do not know what you were talking about. And the refs to “soft science” are quite cute coming from someone who cannot identify a historical person whom, he deems, was stupid. Well done, Hunter! Jackpot next time.

  26. Skiphil said

    Something very interesting about Lewandowsky comes up in connection with a new thread at Bishop Hill. I only delve into these topics sporadically when I follow a link or when I search on something I see on a blog (I don’t have a lot of time to devote to the blog climate wars). It seems that there is an intriguing piece of evidence that Lewandowsky is aligned with some of the more radical activists in the climate wars and is no impartial scientific (sic) researcher. Ohhh, I hope this is not illicit “conspiratorial ideation” on my part….. Pretending to scientifically study the psychology of belief while aligned as an activist against the beliefs one studies is a tricky proposition.

    It turns out that a legal proceeding in the UK directed against the GWPF by a group called Request Initiative somehow had access to a small group of climate activists to provide helpful attack quotes against GWPF. The now familiar Stephan Lewandowsky was onboard with Brendan Montague by Jan. 2012 if not earlier. Places Lew’s “psychological research” in an interesting light does it not:

    Lewandowsky aligns with attack on Global Warming Policy Foundation in UK

    Professor Stephen Lewandowsky, a Winthrop professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia, said:

    “The GWPF has engaged in on-going obfuscation of the reality of climate change and they have been purveying unwarranted criticisms of well-respected scientists. I believe that the GPWF is an outfit dedicated to mislead the public into thinking that climate scientists are still debating the cause of climate change— when in fact the peer-reviewed literature abounds with evidence that those fundamentals were resolved long ago.”

    From info earlier on the same page, it is evident that Lewandowsky is one of a fairly small clique of activists somehow solicited by Request Initiative for supportive comments in their legal brief. Note that this quotation comes up in Google search only in relation to the Request Initiative legal brief, not from any prior article by Lewandowsky, so it appears to be somehow obtained directly by the mysteriously funded group Request Initiative.

    The familiar names which appear are: James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes, Clive Hamilton, John Abraham, and Stephan Lewandowsky!

    • Skiphil said

      Re: Skiphil (Feb 18 08:11),

      Lewandowsky’s virulent animus against climate skeptics renders him singularly unsuited to objective scientific study of the psychology of such skepticism.

      What do we call a psychologist who conducts a kind of attack research under the guise of scientific study?

    • Skiphil said

      Brendan Montague, who runs “Request Initiative” with such encouragement from Lewandowsky and friends is hardly an objective dispassionate observer without an agenda:

      “A Year on The Sauce is a limited edition collection of stories from the most edgy radical news blog in the UK….”

      [emphasis added]
      That quote is official PR for his obscure book of blog columns listed on Amazon.

  27. omanuel said

    This brief summary of the evolving relationship between God, Man and Sun over the past six centuries (1500 – 2100 BC) may explain the rise and fall of hope for mankind’s right to enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

    http://tinyurl.com/aynmbpv

    I deeply regret that it took me so long to decipher these events.

    With deep regret,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  28. Skiphil said

    Issues of research and professional ethics abound with Lewandowsky et al (20??) and the follow-up “Recursive Fury” paper…. For instance, what is the actual review and publication history of these papers?

    A.Scott at WUWT on dubious publication status of TWO Lewandowsky papers

    …To review – the original Lewandowsky 2012 “Moon Landing” paper, which Lewandowsky, Cook et al, have claimed since July 2012, to be; peer reviewed accepted for publication by, and “in press” with, Psychological Science has not seen a one of those claims acknowledged or confirmed. The paper has not been published and no acknowledgement has been made by the journal of its acceptance.

    And the same type questionable conduct and issues are arising on the follow on “Recursive” paper as well.

    And all the while the authors of “Moon Landing still have failed/refused to provide the Supplemental Online documentation they claim contains the information necessary to verify and validate their work.

    These are simple, honest, fair questions. Each and every one ignored.

    • Skiphil said

      The Lewandowsky circus gets worse:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/stephan-lewandowsky-and-john-cook-making-things-up/

      Not oly do they butcher Jeff’s views but they get a bunch of their other source material mixed up, changed, altered, somehow NOT accurate.

      In organizations requiring competence such people would be fired, without regard for whether such malfeasance was accidental or intentional.

      • Jeff Condon said

        Skiphil,

        Thanks for keeping me up to speed with this. After the latest confrontation, Lewie actually sent a translated version of my “opinions” to the journal in lieu of his previous fakery where he literally took phrases from each sentence and put his own words in-between. It makes your linked article all the more poignant.

  29. Skiphil said

    A response to Paul Matthews indicates that the “Recursive Fury” paper is still in a publication process, not withdrawn. It will be interesting to see if changes have been made since the PDF was posted and then withdrawn!

    status of Lewandowsky et al. (2013)

    From: Frontiers in Psychology Editorial Office
    To: Paul Matthews
    Subject: Re: Clarification of article status?

    Dear Dr. Matthews,
    Thank you for your message. Please allow me to clarify that the PDF version of the manuscript has been temporarily removed for the purpose of further typesetting. The manuscript is currently in production stage and the full manuscript will be published in the coming weeks. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns.

    Best,

  30. Skiphil said

    Lewandowsky does it again…. and again….. what a clown:

    BishopHill tweet:

    Lewandowsky has accused @richardabetts, Met Office head of climate impacts, of being conspiracy theorist! http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2091932#post2091980

    Lewandowsky’s “Recursive Fury” paper sweeps up prominent Met Office climate scientist in the hall of “conspiracy ideation” miscreants — problems with Lewandowsky methodology and rigor??

  31. [...] paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until [...]

  32. [...] paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until [...]

  33. Thanks designed for sharing such a pleasant thought, piece of writing
    is good, thats why i have read it completely

  34. […] — on 6 February 2013, or one week before the acquisition as made public — because of one blogger’s complaints. You’ll note that this timeline contradicts the official timeline on the current published […]

  35. […] prevails and its climate signal is almost indistinguishable from noise. We don’t know what adjustments were made to these records. We need [better proxies], [better observations], everything back […]

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 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: