the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Ten Replies to Gavin – Advocacy vs Science

Posted by Jeff Id on April 2, 2009

Updated 4-2-09 see below.

This is a plagiarized and linked copy of a post by Gavin Schmidt over at real climate where he deems to lecture about Advocacy and Science. Of course the team has likewise deemed me unqualified, too slow, and unable to comment on the RC threads. Although I’ve never been impolite or off topic I simply have asked tough non-leading questions like-

How can you assume you’re measuring temperature in tree rings simply by correlation? This doesn’t seem reasonable. Please explain.

Well this latest lecture by lord Gavin got me all wound up again.

Advocacy vs. Science

Filed under:

— gavin @ 6:01 PM

The advocate will pick up any piece of apparently useful data and without doing any analysis, decide that their pet theory perfectly explains any anomaly without consideration of any alternative explanations. Their conclusion is always that their original theory is correct.

The scientist will look at all possibilities and revise their thinking based on a thorough assessment of all issues – data quality, model quality and appropriateness of the the comparison. Their conclusion follows from the analysis whatever it points to.

Which one is which?

My response,

Dear Gavin,

1. A scientist accepts tough questions, an advocate stifles them.

2. A scientist is interested in the quality of his data source, an advocate adjusts and processes the data until it fits his conclusion.

3. A scientist using an instrument for measurement doesn’t assume the measurement is correct simply because of producing the intended result. An advocate will accept a tree ring proxy as a thermometer based on simple correlation analysis.

4. A scientist models data based on measured data, an advocate adjusts the numbers until the final result matches the assumption. How is moisture feedback measured for computer models?

5. A scientist accepts that 50 people in agreement have often been wrong, an advocate declares consensus and stifles dissent.

6. A scientist is concerned about politics in the peer review process, an advocate accepts it silently as long as it supports their project and conclusion.

7. A scientist reveals their methods and calculatoins to the world for reproduction, an advocate hides (censors) to prevent errors being noticed.

8. A scientist admits errors and goes back to work, an advocate hides them by concealing data and reproducing similar results with equally flawed methods. Who’s the denier about the latest hockey stick Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Tamino or me.

9. A scientist doesn’t lobby congress for pet political policies to be enacted, an advocate (Hansen) does.

10. A scientist doesn’t backhandedly and without good evidence (as I have presented) lecture scientists who disagree about being advocates.

Since my multiple reasonable questions were censored over the past months starting back in September, my opinion and comments toward that group have gotten ever stronger here and will likely continue to for some time. When I first asked questions over there I had no idea they were associated with Mann, they posted the paper so I asked. RC tries way too hard to give the impression of consensus by stifling difficult questions and not allowing reasonable discussion.

I was and am still willing to listen but Gavin, Steig (from his obfuscation not his paper) and especially Mann have lost so much of my respect, I can’t trust what they say. Of all the things I wrote and have written, that last comment represents very strong words for me.

Who’s the advocate Gavin, your buddy Mann or me? I’ll give you two guesses…..

———————————–

Update

Anthony Watts has provided exactly what we all felt should be made available, recognition and commentary on the updated data as well as reasons why it wasn’t used. LINK HERE.

This ‘anomaly’ is quantitatively greater than what one would expect from
the iris effect (that is to say, represents a larger negative feedback)(Chou
and Lindzen (2002) Comments on “Tropical convection and the energy
balance of the top of the atmosphere.” J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570.), but,
except for the last paper, all attempted to argue a different origin for the
observation. The last showed that the alternative explanations were
inconsistent with existing models.


Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the
Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using
Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19,
4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the
anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative
feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments. For
example, a more recent examination of the same datasets explicitly
confirms the iris relations at least for intraseasonal time scales (Spencer,
R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy and J. Hnilo, 2007, Cloud and radiation
budget changes associated with the tropical intraseasonal oscillations,
Geophys. Res. Ltrs.)

Now it’s a matter of which scientist you agree with.  Dr. Lindzen has done his part in the past, whether he addressed it in a short letter for WUWT or not is of no consequence.

One thing’s for sure RC looks like crap again.   I wonder if they’ll apologize now for their advocacy remarks.


138 Responses to “Ten Replies to Gavin – Advocacy vs Science”

  1. wattsupwiththat said

    What is the justification for your saying “plagarization”? Please explain.

  2. Jeff Id said

    Just grumpy I guess. I copied and pasted it with links.

    He was completely unfair in his criticism BTW. Simply adjusting trend for on error changes nothing in my mind. There are a half dozen other adjustments which likely need to be made due to changes in satellites. This criticism toward you isn’t an advocacy issue at all.

  3. wattsupwiththat said

    Thanks, I’m not much worried about it, and the fact that he bothered at all speaks volumes. I even sent Gavin a note of thanks a few minutes ago. The results of his posting will be interesting to say the least.

    Maybe Gavin was Grumpy too, we are human, after all.

    – Anthony

  4. Jeff Id said

    He must be grumpy a lot. I’ll look for the note.

  5. timetochooseagain said

    Bits of brain came out my nose from the laughter. Classic irony.

  6. Jeff Id said

    My comment was deleted. Still no word on Anthony’s letter of thanks.

  7. TCO said

    Watch out for Watts. He is bad news. Not bright. Cherry picks stuff on his side. And fails to acknolwedge when he’s wrong.

    REPLY: TCO, your stuff keeps going to the viagra/cialis bucket. I don’t know why but wordpress considers your posts spam. Perhaps if you change the fake email address. I use no@way.com when I don’t want to give one.

  8. timetochooseagain said

    To admin’s reply to TCO-perhaps its because wordpress has become artificial intelligent and recognizes TCO for the rude troll he is? Just speculating…

  9. TCO said

    8. I think it is something like that. I have caused a lot of churn on political blogs and the Gymternet. Get banned and complained about a lot.

  10. TCO said

    Lot of other wordpress blogs kick me out asd well.

  11. Jeff Id said

    Hey TCO, what about the RC post? Is Gavin the right person/qualified to cry advocacy?

  12. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Anthony was here, the big guy!!!!!!

    Jeff, you really need to stay the H-E-Double- mann hockey sticks out of there!

    You are helping the usa out with your work. all they want to do is KILL IT!!!

  13. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    TCO said
    April 2, 2009 at 2:47 am

    Watch out for Watts. And fails to acknowledge when he’s wrong.

    It’s funny but, you need to under stand how it is, that you are wrong first.
    The only thing I have found the big guy wrong on is cell phone towers.
    He is miss led on the fact that your phone is .5 watts BUT the tower is 100 channels at 1 watt each. and you can have 3-5 bands and three antennas each band. this means 500-1500 watts per tower x 100k towers.
    Anthony “thinks” the tower is only transmitting .5w to him exclusively. lol
    Well maybe he is on that phone alot lmao.

    TCO you need some time with a PHd……

  14. Jeff Id said

    #12 No fear.

  15. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Jeff, I am referring to RC of coarse!

  16. Tom B. said

    Well, I spend a lot of time watching the various blogs… Lurking, actually, rarely posting, trying hard to understand the underlying science and arguments. But the tenor of the two sides sites speaks volumes about the character of the people involved. I find myself spending less and less time on the ‘AWG’ sites, as they are simply too predictable and rarely actually try to educate or debate anything of substance.

    This and Watts seem to be the sites I get the most education from, I try to follow CA, but the threads there tend to make my head hurt…

    Keep up the good work, and thanks for all you guys do.

    Tom B.

  17. kim said

    Through a glass, darkly,
    Be firm, patient and silent.
    Das ist der Teufel.
    =======================

  18. John Philip said

    One of the claims made by Anthony Watts and his followers, is that he tolerates opinions contrary to his own, while other sites such as RealClimate delete inconvenient truths. Here’s an exchange from the thread on WUWT…

    ME: Either Prof Lindzen is unaware of the correction, which I find impossibly unlikely, or he has knowingly circulated incorrect information to support his case, an act that one might normally expect would attract severe opprobrium from the posters of an objective science blog such as this. Neither possibility does much for the pursuasiveness of his argument, in my view. Certainly if the Professor were to submit this article for publication, it would be rejected on these grounds alone.

    REPLY: There is a third option, perhapss he doesn’t trust the “correction”. I know that many of us here don’t trust “corrections” applied to data.

    ME: The correction was largely the result of step in the computer code that caters for satellite altitude being effectively ‘switched off’. Details were published in the Journal of Climate and also by the Data Product provider. All other researchers who use this dataset use the revised version. The onus is therefore on anyone citing the 2002 version to at least mention that the originators of the dataset have revised it and explain why they prefer the ‘uncorrected’ dataset, especially if the corrected version removes a central plank of their argument. From Prof Lindzen, not even a footnote. Does this qualify as the good and transparent science quite rightly promoted by WUWT?

    REPLY: John I have deleted your response, and I resent the smear you made against me for publishing this informal essay from Dr. Lindzen. You get a 24 hour timeout. If you wish to continue, lose the ad homs. Otherwise off to the troll bin permanently for you. – Anthony

    Draw your own conclusions.

  19. Raven said

    #18 – Assuming all of the context is in your post, I am disappointed in Anthony. He is displaying the thin skin I have come to expect from Tamino. The only thing that comes close to ad hom is the last sentance which (ironically) also appears to be a backhanded compliment suggesting WUWT promotes ‘good and transparent science’ and this post is the exception.

  20. John Philip said

    Raven – the post is verbatim, you can see all the context in the WUWT thread. There was no smear, no ad hom and I am no troll. It was however, my last post on WUWT.

  21. Luis Dias said

    John, that doesn’t surprise me in the least. Watts has been advancing bad stuff. The “no censorship” is just a marketing ploy, like the banks advancing inicial zero spreads. And when they get you distracted, then they advance their real spread.

    I was also bullyied when I disagreed with his attack on Hansen’s job.

    I guess that fame destroys everything.

  22. Jeff Id said

    #18

    Here’s part of a post I left on another blog regarding positive feedback last night right after I made this reply to gavin.
    —-
    The current sat info is reasonable but there are many possible steps in the data as pointed out by the clear and significant trend difference between RSS and UAH. This doesn’t make a difference as to why someone wouldn’t use a corrected version. Certainly the authors should mention a reason why they don’t accept the correction or otherwise accept it. What is also important to understand is that this sat data was taken by several sources and is guaranteed to have unknown step biases in the data. How large they are is anyone’s guess.

    In Anthony Watts defense, (something I don’t do by trade) he simply put the post of a known scientist up. Gavin replied with an advocacy post which IMO was entirely inappropriate and a clear case of Pot calling the kettle black.
    —-

    John, Your post doesn’t seem to have any slights toward Anthony in it and apparently we agree about the corrected vs uncorrected data. I’m not sure what he was thinking but you can feel free to post here as much as you want. Even if I’m wrong, but of course I never have been 😉

  23. TCO said

    TimL: He was also pathetically wrong with the solar correlation “breakthrough” that he and Basil advanced. Despite breathy claims that he had had it “reviewed” by all sorts of fancy guys (probably bathroom experimenters)…he and Basil advanced a chart that was so trivially a logic flaw (plotting the wrong things) that it was funny. And he took several days to pull back from his initial claims. and he still(!) has not gone back and really corrected the error. He just put it on the shelf with a claim to come back. And it’s been well over a year now. He’s like Dan Rather with the memos. Or TNR with the tank-dog stories.

    The guy is a HACK. HAving skeptics hang with him is BAD NEWS. SM of CA jollying up with him and refraining from calling him out on his silliness, just shows that this whole “skeptic community” is more about tribalism than about thinking and truth-telling.

    Watts is BAD NEWS.

  24. Jeff Id said

    #18,

    Actually he may have misread the sentence while trying to moderate too many comments. I can’t even imagine trying to moderate WUWT. If he read it to mean you knew this why did you post it on purpose, he might get mad. This was clearly not John’s intent but from the reaction it is possible.

  25. TCO said

    Jeff: “Hey TCO, what about the RC post? Is Gavin the right person/qualified to cry advocacy?”

    I think Gavin has some times when he gets a bit debatorly rhetorical instead of addressing points. Also, think that pre-moderation of comments at RC constrains the debate and turns that place into more of a teaching tool, than a salon of discussion amongst equals.

    That said, he has at least gotten his chops by publishing real papers (has made real work product). And has also pinned himself down by putting it in the archived literature…unlike the 4 year blog tease and gabfest from CA, that has produced no new papers since the single real paper (2005 GRL).

    Also, I think Gavin is very apt and correct in saying that skeptics (Watts is one of the worst) tend to make too much soup from one onion, tend to look less skeptically at things that go their way and more on the reverse, etc. I’m actually the opposite. I’m a hard core skeptic. Hate tree huggers. Like killing commies. Like the free market. But when I started reading CA, I pushed and prodded to see how well CA’s stuff held up. And I was very dissapointed by the obfuscation.

  26. Jeff Id said

    #25, We’ll I don’t see much teaching going on at RC. There is some information there but teaching should require that reasonable questions be answered without ad hom personal attacks on the questioner.

    I see RC as a propaganda machine where the participants are highly motivated by unspoken factors.

  27. wattsupwiththat said

    REPLY to John Philip and to Raven. I understand where you are coming from. But John Philip leaves out what he said and what was removed from the original post by a snip. Which is why I wrote: “John I have deleted your response, and I resent the smear you made against me for publishing this informal essay from Dr. Lindzen.” The remainder of his post was not problematical.

    As in this case, Mr. Philips has on several occasions overstepped his bounds on WUWT, and since he has also made some very good commentary also, my choice is to give him a 24 hour time out.

    The idea of moderation is to keep the discourse civil and on point, and to keep out trolls like TCO that want to hijack the threads. TCO has on occasion also made some very good points, and on occasion he also gets postings that pass through. But when he waxes on “killing commies” etc. that poisons anything otherwise useful he might have to say and into the troll bin he goes. I have to balance such postings with work load to moderate them. TCO, why do you poison your own commentary with such things to the point of getting kicked off blog after blog? I recall a line from the Shawshank redemption where Andy says to the “new kid” at the cafeteria table “maybe you need a new profession, you aren’t very good at it”.

    As for John and Raven, say what you wish about moderation at WUWT, but the fact that I routinely have threads that number in the hundreds of comments speaks to the success of moderation techniques. That doesn’t mean that I or other moderators don’t make mistakes. I do, and they do. We are human and there are times when insulting, pointless, and rude commentary fires up passion, much like what started this thread on the Air Vent.

    We can all cite cases where we have felt mistreated on one blog or another due to a comment being snipped or deleted. Human emotions exist even in otherwise dry scientists too. Some of our most prominent scientists such as Jim Hansen (who uses his grandchildren in his PPT’s) may be the most emotional of all. That is not always a good mix.

    Mr. Philip’s 24 hours are past, he’s welcome to post again. All I ask is that you be civil and don’t use ad hominem arguments.

    Also since he has not joined in comments (I was waiting for him to do so, but perhaps he’s otherwise busy.)I’ve sent a note along to Dr. Lindzen to ask him why he chose the datset he did and I’m waiting for a response.

    – Anthony Watts

  28. Raven said

    Jeff – Perhaps that is the explanation, I had to read the post a couple times before I understood the nuance late last night. After a first scan I thought there was an ad hom at the end.

    TOC – Watts does an excellent job running an approachable science blog that covers a wide range of climate related topics. Some of the guest posts presenting ad hoc analyses are a bit dodgy but in his defence they are no worse that the crap that gets posted by the ‘working scientists’ at RC.

  29. TCO said

    Jeff:

    It has some in groupness. But even as “in group”, it is not really collegial. DKOS or DemocratUnderground or FiredogLake are much more “equal” in discussion. At RC, the professors have both more expertise and a system that is more top-down. More broadcast. More teaching. Perhaps teaching within the in-group. But still top-down.

    -voice of God replies
    -pre-moderation of all comments
    -coordinated replies (more of an official position, discussions amongst the blog owners are hidden, almost no disagreement or debate within them is shown to our eyes).

    I’m not saying this is bad by the way. (Or good.) Just describing it.

    Personally, I prefer something like Volokh Conspiracy. There you have super smart guys (with all due respect, sharper than RC, and I think RC are sharp), yet you have lots of discussion…and have some more debate amongst the contributors themselves. It’s more of a real intellectual salon.

    I do have some sympathy with RC though. Having to deal with every idiot who wants to bring up volcanos in Antarctica would be a hassle.

  30. Jeff Id said

    The volcanoes thing is a good point but because of the rest.. I don’t feel sorry one bit.

  31. TCO said

    Watts is a volcano idiot btw.

  32. Raven said

    TCO – RC is not teaching. They are promoting a point of view. They are completely blinded by confirmation bias. The earth could be head into an ice age and they would still insist that it was 1) consistent with the models and 2) a result of problems with with the data

  33. Layman Lurker said

    #27 WUWT

    Anthony, you have a great blog. I see it not as advocacy, but as a platform for presenting the many diverse views of AGW skeptecism – some of which might even be contradictory. I’m sure you would be the first to admit that much of the discussion just rehashes entrenched viewpoints rather than critical thinking, but that is human nature. However, there are many gems in the comments which are insightful (pro and anti AGW) and prompt lurkers like myself review the science. In the end I may agree with your posts or form my own views, and therein lies the value.

  34. Jeff Id said

    #31 If you have a reference to some science article it would be helpful. I have not found Anthony to be an idiot in any way and would appreciate some kind of backup for your very strongly worded statement. This is the kind of thing that deserves snipping but I’m too lazy.

    Anthony doesn’t do the science he reports it. He chooses to report the skeptical argument as it would be otherwise difficult to find. Any reasonable person knows for certain AGW is exaggerated and politicized to the point of corruption. I believe that a reasonable person questions the science as it currently exists. When friends ask me what I believe about AGW, I tell them I don’t know and nobody else does either.

  35. wattsupwiththat said

    I should clarify what I just wrote, it’s early and I didn’t make it clear. I also hadn’t seen Jeff’s comment #22 until now.

    Yes I saw John Philips last line as an ad hom. What he left out in his post above was his intent with that line. Was it different that what I read? Perhaps. Maybe I’m too touchy, but the implication that I got from Mr. Philips was that of a personal attack.

    Lindzen’s essay will stand or fall on its own merit, but flogging the messenger isn’t helpful or germane.

    Some clarification on that line from Mr. Philips would be in order.

    One of the downsides to text communications is that it removes all other human contextual information and visual cues from the transmission of thought. Inflection, facial cues, demeanor, and body language are all out the window. Without all the other information we normally project with interpersonal communications, hastily written (and sometimes emotional) blog comments run the risk of conveying a message other than what is intended.

    If I misread the intent of that last line, I apologize in advance of a clarification response from Mr. Phillips.

  36. PaulM said

    I think some people owe Anthony an apology. In fact it seemed fairly clear to me that the stuff in #18 did NOT include the material that Anthony cut.
    John Philip asks us to draw our own conclusions. Well, I have done.
    Anthony’s moderation is fair and careful. RC’s is not.

    What I find so hilarious about Gavin’s comment
    “The advocate will pick up any piece of apparently useful data and without doing any analysis, decide that their pet theory perfectly explains any anomaly without consideration of any alternative explanations. Their conclusion is always that their original theory is correct”
    is that it applies perfectly to the AGW fanatics. Floods? – AGW. Drought? – AGW. Rising temperatures? – AGW. Falling temperatures? – consistent with AGW….

  37. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I believe that TCO makes a good case for why labeling blog participants with ones personal and generalized view of that commenter wastes a lot of bandwidth that could better be utilized discussing the details of the arguments that that commenter puts forth. I really do not need a TCO or anyone else patronizing my ability to size up others abilities, integrities and motivations. Generalizations tend toward sloppy thinking and tends toward attempts to put blog participants and their comments in a box and keep them there forever.

    I would go to RC for an explanation of an particular aspect of climate science that might be well presented and articulated there. On the other hand, I am well aware of that blog being essentially an advocacy blog for immediate mitigation for AGW and its effects and will consider what I read there in that context. In other words, I think a discerning person can learn from a commenter, no matter what their real or perceived deficiencies might be. As I have stated before, I usually learn much from a partisan political attack (that is factually based and not an emotional diatribe) against the other party and more than I learn from a more supposedly neutral, nonbiased and less controversially oriented commenter like one sees on network TV. The problem being I need to hear from the other party to learn about the criticizing one.

    The case that TCO appears to be making that writing peer-reviewed papers gives a necessary edge and is of critical importance for a blog commenter being taken seriously is one that I see quite frequently made by the consensus holding part of the climate science community. That is until a peer-reviewed commenter comes along with a non-consensus result or one with which TCO disagrees.

  38. Raven said

    #36 – I prefaced my comment with “Assuming all of the context is in your post”.

    And indictated in #28 that Anthony is doing a great job.

  39. Matt Y. said

    #32 is exactly right. RC is about indoctrinating. Challenge the mods in any way, and you will face their wrath. If/when it is shown that CO2 doesn’t drive climate, you will read about it on RC last. Those guys have decades invested in AGW. Their reputations, prestige, and careers depend on AGW being true. You would have to be one super objective mofo to proclaim your life’s work wrong and your job unnecessary. That’s human nature.

    For my 2 cents, I like WUWT and I’m glad Anthony doesn’t try and filter the content like some commenters think he should. We all have our own BS detectors.

  40. TCO said
    April 2, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Also, I think Gavin is very apt and correct in saying that skeptics (Watts is one of the worst) tend to make too much soup from one onion, tend to look less skeptically at things that go their way and more on the reverse, etc. I’m actually the opposite. I’m a hard core skeptic. Hate tree huggers. Like killing commies. Like the free market. But when I started reading CA, I pushed and prodded to see how well CA’s stuff held up. And I was very dissapointed by the obfuscation.

    Wow, then you must REALLY be disappointed by Mann, Jones, et al for their professional obfuscation and refusal to address their errors.

  41. TCO said

    “Wow, then you must REALLY be disappointed by Mann, Jones, et al for their professional obfuscation and refusal to address their errors.”

    I already made some remarks to this effect. Your problem is that you just want to help your side, hurt the other side. So you can’t grok the concept of being for truth however it cuts.

  42. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    18
    Does this qualify as the good and transparent science quite rightly promoted by WUWT?

    After reading the angry mean spirited, post, replies, and comments,(RC,Tammio) this really does not even get on my radar scope.
    As to the rest, WUWT DOES GIVE THE OTHER SIDE!
    so what, if it pisses of RC and the rest of the ad homm liberal attackers?
    The funny thing in this is, that MEN tend to not admit fault or error(I don’t know anything about that personally) look at the tv show Dr. Becker!!!!
    notice my tower/cell info gets washed over.
    It’s bad that TCO read it, then acknowledged it, but not discussed IT, but goes on his own agenda.

    there ARE 100 ways WE DO heat the earth… but to acknowledge it, seems to defeat both sides.

    If TCO would stop his drinking, stop the crappy language, and attitude, he would make for some very helpful skills.

    La LA la…. this rant is over… lol 🙂

  43. TCO said

    Jeff:

    I forget that you are so new to the discussion. Go read all the previous posts on RC, CA, Tamino and Watt’s Up. Should be easy since they are so efficient in signal to noise and since they are the material of record for the skeptic blogger community.

    Kidding:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/

  44. TCO said

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-4-lies-damned-lies-and-anthony-watts/

  45. TCO said

    Ken F.:

    Why don’t you check out the Chefen work? It’s an example of criticism that appeared only on a blog…got the hoi polloi all hot and bothered. Had fundamental errors. Had a grudging admission/non-addmission of error (complete with “will keep working on this”.) And then the whole blog itself disappeared.

    If any real scientist (or layperson), says “I’m not going to bother reading CA, because it’s not archived”, I say bravo to them. SM won’t even stand behind his work. It’s all a “lab notebook”. A notebook that has gone 4 years without a paper gettting written. the whole thing is cake and eat it too behavior. He enjoys the PR and the advocacy and the links to Rush Limbaugh and the like. But can maintain plausible deniability with his “it’s all a scratchpad”. Well fine. Call me back with the scratching is done and a science product is ready.

  46. AEGeneral said

    One of the downsides to text communications is that it removes all other human contextual information and visual cues from the transmission of thought. Inflection, facial cues, demeanor, and body language are all out the window. Without all the other information we normally project with interpersonal communications, hastily written (and sometimes emotional) blog comments run the risk of conveying a message other than what is intended. — Anthony

    That’s what makes moderating a forum or blog so difficult. Sometimes trying to ascertain a poster’s true intent is like trying to get a read on wallpaper. And there’s only so much time in a day.

    I’ve been a moderator of a popular NFL forum for years. Some days the place literally runs itself. And then there are those other days that spiral out of control and keep you bogged down for hours as members have to be separated, put in the corner, or even temporarily banned. Then you wonder why in the world you took this gig to begin with.

    I think Anthony & his team of mods do a damn good job, myself. As a website’s members & participants increase, it becomes that much more difficult to maintain the quality of your content because moderating eats away at the limited time you have available. It’s a double-edged sword, one that many popular blog & forum owners eventually fall upon — either by force or by their own choice. JMO, but I don’t think WUWT has lost any quality whatsoever over the last year.

  47. Jeff Id said

    TCO, you showed me a mistake at WUWT in the setup and interpretation of correlation.

    I don’t know the gentlemen who worked with Anthony on the math part of this post but if I guess right he likely was the one who made the errors. In the past Anthony has helped with the wording and writeup as he is very skilled at presenting a post for discussion.

    Tammie was very harsh in his criticism.

    This is something I knew about already, how does it relate to volcanoes?

  48. Thom Scrutchin said

    Going back to Jeff’s original post, I would like to say that I agree completely. I find the behavior of the group of “scientists” who collaborate on AGW Alarmist papers and RC to be remarkably unscientific by those principles.

    This comment string is somewhat disturbing in the amount of ad hom criticism it contains. From the critics, II would have preferred citations of cases where Anthony or Jeff did things not in keeping with those principles. Or perhaps a different set of principles. The closest thing I saw to an example was John Phillips post, and I thought Anthony did a good job of taking it head on. He satisfied me.

    Perhaps we expect too much from scientists. Perhaps that profession has always largely been about politics.

    Jeff, I think you might consider wielding the snip more freely when a commenter is clearly devoted to ad hom and generating churn. But then again who am I to decide that someone is not proving a point by being a really bad example. That took everything I had to remain civil and not resort to ad hom.

  49. Jeff Id said

    #48 Thanks for the comments.

    I’ve got no idea who to snip or who not to. It seems like the most popular blogs snip regularly so you could be right but I don’t expect the Air Vent to ever be as well traveled as some other blogs.

    I think people kind of tell their own story pretty well. I am really bothered by the fact that RC clips not by the tone or quality of a post (as they claim) but of some pre-conceived and in my case false notions about the one writing the post. TCO has been a little rough but has also made some good points on other threads.

    Calling Anthony Watts a volcano idiot with no backup so far is a problem.

  50. Thom Scrutchin said

    And about Onions,
    Gavin’s comment about too much soup from one onion demonstrates principle 7.

    If so much data and so many methods were not concealed, I suspect there would be a lot more onions.

  51. TCO said

    “This is something I knew about already, how does it relate to volcanoes?”

    It didn’t. Why do you ask?

  52. Jeff Id said

    #31

  53. TCO said

    Jeff:

    1. Sorry, I missed the (“31”) tag. I thought you were responding to an earlier statement. My bad.

    2. Responding:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&as_qdr=all&q=volcano++site%3Awattsupwiththat.com+antarctica

    “But no, it just couldn’t possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the entire western side of the Antarctic continent and peninsula is dotted with volcanoes.” within: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/

  54. TCO said

    BTW, Tamino WAS very harsh on Watts. but I have to keep emphasizing…your enemyu sinning doesn’t make you less of a sinner. Watts was stupid on the solar thing. He even had plenty of pushback on his first post…then he delayed and got “peer review”…and he still hosed up things with basic logic. And then he was slow to correct this. And he still hasn’t really finished it off. He’s still “working on it”. He needs to make a definitive statement about the flaw in his figure 5, not “there might be an issue with it”. He needs to explain exactly how it is wrong. the benefit would be correcting a mistake that he sent out to readers…and heck…he might learn something himself.

  55. WattsUpWithThat said

    TCO I notice you haven’t replied to any of my questions. Perhaps you might consider doing that before continuing to tell everyone how wrong and “idiotic” I am. BTW what does “ASDF” mean? Tis’ a puzzlement. Thank you for your consideration.

    BTW for the other people on this thread, I’ve made an update to the Lindzen post that caused all the wailing and gnashing of teeth all through the climatic blogosphere. While Lindzen himself hasn’t weighed in on the email request I sent, I found a reference in a presentation made to Colgate where he does take the newer data into account and cites it. It’s all there for everyone to get angry about all over again. – Enjoy

    Anthony

  56. Jeff Id said

    #55 Very nice, thanks Anthony. I expect you’ll receive a full apology from Real Climate.

    Here’s some text:

    “Recently, Wong et al (Wong, Wielicki et al, 2006, Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Clim., 19, 4028-4040) have reassessed their data to reduce the magnitude of the anomaly, but the remaining anomaly still represents a substantial negative feedback, and there is reason to question the new adjustments.”

    I would ask anyone interested to go to this link on Anthony’s blog.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

  57. John Philip said

    Well the words ‘storm’ & ‘teacup’ come to mind, but for the record, But John Philip leaves out what he said and what was removed from the original post by a snip. is not a reality-based statement. I have a record of the post and it is reproduced in full above. I made no smear and there is nothing ad hom there. As to my meaning, try a simple thought experiment: James Hansen gives a conference presentation and circulates an email in which he claims climate senstivity is ten times higher than the concensus estimate. It then emerges that the dataset he cites has been revised by its custodians, in a way that undermines the thesis, likely fatally. But Hansen makes no reference to the corrections. In this hypothetical, It’s not hard to imagine WUWT going into meltdown as a result. Mr Watts describes the article as ‘informal’, yet the same material was referenced in Lindzen’s address to this year’s sceptical conference, and AW chose to put it in front of his readership, presumably with consent from the author.

    I shall not be visiting the site any longer.

  58. Jeff Id said

    John,

    Please see #35.

    Also, Anthony found a presentation/lecture given by Lindzen which addresses the very issue we are discussing. It appears that he has made reference in the past to the changes, he just didn’t do it in this article. We were both in agreement that Dr. Lindzen should do that. He just didn’t do it for WUWT.

  59. Jeff Id said

    John,

    Also #24 and #28

  60. wattsupwiththat said

    #57 John, that’s the difference between me and you, I say I may have made a mistake in interpreting what you said (even though it appears to me to be a smear) and apologize in advance, giving you an out, you spread it all over the blogoshere as an example of the “terrible mistreatment” you received, then come here, *sniff*, write a lecture, and then you take your ball and go home.

    Gosh.

    I’ll point out that you have 287 comments on WUWT, so it is not like you have not had a voice there.

    You also had a previous comment on that thread which set the stage and said many of the same things:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/#comment-107860

    So when you say “Flawed observations and data analysis. A favourite theme of this very site!” there’s no smarm in that? No hint of contempt? No goading of the moderator or host?

    The fact that you’ve spent a good deal of time creating this “tempest in a teapot” (as you put it) on other blogs speaks volumes about your true intent. – Anthony

  61. Vernon said

    Maybe it is just me but on ever site I see TCO post, he has such god like clarity and vision and seems upset when everyone does not agree with him. He seems to have the ability to a nit and ride it to death. Sorry if I do not sound to impressed with him.

  62. Layman Lurker said

    #57

    “…try a simple thought experiment: James Hansen gives a conference presentation and circulates an email in which he claims climate senstivity is ten times higher than the concensus estimate. It then emerges that the dataset he cites has been revised by its custodians, in a way that undermines the thesis, likely fatally. But Hansen makes no reference to the corrections. In this hypothetical, It’s not hard to imagine WUWT going into meltdown as a result.”

    John, when you are trying to claim victim status, such statements do you no favours at all.

    You brought up a valid point about updated data in the post in question. You could have ended it right there. The last question added nothing, but it sure came accross as an extra little jab. Next time the urge hits, why don’t you just contain it?

    Anthony, I’m no JP fan, but I won’t have any problem finding similar jabs in the anti-AGW comments. I know that you are looking out for Dr. Lindzen and that is understandable, but fair is fair after all.

  63. John Philip #57,

    I shall not be visiting the site any longer.

    John, that would be a pity… Does reduce the value of the comments and debates there…

  64. wattsupwiththat said

    I just noticed soemthing.

    John Philip said
    April 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm said:

    “I have a record of the post and it is reproduced in full above.”

    Link: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/ten-replies-to-gavin-advocacy-vs-science/#comment-3875

    But why then John, if it is “reproduced in full” did you omit this part?

    “For example most GISS corrections of weather station data for homogenization are the wrong sign.”

    Link to original comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/#comment-108407

    Your original complaint on WUWT was about leaving out details, yet here you go doing the same thing you accuse of. – Anthony

  65. Luis Dias said

    Mr Anthony, please don’t embarrass yourself further. I’d say cut your losses and check Lubos’ analysis on the matter. And post another post with it and score a point or two.

    I also don’t agree with Jeff’s position that RC has to “apologize” to prof. Lindzen about this subject. No they haven’t. Chris’ point is sounder than Lindzen’s, and while Lindzen may have his personal reasons to doubt the new data, he immediately loses ground by what appears, to outsiders, as cherry-picking the best data available to your prejudice.

    The problem of WUWT is the lousy analysis it gives in big letters always as if the “findings” mean the end of GW. I can still remember the graph where a running average of eight years went straight until 2008, when it reached a low temperature point unreached in 20 years’ time. Even an undergraduate would be able to point out the flaw.

    But the damage was done, and soon the internet was swarmed with this lousy graph as “proof” that AGW was a “scam”, even months after WUWT slightly recanted.

    Not good enough, mr Anthony. And John Phillips is entitled to criticism to the blog, why shouldn’t he? It’s not a personal attack to say that the editorial of that blog is lacking somewhat of a kind of skepticism! You’re entitled to do anything, after all it is your blog, but I’d expect better from the “best science blog of 2008”, though.

  66. Jeff Id said

    Luis,

    Perhaps you will agree with this.

    First I should point out that I make no argument that Dr. Lindzen is correct. I haven’t reviewed his work enough but the original RC criticism above regards the use of correct data for your conclusions. Dr. Lindzen is entitled to disagree with a certain correction to the raw data if he can explain his rational. Calling him an advocate because he didn’t use one source of data or another is unfair if he explains his rational — which he did.

    We are in turn entitled to point out the flaws in the rational but for RC to claim they are the true science and Dr. Lindzen is not is hypocritical. This is especially true considering the RC support for the transparently false techniques of Mann08.

  67. TCO said

    Watts:

    a. If you have a specific question on science, cite it. If you want to know my personal details, get stuffed.

    b. (on ASDF) Google it, son, google it.

  68. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Why don’t you check out the Chefen work? It’s an example of criticism that appeared only on a blog…got the hoi polloi all hot and bothered. Had fundamental errors. Had a grudging admission/non-addmission of error (complete with “will keep working on this”.) And then the whole blog itself disappeared.

    TCO, surely you know as well as most participants reading and posting here do that anecdotal evidence, while making a good story, will never win the day for an argument. I could provide examples of peer-reviewed papers gone badly wrong, but I have no intention of using that to argue the relative merits of blog based information (as assimilated by the discerning viewer) and peer-reviewed information (as assimilated by the discerning viewer). I will grant you that peer-review is better at eliminating the obvious crackpots, but then that is why I would use the discerning viewer for my comparison.

    If any real scientist (or layperson), says “I’m not going to bother reading CA, because it’s not archived”, I say bravo to them. SM won’t even stand behind his work. It’s all a “lab notebook”. A notebook that has gone 4 years without a paper gettting written. the whole thing is cake and eat it too behavior. He enjoys the PR and the advocacy and the links to Rush Limbaugh and the like. But can maintain plausible deniability with his “it’s all a scratchpad”. Well fine. Call me back with the scratching is done and a science product is ready.

    Surely you realize, TCO, that one can analyze a peer reviewed paper and legitimately point to problems in methodology and make sensitivity tests that show weaknesses in the papers results and conclusions without the benefit or need for a peer reviewed paper in counter point. In fact a direct counter point peer reviewed paper is rare. Steve M has been quite clear in his view that peer reviewed papers have a very important and essential role in advancing science. It is my view of Steve M, that at his point in life, he does not need to competitively produce peer reviewed papers to feed his ego. His motive and joy is that of a puzzle solver and what better way to engage that instinct than with his blog — with or without publishing.

    TCO, you have claimed great benefits from publishing in the peer review process and indicated that you have published many a paper. That Steve M inadvertently shows that peer review is not always what some like the IPCC crack it up to be may have some influence on the ever increasing critical labeling you aim at Steve M. I do not know what motivates you, but I do know that, if you reveal who you are and direct us to those many papers that you have claimed to have published, we will all understand you better and/or at least give them a good analysis with feedback.

  69. TCO said

    Ken:

    1. I don’t choose to reveal myself. Do you want to crawl up my a[snip]?

    2. My points stand regardless of my identity. Dis…agg…re…gate.

  70. John Philip said

    Anthony,

    I appreciate the apology, however these remain factual statements:

    – I was accused me of delivering a ‘personal smear’, when all I did was ask a rhetorical question; this was used this as justification for deleting a post highlighting sloppy practice by Prof Lindzen.

    – I am accused me of ad hominem arguments, based on precisely zip evidence.

    – I am threatened with the ‘troll bin’.

    – Here it was stated that I had omitted parts of my post – effectively accusing me of lying by omission. Not true, the deleted post is reproduced above in full, your obfusticating nitpick about the details relates to words written by you, not me.

    So you’ll excuse me if I am not overly concerned about ‘the difference between you and me’, there really are better uses of my time than preparing blog posts that may be arbitrarily zapped.

    Farewell.

  71. Jeff Id said

    TCO, I didn’t realize you published. Can I ask what field? No need to answer, it’s just a question.

  72. TCO said

    Jeff: You ask it in a much nicer way. We’ll chat some time…dude.

  73. TCO said

    Umm…nothing special though. (And actually you will find that I almost never cite my superiority from publishing…but the “chimp tribe” always takes it that way…since they can’t dissaggregate.) And are too lazy to read Katzoff or Wilson. Despite them being the Marshal Kanes of publishing.

  74. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I was accused me of delivering a ‘personal smear’, when all I did was ask a rhetorical question; this was used this as justification for deleting a post highlighting sloppy practice by Prof Lindzen.

    John, a lot of band width was expended on hurt feelings that might better have been allocated to making your point about Lindzen’s sloppiness. I am not so sure I “get” it.

  75. TCO said

    Waaah effing waah. Liberal-lover.

  76. Kenneth Fritsch said

    2. My points stand regardless of my identity. Dis…agg…re…gate.

    But TCO that is my point exactly I was hoping to disaggregate the blogging TCO from the publishing TCO in hopes obtaining something concrete that I could get my mind around.

    Ironic I suppose that one who criticizes Steve M for blogging at the supposed expense of publishing is known only to us for blogging and cannot reveal/verify his publications.

  77. John Philip said

    Kenneth,

    How many times do I have to spell it out? Lindzen’s article leans heavily on a graphic based on a dataset that was subsequently revised by its originators, which revisions were spelt out in the literature and pretty well torpedo the thrust of Lindsen’s argument. Now Lindzen may have issues with the revisions, but failing to mention them is nothing short of the kind of scientific negigence that posters at WUWT are generally extraordinarily diligent about, when they percieve it in the mainstream climate science position.

    Lindzen is, arguably, the most credible of the ‘contrarians’.

    JP.

  78. Jeff Id said

    #77 I agree with your point, imagine how much better WUWT would have read if Lindzen had said there is a newer set of data which reduces the problem, still it supports our conclusions but we don’t agree with the correction.

    What do you think now that we see evidence that Lindzen has addressed the issue to the point that he’s even worked it into a lecture? Now we know it’s not like Lindzen has ignored this important detail.

  79. TCO said

    76: Ken: that’s the POINT. Even if I have a same flaw as Steve, it doesn’t stop it from being a flaw. You tribalist fec-throwing monkeys don’t understand that. It’s not about being a badass (that’s fun sure) but about comprehension and issue analysis. Is this so hard fdor you to grok?

  80. Kenneth Fritsch said

    How many times do I have to spell it out? Lindzen’s article leans heavily on a graphic based on a dataset that was subsequently revised by its originators, which revisions were spelt out in the literature and pretty well torpedo the thrust of Lindsen’s argument. Now Lindzen may have issues with the revisions, but failing to mention them is nothing short of the kind of scientific negigence that posters at WUWT are generally extraordinarily diligent about, when they percieve it in the mainstream climate science position.

    I will look further into the revisions, but in the meantime my point was that instead of repeating your charge of sloppiness and that the premise was torpedoed and that your feelings were hurt what I was looking for is more details on the revision. Lindzen says that with the revision the effect still stands and that he has issues with the revision. I would have issues with any revision that was made after the fact and in counter to what one might consider using it to make a “wrong” interpretation. How strong is the argument and evidence for the revision and why is it a more certain conclusion than the first one made.

    My point being that learning on the blogs is more important to me than labeling.

  81. Kenneth Fritsch said

    76: Ken: that’s the POINT. Even if I have a same flaw as Steve, it doesn’t stop it from being a flaw. You tribalist fec-throwing monkeys don’t understand that. It’s not about being a badass (that’s fun sure) but about comprehension and issue analysis. Is this so hard fdor you to grok?

    TCO, sorry I was hoping to connect to the publishing TCO who would have to be, by necessity, less emotional and better at articulating at least some details for your views.

    So blog on TCO and may it bring you all the attention you need.

  82. TCO said

    Gee thanks for the permission…

  83. Raven said

    In the ideal world:

    Alarmist: Did you know that the data that Linzden used has been corrected by the original authors (link) and no longer shows the anomoly that Linzden’s analysis depends on?

    WUWT: Well ‘corrected’ does not necessarily mean ‘right’. I have sent an e-mail to Prof Linzden to see what he has to say.

    Alarmist: Thanks. I would like to hear his explanation.

    In the world we live in:

    Alarmist: Linzden is dishonest because he used an old dataset and did not mention that a newest set existed. WUWT should be ashamed of posting such drivel.

    WUWT: Am not posting ad hom attacks.

    Alarmists: WUWT is a hypocrital shame that is only interested in trashing pro-AGW science.

  84. Doc_Navy said

    JPhillip,

    Brother, you are a piece of work. You know that? Anthony has been gracious, apologized (In advance no less), given you an out while retaining your “honor”, updated the post in question, and basically kow-towed to your ENORMOUS ego.
    1. You DID leave out part of the comment, and thusly part of the context.
    2. You’ve been apologized to. ACCEPT IT, and move on! When was the last time you EVER saw an RC contributor/moderator actually come to another site and apologize to a poster??! Uh, NEVER.
    3. I’ve reread the post on this site and WUWT I see both sides of the issue. Now that you’ve been apologized to, cut him some slack…. or just bugger of to RC and complain there about how much you hate AW. I sure you’ll find all the sympathetic ears, and shoulder crying “Yes” men to back you up.
    4. GROW UP!
    Doc

  85. Jeremy said

    Sir,

    Science is open, rich, friendly, but competitive.

    Google up “pioneer anomaly” – and check out the wikipedia entry. The Pioneer probe has a velocity that does not precisely agree with the standard calculation. There are various theories e.g. gas leaks, radiation pressure, but also NEW PHYSICS and NEW GEOMETRIES. THIS IS SCIENCE – and the whacky ideas get scheduled for testing along with all the mundane ones. New ideas are treated with excited respect. This is science.

    If you are not looking for it you will NEVER FIND IT. This is advocacy, and it is a DEAD END.

  86. TCO said

    Anther climate discussion. Lather rinse repeat.

  87. Jeff Id said

    #86 For sure. I didn’t expect this conversation nor did I expect to watch the stupid Red Wings loose again tonight. Bunch of crap.

    Hell boys, you know Anthony was generous to John when he found that John may have meant something else. John was too angry about being slighted but it is small of him not to accept an apology. I’m pissed at RC but only because they earned everything they got. I don’t give a rats ass about Lindzen’s correctness, he addressed his points which was revealed after being slammed by several comments. I don’t see a lot of people taking back their words.

    Apparently, I Am the only person dumb enough to make a mistake and admit it? From what I’ve read here, the proper response is obviously to continue arguing nuance after nuance until there’s nothing left but tired people. What was I thinking.

    I’m going to bed.

  88. TCO said

    I admitted wrong on 31.

  89. BillBodell said

    John Phillip is exactly right.

    Now Lindzen may have issues with the revisions, but failing to mention them is nothing short of the kind of scientific negigence that posters at WUWT are generally extraordinarily diligent about, when they percieve it in the mainstream climate science position.

    The exact similar situation would be alarmists using old dendro data while ignoring updated data with no explanation. I think CA might have had a thing or two to say about situations like that.

    Either we apply the same rules to each side or we’re nothing other than cheerleaders rooting for “our team” right or wrong.

  90. BillBodell said

    Jeff,

    Just read your last comment

    From what I’ve read here, the proper response is obviously to continue arguing nuance after nuance until there’s nothing left but tired people.

    Sometimes I despair and think that’s all that posting on blogs ever comes too. I don’t know of a single time anything I’ve said has changed anyone’s mind.

    Sometimes I think that maybe CA, WUWT etc. have performed a service by influencing public opinion against the consensus, but it’s probably just because it’s been cold the last couple of years.

    I’m going to bed as well.

  91. Raven said

    Sometimes I think that maybe CA, WUWT etc. have performed a service by influencing public opinion against the consensus, but it’s probably just because it’s been cold the last couple of years.

    Don’t underestimate the power of word of mouth that starts with something written on a blog.

  92. Mike Davis said

    JeffID:
    I agree with your original post. I would like to thank some posters here for provideing evidence of advocacy related to AGW. As soon as a group claims a consus science walks out the door and advocacy takes over. I would like to thank TCO and JP especially for provideing needed evidence. (Well maybe not needed) But you reinforce the existing evidence with your rants.

  93. John Philip said

    Kenneth F … my point was that instead of repeating your charge of sloppiness and that the premise was torpedoed and that your feelings were hurt what I was looking for is more details on the revision.

    The post that was pulled had links to the paper that detailed the revisions and the Data Provider’s page on the same. Chris Colose has anatomised the effect the revisions have on the argument far better than I could

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

    Doc Navy … I am not quite sure what an ‘apology in advance’ is, but I appreciate it nonetheless. When I receive apologies for the baseless accusations of dishonesty and making ad hominem argument, then I shall accept those also. BTW if anyone is unsure about what ‘ad hominem’ means, here is an example….

    Finally, your link to the truly despicable “Eli Rabett” should never even appear on the “Best Science” site. […] If all you’ve got to support the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is a scatological screed by one of the very worst-rated teachers at Howard U. — which is itself at the bottom of the education barrel — written to denigrate the head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Studies department, the internationally esteemed Dr. Richard Lindzen, you make it clear that you’ve got nothing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/07/6067/

    Did the poster engage with ‘Rabett’s arguments? Nope. Was his post edited or pulled as a result? Same answer. Clearly anyone approaching WUWT with an expectation of evenhandedness is making a category error.

    I shall now climb down from my high horse and go about my business.

  94. Luis Dias said

    The exact similar situation would be alarmists using old dendro data while ignoring updated data with no explanation. I think CA might have had a thing or two to say about situations like that.

    Either we apply the same rules to each side or we’re nothing other than cheerleaders rooting for “our team” right or wrong.

    Amen. That’s exactly it. But this notion evades the likes of WUWTs authors and commenters too often.

  95. Jeff Id said

    #94 – I understand the point you make but for it to be the same as Mann chopping the ends off of the briffa data that doesn’t fit wouldn’t it need to be first a paper with all details explained or simply unexplained ever.

    The red letters at the top acknowledge the problem, explain the effect on the results, give some hand waiving for why he doesn’t use it and moves on. In the case of Mann08, the hand waiving said the data don’t fit so I’m not using it. In this case I haven’t seen anyone argue his point. That is a big difference to me.

  96. TCO said

    I think the flawed Lindzen analysis and publishing of it on a WUWT is pretty typical of the sekeptics. We have seen some real boners from spencer as well. And they always go one way. The more, we see that, the more I think our side is full of cranks and wish-fullfillment analysis and cherry picking. I start to feel a little better (on maybe AGW being wrong) when I see how politicized Mann, Hansen and Gavin are. But net/net, my own side is a lot weaker. 4 years from SM without a single new pubkished paper. Weak. Instead we have blog scratch pad that he doesn’t even stgand behind…and Heartland.

    Anyone out there who is a real skeptic (Ken?) push back on a couple SM style analyses. You’ll find interesting tyhings when you do the measurments of extent, full factorials, etc that he eschews…

  97. TCO said

    Bill: A huu-huu-huge amount of the skeptic bloggers and their cheerleaders do exactly what you say. When pushed hard enough, they even justify it with comments like “the other side does it” or the like. It’s just how they think. They are not REALLY interested in penetrating analysis and surfacing revelations. They are intererstedin finding arguments that support their viewpoint…and hanging out socially with like thinkers.

  98. Kenneth Fritsch said

    The post that was pulled had links to the paper that detailed the revisions and the Data Provider’s page on the same. Chris Colose has anatomised the effect the revisions have on the argument far better than I could

    John, sorry but I am sometimes skeptical when a poster cannot or does not explain in at least simple terms what it is that they are criticizing.

    I am more comfortable with a detailed blog analysis of an issue like this one. Having said that I have found that in the climate science community papers are written (and with conclusions) without reference to available sources that might have countervailing evidence. In general the same community does not seem to be over critical of that habit – unless it occurs counter to their POV or past inclinations.

    Lindzen ignoring the countervailing evidence without explanation at the time of the reporting is in line with the community tendencies and is something that I find counter productive, but evidently acceptable in the community if it agrees with your POV.

    Given all that, I would want to look further into the data revision and the uncertainity in the observed and modelled results. Do we have a model and observation uncertainty standoff here like the one with tropospheric cooling relative to the surface where it becomes difficult to impossible to determine whether the models and observations agree within a reasonably practical limit?

  99. TCO said

    What a lot of twaddle from Ken. Just like I expected. The “but the other guys lie too” defense. What a load of weak tits, my skeptics are. You all make me sick. Have fun at the Heartland with the mutual mental masturbation.

  100. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Anyone out there who is a real skeptic (Ken?) push back on a couple SM style analyses. You’ll find interesting tyhings when you do the measurments of extent, full factorials, etc that he eschews…

    Sorry TCO, but to this skeptic the devil is almost always in the details and you are not providing any.

  101. TCO said

    No shit I didn’t provide details, Ken. I explained a basic concept about not fooling yourself. It’s like complaining there’s no bat on the football feild. Sheesh.

  102. Kenneth Fritsch said

    What a lot of twaddle from Ken. Just like I expected. The “but the other guys lie too” defense. What a load of weak tits, my skeptics are. You all make me sick. Have fun at the Heartland with the mutual mental masturbation.

    What happened to disaggregation, TCO? You seem to work real hard to shove everything into one box and fit all Steve M’s blogging into your pre-conceived bogey man.

    By the way I was not defending Lindzen. I was pointing to those science community actions as being counter productive as they tend to weaken the agrument of those doing the ignoring – not that the ignoring is often acknowledged or discussed.

  103. Smokey said

    John Philip repeatedly makes statements like: “I shall not be visiting the site [WUWT] any longer.”

    Well, good. Who needs Philips’ biased, pontificating alarmism anyway?

    The whole question of “global warming” [AKA “climate change”] can be simmered down to: “Does the AGW/CO2 conjecture hold water?”

    That’s it in a nutshell. Either a rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming… or it isn’t. Everything else is fluff. Spin. Propaganda.

    There are literally $Trillions riding on this question. That’s your money, folks. If an increase in a minor trace gas, from 4 parts in ten thousand, to 5 parts in ten thousand will cause runaway global warming… then, as the skeptics say: PROVE IT.

    The purveyors of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis are now biting at Anthony Watts heels. Watts may make an occasional mistake [he’s human, you know, just like everyone else], rather than debating the one central question covering the whole issue: does CO2 really matter? Well, does it?? So far, there is no real world evidence that CO2 matters at all.

    Attacking the owner of this year’s “Best Science” site is a devious attempt to re-frame the argument, in order to make Mr. Watts the point of contention. It is an attempt to take the spotlight off of the central question: does a change in a minor trace gas matter more than the Earth’s oceans, or the Sun, or water vapor, or any of the much more credible climate forcings? That is literally the trillion dollar question. [And of course there is always a lot of jealousy involved; RealClimate got only one-tenth the number of votes that Anthony Watts’ site received — and it tortures them no end. Apparently the George Soros cash infusion into RC is inadequate to salve their damaged egos, which were whacked by their very public Weblog Awards humiliation].

    So far, the alarmist contingent still runs and hides from debating the essential question: does CO2 really control the climate?? Their deliberate avoidance of that question is not surprising — since it is a fact that as CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature continues to fall, thus falsifying CO2’s effect on global warming.

    Smoke and mirrors, folks. Making Anthony Watts the issue, instead of making CO2 the issue, is all that the alarmist contingent has left. It’s no wonder they run and hide from any neutral, moderated series of debates over the CO2 question.

  104. willnitschke said

    TCO,

    speaking of mental masturbation do you reread anything you post?

  105. TAG said

    It seems that every thread on this blog is now dominated by TCO and his petty one-sided feud with Steve McIntyre. Any thread on any topic becomes a forum for TCO to promote his one idea that Steve McIntyre is at fault for not publishing in the peer reviewed literature.

    May I suggest that a special blog post should be set up that concerns Steve McIntyre so that TCO can send his voluminous and tedious comments there. Any mention of Steve McIntyre’s publishing record con any other thread can be ruled out of scope and deleted.

    Another suggestion would be to rename this blog “TCO 24/7.”

  106. TCO said

    Ken:

    1. I read you too fast. Sorry. I do like the part where you said the actions are counter-productive. Omitting difference of degree and tone, that is my point too.

    2. Actually I can disaggregate…even between generalizations and particular cases. Just because I have a generalization, does not mean that I say it applies to every case. If I say that SM has dishonest tendancies, that does not mean the man never does a revealing insight. That said, the generalization is not useless either…for assessing overall impact, for knowing what to watch out for, etc. Can you capisce it?

    3. My main thing is to warn the real skeptics, not to think that there is more than what there is within the deniosphere.

    4. In all seriousness, try pushing on a few SM assertions or ambiguous blog posts. I have found him evasive (refusing to answer direct questions, making rebuttals to points I have not made yet, rather than responding with the facts on the direct question) when asking for extent of impact (when extent was small, but the nature of the error could be dramatized (short-centering, flipping series, geo- mislabeling etc.)) or for decounfounding muddled mult-factor assertions (won’t show full factorials, describes multiple flaws as independant when they are required to occur together (a weaker case for criticism of the original work)). This is the behavior of an advocate. Of a blog rabble rouser. Not a genuine searcher for truth.

  107. TCO said

    Will: no.

    TAG: touche.

  108. AEGeneral said

    Smokey: The whole problem is that the burden of proof has been shifted to our side. This has spiraled so out of control that it’s now up to us to prove that CO2 does NOT cause global warming, or at the very least doesn’t have so much of an effect that natural processes aren’t capable of overriding it.

    A wise man once said that self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. This is where we are, as much as we skeptics cringe at this fact. So we are left to our own devices on how we can best chip away at the foundation of the AGW birdnest (I’d call it a fortress, but they seem to oppose progress of any kind).

  109. Thom Scrutchin said

    #105 I agree. Jeff, time to step up to the plate as a moderator. No one but TCO and John will be offended.

  110. Thom Scrutchin said

    #65 Luis – I did check Lubos Motl’s Blog, http://motls.blogspot.com/
    You represent Lubos’ post as a condemnation of Lindzen and everything he stands for. That it was proof positive that Lindzen is a lying denier. I did not read it quite that way. I quote the concluding two paragraphs.

    “Richard Lindzen says that the net climate sensitivity is only 1/2 of my “neutral” value (or less) and I don’t quite understand his calculation. But let’s admit that it would be extremely difficult to distinguish the two figures by measurements in the 21st century because those 0.3 °C of difference are hidden in the noise of dozens of other effects.”

    “More importantly, I think that even my “neutral” answer, 0.6 °C of warming per century, clearly poses no threat to us or other life forms on Earth. After all, we have seen the very same warming in the 20th century (our CO2 output has increased, but the effect of each CO2 molecule has dropped, because of the logarithmic law) and there have been no detectable negative consequences of it for the Earth whatsoever. It is therefore extremely awkward to expect something dramatic to happen from the same small increment repeated once again.”

    That hardly seems like something that might embarrass Anthony. And as a footnote I would put the process of trial by ordeal in the blogosphere against friendly peer review any day. One does have to ignore or discount a lot of BS and misrepresentation though.

  111. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I aplogize for taking my relpies to TCO so far off topic. I do need moderation. I would sincerely like to discususs the radiation budget adjustment and as it pretains to Lindzen’s premise on feedback. Perhaps TCO could be given a blog pulpit from which to preach and allow those who prefer to forego his services a “Unitarian” alternative.

    I would like to indulge you and the participants here with some excerpts from one paper on the accuracy/reproducibility of the radiation measurements and the adjustment shown in graph form from the Wong et.al. (2006) paper.

    Fisrt of all, the excerpts from the first Wong paper below seem to show that the uncertainity in the improved radiation measurements (and the modeled uncertainties?) will require many years for seeing statistically significantly determined effects of anthropogenic global warming and cloud feedback. Note also the comment on the AVHRR instruments and the expected decay.

    I hope I was able to properly link to my graph showing the adjustment that Wong et al. made to the radiation budget. It appears smaller than what I recollect seeing at Chris Colose’s web site.

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/f22m.pdf

    Unfortunately, the majority of long-term satellite data records available today were derived from satellite instruments whose calibration accuracy and stability is too crude to detect anticipated trends in anthropogenic forcing. To move forward, therefore, we must take a hard look at our more modern instruments and determine whether or not they are meeting the accuracy requirements needed to address climate change.

    The slope in the SeaWiFS anomalies is 0.41±1.2 Wm2 per decade, compared to
    0.43±1.5 Wm2 per decade for CERES. The two are consistent to 0.02±0.3 Wm2 per decade, where ±0.3 Wm2 per decade corresponds to the 95% confidence interval. This difference comes very close to falling within the 0.3 Wm2 per decade stability requirement in Ohring et al. (2005).

    Table 4 compares CERES and SeaWiFS anomalies for four tropical ocean regions. In two
    of these regions (southwest tropics and northwest tropics), the CERES and SeaWiFS anomaly trends are significantly different. The most likely reason for the different trends is regional changes in cloud and aerosol properties. Such changes can alter the narrow-to-broadband relationship between SW flux and PAR with time, thereby leading to different anomaly trends.

    Older instruments such as the Advanced Very High Resolution
    (AVHRR) series of sensors which had no onboard calibration in the visible channels typically degraded by 1-3% per year (Brest et al., 1997; Tahnk et al., 2001). If the newer instruments continue to collect data until the spacecraft they fly on exhaust all of the available fuel (nominally 15 years for Terra and Aqua), how small a trend can we expect to be able to observe assuming instrument calibration remains stable? The question is critical given that greenhouse gas radiative forcing is approximately 0.6 Wm2 per decade (IPCC, 2001), and a 50% change in climate sensitivity due to cloud feedback would arise from a net cloud radiative effect change of only 0.3 Wm2 per decade: either stabilizing or de-stabilizing. Narrowing climate prediction uncertainty to a factor of 2 thus requires verification of cloud feedback at the level of 0.3 Wm2 change per decade. either stabilizing or de-stabilizing. Narrowing climate prediction uncertainty to a factor of 2 thus requires verification of cloud feedback at the level of 0.3 Wm2 change per decade. According to Weatherhead et al. (1998), trend detectability depends upon three major factors: (i) the size of the trend to be detected; (ii) the unexplained variability in the data (e.g., natural climate variability); and (iii) the autocorrelation of the noise in the data. Following techniques commonly used to assess trends in environmental data,

    In order to detect a trend in global SW TOA flux that is 50% of the 0.6 Wm2 anticipated change in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the next few decades, approximately 10 to 15 years of data are needed (the lower bound occurs with 50% probability, while the upper bound occurs with 90% probability). Because the variability is greater in the tropics, the number of years to detect a 0.3 Wm2 per decade trend is also greater, at 14 to 20 years.

    The Wong et al. paper and titled, “DECADAL VARIABILITY OF EARTH RADIATION BUDGET DEDUCED FROM SATELLITE ALTITUDE CORRECTED ERBE/ERBS NONSCANNER DATA” showing the adjustment is linked her

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~tak/wong/r47.pdf

    The graph showing the amount of adjustment is listed here:

    If this link does not work, the graph can be viewed in the linked paper above.

  112. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Let me try my graph link again.

  113. Raven said

    This is getting rediculous. When the newer data issue was first brought up it was a legimate point. However, upon investigation it appears the Linzden was fully aware of this data and had explained his rational for using the older data in other publically available presentations. The only problem was that explanation was omitted from the post that Anthony put up. IOW – this is a tempest in a teapot.

    BTW – A poster on Lubos explained how Linzden got the number that Lubos could not reproduce. It appears Linzden included all GHGs intead of just CO2.

  114. Mitchel44 said

    “blog rabble rouser”, some sort of Freudian slip there.

    HA HA HA, could not have said it better myself.

  115. timetochooseagain said

    Raven- FYI, that poster was me. 🙂

  116. John Philip said

    Smokey: Attacking the owner of this year’s “Best Science” site is a devious attempt to re-frame the argument, in order to make Mr. Watts the point of contention.

    Lucid as ever Mr S. Putting the record straight does not equate to reframing the debate. Anyone browsing WUWT would have been left with the impression that I had posted a personal smear against AW, littered with ad hominems. It was only after I put up the actual content of the deleted post and everyone could see that the ‘smear’ consisted of this sentence:
    ‘Does this qualify as the good and transparent science quite rightly promoted by WUWT?’
    that the good Mr Watts suddenly remembered his graciousness and offered an ‘advance apology’, slightly tempered by yet another false accusation – that I was offering less than full disclosure here. Not actually interested in engaging with a guy with those standards.
    You then attempt to er, frame the debate If an increase in a minor trace gas, from 4 parts in ten thousand, to 5 parts in ten thousand will cause runaway global warming… then, as the skeptics say: PROVE IT.
    Science does not deal in proof, you may be confusing it with mathematics. Science deals with the balance of evidence, nor is there a single killer piece of evidence in favour of the AGW hypothesis, what there are however, are literally hundreds of studies, empirical and modelled that underpin the conclusions of the IPCC that the world is warming and most of the warming is from GHG forcing and that can be expected to continue, with overwhelmingly negative consequences.
    Nobody denies that CO2 is a trace gas, even if your numbers are wrong, but similarly nobody serious denies that traces can have large effects – the physics are different, however similar concentrations of impurities added to glass can change it from transparent to coloured or even opaque, to give an analogy. CO2 is at levels about a third higher than anything in the 600Kyear ice core record and the rate of increase is about 100 times greater than the fastest increase in that record.
    I congratulate WUWT on winning ‘Best Science Blog’, garnering 14,150 votes from the global internet in a contest that permitted individuals to vote multiple times, however arguing that this bestows greater credibility than, say, the NAS or the AGU is a little like saying that the National Enquirer is more credible than say, Science or Nature simply because it has more readers…
    TTFN.

  117. Layman Lurker said

    Oh please JP, you gave an extra little “dig” at Dr. Lindzen which got under Anthony’s skin and he reacted. That’s all this is. Read #113. I agree with Raven. Can’t you just let this go and move on. Enough sniveling.

  118. Thom Scrutchin said

    John, I could care less whether Anthony wrongly snipped you once. Anthony explained, get over it.

    Putting up a paper by Dr. Lindzen is exactly what I would hope for from a blog with skeptical leanings. Posting an informal paper from one of the most notable climate scientists in the country seems open and transparent so far.

    I went back to WUWT and I found 384 posts associated with the Lindzen paper. A very large number were critical. Now, I wouldn’t say they were all critical of the paper really. But there were certainly a lot of posts by agitated people who obviously did not agree with Lindzen or Anthony.

    There were 18 occurrences of the word snip. Fewer than half were actually censored posts, the rest were comments on snips, like my post here that contains 7 occurrences of the word snip. It seems like a lot of people get agitated when their posts are snipped. From the comments, I would say that the real snips were justified, but there may have been one that was censored because the moderator (not Anthony in this case) misread or exercised malice. If there was such an unjustified snip, I mourn the poor victim, but given the other 383 posts, it is hard for to me to imagine the standard by which that does not conform to Jeff’s principles. I doubt that the censored post dealt the telling blow to any topic. By my reading, yours was not such a blow.

    Anthony described himself as the messenger on this post. . It seems like he has provided a forum in which the free exchange of ideas could occur. Certainly, a careful reading of the on topic posts (a number much smaller than 384) would be educational.

  119. John F. Pittman said

    May John Phillip and Real Climate reign ForEver. I sympathize with both WUWT and JP except for one little bitty fact…Anthony offered to apologize! Nay, Nay, he apologized thusly “”If I misread the intent of that last line, I apologize in advance of a clarification response from Mr. Phillips.”” Perhaps, JP villifies him for this absolutely horrible statement “”All I ask is that you be civil and don’t use ad hominem arguments.””

    BUT JP says “”One of the claims made by Anthony Watts and his followers, is that he tolerates opinions contrary to his own, while other sites such as RealClimate delete inconvenient truths. Here’s an exchange from the thread on WUWT…”””

    I give a quarter pence to JP, EVERYBODY KNOWS unREALCLIMATE never ever deletes inconvenient truths???!!???, but of course JP lost because RC ALWAYS censors. AND he did not note that every blog has its own perspective that is not necessarily JP’s perspective. Imagine that!!

    OK sarcasm off. But note the logical error..Every body knows RC deletes inconvenient truths, and thus JP admits to his failings from the get go! But Anthony is so kind he does not admonish him for this logical error; he offers an olive branch. WELL I don’t! RC does delete inconvenient truths! And As far as I can tell JP follows along with inverse blame (red herrings), just like unrealclimate! “”One of the claims made by Anthony Watts and his followers, is that he tolerates opinions contrary to his own, while other sites such as RealClimate delete inconvenient truths.”” They do delete inconvenient truths, yet you got to post, except that he asked you “”All I ask is that you be civil and don’t use ad hominem arguments.”” But no, the blog owner’s opinion does not matter, only the great JP does!!! The only reason I respond is that I read your comments on WUWT! Have you read my comments and all too many others who were censored at RC?? Give us some quotes not already provided. You brought the claim up. Yes I know that Anthony has complained of RC cnsorship with others proclamations, but your post used the reductio ad adsurdum with respect to Anthony. Where is your proof that it did not occur??

    JP It is obvious that you have not read my comments, Jerry Browning, Pat Franks’s, or Craig Loehle’s comments that were snipped by RC. Yeppo, you couldn’t unless you went to CA or WUWT where we logged the comments RC would not respond to. OH never mind, JeffID, or is it JeffC?, he, they? is/are such a loser/s politely asking for data, and being told he/they need(s) to take a MATLB course when all he/they asked was what the publishing peer reveiwed publication that stated the data was available on request actually, make sure data was available!! Since you brought RC into it, I can only figure you have no problem with the fleas that bite any who truly wish to address the science but get told in all too few words to “BITE OFF” from RC for daring to ask for the basis.

    Google Gerald Browning, Gavin Schmidt, and velocity

  120. Jeff Id said

    #119, I promise Jeff Id(C) and Jeff C (C) are definitely two separate corporeal beings separated by thousands of miles and both are engineers.

  121. John F. Pittman said

    I know Jeff. It is that both of you were spurned.

    Though, I do have to thank Gavin and Ray for making me sceptical of the IPCC work, and for helping me find CA. I went to RC to find out how the natural signal increased temperatures were separated from the manmade global warming signal. I am an engineer too, and in this case, I was interested becuase I thought I would use the clever IPCC method to help with a problem I had at work. What I found was it was an assumption; and since the models were based on the assumption, it was a circular argument. I pointed this out and they said I would understand it if I spent 8 years of study and did peer reveiwed research. Well, I already have spent 8 eights getting a BS Biology and BSE Chemical such that I only needed to go one more year and I could have had a BS Chemistry and Bachelor degree in Math. And I can tell you the only pile of bigger BS than being a student, was trying to talk with the RC crowd.

    I still wish the IPCC had pulled it off. I could still use a method of separating a confounded signal.

  122. Jeff Id said

    #121

    I originally went to RC after a conversation with a friend about global warming. Gavin was very aggressive and aloof in his answers as though he was much smarter than I. I had no idea who he was other than he seemed to think he was an expert and I was sure he knew more than me on the topic. I felt a little sorry for him because he was fielding a pile of tough snarky questions.

    The funny thing is, I didn’t like CA at around the same time because it always had a mocking tone about it in the comments. First impressions can be wrong ;). Now I’m the worst about RC, CA’s tone seems justified and I’m spending my Saturday doing PCA on RC’s latest paper on my own blog! — Didn’t see that coming.

  123. TCO said

    You little school girls. Sheesh. SM has a 4 year tease without a single new paper. And Watts routinely fails to correct himself, runs with the first thing that supports his side and then when data starts coming in against him sets the stuff aside.

    You all fucking make me sick. I’m a fucking mega-skeptic. I love drilling in Alaska. I love double-checking work and finding mistakes. Love penetrating insights. But all you all want to do is cherry pick and snipe. Fucking make me sick.

    It’s like the mother fuckers who say that there were actually WMD in Iraq. Well I was all for going into Iraq. I thought there were WMD. But I know the guy who led the team that did the overall investigation on the ground. They had linguists, interrogation, document translation and site inspections. And command and control HAD BROKEN DOWN. If there were WMD, it would be the easiest thing to find someone who had handled them.

    You HAVE TO BE ABLE to look facts in the face even when they contradict your hopes or your initial hypothesis. And you maggots can’t. You fucking piss me off so much. You’re just as bad as the liberal AGWers.

  124. TCO said

    Meanwhile, Einstein was not a man to waste time on embarrassment. Infeld relates the amusing detail that Einstein was due to give a lecture in Princeton on his new nonexistence proof, just one day after his discovery of its errors. He had not yet spoken to Robertson and discovered the way out of his difficulty, and so was obliged to lecture on the invalidity of his own proof. He concluded the talk by saying “If you ask me whether there are gravitational waves or not, I must answer that I do not know. But it is a highly interesting problem.”5

    THAT’S A MAN.

  125. MikeN said

    I’m confused as to what’s in the post. I don’t see anything at realclimate that suggests they have updated their post.

  126. MikeN said

    My response in RC was with regards to the CO2 time lag, I felt that their response to that exhibits the same advocacy they decry. Chris Colose had a better response in the comments on the thread, and when I posted that at WUWT(under NOAA study), the responders showed no ability to comprehend Colose’s response, and responded with other vague attacks. I’ll see if something better pops up there, but for now both sites are doing pretty poorly.

  127. Jeff Id said

    #123, TCO I don’t even know who you’re referring to. I had to fish this F-ing mess out of the cialis bin again and I read it twice. I know it’s Saturday and all but there’s not a single rational example in your rant. Watts tried to contact Lindzen directly as soon as the problem was identified and didn’t receive a reply. Instead he found that Lindzen had addressed the problem in previous work.

    Now Lindzen may deserve the criticism, I don’t know and frankly at this point don’t care. Not RC, you, me or anyone else has addressed why Lindzen is wrong in his point not to use the newer data and the new data still apparently supports his conclusions.

    It was incredibly easy in M08 and Santer to see that the data should have been the new set. There is no reason given or explained not to use it. Lindzen actually specified a reason. If his reasoning is faulty, disaggregate and point it out.

    Jeez man, you know I’ll admit my mistakes, you even know I get pissed when others don’t. Don’t you think you went a just a little too far?

  128. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, I was hoping we could get more direct input on the issues that started this discussion and avoid the off topic part of the conversation. We all need moderation in our posting from time to time, but I see this as an issue of blog ownership and the blog owner having the final say in who posts and what is posted. It is the free market approach that I prefer.

    TCO no longer posts at CA and I do not know whether that is his decision or Steve M’s (although I would like to know who to thank). I personally judge that a poster behaving like TCO needs to be moderated or completely ignored. His rants are repetitive and without any redeeming substance. If he so dislikes the tenor of the posters here than why would a rational person continue to post and rant. We are obviously beyond redemption in his mind – not that that would change any of the issues surronding climate science or the true substance of the arguments.

    I vote TCO off the island – but acknowleging that it is your island.

  129. Jeff Id said

    Kenneth,

    I’ve made the decision to keep future posts on topic. This one is pretty well all over the place anyway. I’ll write up or copy some kind of policy about cussing, and topics and we’ll work from that. I don’t think my blog is big enough to support an open thread but it might be so I’ll think about that too.

  130. MikeN said

    This is Chris Colose’s statement on the RC thread of science vs advocacy

    It should not at all be surprising that CO2 can “lag” planetary temperature changes. After all, changes in vegetation and other biological activity from enhanced (reduced) ice cover or temperatures, changes in the solubility of gases in ocean water, etc should alter atmospheric chemistry. Such carbon cycle feedbacks, in fact, were predicted before it was observed in the ice core record.

    In order to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere at the end of each ice age as is recorded in proxy records, the deep ocean must have been involved. A principle mechanism is the creation of upwelling favorable conditions in the Southern Ocean to vent CO2 from the deep waters, particularly as the Intertropical Convergence Zone shifted closer to the equator and the southern westerlies shifted further toward Antarctica. This is discussed on my blog with corresponding comments from the lead author of a recent Science paper on the issue. Key mechanisms and ideas resulting in changes in biogeochemical boundary conditions going along with temperature changes between glacial-interglacial cycles is described in
    http://faculty.washington.edu/battisti/589paleo2005/Papers/SigmanBoyle2000.pdf

    One of the key papers cited by global warming skeptics for making the “CO2 lags temperature” (for instance it is done so in the popularized “Swindle Video”) argument is Caillon et al 2003. In their conclusion, they specifically note that changes in pCO2 have come essentially exclusively from anthropogenic sources in the industrial era. As gavin noted the rate of glacial-interglacial CO2 variation is significantly less (he quotes ~20 ppm/degree C change) and at least an order of magnitude slower than today. Isotopic signatures and increased carbon in the oceans show that the CO2 rise today is not from natural feedback.

    It would be much more common to see CO2 “lagging” in this context because you don’t expect massive injections of “externally forced” carbon into the atmosphere, although relevant paleo-examples can be found if you look hard enough (e.g., the PETM). Because rather abrupt injections at the rate which occurred during the PETM or industrial age is rare in the geologic record, there are no very good analogs for climate change on the timescale of a century associated with greenhouse gases. The paleoclimate record is very consistent however concerning the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures over geologic timescales.

    In contrast to chemical feedbacks associated with disturbances in the ocean and biosphere, CO2 warms the planet through established principles of radiative physics, particularly the ability to allow the inflow of energy in the planet system to exceed outflow. Accordingly, thinking of CO2 as “leading” or “lagging” all the time is not very good, since the two mechanisms are intrinsically related…although important carbon feedbacks from natural temperature changes occur on timescales longer than the last few decades, and so the change in CO2 is essentially all from fossil fuel emissions and deforestation/land use changes.

    AGW makes no claims about the ability of “other factors” to be involved in climate change– either contemporary or in the past. Changes in the Earth’s orbit and many other things can change temperature. The relevant claim and the dictates of the physics says that CO2 must warm the planet, regardless of any superimposed natural variability. There is no contradiction between orbital changes putting more sunlight at the poles on millennial timescales to take the planet in and out of ice ages, and the ability of modern CO2 to cause warming. The paleo-record confirms that we understand the basic workings of climate change much more than it contradicts it.

  131. John F. Pittman said

    MikeN: Chris outlines the problem with the sensitivity being too large. He outlines a natural force that increases temperature and further increases in both CO2 and temperature. He notes that there may and in fact should be a response from lants etc to control the CO2 and thus reduce the sensitivity by reducing the feedback. Just as it is said “”There is no contradiction between orbital changes putting more sunlight at the poles on millennial timescales to take the planet in and out of ice ages, and the ability of modern CO2 to cause warming. The paleo-record confirms that we understand the basic workings of climate change much more than it contradicts it.”” It can also be said “”There is no contradiction between manmade changes putting more CO2 into the atmosphere on decadal timescales to take plants into accelerated growth and other earth system changes as seen after ice ages. The paleo-record confirms that we understand the basic workings of plants and the earth systems’ dampening of the CO2 sensitivity, much more than it contradicts it.””

  132. Smokey said

    I knew it would be just a matter of time before the alarmist contingent started saying that the fact that CO2 lags temps is explainable by the AGW hypothesis.

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

    This silly “explanation” is very similar to the alarmists recently trying to explain their belief that global warming is what causes global cooling [comedy gold there!]. George Orwell would probably add, “…and white is black, down is up, and evil is good.”

    As funny as their pretzel-like antics are, though, the hair-splitting about CO2 still begs the central question: does CO2 in its current atmospheric concentration really matter at all? It certainly doesn’t appear that it matters; as CO2 continues to rise, the climate continues to cool, indicating that CO2 is at most a very minor bit player in the bigger picture.

    Having hung their hats on the CO2 boogeyman, climate alarmists are now cornered. They are forced into being contortionists, in order to try and salvage their increasingly awkward position. This results in greater and greater cognitive dissonance, since they are absolutely incapable of admitting that the evidence shows that CO2 at current concentrations has no apparent effect on the climate. Because if CO2 is as insignificant as it now appears to be, then there goes their payday.

    As George would put it: “Doubleplusungood.”

  133. TCO said

    Why don’t you go away and stop making real skeptics look bad and stupid? You should be able to think about the difference between an orbital driven forcing (pre-industrial) and industrial CO2 forcing (wrt the mass balance in the ocean) and easily understand why one case lags and the other leads. It’s really not that hard if you stop being a knee jerk commenter and think.

    You also show the annoying tendancy of wanting to conflate all debates of interesting issues to one single one (where you don’t argue but assert).

    Please go away and stop making us look bad.

  134. Jeff Id said

    I don’t buy the explanations Ive read from AGW guys about CO2 lag either.

  135. MikeN said

    That’s what started my point. RC’s explanation on their site is circular logic, and Gavin’s response is to just huff that he’s right. Chris’s response above makes more sense, that they have separated the current CO2 forcing from the natural one.

  136. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Jeff,
    TCO said
    April 4, 2009 at 4:15 pm
    123 this should be deleted, even though it makes TCO look better.

    If this thread was on topic would you have 136 post?

    Also this is a tremendous service that you have here, not just digging into the lies,
    misgiving facts, but to let some have a neutral place to wiggle through the facts is fantastic.
    No one has thanked you for all your hard work and patience, so I will 🙂

    TOT… I had to work the job Saturday, and well, I have lost my day to work,
    B.O. is to spend 2.9 trillion $, I work for the feds. doing hard labor and where, who
    is to get this 2.9 trillion? not the workers…. welfare?
    I thought HE WAS TO SAVE jobs? I work for the feds!!!!! and do actual labor!!!!!
    Sheeple will be very unhappy with this, they may have to wait for there checks two days!!!
    I will still get some work time covering for the 2 week vacation ETC.
    you will note the lack of bad language, I want as many as possible, to know how bad this is all going to get. I have said it before and now again, this is getting more and more biblical. kill the ones who do Gods work and fly in the face of god for there goes evil ways and the evil doers. and so if hanson eric, gavin, B.O. , mann, and any others who want to obfuscate the truth, bring down the great society that has been built, not much can be done by the likes of me.

  137. cogito said

    TCO, please, if you don’t have anything to say, don’t say it here ….

  138. Amabo said

    I miss the guy who used to take all those pictures, now.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: