the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Real Science

Posted by Jeff Id on June 26, 2010

One of the biggest problems with my personality is that once I’ve figured something out, it’s no longer fun.  I don’t really care after that and begin looking for something new.

Still though, the fact that the uninformed can claim to have informed opinions with little supporting knowledge drives me wild.  Sure I’ve made my mistakes, ya think ya know something and later find out that um —  I don’t know as much as I thought — I’m 41, just try to get this far and not screw up…..we all have.  Recently Art Smith attacked Climate Audit and Steve Mosher on a misrepresentnation of a ‘trick’ performed by government funded ”scientists’ with respect to climate. Now since they are “tricks”, and their detials are not fully disclosed, it might be difficult to figure them out.

Arthur is still learning the rules about blogging.

I wrote this post to him after declaring in a fit of grumpiness that he didn’t have the ability to figure out ‘hide the decline’.

Your implied accusations of “intentional” misstatements by Steve Mosher and CA disgust me. I’ve watched these people for some time now with a skeptical eye, and have done more double checking and confirmation than you have the wherewithal to pull off.

Yup, it was overly cocky.. but I was grumpy with Arthur’s obfuscation and it got the best of me.  Sorry… ish. Not a proud moment.   It isn’t like I believe I have the keys to knowledge but when people pretend to not notice bad science – while claiming to be informed, it sends me over the edge.  Gotta work on that, but it is the title of this blog.

So today, when reviewing Arthur’s blog, I noticed he enjoyed the traffic from CA and continued with his  posts on the topic.

Arthur is very very clever.  The man has enough IQ to run over anyone but I believe he also has an agenda and has not been honest with his readers.  Consider this statement about Mosher’s lies..

But the tricky cases are those who are much more subtle in their nonsense. Making stuff up is easy. Making stuff up that on the face of it looks somewhat plausible does take a bit more skill.

Now this came after he dissed a bunch of smart skeptics who he doesn’t believe have the qualifications of Mosher.  Without comment on the others, anyone who has read Mosh’s comments knows damned well that Mosh has unique skills — don’t let it go to your head Steve hehe..

Arthur is more than capable himself and has far deeper commitment into winning a war than my first comment to him justifies. What disturbs me is that I don’t believe he’s an honest man at this point.  As most here know, of all things in blogland, I hate intentional deception.

First, he called Mosher a liar with respect to the manipulation of Briffa’s hide the decline data, attaching CA to the claim.  Then he claimed CA wasn’t part of his post, now he claims that he doesn’t have the expertise to tell if ‘hide the decline’ is perhaps false.

I challenged him on his post on that exact topic… and I was …snipped… oh my.. not again!!

Apparently the reason was that I was OFF TOPIC, how standard and incorrect!!

Yes, see the Policy link top right. If you have something to add, think about it and state it clearly before you post, and make sure it’s on the topic. I’m not interested in religious wars. Your comment, as I recall, seemed to have serious trouble distinguishing fact from opinion, and I’m not interested in spending my time explaining the difference to you if you don’t see it yourself.

Originally, my challenge to the doc was:

Since I have now read your bio and realize you should have the ability to analyze what was done here, I would be a lot more comfortable with you if you made some properly critical statements of any of the methods used to ‘hide the decline’. Certainly, as a physicist, you never simply deleted data which didn’t have the result you wanted – without any physical explanation as to what went wrong with the experiment at least.

We’ve all taken bad data but certainly when you realize that climatology can only verify this data is actually temperature in any way, by its correlation to temperature, deletion of the inconvenient verification portion to make a historically flat signal is inappropriate- — right?

Have you ever deleted a portion of a signal without explanation for the problem? The values taken were certainly not outside of reason for tree rings, they just weren’t in the increasing trend that climatology prefers. So even if all of what you said about ‘extensive’ disclosure were true – which it isn’t – all of the methods proposed are on their face – bad science – agreed?

It’s a cuter comment than it sounds because the doc was trying to claim he had done the same thing in his past.

This happened to me in one of my earliest publications, where I produced a graph of a theoretical curve regarding behavior of electrons in a quasicrystal, and then realized that the portion of the graph close to zero was meaningless because of an approximation I had made. So that portion is “shaded out” in the published article – I dropped the data because I knew it was not valid.

Well the doc replied kindly with this junk (truncated when he switched to Mosher again), obviously my references to the intent of most popular temperature reconstructions was missed.

I do not agree they are “on their face – bad science”. Scientists make judgment calls all the time. It would take experience in the specific field, which I do not have, to tell whether it was “bad science” or not. People who seem to have more experience in the issue have come down on both sides. In very general terms, from my own experience in science, “on their face”, removal of data that is on one side or another of a clear range of parameters (like date) is far less of an issue than removal of data that is otherwise indistinguishable from or in the center of a range.

In any case, this issue of whether the data removal was justified is clearly a matter of *opinion*.

Lesseee,  the doc had enough ‘experience’ to make this claim:

Figuring out that the “plausible” stuff is just as much nonsense as the obviously wrong takes considerably more work, and some of these actors tend to make a lot of work for those of us trying to defend real science.

But not removal of data?

The ‘Real Science’  …

I can tell you that this guy has no idea what Climate Audit is about, what Mosher is about an even less so what tAV is about.  I’m seasoned enough on the internet to know he won’t care what the truth is and will stick to his story, however, like many here,  I don’ t like to let his “lack of knowledge” stand unchallenged.

I wrote politely to him to challenge on the fact that deletion of hide the decline data was in no way ‘opinion’.  In exchange, he snipped my politely worded comment.  Gone, to oblivion.  Apparently not because he could not argue it, it just wasn’t worth his readers seeing.  2 guesses as to how he votes!

Anyway, since we cannot read it,  my comment made the following points:

– We who have collected data have all deleted data that we knew was bad for poor instrumentation or some known incident that caused trouble or wildly out of range data with no explanation..

I asked

– have you ever deleted data which was in range, instruments were working fine and nothing seemed to be amiss except that it wasn’t what you expected?  – snipped.

I explained:

If you have enough experience to call or strongly imply Steve Mosher a liar, and to claim that ‘hide the decline’ was extensively discussed in literature – which it wasn’t beforehand – then I’m certain you know the origin of this data.

I challenged:

The deletion of data from working instruments which doesn’t agree with a pre-determined temperature rise without physical explanation and without the data being out of a normal range is not a matter of opinion.

Comment snipped…

My only remaining conclusion must be that Arthur knows very well that what they did was extraordinarily wrong but will defend it anyway. Why else would my comments not be allowed?

Another leftie blog with dishonest content, how rare…….

39 Responses to “Real Science”

  1. We all have to struggle not to take ourselves too seriously.

    Escape from the ego cage is the great challenge of life.

    Best wishes on the journey,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. kim said

    The rhetoric and logic is disintegrating like the paradigm. It’s cognitive dissonance, and grief.

  3. Derek said

    It don’t matter how “clever” these people think they are.
    Nor does it matter how clever they really are.
    It also does not matter if they are so clever they can “convincingly” argue black is white when it suites.
    A snake oil salesman, is a snake oil salesman, is a snake oil salesman, is a snake oil salesman, is a snake oil salesman,
    whatever “he” tries to portray himself as.

    The truth is the truth, whether we know, or admit it, or not.

    The truth appears to be at present, to the best of our observations that,
    the present GHG “theory” is (PC) bunkum,
    “back radiation” is (PC) bunkum, and,
    most of our present climate “metrics” are (PC) bunkum.
    Anything based or reliant upon the above is also POLITICALLY CORRECT (or rather politically benficial) bunkum.

    (Politicians will not – and niether will (you can preface the following with “respected” if you wish)
    “scientists”, “bueaocrats”, or “academics” in the pay of politicians)

  4. Carrick said

    I make it a general policy to not read, let alone post on blogs that have heavy handed moderation. They simply do not deserve blog traffic.

    Smith is intellectually dishonest, IMO. Down here in the South, we would describe him as “talking out of both sides of his mouth.”

    He pretends civility when it fits him, but is not above nasty personal attacks when he’s on safe turf (which his sh*t can withstand any counter-attack by the simple grace of blocking those comments from appearing). Take for example, this (apparently deleted without a sound) thread on Taminos:

    Ok, anybody willing to take bets on how long before Lucia posts something scolding Tamino for his totally ridiculous errors in this post such as

    Great to make insulting posts like this, when you know that Grant has banned her from his site (because she asks difficult questions and Grant gets his panties in a wad when that happens).

    Arthur simply pretends civility when it suits him, but the truth is he is anything but. His slurs at McIntyre are intentional and only the more disturbing by the fact he hides behind this passive-aggressive defense he’s mounted on Steve’s blog. Just as his real beef with Mosher is the book that Mosher wrote with Fuller (hence the allusion to Fuller in the title).

    As you point out, the trouble is the skeptics don’t by into BS and Smith carries around his share of that. I saw this during his “carrying Grant’s jocky strap” defense of Tamino’s flawed two-box model (the one where Lucia got banned in a fit of peak by Tamino), and I’ve seen it many-a-time since.

    That said, I acknowledge Oliver’s comment “We all have to struggle not to take ourselves too seriously.” I do enough experimental work, and regularly get kicked in the teeth by Mother Nature (who loves surprises btw). It’s easy not to take oneself seriously when even simple things matter (like whether the screws were tightened enough by an assistant so your sensor doesn’t leak when it gets 12-inches of rain dumped on it during a tornadic thunderstorm).

  5. Cement a friend said

    Jeff not only do the AGW believers not understand CA or tAV I have great doubts about those who also call themselves scientists understanding heat transfer, fluid dynamics or thermodynamics. If they did understand all those technologies, plus more including statistics, they would not be calling themselves scientists.
    Just read an interest post on Lysenko A thought came to mind is there someone on the believers side comparable to Lysenko? It is indicated that Lysenko had weak scientific training but was good at promoting science in a political framework.

  6. j ferguson said

    This is a very interesting piece on anosognosia. In so many words, among other things, not knowing what you don’t know. This might seem obvious. but to me seemed very subtle. We owe the phrase to Don Rumsfeld.

    For some of us (me) this condition is not infrequent.

  7. Jeff Id said

    I think Smith is very much intellectually dishonest. He snipped me because he’s petty enough to not admit he couldn’t handle the difficulty of the challenge. Claiming insufficient expertise in paleoclimatology to judge the snipping of inconvenient data after claiming sufficient expertise to know about extensive discussion in the literature, just doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. Now Artie is good enough to find a sophists avenue through whatever happens but he ain’t good enough to be honest about it. I won’t be going back there again but it seems that it is a rare believer blog that can tolerate difficult dissent.

  8. Carrick said

    Sophistry is a good word for this.

    His argument is that “he only mentions McIntyre and CA in the introduction”.


    That’s the place everybody is guaranteed to read.

    There is no “only” to that.

    He also says Stephen Mosher is “completely wrong.” Completely? He’s wrong on one point, what’s the deal? Stephen gets a lot more right than he does wrong. If Smith doesn’t find Mosher credible, it is probably exactly the “Fuller” of it that is bothering him, not this one inconsequential error.

    I don’t read McIntyre that much either by the way…I have trouble with his editorial policy too. Just for the record.

  9. Carrick said

    That said, I did commit the sin of adding to Smith’s traffic and went over to read his comment thread. I notice that the introduction has been modified and it’s much fairer to McIntyre than the original one was. This is as much as one could ask for I believe.

    I still have trouble dealing with people who can’t behave decently with their opponents (e.g., “submitting to questions from their opponents”, not making snarking comments in blogs where you know you are immune from rebuttal).

    I notice in his follow up post, Smith has no problem (as is usual) allowing through snarky comments from “the usual crowd”.

  10. I find the whole “hide the decline” argument frustrating and in the end off point since it’s mostly about statistics and not science. The real issue is whether tree rings are thermometers, something that has never been demonstrated by the paleos. In fact, there’s a biologist who chimes in on the CRUtape emails who states flatly that it’s not true [can’t find the reference but it’s in there]. He also points out that correlating plant growth to the global temperature anomaly (another piece of scientific nonsense) is unphysical, plants only respond to local temperatures, duh. This is a much stronger argument despite the fact that “hide the decline” is meant to deceive.

    M&M did a great service exposing the hockey stick, but arguing statistics diverts attention from the scientific deficiencies.

  11. BarryW said

    I’ve seen too many comments from the CAGW crowd that fall into the categories of

    a.) If the data agrees with my theory, it’s good and should be used. If it doesn’t then there must be some other factor that makes it irrelevant or unusable (I don’t know what it is or I can’t prove it but it must be there.

    b.) if the data agrees with my theory but starts to diverge then it’s just an end point problem or natural variation and any communication with those that are not part of the cognoscenti should not include the divergence because they are too ignorant to understand.

    c.) If the data goes in a direction counter to my theory, then flip the data.

  12. JAE said

    Jeff: You are certainly correct that omitting data which completely changes the conclusions is NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. How can a thoughtful person say such a stupid thing?

    BTW, does anyone know of ANY pro-AGW sites that don’t moderate heavily? I would enjoy participating in that type of site, but it is an absolute waste of time to participate in sites that won’t allow adverse comments.

    Hmmm, now that I think of it, maybe CA is one of those pro-AGW sites! 🙂

  13. Jeff Id said

    #10, I agree with you that ‘hide the decline’ is not the whole story. It is just the key to the fact that as you point out, trees aren’t thermometers. The ‘hide the decline’ bit just means that some of the scientists already know this.

  14. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID at Post #13:

    What frustrates me is that skeptics or those presenting skeptical arguments too often allow the conversation to get side tracked by the likes of an Arthur Smith. If someone decided to attack me personally or quibble on a detail that has no significant impact on my argument, I would ignore the personal part and attempt to get the discussion back to the main point. I would rather know what Arthur Smith’s understanding of the main point is and would care less about what he thinks about me personally.

    I think that the Arthur Smiths of the world feel more secure doing food fights than discussing what “hide the decline” implies and too often skeptics engage him at that level. That is a major shortcoming of blogs and is the result I fear of participants’ interests being more heavily directed at personal attacks than discussing the facts of the topic or making more general and over riding points. I have participated in blogs where each post was rated by the participants and unfortunately a personal attack was often rated much higher than a well informed and cogent comment on the facts of the matter.

  15. Layman Lurker said

    Bender has been hammering on a point at CA which is the essence of Arthur’s bias.

    Why was Arthur so concerned with Mosher’s comment at S&R? Was it about getting to the bottom of the IPCC “trick’s”? If that were the case he would have pointed out Mosh’s mistake and carried on with his analysis – for example running his code for TAR with the stated smoothing and endpoint padding methods to compare with the published graph.

    After posting his article about Mosh at his blog, Arthur drops this comment at S&R:

    Well, MikeN, Glen, and friends, it turns out Steven Mosher was truly making stuff up, pulling claims out of thin air, i.e. lying to us here on this very thread.

    After devising his code, he could have easilly carried on with his analysis to get at the more obvious issues. But after making the above statement about a blog comment he would have painted himself into a logical corner about Mann had he looked into the TAR graph.

    Bender was right to point this out at CA.

  16. bob said

    There are lots of smart people in the world, and they are not immune to lying.

    Nobody is immune to their own brand of politics, and Smith is a poster boy for politically biased science. I don’t know if he believes what he says, but if he is any scientist at all he knows he is lying.

    It’s funny how some smart people not only lie, but employ serious strategic programs on perpetuating lies to achieve their nefarious ends like the Fenton Communications clients at Real Climate.

  17. BarryW said


    I think this extends beyond science or politics to faith. There is some core belief that is common to many of these true believers. Without understanding what that is you can’t understand why CAGW resonates so strongly with them. Its visible embodiment is in the political realm, but it goes much deeper. Note that it is not just that there is human induced global warming, but that it is a priori bad and can only be stopped by political action. I doubt that if the results of the effects were benign there would be any belief in it among the present supporters and a concerted effort would be made to disprove B(enign)AGW.

  18. JAE said

    10, Paul:

    It is very well-established that plant growth varies with temperature. However, the variation is in the shape of an “upside down” U-shaped quadratic–growth increases with temperature until an optimum temperature is reached (usually around 25 C), and then growth declines with higher temperature. Thus, the dendroclimatologists are in a real pickle, because they don’t know where they are on this curve during the past–part of the time the trees may have been growing SLOWER as it warmed and part of the time they may have been growing faster as it warmed. For these reasons, the whole idea of using trees as thermometers is totally bogus and unsupported. The dendroclimatologists have to know this, and for them to ignore it is disgusting. Tree rings are really good at registering moisture stress, and that’s about it.

  19. cohenite said

    Thanks JAE; a good and neat summary of the tree ring, 3 ring circus. In respect of Arthur, may I say he has the best name of anyone, on either side of the AGW ‘debate’. However, I thought his original response to G&T was flawed, if for no other reason than that the concept of an average temperature does not reflect the Earth’s energy budget, distortions of which are the paradigm of AGW. His follow up effort, with such luminaries as Dr Halpern, I also think is a travesty, regardless of what you may think of G&T, again, if for no other reason than that it is based on the concept of an average global temperature. Great name though.

  20. John F. Pittman said

    There is another bit of misdirection in the tree-ring proxy argument that JAE touched briefly on. The quadratic is established biological phenomena. When you argued have you ever deleted data which was in range, instruments were working fine and nothing seemed to be amiss except that it wasn’t what you expected? – snipped. , Jeff, this was incorrect. The correct argument is that Yamal and the decline show evidence of the known quadratic nature of growth response. This is a general phenomena and applies to BOD O2 uptake in bacteria, efficiency of nutrient uptake, leaf growth in various conditions, etc. One should use a biological argument for biology 😉

    It should be stated and admitted that deleting data that indicate a known relationship, in order to get the answer one wants, or to avoid the work of figuring out the correct answer, is not acceptable in science.

  21. Jeff Id said

    #20, I don’t mind you saying I’m wrong, but wonder how my argument is incorrect. It seems I argued a more general point than you but a correct one. Perhaps you could explain?

    Dr. Loehle wrote a paper on the topic some time ago which discussed the inverse relationship of growth and temperature. In my opinion, the Briffa data probably does not represent a negative growth with respect to temperature, it’s probably reacting to other factors in the environment. Perhaps it’s caused by the method by which the data was taken, trees aren’t very uniform after all. I don’t see that it’s necessary to argue the deletion of inconvenient data from a biological standpoint, it’s just not reasonable practice and that’s what makes Artie so full of it.

  22. JAE said

    Here’s a summary of Loehl’s paper and a citation:

  23. TGSG said

    Errors are errors, we all make them. Mosh’s error, as small and inconsequential as it was, was just that, an error, and he acknowledged it and fixed it.
    “Hide the decline” wasn’t an error it was a well thought out and ultimately devastating indictment of the science of dendro. For Mr. Smith to not see the difference between the two says a lot about his almost Religious faith in AGW and the proponents of same.

  24. TGSG said

    ooops, missed the “C” in the CAGW above.

  25. John F. Pittman said

    Re: Jeff Id (Jun 27 08:17), Perhaps wrong is too strong. However, as a better argument: citing or calling on established biological relationships that are ignored, is better. One of the strange aspects of the Team is the call to PRL, while ignoring PRL that do not like. This needs some hammering.

    A general rule, like evolution, is the optimum temperature that a species grows. Take nitrosoma and nitrobacter, they reduce NH3 at a known rate with respect to temperature. Below 5C they die. From 5c to 30C they grow and reduce NH3 exponentially, as temperature increases. They max out at 34C to 35C. Above 36C they start to die. At above 40C they die exponentially.

    What is the optimum temperature of larch, etc? The decline can not be solved by throwing the data away without specifically and correctly citing, or proving that the species of trees used are still in the maximum (linear for a small range) growth, which was the paleo-climatologists’ claim. To do otherwise is to falsify known biological relationships. Note that this maximum temperature of air versus maximum growth rate of the trees must not be exceeded for more than a week or it will become significant for a 3 month window as much of the high latitude proxies are measured by the paleo’s in their studies.

  26. PaulM said

    Smith deleted my comment from his blog also.
    Someone who behaves like this is clearly not an appropriate person to comment on the deletion of data involved in the trick.

    He knows what he’s doing though.
    By throwing up all these false accusations, deliberatley sowing confusion, arguing that black is white, deliberately misinterpreting other peoples comments, he creates huge red herrings and distracts attention from the real issues – for example the recent FOI revelations from the Oxburgh report. And the tactic is very successful. This is kind of what Kenneth is saying in #14.

    To play with his thread title:

    Arthur Smith is Full of Schmidt

  27. Jeff Id said

    #23, “it was a well thought out and ultimately devastating indictment of the science of dendro”

    That’s exactly right, all you have to do is examine the emails and you can see the negotiation which led to the outcome.

  28. Steven Mosher said

    it gets better.

    Amac and I are trying to have a discussion with him.

    So agreeing to play Arthur’s game, he wants me to only make statements that are statements of fact that can be falsified.

    So I proceed to explain what you all know I think. Mann and Jones and briffa did not commit fraud, but rather they engaged in practices that dont reprsent the best that science can do. They fudged, obscured, dissembled, dragged their feet. Not fraud. AMac, the unflappable, was likewise circumspect in his claims. Detailing that mann fit 2 or 3 of arthurs criteria for fraud.

    At that point arthur turns on me and says, stop being polite and say fraud if you mean fraud.

    Sheesh. Busted when I try to press a point too far and busted when I try to play a really tight hand.

    I dont think Arthur wants to look at the science. I think he is happy to take down an ex poet.

    Its a trip. unless we claim a crime that wasnt committed he wont even look at it. But get a fact wrong about the IPCC and arthur is all over that shit.

    hey Jeff, did you run arthur’s code.. I could not figure out his mean padding code

  29. Jeff Id said

    I haven’t run Arthur’s code. I did glance at it for a moment but like the first sentence in this post, he’s boring. I’m not planning on wasting my time on another propagandist. I played a little more with Steig’s subsets of surface stations though, that’s a little more interesting. Dr. Loehle sent me a copy of a book he wrote which has taken some time to read, it turned out to be quite a complex and extensive book on the challenges of being a scientist. It was quite a surprise in it’s length and detail, Dr. Loehle put a huge amount of work into it. I also have a copy of a new book from someone else to review.

  30. Derek said

    Kenneth Fritsch said @ Post 14 in reply to Jeff ID at Post #13:
    June 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    ” What frustrates me is that skeptics or those presenting skeptical arguments too often allow the conversation to get side tracked by the likes of an Arthur Smith. If someone decided to attack me personally or quibble on a detail that has no significant impact on my argument, I would ignore the personal part and attempt to get the discussion back to the main point. ”

    Unfortunately all involved must want to discuss (positively), otherwise
    “it” just becomes (almost always) negative (and usually personal attacks based) debate.

    What’s the old phrase.?
    It takes two to (productively) tango, – but only one to (ultimately fruitlessly) mas###bate..

  31. crosspatch said

    “One of the biggest problems with my personality is that once I’ve figured something out, it’s no longer fun.”

    Sounds like the mark of a true Myers-Briggs ENTP to me! Welcome 🙂

  32. Steven Mosher said

    Well, Arthur is only going to be happy if we scream fraud. Otherwise things like quality or doing a job right.. DONT MATTER.

    I’ll preserve this here. I raised a slew of quality issues. His response

    Arthur writes:

    All your actual complaints seem petty personality-level stuff. Sure it’s “wrong” by some moral standard. But if there’s no proof of actual harm to the science then you’ve got nothing, that’s what I’m trying to tell you.

    And then there’s the “slippery slope” nonsense – it “can … escalate into vigilantism” – really? Please! If you have evidence of “vigilantism” then go point it out, get people fired. Quit the petty pussy-footing.

    Scientists aren’t paid well enough for the time they put in, to demand “best practices” from some arbitrary outside perspective. Pay them as well as professional engineers and maybe you’ll get something more.

    I remember when I worked at Argonne National Lab for a couple of years as a postdoc ($30,000 a year with no benefits, 60-hour weeks – and that was a good salary compared to most places), we got a bunch of visits from “Tiger Teams” from DOE HQ. They were trying to get us to adopt some sort of fuzzy “quality” perspective, industrial ideas about best practices. We laughed.

    We laughed because that place was home to thousands of scientists, and almost every one of them was doing something wildly different from everybody else, with their own theoretical physics experience, their own software code, their own experimental apparatus, or their own special materials of one sort or another. There were a few large facilities where common safety practices and such could be sorted out and initiated, but that was certainly not the rule. Our little theory group of a dozen or so people had almost as many different computer hardware platforms (Sun, SGI, HP, DEC, NeXT, plus large parallel processing machines at the computing center); we were running simulations across the spectrum of condensed matter physics. And one individual in a given year would likely work on half a dozen separate projects, with some overlap based on experience, but often very very different details. Our documentation was our publications – it was certainly a very productive time for me. But it was productive because we were at the forefront of science, doing things nobody else had done before – there were no “quality standards” or best practices other than the peer review of our colleagues and journal publication. If we bothered with more than that, productivity would have greatly suffered.

    If some moral failing you are complaining about doesn’t matter to the science, then it truly does not matter.”

    boys will be boys. So unless it’s fraud or hoax, Arthur doesnt want to be bothered with the udea of doing quality work. hey its climate science.

  33. j ferguson said

    is there any possibility that the reason Art Smith doesn’t understand what you’re driving at is that this is exactly how he and his colleagues operated; in a sense within the confines of a groupthink cell?

  34. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Derek @ Post #30:

    Unfortunately all involved must want to discuss (positively), otherwise
    “it” just becomes (almost always) negative (and usually personal attacks based) debate.

    To further explain my point I would say that there are many paths that can be taken to avoid discussing the main issue and when this occurs it is rather obvious to all what is being done. Therefore why spend time replying to these dead ended tactics and what is gained by pursuing them?

    I once participated in a couple of blogs with a gentleman who was thoroughly and obviously interested in pursuing the facts of the matter and without interjecting personalities into the issues. I did not agree with his points or positions in a number of cases but what a pleasure it was to have a discussion with him. Other participants felt much the same as I did in interaction with him.

    That experience led me to conclude that some rather high level scientists who appear at these more skeptical climate blogs, like The Air Vent, with countervailing POVs, and get down and dirty with personalities (and usually with an expressed general view of the blog participants and seldom aimed at specific individuals) really are not interested in discussing the (science) issues at hand. They could be provoked by their own personalities and lack of blogging skills, but whatever influences them it is not related to science or what one might expect from a scientist.

    I sometimes then see some blog participants wanting to give deference to these bad behaving scientists because, well they are scientists and we are attempting to have a science related discussion. I say that those scientists should also be ignored once their intentions become clear.

  35. AMac said

    Ari Jokimaki has done some further work and revised his opinion on the orientation of the Tiljander XRD proxy as used in Mann08. Link (via my blog).

    This is a first for an AGW Consensus advocate blogger, to my knowledge. Caveats and opinions that accompany his analysis don’t mean that much to me. It’s refreshing and encouraging to see a scientifically-literate member of “that tribe” (Judith Curry reference) willing and able to look at the data and the logic, and say, “it is what it is, no excuses.”

    Jeff Id, belated thanks for the guidance in accessing the CRUtemv3 data. I ended up pulling that gridcell information by hand. Duh.

  36. Jeff Id said

    #34, I do like to test other bloggers once in a while to see if they are selling or discussing. Arthur is selling, Real Climate generally is interested in selling. What’s fun is just how easily they expose themselves when difficult questions are asked. Honest brokers are hard to come by in this world. When I described to Arthur that he couldn’t have both the understanding to claim that deletion of this data was widely discussed and therefore honest, combined with not enough understanding to judge whether the deletion was ‘good’ science. He couldn’t handle that and deleted it – so I put my opinion here and haven’t been back to his blog.

  37. Jeff Id said

    #35 I’m glad I helped.

  38. … that he couldn’t have both the understanding to claim that deletion of this data was widely discussed and therefore honest, combined with not enough understanding to judge whether the deletion was ‘good’ science

    This is really the key. If you know enough to understand what data was deleted, you know more than enough to understand that was ‘bad practice’.

    DeepClimate falls into the pit with the same mistake. Talking about Osborn handing Mann a truncated series, he says:

    “So, once again, the accusation that it was IPCC lead author Mann who decided to “truncate the series at 1960″ is clearly contradicted. Stopping the series at 1960 was the intention of the researchers all along, in conformity with their standard practice when comparing multi-centennial reconstructions in “spaghetti graphs”.”

  39. Steven Mosher said

    Jeff, I find it interesting that Arthur deleted your post. When I explained my reluctance to get into discussions at other places, he response was disbelief.. they would never delete a comment

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: