Ben Lawson? at Wotts up with that, the believer site attacks Pat Frank’s Air Vent post where he found some interesting details in various surface temperature datasets.
What’s really funny is he referred to this blog as the ‘echo chamber’, for WUWT!
Anthony helpfully offers a new example of his excellence, copy-and-pasted from his echo chamber partners at The Air Vent: ”Future Perfect“, which asserts this comforting “fact”:
I guess that’s because like Tamino’s closed mind blog, we always agree with each other here and play so nicely together. Never daring to critique the host or any of the other guest authors or commenters. After all, the ‘believers’ know that questioning authority is not how science works anyway.
Well I thought it might be nice to give Dan a little traffic, his true ‘science’ blog needs some readers.
the Air Vent 
There are definitely different flavors to tAV and WUWT. But I guess if you only pop in on occassion, you may miss the differences. I suppose I can make the same statement about realclimate and Wotts site since I never visit them.
Discussions here tend to be a bit more focused. There aren’t as many people posting so we end up with fewer of the he said/she said type arguments regarding basic stuff.
Mark
Warning, do not click on Ben’s blog and read the linked article (like I foolishly did) if you have important things to do.
The guy does not comprehend, or more likely pretends to not comprehend, that a post being put up on a blog does not mean that the readership or the proprietor of the blog agree with everything in said post. This is especially true when the post is a guest post even on the blog on which it originated. Frankly (no pun intended) I didn’t agree with everything in the post, and I seldom do with anyone’s posts. The active and high level debate and discussion at blogs like the Air Vent could teach Benny boy a thing or two. And considering the fact that readers of this blog and WUWT are provided with links to a broad spectrum of opinions, the idea that we are boxed of from different view points is counter-factual.
Nice of you to offer him a helping hand, Jeff. Alexa shows his traffic is down 50% for the last three months.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wottsupwiththat.com#
Lawlz. Echo chamber?
Tamino is the uber-echo man. He only allows comments that stroke his ego, as far as I can tell, and certainly nothing that would ever demonstrate that 95% of what he spouts is pure crap.
Same goes for RealClimate and Joe Romm’s thinkprogress site.
I guess Tamino knows that it’s always best to accuse others of the sins you yourself commit (Leninistik principle at work there.)
Layman Lurker said
June 7, 2011 at 11:28 am
“Warning, do not click on Bens blog and read the linked article (like I foolishly did) if you have important things to do.”
Who is Ben Lawson and why should I care about what he says???
So… Pat Frank repeatedly “guest posts” on your blog, then Anthony Watts reposts your Pat Frank posts. Somehow that’s not an echo chamber? I will grant that you occasionally admit reality whereas Anthony is charmingly intransigent, but you’re both trying to tell us how many angels can dance on the head of of pin. You just prefer slightly different imaginary answers…
At the moment your May 24th version of Pat’s ‘analysis’ has 32 comments vs the 132 at Anthony’s June 2nd reposting. Not only are you part of the echo chamber, you’re dependent on Anthony’s megaphone for your audience.
By the way, do you really think Pat Frank has found some “interesting details”? Please name one. It seems pretty clear that Pat has no basis for either his analysis or his conclusions.
Jeff ID.
I take this as proof that both you and Watts are one the right track – It’s Truth verses Spin.
I find the depth and quality on both your sites educational and refreshing, not because I’ve become sceptical to the shoot from shoot hip and the wild impossible claims that keep rehashing and repackaging the same tired doomsday predictions from the end time’s crowd.
I subscribe to many of these Alarmist sites and am bombarded with more desperate, dire claims everyday.
It’s beyond comprehension that we are still here to day if you believe even a fraction of the so-called catastrophic claims and study’s!
Do you notice they never find fault in their predictions, apologise or redact them? Or find good news in the fact they screwed up, after reworking the data got the data wrong or the model simply isn’t working, wouldn’t that be more believable in the light of so many poorly research papers and simply bad prognostications. They might actually get a more sympathetic ear. (Michael Mann and his Casino method Hockey stick comes to mind as a prime example) But I’m just fantasizing; the warmist and socialist engineers only listen to themselves in an echo chamber.
So they can never learn or except developments in ongoing science that questions the rigid unmovable preordained positions.
It’s a sad to become so entrenched that there is no room to improve their position.
The funny thing is the warmist’s have become the hysterical flat earthier’s, deniers and Luddites that are determined to change society and it’s advancements at any cost, they accuses anybody who dare to question their wisdom and entrenchment as evil and enemy’s of the environment.
I have never met a CAGW sceptic who does not care for nature, the rivers and oceans or the planet’s future; I am passionate about a healthy ecosystem and environment, and like most sceptics feel there are things that need doing to address the planets problems with careful planning and a degree of urgency.
But I’m not swept away by the underhanded motives of the environmentalists, the hoax of CO2 as the devils gas/seed and their plans for my future in their tightly controlled Orwellian world.
It’s common knowledge that sticking to a losing action, theory or position always leads to defeat as history has shown in science, sports and war It’s been proven time and time again, adaptability and a willingness to open up always creates a stronger possibility of coming up with a winning hand and a provable theory.
Trying to bully, threaten or frighten people into submission always backfires and eventually rejected, as is evidence by the swing away by average citizens from the doom mongers constant threat of CAGW.
Keep up the good work the truth always sees the light of day eventually.
I guess then anytime two different blogs feature the same post, regardless of the discussion that ensues, it’s an “echo chamber”. Curious definition, not one I’ve heard before.
TTCA,
It is not like this is the friendliest place on the internet to place your thoughts. There is plenty of dissent here IMHO. Yay, XXXX put up a post, great job. You proved it!
Nope, almost everything gets disassembled and accepted or spit out within days.
Ben:
No, because echo chambers are when the audience all echo back what the original post said.
Hopefully you’re not this dumb in real life.
I don’t agree with anything that any of you comment on.
Does that end the “echo chamber” aspect of things?
And if not why not?
discuss amongst yourselves.
TGSG, it ends the echo chamber, only if you’re allowed to voice that opinion.
I think he is this dumb, Carrick.
Mark
I agree with everything everyone said
with everything everyone said
everything everyone said
everyone said
said
said
aid
Jeff, your blog is NOT an Echo Chamber!
And, c’mon. It’s not as if you would, say, go to another more prominent bloggers site and attempt to comment on yourself in thread about your blogging, and then have everyone ignore it because your comment was so lame. Sheesh…I’m mean, really!
Didn’t WUWT do a post on this very same topic recently?
OK. Bad joke.
TimTheToolMan said
June 8, 2011 at 9:30 am
“Didnt WUWT do a post on this very same topic recently?
OK. Bad joke.”
No, Tim – you’re right on! In fact there must be a Six Degrees of Separation principal for bloggers! All blog posts are related! The world is one giant http://www.echo-chamber.org!!
Ben said (June 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm)
“By the way, do you really think Pat Frank has found some “interesting details”? Please name one. It seems pretty clear that Pat has no basis for either his analysis or his conclusions.”
Ben, on the off-chance that you are actually serious in wanting to know, let me explain what Pat found that, at least as many people see it, may be significant.
As you know (since you reproduced it) he found that the temp trends since around 1880 followed a fairly simple pattern, of “a cosine imposed on a linear upward trend”, and demonstrated this (again, as you know as you repro’d it) by subtracting this pattern, and finding the residual was almost flat.
I’m sure there is nothing there you would disagree with.
So the significant part, which I’d like you to try to explain away, is that nothing in his trend signature indicates that conditions today are any different from 1880. So where is the CAGW signal?
Wow, a comment here that isn’t self-congratulatory “reverberation”!
So… your explanation is that Pat has “found” a trend that “proves” that there’s no CAGW signal? All Pat has done is play a curve-fitting game with absolutely no basis for his choices other than the result he wants to force. If you think he’s found a natural pattern that explains everything, well…
As for, you know reality-based thinking on the subject, take a look at this figure and tell me how good a job you think “just natural” forcings are doing at explaining the temperature trend:
Including Jeff and Anthony’s obliging endorsement of Pat’s assertions, Google tells us that there are now several thousand links or references to this dim-wit exercise. That is most definitely an echo chamber.
Hmm. Image was stripped from the comment. The link isL
Ben,
There was no endorsement of any assertions on my part. That’s the way it works here.
I’d even let you post if you wanted, but I wouldn’t protect you from the crowd. Don’t worry though, we all agree here.
Seriously, Jeff? If you post it you endorse it. Why even try to wriggle out of it?
21, 22 Ben – how is the difference between the red and blue line arrived at?
Curious:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/
Ben,
I post stuff I don’t agree with all the time.
Here’s one:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/fixing-the-basic-agw-calculations/
There are a lot of others too. They are good for stimulating discussion and often people learn from them.
Here’s one I do endorse. Are you aware that this site published a method which produces the single highest ground trend from anomaly combination through superior statistical methods? Subgridding and other operations can alter the trend but if you use this method, ground trends are higher and more accurate than the pro’s.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/111/
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/thermal-hammer-part-deux/
Naw, we’re the denier site. Lump em all in and shoot em.
26 – Thanks for the link but I was hoping for something in your own words. As you are presenting the figure in 22 as “reality-based thinking”, I would like to know what “reality” has generated the the red and blue curves and the difference between them?
Ok – time to go but for info:
Current lead post at WattsUp is an informative critique by Bob Tisdale on the combining of AMO and PDO:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/
Curious,
I asked if I could post Bob’s post this morning. He said yes but ask Anthony b/c he had offered the post to WUWT. I sent Anthony an email but haven’t seen a reply yet. So I guess tAV is the echo chamber! haha.
Actually, I really liked bob’s explanation and thought the clarification was excellent.
Jeff:
To quote from a comment at first link you reference, a pitiful exercise in physics ignorance, “Why did the blog owner post this article??” Ironically, there are also brave denials of being an “echo chamber” in the same comments, so I guess promoting stupid ideas is not new ground for you.
But congratulations on learning for yourself that the “alarmist” calculation of the rising global temperature anomaly is pretty good. But it’s all still natural I guess.
Curious:
The chart plots the “reality” of rising global temperatures against AR4 climate predictions that include human influences and that same predictions with human influences excluded.
Regarding Tisdale’s WUWT post, it’s the assertions that feed the denialist maw and get the attention, not their later debunking. Pat’s effort is an excellent example of that and Bob’s “maybe not” is Anthony’s fig leaf.
Still doesn’t understand what an echo chamber is, I see. Duuuuhhhhh…
Of course, if it weren’t for the droolers, what fun would we ever have simply arguing about statistics, math, science, etc.?
Mark
30 – Jeff – Not wishing to echo and all that…, but yes, agreed, I learnt a lot from it.
31 – Ben – do you consider models “reality”? Whether you do or you don’t, how do you evaluate their performance?
Re: your comments on Bob’s post at WUWT – we know from your comment 8 above that you counted the comments here on Pat’s post. How many did you read?
33 – Mine
Because people learn from error, or at least they should. I’ve made plenty myself, what about you? Is it mean to tell someone that they don’t qualify to post or is it a kindness for them to learn their errors publicly? SoD (who made the comment) hasn’t figured out tAV’s lack of serious motivation yet. It isn’t important to win any debate, the process is the enjoyment.
Have you learned that perhaps you were quick to quip. You are welcome yourself to make a post here if you like, keep it on the science and tell the crowd your technical reasons for belief in whatever doom or solution you propose. Original content is the only requirement and remember, moderation is lousy here, people are allowed to explain their thoughts or where you went wrong.
Reminds me of that wonderful scene from Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ :
A frustrated Brian yells at the masses: “You are all individuals!”
The masses as one yell back: “We are all individuals!”
One in the mass: “I’m not!”
Oh yeah…
Actually, we confirmed that the compilation of data is relatively accurate. This says nothing about the quality of the data. Roman M, reader and commenter here came up with a statistically superior method for anomaly combination which I doubt you would find interesting. Many of us did though.
36 – Am I allowed to laugh at that?
🙂
38 – I haven’t stopped, even 20 years after seeing the movie! Gotta be one of the MP crews best efforts I recon.
39 – Complete gem – just watched it again on YouTube, so good! Thanks for the reminder 🙂
It’s very ironic that Ben “Wottsup” would call tAV an echo chamber for WUWT on the basis of my posts, because both of them were posted here at tAV first. Anthony picked them both up after that.
Accusation fail, I’d call that, due to a tendentious mistake (pretty much like his assessment of my essay).
Ben wrote, “it’s the assertions that feed the denialist maw and get the attention, not their later debunking. Pat’s effort is an excellent example of that and Bob’s “maybe not” is Anthony’s fig leaf.”
I’ve replied to “Ben of Houston’s” criticism at WUWT, pointing out that it pretty much, well, missed the point.
At WUWT, “Ben of Houston” ended his criticism with a derogative dismissal followed by something of a personal attack, namely, “this is a blah result with extremely non-indicative results that I would expect from the alarmist camp more than WUWT.
“Interesting idea. If this was an undergrad doing this, I would give it a good grade. However, I would expect more from a grad student, much less someone publishing on this site.”
I see that Ben “Wottsup” is continuing this rudeness here. How about if you restrict your criticisms to science and analytics, Ben, and refrain from the rest. tAV after all is mostly about science. At your own site, of course, your personal attacks are entirely understandable.
Ben wrote, “All Pat has done is play a curve-fitting game with absolutely no basis for his choices other than the result he wants to force.”
Ben’s comment shows one of the following:
1) He didn’t read my analysis and is making an empty polemic.
2) He did read my analysis but clearly didn’t understand it.
3) He read my analysis, understood it, but has decided to lie.
In my analysis, I clearly noted that the cosine analysis followed the appearance of a ~60-year oscillation in the difference between GISS land-only anomalies, and GISS (Land+SST) anomalies. The oscillation could only have been due to an oscillation in the SST anomalies that was not present in the land-only anomalies.
That clearly justifies the physical inference that there is a net ocean thermal oscillation present in the data. This entirely justified including a cosine function in the fit. In the event, the oscillation was also ~60 years in the full GISS and CRU anomaly data sets.
Subtracting that oscillation from the GISS and CRU data left a linear trend. The rest of the analysis followed from that in a completely natural manner.
Ben’s criticism is a complete crock. On his own site, he claimed to have disproven my analysis by showing that a linear fit starting from 1975 is steeper than one starting from 1960 (used in my analysis). But 1975 is near the bottom of a steep anomaly down-spike. He just biased his fit by a tendentious choice of starting points.
In my New Science post (first here at non-echoing tAV), I pointed out how linear fits can be biased by the choice of starting point and in the Future Perfect essay mentioned choosing 1960 because it had an anomaly profile similar to that of 1880. Hence comparative linear fits wouldn’t be strongly biased.
Ben either missed that, or didn’t care about it, before going ahead with his own choice-biased analysis. Clever for the amen corner, Ben, but not very smart.
Ian, possibly my favorite all-time movie. Not only that, but I got to see it in Israel (on my postdoc). Talk about an appropriate venue! 🙂
Pat,
I’ve been waiting for you to explain the difference. I doubt Ben cares unfortunately.
Thanks, Jeff. I’ve been a little stressed for time recently. Also, I’m going to have to give some more time to Tamino’s ‘disproof.’
I don’t mind working with honest criticisms, such as Bob Tisdale’s criticism of my use of the PDO+AMO plot or J Storrs over at WUWT, but the name-calling and contempt shown by guys like Ben and Tamino are inexcusable. One just has to look past it.
Didn’t Tamino describe himself as Hansen’s pit bull or something to that effect?
or maybe it was Gavin’s?
He was Hansen’s pet. Pit bulls are wonderful animals, loving and loyal. They can be trained to be vicious. They can even be trained to fight in events with large amounts of money changing hands, little of which is for the benefit of the dog. Tamino chose his name aptly.
==================
For an apparently self-critical group of amateur deep thinkers it’s curious how you all agree that you NEVER agree. There’s also an amusing eagerness to narrow the definition of “echo chamber”.
Pat; your “oscillations” are a figment of your imagination but that’s actually off-topic here. If you spent less time obsessing over your critics and more time understanding their criticisms you’d make some progress toward reality. I certainly think your idea is scientifically ignorant, but your statement that I have subjected you to “name-calling and contempt” is baseless and destructive behavior for someone who presumably wants to convince his critics. The place for you to battle/learn is, at the moment, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/frankly-not/ I’ll be watching over there.
Jeff; you seem to have a lot invested in disparaging ‘conventional’ climate science. Your recent statement about “dictatorships” and the “false educations of our liberal universities” was such a sad thing to read. I hope that one day you’ll see past the politics that seem to poison your perception.
I’ll close on an agreeable note though; it seems we all agree that The Life of Brian is an excellent satire.
Anybody have troll bait? I’ve lost mine.
Oh yeah, here’s some troll bait. Yep that 60 year oscillation is just a figment of Pat’s imagination. And GISTEMP’s too!
It’s not like this oscillation shows up anywhere else…. Like any other temperature data you look at or anything..
Ben, what is really “amusing” is how you can put up posts and comments referring to yourself as a “critic”, without ever demonstrating that you have the skills to argue or criticize anything.
Here is something else that is “amusing”. Recently, Ben criticized Bob Tisdale’s post on Gulf of Mexico temperatures which was a response to claims made by Jeff Masters. Ben characterized Bob’s post 1930 ols linear trend of Gulf of Mexico as:
and
Ben, what is really “amusing” is how you can put up posts and comments referring to yourself as a “critic”, without ever demonstrating that you have the skills to argue or criticize anything.
Here is something else that is “amusing”. Recently, Ben criticized Bob Tisdale’s post on Gulf of Mexico temperatures which was a response to claims made by Jeff Masters. Ben characterized Bob’s post 1930 ols linear trend of Gulf of Mexico as:
and
How does Ben the “critic” argue his, ahem, case? By posting a type ofnon linear fit utilizing data going back to 1900. Look somewhat familiar?
OMG, “Carrick”, you’re right! I am dumb. How could I not be convinced by the denialist slam-dunk of two out-of-context and unreferenced charts?
“Layman”: Do you think that I reject variation of natural climate forcings? They exist, they need to be understood for their significance, and they need to be explained objectively. Both Bob and Pat ignored “significance” and explanation parts. “Seeing” a pattern doesn’t mean its real, it must reflect the data not the desired assertion. The trend I drew didn’t assume anything about the past or the future, unlike the claims being made here. By the way, the URL you were trying to include was http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/03/are-gulf-of-mexico-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-near-to-record-levels/
Ben, as to “unreferenced charts”, the data for gistemp is available on line, the algorithm for compute the power spectral density is standard. Anybody who any knowledge of signal analysis can replicate this chart at will I’m a bit confused though how you “know” it’s out of date? (It’s the full data set as of this month.)
If you don’t know how to reproduce the chart you should a) admit this honestly and drop the snark and b) not comment on things that you lack the expertise to critically judge. (If you’ve been hanging around Grant too long, I can see how you would have picked up the habit to comment snarkily and angrily on things you barely understand.)
The reference for the proxy temperature data PSD I posted a link to may be found here:
We often agree, but tAV’s nature is not much of an echo chamber. I wonder about the ‘amateur’ deep thinker title. Are we only allowed ‘professional’ deep thinker status if we have climatology degrees? Physics, chemistry and engineering don’t qualify us?
What’s a climatology degree? Do they even exist?
PhilJourdan, since there isn’t really a field “climate science” probably no.
I’ll wait to hear from Ben what he thinks the appropriate “authoritative” degree or experience is. Perhaps the requirement is having IT experience and no personality.
Looking around a bit, Scripps offers a specialization in climate sciences in their oceanography school.
(Similar to my university offering a aeroacoustics specialization as part of its mechanical engineering school, but the Ph.D. would still be mechanical engineering.)
#55 Ben
Sorry about messing up my posts and links. I posted in haste while a bunch of stuff was pulling me away. I’ll try a direct link one more time.
So, Ben the “critic”, exactly, was your curve fit demonstrating? Must have been something right? After all we are not allowed to “cirticize” using statistical curve fits without relating them to physical processes. Looking at the actual data we see nothing “unprecedented” about recent warming in the Gulf. Yet your fit shows an endpoint much greater then the 1940ish peak . Since your fit belies the underlying data it must be a model of physical forcing correct?
Or, if it was a statistical fit surely I must be wrong about how misleading your estimation of recent Gulf warming was. Perhaps you could post up the residuals for us so you can point out my error?
Layman, I’m not a big fan of looking at small geographical regions like the gulf. Precisely because there are long-period oscillations, such as the 60-year(ish) PDO in the data, and precisely because the global mean tends to “average out” or reduce part of the amplitude of that oscillation, when you look at regional scale data, you’d likely need at least 3x the period of the oscillation in observations, or 180 years tin this case, to make a strong judgement. (Of course you can pull the oscillation out, then fit, as Pat Frank has done for global mean temperature. Of course I also couldn’t give a rats behind whether Tamino or Ben blesses this operation or not, it’s standard practice.)
So, what, a PhD doesn’t qualify for deep thinker status? What’s Ben got, a sooperdooperD or something?
Mark
@Mark #64 – or perhaps just a PhD&D?
Philosophical death and dismemberment? Coooool.
Mark
Carrick: I never said “out of date”, I said “out-of-context”, which is what your hit-and-run charts were. You linked to them, you are responsible for explaining them. Just like Jeff can’t disclaim responsibility for “guest posts”. Incidentally, is your statistical “standard practice” the same one that has informed the Army Corp of Engineers’ planning of levee heights along the Mississippi?
Layman: My Gulf of Mexico temperature anomaly trend merely demonstrated that Bob’s straight line was the least representative choice. Denialist charts are intended to draw the eye away from the data, I wanted to return attention to it.
Jeff et. al.: Formal education and professional experience in climate sciences and statistics make it much harder for “radical” ideas like Pat’s to skip merrily past reality. “Amateur thinkers” like us are liable to miss that B and C are between A and D and proclaim that A causes D. Of course it’s much easier to see through foolish claims than it is to formulate them. That’s my advantage here.
The attacks here have descended to grade-school level, so I’ll bid you all farewell now.
Ben,
Heh. Choice of what? Method to statistically fit to the data? I thought we aren’t supposed to do that. And your curve demonstrates a “least representative choice” how? I would suggest that any method that misleadingly models inflated current warming and dampens prior warming is not superior to linear OLS showing a 0 underlying trend for a period starting well before significant anthropogenic forcing. But I will await your post of the residuals to prove me wrong. I won’t hold my breath.
And your slap happy, misleading “eyeballed” curve to demonstrate a “representative” curve fitting “choice” is justified, while Pat Frank’s fit is a “figment of his imagination”. OoooooK.
Um, how many professional statisticians are their in climate science? By your definition, btw, I’m a professional since I do it for a living. And, btw, given your self-professed amateur status, doesn’t that make you wholly incapable of differentiating a legitimate idea from an amateur one? Just sayin…
Mark
Oops, should be “there,” not “their.”
These alamist apologists spend so much time appealing to authority they fail to realize the subtle implications of the fallacy (or any of the other fallacies they so love to trot out as proof of whatever.) Maybe they just don’t understand the implications. Don’t know, don’t really care, but it sure is fun exposing their idiocy.
He is but a mere amateur by his own words. He is thus incapable of rendering judgement.
Mark
Ben is brilliant. He walks in and creates an echo-chamber of opinion about him. QED.
So, after Ben implies I’m dishonest: “no basis for his choices other than the result he wants to force,” and goes on to call me a “dim-wit” he plays the innocent by claiming that pointing out his disrespect is “baseless and destructive behavior.”
Great example of self-delusion, Ben. You’ve criticized my post without showing any evidence of understanding it.
You claim, for example, that the, ” “oscillations” are a figment of [my] imagination” despite the fact that it appears in the difference anomaly data. You may not realize this, Ben, but that constitutes objective evidence.
I’ve done analogous cosine+linear fits, by the way, to the GISS 1999 land-only anomaly data set and the GISS 2007 land+ocean anomaly data set. The difference between these two fits (2007 minus 1999) produces a 60-year difference oscillation that goes right through the difference oscillation that results when the data sets themselves are differenced (2007 minus 1999).
The difference between the two fitted cosines themselves also does a good job going through the empirical difference data. So, the difference fits behave just like the difference data, implying that the cosines are capturing something real.
Finally, Ben, finishing up, “The attacks here have descended to grade-school level…”
Anyone else see the irony? 🙂
Amateur thinkers like whom? I have met no math I couldn’t grasp, no concept beyond my ability and in this crowd there are far better than me. It just takes time, consideration and the willingness to be wrong. I wonder just why you believe climate science is so much different than the rest. Pat made few strong claims in his article that I saw, what did you see in particular that you can prove incorrect.
DK,
A universal critic can bring even this crowd together. Who knew.
Ben:
They are straightforward, I’ve provided the link to one explained how to generate the other.
If you need further detail the PSD was based on monthly GISTEMP, it uses the entire data set with a 60-year half overlapping, welch windowed data (data are normalized so the integral of the PSD equals the variance of the time series, as is standard in meteorology). The question of whether there is a 60-year fluctuation isn’t something I’ve seen many dispute, except you who snarkly dismissed it out of hand.
How about you apply your own level of proof to your own comments? It would be like the snake eating itself all over again.
If ignorance and poor socialization are advantages, you have them in abundance.
Meaning your attacks, certainly.
I wouldn’t expect a Hann-windowed Welch periodogram as a counterpoint to an unsubstantiated claim/insult of yours to be rated as “grade-school level” personally.
If you like negative attention, you’ve come to the right place.
Did Ben ever make a substantive statement? And then support it without childish attack and/ot innuendo? Did not see it.
So, JeffID, with this being such a echo chamber, I can expect your support for liberals that I support. 😉 Hillary could have used your vote.
I’ve now posted a 3-part rebuttal to Tamino’s second round of criticism, as well as replied to a number of other critical posts.
The criticisms there, including Tamino’s, are entirely meritless.