Bishop Hill Krugman homeopath
Aug 11, 2014 Climate: Mann Paul Krugman is considering Michael Mann this morning. Amazingly, the great man is trying to resurrect the Hockey Stick.
Mann, as some of you may know, is a hard-working scientist who used indirect evidence from tree rings and ice cores in an attempt to create a long-run climate record. His result was the famous “hockey stick” of sharply rising temperatures in the age of industrialization and fossil fuel consumption. His reward for that hard work was not simply assertions that he was wrong — which he wasn’t — but a concerted effort to destroy his life and career with accusations of professional malpractice, involving the usual suspects on the right but also public officials, like the former Attorney General of Virginia.
He wasn't wrong? Like our friend Anders, Mr Krugman could really do with getting himself a copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion. Like Anders, I don't suppose he will.
Mr Krugman, you really do need to centre your data if you are going to do principal components analysis. Really you do. There is not a reputable statistician who has ever looked at this question and concluded that Mann got it right. I wonder if Mr Krugman is a fan of the Mann view that not centring your data properly is "modern" (and therefore OK) or whether he favours the Gerald North view that you can use a biased method and inappropriate data and still arrive at the right answer.
Homeopathy has nothing on climate science.
Reader Comments (126)
The mental health system of wherever willard writes from, is an obvious fraud.
Omnologos,
This seems to be a common theme of yours. Accusing people with whom you seem to disagree as having some kind of mental issue. Maybe you don't mean it as an insult, but it does appear that that is your intent (correct me if I'm wrong). In my view, attempting to insult others by comparing them to those with mental health issues is a form of prejudice.
Mailman,
I think you rather misunderstood what I was getting at, but good try nonetheless.
No Anders IIRC I have not mentioned anything about you having mental health problems. You're mostly interesting as a way to investigate the depth of ethical depravity a person can reach in their world-saving pursuits. As there is nothing more important that the survival of the human race, there is no behaviour that could be possibly beneath you, and it shows.
In the case of willard there is a totally different kind of music, namely the possibly hallucinatory invention of evidence that is just not there, like claiming McI wrote about MBH98 in a post where in the comments McI explictly asks people to keep the topic of hide-the-decline separate from the topic of MBH98. The fact that willard twice kept his line despite having been shown it twice wrong, makes one wonder what else exists only in his imagination.
Omnologos,
Hmmmm. Anyway, my desire to debate this topic with you is largely non-existent. The point I was making in my last comment stands whether you agree with it or not.
Your desire to debate this topic with anybody is non-existent. Your only desire is to tell people that Mc&Mc are wrong and Mann is right. You will repeat the concept whatever people reply back to you, and whomever the replies will come back from.
You will also studiously avoid having to debate this or any other topic with the person receiving your interests, be them the Bish or McIntyre.
This is all explicable by the fact that if Mc&Mc are wrong and Mann is right, there is a compelling case for saving the planet by immediate drastic emission reductions and whatever other pet scheme you dream of seeing implemented. It makes sense for a person who is convinced there be no upper end to sensitivity estimates and the likelihood of disaster itself be just too high to trust reason or science.
Omnologos,
You suggesting that others don't trust reason or science, and implying that somehow you do? Thanks, that really made me laugh. Anyway, I really do have better things to do, but it's been amusing. Cheers.
There you go again. I challenged you to show how and when you actually debated/discussed anything with anybody, and your reply is about a claim I have not made. Thanks for confirming.
The omnicompetence of omnologos's omnology is truly omnificent...
Omnologos,
No you did not challenge me. Read your comment again. You told me what my desires are and what I'd avoid. That's not a challenge. This is silly.
Look, seriously, read your comments that you've made about me and ask how anyone would be expected to respond to those in any serious way. I don't see how anyone can take you seriously if you don't do so yourself.
I made a precise statement explaining what lies behind your peculiar behaviour on this site and elsewhere. I backed up my statement by referring to your repeating of the same argument over and over without any consideration for what people tell you, and your refusal to engage with the people who ultimately attract your interest. For example it is perfectly clear you have nothing to reply to McIntyre, who has demolished your claims but to whom you have replied back zilch.
So what are you supposed to say in reply to me? I'd rather you concentrated on McI really, but I know you're silent because you know you are wrong. But anything that would contradict my statements (and be backed with evidence) would do. No worries, I won't hold my breath in expectation. As for your motivations, just let me know that you do think sensitivity has an obvious low upper bound, and that climate change is not risking the survival of humanity or of a large chunk of it, and I shall be standing corrected.
Omnologs,
You're kind of illustrating my point. You know an awful lot. You're welcome to believe you know an awful lot. You're also welcome to be completely wrong. If you think I care what you think of me, you'd be sorely mistaken. Anyway, this truly is amazingly silly.
This being the internet I can only illustrate what I know because I see it. For example I can see that you keep telling me how uninterested you are of my thoughts, and that's an absurd behaviour in itself.
You can also undermine all my arguments by showing contrary evidence, but you don't. Since you're not exactly lacking the time to write on these pages, I can state that the most reasonable explanation is that you have no evidence to undermine my arguments. On past experince I can also state that this is due to your inability to discuss any topic with anybody, instead of simply telling people how things are supposed to be because you are just correct and you don't need any evidence to show you're correct.
I'm detecting bad faith in AndPhysics' arguments.
Take a look at this:
Origin of the quote: AndPhysics
Omnologos,
Sure, you're kind of right. Hard to argue that I am completely uninterested in your thoughts. If I was I wouldn't bother responding. However, if you think I'm going to lose any sleep over them, you'd be sorely mistaken. Also, if you think I'm going to put any effort into showing you that your views are wrong, you'd also be sorely mistaken. If I've learned anything in the last year or so, it's that trying to change the mind of someone who appears to have shown that they're already convinced is almost always a complete and utter waste of time.
Anyway, I really have spent far to much time on this than it was worth, so that's probably all from me. Keep up the good work.
Don't worry, I am not concerned about your sleeping patterns. As I said, you're an experiment and so far very instructive.
Omnologos,
I hope you have your research ethics approval :-)
That still hurts, doesn't it, Physics?
Shub,
What?
> I pointed out that the most recent post in this category that commented directly on MBH98 was in 2008. Nevaudit challenged this by observing that a 2014 post on Mann's mispresentation of the EPA findings contained a tag "MBH98", as though that refuted my observation.
The addition of *directly* looks like an indirect admission from the Auditor that to put the Steyn c. Mann hurly burly in the "MBH98" category was not a mistake. We must now conclude that Steyn c. Mann belongs to MBH98 because it provides an *indirect* commentary.
Speaking of indirection, here's another way to contemplate what "other than in passing" means:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/
Climategate. MBH98. Phrenological bulge.
No F-word there. No direct commentary either.
The "phrenology" ringtone had some currency circa 2010. In fact, the title of our beloved Bishop's try to burden AT and the Krug to read his political hit job still picks a similar one.
***
The claim that direct commentaries on MBH98 stopped in 2008 does not contradict the fact that those who "read the blog" can see many indirect commentaries on MBH98 like that, in passing or not. One should not infer from that claim that the Auditor dropped the stick and backed slowly away from the horse's carcass [1].
Mike does not make the Auditor write such indirect commentaries, "other than in passing" or not.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass
I was responding originally to the fairly common allegation, that I had, using the words of one commenter here, "fixated on one paper in two decades". I contested that allegation as it is some time since I've worked non MBH98-99 per se. I observed that "It has been a long time since I've commented other than in passing on Mann's older work, notwithstanding frequent allegations otherwise." NA contested this point, armwaving to the category "MBH98" where an MBH98 tag had been affixed to a 2014 post in Mann v Steyn, a post that did not constitute a direct commentary on MBH98 and really did not warrant an MBH98 tag. I then observed that the most recent direct commentary that had been tagged to the MBH98 category was in 2008.
Never-audit now points to a 2010 which responded to a 2010 exchange initiated by Hansen's pit bulls, Tamino and Gavin, at Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/. Tamino had made some absurd allegations, which I responded to. Although the post commented on MBH98, it was not so tagged at the time and did not appear in the original list. The post indeed refers to longstanding controversies that had been misrepresented by Tamino. How else would one respond? Nor does this contradict by original point. The response to Real Climate was a topical response (in passing) rather than the result of fresh work on the topic.
Neveraudit, as too often, twists my actual statement to allege that I had said that I had "stopped" commentary on MBH98. That's not what I said. I've commented on it "in passing" from time to time, but to characterize Climate Audit as being "fixated" for the past 5-6 years on this single paper is ludicrous, as Neveraudit well knows.
If anyone is fixated on the vindication of MBH98-99, it is Mann himself, who attempted to re-frame the events in his book. Mann's book is replete with misrepresentations and deceptions on the events. Unfortunately, responding to Mann's misrepresentations would take an equal amount of time. If I were as 'fixated" on this as Neveraudit and Russell allege, I would have responded to these misrepresentations.
So now the Auditor's claim that I "twist" his "actual statement" to "allege" something he puts in my mouth.
I pointed out the category "MBH98" and that its last entry was dated May 2014. I also considered the possibility that this category does not faithfully represent "Mann's older work".
Anyway, these empty accusations lead to this other claim:
> I was responding originally to the fairly common allegation, that I had, using the words of one commenter here, "fixated on one paper in two decades".
Here's how the Auditor started this response:
This comment seems to be directed at AT, not at Russell. There's no hit for "obsess" or "fixated" in AT's comments. But let's grant that the Auditor was in fact responding to Russell, a commenter he recently found "contemptible" anyway:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/29/cooks-trick/#comment-707553
In any case, the Auditor's "I stopped directly commenting on MBH98 in 2008" only responds **indirectly** to Russell's "allegation" of being "obsessed" with **one or two papers**. What can be quite sure what Russell's "allegation" is unclear and can't be decided by factual matters alone.
Even if we accept that the Auditor was responding to Russell, it can be easily shown that the Auditor's interests are quite varied. It goes from 24 episodes to Enron, from homoerotic regalia to Lasagna, from Popes to Bre-X, and from phrenology to the Sandusky affair. (I can extend this list on demand.) That there is one constant main target to the subtext behind these interests may not be coincidental. Even so, nobody should hide one's opinion behind diagnostics, and if one does, one should retract it, like Carrick did with his "sociopath" remark at Judy's.
***
That the Auditor uses Russell's "allegation" to counter with "If anyone is fixated on the vindication of MBH98-99, it is Mann himself" is a splendid tu quoque. We never doubted that we could exclude the Auditor from the class of those who fixate in vindicating MBH98-99. Notice how "99" appeared out of sudden. Wonder why?
Anyway.
Enjoy your summer,
w
BREAKING NEWS: willard is (are?) now in Royal Plural territory.
Omnologos,
Willard is always in postmodern surrealist full-blown Salvador Dali territory.
His work is often clever and usually entertaining, but not, in any circumstances, to be taken seriously. He'll just spin you in verbal circles until you're dizzy. It usually doesn't make any sense - involving all sorts of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, bizarre errors, and talking rubbish - but it's very hard to tell how much of that is deliberate. He likes winding people up. But unlike most such people, who set out to be just annoying, he does so with such good humour and novel wit that I at least can't help quite liking him.
It's a novel approach, at least, and better than that of some people I could mention. Just don't take it seriously.
Ceci n'est pas une réflexion à propos de MBH98
:-)