Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« EU funds climate propaganda | Main | Stern words - Josh 341 »
Friday
Aug282015

Away with the fairies

Journalist David Appell appears a couple of times in The Hockey Stick Illusion, firstly in Chapter 4, in the section entitled "Mann's mouthpiece", where he is the source (if perhaps not the ultimate source) of the (false) claim that Mann sent McIntyre an Excel spreadsheet. It's worth reading again if you have a moment.

Anyway, in the wake of Mark Steyn's book on Michael Mann, Appell has written to Jonathan Jones enquiring about the latter's comments on the Hockey Stick and the results have been written up in a blog post here. It's hilarious.

For example, Jones observes that bristlecones are not reliable temperature proxies and that principal components analysis requires data to be centred, before following up with similar scientific objections to a couple of other papers that Appell has cited in support of Mann. Appell's response to all of these objections is, in total:

This is clearly just a lot of hand-waving.

Read the rest of it too. The guy is away with the fairies.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (231)

Ivor: Only because Watts bans me from commenting there under my real name, as he does for most people who know science.

Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

THINKS they know David. There is a difference. Those that believe the know it all tend to be pompous and arrogant showing little regard for the opinions of those who run counter to their beliefs.

Sound familiar?

Mailman

Mailman

Aug 29, 2015 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

I see Roy Spencer, like other bloggers, has finally had enough of Doug Cotton trolling his blog.
The Appell cart can't be far behind.

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"Only because Watts bans me from commenting there under my real name, as he does for most people who know science."

You did not seem to be having much trouble commenting there at length under your own name at that time. So we have established that Mr Watts does not ban you from commenting under your own name. So that is perhaps somewhat misleading a statement.

Further , we have established that you are in fact somewhat economical with the truth when you say you ALWAYS comment under your own name.

Tell me....do you ever have any issues about people believing what you say?

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

David Appell, you know that Marcott does not support Mann's Hockeystick. Marcott himself said the hockeystick period was not robust.

You know that because I showed you Marcott said that over at WUWT. I do post under my own name.

Yet, now I find you spreading a lie that you know is a lie.

You are no journalist.
And you are an enemy of science.

Science seeks the truth. You seek to spread lies.

For your sake I hope you are forgotten as worthless. For your epitaph otherwise would be most cruel. Rightly so.

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:22 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell:

Please would you care to elaborate on which bit of science that you think you 'know'?

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:44 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

David Appell misunderstands the implications of the hockey stick curve and his supposed demonstration reveals that misunderstanding.

The important part of the hockey stick was shown by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth". That is its strong correlation with the atmospheric concentration of CO2. However this correlation was incompatible with the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. If the MWP did exist then the simple relationship (as expressed in Appell's comment) between CO2 concentration and the global mean surface temperature would not exist. The important part of the hockey stick is the flat handle and not the blade.

Appell's demonstration is circular. He assumes a simple relationship between CO2 concentration and GMST and then shows that correlation.

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom Gray

David Appell misunderstands the implications of the hockey stick curve and his supposed demonstration reveals that misunderstanding.

The important part of the hockey stick was shown by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth". That is its strong correlation with the atmospheric concentration of CO2. However this correlation was incompatible with the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. If the MWP did exist then the simple relationship (as expressed in Appell's comment) between CO2 concentration and the global mean surface temperature would not exist. The important part of the hockey stick is the flat handle and not the blade.

Appell's demonstration is circular. He assumes a simple relationship between CO2 concentration and GMST and then shows that correlation.

Aug 29, 2015 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom Gray

Wow..You know its all over... when the best argument against the $CAGW$ madness...is to point sceptical readers to the "writings" of a $CAGW$ apologist who is so out of their depth..that its beyond comical..
Why would anyone want the public to see that exchange on his page.?
Hide it man for god sake..are you that detached from reality.?????

Aug 29, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDrapetomania

But I do know some physics and mathematics. And they say the hockey stick is an obvious result. The proof can fit on a cocktail napkin:

1) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose superexponentially after the Industrial Revolution -- faster than exponentially.
2) temperature change is proportional to forcing, which for CO2 is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

(1) + (2) => a hockey stick curve

QED

You still need to do the reconstructions for the details, but it would be far more surprising if the hockey stick WASN'T true.

David Appell

Your comment can be summarised, I hope fairly, as, the hockey stick must be robust, because it is what one would expect to find.

Passing over the "cart before the horse" nature of this position, I'm afraid that the hockey-stick is far from robust even in your terms.

If you were correct, you wouldn't expect to see the proxies showing a decline in temperatures after the 1960s - yet that is what they did (which is why they were replaced by instrumental readings).

Either temperatures have declined since the 1960s, or the proxies used by Mann, in the way they were used by Mann, didn't accurately reconstruct temperatures.

Which is it?

Aug 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

Just been back to Appell's blog article and I see that there are now some comments -predominantly hostile.

I was surprised to see our old friend ATTP commenting there, given Appell's stated view that mere physicists, unpublished in the field of paleoclimatology, are not qualified to opine on the "hockey stick"!

Aug 29, 2015 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

WFC, I am not an IT expert, but know that a mobile phone smashed into pieces, is broken. Appell appears to be the only 'expert' who has not yet worked out that the Hockey Stick is sawdust.

The copious amounts of hi-tech patches and glues used in previous repairs, probably renders the sawdust unsuitable for a rat's bedding. It is too toxic. That is why most climate scientists have been so keen to wash their hands and avoid further contact. Most rats have worked this out too.

Aug 29, 2015 at 11:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@diogenes and @brandon

Did I imagine a climategate quote about they hope the skeptics never looked too closely at the many reconstructions because none of them matched.

I've been searching but not found any evidence of it.

Aug 30, 2015 at 12:40 AM | Unregistered Commenterclimatebeagle

Heh, in comments, there are Victor Venema, Josh Halpern, and Ken Rice rising in defense of the defender of the Piltdown Mann's Crook't Stick.

Like flies to uh, er, honey.
==============

Aug 30, 2015 at 2:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Off-topic :

Anyone have references at hand as to how the UEA 'investigations' into Climategate were selected and paid for ?

Thanx.

Aug 30, 2015 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Kim, was it in Peter Pan that it was stated that fairies die, when children say they don't believe in fairies?

I am sure that those going on the record in support of the Holy Hockey Stick, believe they are doing something honourable and decent, in their tipsy-topsy world of make believe and made up beliefs.

Aug 30, 2015 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mr Appell does not appear capable of stringing two sentences together without lying, handy trick that ^.^

Aug 30, 2015 at 2:36 PM | Registered CommenterDung

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 1:09 am
I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.

I comment under my own name, always. I have nothing to hide and am not ashamed of my opinions.
Aug 29, 2015 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell
Aug 29, 2015 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered Commente Ivor Ward


Ivor Ward (or anybody) - please could you give the URL link to the 7 Aug 1:09 am comment so it can be verified? (I did not find it when I looked)

____________________________________________________________

OK found it. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/07/friday-funny-mann-gets-real-time/#comment-2002711

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/07/friday-funny-mann-gets-real-time/#comment-2002711

Aug 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

WFC wrote:
"If you were correct, you wouldn't expect to see the proxies showing a decline in temperatures after the 1960s - yet that is what they did (which is why they were replaced by instrumental readings)."

If you read my post, you'd see that it only applies to the period when CO2 was superexponential. That was not the case after the 1960s -- the GROWTH RATE of human population peaked in the 1960s, after which it was population was no longer superexponential.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html

The proxy data is affected by the divergence problem after the 1960s:

"On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes,"
Rosanne D'Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"CO2 was superexponential"

Please give a definition for this term "superexponential".

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Re: David Appell

I'm familiar with the concept of super-exponential growth rate of human population but I have never seen it claimed for CO2.
In fact a search of the entire ipcc.ch site does not find a single reference to either superexponential or "super exponential". Could you point me to something that makes this claim (no blog posts please).

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Re: michael hart

Mathematically, something is superexponential when it has the following properties:

f(0) = 1 and f(g)f(h) ≤ f(g+h) ∀ g, h ≥ 0

which is why I'm looking for how CO2 increase is superexponential.

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

TerryS and michael hart,

Unless David Appell cares to respond otherwise, it would be safe to assume that super-exponential means something really strange, that is only understood by people who worship the Holy Hockey Stick, and would suffer from enrichment depravity, if the secret was revealed to non-believers.

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dr. Appell, your point is silly. Sure, if CO2 causes warming, we expect to see warming. That doesn't tell us how much warming, or how it compares to natural variation, and those are the million-dollar questions. Mann et al claimed to answer that: not too much natural variation (flat handle) and lots of CO2 warming (20th century). By now we know that the flat handle is wrong; the latest (PAGES2K + corrections) shows variation from the past that equals or exceeds the current warming. We still don't know how fast that varies, there isn't that much temporal resolution in the past. The proxies don't do well on the last century where we can compare w instrumental temperatures anyhow, so no one is too sure how well they did on the past (see Jim Bouldin). Not too much is left of the hockey stick that tells us about AGW.
And as both panels concluded, Mann's statistics were wrong; even if the result turned out to be right, that would just be luck, not a defense of Mann et al.

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeR

Thanks, TerryS.
I'll be blunt and say that I don't believe David Appell means that, and that he is just using journalistic license to add an inflammatory superlative.

The visual interpretation of a real exponential curve is also frequently misinterpreted in observations. Many people get the impression that the "steep part" of the curve is somehow different from the "flattish part", when you can 'zoom in' and visualize the same pattern at any scale.

Aug 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I'm amazed that no one has remarked at the way David Appell (Aug 29, 2015 at 7:27 PM) defends Mann's science, which seems to boil down to the simple statement that “the ends justify the means”.

Even if the simplistic "proof" he presents were true, it’s absolutely no justification for the questionable methods used by Mann (e.g. bad statistics and biased selection of data). Therefore, if I believed in Appell’s theory, I’d be furious at Mann for giving sceptics a perfect excuse to both attack and discredit the science behind it (i.e. with friends like these, who needs enemies).

So, my question to Appell is: why continue to defend Mann if you believe others have provided better (i.e. scientifically sound) evidence for your theory?

Aug 30, 2015 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

I'm amazed that no one has remarked at the way David Appell (Aug 29, 2015 at 7:27 PM) defends Mann's science, which seems to boil down to the simple statement that “the ends justify the means”.

Dave Salt, I think many on both sides of the argument regard it as history.
David Appell's defense of Mann's hockey-stick calls to mind the apocryphal stories of Imperial Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands in late 1945, and even later: They were isolated as irrelevant failed history after the active front moved past them to the conclusion of the war elsewhere.
Completely cut-off, they were left with no option but to aggressively defend a small island for the honour of the Emperor. I don't doubt it would have had lasting, serious psychological effects on such soldiers.

Aug 30, 2015 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

What a lot of peoples time wasted on this Appell guy

Although I have enjoyed as always reading golf charlies clear analysis

But as the commentator says in one of his posts.... Aug 29, 2015 at 7:15 PM | David Appell
"I comment under my own name, always. I have nothing to hide and am not ashamed of my opinions"

Whenever I here opinions mentioned, I cant help thinking of Dirty Harry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVlYMctb7Y4

Aug 30, 2015 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBLACK PEARL

climatebeagle, I don't recall seeing any quote like that, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I might have missed it or just forgot about it. I'd expect it to have been talked about more if it existed though.

Aug 30, 2015 at 7:06 PM | Registered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

'Super exponential' ? oh my


SuperExponentialMannAndAppellSymbiosis
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough, you'll always get neurosis
SuperExponentialMannAndAppellSymbiosis

Um fiddle, fiddle fiddle, um fiddle ay
Um fiddle, fiddle fiddle, um fiddle ay
Um fiddle, fiddle fiddle, um fiddle ay
Um fiddle, fiddle fiddle, um fiddle ay

Aug 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

"For example, Jones observes that bristlecones are not reliable temperature proxies and that principal components analysis requires data to be centred"

"Figure 1 (top) shows the result of these pseudoreconstructions
for one realization of the white noise (with
noise variance 50%) and (bottom) one realization of the red
noise (high-frequency noise variance 50% and with 1-year
lag autocorrelation of a = 0.8): in both cases PCA-centerings
has a small relevance for the final result and the
differences are within the uncertainty range
(Figure 1).
The conclusion is essentially the same for all realizations
and other constructions of noise. For instance, white noise
with r = 0.7 yields a standard deviation of the differences of
0.006K; r = 0.4 yields 0.007K; red noise with a = 0.5 and
r = 0.7 (r = 0.4) yields 0.01K (0.02K); red noise with a = 0.8
and r = 0.7 (r = 0.4) yields 0.02K(0.03K). Therefore, the
differences increase slightly with the amount and redness of
the noise, but they remain small, even in the case of high and
red noise with a steep red spectrum."

-- "Comment on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious
significance by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick,"
Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita,
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L20701, doi:10.1029/2005GL022753, 2005

Aug 30, 2015 at 8:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Yeah, good scientists always use non-standard methods when using standard methods would yield the same result.

Why am I thinking of corporations who prefer to use non-GAAP numbers? I'm sure they think "it doesn't matter" too.

Aug 30, 2015 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Response by McIntyre and McKitrick


Von Storch and Zorita (“VZ”) concur that the MBH98 principal component (PC)
method “very often shows a hockey stick shaped pattern even if the data was by
construction free of such structures” - the Artificial Hockey Stick (AHS) effect. We did
not claim that the AHS effect applied to all situations. We did claim that it affected
MBH98 [McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a, 2005b] (MM05a, MM05b), where the AHS
effect interacted with flawed bristlecone proxies.
VZ provided a simulated example where the AHS effect does not “matter”.
Unfortunately, VZ pseudoproxies dramatically over-estimate the correlations of MBH98
proxies to gridcell temperature. This results in both the construction of a much stronger
“temperature signal” in VZ simulations than is justified for MBH98 15th century proxies,
and the exclusion of proxies with strong nonclimatic trends, like bristlecones, which was
a focus of our articles, making their example irrelevant. We discuss what is necessary to
create a relevant simulation.

Your point?

Aug 30, 2015 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

David,
The fact that Zorita and Storch's analysis of their own pseudo proxies showed that they were not much affected by de-centering does not mean that the same is true of the MBH proxies. The MBH proxy roster used for the early period has very weak correlation with the instrumental record, much weaker than Zorita and Storch's proxies do with their target. McIntyre and Mckitrick point all this out in their peer-reviewed reply to Zorita and Storch in the same issue of GRL. Your obtuseness on issues like this is astonishing. The real issue with the MBH papers is whether bristlecone pines are adequate proxies. It seems pretty clear they are not. As "everyone" (not including you?) has known since 2005, if not earlier if you include bristlecone pines by using lots of principal components you can get a hockeystick. If you exclude them, either by using only the first two principal components or by fiat, you don't get a hockeystick. The methodological details of how to get the bristlecones in are basically smoke and mirrors to draw attention away from the simple question of whether they are adequate proxies or not.

Aug 30, 2015 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered Commentermikep

Oh, Snap!

Aug 30, 2015 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterClimateOtter

David Appell, if you are not going to explain super-exponential, ..........

Mann's Hockey Stick, now in terminal decline, is sustained only by Parasitic Narco-Thromboses. It thrives on dopey clots.

Aug 30, 2015 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

David's lack of shame over the alarmist crap he promotes and the intellectual dishonesty he revels in is as revealing as his self-confessed confusion about his identity.

Aug 30, 2015 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

"Even if the simplistic "proof" he presents were true, it’s absolutely no justification for the questionable methods used by Mann (e.g. bad statistics and biased selection of data)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, Dave Salt, that's it in a nutshell.

At the time that McIntyre and McKitrick demolished the Hockey Stick, McIntyre was openly agnostic about CAGW in the broad sense. He wasn't on any kind of crusade, except a crusade against bad "science." And, as others have noted, getting the right answer by the wrong method is meaningless. When I was at school, in maths and science exams you had to show your workings. You could get some marks for using the right method but accidentally ending up with the wrong answer.

Right answer but wrong method = zero marks.

Aug 31, 2015 at 12:04 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Johanna 12:04

Right answer, but wrong method = zero marks.

But top dollar rating, and maximum kudos in climate science.

I wonder why he did it?

Aug 31, 2015 at 12:55 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Right now, David Appell is busy trolling at Roy Spencer's blog.

Aug 31, 2015 at 2:11 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I should add that I do it occasionally for fun, after a beer. David Appell appears to to it for a living while claiming to be a journalist.

Aug 31, 2015 at 2:14 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

There are a bunch of thing tangled up here.

First, Jones' arguments is basically formalism, absolutely true for a mathematician, pretty much besides the point for a physical scientist. To quote dsquared: ""devastating critique" is my word for when half-bright self-appointed science police get on the case of actual researchers. "

Gerry North nailed this and Jones several places including an interview with at the Chronicle where he says

"There is a long history of making an inference from data using pretty crude methods and coming up with the right answer. Most of the great discoveries have been made this way. The Mann et al., results were not 'wrong' and the science was not 'bad'. They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made. It turns out that their choices led them to essentially the right answer (at least as compared with later studies which used perhaps better choices)."

North, of course, chaired the NAS panel which evaluated the MBH papers.

Second, the McIntyre issues are best bundled into the bag of look very carefully at what they write, it is not what everybunny thinks they are claiming and one might argue that that is not accidently not on purpose.

Nick Stokes has been very good at exploring these tricks.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html

Aug 31, 2015 at 2:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterEli Rabett

Eli, your citing of (as Steve McIntyre says, 'Horserace Haynes) Nick Stokes is another example of why you and David Appell will always in the end lose on the merits in the subtlties of climate debates such as this one. Because either you do not understand, or prefer to ignore, the subtlties. Certain proxies are known not to be mainly representative of temperature. Like stripbark bristlecones and Gaspe cedars. Decentered PCA will produce hockeysticks from pire red noise. M&M showed how and why.
You persist in defending the indefensible. That is an indication of a low IQ. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, "when confronted with new information I change my mind. What do you do?" Well, you continue to defend the indefensible.
Archeology PROVES thatnthe MWP was significant, at least in the NH. Norse grew barley in Greenland, something impossible today. Chinese written records show was at least NH.
Yoir assertion that Jones was mainly mathematical formalism (a) ignores the significance of faulty math and (b) ignores the significance of the faukty proxies he pointed out. Perhaps you did not read Jones reply at Appells. I did before a somewhat orthongonal comment about Appell techniques much upthread.. You just showed either your own ignorance or your own obfuscation of fairly simple to verify facts. Either way, you have yet again diminished yourself further (if such is possible)with respect to intellectual capacity and trustworthiness.

Aug 31, 2015 at 3:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

David Appell:

(1) + (2) => a hockey stick curve

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. (1) + (2) just equals a knee point. A hockey stick has low variability in the handle, but this is not seen in more recent reconstructions. The results presented in MBH are not replicated by modern reconstructions so it's time to move on.

By the way, while I agree with Steve McIntyre that Mann's "short-centered" method is flawed, I think this only partially explains the lack of variability in the handle of the MBH series. I think the biggest issue is the use of tree-ring proxies themselves.

Aug 31, 2015 at 5:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterCarrick

Dave Salt wrote:
"Even if the simplistic "proof" he presents were true, it’s absolutely no justification for the questionable methods used by Mann (e.g. bad statistics and biased selection of data). Therefore, if I believed in Appell’s theory, I’d be furious at Mann for giving sceptics a perfect excuse to both attack and discredit the science behind it (i.e. with friends like these, who needs enemies).:

Yes, my simple heuristic "proof" is correct. It's easy to understand, and obvious even.

That's why no one here has refuted it. Instead all I've seen are personal attacks and ad homimen insults and chest thumping.

Newsflash: In the climate scientific community, the hockey stick is old news. Reconstruction after reconstruction finds them (http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/36-hockey-sticks-and-counting.html), It's only on blogs like this, that have created an alternate reality, where there is supposedly some huge conpiracy and scandal.

I haven't said a word about Mann's work or anyone else's. Instead, I've said that simple physics and mathematics shows a hockey stick should result from last millennium's forcings.

Sure, there are lots of details and choices when anyone actually does a reconstruction. But it's not in the least surprising that they keep getting hockey sticks time after time after time -- that's what the physics requires. And it certainly suggests all the crazy accusations about centering and bristlecone pine trees and Illusions and disgraces to the profession ad nauseum are very likely without any merit at all -- sound and fury, signifying nothing. Manufactured to attempt to create a scandal where there is none, because the science of AGW is strong and climate change is here.

That's exactly the beauty of my argument -- it sidesteps everything.

David Appell, PhD Physics, Salem, OR

Aug 31, 2015 at 6:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Aug 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered Commenter EternalOptimist

Very good Sir!

Aug 31, 2015 at 7:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

I couldd recommend a good psychiatrist for both Mr Appel and Mr Bunny Rabbett.

Aug 31, 2015 at 7:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Appell Aug. 7 at WUWT:

“I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”

Appell Aug 29 at Bishop Hill:

“You are wrong.

I comment under my own name, always.”

Appell Aug 31 at Bishop Hill:

"That's exactly the beauty of my argument -- it sidesteps everything."

Appell's Law: Choose an argument that sidesteps everything.

Aug 31, 2015 at 7:08 AM | Unregistered Commenterharkin

David,

you rather conveniently missed out

1) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose superexponentially after the Industrial Revolution -- faster than exponentially.

I have asked you where this "superexponential" claim is made (your comment is the first time I've ever seem this). You are even specific as to when this "superexponential" increase ended:

... only applies to the period when CO2 was superexponential. That was not the case after the 1960s ...

Perhaps you could provide me with a non blog reference to this superexponential increase.

Alternatively, consider your "proof" refuted since CO2 increase was not superexponential and therefore 1) is incorrect.

Aug 31, 2015 at 8:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

What is it with David Appell and Doug Cotton?

Do they not realize that all this messing about with aka's only lowers the respect readers will give to their comments.

Aug 31, 2015 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>