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
« Ward off - Josh 367 | Main | The slow, green way to recycle »
Wednesday
Apr132016

Uncharted - Josh 366

Climate super sleuth Brandon Shollenberger discusses a strange climate expertise chart over on his blog which made us wonder about what kind of other data might be lurking down the dimmest corridors of climate science. Brandon and Anthony helped with locating the data points.

Cartoon by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (167)

I think I have worked out how the X-axis was derived.

The higher you think the consensus is the more expert you must be.

Apr 15, 2016 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterclovis marcus

Brandon vs Cook

No comment.

Apr 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

In his next paper, Cook will prove that green bicycles go faster than blue bicycles with a 100% consensus from Greenpeace activists.

Climate Coloured Science (CCS) will take over from Carbon Capture and Storage, as the big growth area in Green Blob Economics. Some of them will even be able to do sums with numbers bigger than they can count on both hands and feet, which will increase the size of their sample size by at a least a few noughts and crosses.

Apr 15, 2016 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

All future climate science papers will now be required to come with a colour coded health warming. The discerning reader will now be able to determine before purchase how much dodgy statistics is present, modelling content (saturated and unsaturated), quantity of unmitigated cr*p, and overall un-wholesomeness. This should curtail much reregurgitation of old ideas (or more generally?). The agency responsible (IPCC) expects 97% compliance, although Mann is still fighting his legal battle.

The new regulation will come into force in 2100.

Apr 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

The comments are more illuminating than the article in the link posted by Jerry...sorry, I mean Phil Clarke :)

Regards

Mailman

Apr 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Sorry, I'm late to the thread and would like to address Phil Clarke's 1st lie.

"The actual email from Phil Jones said “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”

Pretty damning evidence of conspriratorial and biased 'gatekeeping' huh? Bang to rights.

But what's this? This was a private exchange between two scientists, both of whom would have known that neither had the ability to 'redefine' peer review. Could it possibly have been hyperbole?

And what's this? Both papers (McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003)) were cited and discussed in the IPCC report.

You knew that - right? Bit of a rubbish conspiracy. And given that both papers have pretty much sunk without trace, it's just possible that IPCC AR4 would have been better without them in."

-----------

To start with you should at least get your facts straight when concocting a story. The 2nd paper was de Laat and Maurellis (2006) and not K and C. Trenberth and Jones did ignore them but they would repeatedly brought up in the reviewers comments in the early drafts so they were forced to cite them. IPCC AR 5 admitted that there was no scientific evidence against them and that Trenberth and Jones, for all intents and purposes, redefined the peer review literature by making stuff up to dismiss them.

"McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and de Laat and Maurellis (2006)
assessed regression of trends with national socioeconomic and geographical
indicators, concluding that UHI and related LULC have
caused much of the observed LSAT warming. AR4 concluded that
this correlation ceases to be statistically significant if one takes into
account the fact that the locations of greatest socioeconomic development
are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric
circulation changes ***** but provided no explicit evidence for this overall
assessment result.***** Subsequently McKitrick and Michaels (2007) concluded
that about half the reported warming trend in global-average
land surface air temperature in 1980–2002 resulted from local land
surface changes and faults in the observations. Schmidt (2009) undertook
a quantitative analysis that supported AR4 conclusions that much
of the reported correlation largely arose due to naturally occurring
climate variability and model over-fitting and was not robust. Taking
these factors into account, modified analyses by McKitrick (2010) and
McKitrick and Nierenberg (2010) still yielded significant evidence for
such contamination of the record." -IPCC AR5 (emphasis mine)

As you can see, not only this is not a " rubbish conspiracy" but an admission by AR5. Also, not only these "papers have pretty much sunk without trace" but they are still going on today. See also McKitrick 2013.

Your revision and spin of history is why there are so many skeptics.

Apr 15, 2016 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveO

Everybody knows that the bird is a word;
Now that you've heard, Phil, come and join the herd.
==========================

Apr 15, 2016 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Since wishes are warmings
The IPCC's still swarming.
==================

Apr 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

re Alan Kendall 3:16

"By George! I think he's got it!"

Apr 15, 2016 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

re Alan Kendall, forgot to add that the remark above was the result of a proper consensus, with a Bishop Hill peer approval factor of 97% of all human life forms. As such it qualifies in Climate Science as Unprecedented, though as it remains lacking US Presidential endorsement, it is UnPresidented

Apr 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

To start with you should at least get your facts straight when concocting a story. The 2nd paper was de Laat and Maurellis (2006) and not K and C

Here's the mail:

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf. […] The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil

Why are they concerned about not upsetting 'Eugenia'? The clue is perhaps here …

Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate
Eugenia Kalnay & Ming Cai

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01675.html

Best to get your facts straight before accusing others of 'concocting'.

Apr 15, 2016 at 8:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Yes, the email itself refers to K and C but the redefining of the peer review literature was McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and de Laat and Maurellis (2006) as acknowledged by the IPCC. Ar4 cites Trenberth 2004 and Vose 2004 in reply to K and C. The paragraph that redefines the literature in AR4 because of no "explicit evidence" is

"McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land."

Before you concoct a story about a "rubbish conspiracy" and scientists talking "hyperbole" and papers that "pretty much sunk without trace" you should really have read AR5. Jones testified before the British parliament that it was not him who wrote the paragraph in question and Trenberth is the only other CLA of Chapter 3 in AR4. Not surprising since AR5 has so many walkbacks of AR4 Chapter 3. Of, course, the whole Schmidt 09/Mckitrick ordeal is another gatekeeping story.

Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveO

Dave - Breathtaking stuff, even for BH. You accuse me of a 'lie', 'concocting' and 'not getting my facts straight' for pointing out that when Jones wrote 'I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report' he meant McKitrick and Michaels 2004 and Kalnay and Cai 2003. It is abundantly clear from the mail that this is the case yet you insist, on no evidence whatsoever, that the second paper was De Laat and Maurellis. You're just wrong.

As for the rather confused stuff about peer review gatekeeping -I am not sure I get your point. McKitrick and Michaels 04 was an astoundingly bad paper - it was the one where they originally fed values in degrees into software expecting radians and was demolished by Benestad (2004), just as Schmidt (2009) disposed of their later effort.

The IPCC reports are assessment reports of the science, shitty papers just waste everybody's time and should be excluded by the authors.

Benestad http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/27/c027p171.pdf
Schmidt http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc07300k.html

Interesting discussion https://deepclimate.org/2010/04/05/mcclimategate-continued-mckitrick-wrong-on-ipcc/


This always makes me laugh

If you do calculations and get degrees and radians mixed up, you get the wrong answer. Which is what McKitrick did. His analysis included a variable cosablat, which was supposed to be the cosine of absolute latitude. Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong. I corrected the error and reran his regressions. The sizes of the “economic” signals were greatly reduced. They no longer “explain” half of the surface warming trend. Removing the effects of the economic variables now just reduces the warming trend for his sample from 0.27 degrees/decade to 0.18 degrees/decade, which is very close to the warming trend for the whole globe.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/

Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

DaveO, the time delay with responses from Phil Clarke, allegedly occurs whilst he awaits further instructions from his sponsors.

It seems his sponsors are not reliable sources of factual information either.

Apr 16, 2016 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dave - Breathtaking stuff, even for BH. You accuse me of a 'lie', 'concocting' and 'not getting my facts straight' for pointing out that when Jones wrote 'I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report' he meant McKitrick and Michaels 2004 and Kalnay and Cai 2003. It is abundantly clear from the mail that this is the case yet you insist, on no evidence whatsoever, that the second paper was De Laat and Maurellis.

You're just wrong.

As for the rather confused stuff about peer review gatekeeping -I am not sure I get your point. McKitrick and Michaels 04 was an astoundingly bad paper - it was the one where they originally fed values in degrees into software expecting radians and was demolished by Benestad (2004), just as Schmidt (2009) disposed of their later effort.

The IPCC reports are assessment reports of the science, garbage papers just waste everybody's time and should be excluded by the authors.

Benestad http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/27/c027p171.pdf
Schmidt http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc07300k.html

This always makes me laugh

If you do calculations and get degrees and radians mixed up, you get the wrong answer. Which is what McKitrick did. His analysis included a variable cosablat, which was supposed to be the cosine of absolute latitude. Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong. I corrected the error and reran his regressions. The sizes of the “economic” signals were greatly reduced. They no longer “explain” half of the surface warming trend. Removing the effects of the economic variables now just reduces the warming trend for his sample from 0.27 degrees/decade to 0.18 degrees/decade, which is very close to the warming trend for the whole globe.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/26/mckitrick6/

Apr 16, 2016 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

"It is abundantly clear from the mail that this is the case yet you insist, on no evidence whatsoever, that the second paper was De Laat and Maurellis."

No evidence whatsoever, except of course, that direct quote and admisson from IPCC AR5 (2013). It doesn't really matter if the email itself referenced Fred Flintstone (570 BC). The IPCC (2013) acknowledged that CLA's Trenberth and Jones "redefined" 2 papers with " no explicit evidence" and yet you seem to think this is "rubbish conspiracy".
------------
"You're just wrong."

Actually I'm just doing a copy and paste and admission from AR5. Perhaps you should write a letter to Pauchari and inform him of Tim Lambert's blog post in 2004. Be sure to tell him that you have internet access and have being checking up on the IPCC. Don't forget to tell him that the IPCC believes in "rubbish conspiracy". I hear he is a decent non-political guy who is open to corrections. Perhaps he'll let you share in a Nobel Prize. Just don't be too alarmed if he starts talking about caressing woman's breasts though. You might want to have a word or two with the IAC review as well.
----------


"As for the rather confused stuff about peer review gatekeeping -I am not sure I get your point."

I'm sure you don't.
-----------
McKitrick and Michaels 04 was an astoundingly bad paper - it was the one where they originally fed values in degrees into software expecting radians and was demolished by Benestad (2004), just as Schmidt (2009) disposed of their later effort."

And yet the made up excuse of Trenberth and Jones made no reference to "values in degrees into software expecting radians". Of course that doesn't matter anyway. It's about citing literature and Trenberth and Jones had none as AR 5 admitted and as my direct quote confirms and yet you continue with your feeble excuses and concocted story. Btw, thanx for "demolishing" Mckitrick 2010 and 2013 with Schmidt 2009 (as if Schmidt 2009 mattered to AR4 in 2007-Lol). Thanx for proving AR5 (2013) wrong by linking to a blog post from Tim Lambert in 2004.
-----------
"The IPCC reports are assessment reports of the science, garbage papers just waste everybody's time and should be excluded by the authors."

It's amazing that you can't see how you are perfectly articulating the point. CLA's and turf protectors Jones and Trenberth also thought they were "garbage papers". That is the point. Surely Trenberth and Jones would have cited literature if it existed and yet the words I quoted above prove they did no such thing.The IPCC admitted they had " no explicit evidence for this overall
assessment result." They "redefined" the peer reviewed literature. The words are right in front of your face and the proof is in the pudding and yet you thought this is "rubbish conspiracy" and insist on digging a deeper hole and propagating the Streisand effect. I always find that when push comes to shove warmers deny the words right in front of their face. They are the true deniers. If you told me grass was green I would have to go outside and look. You are a skeptics best friend.

I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation with someone whom thinks direct IPCC quotes are a "rubbish conspiracy". I agree with the IAC that the IPCC is politically conflicted and makes statements without evidence but this statement is an astonishing admission. The only reason they would make such an admission is that is because there is no grey area and only a loon would think otherwise. You're just wasting my time with your lunacy. As Billy Joel says "You should never argue with a crazy mind, mind, mind, mind, mind"

Enjoy the interglacial and your delusions and thanx for promoting the skeptics cause.

Apr 16, 2016 at 3:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveo

golf charlie,

I've been following this debate for over 10 years and I'll never figure out how warmers can't see how they are their own worst enemies. It's like a dog whistle or somethin'.

Apr 16, 2016 at 3:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveO

I see you've redefined what 'redefined' means.

Jones was clearly talking about the papers I said he was, everyone can see your accusations of dishonesty are wrong. But I agree, further engagement with a lying conspiracy nut is a waste of my time.

Apr 16, 2016 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I do believe aTTP and Phil Clarke have run out of patience with us. It is something we've said?

Apr 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, they have run out of science. They assume that others will run out of patience. It is how climate science works, ............ and fails.

See also John Cook1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T. Doran5, William R. L. Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W. Maibach9, J. Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G. Skuce13, Sarah A. Green12, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3, Ken Rice15, which is of course the subject of this thread.

It is all about indoctrinating people into believing, by any means possible. Trying to ridicule/humiliate/annoy troublemakers is all part of the gameplan, and with Lewandowsky running climate science's attack strategy, and Dana Nuccitelli fronting it at the Guardian, they are fighting like a bunch of cornered rats.

They have run out of science, as aTTP aka Ken Rice has demonstrated elsewhere.

You, Micky Corbett, Paul Dennis et al, have been singled out for 'special attention'.

Clearly you are doing the right thing!

Apr 16, 2016 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Often, I wonder if they've really convinced themselves. The rhetoric says no.

It's clear there'll be no catastrophe. These alarmists make themselves ridiculous, and their words damn them.
====================

Apr 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

golf Charlie,

are you sure you've not been drinking out of the conspiracy bottle just a tiny, tiny bit?

Some of them have such big egos that I doubt they would be able to boil an egg together. I know the Climategate release showed a degree of collusion, but really it was all so feeble and incompetent. It's the political and NGO followers that worry me. The climate scientists are just in the business of job protection and enhancement. In that they complete with each other.

Apr 16, 2016 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, I have had to 'investigate' stuff as a troubleshooter. Much has been written and dramatised for TV and film, about complex plots of conspiracy around murder, when in reality, most such crime is simple 'cock-up', or an immediate response to a sudden change in circumstances. The real conspiracy starts when people start covering up the cock-up.

If you can find documented evidence of when it was scientifically proven that manmade CO2 was the only cause of global warming, prior to creating the UN IPCC, I would be really impressed!

I believe when Crick and Watson discovered the structure of DNA, no peer review was possible. Everyone who read the paper, including US rival Linus Pauling, realised that their discovery of the structure of DNA matched all the evidence, and answered most of the questions about how it replicated etc. They were right.

Climate science remains unable to answer your questions, even though they have had so many years, and so much money. Interesting that you and others are singled out for attack when the latest Cook, Lewandowsky, aTTP paper is crashing through scientific fact, and ignoring evidence. But it WAS peer reviewed! So it MUST be right?!

Apr 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yeah. Wot 'e... er... she... sed.

Apr 17, 2016 at 12:36 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Dear Ms Rodent, it has been drawn to my attention that you might just be taking the 'P's. Having removed the the 'C' from Radical, you become Radial, and for all I know a Cross-Ply, and a Hot Cross-Plyed Bunny is an endangered species after Easter. Cross-Eyed Bunnies are permanently in danger on Britains Roads, and are no match for Radials or Cross-Plys even if they are claimed to be a major contribution to road safety. I trust I make myself clear, in an aTTP authoritative cloud of bull gas sort of manner.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yeah golf Charlie, I think. When you go all serious on me I get confused. Trying unsuccessfully to find the wit I may miss the wisdom*. I do worry when you repeatedly indicate I'm under attack; makes me consider digging a bomb shelter in the back garden.

At this point my hated spellchecker suggested "wife" as a possibility. My mind went crazy for just a moment.

Apr 17, 2016 at 7:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

'Living backwards!' Alice repeated in great astonishment. 'I never heard of such a thing!'

' Through the Looking Glass Surveys' ... ends first, data follows.

Apr 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterBeth Cooper

golf Charlie. I am sure you know the classic Nature paper of Crick and Watson had very little information within it. At that time there was a tremendous scramble to work out and publish the structure of DNA. The Nature paper was a holding statement, published to establish their priority. Only later was the full data published, leading to its acceptance.

Bit like the IPCC really, publish the politically approved conclusions first, only then the data (in this case suitably redacted and massaged and otherwise adulterated).

Bite my tongue.

Apr 17, 2016 at 9:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, nobody else could have peer reviewed Crick and Watson, apart from their rival Linus Pauling . Crick and Watson had previously made idiots of themselves, by misplacing a decimal point in some lecture notes, jumping to a wrong conclusion and a big oops. They were regarded as glory hunting chancers.

They did arrive at the right answer/solution, AND it answered/fitted the known questions, AND it was accepted by 'Science', AND they did get a Nobel Prize, AND it has stood the test of time. The parallels with climate science and the Hockey Stick, are nonexistent.

Of note, for those who value history, is the contribution (X-Ray Crystallography) of Rosalind Franklin. She died before the Nobel Prize was awarded, and her name tends to be forgotten. Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously.

Apr 17, 2016 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gC. Less known certainly, but hardly forgotten. Photograph 51 with Nicole Kidman playing Franklin is I believe still being performed in London.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, thank you! I was not aware that they had made a stage production.

Meanwhile, back in UnReality Climate Science Fading-Star Wars, Mann wants to be played by Yoda, so he can appear to make sense.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

gC.

No, no, no. Yoda can just about be understood and is rational.

Actually I think he's more of a Darlek uttering dire climate warnings and uses a hockey stick time travel device to alter the past. He's in the wrong universe anyway.

Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

So how many authors does it take to make a paper on consensus climate science publishable? Answers on a postcard, please (in haiku form, preferably). And can someone remind me what the consensus in climate science is? Is there consensus on what the consensus is? (I feel a paper coming on - I shall have to go and lie down).

Apr 17, 2016 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterosseo

osseo, the fabricated consensus states that fabricated climate science is really really true, and replaces the previous consensus which is preferred by 9 out of 7 climate scientists who can do sums,

The pskientific paper was led by a failed cartoonist, who now lectures on climate pskience at the University of Western Australia (UWA), not to be confused with the University of East Australia (UEA) who were deported from Norwich, for data rustling, wrangling and misplacement, pleading their innocence, or maybe ignorance.

As climate scientists don't do history, some of the 'facts' (if ever found) may need ignoring, to match the credibility of the story. But ultimately, no one can really remember, so it is Unprecedented.

Meanwhile, keen observers of Kangaroos, will note the shape of the tail, when a kangaroo is sitting upright. That's right, a Hockey Stick! Quite where humans are supposed to shove one end is not clear, but that is the steadying force that braces climate scientists. Without it, they may fall over.

If the consensus on climate science, written by experts in climate science is credible, so is this post.

Apr 17, 2016 at 7:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

It's not the size of the Mann's wand that pulls three hats out of the kangaroo's pouch but the trick of the statistics.
=====================

Apr 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kim, even before you get to the statistics, there appears to be evidence of serial Kangaroo abuse. A Kangaroo and her pouch ought to be untouched by Manniacal prestidigitations.

Apr 18, 2016 at 1:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Kangaroos are so yesterday. Climate bandicoots are the new fashion statements.

Be prepared for when blade extension converts the despised hockey stick into a boomerang industry and the centre of climate fantasy moves from North America into the outback.

Apr 18, 2016 at 6:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall

Yesterday?
All Mann's problems seemed so far away.

Apr 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Brandon. Clarke does not have 'difficulties'.
He is a tape recorder, getting his input from what we would consider to be whacky sites, then spreading it out here. There is no thought involved. or judgement. or added value

If he had good judgement he would not associate himself with the subject at hand, the anti science, concensus nonsense

Apr 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Morning EO.

The consensus on consensus is that you spell it with one c and three s's.

Warm regards

Apr 18, 2016 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Regarding the exclusion of Powell's survey from Cook et al 2016, which caused Brandon so much hurt, this is speculative, but fits the facts …

Powell has documented his survey on his website, and earlier wrote about submitting it as a Comment to Cook et al 2013 to Environmental Research Letters. On his website is what looks like that Comment:

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/PowellERLrevisionfinal.pdf

Note the URL. My speculation is that this article was submitted and 'in press' when Cook et al was being put together and so appears in the draft version of the paper that Brandon 'found' in his eavesdropping, in the anticipation that Powell (2015) would be published by the time Cook published. But according to Cook's reply to Brandon at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that I linked above:

It's always a good idea to get all the facts before publicly accusing someone of dishonesty. In this case, the Powell paper was withdrawn by the author and we were instructed by the journal to respond only to the Tol paper.

And so it seems Powell withdrew the paper from the journal, and placed it - or a version of it - instead with 'Skeptical Enquirer' magazine, and Cook et al decided, indeed were instructed by ERL, not to reference it in their survey of surveys - presumably because it had not undergone peer review, although they did still cite it as an example of the flaw in Tol's methodology.

Speculation but Occam's Razor applies; I certainly see no lie, let alone an 'obscene' one.

Apr 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

ho ho.
A post based almost entirely on speculation and assumptions then invokes occams razor. I doubt Occam would have let his shaving kit within a mile of you and your shonky consensus

Apr 18, 2016 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

No, my only speculation is that Powell et al was in press at the time Cook et all was being developed - we know it was withdrawn. Brandon's accusation of blatent dishonesty, by contrast, is based on ignorance of this fact and requires a rather long chain of other assumptions.


Simplest explanation wins.

Apr 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Why would somebody withdraw a paper that is in-press

Apr 18, 2016 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

Phil Clarke, so is that the unofficial speculation of Skeptica, pSkience that you are spinning, or have you speculated that on your own?

It just seems there is a bit of a time delay, awaiting responses from your sponsors.

I would speculate that this paper is worthless in science terms, but for some reason, far too valuable to lose. Just speculation, no accusations of desperate barrel scraping.

Apr 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf Charlie.

The warmth the Beetles' lyrics received is denied by climate change orthodoxy.

It wasn't until the punks arrived that musicality took off skywards. I forget when the great Mannfred Mann arrived on the scene, but it didn't help much.

Notice that the nose flute resembles a hockey stick, and also has holes in it.

Apr 18, 2016 at 3:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

gC. Of course I confuse my okarinas and nose flutes. Wouldn't do to be confused when playing them.

Apr 18, 2016 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendal, when playing a nose flute, it pays not to confuse your instrument with somebody else's. It may prevent you from playing at all, for a week, though you will be able to improve your blowing technique.

Of course accomplished nasal flautists can play a fine duet, on their own.

The okarina has the great advantage over most musical instruments, that it can be carried in a pocket, though it is not clear that the inventors knew what a pocket was.

Apr 18, 2016 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Often so with the narrative, gc; the science stinks but the message is too important to let the odor interfere.
============

Apr 18, 2016 at 7:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kim, successful barrel scrapers, will invariably have lost their sense of smell, assuming they had one in the first place.

Apr 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

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>