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

Discussion > Soon, Baliunus, de Freitas, Etal

Gixxer: Judging from the title I gave the thread, looks like the spelling mistake is my fault too! Mind you, I cut and pasted it from somewhere else...

Dec 10, 2011 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Creating uncertainty is what the oil shills do.

Uncertainty is either revealed or concealed - not created. There is now widespread evidence of mainstream scientists trying to conceal uncertainty in order to present a united front.

The question to be asked is whether it can ever be honest scientific debate to conceal uncertainty? Certainly this would not be tolerated coming from anyone with a statistical background, and seeing how climate change science depends more and more on statistical analyses, neither should it be tolerated by climate change scientists.

Denigrating scientists for revealing uncertainties ought also not to be tolerated.

Dec 10, 2011 at 8:23 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Soon and Baliunus's work was useful in showing there IS a substantial body of evidence in paleo proxy studies for a MWP (and LIA) that was not confined to Europe or even the Northern Hemisphere.
Which, I say, is why Mann lost the plot, though BBD naturally won't countenance any such claim.
And once that is said, the science becomes irrelevant because the rest of the tale is one of a group closing ranks round an individual (even though MBH98 had three authors Mann was the one who raved and ranted the loudest) who found himself in danger of having his biggest achievement (the abolition of the MWP) discredited.
And after the IPCC had used his graph on as many pages of TAR as they could get away with.
And we all know what action was taken to rescue the situation.
And we all know that, as usual "when first we practice to deceive", it only made the situation worse.
I don't see how it is possible to wave this away and say "it doesn't change the science". This (along woth climategates 1 & 2) is prima facie evidence that we cannot trust the scientists.
How do we know we can trust their science and their findings?

Dec 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Philip

Thanks for starting the thread. In spelling we all transgress. As in science.

Dec 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Mike

Which, I say, is why Mann lost the plot, though BBD naturally won't countenance any such claim.

Blatant misrepresentation. Makes you look like a clown. See here:

Natural cycles may offset or even weakly over-print AGW, but only on short timescales. Given what is known in great detail about the physical properties of CO2, warming will continue, with brief pauses, until CO2 levels cease to rise and (eventually) equilibrium climate senstivity is reached.

Mann being an unpleasant chap who was also wrong about the hockey stick has exactly no bearing on any of this. But sceptics refuse to notice, and keep on about the whole sorry affair as if it had some bearing on the laws of physics. It. Does. Not.

You never read my comments properly, do you?

Dec 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Some important issues have been blanked. I specifically asked Hilary to respond to my comment at Dec 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM and she conspicuously failed to do so. Nor did anyone else.

Let's try again:

- The real question is whether the MWP is relevant here. This presumes equivalence with the present. Can we assume this?

- If you argue yes, there is a condition. The MWP seems to have been caused by increased TSI. So is there credible, widely-accepted evidence that TSI is the main driver of modern warming?

- A substantial body of work points to increased radiative forcing by CO2 as an energetically sufficient cause for much recent warming. Has it been refuted or even seriously challenged?

- Have observations revealed any energetically sufficient alternative?

- If they did, the effect of increased RF from CO2 would still have to be taken into account. If 'something else' is responsible for modern warming, it should be warmer than it is. How do you explain the missing heat?

- S&B and the small group of energy-industry funded, right-wing contrarians they belong to has deliberately and successfully distracted attention from the central issues. For example, if the hockey stick is debunked, what effect will it have on the laws of physics that cause RF from CO2 to heat the climate system?

Dec 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

matthu

Uncertainty is either revealed or concealed - not created.

Uncertainty exists in the science. It can be accommodated and slowly reduced or it can be used as a means to cast doubt over the entire field.

The 'sceptics' are trying to pretend that 'uncertainly' means that CO2 cannot be identified as the probable cause of much recent warming. This is false logic.

Climatologists have reacted to this tactic in some instances by over-stating certainty. The 'sceptics' now claim that this 'proves' that the scientists are 'dishonest'.

Beleaguered would be a far better term. Naive would be another. That said, it is difficult to know what else they should have done. What people here seem unable to see is that the mistakes of Mann and others do not invalidate the essential science. In fact they are irrelevant to it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increase the concentration in the atmosphere and the climate system will heat up.

The mistake made by those who understand this - and its implications - was to respond to the disinformation campaign mounted by vested corporate interests by trying to 'prove' that modern warming is 'unprecedented'.

Perhaps pointing to the 'sceptic' error of claiming false equivalence with the MWP might ultimately have been a wiser choice of tactic.

Dec 10, 2011 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD (and others) - Just for fun:

Please clarify which of these statements you agree or disagree with (no tricks here - no research required). If you have no firm view, simply say so.

1 - Mann is an unpleasant chap
2 - Mann was also wrong about the hockey stick (HS)
3 - Mann still maintains today there is nothing wrong with his HS analysis
4 - Many mainstream scientists have privately expressed doubt about Mann's HS
5 - Few mainstream scientists have publicly expressed doubt about the HS analysis
6 - "Hide the decline" (and "hide the decline plus") constituted disreputable science
7 - Few mainstream scientists have ever publicly condemned "hide the decline"
8 - Rate & magnitude of late C20th GW is almost certainly the largest in 1000 y
9 - There is a reasonable possibility that late C20th GW has been matched in last 1000 y

My own score: I agree with all except (8).

Dec 10, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

The 'sceptics' are trying to pretend that 'uncertainty' means that CO2 cannot be identified as the probable cause of much recent warming. This is false logic.

Like it or not, this logic underlies the very essence of statistical proof. Climate change scientists need to rely on statistical proof because they lack scientific evidential proof.

Any basis primer on statistical proof will outline the process. As long as uncertainty remains, the alternate hypothesis (the one you are putting forward as a novel explanation) is not proven.

Any attempt to conceal uncertainty in order to lessen the burden of proof is simply dishonest (in an academic sense). There should be no dispute about this, as long as you are appealing to statistics as part of your argument.

And statistical evidence seems now to be incorporated even into the definition of climate change, so we are stuck with the burden of demonstrating that there is no further uncertainty.

Dec 10, 2011 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu

Nice dodge.

You answer my questions first.

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

We've wasted enough time with 'sceptical' misdirection already:

- The real question is whether the MWP is relevant here. This presumes equivalence with the present. Can we assume this?

- If you argue yes, there is a condition. The MWP seems to have been caused by increased TSI. So is there credible, widely-accepted evidence that TSI is the main driver of modern warming?

- A substantial body of work points to increased radiative forcing by CO2 as an energetically sufficient cause for much recent warming. Has it been refuted or even seriously challenged?

- Have observations revealed any energetically sufficient alternative?

- If they did, the effect of increased RF from CO2 would still have to be taken into account. If 'something else' is responsible for modern warming, it should be warmer than it is. How do you explain the missing heat?

- S&B and the small group of energy-industry funded, right-wing contrarians they belong to has deliberately and successfully distracted attention from the central issues. For example, if the hockey stick is debunked, what effect will it have on the laws of physics that cause RF from CO2 to heat the climate system?

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

... and matthu, please stop pretending to be the Great Statistician. The effect is wholly unconvincing. As are you other various pretensions to knowledge. I haven't forgotten the 'RF - what's that' debacle. Nor the side-splittingly funny spectacle of you trying to tell Richard Betts that he was out of touch and didn't understand where the 'consensus' was these days. Unlike you, I remember who wins our little disputes.

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

And I almost forgot to mention Fang et al. How careless of me.

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

matthu
I'm with you just about.
I have some reservations about 6, believe it or not. I think there was a genuine interest in not presenting a confusing message to the politicians. What made the whole thing farcical was the fact that they were unable to understand that if their proxies diverged from the actual record post-1960 there was no guarantee that they were accurate temperature proxies pre-the reliable record era.
On the other hand if they knew this and deliberately kept their reservations to themselves then, yes, that would be disreputable. Also, given that they were funded by the taxpayer and the aim of "hiding the decline" would be to give incorrect advice to the government, ie to their paymasters, probably illegal as well.
But of course they wouldn't do that. Only shills for Big Oil do things like that.

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

... and matthu, please stop pretending to be the Great Statistician. The effect is wholly unconvincing. As are you other various pretensions to knowledge. I haven't forgotten the 'RF - what's that' debacle. Nor the side-splittingly funny spectacle of you trying to tell Richard Betts that he was out of touch and didn't understand where the 'consensus' was these days. Unlike you, I remember who wins our little disputes.

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM | BBD

Not very substantive - more of an ad hom!

Which branch of science or statistics are you qualified in? After all, you do like to appear the Great Climate Scientist. Politics might be about "disputes", science isn't. (that's my little bit of substantive comment)

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS

Nothing substantive that I can see.

Now, instead of your usual tiresome sniping, how about you address yourself to the questions at Dec 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM?

That would be substantive. Isn't it interesting that even though I have now posed these questions three times here, you choose to yap at me rather than actually engage in serious debate.

I'm beginning to think that you are a time-waster and a know-nothing.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD - if you look back (I presume over this page) you will notice amongst other things:

1) You have not directly asked me to respond to any question. (I see questions asked of others.)
2) You seem to want me to answer a question you have posed. You sem to feel am dodging.
3) The most recent question I see you have posed to me is: The last decade is clearly the warmest in the satellite record. Again, why? Answer: the satellite record is not very long.
4) You still seem intent on going out of your way trying to be rude.
5) Is this an effort to elicit further response?
6) I have post graduate degree in mathematical statistics which also included forecasting and modelling components. Is that enough to back up what I have been saying on this page?

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

That's right Mike, keep ignoring the real issues and have the non-debate that the shills want you to have.

*Dec 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM*

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Mike: the point is that they were drawing statistical conclusions based on the HS. Now when I was statistics, scientists from other disciplines e.g. social science sought advice from genuine statisticians if their results relied on statistics.

In this case it appears that either a) this was not the case, and the mainstream scientists were out of their depth. Or b) they knew what they were doing and it was dishonest.

In one sense, we hope it was the latter, because I would hate to think that world acclaimed mainstream scientists are out of their depth.

Either way, it's time someone came clean Even if it's only people who were totally uninvolved e.g. President of Royal Society of the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu

3) The most recent question I see you have posed to me is: The last decade is clearly the warmest in the satellite record. Again, why? Answer: the satellite record is not very long.
4) You still seem intent on going out of your way trying to be rude.
5) Is this an effort to elicit further response?
6) I have post graduate degree in mathematical statistics which also included forecasting and modelling components. Is that enough to back up what I have been saying on this page?

You do make me chuckle.

Your points:

3/. The satellite record is not very long. Oh FFS. Not even wrong. Here's some context so you can see what a daft evasion this is. UAH = blue; RSS = purple.

4/. This from the man who repeatedly and baselessly accused me of racism. Now you have been shown to be flat-out wrong about this, you can apologise. Or not. But don't complain about me being 'rude'. What planet are you on?

5/. It's an effort to get you to see that you are discussing irrelevancies.

6/. First, I'm wholly unconvinced. I have seen something of your mind over the last few weeks, and post-grad material it is not. Second, even were your claim true, it does nothing to 'back up' your disorganised and confused commentary above. What an odd thing to argue. This is a good example of why I find your claim to be a post-grad in anything unconvincing. Although I suppose much depends on the awarding body.

Now, chit-chat aside, how about you address the questions at Dec 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM. The ones you are still dodging.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I'm beginning to think that you are a time-waster and a know-nothing.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:04 PM | BBD


Exactly how I view the non scientific claptrap you constantly post here.

Who on earth do you think wants to answer questions from an unqualified time-waster and know-nothing like yourself? (sorry about the silly hyphens)

Unlike my feelings about other commenters here, of varying opinions, I find your unpleasent outpourings beneath contempt both on scientific and philosophical grounds.

Now please stop ruining the thread with your unremitting bile, invectives and silly adolescent conspiracy theories.

As you might say in your usual grown up manner:-

Quack quack!

Pants on fire!

End of conversation! (if only)

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I can see that BBD's only concern is to turn this thread into his own personal cess pit.
DNFTT.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

matthu & RKS

Dec 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Does anybody here have access to the Fred Pearce book on Climategate? "The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming"

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

BBD cannot seriously expect anyone on this thread to continue a conversation with him?
DNFTT

Shub: Yes I have it next to me.

Dec 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu