Anyone interested in the political struggles around the science of climate change will be aware of the attacks made on climate scientist Michael Mann. These go back a long time and are detailed in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (see The truth about the hockey stick for my review of this book). Despite a number of enquiries clearing Mann of any wrong-doing these attacks have continued.
But the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute went too far when they accused him of illegal acts, (like manipulating data and outright fraud). Mann filed a defamation suit against them. This week the Washington DC Superior Court came down with its first ruling in the case – and it’s not good news for those attacking Mann. It refused to throw out Mann’s on the grounds that the plaintiff’s statements were protected speech under the First Amendment, mere “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.”
The ruling said that CEI defendants had produced:
“numerous articles that characterize Plaintiff’s work as fraudulent, combined with the assertions of fraud and data manipulation”
and this went beyond free speech. It added
” In Plaintiff’s line of work, such an accusation is serious. To call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud (taken in the context and knowing that Plaintiff’s work has been investigated and substantiated on numerous occasions).”
The defamation case will now go ahead with the next hearing at the end of August.
It’s heartening to see this progress being made as many commentators were cynical about Mann’s chance of success.
That’s good news. I would hate to be in the shoes of people like Michael Mann or James Hanson. What they are doing is incredibly important for all humanity, including the deniers, and they are doing it to the utmost limits of their ability, so why attack them? I liken it to drunks attacking ambulance officers attending someone hurt in a brawl. It’s weak and cowardly.
Gidday David and Frank,…. Michael Mann? One small lie for Mann,one giant fraud for mankind.? Nah, let’s not be too harsh,he’s young and was “led to believe”. inspired, encouraged and colluding with a world-wide club of mates protecting their funding and the “cause”.
But the nutty fraudster Hansen is in a different league altogether.
Ken, They deserve slander from all quarters when yours and my taxes are not only paying for crappy fraudulant science but also the resultant idiotic taxes as a by- product of their “findings” ,when there are so many other worthy things requiring that funding.
What is this “crappy fraudulent science” Mack?. Well, that is the position the slanderers have put themselves in. To avoid defeat they now have to back up their claims – and they won’t be able to any more than you can. Because the fact is throat these scientists have a high reputation, their indignation have received wide support from other researchers.
So, come on Mack, be specific. Back up your charges. Or be seen as just another cowardly slanderer.
Don’t be too harsh, the poor chap is only repeating what he’s been told and it’s not what he actually thinks. The sad part is nobody, not even Mack himself, knows what he thinks. Perhaps it’s because he has been trained to believe that whatever The Great Ones write on WUWT is actually what he thinks, or perhaps in a nightmarish moment he opened his mind to those evil twins Logic and Reason cruelly and piteously tore down the beautiful and fantastic constructs that were all he believed in and he has promised himself to never open himself to independent thought again.
The Great Ones on WUWT told him that the reason he is so sad is because of tax which the scientists make him pay so they can live in palaces and own jet planes . They are therefore the cause of all his misery.
Mack?
NASA.
Have you heard of NASA? The people with the rockets and the satellites and the super computers? NASA? Yeah?
Well…they have a website on climate change. You wouldn’t like it.
You see, there’s you with your blog link and then there’s NASA.
To be more accurate, its NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
There’s no getting around that.
You can ignore it or you can call every single scientific community on the planet “crappy” but…it makes you sound like a whacko.
NASA.
They went to the moon and everything, yeah?
Getting your science information from some blog is not too bright.
Try the mainstream scientific communities. All of them are good.
Conspiracy theories are for suckers.
NASA Earth Science – Climate Change and the Global Ocean
You’re the one with the paranoia.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is not involved in some vast global conspiracy to lie to you.
Leave the blogs alone.
Do some fact checking for yourself for a change.
NASA is a good place to start.
Cedric just fires off 1/2 cocked. Read the links Cedric. When reading Nasif Nahle ,try to read between the lines for further understanding. You too Ken 😉 Sorry , it’s a marathon read ,but not my fault. If you want to know the truth…its there.
I don’t get my science information from some blog.
Nobody should.
On the other hand, there’s NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
(shrug)
It shows they are devoid of rational arguments themselves.
Not true. Examples such as:
(1) Splicing of instrumental data to proxy (see red line on graph)
(2) Use of Bristlecone Pine data which is prone to hockey stick shapes
(3) Short Centred PCA algorithm
(4) Upside-down Tiljander lake sediment proxy
(5) Divergence problem, leading to the “trick” to “hide the decline”
are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Mann’s work
Sure, Andy, these are the arguments which have attempted to provide a false “sciency” label to the attacks on Mann. But you avoid the fact that none of them have stood up to scientific scrutiny.
The motives for the attacks in Mann have been political, not scientific. And the accusations have been slanderous. I suspect that there will now be a legal rippling to that effect.
And I disagree with you completely, whether the charges are correct or not is the issue. Or at least has been the issue for those investigating committees in the past.
But the issue for the court is more serious. Claimed of fraudulent behaviour were made – these are extremely serious for scientists and hopefully the court will treat the defendants accordingly. It’s one thing for scientists to make mistakes or pursue their own pet theories. It’s another to fraudulently manufacture or manipulate data. Mann has done neither and those who continue making such charges should get their come uppance.
“Not true. Examples such as:
(1) Second Law of Thermodynamics
(2) Axe’s folding proteins
(3) Goo to the Zoo to You
(4) The lack of transitional fossils
(5) The Piltdown Man hoax
are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Darwins’s work. Whether they are right or not is another issue.”
(shrug)
Mann does work. It’s work that enters the scientific arena and kicks ass.
It’s backed up by research that’s publically available and has had to jump through the peer-review process going back decades.
It’s work that is tested and confirmed and built upon by other scientific communites from all around the world.
If someone want’s to critcise Mann’s work then there are no short-cuts in science.
It’s “enter the scientific arena or take a strong dose of shut the fuck up, bitch”.
I hope Mann sues them for a tidy sum.
This cowardly, gutless sniping has got to stop.
You have evidence of fraud? Great. Go to the police. Fraud is a crime.
You can lock people up for that.
Call the police. I dare you.
Conspiracy thinking is for morons.
These “sciency” things have been dealt with over a period of years on Steve McIntyre’s blog
So, Ken, you will be able to explain to us why the graph you display has instrumental data spliced onto the end of the proxy data, with a description of why this is a valid technique, and possibly examples from other fields?
The Marcott et al paper that had a similar “hockey stick” was described by its authors as “not statistically robust”.
The Yamal paper of Briffa has now been updated with the hockey stick removed.
The Gergis et al hockey stick reconstruction for the southern hemisphere was withdrawn after a fairly major flaw was found by readers of Climate Audit
Sounds like science working, not people “attacking” scientists.
Andy, I can appreciate that the science may be beyond you but these arguments of yours have been refuted many times over. They are silly.
The court case will not be dealing with the science – except to the extent thattheplaintiffs can provide support for their claims that Mann committed fraud and data manipulation.
Now, have a look at the graph – the red line is clearly attributed (CRU observed trend) – nothing “spliced.” There is absolutely no reason why data from different sources and methods cannot be displayed in the same graph. If this is your concept of fraud and data manipulation you also need to be done for slander. It certainly disqualifies you from any scientific credibility.
The reference to lack of robustness in Marcott’s work was to the proxy data at recent time. It would be stupid to use such proxy at recent times because we already have very high resolution instrumental data.
These manufactured controversies rely on scientific ignorance. They are not “science working” – neither are the slanderous charges of fraud and data manipulation. They are outright political slander and hopefully will be strongly dealt with.
Apology accepted Mack, but the cobwebs will only clear when you allow yourself to critically assess the words of the Great Ones (Like Dr Roy Spencer).
Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books. You conduct no research, have no primary data, belong to no professional associations, are bound by no codes or rules, are never required to engage in professional development and your behaviour is not subject to independent scrutiny.
But for me the kicker is that if you’re proven wrong the only cost to you is your pride, and given you are largely anonymous, there is no risk.
Then you have the scientists and allied professionals. They get found either deliberately lying or being so inept they miss something an amateur can find and decades of work goes out the window along with their reputation and any chance of a job better than pumping gas.
Or organisations like NASA and NIWA who are dependent on government funding for their survival and NGOs like the WMO or the IPCC who are equally dependent on external funding. If the CEOs of these organisations find out that anyone working for them is either an idiot or a liar they would be pumping gas by lunchtime. If anyone discovered that the entire staff of, say, NASA, were a mix of idiots and crooks (how would you keep that under wraps for more than 8 minutes) you would have the story of the millenia and the US deficit would suddenly cease to be a problem
And companies like PWC or McKinsey & Co have spent billions and decades building a reputation for being trustworthy and expert enough to command staggering amounts for their advice. If, say, a competitor got wind that the hundreds of millions they have been paid for climate change advice was all a fraud; that’s the end of the whole company.
One group comprising everything from scientists to accountants says one thing, and if they’re wrong, they’re history. Then we have a few thousand people, mostly middle aged men with blogs, who says another thing and has nothing to lose by being wrong.
The original claim was that there was “no rational argument” for criticising Mann. I gave some examples of rational arguments, and then you claim that these have been refuted (without references)
Does this then make them irrational arguments?
Furthermore, you seem to think that it is fine to splice instrumental data onto proxy data, at different resolutions. I never claimed that this was “fraud”. You attributed the word “fraud” to my comment.
It was Nobel Prize winner Distinguished Professor Mann that brought this lawsuit, not the CEI or Mark Steyn. If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?
I think the CEI and Steyn are quite glad that Mann has brought the case to court, so that they can get hold of those “deleted” emails
Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books
David, do you have any evidence for this assertion?
Andy, look at the graph above – those are plots from different sources presented in the same graphic. No one has “spliced” them.
The case has been brought against CEI and The National Review. They had made unsubstantiated claims of fraud and worse. (As have you and your mates, Andy). They now face the consequences. I get the impression Mann is not worried – just that he feels he has nailed them. And a lot of scientists would love to see him succeed.
As for the defendants being “quite glad” – why then did they move to throw the case out and thus deny themselves these “emails”? The fact that their motion was clearly rejected and the court says the charges of fraud and data manipulation must be looked into is upsetting for them and their supporters like you. Hence the bluster.
Sure, I’m generalising, but I’m talking about a widely dispersed group and I’m describing what I have observed from what deniers say in their posts and what they say in their bios. Am I wrong? Are they,as a body, as qualified, experienced, skilled and resourced as the body of climate scientists?
Back to my question – which group should a lay person with limited knowledge about climate science (99.999% of the population) listen to?
If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?
Why worry about anti-vaxxers pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
Why worry about the tobacco lobby pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
Why worry about creationists pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
(Sniff. So very beautiful. Denier logic never chances. Just the labels.)
Science is the study of reality. Reality is where we live. What you don’t know or don’t understand can kill you.
Cancer is a good example. Cancer will kill you. You can deny it all you want but the cancer doesn’t care.
The way you get reliable information on cancer is the same way you should get reliable information on climate change or the safety of vaccines for children or the dangers of smoking.
We rely upon the medical community to diagnose and treat cancer.
Smart people will go the NIH or some other medical scientific community to find out information on cancer.
Not that hard.
Sensible, normal stuff and no global conspiracy thinking required.
David, Try to refrain from calling me a denier. Denialist ,OK…it’s more professional. There are no “experts” in this AGW issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the climate scientists.(Note..no uni. degree in climate science) Another thing, just because you’re qualified with uni. degree doesn’t preclude you from being a crank. It also doesn’t preclude a crank mentality,or groupthink, in a number of “qualified experts”.
Perhaps, Mack, you should briefly explain what a Slayer is? Sounds like a dogmatic religion. And do we look forward to a good old brawl between you and Andy who,I understand, belongings to a different dogmatic religion?
I like you Mack, you’re much funnier than Ken. The most useful contribution you deniers can make is giving us all a good laugh and as a mark of my respect for your talent and in gratitude for your contribution to the debate I am happy to call you a professional denialist.
I hereby declare as someone qualified with a uni degree that Mack the Slayer is a professional denialist.
Dave,
You could possibly be a bloke I could get along with too.Dave. My bikes were a 1939 Royal Enfield 250cc Clipper and a 1951 Triumph 650cc T-Bird (sprung hub)…….but before your time. 😦
There are no “experts” in this smoking causes cancer issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the doctors.
There are no “experts” in this Evolution issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the biologists.
There are no “experts” in this moon landing issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the NASA scientists.
There are no “experts” in this vaccine safety issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the epidemiologists.
Your ignorance is not equal to my knowledge.
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Cedric, I click on your name and get James Randi, conjurer extraordinare, demystifier, decipherer and investigator of spoonbending,card-shuffling,and the false purveying of all things occult. Your credibility….epic fail Cedric.
Actually, what you will get is the JREF.
It’s a foundation that furthers Jame Randi’s work.
Mission statement:
Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.
About the JREF:
The James Randi Educational Foundation was founded in 1996 to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. The JREF offers a still-unclaimed million-dollar reward for anyone who can produce evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Through scholarships, workshops, and innovative resources for educators, the JREF works to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.
Here is an entertaining piece by Lobos Motl on James Randi, Michael Mann, and “climate pseudo-science” as he calls it
Randi who may be the world’s #1 symbol of skepticism towards pseudoscientific charlatans (and magicians claiming to have special abilities: he reproduced lots of their tricks without any paranormal abilities) turns out to be consistent in his skepticism: he is skeptical towards the climate judgement day pseudoscience, too.
Bloody hell, that’s the nail in the AGW coffin – Cedric Katesby is a member of an organisation that uses conjuring etc to discredit pseudoscience and on a blog by some young Czech, James Randi (not a climate scientist) is “outed” as a denier.
“…he is skeptical towards the climate judgement day pseudoscience, too.
If you are interested in the truth then let the man speak for himself. It’s the honest thing to do.
Randi has done some great work. On the subject of climate change, he really put his foot in it and copped a lot of flak from the scientific community on it. The thing I found the most disturbing was how he got sucked in by the petition thing.
As you can see, the petition is easy to spot as a con job. All it takes is a little background checking. Yet people fall for it. Even someone like Randi.
I skimmed over the Randi piece that Cedric posted, and Randi admits that “he doesn’t know”, rather than take any position, which is fairly consistent with most sceptical positions on climate change
It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes. So many options are open. Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.
Basically, Andy, he had uncritically accepted a couple of the arguments that your mates have made. He got criticised from within the sceptical groups for this and after checking the science for himself he realised he has been uncritical and acknowledge this.
Michael Shermer is another skeptic who has also made a similar transition. Of course in his case he had been driven basically by his libertarianism, but in the end had to acknowledge the science. Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.
Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.
is Matt Ridley a “libertarian”? First I heard of that.
Any basis for this assertion Ken?
has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims
which “denial claims”? I guess you have read The Rational Optimist. Do you have specific examples of where he is wrong in his book?
Or perhaps, where he is wrong in other writings he has made?
As for details I don’t remember – just rather I heard a number of interviews where he was taking up a denier position (don’t recall the petition), and other participants in the discussion criticised his points (yes, he was basically saying I don’t know in response). It was all quite polite, as it has been with Shermer, but Randi did publicly withdraw his comment after checking out some of the facts.
This was 4 or 5 years ago before the manufactured “climategate” issue. Guess he was pretty pleased to have acknowledged his mistake before getting caught up in all that skulduggery.
Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.
Why?
Should we google for the word “vampires” too?
It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes.
This is not something that you will find on the ipcc.
“Insignificant”? Nope. That’s just you. Your feelings are not science.
The size of something (Ebola virus, arsnic, the ozone layer etc) is not in proportion to it’s effect.
It might make you feel better to talk like that but there’s nothing scientific about it.
I picked up Ridley’s libertarianism from one of his books on biology – I think he had a chapter concentrating on his idealistic understanding of capitalist paradise. No, haven’t bothered reading the Rational Optimist (doesn’t interest me) but understand his libertarianism comes through clearly there.
I think anyone who has read much of his public comments over reent yep years would be a fool not to recognise his libertarianism.
Don’t get me wrong, I think his writings on popular science, and the biological origins of morality, were excellent and have no bother recommending them..
Andy, “They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low” which you hurry pick to fit your own biases.
Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem. You can’t magic that problem away by cherry picking values like that.
Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem
And your evidence for this is what Ken?
You you deny that the forcing effects of CO2 are logarithmic? The longer the “pause” in warming sticks around, the less likely it is that some major climatic changes are going to occur. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
Oh wait, you do, it’s the “hockey stick”, oh and blind faith
You’re lying.
There is no “increasingly large” anything.
It’s still NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
There is no future for you where, say, five years from now you will be vindicated and be proven right after all.
Two years from now, you will still have nothing.
Ten years from now you will still be in the same tiny world as the creationists.
Twenty years from now, you will still be sitting at the bus stop in the rain with the anti-flouride nutters.
That’s not going to change.
Do you know why?
You don’t get off your backside and do any work.
You don’t enter the scientific arena and sucessfully defend your ideas.
All of your isolated contrarians are retirees with more than one foot in the grave.
There’s no work. You are forced to cherry pick isolated studies doled out to you from blogs that offer a glimmer of hope in the title or the abstract somewhere.It’s just sad.
HMS Darwin has been sinking for over 150 years now and it’s still going strong.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that cancer instances related to smoking is low.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between HIV and AIDS is low.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between fluoride in the water and brain damage is high.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that disease prevention sensitivity from vaccines is low.
(shrug)
I don’t get my science from some nobody on the internet.
I’m smarter than that.
I get my science from NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
“Increasingly blah, blah, blah”?
That’s nice.
NASA has a website. I’ll wait for it to pop up there. http://climate.nasa.gov/
There is no “pause” in warming, Andy, just in the surface temperature changes. And that isn’t unusual if you look bake at the records for the also 50 years. There is still accumulation of heat in the oceans and the melting of ice.
When I say that even the lower end values for sensitivity present a problem I am just repeating what climate scientists are telling us – I think they are worth listening to and you are not, on his question.
I know your mates in the fossil fuels industry don’t like it but the assessment of the effect of business as usual burning if fossil fuels is pretty well established – no matter how angry that makes you
No they don’t, Andy. They agree that the global surface temperature is currently plateauing (not unusual if you look at the temperature plot over the last 100 years) but the changes in energy balance have not stopped. Energy is still being absorbed into the oceans and melting ice.
But, of course, you and your mates will try to confuse the issue by ignoring everything but the surface temperature record at the moment. The dishonest of omission.
Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?
I’m not asserting anything.
I’m dismissing your claim.
Don’t try and shift the burden of proof. It won’t work.
I could provide a list of recent papers…
Yes, we know. This is the usual line trotted out.
“Hey, here’s a study/newspaper article/blog post/ that you will tremble in awe and fear of.”
So could the creationists, the anti-vaxxers and the flouride nutters out there.
It’s how the science denial game of any stripe is played.
They all have the same playbook.
It’s predictable.
It’s not going to change.
Ten years from now you will still be cherry picking some study or other from the huge pile and making vague, silly claims. It’s never going to end.
So if you are going to start a comment with the statement “You’re lying” then I am not going to go any further reading…
Yes, we know. This is another cliche that’s trotted out.
“Oh, I’m offended”
Been there. Done that. Was not impressed the first time.
All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.
Did you know that NASA has a website devoted to the topic of climate change?
I did.
Let me help you with that.
Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?
No we don’t Ken. We need to keep extracting fossil fuels so that you and your mates can sit in your nice homes furiously tweeting about “deniers”.
We need fossil fuels so that you can drive or catch the bus to the hospital or cruise around on your motorbike at weekends
All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.
I love it when idiots like you try and tell me what NASA agrees on or doesn’t agree on.
NASA has a website.
In English.
I don’t need you. I can skip the middlemen entirely and go directly to the NASA website. That’s what smart people do.
You have nothing.
It’s still you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Tomorrow will be the same.
The day after that too.
There is no spooky-wooky global sekrit scientific global konspiracy.
It’s all in your head. http://climate.nasa.gov/
Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist
He talks of “the pause”. I can find the link sometime, if I can be bothered, which I can’t really, since I might as well be talking to a bunch of Jehovah witnesses.
Global Warming Standstill.
The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for
the past decade. It should be noted that the “standstill” temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998 , which had the strongest El Nino of the
century. However, the standstill
has led to a widespread assertion that “global warming has stopped”
.
Examination of this matter requires consideration of
the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can
drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability
Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist…
I don’t care.
Have you ever heard me bring up Hansen in conversation?
Have you ever heard me quote him?
Nope.
What he says is of no interest to me.
Does he accept climate change? Sure but…I don’t care.
It’s not important.
It’s not about personalities or personal opinions. I don’t single out one solitary scientist or one solitary paper or one solitary quote from one solitary blog.
That’s your thing; not mine.
I go to NASA.
Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
Just NASA.
The NASA website. The NASA website written in plain English that’s dedicated to climate change.
I go to NASA and…(wait for it)…every single scientific community on the planet.
Not individuals. Scientific communities.
Hansen could drop dead tomorrow and it would change nothing.
It’s just like Darwin. Darwin =/= The Theory of Evolution.
Hansen =/= the science behind climate change.
it’s much bigger than that.
Abandon the cult of personalities. Science is not a religion. There are no high priests. There are no prophets.
If you feel the need to bring up individuals either for or against…then you are doing it wrong.
Focus on the vast body of scientific literature going back decades and the position statements of all the scientific communities on the planet.
NASA is a good place to start. http://climate.nasa.gov/
My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
This paper does not support your viewpoint.
Yep, that happens a lot.
Creationists do it.
The recently departed anti-fluoride nutters tried that on only a day or so ago.
It’s a standard shtick.
So very predictable.
You’d think that after the umpteen zillionth time they’d go “Hmm, I remember doing this last week with some other gosh, wow, wonderous paper spoon-fed to me by my favourite denier blog. It failed to impress. Maybe I should fact-check this new gosh wow wonderous paper before I go waving it about? Hmm.”
But no. It’s an established routine. They never hesitate. They never think beyond the next comment in the thread.
Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
This paper does not support your viewpoint.
What is my viewpoint Chris?
My viewpoint is that there has been no change in global mean surface temperature for the last 17 years or so.
What is your viewpoint Chris?Do you disagree with that statement?
If so, can you tell me why?
Show me a statement in that paper that contradicts my “viewpoint”
Cedric – I go to NASA.
Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
Just NASA.
Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it. Hansen is one of the original members of the Goddard Institute at NASA.
Another one is Gavin Schmidt
These people are called “climate scientists”
They write “papers”
NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.
Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it.
Sure but I don’t care about individual scientists.
How can I make this clear to you?
These people are called “climate scientists”
They write “papers”
Yeeessssss but…any one of those papers could be simply wrong.
Any one of those scientists could be mistaken or something bad or whatever.
Personalities are worthless.
Only the work counts.
The vast body of research.
Peer reviewed research.
All of it.
Not one paper here or some single study there or some lonely cherry-picked report there.
Nope. I look at the big picture.
NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.
Not according to NASA.
They have a website.
You don’t get to tell me what they are or are not.
You are just some anonymous wierdo on the internet.
NASA has a website. It’s in English. I can read it for myself.
You got spoon-fed some paper or other from some blog and it sent a thrill up your leg?
Again?
(shrug)
You need to ask yourself what it is that you are doing that is not like the creationists or the anti-vaxxers of the world out there.
You might perhaps wish to clear that up.
Oh yes please.
Perhaps you could mention the Hard Left Marxists too?
That was a golden moment from you.
(How long do the have left before they turn out all the lights in Europe? Two years?)
Tell us how your opinion is different from say…NASA’s website.
That would be fun.
I said “anthropogenic global warming,” Andy. Do try to keep up.
Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.
“I never said that” is hardly an indication that you do not believe it. Certainly, I have gained the impression that you believe it over the course of our interactions, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of this notion.
I never said that “global warming was a hoax”
However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
We see corruption in all walks of life.
Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.
I never said that “vaccinations were a hoax”
I never said that “the moon landings were a hoax”
I never said that “Evolution was a hoax”
I never said that “AIDS research was a hoax”
I never said that “ Water fluoridation was a hoax”
I never said that “cancer risk of smoking was a hoax”
However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
We see corruption in all walks of life.
Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.
Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.
I never said AGW is a hoax
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
However, AGW is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)
Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
There is good climate science and bad climate science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
“I never said Evolution is a hoax
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
However, Evolution is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)
Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
There is good Evolution science and bad Evolution science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.”
Claim CA320:
Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective. (Index to Creationist Claims)
I never said you were a creationist.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
I never said you were a anti vaxxer.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
I never said you were an HIV denier.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck etc, etc, etc.
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index of Creationist Claims)
Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo . This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma… (HIV Denial in the Internet Era)
What, exactly is your viewpoint? What is it that motivates you to chime in on these discussions? What would you seek to convince us all of that would satisfy you that we were all basically in agreement on the topic of climate science?
And please don’t confine yourself to some narrow point (such as 17 year surface temperature trends) which isn’t going to convince anybody of anything. Let’s see some big picture stuff.
Andy, you obviously chose not to read the bit where Mann’s team are also looking forward to discovery. After all, as the plaintiff they have more legitimate reasons for discovery related specifically to the charges of fraud and data manipulation – including emails. The defendants are if course hoping for a fishing expedition – which will probably be knocked back as it was in the previous case because they actually have no evidence for their charges. No justification to go fishing.
Well, Andy, they could justifiably search for material on which they base their charges of fraud and data manipulation. After all, they made their charges and if they are trying to justify their position then there will be some sort of evidence. And to justify their position they must be in possession of that evidence. It would be very weak on their part to claim that they can only get their evidence via discovery of Mann’s emails, etc. that would, or at least should, lead to them being lumbered with very high penalties and they would,min ego feet, admit wrongdoing..
I can imagine all sort of emails and links could come out if Mann pursues discovery.
Perhaps we should try the same sort of think ph here with Treadgold and his team of scientists who wish to remain anonymous.
Creationism never does very well when it goes to court.
Neither does climate denialism.
It’s one thing to indulge in idle babble on some no-name blog. Quite another to step into the real world and face a judge.
NIWA, anyone?
Open Parachute 
That’s good news. I would hate to be in the shoes of people like Michael Mann or James Hanson. What they are doing is incredibly important for all humanity, including the deniers, and they are doing it to the utmost limits of their ability, so why attack them? I liken it to drunks attacking ambulance officers attending someone hurt in a brawl. It’s weak and cowardly.
LikeLike
Totally agree, David.
Those that use smear tactics to discredit an opponant do themselves no favours. It shows they are devoid of rational arguments themselves.
LikeLike
Gidday David and Frank,…. Michael Mann? One small lie for Mann,one giant fraud for mankind.? Nah, let’s not be too harsh,he’s young and was “led to believe”. inspired, encouraged and colluding with a world-wide club of mates protecting their funding and the “cause”.
But the nutty fraudster Hansen is in a different league altogether.
LikeLike
Mack, that’s the very sort of slander these organisations are being sued for – bit cowardly to only do it on blog comments, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Ken, They deserve slander from all quarters when yours and my taxes are not only paying for crappy fraudulant science but also the resultant idiotic taxes as a by- product of their “findings” ,when there are so many other worthy things requiring that funding.
LikeLike
What is this “crappy fraudulent science” Mack?. Well, that is the position the slanderers have put themselves in. To avoid defeat they now have to back up their claims – and they won’t be able to any more than you can. Because the fact is throat these scientists have a high reputation, their indignation have received wide support from other researchers.
So, come on Mack, be specific. Back up your charges. Or be seen as just another cowardly slanderer.
LikeLike
Don’t be too harsh, the poor chap is only repeating what he’s been told and it’s not what he actually thinks. The sad part is nobody, not even Mack himself, knows what he thinks. Perhaps it’s because he has been trained to believe that whatever The Great Ones write on WUWT is actually what he thinks, or perhaps in a nightmarish moment he opened his mind to those evil twins Logic and Reason cruelly and piteously tore down the beautiful and fantastic constructs that were all he believed in and he has promised himself to never open himself to independent thought again.
LikeLike
The Great Ones on WUWT told him that the reason he is so sad is because of tax which the scientists make him pay so they can live in palaces and own jet planes . They are therefore the cause of all his misery.
LikeLike
Yes Ken, the “crappy fraudulent science” is the whole damn “CO2 forcing”, “enhanced greenhouse effect”,”backradiation” “greenhouse gases” AGW…the lot…..First read this..http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341 Then this…http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
LikeLike
Mack?
NASA.
Have you heard of NASA? The people with the rockets and the satellites and the super computers? NASA? Yeah?
Well…they have a website on climate change. You wouldn’t like it.
You see, there’s you with your blog link and then there’s NASA.
To be more accurate, its NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
There’s no getting around that.
You can ignore it or you can call every single scientific community on the planet “crappy” but…it makes you sound like a whacko.
NASA.
They went to the moon and everything, yeah?
Getting your science information from some blog is not too bright.
Try the mainstream scientific communities. All of them are good.
Conspiracy theories are for suckers.
NASA Earth Science – Climate Change and the Global Ocean
LikeLike
And David, Get back to riding your motor-bikes, it will clear out the paranoid shit from your head.
LikeLike
You’re the one with the paranoia.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is not involved in some vast global conspiracy to lie to you.
Leave the blogs alone.
Do some fact checking for yourself for a change.
NASA is a good place to start.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
Cedric just fires off 1/2 cocked. Read the links Cedric. When reading Nasif Nahle ,try to read between the lines for further understanding. You too Ken 😉 Sorry , it’s a marathon read ,but not my fault. If you want to know the truth…its there.
Kind regards
Mack.
LikeLike
I don’t get my science information from some blog.
Nobody should.
On the other hand, there’s NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
(shrug)
LikeLike
It shows they are devoid of rational arguments themselves.
Not true. Examples such as:
(1) Splicing of instrumental data to proxy (see red line on graph)
(2) Use of Bristlecone Pine data which is prone to hockey stick shapes
(3) Short Centred PCA algorithm
(4) Upside-down Tiljander lake sediment proxy
(5) Divergence problem, leading to the “trick” to “hide the decline”
are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Mann’s work
Whether they are right or not is another issue
LikeLike
Sure, Andy, these are the arguments which have attempted to provide a false “sciency” label to the attacks on Mann. But you avoid the fact that none of them have stood up to scientific scrutiny.
The motives for the attacks in Mann have been political, not scientific. And the accusations have been slanderous. I suspect that there will now be a legal rippling to that effect.
And I disagree with you completely, whether the charges are correct or not is the issue. Or at least has been the issue for those investigating committees in the past.
But the issue for the court is more serious. Claimed of fraudulent behaviour were made – these are extremely serious for scientists and hopefully the court will treat the defendants accordingly. It’s one thing for scientists to make mistakes or pursue their own pet theories. It’s another to fraudulently manufacture or manipulate data. Mann has done neither and those who continue making such charges should get their come uppance.
LikeLike
Apology to David Thompson…lets just call them cobwebs in the head.
LikeLike
“Not true. Examples such as:
(1) Second Law of Thermodynamics
(2) Axe’s folding proteins
(3) Goo to the Zoo to You
(4) The lack of transitional fossils
(5) The Piltdown Man hoax
are some examples of rational arguments that have been used to criticise Darwins’s work. Whether they are right or not is another issue.”
(shrug)
Mann does work. It’s work that enters the scientific arena and kicks ass.
It’s backed up by research that’s publically available and has had to jump through the peer-review process going back decades.
It’s work that is tested and confirmed and built upon by other scientific communites from all around the world.
If someone want’s to critcise Mann’s work then there are no short-cuts in science.
It’s “enter the scientific arena or take a strong dose of shut the fuck up, bitch”.
I hope Mann sues them for a tidy sum.
This cowardly, gutless sniping has got to stop.
You have evidence of fraud? Great. Go to the police. Fraud is a crime.
You can lock people up for that.
Call the police. I dare you.
Conspiracy thinking is for morons.
LikeLike
These “sciency” things have been dealt with over a period of years on Steve McIntyre’s blog
So, Ken, you will be able to explain to us why the graph you display has instrumental data spliced onto the end of the proxy data, with a description of why this is a valid technique, and possibly examples from other fields?
The Marcott et al paper that had a similar “hockey stick” was described by its authors as “not statistically robust”.
The Yamal paper of Briffa has now been updated with the hockey stick removed.
The Gergis et al hockey stick reconstruction for the southern hemisphere was withdrawn after a fairly major flaw was found by readers of Climate Audit
Sounds like science working, not people “attacking” scientists.
LikeLike
Andy, I can appreciate that the science may be beyond you but these arguments of yours have been refuted many times over. They are silly.
The court case will not be dealing with the science – except to the extent thattheplaintiffs can provide support for their claims that Mann committed fraud and data manipulation.
Now, have a look at the graph – the red line is clearly attributed (CRU observed trend) – nothing “spliced.” There is absolutely no reason why data from different sources and methods cannot be displayed in the same graph. If this is your concept of fraud and data manipulation you also need to be done for slander. It certainly disqualifies you from any scientific credibility.
The reference to lack of robustness in Marcott’s work was to the proxy data at recent time. It would be stupid to use such proxy at recent times because we already have very high resolution instrumental data.
These manufactured controversies rely on scientific ignorance. They are not “science working” – neither are the slanderous charges of fraud and data manipulation. They are outright political slander and hopefully will be strongly dealt with.
LikeLike
Apology accepted Mack, but the cobwebs will only clear when you allow yourself to critically assess the words of the Great Ones (Like Dr Roy Spencer).
Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books. You conduct no research, have no primary data, belong to no professional associations, are bound by no codes or rules, are never required to engage in professional development and your behaviour is not subject to independent scrutiny.
But for me the kicker is that if you’re proven wrong the only cost to you is your pride, and given you are largely anonymous, there is no risk.
Then you have the scientists and allied professionals. They get found either deliberately lying or being so inept they miss something an amateur can find and decades of work goes out the window along with their reputation and any chance of a job better than pumping gas.
Or organisations like NASA and NIWA who are dependent on government funding for their survival and NGOs like the WMO or the IPCC who are equally dependent on external funding. If the CEOs of these organisations find out that anyone working for them is either an idiot or a liar they would be pumping gas by lunchtime. If anyone discovered that the entire staff of, say, NASA, were a mix of idiots and crooks (how would you keep that under wraps for more than 8 minutes) you would have the story of the millenia and the US deficit would suddenly cease to be a problem
And companies like PWC or McKinsey & Co have spent billions and decades building a reputation for being trustworthy and expert enough to command staggering amounts for their advice. If, say, a competitor got wind that the hundreds of millions they have been paid for climate change advice was all a fraud; that’s the end of the whole company.
One group comprising everything from scientists to accountants says one thing, and if they’re wrong, they’re history. Then we have a few thousand people, mostly middle aged men with blogs, who says another thing and has nothing to lose by being wrong.
Who would the wise man listen to?
LikeLike
The original claim was that there was “no rational argument” for criticising Mann. I gave some examples of rational arguments, and then you claim that these have been refuted (without references)
Does this then make them irrational arguments?
Furthermore, you seem to think that it is fine to splice instrumental data onto proxy data, at different resolutions. I never claimed that this was “fraud”. You attributed the word “fraud” to my comment.
It was Nobel Prize winner Distinguished Professor Mann that brought this lawsuit, not the CEI or Mark Steyn. If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?
I think the CEI and Steyn are quite glad that Mann has brought the case to court, so that they can get hold of those “deleted” emails
Should be fun.
LikeLike
Seriously, you guys act as though you have authority and expertise in climate science despite no formal or structured training, no professional background and no resources beyond what is free on the internet and a few books
David, do you have any evidence for this assertion?
LikeLike
Andy, look at the graph above – those are plots from different sources presented in the same graphic. No one has “spliced” them.
The case has been brought against CEI and The National Review. They had made unsubstantiated claims of fraud and worse. (As have you and your mates, Andy). They now face the consequences. I get the impression Mann is not worried – just that he feels he has nailed them. And a lot of scientists would love to see him succeed.
As for the defendants being “quite glad” – why then did they move to throw the case out and thus deny themselves these “emails”? The fact that their motion was clearly rejected and the court says the charges of fraud and data manipulation must be looked into is upsetting for them and their supporters like you. Hence the bluster.
LikeLike
Sure, I’m generalising, but I’m talking about a widely dispersed group and I’m describing what I have observed from what deniers say in their posts and what they say in their bios. Am I wrong? Are they,as a body, as qualified, experienced, skilled and resourced as the body of climate scientists?
Back to my question – which group should a lay person with limited knowledge about climate science (99.999% of the population) listen to?
LikeLike
If he is so sensitive about a few comments in “right wing” magazines then he should just keep quiet. After all, they are not part of the scientific peer review process, so why is he worried about it?
Why worry about anti-vaxxers pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
Why worry about the tobacco lobby pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
Why worry about creationists pushing pseudo science?
They’re not part of the scientific peer-reveiwed process either.
(Sniff. So very beautiful. Denier logic never chances. Just the labels.)
Science is the study of reality. Reality is where we live. What you don’t know or don’t understand can kill you.
Cancer is a good example. Cancer will kill you. You can deny it all you want but the cancer doesn’t care.
The way you get reliable information on cancer is the same way you should get reliable information on climate change or the safety of vaccines for children or the dangers of smoking.
We rely upon the medical community to diagnose and treat cancer.
Smart people will go the NIH or some other medical scientific community to find out information on cancer.
Not that hard.
Sensible, normal stuff and no global conspiracy thinking required.
Flogging the Scientists
LikeLike
Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch Monday 22 July « The Daily Blog
So Mack’s a “slayer”, people too flaky even for the likes of Watts and Spencer.
LikeLike
David, Try to refrain from calling me a denier. Denialist ,OK…it’s more professional. There are no “experts” in this AGW issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the climate scientists.(Note..no uni. degree in climate science) Another thing, just because you’re qualified with uni. degree doesn’t preclude you from being a crank. It also doesn’t preclude a crank mentality,or groupthink, in a number of “qualified experts”.
LikeLike
Yes Andrew W, I’m a slayer, This huge deceptive mistake in the incoming solar radiation made by Trenberth , a kiwi, is a disgrace to NZ and science.
LikeLike
Perhaps, Mack, you should briefly explain what a Slayer is? Sounds like a dogmatic religion. And do we look forward to a good old brawl between you and Andy who,I understand, belongings to a different dogmatic religion?
LikeLike
I like you Mack, you’re much funnier than Ken. The most useful contribution you deniers can make is giving us all a good laugh and as a mark of my respect for your talent and in gratitude for your contribution to the debate I am happy to call you a professional denialist.
I hereby declare as someone qualified with a uni degree that Mack the Slayer is a professional denialist.
LikeLike
Dave,
You could possibly be a bloke I could get along with too.Dave. My bikes were a 1939 Royal Enfield 250cc Clipper and a 1951 Triumph 650cc T-Bird (sprung hub)…….but before your time. 😦
LikeLike
There are no “experts” in this smoking causes cancer issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the doctors.
There are no “experts” in this Evolution issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the biologists.
There are no “experts” in this moon landing issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the NASA scientists.
There are no “experts” in this vaccine safety issue. Nobody has such “expertise”, least of all the epidemiologists.
Your ignorance is not equal to my knowledge.
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Penn and Teller – Bullsh*t – Vaccinations
LikeLike
Cedric, I click on your name and get James Randi, conjurer extraordinare, demystifier, decipherer and investigator of spoonbending,card-shuffling,and the false purveying of all things occult. Your credibility….epic fail Cedric.
LikeLike
Actually, what you will get is the JREF.
It’s a foundation that furthers Jame Randi’s work.
Mission statement:
Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.
About the JREF:
The James Randi Educational Foundation was founded in 1996 to help people defend themselves from paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. The JREF offers a still-unclaimed million-dollar reward for anyone who can produce evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Through scholarships, workshops, and innovative resources for educators, the JREF works to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.
Credibility? In spades.
James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff
LikeLike
Here is an entertaining piece by Lobos Motl on James Randi, Michael Mann, and “climate pseudo-science” as he calls it
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/climate-james-randi-vs-mindless.html
I liked his description of P Z Myers as “the self-described godless ejaculating scumbag P.Z. Myers who calls me names”
LikeLike
Bloody hell, that’s the nail in the AGW coffin – Cedric Katesby is a member of an organisation that uses conjuring etc to discredit pseudoscience and on a blog by some young Czech, James Randi (not a climate scientist) is “outed” as a denier.
I guess that’s the end of the IPCC.
LikeLike
“…he is skeptical towards the climate judgement day pseudoscience, too.
If you are interested in the truth then let the man speak for himself. It’s the honest thing to do.
Randi has done some great work. On the subject of climate change, he really put his foot in it and copped a lot of flak from the scientific community on it. The thing I found the most disturbing was how he got sucked in by the petition thing.
LikeLike
I remember the incident, Cedric, but Randi actually later acknowledged his mistake and effectively criticised himself for going off half cocked.
Not surprised that Andy is selective in his linking though. Not surprised at all.
LikeLike
As you can see, the petition is easy to spot as a con job. All it takes is a little background checking. Yet people fall for it. Even someone like Randi.
32000 Scientists
LikeLike
David, there was also an answer to your previous question as to “who should you listen to” in the Motl link I published
Ken, Randi later “admitted his mistake”
Which mistake was that Ken?
LikeLike
I skimmed over the Randi piece that Cedric posted, and Randi admits that “he doesn’t know”, rather than take any position, which is fairly consistent with most sceptical positions on climate change
It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes. So many options are open. Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.
LikeLike
Fantastic!
LikeLike
What is fantastic David?
LikeLike
Basically, Andy, he had uncritically accepted a couple of the arguments that your mates have made. He got criticised from within the sceptical groups for this and after checking the science for himself he realised he has been uncritical and acknowledge this.
Michael Shermer is another skeptic who has also made a similar transition. Of course in his case he had been driven basically by his libertarianism, but in the end had to acknowledge the science. Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.
LikeLike
By the way, “some Czech” is a theoretical physicist with a specialty in string theory and a penchant for a sharp and abrasive tongue.
LikeLike
Basically, Andy, he had uncritically accepted a couple of the arguments that your mates have made.
Which arguments?
Which mates?
LikeLike
Ridley is someone who has also been driven by his libertarianism but still has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims.
is Matt Ridley a “libertarian”? First I heard of that.
Any basis for this assertion Ken?
has not been able to break though to make a critical assessment of denial claims
which “denial claims”? I guess you have read The Rational Optimist. Do you have specific examples of where he is wrong in his book?
Or perhaps, where he is wrong in other writings he has made?
LikeLike
Andy, your climate change denier mates.
As for details I don’t remember – just rather I heard a number of interviews where he was taking up a denier position (don’t recall the petition), and other participants in the discussion criticised his points (yes, he was basically saying I don’t know in response). It was all quite polite, as it has been with Shermer, but Randi did publicly withdraw his comment after checking out some of the facts.
This was 4 or 5 years ago before the manufactured “climategate” issue. Guess he was pretty pleased to have acknowledged his mistake before getting caught up in all that skulduggery.
LikeLike
Try Googling within the ipcc.ch domain for “dangerous” or “catastrophic” gw/cc and tell me what you find.
Why?
Should we google for the word “vampires” too?
It is still possible that the late 20th Century warming between 1975 and 1998 is attributable to CO2, and that an insignificant amount more will occur in our lifetimes.
This is not something that you will find on the ipcc.
“Insignificant”? Nope. That’s just you. Your feelings are not science.
The size of something (Ebola virus, arsnic, the ozone layer etc) is not in proportion to it’s effect.
It might make you feel better to talk like that but there’s nothing scientific about it.
26 — Science vs. the Feelies
LikeLike
I picked up Ridley’s libertarianism from one of his books on biology – I think he had a chapter concentrating on his idealistic understanding of capitalist paradise. No, haven’t bothered reading the Rational Optimist (doesn’t interest me) but understand his libertarianism comes through clearly there.
I think anyone who has read much of his public comments over reent yep years would be a fool not to recognise his libertarianism.
Don’t get me wrong, I think his writings on popular science, and the biological origins of morality, were excellent and have no bother recommending them..
LikeLike
This is not something that you will find on the ipcc.
“Insignificant”? Nope. That’s just you. Your feelings are not science.
They are not my feelings. They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low
LikeLike
Andy, “They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low” which you hurry pick to fit your own biases.
Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem. You can’t magic that problem away by cherry picking values like that.
LikeLike
Bit the fact is even using the lower end values the likely climate change from our use of fossil fuels business as usual scenario is still a huge problem
And your evidence for this is what Ken?
You you deny that the forcing effects of CO2 are logarithmic? The longer the “pause” in warming sticks around, the less likely it is that some major climatic changes are going to occur. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
Oh wait, you do, it’s the “hockey stick”, oh and blind faith
LikeLike
They are the increasingly large body of…
You’re lying.
There is no “increasingly large” anything.
It’s still NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
There is no future for you where, say, five years from now you will be vindicated and be proven right after all.
Two years from now, you will still have nothing.
Ten years from now you will still be in the same tiny world as the creationists.
Twenty years from now, you will still be sitting at the bus stop in the rain with the anti-flouride nutters.
That’s not going to change.
Do you know why?
You don’t get off your backside and do any work.
You don’t enter the scientific arena and sucessfully defend your ideas.
All of your isolated contrarians are retirees with more than one foot in the grave.
There’s no work. You are forced to cherry pick isolated studies doled out to you from blogs that offer a glimmer of hope in the title or the abstract somewhere.It’s just sad.
HMS Darwin has been sinking for over 150 years now and it’s still going strong.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that cancer instances related to smoking is low.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between HIV and AIDS is low.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests the link between fluoride in the water and brain damage is high.
They are the increasingly large body of work that suggests that disease prevention sensitivity from vaccines is low.
(shrug)
I don’t get my science from some nobody on the internet.
I’m smarter than that.
I get my science from NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
“Increasingly blah, blah, blah”?
That’s nice.
NASA has a website. I’ll wait for it to pop up there.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
You’re lying.
and your assertion for this is what?
I could provide a list of recent papers giving a low ball estimate for CS (such as Otto et al)
So if you are going to start a comment with the statement “You’re lying” then I am not going to go any further reading your comment
Maybe you and your friends can have a group hug and review the literature on climate sensitivity and get back to me.
I have a busy day ahead working for Big Oil
LikeLike
There is no “pause” in warming, Andy, just in the surface temperature changes. And that isn’t unusual if you look bake at the records for the also 50 years. There is still accumulation of heat in the oceans and the melting of ice.
When I say that even the lower end values for sensitivity present a problem I am just repeating what climate scientists are telling us – I think they are worth listening to and you are not, on his question.
I know your mates in the fossil fuels industry don’t like it but the assessment of the effect of business as usual burning if fossil fuels is pretty well established – no matter how angry that makes you
LikeLike
There is no “pause” in warming, Andy
Yes there is Ken. All the major academies agree on this. NASA included
LikeLike
No they don’t, Andy. They agree that the global surface temperature is currently plateauing (not unusual if you look at the temperature plot over the last 100 years) but the changes in energy balance have not stopped. Energy is still being absorbed into the oceans and melting ice.
But, of course, you and your mates will try to confuse the issue by ignoring everything but the surface temperature record at the moment. The dishonest of omission.
Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?
LikeLike
..and your assertion for this is what?
I’m not asserting anything.
I’m dismissing your claim.
Don’t try and shift the burden of proof. It won’t work.
I could provide a list of recent papers…
Yes, we know. This is the usual line trotted out.
“Hey, here’s a study/newspaper article/blog post/ that you will tremble in awe and fear of.”
So could the creationists, the anti-vaxxers and the flouride nutters out there.
It’s how the science denial game of any stripe is played.
They all have the same playbook.
It’s predictable.
It’s not going to change.
Ten years from now you will still be cherry picking some study or other from the huge pile and making vague, silly claims. It’s never going to end.
So if you are going to start a comment with the statement “You’re lying” then I am not going to go any further reading…
Yes, we know. This is another cliche that’s trotted out.
“Oh, I’m offended”
Been there. Done that. Was not impressed the first time.
All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.
Did you know that NASA has a website devoted to the topic of climate change?
I did.
Let me help you with that.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
Don’t want to harm all those profits from fossil fuel burning, do we?
No we don’t Ken. We need to keep extracting fossil fuels so that you and your mates can sit in your nice homes furiously tweeting about “deniers”.
We need fossil fuels so that you can drive or catch the bus to the hospital or cruise around on your motorbike at weekends
LikeLike
Ah yes, heaven forefend that we might try to improve fuel efficiency or look forpractical alternatives to burning fossil fuels. That way lies madness.
LikeLike
another day, another strawman argument..
LikeLike
Well, if you don’t like straw man arguments, perhaps you ought to stop making them.
LikeLike
These new avatars are pretty wacky aren’t they? You look like SpongeBob Squarepants, Chris
LikeLike
Huh? The avatars have changed again.
Cedric will be pleased to have his old one back
LikeLike
Just trying to keep you awake, Andy.
LikeLike
All the major academies agree on this. NASA included.
I love it when idiots like you try and tell me what NASA agrees on or doesn’t agree on.
NASA has a website.
In English.
I don’t need you. I can skip the middlemen entirely and go directly to the NASA website. That’s what smart people do.
You have nothing.
It’s still you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Tomorrow will be the same.
The day after that too.
There is no spooky-wooky global sekrit scientific global konspiracy.
It’s all in your head.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist
He talks of “the pause”. I can find the link sometime, if I can be bothered, which I can’t really, since I might as well be talking to a bunch of Jehovah witnesses.
LikeLike
Oh, OK, then
Click to access 20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
Also mentions the partial saturation of CO2 forcing
LikeLike
Maybe the Lizard People got to Hansen in the middle of the night?
LikeLike
Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
This paper does not support your viewpoint.
LikeLike
Cedric, James Hansen works at NASA, or at least he did until he became a full time activist…
I don’t care.
Have you ever heard me bring up Hansen in conversation?
Have you ever heard me quote him?
Nope.
What he says is of no interest to me.
Does he accept climate change? Sure but…I don’t care.
It’s not important.
It’s not about personalities or personal opinions. I don’t single out one solitary scientist or one solitary paper or one solitary quote from one solitary blog.
That’s your thing; not mine.
I go to NASA.
Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
Just NASA.
The NASA website. The NASA website written in plain English that’s dedicated to climate change.
I go to NASA and…(wait for it)…every single scientific community on the planet.
Not individuals. Scientific communities.
Hansen could drop dead tomorrow and it would change nothing.
It’s just like Darwin. Darwin =/= The Theory of Evolution.
Hansen =/= the science behind climate change.
it’s much bigger than that.
Abandon the cult of personalities. Science is not a religion. There are no high priests. There are no prophets.
If you feel the need to bring up individuals either for or against…then you are doing it wrong.
Focus on the vast body of scientific literature going back decades and the position statements of all the scientific communities on the planet.
NASA is a good place to start.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
This paper does not support your viewpoint.
Yep, that happens a lot.
Creationists do it.
The recently departed anti-fluoride nutters tried that on only a day or so ago.
It’s a standard shtick.
So very predictable.
You’d think that after the umpteen zillionth time they’d go “Hmm, I remember doing this last week with some other gosh, wow, wonderous paper spoon-fed to me by my favourite denier blog. It failed to impress. Maybe I should fact-check this new gosh wow wonderous paper before I go waving it about? Hmm.”
But no. It’s an established routine. They never hesitate. They never think beyond the next comment in the thread.
Birth of a Climate Crock
LikeLike
Andy, I located that paper for myself. My reading of it indicates that you have cherry-picked a quotation which fits your agenda (relating to surface temperatures), whilst ignoring the overall conclusions.
This paper does not support your viewpoint.
What is my viewpoint Chris?
My viewpoint is that there has been no change in global mean surface temperature for the last 17 years or so.
What is your viewpoint Chris?Do you disagree with that statement?
If so, can you tell me why?
Show me a statement in that paper that contradicts my “viewpoint”
Cedric –
I go to NASA.
Not Hansen or some other guy working at NASA.
Just NASA.
Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it. Hansen is one of the original members of the Goddard Institute at NASA.
Another one is Gavin Schmidt
These people are called “climate scientists”
They write “papers”
NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.
LikeLike
Is it indeed? I was under the impression that your viewpoint was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, perpetrated by corrupt scientists.
You might perhaps wish to clear that up.
LikeLike
Is it indeed? I was under the impression that your viewpoint was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, perpetrated by corrupt scientists.
I never said that “global warming was a hoax”
However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
We see corruption in all walks of life.
Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.
It has always been with us and always will be, and there will always be people defending that corruption, people who have a vested interest in it.
For example, the kind of parasites that we see on NZ “science” blogs and cesspits like “The Standard” and “The Daily Blog”
LikeLike
Cedric, NASA has these things called “people” working for it.
Sure but I don’t care about individual scientists.
How can I make this clear to you?
These people are called “climate scientists”
They write “papers”
Yeeessssss but…any one of those papers could be simply wrong.
Any one of those scientists could be mistaken or something bad or whatever.
Personalities are worthless.
Only the work counts.
The vast body of research.
Peer reviewed research.
All of it.
Not one paper here or some single study there or some lonely cherry-picked report there.
Nope. I look at the big picture.
NASA is a corporate body that issues press releases.
Not according to NASA.
They have a website.
You don’t get to tell me what they are or are not.
You are just some anonymous wierdo on the internet.
NASA has a website. It’s in English. I can read it for myself.
You got spoon-fed some paper or other from some blog and it sent a thrill up your leg?
Again?
(shrug)
You need to ask yourself what it is that you are doing that is not like the creationists or the anti-vaxxers of the world out there.
You might perhaps wish to clear that up.
Oh yes please.
Perhaps you could mention the Hard Left Marxists too?
That was a golden moment from you.
(How long do the have left before they turn out all the lights in Europe? Two years?)
Tell us how your opinion is different from say…NASA’s website.
That would be fun.
tobacco_papers
LikeLike
And the greatest corruption is found in the corporate sector.
LikeLike
I said “anthropogenic global warming,” Andy. Do try to keep up.
Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.
“I never said that” is hardly an indication that you do not believe it. Certainly, I have gained the impression that you believe it over the course of our interactions, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of this notion.
LikeLike
I never said that “global warming was a hoax”
However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
We see corruption in all walks of life.
Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.
I never said that “vaccinations were a hoax”
I never said that “the moon landings were a hoax”
I never said that “Evolution was a hoax”
I never said that “AIDS research was a hoax”
I never said that “ Water fluoridation was a hoax”
I never said that “cancer risk of smoking was a hoax”
However there are plenty of corrupt scientists
We see corruption in all walks of life.
Government, the police the army, the press, science, education.
(Sniff. So very beautiful)
LikeLike
Are you saying that my impression is incorrect, and that you do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists, you need only say so and I shall take your word on it.
I never said AGW is a hoax
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
However, AGW is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)
Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
There is good climate science and bad climate science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
LikeLike
“I never said Evolution is a hoax
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
However, Evolution is a theory that was proposed some time ago. A very large funding gravy train then proceeded to build up which enforced a mentality of groupthink and dogma (in my view)
Naturally, there will be some corruption in any system where this is allowed to happen.
There is good Evolution science and bad Evolution science. The difficulty for most of us is sorting out the wheat from the chaff.”
Claim CA320:
Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index to Creationist Claims)
LikeLike
Are you accusing me of being a creationist?
ha ha ha
That is hilarious
*facepalm*
LikeLike
(Sniff. So very beautiful)
I guess in Cedric’s world, everyone is honest.
This is not my world, unfortunately. Try working with Christchurch Insurance Claims, for example
LikeLike
Or try talking sense to Richard Treadgold and the idiots who congregate around his blog? Makes you lose faith in human nature, eh Andy?
LikeLike
Are you accusing me of being a creationist?
No. Why would you think that?
I never said you were a creationist.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
I never said you were a anti vaxxer.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck.
I never said you were an HIV denier.
If you can find a link where I said that, good luck etc, etc, etc.
LikeLike
I guess in Cedric’s world, everyone is honest.
Bad guess. Try reading English.
Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index of Creationist Claims)
Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo . This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma…
(HIV Denial in the Internet Era)
LikeLike
Alright Andy, let’s go back to first principles.
What, exactly is your viewpoint? What is it that motivates you to chime in on these discussions? What would you seek to convince us all of that would satisfy you that we were all basically in agreement on the topic of climate science?
And please don’t confine yourself to some narrow point (such as 17 year surface temperature trends) which isn’t going to convince anybody of anything. Let’s see some big picture stuff.
LikeLike
(…grabs the popcorn…)
Go for it, Andy! Come out of the closet and say it loud and proud.
LikeLike
” Go for it, Andy! Come out of the closet and say it loud and proud”
Reminds me of the joke about the Royal Baby
They should have called it “George Michael” because it took so long to come out
LikeLike
Mark Steyn posted up the link to the Slate article on Facebook. He seems to be quite looking forward to the lawsuit.
I expect he is hoping to find out the contents of some emails by the process of discovery. Should be fun.
LikeLike
Andy, you obviously chose not to read the bit where Mann’s team are also looking forward to discovery. After all, as the plaintiff they have more legitimate reasons for discovery related specifically to the charges of fraud and data manipulation – including emails. The defendants are if course hoping for a fishing expedition – which will probably be knocked back as it was in the previous case because they actually have no evidence for their charges. No justification to go fishing.
I am also looking forward to discovery.
LikeLike
So what will they discover Ken?
On the other side of the coin, the email that Phil Jones instructed Mann to delete might come out of the woodwork.
Steyn doesn’t actually seem that concerned about this.
LikeLike
Well, Andy, they could justifiably search for material on which they base their charges of fraud and data manipulation. After all, they made their charges and if they are trying to justify their position then there will be some sort of evidence. And to justify their position they must be in possession of that evidence. It would be very weak on their part to claim that they can only get their evidence via discovery of Mann’s emails, etc. that would, or at least should, lead to them being lumbered with very high penalties and they would,min ego feet, admit wrongdoing..
I can imagine all sort of emails and links could come out if Mann pursues discovery.
Perhaps we should try the same sort of think ph here with Treadgold and his team of scientists who wish to remain anonymous.
LikeLike
Creationism never does very well when it goes to court.
Neither does climate denialism.
It’s one thing to indulge in idle babble on some no-name blog. Quite another to step into the real world and face a judge.
NIWA, anyone?
LikeLike
Perhaps we should try the same sort of think ph here with Treadgold and his team of scientists who wish to remain anonymous.
Were the people who brought the case to court anonymous? Were there others hiding in the wings that we don’t know about?
Sounds very spooky.
LikeLike
Pingback: Mike Mann’s Defamation Suit | Planet3.0