tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2052299102028371765..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Vicious attacks on Michael Mann: More smears from Mark Steyn and Anthony Watts' lynch mobSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21719431308700640532016-05-31T08:58:00.138+10:002016-05-31T08:58:00.138+10:00"I wouldn't go visit Watts, you know, tha..."I wouldn't go visit Watts, you know, that is one of the creepiest parts of the country."<br /><br />Watts lives in Chico and it's beautiful up here. I live in Chico too (born here) and I've never heard this crazy story you relate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44567999049877436082016-02-09T22:47:50.221+11:002016-02-09T22:47:50.221+11:00"It does look as if Mark Steyn is thumbing hi..."It does look as if Mark Steyn is thumbing his nose at the court, though he is more circumspect than he was in his article that prompted the defamation suit."<br /><br />Seeing as us lucky people down under are going to get a visit from Mark Steyn. He will be speaking at the IPA I believe.<br /><br />Mark Steyn is practically begging the US courts to give him a hard time. I just watched his speech at the Heartland Institute in 2015. He also reconfirms he knows nothing about climate science.<br /><br />I have to wonder, is he up to something? Or is his ego just out of control?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8433519609432268932016-01-03T14:37:50.876+11:002016-01-03T14:37:50.876+11:00:-):-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4380694316827253952016-01-03T14:25:17.706+11:002016-01-03T14:25:17.706+11:00Let sleeping trolls lie, Harry. (Double meaning in...Let sleeping trolls lie, Harry. (Double meaning intended.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35078557681324462672016-01-03T14:18:58.227+11:002016-01-03T14:18:58.227+11:00Going to discuss why you think this, or are you ju...Going to discuss why you think this, or are you just trolling?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72602003975431912512016-01-03T12:48:52.812+11:002016-01-03T12:48:52.812+11:00Steyn is going to kick Mann's ass in court.Steyn is going to kick Mann's ass in court. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84947293709923163832015-08-30T01:05:21.368+10:002015-08-30T01:05:21.368+10:00Another denier rears his head.
Jack's "T...Another denier rears his head.<br /><br />Jack's "Tide of vitriol" is on par with Anthony Watt's use of the words "hate" and "anger", whenever he comes across anyone writing about science. It's denier-speak for "climate science is a hoax". Given it's on this thread, I'd say that Jack is just another denier who thinks "free speech" means he has the right to defame anyone he feels like whenever he feels like it. He's wrong.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77504228999996225322015-08-30T00:37:00.707+10:002015-08-30T00:37:00.707+10:00"It does rather take the sting and credibilit...<i>"It does rather take the sting and credibility out of any criticism, don't you think?"</i><br /><br />No, not in the least. You seem to have lost touch with how weak, predictable and repetitious denier cant is. Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55624311489424618852015-08-30T00:13:20.939+10:002015-08-30T00:13:20.939+10:00Alas, I do not remember you Millicent. Forgettable...Alas, I do not remember you Millicent. Forgettable is as forgettable does.<br />However, I cannot imagine myself being drawn into an argument about slug pellets...having never used such a thing. I fear you may be mistaken on that "fond" recollection. My comment history there is still available if you wish to check.<br />I did indeed comment freely at the Grun until such time as I was banned from posting there after daring to suggest that the famous "2 degrees of warming means we are all fubar" was a figure that had no basis in science whatsoever.<br />I am amused but not surprised at the tide of vitriol unleashed upon the book here, despite the fact that no one has actually read it. It does rather take the sting and credibility out of any criticism, don't you think?<br />It is as though you all feared contamination or something.Jack Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09080676066827852249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83667978376491242632015-08-18T06:36:39.462+10:002015-08-18T06:36:39.462+10:00Perhaps Heartland and/or the Koch brothers need to...Perhaps Heartland and/or the Koch brothers need to buy more copies of the book soon.. ;) <br /><br />0^0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76216023293343651052015-08-17T16:05:21.920+10:002015-08-17T16:05:21.920+10:00Mal Adapted.
I never mentioned criminality. Consp...Mal Adapted.<br /><br />I never mentioned criminality. Conspiracies are not necessarily criminal.<br /><br />My point is the lobby groups and some pundits are engaged in a conspiracy because they try to keep their patrons secret.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34226776517311812162015-08-17T14:48:40.169+10:002015-08-17T14:48:40.169+10:00the quote debunking begins...<a href="https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/as-the-world-burns-episode-i-judith-curry-mark-steyn-partners-in-slime/" rel="nofollow">the quote debunking begins...</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43511518914208453042015-08-17T09:02:16.064+10:002015-08-17T09:02:16.064+10:00Mal Adapted
Hmm, "conspiracy" has conno...Mal Adapted<br /><br /><i>Hmm, "conspiracy" has connotations of criminality, and secrecy to keep the crime from being discovered.</i><br /><br />Everything of course hinges on the definition of 'crime'. No laws are being broken, as you say. But as I imagine you suspect, posterity is likely to lean towards a moral rather than a legal interpretation of what we are doing.<br /><br />Which of course includes our failure to tear down the curtain woven about itself by vested interest in time, despite our best efforts.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87458311296388355812015-08-17T08:29:59.017+10:002015-08-17T08:29:59.017+10:00Joshua: "I am taking issue with the arguments...Joshua: "I am taking issue with the arguments that you're making about those moral and ethical issues: Your dismissal of the role of identity-protective mechanisms in arguments about moral and ethical issues would be a case in point... reverse engineering from perspective on climate change to judging morals and motivations is a very common, and flawed line of argumentation that is ubiquitous in the "skept-o-sphere."<br /><br />Joshua, I agree that ditto-heads who deny AGW because their friends and neighbors do aren't immoral in the way that cynical, self-interested AGW-deniers like Joe Bast or James Inhofe are. But in a democracy, every voter has the responsibility to put aside their identity-protective mechanisms and even their dreams of an ideal world, in favor of clear-eyed reasoning. That includes those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 as much as it does those who keep returning Inhofe to the Senate. <br /><br />When comparing the lopsided consensus of working climate scientists with the "perspective" that it's all a conspiracy to advance world socialism, there's really no moral quandary. AGW isn't a perspective, it's a reality, and anyone who denies the urgency of curtailing Tyndall gas emissions on the argument from consequences has abdicated his obligation to "my fellow human beings, my children and eventually grand children", his express wishes for "the best possible world" not withstanding. Scientific illiteracy doesn't excuse him either, even if he's well-meaning but feels he's supposed to be "skeptical". Failure to distinguish between scientific rigor and self-interested obfuscation isn't skeptical, it's just lazy.<br /><br />Joshua, I consider you a genuine skeptic, but your reluctance to judge morals and motivations is puzzling. Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. It's not immoral to fool yourself, as long as the consequences of your self-deception fall only on you. But when the security of millions of people is at stake, self-deception is immoral whatever its motivation. I support Sou's refusal to give it the benefit of your doubts.<br />Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9814100631109468512015-08-17T07:01:35.996+10:002015-08-17T07:01:35.996+10:00Harry Twinotter: "Conspiracy Theory? No, just...Harry Twinotter: "Conspiracy Theory? No, just a plain conspiracy. If anyone thinks organising and funding lobby groups to dishonestly oppose consensus science in the public arena is not a conspiracy, I am happy to hear counter-arguments."<br /><br />Hmm, "conspiracy" has connotations of criminality, and secrecy to keep the crime from being discovered. In the USA though, short of actionable libel it's legal to deliberately manufacture and spread disinformation about climate science, and to fund same. And prior to a couple of recent court decisions, much of the funding was a matter of public record. Secrecy may help the professional disinformers and their benefactors avoid embarrassment, but they need not fear prosecution. In any case, they know they can rely on useful idiots like Vic here to carry their water and deflect attention from the man behind the curtain. Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54631408579472335022015-08-17T06:20:12.133+10:002015-08-17T06:20:12.133+10:00One of the commenters at Amazon.co.uk nailed it:
...One of the commenters at Amazon.co.uk nailed it:<br /><br />"The Greatest Gathering of Scientific Authorities Since Marie Antoinette Dined Alone"Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2054068751274251532015-08-16T22:46:41.476+10:002015-08-16T22:46:41.476+10:00Steyn's book now sales rank #939 and tanking f...Steyn's book now sales rank #939 and tanking fast, the dream seems to be over ....<br /><br />Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.Phil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35691559331461349912015-08-15T17:44:20.500+10:002015-08-15T17:44:20.500+10:00"It's barely worth the trouble ..."
...<i>"It's barely worth the trouble ..."</i><br /><br />I agree. So I will just cut to the important bit.<br /><br />What a plonker.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27380752517871299062015-08-15T16:06:39.438+10:002015-08-15T16:06:39.438+10:00f) Yes, plus good followups by Nick Stokes, especi...f) Yes, plus good followups by Nick Stokes, especially the first:<br />Google: site:moyhu.blogspot.com wegman<br /><br />That ought to be understandable to most people.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30064161456308201622015-08-15T12:52:18.193+10:002015-08-15T12:52:18.193+10:00f) should be more widely known.
As far as I know,...f) should be more widely known.<br /><br />As far as I know, that critical observation was confined to Deep Climate's very insightful November 16, 2010 blog post and never made it into the literature.<br /><br />And its title 'Replication and due diligence, Wegman style' isn't one that immediately suggests either McIntyre and McKintrick, MBH, or the famous hockey stick.<br /><br />http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87241439145578065712015-08-15T12:37:19.671+10:002015-08-15T12:37:19.671+10:00g) and who live in a fishbowl and only hear the sa...g) and who live in a fishbowl and only hear the same old, same old misinformation and mythsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87280793482126600652015-08-15T12:32:15.947+10:002015-08-15T12:32:15.947+10:00It was not being critical, it was just an observat...It was not being critical, it was just an observation. This country is more than 3,400 miles across. Been practically everywhere, those towns are not that far apart. I used to have to pull equipment out to that Hangtown motocross event. The old timer locals told me the story, maybe I don't relate everything quite like they said but more than one group told me that.<br /><br />I was smitten with you folks, but as you all just get snippier with me. Since you cannot be yourself around here... C-ya, Mr Perfect, out...looʞ oɹezhttp://arkansaswildlifephotography.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65322791430520802512015-08-15T12:11:38.423+10:002015-08-15T12:11:38.423+10:00"It's barely worth the trouble"
I a...<i>"It's barely worth the trouble"</i><br /><br />I agree. But presumably you can stop any time you wish.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33254281986218795702015-08-15T11:45:51.451+10:002015-08-15T11:45:51.451+10:00Hi Anon,
It's barely worth the trouble, but he...Hi Anon,<br />It's barely worth the trouble, but here is the discussion outlined.<br /><br />1. I queried whether there was really a 'Serengeti Strategy' (implying there is a conspiracy) and put up some thought as to why this may not be the case.<br /><br />2. Some chose to interpret that as a personal attack on Michael Mann, some chose to start applying some cleverly contrived labels to me, some preferred to bring up (for some reason) Al Gore's waistline, some agreed there was not such a deliberate strategy, and John Mashey put up a pretty plausible explanation of how interested parties may develop strategic approaches behind the scenes and feed them into the media and public arena. (Hey, would the UN, World Bank, and potential carbon traders and beneficiaries of such have similar strategy meetings and ... etc etc? ..but ... let's not get sidetracked.)<br />3. Someone picked up on the phrase 'point of view' and explained it was not needed, as there is only one fact, which is already proven.<br />4. I then explained it is not quite so simple as that, there are myriad facets to the this issue and points of view <i>must</i> exist.<br />5. You then find the need to report confusion, insist we should really be talking about the campaign against Mann, and finally resort to name calling.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18433408872470514652015-08-15T10:58:06.482+10:002015-08-15T10:58:06.482+10:00MBH98 (Mann, Bradley and Hughes) was published in ...MBH98 (Mann, Bradley and Hughes) was published in April and went back to 1400AD.<br /><br />1. 2) Jones et al(1998) <a href="http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jonesetal-1998.pdf" rel="nofollow">"High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures.</a><br /><br />That was published in May 1998, and went back to 1000AD.<br />That, plus some new data on CO2 issues convinced MBH to think they might be able to push their reconstruction further back, and they did:<br />MBH99 was in March 1999, and also went back to 1000AD.<br /><br />3) Here's IPCC TAR WG I, <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=48" rel="nofollow">Section 2</a>, and here is <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm" rel="nofollow">Fig 2.21</a>. The Jones line is ~purple. Click to expand.<br /><br />During 1000-1400, you can see Jones was typically a bit lower than MBH99, hence there was even less of a warm MWP. <br /><br />4) Later, Jones tended to dip deeper than MBH99 , so had it been featured, the rise from 1800s would have been even more striking.<br /><br />4) MBH99 had more proxies, error bars, and included modern temperature measurements at the end ... as had been done in the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">SAR WG I PDF</a> Fig 3.20, PDF p.189. Sorry, that's a huge file.<br />Jones was a Key Contributor, and Bradley was a Contributor.<br /><br />Fig 3.20 was from <a href="http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1993b.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bradley and Jones(1993b),</a> Fig 6, but in 1995 SAR they added a line for modern measurements, 3 years before MBH. Mann didn't invent that idea. <br /><br />The extratropic comment in Fig 2.21 is important because people get confused with spaghetti graphs. They may differ by methodology, from specific proxy choices ... but for sure NH extratropic (usually 30+ degN) is only half of the NH, and one expects it to look jaggier than the full NH. I.e., one would expect MBH99, which was trying to cover the NH, to be smoother.<br />The Mann et al(1999) 30-70degN deleted the proxies nearer Equator, which made it more like extratropical studies.<br /><br />The IPCC does assessment reports based on the latest and best literature they can find up to some date. Had MBH98/99 not existed, it's pretty obvious Jones etal(1998) would have still been there (and Briffa (2000), and they would have grafted modern measurements in, just as they did in 1995.<br /><br />If one actually has the IPCC reports and tracks through chronologically, all this is just normal science getting better approximations to reality, arguing over details at the edges, comparing methods, etc, etc<br /><br />All this stuff about fraud is of course *total nonsense*, mostly from people who:<br />a) Have <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ages" rel="nofollow">total allegiance to the curve of Lamb(1965)</a> with little understanding of what it means.<br />b) Have not studied the relevant papers.<br />c) Have not studied the relevant parts of IPCC reports.<br />d) Don't seem to understand the meaning of error bars on graphs.<br />e) Don't really understand the fact that MBH98/99s PCA method was one of the perfectly fine ways to do it. See Mann's HSCW book for explanation.<br />All this centering/decentering argument is for confusing people. <br />f) Don't understand the McIntyre+McKitrick(2005) flaws and then the 1:100 cherrypick by to produce selected graphs, which is all that most people would understand.<br /><br />There's a lot of Dunning-Kruger around :-) combined with intense belief ... but that's good, as it shows people actually believed Steyn.<br /><br />John Masheynoreply@blogger.com