• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

What Makes a Campus or College Town Bike Friendly?

July 19, 2011, 12:49 pm

Yale Environment 360 magazine had a great article last week on biking culture in the United States versus that in Europe. Elisabeth Rosenthal pointed out that while we are building miles and miles of new bike lanes here, biking culture just hasn’t caught on in America quite like it has in Paris, Barcelona, or Copenhagen, where 37 percent of commuters use bikes to get to school or work.

The problem, she says, is that Americans and Europeans view biking differently at some core level. Think of your typical bike commuter here: Someone young (or youthful in body or spirit, at least) who has sporty tendencies, or perhaps a need for speed or daredevil attitude. They might be outdoorsy types, or folks with hard-core environmental sensibilities. Ms. Rosenthal describes the pictures of bikers that ran with a survey of bike-commuting towns in The Atlantic: “Bike riders with surfboards, riders with backpacks, and even riders traversing an empty forest. Students. Students. Students. A good portion of the bikes have drop handlebars, and many of the riders are wearing racing gear.”

Researchers at Lancaster University looked at the cultural attitudes in Britain, where biking has also been slow to catch on. Ms. Rosenthal talks with Dave Horton, a researcher behind the Understanding Walking and Cycling study, who offers this diagnosis: “Many people barely recognize the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange.”

Now, what do European bikers look like?: “They are men and women of all ages, in suits and dresses, fur coats and heels. They are riding sensible bikes. These are not sporting types, but a typical cross section of Europe’s working population, people going to the office on the vehicle that works well in their city.”

As Ms. Rosenthal points out with the observation of “students, students, students” in the Atlantic pictures, biking attitudes can be formed in college, which brings me to the question of this blog’s headline: What practices have been successful at pushing bike culture at colleges? We have reported on some cases in the past. Emory University, in car-addicted Atlanta, has been trying to get people on bikes. Pitzer College has an active “green bike” program. Tiny Ripon College, in Wisconsin, has had a successful program offering bikes to students who give up their cars. (The latest bike in the program, a Cannondale, comes in a custom Ripon colors — kinda cool. It probably helps that the president is a bike nut.)

Among the campuses that were recently given high marks for being “bike friendly” from the League of American Bicyclists, you find Stanford University at the top, followed by places like the University of California at Davis, which has long supported biking, and Portland State University, which has had a beer produced in honor of its biking culture. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro was given a bronze award for its bike-ability. Having visited Greensboro recently, I can confirm bikes and bikers are frequently seen around that town.

The league got only 32 submissions for consideration for its list. I didn’t find Oberlin College on the list, although I saw bikes everywhere (like the one pictured here) during a recent visit to Oberlin. I also would have expected to see the University of Colorado at Boulder, given what I have heard about biking culture there.

At some point in the future, I’d like to produce a broader article on college towns that have supported biking. I should be honest: The issue has both personal and professional value for me. I’m a biker and bike commuter in Baltimore, a city that at times seems openly hostile to bike riders. I also live in what is essentially a college-town section of the Baltimore area: Towson, Md., which is home not only to Towson University but also Goucher College. Students here could be strong advocates for two-wheel transport, yet that isn’t happening — not at an acceptable pace, anyway. Is it the daunting hills? An East Coast bias against bikes? (Biking seems more popular in Western cities.) A lack of bike facilities, like bike lanes and bike parking? A lack of attention to bike-friendly activities, like a bike-and-bar crawl?

My question is: What has encouraged biking on your campus?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • frostdavis17

    Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX runs the Pirate Bike program.  Here’s the description from their website:
    “Pirate Bikes provide a quick means for students, faculty, and staff to get from one place to another. Members of our campus community may pick up a Pirate Bike outside of their residence hall, academic building (or anywhere else they find them) free of charge, for their own use. They may ride to their next location and leave it unlocked for the next person.” (http://www.southwestern.edu/about/piratebikes/index.php)
    Anecdotally, I think there are more personal bikes on campus since this program started.  Personally, I started biking to work on campus after trying the pirate bikes and not always being able to find one. 

  • 22108469

    Things that may discourage biking here: (1) snow, lots of it, for 6 months a year; (2) very narrow, poorly maintained roads; (3) lots and lots of drunken driving and numerous recent accidents that paralyzed or killed prominent local bike enthusiasts; (4) a local culture that hews strongly toward ATVs, motorcycles, and fast cars (and drunk driving . . . see #3).

  • KMHahn

    One of the most successful programs I witnessed was Quad Bikes at Harvard. Two students worked with campus police to take all the bikes left on bike racks on campus, and then they fixed them up and sold them to students at very reasonable prices, ie. $50. Soon students began biking more, then taking classes offerred by Quad Bikes in how to fix your bike, and it seemed shortly that a biking culture began to develop. I think the important factors were cheap bikes and it being created by students. 

    As far as it being too cold or too snowy to ride–the University of Minnesota has great biking. I ride a fixed gear in the winter and find that only a few days a year in NH is it too snowy to ride–the same days that school is typically cancelled. Winter riding has been surprisingly much better than I expected.  

  • blendedlibrarian

    Hi Scott. I try to bike to Temple U at least 2x a week from the start of daylight savings time until mid-Oct (I try to avoid riding in the dark – especially down Broad St. in Phila).

    Temple U certainly tries to promote biking to campus. One thing they’ve done is invite a bike shop to have a satellite operation right on campus – just two days a week. But you can get your bike serviced while at work, buy a new bike, get supplies – and even order stuff they’ll bring to campus for you. 

    The big obstacle is that if you want to ride your bike to Temple – and I agree with you – it’s mostly the students – you’ve got to be willing to ride on some heavily trafficked streets. And while Philly is trying to make the situation better there is still a long way to go – like having bike lanes on the most heavily traveled streets – the ones that can get you anywhere.

  • scarlson

    Where are you?

  • scarlson

    I’m from Minnesota. I haven’t been brave enough to bike there in the winter, but I know others do. I may take on that challenge someday. The West Bank at UMN is quite the bike haven, with a couple of big bike stores over there (where I got my Gary Fisher about 15 years ago, as a matter of fact) and some cafes that appeal to hard-core biker types.

  • scarlson

    That area of Philadelphia might have some of the same problems that you find here in Baltimore — one of them being the threat of crime. Last year, if I recall, there were some instances of people getting assaulted while biking through neighborhoods not far from Johns Hopkins.

    The bike shop is a great thing — especially if you can get students in there for practical training.

    Unfortunately, I find that cities around here are a bit — how do I say this? — half-assed about providing bike lanes. Do you know if Temple or the other colleges in the area are actively lobbying the city for more bike-friendly infrastructure?

  • blendedlibrarian

    I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the local higher ed institutions are doing much in that area. When it does happen it is mostly downtown – in the center city area. I’m less optimistic that the city will extend its “bike-friendly initiatives” further out to the edges of the city where lots of us bike commuters are coming from.

  • jvputten

    Perhaps researchers could get some ideas and insights from the cycling culture at the universities in Muenster, in northwest Germany. 270,000 residents that includes 48,000 students and 500,000 bicycles. Mild summers and snow in the winters, and a beautiful tree-shaded promenade circling the inner city that was converted from the old city walls and serves as a large-scale roundabout.

  • kgodwin

    About the only thing encouraging biking on my campus is a “bad” parking situation.  Mind you, the parking situation is much better than it is at any university I’ve ever visited…our students don’t have to buy parking permits (instead there’s a per-credit flat fee, whether or not you drive to campus), and there’s usually a parking space available…as long as you don’t mind walking a quarter mile or so.  

    I’m on the west side of the Cascades in WA, so there’s a fair amount of rain.  We have some “bike shelters” around campus (covered bike racks), and during the regular school year they see “good” use, as do most of the unsheltered racks.  But considering that we have maybe 40 bike parking spots for 16,000 students, I wouldn’t say we have a great bike culture…even if you account for the 10-20 employees like me who “park” our bikes in our offices.  

    As far as road safety goes, both of our major cross streets have bike lanes.  Having been hit by a car on a bike (in Vegas), these are a huge part of the reason why I’m willing to do the last 8 mi of my 27 mi commute on bike.  

    We also have a “Commute Trip Reduction” program here (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/ctr) that’s designed to encourage employees to commute by alternative means.  But with ample cheap parking for cars (staff pay just $2 a month for a pass), and nothing that really passes for rush hour, there’s little incentive to do anything BUT drive alone.  I’m sure the “guaranteed ride home” (they’ll pay for a cab ride home up to 30 mi away in case of emergency) program has encouraged at least one employee from somewhere across the state to take the leap, but I’m also sure that most of us who bike/don’t drive alone would be doing it even without the program. 

    I wish we had a better bike culture.  We’re just across the river from Portland State, but Portland’s “weirdness” hasn’t crossed the river yet…

  • almapubrel

    Scott,

     

    Here at
    Alma College (Alma, Mich., enrollment about 1,400), we are launching this fall our “Get Out” Bike Program. By signing a pledge not to bring a car to campus,
    first-year students receive a bike to keep at a discounted rate. We are
    promoting several benefits: physical fitness, reducing fuel consumption and
    pollution, and connecting students to the campus and community. In Alma,
    downtown businesses, restaurants and other services are easily accessible to
    campus. We also are bordered by a 41-mile nature bike trail. Thirty students
    have signed up so far. We’re anxious to see their response to this new program. http://www.alma.edu/student_life/mind_body_soul/go/go_bike

     

  • dougjackson

    After living in KY, FL, NC, TX and CA, there are some things that seem to encourage more “bike friendly” environments. Most importantly is simple road access, either bike lanes or actual bike paths. In Wilmington, NC, the city took former railroad lines and converted them to bike paths. That was a very popular idea (and relatively cheap), altho’ I haven’t been to NC for a decade or so.
    -Another issue is sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario. If enough people bike, then the community seems to be more tolerant of biking, which leads more people to bike, which…etc., etc. So where do you start? Sounds like a build-it and they-will-come approach to me?
    -Lastly, availability of affordable bikes that are not racing bikes or priced like racing bikes. And strategically located bike shops or depots that provide a fair and cost-effective service.
    For me, I am 60 years old and would readily bike to work often, if the community attitude was more positive towards bikers. Maybe I should move to UC Davis?

  • inda1

    I lived near the University of Oregon for several years and round my bike everywhere. Great bikeable town with wide bike lanes on the streets and off street paved walking/biking paths through town.

    I then moved to Towson, MD and worked at TU.  Although I lived less than a mile with only a little incline, I was extremely uncomfortable riding on my street (that had a very high volume of traffic & lots of accidents) without bike lanes.  I finally started riding when they completed a section of sidewalk on my street that I could ride until I could duck over to the less travelled streets.  The importance of biking needs to be a priority of the community, not just the campus.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eve.sanford Eve Sanford

              Cal Poly Pomona, on the outskirts of L.A. County. Like many outer cities of L.A. County, nearby cities are very auto-centric, not built to a scale that accommodates biking well. Large hills that surround the school may also be a deterrent. Pomona itself has one bike lane, that is only about 1/4 mile long. Due to a lack of funding, the roads around my school are especially terrible. As bikes continue to gain popularity, I have noticed a surge of growth in bikes on campus, despite the university’s official policy of not allowing bicycles on campus! As the school has been adding more bike racks, we have a situation where students are getting mixed messages. (bikes get locked all over campus, to trees, posts, a clear need for more bike racks or more strategically placed ones)
          Students hosted and organized a bike week on campus that brainstormed a vision for different ways our campus can accommodate cyclists. We are currently developing a program which will fix and rent out the bicycles that are abandoned every year after the mass exodus out of the dorms. Via facebook, Students are taking an active role organizing group rides however these remain mostly popular with the more athletic males of my school & a handful of idealistic Urban Planning students. Hopefully, the biking community will continue to prosper as more of the students & administration start to get involved & take an active role promoting bikes.         One major incentive is my schools’ recent pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030 and the development of a climate action plan that has a stated goal of decreasing the amount of automobile trips taken to campus.

  • drjeff

    I usually ride my bike to work, despite the university’s program to “encourage” bicycling.  They don’t seem to know how to do anything that doesn’t end up being high cost, top-down, heavy-handed, bureaucratic, and, in the end, a hassle, discouraging the very thing they’re trying to encourage.

    Case in point: they have a parking program for people who bike, so you can park on campus when you have a need to drive.  (They charge faculty/staff a very high, for the area, rate to park, ostensibly to encourage people not to drive.)  They charge bicycle riders TWICE as much per day for “occasional” parking as regular “every day” drivers.  So, now that they have monetized it, people say to themselves “well, if I can’t ride at least 4 days a week, I’m not getting any savings, so I might just as well drive.” 

    Did I mention that the university is in a very hilly area, and it rains a lot here when school is in session?  4 days a week is pretty ambitious.

    And, where they have installed bike racks, they are mostly well away from the building, so there’s no shelter from rain or sun, and there’s a fairly long walk. The one bike rack under cover I’ve seen is reserved for bikes belonging to a university program for rent or loan, with many bikes in a single location, that I have NEVER seen anyone use.

    So, despite their program, I ride most of the time.  I do it for exercise: I don’t have time to ride for recreation, but I have time to ride for transportation, since it only takes about 5 – 10 minutes longer than driving.

  • msubikes

    About a decade ago Michigan State University decided to put into practice what is now called the “Complete Streets” philosophy for all future campus road projects.  We’re now 50% “complete” in having bike lanes on our roads including all the other amenities for other legal road users.  About 8 years ago some volunteers started the MSU Bike Project, which was essentially refurbishing abandoned or donated bikes and loaning them out to the campus community.  That project grew into a university-funded bike center http://www.bikes.msu.edu which opened up in 2006 and has since rented, repaired and sold thousands of bikes (both used and new).  As a result of all the above we’ve seen a steady drop in our accidents involving bicycles and other pedestrians, a reduction in abandoned bikes and a large increase in our overall bike population to approx. 20,000.  We received a bronze Bike Friendly University award http://news.msu.edu/story/9165/ this spring which caused us to look more carefully at what we can improve on and decided that better education and encourgement is in order to help our newer cyclists understand and practice safer cycling, so that’s our next big challenge that we’re tackling.

  • collconnectofks

    Stanford U has a great bike population and its student union rents out bikes.  A great experience for a summer workshop student!  Rode all over and into Palo Alto.  Saved time and its was very
    economical.

  • lizgibbons

    90% of the problem is the streets—I’d rather walk the 2
    miles from home to school than bike it, because it’s safer to walk on sidewalks
    than share the roads (which, in my case, includes 2 narrow, top-of-hill
    bridges) with cars. Also, there’s a lot of on-street parking here, which can be
    hazardous to bikers; a friend cracked two ribs when her bike collided with  a car door that the occupant had flung wide without
    looking. The town surrounding the college has to provide the infrastructure to
    get safely to campus, and unless it’s already a bike-friendly town, this
    probably won’t be “in the budget” for quite a while.   

  • scarlson

    Bike access is certainly a big part of the solution in some cases. I was struck by this story, Baltimore City Paper (http://citypaper.com/news/two-wheels-good-1.1134649), which took a counterintuitive position on bike-share programs: The author said that bike-share programs don’t help get people out on bikes — at least not at a level that justifies the expense. The author said that the city could do more to encourage the establishment of bike shops like Velocipede, an organization that takes old bikes, fixes them up, and either sells them for cheap or gives them away to people who need them. Certainly, some cities/campuses have tons of discarded and unused bikes. I was walking through DC recently, right there in the Chronicle’s neighborhood, and you can find bikes on every corner that have been locked to a signpost or fence, and abandoned. The front or back wheel might be missing, the chain might be rusted, but the frame and other components are in good shape. What happens to those bikes? 

  • scarlson

    “…despite the university’s official policy of not allowing bicycles on campus!”

    What!?!?!?!?

    “We are currently developing a program which will fix and rent out the bicycles that are abandoned every year after the mass exodus out of the dorms.”

    That’s interesting. That’s what I was referring to above.

  • scarlson

    Since I live there, too, I sympathize. Here’s the thing: A couple of the sources that I reference/link above (The Atlantic article and the article in Urbanite) say that progressive bike programs can transforma city for the better. Richard Florida, in the Atlantic piece, makes connections between the bikeability of a city and the happiness and wealth of its citizens. The Urbanite article contends that if a city is more bikeable, crime and other problems will decrease. (Sounds a bit utopian, but I’m willing to consider the possibility.) But there’s no denying that cities that rate well for livability (like Minneapolis, Portland, Burlington, etc.) also rate well for bikeability.

    Does the same apply to campuses? Bikeable, walkable campuses are better, more attractive campuses? My gut says yes, but has anyone studied that? 

  • scarlson

    If anyone knows of colleges that have worked with the local municipality to push biking, please post. Thanks, SB, for posting. 

  • scarlson

    If I recall, part of Emory’s bike push was to make car parking painful. As long as the car is an comfortable option, biking won’t thrive.

  • yojamey

    The University of California, Santa Barbara was one of two campuses to receive gold level recognition from the League of American Bicyclists as BOTH a Bicycle Friendly Business and a Bicycle Friendly University.

    The University of California, Santa Barbara has a mild climate, relatively flat-topography, 9 miles of Class I bicycle path, 3 bicycle underpasses, 8 bicycle roundabouts, Showers for bicycle commuters, 10,000 bicycle parking spaces and 40 bicycle lockers. Associated Student Bicycle Shop offers the use of tools and free lessons on how to fix a bicycle. Associated Student bicycle advocacy group. Over 10,000 students who live close to campus and a long-term parking permit ban for undergraduates who live within 2-miles of campus.

    For more more information please see  http://tinyurl.com/ucsbBFU and http://tinyurl.com/ucsbBFB
    UCSB Bicycle path map http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/photo/?page_id=529
    http://tap.ucsb.edu/bicycle.aspx
    http://tps.ucsb.edu/newsTAP.aspx

  • jwebbwsu

    Portland State University’s being rated bike-friendly could only happen because Portland, OR must be the country’s largest bike-friendly city.  PSU is just S of downtown Portland, Portland’s streets there are relatively narrow, the blocks closely spaced, and the streets run through campus.  Because of Portland’s excellent public transportation system, many bus routes, the streetcar, and the light rail system all serve the campus as well.

  • kgodwin

    Oh, yeah!  Forgot to mention that bikes are banned on my campus, too.  Folks are afraid of the pedestrians getting run over by the bikes…

  • JonasN

    Eric A (above, or below)
     
    You admitted that you ‘do research’ to respond to my posts, and that ScepticalScience is one of your sources. If I’d take your word for it, you have read the things you present some 15 minutes to 24 hours before posting. And almost certainly without reading the orignal sources, much less checking them carefully and actually understanding what is claimed there. My statement was more an observation than a complaint.
     
    But, I’ve tried to point out many times before that this method is not very viable when arguing for a scientific proposition. And also explained why and what kind of errors and fallacies that leads to: Onesided view, grossly overstated significance and certainty of the results, and often not even the results, but merely the speculative implications of it.
     
    It is indeed hard to determine how well you understand the material, but I know in response to what you brought it up. And that you think it somehow counters what I said. This is how I assessed you understanding.
     
    You know, when you don’t have an answer. When you don’t understand what is proposed, or only a part of it, or if you think that something is questionable. Then it is OK to ask for clarification, or what exactly it means or is meant. To counter (countless times): ‘No you’re wrong, and this link shows that you are incompetent, talking trash, need to read up .. etc’ (especially, when the link addresses something different) is also a stark indicator of that you are more firing from the hip, into the dark, hoping for some hit, without knowing what …
     
    I guess you just have to trust me on here: This is the impression you give and how you come across. (Opening with Oreskes and Conway, was also a poor move among many following)
     
    Well thereafter you address my post, but again you bring up strawmen, and obfuscate (probably not entirely on purpose). I have already asked you to consider and compare energy fluxes (you even provided the picture/numbers). But instead you mention things that nowhere are related to the core of the matter, which are banalities nobody questions. As if you had a profound argument countering mine! Why?
     
    The next sentence is clearly wrong (and again points to your lack of understandig):
     
    ” I .. claimed that the down-welling radiation .. is a larger factor than the solar radiation in putting heat into the ocean to raise its temperature
     
    Let me give you a schoolbook example:

    Consider a theramally insulated container of some gas. Over the imaginary middle plane, there is leftgoing radiation crossing. And in thermal equilibrium, the amount of right-going radiation through the same plane is of equal magnitude. They cancel out, net transport  = zero! 
     
    To claim that the leftgoing radiation is heating the right half would be wrong. No net heat travels either way!
     
    Next, imagine that there is a heat source on the left side, and a correspodning sink at the right. There would still be both left- and right going radiation through the middle plane, but now the latter would exceed the former. Net heat travels from warmer to colder, through radiation (and/or convection/conduction, makes no difference)
     
    Finally, tilt this box so that the left side now is bottom (earth surface heated by solar flux) and the top is space, the sink (where equal amout of energy again leaves the system). Through any imaginary (now) horisontal plane, there would still be up- and down going radiation, but not equal. But claiming that the downgoing one heats the bottom would be wrong.
     
    The net flow would be uppwards, cooling the bottom.

     
    I thought I made that rather clear. I am sorry that even this seemed difficult.
     
    Thereafter follow (a bit more defensivly) paragraphs and statements  that are physically wrong or misrepresent my statments. Lots of them!
     
    You did indeed claim that the downwelling radiation overpowered the solar flux (because of the numbers) regarding the heating of the ocean. Your argument was that 333 >161 W/m2, disregarding that LR-radiation all the time goes both ways, ie that (333-396) < 161.
     
    My original statement was, and still is:

    Solar energy is the massively overpowering energy source available for water evaporation and to net heat the ocean (net radiation cools it, on average)
     
    I’ve made that claim abundantly clear, and serveral times! If you really want to challange it, ie claim the opposite, think carefully about it. Because I would laugh at you and ridicule you forever afterwards. (I don’t think you will)
     
    Further, I am perfectly aware of that you not knowingly would violate the 1:st law of thermodynamics. But your argument (in attempting to counter my factual description) did!

    And yes, it is embarassing, and what you’d often end up with when arguing (here litterately) only in one direction, dismissing (mistrusting) everything that goes the other way. When you primary motive is the outcome, its direction, not the facts or arguments.
     
    Then, you try to save some face by stating that you never denied uppgoing LR. And obfuscate some more (“So what?”) when I point out that these numbers (up/down) vary over time and place. It is relevant for upcoming point.
     
    There, you don’t discuss at all what I say, even try another feeble ‘gotcha’-attempt: “There is CO2 in the air tropics as well”. Totally true, which I also pointed out, exactly because I wanted to point out its relative contribution to the greenhouse effect there, in the hot humid tropics. (Did you really miss that comparison?)
     
    You try another erroneous argument, never adressing the thrust of what i presented by accusing me of ‘making definite statments about how the climate works’! Which is completely wrong:

    I question the large amplification factors and the presented ‘rational’ for them based on known physics, on numbers you presented, and observations that we both accept and agree upon (more in the polar than tropic regions). And I point to the fact that it is extremely hard to create amplifications of factor ~4 (on total average) if these foremost have to depend on the colder, dryer and darker conditions (in the area-wise much smaller regions closer to the poles, where available energy additionally is much less). Remember: The claim was that water-feedback provided the large amplification.
     
    I definitely do not claim to know what the numbers should be instead. Only that the large amplifications, the presented ‘rational’ wrt water vapor, not really make any sense or add up. And I expalin why! Thus your statement about “glaring inconsistencies” is once more a strawman, a diversion attempt.
     
    But appearantly, more recent reserach, empirical measurements and comparison to models confirm my hunch, or at least agree with it. And for the same reasons.
     
    Have you (really?) forgotten that you are the one having made ‘definite statments’ about what I say must be wrong, and how the climate works, how certain these findings are, in about every post where you came with another blog-link excerpt countering attempt!? I don’t think so!  
     
    In the end, you once more come with the authority appeal (disregarding both arguments and new findings) and repeat that models do model what they’re programmed to model, and therby show what the model models. All fair and square. But although correct, not really relevant to what is at hand.
     
    But in conclusion, although I took the time to even more meticously explain and what I find very questionable (about large water vapor feedbacks) and in detail explain why, you never got your head around this, nor commented. Only said: ‘Climate scientists are smart too, I am sure ..’
     
    Well, my experience is that people usually present the best arguments the have. I presume that’s true also for you.
     
    PS I encourage you to be sceptical about my claims, especially when I’m just stating things. That’s why I present my arguments along with them. And not try to drown you in activist links (and echoing them).

  • EricAdler

    JonasN you wrote below:
    “Another (highshool level) example:

    Put a kettle on the stove and heat the water (but on low effect, so it won’t boil) and study the evaporation.

    At the surface there will be both upgoing and downwards radiation (up will exceed down wrt W/m2).

    You claim that it is the downwelling (part of the) radiation that
    mostly heats the water (based on comparing  W/m2-numbers) and thus
    causes most of the evaporation.

    I’d say, no, the stove provides
    the energy for (most of) that. The two radiation parts (down and up)
    will only contribute about as much as the drying out of the water left
    on a cold stove, ie very much less.”

    This is a straw man argument. I never made any statement about a pot of water heated from below.

    I was talking about the ocean, heated from above by the sun at 168W/M2  or some such figure, and the down-welling radiation of 333W/M2, and said quite correctly that the down-welling radiation adds more heat to the ocean than the solar radiation. The important thing is the amount of W/M2.  It seems like a very simple straightforward concept.

    It seems you are too proud to admit that your objection to this is mistaken.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote below:
    “Eric

    Cut out the poor loser pouting. You have started more than
    half of your comments deriding my knowledge, intellect, my capacity to
    read the science and arguing the facts. And now you whine about not
    receiving enough recognition for you smartness. It’s pathetic!

    You even claim that in a thermally insulated
    container one half is heating the other (more precisely, when I pointed
    out that this is a nonsensical statement, that no net heat heat goes
    either way, you claimed I was wrong). Absolutely ridiculous! ”

    Yet another straw man argument. I claimed that an equal amount of energy is flowing in both directions. I never said anything about net heat flow. In the case you mentioned, the heat radiation flow in opposite directions cancel. That doesn’t mean that no heat is flowing.

    Your seem to think thate because there is also up-welling radiation from the ocean, it is correct to say that down-welling radiation does nothing.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “I could use your very same argument, but the other way around and it becomes laughingly obvious:

    Keep
    the atmosphere, keep the energy content of it and the ocean (for the
    moment) and remove the sun influx instead. You will (initially) still
    have both downwekking and upgpoing radiation,  but the ocean will cool
    pretty damn quickly! Within a day or so, evaporation would dwindle. ”

    Once again you are replying to a strawman argument. Show me where I said that solar radiation provides no heat to the ocean. On the contrary, I agreed that both are providing heat, and based on Trenberth’s energy budget diagram, down-welling radiation, on average supplies more heat to the ocean than the solar radiation.

    “But
    these are so obvious facts, I’m surprised that your try to deny or
    fight them.  Anyway, they are (regardless of your semantic twisting and
    cringing) immaterial to the main point I made. Which was the possible extra contribution of human CO2 to water vapor content where it matters  the most ,”

    Your claim was that all the heat which evaporates water from the surface of the ocean comes from the sun. I disputed that. I pointed out that the energy budget diagram shows more comes from down-welling radiation.

    The extra contribution of CO2 to down-welling radiation and the resulting increase global temperature  has been calculated by a number of different General Circulation Models. I am betting they can do a better job of getting an answer by this method, than you can using your intuition and no equations of math whatever.

    Your point is pure hand-waving. The energy added where the  CO2 makes the largest relative contribution is not stuck there. You totally neglect the fact that energy is circulated around the globe, and what happens in one part of the earth’s atmosphere affects the entire globe.

    In fact at one point, you claimed that atmospheric circulation  which is the main  mechanism for circulating energy, doesn’t  do much in comparison to ocean currents. I pointed out that a Wikipedia entry said exactly the opposite:

    “Atmospheric circulation is the large-scale movement of air, and the means (together with the smaller ocean circulation) by which thermal energy is distributed on the surface of the Earth.”

    You have pointed out that the climate is really complex, yet you claim you can do everything better in your head than climate scientists can using super computers and complex models developed over 40 years time. This doesn’t seem very logical, but this is no surprise, because global warming denialism is not based on logic anyway

  • JohnMashey

    Yes, finally.
    USA Today:
    1) Took {me, DC, Bradley} seriously enough to engage 3 real experts, and they were absolutely clear: plagiarism.

    2) And one of them is my helpful coauthor, Rob Coleman:
    - a very well-published and award-winning Professor of Chemistry at OSU
    - but also has Chaired the OSU Academic Misconduct Committee for the last few years:
    http://senate.osu.edu/?page_id=183  OSU handles a lot of cases and documents them, because OSU takes academic integrity *seriously*.

    Among those who take this quite seriously are USA Today, Science, Nature, the Office of Research Integrity (don’t forget them!), Elsevier/CSDA, the 3 experts quoted by USA Today (and quite a few more that got consulted in doing all this), various VPs of Research at various universities (like Rice, who behaved with integrity and alacrity).  GMU is mystifying to anyone with any experience,  as they approach 17 months with not even an inquiry report to Ray over the first complaint.

    Now, some commenters may be badly-afflicted by Dunning-Kruger, but D-K says people that such *can* learn if they want to.  They *might* say “Oh, maybe I don’t understand this plagiarism issue and I should learn from experts.”  We can always hope.

  • JonasN

    Yes Eric,

    You are still claiming that you’d heat the water (in the kettle, on the turned-off stove) if you put more CO2 in the air above it. And if that were possible, you could quicken up the process by holding a mirror (reflecting all IR) over it.

    Go ahead, give it a try ….

  • JonasN

    Referring to Dunning Kruger … Then, your arguments must be really good, mustn’t they?

    But I don’t think Bradley is at all concerned with any ‘plagiarism’ (and neither is Mashey).

    The supposedly ‘plagiarized’ book by Bradley, quite generously makes use of both figures, captions and text exerpts from other textbooks, whithout beeing too much concerned about proper attribution. He also offered to withdraw the ‘complaint’ to GMU, if only some conditions were met.

    I think those ‘conditions’ are somewhat closer to the real motives. Also Mashey’s real motives are likely much closer to silencing criticism of Mann and climate scares, than his pretence Don Qixote – crusade for upholding academic standards.

    I suffices to read his ‘reports’ (and eg do a search for ‘anti-science’, Exxon, tobacco … even Dunning Kruger) to get a good overall picture of his own ‘standards’.

    By the way: Whereever the phrase ‘anti-science’ was used, it did so whithout a proper reference, and also it grossly misrepresented the entities it referred to.  In every instance I checked!

    ;-)

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    Another straw man argument about what I claim. I never discussed your example of a pot of water. I prefer not to rely on an analogy because it could confuse the discussion.

    Here is what I say about your pot of water.
    If your pot of water were at a higher temperature than the air, its temperature would fall. I will leave it at that. The outflow of energy from the water is larger than the inflow of energy which is coming from the air. If you remove the GHG’s from the air, the water will cool faster because the down-welling IR would be gone. The equilibrium temperature of the pot of water would actually be the temperature of outer space assuming the sun is not shining on it.

    We are really discussing the ocean atmosphere system.

    Assume that on average, the solar radiation remained constant.

    On average over a 24 hour period, down-welling radiation from the air  puts  more energy into the ocean than sunlight. Watt for watt this radiation has the same effect on the water temperature as sunlight. If you removed the down-welling radiation from the air by taking out CO2, the oceans would get much cooler over time. As they did so, the air above the oceans would cool, and on average hold less water vapor.

    In fact, after a the  eruption of Pinatubo, when the sunlight was abruptly blocked by aerosals, the reduction in water vapor in the air was actually observed. Since a watt is a watt as far as ocean temperature is concerned the same thing would occur if  down-welling radiation were decreased by the removal of CO2 in the air.

    If you add CO2 to the air, the down-welling radiation would increase and the ocean temperature would increase. Of course this increase would not occur indefinitely. The ocean constantly  sends radiant energy into the air, as well as water vapor which carries latent heat of evaporation into the air. These upward fluxes increase as the ocean temperature increases until on average equilibrium between the energy fluxes is established.

    In the real world we cannot abruptly change the amount of CO2 in the air so that an effect is easily visible against the background of other noise effects due to ocean currents, which we have neglected in this discussion. But over a period of 40 years we have seen a significant increase in average ocean temperature, while sunlight has remained roughly constant.

  • JonasN

    Eric, the analogy is exactly the same. I even explained why.
     
    The atmosphere (with GHS, but even without them) has the same function as a blanket, it makes the cooling rate of the body (human, heated water kettle, sunlit ocean) slower. It does not provide heat, it insulates wrt outgoing heat.
     
    The function of the greenhouse effect is exactly that (similar to the blanket), it slows down the rate of cooling (of the sun heated earth/ocean surfaces)
     
    Your statement that the GHG and the resulting DLR provide more heat to the ocean than the sun is still fundamentally false (at best, it’s just ridiculous semantics). LR radiation is the mechanism to cool the surface, the atmosphere and the entire earth (ie rid itself from what incoming sunflux has heated.
     
    In Trenberth’s figure the LR-radiation cooling is 396-333=63 W/m2, the other cooling  mechanisms are water evaporation (80W/m2) and thermal convection (18W/2) 
     
    If your argument were correct (it is not!), the evaporation would only sink to about 2/3 if the sun would disappear for say 24 h. Since you say that still ~333 W/m2 of downwelling heat provides such energy, and only 161 W/m2 is missing. (Ocean total heat content/temperature won’t change  that much during that ‘experiment’)
     
    But that’s completely wrong: Those 333W/m2 are (even less than) one half of an ongoing internal process, by necessity ongoing in both directions simultaneously throgh any given plane (here the ocean surface), and with a net cooling effect. There is no heat available for evaporation from that cooling.
     
    Your argument instead is that that cooling rate might be somewhat different depending on total amount of GHG:s, of air temperature etc. That is correct, and it also depends on cloudiness, humidity etc. But it still is a cooling mechanism. It cannot provide heat (only cool a little more or less!)
     
    Just look at the numbers: The sun provides all the heat, which then dissipates though three different cooling mechanisms. To proclaim that one of them actually does provide heat for another among them is absurd.
     
    Or look at the formation of a tropical thunderstorm: Starts in the morning, more and more water evaporates, continues to build up through noon and early afternoon, Then, at some point clouds form quite suddenly and quickly grow big and dark and ominous. The thunderstorm releases its heat and water (and thunder and lightning) quite dramatically, and by sunset things have usually calmed down again.
     
    Do you really think that the DLR is the main driver?
     
    No, I’ll tell you: Shut of the sun (or the electrical stove) and water evaporation would almost instantly only be comparable to the drying up of that kettle at night.

     PS In the above, and many other comments, you seem to forget that H2O is the main GHG, not CO2. Which is, by the way, the reason why I am talking about the water vapor content, where it is the most prevalent: in hot tropical, humid, daylight conditions. Because large positive CO2-feedbacks cannot occur there and then, where the earth receives the absolute majority of its total heat influx..

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “I am fully aware of that the models create the positive feedbacks, but
    they are built in. As you know, clouds/cloudiness are just entered ad
    hoc, they do not have any regulatory function in the models. ”
    By “regulatory function”,  I suppose you mean forcing which is the term used by climate scientists. The formation and dissipation of clouds is so rapid, that it is treated as a reaction to current conditons, rather than a forcing factor which drives the evolution of climate for an extended period.

     I don’t know what you mean by “built in”. You are implying that it is bad to have a model with phenomena that are “built in”.  I would think that the physics of radiation and evaporation are “built in” and convection are “built in”. Because of the large grid size which is needed to cover the globe, behavioral climate models are needed rather than equations based on classical physics. The  behavioral models are based on observation of the weather, as are standard meteorologic weather models. A certain level of feedback is not actually “built in” as you claim,
    but arises as a result of running the models.

    “Such are
    not understood. In reality, they do. ”

    Since you don’t provide any citation to support this murky statement, I must guess at where you get this. I am guessing it is from Roy Spencer. He hasjust now succeeded in getting his ideas about clouds being a climate forcing into an online journal Remote Sensing, that is sort of peer reviewed  . So far his claim that clouds are a forcing factor has not gained any acceptance by Climate Scientists and his work has been debunked by many climate scientists.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
    http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

    Spencer’s so called “models” are lame. There are so many adjustable parameters that are not tied to reality that he can build in any behavior that he wants to, His model is too simplified and doesn’t contain ocean dynamics. He postulates that climate scientists must have come to the same conclusions as he has, but are purposely hiding it. This is of course a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence.
    On the other hand it can be argued that Spencer’s conclusions could be motivated by his politics which is right wing conservative. He says on his web site that he is happy to save the taxpayers money by debunking AGW, and has published a book extolling free enterprise. By the way, he also doubts that the theory of evolution is correct.

    Later on in you post you say:

    “The problem really is that the models cannot predict anything. The can be made to fit to some metric of the global temperatures, but not all of them, and they all the time need additionl factors to be included, purportedly ‘explaining’ yet another difference between predictions and observations. ”

    For some reason you don’t see the need to apply this objection to Roy Spencer’s so called models, which claim to show clouds are a forcing factor.

    Your mental model, which shows CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming does not include horizontal motion of air or oceans which distributes energy throughout the globe. In that way water vapor feedback, which is a result of temperature, rather than directly caused by CO2 itself, is not confined to areas where the greenhouse effect is the strong factor in heating, at the mid and high latitudes.

  • marionjay

    Johnmashey I simply cannot believe just how hypocritical your comment is. You accused Wegman of plagiarising Bradley despite the numerous citations Wegman gave referring to Bradley yet here you are saying that Bradley cannot be accused of the same, even going so far as to accuse McIntrye and Watts of “defamatory invention” - yet isn’t that exactly what you did with Wegman??

    Wegman’s report wasn’t even a scholarly  textbook, it certainly didn’t pretend to be an original work of climate science, it was simply giving an introduction to policy makers on the current views of climate science – it is a complete nonsense to accuse Wegman of plagiarism under these circumstances no matter how many appeals to authority you wish to employ.

    It is ludicrous tactics such as these which highlight the totally unsatisfactory state of so-called climate ‘science’ as promoted by CAGW proponents.

    I would advise those interested to compare Mashey’s inflammatory comments above with Steve McIntyre’s much more temperate approach -

    “I was a little surprised by the sheer extent of Bradley’s re-use of the graphics from Fritts’ text. In saying this, I’m not moralizing or offering an opinion as I’m not familiar with conventions of textbook publishing and do not plan to offer an opinion without examining such conventions. If nothing else, the sheer extent of Bradley’s re-use of Fritts’ material repudiates Deep Climate’s assertion that Bradley’s textbook provided a “seminal” description of tree rings– an assertion that Deep Climate and others should withdraw….If Bradley 1985 (and Bradley 1999) can be taken to represent “community standards”, these standards do not seem to preclude the referencing practices in the Wegman Report”

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/

  • EricAdler

    Marion,
    “I would advise those interested to compare Mashey’s inflammatory comments above with Steve McIntyre’s much more temperate approach -”

    You must be kidding.
    It is irrelevant that McIntyre appears to you to be more polite.
    Mashey makes a convincing well documented case that McIntyre’s claim that Bradley violated standards in his textbook is just wrong.

  • JonasN

    Yes Eric,

    Mashey uses the phrase ‘anti science’ abundantly in his ‘documentation’. And other catchy phrases of similar kind. About almost everthing he dislikes. Even Dunning-Kruger is found in some footnote.

    McIntyre makes the case, that whatever Wegman et al did, can also be found in other instances. I tend to agree … the trolls view it differently of course.

  • http://twitter.com/AGW_Prof Scott A Mandia

    The main point of this article is to point out that Peter Wood made unsupported and libelous claims in this well-respected venue.  Many here are getting sidetracked from the main questions which are:

    Why does the Chronicle allow Peter Wood to publish un-scholarly and libelous articles? 
    What is CHE going to do about it?

  • JonasN

    Scott, the answer can be read above:

    The pedantic, very scholarly, level headed, factual, polite and civil Dr J Mashey gets to present his view on the matter.

    PS Small traces of irony may be found in this comment.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,
    Your response simply indicates an inadequate grasp on the meaning of particular words – I suggest that before replying you use a dictionary in future else you simply end up looking rather foolish.

  • marionjay

    johnmashey your comment above is another excellent example of the hypocrisy endemic in many of your writings.

    I would draw your attention to this paragraph in your article -

    “Although we see this elsewhere and ignore it, we were surprised to find articles and comments by Wood in CHE that could be considered libelous. We value the academy for open discussion and seeking truth. We both take academic misconduct seriously and have filed formal, detailed misconduct complaints. Wood’s use of phrases like “tattered reputation,” “statistical trickery and suppression of discrepant data,” “Barnum-esque hokum,” and “academic dishonesty” are not things that credible people publish without showing expertise and evidence. As Christopher Hitchens has so accurately stated: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Much of what Wood writes falls under the category of assertion without evidence, counter to the principles of scholarly discourse.”

    In your comment you have made several serious allegations

    “CHE: MORE ABUSES OF THE CIVIL PLATFORM PROVIDED HERE1) Just so it is on the record, at least 3 identities have repeated the defamatory claims about Ray Bradley plagiarizing Hal Fritts’ book in Bradley(1999) – Paleoclimatology.  In academe, these aer serious (or would be, if the claimaints possessed nonzero credibility.) ”

    Please provide the evidence of these 3 identities as this accusation seems to be a complete fabrication on your part. Remember ““That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
    And when I say evidence I do mean direct quotes with links to the comments concerned not your own heavily distorted paraphrased interpretations! 

    You have also alleged -

    “This defamatory invention was manufactured  by Steve McIntyre @ Climate Audit, and repeated by Anthony Watts at WUWT.”

    Surely an excellent example of a comment that could be considered libelous. Again please provide the evidence for this  – a quotation of  Steve McIntryre’s own words and a link to Climate Audit where you have alleged they occurred so we can validate the truth and accuracy of your claim. Again third party allegations simply will not do – we need to see the context in which they supposedly occurred.

    Failure to do so will simply confirm the vacuity of your argument and exemplify that it “falls under the category of assertion without evidence, counter to the principles of scholarly discourse”. 

    It would be interesting too to see exactly what your definition of plagiarism is.

    According to Wikipedia –

    “Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

    Yet for example you have claimed that Wegman has plagiarised Bradley in the tree-ring  section of his  Congressional report (2.1) despite him citing Bradley numerous times.
    In what way does this constitute Wegman representing this as his own original work?

    I would put it to you that by repeating unsubstantiated allegations it is you who are ‘abusing the civil platform provided here’.

  • EricAdler

    Identical introductory paragraphs describing the motivation for proxy studies of climate in two papers by different authors are hardly evidence of “a culture of corruption plagiarism and attack lackeys”!
    This single paragraph doesn’t represent any unique ideas which were copied. The idea contained in the paragraph is trivial and serves to introduce basic references on proxy studies. There is no equivalence between this and the numerous examples of plagiarism committed by Wegman.

  • jaytyalor

    OMG not Mashey again.

    Since Mashey helped send Silicon Graphics to the wall during the biggest tech boom in history, he now spends he time accosting people over the web 24/7.

    So Mashey thinks he found Wegman plagiarizing, yes? I also noticed his other unbalanced co-conspirator , Tim Lambert attack Peter Wood for suggesting he didn’t take the Wegman complaint seriously.

    Now I find that really interesting. Because:

    Here’s Tim Lambert defending academic attempts to subvert peer review, He here is suggesting threats of violence aren’t really threats of violence. Lastly here he is defending the Lancet Review on Iraqi extra deaths after Johns Hopkins had sanctioned the author and academic by asking he no longer lead another study like Lancet again.

    (Read Lambert’s comments)

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/23/cru-emails-reveal-a-worrying-pattern-of-bad-behaviour/

    These are the sorts of people Mashey associates with.

    And here’s Eli too, quoting Australian academic Hamilton who recently suggested children ought to rat on their parents if they work for power companies (Soviet like), supports violent overthrow and insurrection to destroy coal plants and suggests democracy needs to be suspended as a result of global warming.

    What a motley crew of miscreants and no-gooders this site has attracted.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    You have repeated claims of statistical nature, wich are sheer nonsense. Things you have found at DeepClimate, and which you are not qualified to evaluate. However, this is not even the Mashey-angle discussed here. It is a attempt to divert from the core questions, and erroneously so. Also your next point is trying to move the goal posts. Social network analysis is not rocket science, it is about people knowing each other, which they provably did.

    Your last two paragraphs are the usual desperate armwaving nonsens (‘denier’, ‘shill’ and ‘not climate scientist’) we are all so aquainted to. They neither have any bearing on the validity of the Wegman report.

    You are clinging to an anonynous blogger, whose writing you cannot follow, probably haven’t even read properly. As usual ….

    It is all so stupid. Especially since non of the high-standard-pretence is ever held up wrt to your own so called ‘experts’ … all known to be AGW-scare-shills (with neither knowledge nor interest in climate science, of course)

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,
    You are conflating Wegman’s pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee Report providing an analysis on the state of climate science surrounding Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ for policy makers with the Said et Al (co-authored by Wegman) published in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis on ’Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships’ (which didn’t actually mention Mann although it used some of the networking analysis used in the Congressional report not identifying authors).
    These are two separate reports. Mashey’s 200 page+ analysis was on the former, Wegman’s Ad Hoc Committee Report. This is yet another example of misrepresentation of the facts by CAGW proponents.

    As for the deepclimate link you give this is somewhat laughably out-of-date. The debate has moved on a long way since then.

    If I didn’t think it was a complete waste of time I would recommend you read Judith Curry’s blog on ‘Hiding the Decline’. Judith Curry is far from being the sceptic that CAGW proponents like to claim but appears to be operating her blog on a ‘damage limitation’ basis for the AGW camp.
    However on the whole she gives a reasonably fair assessment and has a good range of comments on her forum from all sides of the debate (but then I suspect you already know this!).

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

  • EricAdler

    Marion,

    You are correct that both the AGW and the AGW denier sides of the climate controversy each create their own “echo chambers”. In my opinion your claim that this is proof of Mashey’s hypocrisy is shrill. Mashey did not deny that there was a pro science echo chamber. He simply didn’t mention it. For my part, I admit that I am part of the pro science echo chamber.

    You are incorrect about who has encouraged anti-intellectualism.

    In the comment to which you object,
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-myth-of-academic-elitism/453#comment-285083984

    Mashey  pointed to one of the important roots of anti-science in the US. It is the right wing movement against government regulation. Right wing plutocrats and corporations set up think tanks to inveigh against the science which pointed to environmental and health dangers from cigarette smoke, sulfur pollution, and of course anthropogenic global warming. Examples are Heritage Foundation, Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute etc..  This narrative is historically accurate, documented for instance in Naomi Oreske’s book, The Merchants of Doubt.

    Not all proponents of anti science of view are paid to do so. There are a large number of people posting on the internet who do so simply because they are persuaded by ideology, or have other personal motivations and reasons. They constitute the echo chamber for the right wing anti science movement.

    The claim that “Mann’s reputation is in tatters”, echoed by Wood,  and “the science is in disrepute” is made by people in the anti-science movement. In the world of science, the Hockey Stick has been validated by a dozen papers since Mann’s ground breaking 1999 publication,  using different combinations of proxies and different statistical methods. Two independent polls show that 97% of research climate scientists accept AGW as a valid theory.

    The  actions committed by Heidi Cullen, when at the Weather Channel, and the leadership of the  EPA in ignoring Allen Carlin’s coments on the EPA report on climate change, were far from “thuggery” which was claimed by Wood. In fact they were actually  attempts to enforce reasonable standards of scholarship in the Weather Channel, and the EPA.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN , you wrote:
    “Eric

    You have repeated claims of statistical nature, wich are
    sheer nonsense. Things you have found at DeepClimate, and which you are
    not qualified to evaluate.”

    It seems that the one who is not qualified is yourself, or that you haven’t read DC’s analysis at all.  It actually doesn’t take much knowledge of statistics to understand much  of the basis for DC’s conclusion.

    Wegman claimed that he independently analyzed random noise and verified McIntyre’s conclusion that Mann’s use of non-centered PCA artificially created hockey sticks..
     DC  demonstrated that the series of graphs  used by Wegman, for illustration of his so called independent analysis,  were actually identical to the cases used by McIntyre. If this were really done independently, the graphs generated from noise cases would be different. So Wegman clearly  did not tell the truth about what was done.

    You state,

    “However, this is not even the Mashey-angle
    discussed here. It is a attempt to divert from the core questions, and
    erroneously so. Also your next point is trying to move the goal posts.
    Social network analysis is not rocket science, it is about people
    knowing each other, which they provably did.”

    The core question as I see it, is that  Mashey and DC were correct in their analysis of the Wegman report, and the way the paper on SNA which was an outgrowth of the report was published, and the other instances of plagiarism that they found in Wegman’s publications, they are not guilty of thuggery. If Wegman’s analysis was wrong, Wood has no right to accuse them of thuggery in defending the integrity of Michael Mann.

    If there is no science behind Social Network Analysis, as you claim, and people simply know one another, why bother with a scientific analysis, and submit it as evidence to a congressional committee, and then go on to publish a paper?  Aren’t you the one moving the goal posts, in saying that Wegman’s published  paper was trivial but so what? 

    What about the social network of right wing think tanks and tiny coterie of anti AGW scientists?  This is probably and even tighter circle. Doesn’t this also prove there is just backslapping behind the anti AGW movement and no real scientific method?

  • EricAdler

    I don’t see the misrepresentation here by so called CAGW proponents .The coauthor Said in her talk has admitted that her publication was an outgrowth of the same material on Social Network Analysis.
     
    The same materials produced for the Congressional Report were used in the published paper. If the names were deleted, it doesn’t change the poor quality of the science, or the irony, that Wegman’s paper on Social Network Analysis, evaded peer review and was published in 5 days because of the power of Wegman’s social network.

    I unfavorably impressed with Judith Curry. Her blog is often quite bizarre, and irresponsible, more often than not providing red meat for the AGW deniers to chew on, rather than discussing the real uncertainty in the AGW theory, as she claims to do.

     One of her latest posts pushes the idea put forward by a scientist, that the CO2 increase we are currently  measuring in the atmosphere, and the ocean, is not due to human activity, but actually a result of increasing temperatures. This idea is total nonsense, and has not, and probably will not be published,  but she refuses to weigh in with her own opinion. Meanwhile the usual deniers are nodding their heads. She seems to enjoy basking in their admiration.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    This is simply further proof (as if it was needed!!) of your own hypocrisy. You don’t seem to realise that many of your posts simply convey the opposite of what you intended and your quote -

    “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” 
    could far more aptly be applied to yourself.

  • JonasN

    Eric, this just getting more and more comical …

    Repeatedly, you try (without any knowledge in the field)  to lecture me/us about various aspects of statistical nature. Thereby confirming that you are completely unfit to speak on the matter.

    The latest attempt is about the many paelo-reconstructions (since Mann), some of which can be seen here.

    The mosts obvious thing to note is that they not at all show any ‘unprecedented warming’, they pretty much show that (according to the proxy-reconstructions) it was warm in the MWP and has been lately too. Of similar magnitude, which of course is true, and has been the obvious sceptical point since the IPCC TAR was stupid enough  to try to eradicate the MWP. Much more historical science exists to give strong evidence that it even was warmer than today.

    But you want to cling to paleo-reconstructions (of course) using Mannian data and proxies, and methods. I could argue the finer points there, about choice of proxies, cintamination, unsound dependence on extremely few specimens etc (and it would all be way over your head), but lets look at it from your narrow angle, the paleo reconstructions:

    Maybe you are mislead by looking at the black line, showing the superimposed instrumental record, and comparing that to many reconstructions. It is certainly put in there to give te visual impression ‘warmer than ever in 1000 years’. But if so, you’re making the simplest fallacy possible: If you think that a paleo reconstruction is identical to measured temperature. It is not! (And ‘hide the decline’ is perfect proof of that your revered ‘climate scientists’ were fully aware of this).

    Further, using over time averaged values will give you completely different and much lower peak values when compared to instantaneous readings (of a thermometer). That also is one of the simplest pitfalls to make (Gore used it to mislead in AIT)

    The things you can compare is what those individual reconstructions give you now, and what they gave you during the MWP. And the ones that go that far back show similar levels. Ergo …. (can you fill in the blanks here? Or need I spoonfeed you the obvious?)

    The next (obvious) point is that they all purport to show ‘global mean temperatures (GMT)’, ie the same metric, and that they do not coincide. Meaning that at most one (theoretically, but with certainty none) show you the true GMT-metric. It means that since they show different values (sometimes huge differencies), they are quite uncertain measures in themselves, no surprise there.

    These uncertainties depend on many things, each of them relevant for making judgments about the past, or more precisely: With what (un-) certainty can one make statements about the past?

    Well, since they all show so different curves, we can ascertain one thing: These methods are extremly uncertain. Usually, they come with errorbars, but those do not pertain to the GMT-measure, only data scatter and the algorithm used. Meaning: The errorbars don’t show the interval within which the GMT must have been. They show the uncertainty the scattered datapoints give fed into the algorithm, provided that the proxies contain that signal and other underlying assumtions are true.

    The errorbars do not include every one of the uncertaint aspects when attempting reconstructions. (Otherwise, one could have taken only the regions where all errorbars overlap, and say: ‘Within these bands, true GMT:s must have been’. But that would be methodological nonsens)

    No Eric (and this has been demonstrated properly), the true errorbands are very wide, and grow increasingly wider the further back you go, making assessments (of this kind) about temperatures 1000 years ago virtually meaningless. And that’s what Wegman conluded, and also the NRC-report showed.

    Now, everything above is known and on (different) records for those who can 1) read properly, and 2) understand the words and their specific meaning. Many of the things are so obvious, that they don’t even have to be pointed out to someone knowing just a little bit of statistics.

    But still you make all these errors, bring up such misconceptions, try to create distinct (‘unprecedented’) information where all you have is massive uncertainties. And allthough I explicitiy pointed out that you can only make guesses, speculate (wildly) about temperatures prior to ~1600.

    As if you not only are unaware of what the errorbars show (which you definitely are), but even unaware of their very existence, and of uncertainties per se.

    Utterly amazing and almost unbelievable is the amount of displayed ignorance …
    ____________________________________________________________________

    You bring up a lot of more buzz-words, all of the completely out of place:

    (Eg ‘strawman’ ‘integlacial’ ‘fantasy world’ ‘do climate science in your head’ ‘unsupported opinions’  ‘pure gold’ ‘brown color’ ‘ thinks he is a brilliant climate scientist’ ‘ Dunning Kruger effect’ and much more)

    Some of them are just so stupid, it almost defies belief, that they could have been uttered by an sane individual in mental balance: “Jonas thinks he is a brilliant climate scientist …” who can “… do climate science in [his] head”

    How can a grown up utter such utter stupidity, Eric!?

    I’ll take up one thing here (the one that is the least stupid, because it again shows your urge to divert and flee)

    I point out that the present day temperatures not at all are ‘unprecedented’ during the present interglacial. Because that is the relevant comparison. I also point out that comparing to previous interglacials, this observation is even firmer. And I do this because the word ‘unprecedented’ is a key-word for the alarmists (you yourself, bring it up time and again).

    The only reason and motive is to imply that present day temperatures are extraordinary in history, and to couple that with the CO2-emissions, thus creating the alarmist scare.

    Well, present day temperatures are nothing out of the ordinary comparing to similar conditions,. Rather the contrary (that’s what Bob Carter showed), and thus no reason for alarm exists wrt to that.

    Of course, they are ‘unprecedented’ since ~1700, since 1900, even since 1975, and they are att noon on a sunny summer day, since the early morning hours. But such ‘observations’ carry no relevant information. It is only irrelevant activist chatter, or cunning phrases to feed the ignorant masses:

    You’ve probably heard the phrase ‘the last decade was the warmest on record’ (maybe even used it yourself?), which is AGW-activist lingo for ‘It hasn’t warmed as projected for more than a decade, we need to rephrase our message to stick to our narrative’.

    Summing up:

    I talk about the (present and previous) interglacials, because they are the relevant comparision here. You cry ‘strawman’ and ‘Mann & others never argued that’, because you want to escape from whats relevant:

    Mann & others showed (reasonably convincingly) that present temperatures are ‘unprecedented’ since maybe ~1600. That’s what they show, Eric.

    I’d say: ‘So what? There is no beef there. None!’ You want to cling to that word. I talk about what is relevant for reality.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,
     
    “There you have two [Steve McIntyre @ Climate Audit, and repeated by Anthony Watts at WUWT] out of the three entities with zero credibility that Mashey was referring to. I don’t know what the third entity is, but why should anyone care? You are making up issues where there is none. ”

     Amazing, not even John Mashey would attempt to apply this rather ludicrous defence

    Didn’t you read his actual words -
     
    “”CHE: MORE ABUSES OF THE CIVIL PLATFORM PROVIDED HERE
    1) Just so it is on the record, at least 3 identities have repeated the defamatory claims about Ray Bradley plagiarizing Hal Fritts’ book in Bradley(1999) – Paleoclimatology.  In academe, these aer serious (or would be, if the claimaints possessed nonzero credibility.) ”

    Are you really trying to claim that he has accused them of “ MORE ABUSES OF THE CIVIL PLATFORM PROVIDED HERE” when neither have posted here (and I note Mashey is unable to come up with the requested evidence concerning them).

     (or could it be that the ‘log’ in your eye is impairing your reading ability!!!)

    However by making such a claim you are simply providing further evidence of the constant misrepresentations employed by so many CAGW supporters.
     
    By now I am sure he will have realised (even if you have not) that at the time he wrote this comment the only charges of plagiarism that had been made were by him and his supporters against Wegman.
     
    Nor have you clarified exactly how Wegman despite citing Bradley numerous times in the climate science sections of his pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee Report (requested by and supplied to policy makers)  is supposed to have represented these sections as his own original work.

    And it seems you have an even poorer opinion of politicians than I do if you really believe –

    “Since the report was developed for laymen, i.e. members of Congress, they would not be expected to know the level of expertise and distinguish what was old from what was new, and would need to know who developed the information so that they can judge whether or not the person who did it was an expert.”

    when he had cited Bradley numerous times in his sections on the background of climate science.

    [Perhaps you should read again your own words -

    “When people read a text they do not assume the author has developed all the knowledge himself. A text is expected to make use of material developed by all the scientists that have gone before.” ]

    But isn’t  that an interesting point regarding the ‘level of expertise’ . One could also ask what ‘level of expertise’  Mann had applied in his use of statistics in the ‘Hockey Stick’ .

    Oh but they did –  which is why policy makers asked Wegman (a statistical expert) to do the report.  And wasn’t this the whole purpose of the report ie to see if McIntyre and McKitrick’s critiques of Mann et al 1998,1999 were correct.

    “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been interested in an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b) [MM03, MM05a, MM05b] as well as the related implications in the assessment. The conclusions from MBH98, MBH99 were featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report entitled Climate
    Change 20013: The Scientific Basis. This report concerns the rise in global temperatures, specifically during the 1990s. The MBH98 and MBH99 papers are focused on paleoclimate temperature reconstruction and conclusions therein focus on what appear to be a rapid rise in global temperature during the 1990s when compared with temperatures of the previous millennium.”
     
     
    His findings are rather interesting are they not ie –
     
    “1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been.

    2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. We comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the deficiencies of the MBH98-type methodologies and were not trying to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions

    3…. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

    4. In response to the letter from Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield, Dr.
    Mann did release several websites with extensive materials, including data and
    code. The material is not organized or documented in such a way that makes it practical for an outsider to replicate the MBH98/99 results. For example, the
    directory and file structure Dr. Mann used are embedded in the code. It would
    take extensive restructuring of the code to make it compatible with a local
    machine. Moreover, the cryptic nature of some of the MBH98/99 narratives
    means that outsiders would have to make guesses at the precise nature of the
    procedures being used.

    6. Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being
    developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be
    tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the MBH98/99 position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99.

    7. Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

    8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
    mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years as it shows an increasing trend in about 1850 that has been attributed to atmospheric CO2 fertilization.” It is not surprising therefore that this important proxy in MBH98/99 yields a temperature curve that is highly correlated with atmospheric CO2…. There are clearly confounding factors for using tree rings as temperature signals.”
     
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
     
    Oh and did you know that Bradley had written to the GMU offering to withdraw his charges of plagiarism so long as Wegman withdrew his Congressional Report.
     
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/21/bradley-tries-to-deal/
     
    Surely there is the real reason for these nonsensical charges of plagiarism!!!

  • JohnMashey

    (Now that I have a quick break from the real world):

    EricAdler:
    You and some other readers may be interested in some data on the comments (and non-comments) at CHE and where they come from (or don’t).

    1) This article has attracted 245 comments so far (Thuggery was 225, Bottling 101).  As a group they account for more than 50% of all comments since June 30.  The others average less than 20.

    2)The relevant set of articles at CHE and NAS is:
    #c = total comments
    #w = Wood comments
    Status = S (slowed/stopped) or A (still active)

    Date   Src  #c #w Status  URL
    06/30  CHE  101 6 S http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bottling-up-global-warming-skepticism

    07/07  NAS    3 0 S http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2080 Bottling Up … copy+picture
    07/29  CHE  225 3 S http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery
    08/04  NAS   24 0 S http://nasblog.org/2011/08/page/2/
    “Climate Thugs Get Thuggish” (Ricketts) [great title[
    08/04  CHE  204 0 A http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform Mashey&Coleman
    08/05  NAS    1 0 S http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=2121 Climate Thuggery+picture
    08/08  NAS   28 0 S http://nasblog.org/2011/08/08/thuggish-climate-thugs-contd  " Thuggish Climate Thugs, Cont’d" (Glenn Ricketts)  [another great title]

    Oddly, Wood stopped commenting on 07/29 piece and I have not seen any comment on our article. Sadly, the NAS affiliates have almost entirely declined to join the discourse.  I’d emailed them all (as I posted earlier). One replied that he wasn’t interested.  I thanked the only one who did Jay Bergman (in Thuggery thread).

    Anna Haynes had reported getting email answers from 3 more:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Scholars
    but it would nice if they were to appear and offer their opinions.

    Still, it is curious that there is so little comment at the NAS site, and so little from the NAS affiliates.

    3) Likewise, it is curious that Peter Wood has not continued the discourse he started here, as he has had time for:

    08/18  http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/do-college-administrators-misappropriate-diversity/30124
    08/17  http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/subway-ride/30107
    08/05 http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/investing-in-debt/30004
    and:
    “Peter Wood | August 3, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    “I  am astonished at the number of
    responses that my two short posts on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s
    Innovations blog have prompted on the Chronicle itself, here, and a few other
    places. My thanks to Judith Curry for drawing attention to what I wrote and
    doing so in a temperate if mildly skeptical manner. …”
    (well-received there, on article with 497 comments.)  at:
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-back-in-the-bottle/ 

    (That’s the key blog that generated the influx to CHE, although Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That certainly helped.  Their 800+ comments dwarfed anything at Deltoid, for example, and comments there are far less restrained than the amusing polite discourse found here.   Judith advertised her post at both of those blogs, which probably helped draw traffic.

    4) MORE on the blogospheric dynamics at some later date.  As I’ve said before, it offers wonderful data, especially as the spread into the real world  continues  I remind people of:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-perrys-made-up-facts-about-climate-change/2011/08/17/gIQApVF5LJ_blog.html
    “Another Perry spokesman, Ray Sullivan, provided links to a number of recent articles that he said demonstrated skepticism in the scientific community.”  (the “to” links to Thuggery.)

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    You wrote:
    “EricAdler,
     
    “There you have two [Steve McIntyre @ Climate Audit,
    and repeated by Anthony Watts at WUWT] out of the three entities with
    zero credibility that Mashey was referring to. I don’t know what the
    third entity is, but why should anyone care? You are making up issues
    where there is none. ”

     Amazing, not even John Mashey would attempt to apply this rather ludicrous defence

    Didn’t you read his actual words -
     
    “”CHE: MORE ABUSES OF THE CIVIL PLATFORM PROVIDED HERE
    1)
    Just so it is on the record, at least 3 identities have repeated the
    defamatory claims about Ray Bradley plagiarizing Hal Fritts’ book in
    Bradley(1999) – Paleoclimatology.  In academe, these aer serious (or
    would be, if the claimaints possessed nonzero credibility.) ”

    Are
    you really trying to claim that he has accused them of “ MORE ABUSES OF
    THE CIVIL PLATFORM PROVIDED HERE” when neither have posted here (and I
    note Mashey is unable to come up with the requested evidence concerning
    them).

     (or could it be that the ‘log’ in your eye is impairing your reading ability!!!) ”

    OK. What is the big deal about that?  It is a trivial point. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel, if this is where you have to look to find things that are wrong.

    I can name 2 of the three offhand – MarionJay and JonasN. It isn’t worth the trouble to search the hundreds of comments for number 3. There may even be more than three if you look carefully.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    You wrote:
    “But isn’t  that an interesting point regarding the ‘level of expertise’ .
    One could also ask what ‘level of expertise’  Mann had applied in his
    use of statistics in the ‘Hockey Stick’ .

    Oh but they did –
     which is why policy makers asked Wegman (a statistical expert) to do
    the report.  And wasn’t this the whole purpose of the report ie to see
    if McIntyre and McKitrick’s critiques of Mann et al 1998,1999 were
    correct. ”

    You then procede to post a summary of the Wegman Report which purports to prove that Mann  et. al. had no expertise.

    You never replied to the points I made, and the references,  which showed that the Wegman report and McIntyre’s criticisms were wrong. Are you hoping that the readers of this blog, if there are any will have forgotten about this or not noticed?

    The NAS report refers to some statistical weaknesses, but says the paper is laudable ground breaking work and basically correct. In addition, one of the main statistical arguments by M&M echoed by McIntyre, that the Hockey Stick is an artifact of the use of non centered Principal Components Analysis is incorrect. The analysis of McIntyre, which was copied by Wegman, rather than independently verified was proven to be incorrect. In fact proper application of centered PCA on Mann’s data base provided a graph almost identical to the original Hockey Stick. Since then, a dozen papers using different combinations of proxies and different analysis methods have essentially verified the correctness of Mann’s original conclusions. IMann et. al. in 2008 wrote a followup paper, using a lot of new proxies, different analysis methods, and one of the coauthors was a statistician.

    In addition, Wegman had no expertise in social network analysis. He copied the work of a student who had taken a one week course in his report. Wegman was forced to retract a published paper that was based on that work, because of plagiarism. In addition the paper didn’t get adequate peer review, because the editor was a friend, and not an expert in the field. The teacher who taught the 1 week course to Wegman’s student said that the paper was an opinion piece and should not have been published without a lot revisions.

    The opinions of Wegman and McIntyre about Paleoclimatology are not shared by the bulk of climate science researchers, based on the literature.

    I have lost count of the number of times I have made these points, and no rebuttal was made by you, or your fellow denier, JonasN. Instead, you charge dishonesty and breathtaking hypocrisy. This is clearly a sign that you can’t support AGW denialism by scientific arguments. Put up or shut up.

  • EricAdler

    A crosspost from Breitbart.com on the subject of Climate Science Education has appeared on the NAS web site.
    “Global Warming Activist Teacher Takes Her Agenda to Truck Country”  by
    Kyle Olson

    Olson opposes teaching about AGW  because it is “propaganda”. He  praises the idea of “teaching to test”  because that is what people want. He  doesn’t like the idea of teaching students about problems with capitalism.

    It is pathetic that an organization called the “National Association of Scholars” is a purveyor of such trash. In addition, they refused to post my comment, probably because it was unflattering to them.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    You mean like this  sort of propaganda – see “Teaching Kids about the Environment, Government Style”

    http://mises.org/daily/2997

    And doesn’t that same theme seem to have been continued in the disgraceful 10:10 video generating huge public condemnation  – interesting to read the comments in the Guardian article (the film is not for the squeamish!) –

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    Al Gore’s film – “An Inconvenient Truth” was shown in many schools here in the UK with the support of the Dept of Education despite not being quite so ‘truthful’ as a UK judge discovered.

    And it appears to have been Al Gore’s film which inspired gunman James Lee -

    “A lengthy posting on Lee’s website said Discovery and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants,” a possible reference to shows like “Kate Plus 8″ and “19 Kids and Counting.” Instead, he said, the channel should broadcast “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

    “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,” reads the site. “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” it says. “

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7976513/Gunman-shot-after-taking-hostages-at-Discovery-Channel-headquarters.html

    After all isn’t this sort of CAGW propaganda much about –

     “the idea of teaching students about problems with capitalism”

  • marionjay

    More misrepresentation, EricAdler,  (why doesn’t that surprise me) – as I posted in my previous comment at the time John Mashey made his assertions the only actual charges of ‘plagiarism’ on this forum were from him and his supporters – kindly provide a link or quote to support your accusation – it is glaringly obvious that you cannot and have simply fallen back on the “assertion = truth” meme of so many CAGW supporters.

  • marionjay

    JohnMashey,

    Don’t you think your stance on Peter Wood failing to ‘join the discourse’ is rather hypocritical when you yourself have failed to ‘join the discourse’ by providing the actual requested evidence for the serious allegations you yourself have made against commenters here at this forum on CHE.

    It seems that you and your supporters rely overly much on incorrect assertions and circular references (eg you and EricAdler on this blog).

    Those of us who seek the truth prefer primary sources and direct quotations.  

    Nor  is the failure of NAS affiliates  & others to “join the discourse” particularly  surprising given the demonstration of ‘Climate Thuggery’ that you have supplied such ample evidence for here.

    After all the Anna Haynes you quote is the person described by Wood in his ‘Climate Thuggery’ article.

    “His [John Mashey's] replies posted to The Chronicle and elsewhere come in the company of some very irate people. Many of them seem to think that only those who accept the premises of their own sectarian version of climate modeling have a right to speak in this debate. Anyone else is fair game for—what shall I call it?  It goes well beyond scolding.

    For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability.  Her questions have insinuated that two former employees of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had suffered previous heart attacks.)  This woman has similarly attacked other people and organizations that express views on climate change that she disagrees with.Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to the effort.”

    And isn’t she the author of the rather vindictive piece on Judith Curry (as well as on the NAS)

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

    Would anyone want to ‘join the discourse’ under these circumstances ?

    Most of us find these sort of tactics as particularly abhorrent so I was surprised to read the following comments from Judith Curry –

    “When I have commended the efforts of the climate auditors, people have asked who is auditing the auditors?  Well, that is John Mashey, Anna Haynes, and Deep Climate.  While I find their rhetoric and some of their tactics to be often rather distasteful, what they are doing is (for the most part) legitimate investigation”

    But then she does seem to operate a ‘damage limitation’ type blog for the AGW fraternity.

    However she did clarify later in the comments section –

    “John Mashey, Deep Climate, and Anna Haynes are auditing the Climate Auditors primarily by looking at their funding sources, scoping out obscure links with libertarian think tanks, and John Mashey’s hunt for plagiarism. The fact that those auditing the Climate Auditors cant do any better than this rather speaks for itself”.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-back-in-the-bottle/#comment-93055

    Precisely – as Peter Woods says in his ‘Climate Thuggery’ article

    “What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation” 

    And doesn’t the number of comments on the various blogs you have referred to

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/02/trying-to-put-the-climategate-genie-back-in-the-bottle/

    (497 comments)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/new-term-from-the-chronicle-climate-thuggery/

    (58 comments)

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/8/4/mashive-attack.html

    (246 comments)  

    contrast sharply with the

    “Anti-science echo-chamber blogs [which] amplify anger, yielding nothing like legitimate scientific discussion”

    Which is a far more accurate description of the blog you yourself like to frequent – (read
    thecomments) 

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/john_mashey_replies_to_peter_w.php

    (32 comments)

  • EricAdler

    It is revealing that one of your links comes from mises.com. a free market absolutist web blog named for Ludwig von Mises, one of the icons of far right “intellectuals” . They would object to any educational program that had some aspect of environmental protection and a lesson on the “tragedy of the commons” which is one of the flaws of capitalism that governmental action must correct. This is an extremist ideological view and a question of values. These people worship the invisible hand of the “free market” as a kind of god. All government action is bad, by definition. Opposition to all goverment regulation is an article of faith, which makes it impossible to accept the idea of AGW.  This is similar to the way belief in the literal truth of the bible, has driven opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
     
    In fact the main reason given for stopping AGW is that it harms humans, not just wildlife. In the long run global warming will damage crop yields and cause floods and drought that will result in the displacement of human populations.

    The grisly humor of the 10:10 video has nothing to do with the course discussed by the article by Olson, nor has the ideas of James Lee.

    AGW is a valid scientific theory that is accepted as valid by 97% of climate scientists, and has a history that is 116 years old. Unfortunately it has become politicized by right wing free market ideologs, who have created false issues and propaganda in opposition to the science.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:
    “His [John Mashey's] replies posted to The Chronicle and elsewhere come
    in the company of some very irate people. Many of them seem to think
    that only those who accept the premises of their own sectarian version
    of climate modeling have a right to speak in this debate. Anyone else is
    fair game for—what shall I call it?  It goes well beyond scolding.

    For
    example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business
    to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and
    others with leading questions about my views on climate change and
    sustainability.  Her questions have insinuated that two former employees
    of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard
    Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had
    suffered previous heart attacks.)  This woman has similarly attacked
    other people and organizations that express views on climate change that
    she disagrees with.Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I
    can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to
    the effort.”

    Wood’s description of telephone call is not and cannot be documented properly. I doubt that this happened as described.

    Wood seems to have little objectivity where the topic of climate change is concerned. He repeats a false charge by Rush Limbaugh, that Heidi Cullen tried to get weather channel personnel, who  didn’t accept Global Warming, fired, when this was not the case. He praises the presentation of Lord Monckton a proven liar, and a man with serious personality issues,  on the topic of global warming.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham
     
    You also wrote:

    “And isn’t she the author of the rather vindictive piece on Judith Curry (as well as on the NAS)”

    Vindictive is your opinion. In fact that piece contains criticisms of Curry by other climate scientists as well her side.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

    From my reading, it is a fair description of what she says she is doing and what other climate scientists say. She seems to be provocative to a degree that is a little crazy for a climate scientist who writes real papers. She even provided airing and legitimacy to a crazy paper that purported to show that increases in CO2 are not the result of human activity. That is clearly a fringe climate denier view that will receive zero credibility among climate scientists, even the 3% who don’t accept the theory of AGW.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “Most of us find these sort of tactics as particularly abhorrent so I was
    surprised to read the following comments from Judith Curry –

    “When
    I have commended the efforts of the climate auditors, people have asked
    who is auditing the auditors?  Well, that is John Mashey, Anna Haynes,
    and Deep Climate.  While I find their rhetoric and some of their tactics
    to be often rather distasteful, what they are doing is (for the most
    part) legitimate investigation”

    But then she does seem to operate a ‘damage limitation’ type blog for the AGW fraternity.

    However she did clarify later in the comments section –

    “John
    Mashey, Deep Climate, and Anna Haynes are auditing the Climate Auditors
    primarily by looking at their funding sources, scoping out obscure
    links with libertarian think tanks, and John Mashey’s hunt for
    plagiarism. The fact that those auditing the Climate Auditors cant do
    any better than this rather speaks for itself”. 

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08...

    Her clarification is not accurate. DeepClimate examined the statistical arguments of Wegman against the hockey stick, which were basically copied from McIntyre, instead of being verified independently,  and showed that they were false. In addition the others have shown that the Hockey Stick graph can be derived by the correct application of the method favored by McIntyre and Wegman.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    “The MBH98 reconstruction is indeed almost completely insensitive to
    whether the centering convention of MBH98 (data centered over 1902-1980
    calibration interval) or MM (data centered over the 1400-1971 interval)
    is used. Claims by MM to the contrary are based on their failure to
    apply standard ‘selection rules’ used to determine how many Principal
    Component (PC) series should be retained in the analysis. Application of the standard selection rule (Preisendorfer’s “Rule N’“)
    used by MBH98, selects 2 PC series using the MBH98 centering
    convention, but a larger number (5 PC series) using the MM centering
    convention. Curiously undisclosed by MM in their criticism is the fact that precisely the same ‘hockey stick’ pattern that appears using the MBH98 convention (as PC series #1) also appears using the MM convention,
    albeit slightly lower down in rank (PC series #4) (Figure 1). If MM had
    applied standard selection procedures, they would have retained the
    first 5 PC series, which includes the important ‘hockey stick’ pattern. The claim by MM that this pattern arises as an artifact of the centering convention used by MBH98 is clearly false. ”

    If you look at the real science, it is clear that MBH98 is vindicated, and it is the harrsssments and attacks on Mann’s integrity by the deniers such as Wegman, McIntyre, Cuccinelli and Wood himeslf, are the real thuggery in this case.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    “Wood’s description of telephone call is not and cannot be documented properly. I doubt that this happened as described”.

    Why doesn’t that surprise me – but then Anna Haynes has a history of exactly this sort of harrassment.

    “Dr Anna Haynes is a True Believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming and its dire consequences for all Mankind.  She has taken great exception to my being an AGW skeptic, and has recorded her distress –
    • On her personal website NC Focus,• On her community information website NC Voices,• During her requested meetings with me,• During an unexpected walk-in at one of my Rotary luncheons,• In unsolicited phone calls to our residence during which she has attempted to interrogate me and my wife.
    Recently (27mar10) she launched an attack of unfounded allegations on TechTest, a philanthropic merit scholarship project of the non-profit Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (sesfoundation.org) of which I am a board member and its Director of Research.  She alleges that the actual purpose of the test is to gather and indoctrinate the participating young scholars to become climate change skeptics.
    She has a longer history of such dealings with my friend and SESF colleague Russ Steele (NC Media Watch).  Additionally, her unfathomable labors have also included Messrs Michael McDaniel (SESF) and Martin Light (CABPRO).  I will let them tell their own stories.
    Tonight Dr Haynes called during dinner to pose yet another question – have I or any of my family been compensated for my skepticism of AGW.  As soon as I said ‘no’, she thanked me, hung up, and posted the conversation as a comment here.”

    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/the-sad-tale-of-anna-haynes.html?cid=6a00e54f86f2ad88330133f1820d75970b

    Further confirmation of “Climate Thuggery” in action.

    And referring to Anna Haynes piece on Judith Curry in Sourcewatch you comment -

    “From my reading, it is a fair description of what she says she is doing and what other climate scientists say.”

    Again not surprising – I expect others will be more objective in their views.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    In attacking Anna Haynes as a thug you quote Rebane’s blog:

    http://rebaneruminations.typep...

    What you fail to mentions is that Anna Haynes lives and blogs in Nevada County CA, where Rebane and Steele also live and  blog. She is an environmentalist. They are pro business bloggers who oppose environmental regulation. Rebane runs the “Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation”, which is an anti environmental  business group, and opposes the idea of AGW.  One of her finds is that SESF is registered with the state as a charity with status – delinquent as of 2005, and hasn’t filed any Federal financial reports, so she wants to know where he gets the money for SESF. This seems like a fair question to me.

    http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-info-from-early-sierra.html#more

    Haynes does investigative journalism, and digs out facts. Those who are made uncomfortable by the facts characterize investigative journalism as “thuggery”.

  • marionjay

    “In attacking Anna Haynes as a thug”

    Ah, but I made no such claim, EricAdler, the word is yours.

    My contention is that her activities were

    “Further confirmation of “Climate Thuggery” in action.

    But this is the sort of misrepresentation we have come to expect in your posts.

    And didn’t Peter Wood highlight exactly this sort of misrepresentation in his article “Climate Thuggery”

    “Thus, for example, several respondents introduced the idea that I had somehow endorsed the behavior of a George Mason University economist and statistician, Edward Wegman, who was forced to retract a 2008 paper critical of Mann that he had published in the journal Computational Statistics & Data Analysis after Mashey published a 250-page online analysis of it identifying “portions of other authors’ writings” in Wegman’s article “without sufficient attribution.”  Wegman defends himself as “innocently unaware” that a George Mason student had cut and pasted the paragraphs that he included in the report.  George Mason University is investigating whether Wegman is guilty of plagiarism.
    I, of course, said nothing about Wegman.  I don’t know his work.”

    And haven’t the CAGW fraternity striven to propagate exactly this misrepresentation throughout the internet and printed press when the actual facts are

    Wegman’s pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Climate Reconstruction  (which was requested by policy makers  to establish whether the critiques of the statistics used in the Hockey Stick (MBH98 ie Mann, Bradley, Hughes) by McIntyre and McKitrick (MM03 and MM05) were correct, and provided by Wegman (a statistics expert)) contained numerous citations of Bradley and in no way attempted to portray the climate science sections he was accused of ‘plagiarising’ as his own original work.

    It was Wegman’s Ad Hoc Committee Report on which Mashey wrote his 250 page ‘analysis’ .

    The Said et Al. 2008 published in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis on ’Social Networks of Author-Coauthor Relationships’ (of which Wegman was a co-author) was a completely separate report and didn’t actually mention Mann (although it used some of the networking analysis used in the Congressional report not identifying authors). But because of a lack of citation in its background section (of a very similar nature to that in Bradley’s ‘seminal’ textbook which Mashey has vigorously defended and of which Wegman was accused of ‘plagiarising’ for the climate science sections of his report) and was subsequently withdrawn.

    The section that was identified as ‘plagiarised’ in the Said et Al 2008 report was written by Sharabati (one of the co-authors) who had failed to correctly cite his own report Sharabati (2008).

    It is complaints of academic misconduct and ‘plagiarism’ brought by Bradley against Wegman’s pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Climate Reconstruction that the George Mason University is investigating.

    Bradley offered to withdraw the complaint if Wegman withdrew his Congressional Report!!!

    What a strange Orwellian world CAGW supporters seem to inhabit.

  • EricAdler

    marionjay wrote:

    “In attacking Anna Haynes as a thug”

    Ah, but I made no such claim, EricAdler, the word is yours.

    My contention is that her activities were

    “Further confirmation of “Climate Thuggery” in action.

    But this is the sort of misrepresentation we have come to expect in your posts.”

    The distinction is too subtle for me to grasp. If her actions are “thuggery” as you claim then she is behaving as a “thug”.  That is close enough for me. Of course she may not look like a thug to her family and friends, but we aren’t discussing other aspects of her life.

    And didn’t Peter Wood highlight exactly this sort of misrepresentation in his article “Climate Thuggery””

    No. But Peter Wood’s article was full of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations as I mentioned. You didn’t refute any of the points that I mentioned.

    I would characterize this and most of the rest of your so called discussion as “raising dust”.

  • JonasN

    Eric, I can see two (mutually exclusive) positions you can take here:

    1) Maintain that MBH was essentially right, ie no historic climate change, no MWP and no LIA

    2) Notable climate change (last 1000 yrs), MWP and LIA did exist, MBH-numbers don’t describe reality, overstate certainty etc, MBH conclusions (‘unprecedented’) not scientifically valid.

    The correct stance is mine, ie 2). Mann is not ‘vindicated’, he just got a crappy paper published. What’s allt the fuss about?

    I can tell you: IPCC swallowed it, made it their prosterchild, mislead entire world. Now looks foolish! As do all its followers!

    Thus I repeat: What is all your fuss about (and Mashey’s)?

    PS Almost all your points are nonsense, you cannot read arguments properly, not even your own side’s, and you do not master the terms you are using. Most is just wishfull babbling using terms and phrases you’ve picked up. In randon and inconsistent order and logic. I reply seperately to the babbling you call ‘point’

  • JonasN

    Answer to Eric (just below)

    You stated:
     

    “He ceaselessly repeats his meme, that the effect of CO2 is largest where it is cold and dark, therefore it is not significant for global temperature. This is a nonsense argument.”

    1) Its a generally accepted effect to expect from increased CO2, you even repeat it yourself just below. Thus: It is not a ‘meme of mine’, it was a prequel to the argument I was making.

    2) I never made any such argument or even statement. You completely misrepresent me again!

    3) The critical point of the climate scare are the large amplifications needed, the predicted large positive feedback. Which purportedly is a result of H2O following as a slave parameter.

    4) I brought up those points to demonstrate why amplifications of factor ~4 by that effect are extremely unlikely. And I explained how and why. You had no answer.

    What you now write is more random rambling in the dark, not worthy commenting. Nowhere does it adress anything I say, you even must have completely missed that the CAGW-sides biggest ‘problem’ is those large positive feedbacks. Although I have pointed this out in every comment for more than a week. How can one be so completely unaware of the topic? Further, the link you provide does not even support your description. And only really stupid people think that mentioning Dunning Kruger makes them appear smarter.

  • JonasN

    Here, I dissicate how you completely misunderstood and misrepresented everything in what you call ‘your points’,

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “3) The critical point of the climate scare are the large amplifications
    needed, the predicted large positive feedback. Which purportedly is a
    result of H2O following as a slave parameter.”

    The water vapor concentration is not purportedly a slave paramenter of CO2. That is a straw man argument.
    WV concentration is driven by temperature increasing by about 6% per degree C. I described below how this works for the third time below. You repeatedly don’t notice my description and claim that climate scientists allege that water vapor is a slave parameter of CO2. You are making this up in your own head.

    Here is what I say below:

    “In fact the data shows that global warming is largest  over land areas,
    where it is dark and cold,  showing, that CO2 is really driving the
    increase in global temperature as the global climate models predict.
    Temperature increases in the Arctic are twice the global average.In addition, an increase in polar temperature will reduce the difference
    between tropical and polar temperatures, which drives  the rate of
    energy transport from the tropics to the poles. Reducing the transport
    of energy from the tropics to the Poles, will increase the temperature
    in the tropics, and cause water vapor in the atmosphere to increase. ”

    You already concede that water vapor is a greenhouse gas which will further warm the earth by reducing the energy escaping to space by radiation. So we have a physically sound  mechanism for the water vapor feedback, which is only part of the amplification factor of temperature increases. There is also reduction in reflectivity due to decreases in snow and ice cover.  Ice ages have been modeled and the temperature swings initiated by the Milankovich cycles depend on these factors.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

     
     

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    You wrote:
    “EricAdler wrote:

    “If you look at the real science, it is clear
    that MBH98 is vindicated, and it is the harrsssments and attacks on
    Mann’s integrity by the deniers such as Wegman, McIntyre, Cuccinelli and
    Wood himeslf, are the real thuggery in this case. “
     As usual
    EricAdler you make sweeping statements without any evidence though I am
    sure that Mann would have sued those named had your statements been
    true, after all he seems to have a history for that sort of thing. ”

    In your post, you refuse to address the scientific evidence which has appeared in the years since 1998 to validate the Hockey Stick.  You have produced no refutation of the points that I made to support my statement, in your post. All of the points I made were backed by references to papers in the published literature.

    The National Academy of science report said that Mann et. al were basically correct, but may have underestimated the uncertainty in the years prior to 1400. You linked to an analysis of the report on the denier blog “greenworld trust.”
    Here is an analysis and criticism of the report from real climate scientists. They mention a lot of points where the NAS report gave too much credit to M&M criticisms which were actually answered before the report was prepared.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

    This verdict was borne out in a dozen subsequent papers using different combinations of proxies,  which showed more variation in the MWP than the original paper but the Hockey Stick shape was still there. The graphs are out there on the web.

    In addition, the principal criticism by McIntyre, simply echoed by Wegman, without the independent verification he signed up for, was that  the Hockey Stick was an artifact resulting from the use of non-centered Principal Components Analysis.  Subsequently this was definitively shown to be false, because the same data, analysed by centered PCA, which McIntyre and Wegman said was the correct method showed a Hockey Stick.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    How much more evidence is needed? To claim that it is not true, because if it were Mann would have sued everyone is a stupid argument that has no evidence to support it, to say the least. People cannot be sued, and should not be charged with fraud simply because the made mistakes, even if they are ideologically motivated. To investigate Mann for fraud because of his scientific position, like Cuccinnelli is doing is clearly thuggery motivated by right wing politics.

    The rest of your post is simply dust raising, quoting  hacks like Lawrence Solomon of the National Post who knows nothing about climate science. Here is an example of how he mangles the Arctic sea ice record:

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/05/national-posts-lawrence-solomon-touts-global-cooling-part-1-hiding-the-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice/

    The criticisms of Climate Science based on the so called ClimateGate emails and other such manufactured controversies are simply dust raising. It doesn’t matter how often you quote deniers like McIntyre, Solomon, and other deniers. AGW is endorsed by 97% of research climate scientists, based on two independent polls.

  • marionjay

    Sigh!!!

    The usual links from the usual ‘disinformation’ sites – but still – interesting and informative though not quite in the way you intended!  Don’t you follow the real science at all, EricAdler?

    Your quote -

    “Subsequently this was definitively shown to be false, because the same data, analysed by centered PCA, which McIntyre and Wegman said was the correct method showed a Hockey Stick.”

    Because of the use of inferior proxies and the weightings applied to them!!  You really should widen your sources, EricAdler, those of us who seek out the truth like to read around a subject before forming an opinion. But interesting to note your continued obfuscation!

    This link may help –

    http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/

    Note too this paragraph –

    “We submitted a letter to Nature about this flaw in the MBH98 procedure. After a long (8-month) reviewing process they notified us that they would not publish it. They concluded it could not be explained in the 500-word limit they were prepared to give us, and one of the referees said he found the material was quite technical and unlikely to be of interest to the general readers. Instead Mann et al. were permitted to make a coy disclosure in their July Corrigendum. In an on-line Supplement (but not in the printed text itself) they revealed the nonstandard method, and added the unsupported claim that it did not affect the results.”

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    Now back to the link you so helpfully provided –

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    Note Mann’s response to one of the commenters –

    “Ken says:

    9 Jan 2005 at 2:19 PM

    “All of this technical, statistical jargon is over my head, but I get the impression that the data on which the climate reconstruction is based is so sparse and uncertain that you can’t draw any firm conclusions supporting either MM’s or Mann’s side of the debate.”

    Michael Mann replies:

    “[Response: Even without technical training or a statistical background, you should have an adequate basis for discerning which of the two parties is likely wrong here. Only one of the parties involved has (1) had their claims fail scientific peer-review, (2) produced a reconstruction that is completely at odds with all other existing estimates (note that there is no sign of the anomalous 15th century warmth claimed by MM in any of the roughly dozen other model and proxy-based estimates shown here), and (3) been established to have made egregious elementary errors in other published work that render the work thoroughly invalid. These observations would seem quite telling. -mike]”

    Note the so oft use of ‘appeal to authority’, the attempt to undermine sources conflicting with his own viewpoint and, of course,  the phrase

    “2) produced a reconstruction that is completely at odds with all other existing estimates (note that there is no sign of the anomalous 15th century warmth claimed by MM in any of the roughly dozen other model and proxy-based estimates shown here)”

    Ie the strawman argument – explained by

    “Mann attacked their original 2003 paper (MM03) in which MM had tried to replicate the results of MBH98. For this purpose, Mann set up a strawman: He used the Abstract of a (not yet published) paper by Wahl and Amman in which he had highlighted the phrases “anomalous 15th century warming” and “without statistical and climatologically merit” in reference to MM03. Now Wahl and Ammann know full well – and Mann surely does too – that MM03 explicitly states – and emphasizes repeatedly – that such a 15th- century warming comes about only when one uses the MBH98 methodology but corrects a series of errors in the underlying data used by MBH98. In other words, MM03 claims that MBH would have gotten this climatologically wrong result if they had used corrected data. Specifically, MM03 documents a number of different types of errors in the MBH98 data set (errors in truncation, etc). MM03 then obtains the anomalous 15th century warming when using the MBH methodology. [I am quite familiar with these details because I served as a peer reviewer for MM03]”

    http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/nas-committee-hearings-on-hockeystick/

    Yet again you provide the evidence for the sceptic side !!

    Oh and interesting to see the shape of Mann’s 2008 ‘hockey stick’ which includes the Medieval Warm Period

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

    compare this with the original ‘hockey stick’
    and what strange hockey sticks you play with in your alternate world , EricAdler if you think “the Hockey Stick shape was still there”.

    And the excellent Lawrence Solomon (a true ‘investigative journalist’-  but I doubt you’d recognise one of those!!)  has already exposed one of the sources of the 97% claim but I notice you don’t give any links to those claims!!

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

    No doubt that’s another claim  that has constant ‘resurrections’!

  • JonasN

    You are still talking nonsens, Eric

    There is no ‘scientific evidence vindicating the hockeystick’
    You blathering about criticism ‘definitely being false’ is also nonsense!
    The method used was flawed. Period!
    That the data also contained some shape which the method produced even without it, does not vindicate the method. Is that so hard to understand?
    Moreover, the data used was poor, improper in some cases, and cherrypicked. Ascertions made about historic temperatures, and ‘unprecedented’ were also wrong. Period!

    You are still only barking up the wrong tree, and about irrelevant other details.

    Why are you so obsessed with salvaging the stick?

    Linking to Real Climate for ‘proof’ that Mann and/or his hockeystick are vindicated is just laughable.

    Further, none of the contents of the ClimateGate emails were manufactures! On the contrary, they showed the practices and behind the scenes methods during more than a decade. It is not at all difficult to understand what they were about. Especially if you know (or know of)  the ‘science’ they were discussing too.

    But reading at RC or DC will of course never enlighten you what it all was about. You seeme to be in denial even here …

  • JonasN

    No Eric,

    You are not ‘informing’ me or correctly ‘recounting’ what it all was about. You are repeating memes you’ve picked up at your preferred activist sites!

    You are correct in saying that latter ‘reconstructions’ by others, sometimes including Mann, are better wrt methodology and stating (parts of the) uncertainties. Also better at making data and calculations available.

    But you are wrong if you say that the original paper and its results have been confirmed or affirmed. There was nothing ‘groundbreaking’ about MBH (unless you mean that it slipped through peer-review and was promoted as ’best science’ by the IPCC)

    The method is still not suitable for establishing any historic recors with any certainty. Especially if you have som scanty data and proxy series.

    And why are you calling me AGW-denier? Are you really that stupid!? I have been trying to educate you on AGW for two weeks, and that the ‘large positive feedbacks’ (modelled in the simulations) are one main problem. Have you missed that? That I have been talking about feedbacks?

  • EricAdler

    In your above post, you quoted Lawrence Solomon regarding the scientific credentials of Fred Singer.  Singer was at one time a respected space scientist, but has been out of serious science for a long time. He has been a shill for the tobacco industry and now is a source of disinformation about climate.
    The proof is in his own statements and writings, which were not invented by William Connolly or anyone else.
    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/01/20/202297/unstoppable-disinformation-every-15-minutes-from-fred-singer/

    For example, here is the link to a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
    solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a
    “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke,
    and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report. Here is the link to a letter thanking the Tobacco Institute for $20,000 intended “to support our research and education projects.” Here is a research paper, just as described in the earlier memo, with Dr. Singer’s name as the author. And here is another Tobacco Institute memo, reporting on Dr. Singer’s appearance with two Congressional Representatives releasing the paper to the media.

  • marionjay

    John Mashey,

    So it seems that you have retreated to your favourite blog forum (Deltoid) which you appear to believe is a more fitting venue for your ‘expert’ opinion. No doubt you are right – readers here are somewhat more discerning.

    No doubt they would have noticed that despite your false assertion that

    “McIntyre ignored the citations by Bradley, and the entire section listing the meticulous acknowledgements.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php#comment-4953818

    the link you gave reveals Steve McIntyre’s actual words

    “Despite the obvious parallel in the sentences shown above, there is no direct reference to Fritts 1976 associated with these sentences. In fact, Fritts 1976 is mentioned only four times in the 24 pages of running text of Bradley 1985 pages 330 to 353 and only once in the running text Bradley 1999 – although, as noted in my previous post, Fritts 1976 is mentioned in the captions to seven figures in Bradley 1985 (Bradley 1999 – four). .. As compared to the single mention of Fritts 1976 in the running text of Bradley 1999 in an incidental context (down from four mentions in more extended use of Fritts 1976 in the 23 relevant pages in Bradley 1985), Wegman mentioned Bradley 1999 three times in his running text of only a couple of pages …very reassuring to Wegman. If Bradley 1985 (and Bradley 1999) can be taken to represent “community standards”, these standards do not seem to preclude the referencing practices in the Wegman Report that have been criticized both here and elsewhere. “
     
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/
     
    So yet again you are unable to provide the evidence for your actual assertions but simply to prove that they are false.
     
    Shame you lack McIntyre’s meticulous attention to detail but can only provide misrepresentations and ‘appeal to authority’ to support your arguments!

  • essammostafa

    I’ve applied to teaching as well as top management posts for Georgetown university in Qatar & Washington more than once.Furthermore,I’ve e- mailed this university about ignoring my proposals,but got no reply!!!.

  • http://twitter.com/ProfessorIsIn Karen Kelsky

    Always apply—that’s my advice too.  And at the same time, take the opportunity to ask yourself, “do I really not have this qualification?  Is there something I’ve done that might speak to this?”  It’s easy to get into a self-descriptive rut.  In my own case, applying for jobs that were stretches often catalyzed me to remember qualifications and experiences that I had forgotten about.

  • demisty

    I’m not sure what the point is here.  If you meet all required qualifications, by all means, apply!  But if you don’t meet any or some of the _preferred_ requirements, then of course, apply!  What is the question here?

    I think I was led astray by that scenario at the beginning: “Oops, I don’t have this qualification … or that one. I’d better not waste anyone’s time by pursuing this.”  To which I agreed that the comment was right–this person should not waste anyone’s time. 

    Also, I do wonder, too, how you’ve come to the belief that women ignore positions for which they do not meet all qualifications (and this with the clarification of preferred qualifications, not required).  I would love it if you, or anyone at TCHE, would take on an article exploring that if the trend does exist!

  • tw1554

    I’m having this very struggle right now.  When I read “An 80-percent hit rate? I own this job!”, I thought “oh my gosh”…I’m looking at ads where I’m 90+percent and have been reluctant to apply.  Likewise, I have looked at ads that I know I can do but the position would ultimately be less challenging and, so far at least, I opted to pass over those.  This article helps validate my later thought and encourages me to rethink the “80 %” approach.

    Kirsten’s comments are motivational for me at this time as well, ’cause I have a friend who is encouraging me in like fashion, but I’ve been reluctant (for fear of rejection) to follow the good advice.  Thank you.

  • thecoast

    Apply, but rethink your resume as well. When you’re sending a resume in snail mail, you want it to look pretty. But in the 21st century, more and more resumes are required to be electronic. There’s a benefit to the company (actually, the recruiter): They use software to filter out irrelevant resumes as well as to filter in relevant ones. The latter get interviews. So what makes a resume relevant?

    Aha! That’s the million dollar question and the answer reveals there is a benefit for those who know how the software works. The almost impossibly simple answer came from a job seminar at the California Employment Development Dept. given by a vet representative. I would not be posting this unless I had had some success as a result of what I learned.

    Here’s the two-pronged approach: (1) Make your electronic resume as long and detailed as you need to. Why?  Because (2) the software used by recruiters picks up on the number of times the KEY WORDS in the job description show up in your submitted electronic resume. Yes. Simple as that. The software doesn’t care how long your resume is. The really important thing is that you re-do your resume so that THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE *MATCHES* THE WAY THEY DESCRIBE THE JOB!  Clearly, that doesn’t mean making stuff up; but it does mean you employ the same KEY WORDS as the job description does. For example, if your resume says instructor or professor and the job description says teacher, then use teacher, the word in the job description. Don’t want to use the same word multiple times? Forget your thesaurus. Synonyms sound better to you, but this approach impresses the computer software and the results get into the recruiters box. That gets you interviews. Break down your experiences into repeatable sections. So rather than saying, “Same duties as above,” cut and paste those duties from above and put them in the new section. This repeats those all-important key words and gets you more points in the scoring scheme of the software. Don’t write a better resume than the recruiter (even if you can): Write the resume the software is looking for on behalf of the recruiter. Write to the job description. Happy resume editing and good luck.

  • jwr12

    If memory serves me correctly, isn’t there some question as to whether this is an authentic text? I seem to remember there being stiff arguments its an apocrypha.  Any classicists out there to the rescue, who could let us know?

  • pfreeman

    Yes, there is some doubt about whether or not Quintus Cicero wrote the letter. I talk about this in the introduction to the edition. I say there that classicists agree it was written in the first century BCE or CE, and whoever the author is, that he knows Roman politics well. The point of the letter is the content, not the author.

  • Socratease2

     The NCAA is a cartel that attempts to control inputs and not outputs. It is absurd. They fight to create parity on the recruiting side but do absolutely nothing to create parity at the operational level. Phil Knight can build a Taj Mahal at Oregon so athletes can lounge around on gold silk divans while other schools can hardly find locker room space for their teams and yet that is considered to be a level playing field. Everyone who works at NCAA headquarters must be forced to read Orwell’s 1984 on a weekly basis so they can confidently defend that yes, indeed, freedom is slavery, war is peace and the NCAA rulebook protects all from malfeasance. What a crock.

  • eulerian_ta

    I don’t know if there really is anything that can be done to help poorer athletic programs compete with wealthier programs, but anyone who follows the NCAA knows that simply making the punishments more strict will not solve the problem.  The wealthier athletic programs will continue to be above the rules.

    Look at what happened when Alabama’s star running back (a jobless athlete with two children who was raised by a single mom) was pulled over for speeding in a $40,000 SUV.  Absolutely nothing.  If that had happened at a school like North Carolina Central the NCAA would have an army of investigators leaving no stone unturned on that campus.  And that’s in the unusual case that these schools have enough wealthy supporters to give out things like that to players.

    Meanwhile, these less wealthy schools who don’t have the means to circumvent rules about gifts are punished for low graduation rates because they don’t have degree programs in dodgeball and all kinds of private tutors to hold their hands the entire way along their academic careers.

    The NCAA is a joke.

  • 22286504

    A shift of either rules enforcement or maintenance of ethical standards in Division I sports, especially footbal and basketballl, to local campuses is preposterous.   Very few university presidents are prepared to anger alumni and students and probably trustees by taking a firm stand against the very large number of dubious practices that necessarily pervade major sports.   Presidents have a large number of issues on their plates.  They recognize that athletic departments have enormous resources–money, fans, alumni supporters, and sports writers.   Why take on that fight (unless there is a public scandal that makes it unavoidable)?    A president’s limited energies and resources are far better devoted to innumerable other matters that make a far greater difference than athletics for the core teaching and research missions of the university and its major participants, students and faculty.   Think of enforcing rules on powreful athletic baronies in terms of cost/benefit analysis and you’ll see why presidents prefer to avoid confronting this power center in their own realms. 

  • 11191774

    First: It’s math, folks.  If you raise tuition faster than inflation, and you expect to keep discount level, you’ve raised net tuition…get ready…faster than inflation.  The market often responds to things like this.

    BUT, tuition discounting has traditionally split the difference: If inflation is 3%, raise tuition 5%, and give half the increase over inflation back in the form of aid (a marginal discount of 50%, in this instance).  Your net price increases less than sticker price (people see this as good); your net revenue goes up, even though discount increases (assuming you started at under 50%).

    Second: Discount is a fraction.  If your denominator is way bigger than it should be, your numerator can be too, and yet you can net more cash.  And it’s cash that pays the bills.  Finance people know this; accountants seem a bit confused by it all.

    Suppose for instance, your gross tuition was $40,000 and your discount rate was 50%.  You’d generate $20,000 in cash per student.  Raise tuition to to $100,000 and discount to 75%.  Which would you rather have?

  • jamesm

    For those privates that compete mostly against state colleges, the report might suggest that they have come to the end of the perceived cost-difference mitigation that provided by discounting.  Those institutions would be well-served to analyze the dynamics of their applicant pool, and determine where it seemed to work and where it fell short.  This report provides a call to action, and that action is good institutional research to show the challenges and oppportunities presented to each individual college.

  • nybound

    It’s primarily a mechanism of price discrimination. I say my school costs $40k per year, you claim you can’t afford that and show me your parent’s tax return, I say OK – it’s $13k/year for you. Imagine if buying a house worked like that!

  • feudipandola

    Education is going down the same bad road that healthcare went down when it comes to pricing its services.  “Tuition discounting” is the equivalent of “cost shifting” in healthcare and just as opaque and manipulative to the paying customer.  Discounting means giving certain students a price break while others pay the full sticker price for their education.  This practice is inherently unfair to the families of these students as it obfuscates the true cost of attendance.  Higher ed, along with healthcare, should abandon these practices. 

  • leftwing_conspirator

    With all due respect to Ms. Kurtz, I wonder how many schools are using the same cookie-cutter discounting strategy that those in her industry have been promulgating around the country at the hgih costs that consultants charge?   It seems that virtually every enrollment management office, dept., etc. has had at least one consultation around tuition discounting/financial aid leveraging.   It’s like an arms race, except everyone’s buying from essentially the same supplier.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037