• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

A WikiLeaks Clone Takes On Higher Education

February 23, 2011, 5:37 pm

Dear University Leaders: You might want to think twice before clicking “send” on your next e-mail.

WikiLeaks, scourge of governments worldwide, now has a copycat for academe. And the new group is itching to publish your university’s deepest secrets.

Its Web site, UniLeaks, debuted this month with a pair of open letters to university leaders in Australia and Britain. The Australian activists who run UniLeaks are pushing for openness in the face of what they see as the corporatization of higher education. They complain of unprofitable courses abolished, employees made less secure, and students reduced “to mere customers or clients of the university.”

UniLeaks has yet to back that bluster with any blockbuster scoops. But the site’s main administrator says it has received an “overwhelming” amount of correspondence from Britain-based students and academics. That support includes at least one potentially newsworthy data dump: an “entire e-mail repository” of a “large prominent university in the United Kingdom,” a database that seems to be limited to senior management at the institution.

And UniLeaks hopes to be an outlet for whistle-blowers in America, too.

“Universities are unique in that they generally receive quite a deal of public funding,” says the administrator, a former student at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. “We feel that the general public has a right to have universities act very transparently, in a way that is accountable.”

The Chronicle spoke with the administrator by phone from Melbourne, after tracking the group down through an e-mail address listed on the UniLeaks Web site and Twitter feed. The newspaper is granting the administrator anonymity because the administrator fears legal action from a university about which UniLeaks is trying to publish information.

WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy group fronted by Australian-born Julian Assange, has already spawned a series of other knock-off sites. The most prominent one has been OpenLeaks, started by former members of WikiLeaks. Two separate environmental groups are vying for the name GreenLeaks. Then there’s a site about corruption in Russia. And another about the European Union.

“I always thought the most powerful element of WikiLeaks was the idea of WikiLeaks, more than the actual organization,” says Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab, a project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. “It’s an idea that is easily transferable in a thousand different ways.”

But can the idea take off in higher education?

One of the big challenges is generating enough interest from readers and potential sources. Mr. Benton points out that WikiLeaks itself had been around for some time before gaining mainstream attention for exposing diplomatic cables and documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A single source, Bradley Manning, is suspected of providing WikiLeaks with much of its famous content. “So in a sense it comes down to whether a site like this could have that sort of a breakthrough moment,” Mr. Benton says. “Is there a Bradley Manning who’s willing to do what he did?”

There are existing places to spread anonymous online gossip about universities—places like CollegeACB, a site similar to the now-defunct Juicy Campus. UniLeaks professes to be different. It filters content, rather than allowing users to post directly. It accepts only material that is in the public interest, says the administrator. “We don’t accept rumor,” says the administrator.

But the rumors are pouring in anyway.

It’s been “fascinating” to wade through the tips that have arrived about low-level personal issues in various university departments, says the administrator. (Sample reaction: “I can’t believe he’s having sex with both of them. Wow!”) But the administrator deletes them: “Just because Professor What’s-His-Name is having sex, that’s not something we can actually put all over the Web site.”

So what is UniLeaks looking for? Internal reports. Evaluations. Research that’s being kept hidden. Contracts. E-mails. Anything confidential that falls under this guideline: “UniLeaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic, or historical significance which is in some way connected to higher education.”

Mr. Benton points out that there’s “a whole sea of behavior that universities don’t like to publicize.”

“Think of the equivalent to the diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks released,” he says. “This was material that was unusually forthright, that was intended purely for internal circulation. And I’m sure that there are equivalent memos and equivalent documents in lots and lots of colleges and universities that the president certainly has no interest in having see the light of day.”

This entry was posted in Open Access, Publishing, Security. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • rogerwilco

    For academics some sort of NSF leaks or NIH leaks would be much more interesting so you find out what was said on review panels to find out the real reason why you didn’t get funded ;-)

  • http://twitter.com/eldonnn el don

    here’s an article on the new UNIleaks site. i’ve already ranted on the topic of higher education in this country (australia) on another blog, quoting part of the unileaks instructions to potential sources regarding how careful they now need to be to remain anonymous – underlining, for me, the unwillingness of academics to stick their heads above any parapets in this climate of put up and shut up, lest they lose their jobs or their likelihood for promotion…

  • higheredcio

    Thx for the post. This promises to be an interesting topic to follow for a while. Especially for those of us in Wisconsin if the word gets out.

  • austinbarry

    I hope that they filter out individual student records. We don’t want this to be simply to be a way of finding out the dirt on the student activities and misadventures of our friends and neighbors. Also, there are serious legal implications for disclosing information on patients of university medical centers. Then again, some of the absurd “thought crime” rules at some universities could do with some exposing.

  • adsmith63

    Glad to see it! The risk here is a compromise of our intellectual freedom.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000643350047 Ray Anne Kibbey Lockard

    This is important to higher education and its about time “corporate” universities became more transparent!

  • austinbarry

    One other issue – people have a choice about what university they attend or work for, and they don’t have much of a choice about what country they live in (changing countries is possible sometimes, but it’s not something to be taken lightly). There are going to be accusations of people having vested interests in delivering dirt (perhaps even getting kickbacks from rival institutions), and institutions who were exposed might be able to claim actual financial damages due to bad publicity.

  • rick1952

    I would be more impressed with WikiLeaks and its clone offspring if I had a clearer sense of the true moral value of their expose work. Much of what I have seen in the press falls into the “gossip” or the “gotcha” categories.

    Diplomacy has always involved the need for discretion. Transparency sounds good when it is talked about in theory, but effectively managing complex organizations (governments, businesses or even educational institutions) will always require tact and discretion in order to achieve valuable goals. Imagine what might have happened in 1962 if WikiLeaks existed and exposed at that time the secret deal between JFK and Khrushchev which ended the Cuban Missle Crisis. Would future negotiations to avoid nuclear conflict have been as successful? I wonder how WikiLeaks may be impacting diplomatic communications regarding the civil uprisings in North Africa? Will it help or harm the greater cause of those seeking freedom from dictatorial governments?

    If such excessive transparency in diplomacy is not an unalloyed good, how might it be appropriate in higher education? Unless we are talking about exposing graft, corruption or other unethical behavior, what will this do beyond foment more gossip, more efforts to protect against “gotcha” scenarios and reduce honest communication among persons involved in complex and politically tricky negotiations?

    Part of growing up means we learn to act with discretion and tact as we fumble through life’s complexities. I could be wrong but I don’t see how this kind of excessive exposure of what is believed to be private communication will help us negotiate difficult compromises in order to achieve important goals, in diplomacy or higher education.

  • spellettieri

    Hmm, is this criminal or fighting injustice? The issue with all these wikileaks clones is finding enough sources to want to leak information. I worry about ‘fake’ leaks.

  • ajkind

    I hope this takes off in US. All the scrap administrators will loose their jobs and will be in Jail

  • rafiqra

    This is an important topic that improves the quality of our graduates and keep our university administrators to make the right decesion in evaluating honest faculty streuctur and outcome. Therefore, UniLeaks will keep higher education honest and transperant.

  • drjeff

    Excuse me? Your post reads like you think there are “corporate” universities and “non-corporate” ones. I can assure you that Yale is just as “corporate,” by any meaningful measure, as U of Phoenix, except that Yale does a much better job of pretending otherwise, and U. of Phoenix has convenient “campuses” in cities across the country that are not dumps. I imagine there are some small liberal arts schools that have resisted corporatization (Reed? Haverford? Middlebury?) but the would be the rare exception.

  • drjeff

    There is no intellectual freedom today, for anything but thoughts that remain inside your own head. As soon as you say or write anything, it becomes “fair game” for the multitude of grievance committees enforcing some aspect of political correctness or other. Unlike previous eras, being correct is no longer a reliable defense.

  • drjeff

    It can’t be criminal AND fighting injustice? I think Dr. King and everyone working with him demonstrated that pretty clearly. Your question seems to presuppose that the laws are all just, but that has never been the case (or we might not need a Supreme Court).

  • drjeff

    I’m giggling now at the image in my head of the president of the University where I work doing the “perp walk.”

    But don’t get your hopes up: many (most?) universities (including this one) are the biggest employer in their town (often the 2 biggest, as in the U and its med center), the DAs will mostly tread as lightly as possible.

  • cb_10

    I wonder how soon UniLeaks will be making all their e-mail archives available to the general public?

  • 3224243

    There are a multitude of ways to provide “whistle-blower” information about illegal activities in any institution. As much as “leaks” sites like to brag they’re serving the public good, they’re more interested in publicity for themselves and are on a par, IMO, with gossip rags. What higher purpose/universal good is provided by exposing a confidential conversation about completely legit business?

  • tdb489

    UniLeaks. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I encourage all professors to report all illegal and unethical activities to UniLeaks. Internal grievance procedures do not work. Attorneys cost too much money. The EEOC is too busy to devote quality attention to issues. Public humilitation has some effect, but memories are short lived. Good luck UniLeaks.

  • alexis_v

    Some professors are upset at the “corporatization” of universities. I thought universities were originally corporations to begin with.

    Seriously, I’m all in favor of running universities as employee-owned cooperatives, but I don’t think very many faculty would actually want such a thing. Universities could be run as ordinary state bureaucracies, but I think most faculty would oppose it. Non-profit universities could establish a rule that trustees must be faculty emeriti, but I think most faculty would oppose that too.

    States could give vouchers to students that they would bring to state universities under contract with a central office to provide an education, as opposed to giving state universities direct appropriations. I think most faculty would oppose that as well.

    In all honesty, I think many if not most faculty don’t know what they want other than keeping what they have earned against all perceived threats. When administrators or board officials try to shake things up, they stir up a hornet’s nest. But when there is no apparent threat, faculty become complacent again. Even change that is beneficial to faculty will often be resisted because it is any kind of change at all.

    Is a lot of the problem overwork? It often is. Much of the problem, though, is sheer bureaucratic inertia and empire building. I could easily imagine rival deans “outing” each other through leakage of key information on the internet.

  • sand6432

    What can be used for good can also be misused for evil. Just as WikiLeaks has put the lives of various individuals at risk through its exposure of, say, secret agents, so too could UniLeaks do considerable damage to legitimate activities, such as peer review (on which scholarly publishing vitally depends) and premature patent disclosure (which would put securing patents at risk), not to mention revealing confidential medical records of students and the like. Can we trust those who operate UniLeaks to make responsible judgments about what to reveal? WikiLeaks certainly has a mixed record so far. As in the world of diplomacy, the effect of such a new source of exposure could drive much communication back into print form sent through the mail.—Sandy Thatcher

  • more_cowbell

    Seems to me that the real dirt from Unileaks would come from the Dept level.

    I wonder how many professors who support Wikileaks would welcome the same type of disclosure of their own internal “activities”?

  • weathered

    Internal activities like taking credit for their own graduate students’ research or going one step further to publish them for promotion. I’d like to see those people being outed, finally.

  • observer05

    The University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, has just become a victim of corporate frenzy. Its small, unelected Senior Management Group has decided radically to re-structure this venerable, broadly based university (founded in 1451) into a small, lean, technological money-making machine. Glasgow´s SMG is proposing to close down much of its outstanding centre for the study of Modern Languages and Cultures (in spite of the fact that it includes a well-funded Centre of Excellence for the study of Eastern Europe, endowed by external grants, a Centre which is unique in the UK and in Europe), wants to close down Anthropology, Nursing and some other departments. At the same time, the SMG is investing heavily into university bureaucracy and some selected, technological projects. The cuts proposals have brought about a wave of protests in Scotland are have now been dominating the media for several weeks. Please consult one of the facebook pages devoted to the media coverage of this crisis
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Modern-Languages-and-Cultures-at-University-of-Glasgow-under-threat/179538408755444

    and sign a petition against these lunatic cuts.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/glasgowmodernlanguages/

  • 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

  • whitakal

    Your concerns about the ownership of intellectual property that is moved onto online platforms strike me as reasonable and certainly worth more consideration. I wonder, though, if the development of such platforms offers professors an opportunity? What comes to my mind is the organizational concept of disintermediation, which has played such a large role in the financial sector (e.g., in removing middlemen between investors and markets), and how it may apply here. For instance, could a professor develop content, “rent” space on a platform, and then offer that same content elsewhere in the future, for a fee paid directly to the professor through the platform? The intermediary–the university–is inessential to this transaction; instead, the university becomes one more marketing channel, which the platform provider may augment with other, novel methods of way of marketing the professor’s course. I know thinking about teaching in terms of “content” and “marketing” may seem anathema to many, and I agree such language can lead to unpleasant outcomes. I also doubt such an arrangement would work for most faculty at present, but it may for some. At present, such a move could work very well for faculty members who look at teaching as a complement to other activities, such as funded research, commercial publishing, or business ventures. If enough professors, at high levels, moved this way, it could change the way faculty members relate to colleges and universities and change the shape of seemingly insoluble debates (e.g., about the cost of a college education, the allocation of costs, tenure, etc.). I’ve only sketched here the barest outlines of an idea, along lines which I suspect others have gone further (for better or for worse). But it seems worth thinking about and looking at the online platform providers not just as possible exploiters but also as possible partners for enterprising teachers.

    Keith Whitaker, http://www.wisecounselresearch.org

  • http://twitter.com/skydaddy Corrie Bergeron

    As Polly said to the White Witch, “It’s nothing but bosh from beginning to end! ”
     
    The idea of a publisher telling a faculty member they MUST use their materials is laughable.

    Many faculty contracts are written so that if an instructor receives release time to develop a course, it is considered  a work-for-hire and the college owns the course.  Otherwise, US copyright law applies; the institution cannot merely seize the instructor’s work and use it without permission.

    As far as online English and humanities courses go, the online environment is WONDERFULLY suited for these types of courses, since the instructor can direct students to vast online resources of material.  In addition, the asynchronous nature of the discussions facilitates and promotes deep thinking and clear writing.

    Mr. Donoghue noted in an earlier post that he has no firsthand experience with online education.

    It shows.

  • http://www.psitutor.org/ Psych Tutor:Mentor

    AS an online Tutor:Mentor in higher ed I do see (and have experienced) differences in curriculum for distance ed and those on campus. However, I have hope ~:-)

  • http://twitter.com/jisrael1VI Jerry Israel

    Why, when scrutinizing the pros and cons of online instruction, is there not an equivalent assessment of traditional classroom teaching?  Is there a passive acceptance that “in person” is just always of high quality?  Really?   

  • 5768

    Our collective bargaining agreement acknowledges that anything faculty produces–including contents of computer hard drives–is the property of the Board of Regents. How prevalent is this?

  • electronicmuse

    Your concerns have great credibility, particularly the idea that “caretakers” will take over courses that originators have created. The real strength of the non-profit education sector is that it is not homogenized-as inevitably the for-profit sector will gravitate toward. This is because, as you indicate, that courses in the non-profit sector are essentially “owned” by faculty-who will naturally tend toward diversity-not homogenization. Never mind who nominally “owns” a faculty member’s brick and mortar course . . . rare is the situation where another person can simply “take over” such courses. This could be done quite easily with online structures . . .

    I’ve worked both sides of the street. Don’t expect for-profits to manifest the same values of non-profits. It ain’t the way it wants to go . . . and, I expect for-profits to “win” the race to dominate online education. But, that is another much longer discussion.

  • electronicmuse

    Rare is the conduit that will not seek to own the content pouring though it, whether it be for-profit or non-profit. Golden rule: those who have the gold will rule. And professors (content producers) could not possibly prevail over institutions.

  • electronicmuse

    Evidently Polly doesn’t know just how easy it is to “re-purpose” someone else’s work. It happens all the time out here in the Real World-from reverse engineering complicated electronic designs, to the myriad of other (completely legal) schemes that subsume someone else’s work. It’s possible to copyright discrete collections of words, but not a novel viewpoint, or even a basic curriculum design-regardless of how clever it might be. Words can be paraphrased. Graphics can be mimicked. Certainly “subject matter” is not subject to copyright, so it’s going to be real difficult to imagine that ” . . . the institution cannot merely seize the instructor’s work and use it without permission.” And, there will be plenty of people around who will do this “re-purposing.” The actual teaching of a course is duck soup, it is the developing of a course where a faculty member earns h/er keep. Unfortunately, such developments are highly transportable.

    Course designs and curriculum development are not novels or musical compositions, where copyright issues are less cloudy. Better rethink your comment quoted above. Donoghue’s concerns are legitimate, and are well articulated in this article-whether he has the appropriate “experience” or not. Sometimes imagination trumps experience.

    Agree with you about the online environment being suited to all manner of courses, including humanities.

  • nanzing

    I find the notion of direct to student teaching intriguing but how would employers and graduate schools assess a folder of transcripts from a variety of professors?

  • nanzing

    Jerry has hit one of the nails squarely on the head: in these discussions of the pros and cons of online education the “high quality” of face to face is always taken for granted. 3 minutes on any student rating website will hammer home the point that face to face varies wildly and widely; some folks in classrooms are terrible teachers, and some of the curriculum being taught especially at lower levels (by any willing body they can hire at the last minute to teach it) is too bad for the best prof-in-training/early-rank-prof to save. The scrutiny ought to go both ways.

  • electronicmuse

    I don’t have a clue. But, the notion that a College degree constitutes some kind of guarantee to prospective employers is growing longer in the tooth day by day.

  • big_giant_head

    Um.  Why on earth would either of you think there is no scrutiny of f2f classes?  Nobody has ever claimed that they are uniformly excellent.  There is _so much_ scrutiny, in fact, that you can go get a PhD in it if you want. 

    It’s just that we all know what we’re dealing with, good and bad, when talking about the traditional classroom, and it isn’t the subject we’re discussing here. 

  • acorn

    First, my thanks to Mr. Donoghue for an excellent and thought-provoking series. I think what we too often have in online education is an external course management system (such as Blackboard) coupled with an internal course management system (faculty who merely “manage” or facilitate a scripted course curriculum). My point is that there is a wide gap between a course manager and a teacher. The first requires nothing more than good organizational skills and a bit of common sense, certainly not a master’s degree or a Ph.D. The latter, however, requires a number of additional skills, including extensive content knowledge in the subject area (hence, the master’s and/or Ph.D), alternative ways to deliver this content to meet student learning needs, and the remarkable ability to respond to individual differences while still delivering content to a group. When faculty own the course and have control over it, there is a much stronger likelihood that, although course content and course expectations will be the same for every student in the class, delivery will meet the needs of individuals. The alternative of the institution owning a scripted course and hiring “faculty” to facilitate its delivery, leaves me with an image of those matchbooks of long ago that, once opened, contained an advertisement for a correspondence course. 

  • kevincraft

    This is an interesting topic. Members of Gensler’s education practice recently held roundtable discussions with administrators, professors and students to get each of these groups perspective on the future of online learning and classrooms: http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2011/7/21/what-makes-a-great-learning-space.html

  • grohloff

    I earned a master’s of liberal studies from Fort Hays (Kansas) State University with a concentration in English composition and literature through its online Virtual University. The courses all required a significant amount of reading and academic writing, as well as online discussion postings so that the courses were rigorous and challenging. Most helpful to me were requirements to participate in the discussions with a minimum number of postings set, and the course instructor drawing in those persons whose postings were brief and undeveloped, just as an instructor in an on-campus class would direct class discussion so that all would participate. In this age of cut costs at all costs, a university must realize that the skills the faculty brings to the classroom, campus or virtual, is the key to learning, that a book is just a book until someone brings its ideas to life. As for monopolistic practices from vendors, a college needs to learn to say ”no”.

  • fdonoghue

    That would be great if it were seen as the universal model.  As things stand now, I know of some univerrsities where’s it’s built into professors’ contracts that they own the content and that the university is, as you put it, an intermediary.  But at other institutions there seems to be no policy at all.  The situation’s definitely in flux, partly because it’s so new.

  • fdonoghue

    I know of one institution which uses eCollege in which 90% of the required books are published by Pearson.  Does that sound like a coincidence to you?

  • fdonoghue

    This is exactly the kind of policy that worries me.  It’s essentially the Bayh-Dole act applied not to research but to teaching, and I can’t tell what the consequences will be.

  • cwinton

    I seem to be missing something.  I’ve developed any number of courses over the years and none were so static that they did not require extensive rework each time I taught them.  This was as true of the on-line courses I did later in my career than for earlier ones.  The paradigm may change, but the need for highly capable people to stand behind and continue development of any course offering is unlikely.  After all, at one time courses were taught without text books, which I’m sure at one time were viewed with many of the same concerns we see being expressed here.

  • missoularedhead

    Let’s reverse that nightmare scenario.  An adjunct takes a great deal of time to build a solid online class, only to have it taken over by a full time faculty member whose other classes were cancelled due to low enrollment and has no idea how to teach online. And the adjunct is now stuck…it can go both ways.
    That said, if anything makes teaching online difficult, it’s having a clunky, buggy LMS to work with. Yes, I’m looking at you, Blackboard.

  • 5768

    Whether Bayh-Dole related or not, it is a clear and literal assertion of employer property rights to the “work for hire” which is generated by faculty.

  • jaynicks

    “Then the university lays off that instructor and replaces him or her
    with a much cheaper adjunct, who then steps into a ready-made,
    sophisticated course and simply facilitates it.”

    It strikes me that one does not need technology to execute that particular nightmare, and, rumour has it, the practice is spreading.  It is a matter of administrative ethics (pardon the oxymoron).

    As for who owns teaching materials, a relative who developed and taught a course (not for profit university, grad level) discovered all his materials are being used in the Middle Eastern version of the course by the same university without consent, contract, compensation or credit.  One needs neither technology, nor to be a for-profit institution, to be completely unethical.

     -

    “USC now produces more MAT’s than Harvard and Stanford combined (1,500—up from just 100 in 2007).” 

    I cannot but imagine that this figure caught the attention of many university administrators and ambitious CIOs.   The administrators who will succeed will be among the 2% whose vision extends beyond their next career move, who have also the support of the 1% of collegiate CIOs with similar qualifications.  Assuming a random distribution that means that it seems likely that 2/10,000 of the current educational institutions will succeed as USC has, and most of the rest will continue their current negative progress.

    -

    ““Eeyore-like,” so no one should be surprised by my worries)”

    As the question Isaac Asimov posed as a challenge to astronomers, to try to discover whether there is intelligent life on Earth, remains mostly unanswered, I find Eeyore’s attitudes lead to a reliable prophet.   Go, guy, go!

    Thanks for your article.

  • solidagojuncea

    Wood refuses to cite sources, behavior even worse than the climate deniers who cherry pick the literature to find trivial problems and then distort them far out of proportion (see the comment from sparticusisfree for an example).  Wood and the deniers either misuse or ignore evidence so that they can maintain their fixed position.  Peer reviewed science is, by definition, held accountable.  It is time that Wood and the deniers were held accountable, too.  I applaud Mashey and Coleman for doing just that.

  • krishtalka

    With regard to Mr Wood and whether or not CHE should post his blogs, the power of democracy is that it allows fools to expose themselves.

  • whitakal

    Just as a reminder, the point of Wood’s two blogs on this topic here at CHE was not to deny the claims of AGW proponents or even to bemoan the quite obvious lack of civility they show in public discourse, but rather to opine that the tactics of AGW proponents stifle true scientific inquiry. If Dr. Mashey accurately represents such proponents (rather than just being louder than any others)–with his tactics here and elsewhere of accusing others of libel, threatening complaints for misconduct, and using USA Today as authority–then I think Wood is on to something. Such a mish-mash may really represent our contemporary Barnum & Bailey sideshow, though I’m inclined to think that an even more apt analogy is the old-time religious revival tent-meeting. In any event, it’s not science and it’s helping to turn the public, in disgust, against the actual science in this field.

    Keith Whitaker, http://www.wisecounselresearch.org

  • arthurpsmith

    Wow! Ah, a “sky dragon” reader – I guess that’s sufficient in the way of citation, even though you provide none directly. Enough said.

    Of course, the comment section clearly is an “open free-for-all” where the most outrageous claims can be made with no consequence whatsoever! And “32 likes” – a lot of sock puppets out there among the sky dragons?

  • arthurpsmith

    That’s an interesting theory. You’d think, if that was Mr. Wood’s purpose, that he would have cited some particular examples of actual scientific inquiry being “stifled”. Perhaps I missed it, can you point out where he showed us stifling of any actual science going on?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ross-Cann/100000877679054 Ross Cann

    Six points of utter nonsense.  And 39 others equally scientifically illiterate.  These people read the propaganda put out by the fossil fuel industries’ $200 million a year effort and actually believe it. I wonder why these people won’t post under their real identity.

  • dank48

    Mashey and Coleman write, “We need civil discussions on matters of scientific fact, not hyperbolic allegations.” Unfortunately, as pointed out below, they either misunderstand or misrepresent the subject of Wood’s article “Climate Thuggery.” Hint: it wasn’t about AGW.

    It is possible to discuss a scientific subject. It is also possible to discuss a discussion of a scientific subject. Wood’s article did the latter. Mashey and Coleman’s comments here illustrate most if not all of the failures of civility Wood mentioned. I don’t think we have to choose between the Barnum comparison and the revival-tent analogy; both can apply.

    Consciously or not, Mashey and Coleman are insisting that the indisputable rightness of their position entitles them to freedom from criticism, not only from those who disagree with them but also from those who remain unconvinced, uncommitted, and undecided. Their appeals to authority and to imaginary consensus, with their generous use of ad hominem arguments and disingenuous speculation about the motivations of those who dare question their wisdom, all have a very familiar smell.

    Freeman Dyson’s right. It’s a religion. From the tenor of the article above, I believe that, if Mashey and Coleman had the authority they’d like to have, they’d burn Wood.

  • cocotartufo

    Actually, I don’t think your being entirely honest.  I think Wood’s point is exactly to deny the evidence humans are mostly causing current climate change.  It’s implicit, true, but unmistakable (“Climate Thuggery” anyone?). He is doing so by casting aspersions on the methods used by certain participant on only one side of that debate, which he clearly states raises questions about their position.  The ironic thing is that Mann and Mashey were themselves responding to attempts to quash debate related to past climate.  Woods is ironically arguing in the end that such intimidation is OK.

  • http://www.klimathotet.info JesperB

    If there is a case of libel to be found here it is surely Wood that could be taking this to court. Although that would of course not be necessary considering this piece is a an own goal in its entirety. It has all the trademarks of the semi-hysterical rants that are so common these days from proponents of the consistently falsified CAGW theory: appeals to authority and cherry picking of scientists that support the orthodoxy, while putting the “denier” label on scientists who disagree. There are quite a few of them (as the authors are no doubt well aware), and calling them deniers, conspiracy theorists, in the pay of “big oil” etc. is part of the tired old propaganda that everyone that has followed this debate for a while is all-to familiar with. Of course, Wood didn’t even criticize the obvious scientific misconduct by the elite IPCC clique, but merely brought up the type of witch hunt that the authors are engaging in right here on this web page.

  • JonasN

    If I’m not misinformed, Dr Mann was for years politely, but insistantly, asked to participate in the debate when other reserarchers tried to make sense and reproduce his findings and to understand his calculations and use of statistics. And the general contention seems to be that Dr Mann was neither as interested nor helpful. More recently he has voiced his opinions at a somewhat higher pitch more often, and mainly in through media. But calling that ‘debating’? Nah ….

    Regarding Dr Mashey, I don’t think that anybody really cares about what he really contributes. Som lesser supporters seem to believe that he has found something incriminating in the wording of a report.

    Peter Wood did describe Mashey’s activities and wishes quite fairly, citing his own words from the Science article. Thereafter he briefly mentions his responses to the first article together with those of others. The round up regarding Mashey read:

    “He is welcome to express his opinions, but the pretense that he is defending science or academic due process wears thin”

    I have a hard time seeing this as an attempt to stifle or even quash debate.

  • spartacusisfree

    You really must keep up. By 2004, the wheels had come off GISS’  CAGW wagon: Miskolczi had discovered Milne’s mistake; there was no experimental proof of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling; the physicists had discovered a second optical effect for clouds. NASA’s apparent response was to bluff: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.htmlI

    The ‘surface reflection’ idea neatly conflated the ‘Twomey effect’ with direct backscattering. However, there’s no such physics as any professional should have known.  The fact that it’s widely believed in climate science shows its lack of basic physics.

    The proof is simple; the polluted northern hemisphere has heated recently more than the unpolluted south and if you look at clouds with coarsening droplets, albedo rapidly increases, exactly the opposite of what the ‘two beam approximations’ predict for thicker clouds.

    Twomey had warned against extrapolating Mie diffuse scattering theory to thicker clouds. He was right. Until the broken science is corrected, no climate model can predict climate.  The latest attempt to claim double the indirect aerosol cooling is pathetic.

  • spartacusisfree

    I haven’t read it.  I deduced the above independently to ensure my thinking wasn’t contaminated by the opinions of others.  And do you know what the really great bit is?  All the experiments needed to prove the bio-feedback have been done but lacked the key physics to explain them!

  • wvhybrid

    Use of the acronym NAS is misleading at best.  Americans, and especially American academia knows “NAS” as the National Academy of Science, not this astroturf organization that Wood claims to represent.  When referring to Wood’s organization, the name should always be spelled out.

  • wvhybrid

    Thank you Drs. Mashey  and Coleman for posting your response to Wood’s misleading and erroneous article.  Every time one of these misleading articles is published, there must be a quick and effective rebuttal to the deliberate misinformation.  As noted in the comments below, your response to Wood is much appreciated.

  • hankroberts

    ‘wisecounselresearch’ is, according to the WSJ, in the business of advising the very wealthy:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/01/07/the-rise-of-the-wealth-whisperers/

    ——

    “ … new study by Wise Counsel Research, a Massachusetts nonprofit group devoted to researching wisdom and wealth, sheds light on what is fast becoming a cottage industry of wealth management.

    Keith Whitaker, the study’s author, says wealth counselors don’t focus on investments, loans or taxes, but instead advise rich clients on their children, parents, spouses, values visions and “souls.”

    “When you’re not wealthy, you look for parents or siblings or friends for this kind of advice,” he says. “When you’re wealthy, you have those same needs but you have the resources and opportunity to find that advice in a thoughtful manner. There’s a sense that ‘There’s so much I can do I want to do it right.’ ”

    ——

    What advice do you give your wealthy clients about climate change?

    What science do you consider reliable?

  • arthurpsmith

    And a Miskolczi fan too? You know, this is a bit much – I think ‘spartacusisfree’ must be a Poe! – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

  • arthurpsmith

    Great, I look forward to reading your amazing research results in the peer-reviewed literature! What, you say, the peer-review establishment is corrupt and censors controversial viewpoints such as your own? Well, I’m sure you have posted your results on the web somewhere in conventional academic paper style with well-reasoned arguments and ample citations to back your ideas up, right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Haynes/1186871204 Anna Haynes

    Arthur, watch the frustration level…Mashey is doing an (ahem) awesome job of keeping an tone of gravitas.

    Disclosure: I have no background in climate science that equips me to second-guess the findings of the field.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Haynes/1186871204 Anna Haynes

    …evidence-based gravitas, I should clarify.

    Web script question: Is the “Save Edit” button working for y’all, when trying to Edit a comment after posting it, to fix typos?

  • marionjay

    Wow – the authors of this piece have scored a massive own goal. Don’t they realise that they’ve provided Peter Wood with a perfect example of what he was writing about in his comments on Climate Thuggery!

    They would do far better to heed his highly perspicacious comments -

    “proponents of AGW, or what might be called the climate orthodoxy section of AGW theory, often respond to criticism and dissent with a kind of fury.  Far from welcoming discussion, they seek to suppress it. In doing so they jeopardize both their own authority and the prestige of the scientific community”.

    and

    “Bullying skeptics and sneering at those who raise questions is no way to regain public trust.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/nealjking Neal King

    I think this article is a zinger! Bull’s-eye!

    If Wood wants to sue for libel, let him do so forthwith! Let’s see whose allegations stand up better in court.

  • EliRabett

     There have been a number of discussions of Miskolczi.  Some of the older ones are still available, the best, and most complete recent one was at Science of Doom  Suffice it to say that having been drawn into looking at these papers, SoD is rather annoyed at what he reads.  This is the same thing that happened a bit of a time ago to Nick Stokes and Eli.  We don’t care what you call Miskolczi, it’s spinach.

    Details (and there are a lot of them) at SoD.  An equationless evaluation is here  More links here, including some link rotted ones

  • EliRabett

     Not exactly politely.  Traces in sci.environment.

  • EliRabett

     Everyone still waits for Woods’ citations, but you know, they never came

  • maried

    I see where your concerns are regarding this topic.  I believe some of them may not be warranted though.  I work for a college and all of our books come from one or two publishers depending on the deal we receive and the help the publisher is willing to give to us.  We purchase our books almost exclusively from Pearson. This publisher has reps who are attentive to our needs and very helpful. They actually help us in preparing course outlines and syllabi to go along with their books. It’s a great tool for the faculty members. 
     
    Also, the college where I work has a standardized curriculum, syllabi, and course requirements.  These have been approved by our accrediting agency.  In fact, prior to transitioning our courses from brick and mortar to online, an approval had to be given by the agency.  We just couldn’t begin offering something inferior to our students.
     
    You are correct that teachers who teach traditional classes may not be successful online teachers.  The transition from traditional to online requires proper faculty development and training for the instructor to be a success in the classroom.

  • JohnMashey

    As discussed in the 34-page writeup (p.10 especially), the extent to which Peter Wood speaks for the NAS membership is unclear. Contrary to some people’s fantasies , I am actually *happy* when people identify themselves and express their positions publicly.

    Although I’m not sure he said this anywhere, Keith Whitaker, who used to work for Wood @ BU, is on the NAS Board:
    http://www.nas.org/people.cfm#board
    But otherwise, I haven’t noticed much participation from clearly-identified NAS members. So in the interest of encouraging further discourse  by people who must be NAS members, I sent email to everyone listed on the NAS Affiliates web pages, to call this discussion to their attention.

    52 names were listed (44 M, 8 F (AR, AK, GA, KS, KY, MO, NY, SC, VT))
    2 bounced with permanent email failures (FL, SC), 1 (MO) is in “connection refused, will try for 5 days” state.  Anyway, that leaves 49.

    This is what I sent to the list:
    “Subject: Invitation to join discussion at Chronicle of Higher Education regarding Peter Wood articles

    Dear heads of NAS Affiliates:

    I got your names from  
    http://www.nas.org/affiliates.cfm
    .

    I am not an academic and had never heard of NAS before, but DR
    Peter Wood has written several articles at the Chronicle of Higher Education
    blog that mentioned me.

    I researched him and
    NAS and wrote a 34-page analysis, and then (with Rob Coleman of Ohio State University
    ) wrote the following post at CHE, which links to the relevant articles:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform

    It seems that Dr. Wood is the main voice of NAS, but I am
    unable to understand the extent to which he speaks for the NAS membership or
    for himself, for reasons noted in the 34-pager.

    I encourage you to post your views as comments on that post,
    either individually or in groups, or perhaps seek a guest post from CHE.

    So far, there has been little comment on any of the posts by
    clearly-identified NAS members.  I would
    be happy to see your comments on climate science, Dr. Wood’s articles, our
    article, Kerry Emmanuel’s article last year at NAS, Dr. Wood’s portrayal of the
    AFA meeting in June, etc.  I am not sure
    if you read this section of the CHE, since Dr. Wood’s articles there usually
    appear at the NAS website, so it seemd useful to alert you and seek your
    participation.

    I do hope you will come and join the discussion, and perhaps
    encourage your local membership to do so as well.

    Sincerely,

    John R. Mashey, PhD”

  • JonasN

    Eric A,
     
    Opinion polls with vague questions don’t settle anything. Well OK, the actually poll opinions. But supporting opinions still are just that. Even when penned with the letterhead of some academy.

    You say there exists a huge body of scientific evidence ‘supporting’ AGW, and if you by that mean publications menitioning even studying effects of ”climate change”, you are certainly right. Also that those many times assume or accept that it is (due to the A in) AGW.

    However, that doesn’t constitute support, evidence nor confirmation av AGW. It just means that those words were used and relayed.

    Now, resarch that actually would support, or at least try to strengthen the AGW-hypothesis needs to study, understand and explain how the climate system works. What controls it, what regulates it, what limits its fluktuations etc. How the different participating mechanisms work, interact, how strongly, what parameters control this, non-linear behavior etc.

    Now, there are those who do that. But they are neither that many nor do they agree on many of the details. And most of all (and this is in no dispute at all, albeit not always admitted): No way are thos researchers and groups even close to understanding all that happens, all the known mechanisms. They don’t even know  whether they know of all the relevant mechanisms. Thus, they certainly cannot make claims that they can model and predict the future.

    The fact is that the most certain thing about the climate we do actually know is that we are not even close to knowing how it works.

    You bring up Arrhenius who showed that CO2 can scatter IR-radiation. And that is not disputed by anyone really. However, to go from there, to understanding how the climate works, and what regulates it is a huge step (no, many many huge steps .. into unknown territory .. where noone finds his way yet, maybe never will).

    We are talking about a dynamic chaotic highly non-linear system, with an almost indefinite number of subsystems and parts nowhere near being understood and even mapped.

    Just the other day results were presented that completely undermined one of the IPCC assumtions needed for their ‘projections’. That is, a mechanism not included, not understood, hardly known or even known of. It hade been mentioned by the less dogmatic (orthodox) followers of climate debate, ie sceptics, but been laughed off and ridiculed.

    And the same is true for so many other instances where the climate church and its scripture had professed the ultimate state of things, and its disciples felt compelled to defend it where- and whenever doubt or criticism entered someone’s head or worse even, when such words were uttered  and a larger public could hear them (Mann’s hockeystick and Mashey’s crusade are good examples, but there are plenty). The point is that science doesn’t work that way. Its is a process, it’s not an answer, it certainly does not devise policy, it is never finished, and it must adhere to some quite strict and basic principles. Otherwise i cannot be science.

    And finally Eric, you need to be more careful with all the (ie every) details. Your reading of what is claimed. Kevin King was referring to the CAGW-movement. And I agree, those followers cannot be taken seriously. Should not! And often they are ranting the loudest.

  • JonasN

    Scott, still trying the smoking/lungcancer meme? Has it gotten any better since last time?

  • marionjay

    Ludicrous to accuse Wegman of plagiarism when his report was not an original work of climate science but simply an introduction to the state of climate science for policy makers – akin to accusing an introduction to English Literature of plagiarism for citing Shakespeare!!
    It is interesting too that Mashey was happy to accuse Wegman of plagiarising Bradley 1999 on tree rings but failed to point out that Bradley had himself copied this work from Fritts
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Haynes/1186871204 Anna Haynes

    When I extended a similar offer to the Association chapter heads, 3 of them responded in email (& none, as I recall, in blogcomments) -
    they’re here (link)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Haynes/1186871204 Anna Haynes

    It is unfortunate that the Chronicle of Higher Education doesn’t have higher standards.

  • trashman

    Every international academy of science agrees and they do not make these types of positions statements lightly because they represent the reputations of tens of thousands of scientists world-wide.
     
    Consensus has nothing to do with the practice of real science, whose principles would nevertheless require that terms such as “consensus” be defined numerically, at the least, and that the results of the various Boards of the Scientific entities specific polls of their individual members, if any, and Board members be made available, including to the public.  Where are they? 
     
    Otherwise, to match the numbers of “sceptical” scientists publically amassed by the Oregon Petition Project, http://www.oism.org/pproject/, who have each actually signed very specific statements concerning the lack of threat CO2 represents, the count of “sceptical” scientists as to this definition of “consensus” probably stands thousands greater than that in support of the grossly overreaching “settled fact” NAS statement, which, in the form of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty the U.S. Senate has still refused to take any action on, for the same stated reason that other original signatories/ratifying countries have now decided to not extend it.  The Treaty does not cover China and India, nor in fact countries containing about 5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.7 billion people. 

    Did the NAS editors even sign their own statement? And who amongst these alleged ”consensus” signatories has modified their personal behavior accordingly? 

  • arthurpsmith

    Spartacus – the greenhouse effect is what determines that the “-18 C” level of the atmosphere is at 5 km altitude. With more CO2, that altitude (roughly the average altitude of final transmission of thermal radiation to space) goes up, and the surface warms. With less CO2, that altitude declines, and the surface cools. With no CO2, which would freeze out most of the H2O as well, the altitude of average thermal emission is at close to 0 km. That’s the point. Nobody in climate science disputes that the lapse rate (governed by adiabatic stability considerations) governs the near-Earth temperature profile. You’ll find it in the introductory section of pretty much every climate-science textbook. It certainly doesn’t contradict the greenhouse effect.

    In any case, we seem to have drifted rather far from your original claim that the whole business is in error because back-radiation cannot do “work”. Are you changing your position, or can you clarify what exactly you mean by that?

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    It is clear that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    First of all, the phenomenon at work in the greenhouse effect is not scattering of radiation. It is absorption and emission that is important.

    Second of all Arrhenius did much more than calculate the effect of CO2 on radiation transport to determine the effect of doubling of CO2 on global temperature. He included the feedback due to greater amounts of water vapor with warming temperatures. He did have data on solar radiation which he also included. He recognized the importance of feedback due to changes in surface area of snow and ice and water vapor content. He correctly figured out that these feedback mechanisms were responsible for past ice ages.  There were lots of effects he didn’t have the capability to include, using hand calculations, such as Hadley Cells, convection due to updrafts etc., but his calculations represent a good first attempt. His figure of 6C for doubling is remarkably close to the range found by current computer programs.   It was not until the age of computers that these complex effects could be taken into account.

    Your claim that we are not even close to understanding how climate works is wrong.  There is some uncertainty about the size of some of the forcing factors, the largest being aerosals emitted by human activity, and the feedback effect of clouds, which is put in the models as an empirical manner, but the relevant mechanisms are well understood.

    From time to time papers which supposedly revolutionize our understanding of climate are heralded by AGW deniers. Examples are Svensmark’s claim that cosmic rays are forcing factors, Lindzen and Choi’s claim that satellite observations show climate feedback mechanisms on balance are negative, and Spencer and Braswell’s claim that clouds represent a forcing factor rather than feedback. So far none of them have gained acceptance by a significant number of climate scientists, and definitive rebuttals have been published rather quickly. From your vague description, it seems you are claiming Spencer and Braswell’s recent paper is now the big game changer. Far from it. It is an embarrassment to the publication which accepted it, and climate researchers have torn it to shreds. Claiming that such papers are proof that accepted climate science is all wrong is wishful thinking on the part of people who want it to be wrong, and will seize on any quackery to prove it.

    By CAGW, I suppose you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as distinct from AGW. I don’t know who invented that term, and I don’t know whom you put in that category, but in my mind, it is probable that failure to stop the increase in GHG’s will have catastrophic consequences. It is very likely that many of the long term effects that have not been accounted for will make matters worse than the current models project.

    In fact the potential downside of ignoring the threat is much bigger than the cost of switching to sustainable energy sources. We are currently experiencing the effects of extreme weather events on the world’s food supply and living space. The catastrophic floods in Australia, the US, and Pakistan have ruined the homes of many millions. Drought has wreaked havoc with the food supply world wide, including Russia, Africa and the US.  As the globe warms we can expect these kinds of events to occur more often and on a larger scale. These effects are expected from the basic physics of materials, and are borne out by sophisticated climate models. One of the polls of climate scientists who publish, the one by Pielke and Annan, found that the about 50% of climate scientists polled thought the IPCC got things about right, about 20% thought things would not be as bad, and 20% thought things would be worse than the IPCC projection. Does the 50 % who agree with IPCC projection represent CAGW or AGW?

    Anyway, it is pretty clear that the 3% who don’t accept AGW are the outlier fringe group, and people who rabidly support this 3% are more likely to be wrong than the so-called CAGW movement.

  • EricAdler

    Trashman,
    In bringing up the Oregon petition as a counter to the results of two independent polls of climate scientists who actually publish papers on climate science, which show the 97% accept AGW, it is clear that you don’t understand that the Oregon petition was a fraud.

    A bogus paper was written to be sent out with the petition. It had all the appearance of something published by the National Academy of Science, including format, and issue and a date. It was done to persuade people that the NAS had published it as a peer reviewed publication. This accompanied by a cover letter from  Fred Seitz, once the president of the NAS,  but when his scientific career ended was paid to claim that cigarette smoke was not harmful, and subsequently worked to oppose the theory of AGW.  The signatures of scientists were obtained as a result of fraud.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

    Are you seriously supporting the results of the Oregon Petition, which got its signatures through fraud, or are you just ignorant of the facts surrounding it?

  • EricAdler

    Get a life! Disagreement with stupid incorrect statements is not thuggery. Defending ones own  opinons against those who disagree, even when you are wrong is not thuggery either.

  • EricAdler

    Dank48,
    When Wood puts the opinion of Rush Limbaugh, and an economist who dabbles in climate science quackery, on an equal footing with real professional climate scientists, he totally looses credibility on any subject that he touches, whether it is the quality of the discourse or the state of climate science.

  • mbelvadi

    EBSCO is not an “internet archive” and Pearson doesn’t own it. Where on earth did either of those ideas come from? 

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “Eric, why don’t you read what I say, instead of searching you pet websites for words you hope to object to.

    Probably
    inadvertently you confirmed that the feedbacks are programmed. Yes,
    they call it ‘based on physical equations’. And is of course true in one
    sense.

    However, the key parameters wrt how water evaporates,
    rises, forms clouds, rains out or moves laterally etc are not described
    by Navier Stokes equations. ”

    I do read what you say, and find scientific web sites which refute it. All of these provide references to the scientific literature.

    I never claimed that Navier Stokes equations prove that there is positive climate feedback.
    In your ignorance, you seem to assume that the Navier Stokes equations for fluid mechanics are the only  “physical equations” on which climate science is based. There is a lot of other physics in the models, including evaporation rates, equations for adiabatic expansion, clear air radiation transport etc..

    Your claim that aerosals are some kind of “ad hoc” hypothesis is also wrong. The cooling effects of sulfate aerosals associated with  volcanic eruptions have been understood for a long time, and actual observations of recent eruptions have contributed to model calibration and verification. James Hansen modeled the atmosphere of Venus, which is strongly modified by sulfate aerosal clouds, before he turned his attention to modeling the earth’s atmosphere. In the 1970′s climatology modeling papers were written predicting cooling due to aerosals and warming due to CO2.

    You also wrote:
    .” you attempt to make (known) ignorance an argument for that those who
    study the gaping holes, the uncovered areas, alternative hypotheses,
    known uncertainties etc, that the should be discarded (from the
    argument, the state of knowledge) because those who dont, those who
    didn’, those who put their money on the simpler annd rudimentary
    explanations donät like or accept them wit hopen armes, because of the
    newer reserach or other hypoteses”so far none of them have gained
    acceptance by a significant number of climate scientists”!?

    I will try to make sense of the above run-on sentence which is so full of typographical error that it is incomprehensible, and make a reply.

    You seem to claim that the majority of Climate Scientists, who reject contrarian papers pushed by AGW opponents are somehow incorrectly refusing to accept them with open arms. Examples of such contrarian papers are Svensmark’s and others on cosmic ray theories, Lindzen and Choi’s paper which claimed to find errors in climate science models, and Spencer and Braswell who look at clouds as forcing, are doing so just because the majoirty opposes anything new. If you bother to read the rebuttals to these papers, it is evident that the methodology of these papers is flawed, and the results are therefore not credible.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/#more-282584

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

     The history of science shows that contrarian papers which survive such scrutiny eventually become accepted. The papers I mentioned failed this test, and for good reasons.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “Now, resarch that actually would support, or at least try to strengthen
    the AGW-hypothesis needs to study, understand and explain how the
    climate system works. What controls it, what regulates it, what limits
    its fluktuations etc. How the different participating mechanisms work,
    interact, how strongly, what parameters control this, non-linear
    behavior etc.

    Now, there are those who do that. But they are
    neither that many nor do they agree on many of the details. And most of
    all (and this is in no dispute at all, albeit not always admitted): No
    way are thos researchers and groups even close to understanding all that
    happens, all the known mechanisms. They don’t even know  whether they
    know of all the relevant mechanisms. Thus, they certainly cannot make
    claims that they can model and predict the future.

    The fact is
    that the most certain thing about the climate we do actually know is
    that we are not even close to knowing how it works.”

    There is no certainty about predictions of any future events in complex system. Yet people are constantly dealing with such systems, and make predictions about what is likely to happen in the future and act on them. They also often insure against catastrophe. If certainty about the future were a requirement for taking action, human beings would be permanently paralyzed.

    Who is the “we” who “are not close to knowing how it (the climate system) works? I certainly would include you, but I in general I would not include climate scientists.

    The  majority of climate scientists accept the findings of the IPCC as just about right, while about 20% feel their projections of future climate are too optimistic, while 20% feel they are too pessimistic.

    http://www.centralcoastclimatescience.org/poll-annan.pdf

    . There is disagreement, but about 70% of climate sciientists would endorse the recommendations of the IPCC or something stronger.  If you want to go with the deniers that is your privilege, but the fact is that climate scientists don’t follow you. They accept the existance of  AGW almost unanimously.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “And no, in the atmosphere, it has not been observed that CO2 doubles the
    its effect trhough water. It might under favourable conditions. But the
    amplifications of 3-5 times must be the aggregate under all conditions
    everywhere on the globe. You just do not have such data. You are just
    hoping that phrases you found at sceptical science are the final word. ”

    You are wrong to claim that the amplifications of 3-5 times must be the aggregate under all conditions everywhere on the globe.  In fact the climate models predict that the Northern Polar regions are the first to warm up, and will warm the most, because of the poleward movement of heat in the atmosphere. This predictions is so far accurate.

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11991&page=26

  • JonasN

    Eric
     
    One quite simple way to determine that you are not really discussing science, but instead are advocating you belief system and activism is that you almost all the time make definite and absolute statments about the nature of things (and often also about things/persons you have no knowlede of). That you do not distinguish between such and a tentative explanaition, hypothesis put forward, an observation that may be interpreted as supporting it or result outputs from a model based on such hypotheses. That you forget/are unawhare of large uncertainties, errorbars, both in the data, but even more in the physical descrpitions of the various mechanisms.
     
    Another one is your repeated overstating the claims actually made in your supporting publications, and the constant throwing in of various buzz-words that aren’t really what scientific discourse is about (like ‘rebutt’, ‘reject’ and ‘refute’ or ‘shown in the scientific litterature’)
     
    A third is you unwaivering need to ascribe negative personal traits to those presenting other views. Often trying to deduce ‘proof of ignorance’ from this that were not mentioned.
    All these are typical for activits arguing politics. And trust me, you are not the first one who has thrown exactly the same links and accusations at me.
     
    Science does not work that way, and scientific progress is not made by voting who should be the most ‘trustworthy’ or determining whose ‘agenda’ should be viewed the most noble. Science does not ever provide definite answers, it’s merit is not measured  by support in numbers, neither persons nor publications. The only real measure is how it stands up when it meets reality. If it does, then it still can be considered a plausible hypothesis. And such are tested exactly by tryuing to pick them appart.
     
    Regarding many parts of the so called ‘climate science’ they are still in its infancy, as you said, new support hypotheses are added to explain this and that. (It is suprising that you cannot distinguish between how a hypothesis with a describing parameter to be determined is callibrated and what the resulting agreement then shows).
     
    You are partly wrong about the cooling with aerosols. What has been known for a long time is the cooling resulting from volcano erruptions spewing large amounts of ash in the upper atmosphere. The cooling from sulphur is not the same thing. It is a hypothesis based on the idea of a similar mechanism. And it needed to be calibrated. Thus, it was fitted to the temperate record. So far, that’s curve fitting to a hypothesis. It is not the answer to if it was the correct one. And as I already mentioned, new such support hypotheses are needed all the time to explain discrepancies between observed data and model predictions.
     
    What that shows is that the models and hypothesis are far from capable of forcasting anything.
     
    You are right, it was a long sentence, I will summarize it again:
     
    You cannot use number of supportes for an older hypothesis not embracing a (partly) new or challening on, to determine if the latter is valid, better, an advancement or not. It needs to be tested and its predictions need to be compared to measured data. There is no such thing as certified ‘climate scientists’ or ‘majority’ on one hand and ‘oponents’ on the other. That again is a fallacy in your understanding of how science works.
     
    One more thing Eric, you have neither read the ‘opposoning’ papers, nor the rebutting publications, so when you (once more) ascert that they therby are refuted, you once again relay hersay pick up at activist bloggs. You even provide links to them ….

    And again, your referal to that history should show wich side of an argument  will prevail shows once more that you mostly are politically motivatedm not discussing the science!

  • 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).

  • stevefish

    JonasN, regarding the plagiarism issue, my recollection is that large segments of text were lifted from another document and not put in quotes or documented. I will let Mashey defend his assertions as I don’t wish to reread this because of the depressing lack of scientific understanding. Regarding your other comments, I am not inclined to trust your opinions because of the repeated undocumented assertions and conspiracy theory claims. Documentation is all important to scientific discussions. Please document your statements.

    Regarding Mann’s work, there have been several appropriately published criticisms of his first paper and many of the components of these were recognized by Mann and others as useful criticism. However, none of the criticisms, especially those of McIntyre and McKitrick (see- http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html), and McShane and Wyner (see- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/comment-page-2/#comments%29), alter Mann’s conclusions very much. Further, as has been repeatedly stated above, there have been multiple different and more recent reconstructions of the last 2,000 years by different authors with different data sets that, although somewhat different, substantially support Mann’s analysis (see the IPCC reference above).

    In a scientific discussion unsupported allegations of motives or wrongdoing carry no weight. One must argue the science. Steve

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    The post below shows that the amount of space you devote to trash talk, disparaging my intellect, and arguing about how to argue seems to be growing with each post. If your scientific arguments made any sense, I think you wouldn’t have to resort to such stratagems. I am not going to engage in that discussion, because I don’t need to.

    Let’s get to the point.

    I pointed out that the ocean gains more heat from down-welling radiation from the atmosphere, which is in part due to CO2,  than it gets from the sun. The numbers in Trenberth’s energy budget diagram show that, and you agree.  You pointed out that up-welling radiation is larger than down-welling radiation. I pointed out that this is basically irrelevant to the point that I made. Upwelling radiation comes from the ocean surface and cools the ocean. It is a different thing from down-welling radiation, which comes from the atmosphere and heats the ocean.

    Your now present the schoolbook exampple of a box with an imaginary partition and  radiation going from the left side to the right side, and vice versa.
    You say the following:

    “To claim that the leftgoing radiation is heating the right half would be wrong. No net heat travels either way! ”

    You are clearly confused and wrong about this.

    Thermally generated radiation travels in both directions. When both sides of the box are at the same temperature the energy flux entering each side of the box equals the energy flux leaving each side of the box. The net energy flux is zero for each side, but that is not the same as saying there is no energy flux traveling in either direction.  To see this, imagine that the left side of the box were removed, and the right side  exposed to outer space, whose temperature is zero. The thermal radiation emanating from the right hand side of the box would quickly cool it.
    The radiation carries energy away from the right hand side of the box.
     
    Now imagine the surface of the ocean with the GHG’s in the atmosphere suddenly gone. The surface of the ocean would receive no down-welling radiation, and only the solar radiation that it had before. In that case the up-welling radiation would go directly to outer space also and the surface would cool. From this example it is clear that the down-welling radiation is keeping the ocean warm.

    In fact, the example done by Science of Doom, where flux of down-welling radiation and solar radiation were increased by an equivalent amount  showed that the increase in equilibrium temperature over time was the same. Down-welling radiation and solar radiation both can heat the ocean.

    I see that you have again claimed that I violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”.

    You said,

    “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! ”

    Once again you have not backed up that assertion with an explanation. It is because you really can’t show how my argument violated the first law.
    .
    Having made my point, I will not respond to the filibustering, fractured syntax, epithets and trash talk which forms the balance of your post.

  • JohnMashey

    The 3 threads have been filled with claims (often by anonymous folks) that there is no plagiarism in/around the Wegman report, sometimes claiming novel reasons, and usually falling under IUOUI: Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals [since they are at best worthless].

    I hate to spoil the fun, but the 400+ posts accumulated here offer enough data for analysis.

    While numerous opinions here have negative-to-zero value on plagiarism, in fact, there is one bonafide top plagiarism expert involved in all this, very familiar with the Wegman affair..
    [Actually, there are more, but let's just pick the most obvious expert., with massive relevant experience.]

    SO: WHO IS THE REAL EXPERT?
    And for extra points, provide at least a minimal citation, or even better, a really detailed one.
    People seem to have posted clams they might have avoided, had they

  • JonasN

    Steve,

    The allegations of (questionable) motives, allmost allways come from the climate-scare side. Haven’t you read Mashey? His ramblings are riddled with them, and as you say: there is no scientific value what so ever, not even attempting any.

    However, when things shift into politics, the argued policies are the motive. I don’t know what you refer to as ‘conspiracy theories’. I am not saying anythin controversial. The same players helped to set up RealClimate and bankroll ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. As to what RC is about, one only needs to read them for a whil, trying two consecutive crictical (factual) comments, and the pretence of ‘scientific discussions’ falls.

    And you are right, the defence of MBH98&99 has been, for a long time, and for every individual questionable detail, ‘doesn’ alter Mann’s conclusions very much’. Regarding M&W  (who used the very same data, and only carried out the statistics correctly, the result is entirely different (but of course with a resemblance of the original shape). But most of all, the general criticism is that one cannot base such ascertions about the whole world’s tmeperture record on soch scanty data, and poor proxies.

    You won’t read admissions of that at RealClimate or from IPCC, unfortunately. They would  argue deflecting and mostly minortechnical details, one at the time. That is why  the debate still goes on and is sp inflamed.

    Fact is that the tactics, and meanness from the Hockey defence team have been absolutely descpicable. Has absloutel nothing to do with curious  scientific enquiery. It’s all been about politics (and thus not science)

    Regarding Mann and newer reconstructions: It is very hard to take somebody seriously who knowingly uses a proxy-series upside down, and defending this with ‘but, this is how it came out from my calibration algorithm’ (nor those who defend such practices)

    However, none  of the threads here, the discussion, the defence, the accusations, the refernces to Exxon, tobacco lobby etc have anything to do with science, they are all about smearing and poltics. Have you even heard Mann arguing his case lately?

  • JonasN

    Mashey,

    Three threads have been filled about the ill willed tactics, the shouting-down attempts,the smear, the allegations of corruption, the vitriol, the childish poor-loser behaviour from the side which cannot and will not argue the facts and the merits of the supporting data.

    1 ½ of them essentially are confirmations of exactly what the 1:st one argued.

    You rantings about ‘plagiarism’ have been noted, and after reviewing them, including what else they contained, reasonable people shrugged their shoulders and concluded that this and you don’t need to be taken seriously.

    The more interesting case are the few but loud supporters who desperately want to cling to these rantings rather than making substantial arguments about real things, the science for instance. The shouting trolls with OReskes and Conway as preferred reading to a lesser extent than professional people and scientists of course.

    I don’t know prof R Coleman, but if he is a decent guy I feel sorry for him putting his name next to yours and your links. Had he seen and read them beforehand, I’d say it reflects poor judgement. Or(and) that his motivations line up with others in the shouting team.

    So, incidentally, John Mashey:

    What is your motivation for desperately trying to fending of any criticism against Mann’s poor origanl work by personal attacks?

    Why are Mann and his stick so important to you people? (I’m sure Exxon money was/is not the reason ;-) 

    And don’t give me the ‘indignation pretence’, that rings very hollow wrt the people lining up on that side. I wonder about Mann, his stick, and what it purports to show. What there is the motive for your actions?

  • JonasN

    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!

    You then try to repeat my example, and semantically saving some face. But still, you only come up with trivial and irrelevant stuff. You state correctly that without an atmsphere (and GHG:s) the cooling will be larger, but so will the heating. And nobody argues anything else but that the atmosphere with its function insulates the ground making its cooling rate slow down. That is what people call  ‘the greenhouse effect’.

    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.

    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 ,

    Again, you never even touched upon that. (Probably because you googling didn’t provide any cut-and-paste talkbacks)

    Well, I know that such  are the only thing you bring to the table, and appreciate that you now say you will give it up. You know, I don’t need anybody to read ScepticalScience for me. And the more relevant and interesting points of the debate are way beyond John Cook et consortes.

    I fully understand that that must feel frustrating for you.

  • JonasN

    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.

    (remember that the air above the kettle contains both CO2 and H2O, ie GHG:s. The situation is fully analoguos to the ocean surface, you can even compare the bulk of the stove mass to the deeperocean  water, the heating is mostly on the top surface. I only replaced the sun influx with a stove)

    Your call!

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “Steve, thanx for a late reply, but I’growing a bit wary of the
    stupid ranting and accusations from Mashey and others. They are plain
    stupid and thats that!
     
    How do I (and everybody else) know?
    Because every textbook, every article contains boilerplate phrases and
    excerpt that possibly can be found elsewhere. Furthermore, all purported
    ‘plagiarized’ sources were referenced. Only not sufficiently well
    according to John Mashey. ”

    Your assertion doesn’t prove the case. Mashey’s account is quite detailed.

    You also repeat the claim that Mann obviously tried to prevent others from checking the numbers by withholding data, contrary to what I said.
    Actually, Mann provided his data. The proof is that McIntyre used it in an attempt to prove that Mann’s statistical methods were wrong. In a letter to Barton, Mann listed the web sites that contained got his data from, and said that he regarded the software as proprietary, and people could use their own softare to analyse the data to reproduce his results.
    http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
    Newspaper accounts agree:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

    The balance of your above post simply echos AGW denier sites in their criticism of Mann and other climate scientists.. I could argue that since they are Climate Denier
    sites, what they say has no validity.

    Yes there has been nitpicking of some papers there, and some minor errors may have been found by this, but nothing really of consequence. Correction of these errors hasn’t overturned the consensus of Climate Scientists in general, 97% of whom, based on two recent opinion poll,s accept AGW as a valid theory.

    I hope that I have cleared up your misconception that down-welling radiation is not transport of energy and you will not embarrass yourself by making that argument again somewhere.

    Once again I request that you actually show that I have put forward arguments that violate the first law of thermodynamics. If I have made a mistake like that, I would be grateful if you point it out to me, so I won’t do it again, and embarrass myself repeatedly.

    There is censorship of stupid statements on the RC web site, and they are relegated to a special area, removed from the thread on which they were posted. This does not totally prevent discussion of the science it serves to enhance the quality of what is said.
    I find the practice at Wattsupwiththat far worse. They take out an snip high quality well sourced comments, and eventually ban commentators like me from posting. All they have left are cheerleaders.

  • 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.

  • ztztzt

    Speaking of plagiarism, we’ve seen a great deal of plagiarism in climatology

    Here is an example: http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/2010/10/jones-and-coauthors-plagiarize-mann-and.html

    How can it be that two ‘scientific’ papers have a duplicated paragraph and no authors in common?! An amazing coincidence or a culture of corruption, plagiarism, and attack lackeys (such as the authors of the present piece)?

  • JonasN

    Ouch …  
     

  • JonasN

    Eric
     
    By ‘regulatory function’ I mean that the mechanism has something to do with regulating temperatures (and climate) when things vary too much in either direction. You may think of it as a ‘control knob’ or a ‘thermostat’
     
    Some claim that CO2 is capable of regulating atmospheric water content (wich supposedly follows like a ‘slave parameter’) in a way to create amplifications by a factor of ~4. Ie, that CO2 is the control knob.
     
    That is a quite bold claim about the potency and powers of a passive minor gas component. And still, that’s the linearized statement! For anybody familiar with complex physical systems, modelling of such, or of regulating such systems, even understanding and regulating much less complex, but non-trivial engineering systems, where reality always trumps theory and simulation … that sounds like a quite outlandish claim. Expecially when the claim is that it is universally true for the entire system, ie describing the total net effect of all the earth’s climate/temperature combined. Ie that the factor ~4 is the global average!
     
    Whenever such high amplifications are questioned, or one asks for the justification, rationale and supporting evidence, observations etc, the answers become vague, sweeping and armwaiving. As I have tried to bring to your attention, the argument that CO2, through its extra GHG-heating therby forces also H2O to (‘slavishly’) increase and remain at a higher level for all future is not convincing. Quite obviously H2O varies a lot more, both up and down on time scales of a few days.
     
    And by ‘regulatory function’ I also mean that variation, and the clouds variation and function for the system. It is obvious that water is ‘regulated’ by other factors than CO2 alone, at the very least, that other mechanisms cause larger and quicker variations both up and down, especially locally, ie that H2O and clouds act like a thermostat. And it is quite conceivable that these variations, and what regulates them (not CO2) play an important factor in regulating temperatures too.

    We have already discussed how clouds form in the tropics from intense solar influx, and that these clouds build up during the day, then effectively regulation the amount of incoming short wave radiation (SR): If it it’s hot they form earlier, closing the ‘cloud shutters’ earlier thereby and lowering (regulating) the incoming heat (reflecting mor UC and SR), If it is cooler, the same mechanism keeps the ‘shutter’ open ’til later in the afternoon.
     
    Such short term regulatory mechanisms (thermostats) are not included in the GCMs, and the spatial resolution is also limited. Instead the assumed ‘average’ behavior of cloud formation etc is ‘hard wired’ in the code. That’s what I mean by ad hoc, or ‘built in’.
     
    By the way, it is too bad that you want to misread what I say at every turn, whenever there is a chance. And it it so obvious, so consistent, and always swerving in the same direction. I am very certain that I have more experience than you in computer modelling, and I of course know that phenomena you can’t grasp, or model based on 1:st principels, or only with adjustable calibration factors also need to be included if the mechanism is important. But I also know, that the predictive and eplainatory value regarding the same mechanism vanishes by the same amount: It is still included, but only the way it was ‘instructed’ to (ie built in). If it played a major part in the phenomenon studied, the modelling will fail.
     
    Regarding the ‘behavioral models’, if they assume that CO2 causes temp and then more H2O, and htat both these cause even more temp. and that H2O and temp then cause clouds and precipitation, modelled and based on mapping of assumed and observed correlations, then a model run will give you exactly that anser.

    But it is a circular argument: You cannot show that your initial premise was correct, by running a model built on the same very premise. (And adjusting and curve fitting the parameters, to make it coincide with what you want, is neither  a ‘confirmation’ of the premise).
     
    What I am saying is not a murky statment, it is quite selfevident. People claiming that models by them selves, can provide answers to phenomena not yet understood or confirmed independantly, just don’t know what they are talking about. And climate modellers generally don’t claim anything else either.  However, from the outside, you wouldn’t hear such doubts och caveats expressed. And definetely not from the Gores, the Hansens, the Manns, the Karolys etc or anybody else who knows they can predict the future. And of course, you won’t hear it from the  Cooks, the Romms, the Lamberts, the Sinclairs or the Adlers etc either. Because they don’t know (and don’t want to know, I suspect)
     
    That the models have a hard time for- and backcasting the temperatures (and other metrics) is not a big secret, we’ve been over this. Remeber, they predicted an accelerating temperature increase. They do not replicate what happen neither before, nor after the ~half century when mankind increased CO2. Yes, there is handwaving, and added ad hoc ‘explanations’ but even the AGW-believers nowadays admit that natural fluctionas ‘must be hiding’ what they believe to know to be the truth. Ie confessing that they didn’t really were that sure as claimed before.
     
    Spencer has nothing to do with this. His work is on something entirely different. And I am sad to note that you have no clue about it, that you only echo what has been quickly put up at RC (etc) as an attempt of blanket dismissal of his latest publication. And without touching the core of it, instead arguing irrelevant and minor points of something else. I really don’t think you should make claims that other people’s work is lame, wrong, not qualified etc. Especially when you neither have read nor understood them. And when you have no intention or interest either.
     
    The AGW-defence team at least is aware of that it is being challenged, that it is losing ground, that it is damageing to their ’cause’ if major cliams they’ve loudly voiced and repeated over the years prove wrong (as is happening, in several fields). That’s why the feel they have to respond like this (or like Mashey). They know that they still have many of the journos and most of the enviro-people on their side, but that support there also is retreating.  
     
    Particularly funny is your argument that a study, puplished a few weeks ago “has not gained any acceptance .. but was debunked by many climate scientists”, properly referenced ton one ScepticalScience website of one John Cook. As marion suggested (elsewhere) you really should start using words with their original meaning, or look them up if you are uncertain. Your lamenting Spencer is disgraceful. And once more I’m certain that it reveals more about why and how you arrive at your beliefs. And as already mentioned, Spencer’s work is not about the models. It is about the observed increase of outgoing radiation after a warming event. If the AGW-orthodoxy-approved models would show that they too predict what Spencer observes, they would confirm his results (and Spencer would have been wrong about the models). If they didn’t agree, they would confirm that they dont capture the nature of things. (What would you place your bet on Eric? )

  • Pangolin

    They don’t have to make anything disappear they only have to delay action until the check from the oil company’s PAC clears. 

  • Pangolin

    Yet the Arctic sea-ice, Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic Ice sheet continue to lose volume and mass? What’s causing that? Al Gore’s hair dryer or possibly…..global warming. 

    Also your sources are long-debunked drivel with no backing in peer-reviewed literature. 

  • Pangolin

    I suggest he could expose himself on his own blog elsewhere rather than claiming the reputation of CHE as an umbrella for his non-sourced opinion. 

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,

    “Now, in the present picture, it is warmer than the atmosphere, ie it is
    losing (net) heat since the atmosphere is somewhat colder, only
    radiating back a mere 333 W/m2. The net loss therefore is 63 W/m2. I
    hope you are still with me, when I am saying that these flows combined
    have a total cooling effect of the ocean heat content. Although the
    backradiation number 333 W/m2 sounds quite high.”

    The trouble with your analysis is that you don’t understand what you don’t understand. Liquid Water is almost a black body for IR radiation. Clear air is not a black body. The molecules are in the gaseous phase, except for clouds, and have a more discrete spectrum. So the Watts/M2 cannot be converted into temperature as simply as you claim.

    I don’t really get the point you are making. Are you saying that the oceans are steadily losing heat energy at a rate 63W/M2 ?  That doesn’t make sense.

    You are leaving out the energy fluxes due to other phenomena than IR radiation when you draw that conclusion.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “Eric
     
    By ‘regulatory function’ I mean that the mechanism has
    something to do with regulating temperatures (and climate) when things
    vary too much in either direction. You may think of it as a ‘control
    knob’ or a ‘thermostat’……..”

    This entire post is total garbage. Your entire description of climate modeling is made up nonsense. There isn’t a single citation in it.

     I have never read of any climate scientist that said CO2 has a regulatory function like a thermostat. That is your own invention. No model says that CO2 has a direct effect on water vapor. It is temperature that controls evaporation and condensation of water vapor. Despite your claim no unwarranted  assumptions are made. All of the empirical, behavioral portions of the GCM’s are based on data and physics.

    If your writing were clearer, and you provided some references for the claims you make, I wouldn’t have to guess at what you are referring to. Spencer’s model is a crock. The criticisms I linked were written by Trenberth and Bickmore, both Climate Scientists.

  • JonasN

    You are not making any sense at all. You are even contradicting your self. Why on earth(!) do you believe that you have to bring up wether the IR radiation spectrum adheres well or less well to the one of a black body?

    You mention ‘temperature’, and that you cannot directly translate a heatflux (in W/m2) into temperature (in °C) unless it is a perfect black body. That is true, but totally immaterial here! Completely irrelevant. Since you have the numbers, since we are enot debating their validity.

    The ocean (and earth surface) radiates heat at the rate 396 W/m2 and you say its spectrum fairly well corresponds to tha black body radiation, it is however not suspended in empty space. Indstead it is surrounded by a layer of atmosphere.with both a mass and containing GHs and clouds. Which also has a heat content, and a temperature. Which radiates uppwards and downwards, mostly in the IR-spectrum. Looking at it from the bottom of this spherical thin shell, it radiates at 333 W/m, which is lower than what ocean radiates through the same (spherical) surfaceplane from abow, nameley those 396 W/m2.

    Ie, the Ocean(rather all of earths surface)  loses 63 W/m2 through IR radiation. (It loses the remainder through evaporations and conduction). And the total loss corresponds to the incoming 181 W/m2 (which is considered as a external source since it is) shortwave radiation from the sun. The totals add up (heat in = heat out, if we for a moment disregard Trenberth’s (missing) imbalance of 0.9W/m2 nowhere to be found).

    The net IR loss is 63 W/m2 and derives from the ocean/earth having a higher  temperature than the surrounding (also IR radiating)  layer of atmoshere. How well those two numbers correlate with a (from perfect  black body radiationn spectrum) derived temperature is completely imaterial!

    The (net IR-) heat goes from ‘warmer’ towards ‘colder’, and to say that eart’s surface is ‘warmer’ than the IR-opaque layer above which constitues the atmosphere is perfectly correct!

    You know this, since you now the numer (63W/m2) and its direction. 

    (The other two cooling mechanisms are mechanical removal of heat: air and phase-transitioned water vapor)

    Your attempt “The trouble with your analysis is that you don’t understand what you don’t understand” wrt how perfect a black body spectrum the two entites have is  utterly incomprehensible. Complete nonsens wrt to anything discussed here … (*)

    Why and how on earth did you ever come up with that, hoping it would be an argument? Please explain! What made you bring up that and hope it would be a dismissal? How were you thinking there!?

    (*) as are many of you randomly fired ’talkbacks’

  • JonasN

    Eric (please do learn the meaning of words) and then please do read what is claimed. Please!

    I said: ‘Regulatory functions’ = ‘control knob’ and ‘thermostat’

    I (and many others) think that water vapor / cloud / involved heat transfer etc functions as a ‘thermostat’

    Others say (independently of the obove) that CO2 functions as a ‘control knob’ (aka ‘forcing’)

    You call my entire post garbage?

    Have you really never heard any climate scientist claim that CO2 has such a function, and that turning that ‘control knob’ to a doubled ppm-value would amount to a resulting temperature increase of 3-4.5 °C (aka ‘the climate sensitivity’)

    That doesn’t ring a bell with you? Really?

    This is getting more and more surreal by the hour …. Meaning: You are!

  • JonasN

    Spencer is a climate scientist, the blogpost-bickering by Trenberth’ about irrelevant and minor details they’d rather talk about is just that.
     
    As I’ve said: If their preferred models come up with somthing that is closer to Spencer’s satellite mearsurments, this would confirm his ideas. If they’d instead come up with similar numbers as he, it invalidates their bickering now. And it would confirm Spencers critique of what the models can show.
     
    (But to understand that, you must first understand what the science, and particular questions there, are about. You are nowhere close ….)
     
    This is how science progresses. Not through blogpost containg words as ‘debunked’ ‘crock’ or ‘rejected’.
     
    Your understanding of models and simulations is rudimentary, and as arguments in the debate amount to zip. You don’t know the first things about physical modelling.
     
    ‘Yes, we have it all in there now, physical laws, empirical values and behavior, you name it. We’ve got it right this time. Now we can foretell the future’
     
    … would be stupid claim, revealing massive ignorance. And modellerers don’t make such claims either, nor do any serious scientists. Your comments, many of the blogs and activists you cite, however, make various ‘arguments’ which amount to this. Actually it is the backbone of almost every claim where real science is still is widely open. Where understanding is scanty, where (regulating) mechanisms still are missing or wide open. Actually such talk is a give-away that the presenter is a bystander, mostly rooting for the ‘home team’ …

    ‘The models confirm this .. ‘ is one of them, the labelling as ’he is [is not] a climate scientists’ as an argument is another.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    The best commentary I have seen on opposition to AGW, such as you have provided is a video by Colbert.  Don’t miss the hand-waving gesture.

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/videobreak-the-colbert-report-heatsteria/

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “You are not making any sense at all. You are even contradicting your
    self. Why on earth(!) do you believe that you have to bring up wether
    the IR radiation spectrum adheres well or less well to the one of a black body?

    You
    mention ‘temperature’, and that you cannot directly translate a
    heatflux (in W/m2) into temperature (in °C) unless it is a perfect black
    body. That is true, but totally immaterial here! Completely irrelevant.
    Since you have the numbers, since we are enot debating their validity. ”

    Your immensely long series of posts is immaterial. Its whole purpose was to deny the importance of down-welling radiation as a factor affecting global temperature, by the use of your terminology, epithets and  hand-waving. You haven’t produced any facts or valid scientific argument, that says we can ignore the 333W/M2, or the effects of increasing the CO2 , in increasing the down-welling radiation. You cannot make the 333W/M2 disappear no matter how many posts you throw up.

  • JonasN

    Eric, the two bodies (earth’s surface & encapsulating atmosphere) exchange IR-radiations, as adjacent bodys in contact always will do. The net heat flow goes from warmer to colder.

    (had you had perfect IR-insulation from the atmosphere, the two IR-fluxes would be equal. The insulator cannot provide heat for the body, only make it cool more slowly. The heat to begin with comes from an external source: Short wave radiation from the sun! But ve’ve been over this many times)

    The lengthy posts where I explain elementary physics(*) time and again are because of you, pursuing some semantical quibble completely immaterial to any discussion here: Where most of the evaporations takes place, and what drives it.

    (You never answered why and how on earth did you thoght the black body radiation spectrum was a counterpoint!?)

    (*) Another highschool example: A balancing scale has a weight of its own, say 2kg. Its function depends on that at zero (external) load the 1kg on either side perfectly balance/cancel each other out, ie equilibrium (mechanical here, thermal with a perfect insulator). Adding 40g  on the tray alters that, making the scale tip towards one side.

    Eric Adler now says: a) You cannot account for the tipping without the 1kg already on that side (true), b) the 1kg contributes much more than these tiny 40g, and c) you are ignoring the 1kg already there!         

     [Jonas replies: a)moot, b) nonsensical and c) wrong]

  • JonasN

    Colbert is funny, thus you must be right. As must be the climate scientists, but only the righteous ones. They must be smart too, very smart. Colbert shows that with SpongeBob, his hands, RushLimbaugh and the ‘heat index’.

    The really smart (and righteous) ‘climate scientists’, but mostly their activist- and support bloggers, use even more difficult words when they explain the same thing.

    And ‘heat index” really is almost the same as ’temperature’. You know that since they’re all measured in degrees. Only deniers question that!

    Moreover, the most righteous ones want to use the difference between ‘heat index’ and ‘temperature, and drive a carnot heat engine (yes, another fancy word) to achieve two goals at once: Saving the world’s energy crisis, and cooling of the overheated climate (debate), in DC or whereever the heat index difference runs amok.

    It is tricky, since it requires creating reason out of thin hot air, with energy as a side product. And appearently there are still some laws of physics that need to be amended, and the House majority is presently blocking that. (The deniers even say it violates the constitution. Ignoring that Nature’s founding fathers never put that down on (proper peer reviewed) paper)

    /Sarc off

  • 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.

  • elirabett

    Wegman and the Wegman’s group suffer from endenic plagiarism.  That has been demonstrated chapter and verse.  Denialism runs strong in some, but the nonsense being written here about those poor innocent Wegmans is a fine example of why there is little point in some discussions. Go read what Dan Vergano wrote in USA Today, or what Andrew Gelman, a leading statistician has to say

  • elirabett

     Oh yes, cites please for the nut picking

  • elirabett

     Hurt your fee fees?

  • marionjay

    Extraordinary that CAGW proponents should expect a greater degree of rigour in referencing from Wegman’s AD Hoc Committee Report done on a pro-bono basis to that from a published scientific paper or even a scholarly textbook. As I’ve stated before Wegman provided numerous citations and references so I’m not sure how he is supposed to have passed off the sections in his report on climate science as his own original work!!
    Perhaps you could enlighten us by identifying exactly those “unique ideas which were copied” and passed off as his own original work?
    As you will recall from Mashey’s article above
    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    Perhaps Professor Coleman the co-author of this article might like to help you. After all John Mashey has bragged that Professor Coleman is an expert on plagiarism.
    (see his comment no.15 on the link below)

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

    A very interesting link this one as it not only seems to be an excellent example of the very type of blog John Mashey has referred to as an ‘echo chamber’ used to stimulate an influx of comments to Wood’s articles at CHE

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-myth-of-academic-elitism/453#comment-285083984

     but also where Mashey’s cohorts somewhat reprehensibly discuss the methods by which to inflate the vote count at CHE (something which Mashey has done nothing to discourage).

    [Apologies - this was meant to reply to Ericadler's comment to ztztzt but has been misplaced]

  • jaytyalor

    “A very interesting link this one as it not only seems to be an excellent
    example of the very type of blog John Mashey has referred to as an
    ‘echo chamber’ used to stimulate an influx of comments to Wood’s
    articles at CHE”

    That’s a very good point. It’s obvious what they’re doing here. They link to each creating a whirlwind of so-called  evidence.  But in the end they’re basically self-linking to agreeable sites.

    Mashey is a disgusting thug. No wonder Silicon Graphics was run to the ground.

  • jaytyalor

    Elirabbet.

    You cite Hamilton as providing evidence either here or on another thread, yet you never told the readers what a turgid individual he is. Why?

  • marionjay

    Interesting – more ‘appeal to authority’ but no response to specific points made – some of us prefer to think for ourselves, eli, not be told what to think by so-called ‘experts’. It’s amazing too just how many differences of opinion there can be amongst experts!!
     
    Also interesting that you don’t provide any links to the USA Today articles – wonder why?
     
    Could it be because of Bradley’s words in this particular article -
     
    “Clearly, text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the (Wegman) report,” says Bradley……..”Talk about irony. It just seems surreal (that) these authors could criticize my work when they are lifting my words.”
     
    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1
     
    Or this one which includes a comparison of the actual words used by Wegman in his pro bono Ad Hoc Congressional Report and Bradley in his textbook
     
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm
     
    But isn’t this exactly what Fritts could have said about Bradley as Steve McIntyre has pointed out
     
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
     
    Yet Mashey has vigorously defended Bradley/Fritts and refused to acknowledge the similarities with Wegman/Bradley. Isn’t this where the ‘denialism’ really applies!!
     
    Also par for the course is the link you did give which is for a completely different report ie a published paper in a statistical journal rather than the ad hoc Congressional Report – a fairly popular modus operandi with CAGW proponents who prefer to confuse the issues rather than address specific points made.

  • EricAdler

    Your post above is puzzling and has some apparent misstatements of fact.

    The links which you claim were not provided by Eli, are news articles which chronicle Wegman’s plagiarism. I actually posted one of the links below.

    In fact Mashey pointed out that Fritts was indeed cited in Mashey’s text book, and that McIntyres claim that Fritts work was included without citation is incorrect, in a post below.
    .
    The journal article published by Wegman, which you claim is a completely different report, is a basically the same stuff Wegman wrote in his report to Barton’s committee.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,
    You appear to be easily puzzled and I’m afraid it’s your own comment that contains the ‘apparent misstatements of fact’.

    “The links which you claim were not provided by Eli, are news articles which chronicle Wegman’s plagiarism. I actually posted one of the links below”.

     The fact that you have posted a link hardly invalidates the fact that Eli did not post the links to the USAToday articles by Dan Vergano (of which there are several) in his own comment.

    “In fact Mashey pointed out that Fritts was indeed cited in Mashey’s text book, and that McIntyres claim that Fritts work was included without citation is incorrect, in a post below.”

    You really ought to read JonasN’s comments more carefully, EricAdler, you might learn something!
    He has already pointed out to you that -

    “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.”

    so the implication by you/Mashey that McIntyre had claimed Fritts work was included without citation was a total misrepresentation as you would have realised if you’d followed the link to Steve McIntyre’s article

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/

    McIntyre was actually demonstrating that many of the criticisms levelled against Wegman could be equally applied to Bradley.  This is a point which Mashey refuses to acknowledge nor has he retracted his statement that

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

    And as for you statement that

    “The journal article published by Wegman, which you claim is a completely different report, is a basically the same stuff Wegman wrote in his report to Barton’s committee.”

    No the two are very different, one was a scientific paper published in a journal requiring a particularly rigorous degree of referencing, the other was a pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee report produced to give a background and analysis on the state of climate science (particularly in relation to the ‘Hockey Stick’) for policy makers. One should rather be asking why John Mashey chose to focus his 200 plus pages of ‘analysis’ on the Ad Hoc Committee report rather than the published paper!!!

  • EricAdler

    Jay,
    Check your link again. It is a blogpost by Sinclair Davidson about the so called “Climategate” emails. It says nothing about Tim Lambert and Eli Rabbet. It doesn’t add any documentation to your attacks on them.
     
    Your post is a rant of name calling and guilt by association.  Support of scientists who conclude that humans are responsible for climate change, using well documented material in blog posts is not thuggery. I find Rabbet’s and  Lambert’s objections to the work of journalists and bloggers, who misrepresent facts about global warming, sticks to the facts, and is quite convincing. Their scornful tone is well justified by the transgressions of their targets.

    Why not stick to the main question – Are Wood’s charges of  thuggery justified based on the examples he gives, or are Mashey’s objections to his posts here at CHE?

    Wood objects  Mashey’s and others’ exposure  of Wegman’s plagiarism,  scientific errors and poor scholarship.  The fact is that these were deemed significant by Wood’s employer, George Mason University, and Mashey had to withdraw a paper due to plagiarism. It seems that the weight of the evidence so far that indicates Mashey has helped expose some wrongdoing.  Your bad mouthing of bloggers who debunk AGW deniers is totally irrelevant.

    There are other flaws in Wood’s post besides his attacks on Mashey.

    Wood simply echoes Rush Limbaugh when he charges Heidi Cullen, who once worked on the Weather Channel with thuggery, because she wanted the entrance test for the Weather Channel to include topics on  global warming, certainly a legitimate proposal.  There is no evidence other than Limbaugh’s statement,  that she was trying to get people fired.

    In addition Wood claimed that the EPA “gagging” Alan Carlin and economist, was thuggery, despite the fact that Carlin’s comment on their  Global Warming was full of factual errors, it was cribbed from a commentary from the American Enterprise Institute, not properly sourced, and Carlin himself admitted it was a poor job because he was short of time.

    Both of these incidents show those charged with “thuggery “  by Wood, are actually upholding high standards of scholarship.

  • 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.

  • 11223140

    Richard, I can’t help but to be critical with your five reasons. 

    Your first point appears to indicate that “millions of middle-class Americans” who don’t need Pell are receiving it and “diluting” the positive enrollment effects; conflicts with your second point: “(Pell) grants to lower income Americans has been that the quality of the educational outcomes for all Americans is falling.” 

    Your third point is, through your own admission, unquantified – so your conclusion that the graduation rate is “shamefully low” is unsupported.  That it might be true is immaterial – you indict yourself by providing an opinion as fact.

    The fourth point fails to credit the government for requiring all schools to establish, publish, and enforce Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements.

    And your last reason (overabundance of college graduates) conflicts with the third (Pell recipients graduate at a shameful rate).

  • http://twitter.com/aaronklemz Aaron Klemz

    If you’re going to make a literary allusion perhaps you ought to think it through better. You really meant this http://charlesdickenspage.com/twist_more.html as the comparison?

  • kk1986

    It is a scandal that the sources of your “data” are being withheld from the readers of this article. 

  • mollyz13

    I’m not sure whether to laugh or be offended.  If this article were well written and supported with sources, I suppose I’d be offended.  I particularly love point #3 where you admit the data isn’t released, but claim to know what the data tell us.  Wow. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=12426169 Danelle Wilbraham

    I spend my entire day as a professor trying to get students to understand the importance of supporting one’s arguments with evidence, and further, the relative strength of different types of evidence.  This essay would receive a failing grade in my courses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=12426169 Danelle Wilbraham

    YES, you are correct. Under SAP standards, it is impossible for someone to receive federal aid for 8 years of full time study while working on one degree.  I ran out of aid in graduate school because our department was working the system and forced us to register for the maximum number of hours every quarter so they could maximize their subsidy, so I reached the credit hour limit long before I finished my dissertation.  I also had a friend who lost aid as an undergraduate because of having too many credit hours.  She was a transfer student, and they counted her transferred hours against financial aid but not towards her degree. As a result, she lost her aid one quarter shy of graduation and never finished.

  • EricAdler

    You wrote:

    “Eric, as if all that I’ve been telling you hasn’t registered at all.

    Wild
    random claims about well .. whatever pops up in your bizz-word-tombola,
    thrown out with no particular direction in the dark, hoping that som of
    the catch-phrases and soundbites have some meaning and even relevance
    for the topic, and possibly impress some ignorant bystander … ”

    This is another vituperative, attacking, ranting post totally devoid of any facts, logical arguments, and links or citations.  The most revealing thing is the finale.

    “I am old enough to remember when communism was a real threat and
    subversively tried to undermine civil society in the west. And for the
    most part carried out by unknowing useful idi_ts. In retrospects it is
    scareing to see how well the managed. Good thing they collapsed from
    within.

    Well, I won’t claim that ‘climate science’ is the same
    thing. But it is definitely an attempt to undermine real science coming
    from a politically motivated agenda.

    Just think of it: Is there
    really anybody who thinks politicians can control climate change!? As it
    always has occured? No matter how well we would understand how it
    functions (which we are very far from)!?

    Why does anybody think
    that politicians are (at least were) so very keen on talking about
    climate? Politicians who rarely can get äany spent dollar to achieve
    something useful?”

    So finally it all comes down to a conspiracy theory!!! Forget all the scientific arguments about radiation, CO2, modeling etc. ! Climate science is a creation of politicians who want the government to control everything, just like those communists, who tried to secretly overthrow the US during the cold war. 

    Thank you for that bit of frankness. Now I have no doubt about where you are coming from.

  • goldrick

    These arguments may “feel right” to you, Richard, but they lack empirical support. To the contrary, my colleagues and I have identified with a rigorous experimental design some sizeable benefits to Pell-type programs. The one we recently studied accelerated credit accumulation and apparently may have even induced higher grades, on average, and for the students most at risk it also reduced attrition. Overall, students responded to the aid by studying more and working less; it didn’t make them lazy or more likely to party. We wil elaborate on this in a response to you soon on COHE or my blog The Education Optimists, but for now your readers should consider hard data. Our work was covered in COHE and IHE last month and is available in this paper http://finaidstudy.org/documents/Goldrick-Rab%20Harris%20Benson%20Kelchen.pdf
    The Pell program, like all programs, could be improved but its shortcomings don’t lie in the areas you describe.

    On a different note, I have to wonder why you seem so eager to take resources away from those with the least? You know the literature on middle class tax credits- those are ineffective, yet you aren’t denigrating middle class families.

    Sara Goldrick-Rab

  • cwaynehood

    More income redistribution

  • tjfarrel

    1) who made the assertions that Vedder is countering?  He cites no one.
    2) is it really surprising that as college costs continue to rise at multiple times the rate of inflation (which itself has consistently outpaced earnings for many Americans), more students become eligible for Pell grants?  No.
    3)  other posters have noted the flaw in expecting Pell earners to graduate at the same pace and rate as those who don’t need them.

  • pnedry

    Just as our institutions have open enrollment policies that allow students to enter classrooms and labs will poorly formed, unsubstantiated positions, and belabored logic, so too, has The Chronicle allowed a forum for the same.  The political arena often uses terms like ‘low income’ and ‘the middle class’ without definition, leaving it to the reader to interpret.  Another common one is ‘small business.’

    Richard admits that he is a slow learner.  I hope he persists in his quest to better understand the Pell Grant and the award criteria.  I would like to see some data that define his use of ‘middle class’ and how many middle class students out of the total are awarded Pell Grants.  There may be some anomalies, given the complex formula and criteria–but they are just that–anomalies.

    There are certainly problems with Pell, but it is not that they are being awarded to students outside the criteria.  The programs and implementing regulations are exactly what the Congress and DoE have prescribed.

  • chrishill33

    Yeah I think it was suppose to be Oliver Twist.

    angry birds golden eggs

  • missoularedhead

    I must say, this is a VERY broad brush.  Not all recipients of Pell Grants ‘dilute’ education.  In fact, I had a student just recently, a Pell Grant student, who despite being hit by a car and breaking 3 limbs, finished the coursework and pulled an A.  Certainly there are abuses in the financial aid system (by both schools who milk it for all it’s worth and by ‘students’ who take the money and run) but to turn that into a call to drastically change the system seems overly reactive.

  • drlas

    It is apt that Mr. Vedder misquotes and misunderstands Charles Dickens’ Oliver, who asks the fat and cruel Beadle for more food.  First, Oliver is starving, having been born into the poor house because his dying mother has been rejected by her husband’s family for being too lowly.  Second, Oliver is starving because the corrupt Beadle has been pocketing most of what little money there is for food for the the children of the poor house. Third, the food he requests is watered down gruel.  Fourth, the whole point of the scene is to illustrate how worthy Oliver is of decent food, decent treatment, and a decent chance in life.  However, the government has failed him by being corrupted by those who do not care, refuse to see the true need, and reject the worthy out-of-hand.

    1.  Minority, low income, and first generation-to-college people deserve a chance to succeed at college.
    2.  There are processes in place at all accredited colleges that ensure students meet the degree requirements or face losing their grants.
    3.  College loans from private industry charge over-the-top interest rates,economically  crippling college graduates.
    4.  Whether 4 or 6 years, a college graduate is a college graduate.

    In my 32 years of teaching on the college level at 8 USA colleges and universities, it has been my great pleasure to witness the graduation of probablyh thousands of Pell Grant recipients.  Let us continue to follow Presidnt Obama’s model of helping those who deserve an opportunity to go to college and not fall into the hands of the greedy Beadles of this world.

    Love and blessings,

    Dr. Lia A. Steele
    Chair of the Humanties’ Division
    Philander Smith College

  • butteredtoastcat

    Lousy post, actually.  No real research or usable data.  Just an angle, and a damaging one at that.

    And guess what, folks:

    Thanks to the 2008 “bailout” (theft of the taxpayers), the middle class is increasingly being folded into the working class.  NPR reports that 40% of all American children are either in poverty or in extremely low income situations.  Much of the growth in this poverty or near poverty is a result of the income and job losses since 2008.

    PELL grants will actually be MORE necessary in the coming years, not less, as much of the middle class spirals down into the low-income category, and low-incomers move into poverty.

    How nice that Richard wants to pull the carpet out from under Americans just after Wall Street has done so.

  • marionjay

    Once again a commenter here determined to prove the accuracy of Peter Wood’s words in his “Climate Thuggery” article -

    “The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone….The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation”

    and

    “The sharp practices of the warmists also damage the tenor of academic, scientific and public debate. Frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, mobbing are not the flying buttresses of modern science. The are the rot that undermines the intellectual authority of science. Can you trust anyone who engages in such tactics”

    And what better demonstration of anti-intellectualism than the attempt to shut down debate.

  • EricAdler

    Jonas,
    Your posts are full of insulting remarks about  me and the things that I say, falsely claiming that answers to all my arguments are found below, and that I understand nothing. It is obvious that you have no real answer to any of the points that I have made and are covering up.

    It is pretty clear from your post that you view AGW as a conspiracy by politicians to spend money.  You have a job waiting for you – Science Advisor to Rick Perry.

  • JonasN

    Well, as far as I can remember, most of your comments to me opened with insults and other statements about me without any merit at all.

    Now you are feeling insluted and sorry for yourself when I point out that you often aren’t truthful, that many things do not even register with you, that you need to make up stuff all the time and that you cannot even read properly.

    Sorry if you feel this is insulting, but all these are correct observations (and I’ve grown tired of correcting the same things over and over again). By the way, your main ambition here is to defend Mashey, who is nothing but an endless sequence of insults (but that probably hasn’t registered with you either!?)

    And I didn’t say that AGW-was a conspiracy so politicians could spend money. That politicians like to spend money on many brainless things is only a truism. You cannot even distinguish between a ‘conspiracy’ and an ‘excuse’, no wonder you run amiss all the time … You simply are trying to use words way over your paygrade.

    Talking of which: Have you any clue about what kind of ‘solutions’ the present ‘Science Advisor’ John Holdren actually did propose against overpopulation and other perceived envirnonmental problems?

    Well probaly not (of course), but if you ever wanted to stare facism in its uggly face, there would be your perfect opportunity. Funny you’d bring him up too …

  • JohnMashey

    Not worth the bother and besides, I have to thank them for providing very useful data.

  • JonasN

    It is funny, the signature ‘buttered toast cat’ is ‘liked’ by two individuals and gets a ‘serious’ reply from Mashey. Who additionaly thinks he is gathering ‘useful data’ …

    Bizzaro-world indeed!

  • marionjay

    JohnMashey,

     ”I have to thank them for providing very useful data.”

    Shame we can’t say the same in your case JohnMashey, but I’m sure Peter Wood is very grateful to you for providing such ample evidence of the accuracy of his own articles.

    and as to your comment

    “Read the article comments and see if that seems to apply to any of the writers. Some climate scientists have faced this politically based assault for years. Anti-science echo-chamber blogs amplify anger, yielding nothing like legitimate scientific discussion, and as a likely result scientists get death threats and dead rats left on doorsteps.”

    Indeed I did John Mashey and this is certainly an accurate observation as shown by the ‘echo-chamber’ type blog you yourself like to frequent.

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

    Or would you contend that the commentary there is ‘legitimate scientific discussion’?!!

    And haven’t the real scientists, the likes of Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Chris Landsea, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke SR & JR, amongst many many other scientists who prefer to follow the scientific method, had to endure this sort of ‘politically based assault for years’. Surprising too that you seem to think that FOI requests (for data and methodology that has been withheld) as a ‘politically based assault’ on climate ‘scientists’.

    And finally you don’t seem to have responded to my earlier comment –


    In your comment you have made several serious allegations -

    “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.) ”

    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”. ”

    Perhaps you would be good enough to do so and issue a retraction, after all we need to distinguish truth and accuracy from ‘hyperbolic allegations’.

  • marionjay

    Indeed…. the world of climate ‘science’ !!!

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    “And haven’t the real scientists, the likes of Fred Singer, Bob Carter,
    Chris Landsea, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke
    SR & JR, amongst many many other scientists who prefer to follow
    the scientific method, had to endure this sort of ‘politically based
    assault for years’. Surprising too that you seem to think that FOI
    requests (for data and methodology that has been withheld) as a
    ‘politically based assault’ on climate ‘scientists’. ”

    I think you need to look at each of the above mentioned scientists as an individual case.

    Fred Singer’s recent career has been rooted in the politics of opposition to environmental and health regulation, including that claiming that cigarette smoke is not harmful while a consultant to cigarette companies. He smeared Ben Santer claiming that he improperly influenced the 1995 IPCC report, fabricating stories about Santer rewriting reports without proper consultation.
    Singer is currently  head of  SSPI, an institute involved in political action and Bob Carter is a member. To claim that these two are scientists who have had to endure a “politically based assault” is nonsense, because the basis of their work is politics.

    Rober Pielke Jr. is not involved at all in the physics of climate. He explores the impact of climate on politics and society. He deals in politics, rather than climate science to begin with.

    Roy Spencer admits that the motivation of his research is to stop political action on climate change, because he is against big government. His scientific work has been a failure.

    In fact the remaining people you mentioned are scientists who have published papers, which draw contrarian conclusions, and scientific papers refuting their scientific work have been published. I don’t see politics at work in these cases at all.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    It is increasingly apparent that you are avoiding the main thrust of the argument with constant obfuscation

    “Actually Mashey did deal with it. Citation standards in text books are different from citation standards in original research. The person who was supposedly injured, According to Mashey, Fritts agrees.”

    As I have repeated on many occasions Wegman cited Bradley numerous times so how could this possibly be misconstrued as him passing off the climate science sections of his report as his own original research and therefore subject to the charge of plagiarism. Fritts may have agreed that Bradley was not plagiarising his work but this is pretty meaningless if he wasn’t also asked whether he considered that Wegman had plagiarised Bradley. Judging by his former response the only logical answer could be no.

    I notice too that neither Mashey nor Coleman have provided any sort of meaningful analysis of why a pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee Report on Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick requested by and supplied to policy makers should require a far greater degree of citation than a scholarly textbook described as ‘seminal’ by Deepclimate.
    No matter how much you try to blur the main issues it is apparent that Wegman was highly accurate in his conclusions as proven by the evidence supplied in the Climategatge emails. -

    “Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is oftenpoorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense publicdebate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, whichseemed not to be sufficiently independent.
    [Something of an understatement!!!]

    Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and oftengrudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code hedeveloped was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personallywithout disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is notfully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independentverification is impossible.

    Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such asthe paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem tobe interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implicationsof this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statisticalexpertise was sought or used.

    Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicitybecause it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores andsuch give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is neededis deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change. ”

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

  • marionjay

    More obfuscation EricAdler, however it is rather telling that the GMU which was so anxious to hand over Wegman’s mails to reporter Dan Vergano (unlike the UVA which has fought tooth and nail to withhold Mann’s emails from Attorney General Cuccinelli) seem to be distinctly unable to come up with a positive verdict on the ‘plagiarism’ charges.

    And no – the core question is actually whether Mann’s Hockey stick is accurate or has been soundly debunked.

    And it has been very soundly debunked – see Steve McIntyre’s careful analysis of the ‘tricks’ employed by Mann/ Jones and Briffa to support their CAGW narrative.

     http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

    Not surprising that you

    “have not read the papers and I base my opinion on the news report by Vergano” !!!

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay says:

    “Really, EricAdler, your posts are simply a repetition of smear and
    innuendo no doubt repeated from your favourite ‘echo-chamber’ type
    blogs - how about linking to some primary sources to provide actual
    evidence?

    For example –

    “He smeared Ben Santer claiming
    that he improperly influenced the 1995 IPCC report, fabricating stories
    about Santer rewriting reports without proper consultation”

    It wasn’t onlly Fred Singer who smeared Santer. Fred Seitz, Singer’s partner in who also shilled for the tobacco industry was the first to make the charges. Singer supporteed the accusations against Santer made by Seitz.

    The story is here;

    http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/ecofables.pdf

    .
    “The WSJ op-ed was not the first time charges of suppression of scientific
    uncertainty in Chapter 8 had been aired. On May 22, a few days before the Seitz
    op-ed appeared, the small journal Energy Daily reported the same allegations in
    considerably greater detail.8 The Energy Daily article also reported their source: a
    Edwards and Schneider 5 The 1995 IPCC Report
    widely circulated press release of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC, an energy
    industry lobby group).

    In its June 13 issue, the prestigious science magazine Nature also reported on the
    GCC allegations.9 The Nature report, unlike the Seitz and Energy Daily articles,
    included explanations of the revision and review process from Santer and the
    IPCC. Under the hot-button headline “Climate report ‘subject to scientific
    cleansing,’” an accompanying editorial argued that the GCC analysis was
    politically motivated and generally false. But the editorial also noted that the
    Chapter 8 changes may have resulted “in a subtle shift… that… tended to favour
    arguments that aligned with [the SAR’s] broad conclusions.”10

    The WSJ op-ed set off a lengthy chain of exchanges lasting several months. The
    main participants in the public controversy were Seitz, Santer, other Chapter 8
    authors, the Chairmen of the IPCC (Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin), and
    climate-change skeptics S. Fred Singer and Hugh Ellsaesser. Singer, in particular,
    made the charges of political motivation explicit. In a letter to the Wall Street
    Journal, he wrote that Chapter 8 had been “tampered with for political purposes.”
    The IPCC, he claimed, was engaged in a “crusade to provide a scientific cover for
    political action.”11″

    Both Seitz and Singer cashed in on their scientific prestige in their later years by opposing governmental environmental and health regulation.
    .
    http://www.truth-out.org/merchants-doubt-how-handful-scientists-obscured-truth-issues-tobacco-smoke-global-warming/1308235932

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    We don’t actually have Fritts opinon about Wegman’s plagiarism. I don’t see how you are entitled to draw any conclusion about what he might say.

    Three experts on plagiarism agreed that Wegman’s work was full of plagiarism. In addition to copying passages from Bradley’s text without proper citation, he also distorted Bradley’s work.
    GMU is investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/08/wegman-under-investigation-by-george-mason-university/

    “Citing John Mashey’s Strange Scholarship magnum opus in the opening paragraph, Dan Vergano at USA Today writes:

    ‘Officials at George Mason University confirmed Thursday that they are investigating plagiarism and misconduct charges made against a noted climate science critic.

    The article goes on to link to my previous discussion and analysis
    of the Wegman Report’s background section on paleoclimatology, which
    indicated that passages had been apparently lifted nearly verbatim from
    Bradley’s Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary, and then edited in a manner that introduced distortions and errors.”

    The evidence indicates that these charges are being taken seriously by GMU. Your protestations that Mashey, DeepClimate and others are an echo chamber, is not sufficient for their claims to be discounted by George Mason University and the three experts on plagiarism contacted by USA Today.

    All of the so-called conclusions which you qoute from M&M are wrong.

    1) A dozen papers by different authors,wirtten over the course of 12 years since Mann’s g 1998 ground breaking paper was published, using different combinations of proxies and different statistical methods, all show a hockey stick. To claim that peer review failed in the case of Mann’s original hockey stick paper is silly. The test of a paper is whether it is verified when tested by subsequent scientific work. Mann’s 1998 paper passes that test.

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

    2) Contrary to your claim, it is not necessary to share code in order to provide enough information to replicate Manns work.  A scientist familiar with the field should be able to generate his own code and needs only the data and a description of the analysis procedure. As a matter of fact, Mann’s work was verified using his data, and a different analysis procedure. Centered PCA was used, instead of non-centered PCA to achieve the same result as Mann’s original graph.

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

    3) This objection may have been valid in 1998, but no longer applies. Mann’s 2008 paper, which updated his original paper, using a variety of statistical methods, and new proxies, had a statistician as a coauthor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#cite_note-mann08-139

    4) The deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change has been provided by other aspects of climate science. The NAS report on the hockey stick pointed this out.
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

    “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial
    era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion
    that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and
    they are not the primary evidence.”
     

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “One only has to read Chris Landsea’s resignation letter from the IPCC
    process to recognise the politicisation employed by the favoured IPCC
    authors trying to push the CAGW agenda.

    http://www.climatechangefacts…. 

    Is it politicization or did the committee simply believe that Kerry Emanuel’s work made a good case showing that  warmer ocean surface temperatures would have a tendency to produce more intense hurricanes based on scientific merit?

    http://www.hurricaneville.com/global_warming.html

    “Emanuel,
    who has written many papers on the subject of hurricane intensity, and provided
    assistance
    to a paper written by Hurricaneville’s Greg Machos in 2003 on Category
    Five Intensity, used actual data from past storms instead of using powerful
    computer models to make the correlation. Specifically, his analysis indicates
    that
    hurricanes and typhoons in the Atlantic and Pacific since the mid 1970s have
    increased in strength and life span by 50 percent. According to CNN.com, Emanuel
    stated, “Theories and computer simulations indicate that global warming
    should generate an increase in storm intensity, in part because warmer temperatures
    would heat up the surface of the oceans.”"

    Subsequently Landsea and Emanuel served on a panel which wrote a report in Feb 2010:

    http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/06/back_to_the_story_of_the_hurri.php

    “… future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.”

  • JohnMashey

    Interesting news today.

    TX Governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry uses Peter Wood’s
    “Thuggery” piece as evidence for his views on AGW.  I am surprised that
    Perry’s staff reads CHE, but maybe they are more interested in higher
    education than I thought.

    Glenn Kessler at Washington Post, writes:

    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. We reviewed the articles, and they are anecdotal in
    nature, not evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.”

    The “to” link is right here, to:
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery/29919

    But read the whole article, whose verdict was 4 Pinocchios.

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    No matter how many times you reiterate the same obfuscation the point remains – it is totally illogical by Mashey to describe Wegman’s pro-bono Ad Hoc Committee report citing Bradley numerous times as ‘plagiarised’ whilst defending Bradley’s lack of citation in his (described by Deep Climate as ’seminal’ ) textbook. Unless we know the considered views of these experts against both reports your claims are pretty meaningless. (After all it was Bradley’s textbook that Wegman was accused of plagiarising.) Nor have the GMU (so prompt  to supply reporter Vergano with Wegman’s correspondence, contrasting heavily with the UVA refusing to supply Mann’s correspondence to the Attorney General) been able to confirm the plagiarism charges.

    There is a massive amount of hypocrisy in those supporting the CAGW agenda as this forum has exemplified.

    The bottom line is that the catastrophic warming as implied by the hockey stick is simply unsupported by observations as was admitted in the Climategate emails and since by Jones in a BBC interview.

    “B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

    And interesting that we have a similar trend over several different time periods

    “A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    …So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. ”

    [so similar warming levels in 1860-1880 (before the huge industrialisation we have today) as well as later periods and an insignificant level of warming from 1995 to 2009 at a time when CO2 emissions have massively increased - not quite the narrative that was being touted at Copenhagen!!!]

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

  • marionjay

    John Mashey,

    I think we’ve already established who the ‘Pinocchios’ (“willfully ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little evidence”)  are -

    my earlier posting addressed to you to which you have failed to respond -

    “In your comment you have made several serious allegations -

    “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.) ”

    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”. ”

    You have been unable to supply the requested evidence for these allegations but failed to issue a retraction

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,

    We don’t actually have Fritts opinon about Wegman’s plagiarism. I don’t
    see how you are entitled to draw any conclusion about what he might say.

    Three experts on plagiarism agreed that Wegman’s work was full
    of plagiarism. In addition to copying passages from Bradley’s text
    without proper citation, he also distorted Bradley’s work.GMU is investigating charges of plagiarism and misconduct.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/10...

    “Citing John Mashey’s Strange Scholarship magnum opus in the opening paragraph, Dan Vergano at USA Today writes:

    ‘Officials at George Mason University confirmed Thursday that they are
    investigating plagiarism and misconduct charges made against a noted
    climate science critic.The article goes on to link to my previous discussion and analysis of the Wegman Report’s background section on paleoclimatology, which indicated that passages had been apparently lifted nearly verbatim from Bradley’s
    Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary, and then
    edited in a manner that introduced distortions and errors.”

    The evidence indicates that these charges are being taken seriously by GMU.
    Your protestations that Mashey, DeepClimate and others are an echo
    chamber, is not sufficient for their claims to be discounted by George
    Mason University and the three experts on plagiarism contacted by USA
    Today.

    All of the so-called conclusions which you qoute from M&M are wrong.

    1) A dozen papers by different authors,wirtten over the course of 12 years
    since Mann’s g 1998 ground breaking paper was published, using
    different combinations of proxies and different statistical methods, all
    show a hockey stick. To claim that peer review failed in the case of
    Mann’s original hockey stick paper is silly. The test of a paper is
    whether it is verified when tested by subsequent scientific work. Mann’s
    1998 paper passes that test.

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

    2) Contrary to your claim, it is not necessary to share code in order to
    provide enough information to replicate Manns work.  A scientist
    familiar with the field should be able to generate his own code and
    needs only the data and a description of the analysis procedure. As a
    matter of fact, Mann’s work was verified using his data, and a different
    analysis procedure. Centered PCA was used, instead of non-centered PCA
    to achieve the same result as Mann’s original graph.

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

    3) This objection may have been valid in 1998, but no longer applies.
    Mann’s 2008 paper, which updated his original paper, using a variety of
    statistical methods, and new proxies, had a statistician as a coauthor.

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

    4) The deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change has been
    provided by other aspects of climate science. The NAS report on the
    hockey stick pointed this out.

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook….

    “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.”

  • JonasN

    “There is a massive amount of hypocrisy in those supporting the CAGW agenda ..”

    Very very true. And combined with an almost abyssmal contempt for real facts, reality and the truth, for what the core issues are!

    Namely: Is the CO2-level the main driver (or one of them) for the climate to change, and to what extent?

    Way back in the 1980:s, that was a legitimate scientific query, worth investigating. But it has tranformed into political monstruous bureaucracy atracting rent-seekers from litteraly everywhere on the globe and from almost any activist inclination.

    These hordes of activists, NGOs, politicians, agencies and corporations, finacial institutions etc have neither interest in nor competence of the main issues. But of course their own agenda.

    Funniest thing is that the fossil industry is one of the big winners of the scare/scam. Although the screechers want to believe and tell you the opposite.

    But the drilled oil will be sold in any case, regardless of price (and more oil will be drilled for), and any excuse or mandated cost (tax, off-sets etc) will happily be forwarded to the consumers (with a small %-age added of course). The fossil industry is not the least worried about CAGW-not being true. If the politicians mandate the consumers to pay extra fees, they’ll be more than happy to oblige (and scim off a little for them selves)

    Heck, it is no wonder that Enron’s CEO Ken Lay was all for the cap’n'trade, advised Al Gore and even heldped devising the system, Goldman and Sachs were interested for the same reason.

    So no, nobody will convince me that any of the many activists or the supporters of the CAGW-meme, either on blogs or the media etc, care the least about the environment or the climate. No, self-righteous posturing is ther main motive. At best, all the other motives are far worse.

    And how can you know? Well, a good indications is how immensely angry, how furious the get when yet another alarmist claim turns out to be false or just blown aut of proportion, exaggerated, overstated.

    None of them even pretends to be happy if their pet-threat turned out (once more) just a little bit less threatening. Their reactions is the exact opposite, vicously attacking anybody who dares to undermine their doomsday prohecies just a tiny little …

    That’s how you know they are not sincere, that almost all those you hear of are just rent-seekers, gravy-train riders, and agenda driven activists, posturing with a pretence noble cause, as a way of bullying all who look through their ridiculous claims about saving the planet and pointing out how hollow they are.

    There was a good two-piece column about why Al Gore, the Greens, and their ilk were bound to fail in their grasp for money, power and controlling the citizens and their lifestyle all the way into the bedroom activities:

    Why Al Gore failed, part I

    And here is part II

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    Unlike you I don’t base my views on a television newspiece but prefer actual observations -

    “We have now completed the first five-year near term hurricane model projected period, and actual insured loss experience has been well below the level of the model predictions. Four of the past five years have had minimal insured property loss from Atlantic tropical cyclones, well below both the long term average and the (much higher) near term projections. To date, the catastrophe models have not demonstrated any skill in projecting near term hurricane losses.”

    “Looking globally at all hurricanes and tropical cyclones, there are no upwards trends in frequency (top graph below, from R. Maue) or intensity (bottom graph below, from R. Maue) over the period of record.”

     http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/hurricane-damage-risk-and-predictions.html

  • marionjay

    Thanks for the link, Eric Adler – more informative than your usual sources!
     
    “Santer et al. believed that they were following IPCC rules, and this made perfect sense within the well-established informal culture of the IPCC. However, a careful reading of the IPCC’s formal rules reveals that in fact the rules neither allow nor prohibit changes to a report after its formal acceptance. The legalistic Seitz/GCC reading of the rules is not, therefore, completely implausible”

    “In his article, Seitz accused some IPCC scientists of the most “disturbing
    corruption of the peer-review process” he had ever witnessed.

    Seitz’s Accusations

    Seitz’s proclaimed distress stemmed from the fact that the lead authors of the SAR’s Chapter 8 — on detection and attribution — had altered some of its text after the November, 1995 plenary meeting of Working Group I (WGI), in Madrid,at which time the chapter was formally “accepted” by the Working Group.

    According to Seitz, since the scientists and national governments who accepted Chapter 8 were never given the chance to review the truly final version, these changes amounted to deliberate fraud and “corruption of the peer-review process.”

    Not only did this violate normal peer review procedure, Seitz charged; it also violated the IPCC’s own procedural rules According to Seitz, since the scientists and national governments who accepted Chapter 8 were never given the chance to review the truly final version, these changes amounted to deliberate fraud and “corruption of the peer-review process.” ”

    http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/ecofables.pdf

    So care to retract your words EricAdler ie 

    “It wasn’t onlly Fred Singer who smeared Santer. Fred Seitz, Singer’s partner in who also shilled for the tobacco industry was the first to make the charges. Singer supporteed the accusations against Santer made by Seit” 

    The charges were accurate and the ‘smear’ is yours not his!

    And haven’t the IPCC representations to us always been about a so-called ‘consensus’ of scientists.

  • EricAdler

    There is no point in continuing the discussion comparing the pending charges of plagiarism and misconduct against Wegman, with the countercharge by M&M against Bradley. Making the same points over and over again is silly and pointless.

    Cuccinelli’s request to UVA is basically a fishing expedition. He is a right wing political thug opposed to the theory of AGW.  Scientists agree that this is a grave threat to the academic freedom, which  Woods claims to support.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html

    There is no evidence indicating fraud by Michael Mann.  Any methodological errors he made were deemed minor by the NAS report, and as I pointed out, different statistical methods using the same data, gave an average temperature graph almost identical to the one he  published..
    In fact, a dozen papers have been published since Mann’s ground breaking 1998 paper, using different proxies and statistical methods confirming the Hockey Stick graph.

    Your interpretation of the Climategate emails is apparently derived from blogs such as Climate Audit, and Wattsupwiththat, and is totally wrong. You talk of “the catastrophic warming as implied by the hockey stick”. This is total nonsense. The Hockey Stick shows warming “unprecedented in the last 1000 years”.  There is no claim made in Mann’s paper that this warming has been “catastrophic”.  You provided no citation to support your claim that the Climategate emails prove that “the Hockey Stick is not supported by observations”.

    Finally your claim that the statements made by Jones in the famous BBC interview show the Hockey Stick is not supported by observations is another example of your ignorance of statistics and climate science. The updated Hockey Stick shows  the warming in the second half of the 20th century, a period of about 50 years, is unprecedented during the last 1000 years. The question that Jones answered was related to the last 15 years. There is a big difference between those two periods, and the oscillations of the earths temperature due to natural variations can easily obscure the rate of warming due to the GHE, which is the point made by Jones. It is also wrong to compare rates of warming during different time periods without looking at the confidence levels.

    You display “massive” and “breathtaking” ignorance of  the basics of Climate Science and Statistics.

    It is clear to me that the points that you are making are taken directly from anti science found in the Climate Denier Blogosphere echo chamber, sites such as Wattsupwiththat and CA.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “Very very true. And combined with an almost abyssmal contempt for real
    facts, reality and the truth, for what the core issues are!”

    Jonas –
    “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?”

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:
    “EricAdler,

    Unlike you I don’t base my views on a television newspiece but prefer actual observations -

    “We
    have now completed the first five-year near term hurricane model
    projected period, and actual insured loss experience has been well below
    the level of the model predictions. Four of the past five years have
    had minimal insured property loss from Atlantic tropical cyclones, well
    below both the long term average and the (much higher) near term
    projections. To date, the catastrophe models have not demonstrated any
    skill in projecting near term hurricane losses.”

    “Looking
    globally at all hurricanes and tropical cyclones, there are no upwards
    trends in frequency (top graph below, from R. Maue) or intensity (bottom
    graph below, from R. Maue) over the period of record.”

    The quote you provide about actual data is not at all a test of model projections as I believe you meant to imply.  There is no claim of near term skill made by the model projections. Pielke admits this in the very piece you are linking.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/hurricane-damage-risk-and-predictions.html

    T”o some degree the issue of short-term hurricane risk has become tangled
    in the debate over human-caused climate change and its long-term
    effects on hurricane behavior.  These issues should not be conflated for
    the simple reason that even
    taking predictions of a significant human influence on hurricane
    behavior as a given, it will be many, many decades before that signal
    can be seen in the damage record.  It is simply logical that a
    signal that cannot be seen for decades is not immediately relevant to
    judgments of near-term risk.”

    It seems that you repeat the same mistake over an over again. You compare short term noisy data with a long term model projections  This shows you have no competence whatever to make judgements about the science, and are simply echoing the anti science AGW denier blogosphere. That is of course a charitable interpretation. I could say it is evidence of “breathtaking  hypocricy”,

  • JonasN

    Its funny Eric

    I don’t need to pretend that I am on a crusade to save the planet, that the only way to do this is to curb CO2-emissions by 80% or so by the year 20X0.

    Neither do I need to deny that the extra GHG:s probably have a small heating effect, especially noticable at night in cold dry conditions.

    Or that I am not opposed to stupid policies because I 1) don’t think for a second they would work (on a problem that until now has not even been observed), and 2) because I am opposed to frivolous spending and excessive regulations per se.

    Neither do I have a problem with the serious debaters and researcher on the opposite side who can present and argue their case level headed and in i civil maner. But those rarely make their voices heard, and definitely are not the ones Peter Wood’s article was about. 

    Heck, most often I am the one explaining to those AGW-propnents what their side’s arguments really are, had they only understood them correctly.

    And most of all Eric, I don’t need to be dishonest or insincere about anything. I don’t even get extremely angry and emotional when I’ve been wrong about something. And that’s exactly because I do want to understand, to learn, and thus know what I’m talking about.

    It’s just that I don’t buy into the meme ‘you must accept this purported majority position because they are the experts, and activist-me am telling you what you should believe!’ ..

    From people who barely know the meaning of the words they use. Instead I listen to the arguments, when such are presented, and look at what they’re worth. Handwaving cheering bystanders  rarely doing much more than copy-pasting from links and blogs they haven’t even read nor would understand if they did, impress me much less …

    And usually they aren’t discussing either, merely requring another more authoritative link/source .. because appeal to perceived authority, ie follow the flock and its leader, is the only way they know to navigate in terrain they know nothing about.

    Hoping that somewhere far away, at the front, somebody else (they’ve never met or even know the name of) really is leader who knows what’s right and leads them in the right direction …

    For lemlings that’s a viable strategy … for me it isnt.

  • EricAdler

    Below MarionJay wrote:

    “Thanks for the link, Eric Adler – more informative than your usual sources!
     
    “Santer
    et al. believed that they were following IPCC rules, and this made
    perfect sense within the well-established informal culture of the IPCC.
    However, a careful reading of the IPCC’s formal rules reveals that in
    fact the rules neither allow nor prohibit changes to a report after its
    formal acceptance. The legalistic Seitz/GCC reading of the rules is not,
    therefore, completely implausible”

    The quote above does not support the accuracy of Seitz’s charges. It only says that one of them is not completely implausible. You didn’t include the part about how the rule is bent as a matter of normal practice because corrections must often be made after formal acceptance for good reasons. Here is what the document says:

    “Santer, in consultation with other Chapter 8 authors, made the suggested
    changes in early December. The entire SAR, including the newly revised Chapter
    8, was “accepted” by the full IPCC Plenary at Rome later that month.
    Santer made the changes himself, and the final version of the chapter was not
    reviewed again by others. However, as he and his colleagues continually
    stressed, this procedure was the normal and agreed IPCC process. Santer et al.
    pointed out that no one within the IPCC objected (or had ever objected) to this
    way of handling things. Replying separately in support of Santer and his
    colleagues, IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin and WGI Co-Chairmen John Houghton
    and L. Gylvan Meira Filho quoted the official U.S. government review of Chapter
    8, which stated explicitly that “it is essential that… the chapter authors be
    prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following
    discussion in Madrid.”

    You quote further:

    “In his article, Seitz accused some IPCC scientists of the most “disturbing
    corruption of the peer-review process” he had ever witnessed. ”

    Actually,Seitz did not attend and therefore didn’t witness anything. Those who actually attended the conference approved of what Santer did.

    “Santer made the changes himself, and the final version of the chapter was not
    reviewed again by others. However, as he and his colleagues continually
    stressed, this procedure was the normal and agreed IPCC process. Santer et al.
    pointed out that no one within the IPCC objected (or had ever objected) to this
    way of handling things. Replying separately in support of Santer and his
    colleagues, IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin and WGI Co-Chairmen John Houghton
    and L. Gylvan Meira Filho quoted the official U.S. government review of Chapter
    8, which stated explicitly that “it is essential that… the chapter authors be
    prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following
    discussion in Madrid.”7 ”

    http://pne.people.si.umich.edu...

    “The WSJ op-ed set off a lengthy chain of exchanges lasting several months. The
    main participants in the public controversy were Seitz, Santer, other Chapter 8
    authors, the Chairmen of the IPCC (Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin), and
    climate-change skeptics S. Fred Singer and Hugh Ellsaesser. Singer, in particular,
    made the charges of political motivation explicit. In a letter to the Wall Street
    Journal, he wrote that Chapter 8 had been “tampered with for political purposes.”
    The IPCC, he claimed, was engaged in a “crusade to provide a scientific cover for
    political action.”11″

    There is a detailed examination of the charges made by Seitz and amplified by Singer in the link. There isn’t space here to reproduce it all in detail. For me the most telling fact is:

    “Third, no IPCC member nation has ever seconded the Seitz/GCC objections.15
    (Ninety-six countries were represented at the Madrid plenary.) From this, above
    all, we can safely infer that Santer et al. proceeded exactly as expected.”

  • JonasN

    Eric, once more you make claims pretending to know something about statistics which are untrue. On multiple counts.

    True is that it has warmed, since ~1700 and also in the last 50 years. The ‘unprecendented’ is fiction however. Pure speculation wrt the last 1000 years, definitely untrue wrt the entire intergalcial, and even more untrue wrt to previous interglacials.

    I have several times before suggested that you stop pretending to know a lot about ‘climate science’, both the basics, and the finer aspects.

    Because once more, you seem to be accusing others of exactly the transgressions you are repeatedly guitly of.

    I am still baffled over that you still try getting away with bluffing about what you know, now that you’ve been caught out so many times. It almost seems compulsary

  • marionjay

    Thanks again EricAdler for yet further confirmation  concerning the hypocrisy of the CAGW fraternity. After all no complaints from the so-called Union of ‘Concerned Scientists’ when USAToday reporter Vergano requested Wegman’s emails from the GMU. Where were all the complaints then about ‘academic freedom’.

    “There is no evidence indicating fraud by Michael Mann.” – don’t you realise that “there is no evidence” is a commonly used political term that is a cover for them not having even looked!! We can hardly complain when the Attorney General actually does bother trying to find the evidence. And if Mann has nothing to hide it’s surprising the UVA is spending so much time, effort and money in keeping his emails private.

    Similarly with the climate scientists data and methodology – one would have thought that had they discovered the likelihood of catastrophic global warming they would have been only too eager to prove their case by handing it over so that the whole world could view it. But hardly surprising that they didn’t want the ‘tricks’ they had employed in the public domain, the ‘tricks’ employed as exposed by the excellent pro-science/pro scientific method Climate Audit blog

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/15/new-light-on-hide-the-decline/

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/21/hide-the-decline-the-other-deletion/

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

    I’m sure CHE readers can review his blog along with WUWT and make up their own minds whether they support actual science or not

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    After all they can always compare it with the sort of blogs John Mashey prefers -

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

    http://deepclimate.org/2011/04/07/john-mashey-lecture-tour/

    Now I wonder which follows the science and which prefers political activism!!!

  • marionjay

    EricAdler, if the models are so bad at predicting short term why should we have any faith in their long term projections and didn’t you look at the R.Maue graph 

    “ Looking globally at all hurricanes and tropical cyclones, there are no upwards trends in frequency (top graph below, from R. Maue) or intensity (bottom graph below, from R. Maue) over the period of record.”

    despite your quote on Emanuel’s analysis

    “Specifically, his analysis indicates that hurricanes and typhoons in the Atlantic and Pacific since the mid 1970s have increased in strength and life span by 50 percent. According to CNN.com, Emanuel stated, “Theories and computer simulations indicate that global warming should generate an increase in storm intensity, in part because warmer temperatures would heat up the surface of the oceans.”"

  • marionjay

    Jonas,

    “True is that it has warmed, since ~1700 and also in the last 50 years. The ‘unprecendented’ is fiction however. Pure speculation wrt the last 1000 years, definitely untrue wrt the entire intergalcial, and even more untrue wrt to previous interglacials.”

    Quite –

    I particularly like Professor Bob Carter’s lecture on the subject -

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

  • marionjay

    Your post simply confirms the politicisation of the IPCC - the fact that despite their representations as their report being a ‘consensus’ of scientists it has been adjusted after many of the scientists have seen it.

    “ ”Santer made the changes himself, and the final version of the chapter was notreviewed again by others. However, as he and his colleagues continuallystressed, this procedure was the normal and agreed IPCC process. Santer et al.pointed out that no one within the IPCC objected (or had ever objected) to thisway of handling things. Replying separately in support of Santer and hiscolleagues, IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin and WGI Co-Chairmen John Houghtonand L. Gylvan Meira Filho quoted the official U.S. government review of Chapter8, which stated explicitly that “it is essential that… the chapter authors beprevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner followingdiscussion in Madrid.”7 ”

    And don’t you know who make up the ranks of lead authors and co-ordinating lead authors

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/22/an-even-younger-senior-author/

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/15/ipcc-these-people-havent-learned-a-thing/

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/25/the-ipcc-insiders-club/

    after all real experts such as Chris Landsea wouldn’t go along with the politicisation -

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/05/landsea-the-ipcc-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

    And this is what other IPCC insiders say -

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/31/does-the-ipcc-follow-the-rules-insiders-say-no/

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    “”Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.”

    Oh yes, of course, isn’t there a list somewhere……

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  • marionjay

    “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.”

    By ‘enforce reasonable standards of scholarship’ don’t you mean ‘screen for people who support their agenda’?!!

  • marionjay

    EricAdler,

    Not surprising you’re “unfavorably impressed with Judith Curry”.

    After all – her blog encourages debate!

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay,
    You wrote:
    “Thanks again EricAdler for yet further confirmation  concerning the
    hypocrisy of the CAGW fraternity. After all no complaints from the
    so-called Union of ‘Concerned Scientists’ when USAToday reporter Vergano
    requested Wegman’s emails from the GMU. Where were all the complaints
    then about ‘academic freedom’.”

    You are selling a false equivalence here.

    The Vergano request was for emails on a specific topic. It was not a request for everything that Mann had written.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/28/the-vergano-foi-request/

    The objection of the

    http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/246203

    “Cuccinelli, a UVa graduate, has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency to challenge its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,
    arguing that the agency has relied on disputed science. Some critics of
    the attorney general’s actions argue that Cuccinelli is targeting Mann
    as part of an ideological crusade.

    The executive council of UVa’s faculty senate issued a formal
    statement on Wednesday calling Cuccinelli’s action “an inappropriate way
    to engage with the process of scientific inquiry.”

    “His action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of
    scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a
    chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving
    Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline,” the statement
    reads. “Such actions directly threaten academic freedom and, thus, our
    ability to generate the knowledge upon which informed public policy
    relies.”

    …..

    “The breadth of Attorney General Cuccinelli’s request suggests that it
    is meant to intimidate faculty members and discourage them from pursuing
    politically controversial work; it’s a shot across the bow to all
    public universities in Virginia,” said Rachel Levinson, senior counsel
    with the university professors association.”

    You also said,

    “There is no evidence indicating
    fraud by Michael Mann.” – don’t you realise that “there is no evidence”
    is a commonly used political term that is a cover for them not having
    even looked!! We can hardly complain when the Attorney General actually
    does bother trying to find the evidence. And if Mann has nothing to hide
    it’s surprising the UVA is spending so much time, effort and money in
    keeping his emails private. ”

    You argument is trash. Your basic rhetorical tactic is to ignore the important points in my argument in your reply. The dishonesty in this tactic is breathtaking.
     I pointed out that Mann’s results were essentially duplicated by  a others using his data and  different methods. In addtion the so called  Climategate emails do not indicate fraud was committed either.  Mann provided the data that he used and described the method of analysis. The use of the temperature record in the graph during the modern period was not hidden from anyone. It was also known that the tree ring proxy record after 1960 has unique problems. It is clear that opposition to the scientific conclusions is driving a slanderous charge of fraud by the AGW deniers.

    You also wrote:

    “Similarly with the climate
    scientists data and methodology – one would have thought that had they
    discovered the likelihood of catastrophic global warming they would have
    been only too eager to prove their case by handing it over so that the
    whole world could view it. But hardly surprising that they didn’t want
    the ‘tricks’ they had employed in the public domain, the ‘tricks’
    employed as exposed by the excellent pro-science/pro scientific method
    Climate Audit blog ”

    The use of the word “trick” is being purposely misinterpreted. In the world of physics and math it means a clever and valid method of analysis. I know this based on first hand experience. You have been (willingly)  fooled about the meaning of this by the AGW denier blogs.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “EricAdler, if the models are so bad at predicting short term why should
    we have any faith in their long term projections and didn’t you look at
    the R.Maue graph  ….”

    Once again you display ignorance about the nature of models and their results. I am beginning to believe it is willful ignorance. Landsea was part of the consortium that developed the model that shows more intense hurricanes are likely to occur in the future over the long term as the ocean heats up considerably. It is not a statement about the past. He doesn’t disagree with that.
     
    You quoted Emanuel’s original analysis which he himself said was mistaken.

    Emanuel by the way has always been a Republican, but now that the party has embraced the AGW denier anti-science movement, he is fighting this trend.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133498148/taking-the-politics-out-of-climate-science

    “Prof. EMANUEL: I think it’s become another opinion in certain people’s minds. And let me say that I think that there is a campaign of disinformation going on about this, and there has been before. We saw it before with the attempts by the tobacco industry to throw cold water on the notion that there was a connection between cigarette smoking and cancer.

    What’s different about this time is that the suggestion is being made that the scientists, the climate scientists doing this, are being driven by their politics. That’s very pernicious, and I’d like to try to stop that. …”

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:
    “Heck, most often I am the one explaining to those AGW-propnents what
    their side’s arguments really are, had they only understood them
    correctly.”

    Jonas thinks he is a brilliant climate scientist because he creates straw man arguments and knocks them down easily.

    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.

     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.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=07&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    The Dunning Kruger effect strikes again.

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “Eric, once more you make claims pretending to know something about statistics which are untrue. On multiple counts.

    True
    is that it has warmed, since ~1700 and also in the last 50 years. The
    ‘unprecendented’ is fiction however. Pure speculation wrt the last 1000
    years, definitely untrue wrt the entire intergalcial, and even more
    untrue wrt to previous interglacials.”

    You may call a dozen paleo climate papers which say unprecedented in 1000 years “speculation”.  These papers are based on data, and are therefore not speculation. Reasonable assumptions are made in order to analyse the data, but scientists wouldn’t call this speculation.

    Once more you declare victory in a straw man argument. Neither Michael Mann, nor other climate scientists that have done Paleoclimate research ever made any argument about interglacials.

    “I have several times
    before suggested that you stop pretending to know a lot about ‘climate
    science’, both the basics, and the finer aspects.

    Because once more, you seem to be accusing others of exactly the transgressions you are repeatedly guitly of.

    I
    am still baffled over that you still try getting away with bluffing
    about what you know, now that you’ve been caught out so many times. It
    almost seems compulsary ”

    You are living in a fantasy world in which you imagine that you can do climate science in your head, and that your unsupported opinions are pure gold, but they are really a brown color.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “I particularly like Professor Bob Carter’s lecture on the subject -”

    You like it because you prefer to live in an alternative universe, not in the real world.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-alternate-reality.html

    “In the Carter reality, “there has been
    no net warming between 1958 and 2005.“ Of course, in the real world,
    there is no basis for this statement from scientific analysis of
    observational data. The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s,
    which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s, which
    was warmer than the 1960s.

    So where does Carter’s statement come
    from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period
    and a cold year much later, and says there’s been no warming. This
    would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a
    very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature
    as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days.

    In the Carter reality, “human-caused
    emissions will have an insignificant impact on the amounts of carbon
    dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean” and the observed increases in
    carbon dioxide are due to emissions from volcanoes or from the oceans.

    Of course, this Carter reality has
    ignored the contrary evidence, such as decreases in oxygen in the
    atmosphere, and downplayed evidence from changes in carbon isotopes,
    both associated with fossil fuel burning.

    It has also ignored the evidence that
    carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are higher than the
    concentrations in the upper layers of the ocean, so there is a net flow
    of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean.

    In the Carter reality, year-to-year
    climate variations due to El Niño explain the variations in global
    temperature, including global warming, much better than increases in
    greenhouse gases. Of course, you have to ignore the fact that you have
    to remove the long-term warming trend in global temperatures to get
    this result.
    .

    In the Carter reality, the increase in
    global temperatures due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is low, only
    about one degree. This is a strange thing to mention as, in that world,
    there is supposed to be no warming and the increases in greenhouse gases are not due to human activity.”

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “You (John Mashey) 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. ”

    There you have two 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.

    There is no libel there. The idea is defamatory, and it was manufactured and repeated as Mashey claimed.

    The idea that Bradley committed plagiarism in his textbook is nonsense. He acknowledged the books debt to Fritts many times in both editions. The fact that it was less often in the second edition, doesn’t make it plagiarism. 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. Therefore citation standards are looser for text books than for work that is published as a paper, where on needs to distinguish original work from what has gone before.

    I would argue that proper citation is as important in  the case of Wegman’s pro bono report as it would be in a journal article. This  was supposed to be an independent assessment. It is therefore incumbent on the authors to distinguish what was theirs and what information was developed by others. 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. To make standards lower when they are used do inform public policy doesn’t seem sensible to me.

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay wrote:

    “I think we’ve already established who the ‘Pinocchios’ (“willfully
    ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little
    evidence”)  are ”

    MarionJay,
    Your lack of perspective is breathtaking.

    http://bible.cc/matthew/7-3.htm

    “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?”

  • 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”.

  • marionjay

    “The distinction is too subtle for me to grasp.”

    Only one of many I am afraid and don’t you realise how many of the posts from yourself and other CAGW supporters simply confirm the accuracy of Peter Wood’s observations, contrary to your claims otherwise!!

  • marionjay

    “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” “.

    For shame EricAdler, now you are simply back to attacking the source, my preference is to judge sources on their ability to be accurate and truthful and their presentation of a reasoned argument illustrated by verifiable facts. I’m afraid many of the sources you rely on are sadly lacking in that respect!

    I’m surprised you can’t see the connection between the article you cited and the ones I cited. But then perhaps I’m not so surprised after all!

    “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.”

    Hardly, I’ll think you’ll find the source of the politicisation in this excellent and detailed article - gives the answer also as to to why the ’science’ has been so skewed by so many Climate ‘scientists’ in favour of the CAGW theory.

     http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291

    (I’ve already given examples of what some of the real scientists think!!)

  • JonasN

    Eric, you keep repeating stuff you don’t understand. And your statements amount to one thing:

    You are in denial of historic climate change. You want to deny the existance of bot the MWP and the LIA. You hope that Mann’s stick still holds, is vindicated, and represents some ‘truth’ in relation to reality! (And read Mann’s own blog for reinforcement, althogh you don’t understand what they try there. Not even after things have been explained properly)

    As usual you have it completely the wrong way: Medieval temperatures were what they were, and thousands of historical facts evidence both the warmth and that it was global, and lasted for quite a while. It is simply impossible to change historic reality, by chosing some few (questionable) proxies and feeding them into an algorithm. Not even if you get the numbers published. They’re still just the numbers you’d get. Irrespective of how hard you want reality to have been something it wasn’t (or isn’t). This whole idea of revisionism by publications is a joke. And every scientist (worth that description) is fully aware of this!

    Fortunately, only the secterist die-hard believers take your stance and deni climate change and the existance of the MWP ..

  • EricAdler

    JonasN wrote:

    “Eric, you keep repeating stuff you don’t understand. And you statements amount to one thing:

    You
    are in denial of historic climate change. You want to deny the
    existance of bot the MWP and the LIA. You hope that Mann’s stick still
    holds, is vindicated, and represents some ‘truth’ in relation to
    reality! (And read Mann’s own blog for reinforcement, althogh you don’t
    understand what they try there. Not even after things have been
    explained properly)

    …Fortunately, only the secterist die-hard believers take your stance and deni climate change and the existance of the MWP ..

    You are up to your old tricks of creating a straw man argument and replying to it, instead of discussing what I really said. I have never denied the existence of the fluctuations in the past climate history of the globe.  The dozen or so papers on global climate reconstruction since the original Hockey Stick were published, show that epochs clearly in their average NH or global temperature plots.

    I don’t know who the “secterist die hard believers” are.

    It is not necessary to deny  that fluctuations in the earth’s climate were caused by natural forcings in the past, in order to claim that the global warming of the past 40 years is largely due to human activity. 

    You are not responding to the points that I made regarding your principal objection to  AGW:

    You claimed that because cold and dark regions are where CO2 has its strongest impact on climate change, that CO2 can’t be a significant global climate driver.

    I pointed out that this idea is totally wrong. It shows that the GCM’s which predict that the strongest temperature increase would be over land areas in the Polar regions is correct. The temperature increase in these areas is twice the global average. This decreases the temperature difference between the tropics and polar areas, which is the driving force moving energy from the tropics to the poles. This forces the temperature in the tropics to increase, and increases global water vapor, which increases the global temperature further.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    You ar still completely missing what I am actually saying. How can anybody be so detched from the discussion?

    The large positive feedbacks are what the climate scare needs to sustain any alarmism. Without it, or with the more likely negativa feedbacks, there is no scare at all. Really cold dry nights might get a little (noticable) warmer. Daytime, the difference may be a fraction of a degree. Hardly detectable.

    And those postive feedbacks are nowhere to be found, observed. The temperature record faslifies the asumptions fed into the models.

    Last week and even before, I explained why the asumptions don’t make sense if you study what they would mean physically. You have still not even understood what is discussed. Heck, you even still seem unaware of that the topic is ‘the large positive feedbacks’. Now you even claim that water vapor  is not the propsed physical hypothesis behind the feedbacks for CO2!?

    Are you that stupid? Have you no clue what your side claims?

    And you start mumbling about Milankovic cycles, and link to Sceptical Science with a Peter Sinclair Crock … What a load of irrelevant rubbish!

    Your repeatedly copied gibberish claims:

    It is utter garbage. I have not even heard people on your side offer that ‘explanaition’. It states that delayed cooling at the polar regions, cloggs up the energy transports from the tropical regions, forcing these to get even warmer and the more humid!?

    What a load of garbage. The lower troposphere in the tropics heats up, gets saturated with moisture, and regulates and recycles that water and energy about every day. And you claim it cannot do that because polar regions are a bit warmer in dry cloudless nights? What a load of nonsens.

    But then again. That is all you have: Aimless copying of random things, words, phrases, you don’t understand. And I’ve asked you repeatedly how on earth you think you can get away with such bluffing. Especially since you are so completely unfamiliar even with the basic things. On both sides. Why you copy texts you haven’t understood, most often not even read!?

    Why Eric? What is it you are fighting against (or for?) blindfolded without any clue what the field looks like, what the props are or how they are supposed to function, what the rules are, what is forward and not.

    You seem to have only one option in your descision making:

    ‘If it somehow does not increase climate alarmism, it just has to be wrong’. How? You have no clue. But Milankovic cycle might be an explanations. Or if not, maybe black body radiation spectrum. And if ot, perhaps ‘plagiarism’ is the best word. Or ‘Dunning Kruger’, or lungcancer and tobacco lobby. And if that fails ‘debunked’ might do the trick or ‘climate scientists’. Randomly throwing out the word ‘strawman’ maybe.

    Random shots in the dark, Eric! And you probably don’t even know what your central argument is. Only that you hope, that somewhere in all those sites that you thrawl, there is something that confirms your feeling of fighting for the ‘righteous cause’ you cannot even formulate.

    I’d expect such things from kids, playing games in the yard. Grown ups (at least those who I meet) are more aware of what at all they are arguing …

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    “The large positive feedbacks are what the climate scare needs to sustain
    any alarmism. Without it, or with the more likely negativa feedbacks,
    there is no scare at all. Really cold dry nights might get a little
    (noticable) warmer. Daytime, the difference may be a fraction of a
    degree. Hardly detectable.

    And those postive feedbacks are
    nowhere to be found, observed. The temperature record faslifies the
    asumptions fed into the models.”

    You are making up stuff.  You have provided absolutely no references to back up what you say.
    The models are not falsified by the temperature record:.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

     The feedbacks are seen in the modeling of Milankovich cycles. Check out figure 3 in the link below:
    http://climateclash.com/2010/10/30/6-the-last-major-ice-age/

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “Last week and even before, I explained why the asumptions don’t make
    sense if you study what they would mean physically. You have still not
    even understood what is discussed. Heck, you even still seem unaware of
    that the topic is ‘the large positive feedbacks’. Now you even claim
    that water vapor  is not the propsed physical hypothesis behind the
    feedbacks for CO2!?

    Are you that stupid? Have you no clue what your side claims? ”

    Your emotional desire to post insults overwhelms your cognitive faculties.
    You seem to have misread what I said. I  said that water vapor was a feedback factor but not the only feedback factor. Ice and snow cover was also an important positive feedback factor.
    Read my post again. It said:

    “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.”

  • EricAdler

    JonasN
    You wrote:

    “What a load of garbage. The lower troposphere in the tropics heats up,
    gets saturated with moisture, and regulates and recycles that water and
    energy about every day. And you claim it cannot do that because polar
    regions are a bit warmer in dry cloudless nights? What a load of
    nonsense. ”

    “What a load of nonsense” is not a logical or scientificl argument. Your version of what I said leaves out the physics of climate. There are 3 cells ( Hadley Ferrel and Polar) which  transport energy from the tropics to the high latitudes. The rate of transport is driven by the temperature difference between them. If the difference decreases, the rate of energy transport decreases and the tropics will heat up as a result.

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses_html/OCN201/littlepages/atmocirc.html

    I never claimed that the daily weather cycle in the tropics would be stopped. I claimed that the average water vapor concentration rises with temperature.  If you keep the average relative humidity constant, and raise the temperature 1C, the average concentration of water vapor increases by 6%.  This was the original assumption made by Arrhenius in 1896. Modern satellite measurements show this is correct
    .
    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/229/Dessler_et_al_2008b.pdf

    Of course  my references to the published literature and college courses are just a load of garbage. What comes out of your brain is a lot better. You know so  much, you don’t need to have references.

    Finally, you wrote:

    “But then again. That is all you have: Aimless copying of random things, words, phrases, you don’t understand. And I’ve asked you repeatedly how on earth you think you can get away with such bluffing. Especially since you are so completely unfamiliar even with the basic things. On both sides. Why you copy texts you haven’t understood, most often not even read!?

    …..
    Random shots in the dark, Eric! And you probably don’t even know what your central argument is. Only that you hope, that somewhere in all those sites that you thrawl, there is something that confirms your feeling of fighting for the ‘righteous cause’ you cannot even formulate.

    I’d expect such things from kids, playing games in the yard. Grown ups (at least those who I meet) are more aware of what at all they are arguing .”

    The rest of your post is an ugly insane rant full of bluff, bluster and nonsense, to which I don’t need to make any reply.

    Dunning Kruger, and motivated reasoning are a deadly combination.

  • JonasN

    Eric (below)

    I have asked you many times why you continue to post phrases and copy-pasted excerpts which you clearly do not understand, where you lack the knowledge, the understanding and the training to form any intelligible arguments about the topic …

    Why you randomly post and link stuff not (or only marginally) adressing the issues. Things that don’t form any stringent arguments. Why can’t you never  stick to the topic?

    Abowe, you of all people(!) write (to MarionJay): “You display “massive” and “breathtaking” ignorance of  the basics of Climate Science and Statistics”.

    Things you absolutely positively cannot judge, obviously neither about yourself, and even less so about others (*)

    Your latest attempt seems(?) to try to find an ‘explaination’ for the proposed large positive feedbacks due to water vapor in the Hadley (and other) cells!? and again you link to a paper you haven’t read, you wouldn’t understand if you did, and which adresses something not related to your claim (if you at all claim anything in realtion to large amplifications, hard to know).

    Why do you try such obvious bluffing? Why, Eric!?

    I reckon it is because you have no other clue. Because you nowhere know what the core issues are, because you just google for seemingly related buzz-words on your activist sites like RC and ScSc. Most likely because you hope to substitute knowledge and understanding of your own by a link and a copy-pasted phrase instead.

    So Eric, can you please answer why you have been trying, for weeks now, to pretend to possess knowledge which you don’t have? Why!

    (*) As I said only really stupid people bring up Dunning Kruger and think it wins them an argument.

  • JonasN

    Contd.

    “What a load of garbage” is as you (for once) correctly note, not a scientific argument. It is a cooment about your randon blathering about things vaguely related to something wrt climate. Without any focus, direction or relation to the question at hand: Large puported positive feedbacks due to water vapor.

    ” eaves out the physics of climate” is also nonsense. I was talking about how such physics actually must work, and where and when. You respond with blathering.

    I explain simple things you should have learnt in elementary physics 101 … you complain that I dont feed you with links.

    Absurd and surreal, Eric. Especially given the fact that you all the time want to pretend that you are informed, even better informed …  (while guessing and linking blindly ..)

    Pathetic!

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    “Your latest attempt seems(?) to try to find an ‘explaination’ for the
    proposed large positive feedbacks due to water vapor in the Hadley (and
    other) cells!? and again you link to a paper you haven’t read, you
    wouldn’t understand if you did, and which adresses something not related
    to your claim (if you at all claim anything in realtion to large
    amplifications, hard to know).

    Why do you try such obvious bluffing? Why, Eric!?

    I
    reckon it is because you have no other clue. Because you nowhere know
    what the core issues are, because you just google for seemingly related
    buzz-words on your activist sites like RC and ScSc. Most likely because
    you hope to substitute knowledge and understanding of your own by a link
    and a copy-pasted phrase instead.

    So Eric, can you please
    answer why you have been trying, for weeks now, to pretend to possess
    knowledge which you don’t have? Why!”

    I have made rebuttals to your claim that CO2′s warming effect is
    limited to areas which are dark and cold, and large feedbacks are
    impossible, simply because you say so.

    You claim that the 97% of climate scientists who accept AGW,  who provide the material which I link, to in support of my reasoned arguments against your claims that CO2 couldn’t possibly be warming the earth significantly, in the present or future,  are mistaken, and you possess the truth. You  deny that warmer temperatures produce higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere on average, and that energy transport from the tropics to the poles is driven by temperature differences, despite the fact that they are obvious simple physics. These phenomena determine how temperatures at the poles influence the temperatures in rest of the globe.

    Your denial of these things marks you as someone who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and refuses to accept knowledge because it overturns his prejudices. Your claim that I am ignorant is an attempt to persuade yourself that you are correct, despite your inability to counter with a logical or scientific counter argument or reference to one.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    Are you now switching to the 97%-of-the-climate-scientists meme?

    Seriously? Have any of those even been asked if they believe in (how?) large positive feedbacks!?

    Yet another shot in utter darkness? Why!?

    Is it behind their skirts you are hiding now?

    ‘Your reasoned arguments’? What are you talking about?

    Have you still not understood that the question is how CO2 is supposed to create those large feedbacks.

    Do you still  think that the slightly warmer cold dry polar nights can create large water vapor feedback somewhere completely else!? Where it is desperately needed for the prophecy? By heat backing up through a polar bound pipeline!? Is that your latest argument?

    Note: We are not talking about that extra CO2 can heat some. We are talking about the magic amplifications necessary exactly there and then where CO2 has the least effect.

    Capisce!?

    Your last paragraph is the usual nonsense, possibly (desperately) to yourself denying that it is so easy to notice when you are bluffing. But it really is, Eric.

    What have you tried (as diversions) now, since I questioned the ‘large positive feedbacks’ (and explained how/why), is:

    1) But ‘downwelling’ LW radiation is the primary heat source ..
    2) But the atmosphere doesn’t adhere tho the black body stpectrum
    3) Albedo and snow- and ice-cover contribute too
    4) That the observed temperature record not at all contradicts large feedbacks
    5) Talked about Dunning Kruger
    6) Milankovic cycles show the wv-feedback
    7) And that ice ages confirm it too
    8) Heat flow backing up through, and clogging the pipeline
    9) Hadley (and other) cells transport some of atmospheric part of heat
    8) 97% answer yes to a simple questionaire

    Im certain I missed many of the worse or whimsical attempts. They are all random ramblings, not related or central to the question. Somtimes a AGW-diversion from it.

    But really, your main and deeply rooted problem is that you have no clue about what is cause and what is effect. You talk about ‘physics of climate’ but only rehash à postieri averaged observations, irrespective of both the mechanisms and the temporal sequence of events. (If you at all talk about something?).

    You know, I don’t have the impression that you understand any of the arguments on your side properly, although you sometimes copy them correctly …

    I still want to know why you feel you must bluff about your capabilities, and whom you think you may convince or impress. (Mashey is on your level of understanding, maybe knows even less of the simple wannabe-debunking ScSc posts)

    Why do you need to lie about what you know, Eric!?

    Why?

  • JonasN

    Eric, I notice that when responding to others, you are still bolder in your attempts to bluff and pretend that you know what you are talking about!

    I still wonder: Why!?

  • EricAdler

    Among other ranting JonasN you wrote:
    “Have you still not understood that the question is how CO2 is supposed to create those large feedbacks.

    Do
    you still  think that the slightly warmer cold dry polar nights can
    create large water vapor feedback somewhere completely else!? Where it
    is desperately needed for the prophecy? By heat backing up through a
    polar bound pipeline!? Is that your latest argument?”

    The evidence shows that the heating over land areas surrounding the pole is twice the average temperature change of the globe, in agreement with the GCM’s, which take into account the “cells” which transmit heat from the tropics to the poles. A  temperature map of the globe shows this. This is not a small effect.

    It is a general principle of physics that energy flows from higher temperature to lower temperatures and is driven by temperature difference. So there is buildup of energy in the tropics as a result of higher temperatures closer to the poles. All of this arises from basic principles of physics. The climate models all show this. It is described in basic tutorials on climate which you would do well to read and understand. Your attempts to deny this are meaningless ranting and nay saying, containing no real physical arguments.

    “Note: We are
    not talking about that extra CO2 can heat some. We are talking about
    the magic amplifications necessary exactly there and then where CO2 has
    the least effect.”
    There is no magic. Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor in the air. If you deny this, you are denying basic physics.  You are going off the deep end here.The longer you post the more disconnected straw man arguments you make.  It is sad to see the results of the Dunning Kruger effect combined with motivated reasoning. A textbook case!

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/18/the-science-of-why-we-deny-science-motivated-reasoning/

  • EricAdler

    JonasN
    You wrote below:
    “Here, I dissicate (sic) how you completely misunderstood and misrepresented everything in what you call ‘your points’, ”

    You didn’t “dissect” (if that is what you meant to write) anything,

    Your assertion that CO2 can’t warm the earth significantly, and there is no large positive feedback, is merely your opinion, and not backed by any science. 

    You claim, is  that cold regions are warming the most contain little water vapor, and therefore water vapor feedback cannot be a factor in global warming, thus  large positive feedbacks cannot exist.   This is wrong, and it doesn’t matter how many times you say it.

     You neglect the fact that energy travels from the tropics to the poles, under the driving force of temperature difference. There are 3 so called cells, which circulate this energy as I pointed out in links to climate courses and articles.

     An increase in temperature at polar regions reduces this circulation, leaving a larger fraction of arriving energy in the tropics to raise the temperature there, and produce more water vapor there. This increases the greenhouse effect further raising the temperature.

    Satellite data shows that more water vapor ends up in the atmosphere when the temperature goes up just as the models would claim. This idea was used by Arrhenius as an assumption in his original work in 1896, and recent science has shown it is correct. I have provided links to the literature.

    You can’t provide any links to any scientific papers to back you up, so it is your opinion against the scientific evidence. This is the Dunning Kruger effect and motivated reasoning in action.

     

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote below:

    “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?”

    Sorry but you are missing the correct story, which I have recounted many times on this thread.
    The original MBH paper underestimated the variations in climate named as the MWP and LIA. One dozen papers have been published since, estimating global average temperatures from proxies, including some coauthored by Mann, which corrected this underestimate,  but basically affirmed the conclusions in the original paper. You have ignored this history.

    AGW deniers like yourself constantly seize on the flaws in the ground breaking original paper, in order to divert attention from the subsequent literature.

  • JonasN

    You are right, Among my list of your deflecting points I forgot:

    10) The effect of CO2 is more noticable over land, and in colder dry conditions.

    Which is the point I have been making from the beginning. Because it doesn’t agree well with the claim of large positive feedbacks from water vapor content. But the topic is still that the large claimed (average!)  positive feedbacks cannot arise from there.

    Your ‘basic physical principles’ describe an insulated system, where state variables always are their average values. None of which is true! Energy- and heat turnover, and thus regulation of its average values happens many times during the timescales you refer to. Overriding the backing up and clogging you wish for.

    But you of course don’t understand what I’m talking about. The very graphs ypu linked showed the opposite of your claims: The buildup of heat and humidity in the tropics is not consistent with the prophecies of large positive feedbacks.

    The point still is (and has been for ~2 weeks) that CO2 cannot provide warmer temperatures in the hot humid tropics due to enhanced greenhouse effect, and thus cannot cause the water vapor amplifications which there has to be closer to 8 times (to get a global average of ~4).

    That is so elementary physics, but of course nothing you are aware of, or ever will handle. Because it isn’t fed to you at your activist sites.

    I find it utterly amazing that you (who know sh*t about physics) try to ‘educate’ me on basics. It looks like total disconnect from reality(*)

    And my questions is still: Why do you feel that you have to lie about your level of understanding!?

    You are still dodging that one!?

    (*) And hoping references to Dunning Kruger will provide a substantial argument is still so stupid

  • JonasN

    I just saw this again (missed to comment before)

    Once again you display utter and complete incompetence about what ‘hide the decline’ was about. Where you instead swallowed the AGW-narrative hook line and sinker (and a two year old one at that!)

    And you want to play the expert on anything here! Utterly amazing, what the AGW-side can muster … to defend their crumbling case …

  • EricAdler

    You repeat the same ranting trash talk over and over, and never answer the valid scientific arguments I make, or provide any rebuttal to the scientific links I post. Calling them gibberish doesn’t constitute a valid argument.When I apply the label of straw man argument, it is accompanied by a justification.

  • marionjay

    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.

    As the evidence shows it is not they who are employing the ‘harassments’ and ‘attacks on integrity’

     John Mashey himself has provided evidence of the latter on this blog with false claims made against those commenting at this forum (and indeed against Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts) – unable though to provide direct quotes from those he accused.

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform/29981#comment-284343479

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform/29981#comment-286144175

    And I do think it is something of a gross understatement by Judith Curry to describe the tactics employed by Mashey,Haynes and Deep Climate as simply ‘rather distasteful’, not the description I would choose to apply to this sort of activity -

    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/the-sad-tale-of-anna-haynes.html

    (the comments make for interesting reading too!!)

    To describe her actions as legitimate ‘investigative journalism’ as you did is ludicrous – I think it fits very well with the definition of harassment!

    Nor is this sort of smear campaign limited to the profiles Anna Haynes gives at Sourcewatch.

    In the CRU emails William M.Connolley was identified as an integral member of the RealClimate team -

    “- Gavin Schmidt
    - Mike Mann
    - Eric Steig
    - William Connolley
    - Stefan Rahmstorf
    - Ray Bradley
    - Amy Clement
    - Rasmus Benestad
    - William Connolley
    - Caspar Ammann”

    set up by Michael Mann, and some of his activities at Wikipedia are described here by Lawrence Solomon  -

     “Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley’s supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx#ixzz1VrNHxw8w

    As regard to the ‘science’ there is no doubt that the hockey stick has indeed been resurrected numerous times (simply to be debunked once the data and methodology are eventually available) either due to statistical trickery ,the use of inferior proxies that the climate science community have been told numerous times should not be used in temperature reconstructions or deletion of adverse data that fails to follow the narrative.
    (Isn’t that the usual way with the team – if the data doesn’t fit the theory then the data is wrong!!)

    (As previously linked several times – Steve McIntyre has gone into the various ’tricks’ in great detail – )

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
     
    One such resurrection by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann,  and the political machinations surrounding it is described in great detail by Andrew Montford -

    “Wahl and Amman were forced to admit the rejection[of their paper from GRL], but they declared that it was unjustified and that they would seek publication elsewhere.The replication of the hockey stick in tatters, reasonable people might have expected some sort of pause in the political momentum. Seasoned observers of the climate scene, however, will be unsurprised to hear that global warming eminences grises like Sir John Houghton and Michael Mann continued to cite the Wahl and Amman papers despite the CC paper being in publishing limbo and the GRL paper being apparently dead and buried. The Wahl and Amman press release was not withdrawn either”

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    [And note how the ‘press releases’ are  a very important part of the campaign – it was after all due to the distortions and exaggerations of IPCC Lead  Author Trenberth’s press release that Chris Landsea resigned]

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    As regards MBH98 and your RealClimate link not surprising that Michael Mann at Realclimate shoud support Michael Mann’s statistical use but even the NAS’s statistical expert Peter Bloomfield (introduced by Dr North ) to the 2006 Congressional hearing had to admit that

    “Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/HS%20evidence.htm
     
    But according to you, EricAdler, Michael Mann’s claims are the ‘real science’ !!!
     
     
    P.S. Statistics buffs may like to read Steve McIntyre’s response to Mann’s claims-
    http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/05/roll-over-preisendorfer/

  • 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.

  • JonasN

    Marion …

    I have come across these climate zombie-debaters many times. And exactly like in this case, there is complete disconnect from reality in so many areas. They just cough up old rehash talkning points with no (or minimal) connections to the subject, and in utter contempt of facts or of how it relates to the real world. And if proveen wrong at one point, the same nonsense pops up again later, as if nothing has registered at all! And I believe that is indeed the reason: They are completely unaware of what is being discussed, ony know the direction in which to bark …

    And if one meme doesn’t work, they try the next one. The ‘quality’ and meaning of that 97%-study is obvious to anybody who has read it or just is the slightest little bit concerned about facts, reality, and what can actually be established. And for lazier people, the Solomon column in FP is both accurate and can be (intellectually) digested even by highschool students.

    Still, for the zombie-debaters, nothing of this matters. Only the figure 97% is important. And like real(!) zombies, they cling to it like their life(!) depended on it.

    I just noticed the next meme: If one has opposed stupid, political, activist propaganda and alarmism before … Then, the most recent scare must be true!

    At least that is the implied (zombie-) logic here. And when somebody (else!) gets paid, or only has a payed position, when s/he partakes in a debate, that strengthens their own side even more  somehow. Even retroactively.

    It truly is as if facts and reality never enter the concience, as if such were actively prohibited of entering the frontal lobes.

  • JonasN

    Eric

    I am way more qualified to talk about the different topics discussed here than you. You denying that won’t change a thing. Labelling my comments ‘trash’ doesn’t make it such. Heck, I am not the one who repeatedly needs to make obviously untrue statements to ‘defend’ my position. You are!

    Calling gibberish gibberish is very much a valid observation. You don’t post scientific links, mostly they are activist sites trying to avert the massive and justified criticism directed at the more speculative and overreaching versions of the AGW-hypothesis. Sometimes you link to a published paper, but more often than not it does not show or address what you think/claim it is about. Furthermore, it usually is attempting to defend the same side of the AGW-scare and will neither serve you the critical views, nor will it present the opposing arguments in the best (and most correct) way. And it will not tell you the counterarguments levelled at its defence.

    Publishing one’s attempt of an explanation, thereby promoting one’s own views and supporting arguments is not wrong in it self. But not properly addressing critical arguments, weaknesses, avoiding valid objections etc makes it poorer science. And believing it is the only truth, the one that now has to be accepted (because it was published) is imature and ignorant.

    And yes, you use the word ‘strawman’ regularly (and lots of other terms). I do actually read what it is you claim and try to evaluate when there is some merit to it. And respond. Your problem however, is  that you have no clue wether something you post actually has anything to do with the discussion, or not. What the merit is, or isn’t, or why. You don’t understand what I reply to things you’ve got backwards, and you don’t understand when I respond to something that actually is a valid argument (from your side’s perspecive). Because you have no clue! Your primitive navigating scheme works like this:

    Agrees with my beliefs = Must be true!
    Disagrees with my beliefs = Must be untrue! Or even lies paid for by evil entities!
    Response does not confirm my stance = Mistrust and attack with every available means

    I am still criticizing the claims of large positive feedbacks attributed to water vapor following CO2 as a slave parameter (via temperature)

    Nothing you have replied has addressed any of the things I’ve said. Instead, you’ve tried about a dozen different memes not related to the issue. As your ‘method’ to fend of criticism.

    And it still doesn’t work that way!

    And you still haven’t answered why you feel that you need to bluff about all kinds of things when ‘discussing’ the issues.

  • JonasN

    Eric, your points have no merit at all. In fact, you are contradicting your self. You say that the cold, dry, dark, over land, and closer to polar regions are heating up more. An that this forces the tropical regions to heat up more, which is contradicting your first (and correct) ascertion: The effect is visible mostly in cold, dry and dark conditions. Much less in dry hot humid and daytime conditions.

    Your ‘argument’ still is that the factual (and observable) effects of extra CO2 have the opposite effect, creating the vast needed H2O positive feedbacks somewhere else. And where it is not observed.

    I nowhere expect you to understand even a fraction of this. I just note that you are randomly guessing counterarguments. That you think that the large positive feedbacks desperately needed in the tropics magically appear there because dry cold nights closer to the poles are a little less chilly!  That thes nights heat the tropical regions!

    That is utter nonsense! The atmospheric heat remains in those cells you mention. Most of the heat transported between them, further polar-bounb travels through the oceans. And your (nonsens) claim then implies that cold dry dark norther nights impair ocean currents!

    Wow, there is some new revolutionary climate theories!

    No, kiddo. You are just aimlessly firing away desperate shots to avoid the real issues.

    And bringing up Dunning Kruger is still only used by clueless idiots who can’t argue their case with facts. Only appeal to perceived authority!

  • EricAdler

    Marion,

    The arguments In McKittrick’s article that you linked to have been refuted. It claims that non centered PCA produced the hockey stick as an artifact. That has been shown to be false. Annan and Wahl(2007) have pointed this out
    :
    http://vlb.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Ammann_Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

    “To generate ”random” noise series, MM05c apply the full autoregressive
    structure of the real world proxy series. In this way, they in fact
    train their stochastic engine with significant (if not dominant) low
    frequency climate signal rather than purely non-climatic noise and its
    persistence.”

    Amman and Wahl also showed in this paper that the methods used by M&M to reconstruct the 15th century warming in their paper was incorrect. This was a peer reviewed publication. If this is incorrect, Fred Singer should publish a correction.

     In addition, what M&M considered the correct procedure, Centered PCA, has been run on Mann’s data and produced a Hockey Stick very close to the original. Your link didn’t refute that either. You need to produce an article which shows that this is untrue, preferably a peer reviewed one. Your link doesn’t do this.

    The Mann 2008 paper shows a more crooked Hockey Stick, but their original conclusion still holds. The increase in temperature were are experiencing in the second half of the 20th century is iunprecedented in the last 1000 years.

    Lawrence Solomon’s opinions regarding the Doran survey is just whining. It is a fact that the education of Meteorologists is different from Climatologists and that weather forecasting is different from Climatology. It is valid to say that Climatologists who do research are the most expert on the evolution of climate. So what does he have to say about the other study that was done by Pielke Sr. and Annan that also showed 97% of research climatologists accept AGW?

    Actually, the American Meteorological Society statement is quite strong in its endorsement of AGW. LIttle doubt or skepticism there. 

    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

  • EricAdler

    JonasN,
    You wrote:
    “Nya Nya Nya.”

  • JonasN

    It seems that you wrote that ‘citation’ and that it more concisely summarizes what you’ve been trying to say.

    But I still wonder: Why do you feel it’s necessary to make things up while doing so?
     

  • JohnMashey

    See:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.php

    for an quick a analysis of the interesting data from this whole kerfuffle.
    I think this article has set a new record, at least 6 months, for # comments on an Innovations blog, although sad to say, we didn’t get a single one so far from Peter Wood, nor (as far as I can tell) much or any participation from actual members of NAS, or even many usual readers of CHE or with obvious connections with higher education.  We certainly got fans from BH, WUWT and Climate, Etc.  The numbers are interesting … and of course even better, it was amusing to find a Presidential campaign relying on Peter Wood’s opinions regarding climate science.  I still haven’t done the really detailed analysis, as I’m rather busy attending a conference of actual climate scientists, but maybe later.

  • marionjay

    JohnMashey,
     
    Interesting that you say this in the link you gave –
     
    “into a domain whose implicit rules are very different from many blogs. Academics can argue intensely, but there are rules. People can say anything, but are expected to back their opinions with credible evidence and citations. [Even in my 11th-grade high school AP American history class, those were the rules.] “.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi...

    Yet you have still not responded to my request made well over one week ago -

    “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”. ”

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform/29981#comment-286144175

    So where is your

    “credible evidence and citations” (JM)

    as requested above “And when I say evidence I do mean direct quotes with links to the comments concerned not your own heavily distorted paraphrased interpretations!” (MJ)

    Or do you consider yourself exempt from “the rules”!!

    [PS you will see I have added links to the comments in question in my comment above/below, after all I would hate for you to accuse ME of not following "the rules"!!!

    [PPS amusing to find you trying to drum support from the 'echo-chamber' type blog you seem to prefer - oops, I wonder if 'echo-chamber' would be considered 'plagiarised' after all isn't that the description you gave in your article above
    "Anti-science echo-chamber blogs amplify anger, yielding nothing like legitimate scientific discussion"]

    Oh, and interesting to note how often (or not!!!) the Deltoid blog comments stick to ‘the rules’.
    Perhaps Deltoid should try to follow Steve McIntyre’s excellent example at Climate Audit -

    http://climateaudit.org/blog-rules-and-road-map/

  • EricAdler

    MarionJay

    The references I linked all have statistical analysis that is standard in the field of health and all show that smoking bans have been significantly effective in reducing heart problems and mortality.

    It is clear that you are not impressed with science if it doesn’t come to conclusions that conform to your ideology. Your personal opinion about the validity of scientific research is of no value and can be discounted.

    You say that I diverted the discussion here to smoking. Let me remind you how we got into this.

    You made claims about the scientific bona fides of S. Fred Singer, and I brought up the way he acted as a shill for tobacco companies in their attempts to case doubt on the sound science behind a smoking ban.  You supported Singer’s position as being the right one, that the public didn’t need protection and that the cost was too high. It is pretty clear that scientific evidence leads the other way, and the health of the public benefited greatly as a result of the ban, and the evidence was clearly there after a few months.  It is pretty clear that your support was based on political ideology not the science, and  your contention that the ban was unenforceable was scientifically wrong. Now, you want to dismiss the discussion as irrelevant, but it is not, as Naomi Oreskes has pointed out in her book, and articles about the “Merchants of Doubt”.  The very same folks who tried to cast doubt on the science behind regulation of smoking are using the very same tactics in the field of climate science and AGW.

    Your next tactic is to show that some politicians, like David Miliband,  say stupid things about climate change, and to imply that this discredits the science which shows that AGW is a problem. This is your usual form of argument, which relies not upon scientfic principles, but upon inuendo and outrage at the mistakes made by politicians. The fact is that very few politicians are competent to make their judgements based on direct knowledge and understanding of climate science or any other science for that matter. As a citizen, I expect them to use the recommendations of scientific experts as their guide, whether it is the issue of smoking bans or climate science. That is why we have scientific organizations such as the IPCC or the US National Academy of Science, or governmental agencies as the NASA, NOAA and the CDC in the US.

    Now you are claiming Graham Stringer is some kind of authority figure on Climate Science, because he has a Chemistry PhD, and we need to pay attention to what he says about the ClimateGate emails. After his PHD he worked for a few years as an analytical chemist, but has been in politics since 1984. Judging by his statements on dyslexia, he seems to suffer somewhat from Dunning Kruger syndrome in his attitude toward science, perhaps because of his PhD in chemistry,

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/dyslexia-politics-education

    The fact is that the ClimateGate emails merely  show that scientists are human in the way they react in private, to challenges by other scientists, and are strongly committed to the scientific conclusions that they have come to. Contrary to what we see written in the AGW denier blogosphere there is no real case that secrets exposed by the ClimateGate emails overturn the scientific basis for AGW.

    But we are going astray here. The topic of this forum whether John Mashey is right, that  Peter Wood’is wrong to  charge “Thuggery” against Michael Mann, Heidi Cullen,  and  is echoing the tactics of Rush Limbaugh in his articles in the manner in which he seeks to discredit the work of Climate Scientists.

  • darccity

    Sorry. I got the best all time interim story. I dare anyone to match it! 

    I was made interim chair (with a $500 salary bonus) for the final 2 years before a tenure decision, thus conferring on me the pressure to do a gob of publishing as well as lacking the tenure to stand up to the ultimatums of full profs in the department. I was also charged with leading the search for permanent replacement the year following my hiring 3 new faculty, one an unmedicated violent schizophrenic the Dean ordered me to pick so we could have a woman. Then the Dean ordered me to fire all three (after first lying to the one that if he did X and Y, he’d be renewed) so that it wouldn’t look like we were discriminating against a woman.

    The senior faculty insisted I teach a 3 course load, all different preps because they hogged the choice, multi-section courses. Oh yeah, and my wife was ready to deliver our first child. At one point, my wife and I fled town with your 2 month old baby because the schizo was beating up 300 lb. security guards, living out of her office, and sweaping the streets on roller skates. The college prez penned my denial of tenure letter as his final outgoing act (at the behest of his special assistant, one of those senior colleagues I mentioned).

    Happy ending? You bet! I maneuvered to get a chair hired who refused to show up unless I was given tenure. Don’t you just love the rational tenure process? Don’t get me started about how I “earned” tenure at my next position.

  • darccity

    Even worse: lots of places appoint “interims” as a way around the constraints of a formal search. Higher up administrators never have to worry about EEOC or gender and racial considerations, nor do they have to take any guff from those interims who can be demoted without notice. I’ve been at institutions where almost every middle level administrator was an interim. How convenient!

  • a_vaillancourt

    Darccity, you win. No question. I thought being granted department chair before being granted tenure was bad, but then I kept reading.

  • smclanton

    After several hiring problems, an ad hoc committee developed “search guidelines for faculty and academic administrators.” Among the stated policies for the latter is that after the appointment of an interim, a search for a permanent person must commence within a year. The interim is allowed to apply. Following that policy appears to be a problem, however.

  • 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.

  • dconrad

     Educational research indicates that females internalize their failures to a greater degree than do males. As a result, they are less likely to take chances than are males. Males, on the other hand, tend to disregard their short-fallings, oftentimes completely oblivious to gaps in possessed knowledge or skills. There are numerous quantitative and qualitative studies on the subject, but here is one that I have handy. If you cannot find access to the entire article, Google the title, and you will find some online sites that quote parts of the article.
    Eva
    Pomerantz, Ellen Altermatt, & Jill Saxon, “Making the grade but
    feeling distressed: gender differences in academic performance and
    internal distress,” Journal of Educational Psychology, volume 94, number 2, pages 396-404, 2002.

  • 900484393

    Great post. I’m a senior executive at a Carnegie I institution and have never been “fully qualified” for any job for which I’ve applied. Demisty makes an important point – when one applies indiscriminately for jobs without critical mass of qualifications, there’s more at stake than just people’s time; one risks professional reputation and credibility. At some point people will just stop taking you seriously. Self-awareness is essential, but I agree that part of applying for a job comes from the need to grow and learn. The important proviso is that a candidate must be reasonably confident in her ability to tackle the learning curve quickly and enthusiastically. I’ve found others to be patient, but that runs thin when there’s work to be done. And while others are more familiar with the scholarship in this area, my anecdotal experience is that women are less likely to assume their strengths will outweigh their weaknesses than comparably positioned men. Even as a manI isee this all the time in the workplace.

  • msghighered

    Thank you so much for this article. It was very confirming. I have been seeking work for over two years and have applied for jobs where I met or exceeded job requirements and some that I was about 80 to 90% hoping they would see my potential. You are write that women tend to be more frustrated. At least I know I am and I seem to take it personally too. This is why I have a real problem with HR filtering out resumes. Resumes should go to the person who you would be working for. They are the ones that can spot potential talent, not HR and not computers that scan resumes and cover letters for the right words. I am convinced that more people are not being hired because of this practice especially in higher education. If you are someone who hires people in higher education out there, I beg you to insist on sifting through the resumes yourself. Only have HR take out the ridiculously non qualified people and let you do the rest of the work. It may be time consuming but it also may pay off in the long run!

  • brianfoulks

    I have been doing this very thing for the past 6 months and it has been challenging yet rewarding. I have flown all over the place to no avail-but the exeprience gained from the process has been rewarding. So this article as well as some of the comments are very encouraging.

  • isaacbickerstaffesq

    When “master’s required,” positions are going to post-docs, even a job for which your hit-rate is 100% seems like a waste of time.

  • niteowl810

    I’ve had a somwhat circuitous career path and often do not have the exact experience listed in a posting.  I usually apply anyway.  The problem I run into is when the on-line application reqires (for example) 2 years post-doc experience when I might have had 5 years post-masters experience and only 6 mons post-doc experience.  These questons are often (always?) used to make a first cut of the applicants which is a problem for those of us who did not take a traditional path to our current career.

  • 10_bellevue

    Great article. I definitely agree. At my company, we hire for Entry Level positions. However, we rarely expect our candidates to be only qualified for the “Entry Level.” So, if you are applying to jobs, I think it’s quite okay to be either a little over-qualifed in some areas, but under-qualified in others. Go for it!

    - 10 Bellevue

    http://10incbellevue.wordpress.com/
    http://www.10bellevue.blogspot.com/
    http://10-bellevue.weebly.com/

  • 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.

  • ncromley1

    The author must have been reading my mind.
    I recently applied for a position with the minimal
    qualifications and I’m waiting to see the disappointing
    news reply.

  • ncromley1

    The author must have been reading my mind.
    I recently applied for a position with the minimal
    qualifications and I’m waiting to see the disappointing
    news reply.

  • dnewton137

    Wonderful!  This book should be the text for a course in the core curriculum of every college and university.  To those who fear it might foster such behavior among today’s political aspirants, I would just say that it is already universal and abundant, so this book probably couldn’t make it any worse.

  • 11185500

    But does it explain Newt?

  • hafajc

    Good. And you sort of attached it to Conservatives, with a hint of being even-handed by supplying a handy fallen Liberal from 30 years ago…..Now, how about some Liberal Democrat Party strategist commentary about that more recent and important application tool, you know, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals?”

  • 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?

  • jranelli

    the coach’s case has to be decided by the rules of policy that govern his employment, this includes his relationship with the young woman as far as school policies apply there, moral jugement is nobody’s right or business and, above all, nowhere is it written that anyone owes the press anything…lenny bruce advised “never apologize, never explain, even if thay have pictures”…given not as a call to flauting than to self-defense.

  • dashwood

    The issue is not necessarily Petrino’s relationship with the young woman, though that is unsavory enough. The issue is that she was recently hired by the football program. What does it say about Petrino that he hired the woman with whom he is involved in an “inappropriate relationship” (to use his words). To what future scrutiny (and perhaps liability) does this open the university?

  • 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.

  • jamesebryan

    I tend to agree with you, but I can think of one scenario in which a single individual could get away with doing this for a long time – when that individual is in a powerful gatekeeper role.  I am not familiar with this case and am not accusing Vos of being such an executive, but I can understand how some people under his authority might have figured out that something was wrong but didn’t feel safe in communicating with those in authority over him.  When upper management trusts middle management without question and middle management keeps labor under tight control you can get situations in which the head of the organization is oblivious to things the rank and file suspect, or even know but can’t tell.

  • willynilly

    Yes, it is well written and thoroughly presented.  However, one is left with an uneasy feeling at its conclusion.  The institution “doth protest (and expain) too much”.  One can’t help but wonder if CMC is attempting to ressurect the Lee Harvey Oswald explanation – the so called “he acted alone” justification.  I think that if the truth was wringed out of this soggy mess, the true description of Mr Vos would be “fall-guy” for some other cast of characters.  A junior officer of any college does not suddenly wake up one morning, eat his “Wheaties” and go to work where he suddenly decides to begin falsifying critically important records.

  • goyoshida

    Some questions arise:
    1) Did the president hire the law firms?
    2) To whom was the law firm accountable? To the president or a focus group that didn’t incl. the president?
    3) Hiring a law firm to conduct an investigation — oxymoron! Prob no diff with acctg firms!

    If the law firm was accountable to the president–that she hired and was paying their bill–then this would be no different from ratings agencies (moody’s, fitch, s&p) being hired by investment banks to give their securitized prods AAA ratings…

  • helvetica

    I would like to react to two points made in the article.  The first is that “Among the most important benchmarks for measuring that quality were SAT scores.”  The second is the point that ”The lack of internal verification procedures enabled Mr. Vos to conceal his actions,”

    If these points are both true, then it would seem to imply that the profile of enrolling students is an intrinsically valuable goal and that there is no correlation between this profile and the subsequent performance of students once enrolled.  Otherwise, if the difference between the actual profile of enrolling students and the “enhanced” version was a meaningful one, it would seem that faculty would have perceived this difference in the academic performance of those students.

    Please understand, I find no credible or acceptable justification for fabricating the data, but my point is that if the difference between 1390 and 1400 (or 1500) is not reflected by academic performance that is apparent to faculty who work with these students over the course of their four or more years of enrollment, might this not suggest that the aspiration of higher test scores is not a particularly useful benchmark for quality?  And if this is true, how much effort goes into differentiation among students for purposes of creating a more attractive profile of enrolling students that does little to create a more interesting and catalyzing academic community for those students (and their faculty)?