CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[Riverwind]

This LINK seems to indicate that Steve Mc has presented to the IPCC ?

The blog intro is wrong - It was at the NIPCC - a gathering of sceptics that goes on each year.

That said, SteveMc was an 'expert reviewer' for the IPCC report and shared in the nobel prize. However, he felt that the IPCC process was rife with conflicts of interest and his comments were unreasonably ignored. Incidently, one of his comments back in 2007 was a complaint that Briffa should not 'hide the decline' in the IPCC graphs. That comment was ignored and the link I gave you earlier illustrates how much was hidden.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Peer review means nothing because a lot of junk passes peer review.

But you have a better option, no doubt? Like e.g. a consensus of unqualified part time posters on some obscure blogsite?

There can be no discussion unless the focus is on the substance of the arguments and not the forum where they are presented.

If rigorous and disciplined process is not followed, the discussion will instantly drown in a melee of "who said what" junk, just as we see it so aptly illustrated right here, in this very thread.

Believe what you want but it worth noting that professional journalists once dismissed bloggers as unworthy.

Wrong, I'm not attempting to impose my "beliefs" but offer a rational, verifiable way to establish the truth of the matter. If that's not the reason for some of sceptics to raise their objections, well, it becomes clear and quickly, to anybody who cares to look (for themselves), and see.

The same will happen to science and scientific chauvinists such as yourself.

Speaking from the vantage point of knowing the future? You aren't the first poster to use this infallible (but also, unverifiable in any rational way) position.

[Riverwind]

But you have a better option, no doubt? Like e.g. a consensus of unqualified part time posters on some obscure blogsite?

Peer review serves its purpose. The problem is you want to use peer review for what it is not. All it was ever designed to do is ensure that the argument presented makes sense and that nothing obvious has been left out. Those objectives can easily be met in a public forum like a blog. The real debate about the merit of the argument has happened after it is published.

If rigorous and disciplined process is not followed, the discussion will instantly drown in a melee of "who said what" junk, just as we see it so aptly illustrated right here, in this very thread.

You tried to set some ground rules and the only one I objected to was the prohibition of analyses done on blogs.

Wrong, I'm not attempting to impose my "beliefs" but offer a rational, verifiable way to establish the truth of the matter.

You are only pretending to do that. What you really want to do is rig the discussion by excluding sources with you know will refute what you have already believe to be the truth. If you cared about finding the truth you would not care about the source - they only thing that matters is the quality of argument. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The blog intro is wrong - It was at the NIPCC - a gathering of sceptics that goes on each year.

That said, SteveMc was an 'expert reviewer' for the IPCC report and shared in the nobel prize. However, he felt that the IPCC process was rife with conflicts of interest and his comments were unreasonably ignored. Incidently, one of his comments back in 2007 was a complaint that Briffa should not 'hide the decline' in the IPCC graphs. That comment was ignored and the link I gave you earlier illustrates how much was hidden.

It seems to me that the conversation between you and W is undercut by his inclusion in the process, even with his complaints about the report.

[Riverwind]

It seems to me that the conversation between you and W is undercut by his inclusion in the process, even with his complaints about the report.

Hardly. The issue has never been whether skeptical views have been aired in different forum. The complaint is whether they are being unreasonably ignored in order to promote the political agenda of the IPCC.

Look at it this way. Colvin cannot argue that he was denied the opportunity to express his views on Afgan detainees. The entire issue centers on whether his veiws were unreasonably ignored by the powers that be.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Peer review serves its purpose. The problem is you want to use peer review for what it is not. All it was ever designed to do is ensure that the argument presented makes sense and that nothing obvious has been left out. Those objectives can easily be met in a public forum like a blog.

Really? And how would we know a blog with a ton of valuable insight from that (those, in their gazzi-billions) that have nothing but loads of meaningless cra.. that only the author would ever care to read?

Anyways, your innovative suggestions for the future of scientific process should be a subject for another discussion.

The real debate about the merit of the argument has happened after it is published.

True. The review only filters out immesurable volumes of meaningless junk and under par research that end up in the blogosphere where no such controls exist.

You tried to set some ground rules and the only one I objected to was the prohibition of analyses done on blogs.

The restriction is only there to assure the verasity of claims. A statement can be addressed on its own merit, or deferred to consideration of others. If it is deferred (ie, referred to), we need a mechanism to ensure its correctness. It's only natural to expect that a review by professional experts ensures at least some confidence (no, not 100% and absolute correctness), while that by a part time poster of unknown education and/or qualification - not as much.

In any case, it can be easily bypassed by anybody really interested in having a meaningful discussion, by championing any claim they'd like to refer to, i.e. presenting and defending it as an original deduction. What can't be done, logically, is to use a statement without any responsibility for its correctness (could it be one of the reasons of "skeptics" great attraction to the blogoshpere?)

You are only pretending to do that. What you really want to do is rig the discussion by excluding sources with you know will refute what you have already belief to be the truth.

Not if it's presented as one of either 1) original deduction that can be examined on its own merits; or 2) a reference that can be taken in confidence because it's been critically analysed by qualified experts in the field.

This is just plain logic, isn't it? And if we consider normal, rational logic as "rigged", then there will be no (rational) limits to conclusions we could reach. Would that be the idea, by any chance?

If you cared about finding the truth you would not care about the source - they only thing that matters is the quality of argument.

But of course, it's not about the source, but and again, the veracity of the argument that I did not use as an original deduction that can be analysed on its merits. The statement I refer to can be correct; or it could be wrong. Because not all possible statements in this world are correct (more like the other way around), I need a way, process that would assure me that it's more likely to be correct, than the opposite. The source, publications of professionally reviewed studies, helps me in that task, but I'm not sure what option you are proposing?

Just to take the reference upon author's word, without any verification? Would it be wise though, given general probability of any random statement of being correct?

Or maybe, analyse and discuss every single statement in every possible blog that could be referred to? Wouldn it be wise, given the finite nature of discussion, while near infinite volumes of junk on this Web?

Or have I missed something?

[Riverwind]

The source, publications of professionally reviewed studies, helps me in that task, but I'm not sure what option you are proposing?

Engage your brain. Stop expecting other people do your thinking for you. One of the virtues of blogs is people can and do critize arguments in the comments or on other blogs. That provides perspective that allows you to forumulate you own opinion about the worth of an argument without requiring some authority to tell you what you should read and what you should ignore. A mindless rejection of all sources that have not been 'pre-approved' is a recipe for ignorance. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Engage your brain. Stop expecting other people do your thinking for you. One of the virtues of blogs is people can and do critize arguments in the comments or on other blogs. That provides perspective that allows you to forumulate you own opinion about the worth of an argument without requiring some authority to tell you what you should read and what you should ignore. A mindless rejection of all sources that have not been 'pre-approved' is a recipe for ignorance.

you like blogs because you can make shit up and not need to back it up with peer reviewed studies or for you to avoid backing up silly bolg science like the quote below...peer reviewed does not include nut case journalists with no expertise in the science in question...

1) CO2 has a logarithmic response which means the more that gets added the less effect it has. If CO2 sensitivity is low we may never run into trouble because we will eventually have to find alternatives to burning oil no matter what the science of GHGs says.

now back it up with a peer reviewed paper not the opinion of blogger with questionable high school science....

[Riverwind]

now back it up with a peer reviewed paper not the opinion of blogger with questionable high school science.

How about On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground by Svante Arrhenius. However, you probably will dismiss it because it was not 'peer reviewed' (no papers were peer reviewed at the time).

A layman's explanation for how the logarithmic relationship comes from that paper.

That's why it is slowing down as the concentration increases, much like the effect of 10th painting of your bedroom. And that's also one of the reasons why our worries should be diminishing even if the CO2 production stays constant. The logarithmic formula guarantees that even though we will probably produce substantially (twice or thrice) more CO2 in the 21st century than we did in the 20th century, it will contribute - via the greenhouse effect - roughly the same amount to the warming.

I realize that you desperately want to believe that CO2 is a catastrophe but a desire to believe it does not make it true. Edited December 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The big difference between SteveMc and the RC gang is when SteveMc makes a mistake he corrects it. That said, many of the "mistakes" that the RC gang accuses him of making are not mistakes at all - they are simply points of disagreement.

your RC fixation aside... there are many sites, represented by actual scientists, that view McIntyre as a buffoon... simply because of his methods/approach and lack of actual knowledge in climate science... notwithstanding his so-called statisticians prowess doesn't stand up to real scrutiny from real scientists. For all his blustering trumped up self-importance, why hasn't McIntyre worked to present his so-called revelations as formal challenges to the status-quo? ... oh, wait... I forgot about your belief that everyone... everyone... is conspiring to keep McIntyre down! Never mind... carry on.

[waldo]

Riverwind & Waldo,

I'm confused by something:

This LINK seems to indicate that Steve Mc has presented to the IPCC ?

The blog intro is wrong - It was at the NIPCC - a gathering of sceptics that goes on each year.

That said, SteveMc was an 'expert reviewer' for the IPCC report and shared in the nobel prize. However, he felt that the IPCC process was rife with conflicts of interest and his comments were unreasonably ignored. Incidently, one of his comments back in 2007 was a complaint that Briffa should not 'hide the decline' in the IPCC graphs. That comment was ignored and the link I gave you earlier illustrates how much was hidden.

that "presentation" had nothing to do with the group of jokesters at the NIPCC... that's a McIntyre "gem" specially crafted for the ongoing Heartland Institute sponsored gatherings of non-believers And yes, I've previously mentioned McIntyre's (and McKitrick's) involvement as reviewers for AR4; mentioned to suggest a degree of openness in IPCC selections for reviewers. Apparently, that didn't go over too well, as it was up against the false mantra that, "the IPCC conspires"!

your comments about hiding the decline... that previously linked article... is utter BS. Again, nothing was hidden, unless you consider "hiding in plain sight" as hidden. Your ignorance or misrepresentation on divergence is well noted... it is not widespread, it is only observed in certain species above certain most northerly latitudes. Through a published paper, Briffa proved that his reconstruction was not influenced by including... or excluding... the small sample of trees from the one small region of Russia that exhibited divergence. Through a published paper, Mann proved that his reconstruction was not impacted by the exclusion of tree proxies. Is divergence an issue? Of course, that's why it's a significantly researched area within dendroclimatology... you know, actual scientists heavily invested in doing actual research towards better understandings within climate science. The consensus is that post-1960 - where divergence has been noted - that until such time as divergence can be better explained and causal relationships established, it is best not to include post-1960 tree-ring proxy related data... as I said - "hiding in plain sight".

By the way, I'll keep asking... just how is McIntyre coming along with his re-analysis of Briffa's latest update... you know, the update that paints McIntyre as the master buffoon? The update that McIntyre promises to get around to... once he finds the time... in what little time retirement affords him!

[waldo]

Peer review means nothing because a lot of junk passes peer review. There can be no discussion unless the focus is on the substance of the arguments and not the forum where they are presented.

Believe what you want but it worth noting that professional journalists once dismissed bloggers as unworthy. They were forced to change their mind. The same will happen to science and scientific chauvinists such as yourself.

Peer review means everything... in spite of some of the questionable papers that get published. Again, you seem to discount the return cycle within the process - peer response. If those questionable papers carry any significance, any weight, they will invariably be challenged with comment or formal papers. And so on, and so on.

Real scientists doing real research have little time for blog science, particularly the current state of blog science. Even the best blogs, those that are somewhat regularly commented on by actual scientists, are not "neutral". Even the more prolific agenda driven blogs (on either side of the debate) cater, overwhelming, to those that favour the respective messages being delivered... most certainly not "neutral" sites. Neutrality and requisite knowledge are absolute standards behind the successful review of new scientific information or challenges to existing understanding... you will never realize that through blogs... to presume so is the epitome of delusion and naivety. Oh, wait... perhaps we could have a poll for the blog masses to decide if paper 'x' gets published - all you need is a keyboard - yeesh!

[Riverwind]

there are many sites, represented by actual scientists, that view McIntyre as a buffoon

All that means is there are many buffoons who call themselves scientists. SteveMc is excellent analyst and that is recognized by many. The people who refuse to acknowledge this are either incompetent buffoons or simply scared of him.

The fact that the 'old boys' network of climate scientists is incapable of dealing with legitimate questions about their work and methods from people like McIntyre is why the entire field needs a housecleaning before we can take any of their claims that seriously.

Real scientists doing real research have little time for blog science

Sure, it takes a lot of time to dream up new ways to adjust the data in order to make AGW look 'worse than we thought' so they can get even more funding from governments. But I was not talking about scientists. I was pointing out to myata that his 'terms for debate' in this forum were rediculous because he sought to exclude blogs as sources.

Peer review is hardly neutral as well but the difference is the political activists posed as reviewers can hide behind a shield of anonymity and never have to account for their excesses.

As I said before: people who refuse to look at sources that have not been peer reviewed are not interested in science or the truth. It is simply a transparent excuse to justify willful ignorance.

The bottom line: if blogs were really as irrelevent as alarmists claim they would not try to restrict the discussion to peer reviewed papers. The fact that try to exclude such information from discussion makes it clear that they fear it.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Peer review means everything...

Only if we can trust the peers...

[waldo]

Only if we can trust the peers...

well... in some cases, particularly tied to the journal in question, particularly the less prestigious journals... the peers reviewing are found and nominated by the actual paper authors. In any case, peer review is less effective in blocking publication given the number of journals that exist. There are so many journals that even modestly competent studies will be published provided that the authors are determined enough... if rejected by one journal, try another... with enough perseverance, a submission might be accepted... it just won't be within one of the more prestigious journals. Which brings us back to the peer-response feedback I keep mentioning; the feedback mechanism within the overall peer-review process that will - and does, ultimately, flush out the questionable papers.

[wyly]

How about On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground by Svante Arrhenius. However, you probably will dismiss it because it was not 'peer reviewed' (no papers were peer reviewed at the time).

1896 oh the desperatiton...can't find anything other than blogs you go back to 1896! right there have been no scientific advancements since 1896!

Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun as Mercury but has a the highest surface temp of any planet because of runaway greenhouse effect-atmospheric content of 97% Co2, something unknown in 1896!

[wyly]

Only if we can trust the peers...

if you can't get past your peers your paper is crap...my daughter is dreading submitting her first paper even Phd's who have submitted before hate going throught the process it's brutal...the review process is meant to be ruthless, cross all your t's dot all the i's overlook nothing and be prepared to answer every question and address every inconsistancy, if not it'll be rejected...that's the way science seperates the crap from the cream...

[waldo]

your RC fixation aside... there are many sites, represented by actual scientists, that view McIntyre as a buffoon... simply because of his methods/approach and lack of actual knowledge in climate science... notwithstanding his so-called statisticians prowess doesn't stand up to real scrutiny from real scientists. For all his blustering trumped up self-importance, why hasn't McIntyre worked to present his so-called revelations as formal challenges to the status-quo? ... oh, wait... I forgot about your belief that everyone... everyone... is conspiring to keep McIntyre down! Never mind... carry on.

All that means is there are many buffoons who call themselves scientists. SteveMc is excellent analyst and that is recognized by many. The people who refuse to acknowledge this are either incompetent buffoons or simply scared of him.

The fact that the 'old boys' network of climate scientists is incapable of dealing with legitimate questions about their work and methods from people like McIntyre is why the entire field needs a housecleaning before we can take any of their claims that seriously.

(please edit your post, the post I quote you from, as you've improperly attributed comment to me... the improperly attached quote actually presents your words, the same words, that you repeat following the improperly attributed quote)

oh yes, McIntyre and his blog 'science' site - The Anatomy of a ClimateAudit Post

Steve McIntyre has quite a few qualities that would make him a respectable scientist - should be ever bother to read the 101 stuff in meteorology, or stop assuming that he knows everything there to know about the climate of the past millennium.

Unfortunately he hides those qualities behind a bruised ego in desperate need of international recognition, culminating in the past few weeks with pathetic complaints for not having been invited at a meeting focused on hi-resolution paleoclimate data.

That’s where I stopped taking him seriously altogether : one can’t simultaneously throw shit at climate “scientists” (the quotes are his) in every post, write papers with confessed AGW-fighters like Pat Michaels, consider econometrics as an appropriate substitute for climatology, act like a douche-bag with everyone he requests data or code from, and expect to be flown to international meetings to talk about stuff he never bothered to read (geochemistry). Here comes a guy who’s got no concept whatsoever about how a coral or foram calcifies, and we should invite him to talk ???

My department Chair Judy Curry, animated by a deep belief that you’ve got to fight climate skeptics on their turf, is the one who enticed me to check out CA and see if his arguments had any validity. *Some* of them sure do, but the basic problem is an abysmally low signal-to-noise ratio, to quote TCO. I have challenged him personally to change that ratio by actually writing *papers* : self-contained material that gathered the outcome of his reflections and highly skilled mathematical forays. He had NO interest in it ; now that he has established himself on the blogosphere and with his GRL 2005 paper, he considers himself an “expert” (no less !!) and finds it superfluous to listen. My personal psychoanalysis of him is that after having to leave academia very young for personal reasons, he finally found in Climate Audit a way to get his long-awaited intellectual recognition. He has found in his blog readers a community of faithful fans continually stroking his ego, complimenting every single of his actions (however insignificant they may be), and - most annoyingly for us scientists interested in a debate - ready to smother any challenger in a textual diarrhea of ignorant comments. Sure, there are a few sharp dudes amongst CA regulars (Mosher is one of them), but their delicate voice is lost in the guttural roars of an army of idiots.

So every sane science-minded person (like Atmoz,Tim Lambert or Eli Rabett) only drops in once a while, only to see (with high probability) a nonsensical post followed by an endless trail of misinformed comments . It is then tempting to tear it apart (a guilty pleasure that I have succumbed to a few times ;-). This only further increases his bad blood, so you can expect more outpours of gratuitous sarcasms.

Out of his thousands of posts, I've found maybe 10 that had real ideas and substance (granted, I don’t spend all day ready CA, I’m not retired yet). I doubt he’ll ever read this, but I’ll say it again : Steve, no-one in the climate community will ever take you seriously until you stop indulging in lynch-crowd pleasing and put your sharp mind to interesting questions.

In the meanwhile, Climate Audit gives us much to chuckle about. Steve McIntyre likes to remind the world that he has a “good mind” (the quote used to be on his wikipedia page as attributed to him). It’s high time he wrote a piece of science to prove it.

I’ve probably read more of Steve’s older posts than anyone except JohnA. I went back and read every single one, when I first found his site. I’ve tried to come to grips with the vast majority of his posts–only the very very linear algebraish (with matrix notation and such) have I stayed away from.

I was sympathetic to the idea of GW not happening. Am politically conservative (well to the right of Steve). And am fascinated by science and complex phenomena. Am very sympathetic to a viewpoint that noodles in details, wants proof, etc. However, I stopped looking at CA much for last several months as it was low signal to noise and I gave up on it changing. But my basic point is that I’ve followed and thought about most of his commentary way more than his hoi polloi (Ken and such).

Steve’s is extremely poor in terms of exposition and analysis of multi-factor problems. He will change two input variables in a comparison (2 equations, three variables) and then make comments about the factor impact (although logically he has not made a full factorial. When called on it, he notes that an effect remains when controlling for the confounder…BUT HE CITES the NUMERICAL impact of the non-controlled sitatuation which OVERSTATES impact…and thus is unfair. Best example here is the “off-center/centered” and “correlation/covariance matrix”. It’s not really clear to me how much of this is bias versus cluelessness. I think the consistent pattern of which way the errors go, what gets written about implies that it is bias (conscious and just internalized) to “get the other guy”.

Also, he usually when faced with a choice, he picks tests that make things look worse than they are, without clearly explaining to the audience what is going on. For example “red noise” which is WAY OVERMODELED and is much too representative of the source data itself rather than “random noise”). Of note, he also almost only cites tests that show something that makes the Team look bad. Of course this is notable, but Steve does it to an extent that it almost looks like cherrypicking of flaws! (I think it’s really eggregious when he looks at isolated cases, etc. And gets his little hornets all stirred up by non-representative cases…sometimes he never even goes back and does the meta-analysis.)

He also mixes in a lot of gratitious (not even relevant to the post at hand) comments about the Team’s sins. He also just segues topics and cites things that may/may not be issues but are not supportive of his thesis. In particular, he tends to write at length about why he decided to look at something…rather than about the thing…and he has what Bender calls a “mystery story style” of presentation.

In addition, he writes with a sort of flowery pompous style. I have usually found that people with this style think they are smarter than they are. To give Steve credit, he’s smart. But it’s still a needlessly stick up the ass style. Read essays by Feynman for contrast. Read Volokh.com. When I see some of the hoi polloi even “allied” hoi pollo like Watts doing the same it just pisses me off.

Actually that gets me to his associations. He tries to avoid too much of the idiot fever swampers like the sun worshipers, but basically takes a much more tolerant attitude to their overstatements than the reverse. He’s also associated himself with bad work/workers like Watts, Chefen, etc. When Loehle had issues with his work, Steve’s commentary was NOT to point out the mistake, but to say that “if it’s a mistake, it’s one that Moberg got away with”! That’s a second order point! Steve had already said that he disagreed with Moberg. But he phrases his comment with Loehle in such a way as to avoid directly commenting on the matter at hand and annoy one of his allies.

In several cases, definitive tests for suppositions that Steve has have been suggested by myself or people like JohnV or Zorita. But Steve avoids doing them (in some cases for years). Instead he does sort of half tests that make his “opponent” look bad, but don’t really isolate issues.

He complains about time, but then spends time recycling old posts, moving on to new areas of skeptic fun, comments on popular media shenanigans (films). I just don’t buy that time argument. If he is going to raise issues like that, he needs to finish them (or be dismissed, which is basically what I’ve done.)

Often there are just MISTAKES (axes, words, notation, pictures messed up, side bars floating etc) in Steve’s posts that makes it distracting to read and think about the subject. He’s also really bad about putting in reference note citations. Although he has very little science writing experience (and I think his co-authors have carried him a bit), he’s still just READ a lot of literature, so he should understand the importance of clear references (NOT “Mann04″, but volume number and journal name and all that.)

He also sometimes writes rather fast and assumes that he has referenced a POINT that he has not. IOW, there’s something clear inside his head…but it never hit the paper…and then he assumes that he has referenced it when he hasn’t. Someone trying to read that type of exposition gets frustrated–the reader starts to wonder how much of the problem comes from complex issues and how much from poor explication…and feels inclined to give up. Or just to go to lowest common denominator stuff like whining about the Team.

The electronic nature of the blog is a huge concern. Look at Chefen’s skeptic blog which disappeard. Chefen had made critical commentary and analysis, got cited on CA, had some mistakes in his work pointed out to him, said he would look into it more…and then the blog went away. I don’t know if he just got sick of having a blog (fine) or if he didn’t want to admit error. More likely the former, but no matter…how can one engage in a debate of science with that sort of ephemeral product? Why would one bother?

Another problem is that Steve’s blog (both in head posts and comments) is revised and that the original copies are not maintained. This is generally not dastardly…but it’s still not properly noted (other blogs make comments that edits have been done). Also in several cases where Steve overstated something or was personally distasteful, he eliminated the evidence of his transgression in the process of apologizing. Engaging with that behavior is also difficult/annoying.

Steve also puts on a bit too much of airs with his comments about financial auditing and prospectus writing and such. He has experience at Canadian shell companies. The amateur legal discussions are also rather pointless given his level of legal knowledge and rather persnickety, but indicative of something about him that he does that.

Steve has also been extremely evasive when questioned about areas where he did something wrong or might have done something wrong. I’ve seen this with the Huybers work, with his red noise. Have also seen it with the Arizona airport fiasco and with others pinning him down. He avoids answering. Wriggles. Gives non-responsive answers. Gives non-explicit corrections. (Usually with Bender blustering in the background and being allowed to do so as sort of a McIntyre’s bulldog.)

I was blown away when Steve suggested that science paper authors should be using Google to search for his writings on papers before submitting articles and then citing him. That reading his “journal” was something a scientist should be required to do. He can publish. Reading Steve’s work is tedious in terms of extracting points. It’s not even up to the standard (a low one) of “econ white paper” or “arxive physics paper”. It’s also reasonably upsetting to have to weed through all the sturm and drang of commentary on his “opponents” (for those opponents…or even with sympathizers of his who value fair play).

***

Generalizing, Steve does two things that cause most of the problems. First, he sees/calls CA a “scratchpad” when in the gunsights, but then expects people to take it as serious contribution when he wants that. This is a “cake and eat it too” attitude. Second, he mixes science analysis and reporting (what “real papers” do) with blogger PR/argumentation/advocacy/game-playing. He does that to such an extent that it’s actually distracting, not merely annoying. I think it even muddles his own thoughts/work.

This is not to say that he’s “all bad”. The problems he noodles into are themselves fascinating. He also deserves credit for writing code (at his age!) and for reading a heck of a lot of literature. And for finding the Hansen code mistake and some MBH non-documented algorithm details. But that blog of his is a MESS in terms of thinking through and documenting analysis.

ya, ya... blog science rules!

[myata]

Engage your brain. Stop expecting other people do your thinking for you. One of the virtues of blogs is people can and do critize arguments in the comments or on other blogs.

Without ever or necessarily establishing veracity of the arguments, so that the fallacy circle could go on and on forever, satisfaction guaranteed?

That provides perspective that allows you to forumulate you own opinion about the worth of an argument without requiring some authority to tell you what you should read and what you should ignore.

Indeed, if and when formulating opinions is taking priority over their verification, no limits to (imagined) results are possible, and neither is an end to any discussion (and therefore any meaning to it).

A mindless rejection of all sources that have not been 'pre-approved' is a recipe for ignorance.

No such "rejection" is made though, only the responsibility of the author of a result to prove its validity within a community of qualified peers so that it could be used in confidence as a building block of science. Without such verification, no meaningful construction is possible (including e.g. your house).

OK, one sceptic out (of meaningful, verifiable and finite in time discussion of "sceptical" issues). Any other takers? The offer will be open till EOB Friday, after which time, the obvious conclusion - that sceptics aren't really interested in a detailed and professional examination of issues, but meaningless irresponsible noise, shall be made public.

[noahbody]

so... you have nothing that can be directly attributed to Christy... no direct quotations - nothing whatsoever. You have a graph that your CEI hack purports to originate from Christy. If the graph originates from Christy, surely you can offer it in that context, with Christy comment/statement clarifying what "his update" intends to state... and how "he" arrived at it. Or...

During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm

I posted the last part when you first asked if you recall.

[Shady]

Peer review means everything...

Actually, peer review means absolutely nothing. The peer review process has been corrupted, by the same dishonest individuals who've corrupted the data, and who's emails and dishonesty have been shown to the world.

The true-believers use "peer review" as a crutch, in an attempt to prevent their entire house of cards from falling. But peer review is as much of a hoax as AGW itself.

Peer review is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, peer review means absolutely nothing. The peer review process has been corrupted, by the same dishonest individuals who've corrupted the data, and who's emails and dishonesty have been shown to the world.

The true-believers use "peer review" as a crutch, in an attempt to prevent their entire house of cards from falling. But peer review is as much of a hoax as AGW itself.

Peer review is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If we don't have peer review, then we don't have scandal. Think about what you're saying here. Because a few individuals tried unsuccessfully, to prevent publication, the process of peer review is worthless.

Would we throw out democracy because of a few crooked elections ? If so, then come up with something better.

[myata]

Still no "sceptical" takers (for a serious, detailed and disciplined discussion of alleged issues with the climate science). I'm surprised and confounded. Where did all the sceptics leave, once the discussion took disciplined and responsible direction??

[Riverwind]

Still no "sceptical" takers (for a serious, detailed and disciplined discussion of alleged issues with the climate science). I'm surprised and confounded. Where did all the sceptics leave, once the discussion took disciplined and responsible direction??

Gee, you walk in define rules of debate that suit you and then complain that everyone thinks that your rules are ridiculous? As I said, if you were really interested in a disciplined and responsible discussion then you would not try to exclude analyses based on where they were published. The only thing that matters is the merit of the argument. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Dusty Woman]

Rex is entitled to his opinion.

The CPC could have saved themselves a lot of headache if they would simply do what the Liberals did. Make unrealistic targets, go home heros and then....forget-about-it. Simple and everyone's happy.

BTW the climate has been changing since the ice-age. Just ask any dinosaur.