Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

I have read a lot on this topic. I have read what many climate scientists have said themselves on the topic. In many cases they openly admit they have not read or understood sceptical arguments yet they are still convinced they are completely wrong.

many? Certainly, since you've self-declared you've read a lot on the subject, you should have no difficulty in providing... even a few example(s), with complete proper context. You're basically stating that prominent, significant skeptical papers that clearly bring forward legitimate challenge to existing science... or introduce new understanding... are being outright dismissed/ignored. You're effectively denying "peer response" exists.

[TimG]

what about the denialsphere meltdown concerning the IPCC's use of non-peer reviewed sources, most particularly within the 'social sciences' influenced WG2 report?

A perfect example of someone who knows nothing about what the sceptical argument is and instead whines about strawmen.

The are two problems with the IPCC's use of non-peer reviewed sources:

1) The decision to include of non-peer reviewed sources is purely a judgment call on the part of the chapter authors and creates an opportunity for bias since it is impossible to cite every possible non-peer reviewed source. If there was no evidence of bias in the selection of non-peer reviewed sources there would be no complaint. However, every non-peer reveiwed source happened to support only one side of the debate which makes it clear that the chapter authors who made the selection were biased.

2) IPCC supporters had publically stated that the IPCC only used peer reviewed sources and used that as a excuse to ignore sceptical arguments. They made this claim despite the fact that the IPCC's own guidelines specifically allowed the use of non-peer reviewed sources. The use of non-peer sources exposed IPCC supporters as liars and hypocrites.

Neither argument claims that the use of non-peer reviewed sources is necessarily bad.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

A reaffirmation of the original assertion, based on personal anecdote, without supporting information?

I am placing a lot of weight on claims I have seen made by practicing climate scientists like Judith Curry on forums like this. It is tough to cite such sources. I have no reason to believe these claims are wrong or inaccurate given the existence of places like RC where they have made rebutting strawman an artform.

I can also turn it around: where is you evidence that the climate scientists actually read and understand sceptical arguments before they dismiss them?

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

A perfect example of someone who knows nothing about what the sceptical argument is and instead whines about strawmen.

The are two problems with the IPCC's use of non-peer reviewed sources:

1) The decision to include of non-peer reviewed sources is purely a judgment call on the part of the chapter authors and creates an opportunity for bias since it is impossible to cite every possible non-peer reviewed source. If there was no evidence of bias in the selection of non-peer reviewed sources there would be no complaint. However, every non-peer reveiwed source happened to support only one side of the debate which makes it clear that the chapter authors were biased.

citizen auditors, perhaps? Please... go there - we can have some real fun - hey?

2) IPCC supporters had publically stated that they only used peer reviewed sources and used that as a excuse to ignore sceptical arguments. They made this claim despite the fact that the IPCC's own guidelines specifically allowed the use of non-peer reviewed sources. The use of non-peer sources exposed IPCC supporters as liars and hypocrites.

nonsense... you obviously recognize the existence of various types of IPCC reports - that emphasis you're attempting to miscast reflects upon WG1 - the Physical Sciences basis where the overwhelming body of cited papers are peer-reviewed. The nature of the WG2 and WG3 reports, particularly WG2, lend themselves to relying, more so, on literature/information that does not exist within peer-reviewed sources. From a WG1 - Physical Sciences focus, what type of published science does not appear within legitimate peer-reviewed journals... denier blog science, perhaps?

[waldo]

I am placing a lot of weight on claims I have seen made by practicing climate scientists like Judith Curry on forums like this. It is tough to cite such sources. I have no reason to believe these claims are wrong or inaccurate given the existence of places like RC where they have made rebutting strawman an artform.

ah, yes... it took awhile - Judith Curry! How would you like your ass handed to you?

[TimG]

you obviously recognize the existence of various types of IPCC reports - that emphasis you're attempting to miscast reflects upon WG1 - the Physical Sciences basis where the overwhelming body of cited papers are peer-reviewed.

I have made it clear that I do not dispute much in WG1 other than the probability estimates which I feel are nothing but subjective handwaving. My beef with the IPCC is entirely with WG2 and WG3 which I feel has systematically exagerrated he negative effects of warming while seriously underestimating the costs of reducing CO2. Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

ah, yes... it took awhile - Judith Curry! How would you like your ass handed to you?

So were is your evidence that scientists actually read and understand sceptical arguments before they dismiss them?

Keep in mind that you do not even understand sceptical arguments so it will be really tough for you to plausible argue that others do.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

I have made it repeatly clear that I do not dispute much in WG1 other than the probability estimates which I feel are nothing but subjective handwaving. My beef with the IPCC is entirely with WG2 and WG3.

then be clear and precise with your target criticisms... the emphasis on IPCC being peer-reviewed is/has been WG1... you know, the actual supporting scientific foundation.

[TimG]

then be clear and precise with your target criticisms... the emphasis on IPCC being peer-reviewed is/has been WG1... you know, the actual supporting scientific foundation.

The 'science is sound' argument is nothing but BS. Every word in WG1 could be absolutely correct but that still would not mean that we should be adopting policies to reduce CO2. The science cannot and should dictate what policies we should adopt. Policy decisions are questions of economics and values - not science. Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

So were is your evidence that scientists actually read and understand sceptical arguments before they dismiss them?

it's called... peer-response... and it's not dismissive.

[waldo]

The 'science is sound' argument is nothing but BS. Every word in WG1 could be absolutely correct but that still would not mean that we should be adopting policies to reduce CO2. The science cannot and should dictate what policies we should adopt. Policy decisions are questions of economics and values - not science.

the science is sound argument is the foundation - the foundation to recognize that appropriate measures (prevention, mitigation, adaptation), are applied, subject to agreed policy mandate. Is there a problem?

[lukin]

the science is sound argument is the foundation - the foundation to recognize that appropriate measures (prevention, mitigation, adaptation), are applied, subject to agreed policy mandate. Is there a problem?

Even NASA is part of the agenda.

[TimG]

it's called... peer-response... and it's not dismissive.

I am not talking about arguments made in the peer reviewed literature. For example, most scientists believe that the hockey stick has been replicated many times. That is not true. All the 'replications' either do not go back to the MWP or they simply recycle the same bad proxies in different studies with slightly different methods.

When SteveMc pointed these flaws out with Mann08 in a comment in PNAS, Mann dismissed SteveMc's claims as 'bizarre' - a response which shows that Mann is either a dishonest liar or an incompetent buffoon.

[waldo]

Even NASA is part of the agenda.

Pffft

[bloodyminded]

I am placing a lot of weight on claims I have seen made by practicing climate scientists like Judith Curry on forums like this. It is tough to cite such sources. I have no reason to believe these claims are wrong or inaccurate given the existence of places like RC where they have made rebutting strawman an artform.

You take the claims on faith, then.

I can also turn it around: where is you evidence that the climate scientists actually read and understand sceptical arguments before they dismiss them?

This would be difficult, if not impossible, to do....but you were the one who made the claim, not me.

Further, you still stand behind it.

So...aside from "claims...made by practicing climate scientists like Judith Curry on forums like this" (begging the question of who are all the other practicing climate scientists on forums like this who would back you up), where do you get the idea--stated, as fact, which you did--that "the majority" of climate scientists do (or rather fail to do) what you claim?

[TimG]

the science is sound argument is the foundation - the foundation to recognize that appropriate measures (prevention, mitigation, adaptation), are applied, subject to agreed policy mandate. Is there a problem?

The problem is sceptics do not argue about the science - they argue about the policies but alarmists do not want to argue the policies. Instead, they insist on using their interpretation of the science as a club to force people to agree with their preferred polciies.

[TimG]

"the majority" of climate scientists do (or rather fail to do) what you claim?

Ok fine. Claiming majority was over reach on my part. I really have no idea about the exact percentage but I do know the problem of scientists dismissing arguments they don't even understand is real. Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Ok fine. Claiming majority was over reach on my part. I really have no idea about the exact percentage but I do know the problem of scientists dismissing arguments they don't even understand is real.

Fair enough.

[waldo]

So were is your evidence that scientists actually read and understand sceptical arguments before they dismiss them?

it's called... peer-response... and it's not dismissive.

I am not talking about arguments made in the peer reviewed literature. For example, most scientists believe that the hockey stick has been replicated many times. That is not true. All the 'replications' either do not go back to the MWP or they simply recycle the same bad proxies in different studies with slightly different methods.

When SteveMc pointed these flaws out with Mann08 in a comment in PNAS, Mann dismissed SteveMc's claims as 'bizarre' - a response which shows that Mann is either a dishonest liar or an incompetent buffoon.

ah yes, another water-carrier for the charlatan McIntyre... buddy, he's had more than 5 years to actually publish something... anything! What's holding him back?

let's have you be precise on something - hey? Or, rather... let's hold your 'feet to the fire'... at least on this attempt... the particular 'bizarre' reference is in regards to (of course), the so-called upside down Tijander proxy - we could have some fun there, right? One small inconsequential piece... one of many proxys, but one that wasn't even factored into the paper. But don't let that stop you from making a grandiose summation and another miscast focus. The actual MBH response to McIntyre:

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available at www.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.

waldo: emphasis added

but really... c'mon... the 'hockey stick' reconstruction - that's your go-to?

[waldo]

The problem is sceptics do not argue about the science - they argue about the policies but alarmists do not want to argue the policies. Instead, they insist on using their interpretation of the science as a club to force people to agree with their preferred polciies.

nonsense... are the skeptics you describe arguing about policy... arguing amongst themselves?

I do rather like your one point though, particularly as we can apply it to the MLW usual suspects who argue feverishly about 'the science'... since you say skeptics don't argue about the science, we should then formally have them accept their 'DD' status (Denying their Denial). Hey now... you've argued about the science - oh my!

[TimG]

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

This response is a perfect example of how alarmists simply cannot/do not understand the arguments being made and choose to rebut strawmen which are sufficient to fool people like you.

In this case, M&M know perfectly well that "multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors". Their criticism is proxies have physical meaning and cannot be inverted. i.e. if the biology of tree rings says they should increase as temperature increases you cannot then flip them around and claim that tree rings decrease in size as temperature increases. Yet this is exactly what Mann is arguing he should be allowed to do simply because he used a method that is valid for proxies that are inversely correlated with temperatures (i.e. the method is valid *if* a proxy had a physical meaning that requires a negative sign)

Personally, this particular point should be easy to understand and there is no justification for Mann's response or any defence of Mann on this point.

Now I predict you will completely avoid addressing the actual argument being made and will instead follow up with irrelevant ad homs and reems of quoted text which also ignore the key point.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

no - the response doesn't acknowledge the proxy related data was 'upside-down'... the response states it's an irrelevant point. As is standard fare for McIntyre, he blasted out of the gate harping on PCA, on the use of tree-proxy's... and Mann (and others) blow him out of the water by showing the same effective reconstructions without PCA, without the use of tree proxies. Of course, McIntyre's entire routine is to throw out the data... any data... that would actually provide him a hockey stick reconstruction - can't have that, you know! It's quite comical - indeed... just a little more comical that watching McIntyre hang his complete being on endlessly trying to vindicate himself. And almost as comical to see how his Hackergate submission was absolutely demolished... and almost as comical as watching his fearless defenders... like you... attempt to pump up his cause! It's the hockey-stick, for freaking out loud - do you actually maintain it still holds any principal significance... today?

uhhh... what was your "key" point, again?

[TimG]

The hockey stick issues are being rehashed on RC and CA:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/#more-11534

I do see how any reasonable person could agree with the Mann/RC position on the hockey sticks.

Edited July 25, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

The hockey stick issues are being rehashed on RC and CA:

I do see how any reasonable person could agree with the Mann/RC position on the hockey sticks.

rehashed? I thought everyone but McIntyre and his favoured 'pit bull', Montford, had moved on... what's up? Oh right, Montford has a new book to sell!

but let's get the right link up front - hey => the Montford Delusion ... and since you mentioned McIntyre's #1 fangirl, Judith Curry, let's focus in on a couple of exchanges between GS and Curry... and, of course, this isn't even GS's field of expertise - here & here. As has become the repeated pattern for Curry, many times over, she pumps out McIntyre talking points and when actually challenged on them, does a Curry-Scurry and back-peddles... this one is classic, one of the best yet.

[jbg]

is actually the more pertinent point because stopping or even significantly lowering emissions is not a technically feasible option. The only real choice is 1) trash out economies with ineffective policies that push business and jobs overseas 2) adapt as required. 2) is the only rational choice as far as I am concerned.

Agreed heartily. But then why do you trash Joe D'Aleo elsewhere?

___________________

Best Dating Services

Dating Websites

What does this have to do with the topic?