CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[TimG]

Waldo Propoganda Tactic #15: If you don't like where the discussion is headed because you lack good arguments attempt to divert it with questions that have nothing to with the discussion a hand.

[waldo]

Waldo Propoganda Tactic #15: If you don't like where the discussion is headed because you lack good arguments attempt to divert it with questions that have nothing to with the discussion a hand.

you mean the spoon-feeding you're doing? Buddy, I'm with ya... can we get it legitimized? Can we get it formally recognized? Scientific advancement and all that, right?

just answer the question - the question that most certainly has everything to with this discussion. Like I said, I'm with ya... just answer the following:

Let me play devil's advocate here... let me, hypothetically, up front, state that everything and anything DenierBlogWorld asserts about Mann et al 2008/9 is correct. Why won't "those denizens" of DenierBlogWorld formalize their claimed "correctness" within the recognized & accepted vehicle of scientific advancement - Peer Review? Why, why not?

[Michael Hardner]

Why do I get the feeling that there is an angel and devil trying to get my soul ?

I just want to understand the issue. That's my goal here.

[TimG]

Why do I get the feeling that there is an angel and devil trying to get my soul ?

you don't need to decide which is which.

One of the problems with this debate is people end up resorting arguments from authority because the issues are so bloody complicated and which authorities you believe tends to come do to which authorities suit your predispositions. The problem applies to most scientists as well as laymen.

I picked this example because the issues are straight forward enough to allow someone with a basic understanding of regression and correlation to make their own determination and eliminate the need to resort to an 'argument from authority'.

Edited March 14, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Why do I get the feeling that there is an angel and devil trying to get my soul ?

I just want to understand the issue. That's my goal here.

let's be very clear here - in a want to "understand the issue", to whatever resolution you personally are comfortable with stating, without you acknowledging/recognizing the underlying theme here, you are, effectively, enabling the most zealous outreach of the denialsphere... ala a bow to so-called postmodernism, to the hapless "Post Modern Science", to have scientific method/knowledge/practice shifted to include BlogScience as a recognized vehicle for formal scientific review/response/advancement. That is it - plain and simple.

on a general level, on many accounts, through all these blog level machinations (on both sides), the so-called tribes have solidified to a standoff point on so many levels, on so many issues. But at the end of the day, today, there still remains, a/the recognized authority for full and complete engagement; i.e., Peer-Review/Response. In this particular issue's case, the published paper's scientific authors are not formally engaged... and they never will be in the current paradigm. Whatever the published paper, BlogScience is not the appropriate vehicle for full and complete engagement of scientific personnel, for the advancement of scientific understanding, knowledge, relevancy and record.

... as already stated, several times now, there is no single paper that has had as much written about it outside of formal channels. Quite literally, hundreds and hundreds of blog threads have been established over it, thousands and thousands of words have been written about it... much of the issue has been fueled by the obsession of one person (McIntyre), much of it driven by an outright 'hatred' of a single person... a single Mann... or more graciously, driven by his symbolic casting.

most absolutely, we all assert our own interpretations; however, I would attest to most/all of those legitimate assertions being founded upon established/recognized science, prevailing published papers, scientific positions held/announced, scientific records/data, etc. In this case, however, for some reason, the denialsphere can't channel all its energy, its "juices", its vitriolic & venomous spew, to gather all its presumed presence/substance and issue a full, complete and resounding formal challenge. TimG sloughs this quandary off with a dismissive wave... calling it an, "irrelevant distraction". Why? Plain and simple - why?

TimG now beaks off about, 'no need to argue from authority'... yet he himself, through all the endless back and forth, on numerous occasions, defined the authority himself. He most clearly presumed to argue from the level he self-declared as authoritative. Hypocrite.

[TimG]

I am sure the police would be a lot happier if everyone did not have a portable video camera.

But society is much better off with a more accountable police force even if some of the videos taken lack context.

Scientists are no different from police. They fight the change brought on by technology because it disrupts their "old boys" networks. But society is much better off.

[waldo]

I am sure the police would be a lot happier if everyone did not have a portable video camera.

But society is much better off with a more accountable police force even if some of the videos taken lack context.

Scientists are no different from police. They fight the change brought on by technology because it disrupts their "old boys" networks. But society is much better off.

ever the Fanboy! Blog Science... technological advancement policing scientists! I must admit this is a somewhat calmed response of yours, differing dramatically from your usual conspiracy flavoured invectives against the 'good ole-boys' Peer-Review gate-keeping efforts intended to keep the DenierMan down!

I guess this is probably as close to having you formally acknowledge the real reason McIntyre & posse refuses to follow-through with a formal challenge to the paper... he's too busy policing scientists from the cozy confines of his sheltered blogWorld... or from the seat of his next keynote address at the next Heartland conference. Nuff said, hey?

[Michael Hardner]

let's be very clear here - in a want to "understand the issue", to whatever resolution you personally are comfortable with stating, without you acknowledging/recognizing the underlying theme here, you are, effectively, enabling the most zealous outreach of the denialsphere... ala a bow to so-called postmodernism, to the hapless "Post Modern Science", to have scientific method/knowledge/practice shifted to include BlogScience as a recognized vehicle for formal scientific review/response/advancement. That is it - plain and simple.

I see what you're getting at, but I see it as such:

People have a right to learn, in fact a duty to learn as much as they can in order to form opinions.

At a certain level, you can't hope to understand what is being discussed, so you have to "believe" a proxy.

In order for democracy to work, we need simple issues and honest proxies.

Now, to add a personal note: I *should* be able to understand this issue given my background.

on a general level, on many accounts, through all these blog level machinations (on both sides), the so-called tribes have solidified to a standoff point on so many levels, on so many issues. But at the end of the day, today, there still remains, a/the recognized authority for full and complete engagement; i.e., Peer-Review/Response. In this particular issue's case, the published paper's scientific authors are not formally engaged... and they never will be in the current paradigm. Whatever the published paper, BlogScience is not the appropriate vehicle for full and complete engagement of scientific personnel, for the advancement of scientific understanding, knowledge, relevancy and record.

No, but it's a vehicle for the everyman to understand as best he/she can.

... as already stated, several times now, there is no single paper that has had as much written about it outside of formal channels. Quite literally, hundreds and hundreds of blog threads have been established over it, thousands and thousands of words have been written about it... much of the issue has been fueled by the obsession of one person (McIntyre), much of it driven by an outright 'hatred' of a single person... a single Mann... or more graciously, driven by his symbolic casting.

most absolutely, we all assert our own interpretations; however, I would attest to most/all of those legitimate assertions being founded upon established/recognized science, prevailing published papers, scientific positions held/announced, scientific records/data, etc. In this case, however, for some reason, the denialsphere can't channel all its energy, its "juices", its vitriolic & venomous spew, to gather all its presumed presence/substance and issue a full, complete and resounding formal challenge. TimG sloughs this quandary off with a dismissive wave... calling it an, "irrelevant distraction". Why? Plain and simple - why?

TimG now beaks off about, 'no need to argue from authority'... yet he himself, through all the endless back and forth, on numerous occasions, defined the authority himself. He most clearly presumed to argue from the level he self-declared as authoritative. Hypocrite.

Argument from authority is fine, as long as the authority is real and relevant.

In any case, this issue (on a meta level) is about democracy vs. authority at it's most elementary struggle. Every citizen is considered wise enough to vote, and therefore their opinions are equally valid. Yet, when they vote on an issue that requires deep understanding there's a dichotomy at play.

[Michael Hardner]

ever the Fanboy!

This is dismissive if not insulting.

TimG has at least shown patience in sticking with the dialogue and arguing to the line represented by his camp, so I don't see why you have to be that way.

It may be that the phenomenon known as the internet has empowered decentralized knowledge, to the point where institutions need to adapt to address islands of skepticism, doubt, and - yes - eccentricity.

[TimG]

It may be that the phenomenon known as the internet has empowered decentralized knowledge, to the point where institutions need to adapt to address islands of skepticism, doubt, and - yes - eccentricity.

Judy Curry makes the same point on CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/03/12/demon-coal-part-1/

Her interview starts at 33:00

[waldo]

In any case, this issue (on a meta level) is about democracy vs. authority at it's most elementary struggle. Every citizen is considered wise enough to vote, and therefore their opinions are equally valid. Yet, when they vote on an issue that requires deep understanding there's a dichotomy at play.

oh please - raising this issue/exchange to the level of rights, working democracy and authoritative "struggle/balance" is ridiculous. Are you so lost in the weeds? There is no right/wrong in blog level exchange... not to the level of recognized scientific authority. Blog Science is not the burgeoning and fledgling nation crying out for its democratic rights... formal scientific process is not the dictatorial oversight impinging on the rights of the downtrodden DenierBlogMan!

It may be that the phenomenon known as the internet has empowered decentralized knowledge, to the point where institutions need to adapt to address islands of skepticism, doubt, and - yes - eccentricity.

apparently you don't wade into the swamp often, hey? Islands of skepticism! Yes, there is legitimate skepticism... it most certainly is not dispensed from the likes of biased arbiters of self-serving audit.

Judy Curry

of course, the crazy bag-lady of post-normal advocacy... wholly embraced by the denialsphere. You betcha! She has no credibility - none.

[Michael Hardner]

oh please - raising this issue/exchange to the level of rights, working democracy and authoritative "struggle/balance" is ridiculous. Are you so lost in the weeds? There is no right/wrong in blog level exchange... not to the level of recognized scientific authority.

Nor is there in democracy.

Blog Science is not the burgeoning and fledgling nation crying out for its democratic rights... formal scientific process is not the dictatorial oversight impinging on the rights of the downtrodden DenierBlogMan!

Hmmm.... Your interpretation of the dichotomy I presented seems to see nobility in democracy. It's a strange idea coming from you, seeing on all the idiots you must see out there...

apparently you don't wade into the swamp often, hey? Islands of skepticism! Yes, there is legitimate skepticism... it most certainly is not dispensed from the likes of biased arbiters of self-serving audit.

You're examining my metaphors too closely.

[TimG]

Hmmm.... Your interpretation of the dichotomy I presented seems to see nobility in democracy. It's a strange idea coming from you, seeing on all the idiots you must see out there...

Blog science is messy. People who probably should shut up can get hold of bull horn and spread some pretty ridiculous ideas. On the other hand there are people doing good science on blogs which embarrasses the establishment. Determining which is which can be a challenge but I do not want to go back to the days when the only way to discuss science was to go through 'official' channels because I simply do not trust 'oficials' any more.

Nothing illustrates the need for avenues outside the 'offical channels' than people like waldo make blanket condemnations of any science done outside of 'official channels'. It is clear that people like him see the 'official channels' as a way to control the message and ensure that only their views are represented.

Edited March 15, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Blog science is messy. People who probably should shut up can get hold of bull horn and spread some pretty ridiculous ideas. On the other hand there are people doing good science on blogs which embarrasses the establishment. Determining which is which can be a challenge but I do not want to go back to the days when the only way to discuss science was to go through 'official' channels because I simply do not trust 'oficials' any more.

Nothing illustrates the need for avenues outside the 'offical channels' than people like waldo make blanket condemnations of any science done outside of 'official channels'. It is clear that people like him see the 'official channels' as a way to control the message and ensure that only their views are represented.

bollocks! What "science" is being done on blogs? Off the top, the only positive contribution I can think of is the grouping of 6 (8?) different blog related pursuits that brought forward confirmation on the veracity of various existing national/global surface temperature records and the related methodology/processing involved... ultimately, simply leveraging the available open source code/data from the authorized 'owners/management' of the surface temperature data/processing. A sorry, sad event for the likes of deniers Watts, Inhofe et al - indeed!

blog level nattering is not, as you say, "doing good science". When something does break out from the typical blog level, when it does rise to a point of significance, that ultimate contribution has not been performed at the blog level; rather, it represents persons following the traditional path of recognized formal Peer-Review... emphasis on recognized. I need go no further than resurrect an easy MLW search to highlight your nonsense claiming 'gate-keeping' against Spencer as your rationale for Spencer seeking out an obscure unrelated journal to publish his failed science. Notwithstanding of course, this on its own highlights the very distinction I'm making. Certainly, Spencer discusses his failed science at his blog level, but he worked to package that failed science for (equally failed) "peer-review" submission through the obscure journal he sought out.

your hypocrisy is running rampant in a few of these recent posts of yours. Quite obviously, no matter how hard you attempt to play your 'lack of trust and gate-keeping' card, many skeptic papers are published... regularly published. In some cases these most certainly help to raise the bar on understandings; unfortunately for your ideological bent, most of these fail the Response cycle within Peer-Review.

in this particular case, you steadfastly refuse to state why no one at the blog level has ever sought to formally bundle/package the thousands of words written into a formal challenge to the Mann et al paper... 3+ years later and counting. Just answer the question - why?

[Michael Hardner]

1200 datasets, but a single paper like Tiljander has several datasets (4).

http://amac1.blogspot.com/2010/08/tiljander-data-series-data-and-graphs.html

But these datasets are all dervived from the Xray measurements:

http://amac1.blogspot.com/2011/08/lightsum-and-darksum-are-calculated-not.html

Note that Mann acknowledges that he should have used a "a one-sided significance criterion" where "the sign of the correlation could a priori be specified". But he did not. If he had he would not have used the data because it would have been screened out.

Back to it:

1200 datasets but a single paper has several datasets ? What does that mean ?

Tiljander used 4 datasets - screened from 1200 ? And Mann used 400 ?

[waldo]

Back to it:

alright, certainly... you also have chosen to ignore the same request. Please answer the question/request or advise why you choose not to - thanks in advance.

Michael, further to my suggestion to you, might you be inclined to answer the very question TimG steadfastly refuses to answer - or to even acknowledge? Oh wait, he did call the question an, "irrelevant distraction". I know from your writings in the past you've held to a clear distinction between peer-reviewed and blog science. In that vein, why do you believe/interpret no one has formally challenged the prevailing MBH PNAS comment on this paper... over the period of 3+ years?

[TimG]

1200 datasets but a single paper has several datasets? What does that mean?

Someone goes out and collects data. Someone else will collect this data and analyze it in a paper. A single paper may provide several related datasets. Mann then came along and took the data from many papers and used his algorithms to choose the ones that actually correlated with temperature in the last 100 years. Only 400 out of 1200 met his criteria. 3 of the 4 Tiljandander datasets were included in that 400 but they should not have been because data contamination produced a spurious correlation with temperature. Edited March 16, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

1200 datasets but a single paper has several datasets ? What does that mean ?

Tiljander used 4 datasets - screened from 1200 ? And Mann used 400?

Mann et al. 10.1073/pnas.0805721105 - Supporting Information SI Text:

... Screening Procedure.

To pass screening, a series was required to exhibit a statistically significant (P < 0.10) correlation with either one of the two closest instrumental surface temperature grid points over the calibration interval (although see discussion below about the influence of temporal autocorrelation, which reduces the effective criterion to roughly P < 0.13 in the case of correlations at the annual time scales).

The screening process was performed on annual time scales for annually-resolved proxies, and on decadal time scales for decadally resolved proxies. Screening was performed separately for the full available overlap interval between proxy and instrumental data (1850–1995) and the shorter calibration intervals (1896–1995 and 1850–1949) used for validation experiments. We assumed n = 144 nominal degrees of freedom over the 1850–1995 (146-year) interval for correlations between annually resolved records (although see discussion below about influence of temporal autocorrelation at the annual time scales), and n = 13° of freedom for decadal resolution records. The corresponding one-sided P = 0.10 significance thresholds are |r| = 0.11 and |r| = 0.34, respectively. For the shorter (100-year) calibration intervals, we assumed n = 98 nominal degrees of freedom for annually resolved records, and n = 8° of freedom for decadal resolution records. The corresponding one-sided P = 0.10 significance thresholds are |r| = 0.13 and |r| = 0.42 respectively. Owing to reduced degrees of freedom arising from modest temporal autocorrelation, the effective P value for annual screening is slightly higher (P ~ 0.128) than the nominal (P = 0.10) value. For the decadally resolved proxies, the effect is negligible because the decadal time scale of the smoothing is long compared with the intrinsic autocorrelation time scales of the data.

Although 484 (~40%) pass the temperature screening process over the full (1850–1995) calibration interval, one would expect that no more than ~150 (<13%) of the proxy series would pass the screening procedure described above by chance alone. This observation indicates that selection bias, although potentially problematic when employing screened predictors (see e.g. Schneider (5); note, though, that in their reply, Hegerl et al. (10) contest that this is actually an issue in the context of their own study), does not appear a significant problem in our case.

as suggested to you previously, pay attention to the calibration, assigned weightings and sensitivity testing therein..... and, please address the following; as in respond, or suggest why you won't - thanks in advance:

... you also have chosen to ignore the same request. Please answer the question/request or advise why you choose not to - thanks in advance.

Michael, further to my suggestion to you, might you be inclined to answer the very question TimG steadfastly refuses to answer - or to even acknowledge? Oh wait, he did call the question an, "irrelevant distraction". I know from your writings in the past you've held to a clear distinction between peer-reviewed and blog science. In that vein, why do you believe/interpret no one has formally challenged the prevailing MBH PNAS comment on this paper... over the period of 3+ years?

[Michael Hardner]

alright, certainly... you also have chosen to ignore the same request. Please answer the question/request or advise why you choose not to - thanks in advance.

Request ?

Oh, this:

In that vein, why do you believe/interpret no one has formally challenged the prevailing MBH PNAS comment on this paper... over the period of 3+ years?

I don't know. Probably because there's no point to it ? Maybe there were mistakes that came out in the wash ? Why does it matter as to my guess/interpretation on the situation ?

[waldo]

Why does it matter as to my guess/interpretation on the situation?

it clearly matters... and your dismissive nature/tone in this matter is most questionable. It clearly matters, whether it's you, it's me, or it's anyone else presuming to extend beyond the recognized formal prevailing record of account. Those extending presumptions reflect interpretations - or "interpretations of interpretation". Those extending presumptions are, themselves, subject to scrutiny and bear the weight of, in many cases, purposeful isolation from the prevailing record of account... that is to say, scientists are sometimes being purposely excluded from the process, while agenda driven mad-hatters trumpet "Blog Science" as a legitimate alternative in measuring the weight/substance/quality/merit... and standing of scientific papers. It is one thing for blogs to scrutinize released scientific papers... that is the norm - it is an entirely different matter to refuse to channel that scrutiny forward for legitimate challenge to the prevailing record of account. This is no trivial paper that took a couple of shots here and there... this situation reflects a purposely crafted many years long narrative, one aimed, principally, to discredit a single scientists work, while not allowing that scientist any opportunity to formally receive that scrutiny/challenge (legitimate or not) and to respond, in kind. That narrative has been used as a cornerstone to further attack the legitimacy of paleo reconstructions, and to sully the science and reputations of many other scientists, by association.

I don't know. Probably because there's no point to it ? Maybe there were mistakes that came out in the wash?

the "no point to it" is pretty much why (most) everyone moved on from it about 18 months ago - everyone but the obsessive McIntyre and his fervent soldiers (like TimG). The prevailing sentiment on why several blogs shut down discussion on the subject was because it had become a parody of itself - the same arguments continually dredged forward, repeated ad nauseum. The prevailing sentiment was one that settled in around the same theme I've been pushing here - how can there be any point to it, if the fervent skeptics can't channel their energies forward into shaping a formal challenge to the paper... a formal challenge that would reflect upon the spent years and years and the hundreds of thousands of article words and commentary written about it. What's the point of the McIntyre fueled obsession where he lounges in the preferred shelter and protected confines of controlled blog enclaves? The points... other than to posture from declared self-serving authority and to help prop-up another keynote address at the next Heartland Institute or like gathering. Other than those points?

[TimG]

When waldo knows he has no actual argument he tries to distract people with appeals to authority.

When an argument is true is it true no matter what venue it is published in.

It is an act of desperation to try and convince people that only arguments presented in his "approved" venues should even be considered. If everyone thought like waldo we would be still living in the dark ages.

[Michael Hardner]

it clearly matters... and your dismissive nature/tone in this matter is most questionable. It clearly matters, whether it's you, it's me, or it's anyone else presuming to extend beyond the recognized formal prevailing record of account. Those extending presumptions reflect interpretations - or "interpretations of interpretation". Those extending presumptions are, themselves, subject to scrutiny and bear the weight of, in many cases, purposeful isolation from the prevailing record of account... that is to say, scientists are sometimes being purposely excluded from the process, while agenda driven mad-hatters trumpet "Blog Science" as a legitimate alternative in measuring the weight/substance/quality/merit... and standing of scientific papers. It is one thing for blogs to scrutinize released scientific papers... that is the norm - it is an entirely different matter to refuse to channel that scrutiny forward for legitimate challenge to the prevailing record of account. This is no trivial paper that took a couple of shots here and there... this situation reflects a purposely crafted many years long narrative, one aimed, principally, to discredit a single scientists work, while not allowing that scientist any opportunity to formally receive that scrutiny/challenge (legitimate or not) and to respond, in kind. That narrative has been used as a cornerstone to further attack the legitimacy of paleo reconstructions, and to sully the science and reputations of many other scientists, by association.

It's hard for me to understand why my answer matters here... especially since you said it doesn't seem to matter to the science overall.

Does it help if I explain that I have faith in the peer-review process ? Will that quell your curiosity while I try to understand this specific example ?

[waldo]

When an argument is true is it true no matter what venue it is published in.

McIntyre truth? It's sooooo truthful to the point he can't actually muster said 'truth' to formal challenge level. What's he afraid of? Speaking of your appeal to authority - "McIntyre authority"!

It is an act of desperation to try and convince people that only arguments presented in his "approved" venues should even be considered. If everyone thought like waldo we would be still living in the dark ages.

you can have a 1000 blogs, each dispensing their own flavoured "truth"... who/what is the arbiter of said "truth" dispensed across 10, 100, 1000 blogs? How is consensus arrived at in your howling, whirling dervish denialsphere? In any case, I'm somewhat miffed you've chosen to tone down your conspiracy rhetoric. Let me reacquaint you with one of your better conspiracy tirades against scientific journals ala your "gate-keeping" meme; one you attempted to play out over a recent failed Spencer paper:

Because alarmists control all of the main journals

more, continued, TimG conspiracy hoopla! So... let's see about your supposed "gatekeeper" meme: just how bad is that supposed gate-keeping then... if:

- Spencer 2007 was published in the mainstream journal, Geophysical Research Letters... you know, the same journal Dressler2011 was just published in.

- Spencer 2008 was published in the mainstream journal, Journal of Climate

- Spencer 2009 was published in the mainstream American Geophysical Union

yikes! What does this failed gate-keeping do to your conspiracy theme, hey TimG?

[waldo]

Does it help if I explain that I have faith in the peer-review process ? Will that quell your curiosity while I try to understand this specific example?

on a most general level, the question centered around balanced perspective. It is one thing to suggest a 'faith' in the formal Peer-Review process... it is another thing to state how that translates into a practical extension, generally, or specifically in this particular case. Outside of the formal Peer-Review process, anyone, you/me/anyone, dismissing the prevailing record of account, is not necessarily projecting a "faith" in the Peer-Review process. Of course, when that dismissive rejection of Peer-Review is outright predicated upon an underlying conspiratorial motive, as TimG regularly plays out, there certainly is no regard for, no 'faith' in, the Peer-Review process.

most certainly, most obviously, published papers are only as good as their standing within that Peer-Review process - can they stand up to formal response/challenge. The paper in question stands firmly entrenched as the prevailing record of account in the process you claim to have faith in. The paper's conclusions have been widely carried, written about and are regularly referenced as authoritative. False narratives purposely crafted to cast aspersion, doubt and uncertainty against the paper and its authors, done so, equally purposely, outside the process you claim to have faith in, are nothing more than agenda driven pursuits of deniers/fake skeptics/charlatans... carried out by those who refuse to properly engage scientists through the recognized and accepted process, the process you claim to have faith in, the Peer-Review process.

TimG, with a hand-wave, dismisses the question as an "irrelevant distraction"... of course he does!

[Michael Hardner]

I'm having a hard time understanding how including contaminated data is referred to as "flipping the sign" or "using the data upside down".

Is this the same issue ?