CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

There's a book by Donna Laframboise called the Delinquent Teenager.

ok, ok... apparently, the thrust of this POS is Laframboise claiming that since 1994 there were 4 authors of particular chapters of the many, many reports since, that were in, or had recently completed grad school at the time of their IPCC involvement. For perspective, the 2007 report had some 1250 authors (inclusive of lead and contributing authors)... and of these... apparently, 1 of the 1250 authors falls into that "Delinquent Teenager/graduate school" category of Laframboise! Wow, just wow!

nothing like having a graduate student respond directly to the Simple-minded Laframboise nonsense:

An open letter to Donna Laframboise (or, You have got to be F*!$*%@&! kidding me)

[TimG]

Even the IPCC has a different agenda than scientists. It's an IntraGOVERNMENTAL Panel... so governments have their hand in it for sure. I don't think the book would shock me.

That is the entire point. The IPCC has be often touted as a scientific authority when it is really just another UN agency pushing an agenda designed to advance the political goals of the UN. People who already know this won't be surprised at all but there are a lot of people who think the IPCC is an unbiased authority on science. These people are wrong and this book documents why. Edited March 23, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That is the entire point. The IPCC has be often touted as a scientific authority when it is really just another UN agency pushing an agenda designed to advance the political goals of the UN. People who already know this won't be surprised at all but there are a lot of people who think the IPCC is an unbiased authority on science. These people are wrong and this book documents why.

People should go to the science for questions of science...

[cybercoma]

Thanks for posting that letter, waldo. It was worth the read.

[waldo]

People should go to the science for questions of science...

and since the IPCC provides a collective accounting of the science of the day, people should go to the IPCC reports for answers to those questions of related science.

[waldo]

Thanks for posting that letter, waldo. It was worth the read.

yes, it was a rather refreshing read... particularly after I had just read several mind-numbing glowing testaments to the "scathing" writings of Laframboise.

[TimG]

and since the IPCC provides a collective accounting of the science of the day, people should go to the IPCC reports for answers to those questions of related science.

The IPCC does not provide an unbiased account of the science. It provides an account of the science that is skewed to support the political agenda of the UNFCCC.

[waldo]

The IPCC does not provide an unbiased account of the science. It provides an account of the science that is skewed to support the political agenda of the UNFCCC.

ah yes, the grand-daddy of all TimG gate-keeping memes... since we've danced this one previously, it'll be easy cut/pastes responding to you flailing and wailing over supposed papers kept out of IPCC reports. Go for it... sure you can!

[Keepitsimple]

People should go to the science for questions of science...

You should read the book. I'll even send it to you free when I'm finished. As I said - you'll get a different perspective. Really - I'll send it to you.

[waldo]

You should read the book. I'll even send it to you free when I'm finished. As I said - you'll get a different perspective. Really - I'll send it to you.

you can buy it for a whopping $4.99

but really, c'mon Simple... you clearly didn't need this book to help you form an opinion on the IPCC - you've been flogging your anti-IPCC position around here for years now. Plain and Simple, for deniers/fake skeptics, like you... those who have no science to support their denial, the fall-back has always been to attack the IPCC. Those baseless and/or frivolous IPCC attacks have played out across many MLW threads in the past; of course, you were a principal contributor in that regard and you took great exception to continually having your meme shot down, over and over again! Nothing new here - move along now, hey!

[TimG]

That's why I need to look more closely at whether your analogy is indeed the case.

Michael, do you have any evidence that my statement of the facts in the paper is not correct? (it is NOT an analogy - it is a statement of facts that can be backed up with references to the paper in question). Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, do you have any evidence that my statement of the facts in the paper is not correct? (it is NOT an analogy - it is a statement of facts that can be backed up with references to the paper in question).

Tiljander came up with a coefficient using:

a) A set of data

A methodology

Mann came up with another coefficient. It's possible that they could be different...

[TimG]

Mann came up with another coefficient. It's possible that they could be different...

That is not what I asked. I asked if you had any evidence that shows any error with my statement of the facts in the paper. Do you have any? I am asking for a concrete evidence. Not hypotheticals. Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That is not what I asked. I asked if you had any evidence that shows any error with my statement of the facts in the paper. Do you have any? I am asking for a concrete evidence. Not hypotheticals.

I don't think I do.

[TimG]

I don't think I do.

So will you agree that my argument that Mann made an error is both plausible and supported by the facts in the paper? If not. Why not? (note that I did not ask you to agree with it - simply to acknowledge its plausibility and consistency with the facts in paper). Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Tiljander came up with a coefficient using:

a- A set of data

b- A methodology

Mann came up with another coefficient. It's possible that they could be different...

I spoke earlier of your spoon-feeding, of your coddling to that; I will re-impress those actions, most particularly given your failure to offer any semblance of real & legitimate challenge. Most pointedly, I do so in conjunction with your glaring lack of knowledge to even the most basic/fundamental aspects. Only a few short posts back, it's clear you had no understanding, no appreciation, no realization of the distinction between the limited scope of the proxy paper and multi-proxy reconstructions. After you touted your education background I found it unfathomable that you had to ask me to state and clarify the distinctions between the regression and related coefficient methods. It is one thing to continually state you're only attempting to "learn"... it's another thing to presume to speak with definitiveness given your glaring and obvious missteps and lack of knowledge. I will reinforce the point I didn't highlight any of your most glaring missteps... I rolled with them. You stated you took exception to my spoon-fed/coddling references... given your approach in this matter to-date, I could care less.

let's see if we can begin to tighten up your particular approach, somewhat, hey? In typical TimG manner, he makes a broad statement of supposed "facts" without defining them in summation. Since you answered, what are those "statements of fact"... you are answering to? More pointedly, how are said statements of fact applicable, relevant, consistent with, not consistent with, etc., the Mann et al papers?

equally, you speak most broadly, most generically, to "coefficient". Please state the said coefficients you presume to speak of, Tiljander versus Mann... state explicitly... and suggest what comparative and/or contrasting attachment(s) you presume to make and the foundations you're using to make said comparisons/contrasts.

[waldo]

So will you agree that my argument that Mann made an error is both plausible and supported by the facts in the paper? If not. Why not?

...the proxy author, Tiljander,

from your declared authoritative source paper

, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes...

from your declared authoritative source

:

difficult... but could be estimated

; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

your whole premise continues to fall back on the graduate student's paper... your eyeballing a 2-dimensional graphic, your calling the paper the definitive authoritative source. Unfortunately for you, as I will continue to remind you, that relatively inexperienced graduate student, in her own words extracted from the very paper you declare the definitive authoritative source... in her own words, suggests a possible route for calibrating her proxies. Again, she states: "

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated

".

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon

your declared authority

to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years".

[TimG]

Waldo,

If you can come with an coherent argument that actually addresses the point I made about the contamination rendering the data useless then I will address it. A single vague sentence plucked out of context does not negate the rest of the paper. Endlessly repeating it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Waldo,

If you can come with an coherent argument that actually addresses the point I made about the contamination rendering the data useless then I will address it. A single vague sentence plucked out of context does not negate the rest of the paper. Endlessly repeating it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

TimG,

I could give a ff what you think... I will quite readily continue to play that single statement to you each and every time you presume to flaunt the authority of the proxy paper. The author's own words speak directly to her recommendation on how to calibrate her proxies.

in all your pompous best you continue to ignore that statement. Why don't you step-up and state how you interpret the proxy author was making that statement, what it means and what it applies to... other than towards a calibration approach/method for her proxies. You endlessly ignoring it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

[TimG]

I could give a ff what you think... I will quite readily continue to play that single statement...

Thanks for confirming that your are nothing but a childish troll with nothing useful to contribute. You can play in the sandbox while the adults have a conversation. Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

The author's own words speak directly to her recommendation on how to calibrate her proxies.

Why don't you step-up and state how you interpret the proxy author was making that statement, what it means and what it applies to... other than towards a calibration approach/method for her proxies. You endlessly ignoring it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

Thanks for confirming that your are nothing but a childish troll with nothing useful to contribute. You can play in the sandbox while the adults have a conversation.

oh my - I make a most benign request asking you to simply offer your interpretation of the proxy author's own statement... and you resort to name calling! Notwithstanding, of course, you continued to avoid the request... you continued to avoid offering an interpretation of the author's statement. Apparently, to you, ignore is a significant component of your self-proclaimed adult conversation!

[Michael Hardner]

So will you agree that my argument that Mann made an error is both plausible and supported by the facts in the paper? If not. Why not? (note that I did not ask you to agree with it - simply to acknowledge its plausibility and consistency with the facts in paper).

Is there evidence ? Sure but the conclusion isn't easy to come to.

[waldo]

Is there evidence ? Sure but the conclusion isn't easy to come to.

a rather 'nothingness' statement, hey? Just what evidence are you speaking to/of and what is the scientific foundation for said evidence? Just what conclusion(s) are you referencing in regards to said evidence?

[TimG]

Is there evidence ? Sure but the conclusion isn't easy to come to.

Why? You had no problems agreeing that any analysis done on your telephone pole example was meaningless because the sign of the correlation in the calibration period (the 2000s) was different from the sign in the past (the 1920s). You did not say that meaning could be found if you used the right "magic" algorithm. I am assuming you came to this conclusion because you do understand what correlation is and understand its limitations.

You have also admitted that you have no reason to believe that my statement of facts in the paper is wrong. i.e. the data in the paper has exactly the same characteristics as the hypothetical telephone pole data. Therefore you should be able to come to the definitive conclusion that any analysis that depends on correlation during the period of contamination has no meaning. It makes no difference what Mann does after doing the correlation because the results of the correlation calculation itself are meaningless.

The only rational conclusion that you can make at this point should be that Mann made an error.

When a creationist is presented with evidence of evolution they often respond that none of the evidence "proves" that a diety was not responsible. It seems to me that you are using the same argument when it comes to Mann - you have no way to refute the evidence presented but your "religous faith" prevents you from accepting the only rational conclusion that one can draw from the evidence.

[waldo]

It seems to me that you are using the same argument when it comes to Mann - you have no way to refute the evidence presented but your "religous faith" prevents you from accepting the only rational conclusion that one can draw from the evidence.

how desperate are you... really? C'mon buddy, just answer the following - sure you can!

The author's own words speak directly to her recommendation on how to calibrate her proxies.

Why don't you step-up and state how you interpret the proxy author was making that statement, what it means and what it applies to... other than towards a calibration approach/method for her proxies. You endlessly ignoring it shows that you don't understand the issues and that you have nothing useful to contribute.

...the proxy author, Tiljander,

from your declared authoritative source paper

, summarily states:

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

yes...

from your declared authoritative source

:

difficult... but could be estimated

; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible.

your whole premise continues to fall back on the graduate student's paper... your eyeballing a 2-dimensional graphic, your calling the paper the definitive authoritative source. Unfortunately for you, as I will continue to remind you, that relatively inexperienced graduate student, in her own words extracted from the very paper you declare the definitive authoritative source... in her own words, suggests a possible route for calibrating her proxies. Again, she states: "

However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated

".

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon

your declared authority

to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years".