CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I haven't yet come to that conclusion, because I need to understand these analogies myself before I decide anything.

[TimG]

I haven't yet come to that conclusion, because I need to understand these analogies myself before I decide anything.

I am not giving you analogies. I am describing exactly what is in the paper. I asked you if you had any evidence that my description of the paper is wrong and you said "no".

I will ask you again: do you believe that my description of the data in the paper is wrong? If so why (back it up with references to the paper).

If you agree that my description is correct then please explain how anyone could get meaningful information from that data using correlation? I am looking for a concrete explaination that uses your knowledge of correlation and how it works - not some abstract "it is possible that someone somewhere could come with a coefficent...".

If you can't provide one then why don't you simply admit that I am most likely right and Mann did make an error? Do you really believe that scientists are infalliable? Because that is how your procrastination comes across which I why I drew the comparison to creationists.

Edited March 27, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

If you can't provide one then why don't you simply admit that I am most likely right

the woeful desperate pleading cries of the fake skeptic!!!

please explain how anyone could get meaningful information from that data

here ya go... just quit ignoring the following - just answer the following! Is there a problem?

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

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.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

I asked you if you had any evidence that my description of the paper is wrong and you said "no".

I will ask you again: do you believe that my description of the data in the paper is wrong? If so why (back it up with references to the paper).

Two different questions. Do I have evidence ? No. Do I believe ? I don't know, and it doesn't matter what I believe at this point as I don't have enough knowledge.

Give me time to go through this please.

There's evidence of a lot of things, but in the end a person has to be convinced.

[TimG]

Two different questions. Do I have evidence? No. Do I believe? I don't know, and it doesn't matter what I believe at this point as I don't have enough knowledge.

Personally, I think you have the knowledge. Your telephone pole example and the fact that you understood the difference between your example and my reframing shows you understand the concepts involved (unlike some posters on this thread).

Give me time to go through this please.

Ok.

There's evidence of a lot of things, but in the end a person has to be convinced.

Fair enough. I guess I am trying to get to write down the things that you are uncertain of so I could attempt to reply to them. Simply saying you are not convinced without explaining why you are unconvinced makes discussion difficult.

[waldo]

I guess I am trying to get to write down the things that you are uncertain of so I could attempt to reply to them. Simply saying you are not convinced without explaining why you are unconvinced makes discussion difficult.

is there a MLW rule against your board bullying?

[Michael Hardner]

is there a MLW rule against your board bullying?

I get the uneasy feeling that both of you are vying for my soul here.

If I happen to side with either one of you, though, it means nothing for the argument, nor for my soul. I do believe in the peer review process, and there's another angle on this that neither of you has explored that I'm planning to look into.

[waldo]

I get the uneasy feeling that both of you are vying for my soul here.

my only dog in this hunt is to presume upon a balance playing out... as you can read, I have no qualms in highlighting where that balance is being skewed, purposely or not.

If I happen to side with either one of you, though, it means nothing for the argument, nor for my soul. I do believe in the peer review process, and there's another angle on this that neither of you has explored that I'm planning to look into.

your personal view means nothing more than that of any other anonymous player... less since you're apparently coming into this with a knowledge gap on several fronts. I've spoken to the 'rat-hole' nature of this pursuit and I've repeatedly flogged an emphasis on Peer-Review and the unwillingness of McIntyre and his lappers to offer formal challenge. Off the top I can't imagine what Peer-Review angle you're speaking to... clearly, you'll receive a warm TimG reception to anything to do with Peer-Review!

[Michael Hardner]

your personal view means nothing more than that of any other anonymous player... less since you're apparently coming into this with a knowledge gap on several fronts.

Great. The less the better.

[TimG]

I get the uneasy feeling that both of you are vying for my soul here.

Soul? Don't be so melodramatic. The issue here is simple: Mann made an error but he is too much of an arrogant SOB to admit it. So he obfuscates and lies and the greater science community sits in silence.

This is a fact. Unlike many other issues in climate science there is no doubt in this instance.

The only issue here is you don't want to believe it and keep holding out hope that there will be some forgotten factor that will vindicate Mann. You are wasting your time. You could search 100 years looking for that factor but you will not find it because Mann screwed up. Those are the facts.

Obviously, I hope that your understanding of the basic principals of correlation will allow you to get over your belief that there must be some other explaination. But if it does not it - oh well - I tried.

Edited March 28, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

The issue here is simple: Mann made an error but he is too much of an arrogant SOB to admit it. So he obfuscates and lies and the greater science community sits in silence.

then call him on it - issue a formal Peer-Review challenge... is there a problem? Your "obfuscates and lies" blathering means diddly, means squat, means nothing... absolutely nothing. Again, all the energy expended across the denialsphere on this single issue, all the words written by denialists/fake skeptics... and somehow, somehow... none of that energy can be channeled into actually issuing a formal challenge. Is there a problem? What did you call it? Oh, right... you called my continuing to bring up this lack of any formal challenge in over 3.5+ years an, "irrelevant distraction"! Sure you did.

of course, when I pulled out several of your better failing past MLW quotes concerning Peer-Review, you claimed I was "spamming"!

"irrelevant distraction"... "spamming"... is there a problem?

[Keepitsimple]

I get the uneasy feeling that both of you are vying for my soul here.

If I happen to side with either one of you, though, it means nothing for the argument, nor for my soul. I do believe in the peer review process, and there's another angle on this that neither of you has explored that I'm planning to look into.

deleted...

Edited March 28, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

then call him on it - issue a formal Peer-Review challenge

McIntrye submitted a comment. It passed peer review and was published because the reviewers understood it had merit. But the editor decided to let Mann get away with completely ignoring the criticisms in his reply instead of insisting on a correction to the paper.

The problems with the comment/reply system are well known and one of the reasons why blogs run by knowledgeable people are better ways to communicate problems with peer reviewed papers. New peer reviewed papers are for new ideas - one does not submit a new paper simply to correct an error in another paper.

But you know that but figure you can keep posting your "why doesn't someone submit a paper nonsense" because it will fool the people looking for excuses to ignore the real problems with the process. Fooling people that want you to fool them because it suits their ideology is no achievement.

Here is a humorous look at the very serious flaws in the comment/reply process:

How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps

Edited March 28, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

McIntrye submitted a comment. It passed peer review and was published because the reviewers understood it had merit. But the editor decided to let Mann get away with completely ignoring the criticisms in his reply instead of insisting on a correction to the paper.

that's quite the spin you have flying... same journal, same editor, with you declaring self-serving merit and self-serving criticism. Of course, the journal in question is not just any ole journal... hey? It's one of the most prestigious journals in existence:

PNAS => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

... in the Thomson Reuters journal index of over 11,500 journals, PNAS is ranked number 2 of all journals in the index as most cited journal (1999-2009)

in any case, these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or apparently can... provide a formal counter against:

=> the prevailing PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) journal comment:

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

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

[bush_cheney2004]

PNAS => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

... in the Thomson Reuters journal index of over 11,500 journals, PNAS is ranked number 2 of all journals in the index as most cited journal (1999-2009)

Salute! Cue Star Spangled Banner in 3...2...1...

[TimG]

Salute! Cue Star Spangled Banner in 3...2...1...

Ironically, your post is more on topic than the post you quoted because you demonstrated that you actually read the post you quoted - something the previous post did not do. Edited March 29, 2012 by TimG