The Global Warming Plateau

[Michael Hardner]

This example of the Mann paper is like a video of a police shooting someone or a bag full of money being passed by a political worker. i.e. the fact that something went wrong with the journal handling of the Mann paper is an indisputable fact. What that means attracts a wide range of opinions from 'the cops were just doing their jobs' to 'gun happy police culture is out of control'.

Hyperbole. Did the publisher get special treatment here and if so, how much ? What about the critics - were they given more leeway than usual ? It's a qualitative evaluation, and as such we need a trusted 'expert' to explain it to us. I don't think you would trust anybody who disagreed that this is a violation, so we're in a Catch 22.

If journals don't want to be held accountable (the mostly likely situation) then the public and policy makers need to assume that journals are biased and take this bias into account when assessing the science vetted by these journals.

The public reads about these things in the media, which makes terrible errors on a consistent basis - so let's just say that from the start.

There have been issues with journals in the past, and protests and grinding of teeth. And they have published bad papers by skeptics too, so where are we with this ?

[Michael Hardner]

Looking back, it may seem that I parroted Waldo on these, but I responded to those posts independently unaware that he had done so.

I do want to point out that, when unreasonable skeptics start pointing to IPCC reports (ie. changing the warming coefficient, reporting on recent warming) then they're finished. They can' simultaneously claim a conspiracy to lie about temperatures again after they've quoted them.

So, paradoxically, we may be one step closer to being on the same page about this stuff. Even the "NIPCC" is using modified language, ie. "no *dangerous* warming is happening"

[waldo]

Is it normal for the journal editor to 'insist' on a correction ? I doubt it. The authors responded, so I think it's over. As for journal editors, we have seen them give more than due space to skeptics in the past, too.

journal editors do not "insist on corrections"... peer-response to a publication challenges any presumption of "correction" requirement. And, again... that formal publication challenge to the particular Mann paper in question has never - NEVER - occurred... coming up on 6 full years since submittal/publication! As I said, instead, the denilati concentrate their attacks against the paper exclusively within the cozy isolated confines of their denial blogs. Instead of formal publication challenge, they've written, quite literally, hundreds (thousands?) of articles attacking the paper... and its authors. Through all of that, not one of them, could muster the time/energy to formally challenge the paper. This fact is absolutely damning! Given the profile of Mann, there would be no greater publication "win"... one that would flood across into the mainstream and would be fodder for denialists for years. There would be no greater 'win' for denialists who have attacked Mann/hockey stick, than to have that Mann paper in question formally challenged and formally refuted. And yet, they, the rulers of denial blog science, somehow... somehow... can't find the wherewithal to bring forward that formal challenge! Of course, there are only 2 outcomes to such an actual challenge... either Mann/co-authors respond to the challenge and successfully 'beat it back'... or they either don't respond, outright, or respond unsuccessfully. Only one of these outcomes doesn't play into the hands of deniers! What are they waiting for?

Can I have a link for that - it should be easy to show the coefficients used for the Tiljander proxies versus the others.

staying out of the weeds Michael? I trust we haven't lost yet another thread!

Wasn't he permitted to submit questions and criticisms to the paper, though ? Did the editors have to allow that to happen, or could they have ignored them ?

each journal/board sets it's process... typically those processes involve a select few (typically 3) official reviewers (who remain anonymous, at large, and to each other) - persons, as reviewers, who have direct knowledge in the subject matter and are willing, when approached, to take on the task of officially reviewing a paper. The results of those reviewers are pooled and evaluated by the journals editorial board... ultimately, the decision to publish rests with the journal editor (taking guidance/advice from the editorial board). So, no... there is no opportunity for the public to submit questions/criticisms of a paper prior to its publication... how could they... the paper isn't publicly available until published. Of course, that opportunity for the public, for any challenger to the paper, occurs within a peer-response cycle/outlet.

[Michael Hardner]

staying out of the weeds Michael? I trust we haven't lost yet another thread!

Well, there's some new information here that I would like to understand. If the Tiljander proxies are so heavily weighted, then it raises a question doesn't it ? I mean, weighting those two so heavily that the other 1200 are insignificant ?

Hmmmmmm...

each journal/board sets it's process... typically those processes involve a select few (typically 3) official reviewers (who remain anonymous, at large, and to each other) - persons, as reviewers, who have direct knowledge in the subject matter and are willing, when approached, to take on the task of officially reviewing a paper. The results of those reviewers are pooled and evaluated by the journals editorial board... ultimately, the decision to publish rests with the journal editor (taking guidance/advice from the editorial board). So, no... there is no opportunity for the public to submit questions/criticisms of a paper prior to its publication... how could they... the paper isn't publicly available until published. Of course, that opportunity for the public, for any challenger to the paper, occurs within a peer-response cycle/outlet.

Wasn't there, in the past, some hue and cry because it was said that McIntyre wasn't "allowed" to peer review ? I thought I remembered that.

In any case, I have made my mind up on this and on the inflation of anthills.

[waldo]

Well, there's some new information here that I would like to understand. If the Tiljander proxies are so heavily weighted, then it raises a question doesn't it ? I mean, weighting those two so heavily that the other 1200 are insignificant ?

Hmmmmmm...

but you know the answer to this already... the paper even speaks directly to their significance - both in, or out, of the reconstruction. You, yourself, just a few posts back put up a graph that speaks directly to this. Again, my only (repeated, perhaps ad naseum) concern is that we have had toooooooo many threads hijacked/deflected over this TimG obsession... and each time I emphasize the avenue to resurrect one of those past many threads instead of having yet another thread taken down this rat-hole.

.

Wasn't there, in the past, some hue and cry because it was said that McIntyre wasn't "allowed" to peer review ? I thought I remembered that.

no. There is nothing preventing McIntyre (or anyone) from presenting a formal challenge... it's the most bizarro of positions not to have done so (almost 6 full years now have gone by).

.

In any case, I have made my mind up on this and on the inflation of anthills.

which is, as I stated earlier in this thread, as I've stated many times over, exactly what it is. As I stated earlier, the only thing this paper did (over its predecessors) was move the reconstruction timeline another ~200 years. That's it! At the end of the day, this paper (reconstructions at large) means nothing to what's occurring today... to the state of global warming/climate change, today. Everyone has moved on, moved forward... well, everyone but McIntyre and his minions you live to parrot their idol!

[Shady]

Well, there's some new information here that I would like to understand. If the Tiljander proxies are so heavily weighted, then it raises a question doesn't it ? I mean, weighting those two so heavily that the other 1200 are insignificant ?Hmmmmmm...Wasn't there, in the past, some hue and cry because it was said that McIntyre wasn't "allowed" to peer review ? I thought I remembered that.In any case, I have made my mind up on this and on the inflation of anthills.

You've already made up your mind, as have they. Regardless of how many new annoying facts get in the way. At least you're up front about it. I wish they were the same way.

[TimG]

So those 2 proxies were weighted so as to make the other 1200 (!) useless ? Really.

Yes really. It has to do with the verification statistics. Without Tiljander or the tree rings the reconstruction is just random noise prior to 1500AD.

[Michael Hardner]

You've already made up your mind, as have they. Regardless of how many new annoying facts get in the way. At least you're up front about it. I wish they were the same way.

I have considered said facts, and have stated on this thread that I'm open to new ones.

As Waldo has pointed out, this is ostensibly about 200 years of temperatures, and either making Mann eat crow, or demanding that he admit his mistake depending on how you see it.

I don't care much about it - the facts seem to be in on both sides here: warming is happening.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes really. It has to do with the verification statistics. Without Tiljander or the tree rings the reconstruction is just random noise prior to 1500AD.

Ok. So maybe Mann is an obstinate, stubborn, and bad person. I guess I can accept the data after 1500, and your judgment about him as a person. Moving on, it seems like warming is happening, the greenhouse effect is known, and CO2 levels are at a 3 million year high so it's pretty obvious to all of us that humans are causing this.

Is there anybody left here in this debate who needs to argue these facts ?

[Shady]

Ok. So maybe Mann is an obstinate, stubborn, and bad person. I guess I can accept the data after 1500, and your judgment about him as a person. Moving on, it seems like warming is happening, the greenhouse effect is known, and CO2 levels are at a 3 million year high so it's pretty obvious to all of us that humans are causing this.

Is there anybody left here in this debate who needs to argue these facts ?

But warming isn't happening. At least over the last decade or more.

Anyways, it looks like other countries are starting to figure this out as well...

The Austrialian government has disbanded it's climate change committee and renewable energy funding has been frozen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-winds-of-political-change-blow-away-climate-bureaucracy/story-e6frg6xf-1226723161774

[waldo]

You've already made up your mind, as have they. Regardless of how many new annoying facts get in the way. At least you're up front about it. I wish they were the same way.

you drop yourself into the discussion... one you know absolutely nothing about, and in the discussion context, you throw down a most nonsensical comment. #ShadyOutOfHisDepth

[waldo]

But warming isn't happening. At least over the last decade or more.

you been shown multiple times that global surface temperature continues to rise (at a slower rate than a decade ago)... you've also been shown that in this same time-frame, respective ocean layer warming has accelerated. You've also had it pointed out to you, several times, that Global Warming is not limited to your purposefully isolated view that only includes global surface temperature.

at this point you are simply trolling! But what else is new?

[waldo]

Yes really. It has to do with the verification statistics. Without Tiljander or the tree rings the reconstruction is just random noise prior to 1500AD.

why don't you publish... and formally take the Mann down? Cause, like... no one else is prepared to. Almost 6 years and counting! What are they waiting for - what are YOU waiting for?

and...... of course, your other favoured target, Dendro, comes forward. Of course! Your McIntyre marching orders wouldn't be complete without it? But yes, yes, as I said, this whole issue comes down to extending findings/conclusions to the past 1300/1500 years versus the past 1700 years. And, as I said, regardless of which side of this (now dated) single paper discussion is actually "right", what difference does this ultimately make, particularly when speaking to today's climate, today's warming? Particularly in the face of other more recent reconstructions? Yes - none... it's make absolutely no difference! But hey, it helps to feed DenialTown!

Edited September 23, 2013 by waldo

[Shady]

Isn't Mann the author of the now infamous phrase "hide the decline" from climategate? I guess we now know the decline he was referring to!

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't Mann the author of the now infamous phrase "hide the decline" from climategate? I guess we now know the decline he was referring to!

No, I don't think you do. The phrase was taken out of context to fool people like you, and it worked.

[Michael Hardner]

But warming isn't happening. At least over the last decade or more.

That's incorrect. As I said above, you're an example of the type of person that the misinformation targets. Warming is still happening, of course, and nobody is saying it isn't.

[TimG]

Ok. So maybe Mann is an obstinate, stubborn, and bad person. I guess I can accept the data after 1500, and your judgment about him as a person.

Thank you.

For my part I don't dispute that human emitted CO2 is causing warming and this is causing the climate to change.

What I do dispute are the arguments that CO2 mitigation policies are a cost effective way to deal with any negative consequences. The policies being proposed by various anti-CO2 activists range from simply misguided and ineffective to extremely harmful. What we need to be having is a honest conversation about these policies and people should be able to advocate adaptation as the primary policy choice without being called "deniers".

The other pet peeve I have is with the suppression of dissent. What the Mann example demonstrates is that sometimes the skeptics are right and don’t deserve to be treated the way they are by the science establishment and by the self-appointed enforcers of the “consensus” like waldo. This suppression of dissent is like a cancer that hinders the ability of science to self-correct.

I realize that you will argue that skeptics attack scientists all of the time but my position is the people in positions of authority have an obligation to act in a professional manner even if some of their critics don't feel the same obligation. The climate science establishment has failed in their professional obligations by lumping all critics under the “denier” label.

Edited September 23, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

For my part I don't dispute that human emitted CO2 is causing warming and this is causing the climate to change.

This suppression of dissent is like a cancer that hinders the ability of science to self-correct.

The climate science establishment has failed in their professional obligations by lumping all critics under the “denier” label.

which is a position you've begrudgingly moved to accept over the years of your various board personas... which, of course, also ties to your main parroted 'concern troll' position which only offers that acceptance while advocating for the lowest of climate sensitivity, for the overall position that a warming climate is, overall, not a "bad thing", that a warmer climate may be a preferred outcome, that NO mitigation practices should be considered - NONE, that we should do absolutely NOTHING (other than simply adapt to, and ONLY adapt to, whatever level the temperature rises to and whatever climate changes occur), that we should not endorse alternative energy pursuits, that no efforts should be made to shift energy use away from fossil-fuels, etc.,

you've offered this token 'concern troll' position claim before... of course it took years of attempting to get you to finally state it in the face of the many outright denialist claims you've made. But of course, as in the past, you've chosen your words in a/your typical overall obfuscating manner. Let's have you directly answer as to whether you accept that mankind's burning of fossil-fuels is the principal causal tie/link to global warming/climate change... the PRINCIPAL causal tie/link. You've refused to accept that position in the past... while, when challenged, failing to offer just what other alternative causal tie/link you do accept as the principal causal tie/link. Just answer that... and we can properly balance your victimization play over the "denier" label.

[waldo]

anti-CO2 activists

you mean... as distinct from pro-CO² activists!!!

.

[waldo]

Ok. So maybe Mann is an obstinate, stubborn, and bad person. I guess I can accept ... your judgment about him as a person.

obstinate? No... NOT, as an absolute. Mann has shifted his positions in the past. They are 'few' and become pointed to the level that they solicit notice and comment.

stubborn? Absolutely.

bad? Bad? Really? That's a label you're prepared to not only state... but attach... and accept? Based on what? Your appeasement self? In your estimation, what has Mann done to solicit this appeasing assessment from you? I certainly won't label the guy on that personal level - "GOOD" or "BAD". I will offer the required perspective that he has been the decades long target of unrelenting attack... attack that includes the most vile of labeling, statements and claims... the majority of which have no attachment to his actual science/research. Attack that simply stems from him being taken to an iconic position (by both sides) given the early (over) emphasis on the so-called 'hockey-stick'. Those leading denier bloggers have used Mann as their perpetual whipping boy in the manner of stoking the flames and throwing 'red meat' to their blog denizens. Of course, one could suggest this as simply nothing more than internet level 'frat boy' antics isolated to denier blogs and the 'smallish segment' of the internet that embraces denial. But, as intended/designed, the attacks on Mann have gone into the mainstream... and into politics... on so very many levels. Attacks that have seen him finally push back, after all these years, to the point of starting legal undertakings to protect his name/integrity/scientific credentials/academic standing... legal undertakings that see him going up against the likes of the U.S. Tea Party darling Cuccinelli, the uber conservative National Review magazine, conservative author/journalist Mark Steyn, the conservative online Canada Free Press, blubbering denier idiot Tim Ball, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

For my part I don't dispute that human emitted CO2 is causing warming and this is causing the climate to change.

Really, you should be trying to convince the 'deniers' (yes, I use that word) on here then. People like Shady seem to argue on the same side as you, but you're arguing against them.

What I do dispute are the arguments that CO2 mitigation policies are a cost effective way to deal with any negative consequences. The policies being proposed by various anti-CO2 activists range from simply misguided and ineffective to extremely harmful. What we need to be having is a honest conversation about these policies and people should be able to advocate adaptation as the primary policy choice without being called "deniers".

I get that, but the argument never gets there because we're having 'identity arguments', and arguing about personalities. Here's an article estimating the costs of warming to GDP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/counting-the-cost-of-fixing-the-future.html?src=recg&_r=0

The other pet peeve I have is with the suppression of dissent. What the Mann example demonstrates is that sometimes the skeptics are right and don’t deserve to be treated the way they are by the science establishment and by the self-appointed enforcers of the “consensus” like waldo. This suppression of dissent is like a cancer that hinders the ability of science to self-correct.

I realize that you will argue that skeptics attack scientists all of the time but my position is the people in positions of authority have an obligation to act in a professional manner even if some of their critics don't feel the same obligation. The climate science establishment has failed in their professional obligations by lumping all critics under the “denier” label.

Isn't the bigger problem that the media misrepresents what is actually happening, by offering pointless "equal time" to crackpots ? How much discussion happens here and elsewhere over how to mitigate or adapt versus whether warming is happening ?

If you want to move the debate forward, you have an obligation to do your part and help move it forward.

[Michael Hardner]

obstinate? No... NOT, as an absolute. Mann has shifted his positions in the past. They are 'few' and become pointed to the level that they solicit notice and comment.

stubborn? Absolutely.

bad? Bad? Really? That's a label you're prepared to not only state... but attach... and accept? Based on what? Your appeasement self? In your estimation, what has Mann done to solicit this appeasing assessment from you? I certainly won't label the guy on that personal level - "GOOD" or "BAD". I will offer the required perspective that he has been the decades long target of unrelenting attack... attack that includes the most vile of labeling, statements and claims... the majority of which have no attachment to his actual science/research. Attack that simply stems from him being taken to an iconic position (by both sides) given the early (over) emphasis on the so-called 'hockey-stick'. ... Attacks that have seen him finally push back, after all these years, to the point of starting legal undertakings to protect his name/integrity/scientific credentials/academic standing... legal undertakings that see him going up against the likes of the U.S. Tea Party darling Cuccinelli, the uber conservative National Review magazine, conservative author/journalist Mark Steyn, the conservative online Canada Free Press, blubbering denier idiot Tim Ball, etc.

Yes, I can accept your assessment too. People can only take so much. The acts of an individual are open for others to assess and judge on their own.

But, in the end, how much can we really know people so remove from us ? We have signs to his character, and I agree that his response is understandable. As such, if people want to make their judgments, I can accept that. I myself reserve judgment.

In the end, though, this is about the work and as most of us on this thread agree, the science has made its case about human caused warming. The arguing about such a point for those of us who accept that, is an exercise in entertainment rather than edification.

[TimG]

Really, you should be trying to convince the 'deniers' (yes, I use that word) on here then. People like Shady seem to argue on the same side as you, but you're arguing against them.

Most "deniers" agree with me. Pointing out that the the data suggests that there is no reason for alarm does not mean one rejects the premise that the world is getting warmer and humans emissions are a significant factor. Your issue is you are stuck in this all or nothing mode of thinking - either people have to buy into the end of the world meme or they are "deniers". I reject that notion.

I get that, but the argument never gets there because we're having 'identity arguments', and arguing about personalities. Here's an article estimating the costs of warming to GDP:

Estimates which are basically assumption piled upon assumption until they become complete fiction. Economist have a tough time predicting what will happen next year - next mind 50 years. Look at what happened with shale in the US - no would have predicted 10 years ago that the US would meet its Kyoto commitments by finding massive amounts of cheap gas. This is one of the reasons why I think adaptation is the best policy option because you are only spending money once you are certain that it is actually required.

Isn't the bigger problem that the media misrepresents what is actually happening, by offering pointless "equal time" to crackpots ?

The problem with alarmists is anyone who suggests that warming is not a catastrophe is a "denier crackpot" by definition so that label does not mean much. As far as I know your "crackpot" is a reasonable person pointing out real scientific evidence which is being ignored by scientists seeking to spread panic.

The problem that I see with this debate is it SHOULD be about policy and nothing else. But alarmists don't want to debate policy - they just want to impose whatever policies they want on the rest and think they can do that if they pretend that the "science" requires their pet policies. Unfortunately, they have made scientists political targets by doing that and we see the result.

Edited September 23, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Most "deniers" agree with me.

Most 'deniers' acknowledge human caused warming ?

I guess I misunderstood that rather specific label, then.

[TimG]

I guess I misunderstood that rather specific label, then.

The label is a pejorative applied to anyone who disagrees with the anti-CO2 policy agenda. If you suggest that mitigating CO2 is a bad idea for whatever reason you are a "denier". Look at Roger Pielke Jr or Bjørn Lomborg - both of them bend over backwards explaining that they accept the science of the IPCC but they think CO2 mitigation as a policy choice is a dumb idea so they are called deniers.

If you think that the label has something to do with a person's view on the science then you have not been paying attention.

Edited September 23, 2013 by TimG