Rex Murphy's Conflict of Interest on the Oilsands

[Michael Hardner]

I was going to just let this go but it really pisses me off. I explained many times how removing Tiljander means the claim that he produced a reconstruction without tree rings is false and that a correction to the paper is warranted. The fact that you don't remember that shows that learning is not your objective here. You just want validate your own preconceived notions no matter how wrong they may be.

Ok, I remember that now. I'm sorry but it's a lot of information that I filed away. I even remember that I found something that contradicted your assertion here. By way of apology, I will post that if you're interested.

[TimG]

Ok, I remember that now. I'm sorry but it's a lot of information that I filed away. I even remember that I found something that contradicted your assertion here. By way of apology, I will post that if you're interested.

Whatever you posted I refuted. There is no point rehashing it. If it was possible to get a mutually recognized expert in statistics with no dog in climate debate to weigh in I have no doubt the expert would agree with me. But since that is not going to happen you may as well go on believing what makes you feel better.

[Michael Hardner]

Meh. You want to consider the physical science, and not pure math in this instance - but why can't we do that to 'hide the decline' since we have the real temperature record for the period where proxies and the temperature record diverge ?

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/

If I have misunderstood then let me know. I don't remember discussing this one but it seems to leave the Tiljander set out but leaves other datasets.

[TimG]

Meh. You want to consider the physical science, and not pure math in this instance - but why can't we do that to 'hide the decline' since we have the real temperature record for the period where proxies and the temperature record diverge ?

Again - you are showing that you have no understanding of what a proxy is. A proxy represents a hypothesis that a physical phenomena correlates with temperatures. If the physical phenomena does not correlate with temperatures when we have measurements then the hypothesis is disproven and the proxy cannot be used. Any attempt to rationalize the use of a proxy that fails to correlate is bad science. The only reason climate scientists are so keen to use these obviously bad proxies is because they have a tough time finding proxies that tell the story that they want to tell. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

I don't remember discussing this one but it seems to leave the Tiljander set out but leaves other datasets.

This is so tedious. I explained many times that the unique feature of the paper was that tree rings were not required to produce a reconstruction. The graph you show includes tree rings which means the paper cannot no longer make that claim. Science is fussy about details - you can't claim one thing in a paper, have it proved wrong, and then make up a different claim and claim the original paper is fine. You have to publish a correction that states the claims that you can actually make and removes the ones you can't. But I guess climate scientists don't have any need for that kind of rigor. And you wonder why I hold the field in contempt. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The graph you show includes tree rings which means the paper cannot no longer make that claim.

I don't think that's correct. If the paper is supposed to use other proxies, then did they ONLY use the Tiljander proxies as a substitute for tree rings.

Science is fussy about details - you can't claim one thing in a paper, have it proved wrong, and then make up a different claim and claim the original paper is fine.

My question is why you want to follow the theoretical math in one case, and reject theory in favour of physical science in another case ?

[TimG]

I don't think that's correct. If the paper is supposed to use other proxies, then did they ONLY use the Tiljander proxies as a substitute for tree rings.

The other proxies are basically random noise or non-existent prior to 1500. The only proxies that make any difference are Tiljander and tree rings. Take both out and you have no reconstruction prior to 1500.

My question is why you want to follow the theoretical math in one case, and reject theory in favour of physical science in another case ?

I am always looking at the physical science first and reject mathematical models that ignore what the physical science says. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The other proxies are basically random noise or non-existent prior to 1500. The only proxies that make any difference are Tiljander and tree rings. Take both out and you have no reconstruction prior to 1500.

I don't think this is right, I will have to look it up.

I am always looking at the physical science first and reject mathematical models that ignore what the physical science says.

Then we don't need to use proxies other than tree rings.

[TimG]

I don't think this is right, I will have to look it up.

Go wild. I am not wrong.

Then we don't need to use proxies other than tree rings.

Tree rings are crappy proxies because they are affected by many things other than temps. On top of it has been shown that the response of tree to temps is non-linear. They are only used because there are no other proxies with the same time resolution and academic scientists are desperate to publish and publishing crap is better than publishing nothing. But we should not be making major economic decisions because some scientists decided their desire for a career was more important than their desire to be honest about the limitations in the data they report. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Tree rings are crappy proxies because they are affected by many things other than temps.

They correlate well to other proxies except in recent times as shown by that graph above.

[TimG]

They correlate well to other proxies except in recent times as shown by that graph above.

It would be another 1000 pages to explain all of the issues with tree ring proxies. I am just summarizing the easy to understand ones. This is why Mann 2008 made a splash because it claimed a reconstruction without tree rings but that is a untrue statement because of the problems with Tiljander. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It would be another 1000 pages to explain all of the issues with tree ring proxies.

If that's the case, then why even assume there was a MWP ?

[TimG]

If that's the case, then why even assume there was a MWP ?

I don't. I say we don't have enough information to know that modern temperatures are necessarily warmer than 1000 years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't. I say we don't have enough information to know that modern temperatures are necessarily warmer than 1000 years ago.

Or colder... or anything. So the entire exercise is pointless anyway. We can just rely on the temperature readings in recent history to say that temps are increasing then and put it to bed.

[TimG]

We can just rely on the temperature readings in recent history to say that temps are increasing then and put it to bed.

Sure. But anyone who says that temperatures are rising faster than in the past is spouting nonsense. We don't have any reliable data that would allow us to make such a claim. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Sure. But anyone who says that temperatures are rising faster than in the past is spouting nonsense.

Well, we'll never know will we ? If we don't accept proxies then all we have is this correlation between increased CO2, increased temperature, and the known greenhouse effect. That's more than enough to necessitate discussion and perhaps mitigation.

[TimG]

If we don't accept proxies then all we have is this correlation between increased CO2, increased temperature, and the known greenhouse effect.

Two points which I have never disputed.

That's more than enough to necessitate discussion and perhaps mitigation.

Start the discussion but the scope for meaningful action outside of "invest in R&D and hope for the best" is limited. Edited February 26, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

You're right, Suzuki probably doesn't have enough knowledge on climate to be telling us about it, let alone how to deal with it.

Dont be so harsh, Suzuki spends a lot of time observing clouds and weather from inside those carbon spewing aircraft he takes to paid speaking engagements and book promotion events.

[waldo]

Because of the way they talk about them. If they actually read and understand the argument they would address the argument. They don't. Instead they construct strawmen that have nothing to do with the arguments presented and attack them. That means they either never bothered to look at the arguments or are simply dishonest. I assume they did not bother to look at the arguments.

your problem is you actually believe your blog-world "scientists" have something legitimate to offer... you actually believe that legitimate scientists should engage at your blog level! Your problem, as oft stated, is that for some strange reason, your "blog scientists" never seem to be able to take their blog gems and put them into a formal paper, one that will endure the rigour of peer-review, actually get published and, in turn, equally accept the rigour of peer-response. You know, peer-response... from legitimate scientists, not your favoured "blog world scientists"!

.

I was reading her arguments when she still was trying to carry the "consensus" banner. She was criticized by her colleagues for even trying to talk to skeptics at that time. I am sure things got a lot worse when she started to agree with some skeptical arguments.

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

from day 1 Curry never "carried the consensus banner". That false position was very quickly outed when she started to directly engage on RealClimate, if only for that short time. Those boys quickly outed her by showing exactly what she was about... from that point forward the 'die was cast'. She's only acted to solidify her genuine fake-skeptic self since then. She has no particular expertise, she certainly hasn't published anything of significance... the position she holds (for yet a short time) is within a U.S. University that holds no particular standing. Obviously, she's embarrassed that University to the point she will be replaced in her current position... the biggest concern should rest with PhD candidates and how they may be tarnished by direct/indirect association. While you're at it, you should highlight the company she and her publishing partner/husband have - no conflict there, hey?

.