Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Mann vs Steyn Lurches Forward

UPDATE:  Rick Piltz has much more at Climate Science Watch as well as having posted the ruling

UPDATED PREDICTION:  Having narrowed the issue, it is Eli's considered opinion, that Judge Weisberg is going to push very hard for the parties to settle with an apology.  The Judge will make it clear that he won't play with those who remain stubborn.  While Steyn and  Simberg are individual clowns NRO and CEI are corporate entities with much to lose.  Discovery, if it ever takes place is not going to be a popcorn fest on either side because it will be tightly controlled to the one issue.  Steve McIntyre can unpack.  Remember tho EINAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a just released ruling, Rabett Run's special correspondent reports that Rand Simberg's hero has turned against him.  Bunnies may remember that Simberg danced a jig when the appeals fairy denied jurisdiction

This has been a case run on luck so far. We've had bad luck by having the previous judge, but her incompetence has also been ultimately to our favor, and against Mann's.

That is why we are breaking out champagne.
Today's ruling by Judge Frederick Weisberg has undoubtedly sent the National Review/Competitive Enterprise Institute team out venue shopping.  Weisberg denied their motions for summary dismissal under the DC Anti-SLAPP Suit Act, but most striking was his reason for doing so
. . . .plaintiff alleges that CEI published, and National Review republished, the following defamatory statement: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff “molested and tortured data,” not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
with a little footnotee on the end of that paragraph
Accusing plaintiff of working “in the service of politicized science” is arguably a protected statement of opinion, but accusing a scientist of “molest[ing] and tortur[ing] data” is an assertion of fact.
and sets further forth in detail
The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury.    A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.
Oh yes, there will be discovery.  Things just got a whole lot more serious for the defendants.

304 comments:

1 – 200 of 304   Newer›   Newest»
Rattus Norvegicus said...

And Tony will pin a post about this on his blog in 5... 4... 3... 2..., oh, really he'll never do that.

Miguelito said...

It's nice that, now, the court system gets to find out how intellectually bankrupt these denialist chumps really are.

Pinko Punko said...

As a scientist, there really isn't anything worse.

Consequences are for the Andaman Islanders.

dhogaza said...

Oh, where is Anon 1 and his prediction that Mann, being forced to "Square one", with an appeal decision that did no such thing, would be spanked by the new judge?

I want to see how his/her prediction/analysis coupled with this ruling proves that I'm an idiot.


Daniel Wirt said...

"Also within the past week, Judge Weisberg granted law firm Steptoe & Johnson's request to withdraw as counsel for National Review's fellow Defendant Mark Steyn. Steyn's online writing for National Review is part of the defamation charge. One could speculate that Steyn's lawyers were not very happy about this loose-cannon blogging rant by Steyn, posted on December 24: Mumbo-Jumbo for Beginners."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Steyn-counsel-withdrawal.pdf

Anonymous said...

You said "deniers" and I figured you meant the Mann crowd. After re-reading the post, I understand you mean Steyn's. Apparently you need more time to get caught up on the emerging developments in the field.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see what is discovered when they un-lock the Mann's locker room!

J Bowers said...

"...when they un-lock the Mann's locker room!"

"Locker room"? Are you Mark Steyn?

George Montgomery said...

"Apparently you need more time to get caught up on the emerging developments in the field."
What? Judge Dredd, 'I am the lawww!', is hearing the next round of legal arguments? Morano will be representing the plaintiff? Steyn will be pleading non compos mentis? What?

Anonymous said...

I would certainly like to hear from a lawyer type what this means for blogs. Specifically thinking about the cr@p posted about Mann at Real Science under the pseudonym "Steven Goddard." The stuff there certainly seems to fit the defamation label to me.

BG

Daniel Wirt said...

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/01/23/dc-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-mann-defamation-complaint/

Bernard J. said...

A simple question...

If Steyn and the National Review and Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were so sure that they hadn't libelled Mann, and that the case for global warming was incorrect, fraudulent, a scientific conspiracy, or whatever else they might like to label it, why aren't they leaping at the chance to try the case in court and prove once and for all that the consensus is wrong?

Just wondering...

J Bowers said...

NYU's Dan Fagin gets it on the nosey:

"Despite claiming it wants to litigate @MichaelEMann defamation, @NRO keeps trying to dismiss the case -- and losing."

Anonymous said...

To answer Bernard J.'s "simple question", I go to the first article currently posted on Mr. Steyn's website:

Many "climate skeptics" wonder why the defendants would want to get the complaint dismissed rather than put Mann through a trial in which he would have to take the witness stand and discuss his work under oath. I can understand their enthusiasm for this but for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech"

Has there ever been a better example of "non sequitur" than that?

No matter how you slice it, trying to put "Will not put Mann in the dock to answer questions" with "it's about free speech" it falls over.

a) Is he fighting to ensure that Mann can commit fraud on a gigantic scale, as a matter of "It's his Free Speech Rights to do so!"?

b) Is he fighting because if the fraud is proven, it's no longer free speech but a matter of fact and he prefers the former?

c) Is he fighting to ensure he can say any old shite as a matter of free speech, whereas in court he has to prove what he says?

Oh, hang on, I may have hit on the answer.

Does Steyn know he did that?

Magma said...

"...Judge Weisberg is going to push very hard for the parties to settle with an apology."

I don't know about that. If I was a defendant I'd worry about the likes of:

"Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are
factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on each of Counts I-VI, including the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress alleged in Count VI as to both sets of defendants."

Anonymous said...

The push to dismiss is likely little more than cost avoidance. It is a big stretch to read anything more into that.

As a scientist myself, the defamation suit would seem to be problematic for both parties. It will come down to how scientifically literate the defense lawyers are in my opinion.
Mann's work is not just data reporting, but is heavily focused on interpretation and advocacy. When a scientist does that, it opens a big can of worms for accusation of cherrypicking and fraud. If the defendant's lawyers have a good scientific staff that can find contradictory evidence from emails, speeches, etc, then Mann better have excellent documentation of his data and conclusions. If he doesn't, and some info out there seems to indicate he does play a bit loose with the data, he is in big trouble. But again, that only comes into play if the defending lawyers have the sciency chops to dig through the public domain.

Anonymous said...

Gee, if Mann really thought he was defamed, why didn't he just willing offer to share his data and methodology to prove his case rather than run crying to a lawyer?

And Steyn is correct; it is the process that is the punishment. That's why the best course for free speech is to have the case thrown out. You guys don't get out much.

Fred Z said...

Steyn is right on the merits, the judge was right on the procedure. His order was careful, well phrased and simply stated what should have been obvious to everyone: You cannot summarily dismiss even a far fetched claim if it has any faint hope of success. Summary dismissals are extremely rare. It does not take much to get to a trial on the merits.

I suspect the whole procedural mess was as a result of Mann's lawyer's stupidity in pleading that Mann was a Nobel laureate and some showmanship and game playing by NRO and Steyn, not improper gaming, but tactical gaming to probe Mann.

Steyn complains that the defendants have spent half a mill on legals so far. No doubt Mann has spent as much. Jeez, I wonder where an honest, hard working, man of the peepul like Mann gets half a mill to fritter away on a lawsuit without too much hope of economic recovery.

As for Bernard J's question: "why aren't they[Steyn and NRO] leaping at the chance to try the case in court and prove once and for all that the consensus is wrong?" Because it's expensive, and a win is a win is a win.

Fred Z, who used to spend a lot of time litigating for and against lying dorks like Mann. Nobel Laureate my left tit.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Gee, if Mann really thought he was defamed, why didn't he just willing offer to share his data and methodology to prove his case rather than run crying to a lawyer?

Gee, if a commenter thought he or she had a credible point to make, why are the posting anonymously?

Answer : because they are shilling.

Anonymous said...

There are a number a reasons to post anonymously, Tommy.
Being a "shill" is only one of many and the pointless accusation is simply childish.

Alternatively, I would query why you feel so strongly that your name be associated with your posts. Is it a narcissistic desire to be 'known'?
I ask this, because a quick Google of your name brings up a number of quite negative mentions of you by others regarding your behavior and attention-getting.

For me, I prefer to keep my name away from aggressive people such as yourself. A comment on a blog simply doesn't rate the annoyance of having to deal with dweebs that discover my name.

toto said...

"Fred Z, who used to spend a lot of time litigating for and against lying dorks..."

Looks like you did stare a bit too hard into the abyss.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

There are a number a reasons to shill anonymously, Tommy.

Having a viable and credible scientific or technical point or result not being two of them.

Well, there is always the Journal of Anonymous Self Important Research.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

a quick Google of your name brings up a number of quite negative mentions of you by others regarding your behavior and attention-getting.

That's the beauty of being just smart enough, educated enough and informed enough to not have to coddle idiots and assholes who are oblivious to their real problems.

Brian said...

IAAL, tho with no special knowledge of this case or of defamation.

Judges do like to settle cases and keep their golf times, and they will knock heads to get there. OTOH, they don't like to waste their own time trying to settle cases that won't settle. I didn't see anything in Weisberg's order suggesting he was any more or less to push for settlement than another judge. Do you have something else in mind, Eli?

Other comments: you can see how much the new judge cares about the Nobel thing - he didn't consider it a substantive change in the amended complaint.

Steyn is representing himself? Oh my. AFAICT he's not a lawyer. If he were poor that would be one thing, but if someone can afford a lawyer but doesn't get one, that's not a situation where judges enjoy holding their hand and guiding them through procedure.

On appeal, as a theoretical legal matter, the appellate court would only look at this new dismissal. On the practical level, the appellate court will know that two lower court judges have dismissed the almost-same motion.

Brian said...

Forgot one other thing - the Sandusky reference might not have been defamatory, but it could still be damaging. Once you show defamation then the Sandusky claim made in the same context could magnify the amount of damages they have to pay.

Kevin O'Neill said...

I have no problem posting anonymously *if* the posts are sensible. But when it's either pure nonsense or idiocy - then it's hardly worth dealing with unless one is bored.

If I were running a blog I would probably not censor any posts that are attached to a verifiable account, but trash anything posted anonymously that violates the least standards of civility.

What I *do* find interesting is that it is usually right-wingers who immediately search to find out personal details of those opposing them in a discussion. And of course the correlation between right-wingers and climate skeptics is pretty high.

I may occasionally look to see if my opponent has any specific credentials; but where they live, how many children they have, where they work, etc. really has no relevance.

It's ironic though that usually the very same people posting anonymously to protect their personal details are the first to try and find out those details about their opponents and take it much further than I'd ever think of going. There's obviously a lot of hypocrisy and projection involved.

John Mashey said...

For the Nth time:
Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals …

In particular, I long ago stopped reading anything posted by any Anonymous on any blog. Such action improves the signal-to-noise ratio immensely.

With nostaligia, I remember fondly the days of USENET KILLFILEs. Mine grew large.

willard said...

> Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals …

As opposed to acknowledging unsupported opinions of identifiable individuals, I presume.

Kevin O'Neill said...

Willard - that's your unsupported opinion.

I think the negation would be: Acknowledge supported facts of an identifiable group.

J Bowers said...

"Gee, if Mann really thought he was defamed, why didn't he just willing offer to share his data and methodology to prove his case"

Because he didn't need to. It was already out there. The methodologies were in the published papers and the data is referenced for any arsehole and their mother to go get. Rentseekers can't be bothered so they can cry foul and waste the time of others.

toto said...

Apparently Mann must prove that the defendants lied deliberately, in the sense that they did not believe what they wrote:

http://legal-planet.org/2013/09/16/lies-damned-lies-and-climate-denial/ (h/t Jonathan Adler)

"Under current constitutional doctrine, Mann has to prove that the bloggers either knew he wasn’t actually guilty of scientific misconduct or were aware that they didn’t know one way or the other."


Is that true? Because if it is, I can't see how he can win that.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Simberg claims to be a smart rocket scientist type, but every time he tries to argue science he cites some political anti-science denialista. And he has done everything possible to corrupt any defense he did have.

Steyn is just plain stupid, so it will be pure comedy watching him try and defend himself without lawyers.

I do believe all of the defendants were give a chance to apologize.

John Mashey said...

IUOUI says nothing about:

1) Checkable facts, regardless of who writes of them.

2) Opinions of identifiable individuals, not implying they were tied to meat-world identities.

Some who consistently use a Googleable pseudonym can establish a fairly clear on-line identity, especially if a website is attached, but sometimes if they have just posted often enough to assess the weight that should be attached to their opinions. In fact, people can use their real names and not be usefully identifiable on the net. "bill" is unidentifiable, "billsmith" is not a lot better, but billsmith673 might establish a useful online identity.


3) In the meat-world, people normally include calibration of anyone's past statements in assessing new ones. Fortunately, many arguments can be decided with data, but sometimes they can't, in which case, one has to get the best guesses possible. Among others, managers, corporate troubleshooters and venture capitalists all have to assess the claims they hear of what might or might or might not occur or be achievable, and any good ones factor in past experience.

For the topic of this post, I'd want to see what lawyers think, but there's only one commenter here I know who is one, so I tend to weight Brian's comments a bit heavier than most. Ideally, we'd hear from American libel lawyers.

Anonymous said...

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Case Closed

Anonymous said...

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

Case Closed

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Poor Anonytroll is incapable of reading in context. The "Nature Trick" was using the proxy up to the point where instrumental data become reliable and the Proxy data become unreliable due to changes in precipitation, etc. It is chartsmanship, not data manipulation. The purpose of charts is to tell a story. Clearly you've never made one.

Anonymous said...

Hey Dhogaza, has Mann won the case? No? Then keep your excitement down. Mann will lose that is all you need to know.

1

Anonymous said...

"The purpose of charts is to present one line to represent two different datasets, but make it appear as one dataset."

All fixed for you a_ray. See I could graph a single line that was flat and always had a value of 10 and span a_ray's years on earth. And label it a_ray's shoe size. But I applied Mike's trick and after 1992 it seems to continue to show a_ray's shoe size, but when in fact it is his IQ.

Quite a trick, no?

1

Anonymous said...

Having read Anonymous comments I can understand why she's chosen not to claim a name.

It's the year, 2013, dear. All that "trick" stuff was so last decade. You lost. Nine times. Lost. You're a loser.

And, now, I too shall remain Anonymous. I'm much braver, and much less accountable, that way.

Anonymous said...

Actually it is 2014. So your retort was an EPIC Failure, just like you.

1

chek said...

"Quite a trick, no?"

Aw, bless Anon 1 thinks a "Climategate" callback will save the day.
Wasn't it Einstein who said: "Morons never learn" - although I may be paraphrasing.

Mal Adapted said...

I don't blame anyone for wanting to remain pseudonymous ("Mal Adapted" isn't my real name), but it gets hard to tell one "anonymous" from another. You don't have to post under your own name, or even register a pseudonym on RR, but you can undersign your comments with a consistent moniker.

We persuaded Anonymous Troll #1 to at least give itself a number. Would the other anonymous commenters please take their own numbers, starting with '2'?

Drug Maven said...

It is amazing that we still have self-identified warmists defending the indefensible Mann. Most self-respecting warmista have thrown him under the bus or are simply mum. It will be quite a spectacle to see Steyn's attorneys, during discovery, chasing Mann around the locker room until Mann opens his tutu. Butter popcorn time indeed. Take a look:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_inventor_of_the_global_warming_hockey_stick_doubles_down.html

chek said...

Of course, sane readers will already know that he "Hockey Stick" has been replicated by every subsequent study, so one is left to ponder who DM is addressing. Apart from fellow quacks on americanwanker.com.

Russell Seitz said...

Since NR's idea of a climate scientist id Fred Singer, the scientific literacy of the defense seems problematic.

Of more substantive import is what the court will make of Mann's 2004 Nature corrigendum to the 1998 article.

Drug Maven said...

Chek,"Of course, sane readers will already know that he "Hockey Stick" has been replicated by every subsequent study"

If you truly believe that nonsense, you are a statistical dunderhead. He's an embarrassment to all Gaians.

Drug Maven said...

Wonder why da Mann hasn't sued Newsweek. Chek it out.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-climate-scientists-are-hurting-their-cause-75125

I speak so I am said...

Since Russell Seitz's idea of a scientist is political activist Michael Mann, the scientific literacy of the prosecution seems problematic.

Of more substantive import is what the court is doing to the right to free speech.

chek said...

DM- "If you truly believe that nonsense..."

The reconstructions are there, there's nothing to "believe".

You on the other hand seem to prefer believing to the contrary from your various assorted quacks, cranks and unqualified journos. Which isn't good enough but apparently good enough for you.

Daniel Wirt said...

Physics Today:

Climatologist Michael Mann: “It is no longer acceptable for scientists to remain on the sidelines”


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8026

dhogaza said...

"Hey Dhogaza, has Mann won the case? No? Then keep your excitement down. Mann will lose that is all you need to know."

I've said all along it will be tough to win, given the high bar set in the US for such cases. It would be a slam dunk in the UK.

You're pretty ungracious, however, for someone who's been so wrong so often about this case.

It's the middle innings and so far, Mann's up a couple of runs.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

He's an embarrassment to all Gaians.

And of course, Drug Maven for some reason, thinks that he speaks for all Gaians. It some kind of brain wiring problem endemic to libertians and fascists alike. Can't be changed.

Anonymous said...

Mann fails again. Chek this out:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-122820

PJ said...

Torturing the data is common scientific practice. The judge thinks that this is some unspeakable beyond the pale accusation?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Accusing a scientist of fraudulence is not a standard journalistic practice. It's actionable. He didn't just call him 'a fraud' in a fit of passion on a blog, he accused him of systematic fraudulence, with malice, in a journalist article in a publication of his sponsors.

Anonymous said...

No - just an admirer.

exusian said...

Ahh, so this is where all the mouth-breathers have encamped.

Carry on.

Brian said...

Toto requotes:

"Under current constitutional doctrine, Mann has to prove that the bloggers either knew he wasn’t actually guilty of scientific misconduct or were aware that they didn’t know one way or the other."

That sounds like a reasonable restatement of the "reckless disregard of the truth" standard.

You don't have to know what you're saying is false, you can just be reckless about it (and also, wrong).

The law hasn't done a great job of distinguishing negligent v. reckless v. knowing. As a practical matter, it's often the standard used when a judge suspects the person did actually know, but can't prove it, and they want to hold them to a more difficult standard than just being incompetent/negligent.

And it's not impossible to prove, esp. in this case where the Ds have cited and apparently read a lot of info that indicated their claims were false, and then went ahead and made them anyway.

Marcel Kincaid said...

Why are the denier trolls so intent on demonstrating that they are ignorant, dim, dishonest, and generally vile? No one is swayed by them and it isn't possible to engage with people acting in such bad faith.

dhogaza said...

"Mann fails again."

The claims of failure that each time mann's legal team wins a point makes one wonder what would be claimed if they actually *lost* a point.

Sheesh.

Marcel Kincaid said...

"Wonder why da Mann hasn't sued Newsweek. "

Perhaps because, unlike you, he read it and is capable of understanding it.

Russell Seitz said...

Anonymous I speak so I am said...

Of more substantive import is what the court is doing to the right to free speech.

So that's why National Review just banned me from commenting on their climate blog !

23/1/14 5:56 PM

Marcel Kincaid said...

"Since Russell Seitz's idea of a scientist is political activist Michael Mann, the scientific literacy of the prosecution seems problematic."

Can we please hear from some deniers who aren't so stupid or dishonest that they can't conceive of a scientist who is also an activist (and just wrote a New York Times editorial on the very subject)?

I speak so I am said...

Michael Mann is a political activist who claims to be a scientist. Ultimately it's the activism which I protest--and its shaky basis in science.

There has always been climate change. Let's suppose that climate change will indeed radically change the world. Suppose also that it will be mostly harmful. Suppose also that human beings are the primary cause. Suppose also that they can do something to prevent it. Then I still do not necessarily think that they SHOULD do something about it.

Just as with Noah's flood, there are far greater evils to worry about on Judgement Day than carbon emissions--which will greatly increase on Judgement Day, anyway. God will radically change the earth. But I expect Michael Mann is a denier.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll,
People like you are a big part of the reason I don't believe in God.

But let's play the game. What if by your actions you contribute to the deaths of millions of innocent people. Are you not guilty of violating one of the big 10? See ya'll in hell.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Gee, if Mann really thought he was defamed, why didn't he just willing offer to share his data and methodology to prove his case rather than run crying to a lawyer?"

So if I were to claim you have kiddie porn on your computer, you'd let everyone access your computer to see if it's true or not?

I speak so I am said...

No, Dilbert_space. The Christian position is not first of all that I have contributed to the deaths of millions of innocent people, but that I have caused my own. Everybody is guilty of his own sin even if he passes on his sinful nature to those who come after him. And there is only one innocent human being.

EliRabett said...

The Christian position is the God has given to us the care of the world. Moreover, worrying first about a Day of Judgement and second about the well being of your fellow man, sort of kinda is a real tell about where your soul will end up.

EliRabett said...

Now Eli is a very old bunny, as a matter of fact he still remembers when Steve McIntyre was doing his Nigel Persaud imitation. As some other ancient creatures of the woods, such as the Weasel may remember, old Stevio asked Mike for the data, and Mike asked his grad student, Scott Rutherford to send the data to McIntyre, which he did as an Excel spread sheet.

There were a couple of copying errors, which Eli played a role in figuring out, while Steve was throwing one of his french fits.

So the short answer is that Mann shared the data when first asked, not in the form Steve wanted, Steve bitched and moaned and demanded and accused and after that not so pleasant little experience Mann was a little less sharing.

You are probably too young to remember

I speak so I am said...

God did indeed make man a steward, but he failed. That was the Fall. Every Christian, because he is concerned about his fellow man, warns him about the Christ who will return as judge on Judgement Day.

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

EliRabett said...

At best we got a mulligan not a get out of jail free card. To go back to an earlier tradition whoever saves a life, it is as if they saved an entire world and that has to go strongly against your sin account.

Sorry, I am, your solipsistic take on Christianity, will, Eli fears, condemn you to hell, either here by your fellows or there by another.

I speak so I am said...

Although we live after the Fall when the gospel mandate is more important than the original cultural mandate, we should still use the natural environment wisely, even though it has been so marred and even ruined by our sin. I believe that.

What we need is a sense of proportion, an evaluation of priorities, and a humble realization that we are mere creatures living before the face of God who will indeed end history as we know it. The Christian believes that Judgement Day, not climate change disaster, is always imminent. Maranatha!

Also, in reference to being a steward and taking dominion of the earth, remember what Mark Steyn wrote: that Michael Mann's politicized science could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet. So have concern for your fellow man and use for more worthy causes the enormous funds wasted on statistally attempting to reduce otherwise harmless carbon dioxide emissions which might be causing global warming which might be dramatically changing the climate in possibly a primarily harmful way.

EliRabett said...

If you are your first priority you are really damned in this world and the next.

If Mark Steyn is your goto for science and economics you are merely silly.

I speak so I am said...

If you first priority is not to get right with God, then you are really damned. God damns.

Mark Steyn has a lot of common sense.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I think I can rest my case that the trolls here are paid shills for Jesus. Anyone watching the paid shill business can trace this back to rabid Christians. It's long past time to relieve these religious organizations or their tax exemptions and call them what they are, paid liars and disinformants.

Joshua said...

Having witnessed (and participated) in these endless arguments about anonymity in blog comments, I would just like to compliment anonymous for what I think is the best argument I've seen yet.

=]] Alternatively, I would query why you feel so strongly that your name be associated with your posts. Is it a narcissistic desire to be 'known'? [[==

Not as good as it could be, as it would have been stronger if de-personalized.

Being anonymous or non-anonymous tells you nothing about the merits of someone's comment. That people on blogs so often argue about the importance of anonymity tells you a great deal about the phenomenon of blogospheric arguing.

That said, anonymous, it would make it easier in a logistical sense to discuss matters with you if you'd use a pseudonym.

Anonymous said...

Stranger,

As I continually read the right wing libertarian nonsense it's understandable why only 6% of researchers in all fields of science claim the Republican Party brand.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

When the Republican nominee has to join the Flat Earth Society in order to win the nomination then any self respecting researcher would find the Republican brand verboten. It's a shame that we have to so heavily depend on liberals and moderates to do the lions share of the heavy science lifting. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but when you confuse ideology for science what else would you expect.

With the New Confederacy anti intellectual/science tail wagging the American dog it's any wonder we haven't cut science funding more than we have.

Common sense would say that when people with the least amount of science knowledge make AGW political and then win the day that, society is living in a fools' paradise.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I've used plenty of pseudo-names and pseudonyms in the past, but lately I only use them and anonymity on blogs, forums and websites where I am BANNED FOR LIFE, lol. Here I use my full name, because it's the truth, and I have a piece of paper with an official imprinted stamp that proves it. That's very important to some people, like fascists, bureaucrats and the intellectually crippled that now walk among us.

Everything needs a name, right?

Graboids!

Bernard J. said...

Ah, another live one...

You, who cannot exist in a Cartisian sense without opening his mouth to structure his thoughts, are in part a member of the sort of superstitious and illogically-thinking fundamentalism that is the reason that I, like ARiDS (24/1/14 3:22 AM), left behind my childhood religious education.

I'll tell you what... If you can resolve for me the inconsistencies in the Bible such as are listed here:

http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/map-of-contradictions-in-bible.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

and the illogicalities such as are listed here:

http://atheistenquiry.org/2013/10/29/the-sheer-illogic-of-christianity/

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter4.html

and the scientific errors such as are listed here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

I will happily reconsider my current lack of faith in the Christian fundamentalist mythology as an accurate depiction of reality. All I ask is that you use testable and referenced evidence, non-fallacious logic, and scientifically-defensible understanding of the universe.

EliRabett said...

Having heard many preachers damning everyone else, and knowing of many historical and even present day instances when this lead to death and torture, Eli is not persuaded that only God damns.

And again, if you are only for yourself, who will be for you? Getting right with God requires that you are right with your fellow man. Solipsism, and being obsessed with your own relationship to God, make no mistake about it, is solipsism, you are not the only thing in the world, is indeed the road to creation of a hell on earth and damnation.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Indeed, proclaiming your holiness and prayers loudly in public is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Christ teaches as warranted.

Not only that, but doing so WILL GET YOU SENT TO HELL.

Pray in the silence of your heart, where only your lord god can hear you. That is the only way.

The fundies appear to be the least interested or knowledgable about the contents of their articles of faith. Proclaiming that they follow only the New Testament (because the Old is so full of atrocities that cannot be countenanced as good today), they ignore the New and parrot the exhortations of the Old.

exusian said...

I speak without thinkng wrote: "Michael Mann is a political activist who claims to be a scientist."

Sorry sweetie, that would be Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Roger Pilkie Sr, and apparently Judith Curry.

Susan Anderson said...

Roger Pielke Sr. isn't such a bad chap. I think you must have meant Jr., who is a twisty thinker. You could add McIntyre to that list.

As to religion, there's good and bad in most of them, so what you make of it and bring to your life says more about you than about it. Try the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and most of the Gospels, short and repetitive documents that do not support selfishness in the service of wealth and anti-stewardship.

Anonymity is a mixed bag, but some of the raunchier and more obnoxious attacks and promotion of ignorance come from anonymous sources, so one might say, all other things begin equal, that using one's own name makes one think twice about cruising for a bruising.

Thanks to those who provide more detail, and the UCS and whoever else is supporting Mike in finally refusing to turn the other cheek as massive lies and insults pile up.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html

I speak so I am said...

Eli, if you were not thinking about "damning" to hell, then I was. I've written enough about Judgement Day already for you to realize that I believe it to be an important concern. Only God condemns people to hell. If you think otherwise, then you do not know much about God, yourself, sin, and hell.

I'm not sure of the reason that you think I'm "only for myself." Warning about Judgement Day is itself an act of kindness although many of the deniers frequenting your site obviously do not see it as such.

Your charge of solipsism might have come from my screen name. I chose it perhaps too quickly, but I thought it expressed my belief in freedom of speech as a human right.

exusian said...

Susan, Roger Pielke Jr. is a political scientist, and Steve McIntyre isn't any kind of scientist at all.

But I only listed US scientists-turned-political-activists. The list quickly swells when you start adding the likes of Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Nils-Axel Morner, etc, etc.

chek said...

Hmmm ... McIntyre, along with Eschenbach and Watts can maybe claim themselves to be "amateur/citizen scientists".
But as that group seems to be primarily characterised by incompetence and cluelessness, I'm not sure they'd wanmt to lay claim to it.

Canman said...

With Mann's centering only over the 20th century in PCA, the fact that it overweights hockey sticks, the fact that it is not a previously known method, the fact that Mann fought hard not to disclose it, plus all the other stuff in Andrew Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion", make it perfectly reasonable for someone to think him a fraud.

Do any of you Mann defenders think his unorthodox PCA centering was good science?

Anonymous said...


Do any of you Mann defenders think his unorthodox PCA centering was good science?


Mann's eigenvalue thresholding procedure automatically compensated for the effects of his PCA/SVD "short-centering".

The PCA short-centering business is a complete non-issue. It's something that can easily be compensated for. Run the data through a standard-centered PCA/SVD routine, set the eigenvalue threshold appropriately, and you will get the exact same hockey stick.

Anyone technically competent who has actually taken the time to understand what Mann did would know that.

--caerbannog

J Bowers said...

"Poor Anonytroll is incapable of reading in context."

I'm quite certain Anonytroll is more than capable of reading in context.

J Bowers said...

For Canman: The Montford Delusion

EliRabett said...

As Eli said, you can find any number of preachers of most religions damning other people to hell, and trying to make the trip shorter. Less so today than yesterday, which is a good thing, but still.

The curious thing is that the faith alone crowd through its self obsession and avoidance of good works and care for others beyond pious preaching, of course, greases its own way into the pit. First feed the poor, then tell right from wrong for even saintly folk will act like sinners unless they get their customary dinners.

EliRabett said...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

Joshua said...

==]] Anonymity is a mixed bag, but some of the raunchier and more obnoxious attacks and promotion of ignorance come from anonymous sources, ... [[==

Many of the raunchier and more obnoxious attacks come from those who use their real name.

Think Willis or Anthony or Steyn.

And certainly they come to mind when you think of the argument that many user their full name as some sort of narcissistic need to be known.

Think of all the reasonable commenters who use pseudonyms.

Using anonymity as a guide seems foolish, and almost always self-serving, to me.

John Mashey said...

Re: The Montford Delusion July 2010.

Of course, while that post pointed out that McI's work was at best statistically and scientifically incompetent, Deep Climate had not yet found the smoking gun of the 100:1 cherry pick, in Due diligence... followed by Nick Stokes's nice analysis, Effect of selection...

MBH98: PCA decenter for one part of the data: minor error, admitted by authors, but made no significant difference (statistics sometimes work that way); when redone centered, graphs look almost identical.

MM05: wrong PCs, bad analysis, "persistent red noise" (not a normal term) with bad parameters that guarantee big departures in both directions: at best, serious incompetence.

But then, a 100:1 cherry-pick to get the 1% of the resulting graphs that show the most positive hockey sticks, with an non-real persistence that guarantees more jiggly curves ... *academic fraud.*

I've checked the R code, and that is not an accident, and as DC and Nick showed, unless you do all of this, the claims evaporate.

Montford: there's no evidence of the slightest statistical competence to sort this out, and he was perfectly happy to quote David Deming from our favorite dog astrology journal, then invent a false confirmation by Richard Lindzen as well as misrepresent the borehole work of Huang, etal.

The story of He Who Quotes Dog Astrology Journal broke right here at RR, following first mention in Wikipedia HSI talk page.

The latter was amusing:
The HSI talk page was getting about 20 comments/day, I posted that .. dead silence for day ... then people trying to delete it, generally a NO-NO for Talk pages. Nobody tried to refute it, just delete it. The noble Stoat (considered in some quarters the Dark Lord of Wikipedia) kept restoring it, but nobody would discuss it, and it finally got archived ... but it is still there.

Of course, Montford had great praise for the Wegman Report and its process, but that was before the roof fell in, with later echoes. Wegman had used a May 11 2005 PPT by MCI+McK, organized by GMI+CEI, as the blueprint and key source. By the way, in that PPT, McI+McK gave several false citations (forms of falsification in academe):

p.10: the Lamb graph was ascribed to IPCC(1995), rather than IPCC(1990), however, that image actually is identical to the one used by John Daly, slightly different from the actual IPCC(1990), i.e., they clearly didn't have IPCC(1990) or IPCC(1995) in hand.

p.11: They showed Huang et al (1997), which was long obsolete and whose use was explicitly disavowed. That could be just incompetent scholarship.

p.12: they gave Deming's quote from the dog astrology journal JSE(2005), but ascribed it to Science in 1995, needed for that story to make even the slightest sense.

False citations needed to make story work ... more than incompetence.

But, I can predict that this will have zero effect for those ridden by strong Morton's Demon, because such demons reject any data they may not like. :-)

But I must thank Canman for reminding us.

Susan Anderson said...

Yes, thanks all for pointing out the delusions in Montford. And particular thanks to John Mashey for his continuing and sterling efforts to keep it honest.

As to anonymity, I'm pretty neutral about that, but the grosser and least literate insults are normally anonymous. However, they are less damaging than the politely plausible.

Fergus Brown said...

"Abu ben Adhem, may his tribe increase..."

look it up

Leigh Hunt

We were at school together...

David B. Benson said...

There is more coherency in a conversation amongst the denizens of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital

Canman said...

I see that some of you have brought up Tamino's review @Real Climate. I'm familiar with it and I was just astounded when I read the comments. Judith Curry seemed calm and reasonable, considering the circumstances, while most of the responses to her were full of vitriol. Since I read the book, I thought her assessment of it was very accurate.

I've always noticed that when someone is on the wrong side of an argument, they tend to get mad. That's not the only reason for someone to get mad. Sometimes there is a great sense of outrage over some perceived injustice. One of the things that got me interested in the hockey stick was reading Willis Eschenbach's extreme outrage about climate scientists and something called the Jesus paper. The whole field of paleoclimate looked pretty dull, but I kept running across highly polarized arguments over the hockey stick. I was very impressed with Matt Ridley's Angus Miller lecture in which highly recommended THSI. I got around to reading it and sort of got hooked on this story. I have gone to the various blogs and read a lot of past posts and comment threads.

My conclusion is that McIntyre has found a lot of bad science in the field of paleoclimate. This doesn't mean he's disproved global warming or even if the hockey stick was actually accurate. What he did show was that this widely promoted graph was not supported by sound science. He was not trying to show that a different graph was more correct. He was showing that a claim was not robust. Showing that a claim is not robust IS SCIENCE!

If I understand correctly, a quote about getting rid of the MWP is purported to come from a fringe journal. While it certainly makes the quote suspect, it does not prove it wrong. Whether this quote was ever made or not, I can't believe that there is not a lot of desire and confirmation bias among the paleo people to minimize the MWP.

According to researchers like Dan Kahan, the smarter people are, the more susceptible they are to confirmation bias. You people commenting here seem fairly smart, so ....?

Anonymous said...

Canman, you are free to draw your own conclusions, so allow me to draw mine: anyone who is impressed by Matt Ridley is enthralled more by the story telling than by reality. Invoking Willis Eschenbach further supports me in my assessment.

Your motivated reasoning to accept the "we have to get rid of the MWP" statement is also clear. A bit of research into the statement would make an objective observer (just so you know, I don't have any negative or positive feelings about the existence of a MWP, nor do any paleoclimatologists I know) think twice before even considering it likely. We have one person who years later in a congressional testimony made the claim that some prominent scientist, whose name he could not remember, made that statement. Consider the likelihood of remembering the statement (e-mail itself conveniently no longer available), but not who wrote it. Then consider the likelihood of someone writing to someone else he has never met before to get involved in some nefarious activity. It's conspirational thinking.

Oh, and if you think McIntyre shows anything, you may want to consider his motivated reasoning documented here:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-part-2-the-forgotten-climategate-emails/

Marco

Bernard J. said...

Canman said:

"If I understand correctly..."

and herein lies the problem - you don't.

I speak so I am said...

Perhaps we have more in common than you realize, Eli. Even though you mischaracterize the "faith alone crowd", you evidently advocate "good works and care for others" and "feeding the poor". So do I.

I'm with the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":

1. We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.

2. We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.

3. We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

Susan Anderson said...

lots of examples of "politely plausible" here ... this can run and run. However, there is nothing polite about the continuing and long-running attacks on the professional community of practicing and knowledgeable climate scientists promoted by them. Our bullshit meters went on high alert when Judith Curry began defending herself by attacking anyone knowledgeable who dared ask her to back up her opinions. Insistence that we all read and believe Montford, or that the Cornwall alliance supports stewardship while claiming global warming is not true, for that matter, sounds nice but is not beneficial.

I speak so I am said...

Susan, it's my impression that the Cornwall Alliance has not taken a position on whether "global warming is true". Where did you read otherwise?

Kevin O'Neill said...

I speak -- the first hint is in the opening line to their An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
"As governments consider policies to fight alleged man-made global warming..."

Anyone using 'alleged' is almost certainly a denier and that hint is expanded upon in their "What we deny" section:

"We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. "

That pretty much says, "We don't believe changes in CO2 can afffect the earth's the earth's temperature.

You can also grok their orientation looking at their prominent members - filled with deniers. They obviously feel at home there.

Bernard J. said...

"Susan, it's my impression that the Cornwall Alliance has not taken a position on whether "global warming is true". Where did you read otherwise?"

As Kevin O'Neill notes it's not exactly a secret what the fringe nutters that populate the Cornwall Alliance think.

I speak so I am said...

Kevin and Bernard, you did not really answer my question to Susan, did you? Not if you have really thought through what you believe.

Saying that catastrophic manmade global warming is not true is not the same as saying that global warming is not true. There's a very important difference.

Isn't this difference more telling than the difference between "climate change" and "global warming", for example? If you want to win converts, you should be careful with your language.

Anonymous said...

For some tips on how to deal with folks like "I speak so I am", check out http://talkingscience.weebly.com/1/post/2014/01/the-disagreeable-scientist.html




--caerbannog

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I speak said: "Perhaps we have more in common than you realize, Eli."

Why does this remind me of a Bond villain after Bond has been taken captive on a secret volcanic island?

Careful, this usually doesn't end well.

Anonymous said...

Canman said,
"My conclusion is that McIntyre has found a lot of bad science in the field of paleoclimate..."

McIntyre did no such thing -- his statistical background aside, he simply doesn't have the specific paleoclimate expertise needed to make any serious contributions in that field.

Now, here's the "elevator pitch" version of how McI went wrong in his favorite attack on Mann (the hockey-sticks from noise thing):

1) He relied on a 100:1 cherry-pick of results. He then made things even worse by performing a 12:100 cherry-pick of the original 100:1 cherry-pick to get noise hockey-stick plots for his paper. (Note how all 12 of his noise-hockey-sticks were "right-side-up" when there's only a 50% chance that a particular noise-hockey stick will be right-side-up -- there's only a 1/4096 chance having 12 out of 12 randomly-selected hockey sticks all be right-side up).

2) His "random noise" was contaminated with hockey-stick signal statistics. Details available at the link I provided earlier.

3) His cherry-picked random-noise hockey-stick PCs were *much* smaller than Mann's genuine tree-ring PCs. (A quick look at singular-value magnitudes will confirm that).

And as the old saying goes, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..."

--caerbannog

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Saying that catastrophic manmade global warming is not true is not the same as saying that global warming is not true. There's a very important difference.

And when, pray tell, do you expect the continuous rising of Earth's temperature to stop? 2200 AD? 3000 AD? When we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? When you religious freaks stop fucking and pumping out little indoctrinated freaks out of your little women's womb's and onto the Earth's surface? lol. When you stop hunting trees and creatures into extinction? When you have enough gas stations, strip malls, stick houses and condos and idiotic evangelical churches on every corner? When you have converted the entire third world to zombies? Clueless twit.

dhogaza said...

"Saying that catastrophic manmade global warming is not true is not the same as saying that global warming is not true. There's a very important difference."

If it is an important difference, perhaps you can quantify exactly where the boundary between "CAGW" and "AGW" lies?

is a warming of 1.9C "AGW" and 2.0C "CAGW"? 5C vs. 10C?

Quantify, please.

"CAGW" is a made-up term used only by denialists by yourself, and I've never seen it quantified. If it can't be quantified, and quite precisely at that, it is useless.

"Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used by climatologists for decades. "Climate Change" reflects the fact that "Global Warming" has uneven impacts on specific locales on the planet.

Susan Anderson said...

What's in a word?

The full strength might look like this:

climate change due to global warming caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases

Since we're stuck with language, which is an approximation, quibbling about how to describe something that has been proven to be real to all but a fringe group (and its masses of political, magic thinking, and for-profit adherents) is tactical but not honest.

Note that time does not stop at 2100, and the way we are going may indeed induce more catastrophe (and as to catastrophe, anybody remember BP oil spill, Sandy, Haiyan, Australian heat, and on and on ...). I'm experimenting with using "greenhouse weirding" lately. Now this will grow and grow (Haiyan victims were dislocated by further tropical disturbances in the last couple weeks, parts of the UK have been underwater for weeks, and on and on again).

It's about time somebody like Mann stopped the bullying.

Mal Adapted said...

I speak so I am said:

You've been directed to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming. It's admirably short and to-the-point: signers affirm their belief that their god wouldn't allow AGW to be a problem, and no evidence will convince them otherwise.

Ultimately, the declaration reduces to the argument from consequences:

"...
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
..."

Once you've read the declaration, please tell us whether you see any problems with that position.

Anonymous said...

Anon said, "McIntyre did no such thing -- his statistical background aside, he simply doesn't have the specific paleoclimate expertise needed to make any serious contributions in that field."

If you were to be objective and honest, he probably is more familiar with the database of paleo proxies than anyone in the world. Asl Jim Bouldin.

Conrad Dunkerson said...

Does anyone know if the defendants can change arguments in mid case? That is, until now they have argued that they weren't making 'statements of fact' when they called Mann's work fraudulent or said he manipulated data. Rather, they were just expressing their disagreement with him in a hyperbolic way. That is, of course, utter nonsense, and has been rejected as such by both judges. However, the question is whether they can now reverse course and begin claiming that all along they were saying that Mann really HAD committed fraud. Wouldn't that make their earlier claims perjury? And if they CAN'T switch stories doesn't that mean they have nothing to 'discover' from Mann... how can they go fishing for 'evidence' of actual fraud (or rather, things they can use to embarrass Mann) when they have already conceded that there was no actual fraud? Wouldn't that limit discovery to JUST the question of whether they acted with "malice" (i.e. they knew or should have known that their statements were false)? Which concerns only THEIR knowledge and intentions, and thus could only come from their correspondence rather than Mann's?

I assume they wouldn't have been SO stupid as to set themselves up for such a situation, but I'm also not seeing how they can turn around and claim they need to go through Mann's correspondence for evidence of actual fraud when their 'defense' until now has been to claim that they never even meant that Mann had actually committed fraud.

EliRabett said...

Jim, in the same sense that the late Ernst Beck was the person most familiar with pre-1960 CO2 measurements.

Anonymous said...


If you were to be objective and honest, he probably is more familiar with the database of paleo proxies than anyone in the world. Asl Jim Bouldin.


Familiarity with the database (presumably the NOAA database?) of pale proxies does necessarily not mean that one has the paleoclimate expertise to make serious and constructive contributions to that field of study. McIntyre is certainly capable of developing that sort of expertise, but there is no indication that he has made any serious effort to do so.

All he has done is snipe from the sidelines while wasting the time/resources of genuine scientists.

Furthermore, you completely failed to acknowledge the deficiencies in his "hockey sticks from random noise" claim that I described above.

--caerbannog

Cetamua said...

"it is Eli's considered opinion, that Judge Weisberg is going to push very hard for the parties to settle with an apology."

Not a chance! Michael Mann's reputation has been repeatedly tarnished by these bandits. Nothing less than an unequivocal loss for the defendants coupled with a huge monetary punishment will do.

Furthermore, the judge could readily be accused of wanting to prevent discovery. And pray tell WHY would he want that? Eli can bet his last n'gwee that there's all kindzz of dirty things to find in the NRO and CEI closets.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Here is some more amusement hot off the press. Apparently discovery isn't as attractive as it once was.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Ok, link fail.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/01/25/defendants-appeal-in-mann-defamation-case-delays-discovery/

Canman said...

Did Mann torture data? Montford's book is full of examples of series being extended, infilled and truncated. He had a directory named "censored" with suspicious compilations! He also withheld his R2 results. His code had results for computing them. He may have committed perjury in front of the NAS panel by telling John Christy that he didn't compute them. With all this, along with the PCA shenanigans, maybe he had no fraudulent intent, but it sure looks suspicious!

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

but it sure looks suspicious!

Cuz some guy on the internet says so!

Nobody who has read any of the in depth analyses and followups and actually understands them thinks so. But since some guy in a shill shop on the internet named Canman says so, it must be reasonably doubtful. Canman is trolling at the YE creationist level here.

caerbannog said...


He had a directory named "censored" with suspicious compilations!


Now, this is just plain *stupid*.

"Censoring" in this case simply meant excluding (i.e. "censoring") different sets of tree-ring data in order to make sure that the hockey-stick results didn't depend too much on one or a few tree-ring chronologies.

This is a well-known procedure called "sensitivity analysis" that is used to ensure that results are robust; i.e. the results don't depend too much on any specific subset of the input data.

Many years ago, I coded up something known as a "censored mean-level detector". It's a good thing that the chief engineer on that project wasn't a complete idiot. Otherwise he might have thought that there was something nefarious about that "censored mean level detector".

Geez -- and you guys wonder why scientists don't want anything to do with you!

caerbannog said...

One more thing, canman:

I explained in detail why the whole PCA issue was complete nonsense, and I explained it in language that people who have at least a basic understanding of the PCA/SVD algorithm could easily understand.

Canman said...

caerbannog,

I'll admit I'm being a bit of a troll, but this case really bothers me. This looks like a case of editorial hyperbole to me. Steyn uses the word "fraudulent" matter of factly as an adjective on a blog for an opinion magazine. What's next? Is OJ Simpson going to start suing people for calling him a murderer? The way you CAGW people throw around invective, I would think that you would have a little thicker skins. I think Mann is childishly overreacting and you guys are cheering him on. I would think that you guys would be cringing at this episode as an embarrasment.

About the PCI, I don't see your link in a previous comment, but I'm guessing you mean a post by Deep Climate where he claims varying a parameter in McIntyres red noise can lower the hockystickicity of Mann's short centering. Doesn't it bother you that there is a hockey stick result that can be varied? Have you read what Ian Jolliffe has said about it?

The cherrypicked results are examples. McIntyre did 10,000 runs and tabulated the results with a clearly defined measure of hockeystickicity. I don't buy that there was a hockeystick shape imparted to the persistence characteristics by the tree ring data. That should be easy to check by taking these characteristics from non-hockeystick shaped series. I understand that there's a lot of them.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

The problem is that McI made his pseudo-proxies far too red, ie. there is too much persistence in them. Another problem is that he didn't detrend the proxies before using them to train his algorithm which polluted his pseudo-proxies with the warming signal. Both of these errors(?) tend to inflate the hockeystickiness of the pseudo-proxies he used for his little demonstration, but has nothing at all to do with Mann's actual data or analysis (Mann didn't get to change the characteristics of his proxies).

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

There is a hockey stick graph for human population, a hockey stick for industrial carbon dioxide output, a hockey stick in atmospheric carbon dioxide content and yet you insist there is no hockey stick graph for temperature. Do you understand how stupid that makes you look? The answer to that question is ... no.

Kevin O'Neill said...

Canman - Mann's graph has withstood further study numerous times. If anything, the change is now *more* pronounced after Marcott et al -- or as Mother Jones headlined it , Hockey Stick Graph Now Even More Stickish

This isn't even a case of, 'you can't see the forest for the trees'; it's more like, 'you can't see the forest for the leaves.' How is it possible Mann could be so inept and wrong - yet he produced a graph that every study following him has almost exactly duplicated? Doesn't this in and of itself tell you that any errors that may have been made had to be so small as to not make a difference?

The scientific literature covering phenology contains dozens - if not hundreds of examples that also depict a hockey stick trajectory for global temperature over the last 1000 years. The hockey stick is ubiquitous. Pretending it doesn't exist is delusional.

I speak so I am said...

Susan, on the contrary, you are not being honest. CAGW has not been proven. Ignoring the distinction between GW and CAGW is tactical but dishonest.

Time as we know it may well stop by 2100. Judgement Day is coming. Being who He is, God is in control. Get right with Him! But from what you've written, I expect you're a denier.

The BP oil spill, Sandy, Haiyan, Australian heat are irrelevant to the question of CAGW, at least thrown out without context as you have done.

I speak so I am said...

Dhogaza asked, "If it is an important difference, perhaps you can quantify exactly where the boundary between 'CAGW' and 'AGW' lies?"

The difference I was writing of had to with CAGW versus GW, not CAGW not AGW. There has been tremendous global warming and cooling in the past history of the earth, too, and probably the human contribution to it was negligible.

My answer to your question is that I can't. I don't know whether the Cornwall Alliance has, but there is no logical necessity for them to do so, either. What's more, I don't believe you can do so, either.

We're little creatures. We didn't make the universe, and we have only a limited capacity to destroy it. Almost all the destruction we caused happened already at the Fall. God did destroy and remake the world once--with the Flood in Noah's time--and He will eventually do so again--with fire (and probably enormous carbon dioxide emissions). Our big problem with Him is not whether we are emitting too much carbon dioxide but that we don't even acknowledge His existence. And there's much more for me to add, but as you're likely a denier, it won't help here.

Russell Seitz said...

The core position of the Cornwall Alliance is that belief in global warming belies the believers preterition as surely as playing golf on Sunday.

I speak so I am said...

That was pretty corny, Russell! :)

Canman said...

McIntyre's arguments against the hockey stick have nothing to do with whether it's shape was right or wrong. It was about whether his analysis was robust. It was not. Mann got a long straight handle while his critics thought there was more of a pronounced MWP. McIntyre did not show whether there was either one. He showed that Mann's long straight handle was due to his poor quality analysis. If Mann would have got his long straight handle by flipping a coin, it would still be bad science even if the long straight handle was later proved correct. You guys are either in denial about this or are trying to sweep it under the rug.

dhogaza said...

"McIntyre's arguments against the hockey stick have nothing to do with whether it's shape was right or wrong. It was about whether his analysis was robust."

No.

I started to type a more complete response, but realized there is no reasons.

Previous posters have pointed out why "no" is the right response, with details.

The fact that you ignore the detailed argument (based on McI's R code, among other things) and simply wave your hands is what makes you a denialist.

McI hid his code for a long time, and lied about what it did while he was in hiding.

Apparently, you think that is OK.

Tch tch.


Canman said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz: "... yet you insist there is no hockey stick graph for temperature."

I have said no such thing! What I've said is that Mann's methods are crap.

"Do you understand how stupid that makes you look?"

Do you guys understand how much like a brainwashed cult you look?

caerbannog said...

OK Canman,

Let's say that you have two data-matrices.

The first has column vectors that consist of a common, strong "hockey-stick" signal plus a small amount of random noise (i.e. very strong correlation between vectors).

The second data-matrix has column vectors that are just random noise (with little/no correlation between the vectors).

Let's say you run both matrices through Mann's SVD implementation, and both produce hockey stick-shaped leading principal components.

Is it possible, given just the SVD outputs, to tell which data-matrix is the random-noise matrix and which one is the hockey-stick signal matrix?

If so, what part of the SVD output would you look at to make that call, and what would you expect to see for each data-matrix?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

CAGW has not been proven.

The anti-science siren of the creationists.

What I've said is that Mann's methods are crap

Because some anonymous guy on the internet says so!

We didn't make the universe, and we have only a limited capacity to destroy it.

But but but ... the surface of a terrestrial planet is a finite two dimensional surface! It looks to me we are doing a fine job cutting that up into little squares.

dhogaza said...

"I speak so I am said...
Dhogaza asked, "If it is an important difference, perhaps you can quantify exactly where the boundary between 'CAGW' and 'AGW' lies?"

The difference I was writing of had to with CAGW versus GW, not CAGW not AGW. There has been tremendous global warming and cooling in the past history of the earth, too, and probably the human contribution to it was negligible.

My answer to your question is that I can't. I don't know whether the Cornwall Alliance has, but there is no logical necessity for them to do so, either. What's more, I don't believe you can do so, either."

No, I can't quantify it. "CAGW" is a made-up denialist term with no meaning outside the denial sphere.

Since you and no other denialist can properly define this term you toss about, you can't talk about "CAGW" vs. "GW" or "CAGW" vs. "AGW". Your speaking meaningless gibberish. a language specialized in by (but not restricted to) denialists.

"...probably the human contribution to it was negligible."

Especially before humans were created by God 6000 years ago.

This is a non-sequitor regardless. Humans died before the atomic bomb was developed, yet few would deny that tens of thousands were killed by the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.

Just because a phenomena can be caused naturally doesn't "prove" that humans can't cause the same or similar phenomena, on a devastating scale.

Brian said...

Conrad - no, the D's aren't stuck with asserting hyperbole. All they said was even if it P's assertions of fact are true, then it still only amounts to hyperbole. They can also argue that P's assertions are wrong.

Canman at 6:45 p.m.: no, it's defamation to call OJ a murderer. It's a reasonable assertion, esp given the civil case outcome. If OTOH I said, "OJ Simpson was convicted of criminal murder by a jury" then that would be defamation if I met the reckless malice standard for attacking a public figure. No dams for OJ though, since he lost the civil case.

Brian said...

Followup on the hyperbole analogy: some folks may remember the Duke lacrosse team gang rape case, which appears to have been made up by the accuser.

If someone said "I've read the information supposedly exonerating the team members but in fact they're rapists" then that would be the analogy that canman was looking for, and it would not go well for the defendant.

EliRabett said...

The long sad history of millennial sects is that millennial sects are very bad news the day and years after for those who wake up and find their expectations were foolish and nothing has happened and for those of us who had to put up with their damaging expectations beforehand and give them assistance to pick up their lives afterwards.

To base policy upon a millennial expectation is not only idiotic, it is criminal for all the beforehand and afterhand suffering and stupidity.

Russell Seitz said...

Eli is right, but millenarians span the politcal spectrum, and some few who were sadly dissapointed by the Cold War's outcome remain attached to the Occupy end of Environmentalism As A Way Of Life.

As with denialists trying to dial back all the data that add up to evidence of climate forcing, the vanguard of the Fast Forwarders have difficulty accepting the literally millennial , as opposed to decadal aspects of AGW. Some things do take a thousand years to emerge from the noise.

I'll spare you an elaborationof the existential threat inflation meme.

Rants on the subject of Bayesian Calvinism are invited

Canman said...

caerbannog,

Your getting a little technical with all this Singular Value Decomposition and what not. There are probably subtle ways to tell the output from your two examples apart. Perhaps the former yields a bigger hockey stick. The fact is that if there is a higher mean for the 20th century, the mannomatic is going to push all pre 20th century values down and cherry pick a hockey stick in the first PC! And why use PCA at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to just use averages?
Isn't choosing PCA over averages a kind of cherry picking? Using PCA allowed Mann to say "oh, we used this new highly sophisticated technical analysis and found a long straight handled hockey stick!" This looks a lot like what F A Hayek called "scientism".

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

This looks a lot like what F A Hayek called "scientism".

Yet another siren call of the creationists. Seventh Day Adventists fervently waiting and expecting the 8th day. You'll be waiting a bit longer than the 14 odd years you've already got invested in the no-show.

Cleanup in aisle seven!

Russell Seitz said...

One Mann's hockey stick is another's cornucopia.

Jim Eager said...

Why is anyone engaging with who speaks? Logic and facts are simply irrelevant to a religious argument, and a religious argument is totally alien to logic and facts. In other words, it is a compete waste of time.

And the exchange with canman demonstrates how similar an ideological argument is to a religious one.

Don't you have anything better to do than feed oxygen to trolls?

Russell Seitz said...

Cue music from Masque of the Marriage of Climate Modeling & Economics

Susan Anderson said...

Russell provides a wonderful link, intriguing and imho relevant as well, to this fool's parade.

Canman, you assert but do not listen. I call garbage, waste of time, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. This has gone on long enough, and your arguments lack substance and backing in the real world we inhabit. They come from prejudice rather than learning and curiosity.

"And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself—
Yea, all which it inherit—shall dissolve,
And like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on."

EliRabett said...

Jim, Iams argument has a long history and many people adopt it because it is facile and profitable to the preachers but it fails on its own terms, something the Iams need to think about. IEHO of course

EliRabett said...

Nick Stokes did a proper deconstruction of the Wegman/McIntyre process. You just have to look at the figures to see the deceptive nature of what Wegman and the Mcs presented.

Fergus Brown said...

Sorry, Bill:

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Denial's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing..."

David B. Benson said...

Degenerated (but good poetry quotations) as conversations with escapees from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital
always does.

Stick to the poetry.

Canman said...

Fanks for the wink wabbit, heh heh heh. I thought commenter, oneuniverse ran circles around the rest of you guys, but I'm probably not the best judge. You do realize that all this hairsplitting is about a method of which Deep Climate said, "M&M clearly identified a mistake (or, at best, a poor methodological choice)”. Mann also did not disclose it, and fought like hell not to release it!

I speak so I am said...

Dhogaza wrote, "'CAGW' is a made-up denialist term with no meaning outside the denial sphere."

Of course it's a made-up term. If it has no meaning to those who say the sky is falling, then they are the ones speaking meaningless gibberish. Great is their faith!

It is GW that is improperly defined, not CAGW. CAGW is the necessary refinement of GW. Do not attempt worldwide economic devastation without showing that it will also have appreciable benefits.

Canman said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:
""This looks a lot like what F A Hayek called "scientism"."
Yet another siren call of the creationists. Seventh Day Adventists"

I am not and am nothing like "Seventh Day Adventists", and neither are Matt Ridley and lots of other bloggers and readers who can see thru Mann's hockey stick.

I speak so I am said...

Dhogaza wrote, "Just because a phenomena can be caused naturally doesn't 'prove' that humans can't cause the same or similar phenomena, on a devastating scale."

Who has to prove something? If global warming and cooling have happened in the past, naturally, then they might very well happen again in the future for the very same reason. You're going to have us stop using incandescent light bulbs, enact huge carbon trading schemes vulnerable to abuse, look favourably or ignore the unjustice of China's one-child policy, etc. just because carbon dioxide in the wrong placemight be causing global warming that we might be able to do something about? You're crazy!

So your example is that "humans died before the atomic bomb was developed". How ironic! I've just read this headline from the Huffington Post: "Sun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another 'Little Ice Age'" No doubt you will want to control nuclear activity on the sun! Why not let the two effects cancel each other out? Yes, I realize that one might be greater or more long-lived than the other, but how much do you really know about climate change? You're the one who needs to get real.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Anyone who refers to 'scientism' and 'Matt Ridley' in a comment on a science blog is am evangelist for nonsense, sorry. Thus I see many parallels with Seventh Day Adventism. Why don't you go peddle your lies with people that you at least have a chance to convert, no?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Who has to prove something?

Mathematicians. But they don't have do, they just can if they feel like it and want to. That wouldn't be you, though.

I speak so I am said...

Eli wrote, "The long sad history of millennial sects is that millennial sects are very bad news the day and years after for those who wake up and find their expectations were foolish and nothing has happened and for those of us who had to put up with their damaging expectations beforehand and give them assistance to pick up their lives afterwards."

Agreed. The Christ has said, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." If He Himself did not know or claim to know, how dare we. His repeated emphasis is to be ready.

I speak so I am said...

Jim wrote, "Logic and facts are simply irrelevant to a religious argument, and a religious argument is totally alien to logic and facts."

Take a look in the mirror!

Actually your statement is not even true. Christianity is a reasonable faith; I'm not so sure about your creed.

EliRabett said...

Some, not Eli to be sure, might think the somebunny who writes "Time as we know it may well stop by 2100. Judgement Day is coming." and

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." If He Himself did not know or claim to know, how dare we. His repeated emphasis is to be ready."

is either confused or an apostate one way or the other.

"Being who He is, God is in control. Get right with Him! "

Get right with your fellow man first. God will notice.

I speak so I am said...

There's no contradiction there, Eli. Not knowing when somebody is coming does not mean that he isn't coming. Think of the Grim Reaper.

Russell Seitz said...

The Speakinese informs us :

"Of course it's a made-up term. If it has no meaning to those who say the sky is falling, then they are the ones speaking meaningless gibberish. Great is their faith!"

This is an inevitable consequence of taking lessons from Professor Singer

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Not knowing when somebody is coming does not mean that he isn't coming. Think of the Grim Reaper.

So your version of Christianity is one of a religion or cult of death. got it. Thanks. My own version of Christianity seems opposite of yours.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

On a humorous side note, Jim Bouldin over at RealClimate is ultra paranoid about confronting religion and religious nutjobs on his blog.

Tommy finds that ultra humorous.

Jim Eager said...

"I speak so I am said...
Jim wrote..."

Nope, you'll not waste any more of my time.

I speak so I am said...

My sentence, "Think of the Grim Reaper", was an example, Thomas. I don't know when I'm going to physically die, but I'm going to physically die. Unless Christ comes back first. Actually, because of Christ, I can live again. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You will always be remembered as the Taliban of Christianity. That's something you're just going to have to live with.

David B. Benson said...

Think I'll go back to Sixth Ward/Treme/Lafitte:
http://www.mappery.com/map-of/New-Orleans-Districts-Map
Conversations make more sense and the jazz is much to be preferred.

caerbannog said...

Well, a few final comments to finish up here:

1) Mann's hockey-stick does not depend on his specific PCA implementation, or even the standard full-centered PCA implementation. The same hockey stick is produced when a straightforward averaging/regression is performed without use of the PCA method. Mann used PCA simply as a data-reduction/averaging procedure. Alternate, non PCA methods work equally well, as anyone who has done his/her homework about the topic has been aware of for *years*.



2) When PCA is used, the hockey-stick is constructed from a *combination of multiple* PC's. The obsession over a single PC indicates a lack of understanding of how the technique works.

3) Full-centered and Mann's "short-centered" PCA implementations work equally well as long as a consistent procedure is used to determine which PC's to retain. Mann's PC selection procedure produced the same hockey-stick for full-centered and short-centered PCA implementations.

4) In my previous post to canman, I posed a very simple question about the most fundamental aspects of the PCA/SVD algorithm. Canman's reply, as expected, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the basics of the PCA/SVD procedure.

Lurkers here should take note -- most AGW "skeptics" are utterly and completely ignorant of even the most rudimentary basics of the science they are attacking, and canman is a canonical example of this.

Russell Seitz said...


Since it is an article of faith at National Review that climate science is as much a religion as football at Notre Dame, be thankful Steyn has not sold the comparison of Jerry Sandusky to a certain middle eastern theologian as the next neocon casus belli

Bernard J. said...

To the guy whose lips move when he tries to rationalise his existence...

Tell me a bit about heaven.

For instance, do people still have bodieswhen they arrive? Eyes? Genitals? Alimentary canals?

If so, why?

Eyes are for seeing danger and finding food and mates.

Genitals are for reproducing to carry the genetic legacy after the current generation drops off the log - it death still a valid life goal in heaven?

Digestive systems are for obtaining energy and repairing and replacing bits of body. Is there still wear and tear on the body whilst gambolling about in heaven?

And about energy... is there entropy in heaven? If not, how does work occur? Are the laws of thermodynamics different in heaven? If there is entropy, is not heaven then a functionally temporary entity?

Do animals and plants go to heaven? What about the great apes, which have been demonstrated to have self awareness, pharmacological knowledge, altruism and moral compasses, and which some such researchers as Carel van Schaik recognise as "beings"? If not, why not, and what is there in heaven in terms of heavenly ecosystems?

If they do, isn't Earthly pollution and general biospheric destruction a sin against future heavenly beings? And if they don't go to heaven why then is this current iteration of "Creation" so disposable?

Where is heaven? How do you know that the superstitious nomads and the institutional clergy who have nurtured these stories for millennia are not psychotic, schizophrenic, political, medacious, misunderstood, and/or otherwise unreliable as witnesses?

Why have you not addressed the many hundreds of Biblical incosistencies and other fallacies to which I referred above?

How does your blind faith differ from that of countless others who have died believing their respective cult leaders?

I speak so I am said...

Bernard wrote, "Why have you not addressed the many hundreds of Biblical incosistencies and other fallacies to which I referred above?"

I have not because:

(1) that would take a long time.
(2) They're only inconsistencies and fallacies when interpreted by the presuppositions of your faith.
(3) Your mocking tone is evidence that you're not really interested in answers.

Kevin O'Neill said...

I speak so I am says:
"Christianity is a reasonable faith; I'm not so sure about your creed."

I speak so I am, of course statements like this are met with a mocking tone- how can they not be? There's no logical case to be made for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Adherents BELIEVE in their gods. Logic, reason, proof play no part in it.

The age of the earth, the shape of the earth, the story of Noah's ark, etc., etc. are all directly contradicted by science. Reason tells us one story - faith tells us another. There is nothing reasonable about the Christian traditions on these (and many other) subjects.

It is instructive that the man who wrote the The Age of Reason stated: HE THAT BELIEVES IN THE STORY OF CHRIST IS AN INFIDEL TO GOD. All caps in the original.

I speak so I am said...

It is instructive that the man who wrote Mere Christianity" was once an atheist. In another book, Surprised by Joy, he described himself as the "most dejected and reluctant convert in all England".

I believe in God. You don't, but you do have core beliefs that you cannot prove. Reason requires presuppositions.

I speak so I am said...

Kevin wrote, "Adherents BELIEVE in their gods. Logic, reason, proof play no part in it."

That's not true. You can't have theology without logic, reason, and proof. Christianity is a reasonable faith.

Brian said...

The biggest tell in the Cornwall Declaration is the lack of any mention of preserving biodiversity.

The two mainstays of evangelical creation care are climate change and preserving endangered species - both measure humanity as stewards of God's creation and failing at either shows great sinfulness.

Cornwall signers make up nonsense about climate science, but if they weren't ideological, they could still embrace biodiversity protection. The fact that they wouldn't do so shows they're driven by ideology, not theology, and definitely not by any concrete expression of creation care.

Russell Seitz said...

Waugh's' Cousin Jasper warned innocent bunnies to steer clear of the sort of literary company the Speakinese keeps.

I speak so I am said...

Brian, since you can't be referring to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"--which, of course, does not refer to biodiversity protection--you must be referring to the "Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship." Its first declared aspiration is this:

"We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order."

metzomagic said...

I speak so I am said:

"We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures..."

One of the worst side effects of all that extra CO2 mankind is dumping into the atmosphere is that the oceans absorb a lot of it, making them more acidic. At a certain level of acidity which could quite possibly be attained this century, many species of shellfish won't be able to form their little shells.

Does 'I speak...' imagine that's going to bode well for these creatures, or for a food chain that a significant part of humanity depends on? So much for human beings "caring wisely and humbly for all creatures", huh? And that's only one example of the kind of havoc we're going to wreak on plants and animals with our continuing pollution of the atmosphere. We've already driven many species to extinction just by increasing the average global temps as much as we have from pre-industrial.

The trouble with fundies is that their ideology blinds them to the ultimate consequences of their actions - by design!

caerbannog said...

Some final quick notes:

Anyone who has done his/her homework fully realizes that Mann's hockey-stick results are completely independent of his or any other PCA implementation. Short-centered PCA, full-centered PCA, or averaging without PCA produce the same hockey-stick from the data. Mann and others demonstrated that clearly *years* ago.

As for the full-centered vs. short-centered thing, of course it's better to use full-centered. Mann chose short-centering because of the varying data record lengths made full-centering more complicated. But if you apply consistent PC selection rules, it really doesn't matter which centering convention you use for data-reduction (which is what Mann used PCA for).

When you use PCA/SVD for data-reduction, you don't need to assign a particular "interpretation" to each individual PC you retain, because your answer is constructed from a *combination* of those PC's. Again, this should be quite clear to anyone who understands PCA and understands what I mean by "data reduction".


Mann's PCA-based results were computed from a *combination* of PC's, not just the leading PC. The fixation on a single PC is an indication of the lack of understanding of what the PCA/SVD algorithm does.

The question I asked canman about how to distinguish strong signal data from noise data by looking at PCA/SVD outputs was a very basic question about the fundamentals of the technique. It's something that students who have been introduced to the technique should be able to answer without batting an eyelash.

The fact that canman could not answer that question should make it very clear to lurkers that he is in way over his head here -- all he can do is parrot talking-points without the slightest understanding of the subject material.

Canman (and everyone else) would be much better off if he did a lot more listening and a *lot* less (as in no) talking.

Russell Seitz said...

Though the Cornwallians

"aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order."

they anathematize anthropogenic ocean acidification as a mysterium iniquitatis since there is no way sinful man can aspire to drive the pH low enough to dissove Lucifer if he misses the lake of sulfur next time he drops in.


I speak so I am said...

What are you trying to say, Metzomagic? That the Cornwall signers do not care about shellfish? As their first aspiration indicates, they do care, but the price of economic devastation and loss of individual liberty is far too high. Get a sense of proportion, please! And show some concern for your fellow man.

Actually, according to your faith, the survival of the fittest and continuing evolution should mean that another higher kind of species will eventually evolve, anyway. Put a little human intelligence into the shellfish's development, and their adaptation should be even more rapid. The original shellfish were destined to disappear sooner or later.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Creationist like you are destined to disappear sooner, not later. You chose your destiny, deal with it.

Great creationist news today. Enjoy your litigation. It will cost you.

I speak so I am said...

And I should add, Metzomagic, that whatever applies to CAGW applies even more to the shellfish--that any remedy we attempt, guaranteed to be costly, will have an appreciable effect on the acidity of the ocean, which you say is increasing because of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which you say is mainly an artificial phenomenon caused by man.

You could just as well try to make the ocean less salty! No doubt its increasing salt concentration also has negative effects for some of its inhabitants.

I speak so I am said...

"may not have" instead of "will have"

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Blah blah blah blah blah, Dunning Kruger at work. Don't let the door hit you on your way out at the rapture!

Russell Seitz said...

Poor Speak's Kraft was Ebbing even before Dunning-Kruger's discovery. One hopes he will recover in time for the clamming season.

Kevin O'Neill said...

I speak says: "What are you trying to say, Metzomagic? That the Cornwall signers do not care about shellfish?"

I speak's God says: "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you."

I think as a counter-balance to 'reasonable faith' I'm going to begin practicing revelatory science. So, how do I know that CAGW is true - because God told me so.

I speak so I am said...

You aren't using "logic, reason, proof", Kevin. Your theology isn't sound. Did you even read my response to your previous comment?

The prohibition against eating certain sea foods was part of the Old Testament dietary code. It became obsolete with the expansion of God's people to include people of every nationality and ethnic background. Read Acts 10 and 11.

You sound like a Pentecostal with your announcement that you believe CAGW is true because God told you so. But at least the Pentecostal really believes God told him so. I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is the rule of faith and practice. Christianity is a reasonable faith.

I speak so I am said...

Kevin, seeing as you did refer to "reasonable faith," I can see that you probably had read my last response. But how does giving what you call a "counter-balance to 'reasonable faith'" contribute anything to the conversation?

Do you deny that your faith in CAGW is complex? But if it isn't, then perhaps you have a simplistic understanding.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Go away you inbred retarded cretin.

EliRabett said...

Tutt

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Tutt Tutt.

Screw Jim Boulin.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I hate it when that happens.

Kevin O'Neill said...

I speak says:"Do you deny that your faith in CAGW is complex?"

As they say, this is not even wrong. I don't have 'faith' in CAGW; just as I don't have faith in *any* scientific theory. I accept them as the best description we have as to how the world works, but accept - indeed expect - that they will be revised and made better.

Furthermore, I am literate enough to read and understand the basis for most scientific theories. I can read the published literature and work through most of the maths myself.

You lack a snark detector. Reasonable faith is an analogue to revelatory science. They are both oxymorons.

And why is it alleged Christians always quote Peter, but rarely Jesus? Who was it that said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Apparently he was over-ruled by Peter and the Holy Spirit.

Besides,

There is only one god
He is the Sun god
Ra! Ra! Ra!

I speak so I am said...

You do have faith in CAGW. You have so much faith that in its name you justify economic devastation, excessive taxation, and loss of much individual freedom. You believe that so much as you will now hurt the poor people in developing nations you will benefit them when CAGW fails to happen (because, you will say, the correct measures were taken).

Sure, there is some science behind CAGW--and it's very complex--but there is a whole lot of faith, too. And because of my very different faith, I reasonably conclude that CAGW isn't a danger.

I know, as well as you do that you haven't done all the science yourself. You haven't empirically obtained the knowledge you have. So in large part there has been "revelatory science." But you lack the humility that Sir Isaac Newton had, when he said that he stood on the shoulders of those who went before. Newton, Pascal, Faraday, and others were also theologians or theology students. Theology fascinated them.

You are a scientist in the sense that you adhere to scientism, an unwarranted trust in natural science to solve the problems of our world. But all the problems in our world are the result of one problem, sin, failing to live with God as He had intended us to.

Science as we know it came out of a Christian world view. The world was knowable and predictable because God is orderly. He told us to rule over it; we don't have to be afraid of supposed spirits of the trees, lakes, etc. Because truth exists, it was passed on in universities. Because brotherly love is an imperative, hospitals were founded. Science happened because the West had a Christian world view.

But then the West became proud. As Nietsche wrote, God is dead. We decided we did not need Him. Now the West is in decline.

guthrie said...

Oh dear oh dear. I wonder what flavour of fundamentalist I speak therefore I am is? Reminds me of one of my lecturers, a 7th day adventist who was anti-evolution.

Lets see, we have the decline of the west, which has been declining since Spengler at least yet is still here; we've got comparison of science to theology, which simply has not been an intellectually honest comparison since the 17th century at least; we've got the nonsense denialist term 'cagw'; and the conflation of science with christianity; we've got the "Your science is just faith too!" playground taunt which disgraces anyone who claims to have a working cortex - I've seen it many times from creationist idiots before.

The fact is that christianity, or rather certain varieties of it, were helpful for the formation of science, not instrumental in it. Fortunately for the west, the Aristotelians won in the 13th century, and proto-scientists got to speculate a fair bit, as long as they admitted at the end that the Bible was right and their speculations wrong. Besides, for various reasons the Bible just was't as prescriptive about the universe and how it worked, leaving lots of room for thought and experiment.

Of course various flavours of Christianity ended up with different approaches; by the 19th century the Papal states in Italy were renowned for their backwardness, hardly an indication of the inherent christian-ness of science. Meanwhile the Protestant northern states had forged ahead and created the industrial evolution and much of modern science, but without the involvement of christianity as such.

There was a book out not so long ago that claimed the same as you, what was the authors name? Hmm, I can't remember.

I speak so I am said...

I'm not interested in merely trading insults, Guthrie. Spengler wasn't so long ago, and the West is in decline. That theology is no longer considered the queen of the sciences only backs up my point. I have not conflated science and faith; it's your party that has been doing so.

Your science is not faith; your CAGW requires faith. Evolutionism pretty much is a faith. You are dishonest if you assert otherwise.

The term CAGW is not nonsense; it is, in fact, what people on this site mean when they speak of the threat of "global warming" and doing something about it. That many people on this site are convinced that we can and need to do something about it is a testament to their great faith.

As Mark Steyn wrote at the end of 2009, "the 'science' of global warming is so settled it’s now perfectly routine for leaders of the developed world to go around sounding like apocalyptic madmen of the kind that used to wander the streets wearing sandwich boards and handing out homemade pamphlets. Governments that are incapable of—to pluck at random—enforcing their southern border, reducing waiting times for routine operations to below two years, or doing something about the nightly ritual of car-torching 'youths,' are nevertheless taken seriously when they claim to be able to change the very heavens—if only they can tax and regulate us enough."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 304   Newer› Newest»