Who Could Resist?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Eli meant to behave but there were way too many options.
KoFi Button
Posts
Contributors
Eli Rabett
Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.
Brian's Other Blog
On Line Textbooks
- Atmospheric Chemistry - Daniel Jacob
- Environmental Geosciences - Robert Stewart
- Ray Pierrehumbert on the physics of climate
- David Archer's Global Warming (Parts)
- Spencer Weart's Disovery of Global Warming
- Stratospheric Ozone
- Global Land Vegetation
- Polar Sea Ice
- Sea Surface Temperatures
- Skeptical Science - not a book but a resource
Mostly Science
- And Then There's Physics
- Blue Skies Research - J&J in the UK
- Bob Grumbine in the 21st Century
- Easterbrook's Serendipity
- Izen or Izen it not?
- James' Empty Blog
- Neven's Artic Sea Ice Blog
- Nick Stoke's Moyhu
- Real Climate
- Science of Doom
- Simon Donner's Maribo II
- Tamino's Open Mind
- The Weasel, aka Stoat
- Victor Venema
- Weather from Bridford, Devon, a beautiful corner of the world
Mostly Climate Policy
Other Lands
Southerners
Cuter in Bunny Ears
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(66)
-
▼
April
(10)
- Carbon tax survives in the US (as a tax credit)
- Shaking the Cup for Science
- Mann, Bradley and Hughes Is 20
- Rabett Run, Where You Read It Before It Happens, U...
- Apologia Pro Vita Sua
- Who Could Resist?
- Pruitt's Sweetheart Deal Was With an Energy Lobbyi...
- Pal Review
- Guns, Part 2: A "Well-Regulated" Militia for Conce...
- Guns for Self Defense Shouldn't Last Forever (And ...
-
▼
April
(10)
Nil Nisi
- A Few Things Illconsidered
- Arthur Smith
- Atmoz
- Capital Climate
- Chris Colose
- Climate Physics Forum
- Cruel Mistress
- Deep Climate
- Delayed Oscillator
- Deltoid
- Denis Delbecq
- Fergus Brown's Old Man
- Greenfyre
- Horatio's Muse
- John Nielsen-Gammon
- Lab Lemming
- Logical Science
- Magnus Westerstrand
- N3xus 6
- Policy Lass
- Post Normal Times
- Rick Piltze
- Some Are Boojums
- Throbgoblin
23 comments:
Care to at least identify who Sr and Jr are in this iteration of the meme?
Yesterday it snowed like crazy in Extremadura.
I take it some prominent climate figure criticized Mann. A few more details would be nice.
Huh? Wassup?
Oh, this? 'oogled:
About 3 results (0.43 seconds)
Search Results
Roger A. Pielke Sr on Twitter: "New paper https://t.co/gpANTxBUzK ...
https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr/status/982338744358334464
5 days ago - See our earlier work on this subject - e.g. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-278b.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/r-345.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2010/03/r-345a.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf ...
CAN Climate Guy (@can_climate_guy) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/can_climate_guy?lang=en
Embed Tweet. See our earlier work on this subject - e.g. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-278b.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/r-345.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2010/03/r-345a.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf ...
Roger A. Pielke Sr (@RogerAPielkeSr) | Twitter
https://twitter.com/rogerapielkesr?lang=en
Embed Tweet. See our earlier work on this subject - e.g. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-278b.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/r-345.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2010/03/r-345a.pdf … http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/r-358.pdf ...
Is Roger taking iteration lessons form James Delingpole?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/04/breitbartindicted-on-attempted-irony.html
I confess to cultural woeful ignorance. Those people pictured are from what, that thing called "television"?
I understand it's in color nowadays.
The dad had a cow when his son admitted his hog lost a drag race with a Telsa chopper.
This doesn't make sense. Why would Michael Mann want his earlier work scrutinized? The last time that happened, he got hauled before congress, got pressured to release his code and data, got his statistical methods trashed by two scientific panels and had an embarrassing cache of emails leaked.
Canman--
He got his methods trashed by two scientific panels? Congress asked National Academy of Science about the hockey stick and the following was published in 2006 (PDP download is free):
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years
They in essence agreed with Mann's conclusions, which was promptly ignored by congress.
Old_salt,
I've gone through that report before. It dances around and downplays a lot of stuff. Gerald North said they agreed with Wegman's assessment.
Canman,
North only agreed with the criticism of the statistical methodology used being uncommon and possibly prone to artifacts.
However, he also stated that "none of the statistical criticisms that have been raised by various authors unduly influence the shape of the final reconstruction. This is attested to by the fact that reconstructions performed without using principal components yield similar results."
And we now know that Wegman lied when he claimed the report was an independent verification of the critiques. They used the McIntyre and McKitrick program to create graphs they presented as being from their own analysis. To make things worse, they described the statistic methods used incorrectly and they have consistently declined to share the code to the program they claimed to have created themselves. Which is ironic, since Wegman stated that sharing code was oh-so-important (and in the process failed to acknowledge that Mann *had* shared the code he used). But as noted above, the likely reason for that is obvious: sharing the code would likely show they didn't write it themselves, but just used the one from McIntyre and McKitrick, making it yet another notch in the various cases of plagiarism by Wegman and his team.
@Russell,
Hogs are going electric. Release is expected in 2019. H-D Revelation is rumored name.
Yep, electric hogs will leave the gas motor ones in the dust which is what those guys and girls wants. It'll be the white zombie on two wheels Torque baby Torque https://youtu.be/apoeGMWF17c
North:
I was also somewhat taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, which seems overly accusatory towards Dr. Mann and his colleagues, rather than being a neutral, impartial assessment of the techniques used in his research. In my opinion, while the techniques used in the original Mann et al papers may have been slightly flawed, the work was the first of its kind and deserves considerable credit for moving the field of paleoclimate research forward. It is also important to note that the main conclusions of the Mann et al studies have been supported by subsequent research. Finally, while our committee would agree with Dr. Wegman that access to research data could and should be improved, as discussed on page 23 of the prepublication version of our report, we also acknowledge the complicated nature of such mandates, especially in areas such as computer code where intellectual property rights need to be considered.
The scope of the agreement between Ed and Jerry is oftentimes inflated. As Dr. Gerald North stated:
> Dr. Wegman’s criticisms of the statistical methodology in the papers by Mann et al were consistent with our findings. Our committee did not consider any social network analyses and we did not have access to Dr. Wegman’s report during our deliberations so we did not have an opportunity to discuss his conclusions. Personally, I was not impressed by the social network analysis in the Wegman report, nor did I agree with most of the report’s conclusions on this subject.
Source: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
***
Eli may be interested in my footnote to set the records on the OHC idea:
> Pielke Sr is known in the ClimateBall sphere for his advocacy (Pielke Jr, 2017) on using OHC as a metric of AGW (e.g. Pielke Sr, 2003), something that has been discussed, among other places, by Hansen et al 1997 and Levitus et al 2000. His advocacy did not go as far as developing the metric or improving data sets or methods – see Willard 2019 for a genealogy of how his handwaving mainly served as a way to minimize the importance of AGW and undermine the IPCC, sometimes by failing basic reading comprehension (Rabett, 2013). Since we now have the data, we could not pass up the opportunity to see how his ClimateBall (see Willard 2018) strategy work out scientifically.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/criticising-the-critics/#comment-115928
Comments welcome.
North is taken aback by the tone of the Wegman Report, but his tone is still dancing around and downplaying. And "supported by subsequent research" is a very subjective thing when the support consists of how much the graphs look like each other.
Canman, unlike Wegman, North was aware of the studies that showed an analysis of the *same* data as MBH98/99 using *different* statistical methods gives essentially the same result.
North was also aware of subsequent research that showed different proxies resulted in very similar reconstructions - contrary to Wegman's claim that such studies essentially all used the same subset of proxies.
North probably was *not* aware that Wegman likely just used the McIntyre and McKitrick software to create his supposedly 'independent' analysis. If North had been, he would not have been so kind to Wegman...
C: "supported by subsequent research" is a very subjective thing when the support consists of how much the graphs look like each other.
BPL: How the hell else would you measure it? They did similar analyses, they got the same results. Do you want them to use different data than the data gathered empirically?
Sorry BPL, not your fault but Eli has his nose full of EMPIRICAL data as used by a certain twitter clown. WTF empirical data is or what non-empirical data is remains to be determined at a later date.
Canman--
I would suggest that you examine the borehole temperature data in the 2006 NAS report, since it is a completely independent way to test whether the earth has been warming like the Mann compilation of surface records. They agree. And, the usual way to do science is to look through the scientific literature since 2006 to identify any controversy with the original. Unfortunately for your argument, everyone finds hockey sticks.
The only person "dancing around" seems to be yourself.
Tangentially, for those who enjoy parodic discourse, let me recommend another instance (not climate related save by coincidence of one name)
-----excerpt follows-----
RW: A response to Yosemite’s editorial from one “Foghorn E Leghorn” of the “Watts-Updock Institute,” known, as best we can tell, specializes in carrot research and is staffed by rabbits, objects to the nomination. Specifically, he says that you are “about as sharp as a bowling ball,” and “about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.” Mixed metaphors aside, how do you respond?
-----end excerpt-------
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/12/yosemite-sam-bunny-nemesis-and-renowned-scientist/
Ok, since this thread is now spammer bait, might as well cite the source of the imagery.
Found much of it at and around here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y0bQYDA9Vw&feature=youtu.be
Hey Hank, give Eli a chance to cut bait.
Eli
Post a Comment