tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6028070316788093435..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Chip ClipsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13952024532552885972012-02-03T23:21:12.600-05:002012-02-03T23:21:12.600-05:00Apart from anything else Knappenberger's use o...Apart from anything else Knappenberger's use of another authors graphics for his own publication is a breach of copyright. When I've written review articles I've always had to obtain the copyright holders permission to use other author's material.Phil.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41838553294672421612012-01-24T22:29:46.644-05:002012-01-24T22:29:46.644-05:00"There has been no proof that I violated the ..."There has been no proof that I violated the rules at SkS"<br /><br />Really? <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2B.html#53507" rel="nofollow">Here</a> and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Another-animated-version-Warming-Indicators-Powerpoint.html#51508" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Just two examples, but I have more pressing matters to deal with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26548541301825113592012-01-24T22:16:38.934-05:002012-01-24T22:16:38.934-05:00Mr. Chocolate claims that
"I can't visit...Mr. Chocolate claims that<br /><br /><i>"I can't visit skeptical science, Albatross got me banned and now denies it."</i><br /><br />This is simply false :) Mr. Chocolate got himself banned. How many time do I need to correct this falsehood? <br /><br />AlbatrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42393101019210010972012-01-24T22:11:17.806-05:002012-01-24T22:11:17.806-05:00"There was 1 commenter (similar to Albatross ...<i>"There was 1 commenter (similar to Albatross at Sks) who complained every time I made a comment and I think there was some favoritism going on as well."</i><br /><br />Yes, in Mr. Chocolate's world everyone else is being mean to him. LOL. I do not recall "complaining" every time he made a comment at SkS. As has been explained to Mr. Chocolate several times now, he lost his posting rights at SkS b/c he was incapable of following the comments policy.<br /><br />He has also run into trouble at <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-x-chris-coloses-comment/#comment-43326" rel="nofollow">Curry's place</a> and at The BlackBoard (IIRC) and at <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2011/05/15/retraction-of-said-wegman-et-al-2008-part-1/#comment-8822" rel="nofollow">DeepClimate</a> and at <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/#comment-48102" rel="nofollow">Tamino's</a>. Just some examples folks...<br /><br />Mr. Chocolate is in denial about more than AGW ;)<br /><br />AlbatrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25999926903431638192012-01-23T13:57:31.052-05:002012-01-23T13:57:31.052-05:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Albatross
"I am plea...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />@Albatross<br /><br />"I am pleased to inform you that I was not the reason you lost your posting privileges at SkS. You lost your privileges them as readers of SkS know, b/c after repeated warning you failed to comply with the house rules.<br /><br />And IIRC, you have run into trouble posting at at least one other location."<br /><br />This is an unproven allegation. There has been no proof that I violated the rules at SkS. At Rc, I suspect foul play was also involved. There was 1 commenter (similar to Albatross at Sks) who complained every time I made a comment and I think there was some favoritism going on as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38409893293115370492012-01-23T13:54:18.220-05:002012-01-23T13:54:18.220-05:00@Lionel A
So a weatherman telling me it will rain...@Lionel A<br /><br />So a weatherman telling me it will rain tomorrow is a prediction while a climate scientist telling me that it will be 5 degrees warmer in 2045 is a predication? So how many things is said scientists' predication based upon? 1 thousand? Then why would you listen to it? Do you think the 1000 predications are going to stay the same? I sure don't. <br /><br />I can't visit skeptical science, Albatross got me banned and now denies it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76785562764585511772012-01-23T11:07:06.864-05:002012-01-23T11:07:06.864-05:00Jay, Jay, Jay,
As A N Other wrote, 'tch, tch,...Jay, Jay, Jay,<br /><br />As A N Other wrote, 'tch, tch, tch'.<br /><br />The past has NOT 'been thrown out', as you say it is simply that in the past the Earth was a different country and the Earth systems did many things differently then because of different geography, solar irradiance and ecological factors.<br /><br />But of course you knew that and are just trying to confuse the less well informed.<br /><br />And of course you cannot 'see' unless you look with an open or informed mind. As for 'futurology and bozos' it takes a certain kinda bozo to try to confound weather forecasting with climate projections and a Bozo squared to further confuse projections with predications. A recent post at SkepticalScience can help you out with that latter.<br /><br />You are making yourself look quite at best ignorant and at worst mendacious.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18218139674139853972012-01-23T09:43:56.142-05:002012-01-23T09:43:56.142-05:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
The thing that I find amazi...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />The thing that I find amazing about this is that 1901-2000 or 1850-2010 is so important to everybody. Basically the past billions of years of earth's history are irrelevant by your thinking. Of course we know that the past has been thrown out because it demolishes the narrative.<br />Again, I cannot see what was done to alter the graph. I can see the area in question is just a tick mark after 2040 but the graph lines and the pink, green and yellow bars all line up, I don't see the difference. Furthermore, the obsession with futurology by the alarmists is so stupid. The weatherman can't tell us if it will rain or be sunny tomorrow, yet you bozo clowns think they are going to be right on the money predicting the temperature 30 years from now, what a joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91158488339641262662012-01-22T14:34:03.610-05:002012-01-22T14:34:03.610-05:00I do believe, those who suffer from fixed delusion...I do believe, those who suffer from fixed delusions, to them, their perceptions and interpretations of events make perfect sense, and everyone else is crazy, irrational, ignorantly unconcerned or part of the conspiracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21946983556694546762012-01-21T16:31:36.970-05:002012-01-21T16:31:36.970-05:00"Half Graph" Michaels strikes again.
Pe..."Half Graph" Michaels strikes again.<br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76143235519873672732012-01-21T05:00:12.247-05:002012-01-21T05:00:12.247-05:00I agree with Chip Knappenberger that the altering ...I agree with Chip Knappenberger that the altering of the figures themselves is not so interesting. Good practice would have been to mention exactly what was done and link to the original figure but this is a bit of a gray area. <br /><br />The real problem is ignoring the evidence that weakened the prerferred history. You might want to ignore irrelevant data but you may not ignore inconvenient data and both the figures and the text fails to mention the important caveats. This is as true with others data as with your own.<br /><br />This can of course sometimes be hard to judge but if you have altered the figures in a way which the original authors and many of your readers think is misleading you obviously failed. If done in good faith the proper response would be to apologize and post a correction. If done in bad faith I would call it scientific misconduct.Geologistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25698012336655012352012-01-21T03:54:43.619-05:002012-01-21T03:54:43.619-05:00@Chip Knappenberger:
"what’s the difference i...@Chip Knappenberger:<br />"what’s the difference if I... alter some other graph so it plots what I want to show?"<br /><br />But you didn't alter it to 'show what you want it to show.'<br /><br />You altered it to NOT SHOW the data that didn't agree with your conclusion. <br /><br />The author showed the land/sea figures because they were hugely different - which is highly relevant in assessing the reliability of the combined data. <br /><br />You took it out - because it is highly relevant in assessing the reliability of the combined data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14793870224943424302012-01-21T03:43:00.952-05:002012-01-21T03:43:00.952-05:00I honestly can't even see what was misrepresen...<i>I honestly can't even see what was misrepresented in the graph. The portion you put a square box around looks no different in the graphic above it.</i><br /><br />So you are <b>literally</b> blind to evidence that doesn't fit your ideology, Jay?Marcel Kincaidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36999700702633632732012-01-21T03:20:27.073-05:002012-01-21T03:20:27.073-05:00I'm trying to figure out whether Chip Knappenb...I'm trying to figure out whether Chip Knappenberger's corruption is so internalized that he really doesn't understand why people are objecting to WCR's doctoring of figures, or whether his corruption is overt and he is dishonestly pretending not to understand it. I think it is not yet clear from the evidence which sort of corrupt he is.Marcel Kincaidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8975470177143014532012-01-20T23:41:16.041-05:002012-01-20T23:41:16.041-05:00Former Skeptic --- Remember
Piled
higher and
Deep...<b>Former Skeptic</b> --- Remember<br /><br /><b>P</b>iled<br /><b>h</b>igher and<br /><b>D</b>eeper.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4240812884931340242012-01-20T21:14:59.168-05:002012-01-20T21:14:59.168-05:00"Pat can dismiss his peers, but he might feel..."<i>Pat can dismiss his peers, but he might feel less glib when faced with a hefty fine or when facing potential jail time.</i>"<br /><br />Here's a thought...<br /><br />At what point does consciously misrepresenting data that otherwise indicates danger to the security and the ongoing viability of one's country (including the safety and future prosperity of its citizens <i>and</i> its ecosystems) become <b>treason</b>?<br /><br />If there is no current legislative mechanism to try deliberate intent to deceive and/or mislead that leads directly to national endangerment, might there be a case for suggesting that such be formulated in the future? Might such a legislative mechanism be retrospective?<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.<br /><br /><br />[Heh, word verification says 'straphap'...]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9852659351468715572012-01-20T18:40:29.868-05:002012-01-20T18:40:29.868-05:00Tom,
"Anyway, this discussion is pointless. ...Tom,<br /><br /><i>"Anyway, this discussion is pointless. Any scientist who cannot bring themselves to publicly recognize the difference between one of three projections and a prediction is no longer interested in truth. End of story."</i><br /><br />Sadly, I have to agree. All the more reason for Waxman to haul Michaels before Congress. Pat can dismiss his peers, but he might feel less glib when faced with a hefty fine or when facing potential jail time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61871417899039064412012-01-20T18:31:47.313-05:002012-01-20T18:31:47.313-05:00Albatross said:
"Yet Michaels would have his...Albatross said:<br /><br />"Yet Michaels would have his readers believe that the result they focused on is cock sure."<br /><br />That is the heart of the issue. The reason Knappenberg and Michaels erased the data is that it ran counter to their narrative. But if you need to erase data to make the graph fit your narrative, your narrative is not reporting on the original paper, but distorting it. <br /><br />Anyway, this discussion is pointless. Any scientist who cannot bring themselves to publicly recognize the difference between one of three <b>projections</b> and a <b>prediction</b> is no longer interested in truth. End of storyTom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37897873702146478712012-01-20T18:12:08.078-05:002012-01-20T18:12:08.078-05:00Eli,
"This is all so silly."
Chip is p...Eli,<br /><br />"This is all so silly."<br /><br />Chip is projecting again.<br /><br />It is really quite telling (and disturbing) that Chip really fails to understand the fundamental difference between scientific fraud (i.e., doctoring <b>other scientists'</b> figures to as to hide inconvenient data and thus misrepresent their work) and what is an acceptable way of adapting <b>ones own</b> a figure in such as way as to not change the interpretation or original meaning of that figure.<br /><br />As I have mentioned before, people are (sadly) very good at justifying, rationalizing even the most heinous crimes. And Chip is demonstrating that very nicely here 9and elsewhere where he pops up on Pat;s behalf), and so did Pat in his denial piece he wrote (or was it Chip?) in response to SkS.<br /><br />Pat and Chip are utterly divorced from reality and morality. They will stare you in the eye, smile and lie through their teeth and not even think twice about it. In fact, Pat has done that before Congress on a few occasions. <br /><br />Given Pat's and Chip's complete disconnect with ethics and proper scientific conduct and deep-seated ideology, I fear that we are probably bashing our heads against a wall here. They are simply beyond the reach of rational and reasonable discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63262694369367981262012-01-20T17:52:20.219-05:002012-01-20T17:52:20.219-05:00Eli,
As to which window is the most appropriate w...Eli,<br /><br />As to which window is the most appropriate window to use in Gillett et al., that is not a settled question:<br /><br />This is what Dr. Annan had to say about Gillett et al. (my highlights):<br /><br /><i>"This new [linking to Gilett et al.] paper also suggests that the transient response of a modern model (albeit a particularly sensitive one) has to be significantly downscaled to match observations. Mind you, <b>that paper also has a worrying discrepancy between the results obtained with 1900-2000, versus 1850-2010 data</b>. Normally one would expect the latter to be broadly a subset of the former - more data means closer convergence to the true value - but the two sets of results are virtually disjoint, which suggests something a bit strange may be going on in the analysis (cf Schmitter et al with the land-only versus land+ocean results). But just a glance at the first figure shows a striking divergence between model and data over the first decade of the 21st century (compared to the close agreement prior to then). <b>Something isn't quite right there</b>"</i><br /><br />And as we know, James has done quite a bit of work in the field of climate sensitivity. So his opinion/insight counts for something.<br /><br />Yet Michaels would have his readers believe that the result they focused on is cock sure.<br /><br />To m knowledge Pat/WCR didn't write long reviews of these papers (e.g., Park and Royer (2011), Pagani et al. (2010), Previdi et al. (2011), Kiehl (2011)). Why?<br /><br />I'll tell you why, they do not support his ideology/narrative. That just goes to show how that Pat is both biased and is pushing an agenda. He cannot even make a weak case without ignoring inconvenient papers, key caveats in those papers or without doctoring graphics from the papers he does seek out to review. It all smacks of desperation on his part.<br /><br />AlbatrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1165420747681870682012-01-20T17:48:39.421-05:002012-01-20T17:48:39.421-05:00Eli,
“Since erasing from a figure means you alter...Eli,<br /><br />“Since erasing from a figure means you altered it, not adapted it,”<br /><br />From the caption of IPCC AR4 Figure TS.1 p.24: “adapted from Figure 6.3”<br /><br />If you want to play spot the differences, IPCC AR4 Figure 6.3, p.444 looks remarkably like Figure TS.1 except that it has an additional line of data on it and a few misc. annotations.<br /><br />This is all so silly. <br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimateeport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75588311102103831832012-01-20T17:42:42.092-05:002012-01-20T17:42:42.092-05:00Jay Cadbury - time for some more carrots, methinks...Jay Cadbury - time for some more carrots, methinks - your Ideological Astigmatism has led to a serious decline in perception!<br /><br />(You're banned at SkS? What a blessing!)billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63531180656524451342012-01-20T17:41:03.572-05:002012-01-20T17:41:03.572-05:00This is how Dr. Urban (a co-author on Schmittner e...This is how Dr. Urban (a co-author on Schmittner et al.) feels about the doctoring (not "adapted from"):<br /><br /><i>"World Climate Report <b>doctored our paper’s main figure when reporting on our study</b>. This manipulated version of our figure was copied widely on other blogs....<b>I find this data manipulation problematic</b>. When I created the real version of that figure, it occurred to me that it would be reproduced in articles, presentations, or blog posts. <b>Because I find the difference between our land and ocean estimates to be such an important caveat to our work, I made sure to include all three curves in the figure, so that anyone reproducing it would have to acknowledge these caveats....I find the result of their figure manipulation to be very misleading...They intentionally took our figure out of the context in which it was originally presented, a form of “selective quotation” which hides data that does not support their interpretation</b>...I find World Climate Report’s behavior very disappointing and hardly compatible with true skeptical inquiry"</i><br /><br />This is what Hansen had to say in response to Michaels doctoring a figure form Hansen et al. (1998):<br /><i>"Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. <b>Is this treading close to scientific fraud</b>?"</i><br /><br />An apology to the authors by Michaels is warranted.<br /><br />I think it prudent to go and thoroughly examine each and every graph that WCR and Pat Michaels have ever published. Call it an audit if you will, and since McIntyre is not up to the task, maybe skeptical bunnies will take up the slack.<br /><br />And note dear bunnies how how the outspoken Michaels suddenly becomes very shy when it comes to facing critique one on one and trying to defend his scientific fraud. He has does not even have the courage to defend his own bad science, instead sending an administrator from WCR to be his spokesperson.<br /><br />I would also like to know exactly whose idea it was to doctor the figures from Schmittner et al and Gillet et al. <br /><br />We are unlikely to hear any public protests from Gillett et al, as the authors are all Environment Canada employees who are currently muzzled by the Harper government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16871358593284926442012-01-20T17:35:32.396-05:002012-01-20T17:35:32.396-05:00Eli,
"we think the 1851-2010 series is more ...Eli,<br /><br />"we think the 1851-2010 series is more reliable (care to defend that?)"<br /><br />Well, I didn't perform the study which led to that conclusion, Gillett et al. did--and what we did at WCR was to highlight that finding. However, FWIW, I did add my two-cents to its defense during the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html" rel="nofollow">discussion</a> of Gillett et al over at SkS last week.<br /><br />-ChipChip Knappenbergerhttp://www.worldclimatereport.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73594300309528821142012-01-20T17:26:18.325-05:002012-01-20T17:26:18.325-05:00Dear Jay,
You are making strawman arguments and a...Dear Jay,<br /><br />You are making strawman arguments and also making false claims.<br /><br />I am pleased to inform you that I was not the reason you lost your posting privileges at SkS. You lost your privileges them as readers of SkS know, b/c after repeated warning you failed to comply with the house rules.<br /><br />And IIRC, you have run into trouble posting at at least one other location.<br /><br />I'll let Eli deal with your other nonsense.<br /><br />Albatross, PhDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com