tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3545772470841289320..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Mann vs Steyn Lurches ForwardEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger301125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10160257485565868782014-02-04T06:35:14.683-05:002014-02-04T06:35:14.683-05:00Anon-101a here:
"Yeh, Wegman's helpers g...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"Yeh, Wegman's helpers got sloopy and had their wrists slapped."<br /><br />Nope, they were found guilty of plagiarism and fraud.<br /><br />Funny how that#s "got sloppy" when you like the fraudulent results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7827596547955502472014-02-03T21:21:52.069-05:002014-02-03T21:21:52.069-05:00I look into the details on some issue and compare ...<i>I look into the details on some issue and compare the various arguments each side is making</i><br /><br />You've got BOTH kinds, country and western!Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16229043229534744602014-02-03T20:54:05.570-05:002014-02-03T20:54:05.570-05:00Yeh, Wegman's helpers got sloopy and had their...Yeh, Wegman's helpers got sloopy and had their wrists slapped. From the way you guys were telling it, I was expecting to see a lazy cut and paste job. It was nothing like that. It was certainly arguably paraphrasing and could have been done better, but it was also just background material. At the WUWT post, there were lots of comments from various points of view and I found Steven Mosher's to be the best argued and most sensible, while not the best typed. On issues like this, the comments sections at places like WUWT, Climate Audit and Climate Ect tend to have a lot more discussion from a lot more points of view, although not as many from YE creationists or 7th Day Adventists. I find that when I look into the details on some issue and compare the various arguments each side is making, I find the skeptics are usually coherent, while the CAGW side is shrill and convoluted.<br /><br />I actually have googled John Mashey before. I had some of my comments disappear from one of his posts at DeSmog Blog. I may have been a bit snarky, but I was not far off topic and it's not like the place was overrun with comments. Everyone has confirmation bias and I'll happily admit to a cornucopian bias. You guys could use some Introspection.Canmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69987807748830606752014-02-03T17:47:57.336-05:002014-02-03T17:47:57.336-05:00I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Canm...I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Canman hasn't googled John Mashey. But then, if he gets his facts from WTF, that really is about all we need to know, isn't it?a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47533905244110236702014-02-03T16:04:36.624-05:002014-02-03T16:04:36.624-05:00Wegman Isn't laughing- nor are his unfortunate...Wegman Isn't laughing- nor are his unfortunate academic accomplices-- they got caught red handed and while all of Cuccinelli's targets have been exoorated, the feckless bunch of plagiarists K Street recruited have all been censured .<br /><br />Serves you right for limiting your own bandwidth to Watts feed.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92030231102998068222014-02-03T15:51:43.027-05:002014-02-03T15:51:43.027-05:00I have one last thing to post. John Mashey comment...I have one last thing to post. John Mashey commented on his report on Wegman's alleged plagiarism. I've finally gotten around to looking into that a little bit. I found this post:<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/manic-flail-epic-fail/<br />Here's a quote from it: "And we’ve all read recently about Mashey’s attack on Edward Wegman, accusing him of plagiarism in a 250 page document that is straight out of the movie Conspiracy Theory, with color-coded themes and memes, and an outrageous accusation that Steve McIntyre was recruited, trained and funded by the George Marshall Institute–something I hope Mashey can back up."<br /><br />I followed the included link and looked at Mashey's report. ROTFLMAO!!! Canmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25250075853711261352014-02-03T05:42:13.234-05:002014-02-03T05:42:13.234-05:00Anon-101a here:
"Well I checked, wikipedia o...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"Well I checked, wikipedia of all places says that the term also covers the general scientific basis of all laws of the universe being the same at all times and places. Of course a creationist would argue that's an assumption; a scientist would point out that no examples of this not being the case have been observed."<br /><br />Actually, that isn't true, either that the laws known seem to be universal, nor that no law has been shown not to be universal.<br /><br />Newtonian gravity only works far from the weight of the sun. Near the sun that law doesn't hold true.<br /><br />What science does is encaspulate these facts into a law that DOES hold universally: General Relativity.<br /><br />So scientists and science DO accept that laws are not necessarily uniform, THEN WORK TO FIND ONE THAT IS.<br /><br />Meanwhile faithiests like "I must wibble so I wobble" insist on a uniform overall God, and any evidence against it existing in some place MUST BE WRONG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-324729666639511942014-02-03T03:02:28.891-05:002014-02-03T03:02:28.891-05:00Russell, indeed.
Editors should certainly be awar...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html?showComment=1391402060856#c3367052855312153550" rel="nofollow">Russell</a>, indeed.<br /><br />Editors should certainly be aware of Murphy's Second, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/29/tony-abbott-attacks-abc-for-taking-everyones-side-but-australias" rel="nofollow">the witch-hunt that the Australian Coalition government is aiming at the ABC</a> is probably a salient demonstration why.<br /><br />Of course policy makers ignoring scientific advice should also consider Murphy's Second, less their sneers at Cassandra turn to grimaces when she bites them on their arses.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33670528553121535502014-02-02T23:34:20.856-05:002014-02-02T23:34:20.856-05:00Bernard, Murphy's Second Law is one editors d...Bernard, Murphy's Second Law is one editors deny at their peril, especially when the odds are BayesianTHE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58004398143026039552014-02-02T18:53:23.513-05:002014-02-02T18:53:23.513-05:00Russell. It's one end of the Gaussian curve, a...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html?showComment=1391314074724#c8011069518010590830" rel="nofollow">Russell</a>. It's one end of the Gaussian curve, and therefore based in probability, no matter the relative proportion compared with the rest of the distribution. <br /><br />As such it's worthy of the mill, and in any analysis of extreme risk this really is the grain that should be ground first* - but for some reason it's kept tied up in the sacks in the basement...<br /><br />And when all is said and done, this is <a href="http://grist.org/about/" rel="nofollow">what Grist is about</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br />[* I suppose that we could go with the "it won't hurt a bit" platitude. Yeah, that would work... :-)]Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2932733502329405122014-02-02T11:56:37.523-05:002014-02-02T11:56:37.523-05:00Well I checked, wikipedia of all places says that ...Well I checked, wikipedia of all places says that the term also covers the general scientific basis of all laws of the universe being the same at all times and places. Of course a creationist would argue that's an assumption; a scientist would point out that no examples of this not being the case have been observed.<br />WHich is of course the problem with miracles, since the YEC flood geology stuff requires breaking the laws of the universe, yet why would god do it in such a way as to make the universe look old? <br />That's something they have trouble answering. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44634870344674355562014-02-02T07:11:37.313-05:002014-02-02T07:11:37.313-05:00Wait, scientists adhere to uniformitarianism now? ...Wait, scientists adhere to uniformitarianism now? That guy's almost a century out of date, the terms irrelevant nowadays. The original uniformitarian/ catastrphism debate was back in the 19th century about geological principles. A great deal of time and effort was wasted arguing about it all only for it to be rendered irrelevant by more modern geological discoveries. <br /><br />So really, anyone who uses the term to describe modern science has to be an ideologue, or a creationist, but I repeat myself. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80110695180105908302014-02-01T23:07:54.724-05:002014-02-01T23:07:54.724-05:00About that link :
Whatever gristafarian wrote it ...About that link :<br /><br />Whatever gristafarian wrote it has a powerful polemic death wish -- seldom in the annals of existential threat inflation has Nearer My Godwin to Thee been played on a louder tuba:<br /><br /><i>If there is to be any hope of avoiding civilization-threatening climate disruption, the U.S. and other nations must act immediately and aggressively on an unprecedented scale.<br /><br />That means moving to emergency footing. War footing. “Hitler is on the march and our survival is at stake” footing. <br /><br />That simply won’t be possible unless a critical mass of people are on board. It’s not the kind of thing you can sneak in incrementally."</i><br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62009266916451199222014-02-01T21:13:44.867-05:002014-02-01T21:13:44.867-05:00That's a bee in his bonnet about the word &quo...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html?showComment=1391303199084#c2242781971863598937" rel="nofollow">That's</a> a bee in his bonnet about the word "catastrophic".Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22427819718635989372014-02-01T20:06:39.084-05:002014-02-01T20:06:39.084-05:00He's stopped speaking so it appears that he no...He's stopped speaking so it appears that he no longer exists, but during his brief time as a putative corporeal entity the guy with a bee in his bonnet might have been interested in <a href="http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/" rel="nofollow">this post at Grist</a> as a supplement to <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html?showComment=1391064387448#c4675239794234328157" rel="nofollow">my comment above</a>.<br /><br /><br />[Recaptcha cryptically says 'paterntu cerning']Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68317412694115158822014-02-01T15:23:05.020-05:002014-02-01T15:23:05.020-05:00Thus sayeth the Speak:
"The Eocene epoch--or...Thus sayeth the Speak:<br /><br />"The Eocene epoch--or its dating, at least--is not a part of my faith. I realize that it is part of the faith system of most scientists today. But they were not around to observe it, and they adhere to the presupposition of uniformitarianism."<br /><br />Which brings us to The Book Of Genesis , Chapter minus 17, verse four :<br /><br /><i>And the Lord looked out upon his latest creation and saw that it left a Lot to be Desired, rather like the Pillar of Salt to be introduced many chapters hence, for the Lord was right wroth with the giant sloth, the cumbersome Coryphodon, the unattractive Uintatherium and appaling Arsinoitherium,the miserable Mesonyx, the hapless Hyaenodon and the snarky Sarkastodon. <br /><br />And lo, when he saw his latest opus included the Moropus, He said " No more of this!" and erased the eon from the Book of Numbers , where it cannot be found to this day.</i><br /><br />Here endeth the lesson . <br /><br />We will now pass the plenary indulgence plate for donations to the shrine of St. Mnestheus of Paypal. <br /> THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12692558699838005912014-01-31T08:16:57.099-05:002014-01-31T08:16:57.099-05:00Canman, if Mann "touts" the letter of su...Canman, if Mann "touts" the letter of support he got from Spanier, he also "touted" the support of many, many others. He mentions he got a welcome supportive letter from Spanier, but also many supportive statements and messages from others. <br /><br />Also, people are free to think that an unofficial investigation (as in the case of Sandusky) is the same as an official investigation involving several high profile staff (as in the case of Mann), but that does not mean it is a rational belief. Add the NSF OIG investigation clearing Mann, and you'd have to be outright unwilling to listen to facts contradicting your preferred narrative to not reconsider your position.<br /><br />MarcoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69439671662578115542014-01-31T05:50:03.895-05:002014-01-31T05:50:03.895-05:00Anon-101a here:
"Mann has not moved on. He&#...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"Mann has not moved on. He's suing Steyn for editorial hyperbole!"<br /><br />No, he's suing for libel. Even the judge of the case knows there's no crime of hyperbole.<br /><br />Oh, and how is responding to a recent case of libel per se "not moving on"? Are you supposed to ignore all crimes and "just move on"? Why then are you deniers still blathering on about CRU, even after 9 investigations?<br /><br />Just move on.<br /><br />"It's Mann's specific graph that was heavily used and promoted"<br /><br />Ah, so you have a problem with a graph being used.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />"With all the baggage it carries, it's perfectly reasonable to think it fraudulent."<br /><br />No, it's batshit insane to continue to believe it's fraud despite all the evidence in disagreement with that insanity.<br /><br />"Steyn's quote is a vague generalization on a blog for an opinion magazine"<br /><br />Being on an opinion magazine (whatever that is) is not protection against libel.<br /><br />"It's clearly an editorial, not an investigative piece."<br /><br />Yup, no investigation took place, hence it is in reckless disregard for the truth and therefore actionable. Being "clearly an editorial piece" means that the owners of the periodical are ALSO in the firing line for supporting such arrant bilge.<br /><br />"The main point of the piece is that Penn State's whitewash investigation of Sandusky, makes its investigation of Mann suspect."<br /><br />Which has ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL to do with the case being brought to trial.<br /><br />That it is complete nonsense with no logical underpinning is as irrelevant as the statement itself.<br /><br />"Spanier got indicted for covering up for Sandusky"<br /><br />And Wegman was convicted by his peers and internal review on fraud. Therefore ALL denier "scientists" are frauds?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28963713013135797622014-01-30T16:33:46.929-05:002014-01-30T16:33:46.929-05:00guthrie:"it doesn't matter if you think M...guthrie:"it doesn't matter if you think MBH 98 or whichever it was, was rubbish. It has been superseded by better papers and the main conclusions reinforced by lots of other studies. So it's pointless to go wittering on about it now, just forget about it and move on."<br /><br />Mann has not moved on. He's suing Steyn for editorial hyperbole! It's Mann's specific graph that was heavily used and promoted. With all the baggage it carries, it's perfectly reasonable to think it fraudulent. Steyn's quote is a vague generalization on a blog for an opinion magazine. It's clearly an editorial, not an investigative piece. The main point of the piece is that Penn State's whitewash investigation of Sandusky, makes its investigation of Mann suspect. In his book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars", Mann touts his letter of support from Graham Spanier. Spanier got indicted for covering up for Sandusky.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49737664303328670882014-01-30T15:25:40.377-05:002014-01-30T15:25:40.377-05:00Canman, dated yesterday,
it doesn't matter if ...Canman, dated yesterday,<br />it doesn't matter if you think MBH 98 or whichever it was, was rubbish. It has been superseded by better papers and the main conclusions reinforced by lots of other studies. So it's pointless to go wittering on about it now, just forget about it and move on. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66393023798556235052014-01-30T15:19:38.437-05:002014-01-30T15:19:38.437-05:00Ah, I'd forgotten how talking to creationists ...Ah, I'd forgotten how talking to creationists is a mugs game, because of their resolute incapacity to reason.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> <i>They aren't against the science; they are against the faith component of CAGW and evolutionism. </i><br />But the thing is, there's no faith component in evolutionary biology, and the only faith in CAGW is yours in your odd idea that such a thing even exists. You haven't even adequately described what CAGW is. <br /><br /><br /><i>And I didn't argue so much that science is inherently Christian as that science developed out of a Christian world view.</i> That's closer to the correct answer, but still gives Christianity too much credit and elides the complexity of it all. <br /><br /><i>And there isn't any science proving macroscopic evolution.</i><br />That smell? That's your pants burning.<br />'Cos really, that's the basic level of creationist argument and you aren't doing any different here. <br /><br /><br /> <i>It seems you will accept my word as credible.</i><br />It seems only sensible and polite to do so, at least with regards to things I know nothing about, like who you are.<br /><br /><br /><i>That's good, anyway. I'm not a train engineer, sanitary engineer, domestic engineer, or professional engineer. I did study civil engineering, and I do have a degree in applied science.<br /></i><br />I'll put you down as engineer class then. Which happily does complete the bingo card. <br /><br /><i>So I know enough to know that I don't know very much. I also know that while you know something, you certainly do not know everything, and a little common sense, humility, and respect would go a long way.</i><br /><br />But oddly enough I am humble etc in my life; the thing is creationists seem to think that should also involve claiming to know nothing therefore God did it all. (Never mind all the other christians who are happy enough that God let evolution do it)<br /><br /><br /> guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39542018708796620002014-01-30T11:21:09.636-05:002014-01-30T11:21:09.636-05:00I had to do a bit of Googling to refresh my memory...I had to do a bit of Googling to refresh my memory, but it looks like the Muir Russell review was called for by the University of East Anglia itself.<br /><br />Its work/findings were independent; Muir Russell, the leader of the investigation was at the time chairman of the Judicial Appts Board for Scotland, and was in no way beholden to the UEA.<br /><br />The Muir Russell report itself can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/About.php<br /><br />Money quote (one of many):<br /><i><br />33. Finding: The computer code required to read and analyse the instrumental<br />temperature data is straightforward to write based upon the published literature. It<br />amounts a few hundred lines of executable code (i.e. ignoring spaces and<br />comments). Such code could be written by any research unit which is competent<br />to reproduce or test the CRUTEM analysis. For the trial analysis of the Review<br />Team, the code was written in less than two days and produced results similar to<br />other independent analyses. No information was required from CRU to do this.<br /></i><br /><br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16419756058499677842014-01-30T10:57:27.527-05:002014-01-30T10:57:27.527-05:00Anon-101a here:
"Actually, it was an outside...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"Actually, it was an outside panel of experts."<br /><br />But wasn't it a panel brought together by the court? I may be getting slightly mixed up with a judicial slapdown of some copyright issue too, but I believe that the court got a panel of (not climate, just programming, IIRC) experts to do the work to see if the claim that it was too hard to roll your own had any standing at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22934157400179336602014-01-30T10:10:11.647-05:002014-01-30T10:10:11.647-05:00Hell, didn't the court do exactly that:
Act...<i><br />Hell, didn't the court do exactly that: <br /></i><br /><br />Actually, it was an outside panel of experts. But none of the members of that outside panel had access to anything that anyone of us could not find with Google.<br /><br />And that outside panel, using only publicly-available info that anyone could Google up, was able to replicate/confirm the CRU work in less than 2 days. All with bog-standard programming/analysis techniques.<br /><br />Of course, the fact that incompetent know-nothings haven't figured out how to do the same is proof that the investigation was a whitewash. ;) ;)<br /><br />That's what prompted me to take a crack at the temperature data myself. Starting from scratch, and using publicly-available temperature data, I was able get "in the ballpark" global-temperature results with a crude averaging program I cooked up over a rainy weekend.<br /><br />When I refined that program a bit to add simple area-weighting, I found that I was able to replicate the NASA/NOAA/CRU global-temperature results amazingly closely, with adjusted *or* raw data. <br /><br />And I did it all with techniques that are typically taught to first-year programming students.<br /><br />When I found out how easy it was to replicate the published temperature results, and how amazingly robust those results were (results can be confirmed with fewer than 1% of the global temperature stations), I set about putting together a package that anyone could use with just mouse-clicks (as opposed to dealing with a Unix command-line environment). <br /><br />What I came up with was an "improvised" solution, where I followed the path of least resistance by borrowing as much already-working software as possible. Improvised it may be, but It works pretty darned well, and will run on almost any newer (5 years old or less) Windows/Mac PC/laptop.<br /><br />It's available at http://tinyurl.com/NASA-HANSEN4 -- full documentation is available on the right side of the download page. It's a bit of a big download (a virtual-machine file of about 500MB), but if you have a decent internet connection, you should be able to get the whole thing in a few minutes.<br /><br />Try it yourselves (be sure to RTFM first), and you will be able to get more global-temperature analysis work done in a few minutes than AGW "skeptics" like Anthony Watts have managed to do in a decade.<br /><br /><br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34205906036345349252014-01-30T07:25:14.548-05:002014-01-30T07:25:14.548-05:00Anon-101a here:
"This is absolutely correct ...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"This is absolutely correct -- confirming the validity of the CRU global-temperature results is something that a competent programmer/analyst can do in a matter of *days*. And that can be done without *any* access to CRU data/code."<br /><br />Hell, didn't the court do exactly that: reproduce the data and results, something they have had no specialist training (nor standing as experts for), yet McIntyre, despite claiming expertise, was incapable of doing for YEARS?<br /><br />When a court appointee can manage a better job than the self-described expert, how expert is that person really?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com