February 23, 2011 
Over at Climate etc., Judith Curry has gone off the deep end decided to boost her hit count smear climate science chum like crazy address “hide the decline”. In doing so, she smears climate scientists involved in producing the IPCC AR4 and the WMO 1999 report.
Bad science and/or dishonesty?
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams. [my emphasis in the body of the text]
Gavin Schmidt shows up to try to counter this blatant smear with logic:
One can have a difference of opinion in how to present a graph, and that depends entirely on what point you want to make. If you want to make a point about multi-decadal temperature changes in the past, it makes sense to include estimates of those temperatures and the uncertainties. It doesn’t make much sense to include annual estimates, or seasonal estimates, or parts of the curve that the originators think doesn’t reflect actual temperatures (for whatever reason). The only issue is to ensure that the graph is sufficiently documented so that these choices are clear (which in the WMO report they were not sufficiently so, but were fine in the IPCC graphs).
But to ascribe a difference of opinion to dishonesty is to remove yourself from any sensible discussion on the topic.
Curry responds:
Gavin, the field does not need any more summary graphs of this nature. They have done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibility. Continuing to defend these kinds of graphs is beyond anything I can understand. Leaving out that data and putting a “likely” confidence level on conclusions from that data is bad science, anyway you slice it. If you don’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudoscience. There is no way this is defensible scientific practice. I really hope we don’t see any more of these kinds of graphs, in the AR5 or elsewhere. I’ve tiptoed around this one long enough, I’m calling it like I see it.
In recognition of her bravery for calling out the corrupted climate scientists in their misleading and dishonest behavior, the Curryites have proclaimed Judith Curry the “Jeanne d’Arc” of science for her brave willingness to take on the climate science establishment.
Here’s the comment that plucked my giggle string:
Hoi Polloi | February 23, 2011 at 10:16 am | ReplyReading this thread one cannot deny that Dr.Schmidt personally hit the final nail in the AGW coffin, firmly assisted by the usual answer bots. I agree with Tomas Milanovic (always enjoying your comments btw) that this thread is a true pedagogic experience showing the continuous demasquee of the AGW incrowd.
Dr.Curry, much respect for your courage facing the AGW bloodhounds like a true Joan of Arc as you have a lot to lose.
Here’s Curry Jeanne:
“You
misuse sciencespoil the sacraments of the Church, yougave an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate sciencetear up the articles of the Faith, youhave done an enormous disservice to climate science and its credibilitydestroy the churches, youproduce bad science, anyway you slice itbreak and burn the statues which were set up as memorials, youdon’t like dishonest, try misguided and pseudosciencemassacre Christians because they preserve the true Faith. [my liberties]
Here’s Curry:
“…my bridge building was not particularly focused on connecting the consensus scientists and the skeptics. My main motive is protecting the integrity of the science. I am personally reaching out to a broad range of people and trying to get things back on a sensible track for climate science, and by now i know that this return to sensibility will not come from within the climate establishment.” [my emphasis]
Now if that isn’t chum for the denialist crowd, I don’t know what is.
Here’s her chorus:
Al Gored | February 23, 2011 at 4:21 pm | ReplyI think you are showing remarkable courage to stray from the herd! The reaction from them shows what this is really all about… and it ain’t science. That said, with luck and time, real science will prevail. So onward Climate Soldier!
wayne | February 23, 2011 at 6:48 pm | ReplyJudith:
Thank goodness we still have people with your fine character. I assure you there are many not commenting here that thank you as I do. And, I appreciate you providing that link to Dr. Matthews. Made some missing pieces very clear. Just had to say.jeff Id | February 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm | ReplyJudith,
You write:
“Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.”
Thank you for the bravery of the post, considering your pseudo-’peers’ have no stomach for truth in this instance.
DT UK | February 23, 2011 at 8:28 am | Reply
You are a brave woman Judith, keep up the good work its the science that matters and the methods you described by Mann & co are not science, I say that as someone who believes that man has been warming the planet up a tad, how much who knows
Well, there’s much more of that for those who can stomach it. I tried to stand it as long as possible but the stupid hurt my brain so I finally gave up. But it is very enlightening.
As an antidote to the stupid, I propose laughter and so, in the same vein as Eli Rabett, I post for your comedy delectation, a video that is apropos Curry the Champion of Science:
“All right, I am the Messiah!”
“He is! He is the Messiah!”
Off the deep end, as far as I can tell.
The Policy Lass 
The ‘bridges’ thing was the most interesting part for me. While lots of people where pointing out that this was no bridge building, I’d began to suspect it was never meant to be.
The attacks on a variety of climate scienctists makes perfect sense – Curry was building bridges with the ‘skeptics’.
Some people hav ebeen saying that they won’t bother with Curry’s blog from now on. I couldn’t disagree more – it’s going to get very entertaining.
The bridge that’s being built is to Curry’s re-imagined version of climate science, the one which is basically factually identical to the current one but reinterpreted through an “uncertainty” filter to be both uncertain enough of bad outcomes we don’t need to change any policies yet certain enough of good outcomes we also don’t need to change any policies. Naturally the new climate science doesn’t include any climate scientists you’ve ever heard of so they’re being marginalized.
It’s a bit like what might happen if Jenny McCarthy was a biologist who wanted a new science of vaccination – you can’t change scientific facts but you can change conclusions with the magic of “uncertainty” so you just start with the conclusion you want and adjust the certainty of the facts until they produce what you want. Also make sure it’s forbidden for a scientist to suggest people should get vaccinations as opposed to saying “Maybe people should, maybe they shouldn’t, science just doesn’t know”.
The “courage” thing is an interesting concept. It comes up every single time someone of “note” expresses a skeptical friendly viewpoint (Hal Lewis as a random example). If we reverse engineer the context out of those statements it’s this: Everyone is secretly aware the skeptics are “right” (in quotes because of course no two skeptics have a particularly strong agreement about why AGW is wrong, just that it’s wrong) but doesn’t say so because they live in fear of retribution.
Of course there’s no evidence of this fear or of any retribution towards skeptics as evidenced by scientists who happily work and publish like Roy Spencer. The only reason the fear is thought to exist is that it’s needed to exist in order to explain why tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands if not millions of others with the relevant technical knowledge to dispute some aspect of AGW don’t do so. Instead they reverse the idea and say that those coming forward are showing courage instead of being able to show what holds back everyone else.
Joan of Arc? Ewww.
Eli thinks Gavin missed a better retort…
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/gavin-gets-it-wrong.html
Some amazing cognitve dissonance on display.
Someone, riffing off Gavin Schmidts ironic take on a Curry paper, suggests Judith is guilty of dishonesty and hiding data, to which she responds;
“If anonymous bloggers with no apparent understanding of the subject are misled, it is not my problem but your problem”
Yes, almost fell off my chair.
climate community, which does not waranted as ‘science’, Michael, is corrupt. True science has a place of regard and respect carry over from the past, whatever that is.
Susann I assume “off the deep end” is a euphemism for the “L” word, which has legal problems on a public forum like this. One can rarely if ever prove motive, even when obvious.
I mean it in the sense of getting in over her head. Deep end refers to a section of a swimming pool that is usually over one’s head and forces one to sink or swim.
I suggest sinking is the most likely outcome.
In other words, she has committed to one path now. To squeeze in as many cliches as possible, she has taken the plunge, hitched her wagon to one side and must face the music.
Sorry. Curry has that effect on me.
can’t help but think this is the more apposite python clip in the circumstances:
Good God, what a farce. It is 2011 and they are still blathering about the WMO graphic. That is pathetic. I suspect that the fans of M&M, Curry and Watts will still be foaming at the mouths in 2050 and beyond. Yes, it is warming and increasing GSL is flooding some coastal cities and crops are failing like never before, but that WMO graph!!!
I have no experience with psych, so forgive the naive question, but what is it called when one does what Curry is doing– claiming to have the interest of science at heart while at the same time trying to undermine the science and doing the very things that she accuses others of? Anyone? It is dumbfounding to me that she has so many people fooled, they have taken it hook, line and sinker….I’m beginning to think I should paint myself as a heretic, oh the attention, the rewards…and enough confused and angry conspiracy theorists to worship me. This is like watching evangelical TV……
Also, Curry has been trained by McIntyre well, he did not have the creds, but Curry does (or rather did) so now it seems that she has adopted his MO, and the acolytes are loving it.
Does she not care the damage being done to science (and ultimately society) by the dubious actions of M&M, Monckton, McLean, Douglass, Michaels, Id, Watts, Morano, Beck etc.?
End rant.
what is it called when one does what Curry is doing– claiming to have the interest of science at heart while at the same time trying to undermine the science and doing the very things that she accuses others of?
Bullshitting?
Seriously, though, I’m more or less in agreement with sharper00 that Curry is trying to essentially fork the science into “Team science” (i.e. the real kind) and “sensible science” (a deracinated, post-normal, peer-to-peer-reviewed Italian flag jumble). I don’t think it’s disingenuous on her part. I’m fairly convinced that she’s fairly convinced that science needs to be radically transformed. I’m somewhat less convinced that she has the slightest idea what she’s talking about.
The climate science community is corrupt.
Judith Curry is a member of the climate science community.
Judith Curry is…forking science.
Yup.
Granted that this is from the peanut gallery, but they’re seriously talking about creating “Climatology II over there. Only what can be agreed upon by a “committee” of scientists and pseudoskeptics will be permissible as True Science.
I don’t think this is far from what Curry’s aiming at. Not at all.
A new ‘consensus’ – surely not!!
MapleLeaf –
“I have no experience with psych, so forgive the naive question, but what is it called when one does what Curry is doing– claiming to have the interest of science at heart while at the same time trying to undermine the science and doing the very things that she accuses others of? Anyone?”
Ahhh, I’d stab at projection, spawned by a narcissistic (righteous self importance while lacking true empathy for others) narrative … I’m just sayin’ 🙂
I’m not sure if this behaviour is well named yet, but Tom Franks wrote about it in Politics. His book is called “The Wrecking Crew”. It describes how people with an ideological position against goverment intervention (i.e. democratic policy that ) take government and wreck it by running up the budget deficit (increasing spending and cutting taxes) to wreck the budget so that people who want to use these resources for public good cannot when the cupboard is bear. Franks describes it better than that, but you might get the idea, they decry big spending goverment and budget deficit, but (until the GFC crash- which is not a level comparision point) they spend more and run up higher deficits.
Harper’s – “The Wrecking Crew”.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/0082132
I found this buried in the comments: “I stopped bothering with the RC crowd in summer 2007, when i received an unpleasant email from Mike Mann chastising me over congratulating Steve McIntyre on winning the 2008 Science Webblog Award.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#comment-46389
To me, it seems that her broadsides come about for personal reasons.
This is straight out of the creationist playbook – evolutionary biologists secretly know that evilution is a fraud, but they have to pretend they believe it in order to be published and get jobs. Those few who speak the truth, like Michael Behe, are courageous beings who are strong enough to state what every evolutionary biologist knows, deep in their heart, to be true.
I remember when Curry first used the word corruption, I think last year at Keith Kloor’s, and when she was called on it she claimed (paraphrasing) “No, no, I meant corruption of the process, like data corruption.” It’s nice to see she’s finally left no room for doubt.
L Carey reposted on Climate Progress a bit of speculation from around that time, when it seemed more… speculative:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/11/speak-no-evil.html?showComment=1289158792838#c2948750865247248744
Going from 5 to 6.
Hold on, she’s Lysistrata now.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#comment-46369
One historical figure she ain’t reminding me of is Hypatia of Alexandria.
Post climategate blues, the lack of narrative or direction within the contrarian encampment. Hence the huge amount of heavy lifting to make Eric Stieg into a new Phil Jones and here the effort to re-animate the hide the decline zombie.
They need a new scandal as their old ones (station drop out, urban heat island and so on) are wearing thin.
Regarding Curry’s list of people to be exluded:
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/curry-on-attacks-on-credentials-skill-and-integrity/
I’ve forgotten , what earned Trenberth his position at a one of the baddies (who must be exclued from debate) in the Curry’s view?
Also did Gavin earn his position because he disagreed with Curry, or for some other reason?
And Why is Hansen on her hit list? And who is on the et al list?
Trenberth – probably because he used the word Denier in a presentation, and because he didn’t give Girma the answers he wanted by email.
Hansen – because he has personal convictions, therefore nothing he says can be trusted and he’s *clearly* manipulating the message to suit his personal beliefs. Why, the guy is practically hysterical, how can you take that seriously?
Gavin – because when he calls her out on a vague statement or asks her to justify something, what he’s *actually* doing is being a rabid attack dog and personalising the debate unfairly to avoid the *issues*. Oh, won’t someone think of the *issues*? Therefore, it is acceptable to abuse him.
Et al – will be detailed in a followup post justifying everything, to be posted soon.
“Trenberth – probably because he used the word Denier in a presentation”
This although of course it’s a cover for the real reason: He’s a working climate scientist with mainstream scientific views. It’s necessary to paint all of them as being part of “the team” because that’s the explanation for why they all agree, not that their expert judgement all reaches similar conclusions.
All scientists who have prominently defended mainstream science. I think Judith owes Mosher for espousing INTEGRITY(TM). (h/t willard)
Worth posting this, I think (posted at Curry’s anyway). Jump to 04.00
JC makes (too?) much of her favourite aadopted “sceptics” not being that horrid
Merchant of Doubt type, but good, trustworthy little citizen-scientists. I know, and it does take a few moments for one’s eyebrows to return to a state of equilibrium, but that’s the stance she was advancing during those KK threads last year.
And I’ll agree that not everyone gets a monthly payslip from those with a commercial interest in motivating inaction, but given the ideologies currently prevailing in Westworld, not everyone requires one.
But her naivete when it comes to the think tanks, foundations and their associated front groups and soldier ants working to promote their owners’ interests when not downright actively subverting the democratic process, strikes me as very hard to believe from a grown woman and notionally well educated scientist.
In short, I still can’t figure out what her game is. It must be about more than beating WTF and CF into runners up places as Worst Science Blogs of the Year, mustn’t it?
Dr Curry doesn’t seem to understand what bridge building is.
For future reference, if you’re standing slap bang in the middle of one group of people, loudly proclaiming how much you agree with them and how mean and wrong everyone else is, what you’re doing probably isn’t bridge building.
Which is rather funny, seeing is that she’s a dept head at georgia tech …
I understand there are a few nervous academics at GIT. Not happy with La Curry and the effect her online MLC is having on others in the School.
She’s got tenure, a husband who’s also on faculty, a side business as a consultant, and perhaps most importantly, support of her school’s alumni ( I leave it to you to guess the typical political/ideological bent of George Tech alums).
(I haven’t looked up her grants)
Seems she’s got little to worry about. And if academic catastrophe struck , the denialsphere and its fatcat backers would be there waiting with hugs and kisses and a cushy gig.
She’s building “bridges to no where” as in this bridge in Brazil:
http://tinyurl.com/6yvn4u5
http://tinyurl.com/6hejlrs
She is building bridges to no where in the hope that she will find a body of like minded people “over the horizon”. Fat chance.
Have a look at the sketch near the end of this article.
http://gtalumnimag.com/?p=4965
That’s another of Josh’s witless propaganda toons (think; Curry’s t-shirt).
Scary thing is – I really think this is her MO…
That’s interesting, but what’s with the graph above that “disproves the hockey stick”?
(I haven’t read the article to see if she claims that, but it’s weird)
The weirdest thing is the ‘sour-puss’ photos. Are they meant to be Churchillesque?
Winston or Ward?
Steven “Piltdown Mann” Mosher is running wild at Curry’s, laying down the terms that climate scientists must agree to if they’re to be allowed to be part of the discussion.
Curry’s sleeping with weird people.
Now there are parts II and III also.
Merchants of Mistrust….
I’ve decided to have some fun there:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/#comment-48489
feel free to pile on, people.
Dammit Dhogaza, you made me look….I had promised myself to never go back there again.
Anyhow, I submitted a post with 10 examples of “skeptics” misleading.
Heads up. H/T to Michael Tobis:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/02/climategate-yet-more-bupkis.html
climateaudot bozos are already looking for scraps in the report to help their feeble campaign. I think the photos is tame – a little inhofe goatse would liven things up!
When are they going to claim a ‘whitewash by Sen Inhofe’?
I posted over at Eli’s as well, but I’m not sure the timing and nature of JC’s “hide the decline” post doesn’t have something to do with this latest exoneration.
Tinfoil hat off.
Not impossible that she might have had heard that the report was about to come out.
I thought it very odd that she would resurrect the WMO graphic thingy out of the blue.
But then again, maybe it was a coincidence and posted b/c her web hits were unsatisfactory and something juicy had to be offered to the faithful to stir them up. So some chumming was called for.
Gotta keep them riled and it does not take much. Ask McIntyre.
If there needs to be a link to something then I think it’s this: ClimateAudit started rehashing ClimateGate stuff a few days before Curry did so that’s what prompted the “hide the decline” post.
Why was CA rehashing climategate? Because it just got done with Steig/O’Donnell business and it’s necessary to both remind everyone the scientists are all corrupt and to create an association between Steig and climategate.
Sharper00,
You are indeed sharper than most 🙂
Yup. Science is Corrupt.
Also note the choice of topics, considering that the one who picks the topic also decides what is OT.
When feeding a feud, the best defense is offense.
sharper00,
I suspect it is because he (McIntyre) got a heads up from Inhofe’s office about the forthcoming release. But that is just a WAG.
Rattus, Google FIPPA.
I’ve posted some examples for JC about dodgy graphics on her IV thread.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/#comment-48677
I’m sure that, like dhogaza, I’ll get a warm reception. Please feel free to add more examples. Their excuse so far for the examples given to them by dhogaza? But, but those were not seen by policy makers reading the IPCC reports. Well neither was the WMO graphic.
Weird URL tag issues with WordPress insisted on making #8 a smiley.
More fun:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/#comment-48792
This time, I’ve posted a graph that was in an article about her at the Georgia Tech Alumni magazine (online), that appears to tack data onto a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and the CRU instrumental record.
The graph would make it appear as though temperatures have dropped like a rock the last decade.
I posted the CRU data from woodfortrees for contrast 🙂
Dhogaza,
What is with that graph? Something very wrong with that red trace. Do you know the original source?
I got it from this article:
http://gtalumnimag.com/?p=4965
Beyond that, I have no idea.
But I sure enjoyed posting it 🙂
OK, same place I saw it. WTF? Call in the auditors!
Wow, every single comment at the bottom of the article is from a lying denialist. Talk about heroine worship!
Don’t tell them, but I’ve not actually read the responses to my post with the first graphs by David Archibald.
Just stirrin’ them up. I know a priori, of course, that denialists lying through misleading graphs is GOOD, while scientists showing what’s going on by selectively graphing trusted data is BAD.
I guess referring to Oliver Manuel’s curriculum vitae is forbidden over there. Not sure if it was her deletion of that comment that did it, but the thread hierarchy on “Part IV” comments has collapsed, replies all piling up at the bottom of the page. Good times.
I wonder how that gets justified.
The paper thin justification for the “hide the decline dishonesty” not being an attack is that she’s simply saying it was dishonest without accusing anyone of being dishonest.
Is pointing out matters of public record concerning someone therefore an attack on them? You can’t have it both ways.
Or maybe it’s just not that important, there’s this WMO graph that has to be discussed…
To some extent it’s an ad hom, but the man is arguably psychotic. He’s even been banned from WUWT.
I find it very interesting – and telling – that JC is willing to give him cover.
Isn’t outing anonymous bloggers also a form of ad hom?
We can only hope that Mosher is man enough and decent enough not pull a PopTech or Delingpole…..
Looks like Curry deleted Manuel related comments from Part V as well, as the thread hierarchy has collapsed there too.
This is really interesting to watch.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/#comment-48907
That comment thread seems to have died off quite fast. Maybe it was not so fun to discuss bad practices by “skeptics”.
What I find interesting and a point which she has not answered, either from myself or gryposaurus, is that the divergence problem was discussed in the relevant section of both TAR and AR4. During the timeframe of TAR the problem was not well understood and that was well reflected in the discussion. For AR4, the problem was better understood, but only in terms of the boundaries. I suspect that this will need the services of the plant physiology community before it is resolved, and I suspect that it won’t be a single cause for every chronology.
Rattus, Curry and her pals are IMHO intentionally “confusing” TAR with AR4. But I understand that for their story-line/narrative that they need to try and join the dots, not matter how much spin and distortion is required to do so.
And what about when Jones told Sir Paul that they wanted to present the trace sin the WMO graph different but were told that it would be too complicated?
IMHO, there is nothing misleading in AR4 regarding the paleo stuff– but I’m happy to concede that in the light of compelling evidence (minus rhetoric, innuendo etc.)
And again, for eff’s sakes, the WMO graphic was 12-yrs ago! Good God but they really are desperate and scraping the bottom of the barrel.
And why has Curry been so quiet on the “Prudent” (not) path document that was released recently?
She has long ago lost the middle ground, or the title of “honest broker’ or conciliator.
I agree with Bart, she is burning bridges with wild abandon, oblivious to the wreck she is leaving in her wake.
I’m sick of dealing with people who choose to play games with such serious matters.
God I hope they one day have trials for people who knowingly fought for delay and inaction on AGW, and that some of the players active in that arena now are alive to answer for their misdeeds.
oblivious to the wreck she is leaving in her wake.
I don’t think she is oblivious. I think she is hoping that the changing political winds blow in her favor hard enough that she and The Tribe can bring down The Team. Whether it began that way or not is moot, just like McIntyre, now it’s 100% personal. She has internalized their blood-lust.
Rattus, I see you’re beating your head over there.
Between the union bashing in Wisconsin, the looming government shutdown (instructions are: do not check e-mail, voice mail – do no work of any kind under penalty of fines) and all these chestnuts that are continually dragged put of hiding, I feel like I’ve gone down the rabbit hole.
These times are like an experiment in mass insanity.
So, a comment on Manuel is swiftly redacted, yet this comment comparing us to mass murderer Gadaffi is allowed to remain.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-v-discussion/#comment-49086
I’ve suggested it before; what the blogger does not challenge from their own blog comments may inform us quite well about the blogger.
That’s because the comments about Manuel are factual, whereas those comparing consensus supporters to Gadaffi are patently false and unprovable. You can let the latter stay but not the former. Like, you can’t talk about EXXON or the Koch brothers funding denial, because they are factual, but you can rail on about untold trillions going to climate science… I tell you, it’s newspeak. We are in a new reality where up is down and left is right. That’s what happens when science — and truth — are inconvenient. It’s deny, deny, deny.
Oh, I gave up there a few weeks ago when “eugenecist” was bandied about repeatedly as an epithet for climate scientists, without Curry intervening. Note that the “too busy to moderate” argument doesn’t wash, because it coincided with a particularly abusive “warmist” being banned.
I’m not going back. Waste of bloody time, but kudos to those are willing to keep up the good fight.
I could be wrong, but has she provided any evidence yet to support her claims as promised to Gavin?
Ah, well, for me it’s not a fight so much… kind of like the difference between hunting and shooting skeet. Usually I just go to mock… ever since I read Randall Munroe’s comic, I have a hard time taking myself seriously in interblog flame wars.
Do not forget to put your new tumblog’s adress so we can click on your name:
http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com/
Nice theme, btw.
Haha, thanks. I absolutely credit Neverending Audit for interesting me in Tumbling. I write for a living so my own blogging has fallen away, but I find there’s always time to mock.
Not mock, PDA. Audit.
Science is Corrupt.
Yup.
How much of this issue is tacking on observations to proxies and how much just that the proxies divereged, because if its the former….
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/14/solar-proxies/
If you address the former then they’ll say it’s the latter. If you address the latter…
I am old. It took me years and years to learn ( and— as with most real learning— it was the hard way ) that one of life’s most important lessons is that the correct answer to far more of life’s questions than we’d like to believe is, “I [we] don’t know.”
I firmly believe this applies to humanity’s current level understanding of climate. Computer models and much of the assertions of paleoclimatolgy make me laugh.
Hansen is pretty old too, but evidently chose to learn much during that time.
“Computer models and much of the assertions of paleoclimatolgy make me laugh.”
Unless they support the “skeptics'” agenda that is.
@ Diogenes – “I don’t know” might well apply to you and me about many things.
Give it a few more years and you might come realise that although you might never know, there are people who do know more than you about what forces act on the world’s climate, and others who know many things that you and I may never properly understand.
“Computer models and much of the assertions of paleoclimatolgy make me laugh.”
But … but … you just said “I don’t know” … then immediately assert that you *do* know.
Typical denialist ploy:
“Uncertainty in climate science makes me certain that there’s nothing to worry about”.
From Eli’s, H/T to Monty:
My reply:
“Monty, wow, bet you were not expecting that !
OMG. Another beauty for Curry quotes:
“I disagree that sensitivity almost certainly can’t be less than 2C. This does not mean that I think it is less than 2C. Put a bound around 0-10C, then i am prepared to put a likely confidence on that range. I do not think there is any convincing evidence to support a hockey stick shape for global temperature anomalies of the past 1000-2000 years, with any kind of confidence.”
This sophistry will make James Annan’s blood boil, not to mention that of others too.”
She’s well aware that suggesting sensitivity is above 2 degrees will collapse her skeptic support. There’s still that bridge to be built.
Don’t you think it’s odd that Curry considers +10C a likely sensitivity?
It’s hard to imagine that she means +8 is “likely” and +1 is “likely” otherwise how could someone explain why the corrupt alarmist IPCC didn’t include it?
She does know that the PDF for CS is skewed right?
She apparently can’t agree with herself about what she thinks. Yesterday she put it between 1C and 6C as the likely range. Baby steps….
Here is another example of denialists using graphics and data to mislead. This myth got so out of hand that Revkin at DotEarth had to bring in Alley to set the record straight ((no pun intended). Maybe someone can post this link at Judith’s place?
As always, Peter does an excellent job– and these are the folks who Curry has elected to make her bed with…..
“Sometimes— a cigar is just a cigar.”
What I know is that I don’t know. Knowing that prevents one from making either Type I or Type II errors both of which— in this case— would be expensive.
Ok but lots of people don’t know lots of things. Not knowing something is not an argument that other people don’t know it.
Ah, so what you meant with this, then:
Is that you laugh from foolish ignorance. Not because you have any rational basis for thinking that there’s anything wrong with the science you laugh at.
Shewonk drops by Judith’s:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Though it’s really a masterful effort.
Yes, darn her, she seduced me into commenting there a bit, which I avoid doing on hostile blogs.
Keep up the good thinking, shewonk, from one Albertan to another.
She deserves a medal (or a stiff drink at least) for replying to so many dickheaded comments.
Jonathan Jones is a professor of physics at Oxford. The following comment can be found at: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/23/the-beddington-challenge.html?currentPage=2#comments
Quote:
People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here. Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.
However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.
I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it. The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.
Judy’s decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it’s too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.
If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.
Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Jonathan Jones
http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jones-457.html
LOL. It would be so much easier to believe him if, like Curry, he could cite some sources to back up his facile opinions.
If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University.
Are we supposed to be impressed or intimidated by that?
It’s as if some physicists are vying with engineers and geologists for the ‘let’s bag everyone who works outside our field’.
It used to be ‘all public servants are bludgers’, ‘those who know do, others teach’.
Some people think they are experts in everything – that’s one thing that hasn’t changed.
(Apologies to all the rational physicists and engineers and geologists out there.)
More xkcd.
“However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. ” it was widely discussed in the relevant literature and given physics cant find 90% of the mass of the universe and for about 40 years could not account for the number of nutrinos comming from the sun, bit rich to be criticsing another field for having some issues with trees round about the point modern pollution takes of with avengence.
We were happy to base our entire western economies and the safety of megatonnes on nuclear weapons on the say so of people who had some bleeding huge holes in their various fields.
Gavin was attacking? Eh?
Never underestimate the ability of people who are otherwise highly intelligent and top of their field to get confused by things which are outside their field. You see this in every topic, from Pauling to Dyson to various people on evolution. About the only area that I havn’t seen it happen to is chemistry, everyone seems happy to take chemistry as read.
So, Here’s an analysis of The APS Petition, which proves there is a tiny fraction of physicists who are happy to ignore basic physics.
This graphic at Greenfyres shows it perfectly:
Not speaking of boosting hit counter:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/832388527/tree-lobsters-172-constant-comments
“steven mosher | February 26, 2011 at 6:05 am | Reply
Maple:
“Re DC, wow, you are incredibly desperate Mosher. And Mosher, pray tell, who is Goddard exactly? I heard you two “made” up in Lisbon after all.”
[edit]……. I really have no respect for people who hide behind monikers. same with Josh Halpern or Grant Foster.
WRT “Goddard”. After Lisbon I became aware that he was not using his real name. I wasn’t told his real name, but if you know it I have no issue with you using it. If I knew it I would use it. Since I had no problem criticizing him I’d have no problem using his real name.”
Oops, Watts is on the record saying that he doesn’t allow people to post articles using pseudonyms. So how long has he known that Goddard was a pseudonym?
My response to Mosher:
MapleLeaf | February 26, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Reply
Mosher,
“I really have no respect for people who hide behind monikers”
OK, so you therefore admit to having no respect for Goddard or Nigel Persaud (i.e., Stephen McIntyre).
Good to hear it from the horse’s mouth Steven– McIntyre will be disappointed to hear that though.
PS: And did Charles Rotter (your roommate, at least he was a while ago) not also “hide” behind a moniker (CTM) for quite some time?”
Judith says:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49648
Does anybody have any idea where she is getting these numbers and confidence intervals from?
Gryposaurus,
Re Curry’s source of the CI intervals for CS–it seems from her ar**.
“Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there’s only a 10 percent chance of that.”
I axed, over and over again.
http://www.junglewalk.com/popup.asp?type=a&AnimalAudioID=3488
Good effort PDA, I’m sure that you’ll receive an ambiguous answer soon. Someone ought to tell James Annan about this, he will get a right good chuckle from this. That or he’ll scream, maybe he’ll do both.
She obviously does not know PDA, that is the short of it.
The lower bound fro CS is much more constrained than the upper bound– even a perusal of the relevant literature demonstrates that. And for Curry to suggest that the 90% confidence limit for CS is between 0 K and 10 K is simply nuts. IIRC, that suggests that the CS for doubling C02 could be < 0 K. It would also overthrow Annan and Hargreaves (2009) research which concluded that:
“When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4 C, and certainly well below 6 C.”
“Thus it might be reasonable for the IPCC to upgrade their confidence in S lying below 4.5 C to the “extremely likely” level, indicating 95% probability of a lower value.”
And Curry teaches climate courses at the graduate level?! Help.
It’s also alarmist, it argues for contingency planning for a 5K rise if she’s right even if you’re optimist, and if we can’t write of > 10K with any confidence, an engineer’s thinking, which is traditionally to build to far more than the worst case, would suggest planning for a world in which such a huge sensitivity is a real possibility.
But dhogaza, why worry? It also suggests that CS could be < 0 K– chill dude and grow some tomatoes (as Condon would say).
Seriously, dhohgaza, this utter BS, makes my head want to explode. This one issue, which is the crux really of AGW, shows that Curry et el. have absolutely no effing idea what they are talking about and are ignorant not only of the science but the stats too The fact that people like her get so much attention is ludicrous.
This faux pas of her, which is of galactic proportions, needs to be trumpeted far and wide. Really and they demand to have a seat at the table and a hand in determining policy? And they have the temerity to scold and rebuke the scientists contributing to the IPCC for poor practices? Curry et al. are quite simply delusional.
<b<Susann, how a bout a post titled "Curry's faux pas"?
I think the ‘take home’ from statements like these is that in blog science — Anything will happen at a %100 confidence interval — which, is, of course, unnecessary to reference.
Well, if that’s true, we’re in real trouble – it’s already almost impossible to grow tomatoes in Portland, Oregon.
Ripe ones, anyway 🙂
I’m sure that she has no idea that she blithely asserted that we may return to an Early Triassic climate by mid-century. I agree with ML: this deserves wider exposure.
Assuming she’s serious about this (and it’s getting harder to believe she misspoke) saying the range 0-10 degrees is a bit like saying “You have cancer and it might kill you sometime within the next 10 seconds or the next 100 years” which is to say you might as well not worry about it.
“They’ve done studies, you know. 60% of the time — it works, every time.”
The Baron via Stoat is keeping things in perspective:
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-hiding-decline-and-rebuilding-trust.html
That dude Jer took the Baron seriously … now, that’s funny.
Added to my blogroll…
Jer and Joe the Plumber may have emerged from the same gene pool
That would be the shallow end, right?
Um.
I’m just seeing naked opportunism here. After the CRU hack she was a mild tone troll, but since then, with the rise of the Tea Party, it’s like she’s falling all over herself to be the moderate in every bugshit-crazy dogpile out there.
Methinks someone read Erasmus a little too literally…
Climategate and personal attacks on climate scientists (collectively and individually) are about all that sells over there so of course a full post about how economics proves them not just wrong but evil will be welcome.
This is fitting, perhaps: The Problem with Saints
The only issue is to ensure that the graph is sufficiently documented so that these choices are clear (which in the WMO report they were not sufficiently so,