UPSATE. The motion has been denied. Rather hilariously, bt the way.
Professor Michael Mann vs. Shock Jock Mark Steyn
You all know about the libel suit filed by Professor Michael Mann against Canadian right wing radio shock jock Mark Steyn. Steyn made apparently libelous comments linking Mann, who is widely regarded as the worlds top non-retired climate scientist, to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. (I don’t know what Steyn was implying but the only link is that both work(ed) at Penn State University!) There are other aspects of the libel suit as well, beyond the scope of this post.
The suit was filed in October 2012. I’m told this sort of law suit can drag on for years, and in this case, Steyn and the other defendants have taken action to delay what seems likely to be a decision against them, so this one might take a bit longer.
ADDED: It has come to my attention that some are arguing that Steyn has been trying to push this suit along while the other defendants are those responsible for the delay. You need to be aware of the fact that early on in the process, Steyn separated himself from the other defendants, and some observers have noted that he has been conducting his side of the process in such a way that has left legal scholars wondering if he has a competent lawyer. I have no personal comment on this. But it remains true that there is no way to separate the discovery part of this process among the parties. In other words, as the different parties in the defense take separate action, they are capable of playing something of a “good cop – bad cop” scenario, and that looks like what they are doing. In any event, Steyn has taken specific delaying action by filing a counter-suit.
Then, on June 1st, yesterday, Steyn’s lawyer requested that the DC Court of Appeals expedite the case.
Why is Steyn suddenly in a hurry to see this court case finished, when until now he has been more interested in delay?
I’m pretty sure the reason is a microcosm of how things are developing in the larger world of fossil fuel industry supported science denial, as well as the larger world of right wing vs. progressive politics.
Mann’s suit is not about arguing about science. He is perfectly capable of going head to head with anybody, even bought and paid for deniers, as he recounts in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
The suit serves, rather, as a part of a larger effort to combat the ongoing systematic attacks on well meaning and hard working scientists who are just doing their jobs. These attacks, in large part funded by energy industry front groups or “think” tanks such as the Heartland Institute, threaten to cast a chilling pall over over the scientific endeavor itself. Young people going into science careers, especially in certain areas, potentially face future denigrating attacks on their personal lives and character, and potentially career ending frivolous investigations by science deniers in Congress or in other positions of power.
A few months ago we saw shock jock Steyn called by anti-science Senator, failed presidential candidate, and widely detested Ted Cruz, in what can only be described as a three-ring circus of climate science denial. Steyn used his time before congress to argue his case in the Mann law suit, and to blow a racist dog whistle or two denigrating two of the DC Appeals court judges, Judges Natalia Combs Greene and Vanessa Ruiz. I only mention this because it gives background on Steyn and the overall anti-science movement. See Mark Steyn, The DC Appeals Court, and Congress for a detailed discussion of that).
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, science denier.
A couple of years ago, in Minnesota, a Republican House and Senate passed a bill to create a constitutional amendment making same sex marriage illegal. Why an amendment and not a law? It was generally thought at the time that the Republicans assumed that if Democrats took power (which they did right after that), that the law would be toast. A constitutional change is harder to undo. But there was another strategic reason to go for the change to the State’s Constitution, a reason that is directly parallel to Mark Steyn’s current strategy vis-a-vis the Mann law suit.
The Republicans legislators voted close to 100% in favor of banning same sex marriage in Minnesota, the Democrats voted close to 100% against it. The amendment then became a ballot issue, which was fought over for months in the public forum, and then, resoundingly defeated by the people of Minnesota. That was one of the first and key moments in the Great Domino Knockover ending legislation and constitutional restriction against same sex marriage.
So what?
Here’s what. During the public fight over the ballot amendment, I went to a fund raiser hosted by a colleague. At that fund raiser, a member of the Minnesota House told a story.
Every year, pages are brought to the legislature to work the legislative session. These are high school seniors representing every single district in the state, so they are geographically evenly distributed across liberal and conservative enclaves and regions. Urban Minneapolis is very liberal. One of the Urban members of the US Congress, Keith Ellison, is an African American Muslim Bernie Sanders Supporter. One of the non-urban members of the US Congress, for several years, was Tea Party co-Founder Michele Bachmann. So, you get the picture.
When the pages are first brought in, there are orientation activities of various sorts. One of the orientation activities is to poll the pages on various political questions. The pages, from Michele Bachmann’s district, Keith Ellison’s district, and everywhere else, were polled that year on their position on the Same Sex Marriage Banning Amendment. How did that shake out?
Every single page was opposed to the amendment. Every. Single. One. They were all about 18 years old.
The Republican strategy to make same sex marriage unconstitutional, instead of merely illegal, was motivated by a correct reading of the state’s demography. The next generation of Minnesotans was not going to have this sort of discrimination. Every year the state’s population would be increasingly in favor of marriage freedom and opposed to repression of LGBT people. The conservatives in the State Legislature had to act quickly to codify their systematic hatred before everyone else grew up.
Grumpy Old Men
Grumpy Old Men isn’t just a movie set in Minnesota. It is a key part of the demographic base for science denial.
At about the same time that the marriage amendment was being proposed and eventually put down in Minnesota, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Jim Powell and their colleagues were turning out the Climate Consensus Project. This project paralleled and replicated earlier research, but using a different approach. The upshot of that collective research was to show that nearly, but not exactly, 100% of climate scientists and the peer reviewed papers that address climate change, all agree: Climate change is real, and human caused.
The actual studies are more complex and nuanced than that, but for now there is one conclusion that I want you to focus on. Something less than three percent of the people who’s opinion matter in the scientific world, those who are verified experts in this area, continued to question the legitimacy of human caused climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Who are these people?
We know from work by John Mashey, that science deniers with actual scientific credentials are like conservative Minnesota legislators.
Mashey examined the characteristics of individuals who opposed, from within, the American Physical Society’s position on the reality of human caused climate change. The opposition took the form of a petition signed by less than a half percent of the 47,000 member of the society. That subset of APS members tended to be in subfields that did not focus on climate science. But most interesting here is the demography of that group.
Mashey showed that the signers of the anti-science petition were, as a group, older and more likely to be retired than the APS members in general.
Of the 119 signers, 102 (86%) were born before 1950, compared to about 40% for overall APS. This is a strong effect, and cannot be due to “retired scientists are finally free to tell the real truth”, given that only one plausible climate scientist is a signer, and he is not retired.
In addition, there is evidence that as this non-representative sample of APS members was recruited to sign on, efforts were made by the petition organizers to find older or retired individuals, dust them off, and get them on board.
Like the situation with same sex marriage in Minnesota, the demographics are changing. That few percent that the Consensus Project and similar research identifies as not being on board with climate science probably represents the grumpy old men who are disappearing at the usual rate, like they do. The scientists who understand climate science and make up the bulk of the consensus are not only more involved in actual climate science, but also, are of the current generation of active scientists.
They are old. And, therefore, becoming less numerous with every passing day, with every tolling of the bell.
Who is Steyn’s dead guy?
A key reason given by Steyn and his lawyer for expediting the Mann lawsuit is that key witnesses that would support Steyn’s case may die off before the case comes to court.
According to the “request for expedited hearing” filed by Steyn’s lawyer,
Steyn’s expert witnesses are older than Mann’s; time affects them more. Many of Steyn’s expert witnesses are emeritus professors and comparatively advanced in years, being of an age and eminence that enables them to stand against the bullying and intimidation that prevails in climate science. Therefore, the passage of time is not an unimportant thing. Indeed, one of Steyn’s proposed witnesses has, in fact, died while this interlocutory appeal has been with the appellate court.
The brief does not mention which witness died. Any guesses?
Apparently, Steyn and his lawyer had a “holy crap” moment, realizing that if this law suit does not come to court sooner than later, there would be precious few individuals prepared to serve as witnesses in favor of an idea that about to get pulled off life support.
Time is running out for Steyn. Over time, those who question the validity of well established science are likely to change their minds once they get the proper information, realize that their position is laughable and walk away from denialism simply because it is embarrassing, or, apparently, die.
But it is more important that time is running out for the planet, and for the up and coming generation that is being handed a ruined environment.
Even as I write these words a news alert comes across my desk: “Europe floods: 10 dead amid fears of fresh heavy rainfall,” referring to flooding in France and Germany. Flooding in Texas over the last few days, and continuing, has taken at least a half dozen lives. To someone like Steyn, and his out of touch geriatric witnesses, this is small change. A half a dozen people here, a half a dozen people there. And that is exactly the problem and exactly why Mann’s lawsuit is important and valid. Climate denialism is, as a movement, effectively sociopathic. And, as individuals in that movement realize that, they tend to wander off.
The Atlantic Hurricane Season started yesterday and there are already two named storms. Major fires in the Canadian Rockies, the decline of iconic species such as the North American Moose, coral bleaching, the spread of very nasty diseases out of the tropics, record high temperatures, the Syrian refugee crisis, are all linked to climate change to some degree, often very directly, sometimes more tenuously. (See this for a current accounting of climate disasters ongoing.)
Extreme variability in precipitation patterns, including both short and long term droughts and major rain or snow fall events, has been linked pretty directly to anthropogenic global warming. Heat waves and sea level rise due to melting glaciers, and changes in ocean chemistry, are direct measures of increasing surface heat. Weather and climate are two faces of the same coin, different in scale with weather being in one spot and on one day, and climate being weather long term and everywhere. If we change climate, which we have, we change weather, and thus we affect day to day live, the food supply, the global economy, and global health.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
I don’t need to justify my comments here to you. Fuck off.
Oh for shame. Somebody has been feeding the nasty troll and it is back to bedevil us. Shame on somebody. Here is how the game works peeps. The troll tempts you to argue some topic, you foolishly respond, and then the troll whips you around for the next half hour on a topic of its chosing. It is an arguing troll, and it loves nothing better than to engage you in some stupid argument about some stupid point that is of no importance. Wake up! Don’t blame me if you feel used and wasted at the end of that half hour.
Here is a more interesting and useful topic. In a recent article at RealClimate , Jack Chou discusses his recent paper on the oppositional disorder that Republicans suffer from . He shows that…”, treating Republicans with persuasive information made them more resistant to climate action regardless of the content or sourcing of that information. Overall, simply being exposed to pro-climate action communication appeared to polarize Republicans even further; they became more opposed to governmental action and less likely to take personal action compared to the control group. ” So basically, anyone having a conversation with the troll- that- must- not- be- named is being a complete and utter fool, and basically wasting all of our time. Do not, repeat, do not feed the troll. Got it? It is scientifically stupid to give the egotistical troll attention. You have better things to do. This would be a good forum to formulate strategies to combat climate change that might actually work. Arguing with argumentative followers of fossil fuel funded leaders is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Really. You will accomplish nothing positive. If you can do something to persuade a single conservative leader to acknowledge global warming, then you might have found a way to accomplish something, because, simply put, Republican followers cannot think for themselves. Arguing with a follower of an authoritarian philosophy is totally stupid. If, on the other hand, you can persuade one of the Republican meme leaders of the science of this issue, then you will have made progress. But as long as their campaigns are funded by fossil fuel companies, that is very unlikely to happen. So one take away from my screed here is that we need campaign finance reform. And we don’t need to feed trolls.
OK, Jones added the instrumental since 1980 onto Mann’s proxy curve and made them the same curve and colour. Mann is entitled to claim credit for his data used in that graph, even if it was not represented in any way that he used and even though it was Jones who claimed credit for actually making the graph. Steyn says: “Michael Mann was THE man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph” when the man behind your supposedly “fraudulent” “hockey-stick” graph was Jones.
Also, there was no proxy “decline” “hidden” by the curve Jones made using Mann’s data because THERE WAS NO MANN PROXY DATA AFTER 1980 TO HIDE! Yet another shameless lie from science denialists.
Apart from concern trolls of course.
#314
As you’ve provided no evidence,thus far your claim is only evidence of grandiosity.
“I don’t need to justify my comments here to you. Fuck off.”
I hereby withdraw the charge of grandiosity. I’m sure that there have been cases where you’ve been able to shut the mouths of denialists, and it would be an unnecessary diversion to have you search for evidence to prove this. Also, for me, this is a diversion from my main argument, which is based on your demonstrable mental instability:
You are paranoid. You see threats that don’t exist.
On the basis of non-existent, trivial evidence, e.g. that #282 was addressed to you, you throw yourself headlong into vituperative attacks.
Even though you’ve attacked me without any legitimate cause, you insist, “I don’t need to justify my comments here to you,” which you then supplement with an additional show of aggression: “Fuck off.”
I think I’ve made my point.
BBD
That was another valiant attempt. If anyone could have succeeded, it would have been you. I would have been happy if you’d been able to prove me wrong.
RA has not responded. If I were RA, I would not have responded either. There is nothing else to say.
#315 SteveP
The recent history of this thread illustrates that comment policy can only be successfully imposed by the blog owner.
Interactions with RA may be suboptimal, but private attempts at intervention are worse. The status quo ante is arguably the lesser of two evils.
Fuck off creep.
Chris #316:
Thank you for reading the link.
You now see that the blue line is proxy data, then it switches to actual temperature data.
I gather from the way you wrote your #316 that you didn’t realize that before.
You were deceived – and it is totally understandable.
You were intended to be deceived.
Mann took some credit for the WMO cover by listing it on his CV.
So that makes it a Mann hockeystick.
It was carefully created to deceive and it actually does deceive (as I now think you see).
That makes it fraudulent (intended to deceive).
Steyn wins.
And that is just one hockeystick – they all have issues.
This is why I think Steyn will win the case.
His writing is an opinion. It is truthful. It was absent malice.
I predict Steyn will win.
I wish the case would get going so we can see what happens.
Way to slow for me.
How?
Fraud and deception are only possible if the synthesis distorted the representation of the data. But it did not.
With this necessary condition for fraud and deception in mind, how do you justify your (very strong) claims?
BBD #324:
The deception is that it is a synthesis – but the reader is not told it is a synthesis.
You are not deceived because you now know all about how the graph was created.
Why even readers during the last week didn’t know it was a synthesis.
Your defense of this graph rings hollow to me.
There is a reason it has been “disappeared” from the official sites.
You might want to think about why that is.
It’s clear rickA doesn’t care about the science, or that it is correct BBD – he is now merely trying to protect his “reputation” as a defender of something.
It’s probably best for your blood pressure to just ignore the dishonest troll’s lawyerly crap.
Fraud and deception are only possible if the synthesis distorted the representation of the data.
There have been many more hockey sticks since MBH98/99 and the WMO graph.
All confirm that the WMO graph did not misrepresent the continuity between millennial reconstructions and the instrumental record.
So on what basis do you argue that the graph was fraudulent and deceptive?
BBD,
The basis is this:
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
? Cardinal Richelieu
It is the “opinion” (conviction) of some, for instance, that evolution is a matter of “opinion,” perhaps that it is a fraud. Scientifically such opinions are garbage.
But apparently, in a court of law, through the magic of conflation, innuendo, sophistry, propaganda, and pure force of grandiosity certain Republicans believe they can make their own reality if so desired. After all, we have supposedly witnessed “the end of History” haven’t we?
Obstreperous
Since you mention Richelieu, there is also this:
I don’t see how I was deceived by actual temperature data. The world’s surface has warmed by at least 0.5 degrees C since 1980. Any representation that shows that temperature rise is simply stating the truth. The graph is obviously a representation of what scientists believe is global temperature anomaly up to 2000. That graph is not saying it is entirely proxy data to 2000. Where is the actual deception? How is it not a fair representation of global temperature? There is nothing fraudulent about it. The only thing you could whine about is lack of provenance but it’s not meant to be a paper for a peer-reviewed journal. Lack of provenance does not amount to deception.
No that makes it partly a Mann hockey stick. Not a Mann hockey stick.
He wrote a claim of fact, i.e. that Mann produced a fraudulent graph. Mann did not produce that graph for WMO and it wasn’t intended to be a deceptive representation of global temperature and it is not a deceptive representation of global temperature. It’s actually a fair representation of global temperature to me.
A the very best, Steyn’s claim is a reckless disregard for the truth so is malicious.
But even if Steyn wins, it won’t show that Mann produced a fraudulent graph except in the very unlikely event that the Judge produces a statement specifically saying so. The judge’s prime concern is proof of libel or lack thereof. The graph is not sufficient for proof of either.
By the way, anyone claiming:
is stating a bare faced lie. ALL of Mann’s 50 year smoothed proxy data is shown on that graph.
Another bare faced lie. Mann’s proxy data was not truncated.
Yet another bare faced lie. They just never end. The actual temperature data that Jones used in his graph did NOT replace ANY of Mann’s proxy data.
These science denialists are such appalling liars and hypocrites. They whine on and on about fraud when their is none. They whine on and on about fraud by Mann when there is none. And yet they are compulsive liars. You just can’t make up hypocrisy like this.
This is at an official site of the WMO:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/913_en.pdf
RickA is a compulsive liar.
#322
“your demonstrable mental instability
Fuck off creep.”
Earlier I wrote that you had “dug yourself into a hole and you keep on digging.” Now I’m beginning to enjoy this, and I see you as a gift that keeps on giving. Like Donald Trump. I don’t have to make my case. You make it for me. Isn’t it time for you to wipe the foam from your mouth?
But there is one consolation:
“Chris:
Even though we don’t agree – at least I don’t call you crazy, like cosmicomics does.
#308 RickA
“Chris #316:
Thank you for reading the link.
You now see that the blue line is proxy data, then it switches to actual temperature data.
I gather from the way you wrote your #316 that you didn’t realize that before.
You were deceived – and it is totally understandable.”
RickA
Looks like you’ve made a friend. Congratulations.
#321
“The recent history of this thread illustrates that comment policy can only be successfully imposed by the blog owner.
Interactions with RA may be suboptimal, but private attempts at intervention are worse. The status quo ante is arguably the lesser of two evils.”
Suboptimal is an understatement. We know that the status quo ante doesn’t work, and we don’t know if the blog’s comment policy will change. At the risk of sounding mock-heroic, some kind of agreement on strategy would enable us to become the masters of our own fate. It hasn’t been tried, so we don’t know if (or how) it would work. I’ve (more or less) suggested a strategy based on:
1. Rebutting the denialist until it’s clear that further discussion is a waste of time.
2. Continuing by addressing the denialist’s arguments, while ignoring the denialist him/herself,
3. And/or simply responding to the denialist’s new arguments, not by replying to them, but by pointing out that he/she has shown him/herself ignorant/dishonest/unreliable – in other words, disqualify the denialist instead of discussing with him/her.
I agree that a new blog policy would be the best solution – in fact I was the one who first suggested it (#268) – but that may not happen. My own suggestion might not work or be acceptable. Others are hereby urged to criticize it and put forth alternatives that can enable us to escape from what’s been happening.
It’s not up to us. We are guests. We shouldn’t play the ref.
I have an offering for those who actually want to know how science – you know, science by scientists – is done. mt has offered and thoughtful in-depth review:
“Who Decides What is True”
https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd
Responding to someone who is not interested in the facts? Some technical response is useful, but after that … doesn’t life outside the blogosphere beckon? I know when I get addictive it’s doing me no good. But of course … I’m here. So anh!
I once heard the state of understanding of a subject described as a comet. At the head you have the bright vanguard. Farther back into the tail you have less and less well informed people, eventually coming to contemporary people stuck with an essentially medieval view of the world– stuck because they rely on a false construct of how their society is progressing and what demarcates the head from the tail.
It’s one of the reasons I’m a fan of metaliteracy (supported by epistemology). There’s actually been very good, very specific, meta-information on climate science at RealClimate. Unfortunately it’s been delivered piecemeal over the years in bits and drabs, in articles and comments. I only wish that I (or somebody) had been diligent enough to capture it all and compile it as a single source.
There’s precious little on on the subject otherwise that I can find.
OA
There are some good textbooks out there, not as cutting-edge as RC often is, but very useful all the same.
And there’s always Science of Doom which is an excellent resource.
BBD,
To make sure we’re on the same page, this is what I’m talking about (not to be confused with science literacy):
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/
If we’re talking about the same thing, could you point me to the textbook you favor?
Thanks in advance.
OA
J N-G writes:
I was being *much* too narrow in my thinking, with a short list of climate textbooks in mind. When it comes to the panoptic insight into the way science works, I come up as blank as J N-G.
However, he goes on to say:
That I do strive to do, as best as I can.
BBD,
I don’t disagree. We do what we can, and you do better than I, certainly.
However, the gap is real, problematic, and doesn’t get near the attention it deserves. IMO, john n-g is on to something:
“…improving climate literacy would have no effect whatsoever on the public’s ability to separate the wheat from the chaff among the climate science statements they receive…”
Which gets to the question that lies near the heart of so many of these, um, “discussions”; that was posed in SA’s 336 and that is leveraged to toxic effect by so many trolls: “Who Decides What Is True?”
The only losing move is not to play.
@RickA #15:
http://www.news24.com/Green/News/climate-change-to-blame-for-france-floods-study-20160611
Checkmate, methinks.
cosmicomics #334:
I would like to make a suggestion.
Let us engage on the issues of the post.
If we disagree, and you are done engaging with me – say lets agree to disagree.
If you do that I will agree to disagree and stop engaging with you on that post topic.
Let us not mock each other or name call.
Let us not call each other liar.
Let us be polite to each other.
I would wager that 90% of the time that the thread gets derailed, it is because someone attacked me and I defended myself.
Don’t attack me and the thread will not get derailed.
What are your thoughts?
RickA: “I would like to make a suggestion. Let us engage on the issues of the post. If we disagree, and you are done engaging with me – say lets agree to disagree.”
What you are admitting to is that you are wrong, therefore everyone should ignore the fact you are wrong. People who state they wish to “agree to disagree” are almost always the ones who are wrong in an argument (unless they are married to each other, in which case the man is wrong if it’s a marriage between a woman and a man, no one is wrong if it’s two women married to each other, or both are wrong if it’s too men married to each other).
Your assertions are demonstrably wrong, and you have seen that fact. Your behavior is irrational and appears to me to be pathological: I am not a doctor, so I cannot give an authoritative opinion on that issue.
However, you are wrong on at least 90% of what you have written on this blog site over the past two years, and you remain wrong even after reality has been explained to you. If I were you, I would have discussed the issue with a mental health care professional long ago.
This will be of interest to those engaged in this discussion:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/06/13/the-war-on-science-what-it-is-and-how-to-win-it/
That you tone-troll tactially.
That you should acknowledge that your behaviour is beyond the pale and merits sharp criticism.
That you are not acting in good faith.
re:#119: The real delay is Mann’s refusal to answer discovery.
But Mann has nothing to answer. It’s STEYN who has made claims, and if he had no evidence to support those claims, then he is libelling when he makes those claims in print.
EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION WAS TRUE, this would be the case.
Whatever Steyn has at this very moment in his hands is all that he had to support his claim. And if there’s nothing in his hands to support his claim, he’s guilty of libel.
Accusing Trump of raping his children would not allow me to demand Donald give up internal information in discovery as to whether my accusation is actually true.
re 138: “My current understanding of US libel law is that this is not so because the standard of proof requires actual malice. ”
Incorrect, actual malice is only required for punitative damages, and reckless disregard for the truth means that if the average person in the same situation should have known differently, then there’s no need for actual malice.
And actual malice is only really required in cases of public figures, in “nobodies”, actual malice isn’t needed for punitative damages.
Rather like the disrespect for the UK for “hate speech”, the USA has an equivalent term: Fighting words.
Indeed two imams have been extradited for MERE SPEECH, because of the doctrine of what would be called hate speech in the UK, despite an apparent belief that there is no such law in the USA.
Not according to what is apparently an authoritative source (emphasis in original):
US defamation law is odd-seeming to British eyes because of the enormous weight placed on the First Amendment. I’d recommend reading the whole reference carefully as it is clearly at variance with what you say above.
Yes, because you’re a psychopathic concern troll.
I should have pissed you off from the beginning at #265 with your insulting concern trolling.
Fuck off troll. You are so creepy.
I am not calling you a liar. I am stating the observed fact that you tell lies and thus are a liar. As I pointed out above, these are lies:
1. the WMO cover hockey stick (Mann claimed authorship on his CV) didn’t even bother to show the proxy declining
2. truncated the proxy data
3. and replaced it with the actual temperature data.
4. it has been “disappeared” from the official sites.
if it is any consolation
reading RickA posts, I do sense a sort intellectual “managed retreat”
the mere fact that the link between CO2 and temperature (hence climate) is accepted is progress, the battleground just gets shifted to what RickA sees as a more defensible position – attribution and ECS
it obviously makes sense in the sort of rhetoric RickA conducts
Meanwhile, outside of internet blogs – the simple reality of the physics continues
#352
“I’m beginning to enjoy this
Yes, because you’re a psychopathic concern troll…
Fuck off troll. You are so creepy.”
No. I’m enjoying this because every time you open your mouth you prove my point. You’re totally unable to refute my arguments, so instead you indulge in obscenities and infantile name calling. Calling me a troll is just another example of this. You have no evidence for your paranoid perception of threats. Your unwarranted aggressiveness is pathological. As I’ve said, you’re a nut case, and that’s why, when you asked me to “leave [you] alone,” I wrote I’d be happy to. Already then it was obvious to me that I was not dealing with a normal human being.
I’m also enjoying this because I’ve gotten under your skin and your original arrogance is being transformed into babbling incoherence:
“I should have pissed you off from the beginning at #265 with your insulting concern trolling.”
Which means???
And by the way, anyone who isn’t mentally disturbed and who’s read my comments and has checked my links can see that I take climate change very seriously. You’re the mentally disturbed exception.
I again urge you to seek psychiatric help.
Chris #353:
I believe you are wrong on #1 – #3.
I was wrong on #4.
It was deleted from several links, as you yourself pointed out.
However, as you learned (congratulations), it was still available from the WMO link you found.
I was not aware of that and was therefore wrong.
However, even though I was wrong, I am not a liar.
The reason being that I actually did believe it had been removed from all official websites – which turned out not to be correct.
Going to “liar” when all you have shown is “wrong” is not helpful.
It is the same with cosmicomics telling you to seek psychiatric help.
This is not helpful either.
It is the worst sort of name calling, in my opinion.
tadaaa #354:
I have actually not retreated – but have stayed stationary.
I always admitted that the Earth has warmed and that humans have caused some portion of that warming.
What I have said previously is that “we” and “I” don’t know how much of the warming (say since 1880) has been caused by humans and how much has been natural.
I still believe this.
I also believe that ECS is not 3C or 4.5C, but instead on the order of 1.6C or so.
Rather than being based on climate models which have all shown to much warming compared to actual observations – my belief is based on the observationally constrained studies co-authored by Nic Lewis.
Some posters get very mad at me for not believing their science (usually based on model projections) and choosing instead to believe in the other science – but we each get to believe what we want.
That is human nature.
Until the science settles down, we don’t know what the correct answer will turn out to be.
Until then – I support generating as much electricity as possible from nuclear power (because it is baseload – meaning it is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year).
Solar and wind requires baseload backup power, for when it is not sunny or windy – and that is not economical at this point in time. Perhaps when we invent grid level power storage that will be different.
So to summarize my unchanging position:
1. ECS is looking to be about 1.6C.
2. Sea level is rising about 1 foot per century.
3. But even so – lets generate as much power with nuclear as possible.
4. That is the no regrets best option, in my opinion.
5. Sure – lets continue to invest and invent in renewables.
6. Sure – lets continue to invest and invent in grid level power storage.
7. Sure – lets continue to invest and invent non-carbon electricity generation which is cheaper (by which I mean ignoring externalities and just looking at dollars spent) than oil, coal and natural gas.
8. Like fusion or space based solar or renewables combined with grid level storage – or something else we cannot even imagine today.
9. In the meantime, do not tax carbon – because that raises the cost of everything – food, fuel, heating, transportation costs, goods and services – for everybody. That is bad, but especially bad for poor people, especially in 3rd world countries.
I have been pretty consistent on these beliefs since I started posting at Greg’s site.
Feel free to go back a few years and spot check me.
Endlessly resistant to learning. The very definition of a mind locked down in denial.
LieA: “1. ECS is looking to be about 1.6C.”
3.1c
“2. Sea level is rising about 1 foot per century.”
3.5 feet by year 2100.
BBD: “Endlessly resistant to learning. The very definition of a mind locked down in denial.”
This is why I suspect it is pathological; I am not a doctor, however.
You do not understand the way science works. You can believe any nonsense you wish, but the totality (consilience) of evidence outweighs your (worthless and evidently incorrect) opinion.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the way you place your worthless and evidently incorrect opinion on a level with the consilience of scientific evidence is truly absurd.
Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously?
“Science”, to RickA, is the process of determining the subjective “truth” of any circumstance, issue, or conjecture:
“If it would lead to an increase in my personal inconvenience, then it must be untrue. QED”
RickA: “[I choose] to believe in the other science…”
This other science of RickA’s must be this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw
Tell us, RickA, which unwashed face is yours??
BBD #359:
This is important so I am going to respond.
Your science is telling us what they think will happen in the future.
However, the future has not happened yet.
So there is no way to know whether their projections are correct or not.
Other than to wait and see.
The science I am relying on is based on what has actually happened to-date. It is based on observations and the studies Nic Lewis is co-author on are observationally constrained.
So on the one hand – we have some scientists guessing about the future.
All of their guess so far have been wrong.
Based on the observations to-date.
Versus a line of science which disagrees with the model projections and which shows a much lower climate sensitivity number.
Now, someday we will know which group of scientists is correct.
But there is no way to know today which group is correct or will turn out to be correct.
That is a fact.
So I think I am a person who believes one group of scientists over another.
Just like you.
That is who I think I am.
BBD #358:
Perhaps.
Or perhaps I am a person who looks at what happened in the past and just doesn’t believe future projections that say it will be much worse in the future.
A lot of guess about the future turn out to be wrong you know.
Rick, I haven followed up on the procedure in a while, but, IIRC, Steyn didnt join his co defendants in the appeal, as he took Mann at his word that he wants his day in court. Thus, Mann’s dela6 tactics are even more egregious as case can easily be bifurcsted. Steyn is offering Mann what he claims he wants: his day in court.
Also, Mann has a history of stall tactics. He refused to answer discovery in his case against Tim Ball, resulting in its dismissal. Hopefully Ball gets a huge judgment against Mann for costs.
But, with this crowd, reality doesn’t matter. After, most here still think Mann won a Nobel Prize, despite the fact that the director of the Nobel Institute, Geirt Lunderstat (sp?) is on record as saying Mann has never won a Nobel Prize, and any such claims by Mann are, what’s the word? Oh yeah, fraudulent
Pardon my typos….eyes dilated at doc appointment today
Desertphile:
Your pretending it is 2100.
But it is only 2016.
ECS – we don’t know yet.
Sea level rise last century (8 inches).
Sea level rise so far this century, and projected to 2100 (11 inches).
3.5 feet is a guess based on a whole lot of assumptions – which may turn out to be wrong.
But we will see.
Lets check back at 2100 and see who turned out to be correct.
Desertphile: Your [sic] pretending it is 2100.
Idiot.
RickA
Please try thinking.
~1C transient response to 120ppm CO2 already. This effectively rules out an equilibriated response of ~1.6C.
Just. Think. It is obvious that you are wrong. For once, stop this endless, stupid denial and *think*.
As for past SLR under much weaker forcing than will apply in future decades – it cannot be a guide to future SLR. Apples and oranges. Just. Think. I’ve explained this over and over again and still all you do is dig your heels in, keep denying and keep on repeating the same old rubbish even though it is self-evidently wrong and contradicted by the totality of the scientific evidence.
Of course we can use current scientific knowledge to make reasonably reliable predictions. We do this all the time.
I’ve already explained to you that this is simply not true. It’s a calculated misrepresentation of his own work started off by Lewis, who is profoundly compromised by his political peddling with the likes of the GWPF. Yet you choose an isolated, discredited ideologue and reject the entire of the rest of the scientific evidence.
But you haven’t a clue about climate science. Not the first real idea. So I ask you again, in all due seriousness: who the fuck do you think you are?
Edited for clarity:
~1C transient response to +120ppm CO2 since the preindustrial period. This effectively rules out an equilibriated response of ~1.6C to a doubling of CO2 relative to preindustrial levels (+280ppm).
And that, RickA, is a fucking lie.
#343
“The only losing move is not to play.”
“I have actually not retreated – but have stayed stationary.” #357
With whom are you playing? A brick wall? This has been going on for quite some time, and as RickA “stays stationary” and never accepts evidence that doesn’t confirm his ‘equally valid opinions,’ we might conclude that his only purpose here is to entertain himself and cause a disturbance. Someone who still finds it meaningful to engage with him might ask what he’s doing here, what he hopes to achieve.
“It’s not up to us. We are guests. We shouldn’t play the ref.” #335
Yes, we’re guests, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t act together against a destructive nuisance. “The only losing move is not to play” ignores the dynamics of normal discussions. When one party stops participating, the discussion usually ends. I’ve suggested a possible way out in #334. It’s flexible enough to enable discussion as long as discussion appears to be meaningful, and also suggests a way out when it’s clear that it isn’t. Others may have better ideas. The only thing we need is a qualified, well-respected person who can signal that continued discussion no longer makes sense. If you were willing, you would be the obvious choice. In RickA’s case, we’re being confronted by essentially the same ‘stationary’ opinions, so the evidence used to refute those opinions is also essentially the same. We’re moving in circles.
So again I urge all of you to consider whether the present situation is satisfactory, and if not, how it realistically can be improved. The arguments for doing nothing are not convincing.
It has nothing to do with belief.
Read the graph for heavens’ sake. The one you make this lying statement about. The proxy part is the same as the 50 year smooth in MBH98 (at least in the C20). There is no significant decline after about 1910 in either. Claiming there is a decline, IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF BOTH GRAPHS, is a lie.
The proxy data in MBH98/99 goes up to 1980. The proxy data is shown on both graphs up to 1980. Stating the graph truncates the proxy data is thus a lie.
The actual temperature data is shown after 1980. The proxy data goes up to 1980. It is shown up to 1980. Thus the proxy data was not replaced at any time that it exists. Claiming it was replaced anywhere is thus a lie.
Three lies out of three, RickA. You are out.
I pointed out nothing of the sort. As a compulsive liar, you just can’t stop lying.
So what other “official” websites did it used to be on? I imagine there is no more “official” website for a WMO graph than a WMO website.
RickA’s post in #368 got prematurely sent before he finished typing…
3.5 feet is a guess based on a whole lot of assumptions – which may turn out to be wrong.
But we will see how many people will die and how much property will be destroyed if we’re foolish enough to do nothing but “wait and see”, an obviously immoral choice in this matter.
Yes, RickA, that is correct… For a change.
I must say this latest ploy from RickA to claim that Steyn is accusing Mann of fraud simply over an obscure graph made by someone else for a WMO webpage is absolutely pathetic.
After years and years of hockey stick denialists going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how THE MBH98/99 hockey stick is a fraud, all of a sudden it’s not about THE MBH98/99 hockey stick anymore, Mann’s fraud is about THE concatenated hockey stick put together by someone else for an obscure WMO educational publication and the MBH98/99 hockey stick is no longer a fraud.
If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
Steyn cites Simberg’s article when he starts talking about Mann’s “hockey-stick deceptions”. This is what Simberg says:
Mann first presented the hockey stick in MBH98.
“… government grants….”
LOL! That’s right: M., B., and H. are just being flooded with “government grants” now that MBH98 and MBH99 have been published. Why, they are now so wealthy they could be USA presidents!
The blog site pjmedia.com has some seriously funny entries, such as:
“As a black man who has been a Republican since coming of age, I have frequently been asked by leftists to explain why I am one. The question implies that being a Republican somehow clashes with my interests as a black man.”
To which some comment stated:
“Why should a white person vote democrat? The party of Affirmative Action, illegal immigration, censoring black crime, and taxed to support their own displacement?”
And now we are expected to take the opinions about climate change on that blog seriously? FUNNY!
I am not calling you a troll. I am stating the fact that you are a concern troll. It’s amazing that now you are denying being a concern troll. You made your insulting concern trolling at #252 (I picked the troll’s following comment number above, but I couldn’t care less about getting that number right for a troll).
So fuck off concern troll.
cosmicomics
In a war against science where the objective is to defend / attack the facts, the only losing move is not to play. That is the relevant dynamic here in microcosm and on the wider stages of political discourse and public policy.
Speaking personally, I find it tiresome when other commenters try to control what I say. You will note that I do not do this to you.
#381
Speaking personally, I find it tiresome when other commenters try to control what I say.
I apologize for having given you that impression.
#380
I am stating the fact that you are a concern troll. It’s amazing that now you are denying being a concern troll.
If you had focused on the language I used in #252, I would have accepted your criticism. I said things I shouldn’t have said. The substance of that comment was don’t feed the troll, and that’s hardly an example of concern trolling. Saying don’t feed the troll is acceptable. The way I said it is not. Neither is accusing me of things that I haven’t done, or of being what I’m not. I’ve also said other things that I shouldn’t have said, and I accept my responsibility for the way this conversation has developed.
#382 cosmicomics
No worries.
Quoting Hank:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/06/boomerangs-versus-javelins-the-impact-of-polarization-on-climate-change-communication/comment-page-2/#comment-655759
3.5 Delaying: “We can’t be sure so we might as well wait and see what happens”
Chris #378:
Mann has the burden of proof in this case (on defamation).
It is just not that clear which of Mann’s hockey sticks Steyn was referring to.
I picked out the most aggregious one (the WMO cover) to show you how a possible defense could use that Mann hockey stick to defend against the defamation claim.
All of the others have issues also – but the WMO cover is the most deceptive (in my opinon).
Here is a review made in 2010 which touches on this issue:
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Climatic_Research_Unit.pdf
Check out in particular section 3.2, pgs 37-39.
The WMO graph is a type (c) graphic, which they admit doesn’t show the divergence between the proxy and the actual temperature data. The admit it blends the proxy data and the actual temperature data together into a single line.
We will have to wait to see how the defense unfolds. Maybe they won’t even mention the WMO cover hockey stick.
But it is pretty deceptive to start out a graph line with proxy data and switch to instrument data without telling the reader that the proxy data dived, while the instrument data rose (in my opinion).
RickA
You have simply skipped over my questions yet again and carried on repeating what is, frankly, bullshit.
So, let’s try again…
Fraud and deception are only possible if the synthesis distorted the representation of the data.
There have been many more hockey sticks since MBH98/99 and the WMO graph.
All confirm that the WMO graph did not misrepresent the continuity between millennial reconstructions and the instrumental record. So the synthesis did not distort the representation of the data.
For the nth time, on what basis do you argue that the graph was fraudulent and deceptive?
And what about this???
There has been a ~1C transient response to +120ppm CO2 since the preindustrial period. This effectively rules out an equilibriated response of ~1.6C to a doubling of CO2 relative to preindustrial levels (+280ppm).
When are you going to admit that an ECS of 1.6C is vanishingly improbable given the basic empirical evidence that anyone with half a brain can evaluate for themselves?
BBD: “When are you going to admit that an ECS of 1.6C is vanishingly improbable given the basic empirical evidence that anyone with half a brain can evaluate for themselves?”
Other than Richard Lindzen who was paid for his amazing discovery by the “free market” cults he is a “fellow” of, no scientists thinks it’s lower than 2.3c, and the consensus at the moment is 3.1c
And before you waste any further pixels this is *not* a valid response to #389:
As usual, your opinion is of no value. Let’s step through this point by point:
1/ The millennial reconstructions have been validated over and over again.
2/ The dendro-only divergence post-1960 has been explored and shown to be anthropogenic anddoes not invalidate the dendro proxy component of millennial reconstructions.
3/ The instrumental record is robust.
4/ The synthesis between the two is correctly calibrated and does not distort the representation of the data
So on what basis do you make the very strong claims (libelous claims) that there has been fraud and deception?
BBD:
1. I have already answered your question twice. Nobody knew the blue line on the WMO cover was a “synthesis” – that is what was misleading.
2. 1.6C cannot be vanishingly improbable because the official range is 1.5C to 4.5C. If 1.5C was vanishingly improbable, it wouldn’t be included in the range.
3. You keep trying to make this about the science – but as Greg has said several times, this case is not about the science. It is about Mann’s hockey sticks, and in particular about the WMO graph which blended proxy data with actual instrument data without identifying that fact to the reader.
Anyway – I am repeating myself so I will stop there.
It is about … the WMO graph which blended proxy data with actual instrument data without identifying that fact to the reader.
That does not even begin to qualify as a “fraud”. Of any type, and most especially in a legal sense.
Your petty insistence that this could be an issue is indicative of desperation in trying to find a way to exonerate Steyn. And failing to find (a legitimate) one.
So yes, stop there and stop suggesting this again.
Why are you such a compulsive liar?
MANN’S PROXY DATA DID NOT DIVE.
What does it take to get that through your thick skull?
Not only that but
ALL of Mann’s 50 year smooth proxy data is shown. If there was any dive in that data then IT WOULD BE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS because ALL THE MANN 50 YEAR SMOOTH PROXY DATA IS SHOWN ON THE WMO GRPAPH.
Not blindingly obvious enough for failed engineer RickA apparently.
Rick A claims, once again that
“Nobody knew the blue line on the WMO cover was a “synthesis” – that is what was misleading.”
and
“in particular about the WMO graph which blended proxy data with actual instrument data without identifying that fact to the reader.”
If “nobody knew”, they did not bother to check the byline to the cover art, which stated:
” Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov). (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).”
It explicitly states it is a synthesis of several proxies, INCLUDING THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORD!
So, will RickA apologize for telling lies? Tune in next time for another round of RickA’s “let’s ignore the facts, shall we, they interfere with my preferred fairytale”.
Re: on fairytales and skull thickness
Aside from the pleasure taken in just being irritating, the wise guy is working at maintaining brand recognition and morale on the off chance that there is still a muddled ditto-head or two out there among the lurkers.
He has alreaded stated both that those pointing out his errors can’t be convinced, and that he is proud of the fact that he has been repeating the same debunked talking points over and over for years. Draw your own conclusions.
RickA
Can’t you read? #391
One more repetition of your non-answer will be taken as concrete evidence of dishonesty. So try again, properly, this time.
You don’t understand the science. Not all values in the range are equally probable. The ends of the range are the least likely values. The central best estimate is the most likely value (~3C). Please research this topic before commenting on it again – ever. Worse still, you have once again dodged my point. Please explain how it is possible to reconcile an observed tranisent response of ~1C to 120ppm with you proposed value of ~1.6C at equilibrium to 280ppm. Or concede the point. Failure to address this directly will be concrete evidence of dishonesty.
More diversionary bullshit and IMO concrete evidence of dishonesty on your part at this point. See #389 and #391:
Fraud and deception are only possible if the synthesis distorted the representation of the data.
There have been many more hockey sticks since MBH98/99 and the WMO graph.
All confirm that the WMO graph did not misrepresent the continuity between millennial reconstructions and the instrumental record. So the synthesis did not distort the representation of the data.
If you repeat your claim that Mann’s work is fraudulent and deceptive, you are being dishonest.
You have nowhere left to go, RickA. It’s time to start giving ground. If you repeat your claims you will no longer be able to claim that you are honest and expect a fair hearing from me.
So Steyn is going to show up to court and say, “Oh, when I was slagging off Mann as “the man behind THE fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “it is fraudulent: It abolished the very concept of “natural variability” and insisted that nothing happened in the global climate until the 20th century, and it did so using a handful of unreliable tree-rings processed through a statistical method fished out of a can of alphabet soup,” he’s going to say “Oh I didn’t mean MBH98/99. Absolutely nothing wrong with MBH98/99. I meant the production by concatenation of MBH’s data and other data on an obscure WMO webpage that was put together by someone else”.
What other fairy tales do you know RickA?
So MBH98 is fraudulent how, exactly? (Not that Steyn is saying it’s fraudulent according to you.)
And according to your fairy tale, that is what Steyn is claiming is “Mann’s” only fraud, even though Mann didn’t do the blending.
An insulting DNFTT is concern trolling. I regret being sucked into trying to justify my comments to your concern troll because (as I said before), I don’t have to justify my comments to a concern troll. I should have simply said right at the beginning:
Piss off insulting concern troll.
BBD #398:
It is not just me saying the WMO cover graph is misleading.
It is also the Muir Rusell report:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
See pg. 13 (no. 23) which says:
“On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick? and to „hide the decline? in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. ”
They say the figure was misleading. So the caption just wasn’t that clear (sorry Marco #396).
We have different opinions.
You don’t think the graph is misleading and I do.
We don’t have to agree and we don’t.
It is not just me saying the WMO cover graph is misleading.
You mean you’re not the only stupid shit in the world? I had no idea there were others!
To quote your quote, RickA:
We do not find that it is misleading
By your own standards and methods, “agreement” is beside the point, and you don’t have a different opinion, you are simply WRONG.
Brainstorms:
Back up just a bit in the quote and you will see this:
” the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading.”
You said fraudulent and deceptive, not ‘misleading’.
Now answer the question with CLOSE reference to what I wrote in #389 and #391.
I think it is interesting that Muir Russel failed to justify even its opinion that the WMO graph was misleading. All it did say agrees *exactly* with what I have said over and over again now. The synthesis did not misrepresent the data. IMO the Muir Russel finding is nonsense. And I can venture an opinion because I have set out very clearly indeed on what it is based.
The question was, of course, on what basis do you argue that the graph was fraudulent and deceptive?
Think very carefully about what you say next, Rick.
Back up just a bit in the quote
Oh, but RickA, we don’t need to do that. You’ve taken great pains in the past to establish that cherry-picking is reasonable, valid, and honorable.
And you expect us to agree with that — as well as whatever your cherry-picked verbiage says.
Time to eat your own shit. They said, “We do not find that it is misleading”. Case closed.
RickA
Before you respond, you need to read p35 Section 3 in full:
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Climatic_Research_Unit.pdf
BBD:
I think the graph was intentionally misleading – which makes it fraudulent.
I have said that before.
As for section 3 – I cited it to you in #358 and I have read it.
It supports my opinion.
RickA: “I think the graph was intentionally misleading – which makes it fraudulent.”
I think Shania Twain wants to have hot passionate monkey sex with me — therefore she does.
See the problem now?
sorry – I meant at #388 – not 358.
How can it have been intentionally misleading if it did not misrepresent the data?
I have asked you this before.
Address the point, please. I keep asking and you keep on ducking and weaving.
Read the link at #408.
Carefully.
While we wait, let’s go back to Muir Russell.
Muir Russell report, p12 – 13, emphasis added:
Sodding html.
Muir Russell report, p12 – 13, emphasis added:
So MR did *not* find the millennial (pre-instrumental) reconstruction ‘misleading’.
MR didn’t find that the so-called ‘hide the decline’ was misleading either.
So how can the WMO synthesis possibly be ‘misleading’? It’s interesting to see just how incoherent MR actually was on this matter.
Let’s go back a page or two to the headline finding, which is quoted with emphasis as in original:
Remember, that was emphasis as original, RickA. How can they therefore stand accused of misleading intentionally which is the prerequisite for fraud and deception?
You tell me, RickA, because I do not know.
And you have to make that stick, or you are engaged in libel, not argument.
So think carefully about what you say next.
BBD:
You carefully did not quote No. 23 (which I quoted above).
I think it was misleading. Muir Russell thought it was misleading.
I think it was intentional. Muir Russell thought it was intentional.
Paragraph 21, 22 and 13 don’t matter because paragraph 23 found the WMO graph misleading, based on the email dialog between the people who put it together (including Dr. Mann).
It doesn’t matter that AR4 talked about the divergence.
It doesn’t matter that the literature talked about the divergence.
All that matters is that the blending of the proxy data with the instrument data was misleading and was made so on purpose (based on the emails).
That makes a Mann hockey stick fraudulent (intentionally misleading), in my opinion.
Therefore, Steyn can defend on the basis of truth and wins the case – just based on the WMO graph alone.
At least that is one possible way the case could play out.
You disagree – and that is your right.
Our opinions on this matter differ.
And that is ok.
RickA
I think you haven’t read my comment.
Neither you nor MR provides any evidence that there was intent to deceive. In fact MR is clear that there *is* no evidence of intent to deceive.
Which leaves us exactly where we were before.
Unless the WMO graph misrepresents the data, it cannot mislead – intentionally or not.
You cannot show that the WMO graph misrepresents the data (and nor can anyone else) so you are libeling Mann when you claim his work is fraudulent and deceptive.
As usual, your counterfactual, unsupported opinion is worthless.
Next.
BBD #417:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Translation: “I know I’m a lying scum bag who is always wrong, so let’s just pretend I’m not.”>/b>
Your problem here RickA is that you are confused by MR’s poorly handled use of ‘misleading’.
All we can extract from MR is that the WMO graph may be unintentionally misleading in the specific sense that it combines millennial reconstructions with the instrumental record but does not make the fact of this synthesis sufficiently explicit.
In no sense can this be fraudulent or deceptive because the synthesis does not misrepresent the data.
Please put your lawyer hat on and think. I find it hard to believe that you are a lawyer sometimes. You do not exhibit a single attribute of that profession, starting with the ability to parse text and understand its meaning correctly.
No, RIckA. You are confused. I am not. That is all.
Moving on.
You have not responded to #398:
[…] Please explain how it is possible to reconcile an observed tranisent response of ~1C to 120ppm with you proposed value of ~1.6C at equilibrium to 280ppm. Or concede the point. Failure to address this directly will be concrete evidence of dishonesty.
Or translation:
“Please indulge my fictional view of the world because change frightens me.”
Or translation: “Please indulge my fictional view of the world because change frightens me.”
Maybe in RickA’s alternate universe Shania Twain begs me for sex 4 or 5 times a day, and the WMO set out to deceive all of the world’s geophysicists for some unguessed, unimaginable reason.
Or translation:
“Please indulge my fiscal view of the world because changing that frightens me.”
RickA just loves his “30 portfolios of fossil fuel stocks”…
Loves them to death ! (But remember, he didn’t actually, personally cause those deaths.. in his opinion.. and you’re free to disagree. And that would be okay by him.)
“They say the figure was misleading. So the caption just wasn’t that clear (sorry Marco #396).”
Another day, another misdirection from RickA, who claimed that the reader was not informed that instrumental data was included. The MR report does not address RickA’s claim, and therefore cannot be used as evidence in support of RickA’s claim. The caption is extremely clear in noting that the instrumental record was included.
Apologize, RickA, or admit you are just a liar and don’t care about the truth. There is no third option anymore.
“They say the figure was misleading. So the caption just wasn’t that clear (sorry Marco #396).”
Another day, another misdirection from RickA, who claimed that the reader was not informed that instrumental data was included. The MR report does not address RickA’s claim, and therefore cannot be used as evidence in support of RickA’s claim. The caption is extremely clear in noting that the instrumental record was included.
It is some times the case in science journals that diagrams and graphics are unclear, and more care should have been taken to make them clear; that is not the case with this graph, as you and everyone not RickA noted.
One of my “Learn Calculus” workbooks had a very confusing diagram on dot products, with the vectors going in unexpected ways; I suppose RickA would insist the mathematicians set out to deceive me, but I insisted it was a failure on my part to understand.
RickA will never admit he is wrong; he wants to “agree to disagree” because he is demonstrably wrong. In fact, he is the one spewing deceit about the WMO graph, not the scientists.
“All we can extract from MR is that the WMO graph may be unintentionally misleading in the specific sense that it combines millennial reconstructions with the instrumental record but does not make the fact of this synthesis sufficiently explicit. ”
Actually, no, BBD. The MR report only refers to the fact that some data was removed (due to the well-known divergence problem), which was not made explicit in the figure caption. It does not say that the fact that the instrumental record was included was not made sufficiently clear.
I have to note, also, that the PAGES article is clear enough, so one really wonders what information the MR committee used, or rather, did NOT use, to come to their conclusion.
Marco
From MR, emphasis added:
I was surprised – to put it mildly – at what a muddle MR made of this. It clearly cannot justify its own conclusion (23) which is why I described its handling of this point as incoherent (see #414).
This is a sobering example of how contrarian noise can distort perceptions, even within the rigorous confines of an inquiry of this type.
That said, I don’t think this could happen today. Things have moved on too far now.
Like saying Nokia helped put together a terrorist bomb when one of its phones was used in the triggering system.
But what do we expect from a compulsive liar like RickA who tells lies like “Mann’s hockey stick .. proxy data dived”.
I really admore Greg’s patience here with complete and utter trolls like RickA and ArnoldS. These guys write as if it was 1956 and the theory of greenhouse gas forcing was still in its realtive infancy. I am an ecologist and some – though only a small fraction – of my research looks at ecological effects of warming. RickA seems to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature and that mass extinctions, the current epidemic of coral reef bleaching, fraying and collapsing food webs, and reduced ecosystem services as a result of combined anthopogenic stresses won’t rebound on humanity. Climate change is a major driver of all of these effects and more. Even though humans are not evolutionarily equipped to respond to what we perceive as incipient, gradual change, its clear to many scientists that there are major ecological responses to the recent warming. Scientific journals are full of studies reporting these effects. The rate of warming is unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years – its occurring in the blink of an evolutionary eye. But to RickA, 80 years is a long time. He cannot understand the importance of scale and of the continuum between stochasicity and determinism.
As for Arnold, trying to suggest that Mark Steyn is intellectually equipped to understand complex atmsopheric science is, IMHO, an utter joke. Is it a coincidence that he’s far, far to the right politically and a denier of AGW? Of course not! The debate is not about science but about politics and economics and the threat posed by actions to deal with AGW on corporate profits. Science is a smokescreen used and abused by many deniers to hide the real agendas. Seeing intellectual lightweights wade into fields they have never studied as if they are experts stinks of Dunning-Kruger.
BBD, that specifically refers to splicing the data. Again, it does not say that it was not sufficiently clear that the instrumental record was included, but not sufficiently clear as to how it was included. Still very much far-fetched, but not the same as what RickA claimed.
Chris #431:
If you look at Figure 1(a) in MBH1999 you will see that that North American treeline curve “dives” after 1960. Mann “corrected” the ITRDB PC#1 curve to remove the divergence (the diving).
That is one of the controversial items about MBH1999.
Here is what is said in MBH1999:
“For our purposes, however, it suffices that we consider the residual to be non-climatic in nature, and consider the ITRDB PC #1 series “corrected”‘ by removing from it this residual, forcing it to align with the NT series at low frequencies throughout their mutual interval of overlap.”
So they force the ITRDB PC #1 to the NT (Northern Treeline) curve up to 1800 and then abandon the NT curve post 1800 to switch to just the ITRDB PC #1, to avoid the “diving” post 1960.
Pretty clever.
Anyway – the point is that the the NT proxy series does dive (diverge) but they massaged that out for the 1999 paper.
Jeff Harvey #432:
The theory of greenhouse gas forcing is still in its relative infancy.
I know that because we have not been able to narrow the range of ECS down from 1.5C – 4.5C since 1991.
The consensus likes 3C and one strand of evidence points to the lower end of the range (Nic Lewis et al and about 1.6C).
But I do not deny that humans are impacting the climate. I only question the magnitude of our impact.
I think we do not know very precisely whether we are 50% of the warming or 100% (since 1880).
But even with my doubts about the state of climate science, I am still willing to agree (and vote) for generating as much electricity from nuclear as possible.
Instead of 20 or 25% nuclear I would be willing to move to 75% of higher over the next 50 years.
That should help with your concerns.
#434 RickA
Stop plagiarising. It’s just too obvious.
#435
You are being dishonest again. You have had the explanation too often not to be aware of how you are evading the key point, which is that:
1/. all values in the range are not equally likely
2/. The most likely value of ~3C has been solid for decades
Stop the disingenuous bullshit please.
And answer the questions you are asked:
Please explain how it is possible to reconcile an observed tranisent response of ~1C to 120ppm with you proposed value of ~1.6C at equilibrium to 280ppm. Or concede the point. Failure to address this directly will be concrete evidence of dishonesty.
You just failed again, RickA.
You are no longer able to claim (to me, at any rate) that you are honest and engaging in good faith. You have had dozens of chances, but that’s it now.
Steyn points out that:
which of course goes back to long before Steyn knew anything about Jones putting together the WMO graph.
So what Mann hockey stick was Steyn calling “fraudulent” going back 15 years ago?
It is *way* too late to argue that there are serious problems with the millennial reconstructions. MBH99 isn’t perfect but it was the first one of its kind. The many that have come since have validated it over and over again. So stop the bullshit, please.
If you want a takeaway quote from MBH99, it is this (emphasis in original):
More widespread high-resolution data have been presented since and the results validate Mann’s original conclusion.
This is where we are today, in the real world.
No, RickA. No.
The scientific consensus arises from the scientific evidence. It doesn’t exist separately from it. It doesn’t ‘like’ a particular value. ~3C ECS is what comes out of the totality of the scientific evidence. That’s why the scientific consensus is that ~3C is the most likely value.
It’s hard to credit that after all this time and all these words you *still* don’t understand the very basics of how this all works.
Chris #438:
Well Steyn wrote that June 8, 2015 – so 15 years puts us back to 2000. So he could be referring to MBH98, MBH99 or the WMO cover.
OK, so you don’t deny you were lying when you claimed:
because the Mann proxy data reconstruction IS SHOWN on the WMO graph and every other graph. Pretty hard to deceive someone about a proxy data reconstruction when you actually show it to them.
Now that there is no more dispute about your “deception” lie, we can move on to something that puzzles you about MBH99 (but not MBH98. It’s not an issue there). MBH99 was very dependent on ITRDB Millennial PC #1 for the reconstruction before 1400 AD because the North American Treeline proxies don’t go back before 1400 AD. So to get the reconstruction as accurate as possible before 1400 AD, ITRDB Millennial PC #1 needed to be adjusted to conform with the empirically more accurate North American Treeline proxies. Hence the proxy reconstruction in the C20 has little to do with ITRDB Millennial PC #1, because the North American Treeline Proxies are much more accurate in the C20.
MBH99 admitted that their reconstruction before 1400 AD was going to be more uncertain than after 1400 AD. Nothing hidden. No deception. More proxies are available from before 1400 AD now so that uncertainty is reduced in later papers that used more proxies from before 1400 AD.
So stop lying and start studying for Chrissake.
#433 Marco
The whole thing is drifting towards becoming a nonfiction Jarndyce vs Jarndyce for our times 🙂
BBD #437:
You ask “Please explain how it is possible to reconcile an observed tranisent response of ~1C to 120ppm with you proposed value of ~1.6C at equilibrium to 280ppm.”
First, let me say that I don’t know the answer to this question (which is why I haven’t answered it).
I am not a climate scientist.
I would recommend that you ask Nic Lewis or Judith Curry (the authors of the Lewis and Curry 2014 paper.)
But as you are so insistent that I answer I will give you my layperson speculation.
First, I speculate that not all the warming since 1880 is caused by humans, some portion of it is natural. Perhaps you will ask me where did this energy come from? Of course, I have no idea. Could be the sun, could be a rebound from the LIA, could be we are still warming during this interglacial and the small decline from 8000 years ago to 2000 years ago was a headfake – I don’t know.
Here are two examples of what I consider to be natural components of the warming from 1880:
One, the recent el nino moved heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, at least .2C. That is natural warming.
Two, the warming from 1910 to 1940 (or perhaps 1905 to 1945) was mostly caused naturally (but some small part by humans). That was like .5C ish.
You add that up and more than 1/2 of the warming is natural. But lets round down to 1/2 of the warming is natural and 1/2 is caused by humans.
Taking that into account, I believe results in a lower ECS.
That is my explanation – but I am just a layperson who reads and thinks for himself.
Chris #442:
I am not lying.
MR said it was misleading.
It is misleading because it is proxy data up to a certain point and then is not proxy data after that point, but instrument data.
It doesn’t tell the reader where the switchover is and it doesn’t show the NT diving proxy data. Yes MBH1999 shows it, but not the blue blended line on the WMO cover which cites MBH1999. That is what makes it misleading.
That is my opinion, which I am entitled to.
Your arguments have not changed my mind.
The only reason my opinion even matters is that it give you a glimpse into what a potential juror might think when they encounter all the testimony about what went into MBH98, MBH99, the WMO cover and any other Mann hockey stick graph Steyn may have been referring to.
Not everyone on the jury will see things the same way you do (or BBD or Desertphile or me).
So it pays to at least look at how some people see the evidence – which is why I offer my point of view.
I do not demand that you change your mind or opinion.
I simply say I see it differently than you do, and if the jury sees it my way, that would mean Steyn wins.
Of course, if the jury sees it the way you do Mann wins.
That is why they have to have the trial.
RickA
<blockquote.You ask “Please explain how it is possible to reconcile an observed tranisent response of ~1C to 120ppm with you proposed value of ~1.6C at equilibrium to 280ppm.”
First, let me say that I don’t know the answer to this question (which is why I haven’t answered it).
I am not a climate scientist.
So why do you hold immovably fixed opinions which run counter to the scientific consensus?
I know why L&C is an outlier. What troubles me is the way L&C (and many others) tout the results as evidence that the scientic consensus is *wrong*.
– No evidence that TSI drove the long-term trend
– No such thing as a ‘rebound’ from the LIA. Climate is not a bouncing ball. For GAT to change, you need a change in net forcings.
– The orbital forcing that triggered the Holocene is now at a near minimum – we should be *cooling* – and we were, until ~1850. Then something else happened.
– If you don’t know, then why do you hold immovably fixed opinions which run counter to the scientific consensus?
How many times do you need telling that ENSO is an oscillation (postive and negative phases) and its effects cancel out over time? ENSO cannot drive a centennial trend. Why am I repeating this yet again?
And when the natural forcing abated…? Why didn’t we cool down again? There’s no evidence of any sustained natural forcing dating back to the early C20th so we should have gone up a bit… and then back down again once the solar forcing abated. But we didn’t. So, why not?
Your mistake is to *keep* the early C20th warming on the table but you cannot do that. Once the forcing abates, it goes. So something else must have replaced the natural forcing over time and kept the planet warming up.
Wrong, as just discussed. So, you are back to square one:
Come on. Either that, or you are just being dishonest. You have nowhere else to go except back round the circle of wrong (see above) which we have trudged round too many times together already. It has to stop. You need to *admit* that you are wrong and give some ground now.
You are confused at every level. You should stop trying to make it up as you go along and read a textbook. As I have suggested repeatedly over the last several weeks.
“I am just a layperson who reads and thinks for himself.”
~ RickA
More climate, less branding. There’s the ticket for you.
“I am just a layperson who reads and thinks for himself.” Imaging the world the way i want it to be.. Then demanding that everyone submit to my fantasy and agree that it must be reality, science be damned. (Damned inconvenient is wut is iz…)
Why am I repeating this yet again?
Because, BBD, you’re not co-operating and telling RickA what he wants to hear. Remember: It’s all about him. Ignore that silly, inconvenient science stuff… Just stick with “Reality is what RickA wants it to be.”
Else he’ll continue to pummel you with fallacies, distortions, frauds, and slick sophistries, all covered with lawyer slime to bog you down and frustrate you until you give in and tell RickA that reality is what he wants it to be: That which serves his bank account and his cherished lifestyle.
RickA will never, ever be disloyal to that. Never.
And how, pray tell, did Steyn know the MBH curve in the WMO cover was supposedly fraudulent until someone claimed the climate gate emails demonstrated it was?
How did Steyn know there was a curve that was supposedly “hiding a decline” before 2009?
In the meantime, Steyn lost his appeal, in the process pissing off yet another judge.
In the meantime, Steyn lost his appeal, in the process pissing off yet another judge.
The appeal he just lost is the same appeal he lost previously. Judges love that behavior.
I wasn’t talking about that. (it’s not particularly misleading anyway.) I’m talking about your lie:
So you are lying that the Mann proxy data reconstruction (same as in MBH98) dives. It does not dive. You are lying when you claim it dives.
SO STOP TELLING LIES FOR CHRISSAKE.
Of course it doesn’t show any or all of the individual proxies used for the reconstruction. It shows the reconstruction. That’s what the WMO graph says: “Northern Hemisphere temperatures were RECONSTRUCTED. That is what the MBH99 abstract says “Building on recent studies? we attempt hemi?spheric temperature RECONSTRUCTIONS.
If someone says their graph from proxies is a reconstructionand not individual proxies and the graph is a reconstruction and not individual proxies then how on earth is that misleading?
The WMO graph is MBH99’s figure 3 (with a slightly longer smoothing period) up to 1980. If the WMO says it cites the reconstruction in MBH99 then it would be stupid to show anything other then the reconstruction in MBH99.
By the way, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The issue is not your opinion, the issue is you keep getting the facts wrong (and lying about the facts sometimes).
You persist in telling this lie. Just because the IPCC claims most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic does NOT mean the IPCC claims most of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was natural. THEY’RE JUST NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM.
More like 0.4C, even if you cherry pick only the warmest 10 year period around 1940. 10 year periods are not long enough for a valid climate average, BTW.
One wonders when RickA will realise that natural climate variability is evidence that the climate system is fairly sensitive to radiative perturbation. If S was as low as in his opinion then the modest variation in natural forcings during the early C20th should have had very little impact at all on GAT.
Would anyone have a link to this? Can’t find anything.
This is from ClimateCrocks on 13 June:
“But last week saw movement, as Steyn’s request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. So this is a small win for Mann, and a loss for Steyn. The judge’s patience with Steyn’s antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that “Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date.””
https://climatecrocks.com/2016/06/13/another-legal-win-for-michael-mann/
More here:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/13/1538051/-Small-Win-for-Mann-in-The-War-on-Climate-Science
Thanks for that, johnl. I don’t really know why google didn’t turn up a hit. All a got was a horrifying splatter of Steyn’s own blog posts.
Reading through RickA’s blather, one would get the impression that he’s an esteemed climate scientist on the one hand, or a timid, honest curious neophyte on the other; the reality is the third option: a time wasting troll.
He repeatedly says that he has no expertise whatsoever in climate science, and then goes on to argue that natural variability could account for 50% of the warming. According to who? Himself. While saying he doesn’t know anything about climate. This is like someone arguing that the expression of sinigrin in mustard plants accounts for only half of their defense expression against antagonists like pathogens, and that some other factor is involved, while then going on to say that they don’t know a thing about plant allelochemistry.
The IPCC documents lay out the fact in conservative terms: humans are responsible for >95% of the recent warming episode. The IPCC documents went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer review. In a feeble attempt to placate the deniers, a number of them were included in the process. This had the effect of watering down the conclusions t some extent, but the final draft is still unambiguously clear: the post 1980 warming is down to us. Period.
That should be the end of the story, but for the ranks of the denialati out there, made up primarily of non-expert laymen, it isn’t enough. They draw conclusions based on their own pre-determined views and then expect to be heard. RickA is one of them. They don’t understand the importance of scale when studying large scale deterministic systems; whereas the scientific community has explored all angles, they stick to discredited memes like ‘its the sun that dunnit!’. Then RickA tries to play the uncertainty game and applies it to the process itself: if we aren’t certain how much it will warm in the coming decades, how do we know the extent of the human component? Its a tried and trusted trick of anti-environmentalists, and climate change deniers or luke warmers use it as well.
He goes to the lower end – around 2 C – while ignoring the fact that this year we have already approached 1.5 C, showing that 2C is getting close. Essentially, he’s on here debating for no other reason that to annoy people. He cannot argue science so instead he imposes his own simplistic doubts into the debate and goes from there. It s really pathetic, and I speak as a senior scientist with many years of experience. It is what Born Lomborg does, and I should know since I co-reviewed his terrible book for Nature back in 2001.
Here’s a prime example of RickA’s kindergarten-level approach (with my comments in BLOCK CAPS):
But as you are so insistent that I answer I will give you my layperson speculation.
SO HE ADMITS HE KNOWS NOTHING, THAT HE IS A COMPLETE NOICE IN THE FIELD.
First, I speculate that not all the warming since 1880 is caused by humans, some portion of it is natural.
SO HE SPECULATES BASED ON 0% EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. THE WORLD’S LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODY IN EVERY NATION ON EARTH ARGUE THAT HUMAN FORCING ACCOUNTS FOR VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE RECENT WARMING, AND HERE WE HAVE AN ADMITTED KNOW-NOTHING MAKING HIS OWN SPECULATIONS. SERIOUSLY FOLKS, THIS COULD COME OUT OF A MONTY-PYTHON SKETCH. ACTUALLY, ALL OF THIS IS LAID OUT IN THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE; THE PRE-1945 WARMING WAS DUE PRIMARILY TO NATURAL FORCINGS, WHEREAS THE MUCH GREATER POST 1980 WARMING IS DOWN TO US. BUT RICKA SPEAKS AS IF WE ONLY NOTICED THE WARMING YESTERDAY; THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAD ONLY BEGUN TO EXAMINE TEMPERATURE RECORDS AND EXAMINE WHAT DRIVES THEM. HE WRITES AS IF THE DEBATE WAS ONLY BEGINNING.
HERE’S THE FACTS, RICKA: THE POST 1980 WARMING IS ALMOST ENTIRELY DOWN TO THE HUMAN COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS. NOT THEORY, BUT FACT. ITS ALL LAID OUT IN THE SCIENCE THAT EVERY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE IN EVERY NATION ON EARTH CONFIRMS. YOUR LAYPERSON VIEWS ARE IRRELEVANT.
RickA is like someone arguing that the expression of sinigrin in mustard plants accounts for only half of their defense expression against antagonists like pathogens, and that some other factor is involved, while then going on to say that they don’t know a thing about plant allelochemistry.
In other words: “RICKA IS A FRAUD.”
Okay, I can see that…