• What a piece of work is Mann!

    [Thank’ee for the linkage, Mark Steyn!  Sorry about beating you to the post title.  I think you’ll find I did address Mann’s science my piece on whether his work was ‘independently replicated’]

    Just when I think I can’t dislike Michael Mann any further, I am proved wrong.  I thought that his claims to have been repeatedly exonerated by investigative bodies were just a product of his delusional megalomania.

    As it turns out, however, they are conscious lies.  Why do I say this?  Because in his book, Mann admits that the investigations had nothing to do with him:

    The statistician on the Oxburgh panel, David Hand, caused a bit of trouble with offhand remarks he chose to make at the press conference announcing the panel’s findings. Though our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report, Hand commented that “the particular technique [Mann et al.] used exaggerated the blade at the end of the hockey stick.

    Of course, that’s the same panel that supposedly ‘exonerated’ him.

    Mannling David Appel was last seen around these parts claiming that Mann’s hockey stick had been ‘repeatedly replicated’.  Since I showed that isn’t so, he’s sloped off somewhere.  But let me revisit Mann’s methods.  This is the graph he shows to the IPCC when he’s telling people what to do:

    IPCC hockey stick graph
    IPCC hockey stick graph

     

    This is the one he publishes on his own in scientific journals:

    mann

     

    And this is the one he produces when he has to work with other people who can check what he’s up to:

    PAGES 2K hockey stick
    PAGES 2K hockey stick Compendium of previous reconstructions

    How does this look to you?

    Meanwhile, the thuggery continues.  In this series, I’ve already banged on about Mann’s mau-mauing of journals, his sliming of other scientists et cetera, kai tai lopa, ad nauseam.  For simply deciding to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a 79 year old Professor is hounded in a way I haven’t seen anywhere else, not even in the disgraceful treatment of James Watson.

    Yes, yes, I know the counterarguments:  The GWPF is a denialist organisation.  Let’s also stipulate for the sake of the argument that it’s formed of racist, sexist, homophobic, neo-nazis whose aim is the freeing of Great Cthulhu from his watery tomb.

    And you thought the Koch Brothers were bad
    And you thought the Koch Brothers were bad

    So. What?

    I’ve banged on about this twice before, but thrice is the charm.  I’ve spent the last few months arguing with racialists, and I’ll keep on doing so.  It never occurred to me to try and find out their real names and try to get them all fired, and nor would I if I had the chance.  I’d be disgraced otherwise.  It is of the highest importance to have these arguments out in the open.  Nothing good can come of silence and darkness, and you only succeed in building something lasting through truth, reason and facts, facts, facts.

    Not by engaging in stunts like this:

    Mannsadick

    Yes, the Mann is having his sycophants police even Amazon reviews of his book.

    As a great woman once observed: “An error made on your own is safer than the ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.”  This behaviour isn’t that of someone trying to gain rational agreement but of one enforcing a faith-based creed.

    I’m really, really not surprised that there’s so much denialism around, if this is the public face of climate science.  I accept that climate change is real and man-made, but I am the fortunate position of reading all the science independently.  If I didn’t have that opportunity, if I was solely reliant on what I saw on the media, would I still come to the same conclusion?  I don’t think I would, no.

    I know that my skeptical and atheist colleagues don’t like it when I bang on in this vein, but this is even more important for those of us who recognise that global warming is real, man-made and a problem.  Mann’s contemptible antics are set to discredit climate science in the public eye and make it impossible to get anything done.

    And it would be worse still if Mann doesn’t crash and burn in this lawsuit.  I know people are thinking “Oh, it’s just going to hurt the deniers”  – wrong.  There’s no such thing as specific censorship.  You can’t just hold down one thing, you always end up holding down the things next to it.  If you, for example:

    – Accept that global warming is real, but disagree about its extent, or

    – Agree about the extent, but disagree about the rate, or

    – Agree about the rate and the extent, but disagree about the effects or

    – Agree about the rate, extent and effects, but disagree about how to deal with it, or

    – Agree about all the foregoing, but disagree how to get those solutions done…

    Mann’s goonshow tactics will be trained on you.  Why do I say that?  For the simple reason that that is what is already happening.  We will need the best ideas we can get to deal with this issue, and the only way to get those is to have the freest possible marketplace of ideas.

    Finally, a few words on Mann’s ridiculous #antiscience thing.  Scientists, true scientists, have three thousand years of the finest minds in history behind them, thirty centuries of searching this world for truth.  The idea that science needs defending by Mann and his twitter hashtag manages to combine the grandiose and pathetic.

     

     

     

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • Tom G

      Yes,
      yes, I know the counterarguments: The GWPF is a denialist organisation
      – See more at:
      http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/05/19/what-a-piece-of-work-is-mann/#sthash.STBbPyLV.dpuf
      Yes,
      yes, I know the counterarguments: The GWPF is a denialist organisation
      – See more at:
      http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/05/19/what-a-piece-of-work-is-mann/#sthash.STBbPyLV.dpuf

    • IskurBlast

      Warmmongers fail to grasp that Dr. Mann is the worst thing that ever happened to them. Your entire movement’s credibility has been incinerated defending that ONE MANN’S ego. If you had thrown him under the bus in thr mid 00s you would be much bettet off today.

      • DavidAppell

        Hardly, because those who accept the science don’t buy your opinion of Mann — we know his work fundamentally advanced the field of paleoclimate. Which is why he receives awards for it, like this major medal from the EGU:

        http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/news-events/news/michael-mann-awarded-the-hans-oeschger-medal-of-the-european-geosciences-union

        • IskurBlast

          He receives awards because he is a celebrity. There are plenty of bad actors who still get movies because they have a cult following.

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t see many scientists impressed by celebrity. But they are impressed by good science, and reward it accordingly.

            • ThePrussian

              And that’s why so many can’t stand the Mann, and said so in print, and have said that his hockey stick is junk – as i have repeatedly cited.

              That’s not to say that there aren’t good reconstructions out there. It’s just that Mann’s aint one of hem. Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that.

            • DavidAppell

              What scientific papers say the hockey stick is junk?

            • ColonelNeville

              So it’s not junk even though any data input gets the same results, the raw data is not available except to Mann and the Hokey Schtick didn’t predict the 16 year halt to rising temps? I knew objective observation was lying to me! I’m getting back into the consensus marching orders formation! Damn that medieval warming period hoax!

              Computer models [that can’t predict even the past correctly] are infallible machine gods designed by perfect men without desires or personal flaws! You are perfect too David, as you have explained many times. One thing Dave, how come your perfection still leaves you charmless, hubristic and a bald faced liar?

            • DavidAppell

              What scientific papers say the hockey stick is junk?

            • ThePrussian

              Well, in terms of scientists, there’s Kurt Cuffey who called the hockey stick’s prominence in the IPCC “very misleading”. That, for the record was in the official investigation of the guy by the National Academy of Sciences. There’s Judith Curry, there’s Professor David Hand, there’s Dr John Christy… and there are many others who will say a lot in private but not in public.

              Look. I’m committed to stoping man made global warming. That doesn’t mean I have to put up with Mann’s crap or like his stick. In fact, the sooner Mann is dumped overboard the sooner we might see some real progress in the public sphere – because at the moment, the public image of climate science is too mixed up with narcissistic nutbags like Mann.

            • ColonelNeville

              You said to no one in particular and entirely uninterested in any kind of answer: “What scientific papers say the hockey stick is junk?”

              And gee, Sparky, all along I thought in science the burden of proof falls to the one proposing the hypothesis. Er, that would be, why, you! It IS a hypothesis still, innit? Hey, maybe the burden a’ pudding changed to the other side lately and I missed it! It happens. So er, sometimes you’re all overcome with science and at other times, not all. Interesting…

              “The principle governing the phrase “the burden of proof” has been traced to Paulus , a Roman jurist, in the second century A.D. and expressed by the Latin maxim ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio : he who asserts a matter must prove it, but he who denies it need not prove it.”

              Hahaha!…that’s me…that old “denier” and I don’t have to do nuttin’…I guess THAT’S why control freak ecofascists have such a relentless desire to WANT to force us to do things and to agree with everything they say- or else. Hmmm. I see…

              http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/evidencech3.htm

              Er, whut happened to the medieval warming picnic? There are perhaps NO Hokey Schtick shaped 1000 year plus climate periods in the entire history of earth…unless you collapse the record to an afternoon. “Boy, that paleolithic storm came up all of a sudden!”

              I don’t know, Fluff Boy, but looking at John R Christy’s bio, he seems so sciency an’ all, just like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer et al. Ok, I know you think they’re Holocaust Denying child rapists, and I’m sure you couldn’t be wrong, bein’ so sciencey an’ honest an’ all – but er, John believes in Glow Ball Cooling Warming Climate Change Green Energy theory- so you can’t really call him a Holocaust Denier worse than 10,000 Hitler’s and yet – he sees Michael Manndrax as a rotten fraud and the group conformity of alarmist hyperbole as exaggerated balls. And I thought all science was maths and McIntyre seems so er, mathy an’ sciencey an’ all…Still, you know best…

              To wit:

              ‘This is from Dr Christy’s damning evidence to Congress:

              “Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a)promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c)amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.

              The “IPCC Lead Author” John Christy is talking about is Michael Mann (Dr Christy himself contributed to the 2001 IPCC report).

              Having previously demonstrated that Mann’s claims in multiple court pleadings to have been “exonerated” by the University of East Anglia, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and even the Government of the United Kingdom are utterly false, Steve McIntyre has now moved on to discuss Mann’s misrepresentation of his EPA “exoneration”. Steve begins by noting Dr Christy’s words:

              Christy left out a further fundamental problem in the amputation:
              there was no disclosure of the amputation in the IPCC 2001 report itself.

              The impropriety of deleting adverse data in an IPCC graphic was easily understood in the broader world of brokers, accountants, lawyers and fund managers and one on which there was negligible sympathy for excuses. Not only did this appear to be misconduct as far as the public was concerned, the deletion of adverse data in the IPCC graphic appeared to be an act of “omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record” – one of the definitions (“falsification”) of academic misconduct in the NSF and other academic misconduct codes.

              Further, both the Oxburgh and Muir Russell reports concluded that
              the IPCC 2001 graphic was “misleading”.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

              Wikipedia is often crummy but are they lying about John R Christy’s
              academic record here? I doubt it somehow – unless they’re Holocaust Deniers and child rapists too! But my, my, this does seem a rather negative review of Michael Mannson’s er, ‘work’ by John R Christy, the jeepers:

              “…distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama’s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and theAmerican Meteorological Society’s “Special Award.”[1] In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society”.

              And er, apparently Mark Steyn can indeed write extremely well and my, my, so entirely witty and fact based that many, many people DO read Steyn. Imagine. You should try either or both sometime. It may work for you. Na, not you.

              http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud

              http://www.steynonline.com/6360/the-tree-rings-of-pyongyang

              http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

              The Chronicles of Nya Nya! Ya just gotta laugh…

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/michael-e-mann/

              This is a fun collection of analytical facts:

              http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

              I really like this massive empirical paper as it really
              seems so authentic and again, so very sciencey. But hey, whatever. For the lying mob mentality ecofascist left – no dissent is EVER the right kind of dissent.

              http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

            • ColonelNeville

              Gee, scientists sound like they have no human flaws at all. Wow, scientist are like gods! Wow, like er, you then and Mann. Awesome! More evidence that scientists are always right. It’s why I followed the consensus on ulcers being caused by spicy food…

        • Brett the Brit

          Don’t forget his Nobel Prize.

        • Tom Yoke

          David,

          You keep using appeal to authority (“this major medal”) in hopes of persuading someone, but many are now tuning out that type of argument precisely because it has become so clear that the “consensus” is to a large extent politically driven.

          It is by now crystal clear that there is tremendous POLITICAL pressure on potential skeptics within the climate science community to conform to the warmist position. “Agree with us or lose your job, lose your funding, be labeled a denialist (with Nazi sympathizer overtones). Agree with us and get continued funding, sycophantic media interviews, tenure, and ‘major medals'”.

          Historically, political pressure is a lot more common than rational arguments as a means of producing a consensus. A scientific consensus should always be regarded as the exception not the rule, and in this field politics has plainly taken over.

          You are making the problem worse by defending a thug like Michael Mann.

          • DavidAppell

            The consensus is scientific. It’s just convenient for you to try to claim it’s political, because you can’t counter the science. It’s a way of saving face.

            • Tom Yoke

              The consensus is political. It’s just convenient for you to try to CLAIM it’s scientific, because that appeal to authority buttresses your otherwise weak arguments. It’s a way of saving face.

              See how easy that was?

            • DavidAppell

              It only seems easy to you because you don’t understand the science.

            • Tom Yoke

              Keep telling yourself that, David. For what it is worth, I’m a practicing physicist, with specialties in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. My interest in the shocking global warming hysteria is precisely that so much of what has happened is divorced from anything that actually justifiable as science.

              Like many of those labeled as “denialists” I would actually be considered as one of the 97% if asked the questions given in that survey. However, the hysteria is absurdly overblown. There is much uncertainty (or should be) about the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 increases. The immense benefits of CO2 fertilization have been entirely ignored. The claims that we can solve the problem by imposing laws transitioning to renewables are absolutely ridiculous. The drumbeat of hysterical articles about various disastrous changes that are “already happening” are largely absurd.

              As someone who knows a LOT about the complexity of fluid mechanical modeling I am here to tell you that there is NO WAY a planet wide model can accurately predict future behavior arguing from fluid mechanical first principles. The system is just too complex. In consequence the actual models are necessarily jury rigged contraptions with a host of “finagle factors” So how do they assign values to all of those finagle factors? They tune the models using the historical record. The problem with that is that the models become susceptible to curve fitting extrapolation error. This is not too complicated to understand as anyone would know who has picked stocks by betting on the slope of historical trend lines. I.e., “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”. The more finagle factors are included in the model, the worse the future predictions are likely to be. This is why I roll my eyes whenever I read that the models must be correct because they reproduce the historical results. Dude, the models were MADE by being groomed with that same historical data. That such bonehead errors are ignored is further proof that it is politics at work, not rigorous science.

            • josh

              Hi Tom,
              I’m also a working physicist, although my specialty is particle physics. It is interesting that you switched from arguing against a supposed argument from authority to an argument based on your own qualifications. I don’t see any evidence to back up your claim that the consensus among climatologists is ‘political’. I regard it as scientific and an appeal to scientific consensus is an inductive appeal to expertise, not a fallacious deductive appeal to authority.

              You say: “here is much uncertainty (or should be) about the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.” And there is, the usual estimates range from around 1.5 C to 5 C for a doubling of CO2, which unfortunately is significant warming no matter what.

              You say: “The immense benefits of CO2 fertilization have been entirely ignored.” Which isn’t true. For example, see
              http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

              Basically, there are no demonstrated immense benefits from CO2 fertilization under global warming conditions.

              You are of course correct that climate modellers don’t start with first principles of fluid dynamics and model every drop of water and gasp of air on the earth. Nonetheless, various things are predictable. The basic physics of global warming depends on the energy balance of the earth, as I’m sure you know, it can be understood simply from transitions between equilibrium states so the details of how the extra heat mixes in the earth are interesting but don’t change the overall warming picture. The models aren’t simply extrapolating a trend. They are modelling, and thus they try to parameterize various model quantities that represent the underlying processes. Obviously, one estimates parameters by trying to fit the data, which in this case is past temperature measurements and reconstructions. For modelling any large system we don’t generally start with first principles, we work with averaged and aggregate quantities appropriate to the scale of the system. I assume your simulations of fluid dynamics don’t start with Feynman diagrams from my field.

              It is of course possible to miss something important when making the approximations necessary for a big simulation, but you can’t just assert that in the abstract it could happen. You have to argue for some plausible physical mechanism that the simulations are missing, and that it could plausibly be large enough to change the general results, based on what we know of Earth’s history. It’s not like the climate is so chaotic that it just swings between unknown extremes based on tiny perturbations. Also, note the key point that models can’t account for the observed warming without CO2. Again, this is because they aren’t just fitting curves, they are parameterizing the known physical effects and without the CO2 physics included they can’t match the historical record. That’s not ‘with four parameters I can fit an elephant…’, that’s like noticing that you can’t explain the seasonal averages without accounting for the earth’s axis relative to the sun. The models aren’t perfect, any more than an engineer’s model of a bridge is perfect, (we measure Young’s modulus, we don’t calculate it from first principles) but I think we ignore them at our peril.

            • DavidAppell

              The immense benefits of CO2 fertilization have been entirely ignored.

              What “immense benefits?” A CO2-fertilized world is far from an obvious good thing.

              1. Greener also means more weeds, which compete with crops.

              2. A greener world is a warmer world, since it lowers the planet’s albedo. Less sunlight is reflected; more is absorbed.

              3. Enhanced CO2 decreases the nutritive value of crops like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes, which are major food sources for the world. Even with CO2 fertilization, wheat protein concentrations decrease by 3% at CO2=559 ppm.

              4. More CO2 seriously alters the planet’s hydrological cycle. That means more heavy rains and more droughts, neither good for crops.

              5. In the tropics, many plants are already at their limits of heat stress.

              Claiming that CO2 fertilization is beneficial is simplistic.

            • mdd

              I have been reading your posts and have a few comments.

              Regarding the above:

              1.”Greener also means more weeds, which compete with crops.”

              First. Weeds are plants. Weeds are plants that are highly adaptable, rigorous. They are plants that oftentimes by fashion are given the title of Weed.

              A great example. Dandelions. Edible. Chock full of nutrients. Tasty too. Hardy, hard to get rid of. Makes them a terrific plant to have around.

              Thistles, another tough plant. Not looked upon favorably by the urban lawn crowd. Lots of wonderful properties, hard to harvest but very good medicinal properties, not toxic.

              Unfortunately, in the many places where they are both considered a weed (the urban lawn crowd), loads of toxic chemicals are released upon them, chemicals which filter into water tables, etc.
              Many consider them what they are – good, healthy, resilient, hardy plants.

              This has nothing to do with CO2.
              May indicate that you are a part of the urban lawn crowd, however.

              2. Love number two.

              “A greener world is a warmer world”
              Can we just reverse this and see how great this might make our world.
              Try it out….
              A warmer world is a greener world.
              Very cool.
              Might help with the major desertification problem we have (which if you read the literature seems to related to many of our agricultural practices). Make certain fragile agricultural zones far less fragile – ie more robust.
              Further, as I get older I really hate the cold.
              3,4 and 5.
              You know, you sound like a big agra guy which might make you a big part of the problem or maybe just a guy trying to make a quick buck with cap and trade (good luck – things aren’t going to well – but maybe Gore’s latest media campaign might help – sure he is doing his best given al Jazeera is withholding funds from the sale of current TV at the same time his carbon trading scheme is tanking).
              There are tons of people who are concerned with the planet ,not just you. People who believe in being good stewards. Many, and many more each day without the benefit of big media campaigns, do not believe CO2 is the major force.
              The literature in many of the sciences – not just the Mannly hockey stick science – being done by scientists who are very concerned and committed and who have ideas, solutions that are far more relevant, cost effective and targeted, in my opinion, are areas you should explore.
              After reading many of your posts, I think it would behoove you to take some introductory courses in statistics and computer modeling at the very least.
              Just the fact that you poo-poo models falling out of their own statistical confidence intervals – significantly – indicates that you probably need much more education in this area.

            • DavidAppell

              There is much uncertainty (or should be) about the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.

              The IPCC puts it at 3 C, with 66% confidence limits of 1.5 C and 4.5 C. So there is a lot of uncertainty, and it will probably never go away. So we have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, and there’s no reason to ignore the high values in favor of the lower values.

            • DavidAppell

              The claims that we can solve the problem by imposing laws transitioning to renewables are absolutely ridiculous.

              Cap-and-trade has done a fairly good job of reducing acid rain. Where is the economic damage?

              The key is recognizing that carbon pollution costs money, and pricing that into fossil fuels so that users pay for the cost of their pollution, instead of being allowed to pollute for free and thereby harm others.

            • DavidAppell

              The system is just too complex.

              And yet models have done a pretty good job of simulating the Earth’s climate and of reproducing the changes seen so far. They don’t have to be perfect to know we have a problem — you just have to look at how climate has changed in the past in response to changes in CO2.

              In consequence the actual models are necessarily jury rigged contraptions with a host of “finagle factors”

              Which factors are those, specifically? Flux adjustment factors are a thing of the past.

            • mdd

              The models are not within their own confidence intervals – significantly.
              They have not done a pretty good job. They are not within their own confidence intervals.
              This makes them irrelevant – need to start over.
              Finagle factors are forcings that keep being added to the models that still cant seem to deliver the desired results when compared to actual data.
              The data has been massaged over and over.
              Still not working.
              Its an anathema to hold onto an agenda over observation. Certainly not good science,
              CO2 being the lead variable in the very complex, dynamic system we live in is highly improbable.
              Man having an effect. Not improbable but infinitely complex and multidynamic.
              Stop making a few people rich with unworkable scientific/economic models.
              Restore soil – its an asset we cannot survive without. Work on water – another asset we cannot survive without. Reduce poverty which requires people to deplete their assets in order to survive.
              You need to take some basic courses in modeling and statistics. It will help you understand the underpinnings that are making you believe that you have an understanding that you do not have.

            • DavidAppell

              the models were MADE by being groomed with that same historical data.

              What other data should they be compared to — future observations that haven’t yet been made?

              The models are solutions to the PDEs describing the underlying physics. ALL theories and ALL models are developed and made better by comparing them to know results — it’s exactly how science works. It’s no different here.

            • Tom Yoke

              David,

              We don’t really have a conversation if you are going to be non-responsive. You appear to have not grasped my point about extrapolation error at all. Let us say you would like to make some money in the stock market, and you have the bright idea of using historical price histories to form a model of future behavior. You could use a years worth of history for 1000 different stocks. You compute the price change slopes using linear least squares regression and then invest in the one with the largest slope. Would that be a good investment strategy? After all, you have “tested” your models against the historical record, and your models will fit pretty well. Not satisfied with a linear least squares level of agreement? Why not try quadratic least squares or cubic least squares? Those models will give an even closer fit to the historical data. A 100th order regression will essentially reproduce the historical record exactly. Would that give you a good model for prediction of future behavior? After all, your model has been tested against the historical data and the model fits the data perfectly. It must be a good predictive model, right?

              In fact this model will typically fail catastrophically to predict future behavior even though it fits the historical record exactly. Do the math. Do the reading, and once you comprehend this sort of extrapolation error, get back to me.

              It is ALWAYS perilously likely that models with soft parameters that have been adjusted to fit the historical record and then “tested” against that same record will have poorer predictive ability than the makers suspect.

              That is why the gold standard of scientific modeling has been to make unobvious predictions and THEN do the experimental observations. Future tense. Viewed from that perspective, I’ve got to say that your comment “What other data should they be compared to — future observations that haven’t yet been made?” is pretty hilarious. Um, yeah, actually. Yeah, predictions and THEN test.

              BTW, here is a link to graphs for predicted climate behavior from the 4th IPCC report issued in 2007. Note in particular the bottom line of graphs which predict the changing temperature under different scenarios, and which include what at least look for all the world like error widths. (What else are they supposed to be?) Guess what? The predicted trend lines have diverged quite sharply from the observed record, which has been flat. The observed temperatures now lie outside the error lines, which pretty much means a formal falsification of the 2007 version of the “settled science”. Has this falsification been acknowledged by the settled scientists? Dream on.
              http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html

              Furthermore, the slopes of the predictions look for all the world as though the modelers tuned the model parameters to exactly match the temperature increase for the previous 50 years or so. How did that work out for them?

              I was going to try to address the rest of your replies, and that of Josh, but it is beddy bye time for me. Suffice it to say that the blithe and ill-considered extremism of too many global warming true believers is a lot scarier than a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere. They would inflict trillions of dollars in unnecessary costs and further shrink our rapidly disappearing liberties to unsuccessfully try and halt a change which is probably on balance, beneficial.

            • DavidAppell

              Climate models aren’t curve-fitting. So your analogy is worthless.

            • Tom Yoke

              David,
              It ought to have been obvious to you that my example was not a mere analogy. I was illustrating a fundamental weakness in any mathematical model that is tuned with historical data, and then “tested” against that same historical data. Surely you can see that, at least.

              That weakness most certainly does apply to the climate model. The authors have made it quite clear that they are adjusting parameters to force the model to agree with the historical record. They then proudly announce that the model must be correct because it agrees with the historical record. There is no real alternative to this quasi-experimental tuning because of the immense complexity of the planetary model, but it most certainly does indicate a weakness.

              I note also that you chose to ignore the fact that there has in fact been a true test of the 2007 version of the settled science, and the model failed.

            • CB

              Uh huh, but what about the model of Earth’s actual climate history?

              If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, what makes you think they will this time?

            • Brad Keyes

              “The consensus is scientific.”

              Does that mean something in your brain?

              Because it’s gibberish in objective reality.

              Consensus = majority opinion.

              Opinion is fucking meaningless in science. If you don’t accept that, it would explain a lot about you.

            • DavidAppell

              Of course, AGW has science already going for it…. But opinion is certainly not meaningless in science. “We can’t say that some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi.” — Luis W. Alvarez

              There is a consensus about almost all of science — except what’s at the leading edge. (That’s what defines the edge.) It’s just not necessary to state that with sciences that don’t have major implications for society.

            • Brad Keyes

              David,

              As an AGW “believer” (or as I prefer “evidence-persuadee”), I know it has “science” (by which you presumably mean scientific evidence) going for it, which is why I have no need to stoop to a consensus plea. I never needed to and I was embarrassed that anyone was idiotic enough to uncork the “consensus” genie after 300 years. Whoever it was, they belong in Science Hell.

              I hang around intelligent people, David, so any appeal made to consensus would be understood for exactly what it is: a crutch for insecure “advocates” who can’t articulate the evidence.

              To quote True Romance, “I’d be ashamed as a motherfucker” to back a scientific assertion up with a vacuous, fallacious, redundant pseudo-reason like “….because 97% of experts think so.”

              “There is a consensus about almost all of science”

              So you guess. (I’d guess likewise, under certain definitions of “almost all”.)

              Of course we have no imaginable way of ever knowing this, because the world’s scientists have never been polled and they’d die of old age before they could answer a survey item for each hypothesis in “almost all of science.”

              “It’s just not necessary to state that with sciences that don’t have major implications for society.

              WHAT? It’s not necessary to state it for ANY science, David.

              Are you really telling me the only reason nobody argues from consensus in medicine is that medicine “has no major implications”? And I suppose physics is likewise a concern removed from anything impinging on day-to-day life?

              AGW is unique in scientific history is it, David? That’s the excuse for Naomi Oreskes’ dragging the corpse of consensus from its tomb after 300 years, performing acts unwatchable by any scientist, and making a tiny sacrifice—the dignity of science—in return for Satan’s gift of the feckless fallacy of the 97%? A means of persuasion deserving of, and treated with, contempt by most audients, even if they’ve never done a day of Science 101?

              Listen:

              People KNOW science has no truck with “consensus.”

              You can come up with all the reasons necessary to fool yourself into thinking it belongs in science, but the average person isn’t stupid. Well, OK, he/she is, but not stupid ENOUGH to think the rules of science have changed since he/she was in school.

              What you’re trying to do is an evidentiary double dip. You point to all the physical evidence, and then—as an added bonus—you try to make it even MORE compelling by going the completely evidence-free route of quoting a scientific opinion poll.

              Does that work on people, in your experience?

              (Even if you say yes, I’m not going to use that sleight of hand mystelf, thanks… because it’s a SLEIGHT OF HAND.)

              I can’t believe a scientist expressed himself in such a vulgar or (if taken literally) fascist manner:

              “We can’t say that some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi.”

              Some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi.

              There. I said it. I’ll say it again: Some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi.

              They both have an ABSOLUTE right to their opinion.

              What kind of megalomaniac has a problem with freedom of opinion?

              No—don’t answer.

            • DavidAppell

              “It’s not necessary to state it for ANY science, David.”

              I think that’s wrong. It’s not important in sciences that don’t suggest large and looming issues for civilization. AGW does, so it’s important for experts to reach some kind of agreement on what’s known, and how well.

              There’s not enough time for scientific purity on AGW.

              The Einstein–Szilárd letter, with Teller’s and Wigner’s input, had some similar features.

              Sure, some second-rate guy can have an opinion, but he has no right for other scientists to treat him equal to the geniuses, nor do they have any obligation to listen to him at all. That’s the brutal reality of how science works in practice.

            • DavidAppell

              “You can come up with all the reasons necessary to fool yourself into thinking it belongs in science, but the average person isn’t stupid.”

              The AGW consensus isn’t necessary for science.

              It’s necessary for societies, who have to make some huge decisions based on the science’s implications.

            • Brad Keyes

              “The AGW consensus is… necessary for societies, who have to make some huge decisions based on the science’s implications.”

              But what ARE the implications of the scientific evidence, David?

              Or rather, how do we KNOW what the implications are?

              By surveying what *scientists* *believe*?! *ROFL*

              By letting John Cook do it for you? *ROFLMAO*

              Is that what you did?

              Is that the way 7 billion people should choose their future?

              LOL

            • DavidAppell

              “You try to make it even MORE compelling by going the completely evidence-free route of quoting a scientific opinion poll.”

              Where have I ever done that??

              Scientists form opinions based on evidence. So a poll of those opinions is one of the few ways for nonscientific citizens to come to conclusions about the subject, since they can’t evaluate the science for themselves.

              People do this all the time. They decide not to vaccinate their children not because they’ve studied the evidence, but based on opinions they’ve heard. Same with GMOs. Same with nuclear power. Most people get their science, right or wrong, from opinions, not from careful study of it.

            • Brad Keyes

              David, thanks for fleshing out the justification a bit more.

              >> Where have I ever done that??

              I don’t know—I know others have, but it was fallacious of me to jump to the same conclusion about your reasons. D’oh!

              “Scientists form opinions based on evidence. So a poll of those opinions is one of the few ways for nonscientific citizens to come to conclusions about the subject, since they can’t evaluate the science for themselves.”

              This shortcut has never been taken before in modern science, has it? (Possible exception I’ve heard about but not looked into: South Africa / AIDS.)

              For very good reasons. But first I need to understand something a bit better….

              Let’s suppose, as you say, that non-scientists “can’t evaluate the science for themselves.”

              Hang on. Non-scientists have been TOLD about the science—at some length—haven’t they? Every attempt to communicate the science begins with… well, an argument from the science, doesn’t it, and it usually has, all the way back to AIT?

              That’s a bit odd, isn’t it. Telling people they should believe X on the basis of evidence they are *incapable of evaluating*??

              What honest reason could there be for doing that?

              (Note, the above is NOT necessarily the reality, and I’m not accusing anyone in the above story of dishonesty—it’s based on a supposition that we’ve made.)

            • DavidAppell

              I really don’t think much about the “97%” number, as I wrote on my blog over a year ago:

              http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/05/about-sks-study-that-finds-97-consensus.html

              Back then I wrote:
              “I’m not very keen on these kinds of numbers — they are made for lazy journalists who don’t want to examine the complexity of the science, reporters who just want a number that quickly and easily supports their position.

              “You’d never hear a scientist use such a number, because they know there is a wide spectrum of opinions about the statement “humans are causing global warming.” Some find some parts of the science more convincing than other parts. They may see parts that aren’t known well at all, and parts that are very well known….”

            • DavidAppell

              “Hang on. Non-scientists have been TOLD about the science—at some length—haven’t they?”

              They’ve been told a lot of things, with the contrarian side having an outsized voice (because some people are paying a lot of money for those voices). Likely you know this, but there is not doubt about the existence of AGW in the scientific community (though there is a lot of uncertainty about when and how it will all play out). But polls consistently show a significent percentage of Americans doubt AGW’s existence, and evolution, and even the Big Bang:

              “About 4 in 10 say they are not too confident or outright disbelieve that the earth is warming, mostly a result of man-made heat-trapping gases, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that life on Earth evolved through a process of natural selection, though most were at least somewhat confident in each of those concepts. But a narrow majority — 51 percent — questions the Big Bang theory.”
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/big-bang-poll-american-doubt_n_5184931.html

              What is that about, and how does that happen, in your opinion?

              “That’s a bit odd, isn’t it. Telling people they should believe X on the basis of evidence they are *incapable of evaluating*??… What honest reason could there be for doing that?”

              Because ordinary people aren’t experts, so they have to rely on experts in some way.

              A few years ago I developed spinal stenosis and had to quickly have surgery on my neck. There were some options about how to do it — how big of an laminectomy, which vertebrae to fuse, the relative risks involved in each. I did a little research, which mostly meant understanding the terms. But time was of the essence, so I went with what my surgeon recommended. I didn’t look up all the journal papers on the treatment options and read them — I went with an expert’s opinion.

              I do that all the time — when my car needs fixed, when my doctor suggests a medication, when I get a flu vaccination. I know some things about the science of GMOs, and have heard scientists talk about them, but when I eat them I’m mostly relying on the scientific consensus that they carry no extra risks compared to non-GMO food.

              Don’t you ever do this kind of thing?

            • Brad Keyes

              Hi David,

              yes, I routinely outsource my decision-making to better informed people, including doctors. When I browse for apps I start with the top rated ones, which is an act of trust in “consensus.”

              But there’s one type of question on which I would never do that: scientific questions.

              Note that surgeons are not scientists. They are practitioners of a skill or technē, like panelbeaters or chicken sexers.

              How did your surgeon come to that recommendation, do you remember? Did he/she say what it was based on?

              “when I eat them I’m mostly relying on the scientific consensus that they carry no extra risks compared to non-GMO food.”

              Sorry, here you’ve lost me! What percentage of [relevant] scientists believes that? How big a majority? Are we talking 51% or 93or…? But more importantly where did you hear this?

            • Brad Keyes

              To clarify, yes, I know surgeons can answer treatment questions scientifically, EBM and all that, and that there may well be a Cochrane review specifically answering your dilemma.

              And chick sexers probably DON’T have to consult “the literature” too often :-D

            • DavidAppell

              “But there’s one type of question on which I would never do that: scientific questions.”

              How do you expect the average person to understand the physics of radiative transfer, or read & understand a journal paper like

              “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract ?

            • Brad Keyes

              “So a poll of those opinions is one of the few ways for nonscientific
              citizens to come to conclusions about the subject, since they can’t
              evaluate the science for themselves.”

              Again, I question your low opinion of the masses. If Al Gore, a Bible college dropout, can evaluate the evidence then why can’t the next guy? It’s not rocket science. And we’ve had 25 years to talk to them about it. The realisation that somehow it’s all gone over their heads except for the babyish 97% argument is bound to come as an insulting surprise to the people whose time we’ve been wasting for two and a half decades.

              “Don’t allow the last couple of decades of climate science sermons we’ve given you to influence you in any way—you’re simply not competent to judge how convincing or unconvincing it is. The jury is instructed to strike the science from its mind. Here, we’ve made a Dummies version for muggles like you: it’s called “the argument from consensus.””

              “They decide not to vaccinate their children not because they’ve studied the evidence, but based on opinions they’ve heard.”

              Great. Let’s hear Oprah’s audience members’ takes on AGW.

              Whose opinion did you mean?

              The experts’? But the experts on vaccines have never been surveyed. Scientists don’t do opinion surveys. (Until Oreskes04.)

              “Same with GMOs. Same with nuclear power. Most people get their science, right or wrong, from opinions, not from careful study of it.”

              They never get it from scientists’ opinions, because scientists don’t fill out opinion surveys. Whose opinion did you have in mind? And are you talking about scientific questions anymore, or have we entered the realm of values, politics, radio host’s opinions, WSJ opeds, etc.?

            • DavidAppell

              “If Al Gore, a Bible college dropout, can evaluate the evidence then why can’t the next guy?”

              Come on — Gore graduated from Harvard. If everyone had a chance to take a course from Roger Revelle, they too might understand global warming better. But most people don’t.

              “They never get it from scientists’ opinions, because scientists don’t fill out opinion surveys.”

              They get opinions from their doctors. They get opinions from their cousin the pharmacist, or their sister the physical therapist. They get opinions from teachers in school or college.They get the opinions via the media (which may be part of the problem, since the media often have an interest in protraying conflict and disagreement even when it isn’t balanced) and from blogs. None of these involved opinion polls of scientists.

              Isn’t the Oregon Petition nothing but an attempt to influence people via a purported survey of scientists — a showing of consensus (by, ironically, contrarians who often reject the notion of a consensus in science).

              “Parents trust doctors most when it comes to information about vaccine safety,” 2011
              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401142857.htm

              And sometimes there are surveys:

              “Survey: Younger Doctors More Skeptical of Vaccines,” WebMD, 2011
              http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20111021/survey-younger-doctors-more-skeptical-of-vaccines

              and other ways of communicating opinions:

              “Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.”
              – Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
              http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139

            • ThePrussian

              Gore’s Harvard degree is in a mickey mouse subject. The humbles lab tech is better suited to science than he. Neatly proved by his ridiculous film lying and distorting what climate science actually says.

              Now are you, or are you not, going to deal with the actual evidence against the Mann?

            • DavidAppell

              Gore has a degree from Harvard. He’s obviously a very bright person (you don’t get elected VP if not), and has talked to many, many scientists.

              You just don’t like his conclusion, so you have to insult him with ridiculous ideas.

            • ThePrussian

              No, no he isn’t “obviously a very bright person”. It takes more than your assertion to prove that. What has Gore done, exactly, that proves that he is intelligent? No, becoming VP doesn’t count – do I really need to mention some people who have held that job?

            • DavidAppell

              Gore has obviously demonstrated he’s a bright person. And I’m not going to argue with you about it.

            • ThePrussian

              The slavishness of people like you is truly amazing.

            • DavidAppell

              I’m hardly slavish. I think Gore is obviously a bright person. I don’t care if you disagree. You seem to think that if Gore is not a smart guy, then all of AGW must be false. That’s really the way your side thinks.

            • ThePrussian

              David, please answer me this: what is with you and basic reading comprehension? I have repeatedly said that I accept AGW. I just know that Mann and Gore are frauds and they poison this well.

              Do you understand this elementary point? Because if you can’t read and understand that, you shouldn’t be trying to read science papers. You might hurt yourself.

            • mdd

              You don’t need to argue about it but you really need to think about it.
              What I have read so far indicates that you aren’t capable of doing so.
              Therefore, take some classes in areas that might help you formulate relevant arguments – statistics, econometrics, computer modeling. Some knowledge of soil biology, agronomy, forestry, etc…could also be helpful.
              Reading is fundamental…and its hopeful that you read…but you also have to understand what you have read.
              What are your credentials?
              Gore was a theology major at Harvard.
              He certainly appears to be a superb preacher. He is making lots of money. Worth 1 or 2 million when he left office. Now worth 300 million. He certainly has outdone Fallwell which is a credit to his Harvard education.
              But what kind of scientific mind does he have?

            • DavidAppell

              “Now are you, or are you not, going to deal with the actual evidence against the Mann?”

              WHAT evidence?

            • ThePrussian

              All those papers I’ve cited. The fact that even Mann isn’t supporting his own hockey stick graph – at least not when he has to work with competent scientists who can check his work. Please read.

            • DavidAppell

              What papers have you “cited?”

            • DavidAppell

              Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

              “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
              http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

              “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
              http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

              Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:

              “Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
              http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever

            • ThePrussian

              Wait, you’re trying that again? Dear, do read back. You tried that nonsense before and I dealt with it. The consensus hockey stick published by Pages2K no real similarity to the Mannsters hockey stick, and doesn’t even really look like a hockey stick.

              I warned you – tangling with me is not like the people you usually try and bluff with that crap. You don’t get anywhere by claiming to cite something new that I dealt with repeatedly in the the post that you are commenting on.

            • DavidAppell

              As I’ve documented, you made a very dumb mistake when reading the PAGES 2k paper. And now you think you can still criticize it? You lost all your credibility there. Too bad for you.

              “…nd doesn’t even really look like a hockey stick.”

              Another lie. See Figure 4a in their paper, and especially Figure S5 in their supplementary material.

            • ThePrussian

              Unfortunately for you, science isn’t PR. It’s not about ‘credibility’, it’s about facts. And your correction only made the factual case against Mann even stronger.

              You can attack my credibility all you want and this doesn’t change the fact that Mann hasn’t been exonerated, the fact that his stick hasn’t been reproduced, or the fact that he’s a serial liar.

              Turning yourself into a slavish Mann fanboy isn’t the same thing as being a scientist, you know.

            • DavidAppell

              “I warned you – tangling with me is not like the people you usually try and bluff with that crap.”

              It was trivial to show how — after you boasted about it — you misunderstood the PAGES 2k paper. Tangling with you is about as difficult as tangling with my laundry.

            • mdd

              David,
              What are your credentials?

            • Brad Keyes

              ” Neatly proved by his ridiculous film lying and distorting what climate science actually says.”

              Really? I’ve heard such allegations. But RealClimate—run by scientists—seemed to suggest Gore’s errors, if any, were only minimal ones.

              To take one disputed example:

              You’re saying Gore was lying about the existence of Pacific nations that have had to be evacuated to NZ by rising seas due to climate change?

              I find it hard to believe he’d *invent whole countries.* And expect to get away with it.

              The climate science community en masse has either:

              1) Not raised any objections/fuss to speak of (because Gore was telling the truth), accepted Gore as a de facto [non-scientist] chief spokesman, taken pride in accepting medals on stage with Gore, encouraged his film’s use in classrooms (because they want children to get the best understanding of reality possible)…

              or

              2) Engaged in a decade-long conspiracy of silence (about what they know are Gore’s untrue claims), not lifted a finger to protect our children from being taught major falsehoods [imaginary countries!!] as truths at an age where critical/skeptical skills are not really developed, which is a form of child abuse, and prostituted their integrity whenever a photo op with a known liar came up…

              Sorry, but I just have trouble believing an entire field of SCIENTISTS would conspire to commit treason against science itself, which demands honesty honesty honesty.

              Your claims about Gore’s untruthfulness (a bit like with Mann) would have unthinkably dark implications for climate science if they were true. The *good* climate scientists would have to be the exception! Is cli sci *institutionally* corrupt and gangrenous and fit only for amputation from the body of science??

              Seriously?

              (In fairness, if your pessimism were realism, it would not only account for but JUSTIFY the widespread disbelief in climate science.)

            • DavidAppell

              Another survey, for the American Geophysical Union in 2009 by researchers for the University of Illinois in Chicago:

              http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

            • ThePrussian

              This would be relevant if we were discussing whether or not the world had warmed and whether or not human activity contributed to that.

              But we’re not, so it isn’t.

              Get it straight: you can think that Global warming is real and manmade, and still think that Michael Mann is a worthless pile of lying scum.

            • mdd

              the 97% is a meme – not a consensus

            • ThePrussian

              Oh you’re back are you? David, d0 be a dear and acknowledge all the peer reviewed works that you have been running away from.

            • DavidAppell

              Do you think being peer reviewed makes a paper right?

            • ThePrussian

              Of course not. That’s why I happily dismiss Mann’s load of steaming crap while respecting the work of other climate scientists.

              Nice to see you coming round. :-)

            • DavidAppell

              “…while respecting the work of other climate scientists.”

              Like Mann’s co-authors? Like the 70 or so scientists in the PAGES 2k collaboration? Like the others that have found very similar results?

            • ThePrussian

              David, David, David – I told you, don’t try that crap with me. I’ve actually read the Pages2K paper and I know what the stuff shows. It doesn’t show what you’d like it to show.

            • DavidAppell

              You couldn’t even understand a graph in the PAGES 2k paper. Remember this basic, boneheaded mistake you made?

              http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/05/19/what-a-piece-of-work-is-mann/#comment-1401195573

              where I wrote:

              “I started taking a look at your claimed disproof of the PAGES 2k work. Just as I suspected, I didn’t have to go very far before finding an egregious error.
              The second figure on
              http://www.skepticink.com/prus
              which you label as “PAGES 2k hockey stick,” is NOT the PAGES 2k hockey stick; the figure is, in fact, *prior* reconstructions. They make this clear in the caption to their Figure 2a, which you seem not to have read, and should also be clear from the labeling of the lines.
              Their hockey stick is their Figure 2b, which you don’t even include.
              As I was saying….

              and you said you were “I am very grateful for the correction”
              http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/05/19/what-a-piece-of-work-is-mann/#comment-1403449577

              Having made such a boneheaded mistake, you don’t get to say you understand ANYTHING about the PAGES 2k paper. You have zero credibility
              there.

            • ThePrussian

              David dear, you know why I can be grateful for that correction? Because my case is solid.

              Nothing you have said proves anything about Mann. The fact is that, thanks to your correction, I was able to strengthen my case. For example, the proxy continental reconstructions do not show anything like a hockey stick. And you can’t get away from the fact that the consensus hockey stick doesn’t look anything like a hockey stick.

              Now, do you know why you cannot stand any correction? Why you are so hysterical here? Because your case is so shoddy that it can’t stand it. You’re a one-trick pony – and you’ve run into someone on which the trick doesn’t work. I can read the papers for myself, and go through the whole record, not the two papers you have been clutching pitifully.

              So, yes, I am grateful indeed. :-)

            • ThePrussian

              (Except for the arctic reconstructions of course)

            • DavidAppell

              “Opinion is fucking meaningless in science. If you don’t accept that, it would explain a lot about you.”

              If you can’t be a big boy and discuss without personal insults, don’t expect replies.

            • Brad Keyes

              David, I owe you an apology! Reading back, I see you hadn’t written anything to warrant such a snarky comment—nor can I remember what would have made me think that was the tone to adopt—but I’ve been dialoguing with 10+ people in parallel and I think I got someone conflated. (Which means I was friendly to someone who didn’t deserve it!!) Thank you for not making my mistake worse by responding in kind. Can we forget it and go to the substance, because I’m interested in your ideas here.

            • DavidAppell

              Thanks, that’s good of you. Let’s carry on….

            • 1Psuche

              You’ve used personal insult against me when your argument was floundering…You’re behaving very hypocritical…

            • SkyHunter

              97% of active climate researchers agree that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps IR radiating from the surface and this leads to warming at the surface.

              3% of active climate researchers are paid by special interests to disagree.

          • DavidAppell

            A scientific consensus should always be regarded as the exception not the rule

            In fact, there is consensus about almost all science, except that at the edges. (That’s what makes them the edges.) The tools you use and rely on every day work on the consensus in thermodynamics, and in quantum mechanics, and in electromagnetism, etc.

            • Tom Yoke

              I’m trying to decide whether I wrote the sentence poorly or you misconstrued it willfully. I was not referring to 2000 years of accumulated scientific wisdom per se. It is indisputable that that centuries long process has amassed a magnificent body of true ideas, though painfully and slowly to be sure.

              When I wrote: a “scientific consensus should always be regarded as the exception not the rule” I was referring to the contemporary and rapidly changing conventional wisdom. To take just one recent spectacular example, Barack Obama was against gay marriage right up until the beginning of 2012. Two weeks after he changed his mind, the entire politically correct world made clear that anyone who still was against gay marriage was to be regarded by polite society as a contemptible bigot. That is a political consensus about the issue of the day. It has nothing to do with considered judgements about whether this abrupt alteration to the meaning of a 5000 year old idea is a good or bad thing.

            • DavidAppell

              Political consensus is one thing. Scientific consensus is another entirely. They aren’t of the same type. As a scientist you should know that.

            • ColonelNeville

              “Political consensus is entirely the same as the logical fallacy neologism of “scientific consensus”. They are of the same type. As a scientist you should know that”. There, I’ve fixed it for you…

            • ColonelNeville

              Dear Tom Yoke, there is no confusion – while you wrote empirically and honestly, David Appell will always take the second choice and “misconstrued it willfully.”

            • ColonelNeville

              Er, you conflate the theoretical with the actual. Thermodynamics, mechanics, tools, electronics, aviation, computing and electromagnetism etc, all work NOT because everyone AGREES they work, but because they are proven processes that can be and are easily REPLICATED and by ANYONE anywhere, anytime with EASILY AVAILABLE data and materials. Unlike say, Mann and his Hokey Schtick and Glow Ball Cooling/Warming/ClimateChange/Green Energy/Clean Energy/total conformity to an ecofascist ideology or destruction etc, etc.

              WHY are you not in the slightest bit concerned about the mob mentality bullying of this elitist ecofascist cartel of lies? Why? Ah, of course…ICPP HADCRU union card….

        • ThePrussian

          I buy “the science” as you say, and I think Mann’s a contemptible creep and thug. And I have a number of professional scientists backing me on that.

          • DavidAppell

            So?

            • ColonelNeville

              “So?” Another brilliant David Appell comeback! Ah, the brilliance, the convincing evidence, the charm and the warmth…Er, no. David, you’re a rotten guy and a disingenuous phony just like Mike the Mannequin.

          • Brad Keyes

            You buy the science, yet when scientists (Mann) try to say what the science is saying you say non-scientists should say it’s fraudulent?

            LOL. It doesn’t work like that. If you believe the science, you believe what the scientists *are saying*, and what they’re saying is they’re scared. Literally. That’s how scary the science is.

            I know science can be confusing, but it would greatly benefit you to understand some, so please feel welcome at http://www.climatenuremberg.com, where we will be only too happy to help, though of course we won’t do your homework for you—that’s your problem.

            • ThePrussian

              Okay, so I get the feeling is that this isn’t a parody. Aiyayai… Where do I even begin with this?

              I’ve listed good reasons for thinking that Mann is not to be trusted and that is based on what I have read in the peer reviewed literature and the judgement of specialists.

            • Brad Keyes

              You’ve asked specialists in trust whether, in their judgement, he is to be trusted?

              That’s great, and you should believe whatever their answer is. Science is based on trust. It’s a trust system.

              Yet not 1 major national or international scientific academy of reputable standing has come out and said Mann is quite as bad as you say he is.

              So who am I to believe? You, or the overwhelming opinion of all major national and international scientific academies of reputable standing, plus the IPCC, which all point to the same conclusion, that they cannot say Mann is as bad as you say he is?

            • Brad Keyes

              “I’ve listed good reasons for thinking that Mann is not to be trusted
              and that is based on what I have read in the peer reviewed literature
              and the judgement of specialists”

              And if you want to be taken seriously you will already have submitted a paper outlining your allegations about Mann’s flaws for peer review. Blog posts, though deeply and actionably defamatory, mean nothing—they are read by nobody (plus some idiots).

              A warning though: climate scientists are a smart bunch, and will have no qualms about rejecting a paper as not up to snuff if it does little to advance the field and is essentially about an individual scientist’s flaws.

            • Brad Keyes

              Don’t forget that even your beloved anti-science standardbearer McIntyre has acknowledged that there are few, if any scientists, working at Mann’s level: “this [Mann’s contribution to science] is unreplicable.”

              Whatever happened to McIntyre’s, ahem, “hockey stick” anyway? I seem to remember a crescendo of anticipation and then—oops. Looks nothing like original (despite the copious new information and clues provided by the authors, above and beyond what was in the original paper!).

              And vanishes.

              Mann’s Hockey Stick was replicated six times—six times—in a single IPCC report. Proof of how reputable and credible the climate science community found the result, surely.

              And McIntyre’s “corrected” version?

              *Poof* Sank like a stone.

              How discrediting for the skeptics. But that’s science. Your finding might look good on paper, but if the respectable community doesn’t take its credibility seriously, there are no second prizes.

              Just because it’s evidence, doesn’t mean anyone *has* to consider it.

            • ThePrussian

              Well, in the first instance, science journals are about science. So while it is demonstrably true that Mann has lied about being a Nobel Laureate, lied about being exonerated, lied about which graphs he did and did not produce, lied about other scientists… and so on – no journal would print such a thing.

              Now you could argue that Mann may be a liar about everything else, but I have no grounds to attack his science. I used to take that line, but fortunately that weighty responsibility has been lifted from me. I can just go along with Dr John Christy who says that Mann’s full of it.

              Or Dr Hendrik Tennekes who says Mann is ‘a disgrace to the profession’.

              Or Hans von Storch who calls Mann’s work rubbish.

              Do read:

              http://www.steynonline.com/6420/potemkin-laureate

              Yes, climate scientists are indeed a smart bunch and that is why they are fed to the teeth with the Mannster.

              As regards your last line, a word to the wise: don’t think about lecturing a professional scientist or trying to scare a Prussian. It doesn’t work that well.

            • Brad Keyes

              As someone at the top of my own profession (probably equal to or a little lower than Dr Mann in the totem pole of respect and accomplishment), this kind of phenomenon is just part of life:

              “Yes, climate scientists are indeed a smart bunch and that is why they are fed to the teeth with the Mannster.”

              Professional jealousy’s a bitch, isn’t it? Yawn.

              Wake me up when ANY of these climate scientists can replicate the original Hockey Stick—you know, the result Dr Mann achieved only a couple years after graduation.

              Surely they’ve had more than enough time by now?

              Oh, and it *has* to be accurate. I expect to see climate change starting at around 1900. I’ll even accept 1800, because I’m such a nice guy.

              Because if they STILL can’t find the same facts Dr Mann found in only his third or so paper, maybe it’s time for an exception to the old saw “don’t quit your day job”?

            • ThePrussian

              Let me see if I understand this: that Mann’s hockey stick is unreplicable is a sign of its strength as a scientific theory?

              Oh, and…

              “As someone at the top of my own profession”

              I’m sorry to be the first one to explain this to you, but…. if you have to say that, you’re not.

            • Brad Keyes

              “Let me see if I understand this: that Mann’s hockey stick is unreplicable is a sign of its strength as a scientific theory?”

              Well, there’s no way to say this without sounding patronising: it’s much more complicated than that, so don’t worry, but yes—precisely.

              Look, as a REAL skeptic I”m open-minded, unlike all of you pseudo-“deniers.” That’s why maybe I’m wrong in believing in science. So come to http://www.climatenuremberg.com and argue with us, and if you can convince us with valid args that science is wrong, which would basically fly in the face of what most scienitsts think, not to mention it would mean throwing out almost 100 years of atmospheric physics, then we will turn into deniers. I swear.

              We’re really nice ppl. (Don’t worry about the blog name. The blog used to just show the local weather in Bavaria, then I noticed ppl were far more interested in my opinions so I don’t even include weather info now.)

            • ThePrussian

              “Look, as a REAL skeptic I”m open-minded, unlike all of you pseudo-“deniers.”

              Look, dear, again: If you have to say y’are, you ain’t.

              And I’m not a denier.

              And you seem to believe that the hallmark of science is unreplicability. Right.

            • Brad Keyes

              “And I’m not a denier.”

              Stop the presses! Denier denies being in denial!

              Suddenly our front-page story about a dog biting a man seems almost banal in comparison!

              Look, it’s fine to be SKEPTICAL sometimes. Even climate scientists are (very occasionally) skeptical about things!

              I meet lots of people who don’t know what side to take on something, because they’re ignorant of the facts. That’s fine. Not their fault that they’re “skeptical.”

              But here’s how I can tell if they’re really skeptics or just deniers:

              When I TELL them the correct side, and they STILL don’t believe it/me, that’s not skepticism, that’s just denial. Skeptics *believe* you when you tell them something; deniers pretend they can’t hear you and just keep questioning forever.

              There’s nothing wrong with a Prussian pushing his own point of view, but now a Prussian has heard MY point of view, so the fact that a Prussian is still ARGUING with me is ipso facto proof that a Prussian is in denial.

              In Bavaria we don’t do denial. Not like our more fractious compatriots to the North. Our regional word is “jawohl.”

              Why don’t you come to ClimateNuremberg? You’ll stop saying nein in no time. We have ways of making you.

            • DavidAppell

              “So while it is demonstrably true that Mann has lied about being a Nobel Laureate…”

              So did Fred Singer, who said he and John Christy were Nobel Laureates. Is here a “liar” too?

              So what? It was a time when it’s wasn’t clear what it meant for the IPCC to win the Nobel — did it mean those who worked on the assessment report did as well? It was awhile before the Nobel committee clarified….

              You people are desperate to demonize Mann, and will stop at nothing. What’s funny is that you think it means something for or against AGW….

            • ThePrussian

              We’re not discussing Fred Singer, we are discussing Michael Mann. And that is the least of his lies. For example, every time he says that he’s been exonerated, he’s been lying, except for the disgraced president of his own university. And he happily lies about others. He’s even lied about producing the IPCC hockey stick.

              But, David, I think you really need some remedial english lessons. I’ve said repeatedly that I accept AGW – and that is a large part of the reason I despise Mann. Do you get this simple point?

            • DavidAppell

              Let’s see you call Fred Singer a liar:

              “John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ”
              http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm

            • DavidAppell

              Mann was exonerated. So actually it’s you doing the lying.

            • ThePrussian

              He wasn’t. Go look – with the exception of Penn State, no investigation he claims exonerated him, did. David dear, you must stop doing this to yourself.

            • DavidAppell

              Is there some reason my comments aren’t appearing here?

        • The ranking of EGU awards from highest to lowest are:
          Union medals
          Union Awards
          Divisional Medals
          Divisional Awards
          Union Assembly Awards
          see http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/awards-and-medals/

          The Hans Oeschger Medal is a Divisional medal, awarded by the Climate Division of the EGU. Mr Mann won his in 2012 – see http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/hans-oeschger/

          To paraphrase Monty Python, what has he done lately ?

          • DavidAppell

            It’s a far higher medal than most scientists win.

          • ColonelNeville

            I love appeals to authority. Logical fallacy forward ho!

          • DavidAppell

            And, importantly, it’s a strong sign his colleagues value and respect his work.

    • ColonelNeville

      Excellent round up and title and Mark Steyn is talkin’ very well about you today, as you likely know. I shall use at the next opportunity your great…”Accept that global warming is real, but disagree about its extent, or” etc thang and verbatim, but I’ll repeat it very fast! Should be funn. Oops, thinkin’ of that Mann!

      • DavidAppell

        I don’t usually read Mark Steyn, sorry.

        • ColonelNeville

          “I don’t usually read anything that empirically contradicts my embarrassingly transparent logical fallacy fraud and laughable lies and hey, just like my venal nitwit ecaofascist hero, Michael Mann”. There, fixed it for you.

          • DavidAppell

            Empirically? Steyn does nothing scientific in the least. He called the hockey stick a “climate model.” He is extremely far out of his depth.

            • ColonelNeville

              Balls. An appeal to authority logical fallacy that tells me you have barely read any if at all, the seriously dismantling writings of the truly brilliant and authentic Mark Steyn. So au contraire, YOU are extremely far out of HIS depth. In fact extremely far out and thus precisely in your own hubristic shallows. Mark Steyn is a smart and witty guy and no liar or incompetent, and your kind know it. You projecteth too much…

              Maybe that’s why in spite of your efforts, almost nobody has ever heard of you…Maybe a government grant will help. You could study ‘The Effects of Climategate on Fraudulent Ecofascist Twits’ first hand. I see a thesis!

              Ah, so according to your breathtaking disingenuous drivel, Steyn friends and references who entirely support Mark in the facts of Mann’s fraud like Judith Curry, John R Christy, Richard Lindzen et al, do “nothing scientific”? Who knew? You are my dear, either grossly incompetent, laughably disingenuous or a corrupting lying creep. Which is it? YOU be the judge!

            • DavidAppell

              No, I don’t read Mark Steyn. As I noted, his knowledge of the science is dismal. Which means he isn’t a smart person, no matter what else he says (like his Islamophobia).

              Steyn is a hater. People like you eat that kind of thing up.

            • ColonelNeville

              YOU: “No, I don’t read Mark Steyn.”
              No, you don’t read at all worth a damn. There, I’ve fixed it for you. For a guy that constantly likes to trumpet how he is soooo scientific, you sure are a crude, bundled cliche projecting laughably arrogant creep. You just said you DON”T READ Mark Steyn, Got that? YOU DON’T READ Mark Steyn…and THEN you go on to say that somehow you know his knowledge of science is dismal and he is a hater etc, ad nauseum! How would you know?! What a lying stripe assed baboon you are. To whit:

              YOU: “…his knowledge of the science is dismal”.
              Er, actually Steyn’s insights and knowledge not just in science but a uniquely wide range of subjects, [unlike say er, you again] are outstandingly detailed and massively footnoted, with exceptional readable empirical clarity. Hence his, wait for it, MASSIVE SUCCESS in several areas that wait for it, you are not and never can be. Scientifically, it would be impossible for you. To be in demand, one needs to have something actual that many people like and want. That would leave you out.

              Steyn regularly references his many scientist friends [who apparently also reference him] people like Dr Judith Curry, John R Christy and Richard Lindzen et al, have curiously never mentioned Steyn is “dismal”, quite the contrary. Gee, they all seem very er, sciencey an’ all, and more than gee, you. Simply QUOTE where Steyn is allegedly wrong and counter with your brilliant unread, unsolicited, unpublished er, ‘mind’, that way, now wait for it, you can shelve your glib, fatuous, cowardly ad hominem tripe.

              What a con artist tactic classic to claim only special people can understand science. Balls. That’s why they teach it in high school. ANYONE can do science. That’s the point. ANYONE can learn the scientific method. It’s not a method for complicating and obsfucation, but stripping away the superficial and false, and seeing the facts and truth of physical things. That is all.

              Apparently according to you and your ecofascist ilk, science can’t be learned or understood AT ALL except by scientists and only certain of those for some interesting convenient reason. Wow, and I thought science helped clear and make sense out of the dense fog of ignorance. But hey, if science apparently makes facts more impenetrable, and ever more smoke obscured, go for it I say. If you cannot explain the alleged facts of climate theory as you see them, and convince other people, then you are a failure as a scientist.

              If you are so strictly “scientific”, then why are you so incompetent
              that you almost invariably start from ad hominem? Actually in sharply objective contrast to Mark Steyn, your own lack of character and humor is “dismal” and as for the way you have presented your idea of ‘science’ so far – all it lacks a laughtrack.

              Let’s DEFINE science shall we: a method for falsifying data, a body of accumulated often largely provisional data. Science actually tells us nothing: it’s up to the observer to make sense of the data. But enough about the beard you snipe from behind.

              YOU: “Which means he isn’t a smart person…”
              Er, Mark Steyn is NOTED for his brilliant analytical mind and vast range of interests, knowledge and wit and outstandingly well written and footnoted series of NYT’s Number One Best Seller books. It’s why, wait for it, Mark Steyn is incredibly successful and read by millions and you, wait for it, are not. What is the title of your best seller again? Maybe one of your more famous scientific papers? A menu? A joke scrawled on a napkin?

              Ah, you’re the most obvious of pathetic twits: a supremely JEALOUS one. Ironically, you relentlessly present yourself as not very smart at all.

              YOU: “… no matter what else he says (like his Islamophobia).” ISLAMOPHOBIA! Ya effing kidding me?! You stupid jerk. What parts of Islam-Mohammad-Sharia Law-Hadith-Sura–Koran am I supposed to enjoy? What do you like exactly about Jew hating, Christian hating, Hindu hating and Buddhist hating Islamic Sharia Jihad?

              The NEOLOGISM of “Islamophobia” was coined by a Muslim Brotherhood jihadist terror front group exposed in the Islamic Holy Land fake charity actual terror funding front raids by the FBI. The FBI confiscated massive documents on this, and successfully charged and jailed many of those involved. But you’d know that bein’ an Islamic analyst an’ all. Oh, that’s right – you’re not at all. You’re just throwing out another glib logical fallacy bald faced lie. Got it. You’re pro Saudi and Iran funded jihadist caliphate.

              So au contraire, Islam IS Sharia Law. Seeing as you have no ‘irrational’ fear of Islam Sharia Law Jihad, why are you pro Sharia and what is your favorite Sharia based law? Why are you pro Islamic Sharia Jihad now operating on over 70 fronts globally? Because you know nothing about Islam and are a lying leftist dirtbag.

              So, here’s the thing, dear lying rotten twittering fake, I just happen to have studied Islam for over twenty years, and that’s not as long as my Arabic speaking scholar friends have. “hate” what exactly? “hate” is a parroting projection a leftist says when they can’t find a factual argument given a weeks notice. The “hater” is you and you know it, the LYING fraudulent posturing hater of any dissent and a twerp who cannot stand the presence of problematic empirical facts that don’t support your grossly disingenuous venality.

              Yuk, what a repellent and hilariously boring and transparent phony you are. But now I must return to something more worthy of attention and sort out my sock drawer.

            • Arec Bardwin

              Haha, wow. Now that is a bitchslap.
              Nice work.

            • ColonelNeville

              Hey, thanks Arec. One tries. And what n enormous…target David Applehead is.

            • ThePrussian

              ‘Islamophobia’ huh? Tell my Yezidi brothers and sisters that fear of Islam is just a ‘phobia’

        • ColonelNeville

          Readership percentage wise Mark Steyn vs er, YOU – who usually reads David Appell? Let’s do the math…

    • andrew__des_moines

      I recently read an article about yet another fusion technology starved for funding and research resources by ITER. If “deniers” like myself, pragmatic “warmmongers” and influential scientists were to focus together on this issue, we might all end up winning.

      • ThePrussian
        • andrew__des_moines

          Yes, very interesting. Although I agree with the article and have great faith in free markets, the government does have a crucial role in fundamental research that often uncovers worthy gambles on new technologies. However, those resources must be invested intelligently and risk should be spread over many possible routes to success.

      • ThePrussian

        Oh, could you please send me the article? I’d like to read it.

        • andrew__des_moines
          • ThePrussian

            Great. Thanks!

        • andrew__des_moines

          There are many more approaches to fusion that are drastically under-resourced. Its almost a sport to watch them survive and make progress in the face of starvation from ITER (which will likely not yield a pragmatic result even if the physics and engineering achieve best case scenarios).

          Perhaps there is more going on here in the scientific community at large. The climate wars have given us insight into a cultural aversion to ideas outside of the mainstream in that arena. Fusion researchers rarely venture from the institution if ITER. A Nobel winning physicist recently put forth an idea for “time crystals” for which he was widely ridiculed. If scientists lack the courage to follow their imagination, or an environment in which that is encouraged — or the freedom to fail — what hope do we have of future great discoveries?

    • Always amusing to watch ‘scientists’ scramble and crabwalk when empiricism fails to cooperate with ‘faith,’ ‘theory’ and ‘models.’ If there is, in fact, any shred of credibility left in true scientific enquiry, Mann will get his arse handed to him in court by the likes of Steyn et al.

      • ColonelNeville

        Ron Clark For Vice President!

        • I would accept your nomination, Colonel, but if it is for a political office and I won, I’d have to tell my kids that my profession was that of a piano player in a whore house.

          • ColonelNeville

            Hey, I concur. The cesspool of politics. Interesting how close White House is to Whore House…Let me amend. Ron Clark For Piano Player In A whore house!

            • I salute you, sir.

            • ColonelNeville

              At ease, marine. Sempre Fi.

    • DavidAppell

      I haven’t “sloped off,” I just don’t find your blog worth reading.

      Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

      “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

      “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

      A confirmation using a different statistical technique was Tingley and Huybers, reported on here:

      “Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever

      How many more independent confirmations are necessary?

      • IskurBlast

        There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to get a hockey stick that is a statistical artifact. When McIntyre first became suspicious of the hockey stick it was for the simple reason that those of us who work in the private sector see hockey sticks all the time.

        Every week there is some new salesman with using a hockey stick graph as a pitch. Before people bought my product, after people bought my product. The hockey stick graph is a hallmark of the shady salesmen. Mann didn’t invent it. He simply introduced it to climate science.

        When you see a hockey stick graph there is always something wrong with the blade, shaft and often both. The does not mean that every shady salesman creates their hockey stick graph the same way.

        Climate science is no different. Mann created his by using CO2 proxies as temperature proxies and giving them so much weight that they drowned out all other proxies.

        In the case of the above Marcott graph he decided to arbitarilly redate some of his proxies. The redating created his version of the hockey stick.
        http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/alkenone-comparison1.png?w=600&h=480

        As the North report concluded when you set out to create a graph of a certain shape you will probably manage to create it. However, such an approach has no statistical viability. So when you have a team of people setting out to create hockey sticks they will probably find methods that create hockey sticks. That does not however make them any more valid.

        • DavidAppell

          This is a very weak, unconvincing argument. To disprove some piece of science, you have to actually do the hard work of disproving it, not imply via an extremely general statement that it’s wrong because some completely different other field gives different results.

          Or a graph someone threw onto a blog. That not science.

          The Marcott result certainly hasn’t been retracted. As far as I know, not counter papers to it have appeared, or even a letter to the editor.

          The Tingley and Huybers work uses completely different mathematics. That they find the same result is a strong confirmation.

          • IskurBlast

            Your argument is that because other people got hockey sticks then the hockey stick is real.

            Mann et. al. Hasn’t been retracted either despite so many things being wrong with it. The defense of it to day is wrong method right answer. Such a paper should be retracted after all we don’t want people copying the wrong method do we?

            Your argument is one of appeal to popularity. You cant say that others aren’t making the same mistakes, many use the same flawed bristle cone proxies that Mann used, or that they aren’t making other mistakes such as Marcotts arbitrary redating of his proxies.

            There is more than one way to skin a cat and if you set out to create a hockey stick you will find a method that creates a hockey stick. However this approach of putting conclusion before method has no scientific validity what so ever.

            Then we also have the fundamental problem that any statistical reconstruction will tend towards a hockey stick as both Stockwell and Burger showed. If you select proxies that have a 20th century uptick as being representative of temperature you are likely to get a hockey stick by pure chance. Regardless of how you play with the method on the edges most methods calibrate on the 20th century uptick so hockey sticks are a likely artifact regardless of subtle differences in the method used.

            • DavidAppell

              Your argument is one of appeal to popularity.

              Utter bull. Scientific results come to be see as true precisely because they have been confirmed. If it’s done by other methods, so much the better.

            • ThePrussian

              Except when the scientific results are quoted and they don’t back up what you’re saying. In that case, well, in that case you don’t take them seriously, n’est c’est pas?

            • DavidAppell

              I don’t take some little blog post seriously from someone too afraid to even use his real name.

            • ColonelNeville

              Exactly. Let’s not take David Appell’s little blog seriously. Few do. Still, you’ll always have Michael Mann.

            • ThePrussian

              Sweetie, the reason I have to use a pseudonym is because some of the things I’m writing about could get _me and my family killed_. Got that? Murdered. Knifed.

              What are you risking?

            • IskurBlast

              Confirmed??? As I said both Burger and Stockton showed that any statistical reconstruction will tend towards hockey sticks. A hockey stick is an expected statistical artifact of any statistical reconstruction. Making the same mistakes over and over again is only confirmation that “climate scientists” don’t learn from their mistakes.

            • DavidAppell

              Who are Burger and Stockton?

              The hockey stick isn’t even a surprising result, given the superexponential increases in CO2, CH4, and N2O. It’s be more surprising if it isn’t true.

            • IskurBlast

              Burger and Stockton are both people who published reviews of paleoclimatology and both independently came to the same conclusion. Selection bias due to the 20th century uptick in the temperature record will yield hockey sticks in any statical proxy reconstruction. A hockey stick is a statistical artifact of the core method.

              While you can argue that different hockey sticks use different methods this is like saying that Coke and Pepsi are different. They aren’t really different. Every statistical reconstruction uses the same fundamental method, select those that match the temperature trend in the 20th century and calibrate from there. Any other differences in methods such as using PCA or not are superficial.

      • ThePrussian

        Sorry, you’re putting up the PAGES2K thing again?

        Did you not bother to look at the difference between that one and the one Mann originally posted?

        As to the rest of this… aiyayiayai. Did you even bother to follow my link? I went over all this before: http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/19/about-those-mann-replications/

        Please read it and don’t slope off this time. And, yes, it was ‘sloping’. You spend an inordinate amount of time rowing with people who aren’t scientists, you don’t seem to have the nerve to address someone who can read the science for himself and call you on’t.

        • DavidAppell

          Let me know if you ever have the balls to submit your claims to a scientific journal. Blog posts aren’t science.

          • ThePrussian

            Oh, so citing the scientific journals isn’t sufficient? So accurately quoting what is written in scientific journals isn’t enough?

            Then I take it you’ll be taking down your blog and clamming up. Right?

            This is pathetic. Come on, man up. Don’t get all whiny just because you’ve run into someone who fights back. Why don’t you show me what I’ve quote that’s wrong or where I’ve wrongly discussed the _published evidence_? Why don’t you try that instead of turning all prissy?

        • DavidAppell

          one is a popsci article written by… yourself.

          Do you need help finding the TIngley and Huybers papers?

        • DavidAppell

          I started taking a look at your claimed disproof of the PAGES 2k work. Just as I suspected, I didn’t have to go very far before finding an egregious error.

          The second figure on
          http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/03/19/about-those-mann-replications/

          which you label as “PAGES 2k hockey stick,” is NOT the PAGES 2k hockey stick; the figure is, in fact, *prior* reconstructions. They make this clear in the caption to their Figure 2a, which you seem not to have read, and should also be clear from the labeling of the lines.

          Their hockey stick is their Figure 2b, which you don’t even include.

          As I was saying….

          • DavidAppell

            Funny how no one wants to touch this comment, not even “the prussian.”

            Acknowledging mistakes is hard. Man up.

            • ThePrussian

              Calm down dear. I was out with an infection yesterday and the day before I had a stack of things to do.

              I am very grateful for the correction, and have updated the post accordingly. Now would you be a sweety and acknowledge _every other thing in that post_? Including the new additions?

            • DavidAppell

              No need to. Your mistake was so simple and boneheaded that I suspect you don’t understand much of anything about the paper…and I’m not going to waste my time teaching you more.

      • ColonelNeville

        You said: ” I just don’t find your blog worth reading..” er, BUT you ARE reading it. Another great LIE brought to you by David Appell – from the same ecofascists that brought you Michael Mann!

        • DavidAppell

          I looked it up because of a link at my blog. I don’t read this blog regularly, or otherwise.

          • ColonelNeville

            YOU laughably babbled that “I don’t read this blog regularly, or otherwise.” So you’re regularly coming back here to deny you ever come here “regularly”…Got it. You’re certainly looking up something, but it ain’t in front of you…

            Er, but “otherwise” you’re reading it NOW and have..er, before…and you’ve been here enough to make it regular for er, this week…and enough to self-evidently refute your own fun claims of bwahahaha! – never having come here – Boy, I do believe we have here a literal Glow Ball Warming “Denier”! You are the King of Liars and a Logical Fallacy ecofascist god. Thus I and many others can beat you into the ground in any genuine forum, fluffy. But of course you are much like Mann, unreachable, unaccountable, unreliable and unbearable. You’re rotten to the core, Appell.

            Thus Mann Fraud Mann is doing everything to avoid ACTUALLY GOING TO COURT, and merely dragging it out trying to exhaust and process punish Steyn. But when it does get to court, and Mann is cross examined, Mark Steyn WILL crush Michael Mann and his ilk. The ecofascist left elite are so bubble insulated, so conceited, so smug and untested in an authentic evidential forum, they actually don’t even know what Steyn is capable of –

            – AND they seriously believe their own usual mob mentality, control freak logical fallacy bluff, bluster and bullshit will be enough in a non-activist non-corrupted court of law. Er, no.

            Mark Steyn is coming to take you all down…I have reserved seats for the Liberty vs Ecofascism Showdown of the Century…

    • HAL 9000

      I would put the forger-fraud Dr. Peter ‘Grapenuts’ Gleick in the same category as Mikey – they think they’re so right that its OK for them to…lie? What a bizarre ‘logic’ on display with these people.

    • Brad Keyes

      It’s ad nauseam.

      Not ad nauseum.

      You just lost all credibility!

      • ThePrussian

        Very droll

        • Brad Keyes

          “Very droll”

          Ah, the fallacy of very droll.

          I notice you offer no data. Could that possibly be because you have none? Because there is none? How awkward for you and your groupies.

          Meanwhile we have the overwhelming majority of all respected and serious data.

          Warning: I have taken a screenshot of this thread just in case your shame gets “accidentally” deleted.

          • ThePrussian

            …I’m sorry, I really can’t tell if this was supposed to be real or satire.

            • Brad Keyes

              Option 2.

          • ThePrussian

            Okay, from your other shenanigans, I get the hint that this is intended to be serious. That is, that you really think that extensively quoting the literature record isn’t data, and that screencapping a typo will intimidate someone, and a Prussian at that. Oh dear me…

    • Pingback: What is Mann that thou art mindful of him? | The Prussian()