von S jumps the shark

Many thanks to commentor Bam who alerted me to A comment by Alex Harvey: CLIMATE CHANGE ARBITRATION BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA by Hans von Storch CLIMATE CHANGE ARBITRATION BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA complete with big shouty letters.

[This is a copy from back-up of a post that was on the old mt site, and didn’t get auto-moved to the new wp site. It will have lost any comments made then, sorry.]

Before you read that, you probably need to at least see Junk from von S (especially if you’re a von S reader, because he has previously censored links to that post). If you read the comments there, its clear that von S is clueless about wikipedia. And what do you do if you’re clueless? That’s right: you publish twaddle from a septic who is pretending to be neutral, which is von S’s most recent post. In the comments, von S uses the “Curry defence”: that he hasn’t got a clue what is going on, but is publishing this out of interest. Or something like that.

Probably the most important point to make is that anyone trying to understand what is going on from what AH is saying to von S will not succeed. Just about everything written by AH is either lies or deliberate misrepresentation. Please don’t expect me to correct it all. My own view of the original case is here, if you’re interested. You might also want to read my rather disorganised on-wiki page.

von S’s post relies heavily on Lawrence Solomon. As any fule kno, Solomon didn’t and doesn’t understand how wiki works, so pretty well everything he posted, and AH regurgitated, was wrong. I say “so”, but that is being generous: Solomon is not accidentally getting things wrong, or perhaps better has taken no trouble to get things right. By contrast AH does know how wiki works (well, a bit); he is deliberately lying to von S. See for example a child’s garden of wikipedia.

On the substantive point, which is the odd suggestion that arbcomm is biased pro-science, it is interesting to read the actual ban appeals. AH doesn’t provide you with convenient links to those, preferring to provide his own inaccurate gloss. Mine is here. The basic point is, I know what I’m talking about wrt GW and have something to contribute, and have a very long history of contributing worthwhile content. Cla68’s is here. The basic point is that he doesn’t know what he is talking about and has nothing to contribute except disruption (that’s my gloss, BTW). Don’t miss the “statement by MastCell” on that page. Its not a one-off; that is typical Cla. Taken together, this suffices to explain the difference in our treatment.

Update: its nice to see that not everyone is convinced by von S, see e.g. this comment which makes an explicit connection with one of von S’s hopes, the “honest broker” stuff: In my opinion giving Alex Harvey a platform for charactar assassination was a bad idea, far away from any honest broker ideals.

Refs

* Curry jumps the shark
* Jumping the shark?
* Webcite of Storch’s post as of writing
* Morano madness
* The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness?
* MONCKTON AND THE MOB

Ha ha

haha

The story so far: some nut attacks Rahmstorf, comparing him to Aryan physics in a letter to the German TV channel ZDF. The usual fools get confused, the usual fools propagate the nonsense. But this time there is a happy ending, as the lawyers step in and stamp it out (lawyers good? Well maybe not on balance. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do good sometimes). This won’t make anything clearer.

The Truth About the Truth About Greenhouse Gases?

Clearly, everyone wants to have a long discussion about GW etc etc, and maybe I haven’t provided a venue for this for a while. But I’ve now found an excuse, prompted by (or perhaps more accurately, simply ripping off) mt, who has looked at The Truth About Greenhouse Gases by William Happer.

mt says various wise things, and I too balk at the very first thing he says about climate, viz:

The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 270 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 C during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2.

This is a common septic meme, but Happer should be aware that it is wrong; so either he is ignorant or lying; I can’t tell which.

There is a wiki page about this, [[Attribution of recent climate change]] and although it isn’t great, it is better than Happer, and at least points you to the correct sources. And it says:

Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

* The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.
* Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period [The page says, earlier, “particularly on the last 50 years”].
* Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.
* The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

And so we head off for IPCC AR4 chapter 9. And read the Exec summary: It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

And so on; you can follow it to whatever level of detail you please. So the question is, how can Happer not be aware of this? He is not obliged to agree with the IPCC report, but he cannot but realise that it is the authoritative voice of the position he disagrees with; he is obliged to at least know what it says and (if he is being honest) he is obliged to report (and then, if he can, refute) its arguments. It is dishonest of him to substitute strawmen.

I could go on, but can’t quite see the point. The Happer text is just the std septic mish-mash. It doesn’t even know what the position it opposes is, so cannot say anything interesting about it.

[Update: this was a “s(k)eptic test” post. The question was: “is it possible to argue coherently against the IPCC position, but at the same time realise that Happer had misrepresented it”? The answer, on a sample of one s(k)eptic so far, is no: either because it is necessary to defend Happer from any charges of error, or perhaps because the attempt to compare what Happer said to what the IPCC said is too difficult; it would require reading and understanding what the IPCC said -W]

Refs

* John Mashey is a destructive force

Are the wackos wacko enough?

Harvey Korman and Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles A while ago I reported Watching the Deniers say that “There will be no US Congressional investigation into “Climategate”: or how global warming sceptics got duped” and commented that Even the wackos aren’t really wacko enough to take on the science. But! Maybe I’m wrong. Science says:

The House of Representatives science committee’s panel on basic research and education plans to hold hearings on climate change to present more views on the topic, says its new chair, freshman Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL).

Mel Brooks is very clearly a wacko, because he is dumb enough to try and take on The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus, and it is fairly clear from the Science piece that he has spent too long talking to S+C in Huntsville.

Anyway, we can hope that Popcorn Time isn’t too far away.
Continue reading “Are the wackos wacko enough?”

Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz vs Hansen

Right, the previous thread has spilled off a discussion of Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz and their representation of a Hansen et al. figure. I have the feeling that the JNS paper may have appeared in multiple places, but the one I have access to is:

jastrow-abs

There is a lot wrong with that abstract (culminating in the once-traditional but now discarded over-reliance on the S+C satllite record) but the bit that is of immeadiate interest (because it figures in the previous discussion) is their take on figure 5 from Hansen et al. Which is:

hansen-fig-5

And which they “reproduce” as:

jastrow

The “2” after “Hansen et al.” is a ref to the 1981 Science paper, so we really are talking about the same thing. They don’t say which figure, but it has to be fig. 5 (but see-also below the fold).

So, is their reproduction fair?

DSC_5722

[Update, and post pulled to top (original publication date 2010/08/26) to show it: I’ve now discovered something vaguely interesting, in reading the “original” Nierenberg report, chapter 5 (which I never got to in my “book club” series). That is, their fig 5.8. Which is – ta da – the Hansen 1980 figure, panel (a) only: ie, just the CO2. But it is a faithful reproduction of the original – same obs, same start and end times, and the model line isn’t shifted downwards. So my guess would be that JNS got their fig from the Nierenberg report, rather than going back to the original. That doesn’t excuse them, of course. But it interesting that fig 5 of the Nierenberg report makes similar claims to JNS: it notes that the figure doesn’t match the temperature record very well (der, of course it doesn’t), and it fails to note, in that section, the other panels of the Hansen figure. So, who wrote chapter 5? Gunter Weller, James Baker, W Lawrence Gates, Michael MacCraken, Syukuro Manabe, Thomas Vonder Haar. I don’t know all of them, but at the very least Manabe and MacCracken cannot possibly be called “skeptics”. So how did that figure and discussion got into a chapter with their names on? Aha, because that section is about CO2 asa causal factor. They go on to reproduce the other panels of Hansen’s figure, including the combination-of-all-factors panel. So chapter 5 is OK; but JNS isn’t.

Also: I knew I’d seen and discussed this fig before: and the answer turns out to be Chez Eli – where else? But it was nearly 2 years ago.]
Continue reading “Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz vs Hansen”

Flaunt the stupidity

This post is about the ridiculous “hide the decline” video. I watched it when it first came out. It wasn’t funny, it was dull. Apparently it has now been pulled from YouTube, but who cares?

But… because the thing is anti-science, the std.anti-science septics on wiki feel inclined to have an article on it. Sigh. There enough real subjects to create articles about without wasting time on vapour. I really ought to point you to the current version, and the current edit war: should this edit be included – viz, is the fact that some guy with a blog thinks the video is funny worth noting? I don’t think so, but I’ve created this post so we’ll see if that fact that some other guy with a blog thinks the video is dull is worth noting. I wonder if you can predict people’s reactions? Hopefully the whole thing will be deleted.

Perhaps I should create “Hide The Incline” instead.

Update: since I’m talking about generic stupidity, you may like to read The Trend from Wootsup by Steven Goddard.

Dumb America

Screen-Shot-2015-02-20-at-16.38.44 An unfair headline; but I think it is a known phrase: the “Dumb America” phenomenon, wherein the public has the hubris to believe that they really have something valuable to contribute to discussions that they can hardly begin to understand (I’m assuming that if you aren’t part of DA then you’re intelligent enough to realise I’m not talking about all Americans).

Yes, I’m talking about the comments in Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano by Willis Eschenbach at Wattsup (ht: mt). Incidentally, anyone tempted to complain about my sneering or elitist tone is invited to comment somewhere else. If you want the department of politely answering stupid questions, you want Eli.

[Update: if you didn’t like the tone of this post, you might find somewhat similar ideas expressed in a more measured way by Bart (and links therein to mt).]
Continue reading “Dumb America”

Wegman again

It seems shame to root thorugh the trash, but people do, and JM points out the following weird ref in t’ Wegman report:

Valentine, Tom (1987) “Magnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems,” Magnets,
2(1) 18-26.

The odd thing is that is doesn’t appear to be a ref for anything. What is it doing there? And what is this odd paper? Or is Wegman one of those people that wear magnetic bangles to cure rheumatism?

* Is this the same Tom V?
* Of course, you should read Deep Climate

Flat earth – and Piers too!

We interrupt your schedule of cats and rowing for a brief snark at the denialists: courtesy of mt, who clearly ventures where angels fear to tread, we have Newsletter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray: THE FLAT EARTHThe attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant. This is abysmal stupidity and ignorance at its septic best: Gray really does believe that this simplified picture is the basis for the climate models. Good grief. Need I say more, guv?

Well all right. Gray continues… It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output. There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth’s surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. This is a not-too-bad description of how GCMs actually operate.

I’m finding it hard to believe that Gray really is this rubbish. There must be something else that he means. Or is Inferno now posting as Gray?

Update: Special bonus snarking: I should read climaterealists more often: I missed an exciting plug for Piers Corbyn. He predicted the volcano. Or something. To be honest I couldn’t be bothered to read it all. But is has a nice pic and one of those hand-drawn weather front maps that went out with the ark.

Selective quotation

Eli has a wonderful post on the McLean mess. So wonderful I can’t resist ripping bits of it off :-).

McLean et al. quote:

“But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of “blog diatribe”. The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature.”

But oddly enough they don’t continue the quotation

The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can’t see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.

How very curious.

[Comments off here; go to Eli instead]