|
Post by socold on Dec 3, 2011 2:28:57 GMT
The discredited Hockey-Stick had another purpose: to give credence to the otherwise incredible climate models. They can't imagine anything other than a Hockey-Stick because of their GIGO CO2 fetish. The three models in this graph all show a "medieval warm period". As do the hockey sticks themselves. One of the models even shows a medieval warm period higher than the reconstructions. Presumably a larger climate sensitivity would achieve an even larger medieval warm period. Comparison with more recent reconstructions:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 3, 2011 2:38:07 GMT
Socold: I have to examine the papers in greater detail concerning the MWP. After seeing climategate 2......I don't believe much of anything concerning proxy data anymore. It could be that the few papers that contradict your spagettii graph are correct. The outlying papers show a much warmer MWP.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 3, 2011 2:52:48 GMT
I am confused by this idea that the scientists attacked the S&B paper and the journal simply because they wanted to dishonestly shut down the argument. Where does this idea come from?
The emails? No. The emails contradict this idea. Email 3681 below. Bold emphasis mine.
From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Phil Jones, Mann, etc etc
"the Soon&Baliunas paper has given political lobbyists a field day in their attempts to confuse the public and decision-makers about the state of global warming science. It is quite interesting how a lobby organisation like the Marshall Institute manages to get a paper like that into the peer-reviewed literature with the help of a sympathetic editor, against reviewer concerns, and then capitalise on that right away in Senate hearings and the media. There clearly is a wider and well-funded strategy behind such activities, which has something to do with why the US has backed out of the Kyoto protocol. These same US organisations are also active here in Europe trying to influence policy, albeit so far with less success."
"In the face of such sophisticated lobbying we scientists should not be too naive. Although simply doing good science remains our main job, I think at some points we need to intervene in the public debate and try to clarify what is science and what is just political lobbying. In particular, I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically motivated science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature - it is too easy to just shrug and ignore an obviously bad paper. Hence I greatly appreciate that Mike and his co-authors responded in Eos to the errors in the Soon&Baliunas paper."
Some of the responses.
Tom Wigley: "I have been closely involved in the CR fiasco. I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas's editorship, appear later in the journal -- without me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more 'sympathic' reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier."
Andre Berger: "I admire the courage of Stefan and of all other colleagues who are > willing to answer these highly controversed papers (garbage as Marty > said)"
I don't see any indication in these emails that the scientists considered the Soon&Baliunas paper as anything other than an error filled paper that should not have passed legitimate peer review, but did so because of political motivation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 3, 2011 3:14:33 GMT
socold: S&B was no more flawed than most of Mr. Mann's papers. That is the sad state of affairs. That is why I said I will have to now re-examine the papers. Which is a travesty as I have thrown them out and I bought the dog gone things.
Climate science is one hell of a mess, that is a 100% certainty.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 3, 2011 3:15:06 GMT
As an objective person, I am very very very disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 3, 2011 14:20:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 3, 2011 16:41:28 GMT
sigurdur
I disagree. The astrophysics had a very strong personal agenda. That's what drove them. I met some of them and the agenda was clear to behold. The lack of policy implications in their agenda is a minor issue!
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 3, 2011 16:58:33 GMT
Steve and Socold,
Do youse guys actually give any credence to the Mannian Hockey-Stick?
Really?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 3, 2011 20:18:17 GMT
sigurdur I disagree. The astrophysics had a very strong personal agenda. That's what drove them. I met some of them and the agenda was clear to behold. The lack of policy implications in their agenda is a minor issue! I met some of them and the agenda was clear to behold. Who did you meet? When? Where? What was clear? Anyone can make up crap like that. We get our information based on observations, evidence and direct quotes from the sources. You make an unsubstantiated claim and expect everyone to believe it simply on your flimsy word. socold, now that you've cherry picked a couple fluffy paragraphs, have you read anything at all outside of those? It is clear you still don't have a clue. These same slimeballs used the exact same tactics against Steve McIntyre when he first noticed a problem with Mann's math and statistics. Digging up quotes by the Team attacking opposing research doesn't legitimize their quotes. They are a clique; that's what cliques do. The spaghetti graph fraud was used to debunk Soon et al. The Team fooled everyone and lied about it. The emails make the story clear now. You guys are defending the climate science equivalent of Bernie Madoff, Enron, and Richard Nixon all rolled up into one. You are not interested in truth and facts.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 4, 2011 0:47:11 GMT
sigurdur I disagree. The astrophysics had a very strong personal agenda. That's what drove them. I met some of them and the agenda was clear to behold. The lack of policy implications in their agenda is a minor issue! Steve: What type of personal agenda could the astrophysics have? I don't see one other than one party thinking they are right and the other party also thinking they are right.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 4, 2011 14:44:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 4, 2011 17:58:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 4, 2011 19:52:14 GMT
Unfortunately Billions of dollars have been spent and will be continued to be spent on this Mr. Green fools errand. Italy, Greece, Holland, U.K. and the U.S. have killed jobs and attempted to kill the environment by their move the pollution to some other country then borrow money to support the Green agenda. Hockey as a AGW sport continues.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2011 0:19:32 GMT
socold, now that you've cherry picked a couple fluffy paragraphs, have you read anything at all outside of those? It is clear you still don't have a clue. The skeptic narrative that the S&B paper was good but the scientists saw it as a threat and resorted to pulling a load of dirty tricks to get it removed is contradicted by the paragraphs I quoted from the emails. They show that the scientists really did consider s&b to be a bad paper and that peer review had been subverted by an editor of the journal for political reasons. So they are more than just fluffy paragraphs - they are very relevant and very much unreported. If the emails had contained words like "I feel it is important to squash this paper. The science looks solid to me, but maybe we can go after the journal and the editor" you'd have a point. But instead we get "I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically motivated science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 5, 2011 0:46:13 GMT
But instead we get "I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically motivated science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature"
"SO WE WILL JUST PUT MORE BAD POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SCIENCE IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE IN RETALIATION!"
Sorry Socold but your logic does not hold any water at all. The team gave a lot less than zero consideration for the peer reviewed literature.
|
|