No bender, you are not.

That was what I was trying to get at:

The point of the research paper from Australia (linked in my previous post) was that,with all the work that has been done in Australia and internationally on ENSO,they are still unable to understand the complexities of ENSO events when relating them to the recorded weather data in Australian history, let alone be able to model them and predict future weather or climate patterns with any skill.

Dr Mann is the one maintaining that he can both reconstruct and predict ENSO events.

By the way, I have always enjoyed your posts.

[Steve M, I realize that circulation is generally OT for CA. Snip if you must.]

One last thing before I go.

I did allow subjectivity to colour my previous remarks and for that I do apologise.

A good friend of mine recently sold his 1000 acre cattle farm, started by his grandfather, here in rural Australia (for a knock down price) because, in large part, he believed some “climate scientists” when they said there may never be substantial rain again in our area. We have been going through an extended drought in Australia (long El Nino) and my paddocks have been pretty dry as well and I had to offload all my sheep. recently we have transitioned to a La Nina phase (fairly weak at this point) but some good rains have come and the pasture isn’t too bad now where I am.
The businessman from Melbourne who bought my friends farm (and several others in the area) is apparently pretty happy.

Most of the people that I know just want to be sure that the scary projections we are presented with are based on good science that then flows through to good policy.
The argument is not merely an academic one and to prematurely describe the science as “settled”, when patently it is not, will not do any of us much good.

Thanks again Steve for all your work.

Re #182

I take you point entirely. To reduce things merely to motivation can be viewed as just another form of ad hominem attack.
I apologise for this.
The science is the issue.

If you ever do wade through this lengthy research paper:
“Asymmetry in the Australian response to ENSO and the predictability of inter-decadal changes in ENSO teleconnections”
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/pubs/researchreports/RR113.pdf

You could perhaps understand why I feel that the treatment of this topic by some scientists and the conclusions they have drawn lack a bit of substance.

I think perhaps it is time to go back to lurking to avoid further embarrassing myself.

Cheers all,

Marine_Shale

now, I dissect you. OK?

“Steve, when I first visited here, I was a bit taken aback by the post deletions and unthreading,
but now I understand it and appreciate its necessity. ”

Funny, My reaction to having a post deleted was exactly the opposite. I wasnt taken aback
I was THANKFUL my stupidness was deleted. When you think what you have to say is
important or informed or influential, you are taken aback. Hmmm.

“Like it or not, this blog and others are now part of the public dialogue on climate change
and it reflects on people and sides. ”

“it reflects” What you mean to say is this. Some people will judge your ideas by the
ideas ( however unrelated) of your followers. I’m well aware of the PR function.
“it reflects” means that most people do not consider the merits of the case. People
of color show up at my rally ” it reflects” I get the code for irrational appeals.
I used to teach rhetoric. Can’t tell I know.

“Even though I know there is no official “side” taken here, again, like it or not,
it is perceived by many as being on the “skeptic” or “denialist” side. ”

Yes. Percieved by many. makes it true I suppose.

“I understand the continued focus on Mann’s work, and the MBH papers:
it’s the posts that descend to the personal with Mann and JEG that I think should be avoided
because it makes this venture look too much like vendetta. ”

I’m not sure that would help. When the rhetorical stratgey of the other side is to
metaphorcially align you with holocaust deniers and to refuse any debate because the
matter is settled. When that strategy is employed then what. Be reasonable? be reasonable
with people who call you nazis when your family died in death camps?

“Most of us — scientist and layperson alike — act in our own personal interest in some way
so I think we can assume that motive underlies much of our behavior, Mann and JEG — why even Steve Mc — included.”

You totally mis the mark here absolutely. No one denies motive. The question is how do remove
motive. How do you remove the motives of Mann? Not by whining about them. Not by pointing them out.
your remove the MOTIVE BY REPLICATING THE WORK. I dont have his motives. If he gives me his data
and gives me his methods and I can repliacte his work, then his results are independent of
motive. But mann wouldnt give his data and methods. And to date others follow his lead.
Of course motive underlies our behavior. The point of the scientific method is to reduce this.

” Pointing it out seems, well, self-evident. If a paper or argument has merit or has flaws,
the personal motives of the authors really are irrelevant.
You can be the most selfish and biased individual and write a sound research paper.”

Yes, as I have said countless times “exxon paid me to say 2+2=4.”

“I think I can guess at motives: I want explanations based on sound science.”

As a student of Kuhn you know exactly what is going on.

Not sure how anyone could see it that way. What is desired – what still has not been achieved – is accountability and transparency. CA keeps the pressure on individuals and groups in hope of changing climate science reporting practices. Some have changed. Many haven’t. The conflict is not personal, it is institutional.

Steve: The desire of individual scientists to hoard data is understandable. What isn’t understandable is that NSF fails to implement high-level policies designed to prevent scientists from hoarding relevant climate data. The scientists annoy me, but I blame the institutions.

I think I can guess at motives: I want explanations based on sound science.

Steve: thank you for this. 90% of the deletions that I make are people venting too enthusiastically or going a bridge too far or several bridges too far in attributing motives or malice to others. It’s time consuming and annoying for me to have to do this tidying. I’m sorry if it disrupts sequences, but maintaining sequences would be oppressive in terms of my time. Also people who get cross at sequencing issues, please let off-topic posters know at the time. If people behave better, then the moving won’t be as much of an issue. I deal much more lightly with critics of this site than I do with supporters.