Comments on: When the Team is on the Move

By: Climate Research News » Test2

Climate Research News » Test2 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:54:36 +0000

[...] Adapted from a comment by Ross McKitrick at Climate Audit. [...]

By: Other voices on climate change » Ross McKitrick: Why is IPCC so afraid to be wrong?

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:45:55 +0000

[...] Ross McKitrick is co-author of Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warmng. This comment appeared originally on Climate Audit at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4064. [...]

By: Geoffrey Bristlewitt III

Geoffrey Bristlewitt III — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:40:34 +0000

It does appear that much of the climate science community is acting in bad faith. Whether this is due to reasons of publicity, funding, publication, or peer pressure, has yet to be determined. What is becoming rather apparent is that the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature is far looser and more poorly understood than is represented by the community. Mr. McIntyre provides an invaluable service in carefully examining the various bases for the far reaching claims of this very young branch of science.

If the entire world is to overturn its economy based upon a tiny newborn science such as climate science, we must examine every small detail of its tiny wailing claims. If this discomfits you in any way, perhaps you need changing.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:58:31 +0000

Good, leave. Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out. Most of us are much more tired of folks like you that just don’t get it.

Mark

By: Dave Clarke

Dave Clarke — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:51:10 +0000

Re: Steve McIntyre (#101),

In addition, you should have said this to readers here who had previously made an issue of the fact that I had made an incorrect statement a month ago about whether non-infilled data was on Mann’s website and demanded that I deal with this “issue”.

To me, the “issue” wasn’t that you made a “small mistake” or an “incorrect statement” about whether infilled data was available or not. Rather, it was the unfounded accusation of bad faith against Gavin Schmidt, when you said he was “full of crap” and even speculated that he had added the link to the SI “original” data in the RC comment hours after originally posting his “non-infilled” comment.

Same “issue” when you claimed that the “ass…es” [i.e. Mann et al] blocked you, when it was obvious there was a problem with your connection or your script.

And on and on … I think I’ve had about enough. Someone else will have to take over and call you on all your “mistakes” and the wild unfounded conclusions you draw from them.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:51:01 +0000

Geo, one lesson that I figured out when I was young was to carefully examine any mistakes, since one tended to repeat mistakes. Even small mistakes. I wanted to understand why I made this particular error and I thought that the reason was interesting. But, as you say, I’ve spent enough time on this and that would include this line of discussion.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:53:36 +0000

Geo, you really don’t get it, do you. The Hockey Schtick is portrayed to the public as incontrovertible proof that we’re entering a catastrophic climate period due to human activity. It’s been shown numerous times that the statistical meanderings needed to create the HS make it pretty much meaningless as a scientific exercise. Yet it, and many other studies, use the same data and methods, are leading us deeper and deeper into a morass of bad science, and consequently bad policy. Do you really want that?

By: Geo

Geo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:32:03 +0000

So why play their game? What an awesomely unproductive idea –incentivize the unreasonable by spending your time trying to disprove their irrelevant bulls**t. Do you not get that when you reward that kind of behavior you’ll get more of it? The reward for them is moving the spotlight off the issues onto irrelevancies. Quit enabling them.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:21:14 +0000

#94. Geo, you are complaining to the wrong party. If you feel that the issue is irrelevant, then this point should have been made to Gavin Schmidt about his allegation at RC. In addition, you should have said this to readers here who had previously made an issue of the fact that I had made an incorrect statement a month ago about whether non-infilled data was on Mann’s website and demanded that I deal with this “issue”. When I looked into it, I concluded that, yes, I had made an error, but the error was hardly blameworthy. Indeed, the nature of the error was itself an illustration of why proper disclosure of changes is important. In this context, I felt that it was also relevant to at least be on the record as repudiating Gavin Schmidt’s most recent slander.

By: Carrick

Carrick — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:34:40 +0000

Geo: try explaining away comments by Gavin like ” The points raised are almost invaraibly due to misunderstandings, errors in the archived data set (subsequently corrected at Nature) and deliberate obsfucations [sic] ” as being due to “time lag” is clearly nonsensical.

All that needs to be said about it.