Comments on: Team Responses to MM2003

By: Nude Scientist – Issue 2 « TWAWKI

Nude Scientist – Issue 2 « TWAWKI — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:54:21 +0000

[...] The team responds! [...]

By: bender

bender — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:51:31 +0000

I agree with Ed Cook, as cited in the CRU emails: I think the existing proxies are too imprecise to resolve the question of medieval warmth relative to modern warmth. It’s quite possible there’s no difference. Better proxies are badly needed. Until that time it makes no sense to try to constrain climate sensitivity using paleoclimatic approaches. The best approach is to go with modern radiative & convective physics and to keep collecting better data in that direction. Which is probably what Trenberth meant when he said “it’s a travesty” in the CRU emails. But collecting data is not good enough, and I’m sure Gavin Schmidt would agree. The new and old data need to be summarized in an engineering-quality report of the variety McIntyre has been calling for from Day One.
.
That’s my opinion. See how much there is to agree upon with certain members of the climate community? It’s not all US versus THEM.

By: Wondering Aloud

Wondering Aloud — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:05:22 +0000

In my experience physics types just assume they can do anything; and any “lesser field”, like statistics, we can handle without effort or training.

We think we are just MUCH smarter than everyone else!

This has bitten Mann on the backside and he refuses to admit it.

By: Slabadang

Slabadang — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:58:36 +0000

Hello all!

I just want to remind everybody of the IPCC mandate.Reading this site and then compare with the official mandate is an allmost “out of the body” experience.

IPCC MANDATE

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Humor or tradgedy??

By: alex verlinden

alex verlinden — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:11:45 +0000

Steve, you look way too far and/or too deep …

This is, again, a really interesting and entertaining post and I simply agreed with “scienceofdoom”s reasoning … not about r2 or something …

The way I see it: 1. science and 2. politics

1. The science in this will never be settled, because climatology is simply not the exact science as is e.g. Ohm’s law … so there will never be a conclusive and definitive answer.
2. Politics love situations where they have “to do something”, while the day of reckoning for that doing something is in the far future.

Therefore, science (that is not really resolvable) + politics (that always want to do something) have gone into natural partnership. They love each other. They grow on each other. Careers in politics and science are based on this partnership. Money is made. Nobelprizes are won, and will be won, by this partnership.

I’m far from a specialist, but I do think that Festinger’s 5 conditions (see scienceofdoom) have been met here for the scientists and the politicians (as proponents in AGW) not to give up easily. See an example given here

Therefore, there will be a lot of auditing to do … and who is doing the auditing?

By: willard

willard — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:54:02 +0000

snip – computer coat-rack

By: Kan

Kan — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:23:05 +0000

Dewiit,
Nothing wrong with FORTRAN Back in the late 80′s early 90′s c became the rage, due to some things it allowed for that FORTRAN did not – dynamic allocation of memory (memory could be added to the program while it was running), and recursion among them. FORTRAN had static allocation of memory, and could not perform recursion (due to static memory allocation). Later version of FORTRAN added dynamic memory capabilities.

However, for speed with heavy duty math calculations, FORTRAN was better hands down – due to static allocation of memory. Not so much today.

Steve: Please do not coat-rack this into Fortran disucussion.

By: Jimchip

Jimchip — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:02:42 +0000

Re: Lucy Skywalker (Jan 9 17:58), I don't believe in 'guilt by association'. Being social animals, humans do 'need' trust in others. Has a trust been violated? Who did sense what, even though they didn't or couldn't act? Maybe others sensed something but just couldn't quite put their fingers on it?

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:58:51 +0000

Re: Jimchip (Jan 7 19:23), Mann comes across as a pathological liar and manipulator. Maybe Osborn sensed at least something of this.

By: AMac

AMac — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:21:37 +0000

Re: alex verlinden Jan. 9, 1010 @ 2:27pm –

One mustn’t forget SM’s belief that Mann et al (PNAS, 2009) used Tiljander’s varve proxies upside-down.

Bizarre, that.