Comments on: “Shut-eyed Denial”

By: bender

bender — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:05:44 +0000

And now you know why your words were wasted. Did you really think no one was going to write the story.

By: Punksta

Punksta — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:49:31 +0000

“I was not the only one who was impressed [with the hockey stick graphic] ….James Lovelock pinned it to his wall…. ”

Lovelock’s recent comments may be of interest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece

By: Jsco

Jsco — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:51:10 +0000

I have had this book on order from Amazon since this thread was created. Amazon say’s they have not had any luck yet getting any copies. Is there some other source I could use to actually get one?!? (Amazon claims I can cancel the order if I like.

Thanks!

By: mahong

mahong — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:57:58 +0000

dave
now you’re pissing me off, I’ll join the other side the agw alarmist side then.
this snipping seems to get fashionable?
The essence of fashion is that it comes and goes.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:35:16 +0000

Re: nono (Mar 22 16:21), You really need to read some of Steve's responses to these supposed refutations. Go to the left hand margin here and click on the Categories drop-down. It will let you find threads on the various papers, such as Wahl and Ammann. I tried forming a response to the links you sent above. The problem I've run into is that the graphs both here and on RC don't seem to work anymore. This makes it difficult to make an understandable presentation. The first two links to early Real Climate posts don't really provide much to work with. Steve was supported in his claims both by the NAS panel and by the ad hoc panel of Wegman. Of course the team claim that NAS supported Mann, but this isn't correct. If you read their report, what they said is that while the off-centered PCs weren't correct,there were plenty of other multiproxy studies which supported Mann independently. But this is just wrong. All the other multi-proxy studies at that time and since for that matter, use the same proxies cherry-picked from Mann's list, or variations on the same theme. I hate just telling you to read all the appropriate threads here, but they have things in much more detail than I can provide. I would be happy to find answers to specific questions related to a given "refutation" of one of Steve's findings.

By: nono

nono — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:21:11 +0000

(hit the “spam filter” again, I guess. Second try.)

I read the GRL paper of Steve. It has been subsequently criticized a couple of times in peer-reviewed literature, e.g. here (the guys also provide the code):

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

Is there a (non-blog) response to these critics?

My feeling is that the GRL paper failed the test of time, that is, it did not convince many scientists.

By: nono

nono — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:50:33 +0000

I read the GRL paper of Steve. It has been subsequently criticized a couple of times in peer-reviewed literature, e.g. here:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

Code available here:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/WA_supplement.html

Is there a (non-blog) response to these critics?

By: PaulM

PaulM — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:05:47 +0000

Re: nono (Mar 17 12:59), Nono, you claim to work on the lithosphere. If so, you might have heard of a journal called GRL, one of the most highly regarded in the field? Look at vol 32, L03710. Also, if you are really a scientist, you will know that it is very difficult to get even good work into Nature.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:12:19 +0000

Realclimate’s claims are complete nonsense. Half the time they don’t even address Steve’s actual assertions, they move to something similar and attack it, i.e., they argue a strawman.

Mark

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:15:35 +0000

Re: mahong (Mar 21 17:58), Boring! There are plenty of proofs of black holes. In any case you're off topic here and I'm not going to waste time presenting the proofs to you just to get the thread snipped. Go find someplace where proofs of black holes is on topic. [RomanM: I strongly agree. No more on this topic here please.]