Mosher on Gavin’s “Frustration”

Mosher writes in:

Gavin explained his frustration stemmed from people asking the same question over and over when it was already answered. He then reveals something new and closes the thread. We carry on here with one unknown guy trying to defend mann.

That’s the PROBLEM.

Mann: 2+2=5
McIntyre No, 2+2=4
Mann; thats bizarre
Mc: 2+2=4, just say it Mike
Mann: it doesnt matter, look over here we say 3+3=6
Mc: 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter, ask gavin
Amac: ya 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter
Mosher: Can anybody besides steve just say that 2+2=4
Dehog: You said Piltdown Mann once.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: it doesnt matter:
Tiljander: 2+2=4
Arthur Smith: I”ll look into it.
Amac; 2+2=4
Gavin: Can we change the subject, we said it doesnt matter.
Mosher: can you say 2+2=4
Lambert: Fuller is full of it.
Bishop: Mike said 2+2=5, but 2+2=4
Tamino: Bishop said 2+2=5
Mc: Bishop was explaining Mann.
Amac: 2+2=4
Kloor: why can’t we reason together?
Gavin: we try, but they wont read our answers.
Amac: 2+2=4
Gavin: There he goes again, please shut him up.
Mc; 2+2=4
RC commenter: Do your own science Mcintyre
Mc: 2+2=4 is not publishable. Mann needs to correct this.
Mann: its all in the SI
Amac: hey mann website now says 2+2=4
Gavin: The exact value of 2+2 is uninteresting. move along
RC commenter: Hey McIntyre said 2+2=5
Mc: no I didnt
RC commenter: oops, my bad, but I’m right in spirit
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?


172 Comments

  1. RickA
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    Very true.

    However, it is good that Gavin is engaged outside RC and I would like to see the trend continue.

    • mpaul
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

      I suspect that the Team views this experiment at engaging the critics to have been a mistake of historic proportions. I doubt you will see it happen again.

  2. Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    What a riot. Nice.

  3. Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    Gavin – I don’t care if 2 + 2 = 4. We know how the greenhoue effect works

    • Robert of Ottawa
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

      I like the 2 + 2 = 4 is uninteresting. However, money earning servitude to my paymasters is very interesting.

  4. Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Imagine the hell the Manns and Schmidts of this world must have constructed for themselves.

    They. Can’t. Ever. Be. Wrong.

    • scientist
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

      Steve can be like that too. Just try pushing on the nature of the red noise in his hockey stick testing in GRL05. Even when he has a genuine flaw in Mike’s work, he exaggerates it’s effect. Then when called on it, Steve evades disucssion and also diverts with the “but it’s even a flaw with simple red noise”. No duh! But he still made out his opponent’s flaw to be bigger than what it was. And he doesn’t want to admit it.

      Then, they both use the Voice of God. :)

      Ed Zorita is the model of fairness. Would trust the man with my life.

      • Tom C
        Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

        scientist –

        So you think that the continued, obstinate use of the Tiljander proxy upside down is wrong but said practice has been “exaggerated”?

        • scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

          I think that Tiljander dependency significanlty weakens the claims of what was novel in PNAS (both because of the single porxy nature and because of the physical concerns woth Tilk sediments). Mike should have highlighted the issue more in his inital publication and been less defensive in discussion of it later.

          I don’t think that it is a “2 plus 2″ issue and failure to admit, though. How can you say, it’s 2 plus 2, then when I come along, “but you have to read 2 years of blog posts and several science papers to get the gist of it”.

          To me a “2 plus 2″ would be the recent reply to Smeardon where Mike’s crew misplotted, miscalculated a series in their hastily put up document. Zorita pointed it out. and they fixed it, right away.

          another 2 plus 2 would be where Ritson did differencing and Mike denied it. and people cavitated. and Mike denied it. And even Mike’s own side cavitated. Then finally he admitted it. In a very opaque and non-admitting manner. To me, that is a better example of a 2 plus 2 issue, fer sure. and then some reluctance to admit it.

        • Tom C
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM | Permalink

          scientist –

          Steve and Ross submitted a comment where they pointed out the improper use of Tiljander. Anyone with a modicum of technical ability could understand the issue at hand. Mann et. al. replied that it was “bizarre” and that the “sign of the predictors didn’t matter”. So, here’s the question for you: could they not understand the issue which nearly everyone else seems to have no problem understanding) or were they being willfully deceptive, secure in the knowledge that the establishment would back them up no matter how extravagant the offence?

        • Tom C
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

          OK – let me try once more time. Do you agree that “the sign of the predictors doesn’t matter”? What sort of confidence would you have in someone who said this in relation to paleoclimate reconstructions?

        • scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

          I personally have less Bayesian confidence in recons where the physical nature of the proxy is weaker (i.e arbitrary sign). But I am not a statistician. I suppose that there might be some argument for doing very signal pulling types of analyses, but then, I think the authors should better highlight the issue, maybe try to defend it also, rather than just use fancy words about PCA and EIV and such. Maybe if Mike had written a paper on EIV versus CPS instead of been so fixated on the recon itself, that would have been the more useful approach. I guess it’s a pretty philosophical question of “how physical” you should be versus how proxyhopperish. I kind of recognize the dillema, but lack the personal insight to say what’s the better approach. I suspect, even were I an expert, that it would not be a straightforward problem.

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

          Steve has a clear-cut postion on this too. The novel contribution of a paper should be methodological or ‘physical’ but not both. New claims with new methods need to be binned immediately. I see the value in this now, being guilty of hacking around myself.

        • Tom C
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

          scientist –

          You wrote:

          “I personally have less Bayesian confidence in recons where the physical nature of the proxy is weaker (i.e arbitrary sign).”

          If there is no “physical nature” that determines the sign vis-a-vis temperature its use is just a fishing expedition for spurious correlation. You understand this, right?

        • Mesa
          Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

          “signal pulling”…

          just so.

        • kim
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

          At Keith’s Gavin thread, Judy Curry points to a new paper by 4 authors including Zorita, which also implicitly admits that the hockey stick is dead. But hey, it wasn’t important anyway, so who cares?
          =============

        • Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

          Re: scientist (Aug 6 15:58),

          Hey, kudos to scientist; he lived up to his pseudonym. At first, to me, his challenges seemed more like an expression of crankiness, but that’s not how it played out. He has really moved the story forward with some sharp observations and original insights.

          I can see that he doesn’t much like Steve McI and finds me tiresome at times. That’s ok. I get annoyed too, now and then… :-)

          We don’t all have to be friends.

          sci, stay well, and maybe tell your sharper friends that its okay to come over and play, sometimes. Last I checked, they hadn’t yet figured out the relevance of the EU Data Protection Directive, and its restrictions on the public release of what seems like innocuous database information (to those of us on this side of the Atlantic). Here’s a link to help them out.

        • MattA
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

          You are right its not as simple as 2+2=4

          Its as simple as 1=-1 after all the signs dont matter

        • scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

          I guess I’m just not as smart as you, since it’s so simple for you and since I had/ve to ask myself some questions first.

          I know in the past, that people have said something was super simple and beaten it up and down and finally conceded they were wrong after a huge amount of just repeating that things were “so simple”. Jeff Id’s negative thermometers for example.

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

          snip

          Sorry Steves, this thread is great except for the one guy, I don’t want to let this go. I don’t recall ever being crazy enough to admit that thermometers should be read upside down. I do recall TCO claiming that I was admitting that.

          Someone presented an example of a linear bar heated from the end with two thermometers at one side of the bar. Conduction dominated the solution and guaranteed an extreme temperature at the far end of the bar because only the end was heated. The solution was a negative thermometer – which is cute but hardly an example of why we would read a weather thermometer upside down.

          For instance, if you add heat to the center of the bar, the solution falls apart and your best estimate would be to average the thermometers – by area.

          It is simple.

          Mann: Briffa -Tiljander + Luterbacher = $$$

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

          sorry botched the reply. It was in answer to

          scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

          Jeff.

          We can’t listen to you anymore. You are accused of getting something wrong, and since you are a skeptic, that disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously on anything climate or math concerning climate or anything else.

          Now, if you were a AGW climate scientist……….

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

          Oh, AND you botched a reply? Why does anyone even listen to you.

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

          I did not botch my reply.

        • Craig Loehle
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

          Sorry “scientist” but this one really was simple. Sediment from road construction etc altered the sediment record in a big way (evident in the plots as well as the text of Tiljander ms). Not just minor issues like all proxies have. Big contamination. This is a simple concept. Why would one even pick up this data knowing it is badly contaminated? Because it looks like a hockey stick, which is the wrong reason to pick it up.

        • Jere Krischel
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

          Not sure if that was meant to be funny, but it made me laugh out loud :)

        • AMac
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

          Earlier comment stuck somewhere in the moderation queue. (Also, a comment with substance should surface on the “No-Dendro” thread, at some point.) To reprise — scientist, you lived up to your nickname. You ruffled my feathers, maybe vice-versa too, obviously no fondness for Steve McI… but you pushed in some fruitful directions and moved the story forward with fresh insights. We don’t all have agree, we don’t all have to be friends; better to attend to the science. You did that, I appreciate it.

        • scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:03 PM | Permalink

          Shake your manly hand!

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

          The reply link isn’t working for me but:

          “Shake your manly hand!”

          Scientist is absolutely TCO, Jason, TCOisbanned, and whatever other name.

        • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

          Jeff: If you can’t even handle a simple reply link, then why should we believe anything you have to say!

          Signed: not Scientist (I guess this makes me a “denialist”)

        • acementhead
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

          Sonicfrog

          “Jeff: If you can’t even handle a simple reply link, then why should we believe anything you have to say!”

          Well “scientist” spelled “dilemma” incorrectly so why should we believe anything he says?

        • NoName
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

          ===
          SMc has indicated that he wishes for no speculation on the location of posters on his blog

        • scientist
          Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

          For the CPS, he certainly either made a mistake on orientation or if he knew it and decided to flip it anyway, should have specified that he did so. And in the paper, not the SI. Of course all the treeless MWP discussion only has to do with EIV, where the algorithm just crunches and flips as it chooses.

        • Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

          Tiljander: -2 + -2 = 4.

        • Doug Jones
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

          Oops, replied to wrong comment-

          Bwahahahaha, poptech just summed it up in one borken equation.

      • Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

        I agree Steve is not fair, he is just right.

        • Doug Jones
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

          Bwahahahaha, poptech just summed it up in one borken equation.

  5. ML
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    I’m really getting confused about this math ;-)
    In the response to post # 136 in this thread at RC

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

    Gavin said:
    “[Response: Doesn’t follow. I can correct someone who claims that 1+1=3without reference to Russell and Whitehead. The example given by WA05 and the example given in the NAS report (fig 9.3) are both fine examples of what you get with different metrics. This really isn’t that difficult. – gavin]

    metric vs imperial ???????
    just speculating ;-) ;-)

    • Robert of Ottawa
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

      Integers have size but no dimension.

  6. Martin A
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:12 PM | Permalink

    As has been said many times…

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his living depends on his not understanding it”

  7. scientist
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    Pretty low technical content in that headpost, Steve.

    • JWS
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

      Here’s an idea: How about you start a new blog called “Auditing Climate Audit” where every headpost will have high technical content.

      There is no basis for pretending that everything Steve posts on this site is required to be groundbreaking and serious.

  8. glacierman
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    2 + 2 = 8 because 2 re-radiates in two directions, doubling it’s effective feedback.

    • Mike Davis
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

      The answer will be different tomorrow depending on the amount of feedback and amplification. While right now the average answer may be somewhere between 1 and 10 depending on the model output. Tomorrow it could reach 16 with proper parameter adjustments.

      • glacierman
        Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

        Mike,

        You are right. The IPCC says that it is positive and the amplitude is not known, but I am sure they will find someone to say it is worse than we thought……so could be huge.

  9. EdeF
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  10. don
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    Thoughts. Gavin is the Fyodor Dostoyevsky of Climate Science, its first existentialist–it’s the frustration of being, over and over again. It really doesn’t matter. So, to paraphrase Dostevesky, 2 plus 2 is 4 has its place, but 2 plus 2 is 5 is equally nice. And if existence (corporeal being in the moment) is prior to essence (for example what Woody Allen calculates about being), can existentialist Gavin really believe it doesn’t matter? And was Mann being an “authentic” scientist, a practical joker, or practicing “bad faith?”

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:31 AM | Permalink

      dont go all ‘en soi’ and ‘pour soi’ on me. I know Jean Paul Sartre. Sartre was a friend of a friend of a friend of mine. And gavin is no Dostovesky

      err. nevermind

      Heraclitus.
      I win.

  11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Mc: 2+2=4
    Gavin: I will not dignify an accusation of fraud with a response.

    Mc: 2+2=4
    Bart Verheggen: I am unimpressed by McIntyre’s dogwhistle tactics insinuating fraud.

    • Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 8:36 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (Aug 6 14:36),
      Bart talks about ‘nit-picking’ as well

      • steven Mosher
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

        Bart: How many nits would a nit picker pick
        if a nit picker could pick nits?

        Rosanne D’Arrigo: if nits were cherries, he’d pick two
        Mann: Pick two? ya, IF they fall exactly on a lat/lon grid line.
        Moshpit: sounds like climate science calvin ball
        Rosanne D’Arrigo: so, 2 for me and 2 for you.
        Mann: ya 5.
        Rosanne D’Arrigo: nice lets make cherry pie.
        Briffa: Ask the Russians for help with that

  12. ZT
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    From the department of climatological logic and mathematics:
    2+2=5, truth=belief, journalism=activism, 1=-1 (i.e. upside=right side up), skepticism=denial, etc.
    but
    FORTRAN77 != portable
    and
    science inquiry != inquiry into science

  13. Brego
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Oh, I get it. 2+2=5 because you have to account for the forcing due to CO2.
    >snork<

  14. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    2+2=6 is the runaway point.

    • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:45 AM | Permalink

      Not that I’m demanding a corrigendum…. but… 2 + 2 = “The Tipping Point”! Jeez, haven’t you learned anything from reading RealClimate??????

  15. TerryS
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    x = y
    Multiply by x
    xx = xy
    Subtract y squared
    xx – yy = xy – yy
    Factorise
    (x-y)(x+y) = y(x-y)
    Remove common factors
    x+y = y
    Since x = y
    2y = y
    Divide by 2
    y = y/2
    Add y to both sides
    2y = 3y/2
    Since 2y = y
    y = 3y/2
    Since x = y
    y = 3x/2

    Now we can solve the equation
    x + x = z
    Since x = y
    x + y = z
    Since y = 3x/2
    x + 3x/2 = z
    Therefore when x = 2
    2 + 3*2/2 = 5
    And hence from the original x + y = z we get:
    2 + 2 = 5

    • oneuniverse
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

      Division by zero in step 4, “remove common factors”, since x-y=0.

  16. 40 shades of green
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    Hilarious.

    Mosh, is your book this funny.

    40 Shades

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

      I wish. Tom took out all my jokes. And he used to run a comedy club.

      Seriously, I could do this whole dialog a lot better, with hank roberts adding google searches, and eli rabbit doing his thing, and briggs, and the electric universe guys, and lubos, and tomVonk, and kim
      and what a cast of characters.

  17. Patrick M.
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    Could somebody give me a link to a peer reviewed article that shows 2+2=4?

  18. Bernie
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mosher: Brilliant, accurate and funny. You forgot Roger P Jr.. He certainly deserves a mention. I leave it to your wit to capture the essence of his rather detailed exposition.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

      I’ll have to study roger. Tobias and Pj Meyers would be easy.

    • stan
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

      Perhaps Roger Jr.’s role would be to say something along the lines of — he’s only an expert on say … square roots. He has noted that whenever the team and its allies do an assessment they completely botch the section on square roots. However, since other areas of math such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are not his area, he is satisfied to go along with the team’s position on addition, specifically 2+2.

  19. Artifex
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    Penn State: We find no deliberate professional misconduct evident in Dr. Mann’s arithmetic.
    RC Commenter: Vindication ! 2+2=5 !

  20. ianl8888
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    @Mosher

    Some real satire :) – and I’d thought it was beyond the citizens of the US

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

      Ha. i didnt study Swift for my health

    • Tom Ganley
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

      People that produced Benny Hill shouldn’t throw stones.

  21. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    Steve Mosher,
    Fantastic!

  22. steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    hey I did a similar thing at RC but they blocked it. last I checked

    • Atomic Hairdryer
      Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

      Mosher, you are a bad, bad man. Please keep it up.

      • steven Mosher
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

        Thats why the ladies love me. the bad boy of climate science

  23. AMac
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    Slightly more involved arithmetic: A Savings Account at the Paleo National Bank.

  24. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

    OK, Mosh, this is funny. So are the comments.

  25. Kate
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

    This was the best laugh I’ve had in a long, long time!

  26. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    Mann: It’s sedimentary my dear wattsup people, -2+2=4 can’t you do simple math?

  27. oneuniverse
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

    AMac: 2+2 = 1+2+1 = 1+1+1+1 = 2*2 = 2^2 = 4
    Gavin: For the sake of completeness, I will simply repeat 2+2=5, for some values of 5, until further notice.

  28. geo
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

    At some level I regret to say this, but it is what it is –that’s the most brilliantly mass publicly accessible post on the recent few years of climate science debate as I have ever seen.

    Print it on parchment, mat it in acid-proof matting, and frame it in rosewood with brass fittings.

    Link it from every good-willed climate site in creation.

    Just brilliant in its simplicity and emotional truth.

    Bravo, Mosh.

  29. MattN
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    I have delt with people who absolutely can never be wrong and will morph the entire argument into something that what they originally said wrong turns out to be right and declare victory.

    Saints. That’s what you guys are. I would have bought a new monitor by now because I would have destroyed mine by trying to rech through it to strangle someone.

    And 2+2=5, for very large values of 2….

  30. dp
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry: 2 + 2 is approximately 5 for reasonable values of 2 and 5. Can’t we all just get along?

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Folks, please don’t use this as an excuse to be angry or to try to vent or pile on about climate scientists who have nothing whatever to do with this little joke. I’ve deleted quite a few such posts and will delete any others.

  32. kim
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    This is the way the hockey stick breaks,
    This is the way the hockey team folds,
    This is the way the hockey game ends;
    Not with a goal, with a giggle.
    ================

  33. Rhoda Ramirez
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    2.5 +2.5 = 5 but we suppressed the decimal places. How dare you ask for our detailed data!

  34. Joe Blog
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

    Ohh come on people! Although it is possible 2+2=4, i have reason to believe this is largely a localized phenomena!!

    • PhilH
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

      You are right! A 1 is teleconnected: from India. No, wait, from Sweden.

  35. bob
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 10:34 PM | Permalink

    Mr Mosher must have a lot of time on his hands. Hilarious! Really made my day.

  36. David Davidovics
    Posted Aug 6, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    I’ve been a little out of the loop over the last few days. Can some one post links to the relavent blog posts so I can catch up. Hillarious stuff at any rate.

    • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 3:47 AM | Permalink

      Re: David Davidovics (Aug 6 23:36), the intricate and rapidly morphing knotwork of the CA post before this one, No Dendro Illusion, probably has the links you need: RC’s original review of HSI by Tamino, Keith Kloor’s interview with Gavin, AMac’s herculean work taking on both Tiljander and Scientist.

      Keeping up with No Dendro Illusion was like following a high-flying sporting event – commentator Mosher.

      • David Davidovics
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

        Thank you very much. High flying sporting event is a good analogy.

  37. Latimer Alder
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

    Public Ridicule

    The thing that demagogues everywhere cannot handle.

    Tee hee

  38. theduke
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Kudos to Mosh for reminding us once again that there is, beyond all the quibbling, a big picture.

  39. GrantB
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

    KF Gauss said 2 + 2 = 1(mod3)

  40. steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:47 AM | Permalink

    …..
    Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
    Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
    Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
    Amac: but 2+2=4
    Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
    Bender: read the whole blog.
    Amac: in summary 2+2=4
    Deltoid Commenter: tw pls tw eqls fr
    Lambert: You’ve been disemvoweled
    Amac: 2+2=4
    Hank Roberts: I can’t find Amac on google scholar
    Jim Praul: Good I’ll put him on the list.
    Shell Oil: 2+2 =4
    Deep Climate: that proves McIntyre’s Oil connection.
    Briffa: I got 2+2=3
    Harry: I didnt write that code.
    Mann: Keith, hide that decline, here borrow 2 from me.
    Jones: Keith, we match Mann now 2+2=5
    Obsborn: Somebody email Amman and see what he thinks.
    RyanO: good luck with that, Amman never answers mail
    Palmer: Perfect, ask him if our mail is confidential.
    Amman:
    Jones: I think Amman would agree,deny the FOIA
    Briffa (CONFIDENTIAL) gene, McItyre says 2+2=4. Can you help.
    Wahl: We replicated his work, 2+2=5
    Holland: I heard that.
    Amac: 2+2=4
    Amman: Oh MAN! will this crap ever end?? (http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=887)
    RyanO: Hey, how’d you get Amman to answer mail?
    YAD061: 2+2=5 (+-6sigma)
    Amac:2+2=4
    Brian Angliss: Lots of mails you havent read might say 2+2=4
    Santer: Amac, you and me in the alley.
    Dehog: Christy Believes in God.
    Spencer: wrong skeptic, dehog.
    God: 2+2=4
    Jones: Dear God, delete your mail

    • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

      Harry: 2+1+(0.1+0.1-0.1+0.1+0.2+0.2+0.4)=5 # fudge factor

  41. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 12:57 AM | Permalink

    The newspapers just wrote that 2+2 is more than previously thought, maybe 7 or 8, and if it is above 30 as some people expect, 7 million Mexicans will emigrate to the U.S.

  42. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:00 AM | Permalink

    Patrick M. wins the thread.

    I have always been curious as to why it is always 2+2=5; why not 3? I detect a warmist conspiracy.

  43. steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:31 AM | Permalink

    Overpeck: Keith we need something more compelling than the Hockey stick
    Briffa: 2+2=4.1?
    Overpeck: MORE compelling keith
    Wigley: McIntyre may have a point on this 2+2=4 thing.
    Mann: “Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made.”
    Eli rabbet: Spencer made a mistake, therefore, 2+2=5
    Amac: 2+2=4
    Briffa: I got it, Peck, 2+2=5
    Mann: I said that first.
    Gavin: In a massive waste of time and money Independent researchers have investigated this uninteresting thing.
    Moshpit:
    Amman:
    Shell Oil: Hulme we gave you 2 million last month and you want another 2 million?
    Hulme: Ya, 5 should be enough. Pachauri, promised us 6, so that makes 12.
    Shell oil: Who is your accountant?
    Hulme: Wei-Chyung Wang, at Suny
    Jones: He keeps great records ask Keenan.
    Amac:2+2=4.
    Deltoid commenter: can I buy a vowel?
    Lambert: buy 2 get 2 free
    Mann: He doesnt need 5, Tim.

    ok.. time for a little break.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:54 AM | Permalink

      should read
      Moshpit {slaps forehead}
      Amman: http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav

      • Mike Lorrey
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

        Trenbarth: We can’t find the extra 1 and it is a travesty that we can’t!!!

        • Geoff Sherrington
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 4:23 AM | Permalink

          Keith: It’s in compound numbers and it’s for your i’s only.

        • Paul Coppin
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

          Overpeck: Keith we need something more compelling than the Hockey stick
          Briffa: 2+2=4.1?
          Overpeck: MORE compelling keith
          Briffa: I’ve only got 3 trees. I can get 1+2=4 with another core.

        • SLP
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

          Tamino – Mann is right. 2+2=5 – if you use short centered PCA. See Ian Joliffe said so

          IJ – I have never heard of short centered PCA. Why would I use them if I don’t know what they are.

          Tamino – Mann is right. 2+2=5 IJ didn’t say not to use short centerd PCA

        • OldUnixHead
          Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 1:20 AM | Permalink

          Trev: I say, GeoffS, wasn’t that “complex numbers”? “Compound”, “complex” – it’s all so confusing.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

      i lied

      Judith Curry: can you boys please stop this nonsense
      Mann: They started it
      Mc: did not
      Gavin: did too
      Amac: did somebody say 2? 2+2=4

      • Judith Curry
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

        good one :)

        • steven Mosher
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

          Thx Dr. C

  44. Davied, UK
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 4:18 AM | Permalink

    Now come on folks. If you take into account the ERROR BARS, then 2+2=5 is perfectly correct. With error bars of +/-42.

  45. mikelorrey
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 4:58 AM | Permalink

    Phil: It is obvious to anybody who isn’t a math denialist that when we say 2 + 2 = 5, we mean 2.5 + 2.5 = 5, if you pay attention to the metadata.
    Jim Hansen: Yes, it’s 2.5, we had to adjust the raw data upward to adjust for the fact that it needed to be higher.
    Trenbarth: We can’t find the extra 1 and it is a travesty that we can’t!
    McIntyre: Phil, please send me a list of your addition tables.
    Phil: Why should I, we’ve invested years of time and money into compiling them, why should I send them to you if you are only going to find something wrong with them?
    McIntyre: FOIA says so.
    Phil: I’m sorry, I’ve lost my addition tables.
    McIntyre: ….
    Leaker: Psst, Steve….

  46. MilanS
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    Did not resist (delete it if not apropriate):

    Mann: 2+2=5
    McI: 2+2=4
    Gavin: McI did not contribute to any progress of science while Mike has a great record of new discoveries …

  47. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    Russell: Oh what banter! Basic case for 2+2=5 not weakened by any of it.
    Oxburgh: Eh? Oh, sorry, dozed off there, missed most of that. Basic case for 2+2=5 not weakened by any of it.
    PSU: Just see how much money 2+2=5 attracts! QED.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

      Vivian Darkbloom: is that you John Shade? THE John Shade.

      ( so arcane it takes google to figure out)

      • PhilH
        Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

        Next thing you know, Mosh, you will be playing N.’s Word Golf.”

        • PhilH
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

          And hanging around with Bender

        • steven Mosher
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

          Bender is my dopple ganger

      • Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

        VN: I made up that name
        JS: Bit of a nuisance for me
        WS: Took words from my play
        VN: Art is art is life is art
        TofA: The man’s an arrant thief

        • steven Mosher
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

          Ha, Alfred Appel was my teacher at Northwestern.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Appel

          Name the one CRU mail that has the word megaphone in it?

          Name the one CRU mail that has the phrase “squeaky clean”

          Don’t ask me how I remember this crap, but you can see why I would love Lolita and Pale fire

        • kim
          Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

          Cat out of the bag
          On wings of a butterfly.
          Gavin beats retreat.
          ============

        • PhilH
          Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

          Ditto, Mosh. Have had letters from Appel. He sounds like a great guy.

  48. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:31 AM | Permalink

    Have the calculations of 2+2=4 been Independently Verified?

  49. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    Surely, Gavin and Mann have not conceded that 2+2=5. They have only “conceded”, perhaps reluctantly, that 2+2=4 is not provable if you remove all the evidence demanded by Steve.

    Surely all that Steve has ever said is that 2+2=X.

  50. Jimmy Haigh
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    VS: 2 + 2 = 5 contains a unit root.

  51. Paul Martin
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    2+2 = 11 (base 3)
    11 (base 4) = 5 (base 10)
    QED

    • timheyes
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

      Very elegant. But applying Occam’s razor:

      (I) 2.4 = 2 (rounded)

      (II) 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 = 5 (rounded)

      Combining I and II above (with no mathemattical rigour)

      (III) 2 + 2 = 5

      There may be a whole new mathematics field in this technique.

      • Graeme
        Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

        I actually think that is rather clever.

        However I have a reputation for being easily impressed…

  52. geo
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    Mann: Our new paper conclusively proves that 2+2=4, without impacting any of our previous findings.
    Mc: Finally! Umm, but you don’t seem to mention my role in bringing this to light.
    Gavin: Keerist, there goes Mc again, claiming credit for discovering that 2+2=4 when it’s been part of the scientific literature for roughly ever.

  53. steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Scientist: 2+2 might = 4
    Gavin: Thats Just the attitude we dont need…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3S_k1dRbXY

    Amac:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVAsmrwdtQ

  54. steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

    Gavin went to summer camp here

  55. Getting Warmer
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    As 2 x 2 = 4 it’s clear that 2 + 2 can’t possibly be 4 therefore there’s no other explanation than 2 + 2 = 5

  56. j ferguson
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    Ferguson: 2 just can’t understand all this quantitative stuff

  57. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    I’m using editorial discretion to cull down posts – successful entries usually adapt to the “voice” of one of the players along the lines of Mosh’s idea – as opposed to using the thread to complain about climate science. OK?

  58. Ken Finney
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Best.Post.EVAR !!!!11!

    Kind of makes me sedimental for the tree-ring circus.

  59. Jimmy Haigh
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Jones: “Hmm? 2 + 2?? The problem is my surname. I get a number of 4 if I just use the software. I then waded through the journals and got 5. ”

    Mann: “OK—thanks, I’ll just go with the 2 + 2 = 5. That is an impressive number…”

  60. stacey
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

    2 + 2 = 4

    2 * 2 = 4

    Thus 3*3 =6

    Easy see our Gav

  61. Mad Hatter
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    In my world there are 10 types of people-

    Those who understand WATT they do not manage and

    Those who MANNage what they do not understand.

    Thanx 4 the belly larf ppl…

  62. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    Cpngress: What is this we here about 2+2? Mann has 2+2=5 while Mc has 2+2=4
    Hegeral: Well it’s well known in the journals there is a divergence at the = sign

  63. John Whitman
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Mann: 2+2=5 looks like warming more than 2+2=4
    Gavin: Use it
    Mc: 2+2=4 even in SI
    Mann: ?
    Mc: Watch my lips

  64. John Whitman
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    Gavin: Hey Mosh, this CA post isn’t humorous
    Mosher: life is like a box of chocolates Gav
    Gavin: that movie was funny, not your post
    Mosher: movie?

  65. SLP
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    Mann – 2+2=5
    Mc – 2+2=4
    Wahl & Ammann – Mc is wrong!
    Mc – Why?
    W&A – Mc is wrong! 2+2 =4
    Mc – but that is what I said
    Briffa – W please help with AR4 . 2+2 = 5
    W – McIntryre is wrong. 2+2=4
    AR4 – McIntrye is wrong W&A say so

  66. Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    Hans von Storch has another excellent blog post here on the sustainability of science. I think RC science is pretty much depleted,

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/08/sustainable-science.html

    • SLP
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

      Re Van Storch’s sustainable science

      This is an interesting an important posting and especially coming at the time of the Frank paper.

      In the engineering world, this is well known. It called “expectation management”. Do not oversell your idea no matter how good it is. The Team oversold the hockey stick and as a result has disappointed its client base. It will have a very difficult time winning them back.

  67. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    Jeff ID says,”Scientist is absolutely TCO, Jason, TCOisbanned, and whatever other name” and I have known that for a couple of days.

    Mann is Mike. Zorita is his hero and he dislikes Steve M. It is one of his better diguises, but not being up to speed on the technical stuff was pretty much the clincher.

  68. stereo
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    The method used to treat Tiljander is sign invariant. If it’s a ‘negative’ proxy, it is automatically treated as such.

    • sleeper
      Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

      Stereo: 2+2= +/- 4

      • stereo
        Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 4:22 AM | Permalink

        He’s not adding them.

    • Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

      Re: stereo (Aug 7 19:00),

      > If it’s a ‘negative’ proxy, it is automatically treated as such.

      Not even wrong.

  69. RomanM
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

    Sometimes, you just have to picture what the equation might look like… (It’s subtle.)

    Mann equation

    • steven Mosher
      Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

      haha. I love it

    • Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

      Michael Mann. The gift that keeps on giving. :-)

  70. mikelorrey
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    Tom P: Mc, I’ve looked at the same data you have, and I can conclusively show that 2 + 2 = 4.5 if you if you only include the older 2’s.

  71. Duke C.
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    Mc: Gavin, for the last time, 2+2=4!

    [Response- Why do you continue to make this statement? 2+2=4 is an undecidable proposition based on a flawed mathematical system. Please read Kurt Gödel’s 1931 paper “”On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica”. Climate Science has transcended conventional mathematics as you know it. – gavin]

  72. BlueIce2HotSea
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    Nice verbal caricature by Mosher, but it is missing the seemingly unending distractions of Nick Stokes as exhibited in upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature.

  73. stereo
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m using editorial discretion to cull down posts – successful entries usually adapt to the “voice” of one of the players along the lines of Mosh’s idea – as opposed to using the thread to complain about climate science. OK?

    This may not be the most juvenile and peurile topic ever started here, but it must come close. And you are clearly only interested in encouraging trolling. OK?

    • GrantB
      Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

      Humour doesn’t appear to be your strongpoint.

      Meanwhile another quote from KF Gauss – 3 Und 5 sind nicht erforderlich, 2 + 2 = 2 mod(2)

  74. MikeN
    Posted Aug 7, 2010 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

    TomP: Using your code, I made some changes and discovered that 2+2 = 4 is not a robust conclusion. 2+2=5 is truly the right answer.

  75. Pete Hayes
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    Okay, lets try Binary
    000000010 + 00000010………yep, still equals 4!

  76. VS
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    Wahhaha… wish somebody told me this before I engaged this fine individual:

    “Tamino: Bishop said 2+2=5″

    My personal experience with Tamino reads something like this

    VS: 2 + 2 = 4, as in two apples plus two apples makes four apples
    Tamino: Temperature is not an apple, you’re wrong!
    VS: OK, my bad, how about just 2 + 2 = 4
    Tamino: Arithmetics are part of the denialosphere!
    VS: 2 + 2 = 4
    Tamino: 2 + 2 = 5! You mud-slinging troll!
    VS: Here’s a list of references, and an abacus. Try it yourself: 2 + 2 = 4
    Tamino: Site is temporary offline, I’m moving.
    VS: Right.
    Dhogaza & Sod: Tamino wiped the floor with you VS!! (repeated 20 000x)

    • John Whitman
      Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

      . . . . and adding Bart,

      Bart: 2+2=4?
      VS: 2+2+4
      JW – VS thats great. Bart, wow thanks for {surprisingly} hosting VS
      Dhogaza/Rabbetdude/Sod – Bonzai => Just say no to 2+2=4!
      Bart: : )
      VS: ?

      • John Whitman
        Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 8:41 AM | Permalink

        And correcting my above post’s mistakes (palm slaps face)it more like:

        Bart: 2+2=4?
        VS: 2+2=4
        JW – VS thats great. Bart, wow thanks for {surprisingly} hosting VS
        Dhogaza/Rabbetdude/Sod: Bonzai => Just say no to 2+2=4!
        Bart: : )
        VS: ?

    • Krumhorn
      Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

      I think that the conversation also included something along the following lines:

      VS: 2+2=4
      Bart: 2+2+4?
      VS: Yes, 2+2=4
      Bart: You cannot have a result that violates the 2d law of thermodynamics!!

  77. NoName
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    First Math Professor — I beleive that Perelman’s proof of the Poincare Conjecture may have a flaw

    Second math Professor – You’re jsut a big oil funded denialist

    Steve: In a post two years ago here, I showed how a climate science article in Nature would have “proved” the Riemann hypothesis:

    “We used the E. Bombieri’s highly conservative refinement of A. Weil’s rigorous positivity condition, which implies the Riemann hypothesis for the Riemann zeta function.”

  78. John Whitman
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    Gav: take the blue pill and forget all about 2+2=4
    Mc: take the red pill, look into the paleoclimatic rabbit hole and see how far down 2+2=4 takes you.
    Tamino: I took both
    Mosh: Tamino, we know

  79. Taphonomic
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Old joke, hopefully sufficiently on topic. Adapt the professions as you see fit.

    A manager has a job opening and cannot decide among three equally qualified candidates: a geologist, an engineer, and a geophysicist. He decides on a way to do a final evaluation,

    He calls the geologist into his office and asks him: “How much is 2 + 2.” The geologist gives him a slightly puzzled look and answers: “4”. The manager thanks him, shows him out, and asks the engineer to come in.

    The manager asks the engineer: “How much is 2 + 2.” The engineer whips out a calculator, a slide rule, a note pad, and a pencil. He starts pushing buttons on the calculator, slipping the stick on the slide rule back and forth, and scribbling furiously on the note pad. After about five minutes he answers: “3.99999999999 +/- 0.000000023758.” The manager thanks him, shows him out, and asks the geophysicist to come in.

    The manager asks the geophysicist: “How much is 2 + 2.” The geophysicist gets a gleam in his eye. He looks around the office. He goes to the window and closes the blinds. He goes over and opens the door, sneaks a peak out, closes the door and stuffs a throw rug against the cracks in the door. He disconnects the phone. He then leans down and whispers in the managers ear: “What do you want it to be?”

  80. Reed Coray
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    AG: 2 + 2 = 5. It’s complicated, but it’s settled.

  81. Chris in Ga
    Posted Aug 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    Mosher,

    Great summary of the past week across several blogs

  82. John Meech
    Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    Not sure why my fuzzy arithmetic comment was removed.

    It was a legitimate attempt to show how the addition of two fuzzy number twos creates a situation where the degree of belief in an answer of 5 can become almost as high as 4.

    So here is the comment again expanded to show how different fuzzy number two definitions with increasing variances (or S.D.) increases the Degree of Belief in the “wrong” answer (3 or 5). The degree of belief in the “right” answer (4) of course, is always 100%.

    This dichotomy in which uncertainty propagates (increases) by applying an arithmetic operator while at the same time, the likelihood of an “off-correct” answer increases, may have led Mann to misunderstand that his answer is less certain not more.

    A failure to accept the inherent variances in measured inputs to a model may lead one to accept an increasing degree of belief as evidence of a better answer when in fact what has happened is the distribution of “possible” answers (any of which might be true) has actually widened.

    1. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.5 to 2.5 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.167

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 3 to 5

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 0.0% and a S.D. of 0.33

    2. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.25 to 2.75 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.25

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 2.5 to 5.5

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 33.3% and a S.D. of 0.50

    3. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 1.0 to 3.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.33

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 2 to 6

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 50.0% and a S.D. of 0.67

    4. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 0.5 to 3.5 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.50

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 1 to 7

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 66.7% and a S.D. of 1.00

    5. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from 0.0 to 4.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~0.67

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from 0 to 8

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 75.0% and a S.D. of 1.33

    6. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -1.0 to 5.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.00

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -2.0 to 10.0

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 82.5% and a S.D. of 2.0

    7. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -2.0 to 6.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.33

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -4.0 to 12.0

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 88.9% and a S.D. of 2.67

    8. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -3.0 to 7.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~1.67

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -6.0 to 14.0

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 90.0% and a S.D. of 3.33

    9. Allow fuzzy(2) to range from -4.0 to 8.0 Equivalent to an S.D. of ~2.00

    So fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 4 ranging from -8.0 to 16.0

    In this case, fuzzy(2) + fuzzy(2) = 5 has a degree of belief of 91.6% and a S.D. of 4.00

    In summary:

    Input Output of 5
    S.D. DoB S.D.
    0.167 0.0 0.33
    0.250 33.3 0.50
    0.333 50.0 0.67
    0.500 66.7 1.00
    0.677 75.0 1.33
    1.000 82.5 2.00
    1.333 88.9 2.67
    1.666 90.0 3.33
    2.000 91.6 4.00

  83. mpaul
    Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    SMc: 2+2=4
    Nature: We have agreed to publish your comment, but space restrictions dictate that it can only be 4 character in length. Please edit.

  84. Pingto
    Posted Aug 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    Peter Hearnden: Mike says 2+2=5. Do not claim to know more than people who know more than you.

  85. nano pope
    Posted Aug 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

    It’s not a question of if 2+2=5, it’s a question of when 2+2=5. Either way, the science is settled: 2+2=5.

  86. StuartG
    Posted Sep 22, 2010 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    This comment is really a question,
    1. Mauna Loa, what makes this site ‘an ideal’ for average CO2 indication? I seem to remember seeing [en passant] that it wasn’t such a good indicator.

    2. Is it so that high CO2 levels exist in certain areas of high forestation?

    Thanks
    StuartG

  87. apl
    Posted Sep 22, 2010 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    Steve:
    Listen, I have never said that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. All I want is for the team to show their workings and provide me with their computer code, intermediate results and original values of 2 so that I can check their maths.

    Some people say that if the original values of 2 are not correct, the final answer may be even more than 5. I say that we need to investigate 2, because if the answer is more than 5 we really need to know that.

    If I were a politician, I would listen to the scientists and take decisions based on 2 + 2 = 5

5 Trackbacks

  1. […] the meanwhile, people run in circles at RC, none of them the […]

  2. […] http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/06/mosher-on-gavins-frustration This entry was posted in fun_stuff. Bookmark the permalink. ← Friday Funny: New car is the “poop de grâce” […]

  3. By Heh. Climate Math « Another View on Climate on Aug 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM

    […] Here’s the rest of the post: Mosher on Gavin’s “Frustration” […]

  4. By Top Posts — WordPress.com on Aug 7, 2010 at 7:07 PM

    […] Mosher on Gavin’s “Frustration” Mosher writes in: […] […]

  5. […] the meanwhile, people run in circles at RC, none of them the […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: