Say My Name

In an online trailer for a new climate documentary, James Hansen, presumably exhausted from answering “niggling questions” at a gala Lehman Bros dinner tells the film-maker:

I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name.

The problem of name usage has been recently considered in several important philosophy workshops and conferences. On the top right, I linked to Knowles et al, 2007, a recent presentation on the name usage problem to a large academic conference. Readers should not be deterred by the advanced mathematics. On the bottom left, I linked to a workshop presentation by Mathers et al. (with a highly reconizable nickname for M&M readers.) An earlier treatment of the topic is at (Knowles et al 1999, 2000). The say my name issue is also considered passim in Jones et al (1996)



  1. Stan Palmer
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    it is now revealed. Hansen reveals that Steve McIntyre is “a fellow from Canada”. How can anyone think that someone from a backwater like Canada can validly criticize NASA. The agency that gave the world the Space Shuttle, Teh Hubble Telescope, the Mars Rovers … How can anyone think that such an agency could ever make the slightest blunder. Canadian presumption knows no bounds.

    • James Erlandson
      Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

      Re: Stan Palmer (#1),
      NASA’s Space Shuttle is a device used to deliver the Canadian Robotic Arm into orbit.

  2. Stan Palmer
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    In regard to my comment in 1, I had forgotten that Michael Mann had previously published the fact that M&M were “two Canadians”. Hansen must have forgotten to provide a reference that would acknowledge Mann’s priority in this finding.

  3. Gary
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    Steve, old-timers might see some inspiration for CA in this.


  4. hudibras
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    As long as the good Lord sends women like that, the human race will be fruitful and multiply – global warming or not.

    Steve: Charles Barkley mentioned something similar in the NBA halftime show, another conference presentation by Knowles et al.

  5. John S.
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    We all knew that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was not defeated at Hogwarts. He has arisen in Canada to fight the magical adjustments of the Wizard Hansen. My Dark Lord, your Death Eaters await your orders.

  6. Bob North
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    I was particularly impressed with the Knowles et al. treatment of this topic.

  7. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

    Knowles et al 2007 is a little more Baroque than Knowles et al 1999, 2000, perhaps even Rococo (I’m just back from seeing historical art in Italy and art historical terminology seems apt).

    The say my name issue is also considered passim in Jones et al (1996)

  8. Gary
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    There is a long list of fine Canadian jesters named here. Why should one be excluded?

    “Jesters” is the name often used for traveling squash teams from Canada.

  9. John Lang
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    “Say my name, Say my name …” LOL

  10. PhilH
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    What a bunch of petulant children they are! These are the kind of persons who are supposedly leading the way on climate research? I think you had it wrong in an earlier thread about who matched who on the subprime cartoon. This is the accounting czar; and you know what he said to the poor guy asking him to enforce the rules of, in this case, science.

  11. Jeff Alberts
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    Good thing Hansen isn’t a scientist or a public figure or anything, otherwise someone might care.

    Oops, er…

  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    Knowles et al demonstrate ecological consciousness by conserving scarce fabric in their costume design.

  13. Stan Palmer
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Hansen mentions that the “fellow from Canada” found a flaw in the NASA data. Space limitations must have prevented him from noting that this flaw had been present for seven (7) years without anyone at NASA or the broader climate science community noticing. This is a flaw on a Hubble scale. No one told them to take the shipping washers off of the null corrector or to check their own published data for seven (7) years.

  14. Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    A Canadian “nameless one”? Hah! 😉

  15. Pat Frank
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    Incredible. Hansen set himself up as a moral paragon, and now sees a challenge to his science as a challenge to his personal high standing. He has lost his rational perspective. To name Steve is to invoke error, and paragons do not make errors.

    It’s good to see your continued ability to take these things lightly, Steve. That capacity has been your salvation throughout this marathon, in my opinion.

    It has nothing to do with Canadian vs. NASA, Stan (#1), and everything to do with the adamantine personal righteousness Hansen has directed against his critics. I expect Hansen is feeling some real personal pressure about the continuing lack of tropospheric warming. Inner unease may be gnawing at him. Given the heights he’s granted himself, how can he possibly accommodate the moral ascendancy of those he’s called “jesters”? His attitude toward Steve shows some deep denial. If AGW collapses, as it should do, so may he.

    It’s all really an awful personal prospect; a tragedy of almost Classical Greek proportion. Whom the gods would destroy, they first curse with hubris.

  16. PhilH
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

    Knowles can’t dance too good. But who cares!

  17. Craig Loehle
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    I’m not real good with my rappers, but is that Slim Shady? In order to have a sense of humor you need to grok irony, but arrogant people have no sense of irony. People like the Team are no fun at parties at all.

    Mathers et al are indeed auteurs of Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? As to whether the title of the article is self-referential, this would require input from more learned specialists than myself. l

  18. TeamUrbinto
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    A griefer par excellance?

  19. Max
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    No names.. Insult or legal protection?

  20. jryan
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    Wow, he even gets his snubs wrong.

    Mr. Hansen… when you set out to snub a person by not naming them it is generally considered good form to not name them before you don’t name them. It kind of takes away from the bite.

    Of course, being pissy about someone who actually checks your work isn’t great form either. Some might say it is the WORST form possible as a scientist.

  21. Demesure
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    “I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name. ”

    Even not this one McIntyre, in his 1984 paper, Hansen et al, page 145 ???

    In this section we use the comprehensive
    reconstruction of the last ice age (18.000
    years ago) compiled by the CLIMAP project
    (CLIMAP project members, McIntyre, project
    , 1981; Denton and Hughes, 1981).

  22. Spence_UK
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    OK, so we got Eminem and Beyonce on Steve’s side, who can represent Jim Hansen and the Hockey Team? Aha, I think I’ve got the perfect song!

    Jim, you jus’ bin served

    Got a question – are the formulas in this link the same ones as in the BBC clip on Mann? Seriously. Maybe someone can do some freeze frames.

    • team jeez
      Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

      Re: Spence_UK (#24),

      I checked Steve, — different.

    • Follow the Money
      Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

      Re: Spence_UK (#24),

      OK, so we got Eminem and Beyonce on Steve’s side, who can represent Jim Hansen and the Hockey Team?

      Rapper 3DC is available.

      You might know him by his prior stage name, 2.5DC

  23. John M
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Yowsa Steve! How ’bout some parental control warnings before posting a video. Or at least a caution to not open them in the office with the sound turned up! 🙂

  24. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    “I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name.” hmm a new form of the liar’s paradox ?

  25. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    What he should have said is ” I’m not going to use the name of that canadian mining guy who embarrassed me by finding mistakes in my work” That would, of course, have required having
    3 digits in your IQ.

  26. Lav
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    Haven’t checked the equations in the BBC film but the equation in the ‘white nerdy’ video is Schrodinger’s equation – kinetic energy + potential energy in a quantum system.

    (Perhaps takes one to know one – LOL)

  27. jeez
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    oops, team jeez was stuck in my browser. team jeez is on vacation.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

      Re: jeez (#30),
      Yeah, I keep screwing up too, posting as “team bender”. Dr Ben died when the fatal errors in MBH@#$@#$08 were outed. He fell on the sharp blade of his own hockey stick invention.

  28. Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    Hansen makes a long statement that begins “Our Shared Concern
    We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that
    sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior…” posted here, last post before Anthony closed the thread. He comes across as a fundamentalist ruled by hot emotional responses that have not reached maturity.

    But I still gotta thank him for launching me too into hyperspace… wielding laser probes against hockey sticks…

  29. Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    oops, “here” is the hyperlink

  30. SMcE
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    I must say that the et al in the Knowles et al 2007 presentation
    have great legs.

  31. Jim
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Frodo lost.

    Mann has the ring.


  32. Evan Jones
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

    So St. Mac has been promoted to He Who Must Not Be Named . . .

  33. Patrick M.
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    There is also Croce et al 1973 which starts out with one of the earlier references to bristlecone pines.

  34. theduke
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    The Man With No Name:

  35. J.Hansford.
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:06 PM | Permalink

    John S… Love it. LoL’ed bigtime.

  36. Lost and Confused
    Posted Sep 22, 2008 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

    Steve: Got a question – are the formulas in this link the same ones as in the BBC clip on Mann? Seriously. Maybe someone can do some freeze frames.

    The equation in White and Nerdy is the Schrödinger equation for a hydrogen atom, with ħ being mistakenly replaced with h. While it would be humorous if it had shown up in the BBC clip, I didn’t see any formulas that came close to it.

  37. Dr Slop
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

    This sounds a bit like Hansen’s Don’t tell him, Pike! moment. (See around 1:11.)

  38. Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 2:41 AM | Permalink

    Since Iain of BBC hockeystick-on-truck fame named only one skeptic, and Amman wryly notes the habit of not-naming, does that mean there is now a “Nameless Team” to play the Hockey Team?

  39. andy
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    BTW, GISS temperature data for the finnish towns like Oulu, Kajaani, Kuusamo etc shows exactly the same temperatures for July and August 2008. First time ever seen!

    • Jean S
      Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 4:09 AM | Permalink

      Re: andy (#45),
      Yes, the August temperatures in some location given by the GISTEMP vs. Finnish Meteorological Institute can be seen here. However, I suspect (haven’t checked) that the problem is already in GHCN data. The error was spotted, since August was 1-1.5C degrees colder than usual in Finland, but NOAA (and GISS) maps are showing 2-3C above the normal.

  40. Christopher Hanley
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 4:16 AM | Permalink

    Re: Professor Lindzen’s ‘Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?’ and the sociology of AGW.

    In the Australian election 2007, the centre-left ALP led by AGW enthusiast Kevin Rudd, defeated the economically sound, but AGW cautious, centre-right Coalition.
    The AGW monster had been constantly fed on the publicly owned ABC (Tim Flannery had ready access) and by the commercial media.

    As promised by Rudd, economist Professor Ross Garnaut produced a report predicting the likely economic impact of the Rudd Government “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” [sic], which predictably, has not been overwhelmingly welcome by business (Australia is a major exporter of energy resources — Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter with 30% of the world total). An initial increase of 25% in domestic power costs is also predicted.

    My point is that for all the time and money spent on research, political lobbying, government advertising, ‘awareness raising’ etc. (and whatever commissioned polls purport to show), the proposed ‘cures’ for AGW are politically impossible. In a democracy, the people will not accept them.

    I believe this is also becoming clear in the UK.

  41. Jean S
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 4:36 AM | Permalink

    Oh, I forgot. Since I’m the one who spotted the error, I want to make clear to anyone correcting it that I wish that the correction is credited, in the spirit of this post, to “Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre”.

  42. bender
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    There is a lot to comment on in the Lindzen manuscript. We probably need a new thread.

    Here’s one of my favorites:

    Roe (2006) showed that the orbital variations in high latitude summer insolation correlate excellently with changes in glaciation – once one relates the insolation properly to the rate of change of glaciation rather than to the glaciation itself. This provided excellent support for the Milankovich hypothesis.

    It took how many years for climate scientists to figure out the difference between a variable and its first difference? (level vs. rate of change)

  43. Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    Re #39, there’s even a tribute to Steve’s horse:

  44. Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    Re #50, I’m thinking now that the “horse” is actually a metaphor for CA — The Blog with No Name. The singer is a voice in the wilderness, who audits the climate.

  45. Nylo
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Richard Lindzen should have added this “He_Who_Cannot_Be_Named” kind of behaviour Mann displays to the list of misconducts of the scientific community he presented in a wonderful 35-page article he submitted yesterday to Arxiv:
    Title = “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”

    Really worth reading. I recommend it to you all.

    • Geoff Sherrington
      Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

      Re: Nylo (#52),

      In the early parts of the Richard Lindzen paper, there is speculation about the way that science became divided and degraded. The story is told in the book “The Apocalptics” by Edith Efron, Simon & Schuster 1984, 590 pages, many hundreds of references.

      “The Apocalyptics” is about the myth being spread in the 1970-80 era that man-made chemicals were causing a massive increase in human cancer mortality. On the way, it documents the birth of environmental activism and its methods, including infiltration of government bodies and policy units.

      The references are unusual. They are primary quotations. The players discredit themselves verbatim. There are no references from industry, to avoid the “Exxon bias” in its early form.

      It starts –

      “I shall simply say here that I discovered a cultural crime which should not be possible in a free society: a complex corruption of science and a prolongued deception of the public. The crime emerged from the sciences of environmental cancer and cancer prevention … It has been committed under our very eyes, its details are publicly recorded in documents which are within hand’s reach, and yet it remains invisible to most of the people of this country who are its victims. It is rendered invisible by one thing above all: the phenomenon of “two cultures” – the dangerous barrier which separates the scientific and the humanist cultures and which may even leave the most educated layman incapable of differentiating between serious science and ideology in a white smock.”

      Edit’s predictions were correct, post mortem. She recognised a fundamental flaw, that animals like mice were poor, even misleading proxies for human response to chemical doses. Persistence in repeating this Achilles’ Heel was the main cause of her success. (It brings the hockey stick to mind).

      Edith’s story is largely complete because her statistics projected from the 1980s have had 30 years to be proven or disproven. There is value in studying her book to gain an idea of how the Global Warming scare might progress in due course, by comparison with the chemical-cancer scare. It is uplifting. The good guys win in the end, through better science.

      Some of her characters switched to Global Warming, as if social dissent was a requirement for Heavenly reward. Maurice Strong is in there, John P Holdren, Ralph Nader, Steven Tannenbaum, Paul & Anne Ehrlich, Jane Fonda, Albert Gore, groups like the EPA, the Environmental Defense Fund.

      Readers might resonate to this quote: “In other words, for a prudent toxicological policy, a chemical should be considered guilty until proven innocent”. Umberto Saffiotti, National Cancer Institute, May 1976.

      Recognise the later “Precautionary principle”? Think you can name a few “ideologies in white smocks”?

      • Nylo
        Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

        Re: Geoff Sherrington (#65),

        As I am not familiar with that story, I am not sure I am understanding it well from what you describe.

        First you talk about a book writen by Edith Efron in which she documents a process of hysteria regarding man-made chemicals, that we could compare with the AGW hysteria. After this I would think that Edith Efron is the equivalent of McIntyre (pardon! I meant HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED) and other skeptiks in the AGW version. But then you lose me when you say that she recognised a fundamental flaw about using mice. Do you mean that she thought that better methods should be used to test the chemicals or was she critisizing the people who insisted on testing in mice to prove something? Then you say that her persistence in repeating that flaw was the cause of her success, and you lose me even more when you compare it to the hockey stick. What kind of success are you talking about? Mice are still used in many kinds of testing. Was she then succesful at forcing different kind of tests? Also when you compare it to the hockey stick, are you making reference to the persistence with which AGWers show the hockey stick, or the persistence with which us skeptics try to discredit it because it is, at least methodically, wrong? Who is who, in the Edith Efron story?

        Your post may be easily understood by whoever previously knew the story, but for me it has lots of unexplained loose ends and I don’t know how to compare it to anything.


        • Geoff Sherrington
          Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

          Re: Nylo (#66),

          Nylo, This was not directed at you personally, but simply because you referenced the Richard Lindzen paper.

          There is useful similarity between the chemical cancer scare and the AGW scare. The point I was trying to make is that such scares can have an Achilles’ Heel. If you identify and pound away at that you have a fundamentally strong case and eventually there is a chance that the edifice crumbles.

          The list of known human carcinogens was revised downwards from the estimates from using animal proxy tests. Sure, because the DNA of mice and men has much in common, mice have a valid place in research, but not any more for the purpose that Edith wrote about.

          There was a period when politicians and populace were rather frightened by the prospect of a cancer epidemic. Now we know that the fright has little or no foundation. Unfortunately, there are still namy human cancers, but they are no longer held to be mostly caused by man-made chemicals. But, a vague, pervasive “anti-chemical” public sentiment still exists, which is objectionable to good chemists.

          Having lived through various scares such as the cancer epidemic, the peaceful use of nuclear power, the Ozone Hole, Avian Influenza, Anthropogenic Global Warming (WIP), my main reflections are not now on AGW so much as what the next big scare is going to be.

          This does not mean that all emerging threats should be treated as scares, but more that real threats lack the Achilles’ Heel. So far as the populace has been told, the Cuban Missile scare was serious.

          Some fundamental lessons are: direct measurement and observation is valuable; that reliance on proxies carries risks; that the authority of computer calculations is not absolute; that some people do seek fame in their lifetimes by creating scares; and that Tony Brown #67 is spot on.

      • Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

        Re: Geoff Sherrington (#65),

        I don’t think youll go very far wrong in life if you remember the words of HL Mencken;

        “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -and hence clamorous to be led to safety-by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

        Just add the word ‘Science’ to ‘Politics’.

        Tony Brown

        • KevinUK
          Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

          Re: Tony Brown (#67),

          Have you read Christopher Booker and Richard North’s book ‘Scared to Death’. I string suspect that you have. If not then please do as it documents and testifies strongly to the truth of Mencken’s statement.



  46. Nylo
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    (Apologies, obviously the topic was covered before me, I should have read the latest responses before adding my comment, please delete)

  47. TeamUrbinto
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Climate Audit
    by “he who must not be named”

  48. Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    I vote for a new thread for the Lindzen paper. There’s an extremely interesting paragraph on page 7. What do Ralph Cicerone, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren, and Susan Solomon have in common?

  49. Craig Loehle
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    In my field, Ecology, there is no shortage of prima donnas, people who won’t change their minds, and debates without resolution, but only rarely are competing views simply ignored. Even if you try (or miss the references), the reviewers make you address literature that doesn’t agree with you. And trying to wish away an opponent…wow, never heard of it.

  50. Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Well, thanks for the great artwork. That Hansen quotation along has now been posted on my office door.

    — Sinan

  51. Derek Walton
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    Wasn’t there a film in the 80s called Beetlejuice? If you said the name “Beetlejuice” 3 times, then suddenly up popped a green coloured man to create havoc….. Maybe if you say “McIntyre” 3 times…

  52. GTFrank
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    “In an online trailer for a new climate documentary, James Hansen, presumably exhausted from answering “niggling questions” at a gala Lehman Bros dinner tells the film-maker:”

    I guess I am the only one who does not know what movie the trailer is from.
    Can “he who must not be named” say or is this a movie whose title must not be named as well?

  53. Bill Jamison
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Climate Audit
    by “he who must not be named”


    I love how much humor you can inject into a pretty mundane subject!

  54. GeneII
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    re : Steve McIntyre

    by “he who must not be named”

    OMG, I frigging love this on your front page!! ROFL!! ROFL!!!

  55. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 23, 2008 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    I presume that John A did that. Cool. We’ll change it back in a few days, but no harm in having a little fun. Maybe there;s a WordPress widget that plays music.

  56. The Engineer
    Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 3:01 AM | Permalink

    Those women have got no clothes ! My god
    global warming must be real.
    (Any excuse to show scantily clad ladies)

  57. IanH
    Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    I just posted this over on the forum, it certainly doesn’t belong here, or perhaps there, but as there’s no Unthreaded running at the moment, this seemed like a bolt-hole.

    This is probably a very controversial topic, and so will doubtless get snipped, but hopefully persist long enough to get some traction.

    I know Steve’s detractors will claim he’s funded by BigOil, Republicans, Satan, Al Gore, but seriously how does he manage to keep going. I understand he’s retired, and being Old School presumably gets some sort of pension. I’ve searched the web site and this fora and I can’t see anywhere those of us who care to ensure this website keeps going to ensure proper auditing of Climate “Scientists” (sorry Steve) discuss whether Steve can afford to keep going. I guess the regular crew and he may have these discussions behind the scenes, but what about those of us who appreciate this site and may occasionally visit the tip jar, how would we feel if we lost this site? I’ve no idea how Steve stands financially, not sure I need to know, perhaps there should be a “Friends of Steve” elected from the names we trust on the blog to oversee funding of both Steve and this website to ensure it’s sufficiently funded that we don’t get one of those desperate, “Sorry guys personal circumstances mean I can no longer continue”, because the big guy would be too embarrassed to be open about the reasons for deciding that other interests would (a) cost him less and (b) might actually make him money.

    Your opinions might be welcome, (unless they of course don’t agree with mine)

  58. BradH
    Posted Sep 24, 2008 at 10:49 PM | Permalink

    ARTHUR: O, Knights of Nee, we have brought you your shrubbery. May we go now?
    HEAD KNIGHT: It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly. But there is one small problem.
    ARTHUR: What is that?
    HEAD KNIGHT: We are now… no longer the Knights Who Say Nee.
    [RANDOM]: Nee!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Shh shh. We are now the Knights Who Say Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoom-boing-mumble-mumble.
    [RANDOM]: Nee!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Therefore, we must give you a test.
    ARTHUR: What is this test, O Knights of– Knights Who ‘Til Recently Said Nee?
    HEAD KNIGHT: Firstly, you must find… another shrubbery!
    [dramatic chord]
    ARTHUR: Not another shrubbery!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a two-level effect with a little path running down the middle.
    [RANDOM]: A path! A path! Nee!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest…with… a herring!
    [dramatic chord]
    ARTHUR: We shall do no such thing!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Oh, please!
    ARTHUR: Cut down a tree with a herring? It can’t be done.
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh! Aaaugh!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Don’t say that word.
    ARTHUR: What word?
    HEAD KNIGHT: I cannot tell, suffice to say is one of the words the Knights of Nee cannot hear.
    ARTHUR: How can we not say the word if you don’t tell us what it is?
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh! Aaaugh!
    ARTHUR: What, `is’?
    HEAD KNIGHT: No, not `is’ — we couldn’t get vary far in life not saying `is’.
    BEDEMIR: My liege, it’s Sir Robin!
    MINSTREL (singing): Packing it in and packing it up, And sneaking away and buggering up, And chickening out and P*ssing about, Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…
    ARTHUR: Oh, Robin!
    ROBIN: My liege! It’s good to see you!
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!
    HEAD KNIGHT: He said the word!
    ARTHUR: Surely you’ve not given up your quest for the Holy Grail?
    MINSTREL (singing): He is sneaking away and buggering up–
    ROBIN: Shut up! No, no no– far from it.
    HEAD KNIGHT: He said the word again!
    ROBIN: I was looking for it.
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!
    ROBIN: Uh, here, here in this forest.
    ARTHUR: No, it is far from–
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Aaaaugh! Stop saying the word!
    ARTHUR: Oh, stop it!
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Oh! He said it again!
    ARTHUR: Come, Patsy!
    HEAD KNIGHT: Aaugh! I said it! I said it! Ooh! I said it again!
    KNIGHTS: Aaaaugh!
    [The old woman at 1m40s bears a striking resemblance to someone….]

  59. beng
    Posted Sep 25, 2008 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    He Who shall not be Named, I like the humor. And the irony & blatant childessness of Hansen’s “I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name” is awesome.

    Others — I agree that Lindzen’s paper:

    Click to access 0809.3762.pdf

    deserves a separate topic. It’s a revealing history & analysis of the current state of many aspects of science/politics/money. It’s even a bit shocking to my hardened cynicism.

    Lindzen seems as smart in social science analysis as climate.

  60. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Sep 25, 2008 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    Regarding things that started at the October 21-22 2005 Yale Center for Globalization conference “Global Climate Policy After 2012″ resulting in the book Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, mentioned in the above paper beng mentions.

    Lindzen’s article itself lists the “relatively trivial” consensus pillars, with caveats:

    1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past sixty years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6° ± 0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2 percent.
    3. There is good evidence that man is responsible for the recent increase in CO2, although climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.

    Then his points, some of which are, obviously, debateable:

    —It is not the level of CO2 that is important, but rather the impact of manmade greenhouse gases on climate.
    —Although we are far from the benchmark of doubled CO2, climate forcing is already about three-fourths of what we expect from such a doubling.
    —Even if we attribute all warming over the past century to man-made greenhouse gases (which we have no basis for doing), the observed warming is only about a third to a sixth of what models project.

    Lindzen’s reply to Rahmstorf’s published version of Rahmstorf’s article (conveniently placed after Lindzen’s) is interesting also.

    Although he cites two analyses of surface temperature … there is a third produced by NOAA. {It} represents an analysis of data by a group that is not also heavily involved in both modeling and the politics of climate. …the records {of the three} vary a bit from each other {but} the differences amount to no more than the stated uncertainty in the results. The datasets used by all groups are essentially the same, and these datasets all have similar difficulties. For example, data from the oceans is obtained in very different ways from data over land, and large portions of the earth are sparsely sampled. Moreover, there is the longstanding issue of urban heating as well as biases from other changes in land usage. the tendency of NOAA appears to be to reject questionable data. The Hadley Centre seems to prefer to ‘correct’ questionable stations. Under these circumstances, it is indeed reassuring that the results generally don’t differ by more than a couple of tenths of a degree. ({Although that is} a significant part of the total change.)

    And later on

    Several things are worth noting in this little exercise. First, if the attribution of the period 1998-2000 to El Nino/La Nina is correct, it shows that such phenomena can perturb global mean temperature on the order of 0.3C which corresponds to most of the warming of the past thirty years. Next, one should notice the peculiar use of language by proponents of global warming alarm. Rather than acknowledge that the warming over the past century (or even over the past 150 years) has been small (less than 1C), one speaks of ‘unprecedented’ warming. Rather than note the absence of a trend over the past 11 years, one speaks of the ‘warmest years on record.’ These are really nothing more than semantic stunts designed to befuddle the public.

    Although I do take some issue with refering to the anomaly trend as “global mean surface temperature” or a rise in it “warming”, Lindzen sticks to the issues rather than attacking others. Which makes him the person to listen to! 🙂



    Lindzen-Rahmstorf Exchange, Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, edited by Ernesto Zedillo, and published by the Brookings Institution Press and the Center for the Study of Globalization at Yale in 2008. [pdf]

  61. Paul
    Posted Sep 26, 2008 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    Mike Mann has a new monicker for Steve:

    A fossil-fuel funded amateur has a Web site that vilifies scientists in my field”

    Climate Audit
    by “a fossil fuel funded amateur”

    • Posted Sep 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

      Re: Paul (#73),

      Dear Paul… From the link you posted:

      “Over 400,000 years there have been periods of warming and cooling, but nothing like we’re seeing today.”

      Oooh, yeah! The past periods of warming have been longer than the one we saw in 1998.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 26, 2008 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Paul (#73),

      a Web site that vilifies scientists in my field

      I hereby declare – as if I have not done so already – my utmost respect for all dendroclimatologists other than Mann and Hughes. Hughes is a terrific old guy who, unfortutanely, just doesn’t have a clue about statistics. And for that I can not respect his decision to include himself among the authors on the 2008 paper. (The 1998 paper, I forgave him on.) I would also like to point out that some dendroclimatologists posting at CA, such as Rob Wilson and Martin Wilmking, have been treated with reasonable respect by everyone, and tremendous respect from Steve M.

      In other words, Mann’s statement here is a grossly unfair exaggeration.

    • KevinUK
      Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

      Re: Paul (#73),

      From that link

      “Natural forces don’t account for the warming that is being observed, he said. Only carbon dioxide fits. Then he added:

      “A fossil-fuel funded amateur has a Web site that vilifies scientists in my field,” he said. Questions about his data were rejected, he said, by the National Academy of Science and by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change.

      “I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination has our science been discredited, except perhaps by some far-out fringe of the blogosphere.”

      Oh dear ‘Natural forces don’t account for the warming that is being observed..’. Thats the warming that is observed after all those adjustments that are applied that are about the same size as the claimed warming by the same people who claim that the warming can’t be explained by anything other than what they put into the inputs of their computer models, right?

      ‘scientists in my field’. The words scientist and climatology – any one for an oxymoron?

      ‘far-out fringe of the blogosphere.’. CA readers, welcome to the fringe, the fringe that gets GISS to correct it’s errors and that actually carries out the peer review that Mickey’s buddies should have carried out of his flawed work.


    • Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

      Re: Paul (#73),

      Paul, firstly can I offer to be a fossil fuel funded amateur so I can continue my research into past climactic variations? Theres so much evidence of it that I need an assistant! Particularly interesting are the climate records for the Byzantine Empire!

      Secondly-after reading the link you provided can anyone tell me the state of the relationship between Mann and Al Gore? In the latters (rather good) book Earth in the Balance 1992 he cited past episodes of climate change in our recorded history and clearly stated temperatures have been warmer than now. My own research shows numerous times when temperature has spiked higher than now. These include various peer reviewed papers. Do Mann and Gore talk to each other? Does Gore have amnesia over what he said back in 1992? One of them is calling the other a liar.

      Re: KevinUK (#79), I haven’t read it as yet but it is one of five books on my list to get. The more I see the sort of unscientifc nonsense spouted by Mann – and people who should know their history better-like Hansen- the more I think Mencken could have been talking about climate scientists.

      Tony Brown

  62. John A
    Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM | Permalink

    My respect for dendroclimatologists is tempered by the statistical naiveté of the great majority, coupled with a disgraceful silence from that majority over the behavior of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

    Oh and how did Mann become a “Nobel Prize Winner”? Other than the retread of the MBH PC1 as “W USA”, was Mann actually involved in the production of the IPCC 4AR?

    • bender
      Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

      Re: John A (#76),

      statistical naiveté of the great majority

      The “great majority” know the statistics they need to know and do just fine. They don’t make pretenses at innovation. They stay within their bounds. I don’t think that’s “naive”; I think it’s wise. And “the silence” that you find “disgraceful” is a product of the same thing. No one understands what those papers were/are doing. Steve M is basically doing the reviews that no one else in the field is qualified to do. It’s not disgraceful; it’s typical. When you get an “innovator” that’s so far out there in his methodology, it’s hard to criticize him. Now that the flaws have been exposed, that there is a belief he is helping to “save the planet” spares him the worst. That’s the problem with the politicization of science. Criticism is witheld for political reasons. And the myths begin to propagate.

      • Ron Cram
        Posted Jan 17, 2009 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#77),

        What is contemptible, bender, is the silence after Steve points out the problems with MBH98. Instead of re-examining the issue, the dendro community has banded together to publish flawed study after flawed study trying to support Mann. It’s unconscionable, really.

  63. KevinUK
    Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    John A and bender,

    What is going on with you two these days? Quit the backbiting. Surely you’ve noticed that there is a ‘Climate War’ going on here and that you are allies in the struggle and not enemies? Remember the other side is watching and may be buoyed up by this lack of solidarity. Shields interlocked together boys come-on.

    John A its good to see that we still have so many opinions in common. Last time I mentioned this you tried to deny that we shared so many similar if not identical opinions on certain matters e.g. I also think that dendroclimatology is a waste of my hard earned taxes, even more so the funding of GCMs.


    • Posted Sep 27, 2008 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

      Re: KevinUK (#78),

      Catkillers, not scientists… that’s all. On the topic here, there is a danger on using names, especially if the name describes the work of its bearer. To say Steve McIntyre is like saying “Oops! I was untruthful from my writing-desk; I must do field work”. It seems Nobel Prices today are for people doing desk-labor who do not take shovel and grub-hoe to construct, but simple arguments devised from the comfort of a reclining seat.

3 Trackbacks

  1. By Topblog » Blog Archive » Top Loader on Feb 12, 2010 at 1:39 AM

    […] for People' at Box Dog Blog“It is All Within the Rules” – Guy Fawkes' blogSay My Name ” Climate AuditSUGAR DUTIES. (Hansard, 19 June 1848)Celulares Alltel Along With Celulares Verizon & Celulares […]

  2. […] warming muppet James Hansen and those we do not speak of. Steve McIntyre, before coffee, presumably. Two years after being accused of wrongdoing in the last […]

  3. By Mo Money, Mo Problems « Climate Audit on May 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM

    […] Anthony linked somewhat disapprovingly to a video in which some young climate scientists from a provincial university pretend to be rappers. Here at CA, we have a more relaxed attitude towards rap music, having in the past linked to workshop presentations by Mathers et al and (Kim) Jones et al.- see post here. […]

%d bloggers like this: