Monday, September 19, 2011

Wesley J. Smith on Chris Mooney and white male global warming skeptics

Funny post from wesley J. Smith at Secondhand Smoke:

Global Warming Hysteria: Chris Mooney Blames Testosterone for White Male Conservative Skepticism
To think some people take this guy seriously. Chris Mooney has a Looney Tunes blog post out today blaming testosterone and the supposed need to dominate others for global warming skepticism among angry white male conservatives. (Talk about cliched thinking!)
It’s a real hoot. He discusses another one of those ridiculous, “why conservatives think the way they do” articles soon to be published, and weighs in with a theory of his own for higher levels of global warming skepticism among the world’s Rush Limbaughs. From “What’s With Conservative White Men and Climate Change Denial?”
I am surprised the authors didn’t bring up what may be the most biologically grounded of them: “social dominance orientation,” or SDO. This refers to a particular personality type—usually male and right wing—who wants to dominate others, who sees the world as a harsh place (metaphorically, a “jungle”) where it’s either eat or be eaten, and who tends to really believe in a Machiavellian way of things. Fundamentally, this identity is all about testosterone firing and being an alpha male. SDOs are fine with inequality and in favor of hierarchy because frankly, they think some people (e.g., them) are just better than others, and therefore destined to get ahead.
Or, perhaps they are just not easily panicked by blatant hysteria the way myopic, metrosexual, testosterone deficient, left wing, cracking voiced, white male “science” pundits are. I mean, if we are going to cast baseless aspersions via stereotyped, insulting, and unscientific “theories,” why can’t I join in on the fun?
What a hoot. Mooney, a faux-journalist and climate hysteric seemingly always on the verge of a climate swoon spins a poll that shows quite high levels of global warming skepticism among white male conservatives.

Instead of asking the question: 'Why are people who aren't white male conservatives such dupes about the global warming hoax?', Mooney does some amateur psychiatry and diagnoses high testosterone levels as the cause for folks who think that Al Gore's a fraud.

Bad news for hysteric frauds like Mooney: it looks like this global warming skepticism is a epidemic.

89 comments:

  1. Michael,

    The article you link to was published in early August. Chris Mooney's article was also published on August 2. Can't you find something topical to blog about?

    I suspect that AGW denialists are worried that they mightn't have control over their lives. That they will have to make some changes in their personal lives, else they will have to pay to keep the status quo.

    AGW denialists are extremely tedious. They write comments on articles that have nothing to do with AGW, they phone talkback radio shows endlessly, they don't make the slightest effort to understand the science ... rather like evolution denialists in fact.

    I agree that AGW denialists are of all levels of intelligence. They aren't necessarily stupid. In fact, you have to be intelligent to rationalize away the evidence for AGW, which was rejected for emotional reasons in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @bach:

    The stupidity of AGW hysteria is always topical.

    I wrote the post in early august. I have a few weeks of posts in queue, and much more topical stuff kept coming up.

    So much to do...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    And the stupidity of AGW denialism is also topical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bring it on, Mike!

    Let's start by finding out where you are on the denial scale. Do you deny that the Earth is warming at all? Do you deny that the warming is linked to CO2 emissions? That it is due to man's activities? Or do you accept the warming and its anthropic cause but don't agree that anything can be done about it? Or that it is too costly?

    There are so many shades of AGW denial.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @oleg:

    AGW is a Madoff-type scandal. There are people who are intentionally lying, and many others who are afraid to speak up.

    [Do you deny that the Earth is warming at all?]

    Don't know. At any given moment it is either warming or cooling. There has probably been a warming trend since the little ice age (15th -19th century). A natural trend. The problem with answering your question is that the science is such crap and the scientists are such frauds that we really don't know if the earth is warming.

    [Do you deny that the warming is linked to CO2 emissions?]

    No evidence for that. In the past, it seems that CO2 levels followed temperature, not the opposite.

    ]That it is due to man's activities?]

    Of course not.

    [Or do you accept the warming and its anthropic cause but don't agree that anything can be done about it?]

    It's a fraud, so criminal prosecution would be the best option.

    [Or that it is too costly?]

    Prisons are costly, but I'll chip in more than my share to see Mann and Gore in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, wow! This guy's a real yahoo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Take this paragraph:

    Don't know. At any given moment it is either warming or cooling. There has probably been a warming trend since the little ice age (15th -19th century). A natural trend. The problem with answering your question is that the science is such crap and the scientists are such frauds that we really don't know if the earth is warming.

    This paragraph is so full of contradictions. On the one hand, it claims that we don't know at all whether the Earth is warming. On the other, there is probably a warming trend. On the third, this warming trend (which in reality doesn't exist) is natural!

    Pwned!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not sure what strikes me more about this AGW argument (Mooney): The racial/sexual tones, or the absolute naïveté of it.
    First the race/sex stuff. I am guessing this is more daddy or post-nerd angst generated stuff.
    Regardless of cause, it is pretty blatant. This guy has a problem with 'alpha' types. He seems them as white (is he?) and 'right wing' (because he is left?). Not to sound like a broken record, but this fellow could really have used a bit of military training or education. He comes off as an angry/jealous sissy boy. I was immediately thrown off by the above describe tone.
    Secondly the idea is chock full of raw, unrefined naïveté. The man assumes that this huge swath of the population of the Americas and Europe will first accept guidance and help from the very same academics, scientists, and pundits who DEMANDED the 'progress' and technology that has led us to their predicted AGW.
    In his logic, we are supposed to approach the drunk and ask him to climb back into his wrecked car and drive our children home? No thanks, I'll drive, call a cab, or take a bus!
    Translated for you monists: I will back a different approach.
    This childish dream of being made into a climate-science super hero by the ignorant begging masses is more typical of those people who own more graphic novels than novels, I suspect.More familiar with the Saturday morning cartoons than with myth.
    In this infantile view we are to deny Noah's message, but run and hide with chicken little.

    AGW is hubris.
    Climate change is real, perfectly natural, and cyclical. It is a real issue to be observed, recorded, and DEALT with - not wished away by science fiction space balloons and taxing the shit out of successful western nations.
    Look, Arsing with the natural cycles of Earth is a BAD idea. If we are entering a warm period (or cooling) we had best prepare for it and adapt to it - not try to CONTROL or prevent it. We need to face the reality, not buy these AGW snake oil remedies.
    That is my stance.

    Bach,
    I don't think anyone is denying that there are changes taking place in the climate patterns of Earth. This reality has been recognized for generations and is an engine for history. Our records, myths, and legends are full of the stories of just such events.
    It is the causes and solutions that are debated.
    Crediting man for such long term change is to assume that man CAN effect such change in his current technological state given the time. Could he have tipped the scales and brought on a cooling or warming period flooding a few centuries early. That is the real debate.
    The secondary debate is whether we should interfere in a BIG way, if we even can.
    I say no to both. No man did not tip the scales.No we should not interfere with the cycles of our world. Rather we should accept the nature of this earth and adapt to her.
    REAL green or progressive efforts are about preserving life and biodiversity, about learning to adapt to change and preserving what we can- not about forcing the nature and the world to conform to futurist visions of climate control with untested technologies.
    The only 'denial' I see is that of bad science, cooked books, etc.
    I would call that healthy scepticism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @oleg:

    [This paragraph is so full of contradictions. On the one hand, it claims that we don't know at all whether the Earth is warming. On the other, there is probably a warming trend. On the third, this warming trend (which in reality doesn't exist) is natural!]

    Such is the staate of climate 'science'.

    Tell me, oleg:

    1) What is the current state of eugenic science? The same arguments were made a century ago-- 'the human race is doomed by proliferation of genetically inferior individuals, we must all obey the scientists and give them unprecedented power to control our lives to prevent a catastrophe', 'the science is settled', 'people who question the consensus are stupid and evil', yada...yada...

    2) What is the current state of overpopulation science? In the 1970's, we were told be the leading scientists that "the struggle to feed humanity is over" "a substantial increase in the world's death rate", Ehrlich: I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." Since then India's population has increased by 800 million, and they're better fed. 'England will cease to exist by 2000'. The US will have 40 million starvation deaths by 1980. etc. etc.

    3) The CRU emails referred repeatedly to data deletion rather than data sharing, hiding data, etc. Do you trust these people? Do you trust their science?

    You're a dupe, oleg.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    Raw temperature data from climate stations are publicly available. The data show a clear warming trend of about 1 degree centigrade per century.

    If you don't have the skills to analyze the data, other climate skeptics have done that. Here is Lubos Motl, formerly a physics professor at Harvard.

    The warming trend is there. You're spewing laughable nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1 degree per century? My God, man, in a couple of hundred years I'll have to keep the sprinklers running 5 minutes longer! We'd better find some races to abort!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr. Egnor, thanks for shining a spotlight on Chris Mooney. I look in on his blog from time to time, and can only conclude that the guy has never heard of projection.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matteo: 1 degree per century? My God, man, in a couple of hundred years I'll have to keep the sprinklers running 5 minutes longer! We'd better find some races to abort!!

    Matteo,

    First off, do you agree that there is a warming trend of 1 degree per century or not? We can discuss the implications later, but we first need to agree on facts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oleg,
    You wrote:
    "Raw temperature data from climate stations are publicly available. The data show a clear warming trend of about 1 degree centigrade per century."
    I will not dispute the historical record, and that clearly shows increases and decreases in cycles.
    But 'climate stations' for centuries?
    By who and how were these monitoring stations monitored, say, in the 6th through 18th centuries? And by your estimation, it must have been a mean freezing Zero in summer for most of the Western Europe and half of North America at the time of Christ? I don't think the record supports that stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  16. crusadeREX: By who and how were these monitoring stations monitored, say, in the 6th through 18th centuries?

    They didn't.

    And by your estimation, it must have been a mean freezing Zero in summer for most of the Western Europe and half of North America at the time of Christ?

    This extrapolation is not warranted.

    I don't think the record supports that stuff.

    Of course it doesn't. But no one suggests it does.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2oleg:

    [Raw temperature data from climate stations are publicly available.]

    Problems:

    1) The number and location of stations has changed substantially in 50 years. The numbers are 'adjusted' to accomodate the fact that in many cases you are not comparing the same stations over time. People have looked at the changes and 'adjustments'. Guess which hypothesis is helped by this manipulation?

    2) The stations that have remained the same are liable to the heat island effect, in which population encroaches on previously remote measuring stations, making the temperatures misleadingly warmer. There are 'adjustments' for this, of course.

    3) The data is complied, 'adjusted', and published by the same folks who proposed deletion of data and hiding data in the CRU emails. But we can trust them completely here...

    Oleg, why don't you address my questions about past apocalyptic hysteria before we discuss current apocalyptic hysteria? Science apocalypism had a long history. How's eugenic science doing? How's overpopulation science doing? Why does England still exist? Why are famines less common, rather than more common?

    Address past lies, before we get to present lies.

    [The data show a clear warming trend of about 1 degree centigrade per century.]

    What data? Instrumental? Has only been present for a century, at most.

    Michael Mann got rid of the Medieval Warm Period in his hockey stick graph. Why do you now trust the data presented by these people?

    Once you have fraud on this scale, you can trust nothing-NOTHING- they say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you drive a car that gets 30mpg for 60,000 miles, you will be putting about 40,000 lb. of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of which will still be in the atmosphere at the end of your 60,000 miles.

    The quantities of CO2 we’re talking about are absolutely huge. Given the well known heat trapping properties of CO, and the undeniable fact that the earth is warming, the global warming deniers really need step up to the plate and explain why Global warming isn’t a result of anthropomorphic causes. They also need to explain why mega-tons of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses don’t contribute to the warming. There’s no reason to take them seriously until they can answer these important questions.

    Of course the earth’s climate has changed before, and every one of those changes had a cause.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  19. @anon KW
    There’s no reason to take them seriously until they can answer these important questions.

    View the video link I gave for your answers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Egnor: Oleg, why don't you address my questions about past apocalyptic hysteria before we discuss current apocalyptic hysteria? Science apocalypism had a long history. How's eugenic science doing? How's overpopulation science doing? Why does England still exist? Why are famines less common, rather than more common?

    This is a stupid objection. It's a bit like saying that the Jew got it wrong and the Muslims got it wrong, so Christianity can't be valid in light of that. You have to address each of them separately. Eugenics was not a scientific enterprise, it was a public health thing.

    Quit with such silly arguments, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @oleg:

    I have a 'science apocalypse' rule: ya gotta explain the prior frauds before I accept anything you say about the latest fraud.

    It's the exact same approach I'd use with a bible belt preacher who keeps predicting the end of the world, and it keeps not happening. "Tell me why you were wrong last time, before we talk about this time."

    And that's just what this AGW shit is: a secular apocalypse.

    Ain't history a bummer?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mike, you're being silly. Unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @oleg:

    [Mike, you're being silly. Unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid.]

    Right. I'm stupid because I don't give you unlimited political and financial power to rearrange world governance and economics according to your preferences based on 'science' that is surprisingly similar to a number of science frauds over the past century.

    I'm stupid, it's true, but I'm not that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Egnor: Right. I'm stupid because I don't give you unlimited political and financial power to rearrange world governance and economics according to your preferences based on 'science' that is surprisingly similar to a number of science frauds over the past century.

    You are indeed stupid if you wish to judge the validity of climate science by looking at history of eugenics. Let's apply that same principle, mutatis mutandis, to medicine. Bloodletting and phrenology were false, therefore neuroscience is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @oleg:

    Many of the things we believe to be true today will be found to be false in the future. That's how science works, and has always worked. People were certain about bloodletting, phrenology, etc, and skeptics were called "silly. Unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid."

    I'm judging climate science by a little bit of scientific knowledge, and a lot of history knowledge, and a lot of knowledge of behavior.

    Climate science oozes fraud. The arrogance, the apocalyptic hysteria, the lying, the deletion/hiding data, the transparent financial motives (Gore), the "denialism" slur, the salesmanship.

    I would buy a used toaster from these bastards. They need to be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I wouldn't buy a used toaster..."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oleg,
    YOU suggested there was 'centuries' of data collected to present a 1C per century rise. You challenged Matteo with this assertion too. So what is it? Did the mean temp change by 1C per century or not? If it did why not reduce 20C for 20 centuries? 10C for 10 centuries?
    There must be at LEAST that much data to extrapolate with, no?
    Finally, will YOU concede there is a natural cycle to climate change?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here is another example of the effect of this AGW hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Temperatures collected at ground level, even for the past hundred years, are of no use. Global atmospheric temperatures collected from satellites provide a more realistic set of data and show no warming trends whatsoever.

    Also, contrary to what climate pseudo-scientists would have us believe a warming of the planet would not melt the polar ice caps but would increase them. If these polar caps were to melt, the sea would rise by 100 metres, not 2 metres!

    Global warming activists should get their stats straight!

    The computer models used by the AGW crowd are primitive and undependable. But the AGW crowd believe and have faith in them! It’s the birth of new religion.

    The AGW hype is just that: hype!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Egnor: Many of the things we believe to be true today will be found to be false in the future. That's how science works, and has always worked. People were certain about bloodletting, phrenology, etc, and skeptics were called "silly. Unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid."

    Wrong. There are certain truths that will never change. Newton's laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation were, are, and will always be valid. The normal temperature of the human body was, is, and always will be, 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Atoms were, are, and will always be the smallest units carrying a chemical identity.

    I'm judging climate science by a little bit of scientific knowledge, and a lot of history knowledge, and a lot of knowledge of behavior.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Egnor:
    "People were certain about bloodletting, phrenology, etc,"
    And creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Anon
    "People were certain about bloodletting, phrenology, etc,"
    And creationism.


    I do hope you realize that Creationism is on the rise.

    You cannot argue with the TRUTH!

    ReplyDelete
  33. crusadeREX: YOU suggested there was 'centuries' of data collected to present a 1C per century rise. You challenged Matteo with this assertion too. So what is it? Did the mean temp change by 1C per century or not?

    Yes.

    If it did why not reduce 20C for 20 centuries? 10C for 10 centuries?
    There must be at LEAST that much data to extrapolate with, no?


    No.

    Hint: if a car is moving at the speed of 55 mph, it does not necessarily mean that it has traveled 550 miles in 10 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @oleg
    Hint: if a car is moving at the speed of 55 mph, it does not necessarily mean that it has traveled 550 miles in 10 hours.

    If temperatures have risen by 0.02 degrees per year in the last 30 years does not necessarily mean they will rise by 2 degrees in the next 100 years or 20 degrees in the next 1000 years.

    Things got up and things come down, naturally!

    ReplyDelete
  36. @oleg:

    [A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.]

    Fraud is more dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What are you, nuts? Three investigations, by three different panels, failed to turn up any signs of Michael Mann's misconduct.

    April 2010: Academic experts clear scientists in 'climate-gate'.

    July 2010: Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations.

    August 2011: NSF clears Michael Mann of 'Climategate'.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @oleg:

    The fraud speaks for itself. Mann changed data sources at the inflection point of the hockey stick (from proxy to instrumental) at exactly the point (1960) where the proxy data stopped supporting his hypothesis. He used data manipulation to disappear the Medieval Warm Period. He was party to a decade-long email trail that:

    1) Rigged peer review
    2) Planned revenge on scientists who disagreed with AGW
    3) Explicitly planned to destroy a journal that had published an article challenging an aspect of AGW
    4) Advocated and plotted evasion of FOIA requests (a felony)
    5) Advocated and plotted data destruction rather than compliance with FOIA
    6) Admitted destruction of source data for instrumental recordings at CRU from the 1980's
    7) Admitted the absence of warming over the past decade, contrary to public and professional assertions of warming.
    8) Acknowledged data manipulation to "hide the decline" in temperatures in published data.

    Mann is currently fighting like a pit-bull to prevent the release of his UVa emails. Odd, since you assert that he was completely cleared by three investigations. You'd think that he'd be delighted to show how honest he is.

    All three 'investigations' were by individuals and institutions with much to lose if AGW does a perp walk.

    The appropriate investigation of climate science is by a grand jury. Soon, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @oleg:

    Here's a challenge:

    Explain the innocence of "Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline"

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jesus Christ, Mike. You know essentially nothing about this and yet you feel completely at ease throwing around accusation of fraud. How about you first familiarize yourself with the subject and then draw conclusions? Is that such a novel concept? You repeat long discredited conservative talking points like a parrot hoping that some of them might stick. I find it totally hilarious that a tenured professor would expose himself as such a mindless robot.

    Here is some reading that might help. Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @oleg:

    [Jesus Christ, Mike. You know essentially nothing about this and yet you feel completely at ease throwing around accusation of fraud.]

    Waiting for your explanation....

    And regarding fraud, if these 'scientists' were officials of publicly-traded companies regulated by the SEC, they'd be indicted for any number of counts of fraud. Rigging disclosure, silencing other businessmen who ask questions about their financial propriety, deleting financial data to prevent scrutiny, evading lawful requests for disclosure, conspiracy to mislead investors...

    Transparent fraud. Federal prisons are full of people who do this kind of thing in the business community.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @oleg:

    If you've got writer's block on "hide the decline", how about this:

    Explain Michael Mann's stonewalling on release of his UVa emails.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Egnor: Waiting for your explanation....

    Looks like it didn't help. Can you follow simple instructions, Mike? Read my comment again and follow the link this time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @oleg:

    As you may have noticed, I'm not really good with instructions. I so wanted to hear your explanation. After all, if I'm just a jerk and there is obviously no fraud, you should be able to explain "hide the decline..." easily.

    'Just a silly little misunderstanding...'

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Egnor,

    I can only lead you to the evidence, but I can't make you read it. Your reading comprehension in science is close to zero, so why would I even waste my time on you?

    I'll point out for starters that the quote you cited, "Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline," was carefully cropped to make an impression that "Mike's Nature trick" has the effect of "hiding the decline." The unedited sentence reads "just completed Mike’s Nature Trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

    Michael Mann's trick was to use multiple measurements to plot the temperature record: the thickness of tree rings, the concentration of isotopes in ice samples and temperatures measured directly. Relying on a single proxy (e.g., isotope concentrations) is not a good idea because they are not always reliable. It is well known that records of tree rings past 1960 diverge from the actually measured temperatures.

    There is nothing sinister there, except for tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Okay Oleg,
    You seem to think I have misread or misunderstood you position. You used the word 'centuries', so I assumed more than one or two, or else you would have used 'decades' or the 'last century'...or something to that effect. You also state this is based on 'climate station data'. So how long back does it go? I mean if the climate has warmed and dropped (it has) in the recent centuries, just how long of a rise is this new 'warming' (50, 100, 200 years?) and how was the data collected to confirm this period? Also, how do we know there has been no previous spikes like this?

    @all
    An interesting question in my mind, is how the Earth 'responds' to such changes. I wonder what type of adaptations ancient peoples had to make in order to 'carry the torch'. We do know of some the results of those adaptations, and we have some very compelling mythology, as well as Biblical sources.
    I cannot help but feel the answers to how we ride this thing out could be in the deep, distant past, not in some idiot egghead's emission spewing lab. That an adaptation of a totally NATURAL type can be made that will not result in some Faustian deal with 'science'. Any thoughts on this folks?

    ReplyDelete
  47. crusadeREX: You used the word 'centuries', so I assumed more than one or two, or else you would have used 'decades' or the 'last century'...or something to that effect.

    No, I did not use the word centuries. I wrote "1 degree per century." As I said, measuring a speed of 55 miles per hour does not imply that the measurement took several hours.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @oleg:

    "...hide the decline" is the issue. It is a clear statement of intent to manipulate data to support a hypothesis. It is a confession, akin "...to hide the body" People have gone to prison for that kind of confession.

    Marc Sheppard does a nice analysis of the fraud here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html), going to the source code to reveal the depth of the data manipulation.

    The decline hidden was the decline in proxy measurements after 1960, and the instrumental measurements were grafted to the proxy measurements when the proxy measurements became inconvenient.

    Classic fraud. If this were done in a investment prospectus, the author would go to prison.

    As a scientist, how can you defend such fraud? Do you do this kind of thing in your own research?

    And you have not yet answered my question about Mann's stonewalling on the release of his UVa emails. What's he hiding?

    ReplyDelete
  49. The decline hidden was the decline in proxy measurements after 1960, and the instrumental measurements were grafted to the proxy measurements when the proxy measurements became inconvenient.

    Classic fraud. If this were done in a investment prospectus, the author would go to prison.


    Mike, your tinfoil helmet seems to be malfunctioning. Time for a new one.

    The decline refers to the tree-ring data after 1960. This proxy measurement, taken at face value, suggests that global temperatures went down since then. That of course isn't true. Direct temperature measurements (the most reliable source) and other proxies indicate that the average temperatures went up.

    Unless you insist that tree rings are the best method to measure temperature, you have to agree that this proxy needs to be discarded.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So Oleg,
    Just to make this CRYSTAL clear for everyone else. You said '1 degree per century', but you actually meant 'The mean temperature seems to have risen by 1 degree centigrade over the LAST century?'
    That is why we cannot take away 5 or 10C from your observations. Because 500 - 1000 years ago the temperatures we have recorded are not all that accurate and do NOT reflect a linear cooling trend.
    Will you concede cyclical NATURAL change as a possibility, Oleg? (second time asking)
    To be clear: You are actually talking about the observation of a phenomenon that we have every reason to think occurs cyclically. Right?
    You were just being pretentious? Inferring the data was heavier and of more worth than it is.
    Okay. I get it.
    Called your bluff. Fair enough.
    Now to the red meat.
    If we accept that rise, why should we be immediately convinced it is US that caused it this time? WHY the 'A'. Could it not be Sol (our sun), tectonics, polar shift, orbital wobble etc etc.
    Further, if correct and the shift is on - what makes these AGW folks think they can STOP it once it is under way?
    Are they so beholden to gradualism that they think they can fight off the shifting climates of the WORLD with graph paper and super balloons? They have become Atlas?
    Like I said: AGW=HUBRIS.
    Not an uncommon condition among sufferers of Scientism.

    ReplyDelete
  51. PS.
    I would take a tree ring as more reliable than the reports of these men. A tree ring may be old fashioned, and even misleading given some local factors....but it will not INTENTIONALLY doctor data to promote this Chicken Little style lunacy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oleg appeals for divine moral objectivity:
    "Jesus Christ, Mike."

    ReplyDelete
  53. @oleg:


    [Unless you insist that tree rings are the best method to measure temperature, you have to agree that this proxy needs to be discarded.]

    Why then trust the tree ring proxy for the previous 1000 years? The divergence is evidence that the entire historical record as ascertained by that proxy is dubious. The whole point of the 'hockey stick' is that the modern warming is unprecedented. If the tree ring proxy is unreliable, what happens to the assertion that the warming is unprecedented?

    You can't use data that supports your conclusion, and then throw out the same-source data as soon as it refutes your conclusion.

    Fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Egnor,

    You'd have a point if tree rings were the only proxy for temperature. They are not. Tree-ring reconstructions agree with the other data prior to 1960. The divergence after 1960 is peculiar, but it is not the end of the world.

    And talk is cheap. If you are so sure that Mann has committed fraud, how come three panels who investigated him disagree with you? A vast left-wing conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  55. @oleg:

    [You'd have a point if tree rings were the only proxy for temperature. They are not. Tree-ring reconstructions agree with the other data prior to 1960. The divergence after 1960 is peculiar, but it is not the end of the world.]

    The compilation of various proxies into a paleoclimate record involves an enormous amount of data 'adjustment', which can yield all sorts of records depending on how it is done. Removal of the tree ring proxies from the hockey stick graph just at the point that they fail to support AGW is an example of that 'adjustment'.

    Furthermore, your implicit assumption that instrumental temperature recordings are without bias is unfounded. I noted above that there is a great deal of data massaging that goes on even with instrumental recordings, including heat island corrections and corrections for changes in measuring stations. Anthony Watts found that the 'corrections' for instrument location accounted for half of the claimed instrumental evidence for warming.

    AGW 'science' is a mess, and there is obvious fraud. There have been many examples of scientific assertions about AGW that had to be withdrawn because they were shown to be garbage.

    And how about that answer to my question about Mann stonewalling release of his UVa emails.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Egnor,

    If Mann and his colleagues have committed fraud, why don't you try and win a conviction. Meanwhile, how about the simple concept "innocent until proven guilty?" You familiar with it?

    As to the UVA emails, I'm fully on his side. Conservatives have organized a fishing expedition to get a scientist whose science they don't like on purely ideological grounds. Three panels have looked into the matter and found no indications of improper behavior. The conservatives are not satisfied with these answer and will continue biting at his ankles forever. They can fuck off as far as I am concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You don't need tree rings to tell you there was a warming period in the Medieval, folks.
    There is ample evidence in the record. There is as much evidence of the effects of these shifts as there is of trade and commerce.
    The people's lifestyles, wealth, diets and livestock were affected. There are countless records of it such things. Much of it, I might add, recorded/copied and set aside by the Church.

    We must remember when we discuss these people that they were human like us; they recorded the effects and discoveries of their time. Often they did so with more care than our lax and lazy modern, technically aided 'science'.
    But we don't have to rely on their observations alone.
    We have physical proof in the form of abandoned forms of argiculture and even settlements.
    Vinbar / Grape residue and seed found at L'Anse Aux Meadows (Approx AD1000)in far Northern Newfoundland is one physical proof of this change that I have some experience with.
    More grapes?
    In the EU geneticists and various experts have traced the origins of some of the famous vintages of today to cold Northern European lands - no longer capable of such agriculture.
    Further we see more evidence of rapid warming periods in the oceans.
    We see huge ruin systems under water off India and in the Black and Aegean seas...so far. There could be more.
    Where are these spikes in AGW data? Any historian - tenured, curator, librarian, or teacher - KNOWS there has been shifts and changes.

    Why are these shifts/peaks/valleys not seen in this data?

    Also I must note: I think that one graph thing would make an excellent abstract stained glass window for Gore's palace.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Egnor,

    [If Mann and his colleagues have committed fraud, why don't you try and win a conviction.]

    Workin' on it.

    [Meanwhile, how about the simple concept "innocent until proven guilty?" You familiar with it?]

    I'll believe the evidence. Why do AGW scientists keep trying to hide it and delete in?

    [As to the UVA emails, I'm fully on his side.]

    That's clear.

    [Conservatives have organized a fishing expedition to get a scientist whose science they don't like on purely ideological grounds.]

    The emails belong to the public, not to Mann. The public funded his work. They have a right to confirm that the work was honest science.

    [Three panels have looked into the matter and found no indications of improper behavior.]

    All are allies of his. We objective review-- the kind that a grand jury provides.

    [The conservatives are not satisfied with these answer and will continue biting at his ankles forever.]

    Release of the emails will provide Mann with an opportunity to showcase the integrity of his work. It's the old adage: when scurrilous accusations are falsely made against you, the most effective response is transparency. Lay out all of the evidence.

    What's he afraid of?

    [They can fuck off as far as I am concerned.]

    "They" pay your salary. The people have a right to confirm the honesty of the science they pay for and that is being used as a basis for restructuring world economics and governance.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Egnor: The emails belong to the public, not to Mann. The public funded his work. They have a right to confirm that the work was honest science.

    Except in this case it isn't the public that has started this fishing expedition. It's the oil industry lobbyists and the conservative lawmakers who clearly have a dog in this fight. The same intimidation through litigation tactics were used by tobacco companies and (surprise!) conservative lawmakers to suppress research into the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. We've seen this before and you, guys, are not getting anywhere with it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @oleg:

    [Except in this case it isn't the public that has started this fishing expedition. It's the oil industry lobbyists...]

    The investigation was started by Ken Cuccinelli, the elected attorney general of Virginia.

    If there's nothing dishonest in the emails, why is Mann fighting so hard to hide them?

    If the evil oil lobbyists and conservatives are so wrong, why wouldn't Mann want to show how honest he is by releasing the emails?

    Hmmmm...

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Oleg:
    "They can fuck off as far as I am concerned"
    A vast right wing conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Oleg
    "Jesus Christ, Mike. You know essentially nothing about this and yet you feel completely at ease throwing around accusation of fraud."

    Is it really surprising? After all, Michael is a creationist.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Get your terms straight, Anon. Michael is a "theist". Just for the sake of honesty, could we please see your definition of "creationist", so we can tell whether you understand the terms you are using?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cuccinelli can put a sock in it. The judgesaw that this is nothing but a fishing expedition and dismissed the case:

    Judge Paul Peatross Jr. ruled that while the Virginia attorney general could investigate state grants awarded to scientists, Cuccinelli and his staff failed to demonstrate that such an investigation was warranted in this case. “The nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute,” the judge wrote. “… The Court…understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did that was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

    ReplyDelete
  65. In fact, even AGW skeptics thought that Cuccinelli went to far with his witch hunt.

    Steve McIntyre: This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @oleg:

    Delete data rather than share it, hide declines, go to court to keep publicly-funded emails secret...

    Why do you guys always act like you have something to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Say what?

    The "hidden decline" is a well known effect publicly discussed in the scientific literature. It was described in a paper published in a top scientific journal Nature. If you can't be bothered to read the literature, don't complain.

    And Mann didn't go to court to keep his emails, he was dragged to court by an overzealous Attorney General. Fortunately for Mann, the judge saw through Cuccinelli's charade. As a self-described proponent of academic freedom, you should be ashamed of being on Cuccinelli's side.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @oleg:

    Mann could have avoided being dragged to court by just releasing the emails.

    I would have no issue releasing my emails that relate to my research. Would you?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Here is the North Korean approach to an AGW fix.... or any fix.
    The Atheist state at work on it's own people.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Egnor: I would have no issue releasing my emails that relate to my research. Would you?

    No. Why would I open my research emails to competitors?

    ReplyDelete
  71. @oleg:

    [Why would I open my research emails to competitors?]

    1) If the funding is public, they're not your emails.

    2) Other scientists aren't your 'competitors', they're colleagues. You're not a businessman.

    3)If you were a businessman, and you behave like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth et al, you would go to prison.

    4) I don't know about you, but when I have email discussions with other scientists about my research, I don't say anything that would not be appropriate for public consumption.

    Are you admitting to hiding things?

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ oleg:

    My email: "Joe, let's double-check our data to make sure it's right..."

    Climate scientist email: "Joe, lets keep other people from double-checking our data so they can't find out if it's right..."

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ oleg:

    [No. Why would I open my research emails to competitors?]

    That's pretty funny. You make excuses for a totalitarian population control policy that controls the most intimate aspects of every person's life, but, when you are asked about releasing publicly-funded emails, you DEMAND privacy.

    Hey, when asked to release emails, why not just pretend that you've been forced to pass control of your intimate family life and procreation to the government.

    You're so blase about totalitarian population control, and so protective of privacy about emails...

    ReplyDelete
  74. Egnor: That's pretty funny. You make excuses for a totalitarian population control policy that controls the most intimate aspects of every person's life, but, when you are asked about releasing publicly-funded emails, you DEMAND privacy.

    What are you talking about? You are confusing me with someone else. Link, please. Put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Egnor: 1) If the funding is public, they're not your emails.

    No, emails are not in public domain. I have no obligation to show you my emails without a court order. In fact, there are specific instances where I am expressly forbidden from making emails public by law. See FERPA.

    2) Other scientists aren't your 'competitors', they're colleagues. You're not a businessman.

    Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here.

    3)If you were a businessman, and you behave like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth et al, you would go to prison.

    You have repeated this assertion several times but that didn't make it any more convincing. In reality, three panels looked at Michael Mann's scientific conduct and found no improprieties. A fishing expedition against him was dismissed by a judge. Conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, of course.

    4) I don't know about you, but when I have email discussions with other scientists about my research, I don't say anything that would not be appropriate for public consumption.

    Of course. Your silly rants on this blog are a confirmation of that. Mwahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  76. @oleg:

    [What are you talking about? You are confusing me with someone else.]

    Actually, you're right. I apologize.

    How DO you feel about population control?

    ReplyDelete
  77. @oleg:

    "The judge also determined that Cuccinelli can only investigate one of the five grants awarded to Mann, since only one had been awarded by the state of Virginia. The others were federal grants."

    Mann is behaving just like any criminal, fighting against revealing evidence.

    Cuccinelli still has plenty of options. The most interesting option would be to investigate Mann's federal grants. Cuccinelli can do that, when he's appointed AG of the US by President Perry in 2013.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oleg:

    "Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here."

    An h-index of 6 (h publications at least cited h times). Worthy of an advanced PhD student. How did Michael ever get tenure? I have to assume by fraud until proven otherwise to my satisfaction. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  79. Troy,

    Of course, the h-index isn't perfect. Clinicians get tenure for other reasons than research publications. Technical proficiency and teaching for example. Neurosurgeons are rather rare animals, so the number of people around to cite a neurosurgeon's published papers are limited, also requiring the other neurosurgeon's to be publishing too.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Fair enough, bachfiend. I watch Grey's Anatomy too!

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here."

    Why do so many scientists seem to be such prisses? Is it because the stakes are so low?

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Matteo:

    Many of these staunch defenders of science are very low level scientists. Dawkins is a second rate scientist who hasn't seen the inside of a lab in 30 years. His specialty was ethology-- animal behavior. His last real scientific work was in the 1980's. Pretty thin gruel. He's a famous 'scientist' for publishing a series of popular books for laymen.

    PZ Myers is a joke-- check his publications on medline.

    A lot of these atheist scientific superstars are wanker scientists who are famous because they've towed the ideological line.

    Most genuine scientists work quietly and hard.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh, we can play this game.

    Let's take Richard Dawkins's record of scientific publications (journal articles, not books). He has an h-index of 18. Solid, although not mind-boggling. One of his papers, "Arms Races between and within Species," Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 489 (1979), has been cited in the literature 600+ times.

    Let's compare Dawkins, by all accounts not the best representative of evolutionary biology, just a popular author, to that leading light of ID research Michael Behe. Behe's h-index is 16. His most cited article has 89 citations.

    Or to Bill Dembski, the other leading light of ID. H-index of 2, most cited article has 4 citations.

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fame rests entirely on his writing for the lay public. No debate.

    h-index has a great deal to do with number of publications in a field generally, and is useful for comparison within a field, much less useful for comparisons between fields, where total publications differ markedly.

    I'm not saying that all public Darwinists are second rate scientists-- Coyne is very well published and does cutting edge work. Larry Krauss is a very accomplished physicist, and Larry Moran is a very accomplished biochemist. They all suck as philosophers and theologians, but why must I repeat the obvious.

    Dawkins is a narcissistic putz, and Myers is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Egnor: Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fame rests entirely on his writing for the lay public. No debate.

    I don't think so. A large number of citations for his 1979 paper indicates that he has made a difference.

    Be that as it may, Behe is a lesser scientist than Dawkins, however you slice it. And Dembski has completely fallen off the radar screen.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Michael,

    Richard Dawkins is a theoretical biologist. Like theoretical physicists, they hardly ever see the inside of a laboratory. Einstein was a theoretical physicist too, and the only times that he attempted real experiments, he either almost killed himself or got the result wrong.

    Publishing isn't everything. Probably 90% of papers should not have been published. I remember one paper discussing the nuclear atypic within epithelial cells within vasectomy specimens from more elderly patients. It managed to get cited in one of the standard surgical pathology textbooks as being written by authors who leapt over the heads of their peers into obscurity.

    Dawkins has published ideas that are mind changing, for example the Selfish Gene. PZ Myers works at a small teaching university, where excellence in teaching is more highly prized than research.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @bach:

    [Probably 90% of papers should not have been published... ]

    Very true.

    [Richard Dawkins is a theoretical biologist.]

    No he's not. Theoretical biology is a discipline in itself, very respectable and very rigorous. Lots of mathematical modeling, etc. Dawkins isn't qualified to clean their toilets.

    Dawkins is an second rate ethologist who made a career for himself writing books for laymen. He writes passably-- I'm not a big fan of his style, but he's better than some (Dennett is unreadable). He's grossly incompetent in philosophy and theology.

    [Dawkins has published ideas that are mind changing, for example the Selfish Gene.]

    The locus of actor in natural selection has long been debated. Dawkins' books for the lay press aren't even real science, and more than Hawking's "Brief History of Time" is real science. It's a popular science book for laypeople. The difference is that Hawking also does real science, unlike Dawkins.

    Real scientists in theoretical biology, evolutionary biology, etc publish real scientific articles addressing these issues-- on what does NS act, etc. Coffee table books don't count.

    [PZ Myers works at a small teaching university, where excellence in teaching is more highly prized than research.]

    I think that excellence in teaching is very important. If Pharyngula dealt with controversies in education, that'd be fine.

    ReplyDelete