Disclosure and due diligence - McIntyre op ed
Steve Schulin
diligence of the corporate world are lacking in the science that
supports climate change", Financial Post (Canada), February 15, 2005, p.
FP23]
I have spent much of the past two years analyzing and reconstructing
some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in
turn, to promote policies on climate change. It started as a hobby and
it evolved into a full-time avocation, resulting to date in three
peer-reviewed publications, which Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, the
National Post and The Wall Street Journal have recently reported on.
Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral exploration
business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the micro-cap
exploration business and have a great deal of practical experience in
dealing with prospectus and securities issues. In a corporate world,
there is simply no question about providing audit trails, and while they
can take many different forms, they all serve the purpose of ensuring
the validity of information used for investment decisions. In addition
to familiar forms of financial audit trails, the splitting and retention
of drill cores is a form of audit trail in the exploration business. In
my opinion, the absence of drill core at the Bre-X exploration site, if
publicly known, would have alarmed investors long prior to the final
demise.
The 2001 IPCC report produced findings that have guided investment
decisions, which vastly exceed the sums involved in even the largest
financial scandals of recent years. Since the IPCC leaned heavily on a
novel approach called a "multiproxy climate study" and in particular the
"hockey stick graph" of Mann et al. that purported to show extraordinary
climate change, this is where I've focused my attention. An audit trail
in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the authors
and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived.
Yet, none of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a
complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of
one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that
he has "misplaced" his data. In the case of the Mann et al [1998, 1999]
study, used for the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph, Mann was initially
unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate
data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent
with previously published material, etc. In addition to the lack of due
diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code
and data available for verification, even with a specific request.
Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought
source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding
agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In
the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann's personal commercial
property. Mann recently told The Wall Street Journal that "giving them
the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these
people employ." My first request for source code was a very simple
request and could in no way be construed as "intimidation." However, the
issue neatly illustrates the disconnect.
IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have
been "peer reviewed." However, peer review for climate publications,
even by eminent journals such as Nature or Science, is typically a quick
unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually
close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to
actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a
journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the
source code and supporting calculations. The editor said no one had ever
asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. There is
nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications that is
remotely like an audit. It's my view that this is all the more reason
why source code and data should be archived.
There is a great deal of public misconception of the forms of due
diligence actually carried out by the IPCC. Although the IPCC and
similar agencies have many meetings and committees (usually in nice
places), they do not carry out any audit or verification activities.
While insiders have long known this, it was recently admitted in written
answers by the author of the hockey stick study (Michael Mann) to the
U.S. Senate in the fall of 2003. "It is distinctly against the mission
of the IPCC to 'carry out independent programs,' " Mann wrote. Thus, if
a paper has passed the cursory journal peer review process, there may
not be any subsequent hurdles prior to adoption by the IPCC.
Through my own checking, I found that the calculations behind the most
famous IPCC graph -- the 1,000-year climate hockey stick -- contained a
serious calculation error that invalidates the results. In this case,
the methodology had been inaccurately described in the journal
publication. I also found there had been an influential but unreported
alteration to a key data series, where the alteration had been disguised
by a (perhaps unintentional) misrepresentation of the start date of the
underlying data. The math involved is not particularly sophisticated:
The errors would have been discovered long ago had there been even
routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right.
IPCC's inattentiveness to verification is exacerbated by the lack of
independence between authors with strong vested interests in previously
published intellectual positions and IPCC section authors. For example,
Michael Mann had published an academic article announcing that the 1990s
were the warmest decade in human history. He then became IPCC section
author for the critical section surveying climate history of the last
millennium, adopting the very graph used in his own paper on behalf of
IPCC. For someone used to processes where prospectuses require
qualifying reports from independent geologists, the lack of independence
is simply breathtaking and a recipe for problems, regardless of the
reasons initially prompting this strange arrangement.
It seems to me that prospectus-like disclosure must become the standard
in climate science, certainly for documents like IPCC reports (which are
like scientific prospectuses), but even for journals. In business,
"full, true and plain disclosure" is a control on stock promoters. While
it may not always be successful, it gives an enforcement mechanism.
There is no such standard in climate science. In the Mann study there
are important examples of pertinent adverse results, known to the
authors, which were not reported. In fairness, the journals do not
require authors to warrant full, true and plain disclosure and there is
little guidance to such authors as to what is required reporting and
what is not required.
I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their
results. One of the typical reactions is: Don't check our studies, do
your own study. I don't think that businesses like being checked either,
but one of the preconditions of being allowed to operate is that they
are checked. Many of the most highly paid professionals in our society
-- securities lawyers, auditors -- earn much of their income simply by
verifying other people's results.
Businesses developed checks and balances because other peoples' money
was involved, not because businessmen are more virtuous than academics.
Back when paleoclimate research had little implication outside academic
seminar rooms, the lack of any adequate control procedures probably
didn't matter much. However, now that huge public policy decisions are
based, at least in part, on such studies, sophisticated procedural
controls need to be developed and imposed. Climate scientists cannot
expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public
policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more
adequate disclosure and due diligence.
Copyright 2005 National Post. All Rights Reserved
Roger Coppock
Tell that to former ENRON, Worldcom, and Tyco shareholders.
"An audit trail
in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the
authors
and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. "
The data from my publications are stored on 1/2 inch
mini-tape reels, a technology that evaporated 20 years
ago. So much for the principle that these things are
easily buttoned up and archived.
Steve Schulin
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> "In a corporate world, there is simply no question about providing
> audit trails . . ."
> Tell that to former ENRON, Worldcom, and Tyco shareholders.
I think your analogy is apt in this case. Thanks for that.
> "An audit trail
> in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the
> authors
> and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
> these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. "
>
> The data from my publications are stored on 1/2 inch
> mini-tape reels, a technology that evaporated 20 years
> ago. So much for the principle that these things are
> easily buttoned up and archived.
You're mistaking (a) ensuring historical accessibility with (b)
providing audit trail contemporaneous with publishing of results.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Coby Beck
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-4DA...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> [Source: Steve McIntyre, "Show us the data: The audit trails and due
> diligence of the corporate world are lacking in the science that
> supports climate change", Financial Post (Canada), February 15, 2005, p.
> FP23]
This is food for thought, it may be that such "audit trails" become a
requirement of climate research that effects policy desicions. But I don't
think it will aid the quest for truth at all. It will only provide
semi-credible ammunition to every imaginable point of view and drag the
debate completely into the mainstream media where truth is the first thing
to be thrown out the window.
I would like to see a credible case made for the idea that climate research
is completely corrupt and a sham before agreeing that it is necessary to let
the "skeptics" have at all the internal detail.
Certainly my experience here is that the sceptic side of this issue thrives
on making noise and avoiding reasoned discourse. My experience with this
issues treatment in the American mainstream media is that there is no
attempt to investigate only parrot every fashionable commentator. Allowing
every non-climatologist access to all the nitty-gritty will only allow these
mechanisms to function with disasterous efficacy.
At the same time, it is hard justify not disclosing what ever anyone wants
to see.
I don't know what the conventions are in the science world when patents and
industrial secrets are not involved.
> routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".
> I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their
It is worth noting that there is ample reason to believe this is a strongly
personal experience belonging much more to Mr. McIntyre than to science.
Again, I don't really know what is normal.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Roger Coppock
> > dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
> > dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
> Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not
a
> completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify
"exploration"."
Ah, yes, the "Climate Change Industry!" We've seen widely
differing estimates of the dollar size of this mythical beast on
the this forum over the years. David Ball has said that the
only way some of the larger figures can be realized is by
claiming weather forecasting costs too. We'll never know if
David is right because the fossil fools have never provided a
rigid definition with a breakdown of this paranoid fantasy of
theirs. (I've always wondered what the sock ticker symbols
of some of the big players are. ;-] )
Raymond Arritt
> This is food for thought, it may be that such "audit trails" become a
> requirement of climate research that effects policy desicions. But I don't
> think it will aid the quest for truth at all. It will only provide
> semi-credible ammunition to every imaginable point of view and drag the
> debate completely into the mainstream media where truth is the first thing
> to be thrown out the window.
More to the point, the cost in time and money to comply with
requirements for a formal audit trail would take away from the resources
available to do the actual research. Whether this consequence of
McIntyre's proposal is intended or unintended, one can only speculate.
> I would like to see a credible case made for the idea that climate research
> is completely corrupt and a sham before agreeing that it is necessary to let
> the "skeptics" have at all the internal detail.
Most of the stuff we use is publicly available anyway. Some examples:
You can get the source code for the NCAR CCSM from here:
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/
(Notice how they state "Numerous multi-century control runs have been
conducted at low, medium, and high resolutions and are available to the
general public for examination and analysis.")
You can get the code for the GISS GCM here:
ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/modelE1.tar.gz
You can download GCM output used in the last IPCC report at:
http://cera-www.dkrz.de/IPCC_DDC/IS92a/index.html
You can sign up to download model results currently being analyzed for
the upcoming IPCC report here:
https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/home/publicHomePage.do
I could go on and on, but you get the point. McIntyre insinuates that
there's some dark conspiracy to keep the workings of climate research
hidden from public view, but that simply doesn't square with reality.
James Annan
mountain out of it. I do not mean to be unduly critical of him in those
words - I understand the frustration that can occur when one finds what
appears to be a significant problem, only to be brushed off in a manner
that seems to be rude and dismissive. IMO (and IME), scientists are
probably no better and no worse than other types of people in this
respect, they have their own egos and prejudices and do not like to be
told that they are wrong. My own experience in this area is already in
the public domain and does not need repeating again.
Although it is only natural that McIntyre should try to talk up the
importance of his work, he seems to completely misunderstand the
scientific process in his talk of audit trails and replication. Sure,
work should be reproducible, and it is embarrassing for those who find
errors in their work or, what is worse, have errors pointed out by
others. Peer review is indeed a rather superficial check on the
validity of the work, and can certainly be subverted by a determined
effort at dishonesty. But scientific research is already subject to a
far more relevant and stringent test than he advocates. It is an
intensely competitive and adversarial process, with rivals continually
trying to improve on each others' work. One could even characterise
this as "prove each other wrong", but generally it takes the form of
incremental advances that modify the previous results, rather than
completely overturning them. Results that are strongly divergent from
the existing status quo will certainly be carefully checked in
subsequent research. But, except in the most exceptional cases, merely
checking that a rival had done their sums right is very unlikely to
reap any real benefits - even if some error or inaccuracy is found in
the calculation or description, it may well not impact significantly on
their results[1], and if no error is found, then this replication still
provides no assessment of the validity of the underlying assumptions
and methodology of the work. However, the alternative - which is how
science actually works - of developing new and improved methodologies,
more accurate data sets and better models actually provides a much more
rigorous check of the correctness of the underlying assumptions and
conclusions of earlier research, which is, after all, the main goal.
I have no direct knowledge of the IPCC process, but McIntyre's picture
of climate research consisting of a cosy coterie of pals all working
towards supporting a "consensus" and patting each other on the back
certainly doesn't ring true with me. The "consensus", such as it is,
represents the equilibrium in a dynamic tension with different people
pulling in different directions. Taking the example of the climate's
equilibrium response to 2xCO2, the consensus view of ~2-6C is not
because everyone one is trying to agree on this range, but because
no-one has yet found any credible cause for disagreement, despite
numerous alternative models and methods (the range itself represents
the amount of disagreement, to a certain extent). We can see in eg the
recent climateprediction.net results, and the comment published on
realclimate.org, evidence of the dynamical tension underlying that
consensus view.
So while I have some sympathy for McIntyre's cause, I disagree with his
conclusions. While his molehill should not just be ignored, it must
also be kept in perspective.
James
[1] It may be worth noting James's Law of computer bugs - the
undiscovered bug probably doesn't matter. FWIW, I found a bug in code I
used for a recent publication, and correcting it just makes the results
marginally more accurate. The bugs that made the method fail completely
were corrected at a much earlier stage :-)
Joshua Halpern
SNIP.....
>
> So while I have some sympathy for McIntyre's cause, I disagree with his
> conclusions. While his molehill should not just be ignored, it must
> also be kept in perspective.
>
> James
> [1] It may be worth noting James's Law of computer bugs - the
> undiscovered bug probably doesn't matter. FWIW, I found a bug in code I
> used for a recent publication, and correcting it just makes the results
> marginally more accurate. The bugs that made the method fail completely
> were corrected at a much earlier stage :-)
>
of others. The most frustrating one was a result I KNEW was wrong, but
could not prove it. When I finally located the code in a PhD thesis, I
found about 10 errors, and together they pretty much balanced out!
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
>> routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
>> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
>> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
>Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
>completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".
I'd be pretty sure that if you include oil expl, the money spent far
exceeds that on cl ch science.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
James Annan
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
> Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
>>>dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
>>>dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
>
>
>>Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
>>completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".
>
>
> I'd be pretty sure that if you include oil expl, the money spent far
> exceeds that on cl ch science.
A few seconds of googling found:
"Wood Mackenzie says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with
a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years
show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls."
I mentioned NERC's annual budget recently - around 300m UKP, although
only a proportion of this is spent on climate change research (it is one
of 3 "priority areas", so I would guess around 1/3). Of course there
will be some other UK sources of funding in this area, but NERC must be
the big one.
Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
>factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
>change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
>probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
>USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
>has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
>global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
>spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.
How about if you included the cost of the Earth Simulator :-)
Michael Tobis
US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
observation budget.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
are attributable to "exploration".
mt
Steve Schulin
"Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
specified _mineral_ exploration.
Coby Beck
> In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> specified _mineral_ exploration.
Any idea why he chose "mineral exploration" as his measuring stick for
"climate change industry"? It seems an obscure reference. I am also
curious as to how he defines and tallies "climate change industry" spending.
Steve Schulin
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-F53...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> > specified _mineral_ exploration.
>
> Any idea why he chose "mineral exploration" as his measuring stick for
> "climate change industry"? It seems an obscure reference. ...
He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.
> .... I am also
> curious as to how he defines and tallies "climate change industry" spending.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Joshua Halpern
cost of pharmaceuticals? However, if you look at
http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
world costs. You can do the math
In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. BTW, there
appears to be a renewed effort to finding diamond mines in NA.
josh halpern
James Annan
> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
>>factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
>>change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
>>probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
>>USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
>>has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
>>global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
>>spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.
>
>
> How about if you included the cost of the Earth Simulator :-)
I nearly did - but at $400m over several years, divided between climate
research, solid earth (quakes) and a number of other engineering
projects it isn't _that_ huge an investment on the global scale. Plus,
it was really just a subsidy to the computer industry :-) I guess the
annual related staff budget will be only a very few % of the capital cost.
James Annan
> He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
> disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
> science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
> wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.
Well he can rest assured that the budget of the "mineral exploration
industry", however he cares to define it, dwarfs the budget of the
Japanese effort in probabilistic climate prediction.
For what it's worth.
But since when has "mineral" excluded oil?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Plus, it was really just a subsidy to the computer industry :-)
I didn't think you were allowed to say that in public :-)
Steve Schulin
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
> > disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
> > science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
> > wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.
>
> Well he can rest assured that the budget of the "mineral exploration
> industry", however he cares to define it, dwarfs the budget of the
> Japanese effort in probabilistic climate prediction.
>
> For what it's worth.
>
> But since when has "mineral" excluded oil?
Never. Yet, standard industry classifications have long distinguished
between oil and mineral industries. For relevant example from the latest
USA classification scheme, see
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND523910.HTM
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
>
> James
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
> >>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
> >>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
> >>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
> >>
> >>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
> >>observation budget.
> >>
> >>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
> >>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
> >>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
> >>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
> >>are attributable to "exploration".
> >>mt
> >
> > I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> > specified _mineral_ exploration.
> >
> Why happy? That's like reporting health care costs and not including the
> cost of pharmaceuticals? ...
Nah. It's more like counting birdbrains.
> ... However, if you look at
>
> http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>
> Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
> Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
> That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
> explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
> world costs. You can do the math
>
> In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
> exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
> particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
> coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
> budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
McIntyre as an oil industry insider. I'm glad to see you place a high
value on precision of language. I don't recall you voicing same when the
discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
year we chose to use".
> ... BTW, there
> appears to be a renewed effort to finding diamond mines in NA.
>
> josh halpern
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
James Annan
And if any casual reader of Canada's Financial Post is unaware of this
technical distinction, then that is of course entirely their own fault
and not something that the author could reasonably have been expected
to foresee and clarify.
Although the publication is not peer-reviewed, anyone who is looking
for an example of the sort of thing I was meaning by "Peer review is
indeed a rather superficial check on the validity of the work, and can
certainly be subverted by a determined effort at dishonesty" need look
no further than this. And frankly I don't give a shit about whatever
semantic games you try to play about how it could actually be true if
interpreted in a narrow technical sense: it certainly misled everyone
here, and is obvious to everyone with a clue and a modicum of honesty
that it will mislead the vast majority of casual readers.
James
Steve Schulin
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
LOL - all you sci.* afficionados who think of oil/gas industry when
someone mentions mineral exploration industry, please take a moment to
chime in.
As to the Financial Post audience, I suspect that they're quite
comfortable in distinguishing between the minerals index and the oil/gas
index mentioned by fund manager at
http://www.tdassetmanagement.com/Content/Products/MutualFunds/Funds/p_Fun
dCard.asp?FID=6168&PID=1&SI=3
>
> James
Joshua Halpern
> In article <Hz7Rd.30796$wc.21814@trnddc07>,
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
>>>>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
>>>>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
>>>>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
>>>>
>>>>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
>>>>observation budget.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
>>>>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
>>>>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
>>>>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
>>>>are attributable to "exploration".
>>>>mt
>>>
>>>I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
>>>specified _mineral_ exploration.
>>
>>Why happy? That's like reporting health care costs and not including the
>>cost of pharmaceuticals? ...
>
> Nah. It's more like counting birdbrains.
>
>
>>... However, if you look at
>>
>>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>>
>>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
>>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
>>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
>>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
>>world costs. You can do the math
>>
>>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
>>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
>>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
>>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
>>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
>
> LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
> McIntyre as an oil industry insider.
I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
You now attempt to move the shell.
I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider, however,
I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
the one who brought that up
"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
> I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
> I don't recall you voicing same when the
> discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
> available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
> year we chose to use".
>
Or first year recommended by the compilers of the data. OTOH, there was
a clear pointer to the data set and a quick reading of it revealed what
the issue was. If I were per like, I could probably pick out some
sentence in that paper which said something like (we only used complete
data sets with uninterrupted series, or series where there was only an
occasional year missing, quite in agreement with what was done. I see
no reference to a source for McIntyre's statement. Out of curiosity let
us look at his statement on this point:
"It still amazes me that for all the billions of
dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right."
We see from the URL that I posted that the amount of money spent on
mineral non oil and gas exploration worldwide is of the order of $30
billion, about 3 B$ of that being in the US.
PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
As long as you get the point, I'm delighted.
> >
> >>... However, if you look at
> >>
> >>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
> >>
> >>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
> >>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
> >>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
> >>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
> >>world costs. You can do the math
> >>
> >>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
> >>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
> >>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
> >>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
> >>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
> >
> > LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
> > McIntyre as an oil industry insider.
>
> I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
> You now attempt to move the shell.
I did not follow that aspect of the thread. I'm again delighted, this
time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>
> I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...
That's wonderful.
> ... however,
> I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
> even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
> the one who brought that up
>
> "Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
> exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
> micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
> experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
>
> I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
> fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
on it.
> > I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
>
> No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
Oh.
>
> > I don't recall you voicing same when the
> > discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
> > available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
> > year we chose to use".
> >
> Or first year recommended by the compilers of the data. ...
LOL - that would be an interesting set of stories to hear.
> ... OTOH, there was
> a clear pointer to the data set and a quick reading of it revealed what
> the issue was. ...
And the issue was not the "first year available".
> ... If I were per like, I could probably pick out some
> sentence in that paper which said something like (we only used complete
> data sets with uninterrupted series, or series where there was only an
> occasional year missing, quite in agreement with what was done. ...
I'd be most interested if you, or anyone, chose to actually justify that
column heading in the MBH98-related table.
> ... I see
> no reference to a source for McIntyre's statement. Out of curiosity let
> us look at his statement on this point:
>
> "It still amazes me that for all the billions of
> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
> thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
> was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right."
>
> We see from the URL that I posted that the amount of money spent on
> mineral non oil and gas exploration worldwide is of the order of $30
> billion, about 3 B$ of that being in the US.
I took the opportunity to glance at that URL. Are you combining your
eyeballings of various graphs to arrive at these values, for the past 10
or 11 years or so? And have you done similar assessment of climate
science expenditures over same period?
>
> PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
LOL - and you might answer regardless.
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
wrong 90% of the time"
[Source: John J. McKetta, "Don't Believe Everything You Read", in
"Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns", edited by Jay H. Lehr
(1992, Van Nostrand Reinhold). Dr. McKetta is professor of chemical
engineering at U Texas-Austin. See p. 344 for the section titled
"Scientists wrong 90% of the time"]
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>>>"Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
>>>>>>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
>>>>>>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
>>>>>>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
>>>>>>observation budget.
>>>>>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
>>>>>>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
>>>>>>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
>>>>>>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
>>>>>>are attributable to "exploration".
>>>>>>mt
>>>>>
>>>>>I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
>>>>>specified _mineral_ exploration.
SNIP....
>>>>... However, if you look at
>>>>
>>>>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
>>>>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
>>>>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
>>>>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
>>>>world costs. You can do the math
>>>>
>>>>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
>>>>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
>>>>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
>>>>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
>>>>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
>>>
>>>LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
>>>McIntyre as an oil industry insider.
>>
>>I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
>>You now attempt to move the shell.
>
> I did not follow that aspect of the thread.
Then why did you comment on it. You evidently have nothing to add to
the question of whether exploration costs broadly or narrowly construed
exceed the costs of climate research, but you take our time saying
nothing germain in an offensive way
> I'm again delighted, this
> time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
> I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
said was wrong.
>
>>I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...
>
> That's wonderful.
>
It has NOTHING to do with what I was saying. It is simply a distraction
you have tried to bring in. By the way, do you know that the price of
bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?
>>... however,
>>I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
>>even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
>>the one who brought that up
>>
>>"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
>>exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
>>micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
>>experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
>>
>>I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
>>fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
>
> Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
> seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
> of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
> not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
> on it.
>
Red herring 2. Boo-hoo.
>
>>>I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
>>
>>No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
>
> Oh.
>
More fish cut bait....SNIP....
>>PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
>
>
> LOL - and you might answer regardless.
>
OK, regardless.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
Well, that is pretty good compared to your record. Still as someone
said it is useful to know someone who is always wrong because then you
can figure out what is right. thanks
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
I replied quite politely to an aspect that Dr. Tobis brought up. What
was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that McIntyre
says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_
exploration." ?
>
> > I'm again delighted, this
> > time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
> > I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>
> Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
> mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
> evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
> said was wrong.
He was wrong when he said "So the question comes down to what proportion
of energy costs are attributable to 'exploration'." That was the aspect
I commented on. I've reread your posts to this thread, and have not
noticed you showing evidence that what he said was true in this regard.
> >
> >>I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...
> >
> > That's wonderful.
> >
> It has NOTHING to do with what I was saying. ...
Sure it does. The birdbrained reasoning which prompts some folks to
think oil/gas industry when minerals industry is mentioned is the common
factor.
> ... It is simply a distraction you have tried to bring in. ...
Well, I've been quite patient in waiting for just the right spot to
highlight the repeated attempts by consensus-minded folks to link Mr.
McIntyre with "fossil fuel" industry. I think I found it right here
amongst the replies in this thread I happily started.
> ... By the way, do you know that the price of
> bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
> pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?
> >>... however,
> >>I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
> >>even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
> >>the one who brought that up
> >>
> >>"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
> >>exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
> >>micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
> >>experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
> >>
> >>I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
> >>fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
> >
> > Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
> > seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
> > of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
> > not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
> > on it.
> >
> Red herring 2. Boo-hoo.
LOL - which notion is it which prompts your reaction? The mention of the
President of the United States of America, or the recollection of your
previous ignorant utterances?
> >
> >>>I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
> >>
> >>No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
> >
> > Oh.
> >
> More fish cut bait....SNIP....
>
>
> >>PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
> >
> >
> > LOL - and you might answer regardless.
> >
> OK, regardless.
>
> josh halpern
Very truly,
teve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
David Ball
I'm sorry, but you are posting this crap to a science
newsgroup. Mineral exploration does include oil. It is encumbent on
the writer, if he means something else, to make sure that any
differences are clearly stated.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
>wrong 90% of the time"
What you are really saying is that realclimate doesn't allow
you to play fast and loose with the truth. I can live with that. This
is an issue that needs honest discourse, not more of the bullshit you
attempt to pass off.
Michael Tobis
the
> > US of late.
One question worth considering is the size of this effort compared to
the size of the energy industry, which of course is the dominant
component of the mining industry. Comparing the size of this effort to
the non-energy component of mining is arbitrary and not especially
meaningful, sort of like comparing a Saturn V to two Statues of Liberty
(I was at the Kennedy Space Center tour recently where they did this).
It's didactically useless to compare the size of two things neither of
which one has an intuitive sense for. (They also compared it to a
football field, which is more useful.)
To make this comparison while leaving the reasonable impression that
one was comparing to something else (oh, I just meant the *head* of the
Statue of Liberty, it's pretty big itself, isn't it?)
is hard to excuse.
The real issue of course is whether this expenditure is reasonable. In
attempting to construe the science of climate change as a conspiracy
one is motivated to tar as much science with one brush as one can. The
idea that two billion dollars is being dedicated to "global warming,
yes or no" is simply absurdly incorrect. I just came out of a detailed
talk about comparing Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, a question with
numerous implications in understanding the earth. We didn't talk about
"Kyoto" and we didn't talk about anthropogenic change. We talked about
the holocene and the pliestocene, and how the ice core data drives our
understanding of the relationship between the temperature patterns in
the two hemispheres. Should we be doing this?
Another way to look at it is to compare the Earth vs Mars. What is the
appropriate proportion of funds allocated to the study of the planet we
live on versus that of the next planet over? Let me say clearly that I
have nothing against studying Mars; I know people who do it and wish
them well. I just wonder what the appropriate balance is between
studying the planet we (and all higher life as far as we know) live on
versus some other planet that happens to be nearby.
NASA's budget is $16.5 billion, eight times that of USGCRP. I'm having
trouble finidng out what portion is allocated to the Mars mission
business. The NASA budget is fairly opaque at first glance.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html
However, I believe that McIntyre has a point in suggesting that science
as a whole be held to standards common in industry. I would also
suggest that industry as a whole be held to standards common in
science. Having crossed the line a number of times myself, I find the
severe reluctance of these sectors to learn from one another to be
discouraging to say the least. Picking out the one science whose
results you don't like for a special attack on these grounds, though,
is disingenuous.
mt
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any
substance with a dose-response curve meets the definition of "drug". Yet
the phrase "War on Drugs" is understood by hundreds of millions of folks
as referring to "War on (some) drugs". Does your response here mean that
you think of oil/gas industry when someone mentions mineral exploration
industry? If so, you are the only one to admit it so far.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
LOL - I don't begrudge them posting only what they want others to see.
It's their space. I appreciate that they let one mention of "dubious
predictive value" be seen (and one mention of the inherent smearing out
of variability by multiproxy approaches which combine time series, each
with its own dating error). That a subsequent post of mine (republished
below) did not make it past their gatekeeping is interesting. They let
ad hominems flow like glaciers, but kept substantive stuff off the page.
Here's that post that never got published. It was a reply related to
comment #3 of the thread specified:
[[reply submitted (but not posted) 11 pm - 1/27/05 - to thread What If ...
the "Hockey Stick" Were Wrong? --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114 ]]
That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
autocorrelated noise. Any warming trends in excess of that expected from
normal climatic variability are then assumed to be due to anthropogenic
effects. This assumption is largely based on reconstructions (e.g.
Crowley, 2000; Jones, 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Overpeck et al.,
1997), which show a very flat long-term temperature pattern (with little
variation in the running mean, and a slight cooling trend), but Broecker
(2001) has recently argued that the flatness of this reconstruction
results from the inappropriate use of tree-ring data. It is also likely
that when time series with large dating errors are averaged, any cyclic
patterns will be smeared, and will cancel out. If there are in fact
possible underlying climate trends, then it is not valid to conclude
that a deviation from an average climate is necessarily a 'detection'
(see Risbey et al., 2000) of an anthropogenic effect."
Your dismissive approach to Loehle's E&E paper is interesting. I happily
rephrase my comment as a question: "Have any of the multiproxy theorists
published the results of an investigation into the inherent smearing of
variability when combining time series each with its own dating error?"
I would be most pleased to learn why you claim that the SAR was
specifying anything about greenhouse gases in the since-famous statement
that "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate". To me, it seems clear enough that the body
of the SAR stresses the ambiguity of the results from attempts to detect
CO2 signal in climate as discussed in section 8.4.2.1 -- quite a
contrast with the discussion of anthropogenic sulphate aerosol signals
in the next section.
--- END SBS COMMENT TO REALCLIMATE ---
w...@bas.ac.uk
>That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
>171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
>assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
>a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
>to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
>climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
>autocorrelated noise.
This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.
It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf
>It is also likely
>that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...
But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.
Coby Beck
> When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
> minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
> explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
> McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any
Thanks for showing me that define: trick with google! That was new to me..
I think this whole digression is not very useful. Words have many shades of
meaning and different standards of precision depending on context.
McKintyre was not writing a research paper and was not posting to a sci*
newsgroup so mineral can mean just non-liquids mined from the ground and
does not need to define it. We as readers should be careful. Initially I
did not even register the "exploration" qualifier. Mea culpa.
I brought it up because it was obviously a rhetorical device intended to
give the impression that the global Climate Change Industry (tm) is huge.
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
> >171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
> >assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
> >a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
> >to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
> >climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
> >autocorrelated noise.
>
> This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.
>
> It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
> assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf
>
> >It is also likely
> >that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...
>
> But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.
>
> -W.
Hi W -
When a post like mine never actually gets approved for being included on
your site, what happened to it? Did other principals there likely read
it besides whomever was "on duty"? It was, except for correction to
Ecological Modelling citation, a direct reply to comments you had made.
Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
the E&E paper?
As for Risbey et al., I'm delighted to see that it's freely available on
the web. Thanks for posting the URL. For those who might wish to assess
your charge related to misrepresentation, I urge them to check out
section 4.2 of the Risbey et al. paper, which includes "In specifying
the spread of the distribution for f(N1) of the global mean temperature
over the past 100 yr, experts frequently make reference to proxy
reconstructions of this quantity over multiple century time scales (e.g.
Mann et al. 1998, Briffa & Osborn 1999). While proxy reconstructions are
limited in global coverage and infer temperatures indirectly, they are
invoked to provide loose bounds on the potential magnitude of
century-scale natural variability. The expected mean trend in
century-long series of (internally generated) natural variability is
typically zero unless there are reasons to expect a prolonged cooling or
warming on this scale. The proxy records indicate some natural cooling
over the past millenium (Mann et al. 1999), though this is loosely
attributed to astronomical forcing, which is an external forcing. Since
the mean of the expected trend in natural variability is close to zero
on 100 yr time scales, the spread and tails are the more critical
aspects of this distribution for detection studies. Expert 11's
distribution for natural variability, f(N1), is shown by the dashed line
in Fig. 2. It has a mean of zero (assumes no natural long-term warming
or cooling) with a standard deviation of 0.2 K. From this distribution
we would conclude that century-long temperature excursions of +0.5 K can
occur naturally, but with low probability." Your charge related to
misrepresentation tends to buttress my characterization of real(bias).
Thanks for that, too.
As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
error. The E&E citation is:
Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
STATISTICAL INFERENCE
Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
Steve Schulin
wrote:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-CCD...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
> > minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
> > explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
> > McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any
>
> Thanks for showing me that define: trick with google! That was new to me..
You're very welcome. It is a neat feature.
>
> I think this whole digression is not very useful. Words have many shades of
> meaning and different standards of precision depending on context.
> McKintyre was not writing a research paper and was not posting to a sci*
> newsgroup so mineral can mean just non-liquids mined from the ground and
> does not need to define it. We as readers should be careful. Initially I
> did not even register the "exploration" qualifier. Mea culpa.
>
> I brought it up because it was obviously a rhetorical device intended to
> give the impression that the global Climate Change Industry (tm) is huge.
When I first read that line in the Finanacial Post op ed, here's the
point I thought was being emphasized: the burden of disclosure and due
diligence is not so onerous to an industry the size of the climate
change research industry.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <crbc11di6vc669omn...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:24:23 -0500, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
>> >wrong 90% of the time"
>>
>> What you are really saying is that realclimate doesn't allow
>> you to play fast and loose with the truth. I can live with that. This
>> is an issue that needs honest discourse, not more of the bullshit you
>> attempt to pass off.
>
>LOL - I don't begrudge them posting only what they want others to see.
No, what they aren't allowing is bold-faced lies. You know,
like the kind you present here.
>It's their space. I appreciate that they let one mention of "dubious
>predictive value" be seen (and one mention of the inherent smearing out
>of variability by multiproxy approaches which combine time series, each
>with its own dating error).
It was seen, but the posters there are way to bright to fall
for your posturing, as are most of the people here.
>That a subsequent post of mine (republished
>below) did not make it past their gatekeeping is interesting. They let
>ad hominems flow like glaciers, but kept substantive stuff off the page.
You haven't posted anything substantive in 5 years, Steve. You
don't even comprehend the basics, so your posturing on this and that
is just that: posturing.
It's interesting to note that when the SAR was first published
you spent most of your time posting from the first report. Now that
the TAR is the latest available science, you are only posting from
material nearly 10 years out of date. When do you suppose you'll get
around to posting something current?
David Ball
Please show me where this industry exists, Perfesser. Using
define:industry one finds,
Definitions of industry on the Web:
the people or companies engaged in a particular kind of commercial
enterprise; "each industry has its own trade publications"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
the organized action of making of goods and services for sale;
"American industry is making increased use of computers to control
production"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and
services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
Don't you ever get tired of it?
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.
Scholars have long used the term industry when discussing groups of
organizations that don't meet the various criteria you seem to, uh,
endorse. See, for example, the paper by Temple University professor
James G. McGann ["Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public
Policy Research Industry", Political Science and Politics 25(4):733-740,
December 1992].
Coby Beck
>> Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and
>> services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
>> Don't you ever get tired of it?
>
> It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.
I too, found it strange to hear climate change industry (I think it appears
this way, without the word research, usually). But reviewing the dictionary
definitions, I think it is defensible. I still think it is a PR trick
though.
Steve Schulin
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
An Australian columnist today describes why we can talk about what he
calls the "global warming industry"
--- BEGIN EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL DUFFY OP ED ---
The myth of man-made global warming thrives because it fits the
interests of so many people, such as Green groups in search of crises to
attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.
Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric scientist who headed the
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of
Tasmania for many years.
He says most developed countries have institutionalised their greenhouse
activity within government agencies devoted specifically to mitigation
of global warming. Their budgets are enormous.
It is not likely that the public servants who staff them will be
receptive to doubts about their reason for existence.
Nor are the research institutions concerned with global warming likely
to bite the hands that feed them.
As to the claim that there is a consensus on global warming among
climate scientists, Paltridge is dismissive. He says: That belief is
simply not true.
[Source: Michael Duffy (MATP), "Why being green is good camouflage", The
Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), February 19, 2005, p. 18]
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
>which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
No.
>As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
>(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
>the E&E paper?
No.
>As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article...
The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.
David Ball
In your opinion, but you have no factual basis for making the
statement, especially after reference to the much vaunted Google
define.
>Scholars have long used the term industry when discussing groups of
>organizations that don't meet the various criteria you seem to, uh,
>endorse. See, for example, the paper by Temple University professor
>James G. McGann ["Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public
>Policy Research Industry", Political Science and Politics 25(4):733-740,
>December 1992].
Nice try. It is a pejorative term you apply in an effort to
demonize the work of thousands of scientists. There's little wonder
that you do so given that you are incapable of finding anything
substantive on which to base a coherent argument. Of course, it should
be remembered that even when valid criticisms arise, you aren't likely
to even notice them because you lack the wit to understand what is
being said.
Eric Swanson
>
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
>> >171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
>> >assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
>> >a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
>> >to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
>> >climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
>> >autocorrelated noise.
>>
>> This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.
>>
>> It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
>> assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf
>>
>> >It is also likely
>> >that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...
>>
>> But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.
[cut sig]
>When a post like mine never actually gets approved for being included on
>your site, what happened to it? Did other principals there likely read
>it besides whomever was "on duty"? It was, except for correction to
>Ecological Modelling citation, a direct reply to comments you had made.
>Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
>which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
>
>As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
>(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
>the E&E paper?
[cut]
>As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
>which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
>Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
>al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
>multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
>error. The E&E citation is:
>
>Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
>USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
>STATISTICAL INFERENCE
>Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
I see you are still enamored by Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper. You
still refuse to consider the problems with that paper, which we have been
through several times. I can say without doubt that his results are
seriously in error. I'm surprised that the paper hasn't been retracted.
Have there been any letters to the Editor at EM on this paper?
Surely, someone with knowledge of climate science would have complained.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
marika
Steve Schulin wrote:
>What
> was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that
McIntyre
> says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_
> exploration." ?
>
Interesting observation.
mk5000
"You're fucking lazy
Bite my lip and close my eyes
Take me away to paradise
I'm so damn BORED"--green day, longview
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
> steve....@nuclear.com says...
> >>
> >As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
> >which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
> >Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
> >al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
> >multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
> >error. The E&E citation is:
> >
> >Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
> >USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
> >STATISTICAL INFERENCE
> >Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
>
> I see you are still enamored by Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper. You
> still refuse to consider the problems with that paper, which we have been
> through several times. I can say without doubt that his results are
> seriously in error. I'm surprised that the paper hasn't been retracted.
LOL - even if you were correct in every one of the many aspects of
Loehle's paper which we discussed, I don't recall you ever discussing
the particular point about the inherent smearing of variability which
occurs when combining time series, each with its own dating error.
>
> Have there been any letters to the Editor at EM on this paper?
> Surely, someone with knowledge of climate science would have complained.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I've concluded that climate science is to science what military music is
to music. Yet I have no doubt that the vast majority of climate
scientists are decent and intelligent folks. I urge them to police their
own discipline.
Joshua Halpern
>
>>... By the way, do you know that the price of
>>bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
>>pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?
>>
josh halpern
David Ball
LOL. You've concluded, have you? Who exactly are you? You've
admitted to having no particular expertise, though that admission is
hardly necessary. Your preference for pseudo-science, biased newspaper
stories, and flawed logic is well documented. Indeed, you actively
gravitate toward the most egregious non-scientific material you can
find, provided it says something you think might muddy the waters.
What I can't figure out is why you bother. People here stopped
believing what you had to say a long time ago. Do you have some
twisted need to get stomped on regularly? It doesn't seem to matter
what you post on, you can't seem to get anything right. As soon as you
make a post, people correct you clearly and concisely at which time
you spend a week or two mindlessly attempting to defend your
indefensible position, then you quietly skulk away. This will happen
here eventually.
Joshua Halpern
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>>I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
>>>>You now attempt to move the shell.
>>>
>>>I did not follow that aspect of the thread.
>>
>>Then why did you comment on it. You evidently have nothing to add to
>>the question of whether exploration costs broadly or narrowly construed
>>exceed the costs of climate research, but you take our time saying
>>nothing germain in an offensive way
>
> I replied quite politely to an aspect that Dr. Tobis brought up. What
> was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that McIntyre
> says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_
> exploration." ?
Well, to quote you what you said about MT was
>
>>>I'm again delighted, this
>>>time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
>>>I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>>
>>Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
>>mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
>>evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
>>said was wrong.
Poor wounded soul.
Let us see. You claim that you never insulted MT, and we have the
"apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis" You are, I gather, now going
to claim that your comment was not insulting. You are quite welcome to
try it, but don't expect much sympathy.
>
> He was wrong when he said "So the question comes down to what proportion
> of energy costs are attributable to 'exploration'."
Ah, now we come to the lexically confusing defense. Let us parse. SS
is referring to a statement by MT.
> "That was the aspect I commented on.
Meaning that SS was commenting on statements by MT, not McIntyre, which
is interesting (aka post hoc covering your butt) because, one assumes
that if SS were actually doing so, he would have commented on MT's post
in this thread. A post which is remarkably intelligent, and which I
append.
> I've reread your posts to this thread, and have not noticed
> you showing evidence that what he said was true in this regard.
SS, I was responding to your post, a post where you drag in a bunch of
red herrings and a post where you were not responding to Tobis either
directly or indirectly. Anyhow, since we have established to everyone's
satisfaction that exploration costs exceed climate research costs, we
can now move on to other matters. Here is Tobis' statement. Why not
tell us what you disagree with there
***************************************
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html
******************************************
Joshua Halpern
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>>"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
>>>>Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and
>>>>services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
>>>>Don't you ever get tired of it?
>>>
>>>It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.
>>
>>I too, found it strange to hear climate change industry (I think it appears
>>this way, without the word research, usually). But reviewing the dictionary
>>definitions, I think it is defensible. I still think it is a PR trick
>>though.
>
I grow fonder of wmc's description of Steve's ilk as septics.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
> >which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
>
> No.
I very much appreciate your answering this question. As my other
question (which you snip here without reply) might suggest, I remain
curious as to whether you read my response to your comment at your site
before I posted it here as an example of a substantive post which was
not approved at realclimate.
> >As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
> >(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
> >the E&E paper?
>
> No.
>
> >As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article...
>
> The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.
LOL - in terms of smearing out of variability when combining the 112 or
159 or 415 individual time series, what criteria do you apparently
insist on dividing large from small? Loehle agrees that for the most
recent 300 years, the smearing effect from combining dendrochronological
series is small enough to ignore.
>
> -W.
Eric Swanson
steve....@nuclear.com says...
>
>In article <cv7k0r$515d$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
> swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>
>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>> >>
>> >As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
>> >which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
>> >Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
>> >al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
>> >multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
>> >error. The E&E citation is:
>> >
>> >Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
>> >USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
>> >STATISTICAL INFERENCE
>> >Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
>>
>> I see you are still enamored by Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper. You
>> still refuse to consider the problems with that paper, which we have been
>> through several times. I can say without doubt that his results are
>> seriously in error. I'm surprised that the paper hasn't been retracted.
>
>LOL - even if you were correct in every one of the many aspects of
>Loehle's paper which we discussed, I don't recall you ever discussing
>the particular point about the inherent smearing of variability which
>occurs when combining time series, each with its own dating error.
You throw up a straw man to ignore the problems with Loehle's EM paper.
I would have expected nothing less from one who has shown a complete lack
of honesty regarding the science of climate change.
As for the possible smearing the variability, surely that can be a problem.
That's why good dating is so important and one reason to question Loehle's EM
paper. But, regional variations are likely to be different than the global
variation, so it should be expected that there will be less variation in a
global data set than a regional set, even when highly accurate dating is
possible.
>> Have there been any letters to the Editor at EM on this paper?
>> Surely, someone with knowledge of climate science would have complained.
Don't forget that Holmgren's et al.'s paper includes Moberg as an author.
Also, Holmgren is a co-author on the recent Moberg et al. paper in NATURE.
It's a small world, yes?
Coby Beck
> An Australian columnist today describes why we can talk about what he
> calls the "global warming industry"
>
> --- BEGIN EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL DUFFY OP ED ---
>
> The myth of man-made global warming thrives because it fits the
> interests of so many people, such as Green groups in search of crises to
> attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
> excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.
This argument is simply not credible. All kinds of groups and people have
all kinds of differing intersts and agendas, that is fine. But even if we
accept the premise, which I personally find unlikely, that "Green groups"
*want* there to be environmental crisis (to be fair to this argument, just
the perception of a crisis is sufficient) we still have to check the rest of
the playing field and see what other groups want. We need only check one.
The single largest industry IN THE WORLD (with the exception of illegal
drugs) is the Oil and Gas Industry. It is huge, it is powerful, it includes
the richest, most powerful men and corporations in the world and has deep
rooted connections in the governments of the most powerful nations in the
world. It is a Lion beside the various small rhodents that are Green
Groups.
And what do they want? They want the world to consume oil. Not because
they are evil, because this is where there enormous profits come from. We
fight wars to ensure secure access to oil fields and safe passage for oil
pipelines. They DO NOT WANT the world to turn to other resources. They DO
NOT WANT Global Warming to be real or perceived as dangerous.
And we are supposed to believe that Green Peace has won the political and
social influence game? BP and Exxon have been shoved aside, can't get the
attention of the politicians or the research community? This fails
miserably the "sniff" test. It takes more than some opining in an op ed
with no substantiation to make this case.
> attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
> excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.
Politicians looking for excuses to what? Piss off their campaign
contributers? Seriously though, excuses for what?
Politicians have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, over more than a
decade from denial to acceptance. The fact that finally this issue is on a
front burner is a huge validation of the solidity of the research. No one
in the power positions of the world wants this to be true.
> Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric scientist who headed the
> Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of
> Tasmania for many years.
>
> He says most developed countries have institutionalised their greenhouse
> activity within government agencies devoted specifically to mitigation
> of global warming. Their budgets are enormous.
Some numbers please? Compared to say, the space exploration missions? I am
waiting to see this line, as often as it is repeated, backed up with some
numbers.
But even if the budgets are enormous, this is at best circumstantial
evidence that actually supports the position that AGW is real and serious as
well as it supports the position that it is rife with corruption.
> It is not likely that the public servants who staff them will be
> receptive to doubts about their reason for existence.
The government and its public servants have always been there, they shift
from dep't to dep't, this is not convincing either.
> Nor are the research institutions concerned with global warming likely
> to bite the hands that feed them.
If feeding is your primary concern, why not please the really big spenders?
> As to the claim that there is a consensus on global warming among
> climate scientists, Paltridge is dismissive. He says: That belief is
> simply not true.
This seems false for any reasonable definitions of consensus and is again
conspicuous for its lack of substantiation. It certainly flies in the face
of direct statements from the major players in climate research
(NASA,NOAA,IPCC...). Is there any recent public statement from any major
climate research group that dissents from the position that we are warming
and human produced CO2 is the driving factor?
Consensus is not always a sign of mindless acceptance. If I had been born
into a world that believed the climate was headed for catastrophe, and all
my life every one had just taken it for granted (like the favorite flat
earth analogy) and some one came along with a radical new idea, then I would
take the general consensus as a possible negative influence on the search
for reality. But this situation is the exact opposite.
_Global Warming_ was the fringe theory, "everything's fine" was the
consensus. No living climate researcher today was spoon fed these theories
by grey beards who would not tolerate being questioned. This is the "new"
stuff, the "earth is round" camp. The consensus today is brand new, cutting
edge, it is not the entrenched foundation of a narrow-minded world view that
only a few brave souls dare question.
The sceptics only show their lack of substance by using mainstream media and
arguments riddled with basic logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
peroxisome
the
> > US of late.
hmm, don't know if this is relevant, but if you go to:
http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/kyoto.aspx
"the net global cost of the Kyoto Protocol is $716 billion in present
value"
obviously that is rounded, etc, but that looks like a lot of money to
me.
yours
per
peroxisome
>results you don't like for a special attack on these grounds, though,
>is disingenuous.
I think this is strong. So far, i do not believe I have seen anything
personal or indicating bias from M&M; they set out to do a replication
of MBH'98 results. If that had been a straightforward and painless
replication, I doubt you would have any problems with it.
The difficulty is that MBH have not operated to commonly accepted
standards in the scientific community. Their data and methodologies had
errors; even in December, MBH were releasing new details of their
methodology which are essential for replication; this is inadequate.
yours
per
peroxisome
>like the kind you present here.
It is fascinating to hear you talking about bold-faced lies, David, and
I will defer to your expertise.
While we are on the subject, when are you going to substantiate any of
your claims about the egregious errors in M&M 03/05 ?
A simple clear and testable point will enable us to verify that M&M are
wrong.
What is that ? You are not going to tell me, because you have posted it
before ? And you are not going to tell me where the post is either ?
My. What a surprise.
yours
per
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote, in part:
> Let us see. You claim that you never insulted MT, ...
I didn't make such a claim.
> ... and we have the
> "apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis" You are, I gather, now going
> to claim that your comment was not insulting. You are quite welcome to
> try it, but don't expect much sympathy.
You seem to be confused. You asked why I made a comment. I told you why.
There was nothing insulting about the comment you initially asked about.
You're certainly free to quote subsequent comments, but please don't
mischaracterize as you appear to have done.
> > He was wrong when he said "So the question comes down to what proportion
> > of energy costs are attributable to 'exploration'."
>
> Ah, now we come to the lexically confusing defense. Let us parse. SS
> is referring to a statement by MT.
LOL - I'm glad you appear to understand. I'm not sure why it's taken so
long. My reply to Dr. Tobis was presented in format which easily
identified the aspect of his post which my one-line reply addressed.
>
> > "That was the aspect I commented on.
>
> Meaning that SS was commenting on statements by MT, not McIntyre, which
> is interesting (aka post hoc covering your butt) because, one assumes
> that if SS were actually doing so, he would have commented on MT's post
> in this thread. ...
LOL - What are you blathering about? I did comment on the one aspect of
his post.
> ... A post which is remarkably intelligent, and which I
> append.
>
> > I've reread your posts to this thread, and have not noticed
> > you showing evidence that what he said was true in this regard.
>
> SS, I was responding to your post, a post where you drag in a bunch of
> red herrings and a post where you were not responding to Tobis either
> directly or indirectly. Anyhow, since we have established to everyone's
> satisfaction that exploration costs exceed climate research costs, we
> can now move on to other matters. Here is Tobis' statement. Why not
> tell us what you disagree with there ...
Why do you want me to comment on this other post of his? And how do you
imagine to know that everybody's satisfied with your size-of-industries
claim?
peroxisome
media and
>arguments riddled with basic logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
Sorry, is this coming from Coby Beck, a self-confessed "plonker" ?
Is this the man who turns up, yells names, and runs away, scared to
justify the words he uses ?
For a second there, I thought you were purporting to adopt the high
moral ground in telling people about how to undertake a rational
argument !
obviously my mistake.
per
David Ball
wrote:
>>Picking out the one science whose
>>results you don't like for a special attack on these grounds, though,
>>is disingenuous.
>
>I think this is strong. So far, i do not believe I have seen anything
>personal or indicating bias from M&M; they set out to do a replication
>of MBH'98 results. If that had been a straightforward and painless
>replication, I doubt you would have any problems with it.
Give me a break. That's all they've done, Per. For God's sake,
they screwed up their analysis and promptly blamed MBH for it. They
never once considered the fact that their calculations were in error.
>
>The difficulty is that MBH have not operated to commonly accepted
>standards in the scientific community.
That's simply not true.
>Their data and methodologies had
>errors; even in December, MBH were releasing new details of their
>methodology which are essential for replication; this is inadequate.
Another lie. Jesus, Per, can't you even tell the truth?
Joshua Halpern
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
1. Over how many years
2. What is the global world product per year.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
So why did you bleat like a castrated bull when he said some
uncomplimentary things about your musings?
>
>>... and we have the
>>"apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis" You are, I gather, now going
>>to claim that your comment was not insulting. You are quite welcome to
>>try it, but don't expect much sympathy.
>
>
> You seem to be confused. You asked why I made a comment. I told you why.
> There was nothing insulting about the comment you initially asked about.
> You're certainly free to quote subsequent comments, but please don't
> mischaracterize as you appear to have done.
Which of course is not the comment I was referring to...oh well, watch
the shells.
Well, if you really were commenting on a post of his, I guess the
rational among us would expect such a comment to be in a reply to his
post, but you know how wer are
> And how do you imagine to know that everybody's satisfied
> with your size-of-industries claim?
Until you come up with data to consider, I really don't care what you
think, I just object to your bloviating in thin air. And if you think
of that word as being overused by me, consider the environment.
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
>I very much appreciate your answering this question. As my other
>question (which you snip here without reply) might suggest, I remain
>curious as to whether you read my response to your comment at your site
>before I posted it here as an example of a substantive post which was
>not approved at realclimate.
If you have further questions about the comment process, I'd try them at
RC on the thread "a disclaimer"...
>> The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.
>LOL...
...but if you don't I wouldn't post stuff like that, or you'll probably
find your posts deleted.
David Ball
wrote:
>>No, what they aren't allowing is bold-faced lies. You know,
>>like the kind you present here.
>
>It is fascinating to hear you talking about bold-faced lies, David, and
>I will defer to your expertise.
Per, being stupid is nothing to be proud of. Some basic
education would go a long way to correcting your many deficiencies.
>
>While we are on the subject, when are you going to substantiate any of
>your claims about the egregious errors in M&M 03/05 ?
M&M 03 is a dead issue, Per. It's contents were debunked over
a year ago as you well know. Being a liar and stupid is doubly
egregious.
Coby Beck
news:1108841449.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >The sceptics only show their lack of substance by using mainstream
> media and
>>arguments riddled with basic logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
>
> Sorry, is this coming from Coby Beck, a self-confessed "plonker" ?
I take it you have learned what "plonk" means? But if you would bother to
read what you reply to you would recall I said I *don't* like the concept of
"plonking". Though what this has to do with replying to Steve Schulin's
forwarded article, I have no idea.
> Is this the man who turns up, yells names, and runs away, scared to
> justify the words he uses ?
>
> For a second there, I thought you were purporting to adopt the high
> moral ground in telling people about how to undertake a rational
> argument !
I put forward my position as clearly as I can, tried to be logical and fair
to the opposing position and presented the conclusion. That is how to under
take a rational argument. You on the otherhand, remove all context, ignore
the point your opponent is making, set up a straw man and triumphantly claim
victory. Then when your opponent complains, you cry "ad hom!" Sorry, but
it gets boring fast.
> obviously my mistake.
You make many.
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >I very much appreciate your answering this question. As my other
> >question (which you snip here without reply) might suggest, I remain
> >curious as to whether you read my response to your comment at your site
> >before I posted it here as an example of a substantive post which was
> >not approved at realclimate.
>
> If you have further questions about the comment process, I'd try them at
> RC on the thread "a disclaimer"...
Dang. You won't even tell if you read the response to your own comment?
What kind of chicken outfit do you real(biased) folks run?
>
> >> The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.
>
> >LOL...
>
> ...but if you don't I wouldn't post stuff like that, or you'll probably
> find your posts deleted.
I don't mind your puffery. I'm glad you display it for all to see.
peroxisome
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8#more-8
dated December 4, this is the news that Preisendorfer's selection was
used for the selection of PCs. Would you like to tell me where that is
stated in MBH, or alternatively retract your false claim ?
>>The difficulty is that MBH have not operated to commonly accepted
>>standards in the scientific community.
> That's simply not true.
when Mann was confronted with evidence of errors in his data files, he
announced he was too busy to reply. When the evidence was published, he
did not address the issue of the errors in his data, but attacked his
critics. Even today, it is not clear that the full methodology of
MBH'98 has been disclosed.
>For God's sake,
>they screwed up their analysis and promptly blamed MBH for it. They
>never once considered the fact that their calculations were in error.
the record shows 1. M&M's correspondence with Mann, which marks you as
a purveyor of untruths 2. M&M'03, which shows their extensive efforts
to examine the data and the calculations. You ignore reality when it
doesn't suit your views; witness your deep discomfort at MBH'04's
recognition of their ERRORs, and the fact that you cannot bring
yourself to use the word.
yours
per
James Annan
> In article <4217...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I very much appreciate your answering this question. As my other
>>>question (which you snip here without reply) might suggest, I remain
>>>curious as to whether you read my response to your comment at your site
>>>before I posted it here as an example of a substantive post which was
>>>not approved at realclimate.
>>
>>If you have further questions about the comment process, I'd try them at
>>RC on the thread "a disclaimer"...
>
>
> Dang. You won't even tell if you read the response to your own comment?
> What kind of chicken outfit do you real(biased) folks run?
>
Obviously what is needed here is a Full Audit Trail [TM], so that
everyone can reproduce exactly the path every posting takes through the
system.
Actually, it would IMO be polite for the moderator who makes the
decision to email the poster with a brief explanation of the rejection.
When my one posting was taken down (it had originally been approved, but
then someone [else?] apparently decided it was inappropriate), at least
I got that much.
James
peroxisome
yes; I recall. You then immediately "plonked" in a brazen display of
hypocrisy
>I put forward my position as clearly as I can, tried to be logical and
fair
>to the opposing position and presented the conclusion.
In your imagination maybe; but what I recall is that you turn up, spit
out abuse, and run away scared.
And for all your cant about rational argument, I can't help but note
you are very short on science and rationality, and very big on ad homs
and abuse.
yours
per
peroxisome
>a year ago as you well know.
I suggest you read the MBH corrigendum of July 2004, wherein they
acknowledge the numerous ERRORs that M&M pointed out to them. Some
debunking, David.
>Being a liar and stupid is doubly egregious.
Well, if you are stupid, that can explain why you lie, so I am not sure
I agree with you. However, you may well have a more intimate
understanding of the situation.
yours
per
Steve Schulin
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
I usually admire imagination. In this case, you seem afflicted with it,
rather than blessed.
> >>... and we have the
> >>"apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis" You are, I gather, now going
> >>to claim that your comment was not insulting. You are quite welcome to
> >>try it, but don't expect much sympathy.
> >
> >
> > You seem to be confused. You asked why I made a comment. I told you why.
> > There was nothing insulting about the comment you initially asked about.
> > You're certainly free to quote subsequent comments, but please don't
> > mischaracterize as you appear to have done.
>
> Which of course is not the comment I was referring to...oh well, watch
> the shells.
LOL - I happily apologize for presuming cogency in your posts.
LOL - I replied to a different, earlier post of his. You continue to
seem quite confused on this rather simple matter.
>
> > And how do you imagine to know that everybody's satisfied
> > with your size-of-industries claim?
>
> Until you come up with data to consider, I really don't care what you
> think, I just object to your bloviating in thin air. And if you think
> of that word as being overused by me, consider the environment.
LOL - You distinguished men-o-science in this thread remind me of the
"pick-a-little, peck-a-little" song in The Music Man.
> josh halpern
David Ball
wrote:
>>Another lie. Jesus, Per, can't you even tell the truth?
>
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8#more-8
>
>dated December 4, this is the news that Preisendorfer's selection was
>used for the selection of PCs. Would you like to tell me where that is
>stated in MBH, or alternatively retract your false claim ?
Try on page 786 of Nature or page 8 of the article, you fool.
You know, where it says:
An objective criterion was used to determine the particular set of
eigenvectors which should be used in the calibration as follows.
Preisendorfer’s selection rule ‘rule N’ was applied to the multiproxy
network to determine the approximate number Neofs of significant
independent climate patterns that are resolved by the network, taking
into account the spatial correlation within the multiproxy data set.
It was also written about by me in this very forum when I told
people I was working with Kaiser's Criterion.
>
>>>The difficulty is that MBH have not operated to commonly accepted
>>>standards in the scientific community.
>> That's simply not true.
>
>when Mann was confronted with evidence of errors in his data files, he
>announced he was too busy to reply. When the evidence was published, he
>did not address the issue of the errors in his data, but attacked his
>critics. Even today, it is not clear that the full methodology of
>MBH'98 has been disclosed.
LOL. You are such a jackass. As I've told you many times
before, when you do an analysis, ANY ANALYSIS, if you arrive at
results that are simply wrong, the FIRST thing you do is ask yourself,
"DID I FUCK THIS UP?". M&M were too damned stupid to even do the
basics and ask that essential question.
>
>>For God's sake,
>>they screwed up their analysis and promptly blamed MBH for it. They
>>never once considered the fact that their calculations were in error.
>
>the record shows 1. M&M's correspondence with Mann, which marks you as
>a purveyor of untruths 2. M&M'03, which shows their extensive efforts
>to examine the data and the calculations. You ignore reality when it
>doesn't suit your views; witness your deep discomfort at MBH'04's
>recognition of their ERRORs, and the fact that you cannot bring
>yourself to use the word.
They rushed to print with results that were completely wrong.
They had a table of data that was shifted by one row. An idiot would
have suspected an indexing problem likely caused by going from a PC to
Linux system. They claimed that data that was easily available on the
net with 3 minutes work didn't exist. They asked questions about the
data that were answered long before. All they had to do was read the
references. In short, from beginning to end they cocked it up. That
you don't see these problems says much about: a. your objectivity and
b. your understanding of basic analysis. Your idiotic question about
Preisendorfer's ‘rule N’ is clear evidence that you haven't even
bothered to read MBH 98. I think it's time to go away now, Per. You
haven't got anything germaine to add to the discussion when you can't
even be bothered to read the paper in question.
Steve Schulin
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
The oil and gas industry isn't so monolithic. Enron, for example, was
heavily lobbying for establishment of carbon trading system. As I
recall, George W. Bush's single biggest campaign contributor in 2000 was
Enron CEO. Of all the oil companies, only ExxonMobil seems to be
standing up to the alarmists. I appreciate George Bush saying no to his
top contributor's fondest wish. I wish Bill Clinton had done the same to
the DNC's biggest contributor for a couple of years running -- the Loral
CEO who's fondest wish was to transfer technology to New China.
> > attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
> > excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.
>
> Politicians looking for excuses to what? Piss off their campaign
> contributers? Seriously though, excuses for what?
Some surely want the financial advantages that will accrue to their own
nation. Some surely want to promote global governance. Duffy's comments
seem reasonable on this point.
A few days ago, I posted an item on nuclear.com which I titled "Kyoto -
visions of lucrative carbon trade market prompted many developing
countries to ratify". Here's the text:
The Jakarta Post (Indonesia) writes that World Wide Fund Indonesia
climate and energy program coordinator Eka Melisa said the treaty was a
step toward containing the climate change threat at a manageable level.
She pointed out that with the treaty becoming effective, a new market
revolution -- a carbon market -- would emerge, whereby companies and
countries in the Kyoto Club would be obliged to value their CO2
emissions as they would now have a formal price tag. As a result of this
progress, she said, companies from developed countries that had or would
have investment in developing countries such as Indonesia, would have to
calculate the total emission they would produce and, ultimately, would
have to choose more clean energy sources and/or sustainable technology
for every new investment. Agus P. Sari, executive director of Pelangi,
an environmental policy research institute, said Indonesia had about 250
million tons of emission reduction potential that could be certified
under the carbon trade mechanism in the period between 2008 and 2012.
袍his means about $1.25 billion, if (the carbon is) valued at $5 per
ton. Usually, this is what motivates many developing countries to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol," he said.
[Source: World Bank Group, "Kyoto, World's Most Ambitious Environmental
Treaty, Set To Take Effect", Press Review, February 15, 2005]
--- END OF EXCERPT FROM NUCLEAR.COM ---
> Politicians have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, over more than a
> decade from denial to acceptance. The fact that finally this issue is on a
> front burner is a huge validation of the solidity of the research. ...
In the case of Russia, the ratification of Kyoto Protocol reportedly
required no illusions about the science, just the politics, such as WTO
membership prospects.
> ... No one
Even the TAR WG1 PMS expressed less certainty than your comment
suggests.
>
> Consensus is not always a sign of mindless acceptance. If I had been born
> into a world that believed the climate was headed for catastrophe, and all
> my life every one had just taken it for granted (like the favorite flat
> earth analogy) and some one came along with a radical new idea, then I would
> take the general consensus as a possible negative influence on the search
> for reality. But this situation is the exact opposite.
>
> _Global Warming_ was the fringe theory, "everything's fine" was the
> consensus. No living climate researcher today was spoon fed these theories
> by grey beards who would not tolerate being questioned. This is the "new"
> stuff, the "earth is round" camp. The consensus today is brand new, cutting
> edge, it is not the entrenched foundation of a narrow-minded world view that
> only a few brave souls dare question.
>
> The sceptics only show their lack of substance by using mainstream media and
> arguments riddled with basic logical fallacy and misrepresentation.
The folks you call skeptics, I call realists. Their papers and
presentations seem much better grounded in reality than those who
express so much alarm.
Steve Schulin
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't presume to advise them how to run their website. Nor do I
presume that anything W. might choose to add at this point will be an
accurate reflection of what transpired in this particular case of a
response-to-his-response on his website. I watched as ad hom posts were
added to the thread. I hope folks here will look at the thread and look
at my comment and make up their own minds whether
real(biased)climate.org is a reasonable insult.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
peroxisome
>You know, where it says:
that would be the bit about calculation of temperature principal
component series, a different issue from the number of retained PC
series for tree ring networks. MBH say:
"Certain densely sampled regional dendroclimatic data sets have been
represented in the network by a smaller number of leading principal
components (typically 3-11 depending on the spatial extent and size
of the data set). This form of representation ensures a reasonably
homogeneous spatial sampling in the multiproxy network (112 indicators
back to 1820). "
No mention of preisendorfer ? As you know, it is less than clear that
MBH did use Preisendorfer's rule n, see:
http://www.climate2003.com/blog/preisendorfer.MBH98.htm
Feel free to retract anytime.
>M&M were too damned stupid to even do the
>basics and ask that essential question.
The record shows that they asked Mann. The record shows unequivocally
that they went through MBH's methodology in considerably more detail
than you did. You know this, and still you peddle untruths.
>They rushed to print with results that were completely wrong.
MBH themselves have accepted that M&M were correct, and that M&M
correctly pointed out errors, yet you don't. How strange.
>that data that was easily available on the net with 3 minutes work
didn't exist.
The data on the net that Mann and his associate denied existed, in
correspondence ? That wasn't publically identified ?
>All they had to do was read the references.
Hmm. Funny. The bristlecone pine series that the authors say shouldn't
be used before 1600, where there are only 1 or 2 trees in the 1400s,
that MBH used ? The tree series where the original references point out
that there is no clear relationship with temperature- which MBH used ?
Or the wide variety of data where start dates are absolutely arbitrary,
nothing to do with anything in the references, or mis-stated in the
paper ?
Or the significant number of data series that MBH used and did not
disclose ? The ones they said they used, and actually didn't ? How do
you pick that up from the references, Mr. TinFoil ?
Strangely again; when you are asked for detail, you either evade, or
come up with claims that are demonstrably wrong.
yours
per
Steve Schulin
Are you saying that the smearing issue is a straw man? It was the only
aspect of Loehle's work I cited here in this thread before you chimed in
on Loehle. Your misleading huff-and-puff here seems to smack of the
dishonesty which you attribute to me.
> As for the possible smearing the variability, surely that can be a problem.
> That's why good dating is so important and one reason to question Loehle's EM
> paper. But, regional variations are likely to be different than the global
> variation, so it should be expected that there will be less variation in a
> global data set than a regional set, even when highly accurate dating is
> possible.
LOL - close enough for government work, you say? I'm glad you now
comment, albeit in limp fashion, on the subject which you misleadingly
implied to have long ago addressed.
Coby Beck
> >I said I *don't* like the concept of "plonking".
>
> yes; I recall. You then immediately "plonked" in a brazen display of
> hypocrisy
Learn how to learn. Plonk means to put in the killfile. Killfile is a list
of people whose messages will be blocked from your view. People plonk other
people when they decide they are a waste of time to talk to.
>>I put forward my position as clearly as I can, tried to be logical and
> fair to the opposing position and presented the conclusion.
>
> In your imagination maybe; but what I recall is that you turn up, spit
> out abuse, and run away scared.
>
> And for all your cant about rational argument, I can't help but note
> you are very short on science and rationality, and very big on ad homs
> and abuse.
Very ironic! Thanks for the chuckle.
David Ball
wrote:
>>Try on page 786 of Nature or page 8 of the article, you fool.
>>You know, where it says:
>>An objective criterion...
>
>that would be the bit about calculation of temperature principal
>component series, a different issue from the number of retained PC
>series for tree ring networks. MBH say:
>"Certain densely sampled regional dendroclimatic data sets have been
>represented in the network by a smaller number of leading principal
>components (typically 3-11 depending on the spatial extent and size
>of the data set). This form of representation ensures a reasonably
>homogeneous spatial sampling in the multiproxy network (112 indicators
>back to 1820). "
>
>No mention of preisendorfer ? As you know, it is less than clear that
>MBH did use Preisendorfer's rule n, see:
>http://www.climate2003.com/blog/preisendorfer.MBH98.htm
>
>Feel free to retract anytime.
What do you think P's Rule N does? Why it is the selection
rule that determines how many PC's to retain. ALL PCA analysis
requires some application of a selection rule if you are not planning
to retain all of the PC's, whether it be Kaiser's Criterion, P's Rule
N, Scree Testing, LEV testing... They used P's Rule N. Imagine that,
the author's actually discussing which selection rule they applied in
the section called calibration. P's Rule N has some advantages, among
them you can do the selection in a hands-off manner and that it can be
uniformly applied. It also has disadvantages. among them that it is
sometimes too restrictive, throwing out some PC's that should be
retained.
>
>>M&M were too damned stupid to even do the
>>basics and ask that essential question.
>
>The record shows that they asked Mann. The record shows unequivocally
>that they went through MBH's methodology in considerably more detail
>than you did. You know this, and still you peddle untruths.
LOL. No, you fool, when you screw up an analysis, YOU ASK
YOURSELF first. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, here's what
you don't do: you don't publish!!
>
>>They rushed to print with results that were completely wrong.
>
>MBH themselves have accepted that M&M were correct, and that M&M
>correctly pointed out errors, yet you don't. How strange.
I guess I'll have to stop asking you if you are stupid and
just assume that you are. Let's look at what MBH really said:
Table 1 Errors in ‘proxy’ data set listing in ref. 1
Series (34) listed in original Supplementary Information but not used
in ref. 1.*
............................................................................................................................................................................
FRAN003; ITAL015 and ITAL015X; SPAI026 and SPAI047; NEWZ056; ARGE030,
ARGE060 and ARGE065; CHIL015, CHIL016, CHIL017 and CHIL018; AK006 and
AK006X; CA070; CANA053, CANA053X, CANA096, CANA096X, CANA099, CANA106
and CANA110; WA019, WA025, WA027, WA033, WA039, WA041, WA071, WA074,
WA086, WA088 and WA091; VAGANOV55
............................................................................................................................................................................
Series (2) used in ref. 1 but not listed in original Supplementary
Information
............................................................................................................................................................................
Unpublished Southwest US/Mexico Density series (D. W. Stahle, personal
communication)
Unpublished Southwest US/Mexico Latewood Width series (D. W. Stahle,
personal
communication)
............................................................................................................................................................................
Additional minor corrections
............................................................................................................................................................................
(1) The Central England and Central European temperature records used
by ref. 1 were the summer season versions of these series as used by
ref. 2.
(2) The ‘long instrumental’ series used in ref. 1 are station
temperature and precipitation station data from the NOAA Climate Data
centre gridded at 58 latitude/longitude resolution.
(3) The start year for the ‘Central Europe’ series of ref. 1 is AD
1525.
(4) The ‘Western North America Dendro density’ series used in ref. 1
should properly be attributed to ref. 3.
(5) The Stahle et al. Southwestern/Mexico late wood width and maximum
density data used in ref. 1 should properly be attributed to ref. 4
(the formal reference was not available at the time of ref. 1), or, in
two cases, unpublished data (D. W. Stahle,
personal communication).
(6) For one of the 12 ‘Northern Treeline’ records of Jacoby et al.
used in ref. 1 (the ‘St Anne River’ series), the values used for AD
1400–03 were equal to the value for the first available year (AD
1404).
No-one, including me, has said that there weren't errors in
LISTING the data in the original paper. Indeed, over a year ago, I
lamented that they should have been clearer. Here's the tricky part,
Per, and you're really going to have to put your little thinking cap
on for this: these are LISTING errors. In other words, they are
mistakes in listing the reference series in the paper. They are not
errors in the data used by the authors. That's why the author's
clearly state: "None of these errors affect our previously published
results."
What M&M have done, essentially, is discover the equivalent of
a typo in the final paper. The typo doesn't affect the data they used
or the results. Now, I can certainly understand that you find the
discovery of a typo to be of earth-shattering importance, but frankly,
anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to be able to put
this into the proper context: big fucking deal.
>
>>that data that was easily available on the net with 3 minutes work
>didn't exist.
>
>The data on the net that Mann and his associate denied existed, in
>correspondence ? That wasn't publically identified ?
Boy, it was sure hard for Josh and I to find. Like I said, 3
minutes work. Nope, the much balleyhooed M&M were such experts they
needed to have their hands held to even do the basics.
Eric Swanson
Sorry, I missed the beginning of the comment in my cut-and-paste efforts.
The section where you asked:
" Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or the E&E paper? "
>> As for the possible smearing the variability, surely that can be a problem.
>> That's why good dating is so important and one reason to question Loehle's EM
>> paper. But, regional variations are likely to be different than the global
>> variation, so it should be expected that there will be less variation in a
>> global data set than a regional set, even when highly accurate dating is
>> possible.
>
>LOL - close enough for government work, you say? I'm glad you now
>comment, albeit in limp fashion, on the subject which you misleadingly
>implied to have long ago addressed.
No, I think Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper is way off base.
That's the subject to which I have replied many times since you brought
it up last year. There are ways to address the dating problems, such as
using a low pass filter on each regional data set before combining them.
Or, adjusting the date models using known time marks, as is a frequent
technique in geological work. Holmgren's spelotherm data that Loehle so
throrughly misused has a high resolution date model with yearly increments.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
peroxisome
err, yes, as you say , you can use it to retain PCs.
What do you think a methods section does ? It tells you how authors did
something. And under how they did tree ring PCs ? Nothing about
preisendorfer
>when you screw up an analysis,
again, there is nothing you provide to show that MM have screwed up.
There were enormous deficiences in a datafile provided by Mann, but
that is not an issue for MM !
>has said that there weren't errors in LISTING the data <snip>
I am glad you now agree. Given that the materials and methods section
of a paper is merely a LISTING of these, surely you will now accept
that this is a serious defect and the paper was not reproducible on the
basis of this flawed listing ? Moreover, M&M were absolutely correct to
point out that the LISTING of the MBH data and methods was in error ?
These errors may not affect MBH's use of the correct data/ methods, but
they affect the view of everyone else who relies on their published
paper, including the referees. I count 35 series which they claimed to
have used, but didn't really. That is an astonishing, and frankly,
enormously damaging admission for any author to have to make; but what
you describe as a typo.
>Boy, it was sure hard for Josh and I to find.
So why did mann not disclose the existence of the ftp site to M&M, when
directly asked ? Why did his RA deny the existence of such a file ?
Did not Josh and you find the data after Mann had publicised the
existence of the ftp site on david.appell ? Was it not the case that
this was post-publication of M&M '03 ? Is there not a cynical view that
MBH may well have rushed to deal with a very embarrassing revelation ?
yours
per
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Loehle discusses filtering in his E&E paper. There's a big difference
between the desirabile filtering of noise and the undesirable filtering
of cyclic signal. His criticism of multiproxy studies like Mann et al.
are based on the inherent smearing of cyclic signal. Here's an excerpt:
"In the case of white noise (e.g., temperature measurement error over
time), smoothing of the signal will reveal the true signal. This is the
basis for Kalman filter and other approaches to signal extraction (e.g.,
Grewal and Andrews, 1993). If, however, there is dating error of the
observations among individual series, and the points at each time along
multiple series are combined to create a global or hemispheric time
series, the effect is statistically identical to a Kalman filter with a
Gaussian kernel, because samples from any given estimated date actually
represent different dates. This type of time averaging is illustrated in
Figure 1. In this example, a 100-year standard deviation for sample age
estimates is sufficient to damp by half the estimated amplitude of a
500-year cycle. Thus, combining time series afflicted with dating error
cannot be justified. Most of the valid information about climate trends
or cycles contained in the individual studies will be smoothed out by
such averaging. Linear trends are not affected by dating error, so the
linear cooling trend estimated by the 'hockey stick' model (Mann et al.,
1998) is probably valid."
--- END OF EXCERPT FROM LOEHLE's E&E PAPER ---
As for your rather broad and strident characterization of Loehle's work
now, I urge folks to review your previous specific mischaracterizations
of his method. You repeatedly mistakenly insisted, for example, that he
claimed to identify an 88-year cycle in Bermuda Rise cores.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
htp://www.nuclear.com
David Ball
wrote:
>> What do you think P's Rule N does?
>
>err, yes, as you say , you can use it to retain PCs.
>What do you think a methods section does ? It tells you how authors did
>something. And under how they did tree ring PCs ? Nothing about
>preisendorfer
LOL. I see, so now your major complaint is that you feel the
authors should have included mention of it in another part of the
paper. So we see your desire to apply editorial control. What you are
saying is the equivalent to telling an author that the contents of
chapter 1 of their book would have been better in chapter 2 and that
naming the hero X was incorrect, it should have been Y. What utter
nonsense you bring to this issue.
>
>>when you screw up an analysis,
>
>again, there is nothing you provide to show that MM have screwed up.
>There were enormous deficiences in a datafile provided by Mann, but
>that is not an issue for MM !
I see. So in your mind claiming to do an audit by not using
the author's data, methodology, and arriving at results that fly in
the face of numerous other studies is not a screw-up. That, I'm
afraid, is a major screw-up.
>
>>has said that there weren't errors in LISTING the data <snip>
>
>I am glad you now agree. Given that the materials and methods section
>of a paper is merely a LISTING of these, surely you will now accept
>that this is a serious defect and the paper was not reproducible on the
>basis of this flawed listing ? Moreover, M&M were absolutely correct to
>point out that the LISTING of the MBH data and methods was in error ?
Incorrect. With a little work on their part, M&M could have
satisfied most of the questions that they raised in their original
paper. They were too lazy to do so. That, in a researcher, is
completely unacceptable.
>
>These errors may not affect MBH's use of the correct data/ methods, but
>they affect the view of everyone else who relies on their published
>paper, including the referees. I count 35 series which they claimed to
>have used, but didn't really. That is an astonishing, and frankly,
>enormously damaging admission for any author to have to make; but what
>you describe as a typo.
That's all they were. If you are working with hundreds of
series it could have been nothing more than a simple collation error.
Referencing the wrong data file. What you find nefarious is simply the
by-product of working with real data and anyone who works with real
data is keenly aware of how such errors can arise.
>
>>Boy, it was sure hard for Josh and I to find.
>
>So why did mann not disclose the existence of the ftp site to M&M, when
>directly asked ? Why did his RA deny the existence of such a file ?
I was asked a few weeks ago to put together some educational
resources for teachers on the Boxing Day Tsunami. Unfortunately, I
couldn't just stop everything I was doing to do it. I had other
important things on the go and still do. When you are busy, sometimes
you can respond to requests, sometimes you can't. Sometimes, you do it
once and then realize that can't keep doing it because you simply
don't have time to hand-hold. M&M want to be treated as professionals
without doing the necessary work to BE professionals.
>
>Did not Josh and you find the data after Mann had publicised the
>existence of the ftp site on david.appell ? Was it not the case that
>this was post-publication of M&M '03 ? Is there not a cynical view that
>MBH may well have rushed to deal with a very embarrassing revelation ?
>
Josh started the auditing the auditors thread soon after the
original M&M nonsense appeared. Between he and I and a few others we
were able to track down and answer a significant number of the
questions that M&M asked on their climate2003 website. These are
questions that any responsible scientist could have answered for
themselves with a little effort and by reading the references.
Joshua Halpern
>>What do you think P's Rule N does?
>
> err, yes, as you say , you can use it to retain PCs.
> What do you think a methods section does ? It tells you how authors did
> something. And under how they did tree ring PCs ? Nothing about
> preisendorfer
Ah yes, the peroxisome rules of writing scientific papers. It is,
however, quite common that various parts of the methods are described in
different parts of the paper close to the description of the results.
Of couse, we could always ask yelling to look into how M&M handle this.
Now, we are interested in your take on how M&M got their "curious"
result of wild oscillations at ~ 1500 for what they claimed to be the
MBH procedure. Something that they published in EE, by the clever
strategm of not retaining all significant PCs
(You know, M&Ms, their results melt in your hands both before and after
publication)
josh halpern
David Ball
wrote:
>>M&M 03 is a dead issue, Per. It's contents were debunked over
>>a year ago as you well know.
>
>I suggest you read the MBH corrigendum of July 2004, wherein they
>acknowledge the numerous ERRORs that M&M pointed out to them. Some
>debunking, David.
LOL. Once again, you confuse errors listing references with
errors in the ACTUAL data used in the study and with errors in the
author's methodology. M&M pointed out that there were errors listing
the references. Essentially, they found a typo. They found no
deficiencies in the data that were used. In order to do that, they
would have to understand the nuances of said data and we know they
were too lazy to actually read the references. They also were able to
make no statement about the author's methodology, as they clearly
showed they didn't follow it, because they didn't understand it.
Eric Swanson
>
> swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>> > swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>> >> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>> >> > swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>> >> >> steve....@nuclear.com says...
[cut]
[cut]
>As for your rather broad and strident characterization of Loehle's work
>now, I urge folks to review your previous specific mischaracterizations
>of his method. You repeatedly mistakenly insisted, for example, that he
>claimed to identify an 88-year cycle in Bermuda Rise cores.
I think I was trying to point out that the sample dating of Keigwin's data
did not have sufficient resolution to find an 88 year cycle. That I read
Keigwin's paper before I had the time to go to the library and obtain a
copy of Loehle's paper is irrelevant.
And, once again, you ignored a comment I offered regarding Holmgren's
spelotherm analysis. OK, here is what I was going to say, if you had bothered
to post your usual nonsense.
Holmgren's analysis produces annualized results. Therefore, if there is an 88
year cycle in that data, it should be easily found. The fact is, it is not.
Loehle's addition of an 88 year cycle to the South African data is thus a
complete fabrication. His model(s) that result from this addition are bogus.
Is that clear enough?
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
LOL - I recall you continued direct criticism using this false
characterization even after you expressed failure to recall which posts
marked before-vs-after-your-reading of the Ecological Modelling paper.
Is your memory really clearer on this now (than it was more
contemporaneously)?
>
> And, once again, you ignored a comment I offered regarding Holmgren's
> spelotherm analysis. OK, here is what I was going to say, if you had
> bothered
> to post your usual nonsense.
>
> Holmgren's analysis produces annualized results. Therefore, if there is an
> 88
> year cycle in that data, it should be easily found. The fact is, it is not.
> Loehle's addition of an 88 year cycle to the South African data is thus a
> complete fabrication. His model(s) that result from this addition are bogus.
> Is that clear enough?
Adding the 88-year cycle to the 3-cycle and 4-cycle models fit to the
pre-20th-century South African data did not change that these models
projected 20th century warming followed by cooling in the coming two
centuries. What adding the 88-year cycle did was improve the match of
the shape of the 20th century warming and cooling periods in both cases.
The existance of a Gleissberg cycle does not depend on whether it showed
up in the drippings in one cave. Thus I respectfully disagree with your
comments, even though they have no impact even when given full credit.
peroxisome
yes, I am unapologetic. If MBH didn't write up preisendorfer for the
tree-ring PCs, how do we know they used it ? I do know that you would
criticise MM relentlessly for making a FALSE ASSUMPTION that MBH used
procedure z, if it turned out not to be the case.
Even as is, it is not clear that MBH consistently used the
Preisendorfer rule for their tree ring analysis.
say what you like, this is damning stuff. As long as this stuff keeps
on coming out, MBH will continue to look very weak.
On your other point, MBH'98 claimed conventional PCA, a procedure that
failed for a lot of the data. As was, MBH'98 was not reproducible. It
is only in their forced correction that MBH described the procedure,
and have let slip some of the further errors MM have now characterised
in MM'05.
yours
per
peroxisome
>errors in the ACTUAL data used in the study
it is so easy to falsify you. Just for example, MBH admitted they
listed 35 series as used, when they didn't use them. That is not an
error of listing references; that is a substantial change in their
description of what they did, known as the materials and methods.
You think this is a typo. I don't.
>They found no deficiencies in the data that were used.
Just for example, in MBH'04, MBH acknowledged that they had added extra
fill values to the beginning of the St. Anne's tree proxy.
Strangely enough, MBH were forced to completely re-write their methods
by Nature. In David Ball land, that is a complete coincidence. In the
real world, it is a direct result of the complaint from MM that MBH's
methods were wrong.
Keep on going, TinFoil !
per
peroxisome
>authors should have included mention of it in another part of the
>paper.
?? If MBH used preisendorfer for tree ring PCs, they should have said
so when they describe how they did tree ring PCs. Why is this difficult
?
>So in your mind claiming to do an audit by not using
>the author's data, methodology,
Mann accepts he provided a datafile of what he warranted were his data
to MM. MM used Mann's datafile. You are claiming that MM did not use
Mann's data, when everyone agrees that MM used the datafile provided by
Mann ?
Break out the bacofoil, David, and get making those hats.
yours
per
Eric Swanson
So, you continue your attacks against me, while ignoring the issue. The fact
remains that Keigwin's data could not exhibit an 88 year cycle, as most of
the core was sampled with periods greater than 88 years.
>> And, once again, you ignored a comment I offered regarding Holmgren's
>> spelotherm analysis. OK, here is what I was going to say, if you had
>> bothered
>> to post your usual nonsense.
>>
>> Holmgren's analysis produces annualized results. Therefore, if there is an
>> 88 year cycle in that data, it should be easily found. The fact is, it is
>> not. Loehle's addition of an 88 year cycle to the South African data is
>> thus a complete fabrication. His model(s) that result from this addition
>> are bogus. Is that clear enough?
>
>Adding the 88-year cycle to the 3-cycle and 4-cycle models fit to the
>pre-20th-century South African data did not change that these models
>projected 20th century warming followed by cooling in the coming two
>centuries. What adding the 88-year cycle did was improve the match of
>the shape of the 20th century warming and cooling periods in both cases.
>The existance of a Gleissberg cycle does not depend on whether it showed
>up in the drippings in one cave. Thus I respectfully disagree with your
>comments, even though they have no impact even when given full credit.
Loehle's 3 cycle model without the Gleissberg cycle he added indictes a warming
until about 1950, then a cooling (Fig 4A). Only the 4 cycle model produces a
continued warming in the 20th century (Fig 5A). The Gleissberg Cycle was found
in the solar sunspot data. That it does not appear in the South African data
could well prove that it does not produce a strong influence on climate.
Nuke fabricating data to fit a preconceived pattern is not acceptible in
the sciences. Oh, well, the "creation science" people do that, don't they?
Steve Schulin
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
Nobody has ever claimed otherwise, as far as I know. Certainly not
Loehle. Me neither. It has been you who has repeatedly, incorrectly,
charged Loehle with doing something he never did. I have not ignored the
issue. If I had done what you have done, I suspect I'd be treated much
worse by you and others here than the "attacks" you perceive.
> >> And, once again, you ignored a comment I offered regarding Holmgren's
> >> spelotherm analysis. OK, here is what I was going to say, if you had
> >> bothered
> >> to post your usual nonsense.
> >>
> >> Holmgren's analysis produces annualized results. Therefore, if there is
> >> an
> >> 88 year cycle in that data, it should be easily found. The fact is, it is
> >> not. Loehle's addition of an 88 year cycle to the South African data is
> >> thus a complete fabrication. His model(s) that result from this addition
> >> are bogus. Is that clear enough?
> >
> >Adding the 88-year cycle to the 3-cycle and 4-cycle models fit to the
> >pre-20th-century South African data did not change that these models
> >projected 20th century warming followed by cooling in the coming two
> >centuries. What adding the 88-year cycle did was improve the match of
> >the shape of the 20th century warming and cooling periods in both cases.
> >The existance of a Gleissberg cycle does not depend on whether it showed
> >up in the drippings in one cave. Thus I respectfully disagree with your
> >comments, even though they have no impact even when given full credit.
>
> Loehle's 3 cycle model without the Gleissberg cycle he added indictes a
> warming until about 1950, then a cooling (Fig 4A). Only the 4 cycle model
> produces a continued warming in the 20th century (Fig 5A). ...
I agree.
> ... The Gleissberg
> Cycle was found in the solar sunspot data. That it does not appear in the
> South African data could well prove that it does not produce a strong
> influence on climate.
The Gleissberg cycle has shown up in many climatic datasets. For those
readers here who may not have seen our previous discussions, I'd like to
stress that 88-years is not some exclusive definition. Last May, in
response to Eric's question "What's the exact amplitude of the 80 to 100
year Gleissberg cycle on global climate, like, what's it's impact on
average global temperature, peak to peak?", my reply was "What a great
question, although 40-120 years may be better description of the
Gleissberg cycle [As Dr. Landscheidt puts it: 'In Nature, we are
dealing with cycles, not with mechanical sinusoidal periods.']" Here are
the listings between 40-120 years in Hoyt and Schatten's* Table 9.1:
Table of some claimed solar-induced cycles in climate
46 years (climate) Ref: Abbot 1937
50 years (varves) Ref: Bradley 1929
80 years (interdiurnal temperature) Ref: Berkes 1955
89 years (Budapest climate) Ref: Thraen 1949
92 years (climate) Ref: Abbot 1937
100 years (climate) Ref: Memery 1935
* [from p. 168 of "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" by Douglas V.
Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten (Oxford University Press, 1997)]
> Nuke fabricating data to fit a preconceived pattern is not acceptible in
> the sciences. Oh, well, the "creation science" people do that, don't they?
You're the one demonstrated to be spreading incorrect information in
this exchange.
Michael Tobis
The cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol is distinct from the budget
that can be attributed to "the global warming industry".
The "cost" of the Kyoto protocol is a very problematic estimate, but it
doesn't go to those of us who are accused of overstating the risk for
our own benefit, so that's changing the subject.
If that estimated cost is global (which I see it is) and distributed
over ten years it abounts to about a dollar per month per capita,
clearly not worthy of all the brouhaha about economic collapse that is
constantly bandied about. It is, however, not directly related to
McIntyre's point.
mt
Steve Schulin
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote, in part:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-3D4...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > An Australian columnist today describes why we can talk about what he
> > calls the "global warming industry"
> >
> > --- BEGIN EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL DUFFY OP ED ---
> >
> > The myth of man-made global warming thrives because it fits the
> > interests of so many people, such as Green groups in search of crises to
> > attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
> > excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.
>
> This argument is simply not credible. All kinds of groups and people have
> all kinds of differing intersts and agendas, that is fine. But even if we
> accept the premise, which I personally find unlikely, that "Green groups"
> *want* there to be environmental crisis (to be fair to this argument, just
> the perception of a crisis is sufficient) ...
Hi Coby - I saw an article today which helps illuminate the point Duffy
made: In December, MIT climatologist Prof. Lindzen spoke of "the almost
insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice bowl." (The
"iron triangle" consists of activists misusing science to get the
attention of the news media and politicians; the "iron rice bowl" is a
parallel phenomenon where scientists exploit the activists' alarm to
increase research funding and attention for the issue.
The Dec 2004 Lindzen speech is available at
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=264
The article I read which discusses and provided the link, also presents
many other interesting ideas. It's "Climate Change Science: Time for
'Team B'?" by AEI Fellow Steven F. Hayward, available at
www.aei.org/publication21974
Michael Tobis
>>results you don't like for a special attack on these grounds, though,
>>is disingenuous.
>I think this is strong. So far, i do not believe I have seen anything
>personal or indicating bias from M&M; they set out to do a replication
>of MBH'98 results. If that had been a straightforward and painless
>replication, I doubt you would have any problems with it.
It's my opinion that all software (and all mathematics) used in a
published paper should be available on the web. This wasn't practical
before there was a web but it is now.
MBH didn't do that. I'd like to live in a world where they were
expected to. This is McIntyre's valid point. However, it applies to
everyone and not just MBH.
Calling this malfeasance on Mann's part is unjustified and
disingenuous. MBH did operate to commonly accepted standards in the
scientific community. It's possible that those standards ought to be
reconsidered in some ways but that doesn't justify extravagant
accusations.
The only thing MBH did that was unusual is to meander into a highly
politicized debate with an academician's approach. You could call that
a mistake and possibly even an arrogant one, but it wasn't a dishonest
mistake from all appearances.
As for the hockey stick itself, it may well be the case that it's
bumpier than MBH make out. M&M's argument to that effect is apparently
grossly inadequate but that doesn't settle the matter.
Even if MBH is completely and utterly wrong, though (rather than simply
hiding some big wiggles within its uncertainty range as seems likely)
it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as some would have us believe.
It's Mann's bad luck to have come face to face with the climate
obfuscation industry as a proxy target for the whole field.
Possibly, like most scientists in the field, he was unaware of the
extent and virulence of the campaign to confuse the public on this
issue. Most of us don't read these newsgroups.
mt
peroxisome
budget
>that can be attributed to "the global warming industry".
that's fair comment; but surely you should compare apples with apples.
You could compare the amount of money the mineral industry spend on
research, or exploration, with the amount of money spent on global
warming research.
If you are going to come up with figures about the total amount of
money spent in the oil or mineral industries, then it seems a
comparison with the total cost of Kyoto is appropriate.
Not that it makes much difference, as the phrase "climate change
industry" is not well defined. Is the key point that the cost of
implementing the global warming agenda is maybe out of proportion to
the science base that informs that change ?
yours
per
Michael Tobis
this
> time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any
shell.
> I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
What do I have to do with it? I don't see anything I said quoted here.
I will appreciate a clarification or a retraction.
mt