Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[mhaze]

I'd say it's doing a great deal of good. It's conclusively demonstrating that the AGW deniers have nothing but--ironically enough--hot air on their side.

Okay, have it your way. You said it then, and I repeat:

The lies that you make up and post demonstrate that AGW deniers have nothing but--ironically enough--hot air on their side.
​

But your effort was by your admission lies. That means that your assertions about deniers are false. Tell you what, want to unscramble that and try again?

I would presume you meant to somehow engage in the various standard Warmer tactics of insult, ridicule, bait, pin, adhom, without insulting yourself?

One more time, then. By the way, one symptom of true Warmers is a very ernest seriousness and a total lack of humour. It's a serious business, saving the world.

We know that. Even better would be to actually address the subject at hand without those tactics.

But that's likely a bit too much to ask.

 

[Yoink]

Okay, have it your way. You said it then, and I repeat:

The lies that you make up and post demonstrate that AGW deniers have nothing but--ironically enough--hot air on their side.
​

But your effort was by your admission lies. That means that your assertions about deniers are false. Tell you what, want to unscramble that and try again?

I would presume you meant to somehow engage in the various standard Warmer tactics of insult, ridicule, bait, pin, adhom, without insulting yourself?

One more time, then. By the way, one symptom of true Warmers is a very ernest seriousness and a total lack of humour. It's a serious business, saving the world.

We know that. Even better would be to actually address the subject at hand without those tactics.

But that's likely a bit too much to ask.

O.K., if you're incapable of pointing out a single error in WG1, how about a simpler task: identify a single "lie" that I have supposedly put forward in this discussion. Again, just one.

 

[mhaze]

O.K., if you're incapable of pointing out a single error in WG1, how about a simpler task: identify a single "lie" that I have supposedly put forward in this discussion. Again, just one.

Why? You don't want to just move on? Personalizing the argument, attacking the person not the argument, these are Saul Alinsky tactics. They are not actual logical debate methods. I've just pointed out errors in your method. They started with a broad leap from the specific to a general conclusion without any factual support. eg

Mhaze: Maybe I'll check later
Yoink: So you can't find....

All that will happen if you engage in the various Warmer tactics is that the mods will come in and delete a bunch of posts.

So what's the point of it?

 

[Yoink]

Why? You don't want to just move on? Personalizing the argument, attacking the person not the argument, these are Saul Alinsky tactics. They are not actual logical debate methods. I've just pointed out errors in your method. They started with a broad leap from the specific to a general conclusion without any factual support. eg

Mhaze: Maybe I'll check later
Yoink: So you can't find....

All that will happen if you engage in the various Warmer tactics is that the mods will come in and delete a bunch of posts.

So what's the point of it?

Actually, mhaze, I know nothing about you other than your arguments, so it's really not possible for me to attack the person rather than the argument.

Also, that "maybe I'll check later" isn't quite the "get out of jail free" card you seem to think. What you originally said was this:

if we look at reviewer comments on WG1, the same pattern is found

And I asked you to produce examples. You didn't say "I imagine if we looked at the reviewer comments on WG1 we might find the same pattern." You said that it "is found" and I asked for examples of this. You then showed, quite conclusively, that you were simply making things up and that you didn't have any examples. To say "well, maybe if I actually go and look at it I might find something" doesn't change that, does it?

But hell, be my guest. Go and look. Seems a bit odd that a die hard denialist like you who is always obsessively on the look out for "gotcha" moments to throw in the face of the "warmers" wouldn't already have everything you needed lying to hand, but we'll just assume that the denialists have never actually bothered to look at the WG1 findings, for some reason.

So go. Look. Tell us what you find. It will be so very, very interesting. But it won't erase the fact that you made a patently false claim to already knowing of numerous significant errors in the report.

ETA: please stop with the "Alinsky" thing, by the way. It's kinda embarrassingly whacky. I've never read a word by Alinsky in my life.

 

[Reality Check]

Now I have to admit that's an interesting point of view.

WG1: Good scientific work.

WG2 etc: Garbage.

No. What I stated was
WG1: cited peer reviewed papers.
WGII etc: did not always cite peer reviewed papers.

And this is referenced as "A Gap in your(my) knowledge".

Again no: "However the section you highlighted may indicate a gap in your knowledge of the AR reports."
That is about a possible gap in your knowledge of the AR4 reports.

I definitely have gaps in my knoledge of the AR4 reports, e.g. I have only skimmed through the Synthesis report.

When what is going on is you are admitting to alarmist environmental craziness in the report, and you are justifying it (apparently, somehow).

And yet again no:
What I am doing is stating the obvious and well known. WGII cited non-peer reviewed material.
There is no general "alarmist environmental craziness" in WGII and so I cannot justify it. There are certainly statements in WGII from groups that I would classify as alarmist, envronmental and maybe even crazy. But that is up to each reader of the report to decide.

The errors exist. There will be more errors found.
I do understand that it is improbable that large, complex undertakings such as the AR reports will be be error-free.

Now what is it then that governments should base their policy decisions on?

AR4
Or they can ignore global warming for a few years and look at AR5.
Or they can ignore global warming for a more than a few years and look at AR6.

Postscript: In spite of this being interesting as a rationalization of the errors/lies/exaggerations/whatever, I'm not sure it's right. In other words, if we look at reviewer comments on WG1, the same pattern is found.

Citation please or a list of the WG1 reviewer comments that were ignored in error.

 

[Yoink]

Citation please or a list of the WG1 reviewer comments that were ignored in error.

Another minion of Alinsky!

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, there were a lot of disregarded reviewer comments to the tech section.

That is right - there probably were.
The issue is whether it was correct to disregard them. It might be right to disregard a comment about the format of a page. It might be right to disregard a comment about the need to make a diagram's caption more detailed. It would not be right to disregard a comment about a citation to a source that does not exist. Etc.

I suspect that RC is right, though, that there were no un peer reviewed references to the WWF propaganda therein. That'd truly be laughable. Maybe I'll check a bit later.

As an aid to that - I just searched fo WWF in WGI. It is possible that there are references under the full name.

 

[Reality Check]

Another minion of Alinsky!

Who is Alinsky?
Why does asking for the sources for a statement make me his minion?


Forget it - I see it is a joke about mhaze's reference.

 

[DogB]

So go. Look. Tell us what you find.

I don’t know if there are any errors but I do know that Andrew Lacis doesn’t seem particularly keen on the Executive Summary of Chapter 9.

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

 

[mhaze]

.....And I asked you to produce examples. You didn't say "I imagine if we looked at the reviewer comments on WG1 we might find the same pattern." You said that it "is found" and I asked for examples of this. You then showed, quite conclusively, that you were simply making things up and that you didn't have any examples. To say "well, maybe if I actually go and look at it I might find something" doesn't change that, does it?

But hell, be my guest. Go and look. Seems a bit odd that a die hard denialist like you who is always obsessively on the look out for "gotcha" moments to throw in the face of the "warmers"....

Well, I gave you a couple of chances to be polite and it doesn't seem that's your inclination, so you are going on ignore. Bit of an attitude problem it seems.

There isn't any need for me to tell you what the reviewer comments on WG1 are, because they have been put online and analyzed quite extensively.

They've been discussed several times on JREF. There was in fact a reviewer request relative to the specific issue on the Briffa reconstruction to "not truncate the line", eg., to not "hide the decline". This was ignored.

The WG1 reviewer comment group is here, for any who care to look at it.

Cheers!

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, this definitely looks like Global Warming Is Over!


NOT!

We are more than two standard deviations away from "normal" Arctic ice conditions for this time of year.

 

[Reality Check]

They've been discussed several times on JREF. There was in fact a reviewer request relative to the specific issue on the Briffa reconstruction to "not truncate the line", eg., to not "hide the decline". This was ignored.

The WG1 reviewer comment group is here, for any who care to look at it.

Cheers!

Could you give a reference to the specific reviewer comment?

I can find one about figure 6.10 ("Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr....") which includes proxy (including Briffa et. al.) and instrumental data. That is reviewer comment 6-696 and it was not ignored. It was rejected because the caption makes it clear that the black line is instrumental data.

Cheers

 

[mhaze]

Could you give a reference to the specific reviewer comment?

I can find one about figure 6.10 ("Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr....") which includes proxy (including Briffa et. al.) and instrumental data. That is reviewer comment 6-696 and it was not ignored. It was rejected because the caption makes it clear that the black line is instrumental data.

Cheers

By using the google search at climateaudit, looking for ipcc, briffa, reviewer, mcintyre, I get this among others:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/16/how-ipcc-ar4-authors-defended-the-briffa-data-deletions/

That links to some others. I used the phrase "ignored" perhaps inaccurately, of course every reviewer comment had a response of one type or another. "Ignored" is not one of the responses found in the right hand column.


Interesting, on that same page is the result of the FOI request that caused the IPCC to release the reviewer comments.

 

[bobdroege7]

Then the benzine used to do the Azeotropic distillation was properly killed by a Rabbi.

I don't see any bezines on the GC, what a cheap gas chromatograph we have, but I still prefer gin, tequila, whiskey, or rum even as life's too short to drink vodka.


But only 263,750 sq. kilometers and I lose my bet with Dogb, of ice that is.

 

[DogB]

...life's too short to drink vodka.

That's why you don't understand ice.

 

[Reality Check]

By using the google search at climateaudit, looking for ipcc, briffa, reviewer, mcintyre, I get this among others:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/16/how-ipcc-ar4-authors-defended-the-briffa-data-deletions/

That links to some others. I used the phrase "ignored" perhaps inaccurately, of course every reviewer comment had a response of one type or another. "Ignored" is not one of the responses found in the right hand column.

An AR4 reviewer noticed the same thing in AR. He said (and, in this case there is no problem with reviewer copyright as the reviewer has permitted the comment to be posted at CA):

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Stephen McIntyre Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]

Added the missing reviewer name (who wrote the blog entry you cite) as mentioned in the comments (and the full document)

The response was “Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Biffra et al. series.”


So basically this is an non-issue.

• The divergence issue is dicussed:
  AR4 WG 1 Chapter 6 page 473
  

  In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifi cally excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed. in this chapter were acquired.

• The recommendation of the authors was followed - to not plot the data that diverged from the instrumental temperature from 1960 for an unknown cause.
• The use of insturmental data was explicitly mentioned in the caption of Figue 6.10.

 

[mhaze]

Added the missing reviewer name (who wrote the blog entry you cite) as mentioned in the comments (and the full document)

The response was “Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Biffra et al. series.”


So basically this is an non-issue.....

Sure. Oh, no, wait, it's a non issue to those who already have their minds made up.

You asked for the ref, I provided it, and as you have seen, the request of the reviewer wasn't followed.

The request was quite reasonable: Don't bury contrary data, show it and talk about it.

It's because of many issues like this, that now in the public sphere, the IPCC's scientific authority is being eroded by valid criticisms. You tried to dodge over into the shelter of WG1, now I've shown you that the issues do not exclude WG1.

Although as I previously mentioned (and checked) WWF is not cited as authority in WG1. This brings up a broader issue, though, which is as follows.

The past citing of the IPCC as authority never did limit itself to WG1, it is only now that this argument comes up. IPCC statements were used publicly to support the Alarmist nightmare scenarios of near term floods, hurricanes, droughts, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and so forth. Errors were not limited to WG2, but include WG1 and the summary.

You've basically admitted the IPCC documents support non scientific alarmist and hysterical crap, and we've seen how and why (non scientific citations to alarmist environmental groups).

The criticisms and takedown of the IPCC are thus perfectly valid. Let's have them occur faster. No wonder India has set up their own climate authority.

Postscript- It really seems like you'd like to have it both ways - you'd like to have a scientifically valid, or at least an arguably scientifically valid review document (WG1) and support for the public propaganda thrust, this being part of the necessary support structure to get public support or acquisence to huge taxation and control schemes.

But as soon as that statement is made, you've comingled science, propaganda, and public policy (of one flavor). That's where the objections are coming from, and they are quite valid.

It's a case of science being subverted to political issue advocacy. In reaction against this, those who protest are/were insulted and ridiculed - bullied, essentially. But that's really not going to work any longer, is it?

 

[Geckko]

Added the missing reviewer name (who wrote the blog entry you cite) as mentioned in the comments (and the full document)

The response was “Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Biffra et al. series.”


So basically this is an non-issue.

• The divergence issue is dicussed:
  AR4 WG 1 Chapter 6 page 473
  
• The recommendation of the authors was followed - to not plot the data that diverged from the instrumental temperature from 1960 for an unknown cause.
• The use of insturmental data was explicitly mentioned in the caption of Figue 6.10.

I am stunned. You just made the case against Briffa, Jones, Mann and the IPCC and you do not (or pretend not) to notice. Just this piece alone:

implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon

Implicitly assumes means they did it (simply erased the data) for no known reason, but the act of erasing it implies there is something wrong with that period of the data and that period data alone (keeping the more helpful historical data).

And that is science????

Explain it explicitly and empirically or discard it.

You give the impression that it should be pretty easy to show empirically that the failure of the proxy to satisfactorily correlate with temperatures over period 1960 to present was a "uniquely recent phenomena". Can we see that empirical evidence?

 

[lomiller]

You give the impression that it should be pretty easy to show empirically that the failure of the proxy to satisfactorily correlate with temperatures over period 1960 to present was a "uniquely recent phenomena".

Since this phenomenon exists in specific Northern Hemisphere forests it’s present can be, and has been, tested for by comparing forests where it exists to forests where it does not. The only period of divergence identified in any forest is in these forests post 1960.

You are making a very obvious and particularly vile argument form ignorance, where you claim that because you don’t know the science behind this phenomenon people invoking it must be committing fraud.

 

[Reality Check]

I am stunned. You just made the case against Briffa, Jones, Mann and the IPCC and you do not (or pretend not) to notice. Just this piece alone:
Implicitly assumes means they did it (simply erased the data) for no known reason, but the act of erasing it implies there is something wrong with that period of the data and that period data alone (keeping the more helpful historical data).

And that is science????

Explain it explicitly and empirically or discard it.

You give the impression that it should be pretty easy to show empirically that the failure of the proxy to satisfactorily correlate with temperatures over period 1960 to present was a "uniquely recent phenomena". Can we see that empirical evidence?

I am stunned that you do not know a simple thing about science - invalid data exists!

Implicitly assumes that they did (and still do not know) the cause of the divergence from the instrumental data. The data was not used for a very good and known reason - it was invalid.

The data was not plotted because Briffa, Jones, Mann and the IPCC just decided to do it on a whim. The data was not plotted because it would cllutter up an already complicated graph with invalid data.
Personally I think that the discussion of the divergence problem in the report would have been better if another diagram was added showing the actual divergence.

The empirical evidence is that the proxy data after 1960 does not match the instrumental data while the data before 1960 does.
The empirical evidence is that the proxy data after 1960 does not match other proxy data while the data before 1960 does.