Let the gnashing of teeth commence

I’m sure this will be met with reasoned and civilized discussion. Doesn’t seem to be online yet.

[UPDATE: Here is the paper with a stable url that won’t go dead once PNAS moves it from the early edition. And I see a certain site managed three catty threads in a half a day on it before it even hit PNAS online. You’d almost think someone was a little… bitter.]


9 responses to “Let the gnashing of teeth commence

  1. The harrumphing has begun–at least in the comments on your link. Most focus on the divergence between proxie temperatures and the recent instrumental record. Conclusion?
    The recent instrumental record must be wrong.

  2. bi -- International Journal of Inactivism

    Most focus on the divergence between proxie temperatures and the recent instrumental record.

    Just lots of cries of, ‘They don’t agree! They don’t agree! They don’t agree!’ No calculations, no evidence, nothing.

    Oh, and Craig Loehle feels that the graphs are wrong:

    There seems to be something wrong in the graphs

    And then we have the Bolshevik-Clenis-NWO conspiracy theorist Matti Virtanen:

    I saw an article that told hole the consenses of scientists supporting global warming is actually a handful on the UN council for Climate change and only thier views are allowed to be published.

    (Yeah, he “saw an article”. So did I.)

    Fun all around.

    — bi, International Journal of Inactivism

  3. Comments 18 and 20 were also amusing.

  4. Comments 18 & 20?

    [In case they go down the memory hole, you can see them here. Even his own readership didn’t buy that Mann was “blocking” him (for an entire six minutes!).- TB]

  5. Does this mean you are going to continue to cover the discussion in depth?

  6. @bernie

    Does this mean you are going to continue to cover the discussion in depth?

    That question rather implies that I’ve already been covering it in depth, which I haven’t. A RealClimate thread and another half dozen of CA later and I haven’t run an update.

    If you’re asking if I will post on any “conclusion” from it all- I will, gladly. But I’ll go so far as to call it ahead of time, right now. CA will devote another half dozen-to-several dozen threads on it for the next year-plus. The lion’s share of “technical” complaints will be about choice of weighting of specific proxies. CA may or may not discover minor statistical errors, but the broad conclusions will remain unchallenged as they continue to be. Meanwhile, the CA threads will harbor and perpetuate the disgusting lies about Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Thompson et al., pay lip service to not encouraging accusations of fraud while fomenting that very notion, and generally allude to the red herring that is the fight to establish a global MWP, while glorifying the tropospheric UAH data, and denigrating GISTEMP.

    Does that sound about right? Also, I’m curious as to your position of CA’s endorsement of Anthony Watts, who has been shown time and time again to be only interested in propaganda and has a habit of deleting his own posts that get proven wrong and then pretending he never made them.

    Are you a skeptic, or a climate science skeptic, I guess is what I’m asking.

  7. I am a natural skeptic. I would definitely prefer that people maintain the record, especially the ones they help create.
    As to your predictions, let’s wait and see – but frankly at the moment the issues with the new Mann et al paper seem a bit more significant than issues of weighting. As to GISTEMP, it is not an issue of denigrating – just being clear as to its limitiations. Many besides Watts recognize them. Isn’t that what is behind Karl’s effort to rebuild a smaller network of higher quality stations?

  8. Bernie

    You seem to be avoiding my question. Anthony Watts has been shown repeatedly to post things that are blatantly untrue and have in common only that they attempt to cast doubt on anthropogenic warming. When he is shown to be wrong, egregiously wrong, he deletes his own posts rather than acknowledge his error and pretends they never happened. He also claims things to be both true and disproving AGW that contradict each other. He is, in short, a hack.

    Yet he has the full endorsement of CA, and is featured as a guest poster. What does that say to you about CA’s credibility?

  9. My apologies for the typos: Can you replce the above with this?

    I am not avoiding your questions – I happened not to answer one of them – but I did answer two others. I have no idea why you are bringing up AW wrt Mann et al’s new HS paper. But since you have and seem to want to talk about it, you are going to have to provide more specifics on the “time and and time again” bit. I have no sense of how frequently AW has done what you claim he has done and where he has done it. What is clear is that he has done a pretty good job drawing attention to the sloppy way we go about collecting the GISTEMP data. If AW is “adjusting his record” then certainly SM should be more circumspect in his endorsements.
    I don’t remember when AW posted something at CA that had to be withdrawn, can you help me out? I think SM’s output is sufficient at CA to be the primary basis for assessing his and its credibility.

    Now you seem to have totally avoided my question. What is Tom Karl trying to do and why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s