tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5012416055742761633..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: If She Weighs the Same as a Duck, She's Made of WoodMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16914832061183841942011-05-02T11:43:26.527-07:002011-05-02T11:43:26.527-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.SepticTank.co.ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01958810663466624393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-53207738797744764242011-05-02T11:42:38.156-07:002011-05-02T11:42:38.156-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.SepticTank.co.ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01958810663466624393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62074300611453269562009-07-29T09:53:30.901-07:002009-07-29T09:53:30.901-07:00Except that by actually feeding the press with pre...Except that by actually feeding the press with press releases, they expose their strategy. This is necessary, of course. The press usually misses important science. You have to hit them over the head with it.<br /><br />This in turn is why it is necessary to respond to stuff like this fast. The no-such-thing press will have already picked it up (that is where I noticed it in the first place) but the idea is to alert the mainstream how fishy it all is and prevent them from running with it. So far we have succeeded in that, I think. But yes, we are playing defense, and science is being gamed for nonscientific goals.<br /><br />It may be brilliant, but it shows that nothing is sacred to those people.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76685561421250152772009-07-29T09:14:07.634-07:002009-07-29T09:14:07.634-07:00I have to say that, from a political/public relati...I have to say that, from a political/public relations point of view, the McLean, de Freitas and Carter paper strategy is brilliant.<br /><br />They subtly got their paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. They then misdirected the public regarding the results of their study in press releases, etc., thereby allowing the conservative blogs sites and talk radio stations to claim that the "real science" is finally coming out in the primary literature just as the "warmies" demand, in such journals. I'm hearing and reading about it all over, in a "see? we told you..." context.<br /><br />There's no way out, even were the Journal to publish some sort of clarifying information, the skeptical camp would present it as an example of political pressure from the "liberal AGW conformists," leaving the scientific community to look like thugs.<br /><br />It's an admirably clever strategy.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2801261668755273512009-07-28T18:43:24.888-07:002009-07-28T18:43:24.888-07:00Michael, I don't think IBD should be described...Michael, I don't think IBD should be described as "taking the bait." They are a bait shop.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13620386195518923852009-07-26T10:12:47.270-07:002009-07-26T10:12:47.270-07:00What I said at Tamino's:
I agree with MT as...What I said at Tamino's:<br /><br /><br /><br />I agree with MT as well.<br /><br />1) Get paper published in reputable journal<br />2) Make baseless claims in press conferences<br />3) Defend those claims on others’ blogs<br />4) Make vague retraction in blog comments<br />5) Do not call press conference for retraction<br />6) Do not correct published work<br />7) ….?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-20907446402129541632009-07-26T09:09:00.800-07:002009-07-26T09:09:00.800-07:00ENSO it goes<a href="http://halgeranon.blogspot.com/2009/07/enso-it-goes.html" rel="nofollow">ENSO it goes</a>Horatio Algeranonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988805467080448954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84428029159539327492009-07-25T23:16:19.486-07:002009-07-25T23:16:19.486-07:00That's an inauspicious if amusing coincidence,...That's an inauspicious if amusing coincidence, isn't it? <br /><br />Thanks for the reminder of the Hungarian phrasebook sketch, one of my all time favorites!<br /><br />Obviously we agree on the nature of the "debate", but how on earth are we going to convey it to the public or to decision-makers?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27782163567752827712009-07-25T16:42:02.705-07:002009-07-25T16:42:02.705-07:00Welcome to the Monty Python school of scientific m...Welcome to the Monty Python school of scientific methodology. See another example here where I <a href="http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/07/monty-python-climate-change-phrasebook.html" rel="nofollow">debunk junk</a> someone quoted from a popular book in Australia.Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65770376238931536392009-07-24T18:31:24.812-07:002009-07-24T18:31:24.812-07:00It seems impossible that the JGR editors and the r...It seems impossible that the JGR editors and the reviewers for this paper wouldn't have had any inkling that they should pay extra attention to anything submitted by de Freitas or Carter, let alone both together. I conclude that the publication of this paper is a feature, not a bug.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22749105474466672042009-07-24T17:04:30.799-07:002009-07-24T17:04:30.799-07:00The energy collective site and the repost are very...The energy collective site and the repost are very neat.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-11751284614010416282009-07-24T14:55:01.909-07:002009-07-24T14:55:01.909-07:00Yes, I did read your summary, and Tamino's, an...Yes, I did read your summary, and Tamino's, and the maths is beyond me but I do agree that the denialists are incompetent. <br /><br />All I want to see (apart from mass media ridicule of the authors and the journal for printing it) is published refutations, so that when I next run into people who say "oh but its El nino that does it" I can say no its not, here's the papers saying why and if you don't understand any of it I can talk you through it to help you understand it. (Oddly enough no one whom I have offered to help in such a way has ever responded positively)<br /><br />MAss media ridicule takes a bit longer to sort out, but if you guys who are involved directly in the science can give us the hammers, we science lovers can go out and bang some nails in.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3393543365027728822009-07-24T08:41:38.506-07:002009-07-24T08:41:38.506-07:00They didn't even look at the books they cooked...They didn't even look at the books they cooked! <br /><br />Please read my summary carefully. It is not technically difficult. Please also consider Tamino's argument, which likewise should be accessible to an intelligent person with a high school education.<br /><br />Overall, there are two possibilities: 1) naysayers have difficulty getting published because the scientific community is uniformly biased; 2) naysayers have difficulty getting published because they are demonstrably wrong.<br /><br />The present paper is clearly a point in evidence in the latter class. Unfortunately, this one is so dreadfully wrong that it says bad things about science as a whole, not about bias but about standards.<br /><br />One of the authors, at least, has been involved in <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-dde-freitas" rel="nofollow">comparable controversy</a> before. The climate statistician Hans von Storch, who is <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html" rel="nofollow">not by any means a climate change alarmist</a>, found himself <a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm" rel="nofollow">resigning as editor of a journal which would not withdraw a de Freitas publication</a>. <br /><br />So, far from it being too hard for messages espousing a point of view to get published, it is much too easy. It's clear von Storch has a point.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65008954301314337302009-07-24T08:15:49.167-07:002009-07-24T08:15:49.167-07:00RObust debate? Can I expect you good fellow who w...RObust debate? Can I expect you good fellow who work in the climate area to deluge this 'journal' with letters and alternative analyses showing why they are wrong and are cooking the books?guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88251306729697105662009-07-24T05:31:10.517-07:002009-07-24T05:31:10.517-07:00De Freitas is obviously aware of what he is doing,...De Freitas is obviously aware of what he is doing, and more or less outright admits his goal is to prolong the "debate" [from MT's stuff.co.nz link]:<br /><br /><i>De Freitas said the research would cause a stir in the scientific and environmental communities.<br /><br />The paper had been peer-reviewed over six months and accepted by a top academic journal.<br /><br />"This will have an effect. This is scientific research, not an opinion," de Freitas said.<br /><br />"There will be people who will be forced to correct me, no doubt, but that is what science is all about <b>it's all about robust debate.</b>"</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-11476701695844400922009-07-24T00:04:10.253-07:002009-07-24T00:04:10.253-07:00My money is also on the fact that I am a terrible ...My money is also on the fact that I am a terrible proof-readerScruffy Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576996151807188873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30986590954844392892009-07-23T23:52:04.521-07:002009-07-23T23:52:04.521-07:00The words of John Mashey seem particularly relevan...The words of John Mashey seem particularly relevant:<br /><br />"The publication cycle of the most credible peer-reviewed journals is long enough that a non-expert should be prepared to be wary of any paper only 1-2 years old, especially if it has novel implications counter to mainstream established science."<br /><br />Though given what you, and Tamino (Penguin I look forward your your debunking) has shown my money is that we wont have to wait 1-2 years to see how this plays out.Scruffy Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576996151807188873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13784456189207708772009-07-23T21:38:31.958-07:002009-07-23T21:38:31.958-07:00The blogosphere has to act fast on this, in the ho...The blogosphere has to act fast on this, in the hopes that the press not be too quick to take it any more seriously than it deserves, which is not at all.<br /><br />JGR is supposed to be a real journal. Words fail me. What a travesty.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-14342799360053959062009-07-23T21:26:32.164-07:002009-07-23T21:26:32.164-07:00First of all, I did a drive by and skimmed this po...First of all, I did a drive by and skimmed this post, and I saw the de Freitas name. This is the first cause for alarm, as this has been done before. IIRC de Frietas went on a Heritage Victory Tour a là Baliunas and Soon after they wrote a seemingly robust paper. Again, this is after some good Merlot tonite. <br /><br />Then I see the third author is Bob Carter. Well, h-e-double-hockey-sticks, boah. That feller's loonier'n a Bantam near a fox bitch lookin ta feed her kits. But I appreciate your taking the time on it and acting as if it were serious, at least for a referent in the whack-a-mole game.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />D<br /><br />(wordpress agrees, as she says 'picle')Danohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63544640383364949832009-07-23T20:17:54.747-07:002009-07-23T20:17:54.747-07:00"More to the point, they don’t compute correl..."More to the point, they don’t compute correlation between temperature and SOI, but between the time derivatives of temperature and SOI. They estimate time derivatives by taking the difference between 12-month running averages, 12 months apart."<br /><br />mt (slapping forehead):<br /><br />This was staring me (and you) in the face. I actually thought to look for trend removal, since one would, actually, do that in a case like this, if one were interested in the phase relation of a correlation of an oscillation and a response to it. <br /><br />Somehow I missed that they just highpassed it to zero in the derivative step. D'oh!<br /><br />Anyway, the rest of it was stupid enough.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69784170456013636812009-07-23T20:16:11.495-07:002009-07-23T20:16:11.495-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-15164974658122120192009-07-23T19:55:59.162-07:002009-07-23T19:55:59.162-07:00Might care to look at Tamino's demolishment of...Might care to look at Tamino's demolishment of this paper on Open Mind.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32209197287748530322009-07-23T19:50:43.505-07:002009-07-23T19:50:43.505-07:00I think I get it. It's right out of Orwell'...I think I get it. It's right out of Orwell's 1984.<br />Sudden change of enemies.<br /><br />"It's the Sun stupid" is all wrong.<br /><br />It's El Nino Dummy.<br /><br />Yeah that's the ticket...Dan Satterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103428750040230969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-85283513675158943522009-07-23T16:52:24.543-07:002009-07-23T16:52:24.543-07:00So much the worse, then.
But even if the signal ...So much the worse, then. <br /><br />But even if the signal processing isn't cooked, there is absolutely no way to go from this temperature phase lag to "CO2 was slapped in to cook the books" and "ENSO suffices".<br /><br />They don't even lift a finger to argue that the Pacific shift was unforced. It might well not have been.<br /><br />The whole thing is very shabby. It could and definitely should end up much more a blow to the publishing system than to mainstream climatology. But I expect the propaganda effect will be as intended.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39629422353081389032009-07-23T16:21:14.857-07:002009-07-23T16:21:14.857-07:00I think they slipped a couple things past you, whi...I think they slipped a couple things past you, which suggests, I guess, how it got past the reviewers too.<br /><br />You describe it, as they usually do, as correlating SOI and global mean temperature. If that were what they did, it's same old same old, and the correlations are a lot smaller than they report. While SOI is the leading term in explaining global mean temperature variance, it doesn't explain much.<br /><br />What they <i>actually</i> correlate is the processed SOI and processed global mean temperature. That processing being to take the 12 month delay difference of the 12 month moving averages, except when (see paper) they consider a period to be volcano-influenced. No justifications or consideration of effects was made of the averaging period, the differencing period, or the way they treated volcanoes.<br /><br />The processings they apply amount to a spectral filter that (I think, to be established yea or nay in my blog note to come) is extremely predisposed to correlate any two time series, regardless of content. The moving average trims out the high frequency, the delay differencing trims out the low (but in a highly frequency-dependent way). Any series with anything happening in the intermediate frequencies will correlate pretty well.<br /><br />Tomorrow my introduction to time series analysis will appear at my blog (nothing that's likely to be news for Michael, but I'll advertise anyhow). Probably Monday will be the application to this paper.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.com