Up in the sky!
It’s Adaptation!
It’s Delay!
It’s…Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand!

So cherry-picking for Figures 4.1 and 4.4 is okay because there are other figures without cherry-picking? (Ignoring, for the moment, that only looking at the PC1 is another kind of cherry-pick).

The Auditor Emulates

[Nick Stokes defends himself against the slime from the fiercest player in ClimateBall (tm) history.]

There has been an endless focus on a mathematically irrelevant alignment of PC1, conveying a message of “mining for hockey sticks”. Pictures in the Wegman report, cartoons by Josh etc. Yet almost nothing written on what this actually means for the result. What it does to reconstructions. And there is your 2005 calculation showing no hockey stick effect at all from decentering. And of course, Wahl and Ammann’s plot showing negligible difference over the whole range. How often do they appear in the discussions?

Read More

(Source: climateaudit.org)

Our indifference to how we share the fruits of our intellectual labors is a betrayal of our calling to enhance the spread of knowledge.

Steven Pinker, asking for less auditing and more editing.
Via the New Yorker: Sharkhurricanes!

Via the New Yorker: Sharkhurricanes!

Low-Hanging Veggies

You’re again trying to make it about Very Tall, Cap’n, so I doubt you look at his argument at all. And now you’re trying to make it about me.

Using the lowest estimates justified disingenuous can buy to “influence those that do control the pickers are” is no better than your caricature of Very Tall’s argument. In fact, one can argue that it’s even worse. Appealing to Mr. T looks so reasonable. But Mr. T costs money. The more important Mr. T is, the more it costs, however we might try to lukewarmingly dispel that fact.

Removing the extremes gets us mainstream science. Removing the riskier bets gets us mainstream science. If you want the most likely, go with mainstream science.

Betting under is not more rational than betting over.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

If it was a simple error, such descriptors as “coyly described”, and the series of rhetorical questions would be pointless.

Tom Curtis, seeing that the Auditor impugns motive.

Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you

Michele Bachmann , wondering why, if black holes don’t exist, we should believe if climate change and evolution do.

Until They Push an Hockey Ball around Mt Kailash with Their Nose

[Steve Milesworthy’s comment deserves more diligence than the quote I’ve underlined at the time.]

What comes through when you read the emails is that none of the scientists think they are hiding any inconvenient science. Even if you think their conduct is underhand, they have genuine motives to suppress what is largely accepted in the science community to be bad science.

Read More

(Source: climateaudit.org)

Older posts RSS   Newer posts