Sliming Nick Stokes

Nick has obfuscated the issue by misrepresenting the original article, by failing to provide the quotes from the original authors stating that the series could not be used for paleoclimate of the last millennium.

In a thread where all we have about a “new paper” is an abstract, no less.

Let’s see how this claim fares by looking at the relevant quote:

The multiproxy approach used in this study highlights the interplay of ontogenetic processes (e.g. marine isolation, catchment maturation, soil and lake development, plant colonization) with overarching climatic factors (e.g. early Holocene aridity, Neoglacial cooling). Anthropogenic influences, which began with the Norse colonization around 1000 AD, preclude paleo-climatic interpretation during the last millennium.

The authors do not state anything about “the series”. The sentence before “preclude” refers to their “multiproxy approach”. The paleo-climatic interpretation may very well refer to the multiproxy approach. According to this reading, what is precluded from a paleo-climatic interpretation during the last millenium is the multiproxy approach the authors use.

Read More


The Ghost of Present ClimateBall ™

A guest post at and Then There’s Physics, whereby it is shown that the Auditor is the fiercest player in ClimateBall (tm) history.

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


By simply reading the thread, not the blog, just this thread, the answer from Norbert, “I know of no existing evidence that there is any connection”, answers the first question and invalidates the second one.

The Bitching Hypothesis


I have little time, since I’m busy with rereading Popper at Bart’s. But I promised a link for Tol’s comment. Here it is:

Discussing mistakes in influential, published papers on important topics is not “bitching”; it’s called criticism, and it’s an important part of science.

I put this quote to make two points.

Read More


The Takeback Tactic

Instead, we get a sustained attempt at delegitimization.

Not quite unrelated, Brad has started to request more homework on the Twitter:

@nevaudit When you’re not being manipulated, thinking you’re being manipulated might lend some support to a diagnosis of paranoia.

To which I replied:

MT Self-awareness in spades: @BradPKeyes demands for an example of manipulation or else invokes paranoia.

Bunnies might appreciate how Brad exploits his “skeptic” take backs:

  • abuse your interlocutor until compliance with your over or covert request;

  • when the request is [met], take back the abuse;

  • rince and repeat, [reiterating one’s wish] to have a “conversation”;

  • intersperse everything with lulz.

Dead Baby, Dead

Willard is dead.
Willard is silenced.
Willard has been defeated.

We won!

Oh. (No.)

Willard is alive!
Willard has issues.
Because IF We Made Willard
Do it, THEN BB.

May Willard get the hell out of our faces?




Manufacturing Windows

[I]n my day the Overton WiIndow was referred to as Manufacturing Consent.

I’d say that stretching the Overton window may be a way to manufacture consent, AnOilMan. The levels of descriptions seems to differ, just as Climateball operates at a lower level than the Overton window. Moves implement strategies that operate in total wars.

Read More


Older posts RSS