While I often read book reviews I don’t usually buy books on the basis of published reviews. When I do I often find that the review was better than the book. That was certainly the case when I bought Paul Cartledge’s Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World – it was good, but just not up the review I had read. So I’m wondering about a review of A.W. Montford‘s The hockey stick illusion. It is a glowing review.
Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.
This line is simply fantastic.
I never thought I would find myself unable to put a book down because—sad, but true—I wanted to know what happened next in an r-squared calculation.
That is very sad; but if anyone is confident enough to write that they wanted to find out more about an R2 calculation, then perhaps the book is well worth reading.
Sounds fantastic. I’ll be getting the book ASAP.
C.L.
11 Mar 10 at 11:24 pm
I would have thought that after the statistics lesson that Quiggers gave everyone here you would stay clear of that area
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Mar 10 at 10:30 am
We thought you had more sense to believe that you could use John’s well educated views on statistics as a means to defend the hockey stick, but, alas, us catallaxy crackpots were wrong AGAIN.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 10:48 am
well you were put to the test and failed miserably.
It is amazing about you crackpots. you willingly boast about the skills you allegedly possess and then you have to show then. nothing.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Mar 10 at 10:51 am
You’ve just admitted you are defending the hockey stick given what John wrote.
You’ve got to have a few more coffees before you start reading emails/writing blog entries.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 10:55 am
err yes you have showed your expertise in this area
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Mar 10 at 10:58 am
I’ve never really commented about the hockey stick. As for being conscious when using a computer, please point out where I’ve made egregious errors of illiteracy and innumeracy you’ve become infamous for…
We can add Quiggin to a list of unfortunates whose views you’ve mangled to support some whacky ideas you have.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 11:02 am
I’ve never really commented about the hockey stick. As for being conscious when using a computer, please point out where I’ve made egregious errors of illiteracy and innumeracy you’ve become infamous for…
We can add Pr Q to a list of unfortunates whose views you’ve mangled to support some whacky ideas you have.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 11:05 am
Marky I have supplied a ton of things you have got wrong.
Perhaps not understanding that RAD was about paying a token stipend like which happened in the other 12 countries that implemented such a program.
not being able to substantiate your absurd claim that Germany had no recovery in the 1930s.
Then there is your conflation of CRA loans with sub-prime loans
That is just for starters old son.
Yes
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Mar 10 at 12:00 pm
FFS you stupid prick, slaves have been paid wages and the like. It’s slavery because it is compulsory.
The Nazis had parallel party organs to those of the State it adopted or created. Evetually, they began integration and the party not only was of an authoritarian nature, but began to replace traditional strucutres.
There is your denial of the role CRA played in sub prime – vis a vis GSE charters etc.
What’s amazing for a complete illiterate and inummerate such as yourself is that you are utterly rude and bombastic and call everyone else cranks, incompetents, and worse of all, men of low status – what on earth have you done that’s useful recently?
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 12:28 pm
….what on earth have you done that’s useful recently?
Ummmm Homer? We’re waiting.
JC
12 Mar 10 at 12:29 pm
Supermac’s personal butler?
jtfsoon
12 Mar 10 at 12:30 pm
Hole filler. A.k.a Keynesian rent boy.
Infidel Tiger
12 Mar 10 at 12:32 pm
naaaa. Supermac fired him as a the butler. Homer was bringing him out ladies attire by confusing his wife’s dresses for supermac’s pants.
JC
12 Mar 10 at 12:33 pm
yawn, they were paid similar amounts in the 13 different countries you idiot.
try reading about a subject first before making a complete fool AGAIN.
oh dear what was that book in 1979 which demolished those command control theories. Yeah Marky doesn’t like evidence at all.
Which is why he bypasses the various Regional fed studies that show no relationship between sub-prime loans and CRA loans.
Indeed anyone who could do half decent research would have found out straight away the characteristics of the two loans are vastly different.
Innumerate ans illiterates and ignorant all in one.
bullseye
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Mar 10 at 12:35 pm
Innumerate ans illiterates and ignorant all in one.
Homer, I hardly proof read. However If I ws going to vall someone an illiterate, I’d make sure I type checked “ans”.
You intellectual goon.
JC
12 Mar 10 at 12:39 pm
“oh dear what was that book in 1979 which demolished those command control theories. Yeah Marky doesn’t like evidence at all.”
??? WTF
Hayek & Mises did it earlier. Star Wars, diplomacy, economics & generational change at the Kremlin ended it. No one expected to win the cold war by 1990 in 1979.
“Which is why he bypasses the various Regional fed studies that show no relationship between sub-prime loans and CRA loans.”
Which would be contrary to the GSE charters (US Law). As Maggie said, name one.
“Indeed anyone who could do half decent research would have found out straight away the characteristics of the two loans are vastly different”
That’s got nothing to do with anything you twit. A CRA loan could be a NINJA loan to a prime rated AAA mortgage.
“Innumerate ans illiterates and ignorant all in one.
bullseye”
F’ing Christ Almighty. Is this unbelievably serendipitous ironic humour a gift from above?
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Mar 10 at 12:40 pm
Homer, could you recap for me what Quiggers was right about, and then can you answer SRL’s question, how Quiggers being right there means the Hockey Stick itself must be right.
dover_beach
12 Mar 10 at 12:58 pm
r-squared calculation.
Why am I not impressed by this?
The last radiologist I met (aka alleged physicist – that’s what they call themselves when they need an ego stroke) didn’t even know what this was yet alone the implications when she took an X-ray with a portable machine in an unshielded room and inadvertently zapped the office workers in the room next door.
If you’re impressed by an exposition of an r-squared relation then …. let’s just say your bar is a bit low.
Regarding Quiggan – he’s right. 1995 was deliberately chosen as the baseline for the longest period that was not statistically significant in order to set up a “have you stopped beating your wife” question for Jones.
here’s Lubos (who is the source for the setup on the topic:
Together with Richard Lindzen and Anthony Watts, I was quoted as the inspiration for the BBC.
and:-
So why 1995 was chosen as the beginning? Yes, it’s not only because “15 years” sounds nicer than “16 years”. It was chosen because it’s the maximum recent period in which no statistically significant global warming may be seen, even with the most modest definition of “statistical significance”. For “16 years”, the answer would already be messy: it would depend how you exactly define statistical significance.
(Btw – Lubos is famous for this kind of dishonesty, as far as he’s concerned he’ll set up some proposition and if you’re not quick enough or clever enough to spot the sleight of hand he regards you with contempt. He has little regard for the truth of the matter, as far as he’s concerned he’s won.)
JM
12 Mar 10 at 11:37 pm
Can I suggest a short edit?
(Btw –Tim Lambert is famous for this kind of dishonesty, as far as he’s concerned he’ll set up some proposition and if you’re not quick enough or clever enough to spot the sleight of hand he regards you with contempt. He has little regard for the truth of the matter, as far as he’s concerned he’s won.)
JC
12 Mar 10 at 11:40 pm
Example JC? I provided mine, do you have one?
JM
12 Mar 10 at 11:48 pm
If 15 years to too short a period for a statistically significant result then every 15 year period would give the same insiginificant outcome. Is that correct or not?
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 10 at 12:05 am
Yes sure.
He was defending the Lancet Survey well after John Hopkins had sanctioned the academic involved with it, which basically made the study a totally unreliable.
That bordered on academic misconduct.
He wouldn’t admit to sending hate mail and calling a person a “lying piece of shit” amongst other abuse. He basically lied by omission and the dwarf applies different standards for others.
He mislead the audience through omission by not telling people at the debate the person on the recording was not Pinker but most likely Lambert’s spouse (my guess) pretending it was Pinker.
His dishonesty is directly inverse to his size.
He dishonestly suggested that the East Anglia Emails were stolen and that it was theft while on three other separate occasion applauding the release of emails that suited his own particular political position.
He’s very much the intellectual equivalent of a pick pocket.
JC
13 Mar 10 at 12:10 am
C’mon Sinclair I think you know the answer to this – it depends on the variation in the data. Different series have different sampling periods (each appropriate -hopefully – to the underlying process) and different levels of noise.
That’s why the World Meteorological Association sets a standard of 30 years. At that length, there’s no argument.
15/16 years is just barely justifiable if you look at the components of the series.
Jones was set up. If he said “yes” he would have been jumped on because he was wrong – it isn’t significant from 1995. If he said “no”, which he did, the denialist camp would claim a victory.
So he answered honestly when he said “No, but only just” and then amplified what he meant by “only just”.
“have you stopped beating your wife” in other words.
The perfidy is in the question, not the answer.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 12:17 am
JC we’ve been through the Lancet survey one – there was an ethics problem with peoples privacy. The basics of the study were fine.
Hate mail I don’t know about, and if “lying piece of shit” was applied to a denialist, then it may be appropriate – many are.
The Pinker thing we’ve already addressed. That Lambert had someone read her email is immaterial to the substance of her comments.
Lubos is another kettle of fish. In this case, he directly and openly admits to using a deceptive tactic regarding substance.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 12:22 am
I bought Logicomix on the basis of several glowing reviews. And the reviewers were right, it’s a great piece of work.
Jacques Chester
13 Mar 10 at 12:27 am
Interesting psychological comfort there, JM.
The “ethics” problem you mention was the fact the academic lied about the methods applied in the survey and he was suitably sanctioned for such dishonesty, which as a result rendered the survey useless. Lambert was defending it even after the Johns Hopkins finding.
He lied.
Regarding hate mail. The dwarf made a big thing of such behavior at his own site about so-called hate mail he’s received suggesting he’s a “victim” when in fact he’s been a protagonist. And no it wasn’t directed at a septic, as though that would make things any better.
He misled
Pinker. He misled people though omission and as a result people let their guard down. As Nova also shows Lambert had his the voice-over selectively pick and choose Pinker’s emailed comments which were different to the taped comments at the debate and in fact didn’t argue against Monckton at all.
If he tried that shit in any formal debate format like they have in university he would have been disqualified and sanctioned.
He’s dishonest.
As I said, he’s the equivalent of an intellectual pick pocket and deserves no safe harbor.
JC
13 Mar 10 at 12:36 am
JC, substance?
Lubos states explicitly that he knows there’s a trend and if he chooses 1995 as the base year rather than 1994 that it’s not statistically significant. He then goes on and explains that he did it deliberately, and why he did it – to obscure and confuse – and that’s just “ok”?
ie. he knows his case (no warming) is BS, but he finds a dishonest way to construct it and admits it.
And that’s just OK?
Lubos is openly abusing his readers and listeners. He explicitly states that he is playing games with his readers on his blog and in his source code.
Not an honest opinion in sight?
And you’re just ok with that?
BTW I found this on 10 reasons why string theorists should switch to quantum computing. Reason #3
No need to reassure people that you are not at all like Lubos Motl or any other Stalin wannabe.
The guy’s a nutball (with very questionable political views).
JM
13 Mar 10 at 1:08 am
Substance? Dude there’s an entire litany of Lambert’s lying. Others have made up a word for it which is Lamberting and I believe made it’s way in the urban dictionary.
Lubos states explicitly that he knows there’s a trend and if he chooses 1995 as the base year rather than 1994 that it’s not statistically significant. He then goes on and explains that he did it deliberately, and why he did it – to obscure and confuse – and that’s just “ok”?
Post a link please.
Lubos is openly abusing his readers and listeners.
And Lambert doesn’t abuse his own readers and allows his mental ward patients to attack detractors? How’s that for double standards you’re causally here, JM?
He explicitly states that he is playing games with his readers on his blog and in his source code.
Do you have Evidence please.
And you’re just ok with that?
No, I’m not okay with lying. It’s distasteful. However on he one hand you give the dwarf a pass on sending hate mail yet you find fault with Lubos? I really don’t see how you’re in any position to judge when applying such selective standards, JM.
The guy’s a nutball (with very questionable political views).
He likes the current Czech prez and so do I. So he can’t be so bad. Look, I really don’t know much about Lubos except that he appears to be a really smart dude.
JC
13 Mar 10 at 1:18 am
Actually JC I have to disagree with you on this one:-
selectively pick and choose Pinker’s emailed comments which were different to the taped comments at the debate and in fact didn’t argue against Monckton at all.
Rot. Pinker definitely disagrees with Monckton. She makes that absolutely plain in her published comments.
You might be able to thread a needle on the “pass” statement but you would be wrong. In thrust and substance she calls Monckton out.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 1:20 am
Rot. Pinker definitely disagrees with Monckton. She makes that absolutely plain in her published comments.
Firstly you asked to to show some of Lambert’s lies. I did.
But if you insist on defending that part let’s see exactly what Pinker said:
[I]f we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/lambert-victim-of-his-own-spin/
JC
13 Mar 10 at 1:25 am
Post a link please.
I just did. Upthread. For source code look for the post about a week ago where we were discussing his analysis of trends in the Central England temperature since records began. There’s a comment there in the first file beginning “Games with …”
There are other posts on his blog where he describes what he’s doing as “games” and admits that his analysis is not exactly valid. He does this all the time, he’s an arrogant string theorist and he’s playing the physicist equivalent of the Louisville Lip. He’s got the talent for it, but you can’t take it seriously.
And Lambert doesn’t abuse his own readers and allows his mental ward patients to attack detractors?
My honest opinion? I don’t think Lambert does.
He likes the current Czech prez and so do I.
If you do fine. Lubos however is a pseudo Stalinist. In the physics arena he has called for – on occasion – the deaths or incarceration – of certain people including the leading figures in his own discipline – people who could have helped him in his career.
He’s not a particularly well balanced individual (personal opinion).
Anyrate this is a bit of a distraction – Quiggan was right. The question to Phil Jones was a setup and all I’m doing is pointing to the source (Lubos) who has been remarkably upfront about the dishonesty of its construction and his motivations.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 1:32 am
JC, Steve Short and I suspect others on that thread agree that Pinker is talking terminology not substance, and that the “pass” statement has been wildly inflated in its interpretation.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 1:35 am
I really don’t know enough about Lubos to comment, as I’ve rarely ever gone to his blog. It’s an eyesore.
Take your word for it about him.
JC
13 Mar 10 at 1:36 am
JM, how the hell does one inflate “pass”.
Do colleges now give “passing” grades to students when they really mean “fail”?
I really don’t know what to say. If you think she’s being misquoted by Nova email Pinker for a clarification and ask if you can post it here.
I do notice that the Dwarf hasn’t emailed Pinker again for that “clarification”, as I suspect he fully knows the answer and doesn’t want to open that can of worms. Like any pick pocket if he thought he would have had a shot with Pinker he would have emailed her faster than an undersized rat going up a drain pipe.
JC
13 Mar 10 at 1:41 am
Evidence? He has a very precise understanding of the trend coefficient for a somewhat random period and knows the p-value (but won’t say what it is).
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 10 at 7:34 am
Regarding Quiggan – he’s right. 1995 was deliberately chosen as the baseline for the longest period that was not statistically significant in order to set up a “have you stopped beating your wife” question for Jones.
JM continues to lie. We’re supposed to believe that when Jeff Id, Richard Lindzen and Lubos Motl arrived that the conclusion that the longest period one can go and get a statistically insignificant trend is back to 1995 was in order to “set-up” Jones in a interview had two to three months later. Speaking of conspiracies…
(Btw – Lubos is famous for this kind of dishonesty,
Yes, Motl is famous for the sort of “dishonesty” in which one clearly explains what one did and why one did it in two seperate blogposts.
In this case, he directly and openly admits to using a deceptive tactic regarding substance.
Let’s see what Motl actually said:
Exposes your argument as nothing more than a lie, JM.
dover_beach
13 Mar 10 at 9:39 am
Dover do you understand English?
So was it cherry-picking when we chose 1995? Of course that in some sense, it was. The goal was to find the maximum period of time for which even the 95% statistical significance test fails. For the UAH data, the answer turns out to be 15 years.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 10:29 am
BTW Sinclair, going back to one of your other posts on this topic where you said you “suspected” that Lindzen had used monthly rather than annual data, I think if you look at Lindzen’s email to Watts (on Watts’ site where he also posts a graph) you can clearly see that Lindzen is using only a small number of data points.
ie. He’s using annual, not monthly data, so your earlier remarks about significance are moot.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 10:33 am
If he has used annual data then he’s being silly too. Monthly data are available and should be used. I have calculated the trend using both monthly and annual data, the standard errors are smaller using monthly as I would have expected.
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 10 at 10:39 am
In the meantime, please provide evidence for your claims.
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 10 at 10:39 am
Dover do you understand English?
Yes, I do JM. What Motl did was find the longest period in which a ‘trend’ failed to appear above white noise (which is rather a low threshold and thus kind to the AGW position). Stricter statistical tests require even longer periods. And more sophisticated tests would probably fail to falsify the null hypothesis. You appear to be “cherry-picking” a single paragraph and ignoring the reasons Motl gave for his choice and its important implications; reasons and implications conveniently included in my above quotation.
dover_beach
13 Mar 10 at 11:45 am
Dover you really have set a new standard for ‘disingenuous’.
It’s not me arguing that short periods of time and small samples are acceptable as the basis of strong statements – it’s Lubos who’s doing that.
Sinclair, Lindzen’s email with attached graph can be found on Watt’s site here. You know that, because you pointed it out. (I wouldn’t normally link to Watts because he’s a dill.)
JM
13 Mar 10 at 7:19 pm
I wouldn’t normally link to Watts because he’s a dill
.
Of course he is. he’s a climate skeptic.
Why is he a dill? because he’s a climate skeptic.
Why is he a climate skeptic? because he’s a dill.
Why is he a dill?
etc.
As an exercise for the reader, continue this line of reasoning until you reach a conclusion.
daddy dave
13 Mar 10 at 7:22 pm
No. Idiot. Evidence for your claim that Jones was set up.
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 10 at 8:16 pm
Lubos’ explicit comments accepting some part of the responsibility and explaining how and why he did his part isn’t good enough?
JM
13 Mar 10 at 9:43 pm
Dave Watts has made repeated mistakes, he never corrects them.
He danced up and down within his weather stations fandango and been proven wrong. He still makes the same claims despite that.
JM
13 Mar 10 at 9:45 pm
JM – sorry. That thread does not show that Jones was set up. All that thread suggests is that people haven’t been asking questions about statistical significance. I find that claim difficult to believe – afterall Alex Robson and I asked about the statistical significance of the IPCC SPM conclusions two years ago. So, again, where is the evidence that Jones was ‘set up’ rather than asked a perfectly good question, ‘Are your results statistically significant?’.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Mar 10 at 8:17 am
Dover you really have set a new standard for ‘disingenuous’.
It’s not me arguing that short periods of time and small samples are acceptable as the basis of strong statements – it’s Lubos who’s doing that.
JM, what are talking about? You’ve made assertions that are unfounded and you’re calling me disingenuous. Motl wrote two separate posts detailing what he did and why. BTW, your use of ‘baseline’ indicates you have no idea what he has done.
Lubos’ explicit comments accepting some part of the responsibility and explaining how and why he did his part isn’t good enough?
And you have the hide to refer to other’s as dills. Are you now saying that Lubos provided the questions for Jones’s interview in the Times?
dover_beach
14 Mar 10 at 12:19 pm
Dover and Sinclair. Lubos is saying that he played a role, and also that he chose 1995 deliberately.
I don’t know much better you can get than the horses mouth.
JM
14 Mar 10 at 2:07 pm
How was Jones set up? Lubos can say what he likes. The BBC – not normally known to be anti-AGW – asked the question and Jones gave an answer, with some detail. How is that a set-up?
Sinclair Davidson
14 Mar 10 at 2:13 pm
Sinclair, you know as well as I do that the question was a setup.
It’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. If he says “yes” he’s a liar and gets jumped on. If he says “no” he’s telling the truth and the denialists (including you apparently) refuse to take account of his amplifications and explanations but shout it from the rooftops “top climate scientist admits fraud”.
The journalist involved, Roger Harrabin, is on record as saying he got his questions for the interview from denialist blogs and sources. Lubos’ article was published as a guest post on Watts’ site on Boxing Day. Lubos subsequently claims partial credit on his own blog*
Join the dots.
Let it go, you played a role unwittingly in an unfortunately successful setup.
* BTW I’ll have to see if I can find Lubos’ other blog. The non-serious one where he claims to be a space alien from the 26th dimension (some sort of lame joke about string theory). If JC thinks Lubos’ main site “The Reference Frame” is an eyesore he’ll die on the spot seeing this other one.
JM
14 Mar 10 at 11:42 pm
JM
Yiou seem to be obsessed with Lubos.
Here. Here’s he’s now singing to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZxPTRfztsE
JC
14 Mar 10 at 11:52 pm
Lindzen in vid. Really interesting.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/13/lindzen-on-tvo.html
JC
15 Mar 10 at 12:15 am
No JC, I just happen to know of him from another context and suddenly he’s turned up being quoted by others here.
Actually, it’s kind of sad to see the decline from very promising young rising star theorist of the pinnacle of the hardest of the hard sciences to …. a denialist.
There were plenty of satisfactory and rewarding stopping points on the way down but he seems to have missed every one and hit bottom.
JM
15 Mar 10 at 12:17 am
JM
Watch the Vid. It may cool you down in more ways than one.
If anything the two interviewees demonstrate that climate is far more freaking complex than we/you think.
JC
15 Mar 10 at 12:47 am
Sorry JC, I can’t see it. It’s marked “currently unavailable”.
In any case Lindzen is a fringe character, he can get published but that just means his papers meet minimum professional standards, not that people agree with him or that he’s credible.
So let me put this question to you:- How many Steve’s agree with him?
This comes from something the biology community did a while back which was to compile a list of of published biologists who had first names ‘Steve’ (or any variation) that agreed with evolution and challenged the Discovery Institute to come up with a similar list of Steve’s who agreed with intelligent design.
Score after a couple of months: Evolution, over a thousand, ID, zero. I haven’t checked for a couple of years but I’d guess it’s a lot higher now on the Evolution side and I’ll give you even odds on it still being below 2 on the ID side.
So if you think Lindzen is credible; How many Steve’s? I’ll give you even money it’s 10 or less. Why 10? Because there are only about 5 published scientists total who don’t believe in climate warming. And they’re all pretty well known. After Lindzen and Pielke the field gets a bit thin.
JM
15 Mar 10 at 1:15 am
Sorry JC, I’ll have to qualify that a little. I mean relevantly qualified scientists, not bloody economists or statisticians.
JM
15 Mar 10 at 1:17 am
JM:
You’re behaving like all the other religious types in this. Lindzen may be one person but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong or that what he’s saying is hugely controversial to other scientists with the exception of political advocates like Hansen and Gavin Schmdt.
The link does work and you ought to listen to it. It’s actually quite good.
The other person being interviewed suggested that we , or rather the models don’t know enough to show the impact of the huge emissions of aerosols out of China and India.
Another plausible argument was that global temps may not change all that much but the patterns could be very difficult to manage.
Lindzen suggests that sat. data in the near future will tell us exactly what the behavior of cloud cover does to climate.
You shouldn’t be dissing people without a good argument. Even though Lindzen may be wrong in his position he is still an very important scientist.
Watch it. Wear a silver cross if that helps.
JC
15 Mar 10 at 1:38 am
James Lovelock praises sceptics:
There is a role for skeptics in science. No shit, Sherlock.
C.L.
15 Mar 10 at 2:53 am
Lubos is saying that he played a role, and also that he chose 1995 deliberately.
I don’t know much better you can get than the horses mouth.
Ah, Lubos, etc. ‘inspired’ the BBC interviewer and thus “played a role” in “setting-up” Jones. Speaking of conspiracy theories…
He didn’t choose 1995; he looked for the longest period one could have that would be still produce a statistically insignificant trend. He found, as others have independently found themselves, that one can go back all the way to 1995 from the present and still produce a statistically insignificant trend.
It’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. If he says “yes” he’s a liar and gets jumped on. If he says “no” he’s telling the truth and the denialists (including you apparently) refuse to take account of his amplifications and explanations but shout it from the rooftops “top climate scientist admits fraud”.
Harrabin, hardly a AGW sceptic, asked Jones an interesting question, and Jones provided a reasonable answer. I have no idea why you believe interesting questions that are in the public interest and have nothing to do with his private life is in any way “a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ question” shouldn’t be asked. Well, apart, from the embarrassment of having to explain that the GHG signal is so weak that it fails to appear above the level of white noise in a fifteen year period.
The journalist involved, Roger Harrabin, is on record as saying he got his questions for the interview from denialist blogs and sources. Lubos’ article was published as a guest post on Watts’ site on Boxing Day. Lubos subsequently claims partial credit on his own blog*
Hmmm, yes, Motl was involved in a conspiracy to “set-up” Jones even though Harrabin lifted the question off a blogpost Motl had written and there had likely been no communication between Harrabin and Motl before or after the email interview with Jones. Are you wearing a tin-foil hat as we speak, JM?
Because there are only about 5 published scientists total who don’t believe in climate warming.
Only 5? You’re dreaming.
And they’re all pretty well known. After Lindzen and Pielke the field gets a bit thin.
Except the one’s who remain silent during their careers and express scepticism once retired or until they have a positive contribution to make:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 8:14 am
Fixed the above:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 12:27 pm
Because there are only about 5 published scientists total who don’t believe in climate warming.
.
My hand is in the air, so you can make that 6. But notice how easy it is to find my real contact details, to the right.
——>
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 12:33 pm
Because there are only about 5 published scientists total who don’t believe in climate warming.
Ah, I’ve read that a bit more closely know. This is the thing about alarmists, it’s now ‘climate warming’, then ‘climate change’, and so on, as if that is the proposition that distinguishes AGW from any other theory of climate. No one questions the fact that the last three decades are warmer than the three decades before them, what we question are the exact magnitude of the warming and the variability across several timescales, and the influence of GHGs across these same timescales.
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 12:43 pm
.who don’t believe in climate warming.
.
Thanks for the heads up, dover beach. Looks like I got suckered. What sneaky, dishonest, cunning little buggers these alarmists are.
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 1:33 pm
by the way…
here is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.
.
When was the last time someone said “There is greater than 90% certainty that the earth is held in its orbit by gravitational force.”
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 1:39 pm
So let me put this question to you:- How many Steve’s agree with him?
.
That’s a very good question JM, and here’s my prediction: I am certain that you would be blown away by a true market research study of opinions within the scientific community. In fact I’ll break my predictions down.
climate science: approximately zero skeptics
physics, chemistry, geology: a scattering of skeptics
economics: mixture of skeptics and believers
engineering: mostly skeptics
social science: mostly believers
non-science faculties: overwhelmingly believe in AGW
.
But nobody has done this market research study, so nobody knows.
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 1:45 pm
Dave that’s a good breakdown, let me comment on it.
climate science: approximately zero skeptics
The most knowledgeable, of course. Let’s ignore ‘em [/sarcasm off]
physics, chemistry, geology: a scattering of skeptics
Let me split them. Geologists are mostly idiots on this question, their timescales are in millions of years. They account for most of the skeptics, you’ll note Plimer is one of these (and he’s got a mixed standing in the mining industry).
If you split them, I think you’ll find that physicists and chemists are 99.9% on the AGW side with geologists somewhere like 50/50.
This split is my personal opinion gained from personal experience with mining engineers and geologists but I think it’s accurate.
I’d discount geologists, timescales are too long and “if it ain’t a rock” they don’t know shite.
economics: mixture of skeptics and believers
Economists have a lot to contribute to the response but almost nothing to the analysis. They’re not experienced with the data and they have no background in the underlying physical phenomena. I think we can discount them a little if we’re talking about the reality of AGW.
engineering: mostly skeptics
As they used to say, you can get an education or you can do engineering. Refer geologists.
social science: mostly believers
I don’t care what they think. No background. Couldn’t evaluate a hole in the ground.
non-science faculties: overwhelmingly believe in AGW
Ditto social science.
When was the last time someone said “There is greater than 90% certainty that the earth is held in its orbit by gravitational force.”
You’re setting the bar too high. Didn’t you ever fall down and hurt yourself when you were a kid? Oh sorry, pre-Newton it was only “highly probable within a 95% confidence interval”, post-Newton it was absolutely certain. Silly me.
This is a serious problem with possibly extreme political and social effects.
I think we should pay attention.
JM
15 Mar 10 at 8:59 pm
JM, three things.
.
First, either you deliberately misconstrued my gravity example, or you don’t understand the theory of gravity.
.
Second, you should care if there are whole subsections of the academy who are sceptics, even if they don’t have the “background” training. YOu were a bit flippant about the whole thing but I encourage you to stop goofing around on this… outsiders may have less “background” but are also less susceptible to groupthink. And they don’t have zero background. They have a considerable amount, across a diverse range of disciplines.
.
Third:
This is a serious problem with possibly extreme political and social effects.
I think we should pay attention.
.
Everyone is paying attention.
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 9:31 pm
How are we going to class geophysicisits?
climate science: approximately zero skeptics
I think daddy dave was too generous here. There are quite a few climate scientists that are sceptics. Let me name at least 10: Pielke Snr; Koutsoyannis; Douglass; Lindzen; Spencer; Christy; Scarfetta; Braswell; Tennekes; and Chylek. And you can then check the co-authors that any of them might have in their various publications.
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 9:40 pm