Regular Features

Sandpit 25/9

John Quiggin106 Comments

A new sandpit, the place for off-topic rants and lengthy one-on-one debates no-one else can really follow, because they missed the crucial contradiction between comment #347 and comment #186. Seriously, that kind of extended comments-thread debate is part of blogging, and I wouldn’t like to lose it. But, so far, confining it to the sandpit seems to be working pretty well.

106 thoughts on “Sandpit 25/9”

  7. Actually, in your link Monidiot states that Jones is a shyster who has corrupted the science and should be sacked.

    Confirmation the temperature reconstructions are not peer reviewed science.

    Where is the evidence it is getting warmer?

  8. Tony G, You misrepreent what Monbiot says (another sign of the weakness of your claims), Monbiot found that nothing contracted the science. After numerous inquires finding nothing wrong with the science (that is double and triple peer review), and relevent to Monbiot’s critique, put the Jones response to FOI into perspective (of a harrasment with 50+ FOI in a month) Monbiot has since admitted his judgments were hasty [1]

    [1] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat.php

    Tony you also seem to be in denial of the evidence I have presented of warming. I’ve directed you to it several times [2]. Your hands over your eyes approach is revealing to your readers, if not to yourself

    [2] https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-1/#comment-268185

    Tony, read figure 6.1 [3] in the Muir Russel report, then go back through that chapter to find what that chart mean. He is a clue, it confirms what told you.

    [3] http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf#page=47

  11. el gordo :Climate wars: Euro Climatariat acts in good faith and creates a trigger for economic disaster.

    Economic disaster = 9 Euros per flight? Or 40 Euros for long haul?

    Alarmist, in constrast to the evidence presented. The so called skeptics need to join the real skeptics whom align alarm with the proponderence of evidence.

  15. el gordo :
    Climate wars: Euro Climatariat acts in good faith and creates a trigger for economic disaster.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/1589-climate-wars-eu-threatens-rest-of-the-world-with-flight-ban.html

    More stupidity – this article does not mention any trigger for economic disaster. The article actually says:

    “…a ticket for a return flight within the EU could become more expensive by up to nine Euros because of emissions trading.”

    An extra 9 euros is NOT a trigger for economic disaster.

    IN any case the scientific community is increasing its estimates of sea level rise from the IPCC estimates.

    The IPCC originally said up to 59 centimetres (ie up to your knees)

    New research estimates – up to 1.6 metres (up to your eyeballs).

    See: http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1005/full/climate.2010.35.html

  17. Why do you suppose that Mann and Jones were involved in fraud? By my count the scientists have been cleared by three independent inquiries. If you have strong evidence that the findings of these inquiries is somehow wrong (and no, saying ‘I disagree’ is not evidence) you should either produce it or withdraw these claims. Your integrity will suffer if you do not.

  19. Gee el gordo you give the impression that everything you read on the internet is to be taken at face value and everything published in Nature is highly suspect. For your own sake I hope this is not the case.

    Incidentally the article you cite supports the AGW hypothesis. Why do you presume that the findings of the research that you agree with are correct and the findings you disagree with are incorrect?

  20. el gordo :No matter what we do, or not do, it won’t make any difference.

    Typical misinformation from el gordo. Surely there should be a job in News Corp for EG’s talents writting such misleading headlines.

    I can’t understand why EG’s remains unemployed.

  21. ‘Incidentally the article you cite supports the AGW hypothesis.’ That’s correct, the publication is very biased.
    Nevertheless, the article did mention plan B and straight away I thought of Bob Carter.

    I’m employed, thanks for the kind thoughts.

  22. Nick @ 16

    As per Jackermans link @3 the AGW messiah Monidiot wants Jones sacked, why is that Nick? It wouldn’t be because he is a fraudster who ‘hid the decline’ and hid data from peer review would it?

    And stop lying, you know perfectly well they haven’t finsihed with Jones’ fraud yet as per Alans link @ 38

    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Jones is a fraudster and such AGW is founded on fraudulent figures.
    There is no evidence of unnatural temperature change.

  23. That is not the point. What makes you think that you can draw some conclusions from a scientific study but ignore others that you don’t like?

  24. Why do you presume that the findings of the research that you agree with are correct and the findings you disagree with are incorrect?

    Nick that is the cherry pickers MO. True skeptics collect the evidence and assess the whole to determine the message. “So called skeptics” select the bits that they like, but close their eyes to proponderence of evidence.

  25. No Nick

    The whole ‘consensus fraud’ is built on the temperature reconstructions from only 3 sources and 2 of them Jones and Mann are in disrepute.

    Any nexus from Jones’ fraud is also in disrepute, not that any causation has been demonstrated anyway.

  26. And stop lying, you know perfectly well they haven’t finsihed with Jones’ fraud yet as per Alans link @ 38
    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Tony, the scientific panel as brought down its findings. I linked you to it.

    AGW messiah Monidiot wants Jones sacked

    Did you have your eyes closed when I provided evidence that Monbiot has recanted his hasty claims?

    Did you have your eyes closed when I linked you to its report?

    There is no evidence of unnatural temperature change.

    So Tony says with tears forming from squinting his eyes so tightly shut. https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268254

    Jones is a fraudster and such AGW is founded on fraudulent figures.

    So says Tony who produces no evidence and closes his eyes to all that contradicts his prejudcie.

  28. Tony G – Perhaps I missed something, but I was under the impression that Alan’s post showed that Jones had no case to answer and is reputation remains intact. Where is the justification for your often repeated claims that Jones engaged in scientific fraud? Please point it out to me as I would (genuinely) like to read it.

  29. Tony do you think you are making a strong case here? Or are you aware of how your tactic of blind assertion in the face of contrary evidence leaves you looking?

  30. Jakerman – I can’t help but suspect that, ex-post, Tony G doesn’t trust the scientific panel very much. Thus any conclusions they come to that are not critical of Jones are tainted. Perhaps he believes he is saving the world from a massive evil conspiracy or something.

  31. Nick R :Jakerman – I can’t help but suspect that, ex-post, Tony G doesn’t trust the scientific panel very much. Thus any conclusions they come to that are not critical of Jones are tainted.

    Tony G was all for the scientific pannel when he was under the misunderstanding that it had not yet clear Jones of fraud. In keeping with my model [1], Tony will now adopt the stance you describe towards the Scientific pannel’s findings.

    [1] https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268276

  33. ‘The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.’

    Hmmm… like the CAGW zealots.

  34. El gordo, your claims are the ones that require a paranoid conspiracy. AGW is based on the proponderence of evidence.

  35. Jackerman, your Monidiot link is dated 2/8/2010 he wanted Jones sacked on that date, point me to where he refutes wanting Jones sacked after that date.

    “Tony, the scientific panel as brought down its findings. I linked you to it”
    Is that the ‘Scientific Appraisal Panel ‘ mentioned in Alans link? because I can not find the link to that, that you describe.

  36. I am happy to provide the link. The parliamentary committee, as we know, found that Jones had no case to answer on the charge of dishonesty. The Scientific Appraisal Panel found:

    Conclusions
    1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

    2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

    3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.

    4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

  37. Tony G, read my post for the link to the Scientific Appraisal Pannel (Muir Russel Report)
    https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268254

    Tony G writes:

    Jackerman, your Monidiot link is dated 2/8/2010 he wanted Jones sacked on that date, point me to where he refutes wanting Jones sacked after that date.

    You are confused Tony, go back and check the date the broad cast not the date of a much later youtube upload. Then compare with the the date of Monbiot’s recant. (Clue; March for former, July for latter).

  39. @Alan
    Alan – the thing I have noticed before with Tony G and now with el gordo… The real science doesnt matter to them. Clutching at straws and arguing against in any way they can is more important and yes they are talking to themselves. In any sense this is what you would call extreme bias.

  43. Poor old el gordo, he imagines he can run off to another thread and post his stuff there and if he closes his eyes really, really hard no-one will question what he posts. And here I was hoping he and Tony G were going to admit that Jones has no case to answer and try attacking Mann.

  45. Jones the fraudster has been discredited and the Oxburgh report does nothing to vindicate his work; (Intro 2)

    “The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
    the published research were correct.”

    don’t get me started on that other fraudster Mann;

    “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimatic community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicised that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall our committee believes that Dr Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.” The body of the report refers to basic errors in the use of statistical methods and highlights subversion of the peer review process: “at least 43 authors have direct connections to Dr Mann by virtue of coauthoring papers with him”

    http://www.outersite.org/?p=351

    Just admit AGW is a fraud and that all you blokes are interested in is redistibuting wealth.

  46. If you’d ever had a good reputation Tony G your propensity for churlish comments would long ago have ruined it. As it is …..

    Do you believe that holy books contain some wisdom?

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
    http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html

    Proverbs 19:1
    Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a fool whose lips are perverse.

    1 Peter 3:16
    Keep a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

    Exodus. 20:16
    You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

    Exodus 23:1
    Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
    Exodus 23:7
    Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

    Proverbs 6:12-15
    A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth,who winks with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,who plots evil with deceit in his heart— he always stirs up dissension. Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

    Proverbs 6:16-20
    There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes,a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
    http://encouragingbiblequotes.com/verseshonestya.html

    Those who unrepentantly hurl charges of “fraud” and “lies” at people who’ve been found innocent invite only the harshest judgments of their own character.

  47. Jones the fraudster has been discredited and the Oxburgh report does nothing to vindicate his work

    Except that Tony G has presened no evidence to substantiate his claims and further more is ignoring the findings from the 3 reports which found exactly the opposite.

    Confirmation of my hypothesis [1]

    [1] https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/#comment-268283

    And Tony G goes on to confirme Alan’s hypothesis [2]

    [2] https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/#comment-268303

    In attacking Mann, here is the quality of the report Alan relies on [3], I’ll stick with serious scientific review [4], which I linked to earlier.

    [3] http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

    [4] http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

  48. The Wegman Report claimed two missions: #1 evaluate statistical issues of the “hockey stick” temperature graph, and #2 assess potential peer review issues in climate science. For #1, the team might have been able to do a peer-reviewgrade
    statistical analysis, but in 91 pages managed not to do so. For #2, a credible assessment needed a senior, multidisciplinary panel, not a statistics professor and his students, demonstrably unfamiliar with the science and as a team, unqualified for that task.

    Instead, they made an odd excursion into “social network analysis,” a discipline in which they lacked experience, but used poorly to make baseless claims of potential wrongdoing.

    In retrospect, the real missions were: #1 claim the “hockey stick” broken and #2 discredit climate science as a whole.

    All this was a façade for a PR campaign well-honed by Washington, DC “thinktanks” and allies, under way for years.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

  49. @Tony G
    says ” Just admit AGW is a fraud and that all you blokes are interested in is redistibuting wealth.”

    In this day and age Tony G – redistribution of wealth is needed as well decent proactive policies on AGW.
    I dont know which is the greater evil – doing absolutely nothing about AGW or doing absolutely nothing about rising inequality.

Leave a comment