>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
> I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to > take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed > journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately > sets out what is in the GRL paper !
Do you have the slightest idea about how many papers are published each year? How many of them do you have time to read? Just a small fraction. So the issue here is if the paper by M&M should be one of that fraction. Given how M&M has screwed up before I'm not surprised if people who aren't exactly in the field of making these reconstructions give it a pass.
> I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes > several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.
> An interesting choice of words >>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't >>matter* because things have advanced since then.
> I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science. > You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence > '99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is > that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get > a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is > correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. I don't think even M&M claim that their reconstruction is correct, only that they have shown that MBH is wrong. Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that different.
> You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important. > yours
In article <1107432933.356529.109...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
>I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to >take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed >journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately >sets out what is in the GRL paper !
LOL! You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore them.
>I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes >several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
And your qualifications to make this judgment are?
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.
>An interesting choice of words >>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't >>matter* because things have advanced since then.
>I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science. >You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence >'99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is >that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
>You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important. >yours >per
peroxisome <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? >>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read: >I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to >take the word of...
Err, I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'm one of them. So I disagree with your characterisation.
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98. >MM's specific charge is >that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
No.
-W.
-- William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
>Do you have the slightest idea about how many papers are published each >year? How many of them do you have time to read? Just a small fraction. So >the issue here is if the paper by M&M should be one of that
fraction.
I have not said that wmc should be obliged to read MM'05; far from it. Wmc volunteered that MM'05 is unimportant- a statement of fact. Most normal people could only make such a statement if they knew what was in MM'05. By wmc's own admission, he doesn't. He is content to go by the word of a non-peer-reviewed, ranting, blog from someone with considerable vested interest in this issue- Mann. I believe that using the non-peer-reviewed literature has been soundly criticised on this forum before.
>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right.
Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said:
>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, >Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong >we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that
different.
I believe other authors of papers in the literature might humbly disagree with you about the scale of the difference, which can hit 0.5 celsius. And if you think that you can just "forget" MBH, you have to be joking. yours per
>You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato >Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore >them.
Hi Lloyd I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that hypocrisy is okay if you believe in MBH'98 ? That two wrongs make a right ? Or are you saying it is pretty poor to make an abusive statement about a paper when you have not even read that paper ?
>You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato >Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore >them.
Hi Lloyd I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that hypocrisy is okay if you believe in MBH'98 ? That two wrongs make a right ? Or are you saying it is pretty poor to make an abusive statement about a paper when you have not even read that paper ?
>>I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes >>several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect. >And your qualifications to make this judgment are?
My qualifications for this are that I can read, and understand logic. That's all it takes. For example, when Mann says: "All of their original claims have now been fully discredited " this is a straightforward untruth. Mann himself published in 2004, acknowledging that M&M had drawn his attention to a number of errors in MBH'98. Therefore, Mann himself has acknowledged that some of the claims of M&M are true.
Given that Mann made this latter statement in 2005, and he himself has made a contradictory and mutually exclusive statement in 2004, it is very difficult for me to understand how this is not a deliberate falsehood.
>Err, I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'm one of them. So I disagree >with your characterisation.
Dear w yes I had noticed. But you are still not on the author list with mann and schmidt, and you are still claiming you haven't read the paper, and you are still prepared to bad-mouth MM'05 as "unimportant" anyway.
There has been so much abuse in this group about material that isn't properly peer-reviewed. You wouldn't have thrown any of that abuse yourself, would you, W ? Not when you are prepared to talk up a blog, where the lead author has an undisclosed, vested interest in the subject matter ? Surely not...
>>MM's specific charge is >>that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get >>a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is >>correct, and still it *doesn't matter*. >No.
It is obviously a fairly trivial matter, but you previously posted that it *doesn't matter* even if MM are correct. I am just pointing out that your new conclusion directly contradicts what you wrote yesterday. yours per
>>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right.
> Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said: >>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct,
Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not that MM got their climate reconstruction right since they don't even believe that themselves.
>>Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong >>we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that > different.
> I believe other authors of papers in the literature might humbly > disagree with you about the scale of the difference, which can hit 0.5 > celsius. And if you think that you can just "forget" MBH, you have to > be joking.
Sure, I still encounter creationists who bring up the Piltdown man as evidence that evolution is a fraud. Should MBH be wrong I'm sure there will be people who bring it up for decades as example of how the entire field of climate science is worthless, which is why the debate gets so emotional.
> There has been so much abuse in this group about material that isn't > properly peer-reviewed. You wouldn't have thrown any of that abuse > yourself, would you, W ? Not when you are prepared to talk up a blog, > where the lead author has an undisclosed, vested interest in the > subject matter ? Surely not...
Undisclosed???? Surely anyone can realize that if Mann writes about an article by Mann he has a vested interest. This isn't something you should have to spell out. Now, if he had written under an assumed name or an alias, or it had been a friend of Mann who had written without mentioning he was a friend of Mann then you might have had a point.
>>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. > Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said: >>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, >Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not that >MM got their climate reconstruction right
Fascinating. You appear to be arguing that "MM being correct" means that "MM are wrong and right".
I am starting to feel a little bit like Alice; things are a bit topsy-turvy around here. cheers per
>Undisclosed???? Surely anyone can realize that if Mann writes about an >article by Mann he has a vested interest.
Mann was writing about an article by M&M. Maybe not everyone realises that the point of M&M is that it criticises some of the work which Mann has published. Mann has an extremely strong interest in M&M being wrong. He doesn't disclose that. yours per
