2012-02-21 03:25:00Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Part 2 for review.

Monckton Misrepresents Specific Situations (Part 2)

2012-02-21 06:18:28
Chris Colose

colose@wisc...
169.226.41.99

I feel like we could run into a lot of trouble with the Loehle graph, even assuming that it as plotted with the instrumental data properly (same baselines, etc).  Craig Loehle does not share that conclusion, so we could be accused of misrepresenting him, but there's really no point in giving much credibility to a paper that featured a large number of methodological errors.  The "spaghetti graph" (that shows the results from a large number of studies) might be better, or talking about the co2science flaws in a little greater detail, and mentioning that the concept of globally warm period in mediueval times is now an outdated concept...that never had much basis ever, since most of the earlier work (from Lamb, etc) was based on Euro-centric reconstructions.  Climate researchers now call this period the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" and it's marked by a large number of temperature, hydrological, etc changes that impacted different regions at different times.

I'm also not so sure it is a good idea to devote a substantial fraction of the article to Monckton's version of a logical fallacy and whether it's a logical fallacy or not.  It's just not that interesting.

2012-02-21 10:49:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

How about we show the spaghetti graph and then simply link to the Loehle graph I put together?  If Loehle doesn't share that conclusion, then he's not familiar with his own data.

2012-02-21 11:06:59
Alex C

coultera@umich...
141.212.76.37

The 5.1°C warming figure refers to projected warming in to a business-as-usual scenario where CO2 more than doubles.

2012-02-21 14:59:40
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.231

Thanks Alex, fixed.

2012-02-21 15:50:59
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.33.98

I like it, I don't see any other problems that stand out to me.  Thanks for including a link to our previous discussion on Prudent Risk.

2012-02-22 05:14:19
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.146

Agree with Chris on the logical fallacy. I think you could simplify the discussion considerably by going stright to the comparison with the precautionary principle.

2012-02-22 05:21:43
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Fair point, I trimmed down the first paragraph of the ad populum section.

2012-02-22 07:06:15
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.35.158

The point about the discussion on argumentum ad populum wasn't about his mischaracterization of the fallacy, but of Denniss' argument as envoking the fallacy (it didn't).  That being said, let me double check what changes were made, I trust that my main point remains...

2012-02-22 07:08:00
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.35.158

Edit: Seems my trust is well-placed.  Actually, I'm going to change the title of that section to be "Misrepresents Precautionary Principle."  That gets more to the point I think.

2012-02-22 07:13:30
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.35.158

OK, made the change, and also copied the post into Word to do some grammar/spell checks.  I kept one "error" that I think just read better, and also corrected a couple small things like "millenial" --> "millennial" and some typos.  Still looks good.