2011-01-19 04:27:14how far do we want to take the myths series?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I've noticed that some people have suggested doing a 'Lindzen Myths', and others a 'Motl Myths'.

It raises a question (best answered by John) as to whether we want to expand the 'Myths' series (or more accurately, branch it out to include other myth-makers).  On the one hand it's good to both address these myths and point out who's perpetrating them.  On the other hand, it could make SkS look a bit combative, like we're going after individuals.

Monckton Myths also makes sense because he's basically become the face of the skeptic movement.  Hardly anyone listens to Motl, and I think doing a series on him would just elevate his status.  I could see doing one on Lindzen though.  He's made a lot of dishonest statements, particularly in the press, and he's a very prominent figure.  Then again, most 'skeptics' really don't reference Lindzen all that frequently.

Thoughts?

2011-01-19 06:53:52Carter
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Whoops I just saw that John had suggested branching out the myths to include Bob Carter and perhaps a few others like Ian Pilmer.
2011-01-19 07:30:43Other series
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
I suggest a wait and see approach dependent on how Monckton Myths goes. I think it would be wise to see how MM is received, whether people see it as useful, etc. So my thoughts were after a few more myths,I'll launch the Monckton Myths summary page which will be a one stop shop for debunking Monckton. I'll mention it to all the climate bloggers in the hope that they all promote it. Then we gauge the response. If there seems to be a need for it, then we'll consider moving onto Carter Crocks or Spencer Slip-ups or whatever.

So the main issue, is there a need for a "one stop shop" debunking resource for individual skeptics?

BTW, if Monckton directly responds, we know we've stung him and the answer is definitely yes. I don't expect that to happen though. He only responds to criticisms that make big waves. So if we can think of ways of attracting attention to MM beyond just other climate blogs, ideas are welcome.

2011-01-19 08:09:57Guardian
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
Just had an idea that would almost guarantee I'd get sued by Monckton. I wonder if the UK Guardian would let me publish an article 'Monckton Myths'. This would promote the resource right in Monckton's backyard, in a huge newspaper.

I'll explore the possibility.

2011-01-19 08:58:10Lindzen's WUWT piece
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.100.112
Started reading Lindzen's latest rubbish on WUWT:

http://wp.me/p7y4l-8im

I was furious after the first couple of paragraphs. So if we do extend the concept, would love to have a good hard go at Lindzen. Hmm, what alliterates with Lindzen. Lindzen's Lies? Too libel. Lindzen Lapse? Too generous. Lindzen Ludicrousness. Too tongue twisting. Lindzen Lunacy?

2011-01-19 09:54:04crap
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Yep that's Lindzen's public persona - exceptionally intellectually dishonest.  I love this part:

"the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far"

In order to make this 86% claim, Lindzen looks at all positive anthropogenic forcings and ignores all negative forcings.  That's just despicably dishonest.  Not to mention the fact that he's ignoring the 'warming in the pipeline'.  I'd love to do a post on this one.

"So the main issue, is there a need for a "one stop shop" debunking resource for individual skeptics?"

Like you said, we'll have to see how Monckton Myths go over.  If they're reasonably popular, I think a similar series for Lindzen would be worthwhile.  As I said, I don't think Motl warrants one.  He's too unimportant.  Carter would probably be worthwhile.

It's not quite alliteration, but "Lindzen's Illusions" might work.

2011-01-19 12:00:56Clarification on Motl
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.154.212

To be clear I wasn’t suggesting a series on Motl’s arguments. I don’t think a whole series is warranted – his arguments aren’t that difficult to debunk and as Dana says, he’s not that important.

What I had in mind was probably a single post responding to his list of SkS “debunkings”, in the vein of my comment on Motl here. I was thinking we could respond to a few of his top anti-SkS arguments, showing how ridiculous they are, and then say “if this is how he does on the top X arguments…”

2011-01-20 00:26:50
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.99
I'd not make this series permanent. It's better to go on rebutting claims once they show up somewhere, it's their bogus science that matters not them personally. Also, better educated readers do not quote Monckton, they more likely quote Lindzen, Spencer and the like. We are in the position to choose our level and it's worth to keep it scientifically high.
2011-01-20 03:30:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.205

Riccardo,

 I disagree: If our audience were better educated, we wouldn't need to be doing this!

2011-01-20 03:32:47Lindzen
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
If the better educated 'skeptics' quote Lindzen and Spencer, wouldn't it be worth doing a similar series on those guys?
2011-01-20 04:31:19
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.99

I said  to not make permanente series, not to not make series. I mean, one thing is, like in current Monkton's case, that many  claims are put together in a post/article and you bulid a series on it; another is to transform it into a permanent collection countinuously updated. And when you'll have several skeptics exposed in this way, they will attack us crying about witch hunt, maccartism and proscription lists. Make updated permanent lists forces a reaction and I'm afraid it could be a political backlash.

We can make other series. Want Lindzen? Ok, take one of his non-scientific papers, like his recent submission to Congress, and consider the many claims there. Focus on one thing for a while and then continue.

2011-01-20 07:17:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.205

Riccardo,

What makes you think we're not already experiencing a backlash?

2011-01-20 11:39:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I think it's important to look at this as a way to get attention.  We should be accurate about the science of course, but taking on individuals is a little more personal.  It generates controversy, and it comes with some backlash, as Riccardo is saying.  But I don't think the backlash is a bad thing.  

Deniers are going to make noise, that's a given. They're likely to make MORE noise when we take on individuals. That will lead to more traffic on the site.  More traffic from both sides of the spectrum.  

The purpose of SkS, in part I believe, is to try to help disseminate accurate science on climate change to a wider audience that doesn't necessarily have the time or skills to fully research all the material (people like me).  I believe taking on prominent "skeptic" personalities is a great way to extend the reach of SkS and help drive the science out to more people.

Expect some total crackpots to start shouting down the comments section.  Delete them.  It's going to mean more moderation work.  So what?

Other blogs are going to cry foul.  So what?  As long as we are thorough and accurate about the science... so what?

I clearly remember that previous posts on Monckton, Pielke and JoNova generated a large amount of activity.  In that I think they were very successful posts.  

The most important thing will be to maintain the civility that is the hallmark of this site.  Attack the bad science, not the scientist.  Let the reader connect the dots between the bad science and the scientist. 

2011-01-20 11:43:32
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223
To add...  I don't think it's a matter of if this should be done (Myths series) but rather how fast can it be rolled out.  There is certainly ample material out there with each of the people that have been discussed.
2011-01-20 16:54:41Plugging MM
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.62.108

I think a key to the Monckton Myths (and possible future series about other deniers) being effective is attracting enough attention to MM. So our crunch time will be when we launch the MM "home page" which summarises all the info. I hope to sell this is a one-stop-shop rebuttal of Monckton disinformation - so that people come to see this page as the go-to-place when they encounter Monckton rubbish. Both to find an existing answer or to ask us to rebut new Monckton disinformation.

So following Randy Olsen's advice, I suggest we put our thinking caps on re how to promote the Monckton page. So far, all I've got rolling around in my head is this:

  1. Get a "Monckton Myths" article published in the Guardian
  2. Get the community of climate bloggers to post about this
  3. Come up with a catchy twitter headline in the hope that it goes viral - and all of you tweet it also
  4. I could cheat and send a special email to only the SkS subscribers who have been categorised "proAGW" and ask them to tweet it also. Never done this before.
  5. UPDATE 21 Jan: Just had a thought, I'll ask The Climate Show if we can talk Monckton Myths in their next podcast. If so, this will put a hard date on when we launch the MM page.

Of course there's always the possibility that Guardian will say no and the reaction from bloggers is flat. So ideally, we need other ideas going forward - the more different lines of attack, the likelihood of the concept gaining momentum and going viral. Ideas, thoughts?

2011-01-21 04:05:44Musings
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi all,

 

Interesting discussion.  Here are my thoughts, of the top of my head, so I apologize in advance.

Just a quick lead-in here.  I had dinner with a reputable journalist last night, and he was explaining to us (there were a few of us) and he mad eit very clear that the media nowadays are really only intereste din storeies whcih saisfy one or both of the following:

 

1)  Controversial/scandal.

2) A story that is B&W, no grey.

 

Condition (1) is relatively easy to satisfy thanks to the inane things the "skeptics" say, but condition (2), especially when one is bound by ethics and orals and science, is not.  Of course we can't just loudly state that "the denier movement is a hoax!". 

As we all know making misleading statement is all too easy, while soundly refuting it is not,  and the contrarians and deniers  know that.  Anyhow, what we have to do is keep those factors in media when approach in the media-- I am loathe to create scandal etc., but sadly those are the times that we live in.

 Perhaps an idea to grab people's attention (since when did we develop the attention span of a newt?) is to start each myth bust with a one or two sentence catchy leader which describes what was done.  Wording will have to be chosen carefully so as not to libel someone and to accurately reflect what is wrong with the myth, especially if the person being refuted resides in Oz. Anyhow, this is a rambling post, sorry!  I'll try and summarize my suggestions/thoughts in point form:

  • Ignore Motl....period.  The guy is evil and simply bad news, and would probably just love the attention.
  • Please do a series on Lindzen.  I cannot for the life of me comprehend the absolute BS (both Bad science and the other meaning) that he has been writing about recently and he needs to be called on it....he is not beyond criticism.  That will generate much more backlash than refuting Monckton.
  • I think we missed the boat a bit in the Monckton series-- these ideas belong every bit as much to Anthony Watts as they do to Monckton, because Watts provided Monckton with a soapbox from which to disseminate his nonsense and misinformation and distortion.  And Watts was aware of the content of Monckton's post, so he cannot plead ignorance.
  • I would say we should have a myth busting series for Watts, but SkS does not have the resources to refute the myriad of lies and misinformation posted every day of WUWT. That said, Watts is the perfect example of this (from the SkS front page):
"Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

  • John, have you spoken to Peter Sinclair about working together on this and posting it on YouTube?  That is a potentially huge audience there.
  • Maybe the NYT or other major US paper will cover the scientific refutation of Lindzen's BS.
  • Along those lines, do contact other bloggers about this.
  • Prepare for things to get messier-- I have noticed a change in the type of people posting on SkS of late.  Many more trolls, deniers.  Might need to tighten the house rules to keep the focus on the science.
  • I am behind the times on Tweeting...give it is try though. It will need a catchy headline though.  "How climate "skeptics" deceive, distort and misinform".


 

 

 

 

2011-01-21 14:17:53Monckton and WUWT
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

In the first Monckton Myth, I tried to join Watts and Monckton at the hip - perhaps we could've done more of that. Something to be mindful of in future posts.

Yes, I have spoke to Peter Sinclair. He is interested in collaborating in an ongoing arrangement - I think he's busy at the moment but we'll hammer out more details when he gets time. My thinking is invite him onto the forum, where we discuss ideas for Climate Crock videos and SkS authors volunteer to write blog posts that go with the video. I'd like to extend it even further, perhaps coordinate with The Climate Show to give it even more mileage, broaden the impact - in fact, if we're going to do a 3-pronged attack in that sense, why not go further, make each an "event" that we try to get all the climate blogs promoting. Peter, myself and Gareth (from The Climate Show) are all on the planet 3.0 group so between us, we should be able to harangue all the other bloggers into helping promote each 'event'.

Re the Lindzen refutations, we should think about how we might get this into the mainstream media. Maybe think beyond blog posts. Include Peter and video rebuttals. Turn it into a documentary? Get actual video interviews with scientists? 

Let's use Monckton Myths as a testing ground, try different approaches and hopefully learn a few lessons to make the Lindzen debunk more effective.

2011-01-21 15:31:05Comment
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good ideas John.

 I just re-read my post above.  What awful spelling, sorry everyone!  I need to learn how to type fast without making errors.....

2011-01-21 16:55:18Forum typos
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

We're all friends and allies here, we should be able to misspell and say stupid things without fear of reprisal.

That is, until some denier hacker infiltrates our forum, takes screendumps of every thread then posts the juiciest bits on WUWT. But until that time, we can relax and be ourselves :-)

2011-01-22 04:03:23Caution
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Thanks.  Sigh... I am typing this s l o w l y ;)

Not to make you paranoid, but beware of moles John.  My local chapter of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society was infiltrated by a mole from "Friends" of Science, and he then went on to leak a sensitive document about AGW and private email discussions to revisions being made to the document.  All recipients on the email list were then harassed by certain FoS members, and said FoS members even made veiled threats to go public on radio shows-- they even gave us an ultimatum/deadline.  It was ugly, and we have no idea how much private information was shared with FoS over the years.  

Him standing for nomination as chapter president did not make sense to many of us (he is an outspoken "skeptic"), but hey, who were we to judge and it was nice that he seemed (for once) to care about the scientific community and wanted to get involved-- in retrospect we were too trusting and got burned as a result.

So if your gut is telling you that someone does not fit (i.e., they are not wholly in support of the science and what is right), it might be prudent to listen to your gut.

But everyone should be aware of what they type here is not necessarily confidential or private.  We have nothing to hide of course, (and I have no doubt that everyone on this forum is above board and ethical, and does have an agenda like Watts et al.), but we do not want to give them ammunition.

 

 

 

 

2011-01-25 10:51:11
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

 

I think that suggestion about getting one of the Monckton Myths printed in the Guardian is a fantastic idea.  I watched this happen at Peter Hadfield's youtube channel (Potholer54).  Most of his videos get 20-50k views.  The one that got a mention in the Guardian ended up with over 150k views over only a couple of days.  

A little main stream media goes a long way!

 

2011-01-25 12:10:31Watts Waffle
Captain Pithart
Peter Hartmann
captain.pithart@gmail...
213.168.118.166

I too think there should be a page giving a concise overview over the biggest gaffes that were posted on WUWT. I don't think it should necessarily be on SkS (the "do the science, not the man" strategy seems to have worked pretty well so far), but it would be nice if it was at some visible site with some reputation. This would make it easy to quickly demonstrate on forum discussions etc. why WUWT is not to be (blindly) trusted.

Several things are different from the Monckton situation:

* much of the stuff is not by Watts himself, he just fails as an editor, letting stuff like the Easterbrook garbage through

* Watts himself quite often says things that seem totally false to probably all people in this forum here, but from talking a lot (probably too much :P ) with "skeptics", many don't see it that way, it's really mostly a "liberal vs. conservative" mind thing. so it would be nice to have the few instances at hand where even most "skeptics" agree it's wrong. not to convince "skeptics" (i don't think it can be done), but to be sure they can't come up with an explanation that looks convincing to non-liberal not-yet-"skeptics".

i have only recently started following wuwt closely, and collecting articles by guest authors on Planet Climate:

http://planet-climate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F ( user: w pass: atchU24 )

examples of what should be on such an overview:

* easterbrook. after all the rebuttals some weeks ago (1855 does not equal now), watts did no correction/retraction, and yesterday posted another easterbrook post, containing the same error. (gareth plans to do a response on hot topic)

* martin hertzberg. part of the "sky dragon" crew, that deny the physical basics of the greenhouse effect (hertzberg even denies math in another article):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/commentary-hansen-draft-paper-paleoclimate-implications-for-human-made-climate-change/

http://planet-climate.org/wiki/index.php?title=A_Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon%3F#Rebuttals

about the main stream: i sometimes feel that many climate bloggers often forget about this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/online_communities_2_large.png (blogs are to the left of "sea of opinions")

which makes me wonder how much main stream attention wuwt is getting right now, despite being a hugely popular blog, and if it isn't yet (apart from National Post, Canada Free Press, Telegraph etc.), if it would make sense to at one point expose MSM users to it, showing its low standards. not sure it would.

to those that don't know Planet Climate yet, feel free to dig into it a bit, its power is often not visible on its surface. if you want an account, request one via top/right "login"->"request one", and i'll activate it.

p.

2011-01-25 13:12:19Yes, WUWT is very popular
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135
WUWT is currently No. 24 of the top 100 Wordpress blogs (though the rankings change quickly - I'm pretty sure it was 21 last night).
2011-01-25 13:38:22Watts Waffles
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

Peter (Captain Pithart), thanks for the comments. Just a note to everyone, Peter's Planet Climate website is a fantastic resource, a wiki where he collects info on various skeptic movements, individuals and arguments.

As far as climate blogs go, WUWT gets far more traffic than I think any other climate blog. But Peter makes a good point - we really want to get our words into MSM, not just the blogosphere. On this note, I did receive an encouraging email from the Guardian yesterday who are going to publish Dana's post on the FEU/Lindzen mistake. So that's a good start and we need to always be on the lookout for blog posts that can be written in a general-public-friendly manner that has a good chance of getting into the Guardian.

I think a Watts Waffles series might be in order down the track but Watts seems to most publish other people's disinformation, not his own (although I'm sure you could build a fine catalogue of his own rubbish). But all of these series are still playing the science, not the man - it's just the science (or anti-science) published by the man.

2011-01-25 17:24:16
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.226.156
Very cool news about Dana's post about to be published.  
2011-01-26 03:05:50mmmmm waffles
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

Yes, assuming the Guardian editor follows through, it will be great to finally crack the Guardian.  We can use that post as an example of what they seem to be looking for.

*update* The Guardian has published the 'Case Study' post.

Watts Waffles will definitely be tricky because there are so many (dumb) guest authors that he publishes.  Watts himself doesn't seem to say a whole lot these days, from what I've seen (though I try to visit WUWT infrequently).  But we've already got Monckton pinned to WUWT in Monckton Myths, and we can do the same with Lindzen's Illusions (the 'Case Study' was sort of a first step in that direction).  At some point I'd still like to go back and look at the errors Lindzen made in the 'Case Study' WUWT re-published article in more detail (more technically) too.

2011-01-26 05:47:27
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.211.225
As far as Watts is concerned, we should continue to highlight that he has yet to publish anything (as far as I know) about the surfacestations org project. Wasn't he the driving force behind that whole UHI meme?.  
2011-01-26 06:04:12true
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Yes, people who talk about UHI almost invariably reference Watts' surface stations project.  It's kind of hard to highlight the lack of publication on SkS though.  We focus on what has been published!  Again, this is why Watts Waffles would be difficult.  Watts doesn't actually do anything!
2011-01-26 06:21:21
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

 

Just read the article in the Guardian!  Nice work Dana!  


2011-01-26 06:48:00thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Thanks Rob :-)
2011-01-26 07:01:35
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.193

dana, wasn't there a whole series of blogging notes while they were building up to the great exposé on UHI? Can't you reference those?

Kind of like the elephant that gave birth to a mouse.

2011-01-26 10:33:01dunno
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I don't know, like I said I try to stay away from Watts' nonsense as much as possible :-)
2011-01-26 15:39:32Watts on the pecking order
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
I would say Watts is low down on the pecking order as he exists predominantly in the blogosphere. We want to tackle the guys who hit mainstream newspapers - Lindzen, Monckton or published authors - Carter, Plimer. But one step at a time. We'll do Monckton then take it from there.
2011-01-26 19:56:18UHIgate
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

My interest in the UHI issue is not so much Watts - who is not much of a target in himself - but the story: After a much bally-hooed program to clean up after those sloppy AGW-leaning scientists and discover the true un-UHI-ed reality by eliminating questionable weather stations, they end up with: a stronger AGW signal than before! Classic.

And then they bury it, exactly what a real scientist and skeptic is NOT supposed to do. This is actually a better example of "how not to be a skeptic" than our earlier article: this a collective failure of character.

UHIgate.

2011-01-26 20:11:49Watts and UHI
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
I'd be careful about accusations of Watts not publishing on surface stations. He's made allusions to writing a paper with Pielke and he posted a cryptic blog post one day with gave me the impression that it may have been accepted. So my suspicion is he's got a paper that is currently grinding it's way through the peer review system. If so, you'd end up with egg on your face criticizing him of not publishing.

However, it is pretty rich that he pulled the data off his site after a few people obtained results he didn't like. A tad hypocritical, don't you think?

2011-01-26 20:53:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

In all fairness, if Watts actually publishes a paper that correctly states the results of his UHI study, and it comes out GW-positive, he will deserve a standing ovation.

2011-01-26 22:04:10
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.202.19
John, that wouldn't be the way to approach the issue. Just politely ask what was happening with the surfacestation org paper. 
2011-01-26 23:03:55Did I read that correctly?
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135

Anthony Watts is hiding data from his critics?

How long until they start calling it WattsGate?

2011-01-27 00:42:50Hiding data
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

The surfacestations.org website published its data on which stations were good/bad. So one reader plotted only the good stations and compared it to the GISS record. Identical results. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the surfacestations comments threads.

As is my understanding, Watts then pulled the data from public access, saying they wanted to "quality control" the data before they let anyone else look at it. It hasn't been seen since.

If anyone has a more accurate or up-to-date account, please post it here.

In fact, has anyone ever done a detailed accounting of these events? Hypocrisy, thy name is Watts. I smell another Guardian piece! :-)

2011-01-27 01:11:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

Has anyone been able to use the Wayback Machine (the internet archive) to dig this stuff out?

(I've just heard about TWM, I've never accessed it; but see )

 

 "I smell another Guardian piece! :-)" : That's my point. That's exactly what I mean by UHIgate.

2011-01-27 01:20:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

A report on this is available at:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

However, although it shows photos and graphs, the data are not set up for easy analysis.

2011-01-27 03:52:18careful
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

If somebody were to write a UHI-Gate type of story, he would have to be very careful, especially if it is the case that Watts has a paper working its way through peer-review.  A risky endeavor, which may be worth holding off on until we know more about this mysterious paper.

We've got plenty to do in the meantime.  I'm chomping at the bit to go after Lindzen.  We still hit Watts that way by connecting him to Lindzen, like we did with Monckton.

2011-01-27 05:45:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206
Does anyone know which journal Watts and Pielke submitted to?
2011-01-27 07:19:49
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
75.128.237.173

I predict E & E.

 

Sonia will print anything.

2011-01-27 08:06:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

When the paper comes out, someone should do a thorough analysis to make sure that the "chain of evidence" hasn't been broken or stretched, that they've done their statistics right, that they didn't leave any legitimate data points out or stick any illegitimate ones in.

In other words, do an M&M number on them. Make them prove transparency.

It would be delicious to catch them trying to pull a fast one on data analysis; but it wouldn't surprise me.

2011-01-27 08:43:19I don't think E & E
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
Pielke and Watts would be sensitive to the "not a peer-reviewed journal" accusation and want to dot every i and cross every t. I'll ask around, see if any scientists I know have any info on this.
2011-01-27 10:23:46
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.113
Pielke and Watt may be publishing something different than the global temperature analysis. If I remember correctly, Pielke has been studying land use change lately.
2011-01-27 13:17:54Pielke paper on land use
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

Michael Mann pointed me to this January 2010 "essay" by Pielke with Watts a co-author:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/r-323.pdf

I'm pretty sure there's something else that focuses more on micro-site influences, a counter paper to Menne et al 2010. I can't find anything about it though and noone seems to know anything.

2011-01-27 20:14:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.151

A quick look at it gives me the impression:

- Results of their attempt to find a bias in favor of warming were probably negative. Since this is what you would conventionally expect, it makes the conclusion, well, not very exciting - especially from the perspective of the WUWTers.

- As a consolation prize, their documentation of problems with specific weather stations is drawn in to support the need for better-controlled data analysis. I think this is documented in Pielke's papers of 2007.

- The result is that this supports Pielke's general program of promoting the idea that everything is more complicated, and land-use change needs to be taken into account; which is not untrue, and gives Pielke another chance to beat on his drum.

 

I note that Watts is pretty far down in the list of contributors: Are the rest of them graduate students or WUWTers?

 

What will be the overall impact? I think the biggest impact may be on Watts:

- This gives him a stake, however small, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 

- His work gains meaning from being considered in the context of more-detailed modeling. True, they're not partial differential equations, but it is still modeling. The paper talks about taking into account changes in vertical velocity profiles due to changes in land roughness, etc. 

- By signing this paper, Watts is accepting that there are no "simple truths": results have to be understood in context, and related to other known facts. Watts has, at least, stepped on the boundary of what WUWTers must regard as "the dark side": Science as it is done conventionally, using simulations.

2011-02-01 12:08:22Mahmood 2010
Captain Pithart
Peter Hartmann
captain.pithart@gmail...
213.196.219.23

http://planet-climate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Impacts_of_land_use/land_cover_change_on_climate_and_future_research_priorities (user: w pass: atchU24)

* Bonan is AR4 WG1 author

* so is Frauenfeld; he's connected to George C. Marshall Institute (speaker)

* Legates is/was Exxon-funded, oregon petition signer, GMI, NRSP, CEI, CSCA etc. (see his page on PC: http://planet-climate.org/wiki/index.php?title=David_R._Legates )

interesting: from what i see (searching for Mahmood Pielke on WUWT), watts has never mentioned the essay himself. there's only a repost from pielke mentioning that it was accepted in 2009.

p.