I'm finding my exchange with Chip quite frustrating, yet amusing at the same time-- his merry dance is quite impressive.  He now seems to be playing the obtuse card.

I would not normally do this, but I may have found a soft spot and the more people noting that the better....

He's equivocating with "our paper is right in context of the data we used" and "our paper is right with ALL the data."  The first assertion means nothing and indeed does sound like lawyer-speak.  He seems to like to talk about the factual accuracy of the statements in the abstract, but he seems very unwilling to own up fully to the fact that those statements simply do not apply in our updated world.

I wonder if he knows the difference between "obsolete" and "wrong."

This quote from him:

"nor has it been established that 2010 has a greater melt index (using our methodology) than 2007"

He just said in the same post that he had not done the calculation, yet he is trying to use this "nor has it been established" as an excuse?  Well why not do the calculation then and include the data?

Merry dance indeed, right around the point.

There's still no acknowledgement from him about what it means that the paper is being used by the authors as a political tool.  As these same people complain about hockey sticks being used to sway policy makers, even though hockey sticks aren't central to the science, they now want to use this obsolete statistical analysis of averaging 3 methodologies together and making skeptic hay with it.  And for the record, I doubt arguing with him over the particulars of his paper is purposeful at this point.  He actually argued the same lawyerly way at Judith's site after Michaels’ disastrous appearance at Congress.  I would point out that natural variation or not, the ice melt is expected to go on like this for decades, so not only is the work obsolete, but also pointless and so scientifically obscure as to warrant no attention.

I'm computer challenged at the moment (PC is on the fritz) so hit him up with this:

The Muir Russell commission replicated the hockey stick in 2 days, yet the auditors still as of today have not done so.

FKM rely upon the shield of using the research provided by 3 others, which they amalgamate into a non-temperature "index".  This makes it convenient to blame the non-use of the latest data upon others.  WTF, can't they do their own effing data manipulations?  In this day and age?

Weak.

And not a product I'm buying.  As soon as I can get online and off this not-so-smart-phone I plan on a couple of interesting comments for our boy Chip.

Alex and grypo,

You make some excellent points here.  I have not read the thread in detail, but if you have not already made your above points, I would really encourage you to do so.  Chip is a slick and slippery as they come. We have to smoke out these charlatans, who are denigrating climate science and using it as apolitical tool.

I am having a major energy problem at the mo.  I have suffered depression all my life and coupled with my current high blood pressure problem it leaves me short on both energy and patience.  Fortunately, I manage to remain coldly logical when it comes to science, so I simply don't write when I am angry.

To the point.

I posted questions which remained unanswered until I reminded Chip, who then avoided a straight answer.

There are many new studies all pointing to rising sea levels and greater Greenland melt.  Michaels has used the new garbage paper with an older garbage paper to demonstrate to his readers that 'science' - i.e. PR - shows that Greenland melt and sea level rise aren't happening.

Can I get some help in asking Chip what he thinks of Michaels' misuse of the paper in question as a PR tool?

Thanks.

Logicman,

Sorry to hear about your health issues.  I am stay-at-home dad today, so I should avoid trying to do too many things at once, especially arguing with a 'lawyer'.  I'll be free to help on Friday logicman, but if someone wants to step up to the plate before then feel free.

Does it strike anyone else that there is a consistent method of rationalization between Poptech and Chip.  Definitely not saying they're the same person.  Just saying they apply the same method of slipping around and through reality as if it doesn't need to apply to them.

Finally met my coauthor Haydn Washington yesterday which was great. He made a point, apart from perhaps chimpanzees which have been observed to carry their dead babies, humans are the only species on Earth capable of such denial, to the point where our very survival is at risk.

Nice quote.  To paraphrase John Cook, "Global warming deniers are like chimpanzees who carry dead babies."  We should put that on the front page :-)

"Global warming deniers are like chimpanzees who carry dead babies."

oh gosh. that's too wickedly good not to steal...

Hope you don't mine me stealing it ;-)

What can I say when inspiration strikes, it strikes.

Besides I'm going to be totally off the grid for a few days so feeling pressured to get some silliness done.

:-)

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/10509/

Really pissed-off now at having to be so nice in this comment:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=713&p=3#50311

It's a good comment Daniel.  Very politely bitchslapped FKM :-)

The worst condemnation of one's work: so uninteresting it's boring.

If it wasn't for the purposes of researching the rebuttal I couldn't have been bothered to read past the abstract.

"Wherein we examine the patterns of striations on the undersides of Pharaonic boat-makers sandals to determine once and for all whether or not the sandal makers wove from left-to-right or right-to-left."

Might as well have said they examined goat entrails...

Bo-ring

The elephant in the room is still CATO and Micheals and the beach house article.  It is also that the conclusions, even if up to date, which they aint, formatted data or not, are just the crumb off a small piece of pie, within a bakery.  And yet we're supposed to treat Chip as if he's an honest guy trying to get to the truth?  

Daniel: thanks for making excellent use of my maps. :thumbs:

I just posted an article on how science predicted the Mississippi floods.  I intend to follow that up with an article on the current accelerated sea level rise along the coasts of the USA.  I also have current photographic evidence of sea level rise here in the Medway, Kent.  In some areas the perceived risk of floods is so high that some risks are now uninsurable.

"if the current trend toward increasing melt extent continues, total melt across the Greenland ice sheet will exceed historic values of the past two and a quarter centuries."

Which more simply put is a truism:

If quantity A continues to get bigger it will be bigger than it ever was before.