2011-09-12 23:35:35Roger Pielke Sr. attacks SkS!
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/scientific-robustness-of-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville-msu-data/

He doesn't even point to anything we've done wrong, just doesn't like the approach of saying "Spencer slip ups" and "Christy crocks"!  Then thinks we need to be more constructive.  Funny considering his latest attempt to further smears against GRL and Dessler.  Unfortunately, he doen't allow comments on his blog.

[JC EDIT: if I encounter other links on this topic, will post them here for easy reference]

2011-09-12 23:44:52
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Also, this comment needs to be vetted and looked into:

 

To summarize specifically the UAH MSU dataset, it has gone through about 9 revisions (A, B, C, D, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 – some listed in CCSP 1.1.)  Two of the revisions involved changes Jim Wentz of RSS spotted, but the other seven were ones John Chrsity and Roy Spencer discovered (i.e. major ones like the spurious warming due to a change in the sensor when the satellite went in and out of sunlight).

2011-09-13 00:07:38New series?
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Pielke Piques"

2011-09-13 00:09:23
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.115

Pielke quote Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick on one side and SkS on the other. We are in good company, I'd say.

2011-09-13 00:41:48
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

He probably has a point about some of the language used in the Spencer Slip Ups introduction.

"Roy Spencer is somewhat of a serial mistake scientist."

It might be correct, but if I was reading that with a relatively neutral POV wanting to be convinced by the science, I would be thinking that is a bit personal and an oppinion. Out of all features about Lindzen (illusions), Christy (Crocks) etc, the Spencer one has a long scathing intro which Pielke has probably picked up on.

Added: In fact the Monckton Intro almost lauds the the lord (not).

Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions.

Spencer intro:

Roy Spencer is somewhat of a serial mistake scientist.  Over the past 20 years, he has continually tried to show that global warming is either not happening or is not of concern.  The problem is, he has been shown to be wrong time and time again.  He has left it up to others to fix his mistakes.  He has made multiple errors with satellite measurements – in fact, he originally said the earth was getting colder.  After scientists discovered he had made errors, he corrected his work and his new results show the earth is warming.  He also made mistakes with his climate modeling that forced other scientists to write corrections.  In the end, Roy has been forced time and time again to admit his errors.

2011-09-13 00:52:46
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

BTW, it might be useful to have someone to work as a 'chief editor' or similar to make sure there is some consistency on these issues.
Also is there an authors guide??

I know JC has specific standards, but it might be worth having a SkS guide that lays down some rules??

Added: Really the intros should have similar information about the people. From the Spencer intro, I don't know if he is a scientist or where he works.

2011-09-13 01:02:07
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Paul D makes good points.  I don't see any problems with making changes to Spencer's (or whoever) intro to be more..um... constructive, I guess.  It's a high road move.  Meanwhile, Pielke needs to take his own advice.  

2011-09-13 01:08:24Paul D
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Nealjking could fill the "editor's" role that you envision. 

2011-09-13 01:15:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good grief,  Roger Snr. needs a thicker skin.  And how can a humble site like SkS intimiadate someone like him...why does he care ? ;)

Yes, incredibly annoying that he does not permit dialogue on his site...so much for openess. 

Paul I hear you I, and a few years ago i would have agreed.  But a lot has changed...they think it is OK to attack, demean, defame and insult climate scientists who understand AGW to be a serious problem, but then a site like SkS using some snarky language and somewhow that is indocative that we ar enot being constructive.  Well news to Roger Snr., this site IS constructive, but it gets tiresome refuting the same tired old myths and at times one has to call a spade a spade.  Roy has made numerous mistakes, misrepresentations and distortions of late, as has Christy.  I do not think that we need to take advice on etiquette and being constructive from the likes of Roger Snr.  In fact, he deserves his own series.

Someone might ask why Roger Snr. revierws new papers (nothing wring with that of course), but if it is a "skeptics" paper it gets free pass, even endoresemnt.   BUt if it is a "warmist" paper then he nit picks and critiques the heck out of it.  

With that all said, I won;t object to the tone being more "constructive" (something whcih i feel the authors do actually strive for)

As for the vetting Grypo, agreed.  So Christy and Spencer allegedly discovered 7 of the 9 errors in their data, and Roger thinks that this means they are not prone to making errors?  Also, which ones were of most consequence?  Which errors led to the artifical cooling trend?  As far as i can tell the ones discovered by RSS were of most significance.

2011-09-13 01:37:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Personally I don't really care if Pielke wants to whine because we used the titles "Spencer Slip-ups" and "Christy Crocks".  So what?  He didn't even mention any of the content in our posts.

On his blog, Spencer is constantly attacking the IPCC and other climate scientists, yet Pielke never says a word.  We use a couple of phrases he doesn't like, and suddenly he insults our entire site?  His bias couldn't be clearer.

As for the intros to each series, I think John wrote them all.  Spencer's is harsh, but certainly true.  The errors in the satellite data analysis are far from his only mistakes, or we wouldn't have a Spencer Slip-ups series to begin with.  Sometimes the truth hurts.

2011-09-13 01:39:59Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dou you agree or disagree with the propositon that SkS have a "chief editor" charged with making SkS articles more uniform in tone?

2011-09-13 01:47:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think our peer-review system already acts as a chief editor.  If the tone of a post is too far outside the norm, people always say so, and it gets changed (I know from personal experience, I've changed the tone of my posts a number of times in response to comments).

Here we're just talking about the intro to the series which John wrote.  Considering it's his site, I don't really think we need an editor reviewing his tone.

2011-09-13 02:01:12
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Albatross:

But a lot has changed...they think it is OK to attack, demean, defame and insult climate scientists

Yeah but it isn't helpful if you reduce yourself to the same level.

I think from a consistency POV it might be worth having similar introduction info as Moncktons on each Crock.Illusion etc.

2011-09-13 02:01:45
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

 

The article is actually pretty funny, as far as I know SkS has not questioned the accuracy of the UAH analysis of the MSU data.  Pielke makes it perfectly clear that he can't pin anything specific on SkepticalScience, so he implies that SkS has criticised the UAH dataset and quotes other blogs for their criticisms and links them to SkS only by association.  Come on Roger, criticise what SkS has actually said, not what they haven't.  IMHO Roger has made himself look foolish and disingenuous in his post, but hey, it is his blog! ;o)

Having said which, I would hope that if the mistakes were mine, I would take "Marsupial Mistakes" in the same way that Spencer ought to take "Spencer Slip ups".  Mistakes/Slip ups are part of normal science and as scientists we should be able to take it on the chin rather than taking it personally (which is a recipe for making mistakes out of pride).  However I'm not sure "Christy Crocks" is quite the same, certainly hard to take with the same equinimity.

I think the Spencer slip ups also ought not to mention that he is a serial mistake maker.  Firstly it is an ad-hominem as it encourages the reader to ignore Roy's new theories as he has made so many mistakes in the past (which is a logical fallacy).  Secondly he has made enough mistakes for it not to need saying

2011-09-13 02:19:41
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

We are also faced with a few realities regarding both Spencer and Christy.  Their market-based politics and off-center religious beliefs are known as well as their affiliations with Cornwall and George Marshall Instit. etc.  Combine this with the fact that these "mistakes" all happen in one particular direction, and you have a red flag.  Whether or not it is appropriate in a scientific setting to discuss this is beyond my purview.  For instance, Spencer is the science advisor for the Cornwall Allieance that believes that the climate is "self-regulating" and God wouldn't make a great thing like CO2 if it were harmful and God wouldn't make the "free-market" harmful etc etc.  Essentially they ignore almost all reality in favor of some utopic version ot the free market, God and the planet.  Align this with Spencer's cloud theories that say the climate is, for the most part, self-regulating and the fact that he has referred to himself as a legislator that protects tax payers.

2011-09-13 02:48:01
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

- There should be more of an even-handedness wrt Monckton & Spencer: indeed, Spencer is more of a fallen angel, whereas Monckton is a natural-born demon. However, I don't think we need an Editor-in-chief: first, that would make me a bottleneck for every word passing through this site; and second, my point of view is not shared by everyone. I think our ongoing internal review works as well as anything else is going to.

- Since RPs has critiqued SkS w/o permitting response, why don't we post a critique of his critique? In particular, it seems that  he is somehow forgetting that it took 10 years for Spencer & Christy to own up to their mistakes; during which time confusion was sown on mattters that did not benefit from it. And people have remarked how unevenly he critiques mainstream compared with skeptic papers: Why not document that? Now that we have his attention, why not kick him in the teeth? (Figuratively.) He certainly deserves it. And he can't ban us.

But get every "i" dotted and "t" crossed. And maybe leave off the name of anyone who's still pursuing an academic career.

2011-09-13 03:03:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Paul,

So I read the intro again, and yes, it is a little over the top.

"Yeah but it isn't helpful if you reduce yourself to the same level."

I do not agree with that Paul b/c we are (for the most part) not stooping down to their level at all.  What "they" almost always say is often a) incorrect, b) not based in fact and/or c) not supported with credible evidence.  Saying that  "Roy Spencer is somewhat of a serial mistake scientist" is actually a) true b) based in facts c) supported with credible evidence as shown in the series of articles. However, I conceded that while using the term 'serial' although strictly correct in this context, it does have negative connotations (i.e., serial killer) and should probably should be dropped.

I also agree that the use of "multiple" in the following sentence is probably exaggerating:

"He has made multiple errors with satellite measurements – in fact, he originally said the earth was getting colder"

This is also not quite correct:

"In the end, Roy has been forced time and time again to admit his errors."

The errors have been pointed out to him time and time again, but he has admitted to making only ONE error. So in retrospect, perhaps the intros do need to be revised for clarity and accuracy.  It should probably also refer to him as Spencer or Dr. Spencer, and not Roy (I do that to annoy him b/c he insists on showing that he has a PhD at every opportunity) and indicate his affiliation and connections with think certain tanks.

John Christy's littany of errors is not preceded by an introduction, so I'm not sure how roger can accuse us of anything other than speaking to Christy's multpiple errors and misinformation etc..  as Dikran noted, this is a weak effort by Roger Snr., he accuses SkS of one thing but then does not actually argue against anything said at SkS.  Quite the strawman.

So yes, I would recommend a re-write of that intro, but it still will not be flattering and none of it will change the fact that Roy's mythical negative feedback hypothesis is incorrect, that he was peddling misinformation when he knew that his satellite data were wrong, and that he is using science as an tool towards an ideological and political end.  We can't type that of course, but it is true and supported by facts.

2011-09-13 03:06:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Seconded Neal.  And focus on using quotes by Spencer that are on the record, use his own words against himself.  But we need tofirst fix that intro. IMHO.

2011-09-13 03:26:07
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

So why be 'flattering' with the others but be un-flattering to Spencer?

The point is that it is inconsistent, especially as Monckton is far more deserving of being hyper-criticised. He's not even a scientist!

2011-09-13 03:36:10Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.19.186

I think SKS should respond, with it authored by the SKS team.

What we should specifically look for is to find examples of where piekle sr. or spencer himself made comments that were very negative of agw scientists or examples where they did not criticize there own. (Shouldn't be too difficult)

I'm perfectly fine with how we word it now and spencer deserves as much. As real climate has put it spencer was not only wrong but he spent years saying how everyone else was wrong and he was right without due dilligence.

2011-09-13 04:01:18
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Watts has just reposted Pielke's blog, along with a older comment from John Christy

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/12/pielke-sr-on-skeptical-sciences-attacks-on-spencer-and-christy/

2011-09-13 04:28:04
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I don't recomend responding.

2011-09-13 04:28:54
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Just to get an idea just how long Spencer has been peddling this bullsh1t and enabling deniers,  see this comment:

"Spencer’s article (“1995: The Warmest Year That Wasn’t”) relies, as expected, on the satellite data;  he is the author of the famous Science paper that first showed the satellites weren’t finding any warming.  It, too, is very well written."

That comes from here (a report funded by Western Fuels Assoc. inc.), and was addressed by this Nature paper by Hurrell and Trenberth (1997)

As was pointed out to Roy recently:

"The fact remains that you knew that your product was an outlier well before 2005 (Hurrell and Trenberth (1997) highlighted some potential problems with the MSU data), yet, at least initially it seems that you chose to believe that everyone else was wrong. Why? Only you know why, but I suspect it is because you liked the answer-- cooling versus warming. and there is good reason for saying that; Roy can you tell your readers where this quote comes from:

"Spencer’s article (“1995: The Warmest Year That Wasn’t”) relies, as expected, on the satellite data; he is the author of the famous Science paper that first showed the satellites weren’t finding any warming. It, too, is very well written.".

Spencer-- "You did it again! Wentz & Mears discovered a correction that needed to be made, one which no one else would have ever thought of (orbital decay)..."

Actually the Mears and Wentz (2005) wrote a paper speaking to the diurnal correction, a separate issue. Wentz and Schabel wrote a paper about the orbital decay in Nature 1998, you then wrote a paper in 2000 with Christy and Braswell in which you applied their correction (which you had been aware of since 1998 b/c Wentz and Schabel kindly provided you with a copy of their 1998 paper before it was published)-- so again after someone else had identified the problem and come up with a solution before you did."

The debate as to the accuracy of the MSU data goes even further back than Hurrell and Trenberth (1997), they wrote about it in 1996, here is another paper from 1996 suggesting that something might be amiss, as did this 2000 paper "Comparison of Tropospheric Temperatures from Radiosondes and Satellites: 1979–98" by Hurrell et al..  and looky here, another paper in 2000 in which they found and corrected probelms with the MSU data-- this even predates the RSS corrections. 

If someone can track down Spencer's paper "1995: The Warmest Year That Wasn’t” that would be awesome.  I used Google and could not find anything.

2011-09-13 04:34:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

On second thoughts, I'd recommend not responding directly-- especially now that Pielke has source dout his diatribe to his other outlet, WUWT. 

Instead, draft a post speaking to the history of the MSU problems and highlighting how Spencer especially seems to have been using those data (which were contentious) to enable deniers, and again, using his own words to discredit himself.

2011-09-13 04:47:06
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Some of Pielke Sr's comments regarding scientists immediately following the email release

 

Tom Karl ,Scientist, 'strong arm tactics'.

 

here too

 

For Kevin Trenberth to call this study “rubbish” says a lot about that particular subset of the climate science community. Unfortunately, these individuals have been elevated to control much of the climate assessment process and the funding of climate science research.

That's just 5 minutes into my search

2011-09-13 04:59:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, I found this, which looks to be a scan of the 1996 'World Climate Report".

This document may be of interest:

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change, 2000. Panel on Reconciling Temperature Observations, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 85pp.

Note the date.

and here is an example of how Roy's faulty data was used (from worldclimatereport.com), I bolded some intriguing comments.

"Debate Over Satellite Data Heats Up!

All but the most naïve followers of the global warming fray know that there is big pressure on federal science to do everything in its (considerable) power to try to disprove the global satellite data.  That the satellites show no warming in their 18.25-year history has continually created great consternation in the apocalyst community.

One of the fig leaves used to cover this problem was the assertion that there really is “warming” in the satellite record, but it just happens to be “hidden” by the two volcanoes—El Chichon (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991)—that exploded at convenient times.  But, five years after Pinatubo blasted stratosphereward, global temperatures have remained below the long-term average, casting serious doubt on the volcanic excuse.

Another explanation is that the big “El Niño” events—periodic warmings of the Tropical Pacific Ocean—also compromise the record. But, according to Kevin Trenberth, one of the most prominent federal climatologists, the relatively long one that persisted through the early 1990s was a sign of global warming anyway.  (For some dispute on this, see “What’s Hot” in our last issue.) This logic clearly indicates that the satellite record should be warming, even though it is not.

In order to preserve the internal consistency of this argument, James Hurrell and Kevin Trenberth have just published a paper in Naturearguing that there are two “discontinuities” in the satellite record, in 1981 and 1991 (remarkably convenient to those volcanoes, no?) that were missed by the keepers of the history, Roy Spencer and John Christy.

The problem arises, they say, because we don’t have one “continuous” satellite. The temperature sensors, called Microwave Sounding Units, have a service lifetime of less than a decade.  Consequently, when a new one comes on-line, it is calibrated against an existing one, and it is at this point that Hurrell and Trenberth argue that an error has crept in. When they adjust for this, they get a warming of 0.12°C/decade, rather than the cooling of 0.05°C that exists in the record as it stands.

The media cheerleaders for climate apocalypse are sure to ballyhoo this contention in a big way.  Yet no one seems to realize that even if it were true, the warming rate would be only about 33 percent of the value predicted by the models that serve as the basis for the Rio Treaty.  Nor does it bode well for those who argue that this reduced warming is caused by sulfate aerosols.  Hurrell and Trenberth cannot argue away the fact that the satellite data still must show a relative cooling of the Southern Hemisphere, which, being sulfate-free, should be warming like too much plutonium.

The problem is that it’s probably not true.  What Hurrell and Trenberth did was to somehow throw away not only the satellite data, but also all of the weather balloon data that are taken twice every day by highly calibrated instruments around the planet.  In the layer from 5,000 to 30,000 feet, these data, predicted to warm by every computer model, just happen to match up perfectly, year by year by year, with the satellite temperatures.  Needless to say, both histories show no warming.

What is the chance that this happy coincidence of two completely independent measures of temperature just happens by chance? Here’s one way to estimate this likelihood: Both the satellite and weather balloon records have a 50–50 chance of being above or below average in a given year.  This is the same as your local penny landing heads or tails.  Now, the probability that both records are simultaneously above or below normal in each and every one of their 18 concurrent years is the same as the probability of throwing 18 heads or tails in a row.  It can be done, but you’ll have to, on the average, flip that penny about 262,000 times in order to achieve this result just once!

The chance you’ll get hit by an asteroid during this exercise, assuming it takes about a year to execute all these flips, is about 10 times greater than your getting 18 consecutive têtes or derrières.  But if you believe your television, asteroids seem pretty likely these days...and isn’t it amusing how TV’s convinced of the global warming apocalypse, too?

According to satellite guru Roy Spencer, what Hurrell and Trenberth did was to estimate the difference between surface temperatures and those measured by the satellite by using a general circulation climate model to calculate the bias by forcing the computer model with observed temperatures.  That’s right, readers!  Throw away two independent sets of data and substitute a computer climate model to “prove” the satellite is wrong.

Global warming is a strange scientific world, indeed.  It’s one where computer models—which are not doing a good job of estimating observed temperature changes—are used to correct observed data. Somehow this seems counter to the rules of basic science—in which data are used to correct the models, not vice versa.

 

References:

Hurrell, J.W., and K.E. Trenberth, 1997.  Spurious Trends in Satellite MSU Temperatures from Merging Different Satellite Records, Nature386, 164–167.

Trenberth, K.E., and T.J. Hoar, 1996.  The 1990–1995 El Niño-Southern Oscillation Event: Longest on record.   Geophysical Research Letters2""

 

And as it happens the weather balloon data had their own issues (and still do, although not nearly as many as before).  The new weather balloon datasets show that the the 850-300 mb layter is in fact warming faster than the NCDC surface data and the satellite.

Source

2011-09-13 05:03:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

it is very interesting to see how the denial machine, even back then, was "attacking" research that showed that the satellite data had problems and floating conspiracy theories.  Any excuse was brought forth, and it seems that Spencer at least was enabling them-- Christy to his credit actually wrote some papers with Trenberth on this issue.

2011-09-13 05:19:07response
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think this may be worth a direct response.  Pielke is disparaging SkS for basically no reason, and now spreading that disparagement throughout the denialist blogosphere.  Pielke is a reasonably serious climate scientist, so I think that merits a response.  Basically saying hey, Spencer and Christy have a much longer record of errors than Pielke is willing to admit.  This will give us an excuse to repeat some of the info in the Spencer and Christy series.  The more repetition, the better.  I'd be willing to draft up a response.

By the way, we already have some good rebuttals to Satellites show no warming in the troposphere.

Regarding a re-write of the intros, I don't think it's terribly important, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.

2011-09-13 05:29:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Whoever writes this up, they will need to consult Scott Church's excellent meta study.

But it is not just the satellite, Spencer has been wrong about so many other things that Pielke is choosing to ignore, maybe we can help refresh his memory....unlikely, but more reasonable and sensible readers will see what is going on here.

2011-09-13 06:04:49Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.19.186

Well I wouldn't mind contributing on the article if we actually do one. Would be interesting to see their response. I've also been very curious about why spencer continually uses Hadley. I'm half thinking of doing a post in the coming weeks comparing the different temperature records and why hadley is the favorite of the skeptics

2011-09-13 06:17:53
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Is this sort of mudslinging needed?

 

 

Sure, the 'skeptics' are annoyingly hypocritical, they regularly lie & misrepresent and most of them don't act like a scientist should. It's really frustrating if you want to apply evidnce and logic.

But mudslinging seems pointless. Check the criticism, see if we have made any mistakes and fix them.

 

'first remove the plank from your own eye, so you can see more clearly to remove the speck from your brother's' sort of thing...

2011-09-13 06:19:56
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Thanks Mark. I thought I was the only one.

2011-09-13 06:23:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't think this particular response needs to go into the nuts and bolts of the history of satellite temperature analysis (though that might make for a good seperate post if you want to write it, Alby).  Pielke has a partially valid point in that Spencer and Christy made a number of corrections to the analysis themselves.  The problem isn't the mistakes they made in the early years of satellite data analysis, the problem is that they trumpeted their erroneous results as proof the AGW theory was wrong.  For example, Christy in The Great Global Warming Swindle:

"What we've found consistently is that in a great part of the planet the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see on the surface in this region. And that's a real head-scratcher for us because the theory is pretty straightforward and the theory says that if the surface warms than the upper atmosphere should warm rapidly. The rise in temperature of that part of the atmosphere is not very dramatic at all and really does not match the theory that climate models are expressing at this point."

Actually Christy is still making this argument, i.e. in his 2011 congressional testimony saying TLT is only warming one-third as much as models predict.  Santer et al. tackle this in their paper, which I drafted a post on, ready for publication tomorrow.  They show Christy is exaggerating the discrepancy by a factor of 4, plus he simply assumes it's a problem with the models, refusing to consider it could be a continued cool bias in the data, despite its history of cool biases.

And of course the exaggeration of the model-data discrepancy in TLT trend is just one of many errors made by Christy and Spencer.  That should be the main point of this response.

Note: I'm not suggesting any "mudslinging", either.

2011-09-13 06:26:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I do not think that we should go after Pielke, not because of this at least.  IMHO, we should first fix that unfortunate Intro to Spencer's page and then solidify our case against Spencer.  Look, we are going to mess up sometimes, but what separates us from 'them' is that we should concded mistakes and correct them, no weaseling.

They want a mudlsinging contest and this could be designed to draw John out and undermine his credibility.  To put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, I think they are probably really, really pissed that john was awarded the Eureka prise and will do anything to try and discredit him.  ironically they are playing the man and not the ball, depsite their accusations that that is what John is doing.  What a warped world they live in.

Given that John is now the recipient of theprestigious Eureka award, we have to hold SkS to even a higher standard.  Just some thoughts.

2011-09-13 06:26:28Response
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Several issues tho.

 

1.  His attempt to hit SkS.  It was a sideswipe to associate us with another article.  Nothing even noted.  But should we revise the Spencer write up even he didn't mention it?   -- I'd say yes.

 

2. His version of events surrounding UAH does not appear to be accurate and his stress on a certain issue is favorable to Spencer / Christy.  Haven't looked into much yet. 

 

3.  He and Spencer are not innocent of polarizing this debate.  Et Tu? arguments are not sufficient, but I believe his and Spencer's comments in the past are worth mentioning.

 

4.  His avoidence of all the other Spencer / Christy arguments made in public that were wrong (basically our data base), and Roy's blog exploits with crappy models that all pointed in one direction.

 

It's a lot to cover.  Take Neal's advice, cross t's.  This can be done properly I believe.

2011-09-13 06:51:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't view this as "going after Pielke".  I view it as an opportunity to re-hash past Spencer and Christy posts.  Pielke just gives us the excuse to do it.  John's always saying repetition is a key to effective communication.

Pielke says Christy and Spencer have done good work.  They have done some, but they've also done a lot of bad work and made many misleading and/or wrong comments to the public and policymakers.  That's worth repeating in a response post.

We could also amend the Spencer intro and make note of that in the post.

2011-09-13 07:08:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

- I think we have to call them - including Pielke - on their bullshit. When they are starting to react to what we've written, we know they're paying attention, and it's probably because they think their readers are paying attention. This is the time to go for the throat. Acting nice now will be like acting like Obama with the GOP-controlled Congress.

- Tone: Clear but even. No mistakes, factual or contextual: we have to be absolutely fair. (But deadly.)

- Important: If names are attached to this, I want to stress that those involved who have academic career plans should withhold their names. There are no grudges as nasty as academic grudges, and you don't know who is a friend of whom. If you don't think high-level academics are petty enough to hold public questioning against you, think again: you don't know enough about high-level academics.

2011-09-13 07:18:57
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

Is this mud-slinging? Maybe. But whose mud is it?

2011-09-13 07:33:44
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal, 

I'm torn and am flip-flopping on this....sigh.  Yes, they are paying attention, I just do not know whether or not they should get attention b/c of their juvenile antics....Pielke has been dropping fast in my opinion in recent years and he has managed to escape under the radar, but now he is defending the indefensible, he should not get away with it and we can sling some of Roy's own words (i.e., "mud") back his way. 

Re including names, sage advice, and I suggest people considering using their name to write this to take note-- that is why I choose to continue to remiain (mostly) anonymous. One solution is that this post, if written, could be filed under "group" as they do at RC; even if say Robert does most of the leg work. I don't know how Robert would feel about that.

2011-09-13 07:47:20
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.31.167

The only good point that Pielke has - and he didn't even say it - is that the intro is harsh.  That's it.  He's not even correct about the ad hominem aspect, our posts' contents clearly point out the errors Spencer and Christy have worked on.

If we do respond - and I think we should, for a couple reasons:

- the very fact that he *is* a quasi-serious skeptic;

- he allowed his post to be shown on WUWT as well, which is shameless echoing of such an immaterial lambast,

- it would be a good way to get out a more accurate summary on the satellite data history -

then we should fix the one point he did have and then crush him on the rest.

 

If Pielke wants better housekeeping on our part then the first thing we ought to do is give him his mud back.  It doesn't have to be mudslinging, there is no need to attack him.  We just correct our little lapse in politeness and then give a t-crossed, i-dotted response to the MSU data history.

2011-09-13 07:47:43An observation
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Based on the comments posted on this thread, I would say that deniers do not have a monopoly on conspiracy theories.  

2011-09-13 08:09:20
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

As I've said before, this is partly (maybe mostly) a PR war. Now that we've got them noticing and irritated, the goal is to irritate them further - with absolutely rock-solid facts - that make them lose their cool and blow their tops. That makes them less effective with their audience, because people don't respect that kind of behavior.

From a PR perspective, what is difficult to handle witih a Pielke/Spencer/Lindzen character is that they usually know too much to say anything really wrong, so it's hard to get at them without stretching a few points - a very dangerous move if you're not an expert yourself. But Lindzen has been getting sloppy (he used to confine his lies to WSJ editorials; but now his papers are, shall we say, "not done to MIT standards of scholarship"); and Spencer has been loopy for some time. I don't think Pielke's research publications have been problematic (But have we seen the final version of the paper with WUWT?); but his critiques are a bit one-sided. If we can document that into the ground, that alone could be enough to blow his cool.

2011-09-13 08:21:12
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Frankly I think we have two potential posts here, based on responding to Pielke.

#1 - responding to the inference that the only thing Spencer and Christy have done wrong is their errors in the early satellite data analysis.  This is the post essentially summarizing Spencer Slip ups and Christy Crocks, which I can handle.

#2 - responding to the claim that most of the corrections to the satellite data analysis were made by Spencer and Christy themselves.  Basically a history of the satellite temperature data which Albatross has a good handle on (and I'd suggest Alby write the post if he has time).

Both responses have a lot of material to work with - enough for a long post each, way to much to combine.  In both cases, as always, we just stick to the facts.  Pielke said 'x', but reality is 'y'.  No personal attacks on Pielke or his crappy blog, just discussing what the science says on these two issues.

2011-09-13 08:50:22Very weird post by Pielke
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Very strange post as he doesn't actually critique anything specific on SkS. But I agree with some comments here that the intros to the various skeptics are a little uneven. Only a few even have intros and they are a little patched together. So I think that deserves some attention. But lest I disrail this discussion on whether to respond to Pielke's non-criticism, I've started a new thread on the intros in the Deniers forum so any discussion on that topic can continue over there.

Re responding to the Pielke post, maybe I've watched too much West Wing but I think we're being suckered by Pielke who is trying to move the conversation into an area where he's comfortable. SkS's main beef with Christy and Spencer is not the UAH record - it's the outrageous, misinforming statements they regularly make (we have a whole collection of quotes now). So if we respond directly to Pielke, I'd pluck out some of Christy/Spencer's more egregious statements, the demonstrably false rubbish, and ask Pielke if he's comfortable with those statements, if he agrees with them. Put him on the spot. Pielke is trying to raise up a strawman, say our problem is UAH - it's not (that much). It's with Christy/Spencer's denial and misinforming of the public.

2011-09-13 09:26:03
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
174.26.235.100

Roger Pielke Sr's blogpost defense is limited to the UAH satellite temperature data set, even though the current criticism of Roy Spencer comes from one of his other research papers, Spencer & Braswell(2011).

An appropriate  part of any SkS response would be a critique of these other research papers.

 

 

2011-09-13 09:31:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

"So if we respond directly to Pielke, I'd pluck out some of Christy/Spencer's more egregious statements, the demonstrably false rubbish, and ask Pielke if he's comfortable with those statements, if he agrees with them. Put him on the spot."

That's what I'm saying with my suggested post #1.  I wasn't planning on throwing it back at Pielke, asking if he approves of the various myths perpetrated by the two, but I like the idea.  The one that came to my mind was Christy saying that scientific evidence points to low climate sensitivity, which is just absurd, ignoring about 99% of the body of research on the subject.  That was covered in one of the Crocks.

2011-09-13 09:44:18But aren't we playing Pielke's game?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

I haven't read The Art of War (maybe it should be required reading for SkSers) but I'm sure there's something in there about choosing your battlefield and not letting your enemy determine the battlefield. In this case, Pielke has said "SkS attacks Spencer/Christy - but UAH is solid". But our critiques of Spencer/Christy are not about UAH - he's dragging us away from the winning battlefield of Spencer/Christy's dodgy statements and into the much more technical, arcane and pointless subject of UAH satellite data - which is somewhat tangential and inconsequential to the climate debate.

I doubt Pielke is doing this consciously. Disconfirmation Bias is a well observed phenomenon where when confronted with counter-arguments, people often ignore the counter-arguments and argue instead their own arguing points that support their views. The result is that when someone is confronted with a debunking of a strongly held view, they can react with Disconfirmation Bias and end up holding their view more strongly (this is the Worldview Backfire Effect, something separate to the Familiarity Backfire Effect I've discussed elsewhere).

It's a natural thing to do - argue where you feel comfortable. So I suggest if we are going to engage with this post, we take Pielke out of his comfort zone and confront him with the most egregious statements of Spencer/Christy. What would be ideal is if we could find quotes from Pielke that directly contradict Spencer/Christy quotes and make that the backbone of the post. Roger, do you agree with this? What about this? Or that? If someone wants to build the post, I can pretty it up with quote boxes and faces if we want to go down that route.

Note: If our quotes database was more complete, we could punch out that data automatically - examples of Pielke contradicting Spencer/Christy (hence I'm always pushing for SkSers to add more quotes to the database via Myth Monitor).

2011-09-13 09:47:28
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.115

I think we should be carefull with Pielke at least as much as he is. Note that his behaviour has been very different from Lindzen or Spencer who exposed themselves too much. He may be waiting for us making a false step to destroy our credibility; his intention in writing the post may have been to provoke us.
I would avoid going into the technicalities of the satellite datasets, which apparently is what Pielke is waiting for. Do not let him choose the playground. Maybe the best way to deal with his post is to aknowledge a possible misunderstanding quoting him, but then turning to the general audience and to the Spencer and Christy series; there people will find that the old UAH error is not even mentioned and find a lot of crap. Understandably (irony here), Pielke do not have the time to read the whole thing.

2011-09-13 09:53:52
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

But isn't the history of the UAH data important?

We should be very clear on that.

I am concerned about giving them a "pass" just because we didn't look into the history of that project. They can later claim that later mention of this issue is just making up for insufficient argument, or something like that.

2011-09-13 10:31:57
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

John, I think you and I are on the same wavelength, but you don't know it ;-)  See my suggested post #1 in my comment at 13 Sep 2011, 8:21 AM.

I think it's useful to also look at the history of satellite data analysis (hence my suggested post #2), but we'd need somebody to get into the nitty gritty details (hence my suggestion that Albatross write it, since he seems to have already done quite a bit of research on the subject).

I'm with John though that post #1 is the more prudent response.  Pielke is glazing over Spencer and Christy's history of making wrong arguments and focusing on the one area where they've done some good work.  We need to look at their entire body of work, which is what we did in the two series, which is why we should summarize them once again and see if Pielke still stands behind the quality of their work.

2011-09-13 10:50:21
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I'm not sure asking the rhetorical question of whether Pielke stands behind Psencer/Christy will be all that effective.  He doesn't even care about the sensitivity question.  He's built up a wall over years of focusing on narrow aspects of the debate that he's pretty much excludes himself from such criticism.  For example his last post before today:

The problem with focusing on the use of a so-called “climate sensitivity” as theholy grail of climate to communicate to policymakers is that it has essentiallyfrozen the adoption of effective adaptation and mitigation responses to the real climate issues.
The real climate issues should be on how climate variability and longer term climate change (from both human and natural forcings) affect risks to our key resources of water, food, energy, human health and ecosystem function. The narrow definition of the so-called ”climate sensitivity”, while of interest as a science question, is essentially worthless as a metric to use in order to reduce the threats faced by these key resources.

So if we use that rhetorical technique, make sure to find something that either 1) Pielke definately disagrees with, or 2) is so far outside the mainstream that no one would want to be associated with it.

 

But I will stress that it is very important to restate some of the spencer/christy myths, just be careful when using that rhetorical trick.  Pielke's focus are just plain and simply odd, but not terribly contrarian.  Remember, nothing matters to him except ocean temps in joules, and land use factors, and bottom up resource allocation.  

 

The UAH story is important just because SkS has never dealt with it on any purposeful level,  AFAIK.  Perhaps it's worth a short, tight description (not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with Pielke's version) followed up by lambasting him for trying to make that the story - when SkS clearly cares about all that other stuff.

2011-09-13 10:56:59Dana's post #1
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Reminding Pielke that there's a lot more to Spencer/Christy misinformation than UAH glitches is important. But what would really take that post to a next level is if we could find Pielke quotes that contradict Spencer/Christy quotes. These could take two possible forms - proAGW quotes that directly contradict S/C denier quotes or Pielke denier quotes that contradict S/C quotes (eg - skeptic arguments that are internally inconsistent). I'd say proAGW Pielke quotes are more likely but would be worth investigating to see if there's anything there.

Of course as Grypo mentions, there may not be any such quotes as Pielke is so narrow in his statements. Just putting the idea out there...

2011-09-13 11:08:02And on the topic of proAGW quotes from deniers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Incidentally, here is the (unlaunched, still embargoed) database of proAGW quotes from climate deniers. This is a potentially very powerful resource and am very keen to build it up so if any SkSers see quotes from deniers hosing down the more silly climate myths, please post them to our database via the Skeptic Admin (setting the Bias to ProAGW). There are only a few quotes in there so far but it's already been of immense use to me - I spoke to someone who is doing a documentary on climate skeptics and as part of it, is going to meet with Jo Nova and David Evans. She asked me for any tips - as the tropospheric hot spot is both Evans and Nova's pet myth, I gave her Lindzen's quote. Would be interesting to see their reaction to the Lindzen quote in front of a camera.

That's just one application. Finding Pielke quotes for this post would be another application. If the database was big enough, there would be a number of other powerful applications for such a resource.

Okay, I'll get off my bandwagon now. :-)

2011-09-13 12:23:10John has the right of it
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Playing Pielke's game is not a winning strategy.  Do not react to this cheap shot; it will only devolve into 'he said, we said.'  Istead, find a focused set of errors made by S and C (and perhaps Pielke) and point them out in an objective, overwhelming and convincing manner. 

2011-09-13 13:00:20
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Agreed with what muoncounter said.  Like the counsel given on the Anthony Watts Pouting thread:  ignore him (some good Sun Tzu quotes for JC therein).

And duplicated by the "ignore him" advice on the Anthony Watts Threats thread (more Sun Tzu).

2011-09-13 13:07:51The denier desire to ignore SkS
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

That was the other interesting element to Pielke's post. The mention of SkS seemed tacked on, gratuitious. There is an unwritten rule at WUWT - don't mention SkS or if you do mention SkS, for goodness sake, don't like to them! Roger breaks all the rules in this post!

In a sense, Roger has handed us an opportunity - he's "defended C/S's honour" by defending UAH. But would he be willing to defend their honour by defending all the shocking comments they've made over the years?

Note to whoever writes the response. Don't post a glut of quotes from S/C. Just one or two of their most egregious quotes. We don't want to Gish Gallop Pielke, that's not a productive line of discourse, it's just a rhetorical technique to shut the other guy up.

2011-09-13 13:43:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

So just to be clear, we're agreed on the approach I suggested about 50 comments ago? :-)  But perhaps just focusing on the worst Crocks and Slip-ups rather than summaries of the whole series.

Actually I think a good approach would be to select a few bad ones, then invite Pielke to read the whole series, because clearly he hasn't.  That was actually going to be part of my opening - he takes issue with the series' names, but apparently hasn't read their content.

2011-09-13 14:31:35
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
174.26.233.27

Given some of the above cautions about the perils of playing Pielke's game, is it feasible to not use his name at all--after the introductory first paragraph?

This would keep the focus where it's most effective, on Spencer and Christy.

2011-09-13 14:32:39Couldn't...Resist...
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Pielke Attacks

Apologies for being weak...

2011-09-13 15:14:45Daniel, Daniel, Daniel...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

I must admit, the same thought came to mind everytime I saw the "Pielke attacks" title of this thread but I never got around to making anything of it :-)

2011-09-13 15:34:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Here's what I've got so far.  I didn't have much time to work on it tonight, so it's a bit rough.  I did direct it specifically at Pielke, listing a comment by Spencer/Christy and then why it's wrong, and asking if Pielke agrees.

The tone can certainly change if people think there's a better way to go.  This is very preliminary, but have a look see what you think.  Gotta start somewhere.

Responding to Pielke Sr.'s Criticism of Skeptical Science

I did try to find Pielke quotes, but he tends to agree with Spencer/Christy.  Like he's actually used a 1,000 meter mixed ocean layer depth himself, so I couldn't use a Pielke quote to criticize Spencer's use of 700 meters.

2011-09-13 17:26:06Is that the worst you can find from Spencer?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Mixed ocean depth? Sounds a little technical and obscure. What about Spencer's statement that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is a good thing. Or that warming is caused by natural cycles, not the increased greenhouse effect. Does Pielke dispute the anthropogenic element of warming? I don't recall him pushing the internal variability line.

2011-09-13 17:58:15
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Dana your post is exactly what SkS should not be doing, responding to attacks like Pielkes, especially in the way you have worded it.

If you do that, then you'll be doing it every week because it will become a game for those that don't like SkS.

I can't honestly believe anyone is taking this so seriously, there are plenty of things to document and focus on. What SkS is good at is responding to research papers etc.

Don't take the bate!

2011-09-13 18:26:30
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.234.194

Dana, by addressing Pielke in your post, you come across as antagonistic. The post should be as cool and neutral as possible.

Here's a bunch of bullshit written by Roy for Tech Station Central, just scanning through them for anything useful. 

2011-09-13 18:29:46
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I agree with Rob, who probably put it more rationally than me.
BTW I agree with JC and the unevenness of the intros.

2011-09-13 19:12:22
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
174.26.233.27

Please excuse a little, "Show and Tell."  I can make my comment in fewer words with an example.  It's still possible to make a heavy-handed response without taking the bait.

 

"Background for Criticisms of Roy Spencer and John Christy"

At his own website, with a reposting at WUWT, Roger Pielke Sr. objects to the criticisms of Roy Spencer and John Christy at Skeptical Science, and in an opinion piece by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick.  In their defense, Pielke Sr only mentions the UAH satellite temperature program.

At Skeptical Science there's no ad hominem intent in the series titles, such as "Christy Crocks".  If too strident, that's due to the literary limitations of alliteration.  "Christy Occlusions"?  Suggestions welcome.   [Whatever the words, this is an opportunity for some self-deprecating humor]

[With the rest of the article only for Spencer and Christy, with no mention of Pielke Sr.]

 

It's quantity that counts.  It's not necessary to summarize every Spencer or Christy paper.  Some can be  merely listed by title, with links to critical papers, SkS or RC blogposts, etc..

2011-09-13 20:02:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

As one of the original quoters of the advice from Sun Tzu, I think the situation is different: Pielke has challenged us on our own territory - and left himself vulnerable to defeat. He's not in retreat mode, he's in attack mode.

The main thing I would counsel dana: Make it much, much shorter, by a factor of 2. It should be streamlined, along the lines of:

- Spencer said THIS (A1), which is contradicted by THAT (B1). Which do you agree with, Spencer or conventional wisdom?

- Spencer said THIS (A2), which is contradicted by THAT (B2). Which do you agree with, Spencer or conventional wisdom?

Kind of crisp.

Sometimes, when you have the opportunity, you have to strike. Or, as Lincoln wrote to General McClellan, "If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while."

 

 


2011-09-13 20:17:48This is probably of no help but anyway...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Was looking through Pielke's blog to see what he's said about the hotspot. All I could find was this blog post:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/

So not much to report. Pielke seems to conclude the discrepancy between obs and models means the models are wrong. But no mention of the cause of the hotspot.

One thing that struck me was the number of UAH related posts on his blog. Pielke must have a pretty close relationship with Spencer & Christy, I imagine. Roger is sticking up for his buds.

Also, a comment. I don't think we should use alliteration as an excuse. Nothing forced us to use those words. Are Christy's statements of misinformation crocks? Is it unacceptable for Christy to speak misinformation under oath to the U.S. Congress? If so, we stand by 'crocks' whether it alliterates or not.

2011-09-13 22:22:27Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.19.186

Of course the models are more wrong than the observations...they don't included the increased aerosol forcing from Tropical volcanoes or aerosols from china over the last decade.... Until model runs are done including those forcings then you won't get a very good match...

2011-09-13 23:06:03
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.21.92

I wonder if the dislike of "crock" is because of either its cacophony or because it's close to sounding like we're calling him a dick-head.  A crock is a design or attempt at something that is either nonsense, worn-out, or broken.  It's not a vulgar word (it's slang, but not vulgar), it rather accurately describes many of the "skeptic" arguments, such as the ones that Christy has used (esp. the ones he continues to use that he knows are wrong - yes, that is considered lying).  The instrumental/model discrepancy argument is a great example, along with the claim that scientists were predicting cooling in the 1970s (our Crock 1, 4, and most recent Crock).

There is very little to apologize for with regards to the series' titles IMO.  And by very little, I mean none.  If Pielke wants to complain about what we call Christy's arguments, or Spencer's ("Slip-Ups" is much more benign anyways), then he can address them point by point.  Until then his accusation of ad-hominem is hollow and he should be called on it.

FWIW I still stand by the notion, though, that the intro to Spencer is harsh and should be toned down.

2011-09-13 23:42:45
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Alex C "crock" is vulgar as it is a short form of "crock of shit".  As I said earlier in the thread I wouldn't object to someone pointing out the "slip-ups" in my research (any scientist who claims he doesn't make mistakes is a fool), I would however find it rather offensive to have my work described as a "crock [of shit]".

I don't think the problems in the UAH dataset should be counted in a list of Spencer slip ups.  Those problems are just "normal science".  The slip-ups that are worth discussing are those where Spencer should have known better or where they are down to poor scholarship or research practice. 

To be honest, in science we are all serial mistake makers.  If you are right all the time it isn't research.  The key is in doing your best to be your own harshest critiic to give yourself as good a chance as possible of correcting the errors before you go into print.  That is where Spencer's problem lies, not in the frequency with which he makes mistakes, but his lack of self-skepticism, which means he doesn't deal with them.

I think the UAH dataset is truely commendable, and SkS shouldn't be reticent in doing the commending.

2011-09-14 01:51:44
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dikran,

"I don't think the problems in the UAH dataset should be counted in a list of Spencer slip ups. Those problems are just "normal science"."

I don't know Dikran, starting in the early 1990s, deniers and even Spencer and Christy used their product to make some very loud proclamations about cooling, about the models being wrong or the surface temperature record being wrong-- it is actually quite interesting to peruse some of those old climatereport articles, they have a recipe and they repeat it often.  

Even after it became apparaent in the mid 90s that something was probably amiss witht he MSU data, the misinformation by "skeptics" continued, so much so that hurrel and Trenberth wrote a paper to address claims made by Spencer. Also, Specner especially was not at the forefront of the changes as I documented that earlier on this thread, yes Spencer and Christy implemented the changes slowly over time, but it seems for the most part after everyone else had identified the issues and determined ways of addressing said issues. In 2000 there were a couple of papers that introduced changes that brought he MSU data into closer alignemnt with the surface temperature record.  But the misinformation by "skeptics" continued.  In fact, as recent as 2004 the faulty and cherry-picked UAH data was being used by "skeptics" to obfuscate, spread dount and confusion.  Tim Lambert covers it here.  Heck, Christy only last year misled congress using the MSU data-- something that Santer et al. have just addressed in their recent paper.

To this day, and becasue of all the myriad of issues with the UAH data, the less-error prone RSS product remains the product of choce when it comes to satellite data.

While it is easy to find comments about people abusing the MSU data, what we need is Christy and Spencer on the record claiming that their product was right and others were wrong.  The truth is that this whole episode shows how vulnerable Spencer and Christy are to confirmation bias.  Their data showed cooling, that fit their preconceived ideas/wishes, then so be it.  That is perhaps why they were (well especially Spencer), for the most part, not at the forefront of changes. 

Anyways, like others have noted, the UAH story is not as simple as Pielke seems to wish it to be, and here at SkS I am not aware of anyone using the MSU saga to diss Spencer and Christy.  As for Pielke's loud claim of 'Scientifc Robustness at UAH"  I think that we can find some more concrete examples of things that have been said by Christy and Spencer (Spencer's blog and recent book are great sources for inane quotes and bad science) that run counter to that bold assertion. In fact, I think that addressing that very claim is what the author should address.

 

 

2011-09-14 02:02:54
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

I agree with Albatross about the nature of the offense wrt UAH data: The issue is not getting it wrong (scientific knowledge is in a general state of improvement), but in being so confident of being right.

As RP Feynman said: "Science is the art of not fooling yourself. And remember - you yourself are the easiest person to fool!"

Missing that vital point is an easy way to become a bad scientist.

2011-09-14 02:20:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Here Spencer uncritically approves McIntyre and McKitrick's (M&M2005) paper allegedly refuting Mann et al. (1998)-- was this also not the same paper that cherry-picked those pseudo-proxies which showed hockey sticks?  In fact Spencer states:

"They demonstrated this by applying the same methodology to many synthetic temperature records that were constructed with random noise. In almost every case, a hockey stick curve resulted."

Err no, those were cherry-picked by McIntyre and McKitrick as these (one and two) DeepClimate pieces show. This is also the same cherry-picking that Wegman inlcuded in his plagiarised report.  Also note that even if M&M2005 could be considered correct, the impact on the serived temperature chronology is tiny and inconsequential as shown in this RC post.  And more myths about M&M2005 are discussed here and here.  With that all said while MBH98 had issues, subsequent research by Mann as well as by other independent researchers has largely corroborated their findings (see also here and here and here and here).

Ironically Spencer laments "Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it's because they wanted to believe it."

Right back at you Roy regarding M&M2005.  And this is all a strawman b/c whether or not current N. Hemisphere  temperatures are warmer than those in the medieval Warm anomaly (or Holocene) misses the point, the point being limiting GHGs emissions is about where we are heading should we continue with BAU.

2011-09-14 02:43:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Going though the reports that rob directe dus to (Thanks rob!).  Here is another from 2005:

Spencer:

"Obviously I have a certain level of faith when I anticipate further refinements in global warming theory that will eventually reduce predicted global warming, and the technological solutions to the energy problem that will eventually occur. (And I haven't even addressed the net benefits of some amount of carbon dioxide increases and warming.) But the historical evidence is on my side. Malthusian predictions have a notoriously poor track record."

Wow!

And another from 2005:

"Droughts and floods will continue to occur as they always have. Only now, we can expect humans to be increasingly blamed for their existence -- a charge that will be difficult, if not impossible to prove."

Two recent Nature papers  (in addition to others) have shown attribution between AGW and extreme precip. events.  See here and here.  And here is an attribution study showing the impact of agw on thew European heat wave.

Good grief, and another.  He is trying to be funny here, but is perpetuatuiing a myth that humans exhaling ncrease CO2 levels;

"  5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon 
        dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by 
        joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem. "

This myth has been addressed at SkS here.  the fact that he is joking about this serious matter means that he has not intention whatsoever on anyone taking action on AGW, no action whatsoever.

2011-09-14 02:46:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

And here, discussing the latest round of errors and corrections he sounds quite reasonable:

"On the positive side, at least some portion of the disagreement between satellite and thermometer estimates of global temperature trends has now been removed. This helps to further shift the global warming debate out of the realm of "is warming happening?" to "how much has it warmed, and how much will it warm in the future?". (Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?", "is warming necessarily a bad thing?", and "what can we do about it anyway?"). And this is where the debate should be."

"Mears & Wentz were additionally able to demonstrate to us, privately, that there is an error that arises from our implementation of the UAH technique. This very convincing demonstration, which is based upon simple algebra and was discovered too late to make it into their published report, made it obvious to us that the UAH diurnal correction method had a bias that needed to be corrected."

"The third paper (Santer et al, 2005) takes a more thorough look at the theoretical expectation that surface warming should be amplified with height in the troposphere. The authors restate what had already been known: that the UAH satellite warming estimates were at odds with theoretical expectations (as had been some radiosonde measures). Now, the convergence of these newly reported satellite and radiosonde estimates toward the surface warming estimates, if taken at face value, provides better agreement with climate models' explanation of how the climate system behaves."

Wow he finally got it on August 11, 2005!

2011-09-14 02:58:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

His thoughts on DDT are almost certianly wrong.

"The whole DDT issue is a good example of stupid environmental policy. Insiders say the de facto ban on DDT was the result of politics, not of overriding human health and environmental concerns. Threats of trade bans on countries that dare to use DDT, one of the safest and most effective insecticides available, have contributed to over one million malaria-related deaths each year in Africa."

If I recall correctly DDT was never banned for use in controling malaria.

Oh dear,

"Just as the deepening horse manure crisis was alleviated by the introduction of the automobile over a century ago, I suspect that our current worries over global warming will evaporate in the coming decades."

Now that is a load of horsesh1t.

 

Talking of which,

"I also learned that the term "climate change" no longer needs the qualifier of "human-caused," because it has apparently been decided that all purported climate change is caused by the activity of mankind. (Attention: henceforth, all unusual weather events will be due to our burning of fossil fuels.) Natural climate variability has been relegated to the status of quaint myth. "

"I suppose the only way to have avoided getting ourselves into this whole climate change mess was for us to have never progressed as a civilization in the first place. We could still be hunters and gatherers. Children would probably die at an early age from disease or exposure, but at least the population would not be so burdensome to the Earth."

"Maybe someday I will see the truth of their movement and join them. Nah."

Good grief!

2011-09-14 03:11:39Observation
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Watching you all make sausage is very interesting and enlightening.

2011-09-14 03:15:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

The above we all from 2005.  I do not have time to read the others.  But a pattern is emerging.  I do not think that these quotes are an ad hom (he saids this so he has no credibility), rather I think they tell a diffferent story about his belief system and his perceived role of science.  I see very little science being discussed or used to support his beliefs and ideas, yet most scientists manage to separate (or reconsile) their beliefs with the science.  When one starts using science to justify or in support of ideology one is no longer a true scientist IMHO. Anyhow, some of the things he says are demonstrably wrong (MM05, the humans are increasing CO2 by breathing myth, the DDT ban myth etc.).

Before anyone jumps on me, I am not suggesting we post these in repsonse to Pielke, maybe some of the comments that are very relevant to science and cimate science maybe. 

I need to get back to work here, but maybe someoone else can look at what he qwrote in other years.

Are Roy and Christy on the public record saying at some point that their data shows that the planet is cooling and that he is right and other data sets showing wamring are wrong?

2011-09-14 03:54:42
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I think that a sufficient response is to quietly reword the intro to the Spencer Slip Ups section. Pielke's criticism is really very weak and we shouldn't give any credence to it by over-reacting.

The title "Christy Crocks" is admittedly a little vulgar and perhaps it would have been better to use something else, but "Crock" is now one of those over-used words that has lost its link to the original meaning. If someone wants to make an issue out of this, let them, they will appear humourless, thin-skinned and petty.

The strength of this site is that the tone is kept measured and the arguments factual and well-supported. That's what really gets under the skin of the deniers. Any truly neutral observer can see the difference in tone between SkS and the denialist blogs. With numerous authors and no full-time editor, we are bound to have our own slip-ups and maybe the odd crock. I think it says something about our integrity that Pielke's criticism is the best they can do. We have done better than even the reputable mainstream press (Guardian, NYT) in this regard.

Personally, I have little doubt that Spencer and Christie are biased and, at best, borderline competent and I wouldn't be upset if they one day got professionally sanctioned. But I think we would score an own goal if we appear to wage some kind of personal campaign against them. We can all speak out freely as individual commenters on other blogs (as Albatross has done very well on Spencer's blog and on Rabbett Run).

2011-09-14 03:51:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, I found this very interesting reponse by Spencer titled "When science meets politics" that was published on September 3, 1998 after a paper by Wentz and Schabel in 1998 that showed the UAH data had problems-- look how he tries to hand wave it all away and (mostly) dismiss it, something like "we were wrong but even if we correct it it makes no difference and the models are still too warm". What follows sounds like denial to me folks.  (Note the trend in the UAH data after all the corrections wer eimplemented circa 2005 was about +0.13 c/decade)

"The political and scientific debate over whether the Earth is warming due to human activities was stirred up earlier this month when a research paper, published in the journal Nature by physicists Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel, claimed the satellite temperature data were flawed.


Satellite data are the only truly global temperature data scientists have. But contrary to surface readings, satellites have shown a slight cooling trend since readings began in 1979. Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel claimed that adjusting the data to account for gradual changes in the orbits of these satellites would result in a slight warming trend. As a result, newspaper headlines trumpeted "the satellite data finally support global warming." This is quite misleading. 

Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research firm, did convincingly establish an effect that we had failed to account for in processing the satellite data. The very slow fall of the Earth-orbiting satellites (called "orbital decay") changes the angle of the satellites' view of the Earth's surface, causing a very slight - and false - cooling in the global average temperature record. But even if Mr. Wentz and Mr. Schabel's adjustment was correct, their estimated temperature trend, an increase of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade during 1979-1997 would still have been only one-third of the 0.24 degree Celsius increase per decade that computer climate models predict for the next century in the lower atmosphere. 

The precision satellite monitoring method, which I developed with John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville's Earth System Science Laboratory, began explicitly incorporating orbital decay (and other partially offsetting effects) into the data analysis in February. With those corrections made, our detailed review of the satellite data between 1979 and 1997 still shows a cooling but at a smaller rate - dropping at 0.01 degrees Celsius per decade. Given the measurement uncertainty, this is no temperature trend.

Also, though not mentioned in most news accounts, instruments aboard weather balloons provide an independent measure of global temperatures in the lower troposphere, the same layer where satellite readings are taken. Between 1979 and 1997, readings from thousands of weather balloons, and analyzed separately by teams of scientists in three countries - Great Britain, Russia and the United States - actually show a stronger global cooling [Albatross, the balloon data had their own issues (a cool bias), which once corrected do in fact show warming, see the image that I posted up thread.  Interestingly, in a 2003 paper by Mears et al. they say "Based on these results we think it is inappropriate to use radio- sonde comparisons as the single method for validating satellite-derived temperature trends, and studies, such as ours, that are primarily based on internal consistency should be considered on equal footing."]. 

One problem has already cropped up in the Wentz/Schabel research. It appears that our processed satellite data already had unintended corrections for orbital drift, both in height and in time of day. Proper adjustments for these effects must be done on the raw satellite measurements, not on the processed data sets we provide to the research community. Unfortunately, it will likely take more than a year for our publication of such a complex analysis. This is in contrast to science news journals, such as Nature, that promise quick publication, but at the expense of much needed detail."

 

PS:  In 1998 Christy, Spencer and Lobl (CSL) published apaper in which they derived very low rates of warming, even after making some corrections. A comment to that paper was written by Prabhakara and Iacovazzi in 1999.  They note the significant problems with CSL's corrections, and they also note that  "The results shown above indicate that effects due to satellite drift are evident in NOAA-10, -11, and -12 data. Therefore, we find the assumptions that lead CSL to make drift-related corrections are not realistic. Finally, we contend that further analysis of MSU data is needed before the results of CSL can be accepted."

At the end of the day Wentz and Schabel (1998) and  Prabhakara et al. (1998) were correct and Spencer and Christy were wrong.

2011-09-14 03:59:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Andy,

Good thoughts.  I agree about changing that intro, so do others, so someone should step up and do it ASAP, but I would also include Spencer's professional affiliations with certain groups (a relevant fact) such as the  George C. Marshall Institute and Heartland, we should leave his affilations with creationst groups out of this.

I'm not sure what to do about this mess.  I'm beginning to think that the idea of not responding directly to Pielke is the best way to go.  Rather (and this will annoy him), update the series with more crocks and slip-ups which speak to the sicentific integrity of UAH-- a more of as passive aggressive approach.

Anyhow, I have posted all this "stuff" here, people are free to use it if they like :)

Now I need to get back at doing some real research!

2011-09-14 04:42:23For what it's worth...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with Andy S and Albatross. Pielke's off-hand remark about SkS does not, in my opinion, warrant a specific response from SkS. Now that we've all had a chance to vent, let's get back to the stuff that matters most.

2011-09-14 05:51:16I don't agree
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

We are involved in a public-relations war for the hearts & minds of the world population. You can't win a battle by hiding when enemy has exposed a vulnerability.

I believe the best thing we can do is totally get in Pielke's face on this. If we have the goods, put him on the spot: We should totally embarass him. He's the most respectable skeptic on the planet - and he gives cover to the rest of them. He should be forced to choose between promoting the science that he well knows how to do, and supporting his buddies (for some reason as yet unclear) in their nefarious re-inventions of science.

2011-09-14 06:34:33Words to live by...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Never get into a peeing match with a skunk!"

2011-09-14 06:45:10
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

It's not a peeing match: It is a competition for credibility.

Let's face it: Spencer, Lindzen and Pielke are PhDs in climate science: They outrank us.

The only thing we have on our side is the ability to show that what they are saying is wrong. It's better if it can be shown logically wrong. It's best if it can be shown to be self-inconsistent, because that doesn't rely on the reader having enough subject-matter expertise to compare arguments: If someone says "1 + 1 = 5", people can tell that he is wrong.

If, when Pielke gives us an opportunity to nail him to the wall, by promoting statements that he knows to be inconsistent with reality, we don't nail him; then why are we bothering to do this blog? If we can't take advantage of his mistakes (really, unforced errors), we might as well hang it up and go home; because SkS is never going to outrank Pielke on the basis of credentials.

Just stick a thermometer in the ground, and watch it rise ...

2011-09-14 07:13:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.231

Very well put Nealstradamus (as usual). 

Dana, the post needs to be streamlined. Maybe just focus on what you consider to be the most egregious error?

Roy's 'model' really does it for me. He's constructed a shopfloor mannequin, which superficially looks like the real thing, but is wondering why he can't find a heartbeat. Is Pielke wondering the same thing? 

2011-09-14 07:31:55
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I prefer the George Bernard Shaw quote.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

If we really want to have a go to RP Sr, why not do a post on his position statement in which he says that the AR4 report is "based on a scientific hypothesis which is straightforward to refute (e.g. see)."  The "see" link is this EOS article.  Of course, this post should be restrained in tone and well documented, as always.

I get the impression tha Rp Sr is very thin-skinned and doesn't like being criticized by uncredentialed upstarts like us.

If we want to fight him, let's pick a battlegound that we are used to winning on and one on which we are most likely to provoke him into doing something intemperate. (Shades of Sun Tzu)

By directly responding to his tone control criticism, we'll just end up with some proverbial pigshit on us.

2011-09-14 07:59:05from The Grateful Dead
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

Truckin', like the doo-dah man, once told me: "You got to play your hand
Sometimes

                the cards ain't worth a damn, if you don't lay'em down" ...

2011-09-14 08:11:05
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Roger Pielke says:

In conclusion, the EPA Endangerment findings is the culmination of a several year effort for a small group of climate scientists and others to use their positions as lead authors on the IPCC, CCSP and NRC reports to promote a political agenda.

Now that their efforts have reached the federal policy decision level, Climate Science urges that there be an independent commission of climate scientists who can evaluate the assement process that led to the EPA findings as well as the climate science upon which it is constructed.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/comment-on-news-article-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-seeks-trial-on-global-warming/

 

2011-09-14 08:19:01I'm with Neal
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.73

I agree with Neal. Confronting him right to his face is the best recourse.

2011-09-14 08:29:11
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Pielke is a slick piece of work.  I had forgotten his constant attempts to undermine science by cherry picking and argumentation with RealClimate and Gavin

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/

 

2011-09-14 08:42:16
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Ok, Nealstradamus at 14 Sep 2011, 6:45 AM, you convinced me.

Reluctantly, I invoke the Bard

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves?

Let slip the dogs of war and cry havoc!

 

But per Andy (and others) we need be circumspect with our choice of timing and field.

2011-09-14 08:48:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Andy,

That EOS article by Pielke is pretty bad, essentially a very verbose strawman and an attempt to muddy the waters.  The IPCC do not negelct the importanc eof aerosols or blavk carbon (soot).  Anyways that is not really relevant here, although it does show his bias.  

And lest we forget his recent run ins with SkS, here and here.  This is what RC had to say about his claims about sea ice, sea level and OHC.  

And this is not the first time that pielke has had a go at SkS.  Last year he had a post titled:

"Misinformation on the Website “Skeptical Science – Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism”

so maybe it is time to revisit that ans some of the claims made therein.  In his rant he says this near the end:

"What would be useful is for the weblog Skeptical Science authors to discuss the value of using (and issues with using) the accumulation of Joules in the climate system as the primary metric to monitor global warming."

Well looky here Roger, a new paper just out by Peterson et al. (2011), in which they say:

"Therefore, a two meter high layer of the atmosphere covering the global land surface would contain 3.37 x 1014 kg of air and be gaining heat content at a rate of 1.9 x 10^17 Jdecade-1. This seems like a tremendous amount of energy and it is. Yet it is a drop in the bucket, three orders of magnitude less than the concurrent increase in heat content of the top two meters of the ocean and five orders of magnitude less than the concurrent increases in ocean heat content from 0 to 700 m depth."

Note that they show OHC and terrestrial heat content increasing.

On another note, yes, I too get the distinct impression after following Roge Snr's postings here and elsewhere that Roger Snr is very thinnned skinned (it does not take much to set him off) and that he is very tight with Spencer and Christy.

I still have doubts about wrestling with Pielke-- he is kinda forcing our hand though, b/c nobody can post comments on his blog-- but I must admit IMHO, even though I do not always agree with Neal, he is a master strategist.

I'm torn as what to do.  Without knowing it Dana's latest post on the Santer paper refuting Christy really ought to irk Pielke and is yet another example of Chrsity's propensity to distort, miselad and misinform.  Roger snr is welcome to affiliate with these guys and defend their erors, but he must understand then that he then becomes part of the problem and inhereits their errors....and there goes his credibility.

If we do eventiually decide what to do, dot "is" and cross "ts".

2011-09-14 08:53:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

We don't need to be circumspect.

We need to:

- Be black & white RIGHT

- Fire with both barrels

2011-09-14 08:50:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Grypo, 

We cross posted (re RC's take down of Pielke).

2011-09-14 09:01:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Oy vey, you guys are all over the map.  About half want to directly respond to Pielke, while half think that's a horrible idea.  John thinks bringing up Spencer's model is too technical, while Rob P thinks that's the best example.  I've got no idea how to proceed from here :-\

Regarding Spencer examples, since Pielke specifically criticized the series, I had to limit examples to those covered in the series.  And most of the Spencer series has been limited to posts like Barry's focusing on his simple model and unphysical parameters.

Christy on the other hand has lots of examples of just silly shit, mainly from his Congressional testimony.

For the record, my vote is also to respond directly to Pielke.  When a climate scientist calls our site shit for basically no reason, I don't think the appropriate response is "thank you sir, may I please have some more?".  Plus as I've said several times, he's giving us an excuse to re-hash some of the stupid stuff Spencer and Christy have said and done.

2011-09-14 09:07:37
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.231

My vote is to take the bastard down!

2011-09-14 09:07:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

"Oy vey, you guys are all over the map"

"I've got no idea how to proceed from here :-\"

Yup, and I'm flip-flopping which is highly unusual for me.  Maybe we could chat by Skype Dana?  We need someone (looking at you John C.) make an executive decision and to lay out a plan.  John knows the psychology and how to message better than any of us.  

You have put something together, maybe we can work with that and polish it up.....we need to strike the right tone and remember that our audience is not familiar with all the BS going on behind the scenes or between RC and the Pielkes.  Just present the facts, set the record straight and show why his claim that the science out of UAH (i.e., by Christy and Spencer) is not always robust-- that way Pielke comes across as being unreasonable, defending bad science by Spencer and Christy, is biased and making allegations against SkS that are without merit or backed by facts/evidence.  I think that is the message we need to convey here.

PS:  Maybe we could start a Pielke Snr. series-- that would be a nice reward for him poking us with a stick (and frankly he deserves his own series) ;)

2011-09-14 09:21:13
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
173.33.199.12
Pielke's Porkies. (disclaimer: late arrival and tepid on the whole idea...just sharing an amusing association...)
2011-09-14 09:29:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.74

dana,

The requirements I propose are:

- Clear-cut, B&W, open & shut cases

- Can be posed very simply, transparently and briefly

- Maximum embarassment to Pielke

What can you produce along those lines?

If you can pull the content together, I will be willing to turn it into a razor-edged frisbee

2011-09-14 10:07:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Looks like Neal has a plan :)

When you refer to cases are you referring to cases dealing with Spencer and Christy?  If so, then one could say something like "Pielke's uncritical support of the bad science and misinformation by Spencer and Christy that have been highlighted here is not altogether unsurprising given that he has in the past engaged in the same kind of behaviour on his blog..." and then give the three esmaples that RC took dow--regarding sea levels, ocean heat and Arctic sea ice.....those are clear cut, demonstrably false claims that Pielke made (ironically he made those claims while accsuing the authors of the Copenhagen diagnosis of making msleading and false statements).

Another clear cut case is Spencer's recent astatement as what what he sees his job being.  That is not reconcilable with and consisytent with "robust science".   

This claim by Spencer is also demonstrably wrong: "Well, in 20 years of working in this business, the only indisputable mistake we ever made (which we immediately corrected, and even published our gratitude in Science to those who found it) was in our satellite global temperature monitoring, which ended up being a small error in our diurnal drift adjustment — and even that ended up being within our stated error bars anyway".

No scientist, no matter how briliant makes only a single error in their careers.

2011-09-14 10:26:11
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Seems to me that we are about to cross into Joe Romm territory with this one.

2011-09-14 10:47:23
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

With all the disagreemnt on how to proceed, at least I brought everybody together in agreeing that my post was not the way to go ;-)

I had some thoughts on my ride home.  Let me take another stab - will report back with a revised post shortly.

2011-09-14 11:27:08updated
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Okay, neal's probably going to say I'm still being too wordy, but have a look at the updated post.  It no longer speaks directly to Pielke, now it just evaluates the accuracy of his 'ad hominem' accusation.

2011-09-14 11:47:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Wow Dana, you are a machine! 

I'm putting the tots to bed now, but will write more later.  I think this is much better-- we should probably make a firm link between to Chrsity's and Specner's errors and Pielke given that he is defending them and claiming that their science is robust-- their track record suggests otherwise.  We also need to corner him a bit better, but I still think that this is a good start.

Before this is posted though, that Spencer intro needs revising and Christy's series needs an intro.; maybe I will have a bash at that unless someone else wnated to do it that is?

2011-09-14 11:55:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.231

Hmm, I'd rather see a slightly different post structure.

Pielke mentions Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip-Ups, and then immediately ignores the content of those posts, preferring instead to go on about the MSU satellites. He's conflating the SkS take-downs of Christy & Spencer with the scathing article by Trenberth et al, about the MSU satellites.

That should be set straight first and then Alby's post can be the follow up looking at the MSU record. He's using typical "skeptic" logical fallacies to try and cover Spencer and Christy's arses because he can see their credibilty in the media taking a battering. The problem isn't that Spencer and Christy made mistakes, everyone does. The issue is that they encouraged the use of their data to seed doubt over global warming and made little effort to correct their errors until forced to do so by other scientists.

Pielke is trying to re-write history. We must not let him get away with it.

2011-09-14 12:22:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Albie - see the intro discussion thread.

Rob - I think your concerns can be addressed by adding a bit more to the beginning of the post.  I'm not sure the structure would need re-working, since the body is 'not letting him get away' with sweeping Spencer and Christy's history of myth propagation under the rug.

2011-09-14 12:35:45
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob,

You are correct, Pielke is conflating issues and making unsubstantiated accusations about "ad hominem presentations" made by SkS.  SkS has covered the satellite record debate but it was not unkind to Spencer, in fact based on my research, it was too kind.

What Pielke forgets is that none of the articles in the Christy crocks or Spencer slips series deal with the veracity of the UAH data product.  Additionally, just becasue they had a novel idea (credit where credit is due) that does not absolve them of their other transgressions, a point that is sadly lost on Pielke.  He wants us to ignore everything else they have done wrong b/c they had a novel idea circa 1990 (maybe you could inlcude that sentence or something similar)-- an idea that they needed a great deal of help implementing correctly as it happens.

I read Pielke's post again, and he is having a very selective memory about the history of the satellite data corrections....so I guess that now he has decided to bring it up and mangle it, we have another mole or two to whack ;) 

And lastly, we can only assume that Pielke has read the series that he referred to and given his indignance, believes Christy's and Spencer's assertions and beliefs to be correct, and we can assume that he "owns" those statements too.  That or he can accept that the body of science runs counter to their statements and position. 

PS:  Pielke is contradicting Spencer.  Spencer said he has made only ONE error in his scientific career, well Pielke points to two in the satellite record alone, and there were likely more errors than that made by Spencer and Christy in the satellite record saga.

2011-09-14 12:37:42
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I agree with you and Rob, Dana.  Put something at the beginning like:

Reader of Dr Pileke's blog may be under the impression (as Dr. Pielke may also) that SkS's posts on Spencer/Christy have focused on the *insert UAH thermometer story name here*.   This would be a false assumption.

Bad wording, but I like my last sentence ;)  To me, it stings when it is pointed out that I've made a bad assumption.

2011-09-14 12:38:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,  I cannot access the linke you provided at 14 Sep 2011, 12:22 PM.

2011-09-14 12:39:51
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Ya know what's also funny.  If skeptics want to use the meme that Spencer/Christy were *firsts* in their field and opened up the science to a new avenue, but made some expected mistakes, then let 'em.  And when that goes viral, remind them who else did that -- Micheal Mann.

2011-09-14 12:40:47What are we trying to achieve here?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

I notice Alby's suggestion that I make an executive decision but the best I can do is an executive prevarication. I'm torn about this issue too. My conflict is the recognisation that emotion rules much of our decision making and is possibly coming to the fore here. When someone attacks you, the instinct is to strike back. When someone says something false (particularly about you), there's an irresistable urge to smack it down. 

So recognising these emotions, I went for a third party opinion - Wendy - who has a great knack of cutting through all the crap. I showed her the Pielke criticism, she commented it was a lame, non-criticism and not deserving of a response.

I think if we do respond to Pielke, we need to be clear on WHY we're doing it. I don't think it should be to provide an answer to Pielke's criticism. His criticism just isn't substantial enough to deserve a response. So I'm sorry, Dana, but I wonder whether titling your post "Responding to Pielke..." and the driving force of the blog post being "Is SkS ad hominem?" is the correct framing. It will generate controversy and attract interest. People love a bitch slap between prominent bloggers. But is it constructive?

You have to understand what Pielke is doing, possibly at a psychological level. He's chummy with Spencer and Christy. We're criticising his BFFs and threatening his clan. By threatening his cultural group, we're threatening his very identity. When people encounter counter arguments that threaten their identity, they respond with Disconfirmation Bias. This is the process of recalling supporting arguments while ignoring/discounting counter arguments. Pielke is bringing to the fore supporting arguments (UAH is cool) while ignoring all our specific criticisms of S/C.

Now this requires some development but I would suggest if we do respond to Pielke, it's not as a "response to Pielke" but it would be an opportunity to establish our own framing. The framing is probably something like "Spencer and Christy say demonstrably false statements, often under oath to US Congress" and question whether Pielke (or maybe not mention him) is okay with that. Christy makes a crazy statement like "hotspot is a greenhouse signature" under oath, is Pielke going to defend that?

Whether we invoke Pielke directly, I'm not sure. Mentioning him directly is a good opportunity to point out his cherry picking disconfirmation bias. Regardless of whether we involve Pielke or not, this is a good chance to reaffirm our framing and make deniers accountable for their misinformation.

I'm also conscious of the fact that we've done a helluva lot of Christy/Spencer/Lindzen bashing over the last few weeks. Would be good to do some more positive posts. One thing I'm thinking about - in light of that conservative posting about SkS "converting" him, I thought I might do a post of a few examples of deniers changing their minds due to SkS. It will really get up the noses of the deniers who seem to want to ignore and deny SkS - to see a couple of conservative blogs turn to the light side because of SkS will make us harder to ignore (hmm, is my motive to do this post also emotional, wanting to stick it to the denialosphere? I'm overthinking things, I think, reading too much psychological literature at the moment).

2011-09-14 12:55:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

John, you flip-flopper! :-)

I disagree.  First I think Pielke deserves a response because of who he is.  If this were Motl or Bolt or somebody with some inconsequential blog, sure, who cares what they say?  But this is a climate scientist who a lot of people take seriously.

I also agree with neal that there's a PR war here.  Pielke is taking it to us, and I think we need some sort of response.  And it's not like we're saying "Pielke is a big doody head", we're using the scientific literature to explain why he's wrong.

Thirdly, as I've noted a few times already, Pielke is giving us a golden opportunity to repeat the content of the Spencer and Christy posts.  You're always saying how important repetition is.  If we're not responding to Pielke, then there's no point in publishing the post at all, and we blow the opportunity.  To answer your question, I think that's what we're trying to achieve, primarily.  Hammer home Spencer and Christy's history of mythturbation.

I've revised the start of the post in response to Rob and grypo's comments, if we decide to proceed with the post.

2011-09-14 13:29:25
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.36.231

-"Are any of these posts ad hominem presentations, as Pielke proclaims?" - re-phrase = "None of these posts are ad hominem presentations............." Don't pose it as a question, rhetorical or not.

-Same with  -"Is it an "ad hominem presenation" to replicate a scientist's results?" - you come across as plaintive. Ditch the rhetorical questions.

-Under heading "Who is Guilty of Ad Hominem?" - "in" should start with a capital letter.

-Eggregious = egregious

I like it, but think the concluding paragraph could be stronger. 

2011-09-14 13:44:52Mythturbation
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Dana,did you just invent that word?

2011-09-14 14:23:56mythturbation
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Google says yes.  Similar to tamino's "mathturbation" though.  I also invented "eggregious" (it's an egregious egg).  So are you still opposed to the post, John?

Post revised per Rob's latest comments.

2011-09-14 14:39:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John,

Thanks for your input.  Hmm, maybe you could specifically suggest how Dana can use your psychological analysis to improve the post, if it is a go that is, i'm still not clear on that.  Maybe we just need to change the title to something that does not include Pielke? Something like "Misinformation and confusion from UAH endorsed by "skeptics""... that was off the top of my head, but something something that does not specifically give Pielke the attention he wants but which at the same time puts him on the defensive....so a general introduction and then the essay can then proceed to use Pielke's post as an example of "skeptics" who uncritically accept the poor science of like-minded people, and who turn a blind eye to their many errors and misinformation.  That is consistent with SkS mandate to look at the big picture, Pielke does not want people to do that (for obvious reasons, it makes them look awful), and we should not let him.

So I do think that what Pielke said needs to be addressed, there i finally mad eup my bloody mind!  He made an inane and demonstrably false claim, this is an opportunity and really his comment was so stupid that it is a slam dunk and we need to capitalize on that..again to highlight that "skeptics" are being uncritical of errors and misinformatioon being peddled by like-minded scientists.  So SkS can use this episode as a teaching moment in addition to taking down Pielke.

Also, people are out to dicredit SkS (you should read some of the Desmogblog when they had a troll infestation, they tried every trick in the book to dismiss SkS)-- so if it does come up, then we can point people to the Dana's post and say..."Actually, Pielke made a incorrect statement and chose to ignore the errors and misinformation of his "fellow 'skeptics"".

There is something else that we really ought to call Pielke Snr on.  He routinely makes these sorts of accusations on his blog, but his blog is not open for comments.  His decision not to allow comments on his blog indicates a weakness to me, and we should highlighting that.  We could/should invite him to address the case made at SkS (and the body of science) against Spencer and Christy at SkS, or if he can challenge the case at SkS on his own blog (not WUWT) and that the post be made open to comments so that SkS can openly partake in the discussion.  If he does post another snarky attack on SkS at WUWT or on his blog without opening the comments after we requested that he not do so, it reflects very poorly on him and suggests that he is unwilling to defend his critique and rhetoric.  Alternatively, one could muse that he will post at WUWT (an anti-scienceblog) or on his blog without comments...the message and impact is the same.  Maybe there is a better way of acheiveingthis, but I think people really ought to know that Pielke is not playing fair here and that he is not willing to enter into open discourse with people who do not agree with him.

2011-09-14 14:44:57Converted skeptic
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.176.207.30

John, take a look at another post I just added over in Suggestion Box

2011-09-14 15:33:12Borg vs cyborg
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Dana, I wasn't against your post - I would never go up against the cyborg. :-)

I wasn't even against direct engagement of Pielke necessarily. But I do question the framing of "SkS responding to Pielke", thinking a stronger frame would be "Misinformation from Christy and Spencer" or something to that effect. Just think what is the core message you want to communicate and what do you want people to remember about this post long after the details have faded. What is a strong statement you wish to make that if deniers respond to, will help reinforce? Eg - if your core message and headline is "Christy and Spencer misinform under oath", then the detail that people remember afterwards is Christy and Spencer are misinformers. When deniers respond to our post, they discuss the frame "Christy and Spencer misinforming". It's not about SkS responding to Pielke, it's not about SkS making ad homs. You shift the debate.

The post can mention Pielke, can directly respond to him but I'm just doing my usual thing of trying to disrupt the flow of your post :-)

Alby, could you email me the URL where desmogblog trolls try to discredit SkS? I've never read that.

2011-09-14 15:41:06
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

May I suggest that we don't rush into a response here? The last thing we want is to appear defensive or peeved.

Ask someone unfamiliar with this dispute what they think about the tone of Pielke's comments and the tone of the SkS response. Women are better at this stuff than men.

The fact that Pielke even acknowledges SkS is a good thing. Really, he hasn't laid a glove on us. He says we've failed to acknowledge the great work that his buddies have done and that we've been rude to them. No real arguments, just a curmudgeon grumbling away.

2011-09-14 17:38:45
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
184.98.25.40

WUWT a provocation..............."Pielke Sr. on Skeptical Science's attacks on Spencer and Christy" is Anthony Watts' title.

 

Pielke Sr's article...............is titled,  "Scientific Robustness of The University of Alabama at Huntsville MSU Data"

The article begins.........."As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reorts on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data..."

First mention of SkS.........."The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science who have sections titled  "Christy Crocks' and 'Spencer Slip Ups'."

Following.........."If this weblog intends, as they write, to contribute to "explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation" they certainly have failed in this effort, with respect to the outstanding research that Christy and Spencer have accomplished."

Last.........."Similarly, weblogs such as Skeptical Science, if they want to move the debate on the climate issues forward, need to move towards a more constructive approach."

 

(for assessing proportionality)

2011-09-14 17:58:47WUWT is irrelevant, IMHO
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Our response is direct to Pielke's blog - WUWT has nothing to do with this. It is interesting that Watts likes to rachet up the rhetoric in his headline compared to Pielke but no more than what Joe Romm likes to do.

If anything, Pielke's is a good example of core messaging - "UAH is robust". He knows his message and his blog post regularly reinforces that key point. He's arguing on familiar ground where he's comfortable, we're to take him away from the technical warm and fuzziness of UAH data and into the uncomfortable real world where Spencer and Christy spin lies to the public.

On the other hand, WUWT tries to sensationalise it. Turn it into a controversy, a cat fight between Pielke and SkS. Watts is not above generating controversy to enflame readers and generate traffic - but I hope we are.

2011-09-14 18:44:45We need to be punchier.
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

I'm afraid I don't agree with the current direction of discussion:

- I think this should be a direct challenge to Pielke, to put him on the spot.

- I am against the very "nice" wording dana's draft includes. I wouldl be a lot more blunt. Example:

"Reader of Dr Pileke's blog may be under the impression (as Dr. Pielke may also) that SkS's posts on Spencer/Christy have focused on the *insert UAH thermometer story name here*.   This would be a false assumption."

=>

"Dr Pileke's blog suggests that SkS's posts on Spencer/Christy have focused on the *insert UAH thermometer story name here*.   This is wrong."

- Cut out all the fat and the cushioning, lose a factor of 2 in length.

The point is NOT to play "nicey nicey" with Pielke. We're not playing ping-pong. The point is to make him put up or shut up, ideally to make him lose his cool in front of his audience: THAT's how we reduce his effectiveness, which has got to be the goal of engaging him.

Sound a little rough? We're playing for the fate of the planet.

We don't need to be rude or unprofessional, but we do have to be extremely direct. We can skate close to the edge of the ice, but we need to stay ON the ice: That means that every word we say has to be rock-solid true, and not just a matter of interpretation. As long as we do that, we can push him harder than he can push us. Eventually he's going to fall into the water.

 

2011-09-14 19:05:12
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

My approach would be just a very short post saying pointing out that Pielke obviously hasn't actually read the relevant SkS articles.  If he had, he would know that SkS had reviewed the UAH MSU product and were not critical of Christy or Spencers work in that area and that his defense of the UAH MSU dataset does not refute any of the "Spencer Slip-ups" and "Christy Crocks" which are not criticisms of this dataset, but of their other work.  Then invite prof. Pielke to contribute to the discussion of those criticisms of Spencer and Christy.

 

2011-09-14 20:25:01
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

In line with Dikran, how about a post on the full body of evidence applied to this case?
SkS have been accused to question Spencer and Christy dataset while the full body of evidence (i.e. our series and posts) says otherwise.
The series on Spencer and Christy, on the contrary, consider the full (or at least a large part of the) body of evidence of their claims, they did not pick up one single claim or work to put Spencer and Christy down.
And here comes Pielke. How come that a scientist fails to look at the full body of evidence before accusing us of ad hominem attacks? He didn't took the time to read our blog posts and hence his conclusions are clearly biased, they are due to his prejudice. His conclusions aren't worth any further consideration.

2011-09-14 21:07:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

dana,

Looking over carefully your most recent (I think) version, I see that you have made it all about SkS. I would mostly side-line that stuff (=> "We stand by what we wrote.") and make it all about PIELKE.

You said much earlier that Pielke has criticized mainstream scientists while giving a pass to Lindzen/Spencer/Christy on matters they've misstated. I would highlight the rock-solid examples of that and ask him if he still gives them a pass. Put him on the spot: He can't provide cover for LSC and embrace mainstream climate science at the same time: When they go off, he's got to choose, not just divert attention.

You can use SkS for references, but in general, the more text you write, the easier it will be for Pielke to find something at the edges to respond to, so he can look like he's returning fire whilst he's really sneaking out the basement window. If you keep it sharp and focused, he'll either have to back down or go silent. Either way, we win.

2011-09-14 23:48:11nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Will our "win" be a pyrrhic victory?

The bigger the ruckus we raise, the more we draw attention to Pielke's original assertion that "Christy Crocks" is a derrogatory label and that SkS engages in ad hominem attacks on contraians such as Spencer and Christy.

As they say, "Discretion is the better part of valor."

PS -- In my opinion, "Christy Crocks" is a derrogatory label -- I assumed that SkS had intended it to be so. If it were my call, I would change the label to a more neutral phrase.

2011-09-15 00:23:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

No, our wiin will be a win.

Pielke is already a high-profile contributor to climate science: Challenging him will not add to his readership, but to our's. His assertion is no danger, if we can back up what we've written.

In this case, "discretion" would be interpreted as aquiescence; otherwise known as "cowardice", or "allowing oneself to be bullied."

2011-09-15 00:33:45
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Neal,

I'm not sure how busy you are but perhaps it would be best if you wrote something up, that way we can all see exactly what you intend in terms of messaging, wording etc.  Doing so may help in reconciling the different approaches being proposed here.

2011-09-15 00:38:10Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Amen to that!

2011-09-15 00:43:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

Albatross,

I started to do that with dana's most recent draft, which is how I came to my recent critique. I don't have the time to do the research. If someone could outline the facts along the lines I laid out at 14 Sep 2011, 9:07 PM (what did he say, what was wrong with it, where's our reference that explains it], then I could write it up; and we could then go over it with a fine-toothed comb. I think this is more where dana was starting from originally, but got side-tracked into "broader issues". I don't want broader issues, I want to nail his feet to the floor and blast away.

2011-09-15 00:46:08
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Badger,

"The bigger the ruckus we raise, the more we draw attention to Pielke's original assertion that "Christy Crocks" is a derrogatory label"

Pielke does not provide any specifics other than providing links to the two series, so he does not claim that the series title is "derogatory"  This is not about making a "ruckus" but firmly (but professionally) setting the record straight and calling Pielke on his false assertion/s.  

As I mentioned up thread this could be used as a teaching moment to SkS readers, that is to "highlight that "skeptics" are being uncritical of errors and misinformation being peddled by like-minded scientists" and "how skeptics make unsupported assertions", that in additon to being firm with Pielke.  By using a title suggested by John C,

"Misinformation from Christy and Spencer"

or mine,

"Misinformation and confusion from UAH endorsed by fellow "skeptics""

we reframe the argument into what really matters here-- the nasty habit that Spencer and Christy have to spin, misinform, mislead on climate sicence, while their cohorts (e.g., Pielke Snr) sit on their hands and say nothing.

I think that we can do all of the above (a) set the record straight wrt pielke's comments against SkS, and b) show him to be biased and duplicious) without it appearing defensive or overly combative on our part, and remember we will first change Spencer's intro and add one for Christy, so if Pielke wants to come across as a thin-skinned curmudgeon about the catchy series titrles then he can be our guest.

2011-09-15 01:04:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Neal,

Looking at that to-do list the only thing that seems to be under debate is "Clear-cut, B&W, open & shut cases", the rest falls into place after that.  Dana has identified a few examples from the series to highlight the bigger picture, and he seems to have tried to follow your guidelines, at least that is how I see it.  But if you think the piece needs focus then have a go at it when you can find some time.  Perhaps the following will help...

The other clear cut case is what Pielke says about SkS on his blog:

"As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data, I want to summarize the history of this data analysis below. John Christy and Roy Spencer lead this climate research program.

The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblogSkeptical Science who have sections titled

Christy Crocks

and

Spencer Slip Ups

If this weblog intends, as they write, to contribute to

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

they certainly have failed in this effort, with respect to the outstanding research that Christy and Spencer have accomplished."

That broad statement is made in the context of the MSU fiasco, something that (has been mentioned before) is not addressed in the series in question. So Pielke does a sleight of hand here, he introduces the alleged unfair and derogatory treatment of the UAH record, and then in the very next paragraph implicates SkS by saying "The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science".  That is a blatantly false and demonstrably wrong assertion and shows that he has not bothered to read our scientific critique of comments made by Spencer and christy or critiques of their misguided scientific hypotheses.

This is what the Sks article on the MSU record (that Dana links toin his post) says about the MSU story:

"The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.

Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space."

That is a very, very generous and fair summary of what happened and I can't see how Pielke can fault that-- then again, he probably has no idea that post exists and is totally focussed on what he perceives is an attack on Christy and Spencer.  That is what he is really miffed about, his BFFs arre being showed up in public by the body of science and facts.  And SkS is shining a bright light on their misdeeds and nonsense-- so he is scrambling to reframe the argument.

2011-09-15 01:13:52I'm still with Neal
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Sorry John et al... I'm very much against framing this as nicely as we have. I think it is a nice post sure but it is timid and we do not need to be in this case. Directly challenging Pielke is a great approach and highlighting the contradictions where skeptics sit on their hands is important. Look the skeptics like Pielke always come out to criticize consensus scientists and their handling of things but never the opposing side. This has got to be highlighted directly. A great example (not related to this specific case but to another) is the criticism spencer has made of Mann et al. and yet he still highlights Loehle 2007 on his webpage.

2011-09-15 01:15:29
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Excellent find Alby.  That needs to be in the post.  Not only does that make Pielke look like he doesn't know what he's talking about in regards how we approached the UAH thermometer, but it gives SkS the upper hand in discussing who has been debating constructively and who has not.  In the end, Pielke's entire argument is about the word "crocks, which by dictionary definition is his language means, silly.  

 

After pointing this out, Dana or Neal can go into why we have those two scientists in our crosshairs and wonder aloud if/why Pielke is so anxious to defend their more agregious errors.

 

And we should sign the post as a group.  I think this thread is a testement to criticism and review so far.

2011-09-15 01:18:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Re:

"Who is Guilty of Ad Hominem?

In fact, if (as seems to be the case) Pielke's criticism is based on nothing more than the series' names, ironically that is essentially an ad hominem argument.  Hypocrisy aside, is there any validity to Pielke's criticisms that Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups are ad hominem presentations?"

I would not give this a separate heading...it sounds defensive (even tyhough it is not intended that way) and petty, and mat in a bizarre way sow the seed in people's minds that SkS is guilty of the charges.  Maybe just point out somewhere in the body text that the content of the series are not ad hom, and point out the irony of Pielke making that accusation when he is actually engaging  ad hom against SkS.

"They cover a very wide range of subjects about which the two have propagated myths and misinformation; an unfortunate reality which it seems Pielke would like to sweep under the rug."

I would take this a step further, by sweeping it under the rug he is also actually endorsing what Christy and Spencer are saying in public and to Congress.  Those misleading comments are still out there, and Pielke seems OK with that, wishing to rather try and sgift the focus on other matters.

"None of these posts are ad hominem presentations."

Are we absolutely sure about that?  Do any of the posts contain ad hominem attacks on Spencer?  I recall that Barry's second post on Spencer's book was a little "personal". Maybe add for reinforcement that "...are ad homeninem presentations and non of them are relevant to the histiory of the UAH MSU product".

2011-09-15 01:20:23Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

At the end of the day, John Cook will have the final say on what gets published.

I've voiced my concerns and will not repeat them.

2011-09-15 02:01:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

John and others,

OFFs, I just typed up a long post and lost it somehow (well i know how but i'll save you the details).

I hate to do this, but I may be throwing a huge spanner in the works here.  Click on the "Spencer slip ups" button. Now navigate to the "Arguments" header, there is a column titled "Climate myths by Spencer".  Now here is the deal, we are saying that Spencer caters or perpetuates the listed myths.  But oftentimes no link is provided that shows the reader where Spencer is on the record saying so, or publishing research along those lines.  It cannot stay like that.  

Almost all the rebuttals to a myth do not inlcude a direct quote from Spencer, nevermind a link to where he said that or where his research clealry supports the myth in question.  There are some exceptions "Roy Spencer finds negative feedback" is OK, so is "Climate sensitivity is low", as is "It's internal variability" [that links to a blog post with a quote by Christy, but Spencer is cited in the text], "IPCC is alarmist" [that actually included a quote made by Spencer]

Ocean acidification isn't serious" does not mention Spencer at all (but rather a quote by Monckton is provided).  However, Spencer does dismiss OA (and bunch of other science) on his blog here.

"CO2 limits will hurt the poor" [Spencer is not mentioned in the linked blog post.  He is of this opinion, but no link to support his association with htis myth is provided]

"Global warming stopped in 1998,199520022007,2010, ????" [Does this really apply to Spencer?  He is not quoted or cited in the blog post]

et cetera.

I'm thinking that the same may have happened with Christy.   So I am suggesting that we review each and every one of those "Arguments" and make sure that they accurately reflect Roy's and John's positions and provide a link to where they say that or where their science suggests that if it already has not been done.

if we are going to challenge Pielke to read the series, then he and others will no dounbt see this and Pielke will rightly be miffed and we will have given him an out on a platter, and worse yet, John C and SkS will have egg on their faces.  Not pretty.

2011-09-15 02:05:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Here's the latest version, which I'm sure I'll have to revise once again later today :-)

Pielke Sr. Endorses Misinformation from Fellow 'Skeptics'

Alby - the "Arguments" come from the articles in the "Articles" tab right next to it.  It's all filled in via the Firefox add-on.

2011-09-15 02:15:34
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

dana,

I'm still looking over the material. But I don't think we should spend so much energy defending ourselves or what we said: I think it's enough to say that Pielke is completely off-base, because he's criticising us for things we didn't say (wrt UAH, etc.). What's more interesting is that he passes on LSC's booboos, without a word. You mention various myths: I would detail the most clearcut wacky ones, give an authoritative reference, and ask him what he thinks.

He must either:

- go on the record as supporting nonsense; or

- go on the record against his buddies.

Either is fine by me ...

2011-09-15 02:22:43nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I doubt that those are the only two options that Pielke has, but hey, what do I know. 

Beware of unintended consequences.

2011-09-15 02:44:19
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Thanks. OK, I recall how John C. set it up, but I am very concerned with us misrepresenting S and C and not showing readers where they are on the record catering to a myth or linking to their research which endorses/caters to a myth-- but maybe I am just a worry wart ;)

I still think that "link" is too tenuous.  Can we honestly expect the reader to wade through each of the articles and try and math them up with the myths?  Also, there is no link to Spencer's rant on the EPA in which he dismisses OA.

I randomly chose one "article", "On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC", that is provided to support that Spencer caters to the following myths:

"Al Gore got it wrong" Not supported as far as I can tell. He does not claim in this post that Al Gore got it wrong in AIT.  He suggests that Gore denies the existence of natural climate change. 

"CO2 is not the only driver of climate" This myth is supported by the text.

"CO2 is plant food" He does not say this explicitly, he says "There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide" and "Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth."

"CO2 limits will harm the economy" Not supported as far as I can tell.

"CO2 limits will hurt the poor" This myth is supported by the text.

"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????" Not supported as far as I can tell.

"IPCC is alarmist" Not supported as far as I can tell.  He makes some vague insinuations "If anthropogenic global warming – and ocean ‘acidification’ (now there’s a biased and totally incorrect term) — ends up being largely a false alarm, those who have run the IPCC are out of a job."

"It's a natural cycle" Tenuous, but perhaps sufficient.

Am I the only one concerned about this potential problem?

2011-09-15 02:50:42
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Looking better IMHO.  Re this:

"Case in point, when Kevin Trenberth co-authored a media article critical of Spencer and Braswell's recent paper and the media exaggeration of its findings, Pielke lept to their defense, calling Trenberth's article "a hatchet job."  However, as Dessler (2011) showed, Trenberth's criticisms of Spencer's paper were generally correct.

Perhaps Pielke was critical because Trenberth's article was published by the mainstream media?  If so, once again, he has still refused to direct equal criticism to his fellow "skeptics." 

I would suggest leaving that all out...let us not get enwtined in the bickering between Pielke and Trenberth et al.  that just opens us to critique, suggests bias and distracts from the message we wish to convey.  

2011-09-15 03:03:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

I believe the best myths to focus on are those relevant directly to climate science, not to consequences.

Otherwise, Pielke can say, "I don't concern myself with Spencer's opinions, just with his science."

So if Spencer wants to pratter about the benefits of increased CO2, I think we can roll our eyes; but if he claims that human exhalation also increases CO2, this is not opinion, this is just wrong; and both he and Pielke should be on the hook, professionally, for it.

2011-09-15 03:16:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

neal - the 'defending ourselves' section is an excuse to go over the Spencer and Christy series again.  It makes use of the effective communication via repetition strategy.

Made a couple other changes in response to neal and Alby comments.

2011-09-15 03:16:56Albatross
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I concur with your observations about the exisitng Spencer and Christy articles.  I see not to strengthen the articles by filling in the gaps so to speak. Our audience for these articles should be the average person, not each other.  

2011-09-15 03:20:10
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

This time I agree with Neal when he says "I think it's enough to say that Pielke is completely off-base". The last two sections can be omitted altogether and write a short summary paragraph just saying that the series are based on many public statements/claim they made.

I'd also change the title and drop the second last paragraph in the section "Pielke's One-Sided Criticisms". Not commenting someone's claim does not imply endorsing it, just being one-sided. Speaking of which, I bet sceptics see us as one-sided as well. Someone in the comments or other bloggers will take the opportunity to depict us in the same way.

As I said before, I'd only write a shorter post focused on the accusation; I'm not sure we want to give the impression of taking the opportunity to smash Pielke (who, by the way, has been left untouched up to now). It could be something like the very first part of current version.
But I think it would be good if we may all agree and sign the post as SkS Team. For this reason I'm inclined to agree to add the "Pielke's One-Sided Criticisms" section and ask you all to try to converge on an agreed text.

2011-09-15 03:42:41
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Riccardo,

I'm sorry, but I disagree-- we need to call Pielke on trying to sweep S's and C's transgressions under the rug, and we need to highlight his clear bias and his attempt at sleight of hand..

SkS has a very clear mandate:"Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

Pielke is clearly guilty of vigorously criticising evidence that supports man-made global warming and embracing arguments that claim to challenge global warming and the importnce of human emissions.  He also oftentimes seems to ignore the body of scientific evidence on an issue, but we'll leave that for another time perhaps.

The sections that you called out could be shorter and more focussed, on that I agree.  And I would exclude sentences like "Replicating a scientist's results does not constitute an "ad hominem presenation." and "None of these posts are ad hominem presentations."

This sentence "Rather than tacitly endorsing the serial misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy, Pielke should apply his "skeptical" eye to those on "his side" as well" needs reworking. He will probably (rightly) reply right back at you; a nonsencial defense given Sks's mandate, but others will not see it that way.

Maybe somehting like "it is disappointing to see that Pielke Sr. is tacitly endorsing the repeated misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy and unwilling to be truly skeptical"

2011-09-15 03:53:15
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Albatros

as I noted, we didn't touch Pielke yet and it's probably time di turn our attention to him. I'm only saying not now, not as a reply to his false accusation.

2011-09-15 03:53:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

'In a recent post on his blog, Roger Pielke Sr. had some harsh criticism regarding our performance in meeting those goals."

The "harsh" can propbably be dropped.

"Hypocrisy and bias aside, is there any validity to Pielke's criticisms that Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups are ad hominem presentations?"

I would suggest excluding this-- focus on Pielke being off base re the UAH data and him tacitly endorsing S and C's misinformation.  IMHO, you asking him about Christy misleading congress is a good call.  I see that set up as a no win for him.  Although he might play the uncertainty card, "Yes Chrsity is correct, we do not know as much about the climate system as some might think", but that is pretty lame argument.

"Not only does Pielke refuse to criticize his fellow "skeptics" for misinforming the public and policymakers, but he then attacks SkS for doing just that!"

I'd leave out the exclamation mark and replace "he attacks" with he "bemoans" (or something similar).

"Regardless, in keeping with the purpose and standards established for SkS by John Cook, in every Spencer Slip-Up and Christy Crock we have either evaluated how their statements stack up to the body of scientific literature, or attempted to replicate their results."

I'd remove "Regardless," and move the remainder of the sentence to below the last para under the heading "Series' Scientific Basis".

2011-09-15 04:09:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Under your final heading "Reality check", maybe reiterate that Pielke is completely off base when he tries and implicates SkS in other's harsh critique of the UAH MSU corrections.  How about tightening it up a bit too, sometjhing like:

"In conclusion, the reality is that Piekle Snr. was completely off base when he tried to implicate SkS in other's critique of the UAH satellite record. Another uinfortunate reality for Pielke is that Spencer and Christy have both made a large number of public statements which are contradicted by the body of scientific literature.  If they hadn't, we would not have created these series to begin with.  It is disappointing to see that Pielke Sr. is tacitly endorsing the repeated misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy and unwilling to be truly skeptical.  We suggest that Dr. Pielke come to terms with Spencer and Christy's propensity to propagate long-debunked climate myths, including in possibly the worst forum imaginable -  in testimony to our policymakers."

There is quite a bit of repetition there, so maybe someone else can do better than my first try.

2011-09-15 04:09:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

A few more edits made.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

By the way, we have previously addressed Pielke: Pielke Sr and scientific equivocation: don't beat around the bush, Roger

2011-09-15 04:19:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks for all your hard work on this Dana-- you are very gracious in accepting critique and to making changes.  I hope everyone here realizes that it is much easier to critique than it is to put pen to paper.

Re out precious encounter with Pielke, yes that was "fun", not, he is very slippery and a master obfuscator!  So we need to keep that in mind.

2011-09-15 04:52:06Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Your latest iteration looks good to me. Let the chips fall where they may!

2011-09-15 05:12:37Typo
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

"the reality is that Piekle was completely off-base when he tried to imp"


Pielke not Piekle


I think it is good.
Perhaps near the end or at some point link to one of the real climate articles discussing the MSU data... a sentence like "these discussions have been had elsewhere".

2011-09-15 05:28:32Sorry to be late, but I said I would
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

dana,

This is a much-stripped down version of what you had, emphasizing the issues I was unable to get across above. It's clearly not complete, but I think it bids fair to being a sharper instrument.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The banner at the top of the Skeptical Science (SkS) webpage announces our primary aim: to “get skeptical about global warming skepticism” by seeing what the peer-reviewed scientific literature has to say about the climate myths promoted by self-declared “skeptics”.  However, in a recent blog post, Roger Pielke Sr. attacked our article series, Christy Crocks and Spencer Slip Ups, as being merely ad hominem attacks on scientific work done by Christy and Spencer on the University of Alabama (UAH)’s MSU temperature data.

Unfortunately for this piercing critique, these two series of articles do not touch upon the topic of the UAH work. Indeed, the only time SkS has mentioned this work was when we used it as an example of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process.

What the series have bored in on are the wide range of topics relevant to global warming concerning which Spencer and Christy have propogated numerous myths and copious misinformation. The reader may refer to the Christy Crocks and the Spencer Slip Ups at leisure and at length, for ample examples.

What we find strange is that, although Pielke defends Spencer and Christy against attacks never made against them, he never criticizes them for blatant errors of logic and fact that they have made; even though he is happy to point our errors made by more mainstream climate scientists. [Need examples of Pielke pointing the finger at mainstream scientists.]

For example: [OK, now I need some pretty hard-core examples (with references) of nonsense propagated by these guys: clear-cut, known to be nonsense, and clearly within the subject matter of climate science (no, I’m not interested in agricultural impacts; but if somebody said that human exhalation increases atmospheric CO2, that’s a Bingo!]

So here is our question for Dr. Pielke: Your friends and colleagues have said:

- [Myth 1]. Do you agree with this? If not, why don’t you correct them?

- [Myth 2]. Do you agree with this? If not, why don’t you correct them?

- [Myth 3]. Do you agree with this? If not, why don’t you correct them?

And finally: On x/xx/xxxx, Christy testified before the U.S. Congress that "In this sense yes [1970s cooling predictions were similar to current warming predictions], our ignorance about the climate system is just enormous". Do you think we’ve learned so little since the 1970’s that this is a fair statement to give to our policy-makers, regarding the degree of confidence they should place in the competence and knowledge of our country’s climate scientists? Do you think this testimony was fair to all your colleagues?

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

2011-09-15 05:43:09
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Putting aside the issue of whether this response is tactically appropriate or not....

1) I don't see how Pielke's criticsm of SkS is ad hominem. He doesn't mention any of us individuals by name and he doesn't say that our arguments are wrong because we have some character flaw or because we were wrong about some other unrelated argument. He simply says that we are wrong (without providing any counter-argument or evidence) and that we have based our case on personal our attacks on Spencer and Christy. He's wrong on both counts but not because he has used the ad hominem logical fallacy.

2) You say "...we have not even touched on Spencer and Christy's work in analyzing atmospheric temperature data in these two series (although we have examined the issue in other posts outside these series)" But the preamble to the Spencer Slip Ups secytion does say:

"The problem is, he has been shown to be wrong time and time again.  He has left it up to others to fix his mistakes.  He has made multiple errors with satellite measurements – in fact, he originally said the earth was getting colder.  After scientists discovered he had made errors, he corrected his work and his new results show the earth is warming."

That quote's not consistent with never having touched upon the subject.

3) You say "... which it seems Pielke would like to sweep under the rug." I don't doubt that's true but it's an attribution of motive that's hard to prove and easy for him or his supporters to deny.

4) Maybe change the awkward section heading "Series' Scientific Basis" to "The scientific basis of our two series" or something like that.

2011-09-15 05:57:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I appreciate the specific suggestions neal, but I've got some concerns about them.

1) After about a dozen iterations of this post, we've finally gotten to a point where most people seem satistfied with it.  If we now significantly change it, we could end up back at square one.

2) Stripping the post down eliminates the repetition of the Spencer and Christy myths.  Not only does this section accomplish the communications tactic of repetition, but it also gives a clear picture of the wide range of topics the two have mythturbated about (sensitivity, economics, renewable energy, model accuracy, etc.).  If we just say "peruse the series at your leisure", we lose this clear picture that Spencer and Christy will deny anything AGW-related, even if well outside their expertise.

3) Pielke specifically criticized the two series.  Confronting him with Spencer/Christy quotes that we haven't examined in these series is a shifting of the goalposts.

4) Several people didn't like the approach of directly addressing Pielke, which is why I revised it with phrasin glike 'we would like to know his opinion of this behavior.'  This goes back to my concern #1.  I view this discussion thread as sort of a consensus process, where nobody will be totally happy with the post, but hopefully everyone can agree that it's satisfactory, because there's a very wide range of disagreements about it.

2011-09-15 06:00:44
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Andy,

Good points about the ad hominem...we'd better steer clear of that then.

I am going to re-write that intro for Spencer.  maybe we shoudl day "we have not even touched on Spencer and Christy's work in analyzing atmospheric temperature data in blog posts included in these two series"

I do not agree with this though:

"I don't doubt that's true but it's an attribution of motive that's hard to prove and easy for him or his supporters to deny."

It is very clear what Pielke is trying to do, he is cherry picking the one thing that Spencer and Christy did a reasonable job of (and that might be generous) and ignoring everything else.  He is trying to distratc people by waving his hands and saying "look here, look here!".  I do not recall seeing a single post on Roger Snr's.  blog or his musings elsewhere where he has pulled up Spencer or Christy or Michaels or Carter or Mclean or McKitrick et al. for their shennanigans. He and his fan base can deny that, but the facts clearly show otherwise, and they will look foolish for doing so.  And besides, if they do deny it, I and others can trot out many examples of when Pielke endorsed something by "skeptics" which was either wrong from the outset, or shown to be wrong and he did not update his page.  One example is Spencer cooking graphs that purported to show that the SAT record could be modelled using the PDO-- that post was featured on Pielke's blog.  RC had a field day with it.

2011-09-15 06:02:09
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Andy -

1) Pielke says our "presentations" (posts) are ad hominem based on the series' names.  A criticism based on nothing more than a name is basically an ad hominem (in the text I said "essentially" ad hominem).  Essentially he's saying "you're wrong because the series name is Spencer SlipUps."

2) I guess it depends whether you consider that intro part of the series.  I'm referring to the blog posts.  I can make that clearer in the text (as Alby suggested).

3) Ditto Alby's comment.

4) Will re-word.

2011-09-15 06:02:15If the objective is to make Pielke respond...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

then shop the final version of the article for cross-posting to Romm, Source Watch, PlanetSave, etc.

Also put out a news release about it.

No guts, no glory.

2011-09-15 06:04:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Regarding Neals' suggestions, I do like some of his wording though, maybe some of his text can be incorporated?

We'll see what our benovolent leader has to say about the latest version :) 

2011-09-15 06:08:21
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

In view of Andy's comments I woudl remove "Ironically, if (as seems to be the case) Pielke's criticism is based on nothing more than the series' names, that is essentially an ad hominem argument on his part." or say something like:

"if (as seems to be the case) Pielke's criticism is based on nothing more than the series' names then he ought to develop a sense of humour"

2011-09-15 06:16:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Have incorporated much of neal's language and removed the discussion of Pielke's ad hom.

One-Sided 'Skepticism'

2011-09-15 06:28:53
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

Sorry to be such a pain in the arse, but I do not agree with this sentence:

"What we find strange is that, although Pielke defends Spencer and Christy against attacks never made against them,..."

I know it is neal's sentence and I suggested that you incorporate some of his text as you saw fit, but that is a little too general and open to misinterpretation.  I'm sure Neal/you mean that SkS has not "attacked" the UAH record (paper from that poorly worded intro), others certainly have of course.  Maybe tone that sentence down a bit and maybe go with something closer to what you originally had?

I'll shut up now :)

2011-09-15 06:33:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.168

dana,

1) Iterations: The number of iterations doesn't help if the ship is going in the wrong direction. I made all these points earlier, but they were not incorporated.

2) Repetion: From my point of view, the repetition is beside the point. This is the opportunity to put Pielke on the spot - and possibly put a serious dent in his credibility. By making this into yet another review of Christy & Spencer, you are trying to sew with a two-headed needle.

3) "Shifting the goalposts": I think the focus should be on Pielke, not S/C. So I don't feel any compunction about that.

4) You can word it as you like, but I think the essential point is that we put Pielke on the spot to declare his allegiance to his friends or to science. I think a compromise about what we are trying to do is like compromising between steering left of an island, or steering right: a straight-down-the-middle approach is not going to work.

2011-09-15 06:36:04
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I'll shut up now, too.

I appreciate everyone's patience in this discussion, especially Dana's for actually writing the post amongst all this conflicting advice and shifting opinions.

2011-09-15 06:40:51I like the post as it is now.
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Thumbs up from me.

2011-09-15 06:54:43If the Grand Poobah...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

gives the thumbs up on this paper, nealjking should be shown as the co-author.

2011-09-15 07:02:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I don't think neal wants his name on this post in its current state :-)

There's still the question about whether we should make this an "all SkS contributors" post, and if so, how (I presume with a greenbox at the top as with Bern's post about the Eureka prize).  Something like "this post represents the SkS contributors' consensus response to Pielke's criticism of our site"?

2011-09-15 07:10:13This isn't peer review, it's peer bludgeoning
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
My hat off to Dana for subjecting himself, with good grace, to this grueling set of criticisms, many of them going in different directions. I like the post as it is. The headline on one sided skepticism is excellent framing and better than the "S/C misinform" framing. You've made the post about Pielke's is confirmation bias and that's a good thing. Neal, I think this hits Pielke pretty hard. So green thumb from me as well as thanks to Dana. I thought the peer review of e Guide to Skepticism was tough but that was a walk in the park compared to this.
2011-09-15 07:12:18
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.214

Really tough indeed :)

2011-09-15 07:25:52The comment thread to the article is...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

another venue where Neal can vent his spleen.

2011-09-15 07:26:07
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good work everyone!  I would suggest it is signed/authored as group [we do have critical mass ;)], but at the same time I feel that is not fair to Dana...

2011-09-15 07:27:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Heh yeah this one was a bit of a headache, to say the least.  But at the same time, it's good to get a lot of feedback, even if in various different directions.  Gave me a lot to consider.  And I know everyone here is just trying to make the best product possible, even if we disagree on what the best response entails.  All the criticism was constructive and helpful.  And it's nice to get so many different folks involved in one post too.

Plus we're approaching 200 comments and 2000 views of this thread.  Impressive!

So for the top of the post, something like this?

this post represents the SkS contributors' consensus response to Roger Pielke Sr.'s recent criticism of our site

No worries Alby, my name will still show up as the post author.

 

 

2011-09-15 07:29:55
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

That looks good Dana, i'm happier.

2011-09-15 07:32:01
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

PS The intros still need to be more consistent.
I suggest just having a similar 'CV' intro like the Monkton one for them all??

2011-09-15 07:33:14thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good, glad to hear it Paul, since you were probably the most displeased with the initial draft post.  If you're satisfied with it, then it's safe to assume most people will be.

Good point about the intros - we should update those ASAP.  I think Alby was working on it.

2011-09-15 07:35:17
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
80.239.242.159

Like it... wonder if there will be a responce :)

2011-09-15 07:44:47
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I still think it is a mistake responding to Pielke, but if you are going to, then the post is far more appropriate than what was first proposed.

2011-09-15 07:53:45
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi all,

Yes, I am working on the intros, but I am also working on fighting a cold and trying to finish up some data analysis for a paper.

If I had a deadline or timeline that would help me plan my time.  This should not be posted before the intros are fixed though...well that is my humble opinion.

2011-09-15 07:54:36
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
174.22.246.43

Am I missing something?  I quoted Pielke Sr's relevant remarks above (page 3, 5:38PM).  His only clear statement is an objection to the title words, 'Crock' and 'Slip Ups'.  He makes no explicit mention of the contents of either series.  Will SkS be publishing a defense that is based on an inference?

Notice that the first two quotes are reversed, which seems to change the meaning.

Because of the defensive position, it's not possible to mention his logical fallacy, which consists of misinterpreting all the widespread present criticisms of Spencer and Christy as criticisms of the present UAH MSU data.

Pielke Sr. is here being singled out for an offense (being uncritical of other skeptics) that is common to all skeptics.  This is a worthy topic for SkS discussion, but shouldn't it be done en masse?  Its use here suggests that we can't find enough good arguments against a lukewarmer.

The ad hominem..........comment comes in a sentence that ends, "...who have sections titled 'Christy Crocks' and 'Spencer Slip Ups'.  So, this is a complaint about the two titles...just the two titles.

So it follows that there is no direct criticism here of the contents of 'Christy Crocks' and 'Spencer Slip Ups".  The general 'derogatory blogposts' expression, and the blogpost itself, are likely responses to the widespread coverage of Spencer & Braswell(2011).  

 

 

 

2011-09-15 08:05:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

SOF - I don't think the ordering of the two sentences makes much difference, but I corrected them.

The point is that CC and SS are not just titles, they are series composed of a bunch of blog posts.  Pielke says these series are "ad hominem presentations".  That's wrong.

The series details a bunch of myths propagated by the two.  Pielke ignores this and claims that the series deal with MSU data.  In the process, he's ignoring their many transgressions.  It's not just that he's not critical of other skeptics, it's that he's pretending our criticisms of their work don't exist.  We're pointing out that they do exist, and that he's trying to sweep them under the rug.

Alby - think you can have the intros done tomorrow?  I don't think we've got anything else ready to publish right now, so it might be good to get this up sometime tomorrow.

2011-09-15 08:08:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.34.243

Actually, now that Nealstradamus has explained his strategy, I'm with him on this. Pielke Snr has managed to get away with sniping from the sidelines, and is still seen by many as a fence-sitter on global warming when the truth is that he is just a crafty denier. Push him off the metaphorical fence and see what side he falls on.

He may not respond to Dana's post in its current form (it is a bit tepid), but Neal's version might provoke a response. 

2011-09-15 08:20:02
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Pielke has over-reached himself and is vulnerable.  In that sense, I agree with neal & Rob P.  We have before us an opportunity to push Pielke out of his centrist, take-no-sides position and force him to define a stance on either the side of science...or denialism.

We should not hesitate.  Be objective, yes.  But also forceful, with no wiggle-room.

2011-09-15 08:23:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Dana,

I'll work on this later tonight, so you should (hopefully) have something in your inbox when you check tomorrow morning. 

 

SOF,

Pielke says, "ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science",  "this subject" being the UAH satelliet record.  He doesn't like the titles either, but he does say 'presentations' and the presentations he so dislikes do not spoeak to the MSU record and they are not ad hominem as far as I can tell.  But Pielke seems to think that critique/fact checking constitutes an ad hominem aergument, which it does not of course.  He also needs to lighten up IMO and stop being a hypocrite, he can dish out the critique but he hates being on the receiving end, well tough buddy.  How a scientist can be so thin skined is beyond me-- does he take it this personally everytime a reviewer is harsh with a paper of his?  I hope not.

2011-09-15 08:25:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Don't worry Daniel, the "review" and pressure will continue in the comments section ;)

2011-09-15 08:37:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks Alby.

Rob, Daniel - I think the post is pretty rough on Pielke as-is.  It basically calls him a "skeptic" apologist with a clear bias, who throws out criticisms of material he's never read.

I haven't read much of his blog, but from what I've seen it seems like he's firmly in the denialist camp, not a fence-sitter.

2011-09-15 08:56:15
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.34.243

Dana, better we hit him with a baseball bat rather than a feather duster, otherwise he won't take notice. 

Let's be realistic here, we are fighting to limit the harm and suffering from global warming. There are going to be climatic tragedies unfolding in the upcoming years - most likely the southern US for starters. We need to be more effective, to limit the suffering. I'm not suggesting a huge deviation from what we do, but when the opportunity arises.......bam!

Neal's strategy appeals, because we can rip away the label of 'fence-sitter' that Pielke Snr currently enjoys. Heck, even SOF,  a few posts above, labels him a 'luke-warmer'. 

2011-09-15 09:23:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, made some time, will work on my research tonight.

Most of content below is sourced from Wikipedia and Sourcewatch.  I have been toi the various web-sites to verify that they are listed as 'experts' etc.  I also went to Roy's wblog to confirm his details and went to the UAH faculty page to verify Christy's info. Interestingly neither Roy's blog nor Chrsity's faculty page list them as being affiliated with Heartland or George C. Marshall Institute, and that is very relevant in this 'debate', especially when they are advising said influential groups on "science" and policy. So in short, I do not think listing their professional associations is an ad hom.

I just threw this together so have at it:

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)]

He is known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. 

Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.  [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy]

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wink conservative think tank that on scientific issues and public policy.  He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, Heartland is a libertarian American public policy think tank.  Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization.

 

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).  He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist Since November 2000. He is mostly known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. Roy Spencer received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal.  [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy]

Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences.  Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy]

Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and is doubtful that human activity is to blame for most of the observed recent warming.

Other professional affiliations:  Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wink conservative think tank that on scientific issues and public policy.  He is also isted as an expert for the Heartland Institute, Heartland is a libertarian American public policy think tank.

2011-09-15 10:16:00
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
184.98.17.224

Dana 1981 and Albatross

Miss Kennedy taught me a different kind of English.  Yes, SkS is included in the larger group making "ad hominem presentations".  But the example that finishes the sentence remains,  "sections titled "Christy Crocks" and "Spencer Slip Ups"",  So, we're back again to just a complaint about the words in a title.  With no mention of the contents of the blogposts in the series. 

 

"As a result of the persistent but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data... ...The ad hominem presentations on this subject include those from the weblog Skeptical Science, who have sections titled..."

Pielke Sr's logical fallacy applies to EVERYONE...to every blogpost and media report.  It 'consists of misinterpreting all the present criticisms of Spencer and Christy as criticisms of the present UAH MSU data'.  So of course it also applies to SkS, along with everyone else.

Occam's razor says this is just a simple skeptic deceit intended to divert attention away from the real criticisms of Spencer and Christy.

2011-09-15 10:18:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

"Occam's razor says this is just a simple skeptic deceit intended to divert attention away from the real criticisms of Spencer and Christy."

Exactly, which is why we're bringing the attention back to the real criticisms.

Alby, I copied your intros into the intro discussion.

2011-09-15 11:48:45
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
184.98.17.224

Dana 1981

Right on!  My preference, and my first three posts, are in favor of an extensive review of Spencer and Christy.  My later comments are similarly motivated, in that I'm concerned that bringing Pielke Sr into the story will detract from the main S&C goal, and might backfire.

There is easy justification to go beyond existing SkS blogposts about S&C.  By just correcting Pielke Sr's logical fallacy, since there aren't any "persistent...blog posts and media reports" about the current robustness of the UAH MSU data, it becomes appropriate to review what the "persistent...blogposts and media reports" are actually about.

And the Trenberth et al opinion piece from which he quotes is mostly about Spencer's and Christy's faulty research papers.

2011-09-15 12:59:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Are most people OK with the new intros/bios?  It is important that they read well and are accurate.

Update:  I can see Spencer's new bio, but there is no bio under "Christy's Crocks"...

2011-09-15 13:28:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

That's because I was still updating it Alby.  It's up now :-)

2011-09-15 13:53:12
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks Dana, thanks too for generating the hyperlinks!

2011-09-15 14:13:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

No problem, thanks for putting the new intros together.

Here's the final version of the post i plan to publish tomorrow: One-Sided 'Skepticism'

I've also emailed Joe Romm suggesting a cross-post, since this sort of conflict with prominent deniers is right up his alley.

2011-09-15 14:27:20
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana, found some typos:

"Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wink conservative think tank that on scientific issues and public policy"

Delete "that".  Same typo in Spencer's bio.

 

Christy's bio:

"Since November 2000"

Should be undercase "s" in "since"

 

Christy's bio:

"He is also isted as an expert for the Heartland Institute.."

Should read "He is also "listed.." not "isted".

 

Sorry for the extra work!

2011-09-15 14:48:58Another typo in Christy's and Spencer's intro
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.181.95

"...a right-wink conservative...."

==> I guess it should be ."..a right-wing conservative...."

2011-09-15 14:53:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Got it.  And Baerbel weighs in with comment #200 in this thread :-)

2011-09-15 15:08:28
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dang!  Teach me to go out of town for a few days!  I missed all the fun.  :-(

2011-09-15 18:43:02My concerns continue to be:
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

a) The Scientific Basis of the Series: This is shorter than it was before (good), but it is still a bit dilatory; I would still prefer that it highlight 2 or 3 specific myths that are specifically relevant to climate-science and are abundantly proven to be ridiculous. It is not necessary to prove them wrong here (that's what links are for): What's necessary is to PUT PIELKE on the spot: "Whose side are you on, Roger: L/S/C's or science's?" To get this in, you could abbreviate the generalities even farther.

b) Misinforming Policymakers: It is unclear here what precisely is the myth that Christy is choosing not to dispel. A mere link here is NOT sufficient: You are asking the reader to be outraged by ... something ... That doesn't work. If you want people to be offended, you need to give them something to be offended about.

c) Language could be sharper. Example:

"In conclusion, the reality is that Pielke was completely off-base when he tried to implicate SkS in others' critique of the UAH satellite record.  Another unfortunate reality for Pielke is that Spencer and Christy have both made a large number of public statements which are contradicted by the body of scientific literature.  If they hadn't, we would not have created these series to begin with.  It is disappointing to see that Pielke Sr. is tacitly endorsing the repeated misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy, and unwilling to be truly skeptical.  We suggest that Dr. Pielke come to terms with Spencer and Christy's propensity to propagate long-debunked climate myths, including in possibly the worst forum imaginable -  in testimony to our policymakers who will decide what, if any action we take to address the threats posed by climate change."

=>

"In reality, Pieilke was off-base in trying to implicate SkS in criticism of the UAH satellite record: We didn't do that. Even more to the point, Spencer and Christy have both made a number of statements to the public that contradict the body of scientific literature: These statements were the starting point of our critical series. By defending them but ignoring their errors, Pielke is providing cover for the misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy. That's not being skeptical; that's being a patsy."

2011-09-16 01:36:20
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Neal,

I like your changes to the conclusion, I was rushed and it seemed too waordy and repititios for my liking. I like your version, but i would leabve out "patsy" ;)

Maybe:

"In reality, Pieilke was off-base in trying to implicate SkS in criticism of the UAH satellite record; we didn't do that. Another unfortunate reality for Pielke is that Spencer and Christy have both made numerous public statements which are contradicted by the body of scientific literature. These misleading statements were the starting point of our critical series. By uncritically defending them and ignoring their errors, Pielke is providing cover for the misinformation propagated by Spencer and Christy. Pielke Sr. needs to decide what is more important, covering up for misinformation or standing up for science and truth."

I thnk that throws down the gauntlet, no?

I just read the most recent version (perhaps the earlier one was not as clear) and it is very clear to me that Christy twice refused to dispel the "scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s" myth when it was "fed" to him by Republican senators.

2011-09-16 01:59:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

 

"One of the most egregious examples of a Christy Crock was in his testimony before US Congress, when policymakers twice presented Christy with assertions that scientists were predicting impending global cooling in the 1970s, and twice Christy refused to dispel the myth, instead claiming:"

=>

"One of the most egregious examples of a Christy deception was in his testimony before US Congress, when policymakers twice presented Christy with (false) claims that scientists were predicting impending global cooling in the 1970s; and twice Christy refused to dispel this myth, instead claiming:"

 

"This statement, made to those who are determining what if any policies the United States will implement in response to climate change, is a crockIn response, we examined the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the 1970s, and found that contrary to Christy's depiction, most climate scientists at the time were predicting global warming."

=>

"This statement, made to those who are determining what if any policies the United States will implement in response to climate change, was false and deceptiveWe examined the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the 1970s, and found that contrary to Christy's depiction, most climate scientists at the time were predicting global warming."

 

"We wonder if Dr. Pielke approves of Christy's response here.  When presented with a climate myth by a policymaker, is attempting to find a kernel of truth in the myth, rather than presenting the whole scientific picture, an appropriate response?  We would very much like to know Dr. Pielke's answer to this question, and why he continues to turn a blind eye to the repeated transgressions of Spencer and Christy."

=>

"We wonder if Dr. Pielke approves of Christy's testimony here.  When presented with a climate myth by a policymaker, is it appropriate to mislead the Congress with such statements, instead of reporting the situation as it was? We would very much like to know Dr. Pielke's answer to this question, and why he continues to turn a blind eye to the repeated transgressions of Spencer and Christy."

2011-09-16 02:04:31
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Alby:

"Another unfortunate reality for Pielke is that Spencer and Christy have both made numerous public statements which are contradicted by the body of scientific literature."

=>

"The fact is that Spencer and Christy have both made numerous public statements which are contradicted by the body of scientific literature."

 

and I still think we need to give 2 or 3 specific examples of gob-smacking "how could he say that"s earlier on.

2011-09-16 02:17:04
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Now that Dana has posted the article I'd say everyone should get into the comments area and quickly post as many direct hits on Pielke as possible.  The early comments in a thread have the biggest impact.

2011-09-16 06:10:03Posting comments quickly
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Just reaffirming Rob's recommendation (hours after he said it so very tardily). The data from my science blogging experiment indicates comments matter - they not only affect readers' attitudes, they even affect readers' comprehension of the original post. But keep that under your hats, we're still doing follow-up experiments.

2011-09-16 06:25:27Re comments
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.127.254

Comments will not matter as much to Pielke as Updates: He may feel compelled to acknowledge Updated barbs, whereas he can ignore comments.

Speaking of which, I do NOT like the disparaging comments made about Pielke on the blog page, and they do us no good: This is not WUWT. We need to do him in for what he does, not for what we think about him. We can be more effectively cutting in a professional tone.

2011-09-16 08:07:58moderate dodgy comments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Neal and other mods, feel free to moderate anti-Pielke comments - in fact, please do so!

Re comment impact, that's on readers, not Pielke. I have little expectation on having any impact on Pielke whatsoever. As always, our target audience is the undecided majority, not the unswayable minority.

2011-09-16 08:12:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, I have edited almost all my comments, some of them quite a bit.  The tone is terse, but I'm hoping the posts now appear more civil.