2011-09-23 14:05:40Lucia.Blackboard attack on Dana
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
98.204.66.145

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/skeptical-science-digitization-problems/

All.

I infrequently comment, but I am super thankful for all of the work everyone does here. In this, like every other criticism, kill them with kindness, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.


There is a dedicated effort to paint SkS as "extremist" and "alarmist", especially WRT the way comments are treated. Obviously, we can't win over anyone, but politeness in the face of criticisms- be they legitimate or undeserved- is a great thing for the "brand".

2011-09-23 14:22:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

LOL I didn't even have to wait until morning.  See my comment here anticipating the attack.

No biggie, I already acknowlegded the error and updated the post.  I doubt that will put a damper on lucia's shrillness, of course.

2011-09-23 14:22:54
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
98.204.66.145

Obviously, we can't win over anyone

 

Should've been "everyone".

2011-09-23 14:45:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Thingsbreak,

Thanks for dropping in...enjoy your site by the way.  While we are "killing" them with kindness, who is going to be the bad guy ? ;)

2011-09-23 14:50:45
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Things is absolutely right.  The point is not to see who can beat up the denier.  The point is to win the hearts and minds of the audience.  If we pounce on people we may feel justified but we lose the audience.  If we "kill them with kindness" we win the day and get the golden ring and get the girl (or boy).  It's all about the reading audience.

2011-09-23 15:03:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Rob it is going to be really difficult.  Look at this latest post by her.  She really has nothing so is arguing a bunch of strawmen, and her tonwe is condescending.  really, we had no idea that 2010 was an El Nino year, actually she is wrong on that, the El Nino ended mid 2010, although the effects lingered later than that of course.  IIRC the Indices showed the cessation of El Nino in May 2010.  

OK, I looked at the data from CPC, they shown the El Nino comtiue until the end of April 2010, with neutral conditions in May, and the onset of a La Nina sometime in JJA.

Including the HadCRUT data and NCDC willmake little if any difference, they are all so close and well within the noise. Yes, I know, she is doign this to try and piss us off, so I am staying out of this fro now on, but this is ridiculous.

And actually, the first sentence reads:

"In 2007, the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).  In the Working Group I (the physical basis) report"

Is she blind?  Also, the date stamp also appears in the light blue banner links.  See here, for example.

 

2011-09-23 15:10:25
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

 

Another thought, including HadCRUT will make the models look better...so I cannot see how we are cooking the books, we are taking the most aggressive and warmest analysis, not the coolest.  Can you imagine the outrage had you done that!?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2011/trend

Really she has nothing so is arguing strawmen.
This was nt an argument, sorry.
2011-09-23 15:12:41
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

It's all in how you say it, Alby.  The definition of finesse is being able to tell someone to go to hell and have them happy to be on their way.

2011-09-23 15:15:58
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, Rob, then you please tell her she is full of shit.  And look now she is admititng that this was some kind of setup, she had "motive".

Seriously, please post my infomration, and feel to double check it, re El nino you need to cede that the affects would have been felt for 5 months or so after the event ended, but she said that 2010 ended in an El Nino, it most certainly did not, the La Nina started in JJA.

She is entitled to her opinons but not her own facts.

2011-09-23 15:16:01
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Use lots of "Why, thank you!"  and  "That's very astute."  and  "You impress me with..."  and  "Your presense here clearly raised the quality of the debate."  and...   you get the idea.

But then in the midst of all that you have to find soft places where you can insert the dagger.

2011-09-23 15:17:59
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I can only do so much, Alby, being a non-scientist.  I'm good at taking on the Youtube riffraff but people like Lucia clearly can eat my lunch.

2011-09-23 15:36:57Kudos to Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Handled it with aplomb and grace, well done.

For the record, I reaffirm TB's exhortation at the start of this thread - the concern trolls are out with their daggers so now more than ever, politeness in our conduct is crucial to SkS being viewed as a dispassionate, authoritative source of climate science.

2011-09-23 15:51:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, now I can go and throw up....

2011-09-23 15:56:19
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
121.218.161.146

My comment – for what it’s worth.

There’s a balance to be struck here.

 We’re up against deniers who always use the principle of “attack is the best defence”.

Yes, should win people over with the strength of the argument but let’s be entertaining at the same time.

A site full of scientific argument attracts few views – comment section is mostly where things can be lightened up or counter the inevitable attacks.

Humour them with humour – wherever possible.

2011-09-23 16:56:31Head's up for Dana
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
58.179.122.112

I just posted the following at Lucia's:

 

Finally, your insistence on what Dana should or shouldn’t do are rather absurd of a simple post whose main points are that:

1) The IPCC AR4 projections have not been falsified by a decades data (which contrasts it with a number of ” skeptic” predictions covered earlier in the series); and

2) A decade worth of data is insufficient to constitute a real test of the the IPCC AR4 projections.

With those points in mind, you should note the following logical distinction. If there are multiple temperature indices which disagree in their trends, consistency of the models with just one of those indices is sufficient for the model to not be falsified. In contrast, if you wish to assert the model is confirmed you would need to show consistency with all plausible indices.

Failure to acknowledge all relevant indices (and most especially on the only truly global index) when positively asserting that temperatures have declined is, logically, a very different kettle of fish from using just one index to show a particular projection has not been disconfirmed. (And yes, this does mean that if Dana only used Gistemp in his posts where he claims disconfirmation of “skeptic projections” , a charge of cherry picking may have some force. I haven’t checked. If he has used only gistemp, however, I am sure the error was inadvertent and will be quickly corrected.)

Of course, having now checked I find that you did only use Gistemp (and once the WoodforTrees temperature index).  Use of HadCRUt or NCDC would make no difference to the various critiques (the denier errors are that large), but you may wish to modify the posts to include HadCRU to head of any blowback.  (Sorry if this entails extra work for you, and I am happy to modify the relevent figures using graphic techniques is you would like me to.)

 

2011-09-23 17:16:28
jyyh
Otto Lehikoinen
otanle@hotmail...
85.77.186.189

Yes, Lucia appears to be one pretty skilled in science, though occasionally it seems s/he needs to calculate whether sun will continue its fusion overnight. I'd say s/he would make one heck of a defender of GMO crops, if that was her passion.

2011-09-23 17:56:49
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Rob Honeycutt:

Things is absolutely right.  The point is not to see who can beat up the denier.  The point is to win the hearts and minds of the audience.  If we pounce on people we may feel justified but we lose the audience.  If we "kill them with kindness" we win the day and get the golden ring and get the girl (or boy).  It's all about the reading audience.

Agree 100%, but will anyone listen??
I made a similar point sometime ago.

Albatross

Rob it is going to be really difficult.  Look at this latest post by her.

So don't look at it then! The only thing worth doing with 'competitor' blogs is to comment on them, anonymously slagging them off (if possible). The majority of people are like me, they never read skeptic blogs or don't even know they exist. In contrast SkS has had a lot of publicity by major media corporations across the world and has been respected. Yes the knives are out, this is mainly because SkS is responding to these bloggers. As I said earlier, they want to be noticed by their 'enemies'. Basically what SkS is doing now is feeding the trolls on a world wide scale!

My advice is... don't feed the trolls.

2011-09-23 18:03:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

Paul:

- Pointing out a technical problem is not trolling

- We can't be too thin-skinned here: We need to learn to roll with the punches

2011-09-23 22:57:33
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

My comment neal was a general observation.

If you respond to criticism you are effectively being thin skinned.

And we aren't in a fight, so what's with the punches?

2011-09-23 23:31:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

Paul,

If you don't think we're in a fight, you probably think the Climategate people weren't in a fight eitiher.

Responding to criticism is not being thin-skinned; being surprised about criticism is being thin-skinned.

Famous quote, attributed to Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war. But war is interested in you."

2011-09-23 23:34:33
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I'm keeping track of what's been happening over the last week or so.  So far, by my count, SkS has been the subject of 17 negative blog entries

 

Roger Pielke Sr. - 7

Watts - 3

Bishop Hill - 4

Shub N - 1

tallbloke - 1

Lucia - 1

 

they all tie together somehow.  not sure what to do with this information (not that I'm eventhinking about posting it here, but I imagine someone might find this useful at somepoint.)  I'm waitng on Pielke Jr. Curry and McIntyre to take their swings.  

2011-09-23 23:37:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

grypo,

Keep collecting the stats. We won't know what it means until we have a lot of them.

2011-09-23 23:53:15
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
80.239.242.191

We know what this means. It means that SKS readers are starting to annoy those deniers and they need to have some links to point to - like:

You say you saw it on skeptical science - but they have been caught lying, see the link

Or something like that, usually that is enough.

P.S. please put a link to the updated post in the non updated post, since those who check the links might need to see that the problem has been fixed.

2011-09-24 00:02:25Double post deleted
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161
2011-09-24 00:38:52
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Neal I am not surprised about criticism, in fact it is amazing that SkS has had so little!
But it depends where the critique is coming from. Is it really worth brothering to tackle critiques from a handful of self promoting bloggers, when the real audience is 6 billion people?

What I am surprised about is that a few SkS members have been duped into some silly blog war that nearly 100% of the worlds population doesn't really care about. That is frankly a failure to see the bigger picture.

The fact that I and others have different opinions about how to tackle the issues doesn't make you correct or me.

I find the male 'macho' views boring to be honest. It's an attitude that has caused many of the problems about us, so if you are looking for solutions, don't bother coming up with quotes and talk about fights.

2011-09-24 00:41:22Observations
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

1. There˙'s no such thing as bad publicity.

2. The climate denier sites are all interconnected components of the Climate Denial Spin Machine. 

3. The Force is on our side.

4. Never mess with Captain Jack and the Torchwood* team.

 *Torchwood is a BBC TV series spun off of the \"Dr. No.\" series. Like Dr. No, Cpatain Jack is a time traveler who is indestructable. Torchwood is the underground base of operation for Captain Jack and his intrepid team.  This year, the series was \"Americanized\" for one of the US cable TV networks.

2011-09-24 00:50:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

Paul,

If we were only concerned with the people chatting at BH and WUWT, I wouldn't be bothered to do anything. But when they have a plausible "wrong" that they can pin on us, that can spread out - the way Climategate did. The "shrug it off" approach was tried by UEA; it failed miserably, and I've met inteligent people all over the world, who know only one thing about global warming: that it's "faked by scientists scheming as in Climategate." Polls taken since then indicate that the % of people in the English-speaking world that credit global warming has declined since Climategate.

I don't advocate going off looking for dragons to slay. But when the dragon is burning villages in your region, you got to do something or resign the throne to someone who will.

2011-09-24 01:00:57John Hartz
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
216.227.243.189

Yes, there is bad publicity (it was called 'climategate').  As they are watching very closely and picking at every nit, we need to be very careful.

2011-09-24 01:12:45
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Neal,

This isn't the UEA or CRU.

The vast majority of people haven't a clue what climategate is. In fact I don't know anyone that discusses it.

Also neal all you are doing is justifying your views, I and others aren't deniers, you don't have to come up with polls and quotes when talking about what the way forward is.

You think that you are going to educate people about global warming by having fights with other intellectuals??

All that wil do is perpetuate deniers goals of turning the whole issue into a farce. People respond to being presented with information in a clear and understandable way. They generally want to make their own minds up and couldn't care if a bunch of bloggers want to have a barney.

2011-09-24 01:15:34
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

Paul,

I don't see much point in continuing this discussion with you.

2011-09-24 01:42:38
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Neal if you don't listen to moderating views then SkS is effectively a project wholely run by a minority that ignores other members.

A team is built from people with differing skills and views.

2011-09-24 01:45:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

John C - thanks.  I actually did appreciate them pointing me to the IPCC data, I just wish they wouldn't be so assholish about it!  But of course that's too much to ask of deniers, with whom as neal frequently notes, we're in a PR war.

grypo's right that the denier attacks are interconnected.  BH attacks us for the Antarctic post slip-up, so then they're watching us like hawks.  Then a BH commenter makes some snarky remark about my AR4 post, which Lucia sees while browsing the site.  So then lucia pounces on my mistake (which really was nothing more than relying on a not-very-accurate graph digitization) to write a blog post of her own.  They're definitely all watching us closely and looking for any opportunity, however small, to "score a point".  As Hoskibui says, I have no doubt they're just looking for excuses to reject SkS posts.  Somebody references SkS and they can say "did you hear about Antarctic-gate and AR4-gate"? :-)

Tom Curtis - thanks very much, your comment on the updated post also saved me a lot of work having to answer the various nitpicks the 'skeptics' have come up with.  And your explanations were superb, well done.

2011-09-24 01:47:33
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Yes,

Welll done Tom.   You know, they really have nothing.  And it really showed on that thread.  Carricvk made a fool of himself, as did Lucia.  They can be overzealous, but that means they won't get their facts straight.

2011-09-24 01:50:44
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Also Dana, about intereconnectivity, in the Shub N thread, PaulM says that he has another case of SkS doing whatever, and that it is what became the basis for Bishop Hill's posts.  

2011-09-24 01:53:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

They sure are a tightly-knit group, grypo!  Not to mention Watts re-posting BH's horrible blog posts.

2011-09-24 01:59:15comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I don't want to say that I warned of this but when I read dana's post I commented on it in here questioning where the data was from. We have to remember that the academics are debating whether the trends match and don't you think if it were that easy to respond to it would of been done. I think that although we do have  alot of experience now we still have to be very careful with these things particularly on very highly debated topics.

That being said Lucia responded just as I would expect of someone petty... Dana responded very well.

2011-09-24 02:14:10Sorry, just have to vent.
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.133

I have been discussing Dana's AR4 post at the black board, and, they stupid just hurts beyond belief.

 

Lucia is currently arguing that the claim that:

 

h <=> p

p has not been falsified

Therefore, h has not been falsified

 

is "nuts".

 

That is literally the intellectual equivalent of arguing that 1 + 1 != 2

 

I expect rank stupidity from denier drones in general, but to get that level of stupid from Lucia is flabbergasting.

 

2011-09-24 02:26:33
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

Dealing with real data is tricky. I try to stay away from it. If you don't know everything about your data, you can easily trip up.

I try to stick with equations, physics and logic: the range of problems is much less.

2011-09-24 02:34:02
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Would it be worth keeping a catalog of "silly mistakes" made by the denier sites, as a page on the SkS site?  Things like Watts' -21W/m2 for cloud effects.  That way if we do slip up from time to time, and you know we will (everyone does), we can merely point to the fact that we slip up far less than others.

2011-09-24 02:44:01
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Robert W -  yeah, you can say it, you were right :-)  But again, I was right with regards to the data I had.  It's just that the data I had wasn't very accurate.  But I should have realized that - my bad.

Tom Curtis - you're showing a lot of patience in arguing with these guys.  Much more than I could.  Thanks again!  I was about to leave a comment on Lucia's supporting your comments, but the site seems to have gone down.

Rob H - I think everybody (who isn't in denial) realizes that the "skeptics" make orders of magnitude more mistakes than SkS.  Keeping a catalogue of their "silly mistakes" would be a full time job.

2011-09-24 02:49:12comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I posted the following at LUCIAS


Okay this is getting a little ridiculous. I wonder will Lucia jump all over Anthony Watts at WUWT when his site posts something that turns out to be incorrect? (Which occurs pretty frequently, especially when Goddard was there!).

Re: Lucia #81953
"While saying it, Dana could still admit that that particular choice for observational data set gives the largest observed trend and happens to support the narrative s/he is conveying to his/her reading audience."

That's why you choose UAH for your model comparisons the majority of the time right? The one index that's had the most amount of problems and the one that shows a weaker relationship with the SAT measures and a stronger response to Volcanic and Solar impacts?

"Dana might want to include the observational data set that happens to be the IPCC’s choice in their figure. I’m pretty sure that’s not GIStemp. It’s HadCrut."

They may have chosen to use HadCrut but will they in 10 years? My guess is no. It has been demonstrated by others (including JeffID) that Hadleys method will ALWAYS underestimate the trend. We all know that so why is there even a debate on this subject? ECMWF has already also concluded that Hadley has undersampled the warmth, particularly in the Arctic. This is also something we know. I'm getting tired of people saying "the IPCC did it so we can too" despite the huge differences in knowledge we have on these issues. We can't just plug our ears and pretend like Hadley isn't undersampling the warmth. Maybe some people would like to. I can tell you straight up for a region I've submitted a paper on Hadley's method wouldn't even work going back past 1950 despite using a Least Squares method allowing the reconstruction back into the 1880s. This is called an evolution of science and we now know that if you want to use less available station data. Use Hadley. Real "Skeptics" want to evaluate as much data as possible...

And for those people who comment on GISS polar interpolations I hope you have the same reservations about UAH which does a similar process? Where is the arms up in the air over that?

Honestly, I see no purpose in Hadley existing as a temperature record if they don't update their method in light of the clear downfalls associated with CAM. The only reason they haven't is clearly because others have not published anything showing its downfalls.

Carrick #81968
Yes it is a major problem.

Can you pick which one is usually always undersampling Arctic warmth from this: It is a no brainer...
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3158/arcticcomparison.png

Let us have a look at the residuals versus all methods... oh wait, it appears Hadley is underestimating the warmth greater through time and it is statistically significant... i.e. undersampling the trend.
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9161/hadcrutresiduals.png

2011-09-24 02:56:28comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Don't know if this will turn up because i'm having an error. Maybe someone can publish it for me on Lucias because I do keep getting an Error.

2011-09-24 03:04:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

The ultimate defense against mistakes (aside from not making any mistakes - very difficult!) is being able to admit them, fix them, and apologize - and then move on. Once you've done what you can, just don't look back.

 

One interesting point in our discussion down at BH: They seemed to be very hung up on the idea that, since we didn't regard the comment history as being sacred (in fact, I told them if it were up to me, I'd just toss it out periodically), that we were somehow in the business of generating propaganda. What JC and I had said, more or less, was that the rebuttals are intended to be the best arguments we have to disabuse people of particular myths; so we had no inhibition about changing the article to improve it; just as an encyclopedia article will be revised from time to time.

I don't know if the distinction between a rebuttal article and a blog article (which may be focused on some recent news, or may also be an expository article) has been made clear anywhere. It might be a reasonable idea to explain it somewhere.

Another idea that was developed in discussing this kerfluffle was the idea of archiving older versions of articles along with their associated comments, to avoid any future confusion between the old comments and the new version.

It was also pointed out that there is a long-standing concern that Basic/Intermediate/Advanced versions of a rebuttal share one common set of comments, which is inherently confusing.

2011-09-24 03:04:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  That's the magic of crowd sourcing.  We're all out there reading this stuff.  Make it something that can be a quick cut and paste job with a title.  "Anthony Watts mistakes cloud forcing for cloud feedbacks."  Cut, paste.  Voila.  

2011-09-24 03:06:34Another comment on Lucia's
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Attempting to make this comment:

Congrats Tilo Comment# 82010
You apparently have discovered a major flaw in GISS’ Arctic interpolation. I look forward to your Academic contribution on the subject :P My experience with GISS as an Arctic researcher is that they do a pretty good job, much better than HadCRUT in the Arctic. That’s a pretty common conclusion amongst researchers.

George Tobin # 82014
The only one painting the IPCC as being Alarmist are skeptics. Their own statements only attribute 50% of the warming since the 1950s due to Anthropogenic Climate Change. Much of the GHGF would have been counteracted by Aerosols.

Another note, this time for Bender…

The models  vs observations are not on “Trial” until it’s a fair fight. Include the Aerosol emissions in China in the models and the volcanic aerosols over the last decade and retry… (Vernier et al. 2011a,b). All this discussion of ensemble mean comparisons is useless without that negative forcing being included. I think it’s a moot point until models include that.

2011-09-24 04:00:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Robert - good comments.  I've been trying to comment over there too, but it seems the site is down and having major problems today.

2011-09-24 07:06:37comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Well you got Jeff Cordons attention. Wonder what he will end up saying... Something positive i'm sure :P

2011-09-24 08:23:12Cordon?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Is that Jeff ID?  That guy's a douche.  I've never liked him - had a run-in with him on his blog once before.  Let's just say it wasn't very friendly.

2011-09-24 08:39:28comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Yeah Jeff ID is Cordon.

2011-09-24 08:41:18comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Frig this is annoying... it's like boxing with a glacier... I'm done after that comment.

Tilo,
“And you haven’t proven anything about HadCrut3. But at least I gave you a very good reason to disbelieve their Arctic extrapolations.”

Okay I’m tired of this. From ECMWF, comparison with Hadley:
http://img813.imageshack.us/im.....mpling.png

From a publication submitted:
http://img695.imageshack.us/im.....svscam.png

This is in a region that has sparse geographic coverage. It shows that the HadCRUT method (CAM) results in fewer stations being used for the regional average.

From JeffIDs website:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.c.....n-methods/

According to this (and elsewhere) CAM’s method results in a reduction in the actual trend. But more important is when we get into my Arctic numbers. The FDM method is a “terrible” method for combining stations. He shows this particularly on shorter time series. The reference station may have its warts but for regional averages I wouldn’t trust the FDM and the data coverage is too poor in the Arctic to cover CAM… Either way… and most importantly… i’ve already shown that GisTemp matches well with ERA-Interim’s result which is recognized as being the best of the reanalysis datasets at this point.

http://img685.imageshack.us/im.....arison.png

You wanna prove to me that HadCRUT or NCDC is a better representation for the Arctic then go right ahead. The boys at clear climate code even incorporated all of env Canada’s data and still got the same results.

I think that given what is above it is difficult for you to say that I haven’t “proven anything about HadCrut3″.

2011-09-24 08:43:18comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

For the record i'm dealing with this hadley issue once and for all in a blog post this week.

2011-09-24 09:02:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Look forward to the post, Robert.

I think you've got to pick and choose your battles on sites like this.  Like Carrick keeps sniping at me, but I'm just ignoring him because he's clearly a closed-minded doof, and arguing with him would be like arguing with a brick wall.  Same thing with the guy you're arguing with - it's in one eyeball and out the other.

2011-09-24 09:49:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.6

I have been silently reading at Lucia's site the last few hours, and I noticed something interesting:

- a couple of SkSers asked, "Why do you give SkS a hard time on our relatively minor inconsistencies when you pass over WUWT's and Goddard's zongers in total silence?"

- The answer from a few of the people (including Lucia) was, "I don't really pay that much attention to WUWT or CA; and when I read it, I only comment on it if I'm reasonably sure I understand it and if I'm sure it's wrong."

- Other comment I noticed: "The people at CA are into group-think."

- This gives me a few thoughts. a) The degree of mutual respect among these skeptic sites is not that high.

- b) A reason we're catching a lot of heat from all sides is that we're writing on topics that are actually of interest, in a way that is actually more or less comprehensible.

- c) It gives me the evil idea that it might be somehow possible to get them to fight among each other, so that they are degrading each other's credibility instead of gnawing on our's. As in the movie, Jason & the Argonauts, Jason tosses something among the attacking skeletons and they turn on each other, leaving him to escape. (Actually, maybe it wasn't J & tA, but it was in some such movie, loosely based on Greek mythology.)

I guess I'm just daydreaming about it still: I'm missing the magic jewel, or whatever it was.

2011-09-24 10:32:11comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

An unlikely dream but one I would love to see too!


Yeah the group think comment piqued my interest too... As did Lucia's response to WUWT and Goddard... I think she's mildy offended at my accusations but I think we're right in this regard... The mutual respect is not high but you gotta be careful who you go after too. Some of these guys at Lucias and CA are very intelligent (same with JeffID) and its not the same as those who frequent WUWT or Goddards place.


Re Hadley post:
The conclusion i'm going to come to is that until Hadley makes changes then NOAA and GISS should be used. Actually from what I just read in that paper NCDC/NOAA's method is miles ahead of the other organizations.. The only issue I can see is the spatial sampling. Tamino's least squares approach still takes the cake though I think.. this stats stuff is a bit heavy though

I know people advocate showing all methods. I think its better to show the best methods myself personally. On any of our graphs if we wanna show why we choose what methods we did maybe we can link to my post.. who knows.

2011-09-24 10:42:54
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah, it would be useful to have a post to reference for our data set choices.

2011-09-24 11:59:07neal: it was his spear
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Good memory (@ 5:55 mark), but they pause, then chase him over the cliff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yYeZMx1Y7U&feature=player_embedded

2011-09-24 13:26:28Out of curiousity...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Which dataset does the WMO use?

2011-09-24 17:25:08Deniers turning on each other
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
59.100.67.166
Good luck with that. Witness Pielke's aversion to critiquing Spencer, Christy and even Watts. So tread carefully. A more productive approach might be to get deniers to critique denier arguments rather than individuals.
2011-09-24 18:15:31
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.42.63

Daniel: No, I think I'm remembering another movie. But I can't remember which.

JC: Yes, I'm thinking about finding passionate proponents of disagreeing alternative explanations, and putting them in the gladiator's ring together.

2011-09-24 21:59:33
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Dana,

What is Charlie A babbling on about in that thread?  Is he looking to get a zero baseline while looking at these trends?  If so, why?  I believe Zeke has already suggested this is meaningless.  If I'm right, tell him to argue with Zeke about it.

 

EDIT:  I see Dikran has spelled it out for him.  I don't see him giving up tho.  I think he wants us to get upset or censor him, so he can go whine about it at Lucia's.  DONT GIVE IN!

2011-09-24 22:10:48
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Robert,

 

I've seen you discuss the lack of cooling within the models and how that should make an expectaion fro models overestimating the heating trend.  I wonder if this is worth puting into the 'models are bad' rebuttals, if we can get a consensus in the literature for this problem.

2011-09-25 00:22:05Lucia's Graph
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

The graph in this comment by Lucia needs to be directly addressed, I think.  To the casual viewer, it makes temperature trends look flat, makes the models look exaggerated, and makes the graph in the original post look like a fabrication.

It does two things.  It shifts the temperatures downward, so they start well below the start point of the model temps, but then her trend lines start at the same point as the model (which is either a bogus trend line, which isn't her style, or else it's the reason she positioned the temps the way she did, because the period begins with a La Niña so the trend start is higher, and she lines those up with the model start).

I don't know enough statistics to deal with this myself.  My only thought is to include more of the observational record (but still begin the model run at 2000), so that that trend line extends backwards and doesn't start so high.  She has an advantage by starting her trend line at the blip of a minor plateau starting at 2000.  And do HadCrut and NOAA/NCDC really show 2010 as being no warmer than other years?

2011-09-25 01:13:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
grypo and Sphaerica - Charlie A insists that choice of baseline adjustments is the "proper" way to do it. And his method is fine, but so is mine, which I think is better for illustrating the accuracy of the model projections since 2000 [by setting the baselines equal in 2000]. As several people have noted, when looking at trends, baselines are meaningless, but he's very single-minded. Lucia, on the other hand, has chosen her baselines very poorly. Quite obviously in her graph, the models start well above the data in 2000, which makes the comparison look much worse than it actually is. Again the baselines don't really mean anything, but the way she's done it is very deceptive. I made a comment that while baselines are meaningless, they can be used for dishonest purposes to trick the eye. That's what Lucia has done.
2011-09-25 01:19:20Why not...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

just delete all of Lucia's posts and ban her? What's good for Poptech should be good for Lucia. 

2011-09-25 01:21:41
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

Dana,

Yes, I guess that's my point.  She can safely argue for her graph that she did exaclty what you did and chose to position her trend lines with the start of the model runs.  This lets the actual data start well below, but gives her trend lines a serious visual difference from the model runs (because HadCrut and NOAA/NCDC are apprently so flat -- which surprises me, are they really?).  More importantly it gives her a huge visual advantage on the actual data by positioning it so low.

But her technique... positioning the trend lines to line up with the start of the model runs is exaclty equivalent to what you did, and so is arguably "the best" way to do it.

That's why I'm suggesting including more observational data in computing the trend.

Otherwise she has very clearly but cleverly used the too-short time period to make the original post look bad.  It doesn't change anything, but she has scored points with people who don't understand that.  It does visually make it look like (a) the selection of GISTEMP was a necessary cherry pick and (b) the models grossly exaggerate current warming.

[She also very cleverly used a bold, thick line for the models and the lowest of the actual data, and thin, faded colors for the trend lines, so the visual impact of the greatest difference is exaggerated.]

Perhaps the best thing to do is to just ignore it, but she did score points with a lot of people with that.  I think some sort of (honest) rebuttal is needed.

2011-09-25 01:25:58
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

John,

Unfortunately, she does have her own blog, and a popular one.  The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him.  Doing the same to Lucia would give them a huge amount of ammunition, and I'm sure that would be taken up by Bishop Hill, WUWT and the rest of them.

It may be best just to ignore her, and let that one comment fall into the depths of time.  I just wanted to point out that I think she did cleverly construct an argument that will very readily be accepted by deniers and make SkS and Dana look bad.  Unfortunate and unfair, but true.

2011-09-25 01:35:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.42.63

- Banning Lucia: Very bad idea

- Sphaerica: Why not do an explicit de-construction of how her argument relies upon things that don't matter? The visuals, etc.?

- Finally: If you can't come out looking like a winner, accept it in good grace. Nobody wins all the time. As Woody Allen once said, 90% of life is just showing up.

2011-09-25 01:37:17
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.178.133

Sphaerica, she uses a 25 month running mean of the data which more or less smears out the 2010 El Nino.  As she uses 1999 values for the mean in her start point, that also drops the initial values of the observations.  Both factors exagerate the extent to which the projection lies above the temperature indices.

2011-09-25 01:39:36
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I can't stress enough how damaging it would be to start banning and censoring people for differing opinions.  Lucia and Charlie are not anything like Poptech.  That would kill our credibility.  And there's no reason to do it anyway.

2011-09-25 01:53:50
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.42.63

It seems to me that the best way to deal with Lucia is to up your game: Think harder about the sort of things that she might legitimately object to, and avoid them ahead of time. You really cannot blame her for using graphical layout to make the best case she can for her point of view.

2011-09-25 01:56:30IMHO
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Participants have been banned for egregious behavior such as cyber-stalking, trolling, spamming and (eventually) refusing to comply with the Comment Policy.

Lucia's behavior warrants moderation and perhaps a blog post rebuttal of her deception on her blog, but nothing more at this point.

2011-09-25 02:03:58
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Lucia hasn't done anything to warrant being banned, and doing so would be a PR nightmare for SkS.  Deneirs could finally criticize us for censorship, and for good reason.

I don't really think we would gain much by criticizing her graphical choices.  For one thing very few people even saw her graph, so it won't have had much impact.  And then we just get into an argument about a rather subjective issue - how to properly display graphs.  Everybody's got their own opinion about that (as we saw in the AR4 post comments).

Yes, I think lucia's approach was deceptive (probably intentionally so), but I don't think it's worth highlighting.  That would probably just bring more attention to it.

2011-09-25 02:05:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Do not ban Lucia  unless she repeatedly breaks the house rules like BP and Ken Lambert did.  They want us to do that, we are being baited and tested.

2011-09-25 02:07:36
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

I think whoever has a contact with Tamino should contact him to see what he thinks.  Perhaps our presentation is wrong not the 'best', but at least we could trust that it was wrong instead of finagling minor details that cost time and bore the crap out of most readers.

2011-09-25 08:02:32Concept of a "Murder Board"
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.42.63

The Murder Board

The essential but horrible sounding named murder board.  Every time I bring it up with a new person, I get confused stares – yet I think its an essential tool for both salespeople and entrepreneurs.

What exactly is a murder board?  Murder Board is a term that was originally coined by the U.S. military and referred to the practice of preparing people for oral exams – particularly for oral exams related to becoming an instructor.  A panel of several people would be convened to hear the presentation of  the candidate, and to become the worst set of students that this instructor would ever face – and to see how they would handle the frustration. humiliation, and the general situation.  The thought process was that if they could handle that panel of people, then there would be no student that could topple them.  At the end of the murder board, the instructor would get a thumbs up or down, and in the case of a thumbs down… subjected to another murder board.  This ritual was part training / part hazing, but actually probably quite effective at weeding out bad instructors and preparing good ones.

So what does this have to do with sales and entrepreneurship?    When we talk about murder board as it relates to sales, it is not a hazing technique, but rather an essential tool to arm the salesperson with responses to all of the tough questions that a customer can ask.  It has the same roots, but can truly be critical in making sure that you don’t blow that meeting that you worked so hard to get.

I recommend murderboarding early and often.  It is very easy in the early stages of a company, or in a tight knit sales team to get into “group think” where you start to actually believe everything that you say in your pitch and about your product without taking a very hard and critical look at it with outside eyes.

A murderboard should be conducted with one person taking the role of salesperson, and the other people taking the role of hyper-critical clients that have a problem with anything and everything.  This should NOT be a hazing experiment to see if you can throw this person off their game just for the fun of it, but it should be difficult.  The point is to prepare yourself, to learn about your product, and to get better and better pitches (and perhaps learn something more about your product in relation to your competition, the world in general.”   The people serving as the clients need to object to any and every part of the product and pitch that is presented:

I already use one of your competitors

Its too much money

That claim can’t be true

My company already has a solution like that

I don’t need this

Cloud solutions will never get past my CIO.  We NEVER host data outside our company.

I have more important priorities

This is a “nice to have”

Your competition is cheaper

and on and on…  If you have heard the argument, or think about the argument, you should bring it up.  The person in the line of fire should be able to respond to each and every question in a proper way.  Don’t be afraid to get specific about your product and its features – because your potential customers wont.

When you stump the person presenting, you should stop and think about the question.  Why did that particular objection or response throw you?  Is it an overlooked product feature?  Or a place where your competition trumps you?  Or is it just something for which you haven’t thought of a proper response.  No matter… if you get stumped… THIS IS GOOD! Its means you are learning something about your product, your pitch, or your ability to pitch.   Work on and practice better responses to each objection and incorporate them into the arsenal you use in your selling.

The sales team should take turns on this, and iterate the pitch over and over again.

How often should you murder board?  Often… especially in the early stages of a product.  It should help bring out deficiencies in the product and how to deal with them in the sales pitch.   If you get a new objection in the field or lose a sale, bring it back into the next murder board and use the experience to determine if there were ways to better handle the objection, or deal with the competitive threat.

Murder board when you get new salespeople.  Don’t subject them first, but let them be the “bad client” first.  Chances are their outside view will bring up something you haven’t dealt with before and help the experienced people pitch better.  Then, once they have heard the pitch a few times, they can role play themselves and have the experience of battling overly-critical prospects.

I’m not sure how I would get better or how to train my teams better without the murder board, yet I’m always amazed when people in sales and start-ups say that they aren’t murder boarding.  Sure… there are a lot of people claiming to role-play, but that is not completely the same thing.  In role-play, there is not necessarily a concentration on raising all the possible objections.  I’d love to hear in the comments other ways people are training themselves, their sales staff, and just sanity checking their pitch/product other than murder boarding.

2011-09-25 12:01:36@neal
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

We do much the same.  Our version is called "grinders" where the sales teams divide into 2 lines and face each other with one line being the clients and the other line being the sales people.  The sales person has 5 minutes to convince the client to buy.  The client then gives several minutes of feedback & critique.  Then the entire line moves down one spot with the end person moving back to the other end of the line.  When you get back to your first position, the lines switch roles and the process repeats.

Interminable, yet effective at honing message, delivery and overcoming objections.

2011-09-25 17:17:36Definitive decision on banning Lucia
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
We are definitely NOT banning Lucia. It can't be stressed enough that HOW we act is as important as the content of our discussions. Banning her would elevate this from an obscure technical tussle into a huge scandal of SkS censoring anyone having a different opinion. So tread carefully (and non-emotionally!) with moderation. It's actually almost or possibly more important than our blog posts.
2011-09-25 18:20:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I see some people here have sold their souls to the darkside of sales offices.

2011-09-25 20:40:15the posting of 25 Sep 2011, 8:02 AM
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.113

was an article I quoted late at night; the link is included.

I don't work in sales. But my point is that an intensive critique of a presentation includes the angle of "opposition research". I think we already do a decent job, in our internal review process, to avoid scientific mistakes. What we perhaps need more work on is the question, "How could this be misunderstood or distorted? And is there some way to ward that off?"

Imagining that Lucia is reading our posts, in advance of publication, and trying to anticipate her doubts and moves, would be similar to the murder board concept discussed above.

2011-09-25 20:57:20
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I agree Neal regarding thinking about how something might be misunderstood.

2011-09-25 21:06:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.113

Maybe we could consciously adopt this as a stage of the "release process": After doing the best job s/he can in building the article, the author should explicitly request help on thinking about how this could be misunderstood, distorted, or misinterpreted; and be prepared to make changes and even more calculations to reduce this.

Better to deal with these issues internally than externally.

 

"Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker. What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

Friedrich Nietzsche

2011-09-25 21:36:50
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Sounds like a really good idea Neal.

2011-09-25 21:40:14I thought SkS peer review was brutal enough
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
There's a reason why almost all the attacks on SkS are style, not substance - because of our kick-arse peer review system. Sounds like it's about to get even tougher :-)
2011-09-26 00:31:22
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.113

JC:

- It has been said that the lead dog in a dog sled race is the only one that has a view. But it's also true that the lead dog is the one that's gonna be bit in butt most often.

- Pet peeve: I don't think we should refer to our internal critique process as "peer review", as that connotes (to me, at least) the rather formal process common to prestigious scientific journals, with external review, a formal comment process, anonymous reviewers, etc. Our actual process is much more rough-and-ready than that. If this term leaks out, outsiders will claim that we're puffing our process beyond what is justifiable. Can we use the term "internal review" instead?

2011-09-26 05:51:10great comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.205.112

lucia (Comment #82154)
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:30 pm

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Comment #82143)

"Skeptical science does not allow me to post comments because that loser Albatross kept complaining about me."

You aren’t going to get much sympathy from me. I moderate you and I’m pretty tolerant of bad behavior.

2011-09-26 08:25:17
adelady

amgnificent@gmail...
124.171.82.190

It's not 'review'  -  peer or otherwise.    It's collaborative writing with rigorous editing.