JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

The University of Queensland’s diabolical dilemma

Rud Istvan has taken it upon himself to point out the diabolical dilemma the University of Queensland is facing. They have now claimed ownership of the work for the 97% Consensus paper (Cook et al 2013). In which case, UQ may have published a paper which breaches its own ethical principles (and is now threatening Brandon Shollenberger with legal action if he does what they themselves have already done). Alternately, if there was no ethical approval they are misrepresenting the situation with “grossly invalid grounds” and there is no reason to withhold data and threaten Shollenberger and the said data ought be released immediately.

The paper should be retracted or the data should be released to Richard Tol and Brandon Shollenberger. I would think an apology to Brandon, or to those named in the paper would also be a bare minimum requirement.

Jo

PS: As I said, the question of the participants names is a strawman. The real issue is the other data — like timestamps. Why are UQ risking their reputation to hide the other data (or lack thereof?)

——————————————–

.
Prof. Alistair McEwan
Acting-Pro-Vice Chancellor
University of QueenslandMr. Graham Lloyd
Environmental Editor
www.theaustralian.com.au
……………………………………….. Ms. Jane Malloch, Esq.
Head Research Legal
University of QueenslandProf. Richard Tol
University of Sussex

Prof. McEwan:

On May 20, 2014, you issued a formal statement concerning the
controversy published by The Australian on 5/17/14 surrounding Cook et. al,
2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024, ‘Quantifying the Consensus’, hereinafter
QtC. That statement presents the University of Queensland (UQ) with an ethical
and legal dilemma. I call your attention to it expecting UQ will do the right thing.
Your statement makes it quite clear that UQ considers QtC was done
under the sponsorship of and with support from UQ. This is indisputable. The
solicitation for volunteer raters for the analysis that became QtC was:
survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=5RL8LWWT2YO7. UQ released a statement
about the importance of QtC in the UQ News on January 16, 2014 headlined,
“UQ climate change paper has the whole world talking.”

Your 5/20/14 statement said in part:

“Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld. This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.”

And that is precisely your dilemma. The published paper itself identified all
the individual research participants (raters). They were either named authors
(with affiliations provided, for example second author Dana Nuccitelli affiliated
with UQ associated website SKS, as noted in UQ’s 1/20/14 news release), or
were specifically named without affiliation in the paper’s acknowledgement. Lest
you doubt this, following is that portion of the paper as originally published.

 Your dilemma is this. If the UQ ethical approval exists as you officially
stated, then the paper as published grossly violated it. QtC is therefore unethical
according to UQ policy, and should be withdrawn forthwith. We need not cite
here all the governing Australian principles that UQ is obligated to follow under
such unfortunate circumstances. Those include but are not limited to
www.uq.edu.au/research/integrity-compliance/human-ethics. There is 2014
retraction precedent concerning another unethical climate related paper from the
University of Western Australia. If, on the other hand, there was no such ethical
approval, or that approval did not require concealing rater identities, then you
have officially misrepresented grossly invalid grounds for withholding the
anonymized additional information needed for replication, such as date and time
stamped ratings by anonymous rater. Said information has repeatedly, formally
been requested by Prof. Richard S.J. Tol (Sussex University (U.K.), and an IPCC
AR5 lead author) for his legitimate research purposes concerning what UQ said
is a seminal paper. That data should still exist, and should be provided to Prof.
Tol under UQ Policy 4.20.06a §8.2 and §9.1 (as last approved 11/28/13).

Either way, you and UQ both appear in a very bad light. It appears that
UQ congratulates itself on gross ethical breaches (especially when basking in so
much notoriety), while at the same time withholding anonymized primary data
underlying a self admitted important research paper in contravention of UQ
written research data policy. Either retract the admittedly unethical paper, or
retract the grossly mistaken excuse and release the requested data to Tol.

I note in passing there is a third possibility, to wit Tol’s requested data
does not exist. In which case, QtC should be retracted for being unsupportable if
not also unethical. As you are probably aware, there have been many recent
instances of unsupportable research subsequently retracted. These include but
are not limited to papers from Ike Antkare in 2010, and many recent papers from
the SCIgen group (which interestingly bears superficial similarities to SKS) now
being retracted by Springer and by IEEE. Those two precedents may be
particularly germane to UQ’s instant dilemma.

This letter is as copyrighted as those Ms. Malloch writes concerning this
matter on UQ behalf. You and anyone else in the whole wide world are hereby
granted permission to freely reproduce it in whole or in part. I suspect some may.
I look forward to whichever decision (retraction or data provision) you think
best for UQ under the aforesaid circumstances.

Sincerely yours,
s/s
Rud Istvan, Esq., JD/MBA

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (113 votes cast)
The University of Queensland's diabolical dilemma, 9.3 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p932cno

373 comments to The University of Queensland’s diabolical dilemma

  • #
    JohnM

    Perhaps Professor McEwan can also answer another pressing question – on what date and at what time did science cease to be (provisionally) resolved by the hypothesis that best accounts for observed situations and start to become resolved by (supposed) popularity of a particular hypothesis?

    370

    • #
      Brian

      start to become resolved by (supposed) popularity of a particular hypothesis?

      Its not popularity, its the volume of scientific evidence in the form of published papers. Its only blogs like this that rely on popularity as a substitute for data.

      389

      • #
        manalive

        The volume of published papers, whatever they conclude, is evidence of the volume of published papers and that’s all.

        560

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          In a similar vein, I have heard the defence for the blossoming amount of paperwork that is necessary for so many jobs, nowadays: apparently, it is to show proof that the work has been properly risk-assessed, planned, executed and subsequently maintained. I have taken over work where the paperwork has been exemplary; it is just the actual work has not been done (in one case, while checked and verified sound every month, the actual piece of equipment had not been there for several years!).

          I think it is long overdue that, when “proof” of checks/planning/monitoring/maintenance work is raised in a court of inquiry following some disaster, the lawyer will point out that all those little bits of paper filled out and presented as proof of proper procedures merely prove that little bits of paper have been filled out.

          70

      • #
        ExWarmist

        There were no doubt many scientific papers declaring the value of eugenics during the 1930s….

        Likewise Lysenkoism in the 40s & 50s in Russia, or more recently the causes of stomach ulcers (excluding bacteria)…

        Are you really serious that you think that this site assesses hypotheses based on their popularity rather than on their accord with measurable, repeatable empirical evidence?

        What a bizarre conclusion – you must not have actually read the various blogs and comments on this forum – or your intellectual blindness is both comprehensive and entrenched.

        430

      • #
        James Bradley

        I don’t think that Brian understands – does anyone here speak Esperanto?

        91

      • #
        James Bradley

        I’ve read it a couple of times and I think I’ve got the gist of it.

        Brian says that he comes in peace.

        He says that he is from a alternate universe far, far away.

        Brian says that in his reality the data that relies on blogs is a substitute for reality.

        Brian says he has to go now because he has been a very naughty boy.

        Good bye Brian.

        261

      • #
        bullocky

        UQ’s preference is for ‘withholding’ data rather than ‘substitution’.
        -
        In respect of data/popularity, skepticalscience is at a distinct disadvantage.

        50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Brian is quoting from the Thoughts of Chairman Pachuri, also known as The Little Green Book.

        141

      • #
        Brian

        Here is something far more credible to digest
        http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

        228

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          What! A publication by CNA? Credible?

          It is a panel of Ret’s. “Ret”, being appended to the rank of Senior Military Officers, once they are “Retired”. They will tend to agree with whatever is put in front of them, in order to collect their fee.

          CNA claims to be a not for profit, which it is, on the grounds that it does not have any shareholders, to which it pays dividends. However it does pay generous salaries to those who work there, and pays generous fees to the Ret’s who sit on its panels, from time to time.

          Little, if any, scientific credibility, there Brian.

          161

        • #
          bullocky

          Brian: ‘Here is something far more credible to digest’
          -
          You shouldn’t eat that sort of stuff, Brian; it’s bad for you!
          -
          (You’ll find Alka-Seltzer very good)

          90

        • #
          tom0mason

          Brian,
          “Here is something far more credible to digest”

          You meant this as a joke right, should be incredible, right?
          Or were you trying to point out that the AGW scam is just politics?

          You do know that the CIA and the security services of the day back in 1971-73 took the ideas of global cooling and the Malthusian output of Paul Ehrlich very seriously. Unfortunately John Holdren still does.

          60

        • #
          NikFromNYC

          Analogous 1971 CIA report on Global Cooling threats:

          http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

          70

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          Brian: ignore the ruffians on this site. Could you please define for us what is meant by “climate change”? In doing so, please ensure that you can give specific indications that a climate is changing, examples of where in the world this change us occurring, and how this change is going to create catastrophic effects, especially those effects that would be detrimental to a nation’s security.

          For a person of your evident skills and knowledge, this should present only a small challenge.

          60

          • #
            the Griss

            Brian.. WAKE UP..

            Where are you ????

            Brian?
            .
            .
            .
            .
            .
            Brian ??

            20

            • #
              Radical Rodent

              Griss, if you insist on flogging a dead horse, I know some lasagne manufacturers who may be interested…

              .

              .

              .

              … or am I getting the wrong meaning of “flog”?

              Rather out-dated joke over, it is a shame that Brian could not rise to that simple challenge and put us all into place.

              10

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Brian,

          Good use of the key word “credible” which is precisely what the report that you linked to is aimed to do – create and maintain credibility for an idea based on the authority of those who have authored the report.

          If we dig into the report that you have provided, we find that it is highly dependent on it’s content on regugitating material and conclusions from the National Climate Assessment

          You don’t have to go very far into this site to the following quote.

          Global climate is changing. Most of the warming of the past half-century is due to human activities. Some types of extreme weather are increasing, ice is melting on land and sea, and sea level is rising.

          Which is the standard Alarmist position.

          If you go to this link Download the report you can find on page 8 of the “Overview and Report Findings” aka Summary. A diagram of the projected global temperature change for the rest of the 21st century.

          This graph conveniently leaves out the fact that the physical evidence of temperature is outside the computer modelled predictions – ref to the draft AR5 graph

          Brian – the computer models are a restatement of the CAGW hypothesis – the fact that the models cannot predict reality indicates that there are flaws in the assumptions of the CAGW hypothesis.

          The only conclusion – Climate sensitivity to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is overstated in both the CAGW hypothesis and the CAGW models.

          There is no Catastrophe – The climate is safe, resilient and tolerant of increased levels of CO2.

          70

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Summary

          “Dear citizens, your #@$%ed”

          Yes very convincing, don’t let the door hit you in the CO2 producer on the way out.

          40

        • #
          Allen Ford

          I read the foreword, but that’s as far as I got. Seems to me that if you substitute the phrase “invasion by aliens” for “climate change”, it would make as much sense and have as much validity for forward planning.

          At least H. G. Wells knew he was writing fiction!

          20

      • #
        James Bradley

        Just like the Great Gazoo, Brian pops up unexpectedly to teach the dum dums how things are done in his alternate universe.

        Wont work Brian, this is real reality as opposed to populist reality.

        See in this reality real people think independently, they go to work to earn money, they raise families, they pay for their medical and education, they realise that sustainable energy and a worthwhile future is provided by nature in the form of coal and utilised by rational beings to generate electricity.

        They support worthwhile charities, and when they have the time, they discuss many different issues in an adult manner, like the biggest problem facing this planet in the future is the lack of money to maintain critical infrastructure because the socialist green left sucked the lifeblood out the world wide economy to fritter it away on extravagantly wasteful and inefficient green energy schemes – oh and waterfront mansions for Flannery, Suzuki, Gore and an ogliarchy of AGW parasites…

        wait… Brian look… isn’t that Julie Bishop trying to sneak into the back of a university auditorium somewhere…

        211

      • #
        Geoffrey Cousens

        What data?You have none to use as there is none.[Brain-washed eco-luny.!].

        71

      • #
        jleomorgan@gmail.com

        You said: “Its only blogs like this that rely on popularity as a substitute for data.”
        I think you’re mistaken, but I try always to check my facts. Could you please cite a single instance from this blog that does what you claim?

        91

        • #
          the Griss

          Yep, it really was a STUPID comment, considering all the data being HIDDEN by the likes of Mann and Cook.

          How much of data for the so-called “published” paper in one-sided waste magazines like Nature is actually available like it should be.

          Not much.. its all models and data maladjustments and statistical malpractice.

          Nope, there is only one side of the argument that looks at data, and it ISN’T the alarmist side.

          Alarmist diatribes are shown over and over again to be MANIFESTLY WRONG once you look at the real data.

          151

      • #
        Just Thinkin'

        NOTHING is proven until the same results can be obtained using the same method.

        Otherwise it is “Just Dreamin’”.

        50

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      From Bishop Hill: Spartacusisfree: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/5/22/university-challenge.html#comments

      “This War has lasted 30 years or so. This last skirmish is evidence of the end game. It started out with incorrect physics of heat generation, well hidden so only real experts could find it, probably a genuine mistake. Carbon traders and renewables’ corporations piled in funds to buy politicians who then funded a smokescreen of peer reviewed papers.

      This worked until 1997 when data showed CO2 trailed T at the end of the last ice age. This begat scientific cheating to prove ‘positive feedback’ from present data. But simultaneously, Mother Nature decided to stop atmospheric heating!

      More cheating kept the train on the tracks but real scientists started to break ranks, leading in AR5 to clear divergence between them and political stooges. No-one believes politicians, they could still believe scientists though.

      The counter attack by the politicians, think of it as the Battle of the Bulge, was to employ Psychologists and Social Scientists to manufacture an artificial science ‘consensus’. This last battle is about the validity of those data. I suspect they cheated; Game Over!”

      310

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      The paper is not attempting to resolve a scientific issue on the basis of “popularity”.

      The reasons for conducting the survey are given in the introduction – to compare public perceptions of the degree of agreement of scientists with the actual level of agreement:

      An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012)…

      Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

      The conclusion states:

      The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012)…

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

      19

      • #
        James Bradley

        Hi Phil,

        A more accurate perception would be the stating that the results were drawn from 97% consensus of the 3% of the total number of papers that supported the populist view.

        And as my learned friend, Just Thinkin, indicated to you earlier

        “NOTHING is proven until the same results can be obtained using the same method.”

        So I put it to you that the reason that the data is currently denied open scrutiny is because the nature of the survey was improper and the actual result can not be duplicated.

        110

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          James,

          Science does not attempt to “prove” things.

          Scientific papers provide evidence in support or contradiction of a particular theory or hypothesis. I have written a few papers in my time and strongest I have ever written is along the lines that the results demonstrate something. This is usually in relation to what spectroscopic results indicate about the structure and interaction of molecules. But that is never the last word which is implied by the word “proof.”

          Scientists do not set out to replicate other peoples work for the sake of it. That would be a monumental waste of scientific time and resources. Sometimes a scientist will have a particular reason to challenge the conclusions of other studies, carry out the necessary measurements, analyse the results and publish a paper. I have done this on more than one occassion.

          Errors (or regretably the occaisional outright fraud) will be discovered when others take the published work and attempt to build on those results and conclusions and find that they don’t stack up.

          This paper does not deal with data from the natural world. It is a literature survey, and as noted below it discusses various sources of uncertainty in the result.

          The methodology described in the paper, the results and conclusions discussed are perfectly reasonable for a paper of this kind.

          Critics need to demonstrate precisely where the errors are.

          110

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan: ‘Science does not attempt to “prove” things’
            -
            ‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.
            -
            The ‘scientific method’ consists within an endeavour to prove
            a given hypothesis wrong.
            -
            Selectively gathering information to support a given hypothesis would be outside the ambit of the scientific method as would be the creative interpretation of information to suit that hypothesis. These procedures may identify the activity as commercial, ideological, political or religionist in nature.
            -
            And then there is Falsifiability and the provision of data….

            40

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              bullocky,

              I don’t know what you mean by science being “activity neutral”.

              Also the falsifiability criteria for science is Karl Popper’s idea. I have a graduate diploma in history and philosophy of science and have books by Popper and many others on this subject on my bookshelf. Many philosophers of science have pointed out that scientists do not actually follow Popper’s strict criteria.

              A very good readable and relatively short book on these matters is “What is this thing called science” by Chalmers (Have lost my copy and can’t remember his first name.)

              I can attest to this myself as a research scientist. Certainly if a theory is found to be at fundamentally at odds with experiment it is discarded. But Newton’s theory of gravitation was not discarded because some of the predictions of the motions of the planets did not match his equations. It worked so well and there was no better alternative, so it was kept until the problem could be resolved. It was resolved by Einstein’s relativity, but even so Newton’s approximation is still used to send space vehicles to planets in the outer solar system.

              Generally, we are looking for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis or theory.

              06

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan : ‘I don’t know what you mean by science being “activity neutral”.’
                -
                Politics of evasion: it is self explanatory.

                If you reject the principal of falsifiability, you should make it clear when you do so and elucidate why. You seem to prefer the principal of withholding information (a la Cook, Lewandowsky, UWA, UQ); something else that Popper would have disapproved of.

                Performance is the measure value. If you can show falsifiable proof of your claims (above), then you should do so. Don’t hide within the realm of philosophy or politics when measurable real-world outcomes await; save it for inconsequential fireside discussions.
                -
                ‘Generally, we are looking for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis or theory.’
                -
                WRONG! What you are doing is testing notionally dependent secondary (tertiary etc) hypotheses to prove them wrong. If they can’t be proven wrong, then progress has been made towards advancing the primary hypothesis to ‘theory’ status. You can’t avoid ‘falsifiability’; it is precocious to claim so.
                Popper was only describing the process – he is not responsible for its being.
                -
                Be careful of philosophical ‘deep space’, where direction is unimportant and importance, meaningless.
                -
                Science (the accumulation of human knowledge)will advance with or without the assistance of you or I.
                What is touted to be an advance in climate knowledge may only be a contribution to our knowledge of human skulduggery!

                60

              • #
                the Griss

                A real scientist should ALWAYS be asking himself.. “what is wrong with this hypothesis?”

                If you are not trying to find fault with a hypothesis, you will never know if it is wrong.

                Always testing, testing the hypothesis to see if it can be bought down.

                90

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky,(and Griss)

                “Activity neutral”

                “Self explanatory”?

                Please explain.

                I don’t reject the principle of falsifiability. It was and remains a highly influential idea. But it is only one description/prescription of how science is/should be carried out. Nor do I suggest that scientists do not consider what may be wrong with a hypothesis as well as what is right.

                As I noted above, I have been prompted on occasion to consider what was wrong with various accepted scientific ideas and carried out experiments and came to a conclusion as to whether or not those ideas were correct. Often in falsifying one idea one hypothesis one necessarily finding supporting evidence for an alternative. Falsification and verification are often two sides of the same coin.

                I noted that strict adherence to this principle is not actually how science is done.

                I said that many others have different descriptions/prescriptions of how science is/should be carried out, not all of which reject falsifiability outright.

                Explain then why Newton’s theory (and many others which were found not to exactly correspond with data), was not rejected when it was, strictly speaking, “falsified”?

                What hypothesis or theory were Watson and Crick trying to falsify when they elucidated the double helical structure of DNA?

                Having actually been a research scientist for 3 decades (in addition to having considerable knowledge of History and Philosophy of Science, including readings of Popper and many others on this subject) I think I have a pretty good grasp of how science is actually done and the various theoretical examinations of the process.

                And your confident assertions are based upon…?

                17

              • #
                bullocky

                bullocky:”‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.”
                -
                Philip Shehan: ‘I don’t know what you mean by science being “activity neutral”.’
                -
                The ‘in itself’ is important.
                -
                Philip Shehan;”necessarily finding supporting evidence for an alternative. Falsification and verification are often two sides of the same coin.”
                -
                No! Supporting evidence is not verification unless it eliminates all possibilities of alternative explanations, which is extremely unlikely. It means that you are modifying (or, occasionally, completely changing) your hypothesis to make it consistent with all observations under all knowable conditions.
                ..And is it falsifiable?
                …It certainly is, Philip Shehan, because, being the true scientist that you are, you will make all data, methods and code available to anyone who may want to ‘find something wrong with it’.
                -
                Philip Shehan: ‘Explain then why Newton’s theory (and many others which were found not to exactly correspond with data), was not rejected when it was, strictly speaking, “falsified”?’
                -
                Quite simply, Newtons’s Theory wasn’t a theory at all. It was an hypothesis; it only applied to conditions knowable at the time. The hypothesis remains useful where those conditions prevail but must be modified to suit the expanded criteria.
                -
                Philip Shehan: ‘What hypothesis or theory were Watson and Crick trying to falsify when they elucidated the double helical structure of DNA? ‘
                -
                I could google judiciously to answer this question, but what’s the point?
                -
                Philip Shehan, your academic achievements are one thing, but it is the integrity with which you serve those achievements that will interest the sceptical mind.
                -
                -
                Here’s a double hypothesis for your academic delectation;
                ‘Science involves the unravelling of Nature’s mysteries.
                Skepticism involves the unravelling of human mischief.’

                70

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, Stop dancing around.
                What do you mean by the statement that “Science, in itself, is actively neutral”?

                I thought twice about using the term verify, as that is precisely the word that philosophers of science object to in the strict sense. The old favourite: No matter how many white swans you observe, you cannot rule out the possibility of a black swan. But I used the term for a non specialist audience instead of writing Falsification/the provision of evidence in support of a theory or hypothesis, because, although more correct, is clumsy. Points to you though for picking me up on it.

                Before that I more correctly wrote [correcting here for clumsy expression and typos]: “Often in falsifying one idea [or] hypothesis one [is] necessarily finding supporting evidence for an alternative.”

                You write: And is it falsifiable?

                Not sure what you are getting at here.

                But let’s move on.

                “Newtons’s Theory wasn’t a theory at all…”

                The dance continues. This will come as a great shock to any scientist or historian of science. OK call it a hypothesis then. Regarded as the ultimate in successful theories (sorry, hypotheses) with unparalleled precision and explanatory power for over two centuries.

                Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night: God said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light. (Alexander Pope)

                The question then remains:

                Explain then why Newton’s hypothesis (and many others which were found not to exactly correspond with data), was not rejected when it was, strictly speaking, “falsified”?

                Philip Shehan: ‘What hypothesis or theory were Watson and Crick trying to falsify when they elucidated the double helical structure of DNA? ‘
                -
                I could google judiciously to answer this question, but what’s the point?

                The point, Lord of the Dance, is that there was no hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA that they set out to falsify.

                Their work on models considering the rules of chemical structure and bonding and a big hint from X ray crystallography gradually guided them to think (hypothesise if you will, at avery late stage)that the structure was a double helix. Read the Book of that name by Watson. They did not then attempt to falsify that hypothesis, but used it to construct a model which was consistent with the known data and rules of chemistry.

                And they began their paper:

                We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)…

                My achievments in science are not readily separable from my integrity.

                15

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan

                May 24, 2014 at 8:46 pm
                -
                ‘The dance continues’
                -
                ‘The point, Lord of the Dance..’
                -
                Now, re-present this post without the unnecessary and offensive ad hom, and, if I have time, I may respond.

                40

              • #
                the Griss

                “My achievments in science are not readily separable from my integrity.”

                True, and your science seems to be on a rapid downward spiral.

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Oh come on bullocky, a gentle dig and very mild considering what you and others write about me, the subtle questioning of my integrity being a case in point. (Griss has no concept of subtlety in these matters).

                I have written before that I consider you to be no fool (and note I gave you points for picking me up on a subtle but important distinction in the philosophy of science) and that I suspect that often you are just being argumentative for the sake of getting a rise out of me.

                Don’t be precious.

                03

              • #
                vic g gallus

                Newton Mechanics was a theory until it was shown to fall short of explaining everything rather than was falsified. Its not a model because it was not originally devised to approximate reality, it was meant as a description of reality. It started as an hypothesis.

                It still explains the movements of everyday objects moving at everyday speeds well so its a part of Classical Physics rather than a failed theory (like a model). It just wasn’t the full picture rather than the wrong picture. Nobody discovered that objects falling in a vacuum do accelerate differently depending on their weight.

                50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Vic, far from being a mere hypothesis, Newton’s mechanics are designated Newton’s LAWS of motion.

                And his Universal LAW of gravitation was found not to account for the orbit of mercury, among other failures. Strictly speaking, it was falsified, but not abandoned, even when relativity showed it to be an approximation.

                16

              • #
                the Griss

                And AGW has never even got beyond being an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

                yet you worship it. !

                Just remember next time you are on a bridge or in a car or in a plane.

                According to you Newton’s laws are a failure.

                Be afraid.. be very afraid..

                No wonder you sit at home all day in a padded cell.

                52

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                BS as usual Griss. I wrote that Newton’s laws are a good enough approximation for Nasa to use them to send sacecraft to the furthest reaches of the solar system.

                17

              • #
                the Griss

                in # 1.3.1.1.10 your EXACT WORDS were…

                “among other failures”

                Its there for anyone to read.

                51

              • #
                vic g gallus

                Law in science and theory only differ in that the former is based on empirical observation while the latter has some reasoning for it eg. that the gravitational field would weaken with the square of the distance. You’re clutching at straws there.

                How can a model that ignores the first 2 metres be called a theory?

                50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Yes Griss those are my exact words. And your point is?

                “among other failures”:

                Newton’s gravitational theories were formulated to acount for the motions of bodies in the solar system (and apples falling from trees). It was some time after Newton that its violation by the precesssion of mercury was discoverd.

                Newton’s law of gravitation also failed when observations were made of distant galaxies. It did not consider the curvature of space.

                It also fails on small scales such as in the vicinity of black holes.

                Newton’s law fails to acount for the bending of light around massive bodies (eg stars).

                Vic. Hypotheses are educated guesses based on a series of observations.

                A theory is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that has been tested on many occasions and has been found to be substantiated by observations. Newton’s Laws of motion and gravitation were tested many,many times and found to pass. They are therefore more than hypothesis, they are fully fledged theories.

                The distinction between a scintific Law and a theory varies according to various definitions, but generally Laws are statements that describe how things happen under certain circumstances without describing why they happen. They are usually expressed as mathematical equations, which are found always to apply. It was during this period of continual affirmation by observation and experiment that they were designated Laws.

                I clutch at no straws.

                My point is that in the strict Popperian view of falsification, when these theories/Laws were found not to correspond with observations they should have been rejected.

                That they were not is my point. Popper’s description of how science is or should be carried out is just one among many and his ideas are not the final word in the description of how scientists actually work or should work that certain here people claim.

                05

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Popper’s description of how science is or should be carried out is just one among many and his ideas are not the final word in the description of how scientists actually work or should work that certain here people claim.’
                -
                It is an artefact of the human condition that people will select the option that best represents a personal gain. Further, it is the province of human intelligence to contrive a justification for that selection.
                A system is required to submit all claims to the one standard of unconditional probity: the claims must yield to all the evidence, and all competing hypotheses must be eliminated.
                This is the scientific method; a contract with the truth.
                -
                It doesn’t matter what Popper thought, what I think, or what you think: if a change to the terms of this contract is sought, it is the onus of the contractor(s) to show that unconditional probity and the elimination of all competing hypotheses is the only possible outcome.
                -
                Consider this, Philip Shehan, when you find it hard to change the mind of a skeptic.

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, Nice to see you returning to polite discussion of the subject.

                The History and Philosophy of science has been considering what are the distinguishing features of science long, long before the AGW debate. Popper’s desription/prescription of science, as important an influential as it has been,is just one of the many ideas put forward.

                It is an artefact of the human condition that people will select the option that best represents a personal gain. Further, it is the province of human intelligence to contrive a justification for that selection.

                So true, so true.

                It is “skeptics”, who otherwise have no knowledge of this area, who have grasped on the idea of falsifiability as the sole description of how science is and must carried out because they think it supports their views.

                I have pointed out, with with reference to personal experience gained in the period long before AGW was a highly controversial topic (and incidentally when my “bias” was that the balance of evidence was insufficient to support it), that contra Popper, scientists do not automatically abandon theories because some part of it is contradicted by observations. And other Philosphers of Science have pointed out why they do not.

                I have also pointed out that many scientific experiments are not undertaken to either falsify or provide evidence for a particular theory.

                Watson and Crick had no idea of what the structure of DNA was when they becagan their work. This is one of the most significant discoveries of the 20th, or any other century.

                They did not set out to falsfy or support any hypothesis concerning its stucture. They simply started thinking about what it might be and worked by building models and considering some crystollographic data and using known facts about chemical bonding intuition honed from their scintific trainig to discover what the structure might be.

                As they worked, this process brought them to postulate that a double helix might fit the bill and sought evidence to support this hypothesis, not falsify it.

                And I noted that their paper began with the very modest claim that

                We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)…

                They did not write,

                We have falsified every other possible hypothesis for the structure of DNA.

                This potentially infinite process would see them still working on this project had that been the aim. No trips to Stockholm to shake hands with the King of Sweden. That honour would have probably fallen to Linus Pauling, if he had chosen to ignore Popper.

                Scientists have signed no contract with Popper, any other philosopher of science or anyone else.

                They agree among themselves as to how they proceed and judge each others work on that basis. What other people choose to make of their activities is not an essential part of the scientific project.

                Many, probably most, scientists neither know nor care about musings of the HPS brigade about how they go about their work, much less any instructions from them as to how they should proceed.

                Richard Feynman, who skeptics are also fond of (selectively) quoting, thought the whole discipline a complete waste of time and utterly irrlelvant to actual working scientists.

                Frankly, that “skeptics” who have little or no knowledge of the history and philosophy of science and how the highly successful enterprise of science is and has been carried out by scientists themselves for centuries should sieze upon one particular idea in HPS (the only one they know about) and presume to insist that scientist should follow their preferred notion of how they should work because it suits their prejudices is breathtakingly arrogant.

                13

              • #
                vic g gallus

                They did not set out to falsfy or support any hypothesis concerning its stucture. They simply started thinking about what it might be and worked by building models and considering some crystollographic data and using known facts about chemical bonding intuition honed from their scintific trainig to discover what the structure might be.

                Firstly, take a deep breath. All of us who have done some science have postulated an explanation for our results; that they’re exactly what current understanding predicts or a new explanation if the results did no concur with theory or a model.

                Poppers advice is simple. When checking by using experiments, do not design the experiment to provide supporting evidence. Design the experiment so that the hypothesis will fail if it is untrue.

                It reminds me of the Pink Panther scene.
                Does your dog bite?
                No, my dog does not bite.
                Ouch. You said your dog did not bite.
                That is not my dog.

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘bullocky, Nice to see you returning to polite discussion of the subject.’
                -
                I might find it nice to return, also, if I can prevail upon you to refrain from using offensive, opinionated innuendo!
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘They simply started thinking about what it might be and worked by building models and considering some crystollographic data and using known facts about chemical bonding intuition honed from their scintific trainig to discover what the structure might be.

                As they worked, this process brought them to postulate that a double helix might fit the bill and sought evidence to support this hypothesis, not falsify it.

                And I noted that their paper began with the very modest claim that

                We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)… ‘
                -
                An almost infinitely long human history of testing and falsifying claims, both formally and INFORMALLY and including their own experimentation, led them to propose their (modest) hypothesis.
                Every hypothesis is dependent on the falsified claims that went before it.
                -
                No more. No less.
                -
                What improvement over Popper do you offer?
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Frankly, that “skeptics” who have little or no knowledge of the history and philosophy of science and how the highly successful enterprise of science is and has been carried out by scientists themselves for centuries should sieze upon one particular idea in HPS (the only one they know about) and presume to insist that scientist should follow their preferred notion of how they should work because it suits their prejudices is breathtakingly arrogant.’
                -
                This is opinion: I refer you to my initial response (above).

                14

              • #
                the Griss

                “preferred notion of how they should work because it suits their prejudices is breathtakingly arrogant

                Yes Philip.. we had noted that about you.

                50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Apologies for the many typos and sloppy proof reading, but I was in a hurry before driving someone to the airport.

                Vic, once again contra Popper Crick and Watson did not set out to disprove what became their hypothesis during their work. They simply set out to show that their hypothesis supported all the information they (and science) had at that ime on chemical bonding.

                If I remember Watson’s account in The Double Helix correctly (many others have have disputed some aspects of Watson’s account -h e is considered to be something of an egotist), it was a chemist also working at Cambridge who told Watson in passing that a perticular form of nucleic acids in the text book he was using was wrong. This led Watson to the correct interpretation of how the bases paired up.

                They did not do any “experiments” in the usual sense at all. They tinkered with the model to see what structure conformed to the information on bonding in the literature, and had a flash of insight when another competitor, Maurice Wilkin’s and a co-winner of the Prize, showed them an X-ray diffration pattern by Rosalind Franklin that strongly suggested a helical structure.

                Franklin was a difficult woman who had been hired specifically to assist Wilkins in his X Ray work. The head of the Lab did not make this clear to Franklin (possibly in the Hitlerian belif that pitting people against each other encouraged healthy competition. In this case it probably robbed his lab othe the Prize. Franklin promptly appropriated Wilkin’s PhD student, his sample of crystalline DNA and basically sidelined him and told him to go and work on something else. Wilkins was too much of a gentleman (I would say wimp) to put Franklin firmly in her place.

                Franklin was however an excellent crystallographer. Wilkins showing Watson Franklin’s diffraction pattern which was much clearer than Wilkins earlier efforts is the basis of a complaint by feminists that Watson and Crick “stole” Franklin’s work. This is BS for a number of reason’s but I wont go into that. Except for one thing. Franklin had prejudice against the helix having posted a notice mockingly declaring that idea dead, and failed to see the evidence staring her in the face. Had she been less biased, (and more cooperative – so much the for the feminist myth of sharing cooperative women) she and Wilkins would probably had all the glory to themselves.

                Interestingly it was Franklin who Watson and Crick invited to the lab to show an earlier model which they thought solved the structure. Franklin pointed out where they had got it wrong and went away unimpressed.

                Watson and Crick later thought they had been gazumped by Linus Pauling when he published a paper on the structure, but they and others soon realized that this stellar Nobel Prize winning chemist who had elucidated the structure of proteins had made a fundemental blunder on bonding.

                Franklin was very magnanimous when they got it right, and a paper by Wilkin’s and Franklin and i think Wilkin’s Franklin’s student Gosling on the X-ray evidence appeared alongside Crick and watson’s paper.

                Fearing an agressive outburst for which Franklin was well known, they did not tell her just how much her diffraction pattern had helped them. Poor form but not stealing.

                Again feminists complain that Franklin was robbed of the Prize, but by the time it was awarded, Franklin had died of cancer, which removed the problem of whether she or Wilkins should have been the third recipient, as not more than 3 people can share a prize. I would say Wilkins was more deserving in any case.

                Anyway, to reiterate the main point. Watson and Crick did not do experiment’s to falsify their idea. Falsification has its place but here such a potentially unending attempt to falsify all other hypotheses would have taken them nowhere positive.

                bullocky. I don’t have any preffered criteria. As I note falsification often has it’s place when you actually think a perticular hypothesis may be wrwong or are just testing it, but it is not the only, or even the main way scientists go about their work.

                Mostly they are trying to show their idea is right or at least matches the data at the time. If it doesn’t it is incidentally falsified, but failures are seldom written up and published in the literature, although at least in some cases there is an argument that they should be.

                If routinely done this would mean the literature being clogged up with people showing that often half baked ideas are wrong, and indeed may encourage such time wasting as it would be easier to come up with a half baked idea and show it wrong than go theought thoe often tortuous procees of showing an idea right, ar at least being in conformity with the known fact. But it would be a cheap and easy way to get your name on a paper.

                The place of Poppers ideas, critiques of it and alternative are to be found in History and Philosophy Of science books. I coul;d not psossibly go into all the other viewpoints here.

                As one example you will perhaps be familiar with the term “paradigm shift” which was proposed by Thomas Kuhn in his analysis, The Structure of Scintific Revolutions.

                I have mentioned “What is This Thing called Science by Chalmers” as a short and easily readable overview. Buy or borrow it if you are interested.

                A long post but I am giving you guys sufficient credit to think that you are genuinely intersted in this topic and not just out to point score.

                Apologies in advance for the inevitable typos/sloppy edits.

                05

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Maybe you could just google Thomas Kuhn for a description of his opinions as one alternative to Popper.

                Or Paul Feyerband whose book Against Method advocates a rather anarchic “anything goes” approach to science. One of my HPS tutors Neil Thomason (I get the impression he fitted into the 60′s Berkely hippy mould a but smart and funny guy)was a student of his.

                Or just google history and philosophy of science and see what turns up.

                05

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Some intersting examples of the relationship between the competitors in the days when science was less cut throat. Watson and Crick had actually encouraged Wilkins to do some model building but Franklin thought that a waste of time.

                This is Wilkins reaction to be trumped by Watson and Crick following his showing the diffration pattern:

                3. Note to Crick (n.d.), headed “Suggested modification to your MSS” (this is the tail section of the famous letter of 18 March 1953 from Maurice Wilkins to Crick which begins: “I think you’re a couple of old rogues but you may well have something.” For a b/w photocopy of this opening section of the letter see Robert Olby’s research papers in file PP/CRI/D/2/29)

                On the “dark lady (Franklin)Wilkins was looking forward to getting some real work done on DNA after Franklin left:

                4. Letter from Wilkins to Crick (n.d.), beginning: “Thank you for your letter on the polypeptides. I think you will be interested to know that our dark lady leaves us next week & much of the 3 dimensional data is already in our hands…”

                http://archives.wellcomelibrary.org/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqCmd=show.tcl&dsqSearch=(RefNo=='PPCRI%2FH%2F1%2F42%2F4‘)

                05

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, I have already given you a chapter and verse, chronologically ordered demonstration of just who started one particular thread of offensive opinionated innuendo.

                Do you really want me to provide further examples?

                03

              • #
                vic g gallus

                Did you not get the analogy? Don’t just ask “Does your dog bite?”. Also ask “Is that your dog?”

                Seriously, Philip, nobody accepted the ideas of Watson and Crick without checking. It would not be in textbooks if further analysis was not done.

                I have published a paper where the model was wrong and we actually included that one piece of evidence that it was wrong in that paper. That is unusual. A subsequent paper is usually published to show that you are wrong, if you are.

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘bullocky, I have already given you a chapter and verse, chronologically ordered demonstration of just who started one particular thread of offensive opinionated innuendo.’
                -
                What you have provided, Philip Shehan, is a rambling, disjointed hotch-potch of other peoples’ ideas – chapter upon verse. There is no evidence in any of your recent posts to suggest that you can think for yourself, despite your summary of same, not surprisingly, being very favourable to yourself!

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Vic, Pleas pay attention. Nowhere haver I writtyen that falsification of theories or hypotheses is not part of science.

                What I have pointefd out is rthat is not the only creiterion, let alone the main one that scinteists apply.

                What I hgave argued is that Watson and Crick DID NOT set out to falsify a hypothesis. They gathered evidenc to support one.

                Scientists disd not en masse set out to falsify Watson and Crtick’s structure. I tmatched all the available data and backgroungd knowledge and was the basis of further research based on this. I myself have studies the structure of DNA.

                I have also challenged accepted ideas in the literature, When I had reason to think they were incorrect. I did not go into the lab and think “What can I falsify today. I know the nuclear quadrupole moment of molybdenum 95 and molybdenum 97.

                I have also had my papers challenged.

                Really bullocky? I have condsucted an number of refutations of your ad hominem attacks. That you lack the attention span or ability to folloow an argument more than a couple of paras long no longer surprises me. More likely you are simply dishonest.

                Here is another one you won’t like:

                #20.1.2.1.1

                Philip Shehan
                May 27, 2014 at 11:01 pm

                03

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Apoligies again for typos and lack of proof reading.

                03

              • #
                the Griss

                Let me guess.. you have been at the pub for, like 5 hours, and consumed as much of the cheapest grog you could find.

                Your posts are becoming more and more incoherent as time passes.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                You seriously need to go and see a doctor/psychiatrist.

                Your OC, ADD and alcoholism is becoming very problematic.

                SEEK HELP .. please !!!

                40

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Really bullocky? I have condsucted an number of refutations of your ad hominem attacks. That you lack the attention span or ability to folloow an argument more than a couple of paras long no longer surprises me. More likely you are simply dishonest.’
                -
                This is why The Griss is so effective; he has got you doing full-on ad hom to garnish your baseless (and peculiarly spelt) assumptions.
                -
                Surely it’s beguiling for you to be so flattering to your nemesis?

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                I’m actually starting to worry about his mental health. (yeah right, as if)

                But he certainly needs to get away from the computer and do something more worthwhile with his life.

                His presence here is the epitome of pointlessness..

                But if that is how he wants to spend the rest of his meagre pointless life.. that’s his choice, I guess.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                ps.. Philip.. I’m trying to help you with a simple suggestion

                GET A LIFE
                .. for the sake of your health

                10

              • #
                bullocky

                The Griss:
                ‘ps.. Philip.. I’m trying to help you with a simple suggestion

                GET A LIFE.. for the sake of your health’
                -
                I absolve myself from blame: ‘All care and no responsibility’!
                :-)

                10

            • #
              the Griss

              “I absolve myself from blame:”

              Precisely.

              Its on his own back if he continues.

              I just hope he realises that.

              40

      • #
        bullocky

        Have a squizzy at the publication dates of referenced papers – 1996,2001,2004,2007, 2009 etc – in the Cook & Nutticelli paper.
        Many scientists may have changed their positions (eg. Curry, Bengtsson) in recent years.
        Especially with negligible warming being reflected in global surface temperatures over the most recent 15 years (approx.).
        -
        It appears that the Cook et al paper was obsolete before it was
        published!
        -
        Of course, commercially and ideologically driven opinions probably wont change. Unfortunately, the authors, themselves, may well be in this group.
        -
        For these reasons, ‘consensus’ has little initial value, and that little value could well decline over time. A ‘study’ of consensus will only serve to compound this problem.
        -
        And then there’s the unpublished data…….

        60

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          bullocky, Part of the point of the paper was to see how acceptance of AGW has changed over the years.

          The fact is that the papers show that this has increased over time. So the probability is that of authors who have changed their opinions since publication of their papers, more would have moved towards endorsement of AGW than away from it.

          17

          • #
            bobl

            That might be the case Phil if the paper were honest! however it’s not. Papers ambivalent to AGW were discarded, and final figures of the balance were based on whether the authors hypothesised that AGW might be true after stating that the paper was investigating whether belief catasrophic Man-made GW as defined by the IPCC was true. In particular, suppose I wrote a paper on the basis of a hypothesis, suppose CAGW was true, what effect would thatnhave on the blue speckled butterfly?. Does my hypothesis imply belief? This paper would have been counted as support, but the Authors are just following up on a hypothesis which they do not need to believe to pursue the paper… besides, it’s easy money and we get our heads in the paper!

            On the original basis it has subsequently been shown that only 0.3 percent of the papers investigated hypothesised that CAGW as defined by Cook in that paper is true. Since the count proceeded on the basis of belief in warming due to any cause, which even I would agree, but stated as belief in cAGW the paper turns out to be a complete fabrication – a lie.

            Phil, you profess to be a scientist, but you Sound like an activist.

            50

            • #
              bullocky

              bobl:’Phil, you profess to be a scientist, but you Sound like an activist’
              -
              Pehaps Philip Shehan is a ‘scientist’ in the mould of John Cook?

              40

              • #
                bobl

                Yes, perhaps, but Cook is FAR from being a scientist, and activist “scientists” are not doing science. You cannot be simultaneously an activist and a scientist in the same field because scepticism is a precondition of science.

                50

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              bobl,

              Papers were not discarded because they were “ambivalent” to AGW.

              Read the paper.

              Papers which could not be assigned as supporting or rejectsing AGW either because thay made no statement to that effect, either because:

              (4a) No position; Does not address or mention the cause of global warming

              (4b) Uncertain; Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined.

              If a paper does not say whether it accepts or rejects AGW, clearly it cannot be used in the study.

              Papers that explicitly or implicitly supported or rejected AGW were counted.

              “and final figures of the balance were based on whether the authors hypothesised that AGW might be true after stating that the paper was investigating whether belief catasrophic Man-made GW as defined by the IPCC was true.”

              No. Where does the assumption that the authors were “investigating whether belief catasrophic Man-made GW as defined by the IPCC was true” come from?

              At the end of papers authors state conclusions based on their studies. They do not further hypothesise that AGW (or anything else) may be true.

              I find your argument about the blue speckled butterfly confusing.

              The hypothesis tested by the author may be that the habitat range of the blue speckled butterfly has changed.

              OR;

              The hypothesis tested by the author may be that the habitat range of the blue speckled butterfly has not changed.

              Niether of these hypotheses requires that the author believes or does not believe the hypothesis in advance.

              Various results and conclusions may follow from the results of the study. For example:

              If the paper found that the habitat of the blue speckled butterfly has moved geographically because of changing climate and assumed that AGW was contibuting to AGW without specifically saying so, this paper would fall into category 3:

              (3) Implicit endorsement; Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.

              If the paper found that the habitat range of the buttefly had not changed, and the paper concluded that this was evidence that climate change was not occuring, the paper would fall into category 6:

              (6) Explicit rejection without quantification; Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming.

              Please supply a reference for the claim that “only 0.3 percent of the papers investigated hypothesised that CAGW as defined by Cook in that paper is true.”

              Since the count proceeded on the basis of belief in warming due to any cause, which even I would agree, but stated as belief in cAGW the paper turns out to be a complete fabrication – a lie.

              No. The count was not predicated on a “belief” one way or the other.

              The count was to evaluate how many papers stated that AGW was contributing to climate change, or rejected that hypothesis, or had no stated or implied opinion on the question.

              The point of the paper is not to show that AGW is true. It is stated in the introduction and the conclusion that the point is to find out whether there is a consensus on AGW among scientists, what the extent of such a consensus is and compare that to the perceptions of the amount of agreement among the general public.

              There is no fabrication. No lie.

              16

              • #
                bobl

                Ok, then have it your way. Papers were discarded when they had no opinion on global warming. They discarded data… I don’t care why; some of the papers expressed no opinion and were improperly ignored. In a paper trying to demonstrate uninamity of scientific opinion, 60 odd percent of the population that expressed no opinion were ignored.

                They stated the criteria as man-made global warming per IPCC definition ie implying a shift of 3-5 c per doubling (which you already proved to us is unupportable with some simple math. Your calculation based on 0.9 degrees since 1900 was 1.9 deg per doubling however I must note that you have a unit problem since the statistic of 0.9 degrees since 1900 is expressed in degrees F your calculated sensitivity of 1.9 degrees per doubling is also in degrees F, Thus your calculated sensitivity is of the order 1 degree C per doubling. I find it interesting you continue to refute your own math!)

                Re your rewrite of my point about the blue specked butterfly illustrates my point. Had the author looked into the crystal ball and said. Based on AGw theory the range of the blue speckled butterfly would in our computer modelled fantasay universe move south by 10km per CO2 doubling. That paper would have counted toward global warming belief ( implicit belief) in spite of the fact the Authors may be extending an argument based purely on the hypothetical “If global warming theory is true” or may in fact be refuting the assertion that global warming if it happened would move the blue speckled butterfly 100 km per doubling. Nor did the hypothesis imply cause ie Man-made. Your fig-leaf is getting real thin Phil

                Many of the papers ascribed to belief, even Willie Soon, were ascribed belief when they were concluding that even if the IPCC was right global warming would not be significant in human history anyway.

                Lets try it…. Let’s me borrow from a past comment where I said

                Assuming global warming were true and we switched Victoria to 100 percent solar energy I calculate that the area necessary for generation would exceed 5 times the area of Victoria. Gee, count me into the consensus baby ( /sarc ). My paper is ascribed belief even though my point is that Solar energy cannot mitigate cAGW even if the theory were true, (which of course you know it’s not, by your own calculation)

                The study was dishonest, it manipulated statistics and discarded data to try to reach a predetermined outcome … that’s not science, that’s propaganda.

                50

              • #
                bullocky

                bobl;
                ‘Many of the papers ascribed to belief, even Willie Soon, were ascribed belief when they were concluding that even if the IPCC was right global warming would not be significant in human history anyway’
                -
                Yes.
                Subsequent information published on Brandon Shollenberger’s website (http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/page/2/) has certain raters engaged in other activities whilst performing the rating task simultaneously. The possibility, under this multi-tasking regime, must surely be real and significant.
                Unprofessionalism is a certainty and the probability of inaccuracy is high.
                The claim of dishonesty may be resolved with the release of all the data.

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan;’Papers were not discarded because they were “ambivalent” to AGW’
                -
                This is not what bobl says. Read bobl’s post again:”. Papers ambivalent to AGW were discarded, and final ..’
                -
                You should address what bobl says, not what you think he says.

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan: ‘There is no fabrication. No lie.’
                -
                This is a claim – you should show proof for it.
                -
                The words ‘vanishingly small’ appear in the conclusion.
                If the wilfully unpublished data caused this statement to be revised in favour of the sceptical position, a fabrication or lie may have been perpetrated.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                A survey that is conducted on subjective grounds, such as assessing the meaning of of what an Author wrote, cannot be treated statistically.

                It is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitive one.

                Philip Shehan seems to be oblivious to this principle.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                Philip is oblivious to most principles.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                ESPECIALLY mathematical and scientific ones.

                10

              • #
                bullocky

                Rereke Whakaaro:
                ‘……cannot be treated statistically.

                It is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitive one.’
                -
                Succinctly put and profoundly true.
                -
                Unremarkably, Philip Shehan will have missed your comment, and will not be replying to it.

                10

            • #
              bullocky

              bobl;
              ‘Since the count proceeded on the basis of belief in warming due to any cause, which even I would agree, but stated as belief in cAGW the paper turns out to be a complete fabrication – a lie.’
              -
              Interesting.
              Perhaps its saving grace is that it was, very likely,
              obsolete at publication date, as I have shown elsewhere.

              30

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan;’So the probability is that of authors who have changed their opinions since publication of their papers, more would have moved towards endorsement of AGW than away from it.’
            -
            Without all data, this is, initially, an unsubstantiated claim. (The unpublished data may refute or undermine it!)
            -
            The paper purports to present a collective ‘all of relevant published literature’ approach. It does not qualitatively address possible changes to individual opinions, either progressively or beyond their specific final publication dates, or the publication date of the Cook/Nutticelli paper.
            The ‘tendency’ may have changed beyond those dates with the continuing virtual stasis of global surface temperatures.
            (It may not have done so, but the paper cannot tell us that!)
            -
            “It appears that the Cook et al paper was obsolete before it was published”

            50

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              The claim is no more unsubstantiated than that to which it replied:

              Many scientists may have changed their positions (eg. Curry, Bengtsson) in recent years.

              Again the paper noted an increase in support for AGW among authors of papers, which is why I wrote:

              ’So the probability is that of authors who have changed their opinions since publication of their papers, more would have moved towards endorsement of AGW than away from it.’

              The paper does NOT claim “to present a collective ‘all of relevant published literature’ approach.”

              It would be impossible to survey all the literature on climate change. The sources of error section states:

              We address the issue of representativeness by selecting the largest sample to date for this type of literature analysis. Nevertheless, 11 944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for ‘climate change’ over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for ‘climate’ yields 128 440 papers.

              The paper’s scope is clearly stated in the introduction:

              We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

              methods :

              In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.

              and results sections:

              The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals.

              You state:

              It does not qualitatively address possible changes to individual opinions, either progressively or beyond their specific final publication dates, or the publication date of the Cook/Nutticelli paper.

              Well no, but that does not invalidate what the paper does set out to establish.

              And which Cook/Nutticelli paper do you claim does not have a publication date?

              The paper here under discussion gives the date as all published papers do:

              Received 18 January 2013, accepted for publication 22 April 2013
              Published 15 May 2013.

              There may be a small change in authors opinions since publication, but this is unavoidable in any such study,it is impossible to check on this as each delay in publication in doing so will mean you will have to go on checking this ad infinitum.

              It does not detract from what the paper does report – the opinions in the papers at the time of publication, and given that the results show “that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research”, the net number of authors who have changed there opinion in either direction will not significantly affect the conclusions.

              So this paper is not “obsolete”.

              17

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan; “The claim is no more unsubstantiated than that to which it replied:

                Many scientists may have changed their positions (eg. Curry, Bengtsson) in recent years.”
                -
                Both wrong and disingenuous. This is not a claim. If you say ‘Philip may have made a mistake’, you are merely pointing out the possibility of Philip making a mistake; it is not a claim. If you say ‘Philip made a mistake’, then you have made a claim.
                Further, if the data relating to this claim (‘Philip made a mistake’) is withheld, the claim is not able to be substantiated.
                -
                Your claim is this;..”’So the probability is that of authors who have changed their opinions since publication of their papers, more would have moved towards endorsement of AGW than away from it.’
                -
                Note; ’So the probability is ….’
                This is a claim. It needs to be substantiated

                -
                Philip Shehan; ‘.The paper does NOT claim “to present a collective ‘all of relevant published literature’ approach.”
                No, you are incorrect; I did not write that the paper claimed this, but yes I should have written, reflecting the claimed ‘largest sample to date’.
                -
                Philip Shehan: ‘Well no, but that does not invalidate what the paper does set out to establish.’
                Strawman and, again disingenuous.
                You should show where I wrote that the paper’s aim was invalidated.
                My stated opinion was/is of the paper’s obsolescence.
                -
                Philip Shehan:’And which Cook/Nutticelli paper do you claim does not have a publication date?’
                With respect, Philip Shehan, I think you have confused my post with someone else’s. I do not make this claim.
                I hope this is not a ‘professional foul’.(Note, I have resisted the quite obvious pun!)
                -
                Philip Shehan:’There may be a small change in authors opinions since publication, but this …’
                Your opinion here is no more or less an unsubstantiated claim than when I made it, above. I disagree with your attempt at quantification. The degree of change is an unknown; it could be much greater than we think because of a number of reasons including the collective time lapse between publication dates of rated papers and present, the paper itself and present, and the virtual stasis in global surface temperatures.
                -
                Philip Shehan; ‘It does not detract from what the paper does report….’
                What does detract from the paper, fundamentally, is the absence of certain data which, quite possibly, could invalidate the published conclusions.
                Additionally, whilst the published conclusions may have merit, that merit is limited by the accrued time lapse of the constituent paper publication dates and particularly, any trend therein.
                -
                A likely underlying trend towards skepticism, for reasons stated above, would certainly require a revision of the conclusions, making the paper obsolete, probably even before its publication.

                -

                -

                50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                OK bullocky, at your request.

                And no complaints about the length.

                bullocky regularly demands “substantiation” of my comments,then whe I give them with quotes, he (and others) complain about the length and that it is all too hard for them to understand:

                “What you have provided, Philip Shehan, is a rambling, disjointed hotch-potch of other peoples’ ideas – chapter upon verse”

                He also attempts to make ridiculous fine distinctions of language, where they simply do not exist:

                “Philip Shehan;’Papers were not discarded because they were “ambivalent” to AGW’

                This is not what bobl says. Read bobl’s post again:”. Papers ambivalent to AGW were discarded, and final ..’
                -
                You should address what bobl says, not what you think he says.”

                (bolding added)

                But before I begin examining bullocky’s claims, chapter and verse, first let me note that with his your whining about my supposedly ad hominem attacks he repeatedly state that my responses are “disingenuous”.

                He has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that my stated opinions on this are not entirely sincere. Unless he is claiming to be a mind reader.

                You wrote:

                ‘”Many scientists may have changed their positions (eg. Curry, Bengtsson) in recent years.” Is a claim, one for which you provided no substantiation.’

                And, after the mind reading ad hominems:

                ’So the probability is that of authors who have changed their opinions since publication of their papers, more would have moved towards endorsement of AGW than away from it.’

                Note; ’So the probability is ….’

                This is a claim. It needs to be substantiated,’

                (My bolding in the original)

                It is substantiated in the paper:

                “The self-ratings by the papers’ authors provide insight into the nature of the scientific consensus amongst publishing scientists. For both self-ratings and our abstract ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time, consistent with Bray (2010) in finding a strengthening consensus.”

                You wrote:

                “ The paper purports to present a collective ‘all of relevant published literature’ approach. It does not qualitatively address possible changes to individual opinions, either progressively or beyond their specific final publication dates, or the publication date of the Cook/Nutticelli paper.”

                Then you wrote:

                “Philip Shehan; ‘.The paper does NOT claim “to present a collective ‘all of relevant published literature’ approach.”

                No, you are incorrect; I did not write that the paper claimed this”

                You are going to hang an objection on the difference between “claims” and “purports to”?

                And, as shown by the quote from the paper above, it, does “qualitatively address possible changes to individual opinions, either progressively or beyond their specific final publication dates.”

                You wrote:

                “Philip Shehan: ‘Well no, but that does not invalidate what the paper does set out to establish.’
                Strawman and, again disingenuous.

                You should show where I wrote that the paper’s aim was invalidated.

                My stated opinion was/is of the paper’s obsolescence.”

                More ad hominem mind reading.

                More word games.

                I did state that you wrote that the paper was invalid.

                I wrote that the fact that it was published after the data was collected (scientists rarely publish on data they have not yet collected, but forgive me if I do not substantiate the claim) did not invalidate it (by making it obsolete or for any other reason).

                You wrote:

                “Philip Shehan:’And which Cook/Nutticelli paper do you claim does not have a publication date?’

                With respect, Philip Shehan, I think you have confused my post with someone else’s. I do not make this claim.”

                I apologise for any misattribution.

                You wrote:

                “Philip Shehan:’ There may be a small change in authors opinions since publication, but this …’

                Your opinion here is no more or less an unsubstantiated claim than when I made it, above. I disagree with your attempt at quantification.”

                Now it is my turn to point out a failure to make an important and real distinction of language, that between a qualitative and quantitative statement.

                I wrote that given that the existing evidence as outlined in the paper it is probable that any movement in opinion would be toward support of AGW.

                This is not a quantitative evaluation as I do not attempt to assign a figure to the probability.

                It is a qualitative statement, on the direction of a shift in opinion as given in the paper.

                You wrote:

                “Philip Shehan; ‘It does not detract from what the paper does report….’
                What does detract from the paper, fundamentally, is the absence of certain data which, quite possibly, could invalidate the published conclusions…”

                You have repeatedly referred to missing data with a quantitative figure of 4%. I have repeatedly asked where you get this figure from. You have repeatedly failed to supply the source.

                You wrote:

                “Additionally, whilst the published conclusions may have merit, that merit is limited by the accrued time lapse of the constituent paper publication dates and particularly, any trend therein.
                -
                A likely underlying trend towards skepticism, for reasons stated above, would certainly require a revision of the conclusions, making the paper obsolete, probably even before its publication. “

                (My bolding)

                You object to my reference to a probability of a trend towards acceptance of AGW based on the quantitative data set out in the paper, yet you make, without any substantiation, a comment on a likely trend toward “skepticism’.

                Your suggestion that the authors go back and collect more data to update a paper that is a study of the published literature is ridiculous, as any revision would be as “obsolete”, to use your term, as the initial paper ,which would “merit” the same objection and demand for more data, and so on, ad infinitum.

                Having answered your requests for substantiation, and clarified your errors and misrepresentations, I await your complant that it is too long and too difficult for you to understand.

                15

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:

                ‘bullocky regularly demands “substantiation” of my comments,then whe I give them with quotes, he (and others) complain about the length and that it is all too hard for them to understand:’
                -
                This is a poor beginning to an article that could have been objective. It suggests an emotive basis for the exercise; a ‘whinge’.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘He also attempts to make ridiculous fine distinctions of language, where they simply do not exist:’
                -
                You ostensibly give an example but do not qualify it as an example; the variation in wording may have had noteworthy significance in the context of bobl’s piece, or not – you must demonstrate the reason you make this point.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘But before I begin examining bullocky’s claims, chapter and verse, first let me note that with his your whining about my supposedly ad hominem attacks he repeatedly state that my responses are “disingenuous”. ‘
                -
                The emotional basis of your reasoning is becoming clearer. Objectivity would be considered unlikely.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘It is substantiated in the paper:’
                -
                If you believe this to be the case, then you should have noted so in your original piece.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘More ad hominem mind reading’
                -
                Your quoted passage is approx. 42 words and there doesn’t appear to be any offensive ‘name calling’ – only deduced criticism. Perhaps you could indicate more precisely, what you consider to be the ‘ad hom’.
                I think you can begin to see now, the error in having emotional content in your purported appraisal. It taints everything else with the same appearance.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘This is not a quantitative evaluation as I do not attempt to assign a figure to the probability.’
                -
                Incorrect. I referred to your use of the word ‘change’. A ‘change’, not excluding its numerical value, is a quantitative step. You may qualify that change in other ways; colour, loudness, opinion etc.
                -
                -
                So there it is , Philip Shehan. It’s after 1.00 o’clock in the morning, and I am going to retire. However, I think I have marked enough of your essay to give it a resounding ‘fail’.
                -
                The simplest advice I can give to you, is that you should approach your subject matter dispassionately.
                Hopefully, objectivity and a rich literary integrity will follow!

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, stand by for a comment you will whinge about. A long time ago I lost patience with your personal remarks (intertwined withwhining complaints about how I have personally criticized you) and respond in kind.

                The nonsense never stops with you does it?

                A poor beginning article that could have been objective, you say?

                Just go and reread your comments to me which are littered, beginning, middle and end with cracks at me.

                And given your whining about the length of my posts and your inability to understand them, this was fair warning.

                And no I am not going to waste my time going over this thread “substantiating” that claim so you can complain about the length again. They are there for you and anyone else to read.

                “You ostensibly give an example but do not qualify it as an example; the variation in wording may have had noteworthy significance in the context of bobl’s piece, or not – you must demonstrate the reason you make this point.”

                Look whack, I don’t have to demonstrate a damned thing beyond what is clearly demonstrated in the quoted example, as the truth of what I write is there for anyone with an understanding of the English language to see.

                “Philip Shehan:
                ‘It is substantiated in the paper:’
                -
                If you believe this to be the case, then you should have noted so in your original piece.”

                Really? It was substantiated in the paper which is the subject of this section, which I had been discussing, which I had provided a link to so people could see for themselves, and you were criticising. If you had actually read the paper before criticing the content you would know what was in it.

                And by the way, I forgot tho mention a comment in your earlier post:

                “Philip Shehan; “The claim is no more unsubstantiated than that to which it replied:
                Many scientists may have changed their positions (eg. Curry, Bengtsson) in recent years.”
                -
                Both wrong and disingenuous. This is not a claim.”

                This is an unsubstantiated claim, about many scientists changing their opinions for which you provide two unsubstantiated examples.

                You made a personal remark calling my comments disingenuous(meaning dishonest or insincere). You are no mind reader so you were making just the kind of personal remark you hypocritically whine about.

                You repeat this in the 42 word quote and then ask me where is the ad hominem mind reading.

                Staring you in the face idiot:

                Strawman and, again disingenuous.

                And to indulge in your penchant for claiming anything other than a verbatim quote as some kind of misrepresentation, nowhere in this 42 word quote do I accuse you of name calling.

                “Incorrect. I referred to your use of the word ‘change’. A ‘change’, not excluding its numerical value, is a quantitative step.”

                Look whack (again). We scientists know and use the distinction between qualitative (bigger, smaller, higher, lower, colder warmer etc) and quantitative (4.5 kg heavier) very precisely.

                When someone whose job it is to not only understand but precisely use these terms explains the distinction to you, go away and make sure you understand what you are talking about before you tell them they are wrong.

                “The simplest advice I can give to you, is that you should approach your subject matter dispassionately.”

                I begin my initial posts dispassionately, and even initially ignore personal remarks in reply . (Note Heywood’s dig and my measured response.) But when I keep receiving BS in return I reach the limit of my patience.

                When you (or other) keep serving up this kind utter rubbish over and over with complaints about ad hominems that you yourself freely dish out, with endless complaints that I have insufficiently “substantiated” statements (which you don’t bother with yourself) then complain about how the response is too long and hard for you to follow, you will get a forthright, passionate if you will, but highly accurate response.

                16

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘bullocky, stand by for a comment you will whinge about. A long time ago I lost patience with your personal remarks (intertwined withwhining complaints about how I have personally criticized you) and respond in kind.’
                -
                Again, this lead-in paragraph advises the reader of what to expect; purposeful invective rather than rational unbiased discussion. As it turns out, readers didn’t have to wait long;
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘ The nonsense never stops with you does it?’
                - A working definition of the word ‘nonsense’ and a continuity of defining examples could have reasonably been expected. It is a difficult claim to support and, as such, should never have been made.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Just go and reread your comments to me which are littered, beginning, middle and end with cracks at me. ‘
                Some examples of ‘cracks’ should have been given to inform the reader of what you think these are – though, perhaps paradoxically, many of these do appear in your argument!
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘ Look whack (again).’
                Again, your meaning is unclear. The word ‘whack’ can have a variety of meanings, both literary and colloquial. It could be a punctuation problem, also.
                You have used it a number of times in your post, and its lack of clarity tends to carry over into the corpus of your piece. I think you’ll agree, it is an ill-advised inclusion!
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Look whack, I don’t have to demonstrate a damned thing beyond what is clearly demonstrated in the quoted example, as the truth of what I write is there for anyone with an understanding of the English language to see.’
                You’re simply making another claim that your claim is demonstrated in the paper. It may be or it may not be.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Really? It was substantiated in the paper which is the subject of this section, which I had been discussing, which I had provided a link to so people could see for themselves, and you were criticising. If you had actually read the paper before criticing the content you would know what was in it.’
                In my post #1.3.2.1.1,
                ’So the probability is ….’
                This is a claim. It needs to be substantiated’
                ….This is merely an example of a claim to contrast against my suggestion – ‘may have changed their minds’ – which merely indicates a possibility or an opinion and, as such, does not require substantiation. I gave reasons for this opinion further down the post.
                You have misunderstood my intention here and I apologise for what seems, in retrospect, some ambiguity.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘This is an unsubstantiated claim, about many scientists changing their opinions for which you provide two unsubstantiated examples.’
                The word ‘may’ in my statement indicates a possibility: it is not a claim. (Get used to it!)
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Staring you in the face idiot:’
                More ad hom!
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘You made a personal remark calling my comments disingenuous(meaning dishonest or insincere)..’
                Incorrect!
                I pointed out that your comment/claim is ‘disingenuous’. This gives you the opportunity to change, revise, explain or otherwise defend your claim/comment from this assessment. Alternatively, you can claim victimhood.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Look whack (again). We scientists know and use the distinction between qualitative (bigger, smaller, higher, lower, colder warmer etc) and quantitative (4.5 kg heavier) very precisely.

                When someone whose job it is to not only understand but precisely use these terms explains the distinction to you, go away and make sure you understand what you are talking about before you tell them they are wrong.’
                Classic argument from authority. But you haven’t SHOWN you are right or I am wrong. This does nothing for your credibility.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘When you (or other) keep serving up this kind utter rubbish over and over with complaints about ad hominems that you ………’
                -
                And so on…..

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                Philly say “The nonsense never stops with you does it?”

                But you keep posting…

                so no.

                When you stop posting.. the nonsense will stop, because it is ALL FROM YOU !

                You bring absolutely nothing to this blog or to any other blog you have been to.

                Nada, Nothing…. ZIP.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “We scientists….. ”

                I see no evidence of it.. only your words that you ONCE WERE.

                All I see is a propaganda monkey, and activist, who has lost any scientific nouse and integrity he may, perhaps, once have had.

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky: a long and rambling incomprehensible response littered with ad hominems lacking substantiation which I refuse to answer as you have hurt my feelings.

                00

            • #
              the Griss

              poor little Phil.. He has LOST IT !!!

              COM… PLETE.. LY !!

              So hilarious to watch.

              Even his monkeys are laughing at him.

              20

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:’The paper is not attempting to resolve a scientific issue on the basis of “popularity’
        -
        Cook et al:’The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and ‘
        -
        A discussion note within the paper dealing with public perception and
        the withholding of data would have been informative.

        41

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:
        ‘The paper is not attempting to resolve a scientific issue on the basis of “popularity”‘
        -
        If it were, Skepticalscience personnel would be singularly unqualified.
        :-)

        31

  • #
    Peter C

    What are the odds of University of Queensland responding to this letter? Does Istvan have anything else up his sleeve

    160

    • #
      ianl8888

      I asked Istvan that question on Bishop Hill because the most obvious and simple reply from UQ is just … dead silence

      His answer says it all. Oh well …

      130

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      They will go and hide under the stair, and wait until supper time, when it may be safe to come out again.

      80

      • #
        ianl8888

        That’s the real lesson from Climategate

        As long as the meeja doesn’t make a big deal of it – that scares them, but only that

        40

        • #
          bobl

          Not true, the minister is scary too. Might be time for a media alert to the education minister

          10

  • #
    Truthseeker

    “sar-chasm”: The gap between the author of the sarcastic remark and the person whose head it flies right over with a slight whistling sound.

    131

  • #

    UQ will find this hard to ignore if other alumni are asking them to answer, or if it is picked up in the media, and if they get questions from the journal in question.

    Has anyone sent this to Env Res Lett?

    204

    • #

      Presumably you’ve read American legal-heavyweight Professor Eugene Volokh’s piece in The Washington Post on this?

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I did, because I am interested in such stuff.

        As you say, it is an American view, based on American law.

        We would need to look as Australian case law on copyright, and we would need to consider the fact that all legal practices tend to copy letters and contracts, et al, from each other, so none of them have legal claim to copyright for anything much. Copyright only applies to original works.

        It only needs to be shown that the same, or similar, words were used in another letter, from a different source, for a claim of copyright to fail.

        10

    • #
      Richo

      Hi Jo

      I think that Brandon and Richard need to drill down to a more fundamental level with their FOI requests. I’m not convinced that they will find the smoking gun in the survey data other than the data maybe junk if it is found that the survey methodology is poorly constructed, which is yet to be proven. Unless they obtain access to the rating manuals, training records for volunteer raters, auditing records of data for each rater and the records for the project management board they will have difficulties in replicating the data from the study. The replication of the study data basically hinges on the definition of “consensus” and I don’t believe that Richard and Brandon have been able to get a definitive answer about the definition to date. The definition should be contained within the rating manual provided to the raters during their training.

      111

      • #
        the Griss

        The FACT that nearly all reviewers where almost certainly chosen for their massive bias to the CAGW meme (eg Dana) really does make a mockery of scientific procedure in the first place.

        They would have seen CAGW under every rock that they crawled out from under.

        182

        • #
          Richo

          Hi the Griss

          All reviewers are bias to some extent or they can be just plain incompetent that is why the data should be regularly audited to check for bias or incompetence of each reviewer. Should the data be contaminated by a biased or incompetent reviewer it should be junked and the affected sample should be reviewed again.

          60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is a good point. They need an FOI for any documents pertaining to the selection criteria for the ‘volunteers’, and who was approached with a request to ‘volunteer’, if any.

        80

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Richo, The relevant information is given in the methods section of the paper.

        The issue of rater bias is covered in the Discussion, 4.1 Sources of uncertainty.

        If anything the results showed that raters were less likely to attribute a pro warming stance than the authors of the papers themselves:

        A comparison of author ratings of the full papers and abstract ratings reveals a bias toward an under-counting of endorsement papers in the abstract ratings (mean difference 0.6 in units of endorsement level). This mitigated concerns about rater subjectivity, but suggests that scientific reticence and ESLD remain possible biases in the abstract ratings process.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

        17

        • #
          James Bradley

          So Phil, what do you think about that?

          “No matter how many times the ABC tells me the Q&A audience is balanced when I check for myself I continue to get a different result.”

          Do you reckon results can be affected by the perception of the observer?

          40

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            James,

            At this point I will add this to my reply to you above.

            Certainly results can be affected by the perception of the observer, particularly in a paper such as this which does not deal with physical data but on interpretation of abstracts of the papers. But as I noted, this is discussed in the paper and comparison made with the authors own rating of their papers.

            14

            • #
              James Bradley

              Phil,

              Many thanks, your view is reasonably and logically stated.

              I can see that the fault of others percieving the survey to be a fact that the science is in is either a false impression or a political advantage.

              Still, both SkS and the UofQ seem to be making a meal of it.

              40

              • #
                bullocky

                J.B.
                “I can see that the fault of others percieving the survey to be a fact that the science is in is either a false impression or a political advantage”
                -
                I would add that the ‘false impression’ is exacerbated by the innate ‘obsolescence’ of the paper, as I have shown earlier on this thread.

                40

        • #
          cohenite

          Sheehan you don’t know what you are talking about.

          In Cook’s paper the consensus position is defined as being:

          “That humans are causing global warming.”

          That consensus position is defined by category 1 of Table 2 which is:

          1) Explicit endorsement with quantification. Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’

          The rest of Cook’s categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW.

          However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate which Cook selected 8048 papers or 67.4% of the total were discarded because they had no position.

          Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for Cook’s definition of the consensus that:

          “Humans are causing global warming.”

          That’s 1% not 97%.

          Now the paper had the authors of the papers rate their papers according to Cook’s criteria; Cook asserts:

          “1200 scientists rated their own papers, resulting in over 2000 papers being categorised by the papers’ own authors. Among papers that were self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

          The authors’ self-rating is shown by Table 4 from Cook’s paper. In fact 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. Cook’s paper says of those 2142 self-ratings that 1342 are described as Endorsing AGW. That is confirming the consensus position or category 1 of Cook’s 7 categories. The caption to Table 4 says:

          “Self-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average endorsement rating less than 4.”

          But that would include categories 2 and 3 which are LESS than the consensus position. So the question remains exactly how many self-rated Abstracts actually conform to Cook’s definition of the consensus as defined only in category 1.

          In addition, the self-referencing shows that 761 scientists have no position on AGW which as the caption to Table 4 says conforms to categories
          4a and 4b of Cook’s categories which is 761/2142 X 100 = 35.52%. That is much less than the Cook paper’s initial selection and discard of 67.4% of the 11,944 papers because the Abstract had no position on AGW.

          Maybe the only scientists who responded to Cook’s invitation to self-rate were those who initially had a position on AGW. If so 35.52% of them changed their minds from being in categories 1-3 to being in
          categories 4a and 4b!

          Any way you look at this the % actually supporting the consensus, as defined in Cook’s paper, is less than the claimed 97%.

          70

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Cohenite,

            I have a great deal of professional experience in the careful assessment of what scientific papers do and do not say. I do know what I am talking about.

            Yes the abstract describes the consensus view as the position that humans are causing global warming, and yes the categories given in table 2 are as you state.

            But the 97% view is not confined to category 1:

            “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”.

            Categories 2 and 3 are also included in the 97% figure as explained in the results section:

            To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).

            Categories 2 and 3 do not reject the position that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming, they just don’t give any quantification.

            Of the 4014 papers (statistically that is a very large sample size) that do express an opinion one way or the other, 97% affirm the role of humans in causing at least some, and possibly most, of recent global warming.

            05

            • #
              cohenite

              Well I disagree Mr Shehan; categories 2 and 3 are far less clear cut then you declare, especially category 3. The 2 definitions are:

              2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact. Example:

              ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

              (3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause. Example:

              ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

              Note in category 2 the word “contribute” which is semantically distinct from humans “are causing AGW” as is described in the Abstract or even humans are the “primary cause of AGW” as in category 1. But also note category 2 does not qualify the issue of causation: humans are causing AGW full stop.

              In fact the example selected to support category 3 is more definite than the example for category 2.

              It is a muddle contaminated by confused definitions and obvious bias by the rankers.

              If your support of this mess is proof of your skill in interpreting papers Mr Shehan then as I said you have no skill.

              60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Actually Cohenite I agree with you that the wording in the abstract is potentially misleading.

                I would have written:

                “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing or contributing to global warming.”

                or used the wording I have used above:

                97% affirm the role of humans in causing at least some, and possibly most, of recent global warming.

                But the body of the paper makes this clear.

                I did not “declare” anything about categories 2 and 3, other than note that they are included in the 97% endorsement figure.

                That said, I do not find that the definitions in Table 2 lack clarity.

                You have produced no evidence to support your claim concerning “obvious bias of the rankers” whereas comparison of the rankers assessment with those of the authors of the papers strongly indicates a lack of bias.

                Finally, I as I write in another context, I offer no “proof” of anything. Nor am I giving a blanket endorsement of the paper.

                What I am doing is demonstrating that particular criticisms of the paper here are not supported by a careful reading of the entire paper.

                14

              • #
                cohenite

                You have produced no evidence to support your claim concerning “obvious bias of the rankers”

                I was paralysed with mirth at the stupidity of that statement for some time Mr Shehan.

                Look at the names: Lewandowsky who provided “comments” [I bet he did!]; and Glenn Tamblyn; I’ve had some stoushes with Glenn and he is a dyed in the wool alarmist. I could go on but that is a farcical statement. You name any of them who doesn’t believe in AGW; go on, name one.

                And this:

                But the body of the paper makes this clear.

                No it doesn’t; I’ve explained why and you declaring:

                I do not find that the definitions in Table 2 lack clarity.

                Doesn’t change that one bit.

                60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                On the bias of those doing the ratings, you are simply asserting opinions for which you have no evidence as far as the rating process is concerned.

                You are failing to distinguish between those doing the ratings and those who provided comments to the authors during production of the manuscript or otherwise contributed to the paper.

                The fact that you have had disagreements with an individual does not necessarily mean that he is “biased’. Have you considered the possibility that you may be wrong or “biased”?

                If the raters are biased, how do you account for this?:

                3. Results

                3.1. Endorsement percentages from abstract ratings
                Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.

                “But the body of the paper makes this clear.”

                (That the 97% endorsement includes those papers which attribute a partial human contribution to warming.)

                3. Results
                …To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2)…

                And the following discussion.

                No it doesn’t; I’ve explained why..

                No, you’ve made assertions, unsupported by the text.

                and you declaring:

                “I do not find that the definitions in Table 2 lack clarity.

                Doesn’t change that one bit.

                It may be unclear to you. That does not mean it is unclear to others.

                15

              • #
                cohenite

                Of course I’m biased Mr Shehan, I think AGW is BS.

                I asked you to name one reviewer who does not support AGW; where are the names?

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                As I have stated previously, the reviewers, by which I take it you mean those who rated the papers for their support/rejection of AGW are not identified.

                I cannot therefore supply names of those I consider do or do not support AGW (which would be a subjective evaluation on my part anyway, assuming I had knowledge of the stance of the people), however much you demand:

                “Giff me ze list off names.”

                The fact is the only people on the authors list or named in the acknowledgments of whom I have sufficient familairity to assign as proponents of AGW are John Cook and Dana Nuticelli.

                In any case the point remains given that the ratings agree with those reported by the authors themselves, where is the evidence of bias in the evaluation?

                16

              • #
                the Griss

                I invite everyone to research the names of the people listed in the acknowledgements.

                EVERY ONE that I could isolate was a RABID warmist.

                A couple were involved in the 100% renewable energy push as well, no conflict of interest there, of course not!

                This whole sorry episode is a FRAUD and a FARCE from top to toe. !!

                And I think UQ knows it !!!

                72

              • #
                the Griss

                “The fact is the only people on the authors list or named in the acknowledgments ”

                Then do some bloody RESEARCH , idiot !!!!!!!

                Gees, FCOL !!!

                You are no scientist, that is for sure !

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                And here’s Phil Scadden

                MASSIVE conflict of interests !!

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                And John Hartz.

                Environmental ACTIVIST !

                51

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, a scientist evaluates a paper or scientific argument on the basis of the arguments presented in it, not on an opinion of what he thinks of the authors.

                On these blogs, I evaluate specific arguments put forward by various people on the basis of what they write.

                Unlike so many of the skeptics here, I do not trawl through the literature trying to work out whether someone is on my side, and draw up a list of idealogical friends and enemies.

                And none of the critics here have answered this question:

                If the raters have exhibited bias in their assessment of whether or not the papers support or reject AGW, why do their results agree with assessment of the papers by the authors of the papers themselves?

                28

              • #
                the Griss

                “agree with assessment of the papers by the authors of the papers themselves”

                That is an OUTRIGHT LIE.. and you know it !!

                61

              • #
                cohenite

                Mr Shehan you have revealed your bias by this comment:

                If the raters have exhibited bias in their assessment of whether or not the papers support or reject AGW, why do their results agree with assessment of the papers by the authors of the papers themselves?

                Cook et al say they had the authors of the papers rate their papers according to their criteria; Cook et al say:

                “1200 scientists rated their own papers, resulting in over 2000 papers being categorised by the papers’ own authors. Among papers that were self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

                The author’s self-rating is shown by Table 4 from the paper. In fact 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The paper says of those 2142 self-ratings 1342 are described as Endorsing AGW. That is confirming the consensus position or category 1 of the 7 categories. The caption to Table 4 says:

                “Self-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average endorsement rating less than 4.”

                But that would include categories 2 and 3 which are LESS than the consensus position. So the question remains exactly how many self-rated Abstracts actually conform to Cook et al’s definition of the consensus as defined only in category 1.

                In addition, the self-referencing shows that 761 scientists have no position on AGW which as the caption to Table 4 says conforms to categories 4a and 4b of the categories which is 761/2142 X 100 = 35.52%. That is much less than the paper’s initial selection and discard of 67.4% of the 11,944 papers because the Abstract had no position on AGW.

                Maybe the only scientists who responded to the invitation to self-rate were those who initially had a position on AGW. If so 35.52% of them changed their minds from being in categories 1-3 to being in
                categories 4a and 4b!

                61

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:’I would have written:

                “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing or contributing to global warming.” ‘
                -
                No doubt you would have included an advisory regarding your intention not to publish certain data.

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘The fact that you have had disagreements with an individual does not necessarily mean that he is “biased’. Have you considered the possibility that you may be wrong or “biased”?’
                -
                With respect, Philip Shehan, this also applies to you!
                -
                The implication that everyone else is biased but you aren’t is likely to accrue a certain assessment of your views.
                -
                Sometimes an over-developed ego can be the greatest impediment to objective self-assessment.

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, are you taking the piss again?

                Of course I consider the possibility that I may be wrong.

                That is why I changed my position on AGW.

                I have also accepted the work of people who have challenged my published conclusions in the literature on the basis of further data and examination.

                Of course I am aware that I am susceptable to bias. That is why I do my best to guard against it. That is why my posts here go into considrable detail as to why, on the basis of the data or the argument I arrive my conclusions. It is an invitation for people to cjhallenge my conclusions. As with papers I write or talks I deliver, with the obligatory question time.

                Which is more than can be said for many of my critics on this by their inability or refusal to point out where my analyses are wrong and substitute personal attack for real argument or discuss utter irrelevencies to the point I am making.

                05

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Which is more than can be said for many of my critics on this by their inability or refusal to point out where my analyses are wrong and substitute personal attack for real argument or discuss utter irrelevencies to the point I am making.’
                -
                It seems that this claim mirrors the criticisms made against yourself.
                -
                Performance is a very useful metric of value, and thus far, it seems your arguments have been unpersuasive in their entirety.
                -
                Do you have a strategy for change, or do you think that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result has merit?

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                “a scientist evaluates a paper or scientific argument on the basis of the arguments presented in it”

                An ACTIVIST, like every member of the SkS team…. DOES NOT !!

                You are either an activist or a scientist.

                You are an ACTIVIST.. or more appropriately.. an APOLOGIST

                You have severely TRASHED any scientific credentials you may once have had.

                30

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Griss, a typically offensive, abusive and incorrect comment.

              I was referring to the assignment of papers on the basis of their reading of the abstracts by the raters (97.1%) compared to the assignment of papers by the authors of papers emailed (98.4%).

              You respond with a link in which 7 authors complain about the assignment of their abstracts to certain categories.

              Disputes and sources of error in the assignment of papers is acknowledged and discussed in the paper:

              “Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.”

              That said, you have justified your assertion that the raters are biased and that I am an outright liar and I know I am lying by reference to a link which gives seven scientists who dispute the classification of their papers:

              Let me examine these objections:

              Idso.

              This abstract acknowledges blooming seasons have advanced by 7 days since the 1960’s

              This abstract acknowledges that this ‘climatological spring’ may be due to the increase in temperatures over that period.

              This abstract acknowledges CO2 is increasing.

              The abstract suggests that part of this early blooming may be directly due to increase of CO2 concentration, rather than secondary effects of the rise in concentration.

              The abstract says that the results show that 2 of the 7 days of the early spring may be directly due to increasing CO2 concentration.

              Now taken together, whatever Idso says about his paper (and Idso is not informed that the raters are relying on the abstract), it is not hard to see how a rater reading this abstract may have concluded in good faith that that there was an implication that 5 of the 7 days of this early “biological spring” were caused at least in part by CO2 induced global warming.

              Scaffetta.

              He starts off by complaining that the Cook et al does not follow what he claims as an IPCC position that “since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission”. The 2007 IPCC position as outlined in by Cook et al is “the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

              In any case, Cook et al are NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IPCC statements on a particular degree of warming. The question as far as their paper goes, is do the ratings in the their paper accurately reflect endorsement within the categories defined in that paper?

              But to return to the main point, the rating based on the abstract:

              Here is a direct quote from the abstract (My bolding):

              We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

              In this case it is not hard to see how a rater acting in good faith could assign this as Expicitly endorsing and quantifying AGW as 50% +.

              Things to do but I will continue the analysis later.

              17

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                “I will continue the analysis later” Please don’t bother on my account, I find the whole thing ludicrous. Everybody starts with a self conceived result and twists figures to get the results they started with. Wow!

                P.S. It is Nicola Scaffetta.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                ” a typically offensive, abusive and incorrect comment.”

                Then stop posting them !!!

                Find something worthwhile to do with your life.

                You are wasting your time here.

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                “might have” is an explicit endorsement is it..

                roflmao !!

                ” a rater acting in good faith ”

                roflmao even harder. !!

                While trying to figure out if you are a circus clown, or a village idiot. !!

                Two full time jobs seems a bit too much for you nowadays.

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Graeme,

                Griss in his usual manner has made a claim of bias in rating the papers, and labled me a LIAR in the process.

                I will continue to give him chapter and verse in refutation.

                If you are not interested in reading an item there is no need to state this. I can understand why reading something that does not conform to your prejudices may be distressing.

                And judjing by the photo, if your PS is meant to suggest that Nicola Scaffetta is a woman, her photo shows her to be rather butch.

                Griss, you have already conclusively demonstrated what a boorish individual you are, who lacking the intelligence and knowledge to debate matters on facts, resorts to hurling abuse. No need to continue demonstrating this fact.

                To continue:

                Shaviv

                From the abstract (My bolding):

                the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.

                A person acting in good faith could reasonably rate this abstract as explicitely endorsing but not quantifying or minimising AGW.

                Morner

                The abstract states that IPCC models are not necessary to account for current rates of rising sea level.

                This is not an explicit rejection of global warming , and it is possible to question or even reject the results of particular models of describing particular quantitiative consequences global warming without rejecting AGW itself.

                You could reasonably rate this as an implied rejection of AGW, but expressing no opinion is also a reasonable conclusion.

                Soon

                Soon writes that statements reading the Abstract alone does not give the real story of the paper.

                He says statements rejecting AGW are to be found in the body of the paper. But the example he gives, which is again expressing inadequacy of the models in describing ice conditions in the arctic reads (My bolding):

                “For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes.

                This statement actually fits the rating description of

                4(b) Uncertain

                Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined. Example: ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive…’

                But OK supposing there are statements in the paper that do reject AGW, which are not to be found in the abstract.

                This does not mean that the raters, who were rating the abstract only, were exhibiting bias or were not acting in good faith in rating it as expressing no position on AGW.

                I shall continue and conclude later.

                15

              • #
                the Griss

                yeah right. :-)

                You can pretend to yourself as much as you want. You are not fooling anyone here.

                The way you continually use statistical misdirection, probably honed during your science career, to try an avoid real life truths such as no warming for the whole of this century, and blindly refuse to accept blatant bias from the John Cook SkS cult, shows that any science credibility you might once have thought you had has been overtaken by the radical global warmist agenda.

                That divorce from real science has also taken any integrity you might once have thought you had, right out the window.

                Your integrity now ranks down there with Peter Geicke’s ethics.

                One day you may just wake out of your cult idealist stupor long enough to realise this.

                Until then, you are wasting your obviously worthless time.

                You seem to have nothing better to do than make an idiot of yourself. A very sad twilight of your life.

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                You continue to twist and turn like a slithering eel in your efforts to support the unsupportable.

                It really is disgusting to watch.

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                As an EX-scientist how can you possibly condone and even support the deliberate and blatant misrepresentation of science, in the form of outright propaganda, that oozes from the SkS cult?

                What has happened to your scientific morality and integrity? Gone, Gone.

                51

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Carlin

                The abstract states that the paper is about the economics of mitigation of CO2 emmissions. It questions whether global warming is occuring at the rate which the IPCC assumes:

                “The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.”

                It concludes that the economics of taking action is not justified by the likely impacts of global warming due to CO2 emmissions. The final sentence reads:

                “The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.”

                This is the strongest statement in the abstract. How you regard this depends on your definition of “catastrophic” I have written may times that I do not like this term and never use it.

                For a start, one person’s “catastrophe” may be another person’s benefit. There may be advantages to some people such as those in arctic regions and shipping companies who would find a northwest passage an economic benefit. None of this means that AGW is not happening.

                A rater could in good faith assign this as Explicitly endorsing but not quantifying AGW.

                I will not evaluate the complaint in one of the updates, that by Toll, as the disputed papers are not listed I am in no position to examine the abstracts.

                But here is his complaint:

                Tol: “WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

                I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

                …from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral”

                Note that Toll says that he would rate his papers as 7 neutral and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification.

                He complains that Cook et al rated one of the papers he considered showed strong endorsement at a lower level, weak endorsement.

                Of the 7 papers he would rate as neutral, Cook et al. (on the basis of the abstracts only) rated 3 as implicit endorsement and 1 as weak endorsement. Presumably he agrees with the assessment of the remaining 3 as neutral. As the papers are not listed I am in no position to examine the ratings.

                On the “missing papers” I do not know why they were not included. Perhaps the search terms did not cover them. But the fact is that had they been included, all but one are rated by Toll as neutral, in which case they would have no effect on the endorsement or rejection percentages.

                The one paper that would count is according to Toll is a strong endorsement.

                So overall, of the 11,944 abstracts examined by Cook et al, Griss has linked a list of 8 authors who claim the ranking is wrong on the basis of what they write in the entire paper.

                In seven of these a good case can be made that the raters of the abstracts got it pretty right.

                In the eighth there is no evidence that they acted in bad faith and in the one complaint made by the author that can actually be examined, the author claims that they understated his degree of endorsement of AGW.

                Cook et al acknowledge in the paper that in many cases the ratings are not clear cut and therefore contestable:

                “Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.”

                There is no evidence whatsoever of systematic bias on the part of the raters, still less that I am knowingly propagating an OUTRIGHT LIE.

                07

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                PS With regard to Tolls “missing papers” and my suggestion that maybe they were missed by the specific search terms,’global warming’ or ‘global climate change’, Cook et al note:

                “Nevertheless, 11 944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for ‘climate change’ over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for ‘climate’ yields 128 440 papers.”

                17

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:(Cook et al)’“Nevertheless, 11 944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for ‘climate change’ over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for ‘climate’ yields 128 440 papers.”
                -
                -
                Approx. 4% of the researched sample of papers are not available for public assessment and have the potential to invalidate the paper’s conclusions, perhaps radically so, if a trend, over time, towards greater scepticism were revealed, as I have indicated previously.
                -
                The implications of this , especially in respect of the public perception of the ‘consensus’ (a concern within the paper’s discussion) are, of course, obvious.
                -
                The possibility of the public making a negative connection between the quality of Cook et al’s paper and the quality of the ‘consensus’ claim in general, cannot be dismissed. Of course, this possibility is extant with or without the release of the withheld data; also a point worth noting.

                40

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:’There is no evidence whatsoever of systematic bias on the part of the raters, still less that I am knowingly propagating an OUTRIGHT LIE.’
                -
                We don’t have all the data!

                21

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:’He complains that Cook et al rated one of the papers he considered showed strong endorsement at a lower level, weak endorsement’
                -
                The token example!
                -
                ‘A single swallow doth not a ……’

                21

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:’ a typically offensive, abusive and incorrect comment’
                -
                Perhaps in keeping with your own comment @
                May 24 8.46 a.m.

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                So true Bullocky, EVERY one of this drone’s posts has an undercurrent of egotistical malevolence and abuse attached to it.

                He may have had some minor success fooling people during his so-called science career, (it was obviously easy to fool his cohort, because if his work was anything like the incessant guff that he posts here, they obviously would have just ‘skimmed’ his work), and thinks that he can continue his mis-directions and egotistical prattle, here.

                ONCE a scientist….. no more. !!

                50

              • #
                the Griss

                Poor little ‘once-was’.

                Now wasting his obviously worthless time with meaningless rants on a site where everyone just chuckles at his drone-like ineptitude (or ignores it completely)

                Phil, for the sake of what small amount is left of your sanity, please find something worthwhile to do with your life.

                Go outside.. go for a walk in the park.. do something constructive, anything !!

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Fine bullocky. Take that 4% (and please tell me where this figure comes from) and for the sake of argument stick all of them in the rejection column. That would make the results

                Endorse AGW: 93.3%
                Reject AGW: 5.7%
                Uncertain on AGW: 1%

                Are you seriously saying that my accusing you of dancing around questions, considering your own comments to me, are offensive abusive and incorrect?

                Chapter and verse again. Here are the dances I was referring to:

                you: ‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.

                me: I don’t know what you mean by science being “activity neutral”.

                you: Politics of evasion: it is self explanatory.

                [Evasion? Evasion of what? That would imply that I am failing to answer a question you asked me. I am simply asking you to clarify a statement you make, for which you acuse me of being evasive, which I find offensive.]

                me: “Activity neutral”

                “Self explanatory”?

                Please explain.

                …Explain then why Newton’s theory (and many others which were found not to exactly correspond with data), was not rejected when it was, strictly speaking, “falsified”?

                What hypothesis or theory were Watson and Crick trying to falsify when they elucidated the double helical structure of DNA?

                you: :”‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.”
                The ‘in itself’ is important.

                [Well that clears it up then. (?) Still no explanation , and YOU accused ME of being evasive?!]

                Quite simply, Newtons’s Theory wasn’t a theory at all. It was an hypothesis; it only applied to conditions knowable at the time. The hypothesis remains useful where those conditions prevail but must be modified to suit the expanded criteria.

                [The claim that Newton's theories are a hypothesis, even if correct, has nothing to do with the falsifiability question, nor does the rest of the sentence. Politics of evasion]

                Philip Shehan: ‘What hypothesis or theory were Watson and Crick trying to falsify when they elucidated the double helical structure of DNA? ‘
                -
                I could google judiciously to answer this question, but what’s the point?

                [Is it stating the obvious here that you have not only danced around the question but evaded the question but that you have waltzed yourself right of the dance floor?]

                And there are the personal attacks on my integrity:

                You seem to prefer the principal of withholding information…

                Philip Shehan, your academic achievements are one thing, but it is the integrity with which you serve those achievements that will interest the sceptical mind.

                me: bullocky, Stop dancing around. What do you mean by the statement that “Science, in itself, is actively neutral”?

                [How unforgivable of me. after your straightforward answers to my questions, put without a hint of personal attack, I should accuse you of dancing around the questions]

                “Newtons’s Theory wasn’t a theory at all…”

                The dance continues. This will come as a great shock to any scientist or historian of science. OK call it a hypothesis then. Regarded as the ultimate in successful theories (sorry, hypotheses) with unparalleled precision and explanatory power for over two centuries.

                Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night: God said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light. (Alexander Pope)

                The question then remains:

                Explain then why Newton’s hypothesis (and many others which were found not to exactly correspond with data), was not rejected when it was, strictly speaking, “falsified”?

                “I could google judiciously to answer this question, but what’s the point?”

                The point, Lord of the Dance, is that there was no hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA that they set out to falsify.

                you: Philip Shehan

                May 24, 2014 at 8:46 pm
                -
                ‘The dance continues’
                -
                ‘The point, Lord of the Dance..’
                -
                Now, re-present this post without the unnecessary and offensive ad hom, and, if I have time, I may respond.

                [Horrified that I should make a personal attack on you, when you have been so polite, you kick off the dancing pumps, the better to flee from the ballroom. Evasion does not come close to this running flight to the bunker and utter sooking hypocrisy]

                me: Oh come on bullocky, a gentle dig and very mild considering what you and others write about me, the subtle questioning of my integrity being a case in point. (Griss has no concept of subtlety in these matters).

                I have written before that I consider you to be no fool (and note I gave you points for picking me up on a subtle but important distinction in the philosophy of science) and that I suspect that often you are just being argumentative for the sake of getting a rise out of me.

                Don’t be precious

                I am reconsidering my opinion that because you make the occasional perceptive observations and remarks, you could not be serious in the stupid comments you also make.

                05

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                Endorse AGW: 93.3%
                Reject AGW: 5.7%
                Uncertain on AGW: 1%
                -
                In this hypothetical scenario, the words ‘vanishingly small’ would put the lie to the written conclusions.
                -
                Further, if the date stamps showed a trend toward a pro-sceptical trend over time, feasibly, any number of authors positions (in respect of AGW and in the larger sample) could have changed within the temporal scope of the paper. ie, At its publication date, the Cook et al paper no longer had quantitative fidelity.(The number of sceptical-inclining opinions of authors would be out of step with the numerical claims).
                It was obsolete.
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘,… you could not be serious in the stupid comments you also make.’
                -
                Don’t add insult to injury.
                The Griss does this sort of thing, at times, very effectively. You don’t!

                40

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘I will continue to give him chapter and verse in refutation’
                -
                Supplying the missing data would be much more effective!

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, still waiting for where this 4% figure comes from.

                What is all this about “missing data”?

                What is this obsession with “date stamps”

                If this is supposed to be some sort of indication of when the authors expressed their opinions in the abstracts surely this is found in the publication dates.

                If it is when the authors responded to emails of their own opinions of the papers, surely this is a very narrow and recent time frame.

                Are you seriously suggesting there has been a significant shift of opinion by the authors (all in one direction mind, toward “skepticism’) since the emails were answered which invalidates the results?

                And the only legitimate criticism of of a scientific paper in this regard must be the time of publication as opposed to the natural process of ideas becoming refined or overturned with the passing of time, which like death and taxes, is the certain fate of all scientists with regard to their work.

                bullocky, do I need to quote, chapter and verse, your remaks to me to point out the stupidity of your final sooking remark?

                Why this obsession with date stamps? Good Question! Obviously Cook collected them, and the people rating papers did a comprehensive job, and we are baffled as to why an honest man like Cook will not hand them over so Richard Tol can analyze them for rater bias and find nothing. Why are you obsessed with hiding date stamps? – Jo

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                This paper never was a scientific paper.

                It was always a propaganda paper.

                Anyone who thinks that a paper on “consensus” has anything to do with science, is obviously NO SCIENTIST,

                but has become an activist/apologist/ propaganda merchant and has thrown any science they might once have had out the window.

                They are only pretending to themselves that they retain any semblance of science.

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                It really is very sad when someone who might once have had a working brain, can no longer tell the difference between science and propaganda.

                But.. such is life.

                Phil, you really need to step back and do something worthwhile with what you have left.

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Ms Nova, I have no obsession with hiding date stamps. People keep referring to them.

                I have been involved in writing submitting and examining papers and email correspondence with people in this regard but the term is unfamiliar to me.

                I have not commented on them simply reflects that I do not know what people are referring to and I don’s see why they may be so important.

                As I pointed out to bullocky, the papers are dated. The raters were examining these dated papers. Are the date stamps to do with the raters submitted assessments? The issue seems trivial to me, but I may be wrong.

                So I have not bothered with the issue. This is hardly an obsession, nor is it hiding anything. I did say that I am puzzled by others’ obsession with them.

                Can you or anyone else explain? What are they? Why are they relevant to the assesment of the papers? I would genuinely like to understand. Hope someone can help.

                Similarly I have would like toknow what the basis is for asserting that there is “missing data”.

                04

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan

                May 27, 2014 at 10:07 am
                -
                Jo makes some very salient points addressing the content of this post.
                If you have time, I think you should address them.

                10

              • #
            • #
              bullocky

              Philip Shehan:’But the 97% view is not confined to category 1:”
              -
              The 97% cannot be applied anywhere in the paper: the unpublished data may show it to false!

              20

          • #
            the Griss

            just a hint .. at least 4 of the “acknowledged” are on the SkS team. !!!

            And if you don’t think that is a BIASED source, you are even more screwed up and ignorant than even I thought you were.

            51

          • #
            bobl

            Absolutely,

            The paper represents a classic bait and switch the question answered was not the question asked. Cook’s definition “Humans are causing global warming.”

            The question answered is “Humans are causing a non zero portion of global warming”. Even I who am about as sceptic as is possible would agree human impact is non-zero, for example I accept the heat island effect.

            Only category one defines agreement with the questiom a as defined… that is humans are CAUSING global warming or the majority of global warming. Cook’s conclusion is misleading, not supported by the data, and in my opinion it is very possibly fraudulent.

            91

    • #
      warcroft

      Jo. . . earlier today Lord Monckton recorded a new, hour long interview. Part of it is on how he is suing the University of Queensland over this very thing.

      Its up on YouTube:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PshooWMzHMA

      152

      • #
        warcroft

        Skip to 31:30 for the UQ bit.

        41

      • #
        Tim

        This video is totally inspirational.

        For anyone who’s serious about the subject – PLEASE WATCH IT.

        30

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        warcroft,

        His Lordship is more likely to be on the receiving end of a writ than issuing one on the basis of this performance.

        Monckton claims in the video:

        “We are now fighting back against anyone who produces an open and obvious lie in a scientific paper and I am going after at the moment some researchers at the University of Queensland who tried to say that 97% of all scientists in 11,944 papers they reviewed since 1991 had said that most of the warming in recent decades was caused by us.

        This is untrue on two counts.

        From the Methods section:

        “Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

        Table 2 also gives a category of implicit endorsement without quantification

        And the 97% figure of quantified, unquantified and implicit endorsement of AGW only applies to those papers which actually took a position on AGW, which is 97% of 4014 papers, not 97% of 11944.

        312

        • #
          James Bradley

          You hope.

          The venom with which Monckton is pursued by the alarmist lobby elevates everything he does to front page.

          I mean, I dunno what you do with it now, but you guys created it, better hope it doesn’t get out of the bag.

          71

          • #
            bullocky

            Yes; where ‘the bag’ may be roughly equated to ‘concealment form public scrutiny’.
            -
            Cook’s paper, without the release of all data, has already done the cAGW fraternity no favours, albeit in an, as yet, narrow field of awareness. (IMhO)

            31

        • #
          cohenite

          That’s right Mr Shehan; by even the best and most favourable interpretation [which is still wrong for reasons I explain above] it’s not 97% of 11944 but 97% of 4014; which in a proper ratio to 11944 is 3893.58 [assuming one of the scientists either has 2 heads or 1/2 a brain] which gives 3893.58/11944 = 32.59%.

          71

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan: ‘And the 97% figure of quantified, unquantified and implicit endorsement of AGW only applies to those papers which actually took a position on AGW, which is 97% of 4014 papers, not 97% of 11944.’
          -
          100% of papers(or part thereof) in the unreleased sample may repudiate the 97% claim. (It may not do so; we cannot tell.)
          -
          Certainly, a trend towards the sceptical position over time (possibly residing within the unreleased sample) could both change and dominate the 97% claim.
          -
          Brandon Shollenberger mentions, on a number of occasions, the time stamps of the pertinent papers in his relevant posts at his website. The issue of a pro-sceptical trend in the unreleased data could be important.
          http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/university-of-queensland-doubles-down-on-hiding-data/

          21

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:
          ‘His Lordship is more likely to be on the receiving end of a writ than issuing one on the basis of this performance.’
          -
          Let’s hope, for His Lordship’s sake, that your predictions have the same accuracy as the climate models!

          10

      • #

        He ain’t a Lord. Except of debating excellence.

        15

        • #

          Although a few of the specific things he said in that video were wrong, they weren’t really on the topic of the environment.

          11

        • #
          the Griss

          As a hereditary Viscount, Lord Monckton is entitled to use the title “Lord”

          The 1999 Act of Parliament took away sitting rights from hereditary Lords.

          Only the queen can remove his title. And she hasn’t.

          122

          • #

            The queen is the head of a gangster family and she has specifically kept up the anti-British and evil tradition of genitally mutilating/torturing her children. Diana showed great courage and strength by resisting inflicting this traumatic horror on children. While this isn’t my only problem with the queen, it’s enough. She abused her own children.

            09

        • #
          cohenite

          Christopher Monckton IS an hereditary Lord; just because some socialist politician removes his right to sit in the House of Lords doesn’t mean he is not a Lord.

          It is such a quibbling point I don’t know why people persist with it.

          110

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Cohenite, I don’t think you need to be a socialist politician to conclude that the medieval notion that you have a right to make laws for your fellow citizens on no other basis than who your father was is outdated in a 21st century democracy.

            19

            • #
              cohenite

              The House of Lords is primarily a review house, although it can make laws. Some of its legal Lords have provided some of the most insightful legal decisions in the history of English law. That legal function has now been taken over by the Supreme court.

              The parliamentary system in England is a template for the world and when the house of Lords is considered as part of that tradition it surpasses other review houses in bicameral parliamentary systems.

              On the other hand Prince Charles is a nitwit who amongst other follies supports AGW.

              81

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                You duck the essential point cohenite.

                In the 21st century, do you think it reasonable that a person should qualify for mebership of this body solely because of whohis or haer father was?

                27

              • #
                vic g gallus

                The House of Lords has been filled for many years with men who stood to lose a lot if the country was run poorly. They could also lose their estates if they treated their serfs really badly. The serfs could walk away as they did when plagues decimated the population and laborers were in high demand. So it was simple. The parliament consisted of members who were elected by commoners to represent the wishes of the community and this was overseen by Lords who would stop the elected officials if they turned out to be knobs, like some of the newly elected Lords who insist on the title.

                Is it better to have an elected senate? Look what happened in our last election!

                60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                So Cohenite, in the 21st century,you think that someone should have the right to be a member of the House of Lords simply because of who this person’s father was.

                You therefore consider them more qualified, or blessed with superior judgement and ethics on this basis?

                And you have to be a socialist politician to disagree with thsi viewpoint?

                010

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Philip,

                I vary rarely make a comment about a person, preferring to focus on the matter at hand.

                But your ill informed comments regarding the British legal system, demonstrates how terminally moronic you are.

                You are commenting on the British legal system, which has worked, moderately well, at least for the British for the past millennia, and you do so without any basis of knowledge or experience, of how it actually works. But nobody is asking you to adopt it, are they? How arrogantly stupid it is to throw criticism at something you obviously know little about, and do not understand.

                Christopher Monckton is a hereditary lord. Is that his fault? His parents had the money and desire to give him an excellent education. Is that his fault? He uses that education, and his natural intelligence, to conduct research, apply logic and reason, and analyse the matter at hand. Do you think that his title should somehow disqualify him from doing that? How does his title offend you?

                Your politics are showing comrade: [Snip - insults in Russian are still insults -Fly]

                80

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thank you Fly, but I think I can handle this.

                But your ill informed comments regarding the British legal system, demonstrates how terminally moronic you are.

                Rereke, what comments have I made about the British legal system?

                My comments have been entirely about eligability to sit in the House of Lords.

                And my knowledge of the “British” legal system, as practised in Australia, was good enough for me to represent myself in a legal bunfight with the University of Sydney for one win and a draw, in the latter case the professionals representing the other side pleading for a truce after I had given their witnesses a drubbing. I agreed as I had gathered enough evidence at that point to present to the University indicating perjury and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by my opponents. I was complimented by the judge and the opposition professionals on my legal skills.

                Did I say that it was Christopher Monckton’s fault that he is a Lord?

                Did I condemn him or his parents for his upbringing or acheivements?

                Did I say that being a hereditary peer did not give him the right to engage in any of the activities you mention or express an opinion of climate change or any other matter?

                Did I say or imply that his title offended me?

                The answer to all these questions is NO.

                What I did say, (or rather question) is his right (or anyone else’) as a heredetary peer in the 21st century to be a member of a body involved in the law making of Britain solely on the basis of his parentage.

                And I asked whether someone had to be a socialist politician to decide that time was up for this eligability criterion.

                That you think my position on this indicates my politics, other than I am not to the right of Louis IV, reflects more on your politics than mine.

                I will let impartial observers here decide who is the ill informed moron. (His words Fly, not mine.)

                010

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                what comments have I made about the British legal system?

                The British Legal system consists of the reigning Monarch, the Privy Council, The House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the Courts and Assizes. They all work together, and you cannot discuss any part, without including the whole. It is not like the American two-house system,

                Or the Australian legal system, for that matter. I am glad you put “British” in inverted commas, since the Australian system has little in common with the British system apart from having a titular head in the Governors General. I note that you won your argument – well done you.

                Did I say that it was Christopher Monckton’s fault that he is a Lord?

                You implied it when you typed, “… in the 21st century,you think that someone should have the right to be a member of the House of Lords simply because of who this person’s father was”

                The House of Lords originally represented the capital, and intellectual, resources of the country: the major land owners; industrialists; judiciary; and individuals who had provided outstanding public service. The land owners; literally “Land Lords”, held hereditary seats, simply because their land tenure was, and still is, hereditary. A recent Labour Government, has done away with those seats entirely, and so a significant proportion of the agricultural production base of Britain has been disenfranchised in the Upper House of Parliament.

                Did I say …, Did I condemn …, Did I say…, Did I say…

                My penultimate paragraph was inferred, based on your immediate and vitriolic response to the video of Lord Monckton. Your choice of words, in the round, conveyed the meaning that I responded to. I did not need you to explicitly say anything. Sometimes actions, shout louder than words.

                I do however regret the insult, and I am thankful that Fly removed it. I usually respond to supercilious blowhards in better ways than that.

                110

              • #
                bullocky

                R.W. ‘I usually respond to supercilious blowhards in better ways than that.’
                -
                Philip Shehan has advised us of his eminent qualifications and vast experience on numerous occasions.
                However, ‘supercilious blowhard’ I think is a little lenient!

                50

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan: ‘I will let impartial observers here decide who is the ill informed moron. (His words Fly, not mine.)’
                -
                Let’s hope the ‘observers’ don’t register their verdicts via the red and green thumb system!

                60

              • #
                the Griss

                “I will let impartial observers here decide who is the ill informed moron.’

                I’m pretty impartial.

                I always look at the evidence, (and by heck, you have provided plenty)

                I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that you are the ill-informed moron.

                60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Rereke, Thank you for acknowledging that I did not make any comments on the British legal system, ill informed , moronic or otherwise.

                You then quote me:

                Did I say that it was Christopher Monckton’s fault that he is a Lord?

                and claim ‘You implied it when you typed, “… in the 21st century,you think that someone should have the right to be a member of the House of Lords simply because of who this person’s father was”’

                I implied nothing of the sort. “Fault” implies that there is something wrong with being a Lord. I made no such statement or implication and I do not believe it. On one trip to London I dragged a collegue into a sitting of the House of Lords. I also went to Blenheim Palace and other such sites. I have a strong interest in British history, and have many books on this subject. I highly approve of a certain amount of pageantry, pomp and circumstance.

                The question was to cohenite (and Vic) who gave a list of the history and benefits of the House of laws which I did not dispute but which evaded the central question: In the 21st century, should people have the right to belong to this important body solely because of who their parents were?

                This is a question about the position of the heredetary aristocracy in the British constitution. It is not a condemnation of any peer or the hereditary peerage. I assume that many hereditary peers entirely agree that such an eligability criterion cannot be justified in a modern democracy.

                You insist in putting words in my mouth that I never uttered or implied. I reject this presumption of yours entirely.

                My comments concerning Monckton’s statement were not “vitriolic”. This is not about his peerage. I was responding to another comment, pointing out Monckton himself was liable for a defamation action rather than bringing one for this statement:

                “We are now fighting back against anyone who produces an open and obvious lie in a scientific paper and I am going after at the moment some researchers at the University of Queensland who tried to say that 97% of all scientists in 11,944 papers they reviewed since 1991 had said that most of the warming in recent decades was caused by us.”

                He has attacked the professional reputations of people, accusing them of producing an open and obvious lie, and his evidence to support this claim is factually incorrect.

                And anticipating smart alec responses from some concerning the scientific standing and reputations of his attack, this in no way reduces the ill advised nature of his attack or the possible legal consequences.

                The only vitriol here is from Monckton himself in making this accusation and stating that he is “going after” them.

                I later discussed the role of the peerage in the British constitution (NOT Monckton personally in ANY of the discussion) after Cohenite linked the removal of a totally outdated aspect of the constitution to “socialism.” Ridiculous.

                08

          • #
            Apoxonbothyourhouses

            You know the answer; if you can discredit your opponent on an irrelevant matter then you can, by association, discredit his argument.

            I have met the man and he is gentle, delightful and passionate on AGW. And yes somewhat eccentric.

            I can only hope he really has the funding to be able to tackle the individuals who are massaging the facts. He only needs one win to send the shivers through the rest of the gravy train.

            60

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              A voice of reason, thank you. You are right.

              When Philip is forced to attack the man, he has no logical rebuttal with which to attack his argument.

              90

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Rereke, I have made no “attack” on Monckton.

                I have demonstrated where his attack on others, who he said he was “going after” for producing an “open and obvious lie” was based on two incorrect intepretations of the paper. Show me where I am wrong, and if not, those of you who are his friends and supporters had better take the point and advise him to get his facts straight lest he find himself in legal bother.

                I did/do not recognise the reply from Apoxonbothyourhouses
                as being in response to my comments. The answer to what? And I cannot see where I am trying to discredit him on an irrelevant matter.

                I believe it is in response to the comment describing Monckton as a discredited buffoon.

                06

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘I believe it is in response to the comment describing Monckton as a discredited buffoon.’
                -
                Accredited buffoons are ensconced at Skepticalscience!
                :-)

                20

      • #
        FIN

        UQ must be shaking in its collective boots with another hollow legal threat from the “Lord”. Just like all the other bluster of litigation it will come to nothing of course.
        Storm in a teacup as usual. The man is a discredited buffoon.

        36

        • #
          cohenite

          The man is a discredited buffoon.

          Nah, he hasn’t been discredited; except by buffoons.

          70

        • #
          the Griss

          There is not ONE credible person who has discredited him.

          Maybe found some minor error, but discredited.. only in the minds of the AGW far-left moron…

          Oh.. is that you, Fin ???

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The vapourous hand wringers are out in force – serious efforts at damage control. I think that U of Q has shot itself in the foot, and is hopping mad that the sceptics have noticed.

          40

        • #
          bullocky

          FIN:’The man is a discredited buffoon’
          -
          All the accredited buffoons shelter behind “The Consensus”.

          30

    • #
      Brian

      UQ will find this hard to ignore if other alumni are asking them to answer, or if it is picked up in the media, and if they get questions from the journal in question.

      Let me make a prediction, it wont raise an eyebrow except in blogs like this.
      [Snip repeat]

      ——–
      And Brian, you probably would have said that about the UQ threatening letter as well, until The Australian covered it. Then look how fast (and foolishly) UQ scrambled to limit the damage. – Jo

      26

      • #
        bobl

        I might also point out that the VCs boss belongs to a conservative government that has recently dismantled all things green in the state government. I don’t think that bodes particularly well where a government institution is embarassing itself in public like this. Ministers tend to not like scandals amongst the public servants in their department.

        Frankly, it sounds like a gift for the removal of some socialist dead wood from the public service.

        20

      • #
        bullocky

        Brian:’Let me make a prediction, it wont raise an eyebrow except in blogs like this’
        -
        Please keep us updated on Relative Eyebrow Rise (R.E.R.).

        20

    • #
      BUlldust

      Hi Jo:

      Might be worth adding the link to the old news release by UQ trumetting the paper that ‘has the world talking’ (albeit for teh wrong reasons):

      http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/01/uq-climate-change-paper-has-whole-world-talking

      Got to love the quote about Cook:

      The quiet and humble scientist was inundated with interview requests after the tweet hit social media airwaves.

      That made me LOL.

      91

    • #
      JohnRMcD

      I AM a graduate of the U of Q, 50 years ago, in Engineering. I have been in contact with the U of Q within the past few days about this whole disgraceful affair. I hope that there are more than just me …

      140

    • #
      bobl

      As a Queensland citizen, I forwarded this to the Minister Responsible, with a request to investigate the UQ for incompetence.

      40

  • #
    mmxx

    I am dismayed that my old university has placed its scientific credibility at the end of a very long limb in its attempted defence of Cook’s questionable methods and analyses.

    There must be similar head-shaking throughout its diminished numbers of academic staff who still adhere to honest scientific endeavour. The climate science cabal has led academic repute to the wilderness in this and other institutions around the world.

    The timing of UQ’s mailing its alumni last week seeking funds was further embarrassment, given this inane own goal. Its letter went directly into that uncategorised circular file at the foot of my desk.

    292

    • #
      Another Ian

      IMO wrong approach. Reply like you’ve stated here.

      Interestingly I haven’t seen one alumni leters yet and I have UQ degrees.

      40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The letters are tailored to your name and degree and are probably demographically targeted. Whether you get one may depend on how recently you graduated, whether you have children, and whether you receive Contact magazine.

        It’s also worded as though you’re donating to a specific scholarship, not the university as a whole.

        I also received the appeal for alumni donations last week.
        My priorities for charity are my prerogative. My general policy has been that charity starts in the home, so donations can only be made from a position of financial comfort. Even if I had an income that made large donations feasible, my past donations have in most cases been to either medical research, environmental, or social service organisations in which there is some tiny but non-zero probability that I might benefit from it in the future, or else to an overseas aid organisation helping people in far greater need than the developed world middle class Queensland kid that wants his IT degree paid for by strangers.

        Consequently, their letter was filed away in a similar manner to mmxx.

        80

  • #
    Popeye

    Looks like game set and match to me – I await a retraction (cause I think they’ve lost the data or the data is so full of holes they’ll look like the idiots they seem to be if they were to release it).

    Reminds me of this classic quote:

    “Holey rusted metal, Batman! The ground. It’s all metal. It’s full of holes. You know, holey. – Robin”

    Oh dear – the irony!! :-) :-) :-)

    Cheers,

    63

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I note that Alistair McEwan’s administrative title is “Acting-Pro-Vice Chancellor.” I really only understand the meaning of the first of these words, namely “Acting.”
    Perhaps he could just take the key to the office door and hand it to the secretary. He could resign his “acting” role and go back to being a “Prof.” – his academic title. A long cruise, maybe to Antarctica might be wise. His research interest has been bacterial pathogens. Cruise ships are a good place to study such things. Bon Voyage, Doc.

    132

    • #
      Bulldust

      VC’s are pretty much firgureheads at universities. Usually as a result of years of PCness and networking. If they say something intelligent it is usually by accident. More often than not they are well past their use by date, and that’s by academic standards. I came across this apt quote at Mauldin today:

      This leaves open a question: why do intellectuals hate free markets? Because, as French sociologist Raymond Boudon explained, in a free market they would be paid at their real value.
      Source: http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2014/05/22/gave-amp-gave-and-hay.aspx

      172

      • #
        tom0mason

        This leaves open a question: why do intellectuals hate free markets?

        On an open market they would have to compete on many other levels than just the narrow competence in their chosen field.
        Apart from the usual social and communication skill with others, there are practicle ablities, inventiveness, etc.
        Thankfully we have the majority of these people locked away in institutions like colleges and universities, to protect the general population from these banal individuals.

        Unfortunately MSM has realized that these intitutions are a good source of strange and bizarre stories that aptly fit sensationalist requirements of modern everyday broadcasting.
        Thus the new era professional ‘climate experts’ were hatched, and now appear all too often, like a worrisome pest.

        60

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Actually, it is Chancellors who are the figureheads, handing out the degrees on Graduation day.

        Vice Chancellors are the Universities’ Chief Executive Officers. And you are correct. They have to have management skills. Having an academic background does not preclude people from having these skills which are learned and demonstrated as they proceed up the management ladder at Universities. There are a limited number of such positions available and recruitment is highly competitive.

        Your comments are just a cheap shot from the peanut gallery directed at like minds who have no knowledge of who Vice Chancellors are and what they do and are in no position to assess their perormance.

        35

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Quite correct Phil, VC’s perform in the administrative rôle- incompetently in my experience;Chancellors get their big days on numerous grad ceremonies and all that Gaudeamus Igatur stuff though the academic festival overture by J. Brahms is full on pomp! Peanuts as you say.

          50

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan: ‘

          ‘Vice Chancellors are the Universities’ Chief Executive Officers. And you are correct. They have to have management skills…. There are a limited number of such positions available and recruitment is highly competitive.’
          -
          Demonstrable political skills and an empathy with academic establishment protocols could be also be viewed as desirable!

          30

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Is there method in this UQ madness?

    If so, urge UQ to share it with UWA, before the latter institution hoists itself on a similar reductio ad absurdum or reductio ad impossibile.

    111

  • #
  • #
    pat

    O/T but relevant in the sense we need some institutional shake-ups. (note: full local election results will not be known til saturday morning Australian time, & EU results will not be known until Monday our time)

    23 May: BBC: UKIP vote surges in English local elections
    UKIP is gaining council seats across England – mainly at the expense of the Conservatives…
    Labour is losing votes to UKIP in its northern heartlands and is making slower progress than it wanted so far.
    The Lib Dems’ vote share has been hit hardest but most results in 161 English councils are still to come. Euro election results are due on Sunday…
    Most councils will not declare their results until later on Friday…
    The surge in support for UKIP has sent shockwaves through the main parties at Westminster, with just a year to go before the next general election…
    VIDEO: UKIP’s Winston McKenzie: “Certain sections of the press, together with the coalition… have played the race card, 100%”…
    The BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson said overnight UKIP had emerged as a “fourth national political force capable of disrupting the hopes and plans of each of the established three parties”.
    “[But it] is worth remembering that once every vote is counted UKIP will not run a single council, they will still have far fewer councillors than their rivals, they will not, of course, have an MP but – in the words of one Labour council leader – they will have caused mayhem.”…
    The Green Party, which is hoping to double its tally of MEPs to four, is performing moderately well with an average 9% share of the vote in wards where it is standing.
    ***But this is significantly down on the party’s 13% showing in 2009…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27531094

    Robinson doesn’t mention the Greens’ vote being down in this one:

    23 May: BBC: Nick Robinson: The UKIP earthquake – first tremors
    From the very first result – a council ward in safe Labour Sunderland – the tremors could be felt. UKIP secured 30% of the vote in an area where it hadn’t even run before.
    It was soon clear that we were witnessing something very significant – the emergence of a fourth national political force capable of disrupting the hopes and plans of each of the established three parties…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27534191

    70

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Some readers may not know the UK’s political parties attitude towards supposed man made climate change, do here it is:

      Conservatives: followers are generally sceptical, but leader David Cameron is a true believer.

      Labour: its followers are generally not smart enough to have a considered opinion, but its leaders are usually card carrying alarmists.

      Lib Dems: will generally support anything thought to be trendy, while its leaders are all fanatic alarmists of the ‘bolts in the side of the neck’ variety.

      UKIP: it is often seen as a single policy party with an agenda of getting out of the EU, but it is also the only party with a sceptical, and therefore realistic, policy on climate.

      So three out of four of Britain’s political parties have energy policies supporting the imminent power blackouts and energy poverty, but would never dream of admitting that these are guaranteed to produce such a highly undesirable result.

      221

  • #
    pat

    23 May: UK Telegraph: Steven Swinford: Elections 2014: Labour and Tories tread carefully around Ukip as early counts predict Northern gains
    Justice Secretary says Ukip raises legitimate arguments as Ukip swings key Conservative councils to ‘no control’ and attacks Labour in its heartland
    Ukip is not racist and there is a “legitimate debate” to have about levels of immigration in Britain, a Cabinet minister has said.
    Ahead of European election results due to show that Ukip has beaten the Tories for the first time in a national election, Chris Grayling said that “there is not racism in this country”.
    The Conservatives are also braced for setbacks in English local council elections, with results due throughout Friday…
    The Justice Secretary’s conciliatory tone reflects the Conservatives party’s desire not to offend large numbers of Conservative voters who are turning to Ukip…
    It comes as both Labour and the Conservatives had their noses bloodied by a surge in Ukip councillors.
    • The Conservatives lost Basildon to no overall control as Ukip gained 11 seats, and lost control too in Castle Point, Southend, and Peterborough.

    • Labour failed to break through in southern battlegrounds such as Swindon, and lost control of Thurrock – a key Westminster target for Miliband’s party – as Farage’s party picked up five gains.

    • In the north, Ukip showed it could pose a threat to Labour in its strongholds, taking 10 of the 21 council seats up for election in Rotherham, including nine gains, and polling an average of 47% where its candidates stood.

    • The Liberal Democrats were also expecting to “take a kicking” from voters. Lynne Featherstone, a junior minister, said the party has “lost some of its humanity” since entering the Coalition, while Vince Cable admitted it would be a “difficult night.”.

    However, there is growing concern that Labour is failing to take a more robust approach against Ukip, alongside growing doubts about Ed Miliband’s leadership.
    ***One leading Labour figure said Mr Miliband “looks weird, sounds weird, is weird’”.

    Labour sources had indicated that the party might win 200 seats on a good night, but senior MP Emily Thornberry said she expected the figure to be “around 150″.
    A YouGov poll put Ukip on 27 per cent, one point ahead of Labour, leaving the Conservatives with just 22 per cent of the vote – the first time they would have failed to top a European election since 1994…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections/10850802/Elections-2014-Labour-and-Tories-tread-carefully-around-Ukip-as-early-counts-predict-Northern-gains.html

    80

  • #
    Peter Miller

    This is all very well, but Cook’s bogus finding of a 97% endorsement of supposed man made global warming is surely the real point.

    Very few of the circa 12,000 papers ‘examined’ actually made this endorsement.

    Not many of the papers were written by people who would claim to be climate scientists, they were from other scientific fields.

    The methodology used was a joke.

    And somehow, much of the world now chooses to believe this bogus 97% figure. Few, if any, of those who quote it will have even heard of the paper, let alone read its abstract.

    …….Sigh…………………..

    190

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      I have never endorsed the 97% figure, but then until now I had never read the whole paper.

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291t2

      09

      • #
        vic g gallus

        0.4% of authors reject AGW while 0.3% explicitly endorse with quantification.

        Most people here think that carbon dioxide has some effect and possibly that the extra amount from fossil fuel use has done something. And then a large disagreement as to how much. Remember that some are deniers and yet they do not disagree with the positive feedbacks.

        And you do have to love the implicit-endorsement example

        “…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change”

        People have been throwing such lines into everything to get a grant, including the speed of sea snails. Seriously though, how much thought could have gone into the analysis of the science if they believe that the climate would not have changed if we weren’t here?

        90

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:
        ‘I have never endorsed the 97% figure, but then until now I had never read the whole paper.’
        -
        Can you tell us much about the content of the unpublished data?

        30

        • #
          the Griss

          “Can you tell us much about the content of the unpublished data?”

          I doubt that phil has any idea what is in the unpublished data

          Or in any email instructions between Cook and his “hangers-on”

          20

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan claims to have read the ‘whole paper’
            -
            This is a Freudian slip: his default assumption is that he knows what is in the unpublished data, ie. the ‘whole paper’.
            -
            You wouldn’t think a genuine scientist would make such an elementary mistake!

            30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Douglas Adams pointed out that 42 was The meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

      The Post Normal implication of that, is that 97% of researchers think that it might, possibly, be 42, but they are concerned about the tolerance, and require more Government funding to calculate 42 to twenty seven decimals places, give or take a third of a decimal place.

      40

  • #
    pat

    a final on on Ukip.

    up until the last minute, all the MSM, but especially BBC, tried to destroy Ukip, by playing the “race” card. (Swinford, in the Tele piece above, with the help of Grayling, is still at it when he writes: “The Justice Secretary’s conciliatory tone reflects the Conservatives party’s desire not to offend large numbers of Conservative voters who are turning to Ukip.”

    at least BBC acted quickly on this prejudiced & childish behaviour of Lawrence. take note, ABC!

    22 May: UK Daily Mail: John Stevens: Top BBC editor brands Ukip racist and sexist on Twitter: News channel boss accused of bias hours before the election
    Jasmine Lawrence, 43, was accused of ‘bias’ and ‘prejudice’ against Ukip
    She took part in the ambush of the party’s #WhyImVotingUkip on Twitter
    Called then: ‘White, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views’
    She has been taken off election coverage pending a BBC probe
    Mrs Lawrence had been due to help lead BBC News coverage of today’s local and European elections, but the corporation last night said she had been removed from that role as it launched an internal investigation. She has deactivated her Twitter account..
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635680/Top-BBC-editor-brands-Ukip-racist-sexist-Twitter-News-channel-boss-accused-bias-hours-election.html
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27534191

    61

    • #
      diogenese2

      The Jasmine Lawrence affair is indicative of the level to which public life has sunk in the UK. The BBC’s bias has forever been palpable but at least they have always pretended to be objective. At election times they have to painfully suppress their instincts and carefully observe the protocols, intervention in the process being seen as crapping on your own doorstep.
      This ladies action shows that the current establishment cant even do hypocrisy properly – thus passes the last great British virtue.

      70

  • #
    thingadonta

    I don’t think it will work, because they brought the ball, as well as the umpire, and if they want to take ‘their’ ball and go home….

    50

  • #
  • #
    RoHa

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practise to deceive.

    And that is the secret of success. Practice.

    30

  • #
    Richo

    Further to the interview mentioned by Warcroft about Lord Monckton above on Youtube. Lord M also mentioned in the interview that he will be filing an FOIA request against Lawrence White, the Vice President of the University of Delaware who was involved with Watermelon Peace in persecuting a skeptical scientist Professor David Legates with a outrageous FOIA request that was an invasion of privacy and academic freedom. Refer to Jo’s recent posting on this matter. GST time.

    41

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    SKS: the Website of Fools

    51

  • #
    Tim

    “…there have been many recent instances of unsupportable research subsequently retracted…”

    Some might devise a PR strategy thus:

    Conduct a study constructed on ‘evidence’ of Global Warming/climate disruption.
    Delay or deny data to FOI requests in order to gain time as the media distributes the news.
    If forced, finally publish a retraction; noticed only by some in the scientific community.
    The news has by then been delivered to a mass global audience. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

    60

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    There is no dilemma,diabolical or otherwise.

    There is nothing here to back the claim that UQ may have breached any ethical principles.

    Prof McEwan states:

    “Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld.

    This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.”

    Under these circumstances, it would be unethical for the University to publish or allow others to publish the identities of raters, although presumably raters could waive their right to anonimity.

    Furthermore reading of the methodology indicates that anonymity was used hide the identities from other raters of the particular abstracts.

    This does not prevent the authors of the paper from identifying those who granted permission for there participation to be so acknowledged.

    And this does not identify who rated which abstracts.

    Istvan’s claim that all raters were identified is incorrect.

    The methodology states there were a total of 24 raters.

    Nine people are listed as authors of the paper.

    Two of those non authors acknowledged are thanked for contributions to the analysis and comments. Contributing to analysis should be distinguished from the rating process, as should commenting on the results and conclusions.

    It is not clear how many, if any, of these people were involved in the hack work of reading and rating the abstracts. In fact the methods section suggests that this work was done by volunteers:

    “This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website.”

    Another twelve people are acknowledged for assisting with collecting email addresses (for 8547 authors) and rating abstracts.

    So even if all 23 named persons actually rated the abstracts (which is probably not the case) this does not add up to 24.

    Prof McEwan’s statement also notes:

    “Recent media coverage (The Australian, 17 March 2014) has stated that The University of Queensland is trying to block climate research by stopping the release of data used in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

    This is not the case. All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013. (Bolding added)

    111

    • #
      vic g gallus

      Furthermore reading of the methodology indicates that anonymity was used hide the identities from other raters of the particular abstracts.

      The twitter account of a Dana1981.

      A graph with the secret IDs from sceptical science. Sorry, file seems to be removed. Anyone know of where a copy is?

      For Phil, it showed a graph with short IDs of the raters. One was Dana1981.

      60

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Vic,

        Short ID’s such as Dana1981 do not really constitute identification of the raters. I have no idea of the identity of Graeme No.3 who I regularly have discussion with here.

        In any case whether or not raters have been “outed” by others or given there permission to be identified, this does not absolve the University of its obligation to preserve the promised anonimity.

        04

        • #
          vic g gallus

          Its his twitter ID!!!. The graph of how many papers they rated per day was accessible by the public on SkS website, using that ID! He is a coauthor who rated a very large number of the papers and his defense of AGW could be described as religious.

          Surely this is information that is important to the public?

          50

        • #
          bullocky

          PHILIP Shehan: “this does not absolve the University of its obligation to preserve the promised anonimity.’
          -
          Can you show that the anonymity was promised?

          30

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            bullocky,

            The VC has stated this.

            “Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld. This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.”

            This is not in the least unusual. I have had to argue with a university against an anonymity requirement on one occasion while going through an interminable ethics approval process.

            02

            • #
              bullocky

              Philip Shehan:

              The VC has stated this.

              “Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld. This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.”
              -
              Your opinion that this is unusual has no relevance to the existence or content of any “promised anonymity” (your words).

              20

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              I retract all previous statements giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are an idiot who continually misrtepresents people.

              I wrote:

              This is NOT in the least unusual. I have had to argue with a university against an anonymity requirement on one occasion while going through an interminable ethics approval process.

              03

              • #
                the Griss

                “I retract all previous statements giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are an idiot who continually misrtepresents people.”

                My feeling exactly, except with you as the subject.

                You are coming across more and more as a base-lining moron. !!

                Senility suits you to a tee !!!

                40

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘I wrote:

                This is NOT in the least unusual’
                -
                Here is my updated statement including the word ‘NOT’(your upper-case):
                ‘Your opinion that this is NOT unusual has no relevance to the existence or content of any “promised anonymity” (your words).
                -
                Elementary, dear (30 years a scientist) Philip Shehan!
                -
                And now, about your worsening ‘ad hom’ neurosis:
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘You are an idiot who continually misrtepresents people.’(your sic)
                :-)

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, you can dance around all you like, you misrepresented what I wrote making my statement diametrically opposite to what I had written.

                Your attempt to work this into another statement entirely hanges nothing..
                In another comment above, I also note your difficulties with the English language.

                [bullocky] also attempts to make ridiculous fine distinctions of language, where they simply do not exist:

                “Philip Shehan;’Papers were not discarded because they were “ambivalent” to AGW’

                This is not what bobl says. Read bobl’s post again:”. Papers ambivalent to AGW were discarded, and final ..’
                -
                You should address what bobl says, not what you think he says.”

                For you to complain about being on the receiving end of ad hominems from me is rank sooking hypocrisy.

                03

              • #
                the Griss

                “ad hominems from me is rank sooking hypocrisy”

                ad homs from you are hilarious, meaningless and trivial.

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘For you to complain about being on the receiving end of ad hominems from me is rank sooking hypocrisy.’
                -
                This is not a legitimate conclusion to your illogical, desultory pre-amble and is, inherently, self-defeating.
                (Thank goodness!)
                :-)

                20

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        It would however be interesting to see if the short ID’s give any hint of whether individual authors or those in the acknowledgements did any of the rating. It would be a reasonable guess that Dana1981 is Dana Nuticelli.

        05

        • #
          bobl

          But nevertheless only a Guess, and as Dana is a co-author he has already been identified.

          60

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            As I have written above, Nuticelli being a co-author of the paper does not necessarily mean he was one of the 24 doing the rating.

            15

            • #
              vic g gallus

              Its his twitter ID!!!!!!!!!!!!

              50

              • #
                the Griss

                And on a John Cook tweet I saw somewhere, it is obvious that he was doing a whole heap as well.

                Its pretty darn obvious that the whole thing is one MASSIVELY BIASED load of garbage.

                60

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                :D It took 3h 13min for Philip to forget what he’d just admitted in 20.1.2. :D

                Also, for Vic and Phil’s benefit, the rater progress diagram with user names was archived here. The secret is in SkS’ chosen name for that image file: tcp_RATERS3.gif

                That can’t be the full story because they only total 16400 ratings, whereas for 11000 papers to be rated by at least 2 people there should be over 22000 ratings at project’s end.
                Anyhow, based on the simplest interpretation of presently available evidence (the totals in that diagram), Mr Nuccitelli rated around 7% of the rated papers.

                80

              • #
                vic g gallus

                Thanks, Andrew.

                20

            • #
              bobl

              And nor does Dana1981 identify Nutty specifically we can bu conclude in both cases…

              20

            • #
              bullocky

              ‘It took 3h 13min for Philip to forget what he’d just admitted in 20.1.2. :D
              -
              Can you show proof that he ‘forgot’ it?
              -
              It is quite possible that the over/undersight was intentional to assess how much notice readers are taking of his long and unwieldy posts!

              20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Bullocky:

                Vic states that a graph gives twitter id’s of the raters but he cannot present it to me but it has been deleted and asks if anyone can locate for us.

                I responded that short ID’s did not necessarily identify the raters sufficiently to know who they are.

                But I think Vic’s idea could be a way to resolve this question.

                So at 11 am I add that the question of what authors are also raters could be resolved by the information Vic has mentioned if it can be located:

                “It would however be interesting to see if the short ID’s give any hint of whether individual authors or those in the acknowledgements did any of the rating. It would be a reasonable guess that Dana1981 is Dana Nuticelli.”

                Vic replies that Nuticelli has already been identified as an Author. This is clearly the case. His name is listed as such on the paper, but the question remains, is he also a rater?

                So I write at 2:13 pm, or 3 hrs and 13 minutes after my earlier comment:

                “As I have written above, Nuticelli being a co-author of the paper does not necessarily mean he was one of the 24 doing the rating.”

                Vic replies at 2:40 pm that Dana1981 is known to be Nuticellis twitter ID.

                Fine. Now we know that author Nuticelli is also rater Dana1981.

                Andrew McRae
                May 24, 2014 at 6:51 pm
                It took 3h 13min for Philip to forget what he’d just admitted in 20.1.2. (Smiley faces in the original omitted.)

                Sorry?

                Where is the problem?

                Where is the inconsistency?

                What is it I am supposed to have “admitted” and then “forgotten”?

                So what is this rubbish of yours about?

                “Can you show proof that he ‘forgot’ it?
                -
                It is quite possible that the over/undersight was intentional to assess how much notice readers are taking of his long and unwieldy posts!”

                My posts often are long and unwieldy because as here I put down precisely what has been written (with “timestamps” so beloved of people here) so that everyone can follow how people like you and Andrew get their snide accusations and insinuations wrong.

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                Brian,

                Have you ever considered creating your own blog?

                Sometimes it’s hard to tell who’s blog this is when I see “Philip Shehan” in every other post.

                Just sayin’

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thanks Heywood, but no I am not intersted in starting my own blog.

                I have no interst in gathering a following, I do not wish to commit to such a task as I have other things to do with my time, and it is more rewarding challenging the opinions of those who would otherwise be posting nothing but agreement, condemnation and abuse of those who accept the evidence for AGW and congratulating each other on their insights.

                The fact is that I only come to this one occaisionally and post on very few sections. The last section I commented on was put up a week before this one and that was one was some time after my contribution before that.

                The claim that UQ was in a diabolical dilemma attracted me. I read the case for the prosecution and found it wanting, so put a case for the defence.

                As usual my posts attract multiple comments/denunciations to which I attempt to respond, which attracts more to which I attempt to respond, the number of comments to me growing almost exponentially.

                I cannot/choose not to answer them all, for which I am often criticsed. I have “ignored” people, or “evaded” answering their incisive arguments.

                Many contain absolutely nothing of any substance being entirely short pieces devoted to personal abuse so why bother. This is why there are so few responses to the multiple posts by Griss to and about me.

                I notice here that there are a large number of comments between parties criticising me, not directed to me.

                None of this bothers me in the least. I consider it a measure of the effectiveness of my arguments.

                bullocky comments that some of my longer posts have not attracted the usual number of don’t likes. This is apparently meant to be a put down. True I do thake the nuber of thumbs downs as a sign of encouragement, but as these are long because I am taking the time to set out, chapter and verse, with quotes, responses to criticisms they lack acertain entertainment value.

                No doubt many of my critics have very short attention spans and a restricted ability to follow an argument. That is why there is clear evidence in their denunciation of the paper here that they have not actually bothered to read it.

                That is why incisive comments along the lines of PHIL SHEHAN SUX! attract multiple likes.

                Yes my name appears here a great deal, but the vast majority are to or about me, not from me.

                12

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                PS Heywood. On the don’t likes, I recall I received a number of those when I posted a short thank you to you for supplying information.

                Similarly, I just checked a long post to Vic and bullocky because I took their knowledgeable comments as a genuine interest in the subject. (As I say it’s a shame bullocky so often spoils them with personal comments and then sooks if I occasionally respond with a dig of my own.) I am sure the 2 don’t likes thus far are more reflex actions by idiots who simply click on any post from me regardless of, or without reading the content.

                24

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘…..(with “timestamps” so beloved of people here).’
                -
                This is a claim and you should show evidence for it. Posters should feel free to refer to points they regard as important in any manner that is not offensive.
                -
                Philip Shehan: ‘ so that everyone can follow how people like you and Andrew get their snide accusations and insinuations wrong.’
                -
                Cudos to you for resisting the ‘bullying’ complaint.
                Our gracious host has been critical of bullies in the past!

                20

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        Vic,

        Yes, I’ve identified a version of 19/May below, nominally @ #20.2.2, but it seems to be held-up, hopefully by the spam filter. (awaiting moderation)

        00

    • #
      bullocky

      Philip Shehan:
      (Prof. McEwan)’This is not the case. All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.“’
      -
      This may not necessarily be true: The unpublished data may show otherwise.
      (It may not show otherwise, too, but we cannot know this. Science is the accumulation of knowledge, not a collection of opinions.)

      50

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        bullocky, What is the basis for your asserting that there is unpublished data? This is a genuine question.

        It is an empty tautology that if there is relevant unpublished data that nobody knows about, its existence would (not may) falsify the VC’s claim that all relevant data has been presented.

        You can make this empty tautological statement about any paper.

        Why do you think such data exists?

        14

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:
          “Why do you think such data exists?”
          -
          What is your understanding of what the word ‘exists’ means?

          10

        • #
          bullocky

          Support for the assertion that there is unpublished information (or data) consists within, but is not limited to, the ambit of your quotation from Professor McEwan’s statement:
          “Philip Shehan:
          (Prof. McEwan)’This is not the case. All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.“’
          -
          The studious addition of the words – ‘that are of any scientific value’ – promotes the proposition that other data exists.
          The alternative statement: ‘There is no unpublished data…..’, would decisively have shown Prof. McEwan seeking to quash any other conclusion.

          21

          • #
            the Griss

            If they only published data from that paper “that are of any scientific value “…

            … they would have a blank page !!

            SkS does NOT do things “that are of any scientific value “

            21

            • #
              bullocky

              The Griss:
              ‘If they only published data from that paper “that are of any scientific value “…

              … they would have a blank page !!’
              -
              Yes, most definitely!
              Professor McEwan is being a little ‘tongue in cheek’ here.

              30

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          A typically evasive and ridiculous response from bullocky. Why have you avoided repeated requests to tell me where your claims of missing data, 4% or otherwise etc. comes from? No-one has as yest answered my question as to what the missing datestamps refer to.

          Are you all just mindlessly repeating a meme without having any idea of what it is about?

          02

          • #
            the Griss

            “Are you all just mindlessly repeating a meme without having any idea of what it is about?”

            Gees that’s what you do all the time..

            Stop bloody wingeing, you moron. !!

            20

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan:
            ‘Are you all just mindlessly repeating a meme without having any idea of what it is about?”
            -
            Ahem, about mindless repetition……….
            -
            (and ad hom!)

            20

          • #
            the Griss

            Poor guy is on the verge of a mental relapse.

            Although his posts will still look much the same.

            30

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        Vic Gallus,

        I’m on email alert for any new posts and was entertained by Phlip Shehan writing in his recent comment:

        “This is a genuine question.[from me Philip]”

        Which begs the thought; is he admitting that his earlier questions were not genuine? Hence my amusement.

        Intrigued, I traced back the origins including to yours @ #20.1 @ May 24, 2014 at 8:53 am

        Re your disappeared SKS graph:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/tcp_raters2.gif

        An earlier copy at 19/May exists here, for which BTW I’ve retained a screen copy:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20140519195019/http://skepticalscience.com/pics/tcp_raters2.gif

        It is rather strange that the said image with such relevant ID’s should be disappeared from the SKS website what? Do you have any suggestions as to why that might be?

        40

        • #

          Thanks Bob. Andrew has also kept a copy. I’m guessing that they still want to pretend that they wanted to keep the raters names anonymous. I don’t get the reasoning behind this if the rating was supposed to be as objective as possible. It also shows that Cook rated the abstracts and the people in the acknowledgments can easily be identified.

          It also shows how fast they rated the abstracts. 500 in a day comes out to be 8 solid hours spending a minute on each. I know that I struggled with marking when I was a teacher but I needed at least 3 minutes to assess a high-school students work.

          30

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Which begs the thought; is he admitting that his earlier questions were not genuine?

          A genuine question, requiring an answer, as opposed to rhetorical.

          Not sure which yours is but giving you an answer.

          And interstingly, I don’t get answers to my genuine questions, like my question on what exactly are these date stamps, hidden data etc. that people keep going on about.

          Are they just repeating complaints they have picked up not knowing what they are on about. (Count that as genuine)

          Oh, and I too had too laugh after reading your criticism for using stuff from SkS.

          Actually I rarely do. Just a couple of graphs and a trend calculator which no-one has been able to show are incorrect, and I have given repeated evidence of their legitimacy to people like you who scoff at SkS (except when they find the stuff useful)

          04

          • #
            Bob_FJ

            Philip Shehan,

            Thanks for the continuing entertainment:

            “Oh, and I too had too laugh after reading your criticism for using stuff from SkS.
            Actually I rarely do. Just a couple of graphs and a trend calculator which no-one has been able to show are incorrect, and I have given repeated evidence of their legitimacy to people like you who scoff at SkS (except when they find the stuff useful)”

            Check out the number of times you recently cited scepticalscience at the following thread just here at Jo’s, let alone as regurgitated repeatedly from other site threads:

            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/abbott-needs-to-be-more-pro-science-and-cut-funding-to-models-that-dont-work/

            Using my trusty slide-rule and the magic of digital search, I make it 7 times with a calculated error bar of 1-each-way.

            One problem with using SKS stuff is that they have a terrible reputation for various falsities. I would not trust their trend and error margin tool further than I can spit, that being compounded by it being claimed to be based on methodology from the discredited ‘Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011’. (Foster is the infamous Grant Foster AKA Tamino …. a cute character in Mozart’s ‘The magic Flute’, so there is really no need to go any further).

            As for your repeated use of curve fitting from an unknown formula, e.g. both Richard Courtney and I have debunked it for various reasons

            41

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              And how many of these posts references to SkS were not 2 graphs, and use of the trend calculator I mention?

              “Skeptics” are fond of claiming that because they have disputed others, they have “debunked them.on SkS indicates absoluterly nothing.

              Courtney is a serial abuser on WUWTS who, when I presented an alternative not from SkS failed to challenge it:

              http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg

              “I would not trust their trend and error margin tool further than I can spit…”

              Responding to this childish SKS boo hiss nonsense on many occasions, I used a set of the data supplied by the trend calculator data setsand entered them into my HP scientific calculator and their regression program on my calculator.

              The trend and sigmna values matched those given by the trend calculator.

              As did the data and trend lines in the graphics window when compared with WFT.

              I did not calculate ether the trend or sigma values using the Foster and Rhamsdorf modification of the trend calculator, precisely because I felt I was in no position to verify it.

              I used the basic program.

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html

              13

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘Courtney is a serial abuser on WUWTS who, when I presented an alternative not from SkS failed to challenge it:’
                -
                Because someone appears to ignore you, it doesn’t mean you are correct. Its very probable that Richard Courtney had more important things to do. (Please don’t be offended; that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are unimportant, Philip Shehan)
                And this is the basis for your accusation of ‘serial abuser’ against Richard Courtney?
                -
                The Griss’ has really gotten to you, hasn’t he?

                21

              • #
                the Griss

                “I used the basic program”

                “Basic” is the right word.

                but even basic programs require some user awareness and know-how.

                Whoops.. you missed again !!

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                “failed to challenge it”

                Philip…… just a hint…

                MOST PEOPLE JUST IGNORE YOU..

                You are not special !!!

                51

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                More on Richard Courtney’s “debunking” of the accelerating temperature graph with specific reference to the activities of DB Stealey, on the WUWT site as referred to in my post below:

                # 27.1.3 Philip Shehan
                May 28, 2014 at 11:40 pm • Reply

                He began his correspondence with me by calling me a liar for disputing that temperature had not accelerated in the period from 1880 to 2007.

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/#comment-1189640

                He begins posting as D Boehm, then shifts to D Boehm Stealey and finally DB Stealy for the reasons I gave below.

                He is joined by Richards Courtney and they keep kept shifting the goal posts and indulging in personal abuse. I kept saying I was specifically dealing the 1880 2007 period as shown in the paper and attempt repeatedly and unsuccessfully to redirect them to this point.

                Boehm/Stealey’s response to attempt to show that the temperature trend since that period is linear by introduction of a completely irrelevant horizontal line in order to compress the data in order to show the fit is “linear” brought this response from me:

                1. Philip Shehan says:
                January 4, 2013 at 4:42 pm
                D Boehm,

                Look, don’t try to blow smoke. You have been caught out manipulating the data sets to produce a chart which attempts to hide the trend.

                Here is your chart going back to 1850:
                http://tinyurl.com/bkoy8or

                and here is your chart with the irrelevant camouflage removed.

                http://tinyurl.com/af5xwmv

                Your linear fit, stripped of the camouflage is inferior to the nonlinear fit:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

                When I repeatedly ask him for the reason for inserting the line yellow line (a practice for which he had been previously outed), he refuses to answer, finally giving the classic reply of the evasive witness on the stand “I don’t recall.” Nonsense.

                After this Boehm/Stealey and Courtney follow me to other topics on WUWT and keep going back to this topic. When I respond, Courtney fulminates against me for “disrupting” the thread by discussing this matter, rather than the current topic.

                14

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, for one who has repeatedly picked me up for what you claim is inexact word usage, I did not say the Courtney ignored me.

                As I note above, far from ignoring me, he and Stealey stalked me across WUWT returning to this topic again and again.

                In all this time Courtney failed to challenge this graph:

                http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg

                No Griss has not “gotten” to me. He is simply a moron.

                You on the other hand, I once thought better of.

                14

              • #
                the Griss

                Seriously.. Who gives a rat’s a**e about your little quibble with Courtney on WUWT.

                Stop being a total wuss !!

                You really do need to GET OVER YOURSELF. !!!

                And again with the 3rd order poly.. roflmao. !!

                31

              • #
                the Griss

                And here is hadsst2 since the 1998 Elnino.

                DOWNWARDS !!!!

                and no polynomials needed, … little child. :-)

                31

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                Responding to those of your comments which are fairly clear in meaning to me:

                “And how many of these posts references to SkS were not 2 graphs, and use of the trend calculator I mention?”

                They were all either the SKS tool or the single SKS 3rd order polynomial graph. (You can verify by going to the thread and doing a digital search for: skepticalscience (one word, and visually scanning for highlighted URL’s)

                “Courtney is a serial abuser on WUWTS who, when I presented an alternative not from SkS failed to challenge it:”

                I guess this is the same as the graph that you clarioned to me severally and which I also ignored. As you have agreed elsewhere, the climate system includes many natural oscillations which cannot be described by a lovely smooth accelerating mathematical curve, (which you think correlates with CO2). And anyway, your claimed alternative was not for global average but for SST’s and was anonymous. I guess that Richard Courtney justly had no time for it either.

                “Responding to this childish SKS boo hiss nonsense on many occasions, I used a set of the data supplied by the trend calculator data setsand entered them into my HP scientific calculator and their regression program on my calculator. The trend and sigmna values matched those given by the trend calculator.”

                Well, it’s hardly surprising that if you entered the SKS data and regression programme into your calculator that you got the same results as SKS. All that does is validate your calculator, but the question as to whether the SKS methodology is correct and your interpretation of it, remains uhm….. dodgy.

                “As did the data and trend lines in the graphics window when compared with WFT.”

                One of the things that you have evaded is the question of whether WFT’s use of the more popular OLS linear trending for ALL types of data scatter is appropriate, (let alone that the ASSUMPTION of a straight linear trend is good, e.g. see Klyashtorin & Lyubushin)

                “I did not calculate ether the trend or sigma values using the Foster and Rhamsdorf modification of the trend calculator, precisely because I felt I was in no position to verify it. I used the basic program.”

                Please note that under the basic programme, it gives: “Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)”
                I have not bothered to checked this out because the infamous Tamino/Grant Foster is involved, but note that the error margins are greatly reduced under their alternative hypotheses, (which alone would stop you from using it). However, their alternative methodology is daft. You simply cannot expunge stuff that is part of the climate system, even if the actual effect of say El Nino could possibly be accurately separated!

                30

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                What a load of absolute conflation and exaggeration!
                Your first link is not found but I traced it to a long thread here:

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/

                Of the almost three hundred comments (298) there were five uses of the word liar (per digital search) in severally veiled ways. Your first comment against D Boehm Stealey (hereinafter DBS) includes: “…I have tried to be polite but since you are implying I am a liar…” and, from there, you got hyperventilated. You even got offended by him using more than one ‘nom de blog’, even though you have at least two that we know of!
                Whilst I too am puzzled by DBS’s inclusion of the offset yellow line, which has the effect of compressing the Y axis scale, careful examination nevertheless shows that there is no extraordinary RECENT acceleration in warming. For instance, here is a closer examination in WFT using the same data source (HADCRUT3vgl):

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1946/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1976/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1946/trend

                According to my eyeballs the biggest acceleration was between 1910 to 1946, before CO2 really accelerated.

                You then resorted to this:

                “…and here is your [DBS] chart with the irrelevant camouflage removed.

                http://tinyurl.com/af5xwmv

                Your [DBL] linear fit, stripped of the camouflage is inferior to the nonlinear fit:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

                You can’t be serious in promoting the accidentally fitting of a 3rd order polynomial for which you do not even know the formula or why it might be significant?

                40

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                Sorry, my 20.2.2.2.9 relates to your 20.2.2.2.4

                30

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                Re your 20.2.2.2.5

                AGAIN, why should Richard Courtney respond to your silly anonymous and irrelevant graph?

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Yes Bob, an entirely unbiased and objective reading of the entire thread I am sure. The abuse was confined to them calling me a liar.

                My “hyperventalation” was in response to the utter refusal of Boehm and Courtney to stick to the discussion, concerning a graph in the paper and the time period it was covering from 1880 to 2007, carrying on and abusing me about temperature trends at turn of the 21st century claiming that over that time period temperatures were not accelerating, ignoring the fact that I never claimed that temperature was accelerating over that short period (for the simple reason that it is impossible to tell given the low signal to noise ratio.)

                The graph showing the curve fit was exactly relevant to the topic of the temperature trend from 1880 to 2007, specifically the argument as to whether the data was better fit by a curve or a straight line.

                Boehm showed his confidence in the superiority of a linear fit by finding it necessary to manipulate the graph in order to claim that it was. My “resorting” to exposing this was thus entirely on point. And he had been outed for doing it elsewhere and at other times.

                There is nothing “puzzling” about his inserting the yellow line to compress and flatten the appearance of the temperature data. The exact purpose was to make it look more like a straight line.

                My drawing attention to his changing screen name (which I mentioned here not in the WUWT discussion) was in relation to the timing, this being after his exposure as a serial data manipulator.

                With your comments about the period 1910 to 1946 or whatever and CO2 concentrations,you are doing what Boehm and Courtney were doing, not looking at the broad trend of the entire period and going into irrelevant theoretical speculation behind the causese or non-causes of the shape of the temperature graph.

                The only point I was making was whether a straight line or an accelerating curve better fir the temperature dat from 1880 to 2007.

                There is no theoretical justification for a linear fit either.

                I did not go into this on the WUWT discussion as the topic was, once again, the appearence of the temperature graph from 1880 to 2007 not any theoretical justifiaction.

                That said the theoretical justification for an accelerating temperature trend, matching the acceleration trend in CO2 concentration over the same period.

                As for Boehm and Courtneys failure to respond to graph every bit as legitimate as a linear fit, the point is that they had plenty to say about linear the graph by Robert Way(appearing on SkS) ignoring the “provenance” for the graph which they think can be dismissed simply because it appeared on SKS. But presented with a graph supplied by one of their skeptic allies which supported way’s graph, there was a refusal to mention it.

                04

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Bob, from the thread:

                richardscourtney says:
                January 8, 2013 at 11:47 am
                Philip Shehan:

                I write to reject your false and untrue assertion in your post at January 8, 2013 at 8:14 am which says I made “personal attacks” on you…I made no “personal attacks” on you…Later I suspected you were only pretending to be a sad, little, stupid man and stated my suspicion. You replied by confirming my suspicion was correct.

                This was after I had posted this list, which I then repeated:

                “Your posts in this thread clearly demonstrate your skills at misrepresenting data.”

                “If there are people reading this thread who are sufficiently gullible as to be gulled by your misrepresentation then you have already misled them. And you are demeaning yourself in the eyes of everyone who is not that gullible.”

                “Your illogical assertions have been refuted – repeatedly and by several people – in this thread, but you continue with your blather.”

                “you persist in being deaf to the refutation of your nonsense.”

                “The only deafness is yours, and it seems to be deliberate.”

                “Everybody can see you are wrong. If you cannot see you are wrong then you are deluding yourself”

                “Continuing as you are can only make you look even more foolish.”

                “see if you can recognise the blatant logical flaw which it contains”

                “But you say (in your post at January 7, 2013 at 1:56 pm) that you lack friends to help you.”

                “Clearly, if I had known of your lack I would not have made such a cruel suggestion, and I hope you will accept my apology for having made such a hurtful mistake.”

                “may gain you the ability to interact with those around you because it seems likely that your behaviour (as exhibited on this thread) is probably a major contributing factor in your ability to obtain and/or keep friends.”

                This mode of scientific discussion from Courtney continued on this thread and on subsequent threads.

                13

              • #
                the Griss

                Oh dear.. I see a case of severe OCD and ADHD kicking in..

                At your age, that is not good.

                Find something to occupy your time………. Don’t keep wasting it like you do here.

                31

              • #
                the Griss

                Hey, I wonder how long we can keep this twerp posting meaningless claptrap on a dead thread….

                where, if he had the brains to realise it, he has been ground into the dirt.

                Keep posting Philly, dear.

                Laughter is the best medicine, they say… and I find you quite hilarious, in low grade clown sort of way.

                31

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Bob,

                Thank you for affirming that my references to material presented on SkS were limited to 2 graphs and a linear regression algorithm.

                “Well, it’s hardly surprising that if you entered the SKS data and regression programme into your calculator that you got the same results as SKS. All that does is validate your calculator, but the question as to whether the SKS methodology is correct and your interpretation of it, remains uhm….. dodgy.”

                It is not SKS data there is a link to the various data bases, (GISS, Hadcrut, RSS etc) which are used as input parameters into the algorithm.

                The point Bob, is that if the same input parameters are put into algorithms from different sources (and I believe Hewlett Packard has a reputation for credibility with its products) you must either conclude that the two algorithms have the same flaw (a very low probability), or they are both correct.

                And although it does not give sigma values, the WFT graphs affirm the data (not surprising as WFT also sources its input fromthe databases of the collecting bodies) and the superimposed linear fits, although again WFT does not give the calculated slope.

                “One of the things that you have evaded is the question of whether WFT’s use of the more popular OLS linear trending for ALL types of data scatter is appropriate, (let alone that the ASSUMPTION of a straight linear trend is good, e.g. see Klyashtorin & Lyubushin)”

                Bob I have written many, many times on the uses and limitations of linear fits to data. (And, no I am not going to chase that up for you.)

                I reject the idea that temperature trends follow a straight line, There is no theoretical justification for this whatsoever. The linear fit is an approximation suitable for certain limited timespans.

                Now this is precisely the point I was disputing with Boehm/Stealey and Courtney. They insist that a linear fit is appropriate way back to 1850. Mind you, Boehm/Stealey had to present doctored graphs to back this assertion, such is his confidence in the truth of the claim.

                I presented alternative graphs that were NOT linear showing a curved accelerating fit that was clearly superior, in that even eyeballig the graphs showed that the curved line went through the data more closely, whereas the straight line is below the data curve at early dates and above it at later, of itself showing an accelerating rise in temprature.

                For disagreeing with their claim of the suitability of a linear fit, I was subject to the buckets of abuse, examples of which are given in my other response to you.

                ‘Please note that under the basic programme, it gives: “Data: (For definitions and equations see the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011)”’

                Yes but again the algorithm delivers the same results as that used by Hewlett Packard’s. And the same graphical data and slope as WFT.

                There are two options calculation of trends and errors in the trend calculator, with and without use of Foster and Rahmstorf’s “adjusted” data.

                I assume it is this data adjustment process that people have criticised and that I was wary of, which is why I chose the unadjusted option.

                By the way the lalgorithm is not SkS’s. It is by Kevin C and it appears on SKS.

                Just as the accelerating fit graph and a detailed lengthy explanation of its “provenence” to use the term Boehm/Stealey kept saying did not exist, is by Dr Robert way.

                But refusing to acknowledge that such material is the product of different individuals but is produced by an amorphous entity SkS (boo, hiss) skeptics tell each other they can avoid any attempt to evaluate the material(and that includes refereed publications inthe literature that SkS uses in it’s arguments) on its merits.

                A real let out for the stupid and nothing that even approaches “skepticism” which these people claim to adhere to.

                13

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                I’ll respond briefly to some of your “mistakes” in 20.2.2.2.16 in the hope that you will learn
                1) Re para 1: No, I did not say that; go and check.
                2) Re paras 2 – 4: Contradicted by what you actually wrote I think, with my bold emphasis added: “Responding to this childish SKS boo hiss nonsense on many occasions, I used a set of the data supplied by the trend calculator data sets and entered them into my HP scientific calculator and their regression program on my calculator. The trend and sigmna values matched those given by the trend calculator.”
                3) Re Para 5: Waffle; yawn.
                4) Re Para 6 &7: The issue that you repeatedly evade is that OLS linear trending is criticised in the literature when there is wide scatter or outliers in data. You (and maybe WFT) do not seem to be aware that there are other linear trending methods to be considered. (and anyway a linear trend at break-over on an apparent 60-year cycle is probably NOT the best assumption)
                5) Re Para 8: Well yes, to a degree, although many of your fellow alarmists use it, and it does have some useful considerations/applications.
                6) Re para 9 – 19: YAWN, more waffle, and it his gone beyond the point of entertainment…..

                10

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan @ 20.2.2.2.12,

                I don’t have time to wade through your long waffle, but a couple of things, briefly:

                a) The reason I said I was puzzled by DBS compressing the Y axis was that I wondered if this was not the only way he expressed his view. But, in trying to trace back the two URLs that you quoted, neither of them led back to the source. On the other hand, as I showed in a WFT plot without such compression, it showed even more clearly that there has been no recent acceleration in warming. (which also contradicts your silly accidentally fitting accelerating polynomial)
                b) I did a search for: “error margin” in the subject thread and only Gail Combs mentioned it once out of 298 comments from January 2013! Despite that you claim to have had some three decades of statistical expertise beyond other mortals you only dissented in that thread on the start and end points of short OLS linear tends, (with no consideration of error margins). On later threads, suddenly you were all about error margins per SKS showing that the current pause is statistically not a pause! (and other experts say?)

                10

          • #
            Bob_FJ

            Philip Shehan,

            Oh, and moreover and furthermore, re: my emphasis below in your quote

            :
            “Oh, and I too had too laugh after reading your criticism for using stuff from SkS.
            Actually I rarely do. Just a couple of graphs and a trend calculator which no-one has been able to show are incorrect, and I have given repeated evidence of their legitimacy to people like you who scoff at SkS (except when they find the stuff useful)”

            Sorry, but where, when, or what, was that?

            41

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Many, many times. The verification of the program mentioned above using my own calculator, the non SkS version of the polynomial fit, the match of the data trend window with WFT.

              05

              • #
                the Griss

                Gees and since when did polynomial fits have ANYTHING to do with climate.

                GET A F*****G CLUE !! FFS !!

                You use massively corrupted data,

                and then pretend to yourself that a polynomial fit has any meaning

                Seriously….. How much lower can your mathematical integrity sink !!!

                Did you really ever do any science or maths???????

                I am certainly beginning to doubt you even past high school !!

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                Here’s the unadjusted sst’s

                Now go finish your 3rd bottle !

                41

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Philip Shehan,

                Run that by me again please:

                “…I have given repeated evidence of their legitimacy to people like you…”

                And:

                “Many, many times. The verification of the program mentioned above using my own calculator, the non SkS version of the polynomial fit, the match of the data trend window with WFT.”

                I don’t remember any claims of yours which had any evidence of legitimacy. See also my 20.2.2.2.8 above.

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Bob I don’t expect that everyone should have read or remember everything I have posted.

                Equally, it is not my problem that you don’t remember.

                But you asked and I did you the courtesy of replying.

                11

              • #
                the Griss

                “Bob I don’t expect that everyone should have read or remember everything I have posted.’

                Very few people do read your posts, (why would they waste their time)….. only those amused by moronic clowns.

                Slapstick humour, so to speak.

                41

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan:
            ‘Are they just repeating complaints they have picked up not knowing what they are on about. (Count that as genuine)’
            -
            Reviewing your own work, again, I see!

            31

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              So bullocky where is the information I keep requesting on where you get your 4% missing data claim from and you keep failing to supply?

              13

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘So bullocky where is the information I keep requesting on where you get your 4% missing data claim from and you keep failing to supply?’
                -
                See Jo’s reply to your comment @
                Philip Shehan

                May 27, 2014 at 10:07 am
                -
                If you reply earnestly to this comment instead of repeating an expanded version of your post that prompted it, you’ll have the answer to your question.
                -
                Do it, and move on!

                21

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                You see people, you see what I mean about bullocky’s habit of dancing around, evading direct questions put to him that he cannot/will not answer?’

                bullocky directs me to a post which began:

                bullocky, still waiting for where this 4% figure comes from.

                What is all this about “missing data”?

                What is this obsession with “date stamps”…

                Ms Nova’s comment says nothing about the 4% data you claim is missing. It is about “datestamps” Neither she nor anyone else answered my question about what they are.

                My response ot Ms Nova is at # 4.2.3.2.20.

                Note to bullocky, next time give the refernece number. Posts on this blog to not appear in chronological order.
                [But they do appear in subject matter order, if you use the Reply button -Fly]

                12

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘bullocky directs me to a post which began:….’
                -
                I directed you to Jo’s comment in response to your noted post, and to reply to its content – comprehensively, I might add, and particularly in respect of Richard Tol’s input and the implications thereof. The enlightenment you so obviously crave will surely follow (IMHO).

                21

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thank you Fly, That tip will spare me a lot of scrolling.

                14

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              bullocky, I will see if the required information is actually there.

              But again I note your inability to supply the information yourself about your comment.

              And you demand from me, with the regularity of a chiming clock, that I substantiate my statements.

              And with all your evasive dancing around, you have still not answered my question:

              What to you mean by your statement that?:

              ‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.

              And I note your evasive pirouette, which left the question unanswered: “the ‘in itself’ is important” (Give me strength, Lord.)

              Try to get out of that one by referring me to someone else.

              You will also note in reference to my previous comments about how I have lost patience with you, but I am prepared to cut people a lot of slack before I give up on being polite, that my replies to BobL remain (thus far) civil, in spite of provocation.

              16

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘And you demand from me, with the regularity of a chiming clock, that I substantiate my statements.’
                – Your a thirty-year scientist; you should do it habitually!
                -
                Philip Shehan
                ‘What to you mean by your statement that?:

                ‘Science’, in itself, is activity neutral.’

                bullocky #24.1.1.1.1
                (You don’t read enough – you’re too busy composing ad homs!)
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘ (Give me strength, Lord.)’
                - Be nice to Monckton of Brenchley, and he might be nice to you!
                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ‘but I am prepared to cut people a lot of slack before I give up on being polite,…..’
                –”idiot” and “moron” are two of your ‘polite’ words
                (in spite of provocation!)

                11

  • #
    James Bradley

    Okay just doing a survey all legal with date stamps and everything so up to this point there are 74 responses to this post.

    Now a few are by the same authors but that’s okay because each response is unique and therefore valid.

    Now if I was a scientific analysis I would simply re-check the results but his is statistical analysis so I will compile the results and divide by the number of authors.

    So that is a total of 74 various responses divided by 42 authors.

    So that makes it 1.76 responses per author.

    Now there are 2 authors that agree with the validity of statistical analyses of science and they have written 7 of those responses.

    So that is 3.5 responses per author.

    Now if we divide the number pro statistical responses by the number of total various responses we get 3.5 divided by 1.76 which equals ….. 1.988.

    So we can say statistically that there are 1.988 times more authors who support statistical analysis of science on this post… and it is date stamped.

    So now we divide the base figure of 1.988 by the number of authors it represents so that is 1.988 divided by 2 and that equals… wow that equals 99.4%

    See… so of the 2 authors supporting 100% of statistical analysis of science on this post date stamped and legal – only 99.4% agree.

    Unbelievable now perpetual motion is the green technology of the future… so Phil, Brian you guys want in before I take it public…

    Insider trading…. no… I’ve just protected the data for commercial purposes… they can’t prove nuthin….

    130

    • #
      James Bradley

      However, statistically, I’m pretty sure I can prove nuthin – if only I could get hold of the data…

      Brian, Phil can you me do me a solid here or what, us skeptics of science gotta stick together – what do you say, could be a quid in it for ya?

      What do you mean it’s about the science?

      Since when?

      70

  • #
    bobl

    Forwarded a media alert to the Queensland Education Minister.

    40

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    All, I appreciate your participation concerning my UQ open letter both pro and con. Your hostess Jo is a very courageous person. Discrete, as she knows there is more going on here than has met the eye. For starters, look up the Ike Antkere and SCIgen references. Media alerts are just now quite important. Thanks, fex, BOBL.

    A request. Jo told me privately one of the things she admired but dispaired was sceptical individualism. I told her that was sometimes a strength, and sometimes not.
    On this UQ issue, NOT. Join under her banner. I am providing sufficient PR ammo. Stop ‘qvetching’ and start ‘shooting’. Meaning media and alumni. Or get the hey off the playing field.

    My regards to all from the other side of the World.

    70

    • #
      bobl

      I have to agree, to mobilise the politicians we need to let the politicians know they look silly, so pointing them to places where Queensland is embarassing itself is likely to get their attention if they want to see the treasury benches next time. But it does take more than one complaint to get past the minders. Politicians only act if they see either a political advantage or are being annoyed by dozens of pesky constituents who they want to shut up. This whole mess was caused by pesky green constituents that the pollies wanted to shut up, only problem is that those pesky constituents are greens, giving them what they want just encourages the collectivists to want more.

      UQ is clearly at fault of either abusing the law or of very poor data handling and obstruction or both and it has painted itself into a corner which can only really be ended with an apology to Schollenburger and an investigation of Cooks possible incompetent data handling.

      I too have had the conversation with Jo, herding individualists like most sceptics is like herding cats. The collectivists have the advantage that they naturally come to a common view usually based on emotive argument, sheep following a single leader. Opposition from sceptics is fragmented with many opposing viewpoints from many positions.. this plays out poorly in policy making and the media. There’s no spokesperson for individualists, by individualism’s very nature. It’s a real problem, it’s what causes the “Silent Majority” effect.

      I think it has a pronounced political effect too, a small but organised group say the homosexual marriage lobby, oops I mean homosexual behaviour in public lobby, can appear to represent the opinions of a majority because the opinions of the Majority opposed are fragmented across a spectrum of viewpoints and there’s no single position to speak to. The noisy single position lobby groups stand out as a particular policy position while the varying spectra of opposing opinion doesn’t. Strength is weakness.

      40

    • #
      vic g gallus

      Jo told me privately one of the things she admired but dispaired was sceptical individualism. I told her that was sometimes a strength, and sometimes not.

      Its strength is that it is obvious that people are thinking for themselves and pointing out flaws that they honestly found for themselves. They’re not trying to join the mob. I keep mentioning how you don’t need to deny the science to be labelled a denier to illustrate the point.

      Don’t fall for the “they’re fighting amongst each other” ploy. We’re sceptics for Pete’s sake.

      40

    • #
      bullocky

      My compliments and best wishes to you, Rud Istvan!
      -
      You may, or may not, become a hero in your lifetime.
      But, for certain, you will have neither assistance nor open competition from the Climate Establishment.

      40

  • #
    the Griss

    I Invite everyone to research the names of the people listed in the acknowledgements.

    EVERY ONE that I could isolate was a RADID warmist.

    A couple were involved in the 100% renewable energy push as well, no conflict of interest there, of course !

    This whole sorry episode is a FRAUD from top to toe. !!

    And I think UQ knows it !!!

    111

    • #
      the Griss

      ps, I didn’t search for Wendy Cook.. I assumed it was John’s wife.

      40

      • #
        James Bradley

        Griss, Phil Shehan is smooth and persuasive and he merely confirmed for me that the so called consensus has nothing to do with science.

        It is merely the compilation of statistics on the selected, and exceedingly small, number of papers whose authors believed in AGW. The many thousands of papers whose authors did not believe in AGW were discarded.

        The purpose of the consensus was to deliberately manufacture a desired outcome calculated to benefit the political advantage of the government of the day along with various interest groups including Skeptical science along with the prestige of the University of Queensland.

        But we knew that, just nice to have it confirmed from an expert witness.

        70

        • #
          the Griss

          “Phil Shehan is smooth ”

          I would use the word “slimy”

          ….but each to their own .

          50

          • #
            bobl

            Maybe slippery is a better description. Phil unfortunately has no conviction – for example he has already shown in response to my comments that he calculates warming trajectory since 1900 to be 1.9F per doubling but yet continues to trumpet that cAGW 3-6 degrees per doubling as being some sort of moral imperative. For someone who professes to be a scientist as Phil does, reaching such a conclusion and then ignoring your own inconvenient proof in the negative is pretty slippery.

            Phil is an activist, but an activist that has a bit of a grip on science… pity he doesn’t use that grip for the good of mankind, but would rather see pensioners and babies increasingly dying from energy poverty.

            He’s pretty unique, 99% of people when faced with the facts that Phil has proved for himself abandon the fantasy they have built. Phil denies it exists, he continues to believe in santa-claus because he simply wants it to be true.

            40

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              bobl,

              I calculated a first order empirical valuation of the sensitivity factor from 2 different time periods as 2 C and noted that this agreed with another literature figure. I noted that this is within the IPCC range of 1.4 to 4.5 C.

              I am not saying that my figure or the IPCC’s must be correct. I am simply saying that my figures are consistent with other published figures.

              To claim that this means I regard this range as a moral imperitive is a ridiculousconstrution of yours without any foundation.

              I have said many times science does not prove anything.

              The rest of your comment, including the claim that I have ignored “proof” allegedly provided by Griss is equally rubbish. (Since when am I or anyone else required to accept Griss’s opinion on this. I might just as well claim he has ignored my calculation. And if he wishes to do so, so what?)

              I don’t remember Griss’s alleged proof, but if it is of the same quality of his assertion that temperatures have not risen since 1979, I rejected it outright. I did not ignore it.

              02

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:

                ‘I have said many times science does not prove anything.’
                -
                This is more representative than your previous; Science does not ATTEMPT to prove anything.

                10

        • #
          James Bradley

          Sorry Griss, not used to the very blunt cut and thrust of scientific diplomacy.

          I have on occasion been placed in a position wher I need to deal with people from diverse cultures including many with middle eastern backgrounds and views that are well described as extremist.

          By and large I have experienced that these people show more courtesy and respect towards others in discussing their beliefs and perspectives than most AGW proponents I have encountered and so I always try to reciprocate positively (other than the times when a situation requires escalation in the use of farce: satire, irony, sarcasm).

          However, I am prepared to accept your expert character appraisal on these academic matters.

          30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I have been deliberately silent in this conversation — I do not possess the firepower to meaningly contribute — but I have played to my strengths and sat and watched, and analysed.

          The way Philip Shehan responds, and the words he chooses indicates that he is extremely tense and probably frightened about something. He is certainly hiding something by, “Making smoke”, as the Navy says. His modus operandi is to be dismissive of points he does not want to address, and then immediately counter attack on a different point, or to change tack entirely.

          He also resorts to long lists of previous points that have been discussed, but couches them in his words, rather than the original words used. This makes it harder for people to recreate the thoughts they had during the previous conversation. It is a technique used to, “get the last word”, and to perhaps score bonus points.

          On reflection, he dissembles as if he is hiding something extremely embarrassing, like having a grandmother who is a werewolf. I guess we will find out what it is, in time. Has anybody seen Philip Shehan and John Cook in the same room at the same time?

          30

      • #
        bullocky

        The Griss:
        ‘ps, I didn’t search for Wendy Cook.. I assumed it was John’s wife.’
        -
        Not necessarily.
        A self-respecting woman may choose to keep her family name.
        Wendy Cook is probably not Philip Shehan’s wife, either!
        :-)

        20

    • #
      bullocky

      The Griss:
      ‘EVERY ONE that I could isolate was a RADID warmist’
      -
      Was Philip Shehan’s name mentioned?
      -
      The Griss: ‘This whole sorry episode is a FRAUD from top to toe. !’
      -
      Oops! Of course not!

      30

      • #
        the Griss

        No, Philip was not mentioned.

        He never was, and never will be, a cog in any wheel.

        30

      • #
        the Griss

        As he has shown in his career….. mental dysfunction and narcissism does not lead to inclusion.

        30

  • #

    It appears that, due to John Cook’s public silence in this matter for approximately the last month, the UQ could have told John Cook to shut up (gagged him). If that is the case, it may mean UQ simply does not trust John Cook. If the UQ is smart they should probably tell Nuccitelli to shut up too.

    John

    30

    • #
      James Bradley

      John, from experience when you hear nothing from someone who is normally very vocal, especially when their integrity is questioned, it usually means they have gone to ground, bunkered down, waiting for the smoke to clear.

      If sceptics, who normally seem to present as splintered groups, can actually co-operate as a semi-organised outfit then the time to push for action would be about now.

      Up to this point it appears that all sceptic groups have done is throw a few pebbles from time to time in righteous indignation.

      It is not enough to know you are right.

      Now would be a window of opportunity to launch a cruise missile.

      Don’t forget that the AGW crowd are literally playing for cattle stations and at least one of the most prominent torch carriers of ‘the science is in’ allegedly didn’t mind a bit of fraud, corruption and conspiracy (but did draw the line at picking the nose).

      … from tiny axes did mighty oak trees fall.

      Now would be a good time to start honing the evidence for an organised removal of branches carrying poisoned fruit.

      40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I cannot help wondering what they may want to be hiding with all this, “Our data is ours and secret and if you get it we’ll sue you,” nonsense. It looks far too suspicious to me.

    Or maybe someone is so puffed up with arrogant pride that they simply don’t want the world to see that they have nothing new?

    Or maybe it’s nothing better than a locker room short arm contest? See! We have more power than you “deniers**” have.

    Pathetic is the right word for it. :-(

    ** The word has gained so much traction in the U.S. that I’m beginning to enjoy being called one.

    40

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Re: Philip Shehan,

    He has similar form elsewhere. Remember the fiasco of the Marcott et al paper which showed a classic NH hockey stick for the SH using proxy data with a definition of 300 years? (much finer definition is required). In the following blog thread the name shehan is search-matched 70 times, and it is gobsmacking stuff from him:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/quote-of-the-week-bad-eggs-in-the-marcott-et-al-omelete-recipe/

    Maybe 3/4 of the way down, Anthony Watts responded to Shehan:

    Anthony Watts says: April 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    Ah jeez Shehan, give it up, the Marcott study is toast and your focus minutiae is a waste of everyone’s time . Stop defending the indefensible and get your head out of your posterior so you can see the mess they created. Start by reading Ross McKitrick’s essay on the main page.

    Shehan’s persistence continued unabashed; provoking additional moderation actions until he was banned from the site.

    He also has form here on Jo’s site in a different vein where he was an “expert” in statistics, (80 matches to shehan), e.g.:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/abbott-needs-to-be-more-pro-science-and-cut-funding-to-models-that-dont-work/

    On the other hand maybe he just enjoys providing entertainment which we should share?

    50

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      No Bob.

      Watts ran another of many sections claiming that there was an inconsistency between graphs presented in Marcott’s thesis and diagrams in a paper of which he was co author. The jouirnal Science would have to retract the paper. This led to denunciation by the WUWT crowd that everyone associated with the thesis or the paper should be shamed and/or sacked. Uncerprisingly Scince has not found it necessary to retract the paper, notr has the university found it necessary to sancyion anything, because Watts got it wrong.

      I simply examined the graphs in question, pointed out precisely why they were not contradictory and asked people to click the links, look at them themselves.

      Not a single person pointed out where my analysis was wrong, but engaged in the usual continuous stream of personal abuse.

      I simply kept repeating, go and look at the graphs and explian where my assessment is wrong.

      This led to Watt’s extaordinary intervention and personal attack about my head being inserted in my anus.

      And it is not the people the people who keep attacking me and Marcott on this point and refusing to simply look at and the data and tell me where I am wrong that is a waste of people time, but my response: Go look at the data.

      And the key point of his many sections on this including that which I was commenting on, suddenly becomes “minutae” when neither he nor anyone else could show me where I was wrong. They were squibbing it BIG TME.

      More attacks by Watts and his acolytes followed, with his evident approval, including the mention of masturbation.

      Finally I decided that would sign of his blog permanently with a memorable reference to the remarks I had been subjected to [SNIP crass], in the certain knowledge that this blasphemous act of lesse majeste would earn a permanent banning.

      [Snip crass, no more reliving of this OK] enough this time on Watt’s part.

      All too believably, this colossal hypocrite rises up in righteous indication proclaiming the when I descend to personal abuse I have lost the argument. (This of course does not apply to the initial attacks or any others by Watts and his fans.)

      It was for this outrageous attack on the Great God Watts that I was banned from his temple of worship.
      [Well, whatever the truth may be, this is not the time nor place to re-litigate the argument, especially since the source material is now buried somewhere on WUWT. -Fly]

      04

      • #
        Heywood

        “Finally I decided that would sign of his blog permanently “

        Lol. This implies that you made the decision.

        Pretty sure the decision was made by Anthony.

        “When you engage in abusive sexual slurs such as you have done above, it becomes a policy violation, and thus it has earned you a ban from WUWT. Congratulations on your self-escalation. – Anthony”

        You then attempted to post three more times. Pretty convincing that you didn’t decide to do anything, except look like a bit of a goose. What you said was pretty nasty.

        Sorry Mods… I’ll move onto another subject.
        [Thank you -Fly]

        30

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        Philip Shehan,

        Just as I wrote in Jo’s earlier thread; “I don’t think I can help you any more”, but just a closing couple of tips:

        • To improve your communication ability, compose your comments in a word processor which has spelling and grammar/syntax checks, then proof-read & copy-paste. (This also benefits an archive back-up, what with your risk of moderation, whatever)
        • Concentrate on key issues, (for instance, for the last time, in the WUWT example, the proxy of definition of 300 years adapted to project a shorter 20th century uptick), and try to keep the word-count down to around 200.

        20

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Heywood and Fly. It is time to litigate the argument since you have allowed Heywood to make an acusations and it has been referred to on previous occasions on this blog. I think I am entitled to a defence.

        No one has to read it if they don’t wish to but I request the facts on be put on the record once, putting up the links, which are not buried:

        Here is the WUWT link:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/quote-of-the-week-bad-eggs-in-the-marcott-et-al-omelete-recipe/#comment-1262484

        This followed an earlier discussion of this matter:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/14/marcotts-hockey-stick-uptick-mystery-it-didnt-used-to-be-there/

        Note that Watts’ own chosen subject matter of these sections is the presence or absence of an “uptick“ in figures in Marcott’s thesis and in the Science paper which he co-authored.

        Watts’ later abusively dismisses the content of his own chosen sections as “minutiae” when he and his followers are unable or unwilling to counter my claims that there is no contradiction between these figures, and they have wrongly asserted that there are no upticks in Marcott’s thesis on the basis of one of seven figures in Marcott’s chapter 4.

        1. Anthony Watts says:
        April 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm
        Ah jeez Shehan, give it up, the Marcott study is toast and your focus minutiae is a waste of everyone’s time . Stop defending the indefensible and get your head out of your posterior so you can see the mess they created. Start by reading Ross McKitrick’s essay on the main page.

        He had earlier written:

        I don’t agree with your fawning defense of this fiasco,

        Note that my detailed substantiated critique confined to his own chosen specific aspect of the paper, not the whole thing, (later dismissed as “minutiae”) is a fawning defence.

        Do any of these people actually look at the material they are commenting on before they launch into their diatribes, or after when I pointed to the exact figures in the thesis and asked them to examine them?

        No one did this. They simply piled on abuse and irrelevancies.

        In my earlier response to Heywood’s other comment, I advanced possible reasons for the inability or unwillingness of people to take the time and effort to closely examine the text or figures in material intended for specialist audiences.

        Never the less, as with the Cook et al paper under discussion’ I put forward closely argued and comprehensive reasons with quotes in response to comments by others, in the manner I am used to when refereeing papers or grant applications or otherwise critiquing this kind of stuff, thinking at least some may have the ability or the desire to go through them. And at least my reasons are stated clearly on the record.

        That this simply attract rounds of abuse from the peanut gallery does not surprise me in the least.

        But when Mr Watts, who runs what he proudly proclaims as “The World’s most viewed SCIENCE blog”, cannot be bothered to do so, or possibly does so and sees his argument has been demolished and responds with personal abuse, that is another matter.

        This is not the first time he has intervened thus in comments to me over my time commenting on his blog.

        He abuses me and tells me he is tired of my posts precisely on his own chosen subject matter, when I am responding to others attacks on me and saying get back to the point. “Look at the graphs.”

        I am tired of having to repeat myself too. But he tells none of the abusers he is tired of them attacking me. They go on doing so, one with reference to masturbation, which along with Mr Watts own description of insertions into anatomical orifices became the origin of my own final response to Watts. It is only my defence that Mr Watts tires of.

        The last straw was when clever Mr Watts excercising the advantage of the editor snips my post in my defenceand makes a clever joke out of one phrase.

        That was it. I really did lose my temper. I had had it. My subsequent post was intended as a final send off… It was mot meant for public display, as over at Watts things are moderated before they were posted and they snip even the mildest criticisms of favourites. But that’s fine, but the moderator should have noted that the bolding was his/hers not mine.

        Taking them at their word, my subsequent posts were to the moderators and Watts only. That they decided to put them up in part or with the snip was their decision.

        Regarding Stealey. This odious individual had been stalking me for months. He had been outed on another blog as a person who misrepresents graphical data. They also noted that he was a moderator at Watts. He then changed his name from D. Boehm to DB Stealey and continued on as before. This was confirmed when I pointed to his manipulation of graphs in his posts. And he showed that he liked to wear two hats at the one time when he made an abusive response to a post of mine as a just another poster, when as moderator he had forgotten to put my post up.

        Yet this odious and thoroughly dishonest and abusive individual is allowed to remain a moderator. Thus my specific reference to him in my response.

        I do in one way regret losing my temper and descending to these people’s level. But they thoroughly deserved it.

        04

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan, as I pointed out to Christoff Dollis earlier in respect of his post disparaging the royal family; there are some claims in your post, above, that desperately need substantiation.
          -
          You must realise, Philip Shehan, that you are perceived as someone who supports the withholding of data as well as the conclusions relating thereto. For many readers of these pages, this seriously undermines your assertions, which could possibly be predicated on an historic preference for similar literature and conclusions in the scientific field.
          Perhaps you should demonstrate a capacity to understand the reluctance of people to read and or respect the content of your posts.

          10

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            This “perception” is of course in the minds of “skeptics” such as youself, who I have repeatedly asked what the basis is for their claim that there is missing data, and what the relevence of datestamps is. I repeated that I really would like a reply as I can not evaluate the validity of these claims without this information.

            No-one has replied, including you.

            03

            • #
              bullocky

              Philip Shehan:
              ‘No-one has replied, including you”
              -
              With (sorely tested) respect, Philip Shehan, I think you should go back and read more thoroughly.

              10

  • #
    bullocky

    Thanks Bob FJ
    Philip Shehan’s long and unwieldy posts (his use of itallics make them additionally difficult to read) are generally ignored by the majoriy of readers; the likes/dislike ratings rarely get into double figures, compared to unpopular troll posts of much greater magnitude.
    At
    bullocky

    May 25, 2014 at 1:25 am ,
    -
    I took the time to analyse and respond to his previous (typically long and unwieldy) post in detail. I found his analysis to be mistake-ridden and shallow.
    Worth a read; it may be revealing of the overlap of science and tactics and the abuse thereof.

    30

    • #
      Bob_FJ

      Bullocky,

      Yes, indeed, his long waffles appear to be a way of avoiding key issues.

      I also find it amusing that he claims great understanding of science and yet repeatedly cites naughty stuff from the SkepticalScience blog. Also, he assumes to know more about statistics than experts such as Steve McIntyre.

      30

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        The point is gentlemen; my long waffles confine themselves to a deliberately thorough response to points raised or rebuttal of accusations and misrepresentations made against me. I hope (without expectation) that this will cover things comprehensively and end the matter. If people lack the interest or attention span to read it, I don’t really care. I have responded to their comment.

        I can understand why bullocky did not like my lengthy quoting (that is the point of italics) in chronological order of thread where he accuses me of being mean to him. It is clear who actually gets personal.

        Similarly the lengthy analysis of complaints by authors regarding Cook et al, with direct quotes and analysis, was precisely on topic in response to Griss’s complaint that I was propagating an OUTRIGHT LIE and I knew it.

        And bullocky, I am perfectly willing to go through your 1.25 am post if you so desire. I just could not be bothered when you originally posted it. It will be bang on topic. Just give me the go ahead and no complaints about the length.

        It is often not possible to discuss serious subjects in science, especially when critics demand justification for points made (quite rightly too), in two or three paras.

        If this is a serious science blog, it just has to wear long posts occasionally.

        It would also help if I did not have to respond to abuse and misrepresentation with chapter and verse rebuttals.

        See my response to Heywood for more on this subject:
        20.1.2.1.3
        Philip Shehan
        May 28, 2014 at 11:03 am

        Word count 1286 but I prefer to be comprehensive.

        03

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Here’s another one bullocky won’t like:

          Philip Shehan
          May 27, 2014 at 11:01 pm
          Bullocky:

          02

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan:
            “Here’s another one bullocky won’t like:”
            -
            Petty priority for a scientist of thirty years.

            20

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              As opposed to your comments bullocky? And I could have listed more.

              02

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                ‘As opposed to your comments bullocky? And I could have listed more.’
                -
                Without the ad hom, you don’t have much to say, do you Philip Shehan?

                10

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:
          ‘And bullocky, I am perfectly willing to go through your 1.25 am post if you so desire. I just could not be bothered when you originally posted it. It will be bang on topic. Just give me the go ahead and no complaints about the length.’
          -
          Promises and excuses!
          -
          ……………..(a bit like CLIMATE MODELS)
          :-)

          20

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Bob_FJ
        May 27, 2014 at 8:58 am

        I also find it amusing that he claims great understanding of science and yet repeatedly cites naughty stuff from the SkepticalScience blog.

        You mean like the one you use here?

        Bob_FJ
        May 27, 2014 at 5:56 pm · Reply
        Vic Gallus,

        Re your disappeared SKS graph:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/tcp_raters2.gif

        An earlier copy at 19/May exists here, for which BTW I’ve retained a screen copy:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20140519195019/http://skepticalscience.com/pics/tcp_raters2.gif

        04

        • #
          Bob_FJ

          Philip Shehan,

          Thanks for yet more entertainment

          “I also find it amusing that he claims great understanding of science and yet repeatedly cites naughty stuff from the SkepticalScience blog.
          You mean like the one you use here?”

          Erh, you seem to have missed the point!

          Vic noted that SKS had “disappeared” stuff that identified raters and asked if anyone had a prior copy. (They are famous for this kind of activity when they go whoops) Amused that SKS have not yet learned that it is improper to “disappear” stuff as distinct from making acknowledged retraction, or that stuff cannot be reliably “disappeared” on the web, I went looking for it elsewhere and copied its URL for him.

          40

          • #
            bullocky

            Bob FJ:
            (in respect of Philip Shehan’s post)
            “Erh, you seem to have missed the point!”
            -
            He’s too preoccupied with what other people don’t like!

            30

          • #
            Bob_FJ

            It’s interesting that Dr Brian Philip Shehan is so convinced of the integrity of SKS that when they famously “disappear stuff”, (without explanation…. if it becomes embarrassing to them), that he does not recognise that this examples more of their dishonesty.

            40

        • #
          the Griss

          Seriously.. still citing SkS.!!!!!!

          How much are they paying you?

          You certainly can’t be doing it out of ANY scientific validity.

          20

          • #
            bullocky

            The Griss:
            ‘Seriously.. still citing SkS.!!!!!!

            How much are they paying you? ‘
            -
            -
            For many people, quoting The Bible proves the existence of God!

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              No, you need the marketing concept of God, to promote the sale of Bibles.

              40

              • #
                bullocky

                R.W.:
                ‘No, you need the marketing concept of God, to promote the sale of Bibles.’
                :-)
                -
                When the market saturates and sales decline, a new marketable line is needed.
                As you rightly indicate; marketing a concept can lead to a multiplicity of saleable products as opposed to promoting an individual, finite product. In general, the greater the potential for sales, the larger the marketing budget.

                20

        • #
          the Griss

          I’ve ignored you for a while Philip, because basically your insanity isn’t worth more than a minute or two of my time..

          But I come back just to see if you have anything worthwhile to offer….

          and darn I see you really have sunk deeper and deeper into the mire of disillusionment.

          Also signs of alcoholism and OCD.

          Step away. For you sanity’s sake, dude. !!!

          30