tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post8008650999657038265..comments2024-03-22T03:25:26.405-04:00Comments on WAG: What "hiding the decline" really looks likewaghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-879394420124106912012-02-05T17:15:16.088-05:002012-02-05T17:15:16.088-05:00he dendro record will not be a reliable way to det...he dendro record will not be a reliable way to determine temperature trends until this divergence thingy is nailed down ... thats all for a moment ..Günstig Reisenhttp://www.usertravel.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-65198307552133194042009-12-13T22:50:41.575-05:002009-12-13T22:50:41.575-05:00mikeclarke - I like the analogy to historians and ...mikeclarke - I like the analogy to historians and Booth.<br /><br />As far as professional deniers go, it's telling to see Anthony Watts dedicate entire posts to his hit count - if he stopped spouting denial, his loyal Pavlov dogs would stop coming back.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-1564017339153187142009-12-10T09:51:59.955-05:002009-12-10T09:51:59.955-05:00Wag makes a good point here. It's the VERY fe...Wag makes a good point here. It's the VERY few professional deniers that having been making<br />a rumble on the "fame and fortune" front. The overwhelming majority of professional climate scientists have a career whether or not climate change is serious or not. <br /><br /> This is like arguing that American historians are all basing their careers on the fact that Booth shot Lincoln and if something else turns out to be true, they've all lost their jobs. Ridiculous.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526803905368471753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-78644849528903149592009-12-07T00:21:06.412-05:002009-12-07T00:21:06.412-05:00Yes, everyone suffers from "biases, frailties...Yes, everyone suffers from "biases, frailties, prejudices, responsiveness to incentive, etc."<br /><br />But if these affect all people equally, why would you trust a biased layperson over a biased scientist?<br /><br />In any case, all the incentives, whether desire for money or for fame, should be leading scientists to abandon the consensus. I work in sales and marketing, and we understand that an undifferentiated product is not profitable. Likewise, agreeing with other scientists does not help you sell books or make your name stand out from the crowd. Check out my post here:<br />http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/follow-money-trail-to-global-warming.htmlwaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-38999951318358133132009-12-02T12:37:54.250-05:002009-12-02T12:37:54.250-05:00Why do you "trust the scientist's motives...Why do you "trust the scientist's motives"?<br /><br />Are they not people, with the same biases, frailties, prejudices, responsiveness to incentive, etc. as the rest of us?<br /><br />If your career future, prestige, economic well-being etc. all depended on something, is it not possible, if only subconsciously, that you would do things to protect them?<br /><br />Are you assuming that scientists are not influenced by such mundane psychological forces? <br /><br />That somehow they (sui generis, apparently) can block out all of this normal concern for their life and ego and act solely in perfect accordance with scrupulous ethics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-82008061830061494502009-11-26T01:12:06.076-05:002009-11-26T01:12:06.076-05:00Nik - you're half right. In the context of my...Nik - you're half right. In the context of my comment, what I'm saying is, "If politically-motivated people are going to misinterpret scientists' work, then they should not be forced to make their data public." The links you provide (well, the second one at least) reinforce this point.<br /><br />Link #1: I'm not a computer programmer, so I'm not going to try and interpret the code. However, my inclination is to trust the scientist's motives instead of a random guy on the internet alleging misconduct (and no, the irony of me attacking the credibility of "random guy on the internet" is not lost on me.)<br /><br />Link #2: This one is clearly a misinterpretation. The data show tree ring reconstructions, and illustrate the "divergence" problem. Has nothing to do with altering data. Here's a good post on the topic:<br />http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php<br /><br />Link #3: I don't have the math background to say anything substantive about McIntyre's post. However, it does seem like evidence of climate scientists cooperating with a skeptic and making their data available.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-7339747974689100932009-11-26T00:17:25.916-05:002009-11-26T00:17:25.916-05:00You are on record as saying: "climate scienti...You are on record as saying: "climate scientists shouldn’t be forced to make their data public".<br /><br />That statement renders your whole blog and likely your whole current self-image, mute. Sorry but you have exited the debate.<br /><br />Here is the TYPE of adjustments the lay public fails to "understand":<br /><br />http://i49.tinypic.com/m9vcxv.jpg<br /><br />http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mk8113.jpg<br /><br />http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1798<br /><br />If they would EXPLAIN at all there might *be* an explanation to misunderstand.<br /><br />But there is no explanation offered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-62748508110580110582009-11-25T23:09:31.307-05:002009-11-25T23:09:31.307-05:00The divergence problem is suggesting a change in t...The divergence problem is suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to carbon dioxide levels. This is a negative climate feedback promoting stability.<br /><br />PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-39709300970449987682009-11-25T14:14:36.529-05:002009-11-25T14:14:36.529-05:00Lou - you're right, dendro records only consti...Lou - you're right, dendro records only constitute *part* of our understanding of the climate. We also have reconstructions based on ice cores and corals (see here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html). <br /><br />And paleoclimatology is only a small part of our understanding of climate change. We know that CO2 --> rising temps, and CO2 levels are unprecedented in the past 800,000 years (and probably 15 million). Therefore, even if we can't be certain what past temperatures were, we can be fairly sure that we've got some pretty big ones in store in our near future. I've added a couple of "related links" to the post that explain this logic.<br /><br />Also, we can't wait for 100% certainty to make decisions. I'll have something up on that subject in the next few days.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-53328031971041611952009-11-25T10:34:53.199-05:002009-11-25T10:34:53.199-05:00Don't you get it? If there's a divergence...Don't you get it? If there's a divergence problem for unknown reasons now, who's to say there haven't been similar disconnects between actual temps and dendro data in the past? The dendro record will not be a reliable way to determine temperature trends until this divergence thingy is nailed down. Which means that political decisions based partly on dendro versions of past climates (unprecedented!)are as likely to harm us as help us.<br /><br />LouAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com