Perhaps Dr. Steig was too busy writing snark (in response to a peer reviewed paper that is a rebuttal his own) to figure it out, but this made me laugh. Comment # 6 in this thread over at Real Climate from “mapleleaf” gets this response from Dr. Eric Steig:
…
And why did WUWT show an image that appears to have less warming than the one shown here by Eric? Sorry but I have to fault you both there..the figures should show for what season they are valid, or if they are for annual temperatures.
[The figure here shows O’Donnell’s et al.s reconstruction for the same time period as our Nature cover image. These are annual mean estimates. I cannot speak to WTF WUWT has done.–eric]
Always happy to help perfesser…it’s really as easy as using the right click on your mouse (unless you use a Mac, in which case I can’t help you) or clicking a link. Observe.
1. Go to the thread on WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/
2. Find the image of two Antarctic maps side by side
3. Right click on it, choose “view image info”, or if you have a Mac and can’t use right click, note the handily included phrase “Click to enlarge.” below the image. Click it, and note the URL in the browser for the enlarged image.
4. Note that the source for the image, sized and enlarged, is this URL, which is not connected to WUWT in any way. In fact it sources to The Air Vent, where Ryan ODonnell published the essay we reposted here by request:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image0.png
5. Note that I have no control of imagery on other peoples servers, nor of the content of those images.
6. See this helpful post on The Air Vent regarding these same questions.
So to answer the question, I’ve done nothing, and the only “WTF” needed might be in wondering why you and other RC commenters can’t figure out where the source of the image came from.
Thank you for playing “Find that image source“.
Mr. Steig gets “pwned” and has to take down the framed Nature cover in his office. I can hear the swearing from over 1000 miles away. The laughter from his colleagues down the hall is deafening! To be a fool is one thing, to act like one is another. To be recognized by the world as one… priceless.
This fencing match back and forth would be more highly entertaining if it weren’t for the political ramifications looming in the background and all of the tax dollars wasted. Ah, such is life, bittersweet.
“I cannot speak to WTF WUWT has done.—eric
It doesn’t seem he knows even what he has done.
I’ve wondered if he approved the Nature cover image? Look up “How to lie with maps” and that cover is the accompanying graphic. WTFsUWT?
Even with your simple step-by-step you’re NOT going to get through. It’s not that he/they have a mental handicap, it’s called pre-mental prejudice. Anything of/by WUWT, and/or one each Anthony Watts and his gaggle of readers, makes them see red, get a piercing ringing in their ears, and foam at the mouth. Nope! Nice try.
That’s the way Anthony.
Give it to ’em hot and strong.
Kindest Regards
I find it amusing that they get offended when their findings are challenged, rather than be happy that better methods are found and that we now have more accurate results than before. I think Dr. Steig has shown his hand.
Here is their snark from Real Climate:
“The peer review process is broken, which is why.. umm…our paper was published in the leading climate journal.”
I notice they didn’t mention the 88 pages of comments. I believe others who contributed to the paper were ready to give up, but one member continued on until finally, they said “take it or leave it”. All because of one reviewer. Any of that mentioned? Nope.
Speaks volumes about the vitriolic bile within this ‘scientist’. And here was I thinking that scientists were dispassionate observers and highly intelligent at theorizing and explaining the world around us and all its mysteries. Seems there are not many on the Gorebull Reaming side who have such an ethos.
That’s a lot of simple instructions for someone with a PhD in Climatology.
Maybe you should have broken it down into a couple of groups with subsets.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Macs have right click…
The Mac has had a right-click button for at least five years. On mice produced by Apple, there is a uni-button look in front, but underneath there are two sensors, depending on which side you press. That disguise was, I presume, to camouflage Steve Jobs’s climbdown from his idiotic one-button-mouse crusade.
Mike Jowsey says:
December 9, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“….. And here was I thinking that scientists were dispassionate observers and highly intelligent at theorizing and explaining the world around us and all its mysteries…..
============================================================
Well actually, scientists are as you describe…. However guys like Steig aren’t scientists. They are political apparatchiks payed to validate ideology by any means…..
LOL. For PC users, Mac users can use right-click (w/multibutton mice) or CONTROL-click to do that.
All observations show that the global climate is acting completely normally. The only effect that can be definitively connected with the increase in CO2 is rising agricultural production.
Although increased CO2 may cause an insignificant amount of warming, that is at the conjecture stage of the scientific method. It cannot be empirically measured like ag production.
Steig is just another government scientist who has rejected the scientific method in return for job security. He needs to take a refresher course in the scientific method.
The straws they are grasping at are pathetic.
So they aren’t only the best of the best, their fast moves are invisible to the denizens of the blogosphere. Right. In their dreams.
Smokey says:
December 9, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Brilliant link Smokey! Thanks for clearing that up.
LMAO!!!!
yea sure I bet it made you laugh. More likely, angry.
Smokey says:
December 9, 2010 at 6:20 pm
======================
Smokey, sometimes you just make my day!
“All observations show that the global climate is acting completely normally. The only effect that can be definitively connected with the increase in CO2 is rising agricultural production.”
This isn’t true. Observations do not show the global climate is acting completely normally. For that to be true you’d have to rule out that recent warming was caused in large part by rising greenhouse gases. Can’t do that? Then you can’t conclude what you do.
“Although increased CO2 may cause an insignificant amount of warming, that is at the conjecture stage of the scientific method. It cannot be empirically measured like ag production.”
What do you mean by insignificant? Even 1C warming is significant. That’s more warming than occured over the 20th century. And the science suggests that CO2 is going to result in more than 1C warming, potentially much more. Your confidence is totally misplaced.
“Speaks volumes about the vitriolic bile within this ‘scientist’. And here was I thinking that scientists were dispassionate observers and highly intelligent at theorizing and explaining the world around us and all its mysteries.”
Dispassionate observers? yeah sure. Go up to an astronomer and accuse them of scientific fraud. See what happens. They won’t remain “dispassionate” I can tell you.
“To be recognized by the world as one… priceless.”
Gents,
I think when it comes to climate hucksters & fraudsters, laughter is the best medicine.
Suggested response to the next highly questionable “pre-mental prejudice” based paper released:
Laughter and ridicule…followed by more laughter.
onion says:
“Observations do not show the global climate is acting completely normally. For that to be true you’d have to rule out that recent warming was caused in large part by rising greenhouse gases. Can’t do that? Then you can’t conclude what you do.”
onion, you are yet another person who does not understand the scientific method. FYI, sientific skeptics have nothing to prove. And skeptics have no duty to rule anything out; we rely on verifiable observations. It is the job of those promoting the conjecture that catastrophic AGW is right around the corner to make their case. Unfortunately, CAGW has been repeatedly falsified – not least by the planet itself.
Since you mistakenly believe that the current global climate is outside of its normal and natural parameters, here is a bigger picture:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring. What we are observing has happened many times in the pre-SUV past. And yes, a 1° rise in temperature is insignificant – to everyone but a climate alarmist [note the natural, routine ±3° temperature changes throughout the Holocene].
Eric posted something equally ignorant, but far more revealing, when he tried to not only slam “Warnings”, but called the author a liar, while admitting he had not bothered to read the book.
I find this sort of behavior from cliamte scientists – Hansen and his death trains and tipping points, Mann and his protesteth-too-much whines, and now Steig and his uninformed snark and spew to be very illustrative of the kind of thinking behind the fear mongering they sell us.