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“.
@onion:
The null hypothesis of any theory of climate change is that the climate is behaving normally. No climate study has ever rejected this null hypothesis. In other words nobody has EVER proved scientifically that the climate is doing ANYTHING unusual. It isn’t those who claim that the climate is behaving normally who have to prove this claim. The scientific burden of proof is on those who claim that the climate is doing something different. It is a burden that they have never succeeded in meeting and would prefer to ignore.
A 1 degree warming IS insignificant. Indeed a 1 degree warming is barely measurable.
As to the models predicting greater warming – the assumptions needed to get this to happen are bizarre. The models that make those bizarre assumptions have failed the real world test many times over.
“5. Note that I have no control of imagery on other peoples servers, nor of the content of those images.”
Isn’t that exactly what Eric was pointing out to the commenter?
======================
Smokey, sometimes you just make my day!
What he said.
Mike Jowsey says: “Speaks volumes about the vitriolic bile within this ‘scientist’.”
Hmm. A bit OTT, Mike. Maybe he just had a bad shrimp at lunch before he wrote it.
It works the same on my Mac.
“Maple Leaf” is a writing candid camera… he does not even realize his mug is in the frame when he shoots!
“Wtf!”Oh deary me. I’ll tell you WUWT. The cooling and the falsifying of more and more of the climate orthodoxy offerings done during the free-wheeling political science period of climate science that slammed to a halt November 2009 is making all these cagw committed more and more testy. It’s going to get nastier than a merely juvenile wtf. These guys are under severe stress. Some will write themselves out of the consensus, others have already barred their own escape. What’s left is desperation and hope (and anger).
Smokey said,
“The only effect that can be definitively connected with the increase in CO2 is rising agricultural production.”
Best one liner I have yet read anywhere, simple and to the point it should be put to our leaders in that way.
Smokey wins this thread hands down.
Nothing beats a straight flush.
As one who spends his working time explaining DNS and SMTP to technical illiterates and why their stuff is broke and why I can’t reboot the internet I can only say “just smile and wave boys, smile and wave” 🙂
Onion claims,
“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.”
Recent warming which ended some years ago could be natural in origin, it could be mostly natural with some from human input via CO2. The vital questions are,
What part is natural and what part human induced?
Can the natural and the man made elements be measured separately and is the margin of error larger than the measured temperatures?
There is as yet no definitive proof of the anthropogenic effect and no direct evidence of CO2 induced warming beyond the natural cyclic warming we see through the geologic record. A predictive computer model is not proof, the models so far have been unable to produce anything that could reasonably be called an accurate prediction of either weather(met office) or climate or global temperatures.
If you were to exclude the computer models from the CAGW theory then what is left?
Show me any solid evidence that the current tiny amount of warming(not any predicted future increase) is anything other than normal and natural and I will take notice.
Come on Anthony, right click ? Seriously?
Forgot to add, my previous comment was right clicked and pasted…. Sheesh
onion says:
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm
And the science suggests that CO2 is going to result in more than 1C warming, potentially much more.
————————————-
suggests …. is going to …. potentially
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Climate experiments of the future – the cure for insomnia, maybe ??
Fred from Canuckistan says: at 5:50 pm
“That’s a lot of simple instructions for someone with a PhD in Climatology.
Eric Steig completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995.
Based on my interactions with students of a geological persuasion the rough language is thereby explained.
What is this with right clicking and the Mac? :-))
It has been standard in the OS since system 8 around 1997. You use the secondary click on every trackpad or mouse delivered with your Mac, or of course if you have a standard two-button USB mouse, just right click! 😉
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool…
Well they certainly removed all doubt!
If one were to try and ascertain the sweetness of apples in an orchard by analysing the lemons, it would be a very complex problem involving at least a hundred variables, possible to achieve but infinitely easier to analyse the apples.
To me it seems many thermophobic scientists working on the cause of warming,are analysing lemons and finding the apples not to their taste. Tasting the apples seems to be beyond their charter.
Pure class from Anthony!
Nice one, Anthony.
It is obvious that Dr Steig (and Onion) never had the benefit of the wonderfully useful and kindly-meant advice of the sort my father used to hand on to me when he was attempting to teach me something
“Boy, your’e supposed to put your brain into gear before you engage your mouth!” or
“Son, your head’s not just to keep your ears apart or to hang your hat on!”
And if I forgot one of the finer points of Manly behaviour “Cost’s nothing to say something nice, son.”
and when I got something wrong and a helping of humble pie was coming my way
“Smile like you mean it when you have to apologise. Being gracious is a valuable skill”
“onion says:
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 pm
And the science suggests that CO2 is going to result in more than 1C warming, potentially much more.”
But NASA says it’s not as bad as we thought……
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
What and engage with people that you know are smarter than you never.
This feels, reads, looks like a two-year old tantrum for not getting one’s way everywhichway. In an adult, like Steig, a two-year-old tantrum deserves jail time (go to your room) until you can become reasonable (human, thoughtful, respectful, scientific). I keep mentioning the loss of retirement savings or pensions or whatever these frauds believe is their due in “old age”. They deserve to lose much more, but at least our tax dollars ought to be denied them once they are removed from their politions.
I swear there’s like 1 or 2 people with the courage to post the warmista argument here at WUWT, and they just change their pseudonyms for each thread. They make the same tired arguments, and poorly, each time. They also seem to vanish as soon as they’re cornered.