Speaking of Gavin…

Update 5 pm Eastern: 1,000 comments on thread at http://judithcurry.com, and some very “feisty” discourse in this new era of civility.

Since my post on the “RealClimate’s over-the-top response” of Gavin and the Team has been getting a lot of discussion, I thought it only fair to mention that Dr. Judith Curry dropped in to leave a note. She said:

curryja says:

For more fun and games with Gavin, see my latest post at Climate Etc “Hiding the Decline” http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

Judging from comments like this one:

==============================================================

“I’m calling it like I see it”

How brave of you.

My point is that by lowering yourself to insult, you block off all sensible discussion of specific technical points – if you are so certain in your thinking that no further discussion is required, then fine. No more discussion will occur. But it would have been far better for you to have had the character to allow for disagreements without being disagreeable (did you not pick up anything in Lisbon?).

================================================================

It seems there’s a veritable free for all going on there. Gavin’s having a little trouble managing in a format that he doesn’t get to manage. See:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ripper

Thread of the year! Kudos to Dr Curry for raising the issue .

Julian Flood

Having just read through the comments, the only possible reaction is Wow!, Wow! with brass knobs on and a big china gazunder. The exchange is…. extraordinary. Dr Schmidt is gnawing at the ankle of integrity* with some vigour but little effect. And, sweetly, he has even brought doghanza along to give him moral support.
My respect for Dr Curry, already high, increases.
JF
*see cartoons by Josh.

richard verney

I was surprised to see Judith wade into this matter at such a late stage but thought her comments good. They were nicely and calmly set out and I was pleased to see a scientist condemning what is clearly unacceptab;e practice which practice has discredited science amd climate science in particular. I applaud her for her stance.
Her comments have certainly produced a reaction

/Sarc on
Well Anthony, Gavin is out of sorts give the poor guy a break. I Mean just look at the list of things happening to him:
1. The government agency that is paying his paycheck is transiting from what science they still do to a Muslim outreach program.

It’s not really surprising that President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.” It fits with so much that we already knew about the president.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html
I Mean think about it. It would not be easy trying to learn Farsi and Arabic and then trying to explain Hide the Decline and how the Hockey Stick is robust in those languages in just 6 to 9 months.
2. While he was off doing outreach, Eric Steig losses it over on RC and he wasn’t there to spin them out of it.
3. After missing out on that and finished with his outreach to the Muslims he finds that the evil republicans have passed a bill that might do away with his job that allows him to blog all day (When not doing outreach).

But dozens of Republicans backed a liberal amendment to shift money from NASA to community policing.

However there was even more Horror the Evil Republicans were taking away the money for the EPA to Impose CO2 regulations

Republicans closed ranks to pass amendments cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America and denying the Environmental Protection Agency the funds to enforce its greenhouse-gas regulations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703803904576152753496208560.html
So of course Gavin is little off his game and little snippy, he has had a bad 2010 and 2011 isn’t looking to swift either.
/Sarc Off

Mark T

High humor. I limited my comments mostly to misconceptions regarding PCA. It is amazing, but people really think there is some magical way to just tease out “temperature” as if it had some sort of name tag throughout time in tree rings. Sigh…
Even more interesting, IMO, is that Gavin, self-admitted dullard w.r.t. statistical analysis techniques, chose to wade into the quicksand on this one. His only technical defense is several since refuted papers all with the same problems. Even JC is basically calling him an idiot.
Mark

R John

While I am encouraged by Dr. Curry’s challenge to Gavin, why does she not also question his non-climate background (mathematics) or for that matter the Don of GISS – James Hansen.

a jones

When Greek meets Greek.
Kindest Regards

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Can we have the enormous intellect of ‘ianash’ on here? It’s ok, I’m just joking. She (ianash) is typical of the reason I gave up actually discussing anything on blogs, and just make periodic contributions. It’s a shame that forums get to this level, and I can see the appeal of allowing all comments – against the alternative that is RC and the truly awful Open Mind. But I still think it’s a great shame that we have this wonderful tool for discussing serious subjects, yet have to suffer the mind-thoughts of people like ianash.

Mark T

R John says:
February 23, 2011 at 12:03 am

While I am encouraged by Dr. Curry’s challenge to Gavin, why does she not also question his non-climate background (mathematics) or for that matter the Don of GISS – James Hansen.

There’s no reason she should except to point out the double standard the same idiots hold for everyone else (notice the pattern of double standards, btw?) Steve M’s background is certainly non-climate.
There are so many “fields” within climate science that to expect anyone to be an “expert in climate science” would be akin to thinking the techs on on the TV show CSI are realistically capable of everything they do every week.
Mark

Darren Potter

“Gavin’s having a little trouble managing in a format that he doesn’t get to manage.”
It’s easy to see why people following Gavin’s diatribes over at FauxClimate.org believe everything he blogs; since Gavin is actively denying even polite counter comments/posts under the guise of “SPAM filtering”.

John Peter

I commend Judith Curry for trying to get “the scientific method” back into climate science. I read the whole article and thought it was well argued. It may not be “new knowledge” but it shows that even amongst “warmers” (maybe a weak one?) there is a quest to return to science as it should be practiced. Maybe we will see more climate scientists coming out and becoming scientists again now that the Republicans have a say over how money is spent (or not spent) on proving AGW, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever it is called today.

Sean Houlihane

Personally, I think the quality of the trolling says a lot about the strength of the argument.

Stephen Wilde

I particularly liked this from Dr. Curry:
“I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).”
The handle is crucial because if the proxies do not adequately show the degree of natural variability that goes to the heart of whether what we are seeing in the real world with our modern day sensing techniques is in any way unusual.
The regional climate variations are critical because it seems to me that a change in the distribution of the air circulation systems is the best guide as to whether the troposphere as a whole is experiencing net warming or net cooling.
As a a result of the dominance of AGW theory for more than two decades those critical issues have been ignored and any investigations apparently suppressed.

Steeptown

Poor Gavin has blown his last (did he ever have any?) shred of credibility. As for his dishonesty – well it shines out like a beacon.
He’s no scientist.

juakola

I see Judith’s comment is no longer there. Or at least I couldnt find it.

jeanparisot

When this all over, I am going to apply for a NASA grant to create a nice montage for there headquarter using some old Piltdown Man stuff and some cores from Yarmal 061.

Cold Englishman

Seems to me that Dr Curry is gently falling off the fence. She has always been a warmist, even if only “luke”, but gradually she is seeing what the rest of have known for years, that AGW was never about science, it was always about politics from the moment when Margaret Thatcher set up Hadly.
I remember as a kid, some folk saying “they’d tax the air you breathe if they could get away with it”. Well now in England they do except it is the air you breathe out.
Reading that stuff over at Judith’s reminds me of rats in a sack, all fighting and squabbling over their righteous and sanctimonious indignation. Yuk!

richard verney

Potentially this could develop into a significant story (particularly if one of the MSM papers were to run with it). The post and comments on Bishop Hill are worth a look.

wayne Job

Dr Curry is being very brave and is being treated by idiots in the alarmist camp as a traitor. Dr Curry is trying to be true to the scientific method and this is causing alarm for the true believers. Most people on her blog are supportive but some are a tad upset and angry. The symptoms of a lost argument even Gavin is angry and peeved [what a shame]

Ken Hall

I am very disappointed in the replies. Almost every time Gavin posts a comment, Dr Curry folds immediately and leaves rebuttals to others in the comments.
He compares apples with oranges in terms of leaving data off graphs, and then asks her to cite something to back up another of her comments and she folds completely, even saying, “Good one Gavin, brilliant argument.”
WTF?
There are so many other fields of science, not corrupted by politically motivated AGW grants, oil money or other distracting influences, who for over a century have gathered data which shows that this current decade is NOT the warmest in history. From the fields of history, politics, archaeology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, marine biology, geography, botany, zoology, etc. all have papers which show evidence that lots of different parts of the earth were warmer during the past 1000 years than they are now.
The Hockey stick team produce a dodgy graph from unreliable and largely irrelevant tree-ring data to create a proxy, leave out the part where that tree-ring reconstruction fails to support the thermometer record (a record already suspect due to homogenisation issues) and then they pass that off as being a more accurate record of the last millennia temperature than all the other peer-reviewed and documented historical data combined?
Dr Curry then folds on the slightest pressure and is losing massive amounts of credibility on that one thread alone in my eyes.
I really hope that part II is better with cited examples and links to data and shows Gavin up for the arrogant, bullying, hypocritical pseudo-scientist he really is.

Saaad

The really interesting thing is that JC ‘gets’ the seminal importance of the original TAR hockey stick in convincing policymakers that there was a problem – by candidly admitting that it had fooled her as well! This makes her thread all the more damning IMO.

Steve in SC

I agree with Anthony that our pal Gavin must have had a bad hair day. (both of them)

John Whitman

I just went through all the comments on JC’s “Hide the
Decline” post. Gavin & his band-on-the-run played around in the open venue. I am glad for them that they could escape their self imposed exile at RC. They acted childlike, poor dears, except for their reflexive snarling habit.
Note to Anthony: I am accessing WUWT right now in the P.R.C. I thought someone commented last year that WUWT couldn’t be reached from here.
John

Orkneygal

Well, I’ve waded in over on that thread and decided to wade back out for a while.
After the Gavin’s brusque, irritating and disruptive comments, some of the usual suspects like imanass, dogsbrethz, Jen, etc attacked the thread in true troll like Romm-ulan fashion.
Responding to the minions of non-sense can actually be quite tiring.
Anyway, I’m quite proud of this little posting I made over there…..
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#comment-45878

Kev-in-Uk

With reference to the title of the post…. I’d rather not! LOL

Theo Goodwin

This is a huge development. “Hide the decline” has not gone away. Sceptics were not permitted a genuine discussion of the issues. The Warmista used every trick in the book to hush up the matter, including the three big whitewashes. It seems to me that sceptics should jump at this opportunity to have a genuine discussion of the important issues raised by “hide the decline.”

The tide has definitely turned! I can remember just a few years ago nothing at all like this was happening. The truth will set you free!

Beesaman

I love the imagery of the handle of the ‘not to be named’ graph being made from treeometer data and the blade from thermometer data. Especially as all school kids know tree rings are not solely reliant for growth on temperature but also rainfall and sunlight.
I

interested non scientist

What a thread! To see people you have only heard about fighting it out in plain view and admitting their doubts and apprehensions regarding the dubious science of the hockey stick was priceless!!
The consensus wall is crumbling. The “too smart for you” warmista’s are expressing a desire to rejoin those on the other side who seek to honour the scientific method and their own commonsense.
I suspect that the latest political developments (funding cutbacks) might have something to do with this latest outburst of openness amongst the professional elite but maybe I am just a cynic.

Maybe Josh can make a cartoon of Gavin clutching a rail of the Titanic while that back end is coming up out of the water…..or fiddling while Rome burns….. or something else along those lines.
😉

steveta_uk

Gavin to Judy:

You betray complete ignorance of any of this literature. “Statistical models that make no sense in terms of calculating hemispheric or global average temperature anomalies” – got a cite for that?

Why would anyone need a “cite” for thinking that something is rubbish? Example:
a: I think the moon is made of cheese
b: Well that’s makes no sense.
a: No sense? Got a cite for that?

interested non scientist

The way Gavin is behaving is almost like a villain from one of those B grade hollywood action films who when the game is up at the end of the movie, is so desperate that he pulls a gun and takes a hostage (Judith Curry).
mmmm maybe a project for Ban Ki Moon!

Dave H

Its funny how you describe as “Gavin having a little trouble” getting shouted down by a bunch of self-important, deaf-to-reason types. Gavin makes a good point – Judith’s words on reconciliation have proven to be empty. The only people she’s shown any attempt at “reconciliation” with are those with an anti-AGW slant – and she has acheived it by, essentially, agreeing with them or simply refusing to disagree with them.
Few people have done more to polarise the current “debate” than Dr Curry.

Mark T says:
February 22, 2011 at 11:55 pm
> Even more interesting, IMO, is that Gavin … chose to wade into the quicksand on this one. … Even JC is basically calling him an idiot.
She’s doing a really good job letting Gavin do that to himself and letting her commentors have a chance to engage Gavin in a dialog that would never happen at RC.

juakola says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:48 am
> I see Judith’s comment is no longer there. Or at least I couldnt find it.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/22/realclimates-over-the-top-response/#comment-605122
[Reply: It’s there, I just re-read it. ~dbs]

Jimmy Haigh

Gavin didn’t hang around for long. Is that all we’re going to get from him? Looks like he’s not being allowed out to play with the big boys any more.

Ken Hall says:
February 23, 2011 at 3:59 am

I am very disappointed in the replies. Almost every time Gavin posts a comment, Dr Curry folds immediately and leaves rebuttals to others in the comments.
He compares apples with oranges in terms of leaving data off graphs, and then asks her to cite something to back up another of her comments and she folds completely, even saying, “Good one Gavin, brilliant argument.”
WTF?

Call it dismissive sarcasm. Gavin wants her to reply so he can attack the reply. Judith’s comment doesn’t give him that chance and implies he said nothing that is worth her time. She’s patting him on the head and saying “There, there, little boy, I know you’re upset, but perhaps you should have stayed home today.” Besides, she knows others can handle a rebuttal, and she’s giving them a chance they never had at RC.

Viv Evans

Reading that blog by Dr Curry and the comments, it is encouraging to note that the old, arrogant ploys by Dr Schmidt et al (“read this, that and the next before you talk to me”, or “go away and think”) don’t work any longer. Commenters are answering right back.
I think The Team, Dr Schmidt especially, are still living in the pre-2009 days, where they thought they could dazzle everybody with their BS.
Times have changed, and they are re-fighting the battles of the last war – like the hidebound French generals in WWII who prepared for WWI ….

Dave H
You too are fiddling while Rome burns. You fail to see that some among the global warming aggregate don’t want to get along with the other side. They are not intending on rapport.

steveta_uk

Ken Hall says: 3:59 am
“Good one Gavin, brilliant argument.” WTF?
Ken, the reason Gavin got SO upset was the patronising responses like this from Judy – this isn’t caving in, as you seem to believe, it’s simply a very condescending “there, there, Gavin, don’t you worry you little head about it”.

Dave H,
Did you read Dr Curry’s exchange with Schmidt? She was more gracious than he deserved. And Steve Mosher traveled to Lisbon for the express purpose of attending a reconciliation meeting. Guess what? Gavin and the rest of his scare crowd stayed away like spoiled children.
They’re not interested in reconciliation. They’re not interested in anything but keeping their taxpayer funded gravy train on track. If you had read Mosher & Fuller’s CruTape Letters you would see in the emails that all the animosity started and was perpetuated by Mann, Schmidt and their cronies. They actively went after anyone who didn’t toe their line. They caused people to be fired and editorial board members to resign. They run RealClimate on time paid for with unwilling taxpayers’ money, and they censor like old time Soviets – censoring on behalf of the federal government!
You can’t keep poking your finger into someone’s chest, and call them vile names [“denialists”, etc.] without eventually getting some push-back. Now that they’re hearing other opintions that they can’t control, they’re panicking and lashing out.
Judith Curry has put herself in a tough spot. She is trying to at least get a dialog going. For you to say she has “done more to polarize the current debate” either means you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re just a scck puppet for the Schmidthead and his gang of tax suckers.

James Sexton

lol, they’re asking for citations and references of why intentional deception shouldn’t be done. They expose themselves for what they are more and more. The problem is character. It appears Gavin and minions are openly defending intentional deception. This dovetails quite nicely with the recent premise of “justifiable disingenuousness” from the Steig debacle.
They wonder why they have a credibility problem? They’ve no compunction.

Ken Hall

I apologise unreservedly to Dr Curry if I missed her sarcastic patronising tone. If that what it is, then that is still a little disappointing and is providing fuel for her Alarmist detractors.
As steveta_uk says:

“Gavin to Judy:
You betray complete ignorance of any of this literature. “Statistical models that make no sense in terms of calculating hemispheric or global average temperature anomalies” – got a cite for that?
Why would anyone need a “cite” for thinking that something is rubbish? Example:
a: I think the moon is made of cheese
b: Well that’s makes no sense.
a: No sense? Got a cite for that?

I would have been more impressed if it had been Dr Curry making that remark in reply, rather than the weak [climbdown or patronising sarcasm] response she made.
I look forward to her ripping Gavin a “new one” in her next follow-up article.

John A

I think its most entertaining to watch Gavin in a discussion he can’t control or censor. He’ll stick to RC as the last bunker to hide in when things get unpleasant.

John A

Oh, and Judith has blocked the poster known as “ianash”. The signal has improved immensely.
I don’t agree with Dr Curry on a lot of things, but she’s hitting her stride in calling the Hockey Team for continuing dishonesty and its behaviour towards critics who turned out to be correct.

James Sexton

Ken Hall says:
February 23, 2011 at 6:39 am
I apologise unreservedly to Dr Curry if I missed her…
========================================================
I don’t think she was quite prepared for the response from Gavin and gang. They are particularly apt at misdirection, hand waving, and red herrings. Dr. Curry was speaking towards the generality of a misleading graph. They made several attempts to move her discussion points to a different topic. Her glib response was appropriate.
Gavin and gang are basically asking for citations as to why it isn’t ok to present deceptive graphs. Personally, the alarmists’ show of character(specifically their lack of) on that particular thread stands by itself. These are the people much of the world trusts. And they vehemently argue the case for an intentionally misleading graph.
How does one respond to people that believe it’s ok to be deceptive when presenting science? It isn’t about citations, references or making one’s own constructions. It’s about credibility. Gavin and gang have shown why they deserve none.

KenB

Well that is a tipping point – climate changer if ever there was one, 100 points to the actual scientists who took up the discussion, but at the end of the day the poor response by Gavin and the juvenile drivel of ianash. The guest appearance of the Dhog, who is looking/sounding frayed and tattered and a little more unhinged than usual. or is he trying to look more adult and restrained than ianash and the flit in and out of the likes of Tim Lambeth and others, sounds alarm bells for alarmist climate faux science. I think I even heard the fat lady singing in among the screeching from the RC faithful who clearly had lost the plot.
It is really sad that it has to end in such a mess and disorder, rather than an honourable back down in the interests of Science – Time to Mann up, declare unconditional surrender with an apology for being misleading and at least TRY and recover some credibility.
Then lets get back to discussing irritations like weather, politicians and dictators.

Craig Loehle

There are multiple issues, not just a choice of how to present a graph:
1.Subjective choice of trees/sites for sampling
2.Post-hoc dropping of “non-responders”
3.Linear response to temp assumption (which is actually known to be false.) which makes the inverse problem undefined.
4.Ignoring six sigma outliers like Yamal larch which heavily affect the result
5.Hiding adverse verification statistics (R-sq of 0.05 means you have nada)
6.Unjustified weighting (bristlecones 400x others)
7.Proxies different orientations (+ vs – temp indicator) in different time periods of the recon.
8.Choosing graph baseline to emphasize post-1980 “warm”
9.End point padding—even worse with instrumental data
10.Hiding the decline as discussed above
11.Thick red line for instrumental data to make it look “hot” and to hide lines underneath that are going down.
12.Repeated use of “robust”, “similar”, “reliable” with no quantification

Vince Causey

Judith has now completely exposed why ‘hiding the decline’ was misleading. She wrote that the graph where the instrumental record is spliced on the end of the tree ring record, does not make clear to the reader that this is because the tree ring data is diverging from instrumental data.
Every attempt by people like Gavin Schmidt to try and defend it sounds more and more like a cheating politician trying to defend a policy decision. The public can intuit when they are being lied to, and the more the politician – I mean Gavin Schmidt – try and spin their way out of it, the more angry the public become.
In accountancy, financial statements are required to give a ‘True and Fair’ view of the economic reality of the business, and to favour economic substance over legal form. Hiding the decline is neither a true nor fair view of the tree ring record. We all know it, and Schmidt knows it.

Mark T

Some of the funniest moments are always when Tim Lambert references Deep Climate as an authority. They must be… never mind. Either way, folks like Tim are so hung up on actual authority that it must be a real treat to know DC is the best he can do.
Mark