Oh how quickly they forget. Last month, scientist David Karoly was thanking Steve McIntyre for spotting the error that led to the retraction of the Gergis et al paper:
“We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.
Thanks, David Karoly”
Source: http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
This month, Karoly is writing a pal book review for Michael Mann’s Climate Wars, and its like that never happened: (bold mine)
Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from politicians such as Republican congressman Joe Barton from Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, or Republican Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, to blog writers Stephen McIntyre and Marc Morano, have repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research, claiming professional misconduct or worse, even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists.
McIntyre has no scientific expertise? Well he had enough expertise to find what peer reviewers missed, and with that knowledge, knocked your paper out of the running, and back to square one. If that isn’t expertise I don’t know what is.
McIntyre notices over at CA that Karoly has a peculiar personal message in a public appearance, and writes in comments: Posted Jul 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM | Permalink
Here is a picture of Karoly at the opening of the Hepburn Community Wind Farm in Victoria, Australia on November 5, 2011. The slogan on his shirt was the slogan of the radical group, the Weather Underground, in the late 1960s when I was at university. Their manifesto is here. Lots of stuff about pigs and imperialists.
McIntyre adds:
Posted Jul 10, 2012 at 10:22 PM | Permalink
Maybe it’s age-specific. For someone who grew up in the period, the phrase and the radical movement were inseparably linked. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the faction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground.
I still have my vinyl Dylan album with Subterranean Homesick Blues on it.
My counter corollary would be: “you don’t need a climatologist to tell you which way the grants flow”.
So much for GoreBullWarming:
Hope you all saw this article published in Nature by scientists of the university of Giessen/ Germany, three days ago:
” … and substantial SUMMER COOLING OVER THE PAST TWO MILLENNIA in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes.
These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data MAY UNDERESTIMATE PRE-INSTRUMENTAL TEMPERATURES INCLUDING WARMTH DURING MEDIEVAL AND ROMAN TIMES. …”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
[REPLY: That was discussed at WUWT on July 9th here. You should also realize that this comment, as written, is rather off-topic for this thread. -REP]
… and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research, claiming professional misconduct or worse, even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists.
========
It appears Karoly is suggesting that no investigation is required because misconduct has already been confirmed by other scientists via peer review.
John says:
July 11, 2012 at 5:17 am
“McIntyre has no scientific expertise? Well he had enough expertise to find what peer reviewers missed”
Except it wasn’t McIntyre that found it …
If McIntyre did not find the error then why thank him and Climate Audit for something they did not do?
Old Marxists never die, they just go on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on…..
John said:
“McIntyre has no scientific expertise? Well he had enough expertise to find what peer reviewers missed”
Except it wasn’t McIntyre that found it …
Anthony replied
So is the claim, but unsupported by anything but “we did it first” from “the team”. Most likely a face saving ploy.
I think that it was a CA reader, Jean S, who first discovered the error in Gergis et. al.
See http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/06/gergis-significance/
(Not that I am suggesting that Steve McIntyre is lacking in expertise — quite the opposite)
If these “climate scientists” are playing loose with the facts in order to get other people’s money, then their peer review may be by a jury of twelve at the courthouse.
IIRC，Karoly is the Magiar or Hungarian counterpart of Charles in English- and French-speaking countries, and of Karl in German-speaking countries.
Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from … have repeatedly promulgated misinformation
===========
As the recent retraction of Gergis et al shows, it is climate science itself that has “promulgated misinformation”. And none of the climate science experts caught the error. For all their supposed expertise.
What has become abundantly clear is that climate science is built on a foundation of faulty mathematics and faulty experimental design, leading to “selection bias”. This has been kept hidden the public by an almost universal failure of climate science to archive their data and methods for independent replication.
As the climategate emails have shown, climate scientists has not done this accidentally. They have gone out of their way to prevent release of their data and methods to the public for independent replication. Instead, they have resorted to old fashioned mudslinging. This is basic debating fundamentals. When your evidence is weak, attack the person.
In this respect climate science is a pseudo science. “Selection bias” is the hallmark of pseudo science. “Hide the decline” establishes that climate science is not a science. Suppression of evidence is the tool of pseudo science.
Mathematics on the other hand, which is Steve McIntyre area of expertise is a science.
BernieL
Thanks for that link to Barnett et al (1999). One thing that is fascinating is to see a real statement about problems with proxy records, difficulties of reconstructions, and uncertainties in the field just as Mann was about to become the rock star of the IPCC world.
Karoly’s hagiography completely passes over the ways in which Mann obliterated legitimate doubts and uncertainties with his aggressive politicized agenda. From what I can see paleoclimatologists would be better off going back to the state of the field in the 1990s and thinking about whether Mann (or Gergis, Karoly et al) have really improved understanding or not:
Barnett et al (1999) on state of the research
[emphasis added]
[Barnett et al (July 1999)]: “Recent compilations of paleoclimatic data have offered the first opportunity to analyze this type of data on a global scale. Straightforward comparisons via cross-spectral analysis of the recent paleodata with the instrumental record show that most of the paleodata are not simple proxies of temperature (Barnett et al. 1996; Jones 1998; Jones et al. 1998; see Table 1). Indeed, only a few of the tree-ring records from mid to high-latitude sites can be interpreted directly as temperature changes. Attempts by Jones et al. (1998) to use these “good” records to construct a record of Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature over the last five centuries are shown in Fig. 2. Also shown is a different reconstruction created using a full compilation of proxy data (Mann et al. 1998). The disparity between these reconstructions at some times over the last 400 years is as large as the observed changes in global temperature over the last 100 years. Some of the differences are due to different compilations of proxy data and also differences in the seasons reconstructed, but most of the disparity simply represents uncertainties in our knowledge of past changes in NH average temperature.”
It is obvious that “they” will never admit to the errors in the Mann hockey stick, as they may grudgingly admit to errors in some non iconic papers. The hockey stick is after all, the linchpin in their pseudo science, something to be defended with fanatical will. The fact that Mann’s mates looked at the paper and “saw that it was good”, is canonical enough.
As for Karoly – well, some people just never grow up.
“…scientist David Karoly…”
I beg to differ. Degrees are irrelevant. By definition, “scientists” follow the scientific method, and allow their results to be verified. If you don’t follow these simple rules, you don’t qualify for the title.
My profession is HR and recruiting, and I can tell you without reservation that very often it’s people who supposedly lack expertise in certain positions who perform the best in those positions. There’s a big difference between having a degree in this or that particular field, and having the raw skill set to actually work successfully in that field. Accountants become Construction Estimators, people with no education in Engineering are often the best at product distribution and document control. I’ve seen people go out of their to try and stuff themselves up their own rear ends in their attempts to glorify and over think what they do. Bottom line is, you don’t need to be an officially recognized master carpenter to spot a poorly executed dovetail joint, and to do it better. If there’s anything the ‘climate science’ community needs it’s a healthy dose of humility and strong whiff of their own feces to remind them that, yes, it too stinks. Of course it’s understandable that they could miss and forget that fact, surrounded as they are with the stench of what passes for their ‘research’.
You know, I find this all very funny. Okay, so bloggers don’t have any scientific expertise. What does that say towards the scientists who get their a$$ handed to them every time they spew their jibberish? SteveMac has more hides on his wall than Bill Cody. But, the blogosphere in general has beat the “science” fiction writers at every turn. Just yesterday we all shared a laugh at Dr. Masters’ expense. But we could easily dig up any number of the many who has been slapped silly by the realities of our observations. Remember the 30 min destruction of Dessler’s response to Spencer? Well…. there’s too many to mention, but, the point is, everyone knows and can see how these supposed super smart sciency guys are laughable clowns flailing away and doing all they can to get marginalize and quiet the skeptics. And, it just feeds the fire.
No scientific expertise? That’s fine, then Karoly wouldn’t have any trouble in an open debate with any number of people here and elsewhere….. right? LOL….
“I’m not sure someone showing up at a Wind Farm event with the Dylan quote on his tee shirt equates with the Weathermen”.
The t-shirt is an issue. “Clothes make the man” and if you see a person wearing a t-shirt like that one or a Che Guevara t-shirt, you can pretty much guess what is in their heads and what will be coming out of their mouths.
Alot of King Richard the seconds in the climate world.
Anthony replied
I think that it was a CA reader, Jean S, who first discovered the error in Gergis et. al.
=====
It appears the specific error in Gergis et. al., that the data had not been detrended, was made first made public by Jean S.
However, the wider error, that tree ring “calibration” is a form of “selection fallacy” or “selection bias”, that results in “hockey sticks”, that discovery largely rests on the careful work of Steve McIntyre over a long period of time.
The detrending error in Gergis et. al., is almost certainly a result of trying to overcome the “calibration” problems. Thus it could be said that Steve McIntyre’s earlier work formed the basis for the detrending error in Gergis et. al.
What is more significant about this incident is that it points to the failure of peer review. This paper had been reviewed and passed by scientific experts. RC and their team of climate scientists for all their expertise did not find the flaw.
Thus, the Gergis et. al incident directly contradicts the arguments made by Karoly. The error in Gergis et. al was not found by the experts. it was found by the public. Proving yet again, beware the opinion of experts.
“even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists.”
He also left out that part where people with scientific credentials identified significant flaws.
Given that Stephen McIntyre provides his data and code you would think a cheap ad hom from Karoly would be unnecessary – he could easily have provided real examples of Stephen’s errors. Assuming he could find any. That shoe, so far, has been on the other foot.
Perhaps Karoly should be asked if he wrote certain portions of his book review several months ago and that he should check if all names are still accurate. And if not, it should be questioned whether his whole review is wrong.
cba says:
July 11, 2012 at 4:59 am
wasn’t that the group that the unrepentant domestic terrorist david ayers was involved in? weren’t they the ones who blew up the madison wi university research building that killed some poor physics grad student back in the late 60s or early 70s?
The same.
Ayers produced the agitprop and left the bomb-making to people who *thought* they knew how to make bombs — which is the reason he’s one of only a very few Weathermen still alive…
One question: Is CAGW theory falsifiable? If so, how? That is the ultimate test for whether science is being practiced..
And scientists are not always logical. I recall an incident when one of our R&D vp’s brought me an evaluation of a proposed research project, submitted by an “outside source”. The memo was crisp, well reasoned, and strong in its conclusion: the proposal will not work.
But the PHD added as a course of action: Hire the guy for a further investigation of the process.
The VP and I had a good laugh over this one.
Not to defend his comments, but in fact Karoly appears to be describing two separate groups of people: “Commentators with no scientific expertise”, and “blog writers”.
The phrase is set up as “Group A: Examples ‘TO’ Group B: Examples”.
Since Steve McIntyre is in the second group, there does not, to me, appear to be any implication that he is considered to be without scientific expertise.
Only an expert is likely to propose a hypothesis that stands up to all attempts to reject it.
No one needs to be an expert to show a hypothesis must be rejected; they just need to be right that one time.
SCheesman
No I don’t think that claim works even in terms of that one sentence, and certainly not in terms of th review as a whole (wrt the the supposed “Serengeti strategy” Karoly and Mann have to be including Steve McIntyre in the reference since he is by far the most prominent and significant critic of Mann’s work). In terms of that specific sentence you refer to, the structure is this:
“Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from politicians … [x, y, z] ….. to blog writers Stephen McIntyre ….”,/b>
I think the “blog writers” are clearly included in the whole sentence contruction of “commentators with no scientific expertise” ….. unfortunately for Karoly, it’s just a low and embarrassing smear against Steve McIntyre, who’s blog (h/t Jean S. as well as Steve) just recently exposed an elementary flaw in Karoly’s paper (Gergis et al 2012). I wonder if this book review had already been submitted before the problems with the Gergis paper emerged, bc it is particularly brazen and shameless of Karoly if he submitted such a review after his email to Steve McIntyre and the current re-working of the paper. In any case, Karoly is the only one who looks bad from such vile and baseless smears….
Interesting, Steve McIntyre just affirmed on CA what seemed evident to me, that he first focused upon Mann’s work because it was considered exemplary in the field and was being promoted by the IPCC etc. as definitive, not because it was obviously weak ala Mann’s “Serengeti strategy”. The whole “Serengeti strategy” meme promoted by Karoly on behalf of Mann is merely foolish propaganda. No one in 2001 would have said “oh Mann is the most vulnerable in the field let’s cut him off from the herd and attack”….. Mann was embraced in the heart of the IPCC process, in ways utterly extraordinary for a scientist so new to the field, and then his work was further scrutinized. But that was the opposite of a “Serengeti strategy”…. it was more like “what is considered definitive evidence in this field and what does it say?”
Steve McIntyre comment on why he first looked at Michael Mann’s work