Joe Romm is sooo entertaining these days. Yesterday, when I pointed out to him McIntyre’s takedown of Marcott et al, he came to the immediate conclusion that I was an “instrumental record denier”, apparently sent that assertion to Mike Mann, who then a few minutes later made it a “News Alert” on his Twitter feed, only to be forced to retract it later.
Today, denying the existence of the issues that essentially falsify the Marcott et al paper, while at the same time making sure his readers have absolutely no link to the contrary findings, or even to name “he who must not be named” lest readers might be tempted to Google it, Romm has a new post up, pushing yet again his hilarious projection of the future:
Like a dog playing fetch, he only sees the stick, runs after it, and completely misses the fact that the small blue uptick upon which he bases his projection premise has been shown to be nothing more than an artifact of the shoddy science (removal of some unfavorable proxies) that somehow made it past peer review.
I have decided that this insistence on seeing sticks where there are none needs a label, and here’s what I have decided upon. “stickophrenia”. Here’s the definition:
Stickophrenia is one of the most chronic (long-lasting) and disabling of climate science disorders. People with stickophrenia see hockey sticks where none exist, and the sticks can be made up of just about any data on hand. It is a climate science disorder that causes easily identifiable symptoms such as:
- Hockey Hallucinations (seeing sticks that don’t exist)
- Data Delusions (bizarre thoughts of the data producing hockey sticks, where the data can’t possibly produce one)
- Disordered thinking, to the point of arranging data to make sticks to satisfy urges
- Social media bloviation
- Denial of contrary science, opinions, and data that don’t show hockey sticks
It would be tempting to label Romm as “patient zero” but that honor really should go to Mike Mann.
Romm in his article says we have no social media traction, but let’s see how far “stickophrenia” can go.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With of course tendencies toward “Paranoid Sticksophrenia”
In the worst case, Paranoid Stickophrenia, the sufferer hears voices that tell him to arrange data in the form of a hockey stick. The sufferer experiences intense fear that others are conspiring to take away his hockey sticks. In a rare form, Krugman Syndrome, the sufferer believes that he is an angel of God who must condemn to Hell all who do not hear the voices calling for hockey sticks. The most effective treatment for Stickophrenia is to prohibit the sufferer from sharing public venues where he is rewarded for arranging random data into hockey sticks.
To protect against deletion, at least as long as webcitation lasts, I added the plot at http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Carbon-T-F.jpg to the webcitation archive for future proof of what they claimed:
http://www.webcitation.org/6FEmUMaTJ
That graph is claiming at least around a degree Fahrenheit rise per decade-and-a-half over this century.
And that is excellent … because its absurdity is perfect to be among examples to save, and, a couple decades from now, publicly compare to reality.
Present in a context of showing the beauty, depth, and complexity of real climate history compared to what they tried to reduce it to in flattening the past, placing plots of real data next to it, the likes of
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/kirkby1.jpg?w=542&h=329
and
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20co220from20epica20domec1.gif?w=578&h=396
Just don’t let this get swept under the rug as will be tried.
By far the biggest group of climate change deniers in the world are climate scientists and the IPCC.
Climate Mannia denies the LIA and the MWP. They deny that climate change is natural. They deny there is anything wrong with their math. They deny to publish their data to support their math. They deny to debate the issue. They deny to allow anyone to publish contrary findings. They deny their reliance on funding driven results. They deny that they are the deniers. Mann made climate change deniers.
I love it when I see graphs like the one above. There is a small uptick at the end, so they use the uptick to extrapolate into the future. It reminds me of my son’s last basketball game, he scored 2 baskets in the final seconds getting a little scoring uptick at the end. So I can now extrapolate that if he continues on this trend he will pick up an additional 218,574 points by the end of the season (next week).
Stickophrenia and religious delusions – Marcott is the Son of Mann
O Olson gets it. (Although I think I like the ‘z’ over the ‘s’ – “stickzophrenia.’)
StickoManniac: someone suffering from Mannian Stickophrenia
I don’t think that we should use use appendages like’ Phrenia’ lightly, Schizophrenia is a devastating disease which robs parents of children and adults of life. If you want to give someone stick, how about using the word ‘phile’ as in lover of, hence stickophile or if someone wanted to avoid such things, stickophobic. Thanks.
“[Denier blog] traffic has flat-lined or declined since Climategate, and despite their best efforts, they can’t get any real traction on social media.”
Where the assertion of a “consensus among climate scientists” is logical fallacy by appealing to popularity (false though it be) and authority, does the assertion of lost social media “traction” represent the appeal to consequences of a belief?
“Real” climate reporting, as detailed on a web site like Climate Progress, is done via social media or so Romm seems to assert. To Romm, real seemingly pertains to papers that support AGW, while anti-science is the sole purview of climate deniers and journals which publish papers questioning the anthropogenic cause of global warming.
But Romm’s assertion is nothing more than the logical fallacy of appealing to consequences of a belief (and a belief system requires faith – not fact which belongs to science, but I digress). This fallacy can take several forms, but Romm is employing the notion that, “Climate deniers spread anti-science because they lack Twitter/Facebook/etc… followers; therefore, AGW is real because warmist web sites have more Twitter/Facebook/etc… followers.”
What makes Romm’s “reasoning” fallacious is that the consequences of a belief (AGW is real because of the number of followers) has no bearing on whether the belief is true or false (climate deniers spread anti-science). Try exposing such failed reasoning to someone like Romm, and that belief system mentioned previously engages, along with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. Put more simply, Romm “scaled back [his] coverage of the denier blogs” because he insists there are zebras and ponies in those ink spots, when (quite truthfully) they’re only ink spots.
I thought it should have an entry in “stikipedia”!!!
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that such a site already exists!
http://stikipedia.wikispaces.com/
I think Romm may be so statistically illiterate that he actually thinks it’s OK to glue a high resolution instrumental record to an extremely low-resolution average of noisy, low-resolution proxies which basically flattens everything so much that we’re still basically in the LIA if the reconstruction *had* worked. But when Michael Mann tweets “Denying the 20th century uptick in the #ExtendedHockeyStick equivalent to denying the instrumental evidence for #globalwarming. Just sayin..”, he’s proving that he’s either deliberately pouring deceiving information out to the public or so ignorant in statistics that he should be fired. My hunch is the latter – but in any case, will the Real Climate Scientists please finally stand up against Mann?
I like it. Stickophrenia … a common malady of those practicing clientology.
FTA:”Like a dog playing fetch, he only sees the stick, runs after it, ”
Try saying “Anthony Watts” around Romm would be like yelling
“Squirrel!” around my Springer- a frantic, futile, search ,while said
Squirrel chuckles from a limb in the apple tree…
Stickomannia?
Mannic Denier?
sticksophrenia
Put it in UrbanDictionary.com
“Disordered thinking, to the point of arranging data to make sticks to satisfy urges”
That’s very funny.
Flatstickaphobia?
Just curious: Who first coined the phrase “hide the decline”? Was it first mentioned in that Phil Jone’s email referencing “Mike’s Nature trick”? Thanks,
p.s. I propose we have an international Hide The Decline day, on the date the phrase first entered the public consciousness. On this day, everybody gets to “hide a decline” of theirs in a printed-out email letter, which is then tossed en masse into a huge pit before being filled with concrete.
Gareth Phillips says:
March 19, 2013 at 8:00 am
Come to think of it, “Stickophilia” and “Stickophiliac” have a catchy ring to them.
I just could not stop my mouse after viewing all the insults and talk of hockey 🙂
Gee, if I had known all I needed to be a scientist was a straightedge I wouldn’t have avoided taking physics in college. I thought I was going to have to deal with logs and error bars and all that hard stuff.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Sticking it to the “stickophrenia”-acks
Word added to my spell check. 🙂
DON’T knock this attempt to create a hockey-stick! Encourage it!
As Napoleon said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. In this case we should be playing the part of the advisors who said: “Why don’t you march on Moscow, mon Empereur?”