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.
If things are as bad as that ridiculous graph would indicate, what does Romm seriously think can be done about it?
Of course, I don’t for a moment suppose that Romm believes his own spiel.
This was in a March 19, 2013 presentation by geologist John Roesink of Bill Barrett Corp, “Before the Data Warehouse – the Importance of Dynamic Data to Sub-Surface E&P Teams.” at the Spotfire Energy Forum, Houston TX. This quote might be his or it might be from John C. Davis, “Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology” (2002). It is a caution to the scientist to skeptical of their own discovered relationships. Just because you want to find a relationship, doesn’t mean there is one to be found.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Richard Feynman.
Ok, I know this thread is dead, but the term “stickoholic” just hit me. I mean, it does come across as sort of an addiction, no?
How about someone writing an essay comparing what Romm just did with Durkin’s representation of “Lamb’s graph” in “Swindle”?
You know, to look up all the big name complainers about the issue of presenting a graph that makes 1950 look like “now”
Take Romm’s graph with it’s extension from 1950 as if “now”.
What fun!.