Bishop Hill notes this interesting bit about Gavin Schmidt and Dana Nuccitelli, and rather than try to rewrite the excellent dry wit in a few sentences going on here, well I’ll just let you read what he said at Bishop Hill:
============================================================
Gavin Schmidt, a much misunderstood character in the global warming debate, has demonstrated his good faith and honourable intentions by issuing a denunciation of Skeptical Science.
Earlier today Gavin and I exchanged some tweets about the use of means and modes in climate sensitivity studies. Gavin’s thoughts were as follows:
@aDissentient @micefearboggis Comparing the mode to previously reported means is a sleight of hand.
I was slightly confused at first, as I was unaware of anyone who had done such a wicked thing. However, having now read Dana Nuccitelli’s post about Nic Lewis’s paper at Skeptical Science I can now see that Gavin calls out scientific malfeasance whereever he sees it. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the Nuccitelli piece:
One significant issue in Lewis’ paper (in his abstract, in fact) is that in trying to show that his result is not an outlier, he claims that Aldrin et al. (2012) arrived at the same most likely [i.e. the mode] climate sensitivity estimate of 1.6°C, calling his result “identical to those from Aldrin et al. (2012).” However, this is simply a misrepresentation of their paper.
The authors of Aldrin et al. report a climate sensitivity value of 2.0°C [per the paper, the mean] under certain assumptions that they caution are not directly comparable to climate model-based estimates. When Aldrin et al. include a term for the influences of indirect aerosols and clouds, which they consider to be a more appropriate comparison to estimates such as the IPCC’s model-based estimate of ~3°C, they report a sensitivity that increases up to 3.3°C. Their reported value is thus in good agreement with the full body of evidence as detailed in the IPCC report.
A sleight of hand indeed. I will not hear a bad word said about Gavin at my blog. 🙂
============================================================
Interesting situation. I wonder if he and Nuccitelli will talk?
Not so fast!. For years over at Real Climate Gavin Schmidt has responded to legitimate questions about climate science with snarky, patronizing, obfuscating, condescending, non-answers intentionally worded to confuse rather than clarify. How many times has he told us we’re too dumb to understand climastrology? How many questions has he “bore-holed” rather than answer? Don’t cut Gavin an inch of slack. He’s a snake who sees the writing on the wall and is simply trying to salvage a bruised and battered reputation. Suddenly he’s a reformed skeptic? Yeah, when the Pope converts to Judaism.
There seems to have been a change in Gavin over the past year or so. He allows much more critical discussion and is not as harsh as he used to be at RC. Maybe they had another seminar on “climate communication” finally realizing that hostility doesn’t win hearts and minds?
A comment at Bishop Hill by dearieme about a researcher being jailed for faking results caught my eye. The article included this comment from Sir Paul Nurse…
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: “Good science is based on reliable observation and the data can only be relied upon if scientists are open and honest.
“People in the UK generally trust science because they know that experimentation is the most reliable route to knowledge.
“Anything that could be seen to jeopardise both the process and the trust it engenders is dangerous and needs to be rooted out.”
Given some of his recent comments in the AGW space pretty jawdropping!
original article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10001149/Scientist-jailed-for-faking-medicine-test-results.html
h/t to dearieme
Say what? I am really reading this at WUWT : “Gavin’s a good guy” ? Are you freaking kidding me? Gavin Schmidt is a class A, #1 turd. Period. My God, I never in my life thought I would be reading such crap at WUWT.
Gavin is to his tweet @ur momisugly BH as 100 chimpanzees randomly hitting keys on computers are to a Shakespeare sonnet.
After decades, he randomly had a one liner that could be semi-plausibly possibly maybe somewhat skeptical.
Gavin ain’t no pilgrim in an unholy land. {apologies to the movie ‘The Last Crusade}
John
OK, it’s your blog, but what if this comment by Gavin is an outlier?
There are liars, damnliars, and outliers.
Now that Hansen isn’t his boss I wonder if Gavin will continue to characterize the 1988 projection as “skillful”.
remember Muller,, he was a pretend skeptic..
for about 10 minutes.
don’t get sucked in again !!!!!
barry says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm
I hope everybody carefully reads your post. Many seem to be getting the wrong impression. JP
Ratings are to truth as ………
– – – – – – –
u.k.(us) ,
. . . . . as voting for a high school prom queen is to adolescent hormones.
: )
John
Barry is right. Gavin ain’t defending Nic. Dana is an idiot anyway. with a symmetrical distribution, the mean makes sense. With a highly skewed distribution, not so much. Gavin, the guy with a math degree, should know this.
Mark
Seems freedom is a good thing, no?
It provides opportunity and provides ability that does not exist in some places.
Congrats to Gavin,,,,, he knows the facts, trends, votes, and makes his way to effective truth by default. Continue to step it up !
“I will not hear a bad word said about Gavin at my blog.”
So long as you neither engage a text-to-speech app or read out loud, you’re safe.
Science isn’t just about being skeptical of others’ theories. It’s about being skeptical of one’s own.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm
…..Suddenly he’s a reformed skeptic? Yeah, when the Pope converts to Judaism.
IIRC, the first Pope was a Jew.
Agree with Barry. AFAICT Bishop Hill is craftily redirecting Gavin’s criticism (of Lewis?) to Dana N.’s comment. So Gavin must publicly display his hypocrisy by repudiating BH or let his unwitting criticism of Dana stand. Checkmate.
Even James was known to throw SKS under the bus. I remember one of the SKS regulars commenting a few years back that if warming didn’t materialize, heads would roll. No doubt Gavin has noticed James’ head on the stick.
Justin Templer (@justintempler) says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The sarcasm will go over many a persons head.
Sadly, it clearly already has. Come on folks. As if Anthony’s opening comment about Bish’s “dry wit” wasn’t enough. Jeez. I’ll spell it out. Bish is calling Schmidt out as a hypocrite.
What are you, who are having a go at Gavin Schmidt, trying to achieve? Name calling will only prolong the conflict. Gavin and others are, at the moment, stuck behind the barricades and as long as the opprobium flows they will stay there. We need to give them the opportunity to change their positions and come over to the light without being obnoxious and rubbing their noses in it!
Some of the comments posted on this blog reinforce the old saw that Americans and the rest of the English-speaking world are divided by a sense of humour. The Bish’s comment was written with a peculiar Scottish SoH known as, “Pawky”, a 17th C Scottish/ north English word meaning, “shrewd’. Hope this makes things clearer.
Justin Templer (@justintempler) says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The sarcasm will go over many a persons head.
It clearly already has. Come on folks. As if Anthony’s opening comment about Bish’s “dry wit” wasn’t enough. I’ll spell it out. Bish is calling Schmidt out as a hypocrite.
Roger Edmunds says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:46 am
“What are you, who are having a go at Gavin Schmidt, trying to achieve? Name calling will only prolong the conflict. ”
What prolongs the conflict is not calling a government scientist names; it is paying him a wage.
No,No,No Leopards do not change their spots over night. Is this not the same man who wanted to punch/attack some one with a skepitcal outlook!!
Come on Anthony once bitten twice shy…remember the Miller incident?
@ur momisugly stan stendera says:
April 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm
A rat can leave the ship. But they are still a rat.
They have still chewed through the moorings that secure humanity to civilization. The have still despoiled the stocks required for sustainance. They have still carried pestilence that has killed untold thousands.
They can leave the ship. But they must be hunted out and eradicated.