Dana (Scooter) Nuccitelli, lead attack kid at the SkS Treehut gets schooled.
Bishop Hill writes:
Last week I ribbed Dana Nuccitelli and Gavin Schmidt over the former’s comparing the mean of the Aldrin paper to the mode of Lewis’s. Here’s the quote:
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.
I (BH) was somewhat taken aback when Nuccitelli subsequently denied having done this:
Me: @dana1981 And you can’t really duck the fact that you compared mean to mode. @ClimateOfGavin @wattsupwiththat
Nuccitelli: @aDissentient You have a strange definition of the word “fact”, but that’s not news.
Me: @dana1981 You are denying comparing mean to mode?
Nuccitelli: @aDissentient Sure. While we’re at it, I’m also denying that the moon is made of cheese.
==============================================================
It seems that Dana got taken to task by Tom Curtis at SkS, and now there’s been another one of those silent changes at SkS.
==============================================================
Bish continues:
In the comments, Tom Curtis is remonstrated about Nuccitelli accusing Lewis of misrepresenting the match between his PDF and Aldrin’s,
Dana correctly describes Lewis as claiming that the mode (most likely climate sensitivity) of his result is identical to the mode of Aldrin et al, but then incorrectly calls that claim a simple misrepresentation. It is not a misrepresentation. The modes of the two studies are identical to the first decimal point.
Now it has all changed. Look at the Skeptical Science page again
==============================================================
More here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/22/sks-quietly-withdraws-allegation.html
For those that want to learn what the difference is between mean and mode, about .com has this simple and helpful tutorial: The Mean, the Median and the Mode
Heh. How does that stinky moon cheese taste Dana?
Richard Drake nails it in comments:
Well done for plugging away at these matters. Sensitivity has a central role in the IPCC framework and argument. Although use of mode rather than mean may seem a small detail it isn’t. As we focus in on such things it’s getting harder to paint sceptics as ignorant bigots – largely because of Nic’s excellent work.
Apr 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM |
Richard Drake
Maybe Lew can do some polling of non skeptic websites to prove how Dana was right all along and those of us pointing out Dana’s improper statistics usages are just Moon Landing Deniers.
Related articles
- On Dana1981’s Meaningless ENSO Exercise at SkepticalScience (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Dana’s Planet (The Air Vent)
Larry Crowne?
All that Glowball Warming CO2 has gone to Dana’s head and reduced his limited synaptic capabilities even further.
Kind of sad, he could have had a real career instead of ending up as the butt of entry level Stats Course jokes.
Wonder if he can do basic arithmetic ?
As much as I hate SS, I now really respect Mr. Curtis. This and the Marcott nonsense has shown he has great integrity.
Somebody needs to tell Nutty’s mommy….
that she has a Fruit-of-the-Loom troll….
living in her basement.
Making mistakes in and of itself is not a big deal. We all do that. It is the denial of those mistakes that gives us insight into the person. One of the well known attributes of narcissists is the inability to admit mistakes.
Dana was a bunch of fun this weekend. I think Nic Lewis’s reply at tAV might make a good addition to the post above.
“Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes. Not a mean in sight! And it refers to the mode as the “best estimate”. Nor does Figure 9.20 (where the estimated PDFs for climate sensitivity from Forest 2006 and other studies are shown, labelled EQUILIBRIUM climate sensitivity) mark the means. And Forest 2006 itself only reported the mode.
So I’m not being either misleading on any count, or misrepresenting anything. But Dana is both misrepresenting my study and being misleading. What a surprise.” — Nic Lewis
They may also need to update their ‘less Artic ice caused this years cold weather in the UK’ while their at it;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cold-spring-2013
Full PDF report:- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/2/March2013.pdf
This hypothesis remains contentious, however, and there is little evidence from the comparison between the cold spring of 1962 and this year that the Arctic has been a contributory factor in terms of the hypothesis proposed above. Figure 13 shows the mid-troposphere temperature anomalies for 1962 and 2013; over the Arctic they are almost identical and reflect the negative NAO pattern. It is hard to argue that Arctic amplification had changed the equator to pole temperature in a systematic way to affect the circulation this spring.
More interesting tit-bits in the report.
“Dana Nuccitelli’s meany mode is like stinky cheese”
An insult to Limburger.
SKS is it’s own worst enemy when it tries to rewrite history like this. It’s the worst of both worlds, to implicitly acknowledge the mistake by rewriting a page and at the same time explicitly try to pretend the mistake never happened. It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that not only were they wrong and they knew it, but that they’re dishonest.
Can I just add to my comment above
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vldP9YgX6x0&w=420&h=315%5D
Is it just me? Every time I see Nuccitelli’s name, I initially think it’s Nutticelli…
I have never understood the decision to purchase a scooter instead of a motorcycle. There are 250cc motorcycles that are probably safer to ride than that scooter and get as-good gas mileage. The reason being that large-radius wheels are your friend when you’re trying to balance a 2-wheel vehicle. People on scooters also somehow convince themselves that they can get away with just a helmet. This is foolish. Scooters in traffic are doing 35-45 mph. When was the last time you fell off a bicycle at 25mph? You probably got a lot of skin abrasions from the crash. Now imagine how much skin you’ll lose trying to slow down from 45mph? People on scooters should realistically be wearing leather just like motorcycle riders. He’s also wearing a 3/4 helmet, which I’ve never understood. If you’re going to wear a helmet, you’ve essentially got two choices, protect your chin/neck or don’t. If you’re not going to protect your chin, then you might as well enjoy the wind on your face.
I swear people buy scooters purely for the FASHION of riding a scooter.
John Cook’s myopic followers (like Dana) of their imaginary cheese con$pir@cy theory are an important object lesson for skeptical intellects on how not to conduct reasoned discourse.
Skeptical protagonists should be thankful that John Cook’s blog represents an excellent example of a textbook on ‘Pseudo-Dialog for Dummies’.
John
Jeremy,
I ride both scooters and motorcycles, scooters for work and zipping around town, for all sorts of reason I won’t bore you with they are better at that.
You scooterist!
Based upon observations, SkS = Skewered Science.
@Swiss Bob
Why is a scooter better than a bike, given equal engine displacement?
2 stroke engines are EXTREMELY “POLLUTING”! That’s why we now have 4 stroke options for bikes with emissions control (EFI etc etc)!
Hooper S said:
As much as I hate SS, I now really respect Mr. Curtis. This and the Marcott nonsense has shown he has great integrity.
That. I only got to know of Tom Curtis through the Marcott paper discussions at CA and SKS. I quickly grew to respect him. I can’t help but wonder, if he wasn’t a guy running an important journal, would his against the grain comments at SKS also have been deleted?
You asked:
You don’t get oil on your suit from the chain on a scooter and please don’t start on shaft drive as that’s for losers on BMWs.
If you have a motorcycle do you really want panniers and a top box on your go faster steed? They’d look pretty rubbish on my 916. I can get virtually a complete shopping trolley’s worth of shopping on the scoot and it only has a top box.
Clothes protection apart from oil all over your suit, especially if you have a screen, this means you can wear a suit and not get covered in road crap even if it’s slightly damp.
You can use bus and cycle lanes even on a 250 scoot, motos tend not to be treated so leniently, you very, very rarely get stopped on a scoot unless you lunch it.
In summary they’re good for commuting and shopping in urban areas where it’s difficult to park, motorcycles are good for going very fast from A – B and having lots of fun, er that’s it.
I was taken aback by the claim above that the IPCC doesn’t talk about the mean value of climate sensitivity, just the mode and median. At least in Chapter 10 they do talk about the mean.
Admittedly, it is sloppy to use the word “mean” for a normal distribution (which is also its median and mode), but use median of the lognormal in the same sentence. Maybe they should have said median for the normal.
In regard to what I believe as habitual misuse of uniform priors in Bayesian work on sensitivity estimates, I had to laugh at the next sentence in the referenced quote:
“Equally credible” ?!? OK, guys. Go ahead and unleash your Bayesian Analysis using a uniform prior on the credibility of the ensemble of models against the last 20 years of observations. Let’s use the non-uniform posterior result to “cull the herd.” It is long past time to retire the “equally credible” hoax.. Egalitarianism has no place in honest science.
That photo probably tells us everything we need to know about Nucci’s thought processes an
ethical beliefs : the tiny scooter to emit tiny carbon footprint, carrying him to his undoubtedly tiny little house (covered with mostly govt and state subsidized solar panels) , furnished with sustainable or recycled materials, where he conjures up his tiny little theories about climate change, which is the only thing in his world which isn’t tiny. His whole life is devoted to making sure no one can detect that he ever lived one. Which, of course, he hasn’t.
Typical scooter advantages (in addition to suiseebob’s excellent comments):
CVT transmission (no gears, no clutch) makes it handy for “twist and go” driving in town. And because its far easier to learn to drive its easier to pass the exam. You might not even need a motorcycle license. If your arthritis is kicking in, you don’t need to lift your leg over the bike. Electric start is more common on scooters. Steering at slow speeds can be more precise, especially for newer drivers. And say goodbye to motorcycle annoyances like slippery pegs, noisy engines, and grease on your dress pant leg. The big scooter disadvantage is that almost all of the weight is centred over a small rear tire. And for some reason that makes you look more European (or is that an advantage?).
Oh, and the physics of human skin shredded by pavement at velocity is pretty much the same either way.
The sickness is called Skeptical Science Syndrome.
The only cure that has been proven effective is reality.
Stephen Rasey says:
“I was taken aback by the claim above that the IPCC doesn’t talk about the mean value of climate sensitivity, just the mode and median. At least in Chapter 10 they do talk about the mean.”
What I wrote was “Actually, in Chapter 9 of AR4 WG1, dealing with observationally-constrained estimates of climate sensitivity, the IPCC only discuss medians and modes.”
So what the IPCC said in Ch.10 (about AOGCMs) is not relevant to my assertion.
@ suissebob and dremilson
1) Manual Transmission is actually a safer way to drive. It focuses the mind on the task of driving, you can’t drive a manual and not be paying attention to what you’re doing, it minimizes distracted driving.
2) I’ve seen people have more trouble controlling a scooter than a bike, I’ve watched this happen.
3) If you have arthritis that bad, you should probably get and use a bicycle.
4) Electric start is almost universal on all road-intended 2-wheeled vehicles at this point
5) Slow speed steering is only useful when lane-splitting to get to the front at a red-light.
6) Noisy engine is all contained in choice of bike.
7) Slippery pegs are likely just as common as a slippery footwell.
8) If you are getting grease on your pant leg, you need to take better care of your bike.
Other scooter disadvantages
1) Small wheel radius, this leads to less inherent stability at speed. It means it is easier for the front wheel to get thrown into an oscillation that throws you off the scooter at low speeds.
2) Less lean capability in turns. Again this means less stability while turning, not more.
3) Smaller tire cross-section in contact with pavement than motorcycles. This means smaller patches of slick road can be significantly more dangerous than on a larger bike.
4) Noisy engines actually improve your “visibility” to drivers around you, again improving your safety factor.
/enough threadjacking.
Slightly OT: As a motorcycle safety instructor, I have a few observations about that picture that have been bothering me: (according to the RMartin website, that electric scooter weighs almost 400 pounds and is capable of going 50 mph, so yes, safety-wise, it should be catagorized as a motorcycle):
1. Over the ankle boots – those loafers are only slightly better than flip-flops… or bare feet.
2. Those slacks will do nothing to protect in the event of a crash
3. That jacket does not appear to be adequate riding gear.
4. It looks like he’s looking at the ground in front of the scooter. A common problem with new riders is that they want to look down, instead of keeping their eyes level with the horizon. (it fees like I spend half my classes telling riders to keep their eyes up and not look down at the ground or the bike).
I don’t know about his local laws, but if he lived here, he would need a motorcycle endorsement to ride that scooter on public roads (since it is capable of speeds greater than 35 mph), and if he took a safety class, the stuff above would have been covered – so its not like he wouldn’t know any of this stuff…
He might think he’s setting a good example by riding riding an electric scooter, but the example safety-wise is pretty bad.
I’d say that Nuccitelli’s bull got Gored!
But not enough integrity to prevent or advocate against rewriting history at the SKS site. Dana did wrong, but now thanks to creative editing Dana is better?
That’s sort of like putting a really yummy if odiferous cheese on a very stale cracker. The cheese is terrific, but you don’t want another bite with the ossified cracker. A bad taste is still a bad taste no matter the spin.
Dana’s and SKS actions, no matter how Tom Curtis may appear to temper them, make Swedish Surströmming smell as good as it tastes.
Its hardly a surprise to find that given SS was crated by a cartoonist , even if a poor one , that those working on it it act like their in a comic.
Jeremy says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:58 am
@Swiss Bob
Why is a scooter better than a bike, given equal engine displacement?
A scooter is usually lighter than a bike, with a smaller motor (max displacement is about 250 cc), so you use less gas and oil. ‘Course you don’t go as fast, and the HP will ticket you for riding on a freeway. Both the two stroke and four stroke motors on scooters, with and without catalytic converters, emit several times the crud a properly tuned car motor does per volume of fuel consumed. Scooters are not green, just slow, small and overly easy to miss seeing on a busy street.
Another disadvantage with the smaller scooter wheel is that under circumstances where a road is badly pot-holed, with a hole of the wrong size, the smaller wheel has a greater potential for getting trapped. That is, it stops turning. Forward momentum is converted to rotation around the front axle and you will be glad for the helmet, IF you don’t break your neck.
Main advantage of a scooter over a bike – you’ll probably live longer. Bike riders tend to think they’re cool. They tend to think that the faster they go, the more cool they are. This results in splats. Scooter riders know that they look silly just putt putting along, but they do it because it’s slightly faster and less tiring than walking.
Considering your headline, it’s the innocent one who has a cheesy namesake:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese
arthur4563 says:
April 22, 2013 at 9:31 am
“His whole life is devoted to making sure no one can detect that he ever lived one. Which, of course, he hasn’t.”
The accompanying video.
Don’t you mean ‘Moon Cheese Deniers’?
As a person working in the professional motorcycle racing paddock I can’t help but jump in on the scooter thing @Jeremy.
I suppose it depends where you live. Here in the UK the cost of car and bike insurance has become so great for new drivers that a scooter is often a youth’s first motorised transport. They can ride them aged 16 ( you can’t drive a car until 17 and the cost of insuring it can outweigh the value of the vehicle ).
You don’t need a motorcycle license. You can pass a CBT which is a quick test of your basic ability to manoeuvre it around, slap an ‘L’ plate on it and off you go. If you already have a car license you don’t need to sit a CBT, purchase it and off you go.
The Motorcycle test is now multi part theory and practise and is in fact both expensive and difficult to pass and will take you best part of half a year or more unless you go for a crash course option ( no pun intended )
They are simple to drive, they are twist and go. Some people simply can’t ride a motorcycle. They have difficulty dealing with the concept of a hand clutch and changing gear by foot. You will probably poo-poo them as not being fit to ride anything but i know American drivers of 30 years who are absolutely flummoxed by the concept of a manual transmission car.
They are used over here as urban transport. Most urban roads have a 30mph limit. All scooters are at least capable of that so can keep up with traffic.
I think everybody’s main reason would be one of cost. It simply boils down to it being cheap to run and insure. A motorcycle in comparison is not. A set of tyres for my bikes is £500 alone ( $760 ) more for the rare one.
I ride a scooter around a race paddock every other weekend. It’s all that is allowed to be used. It’s an open paddock, which means on race day there can be 20000 people milling around. I can assure you that scooters are not the slightest bit difficult to ride or manoeuvre, in fact they are extremely stable at low speed when persistently avoiding the public walking in front of you.
It’s all subjective and a matter of choice. I can tell you this if I want to go a mile to the store I have a choice of vehicles. In good weather I’d always opt for the scooter rather than a car or sport bike because it’s quick, easy and sensible. It’s clear you don’t like them and that’s fine but there are many reasons an individual might choose one. People don’t get scooters thinking they will magically become part of some biking brotherhood. They want cheap transport.
And you talk about the helmet. Wind on your neck? Are you proposing those silly pudding-basin half-lids that foolish Harley riders wear? Most motorcycle safety federations around the world have long outlawed those useless things.
just for fun and not because I’m trying to argue from authority here’s a picture of me:
https://picasaweb.google.com/101385055228808648856/March272013#5860145055201404338
I do like to think I have half a clue as to what I’m talking about.
@zoto
It wasn’t a proposition. I was suggesting that safety-wise, there’s very little difference between the 3/4 helm that Dana’s wearing and the half-shells you’re speaking of. I was making the point that if you’re going to wear anything less than a full helmet, you might as well wear those half-lids.
Given that Tom Curtis seems bent on being truthful, you have to wonder if he’s starting to see those he’s set up camp as the sorts that are not so much? Indeed, in one of the recent posts over at CA (regarding the Lew mess, IIRC), Tom seemingly went out of his way to prove that John Cook was not dishonest, merely incompetent.
Mark
James Evans says: “Scooter riders know that they look silly just putt putting along…”
Could be worse:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01456/segwayScooter_1456971c.jpg
Haha, Luna cheese seems to be the comparison of choice with Climate Warming Enthusiasts. Over at RC a few years ago, Gavin replied with the following and Judith Curry had a go at him for doing so then too 🙂
TimTheToolMan says:
21 Oct 2010 at 7:41 PM
If the models were to be shown to be specifically deficient in some area and need significant rework what impact would you see that having on the thousands of papers that have relied on them to this point and of climate science in general?
[Response: And if the moon were made of green cheese, what impact would that have on space science in general and on the astronauts who walked on it? Please don’t play games. – gavin]
Wheee! Bikes (as in motor) are FUN!
Why does Nuttacelli [I see it that way, too] ride a scooter? Religion — it is considered a holy thing to do by the Cult of Climatology (so, essentially, peer pressure, since most of them aren’t sincere believers, but hypocrites in it for the prestige and or money). Hybrids and Dopemobiles, a.k.a. “Smart Cars” are also holy.
Wow, Zoot Cad-il-laaaac (Go Chevy!), that is SO pitiful about U.K. kids starting out on a scooter! That is really sad. Not glamorous, but least most of us in the U.S. started out with a station wagon or similar vehicle with a 350 (or 454!) under the hood. How many friends can you pile into (I mean, onto) a scooter? How fast can you go? How many bicycles or inner tubes or snowboards can you fit inside? What about the dog?
BACK TO TOPIC: WAY TO GO, BISHOP (and all you wonderful science guys and gals)! I am so glad I can hang out on this site (quietly, usually!) with you. You are an amazingly gifted bunch.
Keep the rubber side down and always remember, in the end, TRUTH WILL WIN.
@ Jorge Kafkazar — ugh. You’re right! They could (and obviously SHOULD) walk quickly and get there (to the pasta bar, no doubt) faster.
Tim the Tool Man,
Re: your Oct., 2010 exchange above:
***
[Response: And if the moon were made of green cheese, what impact would that have on space science in general and on the astronauts who walked on it? Please don’t play games. – gavin]
That fussy, prissy, tone, along with the disingenuous slop of the content, SURE DOES REMIND ME of that annoying clown, Stan W., that R.Courtney and Werner and others tried to debate with recently. “Pleeth don’t play gameth” is how it sounds to my ear. Yuck.
What an excellent memory you have to recall (and great research to locate the comment after over 2 years, too!) that twit’s response!
@Jeremy
Your comment regarding the [lack of] utility of using a less-than full helmet reminds me of a friend I knew that always had a new, top-of-the-line Bell helmet every year — which seemed a bit out of proportion to the money he spent on the rest of his wardrobe. When I asked about it, his answer was quite succinct: “If you have a ten dollar head, wear a ten dollar helmet”…
Wow. This is just yet another example of a post to slander and smear an “opponent”.
So utterly childish and embarrassing for WUWT to have this sort of trash on what is claimed to be a blog of science.
It’s almost like you’ve set out to prove Cook right. But you knew he was.
I’ve visited both SS and WUWT for years and anyone with even only a small amount of science background can pick SS as the one grounded in science and the scientific process. And it certainly doesn’t resort to this type of abuse.
Shame.
I like this thread. It’s got a “1984” meets “Quadrophenia” feel.
TheInquirer:
I write to thank you for your post at April 23, 2013 at 12:05 am which says
I enjoy a good laugh and I enjoy surrealism. You have provided both in one sentence.
Thankyou.
Richard
TheInquirer writes “I’ve visited both SS and WUWT for years and anyone with even only a small amount of science background can pick SS as the one grounded in science and the scientific process. And it certainly doesn’t resort to this type of abuse.”
No indeed. This is mild by comparison to what happens at SkS. How would you feel if Anthony or his moderators came in here and tweaked your post to be a little less critical? Reworded it a bit? Or perhaps simply removed it altogether because its “unreasonably” critical of this blog or the topic?
I crashed my motorcycle once when I ran into a dog. Fortunately I was going slow up a hill and didn’t suffer too badly. The dog ran off never to be seen again. My handle bars retained a permanent skew angle from the proper 90 degrees angle to the front wheel. I also got hit in the head from a truck mirror once. More annoying than harmful though. Apparently I had forgotten to turn my invisibility cloak off. Ha ha. I almost ran into a bear once as well. Darned if I didn’t drop the bike while trying to turn around and wondered what was going to happen next. The motor stalled and kick starting was not quick and easy. The bear disappeared into the woods, never to be seen again.
No laughing matter though when my twin brother who so happens to be named Dana was hit by a car while ridding his bicycle and suffered a brain injury and spent 40 days in a coma. Then spent several years learning to talk and walk all over again. I’m sad now… Keep up the fight.
I don’t get the point of these ad hominem attacks, other than that it helps some people here feel better about themselves. Pointing out flaws in a paper is beneficial. Piling on with a bunch of similar opinions is not. I would like to see a post about some of the correct points Nuccitelli has made, rather than a rant about one error.
Brian:
At April 23, 2013 at 7:20 am you say
OK, I will bite.
I – and I suspect many others – missed Nuccitelli making a correct point.
Perhaps you would be willing to say what it was?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:32 am
Indeed. “Brian” and “TheInquirer” appear orchestrated. Who is the conductor?
@TheInquirer (another anonymous coward with a fake name)
If you can can convince Skeptical Science to publicly apologize for this:
from the Skeptical Science Treehut files:
I’ll gladly take down this mild (by comparison) satire of Dana’s obstinate denial, then surreptitious post facto changes without acknowledgment. It wouldn’t have been a story without Dana making a complete fool of himself publicly. Fair game.
Otherwise, me thinks you doth protest too much.
TheInquirer:
The SkS quote above sounds exactly like what you would expect from someone who knows he is losing the argument, no? ☺
Yes.
“TheInquirer” says…..
“I’ve visited both SS and WUWT for years and anyone with even only a small amount of science background can pick SS as the one grounded in science and the scientific process.”
If it’s not too abusive to say, I find your comment rather delusional.
Consider all those awards WUWT has won to be the exclamation mark.
SkS is for folks who want tinformation.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tinfoil%20hat%20crowd
SkS actually do allow posts that criticise their articles. I know this from personal experience.
Science is settled by popularity contests for blogs?
It’s called a “consensus”, barry.
Back atcha. Either ‘consensus’ matters, or it doesn’t. Can’t have it both ways.
Ha Ha!
I guess the irony didn’t hit Barry as he was typing.
I’m afraid any irony was completely overpowered by the absurdity. I’m sure a consensus of Joe Public on what I should do about my brain tumour might prove interesting, but I’d be a mad fool to prefer that over a consensus of doctors specialising in the subject. Maybe in the lurid world of the blogosphere expertise counts for nothing, but I’ll trust my health to the professionals.
Robert in Calgary:
At April 24, 2013 at 6:18 am you suggest
Mmmm.
On the basis of what he wrote it seems more likely that
the idea to type hit Barry while he was ironing.
Richard
I was ironing, but I burned my ear when the telephone rang. I checked some polls to see who was the most popular doctor on TV so I could get some advice from an authoritative source.
barry:
Thankyou for your informative post at April 24, 2013 at 7:07 am.
It says
Thankyou.
It was already clear that you are a warmunist and now you say you think a self-appointed consensus is “an authoritative source”.
Yup. Pure warmunist.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
April 24, 2013 at 7:54 am
His analogy would be apt, if doctors today were still bleeding patients of bad humours.
Medical science is reliable today, but it wasn’t in its infancy, which is where Climate Science is in its developmental stage.
Get this:
” Albatross at 14:47 PM on 1 May, 2013
Nick’s misrepresentation of the Aldrin et al. paper is egregious. And make no mistake, it is a misrepresentation as Dana has shown and as I will again demonstrate below.
Additionally, nowhere in AR4 or meta analysis papers on climate sensitivity (e.g., Knutti and Hegerl 2008) that I am aware of do they use the mode to quantify climate sensitivity. They use either the median and interquartile range or confidence intervals. It is quite the coincidence that Lewis managed to find the one value (of many) in Aldrin et al’s extensive data analysis that fits his desired narrative for a lower climate sensitivity.
Lewis could only obtain his desired number by using three cherry picks:
1) Using the mode rather than median
2) Ignoring Aldrin et al’s higher sensitivity when including the indirect aerosol effect
3) Ignoring Aldrin et al’s even higher sensitivity when including the impacts of clouds
Now including #2 and #3 above act to make the estimates more consistent and inline with processes the real world. That is, higher. Yet, Lewis decided to ignore those values… 😉
What Lewis has done is to cherry pick a particular scenario, then cherry pick a unconventional measure of climate sensitivity from Aldrin et al. (a value that Aldrin et al. did not even explicitly calculate or speak to anywhere in their paper) and then elevate it to front-and-centre in his abstract.
Sorry, but the above actions reveal Lewis’s bias/agenda. It would also be very disappointing if a prestigious journal like J. Climate were to turn a blind eye to such shenanigans.”
“Lewis could only obtain his desired number by using three cherry picks:
1) Using the mode rather than median”
But that is not what Dana said.
Dana’s allegation was that mean should have been used.
“And make no mistake, it is a misrepresentation *as Dana has shown and as I will again* demonstrate below.
User avatar
SweetPea
Too Cute To Be A
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2182