Climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics
From the GWPF – London, 6 February: A recent paper in Nature has received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability. The lead author, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, also claimed that his work dealt a fatal blow to suggestions that computer simulations have systematically overestimated the global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
However, Nic Lewis, an expert in this area of climate science, today pubished an article demonstrating that there are serious errors in the paper, and that its conclusions cannot be sustained. Lewis said:
“As well as having some basic statistical errors, Marotzke’s study can be shown to utilise circular logic. This means that its conclusions are unsound. Moreover, the stability of estimates for at least one of the two key structural model properties used is so poor that even were he able to rework his paper without the circularity – which appears impracticable – it would very likely be impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. I think the authors have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”
Lewis’s findings, which have been published at the influential Climate Audit blog, have been reviewed and confirmed by two statisticians: Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University and Roman Mureika, formerly of the University of New Brunswick. Professor Hughes said of the Marotzke paper:
“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice one, thanks to Nic and Anthony. The 18 year pause in global warming, and the over-estimation AGW propaganda machinery seems themselved to be a resulta of some logical eroor in their reasonings. But of cource, we have all known that from the start.
There seems to be a complaint about the work of Nic Lewis that is hasn’t been published in Nature and therefore shouldn’t be privileged the same respect as the original paper. This attitude is wrong for several reasons.
1) The standard of peer review at Nature is far lower than at Climate Audit – especially the crowd audit after the publication. Compare the two Nature and Climate Audit and try to argue from the sources that he standard of science is higher in the paper journal.
2) No-one can argue with the criticism of the statistics or the circular logic. No-one has even tried. Therefore the work of Nic Lewis is unarguably more robust than the Nature paper – that is being criticised.
3) Being wrong happens. Being out of your depth is another. This paper has been recommended for retraction and no-one can see why it shouldn’t be so retracted (except that Nature is “peer reviewed” and so correct by divine right). Clearly the peer review at Nature was embarrassingly inadequate.
Missing the green is unfortunate. Going out of bounds is very unfortunate. But your caddy not noticing when you do is a bigger problem. Would you trust that caddy to pick your clubs when you next play? Nic Lewis is right not to.
“This paper has been recommended for retraction and no-one can see why it shouldn’t be so retracted (except that Nature is “peer reviewed” and so correct by divine right). Clearly the peer review at Nature was embarrassingly inadequate”
Agree M Courtney but nothing will come of it. This paper will just be added to the massive list of papers that are evidence to show that the theory is valid.
Moving of the goal posts can go on for some time. The -PDO, global cooling effect can be used for close to 30 years since in the past, this has been the periodicity.
My position is that if the -PDO or other natural force is capable off stopping the warming, while CO2 levels accelerate higher, for such a long time, then clearly CO2 is not causing the dangerous warming speculated by the theory.
But, the theory will not die as long as those convinced of it can justify it with papers like this one and we know that this has always been what matters most.
Briggs has written a comment letter to Nature. Who,knows whether they will dare publish it. I suspect Nic is preparing a formal retraction request to Nature’s editors and to authors Marotzke and Forster. He knows Forster. That process will take a bit of time.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/15201
Rud Istvan February 6, 2015 at 8:09 am
Has it exactly right. The circular reasoning is clear even in the abstract. I noticed it when I first read the abstract, I didn’t mention it here, because I thought it was too obvious and Nature would never publish a paper with such clear flaws. I guess I was wrong about that.
For those of us lacking statistics we rely on resources. Then the question becomes which resource to trust and why? So awaiting feedback after posting this: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/kommunikation/aktuelles/forschung-aktuell/das-plateau-in-der-globalen-temperatur.html
You have your answer. You cannot trust Nature (journal), and you cannot trust MPI because they produced and at the link you provide, promote a falsehood that’s absurd on its face.
But its worse. You cannot trust Science (journal) because they did not retract Marcott 2013. See essay A High Stick Foul in ebook Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate.. You cannot trust Scientific American (journal) who published Mann’s denial of the pause April 2014. See essay Unsettling Science. You cannot trust NASA GISS and Gavin Schmidt, who ‘forgot’ to mention there was only a 32% chance 2014 was really the hottest evah!
You certainly cannot trust IPCC meta analyses. For WG1 examples, see the climate chapter in ebook The Arts of Truth and essay Hiding the Hiatus. For a WG2 example, see essay No Bodies.
In fact on climate change trust no one and verify everything. Climategate showed the unsavory games being played. That most people cannot or will not is what has allowed this nonsense to gain so much traction and momentum.
Rud,
As always I thank you. I was already there with Dr. Schmidt.
I do not understand why MPI would reiterate. There was no benefit that I can see and it puzzles me.
The evidence stands. I understand a bit more of the skeptical nature.
Sigh.
Regards.
Danny, MPI in Germany is like NOAA NCAR in the US. Dependent on funding for climate models. Anything to prevent the well from drying up. Their web PR was blasted to main stream media; it has gotten press coverage in Deusche Welle, Sidney Times, Washington Post. It is a big deal at SKS now that even they have been forced to admit model/temp divergence. Most people don’t read Nature or Climate Audit. It was the PR value of the paper that counted for COP21 later this year. Even if Nature retracts (I agree with Nic Lewis it will have to), the Washington Post won’t run a story based on another PR MPI won’t put out about the embarassing retraction. Regards.
Rud,
Thank you for the history and perspectives.
The sad takeaway is that too many climate scientists are “activists” first, with a personal belief that clouds their objectivity, even if they’re trying to be sincere scientists. Statistics is a dispassionate field, and that’s how climate science should also operate. Otherwise it’s not science at all.
There is a deeper problem. Too many climate scientists aren’t minimally competent scientists. Mann’s hockey results automatically from an improper statistical process (centered principle components). Martozke’ abstract is simply illogical. Dessler (2010) claiming to have shown observational positive cloud feedback with an r^2 of 0.2! (essay Cloudy Clouds). University of Arizona claiming to show ecological climate change impacts over 50 years along a transect (AFH 39, the famous Catalina Highway outside Tucson) that was completely devastated by major forest fires in 2002 and 2003. (essay Burning Nonscience, pun intended). And on, and on.
97% agree with you!
Our university, and I assume most others, offer a course in statistics to researcher graduate students, post-docs , and faculty. It is not mandatory, and I do not know the participation rate. As to the second point, good luck accomplishing anything in this regard. Journals view those person most competent to review a paper as being members of the same club as the authors. It is a bandwagon effect to some degree, and it is also part of the circular thinking in grants and publication that Wm. Briggs spoke to last week.
WUWT reported,
To infer that Nature, in the case of the publication process of the Marotzke and Forster research, doesn’t have normally plentiful access to the most competent referees is being unreasonably charitable to the journal Nature.
The least charitable, but more plausible case is that the journal Nature has access to the highest qualified competent referees in any field but could not get them to engage in consideration of this piece of junk research by Marotzke and Forster; so Nature used instead ‘useful’ referees. The highly reputable referees are more plausibly keeping their integrity and distance from Marotzke and Forster work product.
John
John Whitman
You suggest
That suggestion makes no sense.
Highly reputable referees would keep their integrity by pointing out the flaws in the paper and commending the paper be rejected for publication because the flaws are so serious.
Richard
richardscourtney,
I do not understand how your comment can actually apply to what I said. Enlighten please.
John
John Whitman, I got the point of what you meant.
And I quite agree.
Nature obviously does have access to the highest qualified, competent referees but perhaps it doesn’t have access to the highest qualified, competent editors?
John Whitman
I am at a loss to explain how my comment can be more clearly responsive to your comment, but you ask me
I will try to explain, but I don’t really know how to get you to “understand” the bleedin’ obvious.
You wrote and I quoted
And I commented on that suggestion saying
You are suggesting the referees maintain their “integrity” by refusing to provide reviews when they see a paper that is not worthy of publication. Your suggestion makes “no sense” because the “integrity” of “highly reputable referees” is founded on – and is displayed by – their providing honest reviews.
A clear lack of “integrity” is demonstrated by refusal to provide a review because the review would be negative.
All honest referees (n.b. not only “highly reputable” ones) keep their integrity by pointing out the flaws in a paper and commending a paper be rejected for publication when its flaws are so serious as to merit rejection for publication. (Incidentally, I most recently gave a review which recommended a paper be rejected for publication earlier this week).
Richard
MCourtney on February 6, 2015 at 12:09 pm
MCourtney,
Yes.
The journal Nature has access to objective referees and editors with professional honor, so one wonders why they chose ‘useful’ ones for processing the junk research by Marotzke and Forster.
I do not think they need to get some competent referees; they need to get rid of their ‘useful’ referees and editors.
John
richardscourtney,
I appreciate you expanding further per my request.
My original comment pointed out that the journal Nature appointed a ‘useful’ team of referees (and editor as pointed out by MCourtney) for the processing of the junk research of Marotzke and Forster. Yet, they did not appoint a top of the field objective and high integrity team which they obviously have access to.
I inferred that the journal Nature cannot force any teams of referees and editors to process such junk research as Marotzke and Forster. I therefore think that top of the field objective and high integrity teams of editor and referees are intellectually voting with their feet away from participation on processing certain kinds of damaged ‘climate change’ research which they know are being advocated with bias by the intellectual leadership at the journal Nature. We will know what I said is true when the community that supplies referees and editors to the journal Nature start speaking out that they condemn the journal Nature’s recurring habit of ‘useful’ teams of referees and editors to process certain junk research.
Therefore, I still do not understand the thrust of your two comments claiming ‘non-sense’ of my original post.
John
John Whitman
Your post I answered said
That clearly and without any caveat says the “more plausible case” pertains to behaviour(s) of “the highest qualified competent referees” and resulting use by Nature of ” ‘useful’ referees”.
I replied saying in total
In response to your request for clarification of my reply I bothered to explain it, but you still say you don’t understand my response. I will try a different tack; i.e.
You spouted illogical nonsense and you are now trying to disguise that by attempting to claim your post I rebutted was about journal Editors and not about behaviour(s) of “the highest qualified competent referees”.
I will not be bothered to reply to any more of your nonsense in this sub-thread.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Show me the illogic. Apparently that is the basis for you stating non-sense in each of your three comments.
John
John Whitman
Your daft post at February 8, 2015 at 4:13 pm demands of me
I have shown you repeatedly. I will here do it again.
Your first post was about the behaviours of “highly reputable referees” which you asserted were caused by their actions “keeping their integrity”.
I pointed out that your assertion was – and is – nonsensical because their asserted behaviour would negate their “integrity”.
You now compound your nonsense by claiming your first post was about journal Editors whom it did not mention, and it was not about the behaviours of “highly reputable referees” which you asserted.
Richard
PS I have only provided this reply to your demand because I am curious as to what your next daft response will be and I enjoy laughs.
It might be so. In my experience, which is not recent nor especially extensive, reviewers do one of the following:
1) Avoid confrontations over contentious topics, especially when their opponents are highly regarded and on the “correct” side of the contention.
2) Try to help the authors correct deficiencies and make a stronger product.
3) Give the paper a superficial review because they barely understand the topic themselves, but cannot bring themselves to admit as much.
4) State, without further elaboration, that the paper is awful and shouldn’t be published, leaving editors and reviewers to wonder if the opposition is substantive or derives from other factors like personal issues or viewpoint.
5) Review the work with a eye to aiding their own citation record, i.e. make suggestions about potential additions to the bibliography.
6) Reveal to interested third parties the essence of the paper, long before it can emerge from review and be published.
Number 2) occurs more often than one might think.
Kevin Kilty
Yes, thankyou.
Each of your points is worthy of discussion and they all happen but – as you say – your point 2 is most common.
Richard
Kevin Kilty,
Your overview of possibilities was well done, thanks.
In the case of the junk research by Marotzke and Forster it is obvious that “2)” did not occur at the journal Nature. Also, over the past several years it is not uncommon to find that it doesn’t occur on a certain type of research papers being processed by journals like Nature.
John
I have read Nick Lewis’s summary on the Climate Audit site, and all I can say is OMG. In addition to all of the other problems, is there not also the following problem with the model? To wit: The term representing feedback is not independent of the term representing forcing, and should be made an integral part of it.
This leads to an interesting question I have regarding any attempt to find alpha from the time series temperature data. Many feedback systems are not observable in the sense that the output data do not reasonably allow one to determine the parameters of the system’s internal workings. Has anyone ever discussed this concept (observability) in terms of the input(s) and output of the computer models, or the real climate system?
Read Nic Lewis (yes, that Nic Lewis) and Judith Curry’s recent paper on AR5 climate sensitivity in ClimateDynamics. It provides at least partial answers. Easiest access is through Judith’s blog Climate Etc and her post on 9/24/14. Regards
If global warming has stopped, it’s “natural variability.” If the globe is warming, it’s Man’s fault.
Sound familiar? If it’s cooler, it’s weather. If it’s hotter, it’s climate.
Despite the statistical analysis, whether good or bad, once you ascribe observations to “natural variability,” you must recognize the role of natural variability in ALL outcomes. “The warming in the late 20th century was natural variability, and the “hiatus” Man’s fault,” is an EQUALLY VALID assertion.
This is further proof of what I’ve said for years, that regardless of whether Man has an affect or not, it is clear that such affect is overwhelmed by natural processes, to the point that Man’s influences are irrelevant. To whit, there is no need to know what the natural processes are. A few dozen climate scientists are all we need to study such esoterica.
Could someone explain the meaning of the following sentence in the paper:
“Furthermore, the period
1998–2012 stands out as the only one during which the HadCRUT4
15-yearGMST trend falls entirely outside the CMIP5 ensemble (if only
narrowly), suggesting that theCMIP5 models could be missing a cooling
contribution from the radiative forcing during the hiatus period (ref12,15,16,46–48),
or that there has been an unusual enhancement of ocean heat uptake
not simulated by any model( ref19.)”
The last part , ocean heat uptake is presumably the Trenberth “missing heat” postulate , but it is the bit about a cooling contribution from the radiative forcing that I do not understand .,During the hiatus period the CO2 concentration has increased by 30 – 40 ppm Are the authors implying a concentration dependent mechanism involving the excitation – deexcitation of CO2 that effectively limits the degree of warming due to CO2?
That has been suggested here I think on several occasions. So is it now an acceptable idea? or have I misunderstood their meaning?
I don’t think they are claiming that. They say the models do not react too sensitively to increases in CO2, but that the discrepancies are due to “random variation.” At least that’s what Science Daily wrote about this study:
Louis , thank you . Obviously I need to look at their opening equations again to understand the “random variations”.
Eric Sincere,
Congratulations on being the initiator of a lengthy engagement in name-calling people as trolls on this thread.
I think this following quote by George Orwell applies to such taunting as you initiated and which others sustained;
John
Its may be full of BS , but its certainly been ‘effective ‘ has a piece of science by press release which in the end you get the feeling was the whole point of the paper .
Does all this mean that skeptics have not been stripped of their last-ditch argument? The summary for this study in Science Daily claimed that just 4 days ago:
Summary:
Skeptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of Earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth’s climate, according to a comprehensive statistical analysis.
(Jochem Marotzke, Piers M. Forster. “Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends”)
That summary is indicative of their continued wishful thinking that nature will come to it,s senses and return to glorious warming, which will lead to the downfall of mankind somewhere in the far off future.
To my mind the random and not so random fluctuations in Earth,s climate is what caused the warming between the late 1970s and 1998 approx. The same fluctuation has caused this plateau, and will most likely now lead into at least a dozen years of cooling, if not longer that that.
Thank You (!) Nic Lewis, Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, and Roman Mureik formerly of the University of New Brunswick!
Louis,
Do you think Science Daily understands the difference between causation, and coincidental corellation?
It looks like they don’t have a clue. Until there is an agreed-upon measurement quantifying AGW, it is just a conjecture [one that I personally think is valid, but still…].
Without a measurement, AGW might be 50% of total global warming. Or 5%. Or 0.05%. We just don’t know, because AGW has never been measured. It could be zero for all anyone knows.
If we had a verified empirical, testable measurement quantifying AGW, we would know what the climate sensitivity number is, and then we could accurately predict future global temperatures.
But after decades of intense investigation by many thousands of scientists, and the IPCC, and government agencies, and universities, no one knows what AGW is. It has never been quantified.
So in fact, Science Daily’s “last ditch” argument hinges on a measurement of AGW. Without that, the climate alarmist crowd is speculating. They need to put up or shut up.
I was a lukewarmer back in the ’90’s. But with every year that passes without any global warming, the AGW conjecture becomes harder to justify.
As for catastrophic AGW (CAGW), anyone who still believes in that needs to show at least some global harm due to the rise in CO2. Without any harm, the default position for reasonable scientists is that CO2 is ‘harmless’. And the more time that passes, the more beneficial CO2 is shown to be.
So far, there is no downside — and plenty of upside to adding more of that beneficial trace gas — which has anyway gone from just 0.00003 of the atmosphere, to only 0.00004 in a century and a half. Since CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past with no runaway global warming, current levels are not worth worrying about.
“received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability.”
Well, yes. we know it is.
Just like the slight warming period before 2000.
And just like the coming cooling period.
ITS ALL NATURAL VARIABILITY !
AndyG55,
That’s what Occam’s Razor says, and that’s what the climate Null Hypothesis says. What we are observing now is fully explained by natural variability. There is no need for invoking any extraneous variable such as CO2, methane, etc. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened in the past, and to a much greater degree.
In fact, we have been enjoying a true “Goldilocks” climate over the past century and a half. But instead of appreciating that, the alarmist crowd has gone all Chicken Little. But the sky isn’t falling; it was only a tiny acorn. Not even that, really.
No, it is not an implicit endorsement of it’s validity, that is for the reviewers to decide.
Gees Luke.. That was a meaningless nothing of a post.
“Disappear”-reviewed? Can’t find the reviewers?
Allow me to refer you to the terms and conditions, socks:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/06/fatally-flawed-marotzke-climate-science-paper-should-be-withdrawn/#comment-1853802
I just love the comments, and how desperate you’re getting.
The answer is right here. But you just cannot bring yourself to say a simple ‘thanks’ if I post it.
Keep commenting, junior. I am immensely enjoying your impotence, and your juvenile attempts to get what you want without any quid pro quo, and your consternation that I won’t give you what you want, gratis.
BTW: what’s a “flok“? You never did say. It doesn’t sound very nice.
LOLOL!!
Keep ’em coming! ☺
David Socrates February 6, 2015 at 2:00 pm
I hope you enjoy your link.
..
The rest of the scientific community understands that there are no direct measurements of the atmosphere having “20x” the amount of CO2 it has today. Your “link” is based on suppostions and/or models of the carbon cycle. There isn’t even a proxy that would show the atmosphere having that much CO2 in it.
..
Okay, that one made me laugh. David, are you aware the whole “Climate Change” movement is based on models. So by your reasoning, Climate Change is rubbish as well. Finally, we find something we can agree on.
Reg, the debating trick was ‘direct measurement of CO2’. Got to watch the pea.
I saw the pea and understood what he was trying to do.
Socrates paints himself into a corner again and again, because there is no “direct measurement” of global surface temperature in 80% of the world prior to 1979, and certainly none going back to 1850, and more certainly none with the precision of tenths of a degree accuracy going back that far.
So, if Socrates insists that direct measurement is a requirement, he is basically arguing against himself.
Trolling is easy. Logic is hard (for some like Socrates).
[Note: “David Socrates” is a sockpuppet name for a banned commenter. He has gone by other screen names such as ‘beckleybud’, ‘juan’, ‘Gordon Ford’, ‘Edward Richardson’ and many others. ~mod.]
Try this:
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~nsheldon/Sheldon2006PCRes.pdf
It indicates pCO2 10-25 times modern levels during the Precambrian based on paleosols. No Geocarb
And here is a paper (in Nature no less) showing pCO2 16 times modern level during the Ordovician glaciation bases on carbon isotopes in Goethite:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v355/n6358/abs/355342a0.html
No, Geocarb. Is that good enough for you?
tty,
I thank you for those links. In fact, in the Nature discussion I found this: “Here we present data for goethites from an ironstone in the Upper Ordovician Neda Formation (Wisconsin, USA)8, which suggest that 440 Myr ago atmospheric P Co2 was ~ 16 times higher than today. However, this enhanced level of atmospheric CO2 does not seem to have been accompanied by unusually warm temperatures in the tropics, and in fact may have been contemporaneous with high-latitude continental glaciation on Gondwanaland9,10.”
Unfortunately the links to supporting (9,10) did not work. But, this would reasonabley support Db’s contention presuming “unusually warm temperatures” are in a range near today’s.
This is why I’m here. To learn. It’s appreciated.
OK folks, I’m back now.
It’s been fun, but now that several readers have posted sources saying CO2 was up to twenty times higher than now, I can’t have fun with socrates any more.
Just FYI, none of the links posted so far were the one I was originally referring to, which was this one [note the sources in the chart]. Notice that CO2 has been around 20X higher than the current 400 ppm.]
This has been going on for a couple of weeks now between us. I have always been willing to post that citation, but since ‘socrates’ has never said ‘thanks’ for anything I’ve ever posted, even after he has endlessly demanded ‘citations’, I agreed to post it if he would simply say “Thank you”. But he could never bring himself to show any appreciation for answering his demands. Expressing any appreciation would kill him, it seems.
There are other citations I’ve seen showing that CO2 has been twenty times higher. But ‘socrates’ has stated that there are none. He said he searched, but could not find any. So for the record, I reject any and all future demands from ‘socrates’ for citations of any kind. I will change my mind completely, of course. All he has to do is agree to say a simple “Thank you” if I give him what he demands. But so far, as we see, he won’t agree. “Thank you” is a step too far for him.
Finally, I want to say thanks to Danny Thomas for saying “I’ve not seen Db post a link to a falsehood”. We all have our faults, and we are all wrong on occasion. But truth is important to me. I would never fabricate anything.
Thanks to Reg Nelson and tty, too. I was just having fun with socks, but your citations are appreciated, too. I had not seen some of them before.
Great, thanks DB for that chart. Another to add to my ever growing arsenal of truth.
Peer-reviewed here and on CA.
AB,
Thanks. And I see under Reg Nelson’s comment above that the jig is up.
@ur momisugly dbstealey
Odd .. you would think that an alarmista would accept stuff from NOAA/NCDC far more than we do…
NOAA/NCDC being one of the ring-leaders of the AGW temperature adjustment farce ! 😉
As you see below, GEOCARB was never my source.
A simple “Thank you” would get the citation. But you cannot bear to say it.
Post your citation and stop being a turd.
[try fixing your email address to make it viable (a requirement for commenting here) or find yourself on permanent moderation – Anthony]
You apparently have been visiting here under many names, sockpuppeting.
“Socrates” has posted under the following names:
Gordon Ford
∑ (Sn) Wong
beckleybud
juan
joy147
pyromancer76
Edward Richardson
There are others.
So yes, by policy, you are banned.
Not to mention the tactic of redacting crucial portions of any rebuttal, printing the rest, and claiming purity of execution. I’ve had that happen to my letters-to-the-editor sent to various publications. Why bother? Public humiliation (“the widely-discredited Marotzke paper”) is the only real kind of humiliation. It may even lead to (wait for it)…humility!
David,
I can only find back 800k years via this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Assume this must come from ice cores, but source is unknown.
Wish we could tag CO2 like wildlife is done so it could be followed.
I’ve not seen Db post a link to a falsehood, but I’ve only been here a few months. I’d love to see the data too as this chart at about 3:13 mark (800k yrs ago) doesn’t show 20 times higher.
Stop being a “turd” ??
I seem to recall soxy getting his/her panties in a twist over less derogatory name-calling.
I’ll just save that comment for future reference. ☺
[Not that it bothers me, it doesn’t. And it’s very amusing watching you try to weasel out of saying a simple “Thank you” for posting whatever you demand.]
Ah. I just noticed:
You don’t make the rules here.
I make my rules when you start demanding that I do what you want. Obey my rules, or go pound sand.
Prove you aren’t “making up facts”
LOLOL! It’s Alinsky junior!
I don’t need to post citations to keep you happy, and I don’t have to prove anything to you. Prove that I am making up facts, junior.
Once more, for the hard-headed: a simply “Thank you” without anything else, will get you what you are demanding. <— My rule. Take it or leave it.
That citation is sitting right here, waiting… ☺
What’s a “flok”?
And deflecting again, I see. This right here isn’t science, this is you demanding that I do something for you. I can do it, no problem. But first you agree to my condition. It’s called a quid pro quo.
There is a way to comment on some of the news articles in Nature if you are a subscriber, which I did in commenting on the obituary of my undergraduate advisor as did others. However, there does not appear to be a way to comment on a scientific article in Nature.
So it’s time for Nic Lewis and/or Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University to write a letter to Nature.
If commentators like Luke and Sir Harry Flashman are pushing Nic Lewis to submit the article “Marotzke and Forster’s circular attribution of CMIP5 intermodel warming differences” to Nature as a rebuttal, is that an implicit endorsement of its validity? Maybe these commentators would secretly like it if Nature published a rebuttal to a flawed paper….