Friday Funny: Mann gets real time

Our favorite climate publicity hound, fake Nobel Laureate Dr. Michael E. Mann is going to get some real time on ‘RealTime’, where presumably, he’ll wail about the embellished injustices heaped upon him by people that question his hockey stick, his interpretation of science, and his sanity on Twitter. Bill Maher has been known to throw some curve balls, so this might be entertaining, or maybe not. Given what I witnessed at Mann’s lecture in Bristol last year, he’s pretty much a one-trick pony with nothing new to say.

Note the “submit a question” tag on Twitter: #RTOVERTIME I wonder if Maher will dare to ask about Mann’s Nobel Laureate claims?

h/t to WUWT reader “canman”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
479 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 7, 2015 12:13 am

“…he’s pretty much a one-trick pony”
Hockey stick donkey comes to mind
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CSTP.jpg

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  vukcevic
August 7, 2015 2:13 am

Ace!!!!!!
You’ve got it in one.

richard clenney
Reply to  vukcevic
August 7, 2015 4:57 am

Shouldn’t the wagon tongue be a hockey stick???

Reply to  richard clenney
August 7, 2015 10:23 am

Good idea, I’ll work on it.

hunter
Reply to  vukcevic
August 7, 2015 8:01 am

+10

Auto
Reply to  hunter
August 7, 2015 2:02 pm

warning.
David Appell posts repeatedly below.
Go for a beer – or a coffee!
Auto

Will Hudson
Reply to  hunter
August 8, 2015 4:10 am

I used to come here regularly, but not so much any more. When someone, such as David Appell, hijacks the whole thread, his repeated moronic posts destroy the enjoyment of learning from the many other interesting and scientifically educated posters.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  vukcevic
August 7, 2015 3:05 pm

Nicely done, Vuk!

Ted G
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
August 7, 2015 8:12 pm

Double triple warning. Warming bot hockey stick fact manipulator heads up.
David Appell posts endlessly below.
Is he for real? does he get a free trip to alarmist central in Paris this year?

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
August 8, 2015 12:39 am

Ted G
Thanks for the warning, the only thing to admire is his tenacity.

RD
Reply to  vukcevic
August 7, 2015 9:55 pm

too funny!

Ockham
Reply to  vukcevic
August 8, 2015 10:04 am

Is there a reason for spelling Tipping Point (“Pont”) wrong that I don’t get? Otherwise, great cartoon, I’m posting this in my lab for all to see.

Reply to  Ockham
August 8, 2015 12:02 pm

Hi Ockham
I didn’t get it either until you ‘pont’ed it. Thanks, corrected.

August 7, 2015 12:14 am

Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:
“Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever

lee
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:19 am

Using the same dodgy techniques, huh. Must be money in it.

Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 12:27 am

As if you understand *any* of the techniques.

toorightmate
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 5:46 am

Warmists are full of excrement.

Bill Illis
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 6:13 am

David Appell often writes in defence of Michael Mann. It is his main publishing topic as a journalist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

Tom T
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 10:04 am

As if you do David. Many of us are engineers, statisticians, etc. I and many others fully understand how hockey sticks are constructed and why any such reconstruction will tend towards a hockey stick. The one who doesn’t understand here is you.

MarkW
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 4:05 pm

Poor little David. He can’t deal with reality, so he’s reduced to just flinging insults.

RD
Reply to  lee
August 8, 2015 9:03 am

@ richardscourtney
Thanks for your excellent take-down with references. Your knowledge and experience is needed and appreciated.

richardscourtney
Reply to  lee
August 8, 2015 11:15 am

RD
Thankyou for that.
It is only months ago that nobody thought I would now be here. My recovery is good but attending speaking engagements would still be a daunting prospect.
Such comments as yours give encouragement and I genuinely appreciate them. Thankyou.
Richard

RD
Reply to  lee
August 8, 2015 9:17 pm

Be well Mr. richardscourtney!
I’ve learned so much from you and the WUWT crew!
Possibly a guy like me could make you and your peeps squirm a bit in natural sciences and applied human biology, especially biochemistry 🙂 Physical sciences by RSCourtney and WUWT crew? Forget about it!
Cheers, RD!

Michael 2
Reply to  RD
August 8, 2015 9:46 pm

RD suggests “your peeps squirm a bit in natural sciences and applied human biology”
Squirmy human biology. Sounds salacious!

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:23 am

Ever the optimist, David. Do go over to Climate Audit. Marcott and Pages 2K are laid laid bare and shown to be erroneous.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 12:28 am

Alan, can you point me to McIntyre’s publications on this? Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of shit.
[As are certain commenters. ~mod.]

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 12:57 am

@David Appell
Full of [trimmed.]
[The mods thank our readers for bringing this comment to our attention, after it leaked through in the early AM hours. .mod]

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:00 am

Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of [trimmed].
So you prefer arguments from authority vs checking yourself? Excellent!

simple-touriste
Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:02 am

“blogs are often full of shit”
Yes indeed.
And peer(*)-reviewed literature is full of what? Organic manure?
(*) The peer of a buffoon is another buffoon, by definition. The peer of an astrologist is an astrologist. The peer of tea leafs reader is a tea leafs reader. The peer of a chicken entrails interpreter with a PhD is another peer of a chicken entrails interpreter with a PhD.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:06 am

Juvenile insults. Not surprised to find them on this blog.

simple-touriste
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:14 am

Juvenile insult? We only see yours, child.
Please stop.

AndyG55
Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:12 am

Appell, **it follows you wherever you go.
Where-ever you are.. there is excrement, it travels with you.
It is the very centre of your soul.!

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:13 am

I bet you like “peer reviewed results” when they support your ideological position….

simple-touriste
Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:24 am

David, when you have nothing to say, don’t feel forced to post your pointless comments.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 1:41 am

“So you prefer arguments from authority vs checking yourself? Excellent!”
I prefer work that has passed a basic set of scientific standards.
But I understand if you have lower standards.

Menicholas
Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 7, 2015 5:16 pm

You only prefer such work when it supports your own predetermined opinion and view. Everything else is subject to your insulting and disparaging prattle.
You should be more honest, and more self aware.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Alan Poirier
August 8, 2015 2:21 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
You ask

Alan, can you point me to McIntyre’s publications on this? Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of shit.

I assume the obscenity and insult are intended to deflect as a method to imply that McIntyre provided no peer reviewed publications on this.
In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick published the first peer reviewed papers which ‘broke’ the ‘hockey stick’ graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes that was first published in 1998 (MBH98), was the ‘poster message’ of the Third IPCC Report and was dropped in the Fourth IPCC Report.
In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two peer reviewed papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref.
McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005),
McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)).
But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their peer reviewed publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it was not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate MBH98; not least that Mann refused to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. meant it had no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. was anecdote so of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting.
It is important to note that MBH98 overthrew the paleoclimate reconstructions reported in the Second IPCC Report. But paleoclimate reconstructions continued to accumulate which conflicted with the MBH98 ‘hockeystick’ and indicated that the report of climate variability in the Second IPCC Report was correct; e.g. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005).
Richard
PS
Before you try waving the red-herring often waved by trolls, I point out that Energy & Environment is a peer reviewed journal that is indexed in the ISI and is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports .

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:25 am

Dear Appell, of course as man can construct something, man can reconstruct something. As nature is not run by averages ( a human construct), such constructions often fail a reality test.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
August 7, 2015 12:28 am

You haven’t read this science, have you? I’d recommend starting with PAGES 2k.

charles nelson
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:29 am

Did they ‘hide the decline’ like Mike did?

Reply to  charles nelson
August 7, 2015 12:37 am

Do you actually know what “hide the decline” refers to? I get the impression you don’t.

simple-touriste
Reply to  charles nelson
August 7, 2015 1:31 am

“I get the impression you don’t.”
David, I get the impression you are a troll.
But then, I could be wrong. You could simply be a very arrogant imbecile.

Reply to  charles nelson
August 7, 2015 1:42 am

“David, I get the impression you are a troll.”
Wow, the quality of the comments here is extremely low. Do you all just come here to assure each other?

simple-touriste
Reply to  charles nelson
August 7, 2015 2:20 am

“Wow, the quality of the comments here is extremely low.”
Wherever you post your “arguments”, the average quality of arguments will be low.

co2islife
Reply to  charles nelson
August 8, 2015 9:15 pm

Do you actually know what “hide the decline” refers to? I get the impression you don’t.

Steve McIntyre does a great job highlighting how fraudulent the Hide the Decline issue is. If this was done at a drug company they CEO would be behind bars.
https://youtu.be/JlCNrdna9CI

MCourtney
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:31 am

Even Marcott says that the uptick in his reconstruction is not robust.

Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

Yes, even the lead author admits that the best supporting evidence for Mann’s debunked hockeystick is not robust.
Yet it’s still the best you’ve got. The first thing you quote.
So that pretty much proves that Mann’s work is also not robust.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:33 am

You missed that Marcott says *small* upticks. His long-term reconstruction is very robust.

Admad
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:44 am

David

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:51 am

Read the quote. You are obviously wrong. Marcott defines “small”.

that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data

That is the final uptick.
Indeed, if counting the number of years since 1850 is beyond your technical expertise it can be proven by other means.
Marcott admitted the uptick was not robust in response to the debunking on Climate Audit (see the links above). That refutation referred to the current uptick.
Time for you to admit your error, I think.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:57 am

We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:00 am

“So they can’t find the MWP or LIA. They don’t have the resolution across the world.”
Read the f-ing paper. What they actually write is, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
In particular, see their Figure 2.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:41 am

So David Appell claimed Marcott et al replicated Michael Mann’s hockey stick. People responded to point out the temporal resolution on the Marcott reconstruction was so poor it couldn’t possibly replicate features of Mann’s hockey stick, such as its iconic blade. His response?

We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

That’s pretty baffling. According to Appell, we don’t need Marcott et al to provide results showing the final uptick, but Marcott et al replicated Mann’s hockey stick, including it’s final uptick. Because you can apparently replicate results despite your data not actually supporting those results, I guess?
Yeah, I’m not sure. What I am sure of is Appell won’t bother to try addressing substantial criticisms of Mann’s hockey stick. To demonstrate that point, I’ll make an offer to him. I’ve made this offer to a couple other people, all of whom have turned it down.
I wrote a relatively short eBook as an introductory guide to the hockey stick debate. It is highly critical of Michael Mann and his hockey stick reconstruction. I will send a free copy to any of my critics so they can read and review it for potential errors at no cost to themselves. Furthermore, I will allow them to publish a completely unedited (save for language, if necessary) guest post at my blog to respond to my eBook, and if they’d like, I will include a permanent link to it on my menu bar with the title, “Critics’ Rebuttals” so there is a permanent and prominent record of it for all of my readers to see.
I think it’s a good offer. If people think what I say about Mann and his work is wrong, this will allow them to make their case in as public a manner as I make mine. It’s true my site is relatively small so the effect might not be large, but at the same time, the effect will be as large as whatever effect I myself have. And if they’d like, I’ll extend the offer to my follow-up eBook which covered Mann’s more recent work.
I don’t think they will though. In my experience, people like Appell are only looking for cheap and easy points to score. When it comes to doing actual work or having real discussions, they never show up.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:44 am

Brandon: Couldn’t find a real publisher, huh? Wonder why…..

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:54 am

David Appell (@davidappell) August 7, 2015 at 12:57 am

We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

Quite agree that reconstructing the past 11,000 years is valuable.
But you are using it to support Mann’s falsified hockeystick. For which we need the last 165 years (good arithmetic, well done).
And Marcott’s paper does not support the last 165 years.
You have acknowledged that. So acknowledge your error. Marcott does not support Mann’s debunked Hockeystick. Your first, best support does not do what you said it does.
Of course, you could splice on incompatible instrumental data to find an uptick. But that is explained by the splicing of data – not the real world. Adding apples to oranges and saying you have pineapples is fraud.
It would also be gross scientific malpractice – Marcott did not do that. Do not claim that he did.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:55 am

David Appell:

Brandon: Couldn’t find a real publisher, huh? Wonder why…..

Determined to prove my point that you’re a coward who won’t even read detailed criticisms from people who know this material better than you, huh? I mean, seriously, are you determined to make yourself look at pathetic as possible, or do you think you somehow think you don’t look like a petulant brat right now?
You can jump on the first reason to insult people as much as you’d like. It’s not going to get you anywhere. It’s just going to make you look more pathetic than you already do, which is quite an accomplishment.
I mean, when you can’t even make yourself look better than the people commenting on this site, you’ve lost all hope.

Menicholas
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 5:28 pm

“I mean, when you can’t even make yourself look better than the people commenting on this site, you’ve lost all hope.”
Hey, wait a second…
I represent that remark!

richardscourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 8, 2015 2:32 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
You assert

We don’t need data on the “final” uptick, since we have instrumental data for the last 165 years.
Marcott et al is a reconstruction of the prior 11,000 years. And that’s extremely valuable.

Oh dear! NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
In the same week as MBH98 was published I wrote an email on the ‘ClimateSkeptics’ circulation list. That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison: of course, I was not then aware of the ‘hide the decline’ (aka “Mike’s Nature trick”) issue.
Unknown to me, somebody copied my email to Michael Mann and he replied.
‘Climategate’ revealed that email from Michael Mann and it can be read here:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3046.txt&search=medieval
Mann’s response consists solely of personal abuse against me and, importantly, it does not address the issue which I had raised immediately upon seeing the ‘hockeystick’ graph. Hence, I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.
Our host decided to make an article on WUWT on this subject and that WUWT article with comment from our host and the subsequent discussion thread can be read at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Richard

MCourtney
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:44 am

PAGES 2k is pay walled. Could you give a link?
Because it looks like junk science from the abstract. Here’s a quote:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years</blockquote
So they can't find the MWP or LIA. They don't have the resolution across the world.
But they can spot the 29 most recent years. Is less than 30 years climate anyway?
Oh dear. Looks like a car crash paper, doesn’t it?
I would like to see how they created “the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature”. Because it looks like it was just “constructed”. Give us the paper. This is a Friday Funny.

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:45 am

Correction:
PAGES 2k is pay walled. Could you give a link?
Because it looks like junk science from the abstract. Here’s a quote:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years

So they can’t find the MWP or LIA. They don’t have the resolution across the world.
But they can spot the 29 most recent years. Is less than 30 years climate anyway?
Oh dear. Looks like a car crash paper, doesn’t it?
I would like to see how they created “the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature”. Because it looks like it was just “constructed”.
Give us the paper. This is a Friday Funny.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:47 am

I already gave you a link; it’s not my problem is you can’t find a copy of the paper. Try your library.
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 12:55 am

Nah, not worth it, David Appell (@davidappell).
It’s not worth spending money on a paper that thinks 29 years is climate.
And that 29 years can be compared to the LIA punctuated by “warm decades during the eighteenth century”.
I mean, it’s obviously fatally flawed, isn’t it?
And yet that’s the best that’s left of the cohorts in support of Mann’s hockeystick.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:00 am

“Nah, not worth it.”
Then remain ignorant, cheapskate.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 1:04 am

“It’s not worth spending money on a paper that thinks 29 years is climate.”
The paper says no such thing — that’s their resolution. Have you ever thought about actually reading a paper before you dismiss it? Or is that too much effort for you?

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 2:01 am

Davis Appell, 29 years is their resolution?

punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

Think about that.
It seems you’ve read the paper but not understood it. Their resolution isn’t what you think it is.
So why should I spend money to learn that it hasn’t been warmer since 500 AD? What are you trying to prove?
And are you sure you’re not out of your depth here?

billw1984
Reply to  MCourtney
August 7, 2015 7:16 am

Actually, it is fine that they say the LIA and MWP were not “globally synchronous” events. Neither is today’s warming or the cold periods in the 70’s if you judge them in the same way. The only thing that makes today’s data “global” is that they are able to use global temp. anomalies which we don’t have from the past. That is why they use proxies. But today’s warming is very regional and the NH is warmer than the southern and they are not warming at different rates, etc. As those who derive the various temperature sets have noted, about 1/3 of places around the world have cooled. So PAGES2K is good in that it has found more distinctive proxy evidence for LIA and MWP. The fact that they weren’t global and (if you read the abstract carefully it was widespread) did not occur all at once is not surprising.

Corey S.
Reply to  MCourtney
August 8, 2015 5:02 pm

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
PAGES 2k Consortium
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/19252/1/PAGES%202k%20Consortium%20accepted%20March%202013.pdf

simple-touriste
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:55 am

Define independent.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:56 am

Yeah, and it was replicated by Muller using random data too.

Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:06 am

Muller said nothing about the hockey stick. Learn some science.

Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:08 am

Correction: Muller did once opine about the hockey stick. He was very wrong about it:

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:32 am

Apology accepted.

AndyG55
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:48 am

Links to the opinions of a low-end journalist are irrelevant to any rational scientific discussion.
Mann’s paper was JUNK.. you know that.. hence the desperation…
And everyone else knows that..
heck even Mann himself knows its junk.

jim
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 3:39 am

If you want to see David’s comprehension, just ask make one simple request:
Please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.

Odin2
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 8:25 am

Muller on the hockey stick:

Bob Kutz
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 12:47 pm

Muller said what Mann did was a fraud and he should ‘lose his license to practice science’ for what he did with regard to MBH99.
I think that about clears up any doubt as to Muller’s verdict on Mann.

RD
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 10:01 pm

Dr. Muller mopped the floor with Dr. Mann.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:02 am

David,
Mann e.a. has been replicated using the same proxies (strip bark bristlecone pines) and the same wrong statistics (including his PC1) as in Mann e.a. of which the NAS panel said that they shouldn’t be used at all…
From ClimateAudit a whole list:
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Marcott e.a. data manipulation to create a HS:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
The use of a lot of the same (including faulty) proxies and Mann’s PC1 in several reconstructions:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/19/jones-et-al-2009-studies-not-independent/

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:09 am

Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.
[Published papers aren’t necessarily science either; they are often merely opinions. Science consists verifiable facts, measurements, data, and evidence. For example, global warming stopped almost 20 years ago. That is a verifiable fact, based upon satellite measurements. ~mod.]

simple-touriste
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:16 am

“Blogs aren’t science”
Fantastic rhetoric (sarc).
Go learn some epistemology and come back only then.

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:15 am

“Blogs aren’t science”
You would not know what science was.. you have never known and never will know. !!
You only have a mouth, not a brain.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:16 am

David,
Some blogs contain more science than a host of worthless pal reviewed “scientific” papers, of which more and more are published in recent years…
And ever tried to publish in Nature or Science if your name is Steve McIntyre…

Joe Born
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:39 am

Some blogs contain more science than a host of worthless pal reviewed “scientific” papers.

Hear, hear. And that’s a fact to which Mr. Engelbeen’s valuable posts and comments have contributed significantly.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:45 am

No, mod, warming certainly did NOT stop 20 years ago. Look at all the data for once, and not just what supports your biases.
[Thank you for making another assertion. Unfortunately, your assertion is flatly contradicted by satellite data. ~mod.]

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 2:03 am

By the way, mod, reanalysis does show lower tropospheric warming over the last 20 years:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/interesting-graphs-from-noaas-press.html
(bottom graph in first figure.)
UAH has made some very bad errors in the past, especially about a minus sign that seriously skewed their results, a correction they fought against for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 2:20 am

No scientist would link to Wiki or a low-end journalist opinion site as having any relevance.
But you are no scientist, so what else can we expect.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 8:15 am

Blogs can certainly demonstrate science, and the science can be publicly reviewed by a far larger group of peers than pal-reviewed fodder for promoting political objectives.

thallstd
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 9:19 am

David, you put a lot of emphasis on published, peer reviewed studies. Please read http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off?currentPage=5
then tell me how climate science manages to sidestep the problems inherent at every step of the scientific process that afflicts the hard sciences. From tenure, to funding, to design, to getting results that don’t conform to the current favored theory so doubting those results and never submitting to the paper, to submitting a paper that challenges the current favored theory only to have it rejected by that theory’s gatekeepers.
Combined, these contribute significant conscious and unconscious bias into the scientific process (not method) especially regarding peer review and the relevance of published findings.
Jonas Lehrer has done an excellent job of documenting these problems in the hard sciences, to explain why published results often can’t be reproduced. Note that climate science is never mentioned in the article, though he (knowingly or unknowingly) reveals what may be the original instance of the 97% consensus: “Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found. The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.”
Also you may be interested in “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
The scientific method may be the best way we yet have for finding truth but neither it nor the scientific “process” are immune to human nature where bias can be introduced throughout both.

Menicholas
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 5:37 pm

“No, mod, warming certainly did NOT stop 20 years ago. Look at all the data for once, and not just what supports your biases.”
Oh?
Like you do?
Is it even theoretically possible to be more hypocritical and disingenuous?

richardscourtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 8, 2015 7:33 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
You assert and demand

Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

You made a similar ignorant and untrue assertion above where you wrote

Alan, can you point me to McIntyre’s publications on this? Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of shit.

I DID IN THIS THREAD HERE and you have ignored that but have the gall to again demand “published papers”.
Clearly you are a troll posting your nonsense, falsehoods and obscenities as a method to disrupt the thread.
Richard

co2islife
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 9, 2015 4:21 am

Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

Have you not read the Climategate E-Mails? Michael Mann and others have completely corrupted the “Peer” review process. They are peers of criminals and sheep. Do you honestly think Michael Mann or any of his climate change gravy eating “peers” would approve an article that cut off their funding?
Also, he did the same “trick” with the Hockey Stick Graph. Temperature data wasn’t included until 1903.
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/mann%201.JPG
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/2/2/1265126592847/Temperature-chart4.gif
BTW, try to find a recent Hockystick chart with the proxy descriptions. Almost everything I’ve found conveniently leaves them off.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:22 am

I don’t have a lot of time as I’m packing to leave on a trip for the weekend, but I saw this comment in my RSS reader, and I just had to stop by to point something out. At the time David Appell wrote the last article he links to, the paper he wrote the article about hadn’t been published. It wasn’t even finalized. Appell somehow failed to mention that fact in his article.
What he also failed to mention is while he said Tingley and Huybers “used independent mathematical techniques,” they didn’t use independent data. The two of them have reused controversial data from Michael Mann’s hockey stick papers time and time again in their papers confirming Mann’s hockey stick, proving quite conclusively if you use the same data, you can get the same results. That that tells us nothing about criticisms of that data, or claims that that data has been given undue weight, seems to have escaped Appell’s notice. Or at least his commentary.
I just thought that was too amusing to not make a quick remark about. All told, there have been only a few key proxies Michael Mann has used which he has been heavily criticized for using. Tingley and Huybers have reused almost all of them. It’s like, if you’re going to go through all that trouble to develop an “independent technique,” why would you reuse the same controversial data? That defeats the entire purpose!

Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 1:32 am

Brandon, as you know, it was Mann’s techniques that were criticized. Reproductions using other mathematical techniques shows there were no merit in those claims.

simple-touriste
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:57 am

“Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:”
“Reproductions using other mathematical techniques shows there were no merit in those claims”
Seriously? Other? Independent?
“Independent” isn’t a science concept, and neither is “other”.
But then, what do you know about science?

Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 1:50 am

David Appell, I know nothing of the sort. In fact, I know that is a gross misrepresentation of what Mann’s critics said. I know nobody who actually understands the criticisms of Mann’s work would ever claim what you just said, as they’d know how foolish it is.
The criticisms of Mann’s techniques always focused on the fact his techniques resulted in an undue amount of weight being given to a small amount of data. In addition to being wrong on principle, those criticisms were raised as troubling because the data which was given undue weight was viewed as problematic for a variety of reasons. The exact reasons depend on which specific proxy is being referred to, but in most cases, Mann himself acknowledges the data was questionable. In several cases, he did so prior to any of his critics saying a word.
Pretending criticisms of Mann’s work were merely ones of his techniques is beyond silly. Anyone who knows anything about the hockey stick debate knows the debate is over both Mann’s methodological choices and the data he used due to how his methodological choices impacted the weights given to non-representative data in his data sets. I have no idea why you would think otherwise, but that you would claim I know otherwise is just insulting.
Whether or not you understand basic details of this topic has no bearing on whether or not I know basic facts.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 1:50 am

David you now resort to equivocation…Manns’s technique involves using proxies that consist of one member for periods of time, proxies whose constituent elements are selected post hoc, proxies used for purposes the authors who developed them dont endorse, that is part and parcel of Mann’s technique.
Do you seriously contest the fact that the guy who developed PCA himself decried Mannn’s bizarre application of PCA?
Why dontcha read some quotes from other scientists regarding the “quality” of Mann’s techniques from Mark Steyn
“Is Michael Mann a blood-drinking shape-shifting space lizard? It might explain why his scaly reptilian claws are so bad at handling data. And why he’s able to shape-shift himself into a Nobel Laureate, and a man who’s been exonerated by NOAA and the British Government. Just a thought.
As for the vast Koch-Scaife CDM (Cabal of Disparagers of Mann), Dr Mann is right. The untold billions from the Koch Brothers, the Scaife Brothers and the Koch-Scaife Brothers have funded all kinds of sinister “front groups” and “hired guns” to discredit Mann. One thinks of hired gun “Hendrik Tennekes” of the obvious Potemkin organization “the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute” and former member of the notorious front group “the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences”, who attacked Dr Mann as “a disgrace to the profession”.
Or paid hitman “John Christy”, frontman “lead author” of the transnational Potemkin village “the IPCC”, who said Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years”.
Or hired assassin “I T Jolliffe” of the Koch-funded Potemkin tract “Principal Component Analysis” in the Scaife-funded Potemkin reference work “The International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science”, who said Mann’s science is “a piece of dubious statistics”.
Or lavishly remunerated covert operative “Hans von Storch” of the Potemkin-peer-reviewed Potemkin journal “Annals of Geophysics” and winner of the Potemkin prize “the IMSC Achievement Award” awarded by the Potemkin judges of the totally bogus “International Meetings on Statistical Climatology”, who described Mann’s hockey stick as “rubbish”.
Or hired sniper “Ulrich Cubasch”, a Potemkin professor of Potemkin meteorology at the Potemkin Meteorological Institute of the Potemkin Free University of the vast Potemkin village of Berlin, who said “the real problem in this case, in my view, is that Michael Mann does not disclose his data”.
Or crack terror cell “David S Chapman”, “Marshall G Bartlett”, and “Robert N Harris” of the Koch Industries in-house staff newsletter “Geophysical Research Letters”, who called Mann’s work “just bad science”.
Or hired double-agent “John Cook” of the Koch-Scaife Climate Denial Machine undercover website “Skeptical Science” and front man of the denialist tract “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”, who wrote, “Stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper… It has actually been invalidated.”
Or Koch-funded infiltrator “Wallace Smith Broecker”, who in 1975 was given untold billions by the Scaife Brothers to invent the Potemkin term “global warming”. Following further billions from the Koch Brothers Fund for Mild Disparagement, “Broecker” dismissed Mann’s data as “sh*tty”.
David: no one wants your tripe.

Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 2:06 am

A quote about Mann’s science from Mark Steyn!!!!!!!!!!! You have got to be kidding….. Steyn is a scientific know-nothing. He couldn’t calculate his way out of a paper bag.
Steyn is utterely irrelevant to anything to do with the science. He should stick to Islamophobia.

AndyG55
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 2:18 am

“utterly irrelevant to anything to do with the science”
You self-project too much !!

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 2:37 am

I note that you do no respond directly to the quotes assembled by Steyn, so I now ask you:
Do you maintain that the quotes Steyn provided were fabricated, untrue or misleading?
If so, have the integrity to just write that you believe Steyn provided false quotations…

commieBob
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 7, 2015 5:15 am

David Appell (@davidappell) says:
August 7, 2015 at 2:06 am
Steyn … should stick to Islamophobia.

David Appell condones Islamophobia. That’s hate speech son.

co2islife
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 9, 2015 4:43 am

Blogs aren’t science. Cite published papers.

Why rely on “Peer” reviewed interpretations of the data when you can think for yourself and reach your own conclusions? Science is the field of skepticism, science is the belief that the experts are wrong the whole purpose of science is to defeat the tyranny of the status quo.
Here is the most accurate measurement of atmospheric temperatures, and it shows no warming for over 18 years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2015_v6.png
The ground measurements are altered in a statistically suspicious way where past errors almost always overestimated temperatures and recent measurements almost always underestimated temperatures.comment image?w=500&h=355
Worst yet, the IPCC models fail to reject the null hypothesis “man is not causing climate change.” The only time you get all most 100% of the error to fall on one side of the estimate is when you have a systematic bias in the model. This is proof of either fraud, a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject being modeled or both, but neither prove man or CO2 is causing climate change.
Thousands of coal, mining, steal workers and others have lost their jobs over this epic failure. To my knowledge no “scientist” responsible for these models have lost their jobs. I doubt any journalists promoting this garbage as real “science” have lost their jobs either. Same for teachers preaching this crap. The costs of these failures disproportionately fall on the wrong people, the innocent people.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/spencer-models-epic-fail.jpg

co2islife
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
August 9, 2015 9:13 am

David Appell condones Islamophobia. That’s hate speech son.

Nope, not even close. David is a liberal. Rules don’t apply. PC applications are only applied to conservatives. The selective moral outrage is the PC Police’s defining characteristics.
These are examples of “Hate Speech.” The left disguises them as “Art.”
This is my favorite. The Nitwits use a Christan Symbol, but Evolution is from the Old Testament. This is really insulting Jews and Muslims.
http://briancebuhl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The_Darwin_Fish-1.gif
Can’t forget the Piss Christ.
http://md1.libe.com/photo/274404-australia-crucifix2.jpg?modified_at=1303317283&width=750
Or the Dung Virgin Mary.comment image
Watch the HBO Series “The Brink” and watch how the Christian ambassador is treated, one of the lines said by Jack Black was “F&^% Jesus.” That unfortunately isn’t a joke.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:37 am

David you are simply beyond belief.
Marcott’s well publicized conclusion was discedited; he was forced to concede that no, one couldn’t couldn’t conclude that 20th century warming rates were unprecedented on the basis of his research.
really now.

Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 7, 2015 1:47 am

No, Marcott’s conclusions were not discredited. They were a very valuable addition to the paleoclimate record, showing that modern warming is unprecedented.

AndyG55
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 7, 2015 1:51 am

Marcott himself said his “tail” was a essentially piece of junk. !
Get over it bad Appell, and stop trying to support the insupportable.
We are actually very close to the coldest period in the whole of the last 10,000 years.
Not warm, but very much on the COOL side in the current interglacial.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 7, 2015 1:53 am

David:
Marcott himself said that one couldn’t conclude that the rates of warming in the 20th century were unprecedented. you are beyond belief.
Now, what are you going to do: threaten to sue me?

AndyG55
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 7, 2015 1:54 am

The “tail” was forced on him by the climate change agenda and his need for employment, the farce that you desperately support against all common sense.
He ADMITTED it was not robust. You are contradicting the author himself, to make a worthless and deceitful point.

MRW
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 7, 2015 11:37 am

@davideisenstadt,
Your post at August 7, 2015 at 1:50 am was genius. Thanks for the smile.
Mr. Appell, you didn’t read beyond the words “Mark Steyn?”

chris y
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 9, 2015 10:24 am

Marcott calculated and published the temporal resolution of his reconstruction in the Supplemental Materials to his paper. Marcott demonstrated that temperature fluctuations in Marcott’s reconstruction with periods shorter than 300 years are attenuated by 99% relative to their peak value. In other words, it contains essentially no information about temperature changes that last less than 3 centuries. You could have a Hansen event (boiling oceans) for one year and it would barely show up s a speck of noise in the Marcott reconstruction.
That makes it impossible to compare the yearly sampled 1850 – 2015 temperature graph to the Marcott reconstruction.
On the other hand, you could pass the yearly sampled 1850 – 2015 temperature curve through the same low pass filter used by Marcott.
I bet you can guess the result.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  davideisenstadt
August 9, 2015 9:47 pm

Agreed. For some strange reason, whenever I see a flurry of Appell posts on this side of the great divide, the image that invariably comes to my mind is that of an Indiana Bones and Raiders of the Lost Spark😉
This thread is no exception.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:53 am

From the abstract of the 2nd paper:
“Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature”
However, the most reliable continuous temperature estimates based on well understood, reproducible physics, namely those from ice cores and in particular those from Greenland and Antarctica, show that current temperatures are in the lowest 5% of the whole Holocene. That’s quite a discrepancy and therefore (at least) one of these must be wrong.
I know where I put my money.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 7, 2015 2:04 am

Facts suck Ed. Why bring them to the table when Appell is holding court?

richard
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:14 am

Patterns of writing are really interesting, Mr Appell, you sound very much like a certain HOG137 who writes on Telegraph blogs. or maybe its just the alarmist style.

Tim
Reply to  richard
August 7, 2015 9:12 am

The alarmist style works; otherwise why would it be the determining factor behind the ‘propaganda by press release’ hyperbole?
The book by William Sargant titled “Battle for the Mind” documents the conclusion of research by psychologists that statements which raise fear and anxiety facilitate conversion of people to a desired belief without the benefit of evidence.

Leo Smith
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:26 am

Hmm. The rest of your posts simply degenerate into ad hominem attacks. Why, if the evidence is so compelling, did you feel the need to do that, rather than simply pointing to the evidence?

richard
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 7, 2015 7:10 am

Hog 137 does exactly the same thing!!

ironargonaut
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:45 am

Think you for illustrating why I am a CAGW skeptic. Mann’s hockey stick has been proven false, as in randomized data always produces a hockey stick using his methods. Now, you quote studies that get the same result. What are the odds that a mistake is made that generates a certain result and that result is actually correct for something as complicated as climate reconstruction. Pretty astronomical. I would posit that the follow on studies instead suffer from conformation bias. That is a more likely scenario. Even if the other studies are correct they do not validate his methods or results. The correct result on a math problem with a mistake in the arithmetic proves nothing. Your attempt to defend this only confirms your bias.

Reply to  ironargonaut
August 10, 2015 9:57 am

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t resist. … the follow on studies instead suffer from conformation bias. (My emphasis)
The reference earlier to sheep (as one style of AGW-er) came to mind when I saw this. Either a masterly pun, with both words being appropriate, or your keyboard is very savvy!

Walt D.
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 4:26 am

David – the major problem with all of this work is making sweeping statements based on little or no actual data.
Before 1979 we have NO global data. Most of the missing data is filled in by using proxy data. PROXY DATA IS NOT REAL DATA.
Where there is no data, many model have no problem using proxy data from 1200 km away. If we apply this “logic” to situations we know, is the temperature in London the same as the temperature in Nice? Is the temperature in Salt Lake City, Utah, the same as Phoenix Arizona.

RH
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 5:25 am

Kudos to WUWT for allowing junk like this to appear relatively unmoderated. Appell’s commentary is obnoxious, but it allows insight into the arrogant, closed-minded world of the AGW political animal.

Goldrider
Reply to  RH
August 7, 2015 6:56 am

OTOH, trolls go away quicker if we don’t feed them. Refuse to engage. The “peer” of a bozo is another bozo, he’ll go find his own tribe.

Michael 2
Reply to  Goldrider
August 7, 2015 9:13 pm

Goldrider writes “trolls go away quicker if we don’t feed them”
We are feeding each other. On this page exist many links to useful information. It hardly matters that Dave Appell will ignore it.

schitzree
Reply to  RH
August 8, 2015 6:28 pm

Trolls like David should always be responded to with facts. Once everyone has seen that they have nothing but lies and attitude they usually go away, because there opinion no longer receives the status they believe they deserve. I’m sure we can all remember some of the trolls of past years that acted like David, but eventually they realized no one was fooled and everyone here had already seen all their ‘factlet’ disproven time and again.

Alx
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 6:24 am

Nice, clever if misleading response. The math is not the primary issue.
Math techniques cannot be wrong, but there could be human error in using them, so using multiple techniques is a way of verifying mathematical results. However the issues concern the data and how it was used. In other words, the conceptual entities put into the math can be wrong. In Mann’s case ridiculously so.
2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.
However 2 toasters + 2 helicopters does not equal 4 juice blenders. If you double checked the math with multiple calculators you would find the math sound, unfortunately the answer remains stupid.
Any kind of analyst would focus on the actual criticism, a politician or used car salesman uses misdirection. Thanks for showing us where you stand.

David A
Reply to  Alx
August 8, 2015 1:55 am

“2 appells + 2 appells = 4 wrongs
========================
Fixed it for you (-;

Michael 2
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 6:40 am

David writes stuff then concludes “Blog comments don’t count — as this blog shows every day, blogs are often full of sh!t.”
You said it well but I wonder if you exclude yourself?
“Mann et al’s hockey stick work has been replicated by many different groups”
Of course. Same data, same method, same result (hopefully). M&M show that it is the training of the model that produces the hockey stick (at least to a substantial degree), specifically using principle components analysis in such a way that the components chosen tend naturally to produce hockey sticks.
“Nature” or “Scientific American” are part of the problem. Scientific American online banned me for commenting similarly on Michael Mann’s offer of data and model. Of course you will get the same result unless your computer is broken. Climategate showed that Nature isn’t publishing the whole story.
Wikipedia: Nature Geoscience is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group. The editor-in-chief is Heike Langenberg.
Wikipedia: In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck. (that is to say, neither scientific nor American).
I haven’t seen “sciencemag.org” before; a quick look reveals “Sexist thermostats, fighting climate change, and more” Yeah, not very scientific I think.
So what about that editor-in-chief? “Company Description: Nature found that hurricanes have become 50% stronger over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures”
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Heike-Langenberg/707288187
The problem ought to be obvious. SST rise is barely detectable and hurricanes simply have not become 50 percent stronger over the past 30 years.

daved46
Reply to  Michael 2
August 7, 2015 9:23 am

“Same data, same method, same result”
Actually they didn’t all use the same method. But since they ended up using the same data, they got the same results. Had they eliminated the dodgy proxies (Bristle-cone pines, inverted Tiljander, etc).they wouldn’t have gotten the results Mann did. The problem with Mann’s original method is that it chooses the proxies which match the recent period of rising temperatures and these often have problems which eliminate them as good proxies. The bristle-cones, for instance, rely on strip-bark trees and they show an increase in recent growth because of physical and not climactic conditions. E.g. the root system is more or less intact but only a small part of the bark is still alive and it grows fast to supply nutrients to the growing crown of the tree. These trees should never have been used as temperature proxies. But many of the team still use them. This analysis is irrefutable and until David Appell admits it, he’s not worth listening to. Of course, if he does admit it, all the “reconstructions” of Mann’s hockey stick disappear.

Michael 2
Reply to  daved46
August 7, 2015 8:56 pm

daved46 writes “The problem with Mann’s original method is that it chooses the proxies which match the recent period of rising temperatures and these often have problems which eliminate them as good proxies.”
I have studied this phenomenon quite a bit with some of my comments elsewhere relevant. My specialty is electronics, audio and radio signals specifically; a similar phenomenon exist but of course at a considerably shorter time scale. I recognize the shape on an oscilloscope. Feed in white noise (or “red noise”), set the trigger anwhere but zero, and presto, instant hockey stick. The trigger ensures synchronization (“correlation”) at a moment in time but everywhere else the multiple wavetrains partially or entirely cancel.

Tom T
Reply to  Michael 2
August 7, 2015 10:35 am

“Actually they didn’t all use the same method.”
They all do. That is kind of the point. Select on the dependent variable, weight due to correlation, and average.
This is fundamental to almost all reconstructions. Arguing over things like PCA is kind of like arguing over the differences between Pepsi and Coke.
Both Burger and Stockwell showed quit simply and clearly why the fundamental method behind all statistical reconstructions tends towards hockey sticks.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 7:39 am

Marcotte was forced to admit his study didn’t show that. He was demolished IIRC by Climate Audit and had to backtrack. Scientific American, once great, is irredeemably debased. And take a look at the hockey stick: the year (1998) it came out was the first year of the global warming ‘pause’ (hiatus) which has lasted for over 18 yrs, so the hockey stick blade has been bent back down to horizontal for longer than the warming of the satellite era 79-97. You would have to turn such a hockey stick upside down to shoot a puck, now.

hunter
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 8:05 am

Repeating something using the same falsified techniques will not unsurprisingly yield the same failed results.
Defending falsified results by repeating over and over that the results are robust only makes Mr. Appell look rather slow.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 8:07 am

Independent mathematical techniques? You mean when they utilize either Mann’s mysterious code or the products of Mann’s mysterious code?
No they did not. Nor have the majority of scientists accepted Mann’s claim that the MWP or the Roman WP were strictly regional.
Peer review does not guarantee, certify or even make science.
As Einstein pointed out, all it takes is for anyone to identify and prove an error. One error makes for a falsified theory and erroneous research.
Every study you’ve pointed to has had multiple errors identified. ClimateAudit is just the easiest place to review and understand the errors as McIntyre has a gift for simple succinct direct yet very detailed accurate statements.

Chuck Wiese
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 9:29 am

Appell, you’re an idiot. Just about a week ago you were spreading your climate blather all over the Oregonian in an article here about El Ninio:
http://www.oregonlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2015/07/el_nino_and_the_blob_shown_in.html#lf_comment=350405714
Where you insisted the “adjusted” temperatures done by NOAA were accurate and valid even though many have published here stating otherwise. When I pointed that out to you, your response was that anything I state has to come from a source “better than WU-WOT” . In other words, you completely dismiss any data or articles that come from this blog even though it comes from the same sources used by all in “climate science”.Yet here you are today, attempting to defend the indefensible on WUWT with respect to Michael Mann, a thoroughly discredited scientist just like yourself on this blog that you have bad mouthed and trashed at every opportunity you get.
Why do you care about what the people that publish on and read this blog think about climate? Most know your opinions and I have discredited and debunked them many times on other blogs so as to correct the nonsense about climate and CO2 that you spread.
You would do much better speaking to scientific illiterates elsewhere like you normally do. Perhaps on a site like “Hot Whoppers”, authored by a middle aged know nothing in science with no credentials who has nothing more than a “feeling” that those like yourself must be right about CO2 and climate.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Reply to  Chuck Wiese
August 7, 2015 1:59 pm

Great post, Chuck. Appell is just the sort of egotistical, conceited, opinionated idiot that would gravitate towards a guy like Mann, who likes baiting people he thinks he’ll never run into face to face – and it’s also why he focuses his comments towards the laymen on the board, rather than yours.
PS: I catch you on Lars, from time to time – always enjoy it.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 10:11 am

My property in Michigan was under one to two miles of ice 15,000 years ago.
There is no ice now.
I know for sure that coal power plants and SUVs did not start that warming, and could not possibly have caused more than a few tenths of a degree of that warming, although even that few tenths of a degree would be speculation, based on an unproven theory.
The Mann hockey stick chart was heavily publicized, and later found to be a fraud — that’s why you beloved IPCC does not use it anymore — and that’s why Mann should have been fired and ignored.
The Mann hockey stick used an inappropriate climate proxy, and then truncated the data because that proxy showed cooling in recent decades, rather than the warming the “author” wanted to show.
.
Other measurements were spliced onto the truncated proxy data, with no footnote on the chart stating TWO completely different measurements had been spliced together for the chart, with huge differences in the years where the two data sources overlapped — one measurement cooling while the other was warming — was simply not shown, because Mann is a smarmy scientific fraud, who sues everyone stating that obvious fact..
I won’t try to reason with you anymore, because I realize global warming is a secular religion for you, based on your beliefs … and I know people with strong beliefs ignore contrary data, and character attack non-believers.
I hope someday you are able to shed your religion and think clearly:
Earth’s climate is always warming or cooling,
more CO2 in the air is good news for green plants,
and warming is good news for humans.
The false demonization of CO2 is similar to prior false demonizations of DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc — all false boogeymen used to scare people and then tell them how to live. All now forgotten because they stopped scaring people, which was the only goal. Well, I suppose millions of people who died from malaria while DDT was still banned never forgot.
It’s sad that you will live your life fearing a climate catastrophe in the future when, in fact, the climate has been getting better since 1850, when CO2 was too low for rapid plant growth, and the average temperature was unusually cool.
So you live in fear of the false climate boogeyman … which has been “coming” for 40 years so far … like a frightened child scared of an imaginary monster … while completely failing to notice humans and plants on our planet are healthier than ever ! If believing in the climate change boogeyman is not the definition of a delusion, then I don’t know what is !
For non-scientists with open minds,
who would like to learn a little
about Earth’s climate, I offer a free,
no-ad, no sign-in, climate change blog,
with no wild-guess predictions
of a future climate catastrophe to scare people:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 11:01 am

Yes, David Appell? Real live climate scientists have replicated Mann’s work? Every morning, after my second cup of coffee, I replicate the food I’d eaten the day before and get the same results as Mann.

Dennis Bird
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 11:59 am

Remove the Bristlecone datasets and the hockey stick does not exist. Nice try though.

Menicholas
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:32 pm

“Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups”
Excellent.
I hope that all of the liars, charlatans and hacks identify themselves so readily.
Easier to sort things out at the reckoning.

MarkW
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 4:04 pm

When you use invalid methods, you get invalid results.
So what if other activists using equally invalid methods reproduced the result.
The result itself has been discredited so many times, that only the terminally discredited try to resurrect it.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 6:50 pm

David Appell
We don’t need to argue about what is in Mann’s hockey paper. It has been shown that tree rings don’t reflect past temperatures. (Ever hear of “hide the decline”. That work has been extended.) Therefore arguments about the results Mann got or the techniques he used to obtain those results are pointless. His starting data was worthless — making the whole hockey stick exercise worthless.
And Michael Mann knew his starting data was worthless when he wrote the paper. He wrote it up anyway hiding his knowledge about the worthlessness of his data. I call that fraud.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 9:54 pm

Funny that they couldn’t “replicate” it when congress asked, David.
“CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you
purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that
Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do
you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s
conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if
you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that
Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified
by independent review.
DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the
microphone.
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our
committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers
and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate.
We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented
at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”
“MR. WALDEN. Now, in the Wall Street Journal article too,
they make a reference to a McIntyre and McKitrick critique,
and I guess, have you reviewed that one, Dr. North
DR. NORTH. Oh, I am familiar with their work and, in fact,
Mr. McIntyre is here. He will be testifying later.
MR. WALDEN. Did he present to your panel?
DR. NORTH. Yes, he did. And in fact–
MR. WALDEN. Can their data be replicated or the results
be replicated?
DR. NORTH. Well, what they did was a critical study,
somewhat like the Wegman report, and I think they did an
honest job. It was a nice piece of work.
MR. WALDEN. Dr. Wegman–
DR. NORTH. I have no complaint about what they did.
MR. WALDEN. In terms of replicating data or replicating
studies, my understanding is, it is difficult to replicate
the Mann study but it was possible to replicate the
McIntyre and McKitrick study. ‘
And if they they don’t know which way is up for the proxies, how can they possibly corroborate anything, David Appel?

whiten
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 12:13 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
“Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:”
————————————————
Hello David.
What you say above is not quite right or even reasonable, as far as I can tell, actually is more like a logical fallacy.
You see most of the links you refer to are not actually works that tend to replicate the famous “hockey stick”.
These works just happen to have a similar “hokey stick” as a consequence, and the main thing about this effect is that probably it tells from the first look that these works are no any better than the M. Mann “hockey stick”
Most of these works you refer to, are attempts to reconstruct paleo climate to some other new liking, not actual attempts on replicating what you claim these works replicate.
For lack of better way to describe it, you seem to argue in the bases of what is known as a “circular reasoning” or a “circular logic”.
These works don’t prove the “validity” of the M.Mann “travesty”…….and most probably any such works are “travesties” too, especially while with same look- alike as that of M.Mann.
And comparisons as per your above claim, do no any good to these groups you mention, and their works.
It simply lowers the credibility on such works since from the first approach, at first face value assessment.
Besides, to me your argument has no substance or a coherent reasoning……….sorry really, but honestly that is what I think.
Is simply like hanging desperately at straws. (if that will clarify it better for you)..
cheers

Big Porker
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 4:31 am

The problem with Mann’s Hockey Stick isn’t the math (which is actually kinda cool), but the data used (tree ring) and the assumptions made.

George S.
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 5:09 am

To construct the hockey-stick plot, Mann, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona analyzed paleoclimatic data sets such as those from tree rings, ice cores and coral, joining historical data with thermometer readings from the recent past”
.
That statement from your own poorly written article shows everyone that Mann’s ‘hockey-stick’ is bogus. Tree rings, ice cores, and coral give ESTIMATES and are nowhere near fact. You are simply an AGW kook so full of himself it isn’t funny. Keep pretending that you understand climate dynamics. A clue for you, YOU DON’T.

RD
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 9:42 am

Nooooooooooo….

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 4:30 pm

Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups,

The Jamaican Hockey Team?

LewSkannen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 7:30 pm

Replicated by everything except reality. I do not remember seeing the current 18 year plateau in Manns Hockey Stick.

August 7, 2015 12:22 am

“Mann gets real time”
Oh drat, I thought you meant he had been sentenced.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
August 7, 2015 8:08 am

Sooner or later.

jones
August 7, 2015 12:26 am

Where might one be able to watch this online?

joelobryan
August 7, 2015 12:28 am

Mann’s downfall is spewing the 3.0deg C ECS value. That lie shows he is not a scientist, but in reality Mann is a dogmatist for the CAGW cause.

Reply to  joelobryan
August 7, 2015 12:29 am

Mann’s work doens’t provide a value for CO2 ECS, Einstein.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:19 am

Mann’s work doesn’t provide anything !

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:32 am

False. Read his work, and this time try to understand it.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:44 am

You should read his paper , and realise its worthlessness…
…. but you are a low-end journalist, never a scientist, so you…….
….just BELIEVE. !!!

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:47 am

I understand Mann’s work. You should try it for a change, if you’re capable.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:55 am

So you accept all the mathematical chicanery.. that would be you to a tee. !!

joelobryan
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 10:25 am

Mr. Appell,
go read what I wrote, and then go read Mann’s garbage article here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
Mann still insists that ECS is greater than 3.0 C, despite a large body of evidence that it is most likely less than 2.0 C.
I never said anything about Mann’s own unscientific work. Others here have already shown that you and Mann are wrong and dishonest about being wrong.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  joelobryan
August 8, 2015 7:20 am

joelobryan
“but in reality Mann is a dogmatist for the CAGW cause.”
No, Mann’s only cause is himself.
Mann has profited greatly from supporting CAGW. Years ago he saw the potential for personal advancement that supporting CAGW offered and he went for it. His small talents combined with big lies have worked well for him. He is actually nothing but a snake oil salesman, duping the public, working strictly for personal profit.
Eugene WR Gallun

charles nelson
August 7, 2015 12:29 am

What’s the latest on the Steyn case?

August 7, 2015 12:30 am

Watts, you are slacking off — I’ve made several comments on your blog tonight, and apparently you are sleeping. Where is the censorship??????
Guess it will wait until morning.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:06 am

It is often good to let fools talk. Especially you. So desperate. !! So irrelevant !
And certainly funny to watch your continued INADEQUATE attempts at defence of the Mann FARCE !!

Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:09 am

I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.
[Further proof of your dishonesty, if more evidence is needed. ~mod.]

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:16 am

Deceit.. yes.. another part of you.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 2:40 am

“I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”
Gee aren’t you a smart guy.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 2:58 am

“And none of you ever realize it.””
And none of us care !!
You can big-note yourself as much as you feel you need to, to boost your pathetic inferiority complex….
.. but you will always be a low-end journalist and a scientific non-entity.

Glenn999
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 5:46 am

maybe he’s flashy

PiperPaul
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 6:56 am

“And none of you ever realize it.”
Oh dear, he’s clearly outsmarted us all. Maybe we should just acknowledge his superior intellect and give up on this whole d*nier thing.

joelobryan
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 10:28 am

Appell’s behavior very much is like another Climate Liar who faked blog entries under Dr Motl’s good reputation.

Menicholas
Reply to  AndyG55
August 8, 2015 10:05 am

“I comment here all the time, usually using a pseudonym. And none of you ever realize it.”
Yes, how silly of readers here not to be omniscient mind readers, capable of discerning the true identity of a random post from a pseudonym using commenter.

Menicholas
Reply to  AndyG55
August 8, 2015 10:14 am

The truth is that Mr. Appell’s opinions regarding the identity of a person as bearing on the veracity or relevance of the things a person asserts, is false. As false as false can be.
Truth is not influenced by identity.
A layperson who speaks verifiable facts is correct, and a PhD who lies is incorrect.
It is as simple as that.
The physical reality of the atmosphere, or of any other thing, is not influenced by polls or popular opinions, is not subject to being more or less real depending on who says what, which way the political wind is blowing, or how much the people who describe this objective reality are or are not getting paid for their opinions.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:16 am

You carry on David, your ridiculous comments make this even funnier.. Just think, this is one of the most popular scientifics blogs on the web, and (in my opinion) you have made a complete twat of yourself to the whole world. So carry on, this is fun fun fun,

mark
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 4:44 am

+1001

simple-touriste
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:18 am

Flushing the toilet is not censorship.

lee
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:43 am

Generally the censorship is left to the warmist blogs.

Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 1:48 am

False — I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve said they are censored and banished here.
[Reply: If you were censored your comments would not appear here. ~mod.]

lee
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 1:51 am

So counting is not one of your strong suits? Makes stats difficult.

MCourtney
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 2:06 am

David Appell (@davidappell) August 7, 2015 at 1:48 am

False — I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve said they are censored and banished here.

Give us names.
If they turn out to all be anti-semites then we may understand the policy.
If they turn out to be 14year old Typing Tourette’s sufferers then we may understand the policy.
And if they turn out to be unnameable then we will understand you’re exaggerating.

Michael 2
Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 6:47 am

Exactly. I was banned from DailyKOS in about three hours. I lasted at Scientific American a bit longer. Leftist blogs simply do not tolerate dissent; that is the essence of being left wing or socialist — hive mind, groupthink, social compliance.

Reply to  lee
August 7, 2015 8:12 am

There is the simple statement about Apple’s math skill. He couldn’t count past his fourth finger when he ran out of names.

Menicholas
Reply to  lee
August 8, 2015 10:18 am

Probably only need the third finger to reply in a manner some of the warmistas deserve.

jaffa68
Reply to  lee
August 10, 2015 5:08 am

Yes, I made one comment at the Guardian, politely asking a question, and was banned and one comment at Real Climate suggesting climate change was natural, I was banned there too.
The climate science Cardinals keep the congregation isolated from alternative views through censorship. It’s important that Appell has the opportunity to post here because he comes across as rather silly.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:41 am

I decry the ad hominems — from both sides (see above). But we do not censor anything that conforms with blog policy. Disagreement with or support of Dr. Mann does not constitute violation of blog policy.

hunter
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 8:06 am

David I in jackass mode.. perhaps it is a chronic condition.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:03 am

You know you are hurting them when the bad Appell makes an appearance.
So, so funny to watch his desperation. 🙂
Appell’s site is certainly the Dept of OOPS !!
A FARCE , of irrelevant PROPAGANDA mis-information.
JUNK !!
that is all he has.

Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:10 am

Do you have any scientifically relevant rebuttals? It appears not…..

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:17 am

Do you have any scientifically relevant point.. no.. just propaganda papers from Nature etc etc.
You have nothing , you never have had.

Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:33 am

As if you get to judge the quality of Nature’s papers. You do not.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 1:42 am

You certainly don’t either.. You are a low end journalist.. get over yourself.
And I do have the qualification to judge paper to see if they are science.. or mostly NOT !!!

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:18 am

ahhh now the truth unfolds, you have just come here to publiscise your website to try and get a few cents worht of traffic. Still, I doubt your book will be a best seller likes Watts and co book IS ,,, HA HA HA HA HA

Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:49 am

I don’t need to make money from my blog, don’t worry.

AndyG55
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:57 am

The green blob will provide, hey Appell.

Stevan Makarevich
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 8:53 am

I noticed how popular his blog is based on the number of comments.

Craig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:29 am

Awesome blog David, not one comment on the story you linked to in 30 days. David, if your blog site was a private business and a comment was deemed to be a cash transaction and you didn’t have one sale in 30 days, you would be declaring bankruptcy soon enough due to the lack of cash flow.
David, your ‘customers’ aren’t buying your ‘product’ because they deem your product to be faulty, poor quality and they generally distrust the seller (you) to provide a good service in general.

AndyG55
Reply to  Craig
August 7, 2015 3:00 am

mentally bankrupt !

Reply to  Craig
August 7, 2015 8:17 am

Agreed Craig.
When free news and discussion is too expensive for the subscription price, the blog site falls back to trying to scam people into visiting.
Classic symptom of the flim flam biased bloggert.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:52 am

Look at this book : Climate Change: The Facts Paperback – April 21, 2015 Ranking
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,664 in Books
Now compare with this: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #399,497 in Books
So we know who is more popular in the charts. Anthony and Co’s book is rompinig ahead of Manns laughable attempt. Anthony is in the top 2000 books sold on Amazon while Mann is just inside the top 400000 Heh

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:42 pm

Just noticed this …
Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #265,786 Paid in Kindle Store
That is for Brandon’s ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Introduction to the Hockey Stick’
That is higher than Mann’s effort, so perhaps it is Mann that needs a new publisher LOL

JohnWho
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 6:39 am

Whoa!
Quotes from blogs aren’t authoritative.
*I know I’ve read that somewhere*
LOL

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 9, 2015 5:52 am

davidappell: the-department-of-oops-case-number-2
To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”
Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
I made a scare of some emails out there,
And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in Yamal on a yew.
Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
The “threats” were against kangaroos,
It’s so hard to get this egg off my face,
I’ll say, “Someone invaded their space!”
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.

Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 12:33 am

How can they replicate something where data is dubious -splicing, to say the least- and procedures, formulae and computer programming is dubious as well or even withheld?
Even if they got full, unlimited access to the procedures and they use them w/o questioning on a 1:1 basis of the very same data as their predecessor did, the results must be identical.
If I repeat somebody else’s mistake, the result will be identical – and as faulty and flawed as the original.

Reply to  Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 12:36 am

1) No one is “replicating.”
2) You need to study to papers to understand their different techniques. CAUTION: Thinking involved.

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:41 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:

>b>A little bit self-contradictory totay?
bold in the blockquote = mine

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 12:43 am

THey are using different mathematical techniques, as I wrote.
Maybe you should read the actual papers before dismissing them?

ironargonaut
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 4:09 am

You use the word replicated and say “some” are using different mathematical methods. So, yes someone is saying replicating and that someone is you.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 11:35 am

maybe you should read your own posts.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 12:36 am

Sorry, it was a reply to
“David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick”…”

artwest
Reply to  Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 4:07 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:43 am
THey are using different mathematical techniques, as I wrote.
———————————————————————————————–
You wrote at 12:14 am, “replicated by many different groups, SOME using independent mathematical techniques”. [my caps]
Which means that you were saying that at least some were replicating using the same mathematical techniques. (If not the majority, as you didn’t say “most” or even “many”)
Which does indeed contradict your statement at 12:36 am that “No one is “replicating.””

Menicholas
Reply to  Non Nomen
August 8, 2015 10:23 am

Look, it is not so easy when you make things up as you go.
Try to unnerstan’!

August 7, 2015 12:35 am

Adam and the apple, Mann and Tjinder.

Admad
August 7, 2015 12:42 am

Has to be done…

August 7, 2015 1:01 am

@David Appell
Full of [trimmed]

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 7, 2015 1:04 am

Do you have any thoughts on the science? Or just juvenile insults?

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:56 am

after sneering at someone and calling them Einstein” youre really in no position to argue.
Now, going to threaten to report me for harassing you?

richard
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:16 am

oh yes , Mr Appell, very HOG 137 – lol.

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 7, 2015 1:10 am

Dahlquist
If you don’t agree what someone says, respond with the reasons why you don’t agree with his arguments, not what you think of him as person. Comments like yours only give real skeptics a bad name…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:27 am

@Ferdinand
Apologies Friend. It just got my goat and I made the mistake of giving David Appell more significance than he deserves. I will follow your good advice and not give in to temptation, after my last at 1:18am.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:34 am

Juvenile insults are all most of you have here. Scientific insights are few and far between….

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:38 am

“I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
Well you certainly aren’t likely to contribute any !!!

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:39 am

” Scientific insights are few and far between….”
how would you know.???..
you wouldn’t recognise a scientific insight if it kicked you in the b***s

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:50 am

I know, Andy, because I’ve read your comments here and elsewhere, like NoTricks Zone. They are invariably flippant and without scientific substance. In fact, I’ve never see you make a scientifically serious comment anywhere…..

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 1:59 am

Your low-end journalism is shining through.. empty rhetoric.
You wouldn’t recognise science if it kicked in the cajones.

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 7, 2015 2:25 am

“I’ve never see you make a scientifically serious comment anywhere…..”
roflmao..
From you , that is totally hilarious .. Appell self-projection, MUCH !!!
A low end journalist making comments about the science in someone else’s comments .. so funny !!! :- ) 🙂

knr
August 7, 2015 1:04 am

Good news , keep him in the sport light , keep him under pressure and his massive ego will do much good work for the very people and ideas he hates.
Meanwhile how are his various court cases going , is he still ducking and divining for all his worth , rather than getting into a actual court ?

Reply to  knr
August 7, 2015 1:05 am

I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:10 am

I’m still looking for an explanation of the geological record. Eras when Plant Food (CO2) concentration was high in the atmosphere and yet global temperatures were cool. Or when Plant Food (CO2) concentration was low in the atmosphere and yet global temperatures were warm.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:15 am

1) when was that?
2) you need to consider the changes in the output of the sun: +/-1% for every 110 M yrs in the future/past.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:29 am

Only a total moron thinks that TSI is the only facet of solar output.
But then, you have always been a total moron.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:36 am

“I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
From you, a low end science fiction journalist , that is the height of irony. !!

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:38 am

“I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
How on earth would you deduce this ? You make assumptions, as you have with the hockeystick. Why not read some papers that dispute the hockeystick before claiming you are right. Because if you understand science as you claim to, you would know that to be scientific is to be sceptical.
I quote.
“The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” Richard Feynman.
Could you pass that quote on the to Mike ‘hide the decline’ Mann please.

knr
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:57 am

What in a comment that had nothing to do with the science but instead reviewed the way Mann’s massive ego is so often counter-productive to his own cause therefore how further public exposer that likley to be a good thing for sceptics , and asked what the situation was regards the various court cases he has started but oddly seems to rather desperate to avoid actually going to court with, you saw no science, well that proves you not blind and stupid .
The difference Mann’s work is actual supposed to be ‘science’ but it is not .

Menicholas
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 10:31 am

Please provide peer reviewed substantiation for your assertion that the output of the sun varies by approximately 9% IN EITHER DIRECTION for every billion years one looks back.
That would be a variance of 18% or so over two billion years. The + or – is very interesting…you are claiing the sun may have been ten percent brighter or more di 1.1 BYA!
This is quite an extraordinary day.
I will call all of my astrophysics friends to make further inquiries.
We all await your link to the sources of your assertion.
Thanks in advance.

Menicholas
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 10:42 am

““I don’t see you having any knowledge of the science either.”
How on earth would you deduce this ?”
I was just about to make a similar inquiry.
Apparently one must have extrasensory perceptions in order to be an effective CAGW proponent.
Imagine being able to discern the complete educational experience and sum total of the knowledge base of a person from a single typed sentence on a website comment section!

Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 1:06 am

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
Actually, Mann et al’s “hockey stick” work has been replicated by many different groups, some using independent mathematical techniques:…

David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 at 12:43 am
THey are using different mathematical techniques, as I wrote.
Maybe you should read the actual papers before dismissing them?

To make it quite clear:
It was you who said they were “replicating” in your initial posting.
What, in your world, means “many”? Ever heard about “Hundred Authors against Einstein”?
You were talking about “different groups” first, followed by “independent mathematical techniques”. Then you say they were using “different mathematical techniques”.
When you say “some using independent mathematical techniques” that implies that others did not. So these either used techniques that are not independent or, worse, the same as that Mann.
Maybe you should start thinking before posting self-contradictions and muddy the waters?

Reply to  Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 1:11 am

Those 100 were very wrong, weren’t they?

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:14 am

And so are the 97%.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:16 am

No, they’re in fact not. But I think such numbers aren’t worth much anyway, and I never cite them.

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:17 am

That’s bumfuzzling, and you admitted your ignorance. Thank you.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 4:17 am

David Appell:
If one honest scientist is forever “contaminated in your mind” by receiving 25,000.00 one time from one conservative think tank for research in one area, how many government so-called “scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in three years to support the international banking industry desperate for 31 trillion dollars in carbon-trading schemes and one political party that needs 1.3 trillion dollars a year in new carbon taxes?
Who were the “unbiased” so-called “peers” that reviewed and approved Mann’s original one-tree-fits-all Yamal data for publication? How much have these anonymous “readers” of an error-plagued paper received for THEIR contribution to the banker’s 31 trillion dollars in needless taxes on the poor worldwide?
WHO were these so-called “peers” of Mann that reviewed the “supporting” papers that so suddenly came out of the wordwork factories elsewhere right after Mann’s work was falsified as a fraud? Prove to us that Mann did NOT himself review and approve and arrange funding for those very people who subsequently read and approved – or wrote! – those “magical” papers that baptized his work.
We know Mann arranged 3 million in malaria research climate-funded federal grants for Penn State’s “disease” studies group right as Penn State was deciding their case. How much did Mann get for these other writers-of-lost-causes from the taxpayers?
Circumstantial evidence only requires method, motive, opportunity – and when looking at Mann, you can add a history of hos own past actions to that list – to convict a felon of the crime of fraud. Or a self-selected, so-called “climate scientist”

john
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 5:13 am

I agree with RACook. You can show them the evidence and they still will not listen…
Eric Scott Hunsader ‏@nanexllc 10h10 hours ago
Here’s Bloomberg gushing over MIDAS and its wonders
Nice reporting guys
@business @BloombergTV
Embedded image permalink
3 retweets 5 favorites
Reply Retweet3 Favorite5
More
Eric Scott Hunsader ‏@nanexllc 10h10 hours ago
Nearly TWO YEARS ago, we told the SEC EXACTLY what to look for. And we put it in writing: http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/4450.html

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 11:37 am

So you admit you used the word “replicate” to describe some researcher’s work that, in your opinion,verify mann’s conclusions?

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Non Nomen
August 7, 2015 3:49 am

All the “97%” say is that man has introduced some warming. But I agree with that, myself. So do the lukewarmers, who have been kicking ass and taking names in the journals. Next time you hear 97%, ask yourself what the 97% are actually saying.

August 7, 2015 1:07 am

Just simple insults Dave. As simple as the science and insult throwing you have been doing here so far.

Reply to  Dahlquist
August 7, 2015 1:12 am

When you start providing links to scientific results, you’ll be given your due. Until then, not very much.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:25 am
Non Nomen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:25 am

Let the dim light of your dubious wisdom shine on us. Which of the aforementioned four groups, in your opinion, used “independent mathematical techniques”? Which, in your opinion, used “different mathematical techniques”? Is there a group that condescended to using “independent different mathematical techniques”?

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:33 am

And why do you think that anyone cares if a non-entity like you gives anyone their due.?
Seriously , get your medication adjusted !!
You are not important except in your own tiny mind.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:35 am

Non: It’s better if you read all the papers and figure that out for yourself. Will do you a lot of good, too.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:36 am

PS: If you have the mathematical chops for it.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:37 am

Man: No one takes the journal “Energy & Envirnonment” seriously since its editor admitted she was biased.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:41 am
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:52 am

Pig: That’s a model result, not a paleoclimate reconstruction.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:01 am

You are pleading with everyone to help you with the mathematics.
Last I heard, maths and scientific understanding were not a major part for a low-end journalist work.. as is obvious

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:43 am

paleo reconstructions necessarily use some model to get from whatever phenomena they look at to temperature. your post if simply incorrect.
really, this is beneath even what i thought you were capable of producing, truly a new low for you.
what now: should I await for the police to come for me?
think skinned apologist.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:04 am

“If you have the mathematical chops for it.”
People who did a low-end journalist course … need not apply !!

August 7, 2015 1:17 am

Wow, this guy David Appell is a tedious individual, not surprising that this is the alarmists’ favourite expression, “Dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

Reply to  Peter Miller
August 7, 2015 1:38 am

I’ve presented far more facts here than you have. So why don’t you at least try?
(Reply: The central ‘fact’ is that there has been no global warming at all for almost 20 years now. That fact debunks the “man-made global warming” hoax. ~mod.)

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:45 am

Facts? what facts have you presented ? you have ‘presented’ a few links to your blog and what else ? maybe links to a few scientific journals. But remember scientfic papers are not facts. They are hypotheses. If you believe scientific papers are facts, then you have a problem and it may blur your reporting of ‘facts’

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:56 am

To quote an article one has written himself and declare that a “fact” is, well, pretty perky.

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:08 am

Mod.. the reality is that apart from the NON-CO2 forced El Nino/La Nina ocean energy release between 1997 and early 2001 (about 0.26C atmospheric warming) there has been BASICALLY NO WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.
The slight warming trend before has been almost totally cancelled out by the slight cooling trend since.
There is ZERO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the satellite record.

lee
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:08 am

Mod- stop it. He’ll quote Karl et al at you.

MCourtney
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:17 am

David Appell (@davidappell), you still haven’t apologised for your error in claiming that Mann’s hockeystick was supported by Marcott.
Indeed, you didn’t even seem to understand you were wrong until you came here to be educated.
So a little less haughtiness and a little more respect for those who disagree with you would be polite. There is always more to learn if you’re curious and open-minded.

mwh
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 3:02 am

So far I dont think you have represented a single relevant fact or posted a credit worthy link.
You say you are a regular on here so you will be aware that all Manns work has been represented, discussed/debated and for the most part debunked.
Insisting that everyone should read Manns not scientifically produced, sensationalised and very narrowly researched findings yet again would mean that you have produced some sort of new credibility with your quotes and references, and then have been able to substantially back up what you have written.
so far everything else has been entirely rhetorical and without substance. I cannot support those that have resorted to ad hominems, but your continued refusal to engage on any sort of scientific level brings out the worst in those that are unable to keep to decent language – a pity as it lets you off the hook.
My understanding however is that using any kind of ‘independant mathmatical technique’ is modelling not paleocimate reconstruction – so yet again your own statements are self critical.
I really dont think anyone is going to engage with a subject that has been covered over and over again unless you can actually write down why you agree with what he produced. If you can actually write a fact that is of merit you may be surprised how the more reasonably minded here will engage with you (surely even you can ignore the insults as you seem pretty good at dishing them out). Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hasnt read his work is weak to say the least as I doubt very much that you have read any of the debunking science either………..so tell me, why are you here??

Menicholas
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 11:41 am

Please enumerate these presented “facts”.
If you can.
I say you cannot, because you have done nothing of the sort.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 9, 2015 5:54 pm

@Moderator
“No global warming for 20 years disproves the hoax?” Really?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Any reasonable least mean squares fit of any of the three databases shows a clear upward trend over the last 20 years.

AndyG55
Reply to  Peter Miller
August 7, 2015 2:10 am

Non, you have to remember, DA is basically a self tarted-up science fiction journalist with minimal science training or understanding… as if I need to state the obvious !!
He is mouth.. nothing more. !!!

Non Nomen
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 2:33 am

Mouth? I was just thinking about something else…

Tim
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 8:49 am

We can’t typecast all journalists. There’s a need to separate the paid propagandists from those with integrity.
“The role of the journalist is not to tell the public what the truth is – your role is to tell them what is going on, so that they can make their own informed decisions.” (Donna Laframboise)

August 7, 2015 1:18 am

Here’s a link to a scientific result for you… If you pull your head out of your rectum, you may observe something other than your own bullshit.

August 7, 2015 1:20 am

David, Mr Greenskull would like a little word with you …
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/crisis-management-a-green-perspective/
Pointman

AndyG55
Reply to  Pointman
August 7, 2015 1:31 am

Appell’s utter desperation is palpable. So funny to watch..
Maybe he is off his meds ???

Reply to  Pointman
August 7, 2015 1:38 am

If you had something to offer than a blog posting, you’d offer it. You don’t.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:41 am

I think you’re heading for a very severe telling off, Davey Boy. I wouldn’t like to be in your place, not even on one of your sane days …
Pointman

Non Nomen
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:42 am

How about answering some questions here? You don’t. Nothing to offer but a flash in tha pan?

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:53 am

“I think you’re heading for a very severe telling off, Davey Boy.”
Do you think this is the 4th grade?

davideisenstadt
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 1:58 am

“If you had something to offer than a blog posting, you’d offer it. You don’t.”
Source? a blog posting

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:02 am

“Do you think this is the 4th grade?”
You would be well out of your depth !!

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:03 am

“not even on one of your sane days …”
Really Pointman.. you go too far.!!
DA has never had a sane day in his life !!

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:24 am

He very definitely going to use the slipper on you …
Pointman

AndyG55
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:29 am

Bet his granny/carer is having a day off….
…and forgot to lock his computer.

Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:43 am

Driven back under a ferocious onslaught of vicious skeptic laughter, David retreated and prepared with some trepidation for his “interview” with Mr Greenskull.
Pointman

Reply to  Pointman
August 7, 2015 1:40 am

Pointman: Another wordy tl;dr post by someone afraid to use their real name. Not convincing in the least.

Editor
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 2:01 am

this is a very odd reply from someone who has adnitted posting under pseudonyms.

RoyFOMR
Reply to  Pointman
August 7, 2015 3:14 am

Warning: Do NOT read the article linked to by Pointman if you are David Appell or one of his many alter egos, as it contains massive doses of highly concentrated humour that may prove fatal for those of delicate sensibilities.

pat
August 7, 2015 1:22 am

you want funny? go to bbc radio 4 “What’s the Point of…? The Met Office” program for 28-minutes of audio comedy (link is in anthony’s Tips&Notes comments if u can’t locate it) :
7 Aug: Daily Mail: Christopher Booker: What a shower! The more money the Met Office gets, the more ludicrously inaccurate its doom-mongering on climate change
Very surprisingly and somewhat boldly, on Wednesday morning Radio 4 put out a programme by the Mail’s Quentin Letts which ran flatly counter to the BBC’s normal party line on one of its very favourite subjects, global warming…
One of the guests interviewed by Mr Letts was the veteran Tory politician and climate-change sceptic Peter Lilley, who proceeded to poke fun about how Met Office officials would lobby for ‘more money for bigger computers to be more precisely wrong in future’…
Hilariously, the BBC’s former environment correspondent Richard Black protested that Mr Letts’s show had breached the BBC’s editorial rules by being so biased — when Mr Black’s own reporting on climate change could scarcely have been more shameless in breaking those same rules for years on end…READ ALL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3187587/What-shower-money-Met-Office-gets-ludicrously-inaccurate-doom-mongering-climate-change.html
7 Aug: Spectator Blog: Damian Thompson: BBC ‘environment analyst’ (Roger Harrabin) explodes on Twitter as BBC presenter mocks Met Office’s climate prophecies
Here are two tweets he (Roger Harrabin) sent out yesterday (links here and here):
Letts asked Helen Chivers, Met Office head of news, about the 2004 global warming prediction. She said that knowledge of earth systems was still evolving ‘and things change over time’. There was no attempt to defend the 0.3 per cent prophecy – and Chivers even seemed to agree that the Met Office can be a bit alarmist at times.
The programme’s conclusion was that the Met Office is jolly good at short-term forecasts, saving lives in the process, but that its comically inaccurate attempts to predict climate change are dangerously close to political lobbying…
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/bbc-environment-analyst-explodes-on-twitter-as-bbc-presenter-mocks-met-offices-climate-prophecies/

Warren Latham
Reply to  pat
August 7, 2015 3:11 am

Pat,
Just a quick note to say thank you for that “BBC” information: it is very good to know that you keep tabs on the QUANGO (the BBC) and the Met Office, both of which are secured onto the Global Warming Gravy Train. You write with such clarity.
They are both “pet hates” of mine. Many thanks indeed.
Regards,
WL

Man Bearpig
August 7, 2015 1:23 am

Here are some papers kindly organsied by Poptech that refute the Hockeystick
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Hockey

James Bradley
August 7, 2015 1:55 am

@David Appell, you do know that this is a science site and that science is based on skepticism. If you don’t want to be questioned don’t enter the dialogue – or try twitter #I get up myself.

Reply to  James Bradley
August 7, 2015 2:09 am

James, it is profoundly sad that you think this is a science site, or a skeptic site. It is, of course, neither. It’s more like the Island of Misfit Toys in Rudolph…..

Man Bearpig
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 4:14 am

David: You need to read up about this site
http://2013.bloggi.es/#science
wuwt Best Science or Technology Weblog 2013
http://2013.bloggi.es/#woty – web blog of the year
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/
wuwt: Best science blog
So like it or lump it, it is a science blog … dont see many of the alarmist websites winning anything
Why dont you see how your blog does, I am sure there are a few here that would put forward your site, then watch it fail to get anywhere.
You have to have good content and be able to keep the number of viewers … So far this site has had upwards of 240 million views… So come on boy, show me a better science blog. If you care to look around here you will see links to official sites, such as NOAA NSIDC and a host of other pertinent climate data. But, you have to open your eyes. Once you start reading this stuff you may learn something and find it is an excellent resource for Climate science and information.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 6:33 am

…says the man going on about how everyone else is using immature language…

James Bradley
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 7, 2015 5:47 pm

David Appell, perhaps the reason you haunt WUWT is because it is the only way you can satisfy your need for an audience, heavens knows you don’t achieve that at your blog.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David Appell (@davidappell)
August 8, 2015 7:02 pm

When it was voted the best site Appell was not here.

AndyG55
Reply to  James Bradley
August 7, 2015 2:12 am

DA, it is very sad that you do not recognise science when you see it.
Whenever you appear.. science leaves.

Non Nomen
Reply to  AndyG55
August 7, 2015 2:37 am

In your own logic: if this is not a science site, you’d better go away.
If this is a science site, you’d better go away as well, because you dont quite get it.

Editor
August 7, 2015 2:07 am

Here is a good example of the extent of Appell’s intellectual depth and honesty. He does not know the difference bewteen deg C and F, and refuses to admit his error.
He is a dishonest lightweight.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/01/steve-goddards-big-error.html

AndyG55
Reply t