And, this is why I don’t spend much time with running down details of each and every paper which comes down the pike. It’s distracting from the greater point and most often requires accepting information which has never shown to be true. Sure, understanding the concepts are great help in rebutting some things, but often people get mired in details which have no relevance, or the relevance isn’t applied, to the greater discussion.
Don’t get me wrong, some of the great work skeptics have done was, indeed, to chase down the details of various supposed works of science, such as McIntyre’s relentless pursuit of truth regarding Mann’s idiocy and deception. But, once these things are clearly established, there’s no longer any reason to chase after such things. Worse, it lends the alarmist sophists a degree of credibility which has never been earned.
So, the guy who helped come up with this absurdity …..
Is accusing a fellow blogger of spreading FUD. No, really!!!
For those not familiar, this is the BEST data series, which a fellow named Steve Mosher helped create. They pretend to have some insight as to what the temperatures around the globe were back in the 1750s. As memory serves, they had a grand total of about 12 thermometers, all in either Europe and in present day US. Apparently, they felt justified in doing so, because they included what they thought was the margin of error, or uncertainty. Is there any better way to spread uncertainty than to proclaim insight to something, but, excuse yourself by saying ‘but, we’re not really sure’, and then leaving it at that? That is the epitome of spreading uncertainty and doubt. And, then, regarding “fear” …….. As most readers know, I’m very familiar with Steve Goddard’s writings. It can be characterized in many ways, but, regarding the climate? Fear is certainly not what he’s spreading. He’s showing and telling people that there isn’t anything to fear from our climate. And, I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Goddard’s style may be abrasive to some, but, most often, Steve brings a clarity to his writings which expresses very little uncertainty.
During the course of the skeptical movement, many skeptics tried to chase down the very fine points and claims of the nutters. And, I’m glad they did. The world owes a debt to the people like Steve McIntyre. But, today, there is very little utility in doing so. Don’t get me wrong, the critiques are legitimate, but, what comes of it? For instance, McIntyre is running down the details of Rosenthal et al 2013, mostly because of was stated in support of the lunatics, even after contradicting the lunatics.
In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
When i read garbage like this, I stop and consider all of the things necessary to make such a statement. Consider this from Mac’s blog ….
It reported on interesting Mg-Ca ocean cores in the western Pacific from the foraminfera H. Balthica, which is believed to be a proxy for “intermediate water temperatures”.
Now, let’s think about this. Magnesium and Calcium… well first, we have to establish that these are, indeed, good proxies for our past temps. Now, consider for a moment Mann’s trick. Remember that? And, why? Certain sophists and imbeciles thought, and some still do, that tree rings were a good proxy for our temperatures. But, as noted by Mann and others, the tree rings of the more recent times behaved differently than in the past. (or so we’re told). So how did they determine how a tree ring was suppose to react to temperatures? Supposedly, they found some places with a temp record nearby and calibrated the historical temps to what the tree rings of the distant past were telling us. ……… Now, this already brings us to some great uncertainty. Proximity to the tree rings can make a huge difference. As does the surroundings of the thermometer. The fact is, even that step invalidates any certainty one may have over the tree rings. Is everyone with me so far?
Now consider the ocean cores. ………… uhmm, derp!!!!
We don’t have any past thermometers to compare the cores with. None, zero, nade. Proximity and environment doesn’t matter, because there are no thermometers to compare with! So, that leaves us only with recent data to compare the cores with. Now, anyone with even cursory experience reading about ocean cores already know and understand that you can’t use recent years because of how time alters such records.
Researchers reconstructed 10,000 years of temperature change in the Pacific Ocean’s middle depths by analyzing the fossil shells of the one-celled organism, Hyalinea balthica. (forambarcoding.com)
You see, using these types of things requires, and I’ll say it again, requires that the organisms’ shell would react with Mg and Calcium in the exact same way it is doing today. We all know this is highly unlikely because of environmental changes.
Did Rosenthal fudge and cheat a bit on their statistical analysis? Did they alter data in their SI without telling anyone? Probably, and yes. Does it matter? No, this is akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
What does this have to do with Mosher and Goddard? Mosh pays attention to only some of the things necessary in climate concerns, but, ignores the most obvious and fundamental things. For this, he construes that others who have a better grasp on the issues are somehow less honest, less diligent, and less knowledgeable than he and his chosen few are.
Here’s the brass tacks. Climate skepticism has progressed from showing how wrong the lunatics are on the finer technical details of their idiocy. Consider all of the fallacies we’ve, as the larger group of skeptics, have uncovered. Well, why? Why is it that paper after paper contains these sort of errors and questionable practices? BECAUSE THEY’VE GOTTEN THE FUNDAMENTALS ENTIRELY WRONG!!!!!
When you dedicate a lot of hard and good work to running down and arguing such things, you’re simply playing into the nutters’ hands. It’s a method of distraction. Mosh is either too stupid to understand this, or too dishonest to acknowledge it.
The questions before us isn’t whether or not Rosenthal or Mann or Hansen fudge the numbers. They most certainly do. But, the question, which is answered daily, is this imaginary climate change adversely effecting humanity? Will it?
On studies like above, don’t waste your time running down all of the details, ask them to show you their proof of concept. Are those little critters’ shells a good proxy for past temp reconstructions? Of course no one can possibly know that. Laugh at them and their sophist stupidity and move on to their next bit of sophistry which is spewed daily. Show where they lie, sure, but, they’ve many more obvious and egregious lies to demonstrate on a daily basis. Want to expose the lunatics for what they are? Show them the snow data. Show them the global ice data, show them the wild fire and hurricane data. Show them the tidal gauges. But, most of all, show the absurdity of their lunacy …… which is what Goddard does on a daily basis. Mosh? He comes up with something pertinent about every 6 months. I’d take one Goddard to 100 Moshes any day of the week.
Mosh is just unhappy because he’s too stupid to understand this. He’s the same guy who helped put a graph up about our temperatures in the 1750s, knowing full well there was no validity in such an assertion. And, he thinks Goddard gives skeptics a bad name? Look at Mosh’s idiocy!!!