Marcott2013

[westwall]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

I stand by my statement.

Which addresses nothing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You do know what they say about opinions, right?

I don't think my opinion of your response could get any lower than it already is.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

I stand by my statement.

Which addresses nothing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You do know what they say about opinions, right?

I don't think my opinion of your response could get any lower than it already is.

And I should care, because?

 

[IanC]

this is the part of Marcott's graph that he claimed was 'robust'. I wont bother going into the proxy dating issues that were ducked in Marcott's reply to critics.

this is the full graph showing 'non-robust' data that was the focus of almost all of the media attention for a week, and in that time Marcott never thought to point out that the 20th century portion was 'for entertainment purposes only'.

(the following is from Pielke, jr link)

...However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC....

The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published recently in Science. A press release issued by the National Science Foundation, which funded the research, explains the core methodology and key conclusion of the paper as follows (emphasis added):
...What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.The press release clearly explains that the paper (a) combines data from many sites around the world to create a "temperature reconstruction" which gives a "sense of the Earth's temperature history," and (b) "that history shows" a cooling over the past 5000 years, until the last 100 years when all of that cooling was reversed.

Examples of Media Coverage
Here is Justin Gillis at the New York Times, with emphasis added to this excerpt and also those further below:
The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.

Any association with the so-called "hockey stick" is sure to capture interest in the highly politicized context of the climate debate, in which the iconic figure is like catnip to partisans on both sides. Here is Michael Lemonick at Climate Central:
The study... confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures. . .

There is a big problem with the media reporting of the new paper. It contains a fundamental error which (apparently) originates in the NSF press release and which was furthered by public comments by scientists.

In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today,Marcott et al. make this startling admission:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

(and ends with)

How to Fix This

Here are the steps that I recommend should be taken:

1) Science should issue a correction to the paper, and specially do the following:

(a) retract and replot all figures in the paper and SI eliminating from the graphs all data/results that fail to meet the paper's criteria for "statistical robustness."
(b) include in the correction the explicit and unambiguous statement offered in the FAQ released today that the analysis is not "statistically robust" post-1900.

2) NSF should issue a correction to its press release, clarifying and correcting the statements of Peter Clark (a co-author, found above) and Candace Major, NSF program manager, who says in the release:
"The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age," says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences.3) The New York Times (Gillis and Revkin, in particular), Nature and New Scientist as outlets that pride themselves in accurate reporting of science should update their stories with corrections. Grist and Climate Central should consider the same.

[UPDATE: Andy Revkin at DotEarth has updated his posts here and here to reference the "lost blade" from the hockey stick and link to this post. That was quick and easy. Others take note.]

Let me be perfectly clear -- I am accusing no one of scientific misconduct. The errors documented here could have been the product of group dynamics, institutional dysfunction, miscommunication, sloppiness or laziness (do note that misconduct can result absent explicit intent). However, what matters most now is how the relevant parties respond to the identification of a clear misrepresentation of a scientific paper by those who should not make such errors.

That response will say a lot about how this small but visible part of the climate community views the importance of scientific integrity.


IanC- obviously none of that was done. another typical example of how climate science is done.

 

[orogenicman]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

 

[IanC]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

more deflection? I think anyone who investigates Pielke will find that his credentials are first rate.

back to what you are trying to avoid. Marcott revised his doctoral thesis with the help of Shakun and Mann, and reported a new hockeystick, which was feted i press releases as such for a week. when pressed to support his work Marcott backed away from his weaselly words and pronounced the 20th century part of his results as not significant and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from them.

so, orogenicman, was Marcott lying when he agreed that his paper produced a new hockeystick? he certainly let everybody interviewing him think that.


I believe I bumped this thread to buttress my statement " press releases live forever but rebuttals never make the headlines". you, Old Rocks, crick, and others use this paper in the original press release form. any time someone brings up the fact that it has problems you just say it was explained at Real Climate and link up to a FAQ that in actuality is more 'answers to unasked questions' than replies to the real criticisms.

 

[orogenicman]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

more deflection? I think anyone who investigates Pielke will find that his credentials are first rate.

Indeed, if I want or need first rate political analysis, I might even consider Mr. Pielke's opinion on politics though that is doubtful considering his political leanings. If I want real scientific research done on AGW, I wouldn't give him a second thought because he has no credentials in climatology. And it is not deflection to ask why you people never publish these retarded rants of yours. I guess it is too embarrassing, eh?

back to what you are trying to avoid. Marcott revised his doctoral thesis with the help of Shakun and Mann, and reported a new hockeystick, which was feted i press releases as such for a week. when pressed to support his work Marcott backed away from his weaselly words and pronounced the 20th century part of his results as not significant and therefore no conclusions should be drawn from them.

Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point? The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.

so, orogenicman, was Marcott lying when he agreed that his paper produced a new hockeystick? he certainly let everybody interviewing him think that.

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

 

[IanC]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

more deflection? I think anyone who investigates Pielke will find that his credentials are first rate.

Indeed, if I want or need first rate political analysis, I might even consider Mr. Pielke's opinion on politics though that is doubtful considering his political leanings. If I want real scientific research done on AGW, I wouldn't give him a second thought because he has no credentials in climatology. And it is not deflection to ask why you people never publish these retarded rants of yours. I guess it is too embarrassing, eh?

Pielke's last statement to the US Senate- http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15

an interesting read. here is his bio from that.

Biography of Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a
Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Roger's research focuses on science, innovation
and politics and in 2011 began to write and research on the governance of sports organizations,
including FIFA and the NCAA. Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political
science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate
from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the
Geological Society of America. Roger also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich,
Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. At CIRES,
Roger served as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from
2001-2007. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was
a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Roger is a Senior Fellow of the
Breakthrough Institute, and holds academic appointments at Macquarie University in Sydney,
Australia and the London School of Economics. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven
books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
published by Cambridge University Press (2007). His most recent book is The Climate Fix:
What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell you About Global Warming (2011, Basic Books).
He is currently working on a book on technology, innovation and economic growth.

while you may be willing to dismiss him, it seems as if quite a few others hold him in high repute.

 

[IanC]

Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point? The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.

I do not have a big problem with Marcott's paleoreconstruction, although there are technical details that were raised and ignored in the Real Climate response. Proxy reconstructions do not show the large spike in recent temperatures. that was the whole point of 'hide the decline'.

I believe that Mann and Shakun led Marcott down the garden path by showing him how to turn his doctoral thesis into a hockeystick. it is more of the same bogus grafting of high resolution data on to truncated low resolution proxy data. it is dishonest and meaningless. if the proxies dont work for the present, why should we think they work for the past?

 

[IanC]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

when I call someone's character into question, I do it in conjunction with the specific reason. In this thread I call out Marcott for allowing a week's worth of press release false advertising of a new hockeystick. he could have pointed out at the beginning that the 20th century portion of his work was unsuitable to draw any conclusions from but he didnt until he was forced to defend his work. by web review not peer review I might add.

 

[orogenicman]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

more deflection? I think anyone who investigates Pielke will find that his credentials are first rate.

Indeed, if I want or need first rate political analysis, I might even consider Mr. Pielke's opinion on politics though that is doubtful considering his political leanings. If I want real scientific research done on AGW, I wouldn't give him a second thought because he has no credentials in climatology. And it is not deflection to ask why you people never publish these retarded rants of yours. I guess it is too embarrassing, eh?

Pielke's last statement to the US Senate- http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15

an interesting read. here is his bio from that.

Biography of Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a
Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Roger's research focuses on science, innovation
and politics and in 2011 began to write and research on the governance of sports organizations,
including FIFA and the NCAA. Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political
science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate
from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the
Geological Society of America. Roger also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich,
Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. At CIRES,
Roger served as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from
2001-2007. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was
a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Roger is a Senior Fellow of the
Breakthrough Institute, and holds academic appointments at Macquarie University in Sydney,
Australia and the London School of Economics. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven
books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
published by Cambridge University Press (2007). His most recent book is The Climate Fix:
What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell you About Global Warming (2011, Basic Books).
He is currently working on a book on technology, innovation and economic growth.

while you may be willing to dismiss him, it seems as if quite a few others hold him in high repute.

He is still a political scientist, not a real scientist. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

Considering that the proxies had a resolution of only 120 years, and that everything prior to 150 years ago was the more important data being released in the study because no one has released anything so comprehensive for that period of time, ever, erm, what's your point? The past 150 years is covered by instrumentation, and was not important for this work.

I do not have a big problem with Marcott's paleoreconstruction, although there are technical details that were raised and ignored in the Real Climate response. Proxy reconstructions do not show the large spike in recent temperatures. that was the whole point of 'hide the decline'.

Proxy reconstructions were never expected to show a large spike in recent temperatures. They aren't that sensitive. as for your "hide the decline" remark, I call bullshit.

I believe that Mann and Shakun led Marcott down the garden path by showing him how to turn his doctoral thesis into a hockeystick. it is more of the same bogus grafting of high resolution data on to truncated low resolution proxy data. it is dishonest and meaningless. if the proxies dont work for the present, why should we think they work for the past?

Because if you put a bunch of proxies together and they all tell you the same thing, it is not something that you can simply ignore, particularly out of political expediency.

 

[orogenicman]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

 

[IanC]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

 

[orogenicman]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

 

[IanC]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

 

[orogenicman]

It's easy to denigrate a man's reputation behind the anonymity of the web, isn't it? So Ian, you should say that to his face, if you are man enough. Good luck with that.

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

 

[IanC]

obviously you ( and Old Rocks and Crick and others) have a different idea of what denigrate means. you dismiss Pielke out of hand for having a PolySci doctorate while ignoring his large contribution to the field of climate change. Crick dismissed Lewis as 'unemployed' rather than retired, an amateur in the field with numerous important published papers. Mamooth and the rest of you dismiss McIntyre by not acknowledging the numerous improvements he has forced onto the field of climate science. and when I ask you for particular reasons why you hate these guys you splutter and say "we just do".

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

 

[orogenicman]

A PhD in political science doesn't qualify one to call themselves a climate scientist any more than a diesel mechanic certification qualifies one to call themselves a brain surgeon.

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.

 

[IanC]

What the hell are you talking about!?!?!

Pielke is a professor of Environmental Studies. His speciality is how climate change interacts with govt policies. His dad is a foremost climate scientist. And you are saying he is unqualified to bring up the moral dishonesty of Marcott letting people misconstrue his paper, until forced to acknowledge that blade portion of his hockey stick was garbage. What an amazing set of double standards you live with. I bet there is basically nothing that can get past your series of 'Catch-22s'.

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.

You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?

And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well.

The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.

 

[orogenicman]

He has a PhD in political science. He is not his dad. He does not have his dad's degrees, expertise, or experience. End of story. And for YOU or any of your denier fraudsters to claim that Marcott is morally dishonest is disingenuous and slanderous, and proves that you will do and say anything no matter the cost to your own credibility. Letting people misconstrue his paper? You fucking conservatards are so into the notion of taking responsibility, and yet it is his fault that others misconstrue his paper? This is almost as idiotic as you people blaming anything and everything that happens in the world on Obama. And just as transparent.

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.

You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?

And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well.

The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.

His paper is valid. End of story.