Honesty and hypocrisy

Now, I should probably just ignore this, but sometimes I do just have enough, so here goes nothing. Paul Matthews, who is a Mathematician at the University of Nottingham has spent the last year or so claiming that I’m a dishonest hypocrite. He even has a whole post on his site about it, mostly illustrating that he doesn’t understand the word “hypocrite”. That I didn’t always maintain my civility, doesn’t make me a hypocrite, just someone who was stupid enough to suggest that I might try. I had banned him from this site, blocked him on Twitter, and had decided just to ignore him. However, when he tweeted someone yesterday claiming that my post illustrated my dishonesty and hypocrisy, I unblocked him and had a bit of a go. It didn’t achieve much, but it felt good for a while.

An explanation for his accusation seems to be here in which he says

DPY, I disagree – any reasonable person who is undecided on the issue, looking at the articles by David Siegel, Sou et al, Tim Hunter and the latest blog from ATTP and comparing their tone would fairly quickly be able to see who is being honest here and who isn’t. So I think such exchanges are quite useful and could change peoples’ minds.

ATTP falsely accuses our title as being disingenuous, falsely accuses David Siegel of bad ‘tone’, and then exhibits his usual hypocrisy by saying “one should ideally talk to many more people” – the guy who bans dissenters from his blog and blocks them on twitter. Similarly at the end “Feel free to disagree through the comments” – many of those who would disagree have been banned.

I had assumed that anyone who would accuse another of dishonesty and hypocrisy would be extremely careful of what they said, and so I was somewhat surprised, as this appears to be a largely incorrect interpretation of what I said. So, I posted a comment yesterday, which has yet to appear. Of course, if they choose not to post my comment, that’s fine. It’s their site and they can run it as they choose. However, there’s nothing stopping me from posting it here. So, here it is (I’ve corrected a blockquote error).

Since Paul Matthews is choosing to call me dishonest and a hyocrite (rather ironic given how important tone is supposedly meant to be), I thought I would check a few things. Surely someone who would make such a claim, would be very careful in what they said themselves.

Paul claims

ATTP falsely accuses our title as being disingenuous

What did I actually say? I said

on a site I suspect many regard as having a title that is slightly disingenuous

which might be a little insulting, but is certainly not an accusation that your title is disingenuous. If you expected people to embrace your new site, you’re clearly naive.

Paul also claims I

falsely accuses David Siegel of bad ‘tone’

Well, I do think the tone wasn’t great. It’s not an accusation, it was simply an opinion. Paul doesn’t have to agree, but that certainly doesn’t make it false (that is obvious isn’t it?).

Paul also says

exhibits his usual hypocrisy by saying “one should ideally talk to many more people” – the guy who bans dissenters from his blog and blocks them on twitter.

I don’t simply ban dissenters from my blog (which should be obvious from the comment stream) but even though I do ban and block some people, that doesn’t mean that I don’t talk to many more people. I talk to plenty of people. That I don’t talk to all people, does not make that not true. Again, this is obvious right?

Now, since Paul is clearly such a saintly and decent person (because who else would feel comfortable accusing another of dishonesty and hypocrisy), I’m sure he will retract his claims (well, or back them up I guess) and correct his very obvious errors – okay, I’m not actually being serious here. I fully expect this to simply degenerate. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don’t expect to achieve much by this. I’m simply pointing out that someone who seems comfortable making accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy seems to be, at least partly, basing that on things that are not true. Maybe Paul has real trouble with basic reading comprehension, in which case he could just say so. Maybe he’ll even correct some of it, in which case I’ll go back to happily ignoring him. However, if he’s going to publicly accuse me of dishonesty and hypocrisy, then I’m going to reserve the right to defend myself. I may even choose to do so in a less than civil way. If Paul doesn’t like that, he can stop.

This is also one reason I have little time for the whole “don’t use denier” theme. From what I’ve seen, most who complain about its use are both quite comfortable associating with science denial and quite comfortable with all sort of labels and insults being thrown around by themselves, or by those with whom they agree. If they don’t like labels and insulting terminology, they can simply stop using them. This isn’t even complicated. I’ve even tried reasonably hard to not use the term “denier” but I’m starting to relent as it seems an entirely pointless strategy.

Now Paul Matthews is banned from commenting here, and I don’t intend to change that. Given that, I don’t intend this to degenerate into a Paul Matthews bashing thread. Whatever someone may have said about me, I’m not willing to not allow them to defend themselves. The comment of mine that I posted here, is also in moderation on his new Climate “Scepticism” site. If he really wants to defend himself, he can do so there. This is really just for the record. Comments are open, but will be moderated.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in ClimateBall and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Honesty and hypocrisy

  1. Badgerbod says:

    It’s intimated by some commentators that I should concentrate on the science, the “tone” doesn’t matter. But I’m glad to see that “tone” is actually generating so much blogspace as of being an issue and clearly “tone” is important otherwise Ken wouldn’t waste so much time discussing it. No one appreciates name calling so why not just cease and be above it? Otherwise it just sounds like petulance in the playground

  2. But I’m glad to see that “tone” is actually generating so much blogspace as of being an issue and clearly “tone” is important otherwise Ken wouldn’t waste so much time discussing it.

    Hmmm, I think there is a difference between tone and an accusation of being dishonest and a hypocrite. The latter clearly is a poor tone (as an understatement). You seem to object to generic labels, while excusing actual insults.

    No one appreciates name calling so why not just cease and be above it?

    I’m not really the one doing the name calling. Isn’t that obvious?

  3. verytallguy says:

    I don’t expect to achieve much by this.

    I confidently predict that your expectations will be met.

    You probably don’t want to hear this, but anyway…

    Unless you rise above this sort of thing you will be dragged down to it. By choosing to enter the debate by publishing articles and papers beyond this blog, you are clearly trying to influence others. Your twitter interaction with Paul Matthews ends up with you *both* looking like complete [self modded]. Anyone new to the debate would conclude you’re not worth listening to, and you’ll have no influence.

  4. dikranmarsupial says:

    Bagerbod wrote “It’s intimated by some commentators that I should concentrate on the science, the “tone” doesn’t matter. ”

    I don’t think anyone suggested that the tone doesn’t matter, just that you can’t determine who is right from their tone in a scientific discussion, you have to look at the arguments. Just because an argument is presented using rhetorical devices, doesn’t mean it isn’t true (just that the person making the argument doesn’t realise they would be better off adopting a more scientific presentation). Likewise just because someone is rude, doesn’t mean they are not right, the history of science is full of rude and obnoxious scientists (because they are human beings as well). In science, what matters is the strength of the evidence and the logical consistency of the theory.

    “But I’m glad to see that “tone” is actually generating so much blogspace as of being an issue”

    I’m not, generally because discussions of tone are an excuse not to address the scientific questions, at the end of the day the way climate evolves in the future doesn’t depend on the tone of the scientific debate, it depends on the science.

    The trouble with “tone” is that if you start out trying to be civil, there is only so much rudeness you can put up with before becoming unable to maintain your initial civility. My approach to dealing with this is essentially not to participate in discussion much anymore.

  5. Joshua says:

    ==> “I had banned him from this site,…”

    Oh. The humanity!!!!!1!!!!1

  6. vtg,

    Your twitter interaction with Paul Matthews ends up with you *both* looking like complete [self modded].

    Yes, I know. It’s hard to simply let people get away with things, at times, though.

    I should probably add that it’s worth being reminded of this now and again. I keep forgetting that it’s mostly pointless to interact. You’re right about the publishing things bit. I should probably realise that I’m not longer quite simply a blogger.

  7. Would it be possible to provide a link to the original thread that led to Matthews being blocked from this site, aTTP? I’m sure it must have been pretty damning, as it seems to me that you’re remarkably tolerant of people who’re disruptive on your website.

  8. john,
    It was here. To be fair, it was partly because I was at a point where I was incapable of engaging constructively with Paul Matthews, even if he were actually to try. That did seem unlikely, though.

  9. Badgerbod,
    Maybe I can ask you a question. I get the impression that you somehow think that people like me should just take whatever is thrown at us because we’re the ones who are trying to do the convincing and, hence, we’re the ones who have to set the tone to be appropriate to convince people. Is that a fair representation of what you think? I’m not trying to strawman you here. Just interested.

    If it is, the problem is that I don’t see myself as someone who is necessarily trying to convince people. I just happen to think this is an important topic and it would be good if people were more aware of it, and understood it better. If they don’t want to, or if they want to disagree, that’s fine. The tone I take is of someone who is participating in a public discussion, not someone who is trying to sell anything. Consequently, I essentially expect people to treat me as they would like to be treated themselves. Hence, if someone calls me a “twat” I might well respond in kind.

  10. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    Sorry, but I gotta go here (can’t step outside of character)…

    ==> “Hence, if you call me a “twat” I might well respond in kind.

    To what effect? Not that I think you have much to lose.

  11. Badgerbod tries very hard to appear to be in no man’s land, holding back the opposing forces and attempting to mediate. Unfortunately it seems he believes the two ‘sides’ have some sort of equivalence—as might be the case if each supported different and conflicting theories—and “if only they could debate, a compromise would emerge”. Well they don’t have equivalence.

    One side has a theory, and a considerable amount of evidence to back it up: the other wants to destroy that theory and is thrashing around for any evidence to destroy it—they have little that will stick. The ‘name-calling’ is merely one side saying to the other “look, we have evidence, you don’t; or you’re fabricating contrary evidence”. And the other side is denying the real evidence, sniping and accusing the first side of dishonesty (‘playing the man’—because what else have they got to go at?).

    Only by ignoring the science—which Badgerbod seems not to want to get into—can someone bring the disagreement down to one of ‘tone’.

  12. @aTTP
    OK. Paul Matthews ‘constructive dismissal’ was to very pointedly insult the host of the website he was visiting. A very good example of appalling ‘tone’, I’d say.

  13. whimcycle says:

    That first quote encapsulates the problem.

    “[A]ny reasonable person who is undecided on the issue” is NOT the audience Matthews is seeking, nor are reasonable people the ones entertaining his bullsh!t. That our host is working to clarify the deliberate obfuscations of Matthews’ ilk is why we come here and recommend these sites to those truly interested in this matter.

    May such agitation leave you feeling stirred, not shaken.

  14. Joshua,

    ==> “Hence, if you call me a “twat” I might well respond in kind.

    To what effect? Not that I think you have much to lose.

    To no effect, really. I just don’t like being called a “twat” and don’t see a good reason why someone who would do so shouldn’t expect something similar in response.

    Maybe this is something I need to try and understand better. Do people think I should just be a punching bag because it’s the price you pay for wanting to try and convince people of something like climate change, or is it acceptable to simply engage as an individual who expects to be treated in the same way as others might be expected to be treat, or something else entirely?

  15. verytallguy says:

    Do people think I should just be a punching bag because it’s the price you pay for wanting to try and convince people of something like climate change, or is it acceptable to simply engage as an individual who expects to be treated in the same way as others might be expected to be treat, or something else entirely?

    I think you should try to p1ss off the denialists as much as possible, particularly those who are personally unpleasant.

    Reacting in kind:
    – makes you look bad
    – pleases your opponents
    – encourages their attention seeking behaviour
    – gives the impression that their arguments are equally valid as yours.

    My advice: Give Willard control of your Twitter account. If not the actual Willard, then release your inner Willard.

  16. If not the actual Willard, then release your inner Willard.

    I think that is what I was going for. I didn’t quite succeed.

  17. Willard says:

    > Do people think I should just be a punching bag because it’s the price you pay for wanting to try and convince people of something like climate change, or is it acceptable to simply engage as an individual who expects to be treated in the same way as others might be expected to be treat, or something else entirely?

    There’s an asymmetry between the two roles for sure. In all the sports where you are only allowed to tackle the ball carrier there is such an asymmetry: when you have the ball, you can’t tackle. That doesn’t imply you can’t respond “in kind” — it just means you need to find ways to stand your ground and fight for your space while displaying sportsmanship.

    That contrarians play the ref (in both senses of the expression) is just to be expected.

    The Republic of Mainstream Science should follow “when in Rome,” while the contrarian hordes do as they please. This asymmetry does not imply you can’t respond “in kind” — just that you can’t use the same cheap contrarian bag of tricks.

    That this bag of cheap tricks displays little sportsmanship is both a bug and a feature.

  18. Joshua says:

    ==> “Do people think I should just be a punching bag…”

    What do you care about what they think?

    I think of it as being like when people are outraged about the term denier. As you argue, if they aren’t a “denier,” then why do they respond with outrage if you refer to deniers? Why do they identify with the term? IMO, the answer is that they’re professional victims.

    You don’t care, really, whether tallbloke calls you an unscientific fuckwit. So what does it matter?

    I don’t think there’s any particular reason why you shouldn’t treat them in kind. Obviously, their double-standard in how they should be treated in comparison to how they treat others is just more of the sameosameo. You aren’t going to disabuse them of their belief in the validity of their double-standard either way, by responding or by not responding. You can’t affect their double-standard.

    I will say that from my personal perspective, it’s easier for me to trust what someone says about the science if they don’t engage in juvenile identity politics, not the least because usually, the thinking that underlies the identities politics is , IMO, poor (in other words, it is usually based on drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence, such as when someone is called a “denier” or “alarmist” by someone else who really doesn’t know much of anything about the person they’re labeling).

    It seems to me that you think that you’re defending yourself against an unwarranted attack. I see that kind of thinking from Willis, for example, and I have to laugh, because Willis conveys more information about his character when he tries to defend his character, than anyone else conveys by besmirching his character. But (1) you’re not going to convince your attacker or any of their tribemates of anything about your character by responding and, (2) no one who has formed an independent view of your character will have their view changed by an attack from someone like Tallbloke or Paul Matthews.

    Will you be attacked less if you respond in kind? Will you be attacked less if you don’t respond in kind? Will you be attacked more if you don’t respond in kind? Will you be attacked less if you don’t respond in kind? My guess to all those questions is no, and even more, it doesn’t matter anyway.

  19. izen says:

    @-ATTP

    You should apologize profusely to Paul Mathews for your terrible tone and subsequent insults.

    In recompense for your egregious error you should ask him which bit of established climate science he would want you to deny as an act of contrition.

  20. Joshua says:

    messed up on the last of those four questions, but you get my point.

  21. Willard,
    Yes, I think I’ve somewhat forgotten that this is a game, whether you like to play it or not.

    Joshua,

    It seems to me that you think that you’re defending yourself against an unwarranted attack.

    Yes, I guess, but I’m not expecting any kind of outcome. The point was more to illustrate that what it was claimed I had said, I had not said. Quite simple, really.

    izen,

    In recompense for your egregious error you should ask him which bit of established climate science he would want you to deny as an act of contrition.

    Yes, a trade off. Maybe we could see if accepting some kind of denier nonsense, in exchange for them accepting something well known and established would work. I’m guessing not.

  22. Willard says:

    > I think that is what I was going for. I didn’t quite succeed.

    It’s doomed to failure unless you can keep your own ball moving, AT. As long as you let them make the conversation be about you, you become the ball, and can only be on the defensive. As long as you will defend yourself, they will keep attacking. They can’t lose as long as you accept that it’s all about you, and contrarians will always start such food fights as long as you allow them to have their fun.

    It’s part of socialization:

    ClimateBall is an ethological art.

  23. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    ==> “The point was more to illustrate that what it was claimed I had said, I had not said. Quite simple, really.”

    I guarantee that you didn’t demonstrate that to any of them. They will remain convinced that you said what was claimed. You’re talking to a wall. And none of “us” thought that’s what you claimed.

  24. I guarantee that you didn’t demonstrate that to any of them. They will remain convinced that you said what was claimed. You’re talking to a wall.

    Yes, I realise. I think that it just seemed worth illustrating. It may not have been. As I’ve said many times, I really don’t quite know what’s best 😉

  25. Willard says:

    > I think I’ve somewhat forgotten that this is a game, whether you like to play it or not.

    I could take offense in this remark, but I won’t. I will simply remind that games can be used to model serious stuff like arms races, communication systems, and consumer behaviors, and that games are very, very important in the lives of most humans.

    If you want something less playful, try this:

  26. wheelism says:

    “As I’ve said many times, I don’t really quite know what’s best.”

    But you DO, Tinman. You in particular exude more compassion than any comparable blogger, which makes you irresistible to [Mod : Thanks, but since I said I would avoid piling on, I’m going to moderate this little bit] Matthews. You’re doing it right.

  27. BBD says:

    Spot-on video Willard. Of course *I* don’t have a hobby-horse 🙂 but if I did, it would be the insanity of criminalsiing addiction.

    * * *

    If all else fails, there’s always the tone knob:

    It can be anything you want, from a reminder that there is a tone control to a bipartisan term of abuse 😉

  28. dikranmarsupial says:

    ATTP wrote “I should probably add that it’s worth being reminded of this now and again.”

    If it would help, I could set up a cron job and have my computer send you an email every day ;o)

  29. Dikran,
    I might just end up ignoring it, amongst all the other emails 🙂 . I think you really need direct exposure to remind yourself.

  30. anoilman says:

    BBD: My Tone Knob goes to 11.

  31. Magma says:

    I think all can agree that this blog has a very long way to go before it matches the level of civility, respect and well-informed debate that marks WUWT and its peers.

    [walks away, whistling…]

  32. anoilman says:

    Magma: Indeed… Its been a while since I’ve enjoyed a debate like you can find over there;

  33. lerpo says:

    It is curious that an associate professor of mathematics is suggesting that you can determine honesty by tone. Maybe David Siegel is honest or earnest or whatever, but he is also very clearly wrong on many accounts. Why does that not matter to them?

  34. Joseph says:

    I think you are just going to have to get use to people attacking you in public forums if you are going to run a blog. I would probably focus more on the science here rather than confronting people who attack your character.

  35. lerpo says:

    Maybe the fact that they are attacking tone rather than content is a win? Perhaps you are an asshole for pointing out that Siegel’s article is BS. You could have put it to him more gently. So what?

  36. lerpo.
    Indeed. It’s pretty obvious the David Siegel’s article is wrong on many counts, but somehow he’s honest because of the tone.

    Joseph,
    I was trying to. I’ve failed slightly here.

    lerpo,
    You’d like to think so, but that’s the same argument that others make when they’re wrong and heavily criticised.

  37. Willard says:

    Meanwhile, more than two hours ago:

  38. wheelism says:

    Even amongst his fellow deniazens on the Short Bus, the goat’s wit is shubstandard.

  39. RickA says:

    I don’t approve of name calling.

    I don’t think anybody should call you a twat or dishonest.

    I don’t think you should call anybody a denier.

    It is all just name calling.

    You defend yourself by arguing that it is just an accurate description (calling someone a denier).

    I am sure your name caller perceives you as a twat or dishonest and believes their perception is accurate.

    I am sure you disagree.

    I am sure some perceive me as a denier.

    I do not agree that I am a denier.

    And thus the discussion just descends into a he said she said – and it is not productive.

    Stop calling people names and perhaps they will stop calling you names.

  40. Stop calling people names and perhaps they will stop calling you names.

    Sure, but in many cases I mostly need to start. The main issue, in my view, is that those who seem to complain the most about tone either condone or engage in labelling themselves.

  41. RickA says:

    ATTP said “If it is, the problem is that I don’t see myself as someone who is necessarily trying to convince people.”

    Of course you are trying to convince people of something.

    You are writing papers and rebuttals after all.

    Here is the thing.

    It is called business as usual for a reason.

    Absent a change – business as usual will continue.

    Business as usual is the null hypothesis or the default or whatever you want to call it.

    If you want change – then you have to convince people to change.

    See – the burden of proof is on those who want to change business as usual to something different.

    That is why you have to convince people – because if you don’t then nothing will change.

  42. Pingback: Arguing ad argumentam in an ad hominem world | …and Then There's Physics

  43. verytallguy says:

    Rick,

    sorry Rick, but you do keep on denying the existence of facts you find uncomfortable. On the last thread:

    I don’t see any observations to support the large indirect feedback warming of 2 or 3C. The observations only support about .6C (if that).

    (my bold).

    It really couldn’t be clearer.

    If you don’t want to be called it, don’t do it.

  44. verytallguy says:

    (The bold intended only for the word”any” – doh!)

  45. Rick,

    Of course you are trying to convince people of something.

    You are writing papers and rebuttals after all.

    Well, yes, but I’m not a salesman. I don’t specifically benefit if I manage to convince some people or not. Of course, I think it would be better if more people were aware of, and understood, the issues, but I don’t have some kind of target.

    If you want change – then you have to convince people to change.

    See – the burden of proof is on those who want to change business as usual to something different.

    That is why you have to convince people – because if you don’t then nothing will change.

    Except, I don’t specifically want change. What I think is that this is a issue that we should take seriously. As a scientist I find the “burden of proof” argument a little bizarre. We have an understanding of this issue that suggests that if we want to minimise the risks associated with climate change, we should reduce our emissions. That is what the science says. We can take heed. We can ignore. We can do something inbetween. However, if what we do is insufficient, it’s not going to be the fault of the scientists who were highlighting this issue. They don’t specifically want change. They have evidence to suggest that avoiding the risks of climate change will require change.

  46. verytallguy says:

    As an aside, it’s fascinating that Rick happily accepts the 1.2 degrees per cO2 doubling, but purports to reject model based numbers.

    1.2C is a figure based purely on modelling. Modelling of radiative heat transfer, based on a model of the spectral lines of co2. It is also not intended to be a prediction in any way, as it requires non-physical assumptions of the atmosphere.

    Yet rick rejects high numbers for climate sensitivity. Numbers which are based on the observed climatic changes through glacial cycles!

    A cynic might suggest that is nothing to do with how observationally based these estimates are, but merely a personal bias which rejects (denies of you prefer) facts he finds uncomfortable.

  47. anoilman says:

    RickA you are already engaging in activity very much associated with deniers. You see, you have a clean slate with me. I posted a response you concerns on another thread and you ignored them. That is normal for deniers to do. Mostly they tie up threads with garbage, and JAQ off. (Just Asking Questions).
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

    The other thing that stands out is an absence of attempting to figure anything out, and keep asking questions spreading memes. I see that a lot.

    As an engineer, I can assure that problems never go away if you ignore them;

    I’d argue that the burden of proof belongs with those who are proterraforming. What is the final target temperature? What is the target annual death rate from climate change that we desire to achieve? What annual financial burden and economic damage is desirable?

  48. lerpo says:

    ATTP: “You’d like to think so, but that’s the same argument that others make when they’re wrong and heavily criticised.”

    I don’t know. I don’t see anywhere that they’ve criticized the content of your essay (not even in the comments on your essay!). Rather they’ve changed the subject. It’s about you now. You’re a big meanie. Tut tut.

  49. lerpo,
    Yes, but I’ve seen people argue that they’re being attacked, therefore they must be right.

  50. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    ==> “As a scientist I find the “burden of proof” argument a little bizarre.”

    If the goal is to reach a mutual understanding (if not, necessarily, agreement), then there is no “burden of proof.”

    In my experience in Internet discussions, the “burden of proof” argument amounts to an abdication for making a valid and thorough argument in support of one’s position. Both sides frequently argue that it’s the other side that has a “burden of proof.” And of course, embedded in that position is that: (1) these are arguments for which there can be no “proof,” and, (2) even if such proof were offered, it would never be accepted as such.

  51. BBD says:

    WRT burden of proof:

    If someone is going to challenge / deny the validity of the standard scientific position then they need to provide a robust, evidence-based argument.

    If they don’t then they are just making a noise.

  52. anoilman says:

    BBD: Its pretty noisy out there.

  53. wheelism says:

    (Having joined Twitter seconds ago, I must protest that our host saves his best rejoinders for the no-attention-span crowd: Something something Matt Ridley something peer review something Monckton. Sincerely hilarious.)

  54. wheelism says:

    (Crap, Ridley’s a Peer as well, right? I probably blew it, but you cracked me up.)

  55. wheelism,
    Oh dear, I’m not sure you’ve done something I would have advised 😉

  56. RickA says:

    verytallguy:

    The 1.2C number is based on physics.

    I have not done the calculation myself – but it is my understanding that you punch in some numbers and the direct effects of a doubling of CO2 pop out and it is about 1.2C.

    Yes – a model is what is producing the number of 3C – which include postulated feedbacks from a warmer atmosphere holding more water which is itself a GHG.

    But the observations do not support the 1.8C of indirect feedback.

    So I would say that model is wrong – based on data.

    We are only warming at about 1.5C (.15C per decade).

    So yes – direct effects of a doubling of CO2 is physics (about 1.2C) – the indirect effects is more of a hypothesis – and so far that hypothesis is not panning out. There is some indirect warming – but much less than originally theorized.

  57. verytallguy says:

    Rick,

    The 1.2C number is based on physics.

    So are all the other numbers, Rick.

    I have not done the calculation myself

    No shit.

    it is my understanding that you punch in some numbers and the direct effects of a doubling of CO2 pop out and it is about 1.2C.

    Your understanding is woefully inadequate.

    You’ve completely failed to understand the basics.

    The 1.2 is from a model, a model not even intended to predict actual climate, just a metric.

    Data from paleo climate observations predicts >3C for actual climate.

    So which is it rick? Models or observations?

    Physics or whatever suits your preconceptions?

  58. verytallguy says:

    Rick,

    and this time actually trying to help you.

    Work through these. Report back.

    http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

  59. wheelism says:

    ATTP: It was a fit of hubris. I’m in no hurry to immerse myself in the shallow end of the gene pool while I only bat ~.500 on sympathetic blogs.

  60. Rick,
    The 1.2 number you can get from a basic physics calculation, but only if you already know the change in forcing due to a doubling of CO2, which comes from a model.

    So I would say that model is wrong – based on data.

    Ummm, no.

    We are only warming at about 1.5C (.15C per decade).

    I don’t know what you mean here.

    So yes – direct effects of a doubling of CO2 is physics (about 1.2C) – the indirect effects is more of a hypothesis – and so far that hypothesis is not panning out. There is some indirect warming – but much less than originally theorized.

    We’ve warmed by about 1C, we’re not in equilibrium, and we haven’t yet doubled CO2. The idea that there are no positive feedbacks operating is a little bizarre.

  61. wheelism says:

    We’re at 1° after a 40% increase over pre-industrial. What math(s) result in <2° for a doubling?!

  62. wheelism,
    You do have to be a little careful as the response is logarithmic. So, the current best estimate for the change in forcing is about \Delta F =  2.3 Wm-2. The system heat uptake rate is about \Delta Q = 0.6 Wm-2. To get the equilibrium response, you can use

    ECS = \dfrac{F_{2x} \Delta T}{\Delta F - \Delta Q},

    which gives around 2.0C. You can include uncertainties, different assumptions, ….. but that’s the basic calculation. Nic Lewis would say that it was around 1.6C.

  63. wheelism says:

    Thank you. Hubris, again.

  64. Eli Rabett says:

    If somebunny call you a twat, call them a cab driver.

  65. Victor Venema has found a very good document about the Rovian playbook. There is a list of rules, with elements of varying quality. However, the fourth one fits that ClimateBall ™ episode like a pugilist glove:

    Tactic #4: Go Negative, Then Cry Foul

    It is a truism in sports that in a scuffle, it is often the second, retaliatory blow that draws the attention of the referee. Karl Rove has moved this principle into the political arena. The Bush campaign typically “goes negative” early in the campaign, using scare tactics or lifting comments out of context (See Tactics #12 and #14). Once the opponent retaliates, the Rove camp calls public attention to their “dirty” campaign tactics.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120510030543/http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

    Damn sports analogies.

  66. dikranmarsupial says:

    RickA wrote “Stop calling people names and perhaps they will stop calling you names. ”

    I’m sorry, but that is incredibly naive. I make a point of not calling people names, and I get called plenty of names whenever I discuss climate on “skeptic” blogs. The initial maxim for ATTP’s blog was to do with trying (and sometimes failing) to be civil. Do you really think the reason that ATTP has found it difficult to remain civil is because the people he has being talking to have been civil to him, or do you think it is because they have been rude? The being polite thing has been tried already, many times.

    N.B. there was a well-intentioned attempt to build bridges between some skeptics and some mainstream scientists (there was IIRC a lunch). Did that get anywhere?

  67. Marco says:

    Dikran, I don’t think RickA minds being rude. After all, he has had no problem announcing proudly (at Greg Laden’s place) that he always believed the hockeystick was fraudulent and created to support Mann’s advocacy. This is a very rude statement, as it is based on no evidence whatsoever. First the “fraudulent” part in itself (even peer reviewed science shows him wrong on that part), second the notion that Mann did it to support his advocacy, of which there is none around the time (and for years after) MBH98/99 came out. Further rude statements from RickA include the repeated “nobody knows”, which he has used here as well, and then ignoring people who point out to him that scientists *do* know. All very, very rude behavior. The problem for him is that because of that behavior he is then called a denier. You can be as rude as you want, just don’t use names…

  68. dikranmarsupial says:

    Marco, indeed, one of the best ways to irritate a scientist is not to call them names, but to adopt inappropriate rhetorical debating tactics in a discussion about science and evade the difficult questions etc. It is monumentally disrespectful to say that a scientist is wrong, and then not being willing to genuinely engage with the arguments that show this not to be the case. “Tone” is not really that informative of which side of the argument is correct; the use of rhetorical devices is a much bigger giveaway – if you are confident of being right, why would you want to evade a question that would set out your position more clearly?

  69. Marco says:

    One slight apology, RickA did once respond when challenged about Milankovitch cycles. He even managed to refer to two papers! Granted, neither supported his claim (“nobody knows!”)…

  70. RickA says:

    Marco:

    Since the discussion was about whether Mann was defamed, and whether the statement that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent is an opinion or not, it is not rude to point out that this is an opinion and one I share.

    Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.

    What I don’t do is call people stupid or a liar (I have been accused of lying about being an engineer and a patent attorney) or accuse them of living a lavish lifestyle (with no evidence), or attribute their motives for holding a particular opinion to a selfish or bad purpose (in the pay of the Koch brothers or other nonsense).

    I also don’t use demeaning nicknames when writing about others (that really bugs me).

    But if some think merely disagreeing is rude than I guess I am rude.

  71. Rick,
    I’ll let your comment stand simply to point out that accusing a scientist of publishing something that is fraudulent is defamatory. That is true, whether it’s your opinion or not.

  72. dikranmarsupial says:

    RickA “What I don’t do is call people stupid or a liar”

    Please explain exactly how someone can produce a fraudulent piece of work without being it being untruthful.

    If you say that Prof. Mann has produced fraudulent work, you have called him a liar, IMHO.

  73. Lars Karlsson says:

    ATTP: “Yes, but I’ve seen people argue that they’re being attacked, therefore they must be right.”

    That is standard denialist operational procedure: say something dumb, get criticised, claim that you are being attacked and this proves you are right (and the other person is bad/communist/whatever).
    Rinse and repeat.

  74. BBD says:

    That’s it exactly Lars K.

    You are not allowed to point out that they are wrong any more than you are allowed to point out after repeatedly correcting the wrongness that they are denying the evidence.

    Not allowed.

  75. Willard says:

    What a month can change:

    You see – ATTP has an opinion.

    If you disagree with ATTP’s opinion – which he believes rises to the level of a law – like the law of gravity – than in his eyes you are denying reality.

    Which to ATTP means you are in denial (and hence a denier).

    ATTP is drowning in confirmation bias – but like a fish in water, fails to even perceive it.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/#comment-751100

    Good ol’ RickA.

  76. Joshua says:

    That’s RickA? Seriously?

    Disappointing, but I guess not all that surprising. Its not like the pattern of beating differently at different blogs isnunhears of.

  77. He did acknowledge who he was, though.

  78. Willard says:

    Read back some of Richard Arrett’s comments, AT. You’ll understand J’s surprise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s