Thursday
Jan192012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More problems at Skeptical Science
Jan 19, 2012 Blogs Climate: other Shub notes some more integrity issues at Skeptical Science. Coming so soon after the comment editing problems, quote doctoring is not really a surprise.
Reader Comments (87)
Shub
I have to smile.
No, the SkS statement is that:
Michaels carefully misrepresented sea ice as ice 'surrounding' Antarctica in order to create the false impression that the Antarctic ice cap has grown. In fact, the increasing rate of ice mass loss from the Antarctic ice cap is contributing to the increase in sea ice area.
Thanks for reminding us how he does it:
Not 'sea ice'.
You can watch the land ice flowing off and back on the cap here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/full-length-nsidc-sea-ice-data/
"Michaels carefully misrepresented sea ice as ice 'surrounding' Antarctica in order to create the false impression that the Antarctic ice cap has grown."
Is that why he said:
"So it's not warming up, and the snowfall data are equivocal, yet the continent is experiencing a net loss of ice. "
? ?
Shub
Except the land ice mass loss and the expanding area of sea ice 'surrounding' the Antarctic:
Well, there you go.
OT, but I found this quite remarkable statement by our BBD house- ... ehrm .. warmist:
But if he really means that reliance on reconstructions based on proxies has become irrelevant today, that any such 'historical reconstructions' should be viewed as entertainment, expressions of hopeful emotions or faith .. and not be attributed any value, much less referred to as 'science' ..
.. then I agree with him.
But somehow, I think the "irrelevant now" more refers to BBD's wishes that the (real!) issue would go away, and that present-day-alarmism rather would be based on other fictional threats and new uses of 'unprecedented' ...
There you go what?
You are seeking to accuse someone of motive, for your misunderstanding. I read Michaels article - it is clear to me what he said. Read the Washington Post article to which he responded and then his. You are now trying to justify ex post facto that Michaels sought to 'create an impression', a situation we are in because of John Cook's fishing around for a vain idea that skeptics think Antarctic ice increase disproves global warming. 'Sea ice is increasing, land ice is decreasing but there is little data, there is hardly any continent-wide warming, and even if there were to be, such atmospheric warmth is never going to reach a stage where it rains instead of snowing , thereby all precipitation only adds to the ice, both over the sea and land. Ice is increasing over East Antarctica. Therefore, will atmospheric warmth-driven processes like CO-global warming...will it melt Antarctic ice? Hmmm,....maybe not very likely'. That is what I see in his article. What do you get? Who knows how your brain works?
You have no answer to the numerous comment rearrangements, reply changes, comment deletions, ellipsis additions, deletions, and quote butchery - all carried out on this one single article. These are all well-documented in the series of posts here and at my blog, and Skepticalscience has acknowledged these.
You guys are paranoid that increase of ice anywhere in the world would lead to ordinary people questioning your global warming theory on the basis of counter-intuitive phenomena? Then you just have to deal with it honestly. But that is not possible because pointing to melting ice and crying doom is a dishonest step to begin with. This is a self-created and self-imagined problem. If the ice had decreased around Antarctica, you would have surely blamed it on 'global warming'.
You hitched your wagon to these guys. It is one thing to believe in CO2-driven catastrophe. It is another to believe in it, and support anyone else who does.
@Shub Jan 21, 2012 at 3:02 AM
Aw ... come on, Shub ... give our resident zealot (ska "Climate Science Messiah in waiting" - h/t The Leopard In The Basement) a break, eh?!
You are violating his first commandment: Whatever BBD says must be incontrovertibly true because, well, Because! BBD! Says! So!
Climate Science Messiah? :)
How about this one from David Whitehouse. Whitehouse wrote an article in 2004 discussing a Sami Solanki paper, where he writes concluding:
Meanwhile John Cook writes a 'rebuttal', quoting Whitehouse in the process, which goes:
"Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions."
There is no contradiction whatsoever between what Whitehouse wrote, and what John Cook and his fellow authors write - both are saying the same thing, coming from different perspectives.
"What link? Couldn't see that yesterday either. And I read the original AS article etc.
Why is what I say misleading. Be specific: show links and quote examples."
As I said, its in the comments, there aren't that many, down at the bottom. Not too difficult to find, if you want to. Incidentally did anyone else manage to take a look.
"What link? Couldn't see that yesterday either. And I read the original AS article etc.
Why is what I say misleading. Be specific: show links and quote examples."
As I said, its in the comments, there aren't that many, down at the bottom. Not to difficult to find, if you want to. Incidentally did anyone else manage to take a look.
Shub
It is clear to me what he said too. Yap on all you like: Michaels' words and actions speak eloquently - and damningly - for themselves.
Despite your spray of misdirection on this thread, the facts are very clear. You can review them in my original comment at: Jan 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM. I've been forced to repeating myself too many times already.
And you? Self-appointed apologist for the egregious Michaels? As usual Shub, your lack of self-awareness is painfully evident. As is the hypocrisy.
I have asked one question again and again and you have all dodged it.
So to highlight what a weak argument Shub makes - and you all defend - let's take one last look at the real crux of the matter here:
Please illustrate how the quote given by SkS changed Michaels' meaning.
I know you can't, because it didn't. We are left with what was always there: Michaels creating a misleading impression that the Antarctic ice cap is growing. And Shub running a misdirection exercise to draw attention away from the itemisation of Michaels' misrepresentations by SkS.
Don't be fooled by either of them.
BBD,
You are strange. I posted details of Skepticalscience's Michaels trick months in advance, right here on this very forum. I have asked many other questions of Skepticalscience authors which they deigned not to reply. I have a feeling they will have to, soon enough. :)
Eddy,
I put the picture in my main post now. Quite easy to read now. Apparently only those three highlighted sentences constitute 'the meaning' of what Pat Michaels said, and everything else is to be discarded.
If there is one thing I know fairly intimately, having spent the last 25 years up to my neck in it, it's copyright law and practice, "fair use", and what you can and cannot do legitimately with other people's work without attracting the attention of the Press Complaints Commission or even the law.
So just for once, BBD, shut up and listen.
There is no such thing as an "irrelevant" ellipsis. You either quote in full or you make it abundantly clear that you haven't. The whole sentence/paragraph in its context or you put in ellipses. Quote doctoring is wrong and it appears that SkS has accepted that by withdrawing the quote.
Deliberately changing the meaning of someone else's work is wrong, it is contrary to the principle of fair use and is a breach of copyright. Copyright subsists in all an individual's published work — including this comment! It is my work; it has my name on it; I own the copyright.
The practice of quote mining by (for example) theatres to put the best gloss on reviews used to be much more blatant than it is now. It is legitimate to do this, provided the actual meaning is not substantially altered (and we all know examples of where that has been done) and provided it is made clear — normally by the use of ellipses — that the quote is not complete as written.
If SkS delberately set out to misuse Michaels' words as part of a dispute with him that would not be fair use. Whether or not they changed the meaning of his words by the way they used the quote is not relevant; by omitting the ellipsis (and so not making it clear that the quote was out of context) they deprived the reader of the full context of what Michaels said.
[I suspect that the inclusion of a link to the full text is not a practice that has yet been tested and have no doubt that in due course m'learned friends will make a small fortune debating it.]
And that unless I'm much mistaken was the origin of this thread.
Hope this has been of some help.
MJ
Michaels has deliberately misrepresented other people's work.
For your to have a point here you would need to show how the SkS quote changed Michaels' meaning
BBD
Are you just thick or do your think your deliberate obtusiveness is funny?
The SkS article puts Michaels' comments in quotes. There is no indication that it is a paraphrase or condensation. Legally, that means it is what he wrote. It is not what he wrote. If it was the basis of a court case, SkS would not have a leg to stand on.
You can argue all you like about not changing the meaning or Michaels representing others. That is irrelevant. SkS say this is what he wrote. It wasn't. Guilty as charged cased closed.
ChrisM
I'm neither thick nor being deliberately obtuse. Nor am I avoiding answering questions.
The claim here is that SkS misrepresented Michaels. Fine. Show how the SkS quote changed Michaels' meaning.
BBD
Shub's linked post in the head of this thread makes it abundantly clear how the quote removes Michael's recognition of a conundrum of interpretation, thus grossly misrepresenting his statement.
It is the fundamental deceit justifying the entire thread.
amazed that the astro-turfing still continues...
here is a very balanced summing -up
"Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #88862)
January 21st, 2012 at 11:55 am
AMac, I’m curious about this comment of yours:
It seems clear to me that any balanced discussion of this issue would have required him to have discussed B as well as A. Per SkS, he did not.
You say Pat Michaels did not give a “balanced discussion.” Of course not. Nobody has claimed he did. Maybe you’d like for him to give one, but he has no obligation to do so. SKS didn’t give one when it wrote that smear piece. Hansen didn’t give one when he testified before Congress. Congress didn’t even expect one from Michaels.
This leaves me with a question. First, so what? Second, how do you go from saying Michaels didn’t give a “balanced discussion” to saying SKS was won “on points”? As I quoted before, SKS said:
Michaels has deleted the data which contradict his constant arguments
Nothing Michaels “deleted” contradicted anything he said. This statement is simply untrue. How can SKS come out as the victor when they made an untrue claim? There were two parts to the prediction Michaels discussed. He said the prediction was wrong without discussing whether both parts* were wrong. The worst you could say of this is Michaels didn’t distinguish between the projection made by the model and the prediction made by Hansen based on that model. That’s not a very damning criticism, especially not when you consider Michaels discussed the possibility that future emissions were overestimated, asking, “Was the increase in greenhouse gases overestimated?”
In a separate issue, I poked around SKS for a while, and I noticed it has discussed the Michaels testimony in a number of different articles on their site. It’s remarkable to see them accusing Michaels of misrepresenting Hansen’s model given how many untrue things they say about it. For example:
The main difference between Hansen’s emissions Scenarios A and B for the first several decades does not involve CO2. In fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations differ by less than 3 parts per million in 2010 between his Scenarios A and B. No, the main difference between the scenarios involves the other greenhouse gases, primarily chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In fact, CFCs account for 75% of the difference in radiative forcings from 1988 to 1998 between Scenarios A and B (see Figure 1).
In reality, there is absolutely no difference in the predicted growth rates of CFCs between Scenarios A and B. Despite that, SKS offers paragraph after paragraph discussing this issue based upon a complete fabrication. I especially like:
This rate of increase is approximately consistent with Hansen’s Scenario B. Scenario A involved accelerating CFC emissions, so perhaps calling Scenario A “business as usual” was a poor characterization, which would be more apt for Scenario B.
Apparently Scenario A wasn’t BAU because BAU was more like Scenario B, which was identical to Scenario A… Deep stuff.
*For the record, both parts were wrong. Hansen’s model overestimated warming for all three scenarios because it had too high a climate sensitivity."
Pharos
Fine. Now show how the SkS post distorted Michaels' meaning. Just illustrate (and substantiate) your claim with direct reference to the SkS quote.
BBD
To spell it out in simple words:
SkS misrepresented Michaels by attributing to him a quote that he neither made nor wrote. Simple as that. Did Michaels make the words in the exact form, without addition or deletion, that SkS printed within the quotes? If he did, please quote the source. If not, you are wrong.
The argument in Shub's article is not about meaning - it is about a manipulated quote. SkS could easily have written the article in the 3rd person passive saying Micheals believes this or doesn't think that. They did not. They made a deliberate decision to misrepresent him by fabricating a quote using bits and pieces of other writings, then rubbishing the fabrication. It was not unintentional as dana1981 claimed. It was done with malice of forethought.
BBD
If you are not being deliberately obtuse then I don't know how else to define it.
ChrisM is right. SkS misrepresented Michaels by mucking about with what he actually said and then putting quote marks round it. Which part of that statement do you not understand?
They then — in effect — admitted an error by withdrawing the quote.
We are not saying anything about anyone misrepresenting another's work but about misrepresenting his words. The thread subject is a criticism of SkS for quote doctoring which is reprehensible behaviour no matter who it is by and for what purpose it was done.
Since SkS has "issues" with Michaels — as it appears to have with everyone who doesn't toe its particular party line ("posting here is a privilege, not a right" — pompous prat) — it seems highly unlikely that what they did was explain his work more clearly or to support what he has to say, ergo it is a reasonable assumption that it was used as a means of criticising what he said, distorting his own words to do so.
But even if it wasn't, that does not alter the fact that it was wrong and Shub is perfectly correct to point out yet a further example of the site contributors' belief that the end justifies the means.
And the fact that you object to Michaels' phraseology is irrelevant except that it provides you with another excuse to distract everyone's attention from what is actually being discussed.
I wonder what's going on here? Do none of you actually understand what is meant by 'misrepresentation'? Let's be clear then. The term implies a deliberate or accidental change in meaning from that originally intended.
That you all continue to avoid answering a very simple question - where and how did SkS change Michaels' meaning strongly suggests that you do understand what misrepresentation is. But of course you will not admit that SkS did not misrepresent Michaels at all because it did not change his meaning.
And I'm the one being called thick and intransigent.
BBD
You are being intransigent because you are arguing about apples while everyone else around here is discussing pears.
Taking someone's words, changing them, omitting some and then putting the whole shebang between quotation marks and saying "that's what he said" is misrepresentation.
That is not a statement that is up for discussion. It is a simple fact. They gave "a misleading representation to the words ..." (Chambers) by claiming they were an individual's precise utterance when they weren't.
For your information, the ellipsis represents the missing words "or actions" but since this discussion and this posting is about words and not actions I chose not to include the irrelevancy. Had I ended my quote with a period and quotes then I would have been misrepresenting how Chambers defined 'misrepresentation' even though I would not actually have changed the meaning.
Don't let your adoration of Cook and your dislike of Michaels distort your judgment. It doesn't show you in a good light.
MJ
Unless SkS changed Michaels' meaning, nothing worthy of discussion occurred. SkS didn't change Michaels' meaning, so this entire red herring was just Shub trying to direct attention away from the recent SkS post detailing Michaels' other misrepresentations.
And you have defended this transparent piece of misdirection all the way. You are either stupid, in clinical denial, or both.
All I have done is explain precisely what the situation is as regards quote doctoring, copyright and fair use. If that doesn't suit you, tough. I've made no comments on Shub's motives or Cook's or Michaels'.
I leave that sort of extra-sensory perception to you and your motives are quite clear.
That does not seem cause to describe me as either stupid or in denial. (I'm not sure what being in "clinical" denial is.) Just because you don't like the message is no reason to shoot the messenger.
BBD
You last few missives have convinced me that you inhabit an Alice in Wonderland parallel universe "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Humpty Dumpty sums up you precisely and we all know what happened to him.
ChrisM
Show me how SkS changed Michaels' meaning and you have a point. Don't show me and you don't have a point.
ChrisM
He can't let it go, can he?
It's like trying to reason with a toadstool.
I agree, Mike. Though I think BBD is more like the hyperactive toddler - you know, the ones that ask why? for everything or quote you back something you have said but in a totally different situation.
MJ
I know exactly how you feel. Except in my case, there is the added frustration that the toadstool won't answer a simple, repeated question. Since it's now very clear that nobody is going to answer that question, let's try another approach.
Michaels' misdirections are evident even in the quotes Shub seems to think support his claim. My comments in [square brackets]:
And:
What is misrepresentation? Careless quoting that doesn't change the original meaning of what was said? Or using misleading language to create a false impression that the Antarctic ice cap is growing when in fact is it losing ice mass at an accelerating rate?
Tell me something. Why do you think I dig my heels in over this stuff? Is it because I am thick and intransigent and Humpty Dumpty or because Michaels is misrepresenting the facts?
ChrisM
The sad thing is that over on the Discussion threads he appears to be engaging in reasonably sensible argument, though I don't always agree with him and occasionally it's obvious that he's doing a bit of cut 'n' paste without fully understanding the context.
On this thread he keeps picking away at an argument that no-one else is having apparently unable to comprehend simple English.
BBD
Will this perhaps make it clear?
For the sake of this discussion I do not give a flying f**k what Michaels said or whether Cook got it right or anything about the beliefs, philosophies, ideas, statements of either of them.
And nobody on this thread is faintly interested in answering your increasingly boring and in the context of what we are discussing 100% irrelevant question.
I understand what you are saying because you say it every time anyone dares mention words like Soon or Michaels or Lindzen or any other of your bogeymen (all of whom know a lot more about climate than you do). And guess what?
Nobody except you cares.
The fact is that by engaging in quote-doctoring SkS misrepresented Michaels. It was the quote-doctoring itself which was the misrepresentation. The meaning and whether or not it changed the meaning is not the point. The point is the action per se.
There is no way I can make it any clearer.
All this good faith, bad faith nonsense. And at the end of the day, how reliable are those estimates of ice mass anyway. With a whole career of subsurface volumetric estimation behind me, and knowing the uncertainties of the data generating it, I would advise a degree of circumspection. This link suggests that even, maybe especially, with satellite data, the same rule applies
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ch1771172m5020t6/
MJ
You will need to back that up. I'll keep an eye out for your response on the Discussion thread.
And how can I make it any clearer that the SkS quote didn't change Michaels' meaning and so did not misrepresent him in any way worth arguing about?
Especially when the real issue is of course Michaels' habit of misrepresentation that is worth arguing about.
Chris, Mike,
There are two (or perhaps three) levels of misrepresentation in Cook's original article. Michaels' point was to say ' hey Washington Post, why do you highlight a small continental ice loss the significance of which is unclear (given that the data series are so short, among others), when the sea ice surrounding the continent is actually growing?'
Cook's use of a butchered quote represented Michaels as an example of someone who argued that global warming was refuted by Antarctic sea ice gain.
This is the first misrepresentation.
In this regard, BBD is only upto his usual tricks - make as though there is a problem he's discovered, the establishment of which depends solely on his stamina and abililty to continually spam the boards with the same monotonic messages, repeated over and over. In this he is just a first-rate propagandist and nothing more.
In his concluding line Michaels says "Wouldn't that have been an appropriate place to note that, despite a small recent loss of ice from the Antarctic landmass, the ice field surrounding Antarctica is now larger than ever measured?" Does this read like the words of someone who is in any way denying the loss of ice from the Antarctic landmass? If not, how did he become an example of someone who's myth needed special debunking and clarification from Cook?
This is the change of meaning that BBD says doesn't happen with Cook article. This is the same thing Cook carried out with AnthonySG1 and PaulM's contributions, when he added condescending responses below their comments.
Secondly the more obvious element of the manufacturing of the quote itself, is indeed in front of us.
BBD...just why did Septical Science need to debunk Michaels if they agree with what he wrote and can "quote-mine" to that effect?
Shub
Thanks.
My original posting was as much in reply to Hengist as to BBD though BBD was making his usual blustering attempts to sidetrack the debate in his obsessive dislike of anybody who hasn't yet drunk the Kool-Aid!
You'll note from his last posting that he has eventually conceded, with the words "in any way worth arguing about", that there was a factual misrepresentation. But I was merely pointing out that in a technical sense misrepresentation happens when you deliberately misquote someone regardless of the end result.
Still we now know that the quote did change Michaels' meaning though not in any way BBD thinks is worth arguing about.
Oh come on Shub. He's pretending it doesn't signify. And he's implying that the increase in sea ice means that AGW isn't happening. It's very obviously misrepresentation.
Therefore this is rubbish:
How can you persuade yourself to believe this nonsense? What's wrong with you?