Wednesday
Dec092015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A state ideology
Dec 9, 2015 Civil liberties Climate: Sceptics Mark Steyn was breathtakingly good in his Congressional Testimony today.
Dec 9, 2015 Civil liberties Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (139)
Brilliant.
The fraud deniers couldn't have a better promotion for their scam than an extreme right shock Jock like Steyn giving evidence to a Congressional committee.
Brilliant, even for an extreme right wing shock jock!
Wasn't he though. An inspired choice. Kudos to Ted Cruz for that.
The thing with these Committees - and you see it in the UK as well - these experienced muck-raking politicians just filibuster an spew ad hominem at largely defenseless scientists who bring facts to a bitch fight.
If you put a political wonk in, those same sleazemongers would simply say "but you aren't a scientist".
Mark Steyn provided the artillery to return fire on those poseurs. I was very impressed the way Mar fired to support Dr Curry and Dr Happer when each come under the most unedifying personal attacks, which they just aren't used to dealing with.
5 stars Mark Steyn. I'll even go and buy your ridiculous cat album for that.
Freedom of speech should be defended unambiguously by all sides. Mark Steyn is a superb defender of free speech. I maintain that this climate debate will only end when it is tested in a court of law and all sides are heard. That is why Marks law suit will drag on forever as so many icons against him are too big to fail.
NCC 1701E
He was absolutely right, but no one cares. All they will see is who he is.
@Peter Whale: Ah, but as I have said before, although the greenalists/warmistas threaten legal action in the courts, the very last place they want evidence to be place is in the public gaze of the courts, where the scientific arguments would be played out!!! They are merely posturing! Excellent statement by Steyn, he was as our Colonial cousins would say, awesome!
The bits that I saw suggested that Steyn was indeed commanding, but as Stoat (who is banned from here, I think) quite correctly points out
Cartoon climatology! :)
Leaving aside the question of whether somebody who contributed to the IPCC which was collectively awarded a Nobel can legitimately claim a share of that prize, the Nobel in question was for Peace, so Steyn claiming it was used to falsely inflate scientific credentials is hilarious.
If this is 'good', I'd hate to see 'pig-ignorant'.
And where was Steyn when Cicerone, the ATI, Inhofe and Joe Barton were on their witch-hunts?
ATTP
Let me introduce you to the concept of the non sequitur, best done with an example:
"97% of scientists/published papers agree. The science is beyond dispute."
We heard that in the Committee hearing and now you feel like regurgitating the same drivel here.
You and Stoat can jog on.
@Phil Clarke.
That is it? That's all the objection you have?
"That lie didn't matter because Mann only claimed he won the Nobel Peace Prize"
and
"wattabout wattabout wattabout wattabout wattabout wattabout wattabout"
Phil Clarke, where is aTTP in defending the Hockey Stick?
Now Signori Galilei, we don't want to put you to the rack but we will be forced to do so if you continue to defy the Earth-centric consensus taught as Holy Writ in our dioceses, monasteries and nunneries........
Update as required for 2015........
I will be delighted when climate scientists are no longer subject to legal threats and intimidation. But Steyn is surely wrong to claim this all goes one way. See http://www.sallan.org/Snapshot/2015/09/climate_scientists_in_the_crosshairs.php for instance.
@cwhope
And the point goes whistling over his head. How about - it wasn't a lie, and no, it doesn't matter much.
ATTP - Quite, but it could have been worse, at least they left Monckton on the bench this time.
A twit who posts here often quoted someone:
This is pretty funny since Mark Steyn explained that he would leave the science to others and he would talk about the dogma of the scam. He did that and did that very well --- as one would expect from an honest journalist. (looks like a few do exist after all)
The whiner with "physics" in his name can't point to an error or defend the lack of open and honest debate so he goes ad hominem. No surprise there really.
Does anyone know where "Dr." M. Mann posted his data and methods on his debunked "hockey stick"? All scientists share their data and methods, right?
And I recall that Albert Einstein pointed out that even if 100 German scientists said he was wrong, that did not matter since it would take only one if he were truly wrong. The facts and observations trump any consensus. By the way, there is no consensus anyway.
~ Mark
Mark,
And no surprise that you would resort to mentioning Michael Mann. Is that all you have?
That wouldn't mean that there wasn't a consensus. A consensus doesn't have to be correct to exist.
And - in case the global warmongers haven't noticed - is has stopped getting warmer for nearly 20 years now. And counting...
Perhaps they are in denial?
I thought it was interesting Mark Steyn full-throatedly endorsed charts created by Steven Goddard, charts widely rebuked for being obvious nonsense created via a bogus methodology. I think that shows the problem with using a person like Steyn as a figurehead in a movement: he may be a good speaker, but he has no idea what he's talking about.
The reality is anyone who knows anything about the subject should have cringed the moment Ted Cruz pulled the charts from Steven Goddard out. They should have shaken their heads and cried as Cruz postured and posed about how those charts showed global warming was fabricated by man-made adjustments to the data. Most people didn't though. Most people were okay with Cruz using obvious nonsense to promote his conclusions for the same reason they were okay with Mark Steyn ranting and raving about god knows what. That reason is simple: They liked what they heard.
That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter that what Ted Cruz said about the temperature record was obvious BS, supported only by a raving pseudononymous blogger who is on the same level as 9/11 truthers. People liked what they heard, so they supported it. And when Mark Steyn went above and beyond the call of duty to support it, they supported him too, because they liked what they heard.
That what they heard was completely and utterly wrong didn't matter. That Cruz promoted graphs based on obivous BS doesn't matter. To a certain segment of the population, Cruz and Steyn represented a viewpoint they liked, and it doesn't matter if any facts contradict them because... well, who cares about facts?
It's disgusting and disgraceful. That Ted Cruz, a presidential hopeful, would resort to using bull**** charts created by some random guy on the internet shows only that the political process in the United States does little to ensure credible or sensible candidates.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/12/ted-cruz-endorses-steven-goddard/
The memo has gone down to the troops : "shock jock"
To expand Einstein's view, there is no such thing as 'Consensus' or 'Authority' in Science, only experimental evidence suggesting one hypothesis is better than one or more alternatives at explaining a particular phenomenon.
A rider to the above is that for a supposed scientist to argue that his or her view has to be correct simply because they have more votes from their mates indicates (a) a lack of objectivity, (b) a lack of humility and (c) sheer bad manners!
I've never seen so many paid enforcers so quickly onto a thread here. It's almost as if it has been organised.
Does anyone know where "Dr." M. Mann posted his data and methods on his debunked "hockey stick"? All scientists share their data and methods, right?
You've really bought into the mythology around here haven't you? All the data was available on a public ftp site shortly after the paper was published and is still archived in many locations as a quick Google will confirm, Wahl and Ammann had no trouble at all reproducing Mann's work, and proving it robust.
OMG, I agree with Brandon. I must go for a lie down.
Mann's work robust? In the fact if you used his flawed methodology it came up with the same answers?
Bravo.
Brandon Shollenberger
I didn't know that. It's rather important, isn't it? Shouldn't it be widely disseminated at BH and elswhere, if true?
I must go for a lie down too. (But not next to Phil Clarke)
His written testimony is here.
The subject was dogma in science. Steyn made it clear that he was speaking about dogma.
Scrote certainly deserves to be banned from many places. But if people like you and Scrote allowed reasonable uncensored debate at your own blogs, then you would not have to come trolling at Bishop Hill in a desperate attempt to gain internet traffic.
We've been through this a hundred times. Stop being tedious.
You're right, BigYIn. The SJWs are out in force this afternoon. Still if they're here they're not persecuting some other poor innocent!
that you could get the same result by using any old random data.,/i>
Nope, you have to
- Use a specific type of red noise unrelated to climate data.
- Ignore the fact that half the 'sticks' generated point down
- Ignore the fact that the magnitude is about 10% of the actual result
- Cherry pick 1% of your whole sample when presenting ....
Quite right, MJ. Many of them buy into the greenpeace idea that there are simply a few of us evil deniers somehow influencing world opinion to turn against them. So if they come here, maybe they might counteract the evil at the source.
Bring them on.
In reality, we are just articulating what many other people think.
Mann will not give disclosure to Steyn. Says it all .
People like Clarke are allowed to believe any old rubbish they like, be it Sky Fairies, little green men, 9/11 truth, moon landing hoaxes or hockey sticks etc. I've no power or desire to curtail their deluded inner narratives, it keeps them off the streets, and keeps the welfare bill down.
Phil Clarke
I don't think you understand the criticism against Mann's non-centered PC1 statistics. I would expect that you (too) picked up these talking points at some blog where they were (perhaps equally ignorantly) fed as fodder to the likes of you ..
However, Mike Jackson is wrong too when he says "you could get the same result by using any old random data", that is not the case.
What Mann's algorithm did was to give far more (than warranted) weight to those proxies that (for whatever reason) displayed a marked uptick towards the end. And the two Mc:s demonstrated that using random data. And they showed all of their work. Including the programs used.
I can't see that your talking points have any relevant substance here ... so why did you bring them up?
Phil Clark
Hope you enjoyed your lie down, now back to your non sequitur.
No, there is no question about whether Mann can legitimately claim to be a Nobel laureate. He cannot. No more so than can I claim to be a Nobel laureate on the grounds that the following year's peace prize was awarded to the European Union. If that wasn't obvious to him before, it ought to have become obvious when the Nobel committee confirmed that he wasn't.
And yes, it was a peace prize. Which just makes it even more pathetic that Mann (and others) have been so insistent on calling themselves "Nobel laureates".
ATTP
Are you and Stoat really, genuinely, suggesting that you believe that the scientists who appeared before this committee are the only scientists who don't subscribe to the dogma?
Brendon
I find no mention of Goddard's charts in either Steyn's written testimony, or his oral testimony (above).
Where is it?
ATTP, for once you are right: "A consensus doesn't have to be correct to exist." So why should we then care about the consensus-speak of the likes of you?
From a CA posting in 2005 in the days when Mann et al would not release data and code:
(Source)
Now, who was the 'scientist' who said he wouldn't release his data as all they'd do is find fault with it? Seems he learnt his methods from his mate Mike.
Harry Passfield.
It was Phil Jones
WFC. :-) It was rhetorical.
Jonas N
You're right of course. I was over-simplifying for effect! Mea culpa.
Nonetheless, if I recall, McIntyre did find that Mann's method meant that whatever data you used you'd end up with a hockey stick.
michael hart
In reality, "bring them on" is the wrong ploy.
The thing to remember about the Social Justice Warriors is that you cannot beat them by engaging with them. If you ignore them they give up eventually because they cannot abide not being the centre of attention.
Oh, and never, ever believe a word they say.
The alarmist trolls don't like it up 'em. They are out in force with their bullsh1t. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and they are getting really desperate with every day that passes and the climate change scam with its corruption and intimidatory tactics gets more public exposure.
As a member of the EU, I am still awaiting my copy of the Nobel Peace Prize that was granted to the EU. Funnily enough, after all this time, I still haven’t received it. Should that prevent me from adding it to my CV?
Brandon Shollenberger: at least Steven Goddard allowed access to his data and methodology for others to find fault. That you can only resort to hearsay – “…charts widely rebuked…” – suggests that you are playing the man, here, rather than the ball. Give a proper scientific rebuttal of the charts, rather than you somewhat rabid ranting.
Just might have to take a look at what's going on with this hearing across the pond.... there seems to be a lot of cages being rattled and cockroaches appearing out of the wood work to mix a few metaphors.
Radical Rodent, there is no need to wait for the EU to send your share of the Nobel prize. Just copy Michael Mann's example.
And the two Mc:s demonstrated that using random data. And they showed all of their work. Including the programs used
Which other people have examined and discovered:
Ø The 'random' data was not detrended.
Ø They never compared the red- noise eigenvalues against Mann’s tree-ring eigenvalues. (Hence my point above on magnitude)
Ø They cherry-picked the top 1% of their results for presentation.
Even though they claimed The simulations nearly always yielded PC1s with a hockey stick shape, some of which bore a quite remarkable similarity to the actual MBH98 temperature reconstruction
In serious academic work, this would be close to fraud.
Mike Jackson
As you point out, what you say is oversimplified. And Phil Clarke's simple talking points are oversimplified attempts to get around the fact that Mike Mann's algorithm was 'mining for' Hockey sticks.
Because you can of course make the case for that there should be an uptick expected in any proper proxy-based temperature assessment, as it indeed has gotten warmer (since the 17th century).
Mann did not feed random data into his algorithm, he had carefully selected what data he liked. And then applied his 'statistics', to make his 'results' look more firm than they actually can be argued to be ..
That was surely the biggest piece of dogma presented at the dogma v data hearing.
Sadly, there was minimal pushback. Curry's "AMS polled 48:52" was effectively unheard.
The question of science societies not polling their members before they made their relied upon pronouncements could have been mentioned. The senator was happy to recite the litany of dogmatic science societies and to mention the thousands of members (which included several in the panel) but no-one questioned if the societies asked their members of if it was just their political wings that had issued statements.
Thought for the Day
If Steve McIntyre had poured a fraction of the effort into producing a reconstruction that met his forensic audit standards for methods, reproducibility and so on, rather than attacking the work of scientists from the sidelines, then perhaps by now we would have a Gold Standard.
But he hasn't, has he?
Mann did not feed random data into his algorithm, he had carefully selected what data he liked. And then applied his 'statistics', to make his 'results' look more firm than they actually can be argued to be ..
Ah, if only repeating a canard enough times made it true.
Funnily enough Mann's original hockey stick has never been replicated by Mann himself in any of his following work. Go figure.