I did not deny. I questioned. Read it again ROM. I asked - do you have proof? And placed my reasoning for questioning your assertion. If I follow a little of Ian's earlier logic this following post is blatantly offensive and slanderous for inferring that I am a denier of a denier of a denier of the holocaust (:P Not).



I stand corrected ROM, though I will note that the majority probably do not perceive this as a valid comparison. Some points on perspective:

- Its a Journalist saying this (who are well known to wax lyrical and make inappropriate comparison), not a climate researcher - until you separate the leftist media, and the alarmist portions which talk about implications of AGW this I think is a misleading way to view the "science" you are more talking about the politics of the issue.

- Is she right to use it...most certainly not. Should have the damn sack in my opinion...and probably would have had our media not become so sensationalist.

- Does this really surprise you coming from a journalist?

- When a term becomes commonly used do we all really know what it means or the thought process that goes behind it? I can think of a number of cases where people don't actually appreciate the origins of a usage. Do you honestly think that every person whose view is opposite to you thinks that you are on a par with a holocaust denier?

- Does that justify you to sink to their level in what is tantamount to a schoolyard bullying scene? Does this make it fair or justified to label everyone contrary to your view a "warmista"?

Hang around for another couple of years CeeBee and sweat while your global warming ideology collapses completely during the next half dozen years.

Accusing Arnost with his technical and professional background, of not understanding the technical side of the likes of the Tiljander varve proxies, ie accusing Arnost of ignorance, and he most certainly doesn't have to run off to some outfit like the so called skeptical science's hidden forum for more bullets to fire, is just showing up your own obvious bias and ignorance.

Steve McIntyre with his forensic analysis of the CRU's deceptive manipulation of the data and increasingly the perception as more and more information surfaces from FOI's and other sources, that the principles of CRU and the UEA are liars as data is now being shown to exist where Jones, Briffa, Mann and etc from the Hokey Team had previously denied that data existed as it suposedly had been destroyed.
That was the claim when FOI's were presented just to try and get the data upon which all the CRU's and Mann's claims were based, something that in science, the openness of the data and methods for other scientists to check the outcomes is a given and an absolute need for science to both self correct and to advance but which CRU just absolutely and totally refused to honor one of the most basic fundamentals in science.

The information and data analysis done by McIntyre and now others is making CRU and UEA look increasingly like a very deceptive and lying bunch of devious manipulators of climate science data.
And if you believe anything that Mann says, you really have problems with facing the truth.

But then again all the global warming cult followers hate Steve McIntyre as he pulled the rug off their nefarious data manipulations of the dendrochrology used by the Briffa and the CRU and almost single handily destroyed Mann's Hockey Stick and subsequently Mann's status in science.
Mann still makes a lot of noise but he has no credibility left at all except amongst the true believers.

So ROM, did you see how McIntyre deliberately manipulated the Tiljander graph to make it look like Mann had his upside down? Very naughty don't you think!

That's the only misleading and dishonest behaviour on display here. Libellous claims of scientists lying are easy to say but the proof is sorely lacking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/on...hat/#more-56823

A very appropriate quote from Watts Up With That Comments to the above link.

Steve Goddard who ran the "Real Science" blog which listed numerous small climate news items has had a serious problem when his site was taken over / hijacked by another party.
The original Real Science site is now for sale.

Steve Goddard's new "Real Science" site is ; http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

He also has a section called "Bad Weather"

It is a fascinating collection of news articles from the past. and it shows just how ordinary our weather today is compared to the past. There are also a quite numerous collection of dire predictions made any where from a decade ago to over a hundred years ago on imminent disasters about to befall mankind and a lot of the same names as today are prominent in those catastrophic predictions, few or none of which ever showed any evidence of eventuating.

And this one is very interesting bit of historical predicting which might just happen to be right on the ball.





i wonder why we haven't seen this O16 to O18 isotope ratio method in tree rings mentioned or used for dating recently.
Maybe it is just too honest and accurate, particularly with modern instrumentation compared to 1976 for the current dendrochronolgy users in global warming science.

It probably is much easier to just sit at some super computer with your model and get your answers from there and then manipulate what data you have to match the model. [ /sarc ]
And there is increasing indications that this is what is happening in some climate science circles.

And just to make it even more interesting in relation to the above prediction from 1976.

From WUWT.;Solar cycle update for April – sun still slumping

Well she failed miserably with her prediction of a severe cold snap after 2000. The last decade was the hottest on record!!

CeeBee, there are Gray layers and Dark Layers.

The Dark layers are carbon rich layers from vegetation which are thought/have been calibrated to represent warmer temperatures.

The Gray layers are clay rich layers which represent more rainfall/moresnowfall/more runoff and are thought/are calibrated to represent cooler temperatures.

Thicker Grey layers are what has been charted and these represent cooler temperatures and that is why they are "upside-down".

The fact that human intervention has caused an increase in the Gray layers means they do not represent cooler temperatures but they are used upside down.

Climate science papers need to be read very carefully and then the actual data in them needs to be reviewed just as carefully because the abstracts most often are not supported by what the data and methods in them actually say.

And flat lining global temperatures for the last 13 to 15 years admitted now by the leading warmist scientists [ Trenberth; where is the missing heat. It's a travesty we can't account for it! ] and all the indicators tipping a fall in global temperatures in the near future of another couple of years.

For a 1976 prediction that prediction looks remarkably close to what has so far happened with global temperatures and a darn sight better than the present climate predictions using not some blackboard maths from 1976 but super computers, of a continuous monotonic global temperature rise still predicted only a couple of years ago which the climate warming modelers are now trying to skate around and deny they predicted such a monotonic rise.

This is a legitimate question:

Why is the word skeptic, with a "k" used rather than sceptic, with a "c" -- from what I understand the "k" is for American spelling and "c" Australian. Or is there some other reason besides simply being sceptical (correct spelling) about something as to why a "k" is used over a "c"? If it is intended to be derogatory with using a "k," then that might explain why I'm getting an impression this debate is heading up the creek.

There was a discussion on the use of the "skeptic" with a "k" as compared to "sceptic" with a "c" quite a long time ago on the various skeptical forums. And you are quite right Cosmic in your comment that "sceptic" is the English spelling and "skeptic" is the US spelling.
Memory is not that good on this but I think the CAGW believers used "skeptic" for a definition of those who did not fall in with their ideology and beliefs in the opinion it was somehow a more denigrating form of the expression than "sceptic" who is just one who may be sceptical on some claim or position or belief.
And the most publicised centre of global warming was in those past times, the USA so US useage of a number of climate related verbiage became the norm in the english speaking world.

I certainly had trouble changing over from the "sceptic" to the "skeptic" form of use due to my past useage of the original english form of "sceptic"

*Sigh*

Look at the bottom of the graph where it says grey value. See how it reads from left to right 50 60 70 80 90 100



Now look at McIntyres altered graph.



See how he's flipped it and now the grey value reads from top to bottom

50

60

70

80

90

100

Now look at Manns graph.



See how the grey values read from the bottom to the top

150

100

50

Here's how McIntyre should have manipulated the Tiljander graph.



See how the grey values now read from the bottom to the top - the same as Mann's graph.

McIntrye has made several errors. One of silliest of them is confusing grey value x-ray density for temperature!

OK - Let's assume that I am prosecuting a "libellous" claim where someone has accused McIntyre of misleading and dishonest behaviour and deliberately manipulating data:

I put my case in front of my peers [the people frequenting this site] and ask them to vote whether McIntyre is right or wrong in saying that Mann has used the Lake Korttajarvi and related proxies in a way that not intended by Tiljander, effectively "flipping them" and treating warm periods as cold and cold periods as warm in the paleorecord. [Which remember is the key period of interest]

______________________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

Please consider the following 10 Y/N propositions, that I pose these to the most honourable counsel for the Defence - CeeBee,

[As I can't put Dr Mann on the witness stand, I have to put my questions to his counsel - But I assume that he will be most ably defended. ]

and would like you to carefully consider the arguments provided against. For all my answers are a resounding Yes! and so I invite the hon counsel for the defence to explain why I am wrong, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury will please ask you to refrain from making up your mind until our final arguments and only voting then.

.
I will argue that if the conclusion is reached where all answers are agreed as Yes, then Mr McIntyre will be vindicated by the truth, and CeeBee will have to apologise on this forum for the slanderous imputations offered against the most august persona of Mr McIntyre - and say that the councel for the defense is WRONG! If on the other-hand, there is a consensus that My arguments are weak and therefore I fail to convince the most esteemed jury - I shall likewise apologise. Further I vow to attest my name and publish any such apology as drafted by the counsel for the defence.

.
To battle then!

To the most honoured counsel for the defence:

Please tell me where you disagree:

1) Will the most honoured counsel agree the below graph is simply a subset of the complete version in Tiljander et al (TEA p.570)] and that it is simply the X-Ray density portion rotated 90°? Y/N

For the record the complete version in its correct orientation is here. Please also see link to TEA 2003 (Exhibit A at end of this argument should ultimate proof be required)
.

2) If I agree that the data in the CeeBee graph is correct…

herein after the “CeeBee graph” and I note that is NOT from TEA 2003 as claimed tut - tut

will the most honoured counsel agree the only difference between the orientation in this graph and the Tiljander X-Ray density graph above is that they are mirror images. Y/N

For the record, I adjusted the sizing of (not changing the orientation) Dr Mann’s Tiljander X-Ray density graph (from Exhibit B) and contrasted it against the Tiljander version - see here

.
3) Will the most honoured counsel agree that both the Tiljander graph and the CeeBee graph represent X-Ray density of the varve / layers over some 3000 years… Not temperature. Y/N

.
4) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the latter part of the varve layer record is “strongly affected by human activities” (TEA p 575) such that “from the mid-18th century the amount of mineral material accumulation accelerated markedly towards the modern times” (TEA p571). Y/N

5) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the thickening of the layers and mineral material accumulation in the latter part of the record contributes to the increased X-Ray density at that time. Y/N

6) Will the most honoured counsel agree that “warm periods” will be correlated with a low mineral / high organic varve content, and “cool periods” will be correlated with a high mineral and low organic content. Y/N

For the record:


.
7) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the “hockey stick tail” in the later part of the CeeBee X-Ray density graph represents thicker mineral matter, and as such would indicate a “cool period” i.e. more severe climate conditions, with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period… Y/N

.
8) Will the most honoured counsel agree that the high organic content evidenced during the “medieval warm period” would suggest that it was a “warm period” i.e. favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing… Y/N

For the record:


.
9) Will the most honoured counsel agree that in the as “temperature” orientation in Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) the xraydenseave record shows the Medieval Warm period as coldest in the record, and that it includes the contaminated latter part of the record as warmest in the record. Y/N

For the record:
[Note that the Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) the xraydenseave record is to all intents and purposes the same as the CeeBee graph]

.
10) Will the most honoured counsel agree that, if the Mann PNAS 2008 (Exhibit B) xraydenseave record is used as indicated, then if the contaminated latter part of the record is calibrated to actual temperature and assumed as showing a warming then given that Mann's regression method is insensitive to sign, the paleo-climate record will be “flipped”– i.e. giving a cold Medieval Warm period, and a warm Little Ice Age - exactly as CeeBee's graph shows. Y/N


Exhibit A:

A scanned copy of the Tiljander A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttaja¨rvi, central Finland article from Boreas 2003 (TEA in this argument)
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/paleolimnology/Tiljanderetal.pdf

Exhibit B:

Supplementary Information Mann et al PNAS ‘08
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/SuppInfo.pdf

Heh, Steve McIntrye has quite a long history of dishonest and misleading behaviour. I wouldn't want to defend that shonk in court!

A Multitude of Misleading Moments by McIntyre

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction

On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

Rutherford et al 2005 highlights

Objection: Irrelevant! Those items do not directly relate to the matter at hand.

[It may be that the court will entertain argument on each of these points separately.]

In the meantime, is the court to assume that you are entering a plea of "nolo contendere" and are ceding the argument.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an actual response from Ceebee that is relevant to the question you asked Arnost. I suspect you will be sorely disappointed.

The court is prepared to be generous and will allow a generous period to response. The court accepts that the councel for the defense is demonstrably untrained in the ways of science and as it considers that the posed questions are more in the nature of statements of fact, understands that the councel for the defense will need to consult some "experts" to help with the case.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one and be done with it.

FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists

The Australian National University has released a series of abusive and threatening emails which were sent to its climate change scientists.

The 11 emails to members of the university's Climate Change Institute have been made public after a Freedom of Information request.

ANU management initially turned down the FOI request to release them, fearing it would lead to increased harassment.

But they have now been released with the names and email addresses removed after an intervention by the privacy commissioner.

One email, dated June 2, 2010, describes a threat to use a gun against an academic because a conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research.

"Looks like we've had our first serious threat of physical violence," it says.

"It has come from a participant in [DELETED] deliberative democracy project last weekend. One of the participants left early after he too [sic] exception to my talk about climate science. [DELETED] exact words were: 'Moreover, before he left, he came to the Fri dinner and showed other participants his gun licence and explained to them how good a sniper he is'."

The email notes that "I will be notifying security in case he turns up and causes a problem" and says the university's head of security will be asked to determine whether the case should be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

It concludes: "But in the meantime, we should be careful about anyone we don't know who approaches our offices."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/an...132?section=act

Cop out - Arnost has gone to a great deal of work and time to argue the case against your comments CB. At least take the time to read and respond to those questions as asked. Just to state "we'll agree to disagree" is not being fair or doing a proper rebuttal on this discussion. Why is that? Is Arnost right and your just not willing to admit it or you dont have the background or web links or whatever you like to do to post as a counter argument?