Translate

Friday, June 8, 2018

On How the Operators of Judith Curry's Blog Respond to a Clear Fabrication


Backstory: How some contrarians can respond to evidence of fabrication


This post breaks from my usual format. Instead of just critiquing a myth about science or addressing some arguments in philosophy, I want to make a point regarding a recent blog article. The article in question was authored by an individual named Javier in February 2018. The noted climate "skeptic" Judith Curry posted Javier's blog article on her website, as she has done for numerous other blogposts authored by Javier.

I recently discovered a clear fabrication in Javier's February 2018 blogpost. I discuss the fabrication in detail in section 2.7 of "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation"; I will explain the fabrication again later in this post. In section 2.10 of the aforementioned blogpost I also address other serious flaws in Javier's blog article.

Since I could not make a comment on Javier's blogpost (because the comments section was closed for that post), I made a couple of tweets pointing out the fabrication and asking how Curry could be informed about it:

And within the past few hours (on June 7, 2018), I informed Curry of the fabrication in the comments section of a recent blogpost she made. I related my comment to her blogpost, in order to keep my comment on topic. I also tweeted about my comment within about an hour of making the comment:

https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/05/top-15-climate-scientists-consensus-and-skeptics/#comment-873822
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1004839518334308352


I had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen next, since I have posted on Curry's blog before and have seen how she moderates critical comments: my comment would not remain intact. Curry (or her moderators) would likely remove any snarky remarks I made, or any references to fabrication. But I held out a slim hope that the central points of my critique would be left intact. Unfortunately, that was not to be. 

Within a few hours of making my critical comment, the comment disappeared from the comments section of Curry's blogpost, as I pointed out in a subsequent tweet:


When I pointed out my comment's disappearance, a frequent commenter on Curry's blog suggested that this might make a great topic for a blogpost:


So I've decided to make a blogpost about this; this is that blogpost.

Before I posted my comment on Curry's website, I saved the comment. I provide the full comment below, with all my criticisms and snide remarks intact. The only substantial change will be an added bolded and underlined title that did not appear in my original comment. So besides my title and one missing word which I will add and placed in bolded green, what you see below is what Curry (or her blog's moderators) completely removed. Feel free to make of that what you will.


Javier's fabrication regarding past temperature trends


I wouldn't call 4 of the 5 people on the "skeptic" list "skeptics", in the sense of scientific skepticism. I'd use a word like "contrarian" or "denialist". The difference is below:

"It is, however, important not to confuse denialism with genuine scepticism, which is essential for scientific progress. Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not."

"Denialism is motivated by conviction rather than evidence. [...] By contrast, scepticism starts with an open mind, weighs evidence objectively and demands convincing evidence before accepting any claim. It contributes to the debate and forms the intellectual cornerstone of scientific enquiry."

Lennaert Bengtsson is the only possible exception, and even they wandered fairly close. If one reads the scientific literature, it's quite easy to see where Lindzen, Christy, Curry, and Shaviv distort and/or evade the evidence.

Anyway, there's a problem I saw with a previous post on here, on which comments are now closed. So I though I might as well put it here, to illustrate why I don't consider [Curry] to be a good promoter of scientific skepticism. The post in question is from Javier, and was posted on here by Curry in February:

"Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming"

Figure 105 of that post presents a temperature reconstruction in order to argue that recent warming resulted from a natural cycle, not man-made. The cycle is shown in red, the temperature reconstruction in black and gray:


A few points to note about this image:

1A) If the natural cycle continued into the past, then temperature should be greater around 1AD, near a peak in temperature.
2A) Recent temperature is on par with temperature from the 1000s or 1100s.
3A) The rate of recent warming in the natural cycle is on par with the rate of pre-1000s or pre-1100s warming.

Now, Javier attributes the above figure to a 2005 paper from Moberg et al. But I don't remember that figure being in Moberg's paper. So I double-checked the paper, and found this:

                         200            600            1000          1400           1800
                                                         Year (AD)
Figure 2b on page 3 of:
"Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data"

A few points to note about this image:

1B) It is not the case that 1AD represents a near-peak in temperature.
2B) Recent temperature is on greater than temperature from the 1000s or 1100s.
3B) The rate of recent warming is greater than the rate of pre-1000s or pre-1100s warming.

For point 3B, Moberg et al. note in their paper that:

"The peaks in medieval times are at the same level as much of the twentieth century, although the post-1990 warmth seen in the instrumental data (green curve in Fig. 2b) appears to be unprecedented."

Obviously points 1A - 3A don't fit well with points 1B - 3B. And it's fairly clear that Javier offered an image that distorts Moberg et al.'s analysis. Javier's image is a fabrication, and the fabrication serves to remove evidence that's against the natural cycle explanation. 

I'm a bit surprised that I couldn't find anyone pointing this out in the comment's section of Javier's original posit. I found lots of people fawning over the analysis, Mosher commendably pointing out problems with what Javier was doing, etc. But no one pointing out the central fabrication. I wonder why? Maybe the so-called "skeptics" online are more credulous than skeptical (in a scientific sense of skepticism)? Why was this obvious fabrication posted and lauded on Curry's blog?

There's other evidence against Javier's natural cycle explanation. But I think this suffices for now.

Friday, June 1, 2018

+Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.

Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard) [1, from 11:26 to 13:42; 2; 37; 38], Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog [51, figure 110], Iowa Climate Science Education [41], Patrick Moore [3], Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson) [40], CO2IsLife [39], and various climate science critics online [4; 5; 36].

Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive versions with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post..

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.

Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard), Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog, Iowa Climate Science Education, Patrick Moore, Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson), CO2IsLife, and various climate science critics online.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

+Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.

This blogpost's twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/996791100479295493





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.

Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive versions with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post

This blogpost's twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/996791100479295493





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.