|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 16:18:19 GMT 1
"I’ve also spent time on McShane and Wyner – unfortunately, more time after submitting our discussion than before. The 93-proxy dataset that they use in their AD1000 reconstruction includes 24 strip bark series and 2 Korttajarvi series (Tiljander) without removing the contaminated segments. So it requires great caution in interpreting their results other than where they are, in effect, only mathematical. While I welcome their interest in the field, I wish that they hadn’t used things like “lasso” that aren’t actually in use in the field." From climateaudit.org/Seems that Steve McIntyre doesn't agree with their conclusions but is a bit hesitant about coming out and saying "they were wrong" for fear of upsetting his 'allies' |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 16:33:22 GMT 1
If one thought you understood what Steve were saying one might have a bit of respect for you, enquirer.
Perhaps you could translate it for us, in your own words, and not by way of a crib sheet, just to demonstrate your competence?
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 16:42:42 GMT 1
To take it sentence by sentence:
"I’ve also spent time on McShane and Wyner – unfortunately, more time after submitting our discussion than before. "
Translation - oops, I've only just got around to reading this in detail and I've posted my previous comments prematurely
"The 93-proxy dataset that they use in their AD1000 reconstruction includes 24 strip bark series and 2 Korttajarvi series (Tiljander) without removing the contaminated segments"
Translation - bogger, they didn't remove the dodgy data
"So it requires great caution in interpreting their results other than where they are, in effect, only mathematical."
Translation - the interpretation of their results is dodgy 'cos they left in the dodgy data
"While I welcome their interest in the field, I wish that they hadn’t used things like “lasso” that aren’t actually in use in the field."
Translation - it's good to get some more people on 'my side' but I wish they knew what they were talking about.
Clear enough for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 17:34:02 GMT 1
Just the sort of garbage we expect from you, enquirer.
By the way, when are you going to translate the Russian link you were so keen for us to read?
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 17:42:02 GMT 1
Just the sort of garbage we expect from you, enquirer. So I helpfully translate a passage that you were clearly having trouble reading and that's all the thanks I get. As for this By the way, when are you going to translate the Russian link you were so keen for us to read? I don't usually like to cross-thread but I refer you to the message I posted on the relevant thread (reply #13) I have no idea why the link goes to the Russian version of the paper. If you google "Klyashtorin L.B." you will find that the first item links to a PDF of the English version of the paper that I read in full. I think you should apologise for this rubbish Just because that's the only way you get hold of information you shouldn't assume the rest of us are as ignorant or lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 17:45:07 GMT 1
No
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 17:49:29 GMT 1
I suppose I should have expected that. It seems that it is impossible for those that are skeptical about AGW to ever apologise for their mistakes.
It is a common tactic to accuse somebody of something and when the accusation is proven to be untrue to refuse to acknowledge this.
It is quite illuminating as to your approach to the science of climate change. False accusations, errors and mistakes freely littered about and never acknowldeged or apologised for.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 18:02:08 GMT 1
I don't apologise to Establishment brown-nosers and sock puppets. I don't pretend your presence here is part of a civilised conversation between people who respect eachother.
You're an alarmist PR man trying to rescue a dying cause who has nothing in his armoury but ad hominems. When you start posting something interesting or thought provoking here about climate you may get some attention.
I don't have to apologise for anything. I'm not a climatologist who has been misleading the world for decades. I'm merely an interested lay person stating her opinions on a message board after spending quite a long time reading about AGW and related matters. You take things far too personally, enquirer.
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 18:06:09 GMT 1
I don't apologise to Establishment brown-nosers and sock puppets. I don't pretend your presence here is part of a civilised conversation between people who respect eachother. You're an alarmist PR man trying to rescue a dying cause who has nothing in his armoury but ad hominems. When you start posting something interesting or thought provoking here about climate you may get some attention. Good grief woman - what on earth made you think I respect you? |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 4, 2010 18:12:02 GMT 1
You take things far too personally, enquirer. Like being accused of referencing reports I hadn't read, like being called a sock puppet, like being accused of getting all my info from crib sheets, like being called a brown-noser? No nothing personal at all, no ad hominem attacks there. Don't you think you're being a tad hypocritical? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 4, 2010 19:34:41 GMT 1
If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen, but for god's sake stop bleating, enquirer! As for "respect" on message boards, I think I got my retaliation in first!
If you're really interested in climate, as opposed to sticking your finger in the AGW dike, post something that will entertain and inform the readers here. But you cannot because all you want is an inter-personal scrap and point-scoring. I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with a prat like you, that should be obvious. I am perfectly happy to read and post about climate all day long because all I wish is to be better informed about a subject that interests me and to spread a little information around. Vanquishing an opponent or getting "apologies" is not my scene.
When you demonstrate that you can present a case or start a discussion about something of interest to others here you will be a worthy member of this board. Until then you're a passenger and a mindless detractor. I'm surprised you haven't been thrown off the bus already. Joanne must be mellowing!
|
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 6, 2010 11:19:24 GMT 1
all you want is an inter-personal scrap and point-scoring. I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with a prat like you - Irony alert ;D Quite - let's get all those who want to discuss the science of climate change kicked out so that only the virtuous that take a pride in ad hom attacks reign free here. Where did you actually discuss the science rather than posting links to your favourite blogs (or to be more accurate - your crib sheets)? Where did you ever post anything original that wasn't a personal attack? I have made a total of 34 (35 including this) posts on this board and you have attacked me personally (not the content of my posts) four times on this thread alone. It appears to be the reason that you visit this board - to drive away anyone who wishes to discuss the science. To go back to the start of this thread - Steve McIntyre is noted for his statistical re-analysis of climate data. It seems to me that his views on the McShane and Wyner paper are certainly as worthy of discussion as his hero worship by New Statesman readers. What do you make of what he said on his Climate Audit blog? It seems that Steve McIntyre has the ability to discuss the facts rather than follow a blind allegiance to 'the cause' - do you? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 6, 2010 21:30:52 GMT 1
"What do you make of what he said on his Climate Audit blog?" I'm not clever enough to follow most of the discussions on ClimateAudit and I doubt you are, either, Enquirer. He is an honest man, I know that. To his eternal credit Steve McIntyre has personally destroyed Michael Mann and pals' street cred! You can forgive a man a lot for that! The world owes him a big debt of gratitude for demolishing the bristlecone, foxtail and associated multi-proxy "research" travesties, for rescuing the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, for spelling out "hide the decline" and for generally undermining teleconnection, dendropaleoclimatology and related voodoo "science" so beloved of AGW alarmists. He is truly a man who has made an impact on our world by being so smart, so dedicated, so dogged and in the right place at the right time. He is a perfect example of the importance of the individual in shaping history Wish there were more like him! He is a first rate forensic auditor. Sloppy climate alarmists or anyone else presenting sloppy conclusions re climate stats should be afraid, very afraid, of their work falling under his scrutiny. climateaudit.org/2010/10/05/intelligible-code/ |
|
