The mirror world

RP has what I regard as a posting full of mistakes: Reflections on the Challenge (my post The Big Picture refers). And he doesn't get any better in the comments.

One of mine got through. This one, below, got stopped for "questionable content" - judge for yourself - so since I have my own blog I'll post it here.

Roger - you're still getting it wrong; Tom Rees is essentially right.

You say "So your position now is that the hockey stick was in 2001 a key study in making the case for attribution. That is, that without the hockey stick the case for attribution in 2001 would have been somewhat weaker? I disagree."

No. I didn't say *key*. But I *do* say that without MBH the attribution case in the TAR would have been *somewhat weaker* (but not *very much weaker*). [Good grief], you can just read the thing (surely youre familiar with it): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. Which makes it clear that MBH is part of, but by not means the whole of, the attribution case.

Yes, MBH wasn't in the SAR, but then as the TAR sez "Since the SAR, progress has been made" and MBH was part of that progress.

If you want to position yourself as some kind of referee in this [bizarre] process, you need to be much clearer about the structure of things.

The words in []'s are ones I experimented with deleting in the hope of getting past the content filters. No such luck.


Blogger Belette said...

Over at Prometheus, RP has repsonded to my post with

"William- You are splitting small differences now. The IPCC SPM clearly identified the HS as a critical piece of evidence on attribution. Not "somewhat" important as you have suggested. Reasonable people can disagree about whether its importance was overstated in that report, that is a matter of interpretation and judgment. Now that I have learned quite a bit more about the issue, I believe that its importance to the attribution case was dramatically overstated because it made for a powerful symbol. We can agree to disagree on this point. No need to take it further than that. Thanks."

So much for debate. I take that to mean: I'm going to have my say and I don't want you to respond, thanks. So I'll respond here instead.

Roger asserts "The IPCC SPM clearly identified the HS as a critical piece of evidence on attribution.". He offers no evidence for this. The TAR SPM dies discuss attribution: see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. There are 7 bullet points there. MBH is 1/2 of one of those.

10:21 pm  
Anonymous Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

William- I am happy to debate as much as you’d like. I am simply saying that there is no need to get worked up, as you apparently have, over a disagreement on this issue. I respect your point of view. I have another.

10:31 pm  
Blogger Belette said...

Roger - I'm pleased that you're interested in continuing the debate. But your comment is at best easy to misinterpret. However, it doesn't seem to matter, as your spam filter appears to reject the most innocuous of comments. So I did try, but got denied for content again. Sigh.

Perhaps you could try a substantive reply here, where your comment *won't* be blocked.

I was going to add:

Incidentally, those bullet points come direct from chapter 12: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/442.htm

10:42 pm  
Anonymous Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

William- I addressed this issue at length here:


Here is a relevant excerpt:

"The hockey stick became a symbol because of the IPCC. In its 2001 report of Working Group 1 the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) included only 5 graphs. The entire report has probably 100 graphs (perhaps more, I have not counted). So the IPCC was in effect saying, “We’ve looked carefully at all of the evidence of climate change and from all of those studies and reports the best example that we’d like to share with you policy makers of changes in the earth’s climate is represented with this graph.” Of course, most Prometheus readers will know that the case for a human influence on climate is well established through multiple independent lines of research. But remember, we are talking about the hockey stick as a symbol. For the uninformed outsider reading the SPM, none of this richness and context would be apparent. The IPCC offers that not only is the hockey stick the best example that it can provide of climate change, but that it has been peer-reviewed at a level more stringent than normal journal articles. Representative of such claims, the scientists at RealClimate have written, “IPCC reports undergo several additional reviews and revisions involving a large number of independent referees. Thus, the IPCC reports undergo a more stringent review process than common papers in the scientific literature.” The hockey stick is thus a powerful political symbol in the climate debate."

11:09 pm  
Blogger Belette said...

OK, we're back on track, Prometheus is accepting my comments again.

11:30 pm  
Blogger EliRabett said...

Roger is real good a playing rope-a-dope. You know the post that says something is Gospel which is not even Apochraphya, roping the dope into respond in a heated manner, followed by the oh so respectful, how could you be so mean, I didn't say that and you can buy my book at Blackwells....

Congrats Wm., you are the perpetual dope for the day until you start to recognize Roger's act for what it is.

After they sent out S. Fred (there is no global warming), they found Richard Lindzen (it's not important and minor). Roger is the third wave.

Of course, if Roger can't find a dope for the day, so much the better, he has snuck another meatball past his readers. Love the guy.

BTW, remember the most important rule, don't listen to the response, observe the actions.

3:11 am  
Blogger Dano said...





9:34 pm  
Blogger Belette said...

Note sure I was too keen on rope-a-dope. Hey ho.

9:39 pm  
Anonymous Thomas Palm said...

Roger, please keep in mind that the best figure to show policy makers isn't necessarily the most important science. Not that I was in any way part of IPCC, but it seems figures were selected both to represent a wide spectrum of the issues in the report and to be reasonably easy to understand for non-experts.

If you count properly you will also have to change your statement that the HS is one of five graphs. Either it is one-half of five graphs if you go by the numbering, or it is one of fifteen graphs.

2:51 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home