#openproblem

[neverendingaudit]

In the 1995 edition of his Climate, History and the Modern World, Lamb expressed doubts that the MWP was world-wide. Specifically, it did not seem to have occurred in the Far East. On the other hand, he did think that the LIA was a global phenomenon.

rw, padding his concession with some NIPCC handwaving.

(MWP stands for Medieval Warm Period, LIA for Little Ice Age, and NIPCC for a scientific simulacrum by the Heartland Institute)

[neverendingaudit]

The question is whether to engage those people at all.

mt raises a good question, which means the answer should be "it depends."

[neverendingaudit]

And hides them he does.

Brave Brandon, about the time he couldn't replicate the Auditor's results regarding Gergis. The Auditor did not confirm to him which data he used before his post, after he published it, and by email afterwards.

[neverendingaudit]

Constant Omertà

My sense was that my audience at Climate Audit had placed me on “one side” of what they saw as a “two sided debate,” and held me responsible for everything “my side” had ever said. That kind of refusal to allow a conversation partner to define the responsibilities she is willing to undertake is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion. In this particular case, I think the demands for to defend things we hadn’t said occluded possible areas of agreement about what we did say.

Nick owes no constant room service on CA, more so considering the reception he constantly gets. This leads to a Procrustean bed: slimed if Nick comments, slimed if he doesn't. Since you allow yourself not to say what you think from time to time, the more Omertà "trick" on CA may very well be suboptimal. *** Here are some instances with commitments you have yet to fulfill. You still have not declared having read Sicre at the time of writing. No response to [Fabio Gennaretti][1] has been forthcoming. For more than a year now, you failed to respond to [Robert Way][2] regarding your use of his private correspondence. In this very thread, you have yet to opine on Nic's exhortations:

The paper is methodologically unsound and provides spurious results. No useful, valid inferences can be drawn from it. I believe that the authors should withdraw the paper.

Neither have you endorsed Gordon Hughes' comment:

All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.

May I suggest that it is now time for you to lead by example and, at the very least, commit to Nic's and Gordon's claims? Show us why you are the fiercest player in the history of ClimateBall (tm), after all. Unless you prefer more Omertà. If you would be so kind as to resurrect the [MMH10 thread][3], that would be nice. Thank you for the kind words [You Climateballers are pieces of work], W PS: Some, but not me, might wonder why Nic assumes α is constant. Any auditor to wonder why too? [0]: http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/debate-in-the-blogosphere-a-small-case-study [1]: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/13/millennial-quebec-tree-rings/#comment-740376 [2]: http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/110629968739 [3]: http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html?showComment=1308008366856#c7386160124216218370

[neverendingaudit]

What Is Honorable About This?

[neverendingaudit]

Mansplaining, Dogwhistling, and Gaslighting

[After the scorched earth tactic, @ShubClimate rediscovers moderation. UPDATE - Shub says "pussyfooting" triggered moderation.]

Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.

The "regarding Mike" was implicit in my remark, which was preceded by a sentence you again forgot to take into consideration. I know your blog featured lots of fraud stories, and I believe they serve as perfect examples of how to stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness. You're basically dogwhistling when you do that, and perhaps also conveying enough of "what you think" for having others say what you are prudent enough not to say. The contrarian blog ring provides a well adapted commensalist niche.

That you again use the "get your fact straight" is to be expected, as you use this for most of your gaslighting. How you played the "doctored quote" card was suboptimal, at least way more than playing the "eight" one. (I noticed how you changed subject when Nick Stokes nailed on that one, btw.) But that last card won't prevent you from having to face the fact that Steyn used an F word, and that Dr Mann has been exonerated, as the title of the section you parsomatize indicates.

Sooner or later, you may need to do more than wage a public relation war against Mike.

You also say:

moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords

I have enough comments that did not appear to doubt your explanation of moderation at CA, Steve. Here again must I presume that you do not say what you think?

You might have more allies if you stopped playing cheap and dirty tricks, you know. A first good step would to link to the goddam documents you criticize. A second one would be to stop pussyfooting with expressions like "one of the parties" when you know damn well which party you might advise in a foreseeable future for a fee, and that you are openly helping pro bono if we exclude what comes by way of your Donate button, anonymously or not.

Yes, but costs opportunities, I know, I know.

Due diligence,

w

[neverendingaudit]

Do you mean that after almost a decade you are finally going to get around to answering this question [When you remove the bristlecones and the Briffa chronologies, is there still a HS reconstruction?]?

Boris, noticing it's been awhile.

[neverendingaudit]

What About Now?

[**Neal J. King discovers that conflict and stress are tied up around the Auditor's quest**.] I spent an hour last December talking with Steve McIntyre at the AGU meeting in SF; quite civil. But his main topic was his struggles to get data out of Michael Mann about the hockeystick – the main events of which took place years ago. I stopped him, and asked:

Steve, I’m really not that interested in this – this was years ago. I’m more interested in knowing, What does Stephen McIntyre want his life to be about now?

I did not get an answer to that. Steve declared that he had to catch someone at another talk, and we parted on pleasant terms.