Re: [asa] Climate Progress

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 14:46:28 EST

Iain, I applaud you for your honesty in undertaking the attempt to replicate and reporting your feedback on Eschenbach's article. I was also awaiting feedback on that from Rich and since we haven't heard back from him after he initially stated that the smoking gun was Eschenbach's, I agree with you that that is a tacit admission that he was wrong and Eschenbach was right. My rejection of the reasonableness assertion when applied to me is that I can't possibly live up to other people's criteria for  objectivity so as a rule I don't let myself fall into that trap nor do I try to impose it on others. I am sure Mann's defense of the emails would be interesting but I have just not seen it anywhere. I am not avoiding it or opposed to reading it but I reject the conclusion that because I haven't read it, I still can't deduce a pattern of deception and coverup clearly shown in the emails. Keep in mind we have had a long series of data points for any objective observer to arrive at this conclusion like Al Gore's CO2/Temp relation in AIT, the various hockey stick corrections, the station siting issues, and now finally the CRU emails. Yes Mann may have some response on this but there is much more for me to base my conclusions on than just Mann. And from the attempts I have heard from the others on this, sorry but I don't buy that "trick" and "hiding the decline" and "fudging the data" do not mean what they say. I don't trust them and those explanations. I think it is inconsistent with the rest of the evidence and entirely predictable from someone in that situation. Finally, maybe you saw the email that Janice sent using your objection to the American faith preacher on TV jumping around doing the bunny hop as a vallid exercise in using our spiritual discernment and dismissing the guy out of hand. I could have appealed to you to go to his web site and read some explanation he has on why he does the bunny hop, and with enough empathy then you too would agree with him and maybe even start doing the bunny hop yourself.  But apparently you had seen enough already and you were convinced that by your definition of "reasonableness", the guy had already crossed that line and nothing more needed to be said. Although we may draw the line at different places and have different levels of thresholds, that is how I feel about all of the examples above including the leaked emails. Thanks John ________________________________ From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> Cc: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; asa <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 2:49:56 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Climate Progress On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote: That's fine Iain. But this is the same ploy as "engaging the data" when someone else gets to decide what the data is. I have to submit to your criteria of objectivity to prove my "reasonableness" to you. I'll just say that I spend my life analysing data, and I NEVER take it at face value.  One should always question what one finds in datasets - examine for outliers, or just plain errors in the recording of it.  That clearly isn't accepting what someone else has decided what the data is. Occasionally, as properly skeptical investigation proceeds, this involves changing your mind. This happened in the case of the Eschenbach article.  I examined the data initially and found no evidence for Eschenbach's assertions.  Then someone pointed me at the dataset that had been used to generate Eschenbach's graphs, and I was able to regenerate them as well, and reported this to the list.  I could have chosen to remain silent about it, but in the spirit of reasonableness and openness I presented what I had found.  Eschenbach's graphs are not a complete fabrication.  I presented what I thought might be a reasonable alternative explanation for those data, but I did still allow that it could also be interpreted as someone cooking the books, and that I was hoping that someone could explain what was going on.  No other explanation has been forthcoming so far, so as far as I'm concerned this is something that so far has not received a sensible explanation.  And you seem to think that I am being unreasonable in this, just because I think you should pay more attention to an article which was the subject of this thread, instead of ranting and getting puffed up and making huffy statements like "continuous and gratuitous use of ...." etc? One thing is certain: we definitely do have very different ideas of what constitutes "reasonableness". Iain -- ----------- Non timeo sed caveo

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 14 14:47:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 14:47:05 EST