That is one of the claims Goddard makes in his 2012 Global Warming Report Card. I have already looked at all his 19 points but some are worth examining in more detail, if only because he has emailed me in an accusery tone saying how I ‘compulsively focused on two of them’.
As stated I did a whole post on all of them and found them all to be lacking, but the ‘two’ are his cherry picked claims about cooling in Greenland, that were taken apart by error in the original post. But worse, this ‘report card’ without correct of an error Goddard admits to, is now being made widely available through that great scientific bastion of truth the ‘Science & Public Policy Institute’, (SPPI), in downloadable PDF form claiming;
“The massive bulk of evidence indicates that nothing is wrong, and that Hansen, Mann and the rest of the hockey team are not being honest with us.”I have emailed ‘bferguson’ from the 'Contact' information at SPPI, and asked if it will be corrected. Several days and no reply. So who is ‘not being honest with us’?
So now it is time to compulsively focus on a third
The claim that ‘Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003’ is supported by a graph of unadjusted sea level data from Envisat and a link to that data.
I have used Excel to reconstruct Goddard’s graph so that I can look more sceptically at his claims. A trend line clearly shows that even over such a short time period the trend is definitely up.
Goddard’s first claim, that sea level has been declining for several years, looks like a straight forward lie even using his own graph. I cannot not figure out anyway a mind, even Goddard’s, can come to this conclusion, even by another mistake. The max sea level every year, from 2003 to 2010 has been higher than 2003. Which are the several years he believes have declined? It can only be deliberate misrepresentation.
The Envisat data set is currently so short it is difficult to tease out any really significant conclusions. But I’m sure that is precisely why Goddard favours it. The real story of sea level rise can be obtained for the same web site this data comes from, which Goddard ignores, and the overall and continuing trend is obvious for all but the closed minded to see.
As a side note, I was told with great authority on another blog that attracts 'skeptics' that sea level was now below the trend line as if this evidence was of great significance. I had to point out that it was an average trend line - it will be below it about 50% of the time!
A Cherry Picking Moment
Goddard’s claim the sea level is now lower than 2003 is the classic cherry pick. We actually know almost nothing about the sea level in 2003 as the data only represents the immediate end of that year. But I will give him some leeway and assume he means the start of 2004. It is such a classic because for the first time since the start of 2004, the peak sea level was lower in 2011, so he sort of can claim to be right - or at least right enough for most of the un-sceptical 'Skeptics' who frequent his blog.
But he isn’t actually correct, because cherry picking a single point within a noisy data set like this is a meaningless thing to do. Consider that the unadjusted data when graphed almost resembles a sine wave. It is clear that sea level fluctuates annually with highs at the start and end of the year and lows around the half year point. I wondered what the average sea level each year would be. The average of each annual fluctuation would be more meaningful than just cherry picking a high point to make an assertion and ignoring almost all of the relevant data in the process.
Using Excel I averaged all the annual measurements and plotted them;
So Goddard wasn’t even correct about sea level being lower than the end of 2003/start of 2004. It is clear that the average sea level for all years, including 2011 was greater than 2004, and as the trend line shows, sea level is still rising.
NOTE: From the comments below it has become apparent that Steve Goddard hasn't even managed to label his graph correctly. The data used is not 'Unadjusted' as he claims. At the time of writing he has been made aware of the error for several days, but typically it remains without correction.
While you are correct that the trend of SL increased over the entire Envisat record, that is not what Goddard claimed, so you are making a moot point.
ReplyDeleteHis 1st claim was that SL has been declining for several years. Now, plot a trend line for the last 6 years(beginning of 2006). Trend is negative. Since 2007? Negative. Since 2008? Negative. Four, five & six years certainly meet the criteria of "several", so Goddard was correct in his statement.
Goddard's second claim was that SL IS lower NOW than it was in 2003. The only 2003 data point was 0.488. The date of the SPPI paper is 4 Jan 2012. The most recent data point prior to that was the last data point of 2011 which was 0.484. That IS lower that the only 2003 data in the record in question, so Goddard was correct in his statement.
You state:"I cannot not figure out anyway a mind, even Goddard’s, can come to this conclusion" Well, it's obvious that you didn't even try. An objective person would have contacted Goddard to ask for clarification.
I would suggest that you be honest & rescind your statement that Goddard's first statement was "a straightforward lie.
You make the same mistake in trying to prove Goddard wrong in his second claim, you change his claim. Goddard did not claim that the average sea level in 2011 was lower than 2003. He said SL IS lower NOW than it was in 2003. Look in the dictionary; the definition of NOW is:"At the present time or moment" According to my arithmetic 0.484 IS lower than 0.488. So I would also suggest that you correct your final paragraph stating that "Goddard wasn't even correct about sea level being lower than the end of 2003/start of 2004."
Expecting that you are interested in facts, I expect you to post my comment, apologize to Goddard & correct your errors.
Thanks, in the interest of science, which is based on facts.
Thanks for the interesting comment. This blog has only been up for a few months and although it gets a respectable number of hits it gets few comments and even fewer with a more contrarian viewpoint which I would encourage, and they will always be published as long as they are not just pure abuse - Welcome.
DeleteI also agree with your assertion that science is based on facts, but more than that, it is based on all the relevant facts. Facts should not be chosen – cherry picked – to support a viewpoint while ignoring almost all the available data.
It is also true that a declining trend can be found by choosing a particular year, since the final year is anomalously low. But I have checked the data and there is still an upward trend using 2006 to 2011 figures. The trend does start to decline from 2007. But all this specific selection of a year to support an already stated conclusion and ignoring all the other data is Cherry Picking not science.
But an even finer piece of cherry picking is to say that NOW is lower than some other point. That can be a simple true fact, but meaningless. Scientifically that single fact without context says nothing. Goddard has said this in his grandly sounding ‘Global Warming Report Card’, (which contains an error that Goddard has accepted but not corrected), with the clear implication that it means something of significance – nay that it is actually part of this; "The massive bulk of evidence indicates that nothing is wrong, and that Hansen, Mann and the rest of the hockey team are not being honest with us.” It is not evidence for any sound conclusions about future sea level rise.
As for your suggestion that I rescind my statement about Goddard’s claim being a lie, apologise and correct my errors – I think that is somewhat premature. I see no errors. He did not make any claim about a declining trend but specifically that sea level had been declining for several years. It hasn’t. Goddard’s statement is and remains incorrect. He has had plenty of opportunity to address this in his own blog where I have been pointing it out but has said nothing about ‘trends’ and even started with another post, “Clueless Alarmists”, http://www.real-science.com/clueless-alarmists, where the claim that “Sea level has been declining for several years″, is not mentioned.
And as I have shown above, average sea level has never been lower at any time since the Envisat recorded started. I’m sure that being interested in the scientific facts, you will agree that average annual sea levels are a more relevant measure than a single point that just happens to fit in with Goddard’s bias.
Thank you for allowing my post & for your reasoned response. But I would take exception to a few things that you stated.
DeleteFirst, you say you've checked and there is still an upward trend using 2006-2011 data. That is not correct. Just like you, I imported the data into Excel & the trend using all the data from the first 2006 data point thru to the end of the record at the end of 2011, Excel calculates a negative trend of -0.012/century. Small yes, but negative nevertheless. And the more recent trends are even more negative; -0.063/century for 2007 to present, -0.169/century for 2008 to present, & -0.341/century for 2009 to present. Perhaps you are using a different dataset. I'm using the unadjusted sea level data upon which Goddard made his claims.
Second, your statement that Goddard "cherry picked - to support a viewpoint while ignoring almost all the available data."
As we just saw, the negative trend from the beginning of 2006 used 75% of the available data. That is not ignoring almost all the available data.
Third, is your assertion that Goddard 'cherry picked' data to support his viewpoint that "SL has been declining for several years"
Using all the data from a previous point to the present is the only way to make a claim over the period of your claim and is not cherry picking. If you believe it is, then perhaps you should criticize those who believe that the recent warming is alarming based on their use of ~1880 as their starting point, when in fact if they used the MWP or Holecene Optimum, the trends would be reversed.
Fourth, as to your "even finer piece of cherry picking to say that NOW is lower than some other point".
I would agree w/you if Goddard had chosen a mid-year low point in the annual cyclical SL data, but he was comparing the 2003 end-of-year high point with the 2011 end-of-year high point, an apples-to-apples comparison.
Fifth, I find your claim "He did not make any claim about a declining trend but specifically that sea level had been declining for several years" to be specious.
While Goddard didn't explicitly use the word trend, how do you quantify if sea level has been declining if not using a trend? While LSR trends should not be used to project into the future, they are a legitimate method of determining the direction of past events. He also didn't specify a specific number of years, but said several.
So clearly Goddard's claims are not a lie, & you should correct your false allegation. You could criticize him for not being specific, or that the negative trends were small, or if the future data shows increasing sea levels, you could also then post that Goddard' previous claims are no longer true, but as stated, Goddard's statements are correct.
“First, you say you've checked and there is still an upward trend using 2006-2011 data. That is not correct.”
DeleteI have added the graph to my graph page; it currently appears as the last one;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/hnc-compaison-graph.html
My data is from the link on Goddard’s page;
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_GIA_NoAdjust.txt
Perhaps you can compare it to yours and discover where the discrepancy lies, though it does not alter my argument in any way.
“As we just saw, the negative trend from the beginning of 2006 used 75% of the available data. That is not ignoring almost all the available data.”
Now you are having a laugh. Goddard never mentioned any trend – you did – and you know exactly how much data Goddard has used because you stated it in your ‘apples-to-apples’ claim. He compared ‘the 2003 end-of-year high point with the 2011 end-of-year high point’. That is two data points and is 0.6% of the entire data set.
Are you claiming that your ‘apples for apples’ reasoning means that Goddard is right to highlight this as a significant piece of evidence that “indicates that nothing is wrong, and that Hansen, Mann and the rest of the hockey team are not being honest with us”? Because he didn’t see any significance in the higher sea level points at the end of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010.
“how do you quantify if sea level has been declining if not using a trend?”
Well Goddard apparently manages to do it by drawing rings around high points in different colours;
http://www.real-science.com/clueless-alarmists
Goddard has never mentioned ‘trend’ in relation to this, in either his original post nor the ‘Clueless Alarmists’ one, nor in any of the many comments he has made across both these posts. If he meant some sort of trend he would have said it, if not originally, immediately on being challenged. He has not and for him to do it now when you have been so kind to point out what he must have been thinking would be rather convenient.
It is very heart warming to see that you are so concerned about possible false allegations but there is something that troubles me that you might care to explain.
You clearly think I should apologise and correct my errors and your perceived false allegations on my part - Very commendable.
But it is clear that I do no think that I have made any false allegations. If I did what would you think of me if I admitted errors but refused to either apologise or correct those errors?
Because the problem I have is that you seem unconcerned that Goddard has made and admitted an error about the US cooling since 1895 that has so far gone uncorrected in the original post and remains uncorrected in a PDF version available for anyone to download from the ‘Science & Public Policy Institute’.
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/02/understanding-climate-change-denial.html
I have noticed that you do comment on his blog but like the other ‘skeptics’ there you do not seem to have any issue with people finding errors and Goddard not correcting them and not apologizing to those who initially spotted them even after they were flamed as ‘scum’, liar, FOS etc.
Perhaps you have a very valid reason for not having the balls to speak out against such behaviour there, even when those uncorrected errors could cause people to be misled. But until you express your reasons you must accept my apologies for thinking your concern for promoting honesty and truth is itself not really what your agenda is here.
I observe from your second post, that you avoid addressing the specific issues that I raise and merely create some distractions.
Deletea)re:my 1st point(2006-2011 trend), you fail to do-the-science to check my claim, or perhaps you did & found that my claim was correct(because it is). The distraction here is that you refer to a graph of the data you posted, but that graph does not address the issue raised about the 2006-2011 trend being negative. You then avoid responding to my question by tossing the ball back to me w/"Perhaps you can compare it to yours". I got the data the same place you did & the trend over the last several(six qualifies) years is negative. Are you just refusing to admit that you are wrong because you figure that most readers won't 'do-the-science' themselves to discover your error? You conclude your response to my first point by saying "though it does not alter my argument in any way". Really? If the trend in sea level over the last several(six) years is negative, that doesn't alter your argument that Goddard lied when he said that sea level had been dropping for several years?
b)re:my 2nd point (challenging your allegation that Goddard had ignored "almost all the available data", you totally avoid the issue of quantity of data over the most recent several years of data by raising the non-germane "Goddard never mentioned a trend, you did". So you criticize me for using a trend to determine if sea level had dropped over the last several years. Let me ask you this question: how did you attempt to prove that Goddard lied in his claim that sea level had been dropping over the last several years? Your graph has a straight line running through it & the text says:"a trend line clearly shows". It is disingenuous for you to criticize me for using a trend line to prove/disprove a claim about increasing/decreasing levels when you yourself have done the exact same thing. Then you add the distraction of 'moving-the-pea' in your shell game when you switch the discussion from the recent six year trend to Goddard's second claim using two points in time.
c)Next re:my 5th point(how do you quantify if sea level has been declining if not using a trend", you fail to address the trend question at all. Perhaps because it would be embarrassing to admit that you evaluated it exactly the same way I did, with a trend, as I pointed out above. You attempt to distract by calling attention to Goddard's 'rings' around the maximum SL data points. Nothing bogus about that. Land based station temp data records max & min values. These are used in data analysis. It is just an ploy to avoid answering the trend question and admitting that you were wrong.
Your final verbose distraction is an exercise in the logical fallacy of relevance. You attempt to prove that I am wrong in my claim the your claims that Goddard was wrong & lied was erroneous, by saying that I have not attempted to correct any alleged errors of Goddard. Whether or not I have done that has no bearing on whether you are incorrect in your claims that Goddard was wrong or 'lied' in the subject of this discussion.
Thank you for your time. I have seen enough to conclude that just like most CAGW advocates, you stubbornly refuse to admit to any error. You play games of distraction, logical fallacies, avoiding answering the question asked, etc., all so you can avoid admitting that you were wrong. It is so common among CAGW alarmists. Whether you want to admit it or not, nature is not cooperating w/your CAGW meme. It's being broadly recognized & I'm sure it causes you much consternation & anxiety.
My observation that skeptics admitted their errors & moved on but CAGW advocates refused to moved me to the skeptic side. Science admits its errors when confronted with facts that show it to be wrong. Advocates & propagandists don’t.
“I observe from your second post, that you avoid addressing the specific issues that I raise and merely create some distractions.”
DeleteI’m afraid you do not seem to have understood my post. Any created distractions are in your own mind.
“ but that graph does not address the issue raised about the 2006-2011 trend being negative.”
My graph shows the trend – it isn’t negative. You claim you have done a similar analysis and it is – that is why you have the ball back.
And it doesn’t alter my argument in any way, because my argument isn’t about your trend but about Goddard’s claims of a decline over several years when specifically referring to end of year high points which demonstrably have not declined for several years.
“ So you criticize me for using a trend to determine if sea level had dropped over the last several years.”
No I don’t criticise you. I have been criticising Goddard. But if you want a point of criticism, I am never going to accept your apparent physic ability to know Goddard’s mind better than either he or me.
“how do you quantify if sea level has been declining if not using a trend", you fail to address the trend question at all.”
Of course I do. Your trend isn’t relevant to anything Goddard has claimed. He doesn’t use one or mention one. Don’t pretend he does just because you think that is what he must have been thinking – he is not really that bright.
“Your final verbose distraction is an exercise in the logical fallacy of relevance. You attempt to prove that I am wrong in my claim the your claims that Goddard was wrong & lied was erroneous, by saying that I have not attempted to correct any alleged errors of Goddard. Whether or not I have done that has no bearing on whether you are incorrect in your claims that Goddard was wrong or 'lied' in the subject of this discussion.”
There is no fallacy. Your motives are highly suspect. You do not have the balls to question the integrity or rigour of someone who is allowing an erroneous and misleading document to be distributed. Yet you think I should accept your interpretation of what someone else was thinking. You are not physic and Goddard has had ample opportunity to explain his words – he has not and moved on leaving it up to his lap dog.
“My observation that skeptics admitted their errors & moved on”
At least be honest and mature enough to say that these admitted errors remain uncorrected and this is an unethical thing to do.
Re:my point a); When I looked at the SL graph you added in the 'graphs' area, I was almost certain it was the full data set from 2004, but now I see that it begins at 2006. So I'll set aside the possibility that it may have changed since I first looked at it and now, & admit that your 2006-2011 graph shows a positive trend. So why is your trend since 2006 positive while mine is negative?
DeleteWell, I found your error. Goddard provided a link to the data he used in his post & that data is unadjusted. The link you provide above to supposedly "that data" is adjusted! Your link says "_GIA_" while Goddard's link says "_NoGIA_". GIA is Global Isostatic ADJUSTMENT! It is adjusted data, not Unadjusted, as your graphs are mistakenly labeled.
It's hard to imagine how you mistakenly used different data than Goddard, since he provided a link. You obviously didn't follow his link. Or if you did, you didn't like the results, so you used data that was adjusted for GIA. Regardless, now you can admit your mistake, correct your graphs to use the proper data, & retract your claim that Goddard lied.
"Goddard’s claims of a decline over several years when specifically referring to end of year high points which demonstrably have not declined for several years"
OK, plot his end-of-year high points: Negative trend!
Plot his end-of-year (not necessarily highest) points: Negative trend!
Any way you cut it, using the same unadjusted data Goddard did, SL has been declining for several(6,5,4,3) years.
At least be honest and mature enough to say that you mistakenly(or unethically & deceptively if it was purposeful) used the wrong data, sea level HAS been declining for several years and retract your accusation that Goddard lied.
"Your motives are highly suspect"
Really, why would you think that? I've respectfully stuck to facts & data.
"integrity or rigour of someone who is allowing an erroneous and misleading document to be distributed"
Since you've been proven to be in error, I expect you will have the integrity to correct all your errors in this blog post.
“Well, I found your error. Goddard provided a link to the data he used in his post & that data is unadjusted. The link you provide above to supposedly "that data" is adjusted! Your link says "_GIA_" while Goddard's link says "_NoGIA_". GIA is Global Isostatic ADJUSTMENT! It is adjusted data, not Unadjusted, as your graphs are mistakenly labeled.”
DeleteWell I’m glad you think you have found MY ERROR but I have used the same link as Goddard. Both Goddard’s and my links say GIA not NoGIA. Both also say No-Adjust, meaning no adjustment.
We have used the same data – want to try again before you claim yet another error on my behalf?
“It's hard to imagine how you mistakenly used different data than Goddard, since he provided a link. You obviously didn't follow his link. Or if you did, you didn't like the results, so you used data that was adjusted for GIA. Regardless, now you can admit your mistake, correct your graphs to use the proper data, & retract your claim that Goddard lied.”
And then you might like to apologise for your error and what you also said above. Then if you try to stop finding fault and look for a dependency between my graph using Goddard's link and the one you claim to have made we could move on.
Odd! I have received a email that OldOne has posted a comment here but it hasn't appeared and the spam filter is clear. If you have posted one there may be an issue with the site, I definitely haven't deleted anything. If you have a copy I'd suggest trying to post again if it doesn't show up soon.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIsn't that interesting? I've posted my last reply several times & each time it says:"Your comment was published", but when you go back, it's not there!
DeleteYou claim:"I definitely haven't deleted anything". So what have you done? Block me? Is that what you do when you are shown to be posting LIES & don't want to admit it?
My, my. You are reinforcing the point I made in an earlier post: CAGW alarmists stubbornly refuse to admit their errors. Why do you persist in denying that you made an error & used a different data set than Goddard? Do you think that people won't take the time to check out what you say?
DeleteI'll make that easier for them. Here is the link to Goddard's post that makes the two claims that you attempted, but failed, to refute: http://www.real-science.com/clueless-alarmists
In that post, he provides the following "Aviso link": ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_NoGIA_NoAdjust.txt Do you see that Lazarus? _NoGIA_ That means NO Global Isostatic ADJUSTMENT, just like the title of Goddard's graph (Unadjusted) accurately indicates.
Your "that data" link above is to: ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_GIA_NoAdjust.txt Do you see that Lazarus? _GIA_ A Glacial Isostatic ADJUSTMENT has been applied to the data that you use. The title of your graphs FALSELY say "Unadjusted".
So your statement "We have used the same data - want to try again before you claim yet another error on my behalf?" IS yet another error of yours.
con't.
DeleteIf anyone questions the _NoGIA_ / _GIA_ issue or would like to go directly to the data source themselves to see that what I am saying is true, here is the link: http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
Click on "Time serie" and "Envisat" satellite. Then in the corrections area, click on the "not applied" & "not removed" buttons. You will see Goddard's data plotted & you can click the "Download the data (ASCII) to get the tabular data. If you click on the GIA "applied" button, you get Lazarus's data. Compare the two data sets. Goddard uses Unadjusted data while Lazarus used GIA Adjusted data. You ARE using different data than Goddard.
Con't 2.
Delete"if you try to stop finding fault"
Really?!? Your whole post was "finding fault" w/Goddard. I'm merely trying to find the truth of the matter. And I have. You used the wrong data.
It's way past time to quit your hand-waving & obfuscation & just admit your multiple errors, retract your claim that Goddard lied & move on. You are providing more & more evidence that you don't care about the facts of science, you care about continuing to promote erroneous claims. It's becoming very clear who the real denier is.
Well, even though my comment was below the 4096 char limit, it wouldn't stay posted as a single post. Looks like it's there now after I split it into 3 separate comments.
DeleteSomething strange does appear to be going on.
Oh dear OldBoy,
DeleteYou have really made yourself look like an arse. I have found where the discrepancy lies, and yes people will be able to check it out. Notice that I have always called it a ‘discrepancy’, quite willing to believe that I may have made an error or that we were just looking at things from a slightly different perspective.
What makes you look like such an arse is that you have insisted I must have made an error and must apologise for it. Even suggesting, very disingenuously that I didn’t like the results and rather sarcastically that you found it hard to imagine how I could have made such mistake.
This has continued now by suggesting that I have blocked you to stop you from showing I have posted ‘LIES’ – your us of CAPS – and don’t want to admit it. The problem is that the discrepancy, or error if you prefer, is not my doing and I was using Goddard’s data all along.
My post clearly states that it is about “one of the claims Goddard makes in his 2012 Global Warming Report Card.” The link to the data appears below Goddard’s graph in that post. I have also linked to it in this post before my own reconstruction with the hyperlink ‘that data’. I have also given the same link in my second post above;
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_NoIB_RWT_GIA_NoAdjust.txt
Open any of these links, the one above, the‘that data’ hyperlink and Goddard’s own link and you get exactly the same page. I am clearly not in error for using the data that said I did - the data from Goddard’s Report Card post.
Unfortunately you have made yourself look intolerant, self-righteous – a bit of a tit really – by using the link to the data in the post that was Goddard’s response to this post – and that is different! You really should be a real sceptic and check out Goddard’s claims rather than believe them just because they are what you need to hear.
So not only did Goddard do a counter post to this one where he conveniently didn’t mention his claim that “Sea level has been declining for several years”, he didn’t even link to the same data to try and counter my claims.
So I suggest you apologise because it is clear that everything I did was in good faith, and you were never blocked, and for the silly ranting and disingenuous claims that the error was either mine or I didn’t like what it showed. Then go back to Goddard’s site and tell him that he has made you look a total buffoon because he didn’t link to the same data set as in his original post.
Why Goddard has claimed to have used Unadjusted Sea Level data if he hasn’t is something I’m sure you will pursue with Goddard as ferociously and single mindedly with him as you have here to get to the truth, or perhaps you already knew what he was thinking as you are apt to claim?
Run along now and be a good chap.
I have just noticed then even though Goddard has long lost interest, OldBoy has already been on his site making claims about me by saying I'm playing games by stopping him posting proof.
DeleteDefinitely something about the way deniers think. Why would I block someone and then comment to say I had an email about a post from them that hadn't appeared?
I would think a retraction and an apology for the unsupported accusations made about me at Real Science, would be the least anyone with integrity would issue.
You knew that the data & plot I was referring to was from Goddard's "Clueless alarmists" post because you responded to my post there saying:"I have replied to your comment". So that has always been the data in question.
DeleteBut you know what? It doesn't make any difference. Even if you use the GIA adjusted data, both of Goddard's claims are correct and your allegations that he lied are incorrect.
Using the GIA adjusted data, SL has been declining for the last five years at a rate of 0.033/century & that qualifies for several.
And it's also true that the most recent data point of end-of-2011, 0.4865, is lower than the comparable end-of-2003 value of 0.4875.
So Goddard is still correct about both of his sea level claims & you are incorrect. Admit your errors, retract your accusation that he lied, give up your snottiness(OldBoy). The only mistake Goddard made was to mis-label his SPPI graph "Unadjusted". If you want to criticize him for that, go ahead. That's the only valid criticism you can make.
"retraction and an apology"
I have done that at RealScience where I have posted. I have also pointed out that title of his SPPI graph is incorrect.
Now it's time for you to do the same here. Apologize for accusing Goddard of lying & update your post to reflect that SL has been declining for the last five years & SL is lower now (most recent data) than it was for the comparable time in 2003.
I showed my integrity. Now let's see if you have any integrity.
So I was right to question your motives all along. You have no interest in finding any truth. Form your very first post here you made it clear that I had to be untrustworthy, that I might not even allow your post that I wasn’t honest, in error and needed to apologise.
DeleteThis was because I won’t accept you physic mind reading abilities and accept your version on ‘truth’ where Goddard means something he hasn’t explicated stated.
Your ‘truth’ also relies on two single data points, “comparing the 2003 end-of-year high point with the 2011 end-of-year high”- two single points in over 330.
Your refusal to criticise Goddard’s admitted error, saying its just as distraction while suggesting I should “criticize those who believe that the recent warming is alarming based on their use of ~1880 as their starting point”, is the least of your double standards.
Nothing in my above post is in error. Goddard is incorrect to claim sea level has been declining for several years -he did not qualified any cherry picked ‘trend’ as you are so desperate to claim, and his lower now than 2003 claim isn’t significant, relying on just two data points and ignoring that this is the first time in the record that it happened while the in fact the annual average is still greater.
You have shown you already had all the answers, and ‘truth’ you needed from you first post – I was an untrustworthy liar who was not seeing the world like you and this made me the type of person who wont admit errors and if show to be wrong would likely block or censor your ‘truth’. I was a typical conspiratorial ‘warmist’ liable to alter and misuse data to my own ends. This was your position from you first post and still is. What a scary place your mind must inhabit with most the worlds qualified scientists, and ‘liars’ like me pitted against poor unqualified Mr. Goddard who tells you what to believe.
So your fundamentalist position ended up making you come across as an arse but this has childishly continued .
You have now posted on Goddard’s blog; “Well, perhaps Lazarus isn't playing games”
DeleteWhere is a shred of evidence that earns me the qualifier of ‘perhaps’? Then you suggest I should have provided an explanation for your posting difficulties when I have no power over how ‘Blogger’ works. You give no acknowledgement that I posted when I thought there was a problem with it!
You go on to say; “So Steve, the title (Unadjusted) of the graph in the SPPI report is incorrect… BUT, it really doesn't alter your conclusions.”
A big BUT! So why does it not make a difference that Steve has made yet another error, BUT it did make such a difference when you only thought I did? You were full of theories when you insisted I used different data from Goddard, insinuating by your disbelief that by making such an error, I was pretty dumb, or worse I knew all along but picked different data because I didn’t like the results – and this was evidence that I didn’t “care about the facts of science”.
So it strikes me that if you are “merely trying to find the truth of the matter” and you “care about the facts of science”, you must have a theory about why Goddard would use a data set and claim it was ‘Unadjusted’ when it wasn’t, then when challenged use a different data set to make a counter challenge. Why express no incredibility that he could have done such a thing? Is he just a bit dumb or didn’t he like the results? And why is it unimportant that he corrects yet another error on his blog but so vital for you that I do if I “care about the science”?
But you have done your self no favours in regard to looking like a rational person here either. You now claim that I knew that the data your were referring to wasn’t the one this post was about – as if you knew they were different all along and that I should have. And you restate that now it “doesn't make any difference”.
Apparently this very qualified and guarded response amounts to your version of a retraction and apology. So what have you actually retracted by suggesting a chance that I wasn’t “actually playing games”? What have you apologised for here? That your sorry I was too dumb to know that you were referring to Goddard’s changed data?
You have no integrity. Everything I have done here has been in good faith. There is nothing wrong in not accepting your interpretations of Goddard’s words or believe you know what he really meant to say. But it is wrong to allow known, agreed errors to go unchallenged and uncorrected. That is what someone with integrity will do.
They wouldn’t claim that only those errors need correcting and apologising for in the interest of truth and science when it looks like they are made by someone you have already decide must be a liar, but suddenly don’t make any difference when the error is from those that you hero worship.
After the evidence of science proves you wrong, you continue to state:"Nothing in my above post is in error."
DeleteWOW! Just incredible! I stick to science and you ignore the two facts that I point out & stare you in the face.
Fact #1: Using either data set, SL has declined over the last 5 years, which qualifies as several, so Goddard was correct & you were wrong.
Fact #2: Using either data set, SL is lower now than it was in 2003, so Goddard was correct & you were wrong.
That is the truth of the matter which I set out to determine & found to be the case. Refute those two facts instead of going off on an ideological rant accusing me of wrong motives, psychic mind nonsense, refusal to criticize Goddard's error(I called his attention to it), hero worship, etc.
You go off on my comment to Goddard,"BUT it really doesn't alter your conclusions", but you ignore the fact that it is TRUE! Sea level has declined for the last 5 (instead of 6) years, & Sea level is now lower than it was in 2003.
"you must have a theory about why Goddard would use a data set and claim it was ‘Unadjusted’ when it wasn’t"
Yes, he made a mistake & linked to the wrong data set & therefore had an incorrect title. I expect that being honest & having integrity he will admit it & move on, like I did when you challenged me.
What is very telling is that you have failed to admit YOUR errors, correct them and move on. You are demonstrating that you have no integrity by your own definition! Like many CAGW true believers I have interacted with, you stubbornly refuse to admit ANY error. Your own actions are proving you to be nothing more than an ideologue who is not interested in facts, truth, or science, but in stubbornly clinging to false allegations because you don't agree w/someone.
You accuse me of having no integrity, after I do what you say a person w/integrity would do. But when I challenge you to do the same, you refuse & attack me w/accusations of lacking integrity. Everyone can see that I am the rational person & you are the ideologue.
"Everything I have done here has been in good faith"
Does your definition of "good faith" include continual denial of facts of science staring you in the face, refusal to acknowledge integrity of others when demonstrated by your own definition, and then not following your own definition of integrity?
OldOne you are getting tedious as well as childish.
DeleteI repeat, you have absolutely no interest in truth or integrity. You made it clear from your first post that the only thing you were interested in was trying to brow beat a dishonest alarmist who would likely block or censor you and fraudulently manipulate data. There was never any chance that you were ever going to be able to have a mature rational discussion here – you didn’t want one.
Even setting that aside your arguments and evidence are woeful. There are really only two issues.
The first, that Goddard incorrectly claimed sea level had been declining for several years. It hasn’t. Your whole argument relies on you believing you know better than me what Goddard meant despite what he actually said. No one of any sane mind is going to accept your apparent physic ability, that includes me. This is not science that you claimed you stick to, so good luck with that. He has never ever mention the word ‘trend’ in relation to this and even in his counter post to this one he even dropped the claim altogether and now we know he used different data. You have absolutely no other evidence other than what you think he meant.
The only errors here are Goddard’s mislabelling his graph, which if you remember needed a correction an apology from me when you thought I had done it, and your error for insisting I had used different data from Goddard.
As to the second issue, that sea level is lower now than it was in 2003, I still haven’t got my head what your argument against this is. I said he had ignored almost all the relevant data and you even agreed that he was just “comparing the 2003 end-of-year high point with the 2011 end-of-year high”. You even made the comment that when he said ‘now’ he really meant now at this particular time. I couldn’t make up a better example of cherry picking than that. It would be exactly the same if I showed that today in 2012 was warmer than the same day in 2004 and claimed that was of great significance in proving global warming. Anyone who believes that would be an idiot but that is exactly what you are arguing for.
There is no error in either my data or reasoning in any of the above. To continue to claim I stubbornly refuse to admit some, makes you look both desperate and ridiculous, and it will be clear for anyone following these comments and your last one over at Goddard’s place, if they haven’t got bored with you already, is that things haven’t been going that well for you.
As to your integrity; you mention admitting errors and moving on, does that include correcting them? Goddard hasn’t and it is unlikely he ever will when you tell him it matters not. You show you have no interest in getting errors rectified except when subject to your double standards. You also conveniently ignored key points in my last post. One was trying to determine the scope of one of your claims. What exactly did you retract and what exactly have you apologised for?
You say:"You made it clear from your first post that the only thing you were interested in was trying to brow beat a dishonest alarmist who would likely block or censor you and fraudulently manipulate data."
DeleteYou are getting too silly now in your continued attempt to distract, obfuscate, & stubbornly refuse to admit to any errors. Would you kindly quote from my first post to give evidence of where I: 1)"brow beat" you 2) said anything about "dishonest alarmist" 3) gave any indication of concern about "block or censor"ing 4)made any accusations of fraudulently manipulating data.
Also explain why you responded to my first post with: "Thanks for an interesting comment" and said nothing then about my clear intentions of brow beating a dishonest alarmist who would likely block or censor you and fraudulently manipulate data, if it was so clear.
Actually I think your statement above is a classic example of projection. Why? Because you will find no evidence of your claims in my first post, but look at your own blog post (not comment): "Goddard's first claim ... looks like a straigt forward lie"[your emphasis] & "It can only be deliberate misrepresentation."[your emphasis] Well Lazarus, seems the evidence shows that you are the one who "had no interest in truth or integrity" & "brow beat" & was accusing others of "fraudulently manipulate data". Textbook projection.
I repeat:
Fact #1: Using either data set, SL has declined over the last 5 years, which qualifies as several, so Goddard was correct & you were wrong.
You now resurrect your specious "psychic ability" & Goddard never mentioned the word 'trend' argument that I already addressed(& you ignored). To refresh your memory, you were the one who put a trend line on the data to show the 'trend' over the entire data set & said: "A trend line clearly shows" in order to prove Goddard wrong in his SL declining claim. But now, when I use a trend line to show if SL has declined, it is suddenly "psychic ability"! Did you use psychic ability, when you put a trend line on your graph?
Fact #2: Using either data set, SL is lower now than it was in 2003, so Goddard was correct & you were wrong.
You claim bewilderment:"I still haven't got my head what your argument against this is". It's simple. The present sea level (e-o-y2011) is lower than it was e-o-y 2003. That's a fact, just admit it.
Your "ignored almost all the relevant data" point is irrelevant to Goddard's claim about present level being lower than 2003, because the only relevant data is now & then, not all the data in between. The 'all the relevant data' issue only applies to trends over time where there is much data, not two data points.
"As to your integrity; you mention admitting errors and moving on, does that include correcting them? Goddard hasn’t and it is unlikely he ever will when you tell him it matters not."
Yes, it does. Goddard should either correct his graph title or change the link to point to the unadjusted data. And since you mention it, so should you, now that you know the data in the plot is adjusted data, not unadjusted data as your plot title indicates. Go ahead & lead the way & show that you have integrity & are interested in truth. And since SL has clearly been declining over the last 5 years and SL is now lower than in 2003, admit that your allegations of Goddard lying was incorrect, retract your false allegation, apologize for accusing him of deliberate misrepresentation & move on.
I see that your are reporting back to your master making claims that I wont accept errors I haven’t even made. I’m starting to feel sorry for you as you really seem to believe you know what Goddard meant even if he didn’t actually say it. And I know from the amount of preaching you do here you really want me to believe it as well. However I do not accept belief over evidence.
DeleteWhat I did not see in your masters’ report was any mention of an apology or retraction for your unsubstantial claims about me using different data from Goddard for nefarious reasons. The words ‘I apologise’ do not appear in any comment to me either. This just indicates how ethically crippled you are. It isn’t surprising you want to forget about your behaviour and move on because you look like a jerk.
I also see you have emailed Mr SPPI Ferguson highlighting another of Goddard’s mistakes. Shouldn’t that have been his job? Anyway good luck with that, I told him about Goddard’s admitted map error weeks ago and didn’t even get a reply. These people are not interested in correcting real errors. Please tell me if you get a reply, but how many days do you think is reasonable to wait before you would admit that you are either not going to get one, or that no correction is going to happen? You expected me to correct my post to fit your beliefs immediately but you told Goddard several days ago about his error and it remains – more double standards.
“Fact #1: Using either data set, SL has declined over the last 5 years, which qualifies as several, so Goddard was correct & you were wrong.”
Why do you keep saying this? It has NOT declined over 5 years. The *trend*, though insignificant over such a short time, has. I have never disputed it. I even told you which year the trend started in Goddard’s data because you got it wrong.
But Goddard never mentioned a declining *trend*, even when challenged – he also dropped any claim at all to a decline in his counter post.
If anything I have said about ‘Fact #1’ is provably wrong state it clearly.
“Fact #2 … It's simple. The present sea level (e-o-y2011) is lower than it was e-o-y 2003. That's a fact, just admit it.”
Why are you saying this? Don’t you read for understanding? I have never denied it. In the post above I said he had ignored almost all the relevant data to get that conclusion.
Are you embarrassed that you slipped up and agreed?
Just answer two simple questions. The first only requires a number – probably under ten so you won’t need to even remove your shoes and socks. The second answer only requires a YES or NO. Though a No answer would explains a lot about you.
Question #1
What is the minimum number of data point required to compare “the 2003 end-of-year high point with the 2011 end-of-year high”?
Question #2
Do you understand what “ignoring almost all of the relevant data” means?
“Would you kindly quote from my first post to give evidence of where I: 1)"brow beat" you 2) said anything about "dishonest alarmist" 3) gave any indication of concern about "block or censor"ing 4)made any accusations of fraudulently manipulating data.”
I apologise if you misunderstood. I did not mean that evidence appeared only in your first, but cane be deduced from that and subsequent posts.
"reporting back to your master ... ethically crippled ... jerk"
DeleteWhy do you continue to hurl insults? Still doing the projection thing, huh? I see that the 'psychic ability' thing came from your projection too, since you say in your 2/22 Legal Issues post "I feel a psychic certainty that this will be the case'.
"an apology" Your double standard is very typical of what I've seen from other CAGW advocates. I did apologize at RealScience where I had suggested that you wouldn't allow my post & I reported that I had done so here, so anyone could go to RS to see it. Yes, it was qualified, for 2 reasons. 1)I have no way of knowing if you had not allowed the full post & I got around it by splitting the post up into 3 shorter ones. You have provided no evidence of any blog problem explaining why my post wouldn't stay up, even though it said 'your comment has been published'. Now if you provide evidence like an email from blogspot saying they experienced a blog problem that didn't allow long posts to stay up, but short ones did stay up, then I would issue an unqualified apology. 2)Your followup post was worded very suspiciously as it was addressed to others, not to me, "Odd! I have received a email that OldOne has posted a comment here but it hasn't appeared and the spam filter is clear", with followup asking to repost. Exactly what one would write to give the appearance of not blocking, while actually blocking. Am I accusing you of lying about it? No, I'm just suspicious because my observations of your behavior. I don’t trust you any further than I could throw you, and that’s not far. Like the good book says 'By their fruits you shall know them'.
“I also see that you emailed Mr SPPI Ferguson … good luck with that”
I received a prompt response from Mr. Ferguson, thanking me.
Perhaps he didn’t respond to you because you were totally irrational, incoherent, in a blathering rant, like you have done here. Guess he can tell who is rational & who is irrational.
“It[SL] has NOT declined over 5 years. The *trend*, though insignificant over such a short time, has. … I have never disputed it”
What?!? Face palm[for your benefit: A spontaneous reaction to an amazingly stupid statement]. You admit that the trend over the last 5 years of every measured SL data point has declined, but you simultaneously claim that sea level has NOT declined? You are totally irrational! It’s a trend of sea level. If the trend is declining, that means that sea level is declining. WOW. You just keep spinning bigger & bigger whoppers, becoming more & more irrational as you do it. All just to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
“The present sea level (e-o-y2011) is lower than it was e-o-y 2003 … I have never denied it”
Double face palm. Then you are now admitting that Goddard’s 2nd claim is correct.
“In the post above I said that he had ignored almost all the relevant data to get that conclusion”
You conveniently ignore that I addressed that by pointing out that only 2 data points are relevant to that claim, the current one & the one you are comparing to. Perhaps you can understand this example. I say it was warmer at my house on New Year’s Day 2012 than it was on New Year’s Day 2003. The only 2 temps that are relevant are the temps on those 2 days. It makes absolutely no difference what any of the 3,000+ daily temps between then & now were. A second grader can understand that answer to your 2 questions. Can you?
“I apologize if you misunderstood. I didn’t mean that evidence only appeared in your first, but cane[sic] be deduced from that and subsequent posts.”
No, I didn’t misunderstand at all. You said: “You made it clear from your first post”. That means even from my first post, you could tell that I was doing all the things you accuse me of. You're now trying to move the goal posts in order not to admit that you were caught spinning another whopper.
Lazarus, you are hopeless.
So to recap all your evidence that I have made any errors amounts to two straw men.
ReplyDeleteErroneous claim #1
I deny there is a short term declining trend in the data
Fact #1
I correctly told you when that trend actually starred in Goddard's data.
Erroneous claim #1
I have denied Goddard's claim that 2011 high is lower than 2003 high.
Fact #1
My post actually embraces Goddard's claim to demonstrate cherry picking of two points while ignoring almost all of the relevant data.
So do you actually have any evidence that I have made any errors or are you just going to make some more stuff up?
Lazarus, I came here because I read some pretty scathing things about you on Goddard’s blog where you were posting. Such things as: “You are coming across as being a complete idiot”, “Lazarus, you are an idiot”, “Lazarus, you are scum”, “Do you enjoy behaving like a flaming ahole?”
DeleteBeing an open-minded scientist, I was skeptical that someone could really be that bad. So I thought I’d do my own experiment & make a fact-based post on your blog pointing out a couple simple things you got wrong, to see what your response would be.
Well, I have to thank you for giving me more than enough data to draw these concrete conclusions:
1)Goddard was too polite and spoke too highly of you in his descriptions of you.
2)You care nothing about science, facts & data because you are an ideologue.
3)You don’t listen or hear what others are telling you because you’re filtering everything through your CAGW colored lenses.
4)You are becoming more & more irrational as mother nature doesn’t cooperate & disproves your CO2-based pseudoscience.
5)You are hopelessly floundering in cognitive dissonance caused by your CAGW cargo-cult(save the world) pseudoscientific religion.
6)You stubbornly refuse to admit any error, like your fellow CAGW true-believers.
7)You relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with you with insults & smears.
8)You go round & round in circles with endless insanities when someone actually engages you in discussions because you are so lonesome you don’t really want them to leave you all by yourself.
9)You are a Gleicker! When you can’t find fault from what someone says, you make fake stuff up in order to continue your lies, smears & propaganda.
10)It’s worse that we thought! (You should like that one, since it’s such a familiar mantra in the Church of CAGW)
I had hoped this would have turned out differently, and gave you many opportunities to rationally discuss facts. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. It was probably too much to hope for from someone so obsessed that they create a whole blog solely to attack a single individual who differs from their views of climate science.
Flame me all you want, I won’t be commenting here further. I suspect that after the flames die down you will do a Winston Smith/Ministry of Truth(based on your trend-is-declining-data-is-not, being just like war-is-peace, freedom-is-slavery, ignorance-is-strength) & revise history here, in order to erase the horribly embarrassing butt-whopping you just got handed. But if you try it, you won’t be successful, because I can send Steve all my screen captures of our entire exchange. He'd probably enjoy documenting this bit of history for posterity & possibly future textbook case studies in group-think after the whole CAGW alarmist scare blows over & you guys say it never really happened.
Have a nice life. I really do hope things improve for you.
“I did apologize at RealScience where I had suggested that you wouldn't allow my post & I reported that I had done so here, so anyone could go to RS to see it.”
DeleteYou apologised at Real Science? Did they accept it? You really have no idea what the word 'apology' means do you? It’s hardly wrong to say you look like a jerk – you so clearly do.
“You have provided no evidence of any blog problem explaining why my post wouldn't stay up”
Oh I see. So would you propose I perhaps submit an FOI request to google to obtain posting records to prove my innocence to a nobody like you? You just assume possible guilt until then? I take it all back – you don’t look like a jerk – you are a jerk.
When I said I thought there might be a problem, that wasn’t enough? If I wanted to block you, I probably could have figured out how to do it and any one following the comments would have assumed that, like now, you ran away with your tail between your legs, and be none the wiser?
“I received a prompt response from Mr. Ferguson, thanking me.”
Now it’s may turn to be suspicious, because to date neither he, nor Goddard has taken the slightest bit of interest in correcting these errors. Perhaps you should send another email and say that a correction will make you look good? At least some good would come of it.
“You admit that the trend over the last 5 years of every measured SL data point has declined, but you simultaneously claim that sea level has NOT declined?”
You missed reading for comprehension classes? Read this very slowly; Sea level has not declined over several years. And please don’t come back repeating your nonsense again, wait until you learn the difference between decline over several years and a declining trend.
“Then you are now admitting that Goddard’s 2nd claim is correct.”
OMG - the boy has got it! Would you like to read the original post again and only then if you realise you ever had something to complain about, come back – otherwise you will just look more stupid.
“No, I didn’t misunderstand at all. You said: “You made it clear from your first post”. That means even from my first post”
Err..NO. It means from your first post. If I meant ‘even from your first post’ I would have said something like … oh I don’t know ….. something like, maybe ‘even from your first post’.
“I had hoped this would have turned out differently“
I’m sure you did. As one of Goddard’s disciples you had no doubt hoped your continuous preaching would have convinced me that you really know what Goddard was thinking despite what he actually said and I would have repented regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Sorry to disappoint, but your evangelism has failed.
“I suspect that after the flames die down you will do a Winston Smith/Ministry of Truth(based on your trend-is-declining-data-is-not, being just like war-is-peace, freedom-is-slavery, ignorance-is-strength) & revise history here, in order to erase the horribly embarrassing butt-whopping you just got handed. But if you try it, you won’t be successful, because I can send Steve all my screen captures of our entire exchange.”
You really do live in a very scary place – there may be medication that can help – but developing critical thinking and common sense would work even better. But I am sorely tempted to take down this thread just for the fun of seeing what happens.
“I won’t be commenting here further.”
Well I would sincerely like to say I’m sorry about that – but I’m not.
I dunno who OldOne is, but I don't think I know any scientists who would be so dull with facts as him.
ReplyDeleteOldOne made some very cogent points. The point is, sea level has been falling, during a time where AGW folks find it inconvenient to their cause. CO2 continues its increase, but the climate is not cooperating with the AGW alarmists view. Trying to find some technicality to confuse people from what's happening does not change the truth.
ReplyDeleteNo he didn't make any cogent points and neither have you. Sea level is not falling and as you say trying to confuse people does not change the truth;
Deletehttp://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Interesting
ReplyDelete