When I saw your post, I clicked the link to look at it again, in case I had been in error, but now the site is not coming up for me. So any comment on my part will have to wait until such time as that page appears again. [Jane Q. Public]
You're right, woodfortrees is down. Instead, you could try the Skeptical Science trend calculator which also provides uncertainty bounds on the trend. Notice that when you select UAH without restricting the time period, it only goes back to 1980 because that's when the satellite was launched.
All I saw was a graph with some years on the tick marks, and a line that looked like it was supposed to be a regression fit. Except that it went from the lowest point to near the highest point, which is not at all typical of a regression line. I saw nothing further to clarify it. The site seems to be having problems right now (10:16 pm CST). The page won't load. So there is no way to sort out the issue. [Jane Q. Public]
You could always download the UAH data yourself and run a least squares regression using your own software. I've done that using R; here's a PDF of my results. The regression line and its uncertainty come directly from R's generalized least squares algorithm. It looks similar to the regression lines from woodfortrees and SkS. (Both my trend and SkS's are closer to 0.14C/decade; perhaps this is because SkS and I haven't updated our local UAH datasets in over a year?)
The second page of my PDF calculates the trends and uncertainties of the UAH data up to 2012, for different starting years, using an ARMA(1,1) noise model. This graph shows why scientists prefer trends calculated over at least ~20 years. Shorter timespans, such as 1998-2012) have larger uncertainty bounds (the red lines in that graph are 95% confidence intervals).
Here is a graph of global temperatures using skeptic Roy Spencer's satellite reconstruction: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah-land/trend Temperatures have gone from -0.25 to 0.25 since 1980. That is 0.5C in 30 years or 0.16C/decade. [Layzej]
Here is a classic case of cherry-picking your data in order to try to prove your point. You are comparing the low temperature from one year to the high temperature of another. [Jane Q. Public]
That's nonsense, Jane. Click on "raw data" then scroll down:
#Time series (uah-land) from 1978.92 to 2013
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0175687 per year
So Layzej actually understated the warming trend, which his link calculates (not cherry-picks!) based on all the UAH satellite data to be 0.175C/decade.
Note that the supposed average starts at that low point on the left. In a curve that accounted for prior data, the line would start somewhat further up. [Jane Q. Public]
The supposed average? Do you mean the trend line fit to the UAH data with ordinary least squares? Also: what prior data? Again, there is no prior UAH data.
Also, look at the years chosen: if you choose instead 1998 to present, you end up with (roughly) 0.4 to 0.3, or a change of -0.4. [Jane Q. Public]
Again, this is nonsense. Layzej didn't choose any years, as anyone who glances at the URL can tell. He loaded the entire UAH dataset.
Ironically, right after baselessly accusing Layzej of cherry-picking data to show that the Earth is warming, you once again endorse cherry-picking a shorter timespan, despite the fact that shorter timespans have larger error bars.
These error bars can be shrunk by accounting for natural variability. I've recently discussed warming trends and uncertainties over the last 16 years. This graph removes natural variations like solar activity, ENSO, volcanos, etc. Notice that the warming trends since 1998 for all 5 adjusted datasets are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, and they're all statistically indistinguishable from the IPCC's projection.
I'm not arguing with you about AGW. I'm just saying that the evidence you have used to support your point is almost laughably weak. [Jane Q. Public]
No, you're not arguing about anthropogenic global warming; you're baselessly (and ironically) accusing Layzej of cherry-picking data to "try" to prove the obvious point that the world is warming as scientists predicted.
Jane, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It's staining your legacy and threatening the future of our civilization.
No, Lonny. The gizmag article you linked just shows that one type of dark energy (the cosmological constant) is more consistent with long-term observations showing that the proton to electron mass ratio (PEMR) has remained roughly constant over billions of years. Even wikipedia makes it clear that the cosmological constant is a type of dark energy:
In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe. Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously, and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space.
Because dynamic types of dark energy like quintessence tend to imply changes in the PEMR over billions of years, these observations suggest that physicists now have enough evidence to prefer a static type of dark energy- the cosmological constant. So why is Lonny once again wrongly claiming that dark energy is dead?
One reason might be these curious sentences in that gizmag article:
The concept of "dark energy" with a negative pressure was introduced to describe this acceleration.
A casual reader might conclude that dark energy's negative pressure distinguishes it from a cosmological constant, but both types of dark energy have negative pressure. In fact, I've explained to Jane Q. Public that "vacuum energy has pressure equal and opposite to its energy density" which is why its equation of state is w = -1. I continued, explaining why the universe's expansion accelerates for any w < -1/3.
Because -1 < -1/3, the cosmological constant's negative pressure accelerates the expansion of the universe. It is a type of dark energy, which accounts for roughly 3/4 of all the mass-energy in the universe.
... Just in case you would like something other than just my word that it hasn't warmed significantly in the last 2 or 3 years. Now, call that what you will, but it isn't the rantings of some crazy person. However -- again for the sake of truth and fairness -- the graphs in that article are misleading. They are the doings of the media, not the scientist being quoted. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-22]
When you claimed that climate scientists predict temperature trends on timescales of 8 or 9 years, I pointed out that 8 or 9 years is too short to obtain a statistically significant trend. Now you've tightened your self-imposed blinders even further by talking about 2 or 3 year temperature trends. Note that any 2 or 3 (or 8 or 9) year timespan would be too short to obtain a statistically significant trend. It's not something special about the last 2,3,8, or 9 years, so contrarians can recycle this talking point ad nauseum. That's the entire point of the Escalator, in fact. (Incidentally, at least 17 years are needed to establish a statistically significant trend of global surface temperatures.)
But let's read your article, Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague, by David Rose:
[Prof. Judith Curry] said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis.
Wow. These are very serious accusations. But are they valid?
The graph in Rose's article labelled "the inconvenient truth" is misleading, but mainly for the same reason that Jane's references to short term trends are misleading. Since that graph only shows 10 years of data, any conclusions drawn from it will be conclusions about the noise in the climate, not the long-term trend. But this isn't really the media's fault: Prof. Curry chose that absurdly short timespan herself by talking about the trend since 1998.
Also, the abrupt cooling shown in the BEST data in April and May of 2010 isn't real. Those months only include data from 47 stations in Antarctica, compared to March 2010 which has 14488 spread around the world. So April and May of 2010 don't represent global temperatures, and thus shouldn't be included in the analysis. That's also misleading, but again it's not really the media's fault.
In response to an accusation that the mentioned statements by Muller's colleague and collaborator, Judith Curry, are "lies" promoted by one biased newspaper, I offer the following [links to newspaper articles.] As I mentioned in the beginning, the graphs shown in some of these articles are misleading, because the time scales are completely different: [conspiracyblogging.com] In addition, if you really need more convincing, you can go to Curry's own blog and read her comment yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-22]
Less than a month before your comments, Anthony Watts also linked David Rose's article and also noted that "timescales don't match on graphs above". So there's no need to link to conspiracyblogging.com, even aside from the bigger problems described above (and below) with Prof. Curry's quotes in David Rose's article. (In fact, as of 2012-11-29, the entire conspiracyblogging.com domain seems broken. Perhaps the black helicopters got to them?)
All your newspaper articles repeat the claims made in David Rose's article, including James Delingpole's obviously unbiased Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again. I really do need more convincing, so I want to Prof. Curry's own blog and read her comments myself:
So Prof. Curry herself says that Rose's article misrepresents her in several ways, but she also repeats her accusation that Muller is "hiding the decline".
What Muller "confirmed" was the veracity of the initial data used by some of the models... NOT "results" of any kind. Muller's paper cannot honestly be called a "verification" of AGW in any way, even by the staunchest AGW defender. That isn't what it is.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-22]
The BEST study was intended to debunk claims like these:
Global Warming: is it even happening? Check out this magisterial report by our old friends Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and judge for yourself. In brief: the surface temperature records are such a mess that they simply can't be trusted. [James Delingpole, 2010-01-28]
But after the BEST results were announced, Delingpole apparently developed selective amnesia:
"The planet has been warming," says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he'll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go "baaaa"?
"4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished." Editors losing jobs, those expressing legitimate doubts ostracized, etc. Turned against temperature record skeptic Richard Muller the moment he announced that the temperature record was indeed accurate ("he was never a skeptic" - er yes he was, he was skeptical about the temperature record.) It went from "Any result Muller comes out with will be top work" to "Muller is a fraud" overnight. Dissenting opinions must be removed. [chrb, 2012-02-21]
It should also be noted that this statement by Muller was a 180-degree reversal from what he had repeatedly said before. That makes it highly suspect. Scientists don't just "change their opinions" about data.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-02-21]
Actually, being able to change one's mind after analyzing data is one defining characteristic of a scientist. I've repeatedly noted this in our conversations, and stressed it in my 2012 Earth Science Week article.
Note that Anthony Watts's attacks on Muller were a 180-degree reversal from his previous position: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they [BEST] produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." When Watts discovered that the BEST results confirmed the global temperature rise, he quickly called the paper "fatally flawed" . Anthony Watts then mocked Muller, WUWT moderator Smokey/dbs said that "Muller's actions are despicable", and Willis Eschenbach called the BEST team "media whores" twice before concluding that Muller is a "cunning snake"
Watts and Eschenbach accused Muller of "whoring for the media" because he publicized the study before it passed peer review (that's only okay when WattsUpWithThat does it). Furthermore, in 2010 Watts had publicized his non-peer-reviewed Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? which claimed that "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era(1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends."
In other words, Watts repeatedly claimed that sites classified as urban would show more warming than rural sites because of urban heat pollution. Of course, when actual scientists helped Watts get his paper through peer review, it grudgingly conceded that "overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications."
So Watts and Eschenbach were criticizing Muller for showing that global mean temperature trends aren't significantly contaminated by urban heat pollution... which Watts had essentially conceded in 2010.
That may be Muller's own opinion, but that is NOT what the Berkeley study says. The only thing Berkeley has done so far is to gather their own statistics about land surface temperatures. That data does -- roughly -- tend to support other climate scientists statistics about PAST surface temperatures. But that's ALL it does. So far they have not even compiled ocean temperatures yet... much less come to any conclusions about CAUSE. This article is nothing but more propaganda. The Berkeley study ONLY tends to confirm PAST, LAND, temperatures. That's all it does. They do not even have the data yet to even TRY to make conclusions about causes.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-29]
Good grief, not this again. Let's read Muller's article to see what prompted all your shouting this time:
What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Oh. You're shouting because Muller finally analyzed the data and drew the obvious conclusion. And you're insisting that this is "NOT what the Berkeley study says" and urging people to "read a bit further". So let's do that:
Human Effect Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend. The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes.
Despite Jane's suggestion, we really didn't need to read further. The Berkeley study is clearly saying the same thing as Muller. But let's keep reading anyway:
A more sophisticated analysis of the forcings and the details of the climate response may be able to improve upon the crude estimate offered here based solely on the linear combination fit.
Prof. Curry claims that this attribution is overly simplistic and is not convinced. That's a bizarre objection after contrarians have complained (baselessly) for years that climate models are overly complex:
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect - extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
... Repeat: the ONLY thing the Berkeley study has done so far is compile records of PAST temperature changes, and that for land only. Is it consistent with claims of CO2 warming? To the extent that it helps confirm that other groups haven't fudged their historical data, maybe. That's about all. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-30]
You're repeatedly shouting the word PAST, as though attribution studies are supposed to measure future temperatures and forcings... perhaps using a TARDIS?
... Further, mere days after Muller's announcement, the colleague who collaborated with him on the work denounced his claims, saying the report was "a huge mistake with no scientific basis". [Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-22]
... Further, when the claims of fraud come from his [Muller's] own lab partner, we should probably listen. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-02-21]
And if you think I'm blowing hot air (haha), first check out Berkeley's OWN description of the state of the study, and then check out Judith Curry's discussion of Muller's comments [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-29]
"You mean like Richard Muller who quite famously denounced anthropogenic global warming only to come to the same conclusion by his own means? Yeah, that opinion piece by him opens with 'Call me a converted skeptic.'"
You mean the same Muller whose co-researcher, immediately after his "revelation", accused him of fudging his research? That Muller? [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-20]
It's clear that Jane's impressed with Prof. Curry's accusations, which are based on these statements:
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project's research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties
There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998. [Prof. Judith Curry, 2011-10-30]
Does Prof. Curry have a scientific basis for these claims? Tamino tried to post a comment at Prof. Curry's blog asking her for that scientific basis, but she deleted it. So Tamino answered his own questions, showing that the BEST data have essentially identical trends before and after 1998.
I confirmed Tamino's analysis using the WoodForTrees database. As you can see by clicking "raw data" underneath the graph, the BEST trend from 1998 to 2010 is 0.22C/decade. Compare that to the BEST trend from 1975 to 1998, which is also 0.22C/decade. Apparently, that's what Prof. Curry considers a "pause/lag/slowdown". Much more importantly, the uncertainty in such short timespans is so large that no competent scientist would try to draw conclusions from them:
I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It's how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can't do that because 10 years from now, they'll look back on my publications and say, 'Was he right?' But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it's equally flat. You can find little realms where it's equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it's warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they're playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it wasn't warming simply shows that that method doesn't work. But no scientist could do that because he'd be discredited for lying with statistics. [Richard Muller, 2011-10-31]
Muller's right: over short timespans (e.g. 13 years) the temperature trend is so uncertain that Prof. Curry doesn't have a scientific basis for claiming that their data show a pause in warming. Muller even refers to the Escalator to show that this process noise has been present even as the world has rapidly warmed over the last few decades. And it's not like the BEST team ignored the myth that global warming stopped in 1998:
Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades. [Berkeley's results (draft), p26, 2011-12-15]
So the BEST team already discussed the warming since 1998, and contradicted Prof. Curry's claims. Note that their 95% confidence interval on the trend is way too small; perhaps they didn't account for autocorrelation. This underestimated uncertainty might be why these sentences were removed from the final version of the methods paper.
Jane Q. Public and other contrarians obviously aren't competent enough to analyze data, but Prof. Judith Curry is the Chair of the School of Ear th and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Prof. Curry is supposed to be a scientist, so she really should have analyzed the data before hurling baseless accusations of fraud at Muller. Sadly, no amount of evidence seems to matter: David Rose and Prof. Curry continue to blissfully repeat this misinformation.
Jane Q. Public, David Rose, Prof. Curry: please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It's staining your legacies and threatening the future of our civilization.
" Latour claims cooler bodies cannot affect warmer bodies, which Newton proved wrong centuries ago."
NOW who's overgeneralizing? Latour's claims are very specific; I see nowhere any claim that "cooler bodies cannot affect warmer bodies".
Latour's article says "The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands."
I still feel that you completely missed the boat, Phil.
I agree that what MOST people are talking about (comments in the code, etc.) are really no big deal. It is the other emails that concern me... like the ones that show deliberate (and very probably illegal) failure to honor FOI requests and so on. Also, emails that indicate that the data used was improperly handled. Take this exchange, for example (I posted this same link on your other blog entry):
THAT exchange is completely IN context, showing both sides. Yet it indicates that either they used improper data in their calculations, or possibly that they simply are not aware of what data they did use (which amounts to pretty much the same thing). What it does show, pretty clearly and in context, is that they made a mess of this whole study. Add to that the missing data (whether it was done on purpose or not), and what you have is BAD SCIENCE, completely aside from any conspiracy theories.
I am not crying conspiracy, and I don't give the slightest damn about this politics of this whole thing. But you are ignoring the real, demonstrable goofs that these people made... some very big goofs that call their whole set of data into serious question. And when you look at all the OTHER studies done that rely on this very same data... what you have is a travesty and a tragedy. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-12-04]
These are very serious accusations, Lonny. And they're all based on this WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach:
"One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like 'Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn't affect the results, it's still warming.' I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers.
Even if the methodologies used to establish the base data were sound, there is no doubt that it was later used improperly and irresponsibly. For months now, in these blog posts of Phil's, I have asked anybody - ANYBODY - to refute what is on this page: When Results Go Bad. I have had no takers. Not one. Anybody care to take a shot at it now? [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]
Sure, why not? The next day, Zeke Hausfather wrote When results aren't bad which shows that Prof. Karlen, Eschenbach and Eachus based their accusations on a misunderstanding of the geographical region represented in the IPCC's time series. The first link in Zeke's article leads to Lonny's comment.
I see. The "actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing"? Interesting! I would be very interested to see some evidence for that claim! Wait... don't bother. Just the other day I found some counter-evidence right here. And it only takes one counter-example to disprove a claim like that. So please... by all means show me where respected scientist Wibjorn Karlen is wrong in his assertions printed there. Hint: you can't. Strike 9. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-07-04]
Monbiot isn't a scientist. And Taylor is a new age tree hugger that thinks a meta analysis amounts to a hypothesis. Both are irrelevant. We need to get someone like climatologist Wibjorn Karlen to debate a warmist scientist. Then we'd get an interesting debate, and the people that can be convinced that GW isn't going to be a Roland Emmerich disaster movie, will get a good argument against CAGW. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-07]
... And what do you know about "the legitimacy" of the challenge? The stuff you saw on the news? Silly and relatively irrelevant stuff like "hide the decline", and dumb comments in computer code? Or do you actually know something about people like Prof. Wibjorn Karlen? Not some kook, this is somebody who actually collaborated with CRU staff on important climate papers.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
... But what is really the kicker, to me, is that you are quoting Kevin Trenberth as an example of a reputable, unbiased scientist! Come on, Phil, even you should know better than that. Trenberth has been caught in bald-faced lies on the subject both there, and in email exchanges with climate scientist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen.
... [Lonny Eachus, 2011-07-29]
Yes, scientific evidence. You seem to forget that not everything that is posted or linked to on WattsUpWithThat originated with Anthony Watts. They post some very good information by reputable scientists, among them Prof. Wibjorn Karlen, who collaborated with the folks at CRU on at least 4 papers that I know of, and probably more. (One paper was on tree-ring proxies, for example.) He knows his stuff. Karlen, and very definitely others, have a fine reputation in the science world, thank you very much. If you don't think so, then you must believe the people at CRU are themselves idiots, to collaborate on a climate paper with some kind of fool, eh? And yet Karlen, among other people, have found some very severe faults with the data that was cherry-picked for IPCC reports, for example. Watts himself, with a collaborator, was responsible for finding flaws in the statistical methods used by the Hadley Centre, CRU, and Mann in their research. Flaws that have been continued to be questioned by every body that has investigated their operations to date. Yeah, there's science there, all right. Real science. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-01-24]
If scientists don't bow to every absurd demand from contrarians, they're accused of shutting out dissent. If scientists do work with a contrarian, that contrarian is instantly respectable and has a fine reputation, so everything that contrarian writes is apparently endorsed by the scientific community. There's no way out of this catch-22, which is presumably the point.
Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus: please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It's threatening the future of human civilization.
It was a JOKE. Regardless, you somehow you missed the thread in which neutrino oscillation was actually adequately explained to me and I admitted that I was wrong. Gee, how could you have missed that part? It exists. Go look.
... [Jane Q. Public]
The last quote in my comment was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
Considering these claims led to interesting ideas. The Hamiltonians for MSW and vacuum oscillations are functionally identical in our universe. Parametric down-conversion of neutrinos seems to violate conservation of energy or imply radiation given lepton/B-L number conservation. Stimulated emission of individual neutrinos is impossible. The double-slit experiment is a good analogy for understanding the cause of neutrino oscillations. Others who found these ideas interesting might also enjoy this more productive 2010 conversation about neutrino oscillation.
To explain in a bit more detail: How would you feel, if somebody followed you around all the time, reciting mistaken comments you had made months or even years ago, and had long since publicly admitted were in error?
... [Jane Q. Public]
I agree with the AC that genuinely changing one's mind is admirable, but your "admissions" often seem like evasion tactics which exploit this admiration. For instance, 5 minutes after you "admitted" this mistake, you continued to imply that astrophysicists are confused.
Again, you still haven't provided a link to this other public admission of error. After you told me to go look for it, here's what I found:
"... STFU. Even with all the snide and insulting comments you have made so far, you have managed to add exactly nothing to the conversation that would actually be of use to anybody. Get stuffed, troll." [Jane Q. Public to Chris Burke]
Your estimate of utility seems comically backward, but my opinion is clearly worthless. So:
"... in case you did not know, "STFU" is hardly helpful or humorous. It's generally considered to be a nasty, arrogant thing to say (or write)." [Jane Q. Public to geekoid, 2010-09-16]
Are there any other admissions of error to be found?
This doesn't sound like you're admitting you were in error. It sounds like you're trying to pretend that you'd been joking the whole time. Others might not "know how to take a joke" because the language in your comments is "hardly helpful or humorous."
... why didn't you bother to repeat the part where I publicly posted where it was adequately explained to me, and that I understood and had been wrong? [Jane Q. Public]
Aside from the last quote in my comment? This is the third time you've made this claim without a link. After you told me to go look for this other admission, here's what I found:
I made an off-hand comment that maybe it was possible. People have since explained that it was not. My only argument here has been with people who have misunderstood my comments and have replied with arrogant, snide remarks about what they think I understand, and in some cases, about things I did not even write or ask.
To clarify somewhat: I do not deny making the comment, nor do I deny that I did not properly word it in such a way as to indicate its semi- tongue-in-cheek nature. And I did get -- from the very beginning -- that it wasn't the correct answer. But I did allow some to think I hadn't, simply because of the unnecessarily odious nature of their responses. As should be apparent from my comments above, I was aware that it wasn't likely a very realistic picture. [Jane Q. Public]
If you look at the nature of this person's responses to me, from the very beginning, you will have your answer. No matter the content of the conversation, I have no reason to be nice to insufferable assholes. The fact is that I know a hell of a lot more about this than I let on. But I wanted to give this person room to have his say. [Jane Q. Public]
So... you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations? That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.
... YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT! What is wrong with you?
... It isn't your PHYSICS I have an issue with, Khayman80, it's your behavior. ... [Jane Q. Public]
Your next statement reiterated your support for Latour's article, showing that you do have issues with physics... in addition to your (former?) issues with dark matter/energy, the Casimir effect, Maxwell's equations, neutrino oscillation, etc.
And I'd PREFER that you would take your skewed science elsewhere and leave me the fuck alone. [Jane Q. Public]
... I am not obligated to respect bad science just because you make a living at it.
... [Jane Q. Public]
Since you asked what's wrong with me, this is why I keep missing your point. First you insist that you don't have an issue with my physics, then you accuse me of making a living at skewed, bad science.
1. You've repeated your support for Latour's article, which is fractally wrong.
2. Scientific peer review requires rejecting bad papers. Scientists would only be conspiring to suppress legitimate papers if those papers were actually legitimate. Your baseless attack only required a few minutes of copy-pasting from hacked private emails. To debunk it, I'll have to spend months figuring out what papers those quotes refer to, examining their claims, linking to them, describing some of their worst mistakes, etc. And that's just one typical example out of dozens.
Again, if you’d prefer, I could post without replying to you so that I don't rudely interrupt you.
... I have to ask you one more time: what part of STOP STALKING MY CONVERSATIONS, GO THE FUCK AWAY, AND LEAVE ME ALONE do you not understand??? THIS is a prime example of arrogance, and it is demonstrably no joke. You need to go take a l-o-n-g look in the mirror. And then go the fuck away. I am serious. This is getting to the point of stalking and harassment. Do you really want to go there? [Jane Q. Public]
This bears repeating, Mr. "Khayman80": You appear to have some kind of unhealthy obsession with me and it has gone far beyond the point of simply rubbing me the wrong way. If you do not cease and desist voluntarily, I will be compelled to start looking into what other options may be available. [Jane Q. Public]
Don't flatter yourself. Debunking misinformation and defending scientists against baseless attacks are my unhealthy obsessions. It's hardly my fault that you're one of the most prolific misinformers I've ever seen. If you didn't want people responding to your claims, you probably should've written them in a notebook instead of on a public website. It's also strange that you call my responses to your public comments "stalking and harassment" while quoting hacked private emails from years ago to baselessly attack scientists.
YOU don't have somebody following you around and harassing you with months-old, off-topic comments all over Slashdot. If this had been the only example, I wouldn't mind. But he has done it many times. Frankly, he acts like a stalker and I don't know what his obsession with me is, but I don't appreciate it in the least, and if somebody had been doing it to you, you wouldn't either. [Jane Q. Public]
Let's consider some of the "many times" you mentioned. When I asked for references to support your claims about climate science, you called me a vindictive asshole. Then I responded to your claims about the Casimir effect hours before my presentation at the GRACE science team meeting. Afterward, I wrote another comment about negative energy, then went on vacation. After returning home, I found that you'd dramatically expanded the scope of your claims. When I responded, you complained that I'd taken weeks and accused me of being a stalker.
My response to your claims about neutrino oscillation was interrupted last summer by a cross-country move, after which research quickly diverted my attention. However, the charming comments you left at Dumb Scientist in June reminded me that you hadn't retired. When I responded, you complained that I'd taken MONTHS and accused me of pathetic personal attacks. When I responded just now to your claims about neutrino oscillation, you complained that I'd taken too long and accused me of being a stalker. But refuting your claims about neutrino oscillation is a prerequisite to refuting your other claims about Latour's article, which you've asked for:
Where is your refutation of any argument I made HERE, in this thread? Where is it?
Again, you sidestep my question. Why can't you answer it? It is an article about physics. Would you like to refute the actual content? The fact is that I suspect you will not actually address this.
I'll prove you both wrong. Again, patience.
More generally, you seem to be asserting that there's a statute of limitations on debunking misinformation. Apparently, if your baseless attacks against scientists aren't answered immediately, they should remain unchallenged forever. I disagree. Gish Gallops are effective because repeating nonsense only takes a few seconds, but researching and debunking that nonsense often takes days. As a result, I'm months behind in debunking your misinformation. Each time you repeat more nonsense, you're just delaying the blissful day when we can finally ignore each other.
I'm posting my comments as replies to your most recent comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground. If you'd prefer, I could post without replying to you so that you could ignore me more easily. I haven't done that so far because it seemed like debunking you without giving you a chance to respond would lead to accusations of cowardice.
But I can't just ignore the misinformation that you've helped spread, because some of it threatens the future of human civilization.
Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.