I want to make it clear what I’m trying to get across, so perhaps I can explain it this way. The example I will use is the “refutation” of Lucia’s falsification of IPCC projections. This is not, and never was, a refutation - it was a refinement of the falsification. In order to refute the falsification, it would be required to show one of the following: errors in the data set; errors in the methodology; errors in the math. None of these were provided. Instead, what we got was that using a subset of the data Lucia used, and using a variation of the methodology she used, we can come to a different conclusion - we went from “a therefore x” to “a AND b therefore x”. You will notice that I am not refusing to believe the analysis of either side here, and I’m not preferring one over the other - I am saying that they are both right, and that the fact they are both right can possibly provide us with some indication of the underlying mechanisms involved that each analysis on it’s own cannot. That they reach different conclusions from the same data does not mean we have to choose one over the other, because they are using different methods and therefore illuminate subtly different aspects of the issue.

In my view, there are too many highly polarised “experts” in climate change who - it seems to me - fall into the trap exposed above. They apparently feel that, in the example above for instance, one or the other must be right and fail to consider that they may both be correct and attempt to understand what that seeming paradox can tell us. Further, I would suggest that once this is pointed out, someone who can not or will not see that paradox (and attempt to understand and/or explain it) is no longer being objective - in short, they are then advocates. It was perhaps somewhat rash of me to assume that Atmoz is an advocate - I have no evidence that he has considered what I have outlined above, after all. Of course, he no longer has that excuse…

I hope that makes it somewhat clearer.

I could easily make the same claim against you, Steve.

“By all means continue to not independently examine the source materials I pointed you toward. Just consider that in doing so you end up with an awful lot of shaky assumptions, e.g. thinking that the Leroy paper was peer-reviewed. Ross McKitrick is an economist, BTW. Do you go to climate scientists for your economics? And if you like Wegman, don’t forget that he testified that he’s convinced that AGW is a serious problem notwithstanding any niggles about MBH 98.”

Yes, McKitrick is an economist - well trained in time series statistics and their analysis. Should I ignore his time series statistical analysis of climate data because he’s not a climatologist? Or should I ignore Mann’s analysis because he, by his own admission, is not a statistician?

“Atmoz isn’t really anonymous, although as he will readily admit he’s “only” an atmospheric sciences grad student. For my part, I paid attention to the comments here by known experts in the field, which have satisfied me that Atmoz knows whereof he speaks. Sure he knows less than such experts, but it’s also clear from past posts that he avoids claiming knowledge that he lacks. FYI, for an example of someone who’s truly anonymous, try bender.”

I suspect, from reading lucias blog amongst others, that he (Atmoz) sometimes presents data in such a way as to support the consensus position. There’s nothing wrong with that PROVIDING that people recognise this for what it is - advocacy, not science. That might sound harsh, but in my view (and I’m not alone in this) it’s important in science to look for faults in your pet theory, not look for reasons to support it.

And yeah, I know Atmoz is not completely anonymous - but if it’s so well known, why isn’t it mentioned here on his blog?

Atmoz isn’t really anonymous, although as he will readily admit he’s “only” an atmospheric sciences grad student. For my part, I paid attention to the comments here by known experts in the field, which have satisfied me that Atmoz knows whereof he speaks. Sure he knows less than such experts, but it’s also clear from past posts that he avoids claiming knowledge that he lacks. FYI, for an example of someone who’s truly anonymous, try bender.

The last refuge of the scoundrel - argument from authority. I remain highly amused that many climate scientists appear to propose this as a reason to trust their results, but do not seem to accept that same argument about, say, statistics - where even Wegman is doubted!

Be that as it may, perhaps you can explain to me why I should trust this particular “authority” when it remains anonymous?