Stephen McIntyre har laget en satireside «The Sayings of Rasmus» om klimaguru Rasmus Benestad sine for mange forskerne spinnville utsagn. «The Sayings of Rasmus» er hentet fra nettsiden som Rasmus Benestad og Michael Mann mf. samarbeider om, og hvor alle utsagnene er hentet fra kun en -1- artikkel der hvor Rasmus har fungert som moderator og kommentator. Her har han gitt mange svar på kommentarer som får andre forskere til både å aktivere øyenbryn og lattermusklene.

Rasmus Benestad (56) er klimaforsker ved Meteorologisk Institutt og fremstår utvilsomt som en klimaaktivist på linje med Michael Mann (58). Benestad har også oppnådd internasjonal oppmerksomhet på grunn av hans samarbeid med Michael Mann om nettsiden Realclimate.org. Michael Mann er klimatolog i fra Amherst i Massachusetts i USA. Stephen McIntyre (76) er i dag redaktør for Climate Audit, en blogg som analyserer klimadata med spesiell interesse for NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) og Michael Mann sin berømte hockey stick. Han er en Canadisk borger og tidligere direktør for gruveleting og ekspert på statistisk analyse. Hans utmerkede kunnskaper om statistiske analyser gjorde at han ofte vant fremfor sine konkurrenter med sine analyser og deretter funn av mineralske forekomster.

2002 ble han ble interessert i klimavitenskap på grunn av at de Canadiske myndigheter distribuerte en informasjonsbrosjyre om den kommende klimakrisen, som minnet han sterkt om propaganda han hadde sett fra konkurrerende gruveselskaper som svindlet investorer. Disse ble til slutt ble avslørt i det som kalles Bre-X Gold Mining Scandal.

De Canadiske myndighetenes informasjonsbrosjyre var i hovedsak basert på Michael Mann sin hockey stick som ble gjengitt i IPCC sin Assessment Report nr. 3 (AR3). Han bet seg raskt merke i at denne grafen kunne være svindel, basert på at de i hans kretser allerede brukte begrepet «Hockey Stick» om svindlere som forsøkte å presentere en pen oppadgående kurve i håp om å selge deg sine produkter.

McIntyre samarbeidet med Ross McKitrick om statistisk analyse av dataene til Michael Mann og framla sine resultater i en rapport som førte til flere høringer av ulike senatorer i USA. Konsekvensen av dette, ble at det ble oppnevnt en arbeidsgruppe som skulle se gjennom dette, og resultatet ble North Rapporten og Wegman rapporten. Et sammendrag av dette hvor Michael Mann sin Hockey Stick regelrett blir plukket i filler som både dårlig vitenskap, feil metodebruk, og feil statistiske analyser kan leses her.

Vi kontaktet Rasmus Benestad før publisering av denne artikkelen om han hadde noen uttalelser til McIntyre sin side «The Sayings of Rasmus«.

Benestad svarte: «Stephen McIntyre er på en måte en ‘gammel kjenning’ og jeg oppfatter at vi er uenige om veldig mye, selv om jeg aldri har møtt ham eller kjenner ham. Han har tatt noen utsagn ut av kontekst på en måte som er meningsløs og tyder på at han ikke har forstått poengene. Det sier mer om ham enn om meg. Men han tillegger meg ikke usanne karakteristikker, slik du [Fakta360]^* har gjort.» ^*Red. anmerk.

The Sayings of Rasmus

I forbindelse med Stephen McIntyre sine undersøkelser av Michael Mann, kom han over nettsiden RealClimate.org som driftes av bla. Mann og Rasmus Benestad. Her kom han over at Rasmus Benestad hadde kommenter en rekke ganger på bare en enkelt artikkel, som tydeligvis Stephen McIntyre og mange av hans klimarealistiske kollegaer både finner morsomme, absurde, latterlige og som han sier i innledningen «Her er det mye mat for tankene» i en sarkastisk tone.

Vi gjengir Rasmus Benestad sine utsagn her og nedenfor får du andre sine kommentarer om Benestad:

• atmospheric and oceanic tides are well-established now, and explained in terms of physics.
• I can easily predict that the summar will be warmer than current (winter) conditions…
• Science (here used in a wider meaning including engineering) has also formed our culture and enabeled you guys to read this blog.
• I wouldn’t know much about hair growth products, but I am convinced that the field of meteorology is well-established and the forecasts useful.
• Here is a reason why meteorologists do not use statistical models for weather forecasts. When you travel by plane, the aviation authority depends on good forecasts for your safety. Statistical models are not adequate. You really need to include the physics!!!
• These are aspects the medical profession does not understand in every detail due to their baffling complexity, but medical doctors nevertheless do a very good job curing us for diseases, and shrinks heal our mental illnesses.
• call me a nerd if you like
• You are getting it! I think it’s others who don’t. The universe is not random. Physics rule.
• El Nino also has a theory (or several).
• It’s natural for molecules under Brownian motion to go on a hike through their random walks (this is known as diffusion), however, it’s quite a different matter if such behaviour was found for the global planetary temperature, as this would have profound physical implications.
• You only have to trawl the scientific literature! Then you may ask if the scientific community is reliable. Think about the state of our modern civilisation, what would it have been without scientific progress? I would argue that many things taken for granted in our modern society has been piggybacked by science. Science (here used in a wider meaning including engineering) has also formed our culture and enabeled you guys to read this blog.
• Right, there are two aspects to this radiation: the continuum associated with the atoms kinetic energy and the band absorption associated with the atomic electron configurations. The excitation of the molecules is caused by an absorption of a photon, as they cannot keep losing energy by through radiation without gaining some. Quantum physics determine what the electronic levels are, i.e. at which frequencies the line spectra are. But, in the real world, the lines broaden to frequnecy bands, due to several complicating factors.
• [Response:The probability for this [Brownian movement of air molecules could conceivably cause all of the air in a room to collect in one corner of the room, thus suffocating the person sitting in a chair in the opposite corner of the room reading Gamow’s book] happening is infinitesimally small, so for practical reasons, this can be regarded as an impossibility (unless you are a fan of the Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy).
• It’s important to take physical considerations into accout and to get both the physics and the statistics right.
• Tell me anouther field which runs model predictions as extensively as weather prediction.
• I wouldn’t know much about hair growth products, but I am convinced that the field of meteorology is well-established and the forecasts useful. Science in general – climate science has a common base with general sciences in terms of physics & chemistry – has also proved to be successful interm of advancing our civilisation.
• When it comes to oye example, a model for planetart motion is one thing (could even be scientific), to say whatever it means for peoples’ life is another (religion, in my eyes).
• Economists have, for a large part, realised the limitations of their forecasting ability. Climate scientists seem a little less aware of the limitations of their craft because of their being based in the physical and experimental sciences (and the statistical techniques that implies). [Response:Personally, I think the other way round – to my knowlredge, no economist sent people to the moon – the scientists & engineers did! My proposition is that our highly advanced society is built foremost on science, and secondary on economy (which is primarily a means of distributing our goods).
• Basically, your statistical model needs to be representative of the process you are analysing
• I admitedly have taken a couple of courses in economics which I found dull – still got good grades though…). I still could not resist making the critical (and provoking) remarks.
• Here is a reason why meteorologists do not use statistical models for weather forecasts. When you travel by plane, the aviation authority depends on good forecasts for your safety. Statistical models are not adequate. You really need to include the physics!!!
• But, to use quantum physics for macroscales is in general silly (onless you look at line emissions and alike), as you would spend the rest of your life calculating.
• the world is not stochastic, but there are physical laws which creates order (if it were merely stochastic, then you could explain how we could sit here having this discussion – there would be no life forms..
• It’s therefore somewhat ironical that a process, once used to derive knowledge about the underlying physics, now is presented as if things just happen randomly without any thought about the physics.
• Sadly, the degree statistics is tought in physics is in my opinion not enough
• If the temperature takes a hike, then there must be a supply of energy: first law of thermo-dynamics
• I think it’s not necessary to go to lengths with statistical analysis to arrive at the conclusion that a discrimination of the null-hypothesis depends on how you model the null-process – I’d be surprised if it were otherwise (isn’t it logical?).
• the discovery of atoms as a result of stochastic Brownian motion have enabled far more useful predictions than what a simple stochastic view ever could.
• Another common false statment, …is that the climate system is not well understood. … If this statement were generally true, then how could climate scientists make complex models – GCMs – that replicate the essential features of our climate system? The fact that GCMs exist and that they provide a realistic description of our climate system, is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that such statement must be false – at least concerning the climate scientists.

Her er noen av kommentarene på «Sayings of Rasmus»:

• There are so many factual errors, logical fallacies, and double-speak there that I don’t even know where to start. Oh the heck with it, I’ve got better things to do with my time. Besides, he does a good enough job of discrediting himself that he does not need my help.
• He’s really something else. Mike needs to get him under control.
• All of the above quotations could be explained by a simple computer model where the utility of his writings is inversely proportional to his blood-alcohol level. As for «If the temperature takes a hike, then there must be a supply of energy: first law of thermo-dynamics» I must have missed this particular formulation of the first law of thermodynamics in college.
• I knew someone might try to excuse Rasmus’s poor logic on the basis of language problem. But I don’t buy it. I’ve worked with Russians who were lousy writers, but great thinkers. You could still see the brains poking through the poor writing. Rasmus just lacks the ability to think clearly.
• Re #9: It is not a language problem. The akwardness is there when hes writes in Norwegian, too.
• I thought that this reply to Shaviv was so idiotic that it couldn’t have been Rasmus, now I am not so sure. It just sounds like the warmy ravings we see here all the time by the seriously ill-informed. «We want to unravel the facts behind climate variability. In science, one challenge other views if one finds them strange or not credible. This is what we habve done. You make claims based on your own subjective belief og based on far-fetched speculations. The fact is that the claim that the recent global warming is due to GCR is not supported be any real evidence; there is no credible trend in the solar activity or GCR in the last ~50 years.». Nir Shaviv’s blog: This was in response to Shaviv’s observation that the argument that Rasmus was using didn’t apply to our galaxy since the number of arms was wrong in Rasmus’s analysis.