No climate shenanigans today. Just some great Tom Waits news.
Mr Waits was closing his Glitter and Doom tour in Atlanta on July 5th. This I had known for a while from a very special press conference.
So on July 5th I was lucky enough to be in the beautiful Fox Theater for the event, together with a few thousand fans very stoked to be the A in Pehdtsckjmba.
I hear today from a friend that the concert was recorded in integrality on NPR, and can be accessed here . As Phil Gallo said it felt very much like “a reunion of oddballs, crackpots and believers telling their stories through a series of wheezes, harrumphs and shouts”. It is fantastic to be able to share it.
Its greatness will speak for itself, but here are some very preceptive reviews to delve into it, as well as a setlist and videos here and here.
Enjoy !
Strange Weather 
Check out a book by Peter S. Beagle called “I See by my Outfit”. Fulton county or GT libraries should have it.
Some interesting analysis by McI going on right now with the new Mann work. It is a pity that Steve does not try to really make publishable insights and relies on a blog and at times skewed mindset. But watching him dig into new stuff and find insights is quite fun.
Indeed, I’ve been following CA from a distance (because I just can’t spend all day on it …) and there have been lately some more meaningful posts. When there’s no Mann article to chew on, it seems that Steve really doesn’t know where to sink his fangs – he bites at random and makes a fool of himself; but as soon as his nemesis publishes something, he recovers the rigor and analytical insight that makes his work noteworthy.
I also found the recent Eschenbach post was very good.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3926
As for skewed mindsets, it might be time to recognize that we all have one…
Thanks for posting without a single insult 😉
I’m not so impressed by Willis. He tries to act smarter than he is.
One time, he was thinking that if he subdivided a period, that the error should scale and get smaller and smaller. Another time, he went blathering on and on about non-linearities (upsude down U…I think he’s still blathering) without any attempt to consider limiting stands, approximate linearity, time dimensions of confounding excursions etc.)
Right now, he’s got this pretty set of plots, but has not shown a reference plot for how a proxy with SIGNAL should be expected to look.
Note that SM has not commented in the Willis thread. He tends to play possum when his “crew” (e.g. Loehle) are [messing] up.
Well, let’s just say that compared to some of the CA background microwave radiation, his work stands out as supernova of brightness. Not that some of us hadn’t thought of plotting time-series before injecting them into a reconstruction …
What I don’t understand is why, when Michael Mann decides to be choosy between proxies, it’s called ” sampling bias” ; but when he’s not, it’s the “garbage in, garbage out” litany. Methinks it has to do with the outcome. Loehle did a brilliant job of selecting all the proxies that looked like they had a warm MWP, and – surprise, surprise – he got a warm MWP. SM wrote that it was ” fresh”, which I thought rather amusing. No comment about “sampling bias” then.
Anyway, if every CA thread was like Willis’, I might read it more often…
CA is a lot of people giving each other [accolades]…and cackling about what [discerning fellows] they are for that.
The sampling protocol is important. I think the main issue with Mannianism is that his method amplifies.