Mann’s Hockey Stick, Climategate, and FOI – in a nutshell

Figure 1(b) from the Intergovernmental Panel o...

Image via Wikipedia

On the Climate Audit thread, The Vergano FOI Request the irascible Nick Stokes provokes another commenter “mpaul”, to lay out all the history in a simple summary that even Nick might understand. I thought it was worth repeating here for readers who have not followed the twists and turns in detail, and also in the hope that Dr. Michael Mann might read it and get a clue. Obstruction doesn’t pay.

From this Climate Audit comment:

mpaul

Posted May 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

But I don’t think snooping through people’s private emails is a dignified activity.

Nick, I’ll turn the sarcasm off for a moment. I agree with you on this point. I have been an advocate for Cuccinelli CID process. Say what you will about Cuccinelli’s motives, but the American justice system provides protections for the accused and standards of procedure that do not exist in the court of public opinion.

We have arrived at this point in history along the following path:

(1) Steve wanted to replicate MBH98 and asked for data. Mann initially complied, but then began to obstruct.

(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.

(3) Mann defended his work by saying that other Hockey Stick reconstructions validated his method and his conclusions.

(4) Attention turned to replicating the other reconstructions. By now, the Team had become extremely defensive and a sort of bunker mentality took over. Years of obstruction followed.

(5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.

(6) Then “a miracle happened’. A file containing materials and emails requested under FOIA turned up on the internet. Most everyone would agree that the contents of the emails warranted an investigation. The only investigation that specifically looked into Mann’s conduct was undertaken by Penn State. Penn State cleared Mann noting that Mann stated:
(a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;
(b) he never used inappropriate influence in reviewing papers by other scientists who disagreed with the conclusions of his science;
(c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; and
(d) he never engaged in activities or behaviors that were inconsistent with accepted academic practices.

(7) Critics have charged that the Penn State investigation was inadequate. Michael Mann has subsequently stated that he did, in fact, participate in an orchestrated effort to delete emails covered under FOIA, raising questions about the veracity of statements he made to the Penn State investigators. Penn State seems untroubled by this.

A real, independent investigation, subject to rules of evidence and judicial procedures, is needed. Such an investigation is the only way to put and end to Climategate and is the only way to restore the tattered reputation of climate science. I think both Virginia and Pennsylvania should conduct an investigation. However, if UVa continues to obstruct the CID, then FOIA is the only option and Mann will be afforded no protection of his privacy.

Mann and UVa are playing a losing game. Its sheer folly to attempt to frustrate a State AG in a law enforcement investigation. Cuccinelli has nuclear weapons at his disposal and UVa has water pistols. If Cuccinelli loses the CID battle, he will simply file a lawsuit and obtain the materials through discovery. Or, if UVa really pisses him off, he will convene a Grand Jury. For Mann personally, this would be catastrophic. Mann and UVa should cooperate with the CID process.

It’s sad that we have arrived at this place. But at every juncture in this journey, Mann has chosen the wrong path.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

274 Responses to Mann’s Hockey Stick, Climategate, and FOI – in a nutshell

  1. ShrNfr says:

    If I lie to a Federal Official, no matter if I am under oath or not, it is considered obstruction of justice and hence a crime. I am not sure what Mann said to who, but if it involved Federal authorities and he stated one thing and then another later, he had better get a good lawyer. There is a potential to prosecute him for this.

  2. James ibbotson says:

    The old method of show your work…….. Would have put a stop to this if there was nothing to hide.

    It’s the basic premis of all professional work. Document document document, so that anyone can follow your work, working as part of a team.

  3. cgtoronto says:

    re: getting a clue
    Dr. Michael Mann couldn’t get a clue even if his mom dropped him off in front of the clue store and handed him a clue coupon.

  4. Autochthony says:

    Why is this not required reading for legslaors – and commentators – everywhere?
    In a walnut-shell.
    mpaul – so many thanks!
    A.

  5. Theo Goodwin says:

    Please, Dr. Mann, please keep stonewalling. Please provoke a grand jury inquiry. Then maybe some of the Climategate Elite will learn how the everyday taxpayer lives.

  6. RockyRoad says:

    “Or, if UVa really pisses him off, he will convene a Grand Jury. For Mann personally, this would be catastrophic. Mann and UVa should cooperate with the CID process.”

    Actually, what could be more refreshing than to finally uncover the truth, albeit at the sacrifice of Dr. Mann. (I’ve reached the point in life that I’m looking back evaluating if my contribution to mankind has been worth the effort. For Dr. Mann to do so would be a big negative–a wasted life, a felonious one at that.)

  7. crosspatch says:

    The argument that it is somehow an unsavory act to snoop though someone’s email doesn’t seem to come into play when someone wants all of a government department’s email, does it? I mean, I seem to remember a lot of hoopla surrounding the scooping up of a bunch of Bush Administration email.

    When you have research that is conducted with public money and you have the results of that research possibly influencing the allocation of orders of magnitude more public money, and when you see activity consistent with attempting to hide the data and methods used in that research, the public has a right to the correspondence concerning that research. Granted, the public has no right to someone’s discussions with their proctologist, but that is not what is at issue here. This is correspondence pertaining directly to that research.

  8. at every juncture in this journey, Mann has chosen the wrong path.

    The best way to ensure people trust you, is to demonstrate that you are your own worst critique: to proactively seek to have your work cross checked and validated. The fact that Mann had made a mistake was not a problem, so long as he was prepared to acknowledge that mistake and deal with it. Instead of dealing with his mistakes, he has continually tried to pretend there was no mistake.

    Every real scientist makes mistakes, indeed the best ones probably make the biggest mistakes. So what marks out the great scientists is that they learn from their mistakes and improve their work as result thereby gaining tremendous credit amongst their opponents.

    In contrast Mann just can’t get it out of his thick skull, that when you’re in a hole, the worst possible strategy is to keep digging.

  9. Scott Covert says:

    mpaul, it may sound petty but I am so disgusted with the whole hockey team I can’t express.

    At this point I would rather see them continue on the path of obstruction till they burn themselves alive than to see them cooperate.

  10. Jack says:

    The tragedy here is what isn’t being said. These so-called climate scientists, Mann, Jones, et. al., have been lying about their dishonest methods. They have been conspiring to prevent the publication of other scientists work. They have been misleading the public. And they have done all of it at the tax payers expense.

    What scientist wouldn’t want their work to be scrutinized, if they knew they were correct?

    What scientist would want their work scrutinized if they knew their work to be wrong, and stood to lose standing, funding if they were found out? Mann, Jones, and the rest are of the second sort.

  11. James Sexton says:

    What’s funny is people believe this could or would put an end to the climate madness we’re in. Even if Cuccinelli goes nuclear and even if he finds felonious behavior, it won’t stop the machine.

    I remember arriving in D.C. some time ago. The mayor of this nation’s capital had just been video taped smoking crack! Every where I went, there were t-shirts worn with words something akin to “The female dog set him up!” Anyway, trail and prison interrupted his running for mayor, but after he was done with that, he became mayor of our nation’s capital once again. He’s sitting on the council now.

    It just works like that. For people that liked the mayor, there was nothing that could be shown about him the would change their mind about him. It didn’t matter what he did or didn’t do. The same would be true about MM and the minions that believe in the cause he champions. Nothing else will be seen as relevant.

  12. Steeptown says:

    Why does Nick Stokes continually make himself look as bad as Mann? Why does he continue so strongly to defend the indefensible? What is it about the character of these people that makes them that way?

  13. Frank K. says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    When you have research that is conducted with public money and you have the results of that research possibly influencing the allocation of orders of magnitude more public money, and when you see activity consistent with attempting to hide the data and methods used in that research, the public has a right to the correspondence concerning that research.

    Crosspatch is entirely correct. The reason that this is being fought tooth and nail (to the tune of $0.5 million +) has EVERYTHING to do with the influence this “research” (via the IPCC and other world entities) is having on our daily lives through: (1) cap and trade legislation, (2) energy production restrictions, (3) overzealous EPA regulation, (4) restrictions on vehicle production, and on and on…

    In short – there are billions of dollars wrapped up in the climate industry. Climate scientists are basically trying to protect their stash, while simultaneously aspiring to be “rock stars” in the extreme eco-advocacy arena (cf. Jim Hansen).

    And remember – they don’t care about YOUR job – just theirs…

  14. starzmom says:

    Re ShrNfr comment: Martha Stewart went to jail for way less than this. I hope for his sake, too, that Mann has a good lawyer. I am also really glad I am not a Virginia taxpayer having to foot the bill for a state institution to obstruct and defy the state attorney general in a legal matter.

  15. pesadia says:

    Never have so many been decieved by so few.
    With apologies to Winston Churchill

  16. Wouldn’t it be funny if everyone sent Mann a squirt gun?

  17. Bryan A says:

    It is truly unfortunately that, in all likelihood, If Mann and others were brought before the Grand Jury in an effort to clean up the entire mess, they would ALL likely plead the 5th to avoid self prosecution. So unless one volunteers to turn states evidence, nothing is likely to come of the effort

  18. MarkW says:

    They say it’s not the initial actions which get you in trouble, it’s the cover up.

    In Mann’s case, it will probably be both.

  19. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    So many hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, misdirected into futile and sometimes criminal public policy initiatives, enriching may of the great promoters of AGW in their careers and or their bank accounts.

    Justice will be done and the fools will be made to pay.

  20. golf charley says:

    Under US Law, are there charges that could be brought against those within UVa, that have aided and abetted the obstruction?

    Or will graduates of UVa have to suffer being the butt of jokes for years to come? Along with Penn State graduates of course.

    Climategate has only confirmed what many thought of UEA in the UK. See Monty Python sketch on Village Idiots

  21. Dave L. says:

    If you have not read Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, then you are likely not up to speed regarding this post. It is advertised on the right hand column of this website.

  22. stan says:

    No one went snooping through e-mail. CRU prepared the file. The file didn’t contain all e-mails, only the ones that were responsive to the FOI request.

  23. Phil Clarke says:

    (2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.

    (3) Mann defended his work by saying that other Hockey Stick reconstructions validated his method and his conclusions.

    And by demonstrating that the criticisms had an insignificant effect on the conclusions.

    (5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.

    MBH98/99 are now over a decade old, all the data and code for Mann 2008 were published with the paper.

    Michael Mann has subsequently stated that he did, in fact, participate in an orchestrated effort to delete emails covered under FOIA,

    Tosh, possibly libellous. He forwarded a mail, without comment, to Gene Wahl, who states: For the record, while I received the email from CRU as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails. . Mann commented:- Mann said, “I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn’t delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails.”

    Orchestrated campaign? Participate? Pure Handwaving.

  24. golf charley says:

    Dave L

    I second that recommendation for the Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford.

    If only the politicians would read it, they might realise how they are being conned into wrecking the economies of the developed world.

    Though not covered in the book, the developing world has seen no benefit from measures to restrict CO2 emissions, and has actually led to less investment in infrastructure. People are not dying from global warming, but a lack of clean drinking water and electricity, denied to them by the myth of man made global warning.

  25. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination – but the lack of transparency in this particular issue (and of course many others) is somewhat damning. As has been said many times before, if you have nothing to hide, then why hide?
    As far as I am concerned, the data and workinsg were most probably flawed. Further, Mann and the ‘Team’ probably knew that it was flawed and could easily be discovered.
    If there was clear scientifically based proof of AGW – we wouldn’t be here discussing. Those that promote the theory really need to put up or shut up!

  26. Green Sand says:

    Dave L. says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    If you have not read Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, then you are likely not up to speed regarding this post.

    It is also a damn good read and a more than useful ongoing reference book.

  27. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I did intend to add that the progress and timescale of the HS problem has prevented ANY possible chance of the perpetrators (Gore included!) ever being able to hold their hands up and say ‘oops, we made a mistake’ – now, it’s just fraud, plain and simple!

  28. Nick Stokes says:

    crosspatch says: June 2, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    “The argument that it is somehow an unsavory act to snoop though someone’s email doesn’t seem to come into play when someone wants all of a government department’s email, does it? I mean, I seem to remember a lot of hoopla surrounding the scooping up of a bunch of Bush Administration email.”

    I don’t think you’re remembering right – details? There was the hacking of Sarah Palin’s email, but did you ever see people going through them and looking for every gotcha?

    What was noted about Bush Admain’s emails was the massive shift of government business onto private, mainly RNC accounts. Senior public servants like Karl Rove did all their business there. And on the official accounts, millions went missing. Later 22 million turned up which had been hidden away.

    Makes Phil Jones’ attempt to get a few erased look small.

    A bit more about some other email practices from those times:
    Late Tuesday, the Bush Administration admitted that in reviewing documents requested by Democrats for their investigations, it discovered that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act. The staffers, the White House said, were using e-mail accounts, laptops and BlackBerries provided by the Republican National Committee for official executive branch communications rather than the exclusively political work for which they were intended. Because the RNC had a policy until 2004 of erasing all e-mails on its servers after 30 days, including those by White House staffers, and because some of those staffers may have deleted e-mails on their own, the White House said it could not assure Congress that they have not violated the PRA, which requires the retention of official White House documents. The White Houseofficials who may have broken the law include senior adviser Karl Rove, his deputies and much of their staffs.

  29. Nick Stokes says:

    golf charley says: June 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “Under US Law, are there charges that could be brought against those within UVa, that have aided and abetted the obstruction?”

    Which obstruction exactly? Filing (and winning) a lawsuit?

    Note mpaul’s point 2 above:
    “(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.”
    Nothing was hidden.

  30. R.S.Brown says:

    Anthony/mpaul,

    Mike Mann and a number of other “Team” members made presentations
    to Congressional Committees over the years. However, to the best of my
    recollection, Mike and the others never testifed under oath.

    Nobody was under oath during the Penn State investigation.

    One can put enough qualifiers into a statement in a presentation that makes
    it sound like you’re saying something that’s a solid, undisputable fact.
    An interview or a presentation that’s not done under oath is just a press
    conference in disguise. That includes those nifty Powerpoint slide shows that
    made the college circuits a couple years ago. When the sophistry is trimmed
    away, there’s not much left but someone’s opinion and a ball of verbal goo.

    You can’t be prosecuted for an opinion about weather, climate, good science,
    bad science, or whatever, no matter how wrong or untrue it might be or be
    proved to be in the end. (At least, not yet.)

    You can be prosecuted for knowingly making fradulent statements
    to obtain or renew contracts and grants. You can be prosecuted for
    knowingly making false claims as to your study’s “results” to justify the
    grant monies you burned through. You
    can be prosecuted for
    knowingly filing false expense reports.

    If people got together in person (say at an academic conference or syposium),
    corresponded by snail mail, or chatted over the phone or via e-mail about
    getting fradulent material past the state or federal grant application reviews,
    some folks might consider that/those activities “conspiracy to commit… “.

  31. Robin Edwards says:

    The continuing (growing?) interest in Mann’s hockey stick is fascinating. Can someone indicate exactly where his original data for the 1998 paper can be found at present? I have a set (courtesy of Steve McIntyre) from many years ago, and I wonder whether the numbers that generated (synthesised) the graph at the start of this thread are exactly those that I am very familiar with. To be more detailed, these were a matrix of 112 columns of types of observation (plus a date column) and 583 rows (dates).

    The methods I use produce no real hint of an HS shape, but otherwise demonstrate plenty of structure in the data.

    Robin

  32. DirkH says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    “Nothing was hidden.”

    The decline. Using Mike’s trick. Remember?

  33. _Jim says:

    Steeptown says June 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Why does Nick Stokes continually make himself look as bad as Mann? Why does he continue so strongly to defend the indefensible? What is it about the character of these people that makes them that way?

    Pay (directly paid; in the employ or service of).

    Pecuniary interest (books or movie deals, perhaps some of those blokes owe him financial notes/loan paybacks).

    Returning a favor (he owes him/them for some obscure reason).

    He’s married to Mann’s (or someone else’s) sister (IOW: a brother-in-law thing)?

    It really can be hard to tell …

    .

  34. 1DandyTroll says:

    Behind the stokes character is a communist. Behind the above mentioned nick that is.

    Pathetic communists always go “above and beyond” in their belief.

  35. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    A suitable Mannian/Jonesian/AGWian epithet . . .

    “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    -Eric Hoffer
    (The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements)

  36. HankHenry says:

    Remember, “It depends on what the meaning of “is’ is?”

    When Mann says:
    (c) he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist

    Does he mean the he didn’t and wouldn’t do it at anyone’s behest; that he just did it based on his own good judgements?

  37. Nick Stokes says:

    Robin Edwards says: June 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm
    ” Can someone indicate exactly where his original data for the 1998 paper can be found at present?”

    Mann’s PSU site

  38. Theo Goodwin says:

    Bryan A says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    “It is truly unfortunately that, in all likelihood, If Mann and others were brought before the Grand Jury in an effort to clean up the entire mess, they would ALL likely plead the 5th to avoid self prosecution. So unless one volunteers to turn states evidence, nothing is likely to come of the effort.”

    Given a grand jury experience, Mann would have a nervous breakdown and never recover. He could not bear being that close to the unwashed.

  39. TrueNorthist says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Note mpaul’s point 2 above:
    “(2) Steve successfully obtained the needed data and demonstrated serious flaws in Mann’s approach.”
    Nothing was hidden.

    Now you are engaging in knowingly spreading BS in order to hide things. Do you think we were all born yesterday? Many of us frequent CA and know exactly why your statement above is crap, and that you know it to be crap. There is another word for someone who engages in pathological deception. Maybe you should look in the mirror — you will see it tattooed backwards on your thick forehead.

  40. Mark T says:

    True to form the captain of the cheerleading squad steps in, “defends” a point that nobody argues, ignores the rest, then declares victory. I hope you approach your profession with the same llack of critical thinking, Nick, because you’ll earn what you deserve eventually.

    Mark

  41. Eric Anderson says:

    Nick: “Nothing was hidden.”

    Nick, you are delusional. There was a very clear and concerted effort with the hockey stick to cover up what the data really showed. You’re of course going to point to vague and obscure footnotes or references that indirectly acknowledged what was going on and that no government policy reader could possibly have understood in its full implication from that way it was described by the Team. There is no question that while there were a couple of CYA’s hidden deep in the ancillaries, there was intent to represent the data as something other than what they showed. Was there intent to deceive? Perhaps not. More likely just intent to tell the “correct” story that they knew must be hiding there in the data and that just needed to be liberated for all to see. The Team tricked themselves and there is no point in you continuing to pretend everything was all on the up and up.

  42. Joel Shore says:

    Robin Edwards says:

    The continuing (growing?) interest in Mann’s hockey stick is fascinating. Can someone indicate exactly where his original data for the 1998 paper can be found at present?

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/old/mbh98.html

  43. Steve McIntyre says:

    Nick Stokes says” Nothing was hidden”.

    Unfortunately, Nick is disseminating disinformation too often these days and this is merely one more example. For example, at an early stage (and at later stages), I asked Mann for the actual reconstructions for the 11 steps (which he called “experiments”) i.e. his actual results. He refused. I asked Nature to require him to provide them; Nature refused. I asked NSF to require him to provide them; they refused.

    That same summer, Mann supplied the same information to CRU, describing it as his “dirty laundry”, sent to them only because they were “trusted colleagues” and requiring them to make sure that the “dirty laundry” didn’t get into the wrong hands.

    Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.

    Mann’s method of retaining principal components remains a mystery as well. Mann removed this section of his code from what he archived in 2006.

    Mann’s recent materials are archived responsibly. In this he differs from (say) Lonnie Thompson, who has failed to provide a proper archive of any of ice cores, even ones drilled over 20 years ago.

  44. James of the West says:

    I would agree that it doesnt look good for Mann. He should share his data and methods openly without obstruction. I would say to those who are already saying he has comitted a crime, before he actually has a conviction, that caution is required. If he is acquitted by a grand jury where does that leave apparently libellous comments on a blog that state he is guilty before he has gone to trial? Please protect yourself and use words like allegedly or similar when making accusations before a trial has taken place. We can’t decide his guilt on a blog but we can allege that a crime may have taken place. He could also appeal that he could not have a fair trial because of media surrounding the case assuming his guilt. Tread carefully people. I am not a lawyer btw so dont take any of my advice seriously because its probably wrong.

  45. John M says:

    Nick Stokes

    Nothing was hidden.

    That’s like saying “nothing was hidden” by the Nixon Whitehouse because the WaPo dug most of it out.

  46. Nick Stokes says:

    Steve McIntyre says June 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    Steve,
    I repeat what mpaul said. You had the data, you had the code, and you were able to reproduce the results. In 2005 or earlier. That is all that science requires. And, as mpaul said, the code and data were the basis of your subsequent criticisms, echoed in the Wegman report.

  47. Nick Stokes says:

    TrueNorthist says: June 2, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    ” There is another word for someone who engages in pathological deception. Maybe you should look in the mirror — you will see it tattooed backwards on your thick forehead.”

    TN, I think you’re getting irascible. What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?

  48. John M says:

    Nick,

    What thread is your comment on? It will be interesting to see the response.

  49. No Mr Stokes, that is not all that ‘science’ requires. ‘Science’ requires a demonstration not only of the end result but its valid and defensible derivation as well.

  50. John M says:

    What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?

    What did he have to say about the R2 verification?

  51. Bill Illis says:

    If an individual who has been involved in the debate for several years still believes/accepts that the vast majority of Mann’s hockey stick is still valid, should an objective person stop reading anything he/she posts or any analysis he/she provides?

    Nick who?

  52. Smokey says:

    Nick Stokes,

    When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick post on Climate Audit that Michael Mann has provided all the information they have been requesting for the past 13 years, then that will be good enough for me.

    But asking, “What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?” is like asking folks to prove a negative. We don’t know what Mann still has hidden. So, what Mann et. al need to do is change their bunker attitude, and cooperate fully with M&M and anyone else who asks – preferably by archiving everything online – and answering all questions generated by the posted data and code, so there is replicability and reproducibility per the scientific method.

    In other words, do it the Feynman way:

    It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards.

    For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”

    Michael Mann does none of those things. Instead, he stonewalls and hides out from questions – and from the scientific method. Why do you think that is?

  53. Anthony Watts says:

    I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.

  54. Nick Stokes says:

    Mark T says: June 2, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    “True to form the captain of the cheerleading squad steps in, “defends” a point that nobody argues, ignores the rest, then declares victory.”

    I wouldn’t normally have commented here, but I’m curious, because I don’t know what it means. I’m hearing plenty of argument.

  55. Nick Stokes says:

    John M says: June 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Well, that’s at least something specific. Mann didn’t think R2 was the appropriate statistic. Perhaps he’s wrong. But we’re talking about hiding data . From what he provided, you can work out R2 for yourself.

  56. Latitude says:

    you know…..

    Any scientist that discovered something this important, with science this ‘robust’…
    …would have every bit of their code, their reconstructions, their data, their “dirty laundry” out there so even a three year old could reproduce it.

    If a scientist really believed, they wouldn’t hide it…..
    They would be proud of it and bragging to the whole world what a great scientist they are..

    This is a scam…….even the so called climate scientists don’t even believe it

  57. Latitude says:

    you know…..

    Any scientist that discovered something this important, with science this ‘robust’…
    …would have every bit of their code, their reconstructions, their data, their “dirty laundry” out there so even a three year old could reproduce it.

    If a scientist really believed, they wouldn’t hide it…..
    They would be proud of it and bragging to the whole world what a great scientist they are..

    …….even the so called climate scientists don’t even believe it

  58. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Regardless of whether Nick Stokes is irascible or incorrigible I appreciate the way in which WUWT revisits previous posts and attempts to drag things forward. It doesn’t always work but it shows how genuine Anthony really is at getting to the truth. So thanks for that.

  59. Luther Wu says:

    I have been thinking that ‘Nick Stokes’ is playing devil’s advocate with his apparent willingness to ignore what is so obvious and then with his curious rationalizations…

    maybe I’m making the same sort of mistake.

  60. Mark T says:

    Nobody argues point #2, that you specifically quoted. Steve did get that data.

    You’re a joke.

    Mark

  61. pwl says:

    “a Grand Jury” sounds just about right.

  62. _Jim says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    June 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.

    What are the odds … that Nick Stokes is the nom de plume of a cadre of CAGW posters, veritable back-bench, 2nd stringers to the The Team ever-striving for attention via disruption … able to work multiple boards in a single bound, always signing ‘Nick Plume’ -er- ‘Stokes’ to their work?

    This could account for the ‘selective memory’ component exhibited in their/his behavior.

    That, or heavy, continuous, day-in day-out consumption of alcohol (to which he has built up enormous immunity/coping ability sans finer, higher-intellect functions e.g. memory) …

    .

  63. sceptical says:

    What a bizarre take on the situation. Steve has been shown to be wrong and the Mann reconstruction has been validated. Mann never stated that he orchestrated an effort to delete emails covered by FOIA requests. The AG is wasting tax payer money by spending resources on a witch hunt without any evidence of illegal activity. The Virginia AG has stated that his investigation is only politically motivated. Numerous investigations into the stolen emails has shown nothing nefarious. It really does take a cult like demeanor to believe any of the above post. The attack on Dr. Mann is motivated by an irrational fear of the scientific method. For those attacking Dr. Mann, observation is trumped by ideology.

  64. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 2, 2011 at 6:15 pm
    “Nick Stokes,
    When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick post on Climate Audit that Michael Mann has provided all the information they have been requesting for the past 13 years, then that will be good enough for me.”

    Getting there. :)
    “Mann’s recent materials are archived responsibly. “

  65. sceptical says:

    How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.

  66. kramer says:

    MotherJones: Coming Soon: The Palin Emails
    any reader who wants to sit in a cozy chair with an iPad or laptop and spend hours upon hours absorbing Palin’s e-correspondence—looking for missed nuggets or merely seeking further insight into Palin’s governorship—will be able to do so, courtesy of those of us who spent the past two-and-a-half years pushing these records into the open. Here comes some real summer reading.
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/sarah-palin-emails-database-coming-soon

    MotherJones: Cuccinelli’s Attack on Climate Science Continues
    Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s crusading right-wing attorney general, is taking another shot in his war on climate science.
    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/10/cuccinellis-attack-climate-science-continues

    MotherJones: Judge Blocks Virginia AG’s Climate Witch Hunt
    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been waging a war on climate science, among his many other right-wing crusades.
    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/08/judge-cuccinelli-mann-climate-change

  67. danj says:

    James Sexton says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    I remember arriving in D.C. some time ago. The mayor of this nation’s capital had just been video taped smoking crack! Every where I went, there were t-shirts worn with words something akin to “The female dog set him up!” Anyway, trail and prison interrupted his running for mayor, but after he was done with that, he became mayor of our nation’s capital once again. He’s sitting on the council now.
    ——————————————————————————-
    James: give Mayor Berry his due. He pioneered the “Work Free Drug Zone”….

  68. sceptical says:

    The VA AG investigation is nothing but a grudge according to John Christy, ““Do all of us who work as university employees (not federal employees) become subject to being investigated by anyone with a grudge?”

  69. sceptical says:

    For everyone accusing Dr. Mann of fraud, the words of Mr. McIntyre should be heeded, “People are far too quick to yell fraud at the other side. I think such language is both selfish and counterproductive.”

  70. danj says:

    Steeptown says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    Why does Nick Stokes continually make himself look as bad as Mann? Why does he continue so strongly to defend the indefensible? What is it about the character of these people that makes them that way?
    —————————————————————————
    For the same reason that Ahmadinijad considers himself to the “Hidden Imam”–blind religous fervor to a cause that needs a suspension of reason to acquit itself…

  71. sceptical says:

    Ross McKitrick says, ““You have to be prepared to make the effort to go into the details and get them right. Nothing I have seen yet suggests that Cucinelli has done so, and I have yet to see any credible basis for his inquiry.”

  72. sceptical says:

    [snip . . ad hom . . you would need to point out such selective memories at the very least . . kb]

  73. sceptical says:

    What is also bizarre is the uncritical acceptance of any accusations against Dr. Mann. Where is the skepticism by the skeptics? Where is the skepticism of Steve’s criticism of Dr. Mann’s since validated reconstruction?

  74. Tom T says:

    The Bottom line is that MBH 98 has been thoroughly discredited.

  75. DavidM says:

    This quote from Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is so apt at this point it’s worth testing the mod’s resolve.

    Nick says Steve was able to (eventually) get hold of the resources and replicate the results, and that’s all that matters…..

    “But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”

    “Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

    “But the plans were on display …”

    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

    “That’s the display department.”

    “With a flashlight.”

    “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

    “So had the stairs.”

    “But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

    – Douglas Adams

  76. _Jim says:

    sceptical says upon revision* on June 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm:

    What a bizarre trip this has been. Steve has shown Mann to be wrong and the Mann reconstruction has been invalidated. We find out that Mann orchestrated an effort to delete emails covered by FOIA requests. The AG is spending tax payer money on an investigation sure to yield evidence of an illegal activity. The Virginia AG has stated that his investigation is not politically motivated. Numerous investigations into the leaked/FOI emails has shown much nefariousness. It really doesn’t take a cult like demeanor to believe any of the above post, just plain, sane, sober common sense and a willingness to look at the evidence. The analysis and auditing of Dr. Mann’s work is motivated by a desire to protect and preserve the scientific method. For those investigating Dr. Mann’s work, observation, analysis and auditing is trumping Mann’s and The Team’s blind ideology to CO2 induced/caused AGW.

    *Fixed it for ya.

    .

  77. mpaul says:

    In the climategate emails (1212063122.txt ), Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann regarding emails that are the subject of an active FOIA. Here, Jones is shown to be orchestrating an effort to get people to delete the emails.

    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
    Cheers, Phil

    To which Mann replies, indicating his willingness to participate in the effort:

    Hi Phil,
    … I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
    talk to you later,
    mike

    The NOAA inspector general conducted an investigation into this. They interviewed Eugene Wahl. Here is the relevant excerpt from the interview transcript. Wahl indicates that Mann’s participation in the effort to delete the emails had the effect that Jones intended:

    Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?
    A. I did receive that email. That’s the last one on your list here. I did receive that.

    Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?
    A. Yes

    Q. — That you received the email from?
    A. Correct …

    A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.

    Q. And what were the actions that you took?
    A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.

    Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?
    A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.

    Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
    A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind.

  78. Nick Stokes says:

    Mark T says: June 2, 2011 at 6:51 pm
    “Nobody argues point #2, that you specifically quoted. Steve did get that data. You’re a joke.”

    Sure sounds like some people are arguing:

    “(5) Those seeking the data and methods used in the HS reconstructions became more and more aggressive, eventually turning to FOIA as a tool to pry loose the information.”

  79. Eric Anderson says:

    sceptical:”How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”

    I presume this is sarcasm?

  80. Frank K. says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    June 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    “I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.”

    Anthony, I think Nick means well, but he obviously has a lot invested the CAGW theory…why, I don’t know.

    In any case, the Climategate e-mails told me everything I wanted to know about the ethics of “Mike” Mann and his insider buddies in the climate industry…

  81. Theo Goodwin says:

    sceptical says:
    June 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm
    “The Virginia AG has stated that his investigation is only politically motivated.”

    Obviously, that is a lie. It is a bold lie made by someone foolish enough to lie boldly to people who recognize the lie for what it is. WUWT really should not permit such posts and should not permit any posts by sceptical or anyone who makes similar posts.

  82. NikFromNYC says:

    You professional minded and doggedly determined skeptics continue to expose the frisky and elitist foibles of delusional dupes, by drawing them out in public forums where their bilious bluster can be recorded for posterity.

    The book by James Hoggan all about skepticism, doesn’t even mention WUWT, and skims over McIntyre too as it spends whole chapters dissing what I feel are minor players who I’ve barely heard of. When I posted a series of revealing quotes from the book to the author’s PR firm owned blog I wasn’t just comment banned, but IP redirected to Google. Message control is the very essence of AGW theory, so it’s fun to see bit players come out of the woodwork to spastically try to micromanage each and every perceived bit of criticism by us “data terrorists.”

  83. Smokey says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    “Getting there.”

    Not really. Steve McIntyre wrote:

    Unfortunately, Nick is disseminating disinformation too often these days and this is merely one more example. For example, at an early stage (and at later stages), I asked Mann for the actual reconstructions for the 11 steps (which he called “experiments”) i.e. his actual results. He refused. I asked Nature to require him to provide them; Nature refused. I asked NSF to require him to provide them; they refused.

    That same summer, Mann supplied the same information to CRU, describing it as his “dirty laundry”, sent to them only because they were “trusted colleagues” and requiring them to make sure that the “dirty laundry” didn’t get into the wrong hands.

    Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.

    Mann’s method of retaining principal components remains a mystery as well.

    Who is Nick Stokes trying to kid? This has been deliberate stonewalling by Mann and his pals. Where is the scientific method in any of these refusals?

  84. Steve McIntyre says:

    More fantasies from Nick Stokes who increasingly just fabricates stories:

    Mann didn’t think R2 was the appropriate statistic. Perhaps he’s wrong. But we’re talking about hiding data . From what he provided, you can work out R2 for yourself.

    In MBH98, Mann’s Figure 3 showed a map of verification r2 steps for the AD1820 step where it passed. MBH98 said that verification r and r2 were considered. In my opinion, the adverse r2 results were intentionally not disclosed in the original article. They should have been disclosed. It was only after the failure of verification r2 was revealed that they argued that R2 was not appropriate.

    Even then, they fiercely resisted the admission that verification r2 failed. Wahl and Ammann issued a press release saying that all our results were unfounded and their first submission did not report the adverse results either, even though that had been a prominent issue in MM2005. Even when a reviewer asked them to disclose the verification r2 results, they refused and Stephen Schneider wrongly supported them. It was only after an academic misconduct complaint was filed against Ammann that they admitted the adverse results.

    As to Mann having provided information to calculate it – again Nick is fabricating stories. My original request for his actual results was in part to calculate verification r2 and similar statistics. Nor was information available originally to even say how many principal component series were used and with which networks. Nor were the methods accurately described. Partial data became available only after a Materials Complaint to Nature, but remains incomplete. Source code became available only because of the intervention of a House Committee – an intervention that was condemned by scientific associations throughout the world, including the AAAS and NAS. The idea of making source code available was reviled by climate scientists throughout the world.

    The unscientific attitude towards facts – and the willingness to simply make things up – displayed here by Nick is all too prevalent in the climate community these days.

  85. Robert Austin says:

    sceptical says:
    June 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    “How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”

    Yes, we have all seen the spaghetti graphs that showed behavior similar to the hockey stick graph. So rather than being vague and waving your hands about the alleged vindication, name a specific independent reconstruction that validates Mann’s hockey stick. The caveat is that the data and methods for production the reconstruction are publicly available and the reconstruction is free of legerdemain such as truncation of inconvenient data, short centring and poor temperature proxies.

  86. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    “Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.”

    That’s the difference between the scientific approach and the auditing approach. In the scientific approach the data is available and the method described. Here, as a bonus, you have the computer programs. The results can be reproduced.

    The auditing approach is not part of science. And no-one appointed Steve as auditor.

    You quoted Feynman earlier. Who was his auditor? Where is his data and code?

  87. Smokey says:

    You’re losing it, Nick. Really.

  88. Julian Flood says:

    A W wrote:
    quote
    I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.
    unquote

    I think neither: it is entirely possible that he knows exactly what he’s up to.

    Many people, and here I include myself, are not equipped to deal with a bare-faced lie made with conviction. No matter how many times I’ve thought ‘no, that can’t be right, I’ve checked it and he’s telling lies’, I still get the instinctive reaction of ‘there must be something in what he says because nobody would tell an outright checkable lie in a public forum’. If I’m in a hurry and have no time to check again then the lie tends to stick.

    The answer, of course, is for someone with the facts at his/her fingertips to immediately point out the lie, but who has time for that?

    As to motivation: it could be simple professional commitment to the defended science; some sort of financial interest (I’d love to see the accounts of the two big Green PR firms); ideological (Man is corrupt and must be led to the green light); the meeting of a psychological need in a personality that finds itself, at last, able to feel a sense of belonging to an elite in-group; an irreproachable reason to let a bullying tendency out into the world.

    When this is all over the social scientists will have a field day going through the old posts and interviewing the lot of us.

    Me, I hate being bullied and I dislike being taken for a fool, so every so often I’ll boggle at one of Nick’s or Doggy’s or whoever’s more blatant pronouncements and go and check, again, and find a half-truth, again, but still, when another lie appears, I’ll first doubt myself.

    The sun is rising, a beautiful East Anglian day dawns. I think I’ll fire up the MG (67 Midget without all the emission controls which did so much damage to small sports cars) and potter about the lanes. I hope no polar bears are made to weep.

    JF
    (waves to Solitaire)

  89. NikFromNYC says:

    In the middle stage of grief, after denial and then anger, prior to depression and final acceptance (of defeat) is bargaining: – ‘Please let me wake up and find this has all been just a nightmare.’

  90. dahuang says:

    RICHMOND (October 4, 2010) – Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today that consistent with Judge Paul M. Peatross, Jr.’s August 30 ruling, his office reissued a civil investigative demand (CID) on September 29 to the University of Virginia. The new CID has been drafted to comply with the judge’s ruling, contains information the judge believed was necessary, and is more limited in scope than the prior CIDs. The CID will attempt to obtain information necessary to continue an investigation into whether or not fraud was committed against the commonwealth by Dr. Michael Mann while he was a professor at UVa.

    “While the CID was drafted to comply with the judge’s ruling, we do not believe that the ruling was correct in all of its particulars. Accordingly, we have noted that we will appeal the ruling while continuing our ongoing investigation,” said Cuccinelli.

    Does Cuccinelli really have nuclear weapons? Why was he so humble before a judge? Is “simply file a lawsuit and obtain the materials through discovery” really possible, and how serious is the consequence of that move could be? I hope someone who really understand US law and politics could answer these questions. Thank you!

  91. Steeptown says:

    Who is Nick Stokes?

  92. Alcheson says:

    sceptical says:
    “How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”

    Really? Validated you say… What happened to the MWP and the LIA? It is missing from all the warmists favorite reconstructions. It is clearly there in historical evidence as well as numerous temperature reconstructions. One of the most recent published reconstructions from Brown scientists indicate up to a 4C temperature difference between the MWP and LIA.

  93. Policyguy says:

    Mann may not be a good “scientist”, but he is a good manipulator in his statements to others – so far.

    His issue will bloom when he confronts questions from the AG. One can lie on-line, in public statements, private investigations and to the press, but one can’t lie to a prosecutor without serious consequences.

  94. Phil Clarke says:

    mpaul – thanks for confirming that Dr Mann never deleted any emails nor asked anyone elso to delete any emails. Dr Wahl DID delete mail and reminds us:-

    The emails I deleted while a university employee are the correspondence I had with Dr. Briffa of CRU regarding the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all of which have been in the public domain since the CRU hack in November 2009. This correspondence has been extensively examined and no misconduct found.

    Given that it is now 2011, this fuss over the flaws in a study from last century is bemusing, however iconic at the time. It was the first of its kind and it would have been amazing if it had got every technique optimal first time round. Mann himself later conceded that he would do things differently, but we now have an updated version, with all data and code archived.

    For those interested in r2, here is what the NAS panel had to say:-

    If the calibration has any predictive value, one would expect it to do better than just the sample average over the validation period and, for this reason, CE is a particularly useful measure. The squared correlation statistic, denoted as r2, is usually adopted as a measure of association between two variables. Specifically, r2 measures the strength of a linear relationship between two variables when the linear fit is determined by regression. For example, the correlation between the variables in Figure 9-1 is 0.88, which means that the regression line explains 100 × 0.882 = 77.4 percent of the variability in the temperature values. However, r2 measures how well some linear function of the predictions matches the data, not how well the predictions themselves perform. The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not in itself a useful indication of merit (Page 93).

    So Dr Mann chose not to report a metric that ‘is not a useful indication of merit’. Seems like a wise decision to me, rather than an indication of sinister intent …..

  95. Perry says:

    Steeptown,

    http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/

    He describes himself thusly; An Australian scientist (not climate) with an interest in the climate debate.

    Not a very useful piece of information, but it’s consistent with his style of posts. You will note that his last contribution to his own website is 17th May, yet he spreads himself over the Internet like a contagion or miasma. Perhaps his Muse has abandoned him to wander withered in mind & spirit, plunged into the depths of personal despair, because of his cognitive dissonance on the subject of the AGW scam.

    He’s just a bit sad. Low traffic, low self esteem. Now that’s a Chladni pattern.

  96. stephen richards says:

    Nick Stokes,

    It’s so sad, if not tragic, that you and the other AGW believer on this thread should choose to demonstrate that otherwise very intelligent people can be so easily led by people such as Mann and Hansen. Your defense of their actions (recorded) is pied piper-like in it’s tenacity. Science is science. As Smokey has posted above, the great scientists are the honest ones. If only there was a man of Richards Feynman’s quality alive today none of this debate would be necessary.

  97. Alcheson says:

    Phil, it seems to me you are being deceptive in saying that mpaul confirms Mann never deleted any emails or ask anyone else to delete them.
    First of all, it seems to me one cannot conclude that he definitely did or did not delete any emails based on the correspondence presented. However, the evidence that Mann did indeed forward Phil’s request as confirmed by Wahl (which now makes it Mann’s request in my view) would lead me to believe that Mann probably DID delete emails and also ask at least one other (Wahl) to delete them as well.

  98. Grumpy Old Man says:

    @ Phil Clarke. ” So Dr Mann chose not to report a metric that ‘is not a useful indication of merit’. Seems like a wise decision to me, rather than an indication of sinister intent”

    Not quite. Dr. Mann chose not to use a standard metric that required knowledge of the values being predicted – data that he is still not prepared to release.

  99. Blade says:

    Oh my god. Nick Stokes and Sceptical. With friends like these, Mann needs no enemies.

    I highly doubt either of them realize it but all by themselves here in the Scepticsphere©®™ they stoke the fires of passion once again, initiating a fast burn aimed at their hero MM, risking his very incineration.

    Somewhere right now, Mann is sitting in the corner of a room with an iPad furiously scrolling through threads here at WUWT and CA, wondering how this happens day in and day out. Well look no further than your volunteer cabal of groupies. I’m talking to you MM, even if you confessed to hiding your data, avoiding data requests and FOIA’s, and admitted that the hockey stick is upside down, these two dead-enders would tell you that you are wrong!

    cgtoronto [June 2, 2011 at 1:44 pm] says:

    “Dr. Michael Mann couldn’t get a clue even if his mom dropped him off in front of the clue store and handed him a clue coupon.”

    pfffftt! There goes another monitor. LOL funny!

  100. Don K says:

    Phil Clarke says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    “100 × 0.882 = 77.4″

    Really? Well, maybe in the world of climate science. In many places 100 x 0.882 = 88.2. Probably what you (or “they” if this is actually a quote) meant is 100 x 0.882^2 = 77.4?

  101. Jimbo says:

    No smoke without fire. Climategate demonstrated this truism. The fact that UV is fighting tooth and nail indicates that there is something to hide. However, if I am wrong then they are wasting money on lawyers and should have spent the money on education.

  102. Nick Stokes says:

    Let me offer a summary here. I defend Mann because I think he is a fine scientist who wrote a pioneering paper, which included an error of small consequence. This set others on the same path, and they have amply verified his results. I think his science is very good.

    He is not without faults. He can be more stubborn than I would wish. I’ve never communicated with him, but it is possible that he is impolite to some.

    But there is also the issue of proportionateness of response. He has had a Republican House Committee holding hearings. He has had the Va Ag exercising oppressive powers. His enails have been stolen and published. He was subjected to a PSU enquiry. And of course these recent FOI cases.

    And why? The case is set out in this head post. It is that he wouldn’t provide data and code (5)? Oh, he did(2)? But he didn’t make it convenient. Or he wouldn’t provide stage outputs, forcing us to compute that ourselves. Or he failed to provide the R2 statistic.

    Oh, and then there is the email issue. Mann is not committing any offense legally (the UK requirement is for UEA to produce docs that UEA holds, which only binds UEA statff) even if he did delete emails. But breaching the spirit?

    How did we get so precious about FOI? I’ve mentioned the story about the Bush admin. Massive use of backdoor accounts, under the AG’s nose, in breach of PRA. 22 million emails deep-sixed. And the Va AG is supposed to use his nuclear weapons over Mann’s forwarding an email?

    That’s the proportionality issue. I think there are things I would have preferred him to do otherwise. I think the PCA issue was a simple programming error, with small consequence and unlikely to be repeated, and should have been acknowledged as such. But how this gets to a “nuclear” response is beyond me.

  103. Phil Clarke says:

    Alcheson,

    First of all, it seems to me one cannot conclude that he definitely did or did not delete any emails based on the correspondence presented.

    So the statement that he ‘participated in an effort to delete mail’ is misleading, at best, then.

    However, the evidence that Mann did indeed forward Phil’s request as confirmed by Wahl (which now makes it Mann’s request in my view) would lead me to believe that Mann probably DID delete emails and also ask at least one other (Wahl) to delete them as well.

    Pure unsupported speculation on your part. I have no idea what was in Mann’s head when he hit ‘forward’ all those years ago and, assuming you lack the psychic and time travel powers necessary to retrospectively mind-read, nor do you. Given the mails are now in the public domain anyway one is forced to wonder what the noise is all about.

    Dr. Mann chose not to use a standard metric that required knowledge of the values being predicted – data that he is still not prepared to release.

    No scientist is required to hand-hold all those replicating his results, indeed slavishly copying the method is not the same as replication, clearly from point (2) above Dr Mann provided all he needed to. The Director of the NSF Paleoclimate Program, couldn’t have been clearer, in a letter to Steve McI….

    Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel.

    As Smokey has posted above, the great scientists are the honest ones

    Would that include Nigel Persaud?

  104. cedarhill says:

    Phil Clarke June 2, 2011 at 3:07 pm “Tosh, possibly libellous. He forwarded a mail, without comment”

    So, by extension, forwarding an email of instructions to destroy bomb making materials to a member of a terrorist gang is not participating only in the dazed, hockey stick wielding world of university clubbers. Then the rationale of “Hey! He needs to defend himself!”. Stay in politics.

  105. Richard S Courtney says:

    I have read this thread with interest and I write to express my sincere thanks to all who have posted here, especially Steve McIntyre, Nick Stokes, Phil Clarke and ‘sceptical’.

    The posts of Steve McIntyre are clear, concise and informative. I learned from them despite having spent much time studying these issues over many years (within the week of MBH98 being published I objected to its ‘splicing’ of dissimilar data sets).
    Thankyou Steve.

    But my greatest thanks go to Nick Stokes, Phil Clarke and ‘sceptical’. Did I laugh? My sides ache from it. I keep going back to read their posts again because it is hard to convince myself that anybody could have the effrontery to write such things. I want more, please MORE! Laughter is the best of medicines.

    Of course, while laughing I am reminded of this quotation translated from its original statement in German:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    Joseph Goebbels

    Richard

  106. colin smith says:

    Have just been re-reading The Climategate Emails edited by John Costella .It still makes an impact.

  107. P. Solar says:

    Posted May 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    “But I don’t think snooping through people’s private emails is a dignified activity.”

    That may be so but what does that have to do with subject of this discussion? Emails subject to FIOA requests are PUBLIC EMAILS not “private”. That’s why FIOA exists. It does not give access to “private emails”. If anyone wrote something they regret being seen in a public document, more fool them. That does NOT mean reading them is “snooping”.

    This is just yet another disingenuous argument thrown up to protect those who have acted improperly and are desperately trying to hide their deeds by obstruction.

  108. Nick Stokes says:

    Richard S Courtney says: June 3, 2011 at 3:40 am

    Well, Richard, in the local sceptic tradition, I suppose all will be impressed with your obviously fake quote, for which the original German has never been found.

  109. Phil Clarke says:

    Richard, Glad to have raised a smile. Godwin’s law looms.

    Should we add the name of Dr Richard Courtney to that of Nigel Persaud as great and honest scientists?

    ;-)

  110. MarkW says:

    Mother Jones??????

    Now that’s a reputable, unbiased party if I ever heard of one.

    /sarc

  111. Don Keiller says:

    Nick, a couple of straightforward questions.
    1) Are the statistical procedures used in MBH98 correct for this kind of reconstruction?
    2) If yes, why then does the Wegman Report (let’s not muddy the waters here with the plagiarism story) state that they are not?
    3) If no, then it must follow that MBH is not an accurate reconstruction and the paper should be withdrawn. Yes or no?

  112. MarkW says:

    That’s interesting. I’ve never heard of an error that totally invalidates the conclusions drawn, being described as “of small consequence” before.

    Nick, are you perhaps using a dictionary of your own devising?

  113. Patrick Davis says:

    “Richard S Courtney says:
    June 3, 2011 at 3:40 am”

    I was trying to forulate a reply similar to yours after doing exactly as you write. You took the words out of my mouth! Well done, and perfect!

  114. Steve McIntyre says:

    Nick Stokes and Phil continue to spread information and tell outright falsehoods about MBH98. Nick says:

    Mann didn’t think R2 was the appropriate statistic.

    Phil says:

    So Dr Mann chose not to report a metric that ‘is not a useful indication of merit’. Seems like a wise decision to me, rather than an indication of sinister intent

    They continue to spread untrue urban legends. The problem is not that MBH failed to report a statistic that is not a “useful indication of merit”, but that MBH said explicitly that they calculated verification r2 statistics and that their Figure 3c showed high verification r2 statistics. They discussed how they established benchmarks for the statistic. Here are excerpts:

    1
    2
    3

    Here is MBH98 Figure 3C showing verification r2 results.
    4

    At the NAS panel presentations, Mann told them in response to a question that he didn’t calculate verification r2 statistics, as that would be a “foolish and incorrect” thing to do. Even though his source code showed that he done so. The verification r2 issue was very much on the table since it had been raised in Cicerone’s original letter. We had shown the panel MBH98 Figure 3C the previous day, so they were aware of the evidence that Mann had in fact calculated the verification r2 statistic and that his answer to the panel was untrue. However, they didn’t grasp the nettle and sat there like bumps on a log. After Mann’s presentation, there was a short opportunity for public comment but Mann walked out before anyone from the “public” could ask him a question.

    The CE statistic is not a safe haven for MBH as it fails that statistic as well – a point that we made in our 2005 articles, though this finding was not cited by the NAS panel.

  115. Nick Stokes says:

    Richard S Courtney says: June 3, 2011 at 3:40 am

    Well, Richard, in the local sceptic style, I suppose all will be impressed with your obviously fake quote, for which the original German has never been found.

  116. Nick Stokes says:

    Don,
    1) A mean for the wrong period was subtracted
    2) Wegman noted this, as did M&M
    3) No, the paper should not be withdrawn. There were some other data handling errors, and an erratum was issued noting this, and saying that the results were unaffected. A similar erratum might have been appropriate here. But it’s a bit redundant now.

  117. He was subjected to a PSU enquiry

    ?

    Nick, while I would like to agree with your general sentiment, it is clear that you are indulging in a romanticized historiography of Mann. Reality does not bear out this view. Mann was, and is, as politicized as can be, and has had powerful people playing behind-the-scenes roles and pulling strings to protect him right from the beginning.

    Anyone interested in doing good for science must no doubt raise their voice against any percieved vilification of individual scientists, but also against the corruption of institutional science as well.

    In order to sustain your supporting voice for Mann, things have reached a stage where you are having to utter obvious falsehoods -i.e., Mann was subject to enquiry.

    Mann was subject to nothing. Have you even read the emails that flew back and forth over the Soon and Baliunas issue that Mann wrote?

    Even the American President had his audiotapes released. Yes, people hide things, and people destroy things, including the Bush administration. Is Phil Jones still not Director of CRU still after deleting ‘loads of emails’? Don’t say therefore that we ought to have low ethical expectations from Mann.

  118. Smokey says:

    Nick and Phil cannot adequately defend Michael Mann’s mendacity and cover-ups, so they employ misdirection instead: what matters more, whether someone can or can’t track down a German quote – or why Michael Mann hides out from questions, and avoids the scientific method’s transparency requirement, which is necessary to replicate his work?

    This article is about the serious problems with Mann’s hockey stick chart, and the FOI requests that he fights tooth and nail, and the disreputable shenanigans exposed by the Climategate emails. So of course Nick Stokes wants to sidetrack the discussion away from those issues. Let’s debate whether a Nazi quote is accurate instead, eh?

    Mann is a fool for stonewalling. It didn’t work for Richard Nixon, and it’s not working for Michael Mann; folks are beginning to seriously question what it is he’s hiding. Mann acts like he’s protecting nuclear defense secrets. But it’s just climate and proxy data, and the code he used to manufacture his hockey stick. So why the bunker mentality? Cover-ups like this make people mighty curious.

  119. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 5:01 am
    “But it’s just climate and weather data, and the code he used to manufacture his hockey stick.”

    You seem to be impervious to facts, but I’ll try again. The “climate and weather data, and the code he used” are all available (from Mann’s web site), and have been for many years. I have them myself. They were the basis of the M&M 2005 papers.

  120. golf charley says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    June 3, 2011 at 3:25 am

    Nick you make some valid points but….

    The Hockey Stick is iconic to IPCC. The science relies on it. The public have been swayed by it. Economies in the developed world are being trashed because of it. Economies in the developing world are not developing because of it. People are dying through lack of drinkable water because of it.

    Mann’s Hockey Stick is one of the most significant pieces of science of all time. He has changed the world. I give him credit for that. Just a one teeny weeny problem. He was wrong.

    Time to stop the Hockey Teamsters wrecking the world

  121. Nick Stokes says:

    Shub Niggurath says: June 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
    “you are having to utter obvious falsehoods -i.e., Mann was subject to enquiry.”

    Huh? That sounds like one. Are you saying there was no PSU inquiry?

  122. Icarus says:

    I have a simple question on this issue:

    Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98, and if so, what does that tell us about anthropogenic global warming?

  123. Ken Harvey says:

    MPaul. I thank you for that rarest of gifts – lucidity. Were that more of us were so blessed.

    Thanks, Anthony, for drawing this to our attention.

  124. Smokey says:

    Nick Stokes,

    You have no understanding of how the scientific method works. It requires transparency and cooperation with other scientists. Mann will not cooperate, and without cooperation there is no scientific method because no follow-up questions are permitted.

    Once more, since it didn’t sink in the first time, Prof Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method:

    It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards.
    For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”

    Mann does none of that, and you’re being an apologist for a pseudo-scientist.

  125. Steve from Rockwood says:

    I used to work for a major mining company. I had a filing cabinet with all my correspondence in it. When I left the company the filing cabinet and its contents stayed. I don’t know if anyone ever went through it and where all that correspondence went but I wouldn’t see it as snooping.
    The problem with emails is that people see them as their personal property. They are off guard when they write them and they are less carefully crafted than printed correspondence. This is what makes them even more valuable as the CRU emails proved.
    The obstruction by MM and others is a clear indication that they see their research as belonging to them and not the public.
    When you quit a job and it’s time to clear your desk, you take your favorite pen, coffee cup and the family photos. But who owns the data, the correspondence, the emails?
    Maybe in a university it’s different but I certainly didn’t take a copy of my emails, I didn’t photocopy my filing cabinet and I didn’t take away any company data on DVDs.

  126. Smokey says:

    Icarus says:

    “Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98…?

    The journal Nature admitted that Mann’s Hokey Stick was erroneous.

  127. Blade says:

    Phil Clarke [June 3, 2011 at 4:05 am] says:

    “Glad to have raised a smile. Godwin’s law looms.”

    Ha! Kinda like a vampire telling the townspeople to put away their crosses.

    Or like the kickoff receiver in the end-zone calling a fair catch as the opposing team close in.

    Godwin’s law created by liberals for protecting liberals, a convenient component of Political Correctness. Designed to shield proto-Nazis from being compared to historical Nazis. Very similar to Commies crying McCarthyism, which was another convenient component of Political Correctness.

    Unfortunately for the liberal neo-communist democratic socialist the jig is up. Such tactics will only work on the terminally politically correct, and there are a lot less of them around these days as the new peer-to-peer media replaces the tired old mainstream media. “Don’t call me out” carries very little weight in a world that is finally awakening from its slumber. People will once again call a spade a spade.

    In short, you are a member of an endangered species, and you don’t even realize it. Kyoto, CO2 fearmongering, Carbon credits, Windmill farms, drowning cities, boiling hot Earth, ‘warming is bad, y’all are so far down this rabbit hole that Jules Verne couldn’t extricate you.

  128. oMan says:

    Nick Stokes argues (irrelevantly, I agree) that the “Big Lie” quote lacks good provenance. His starting that argument is, arguably, a tactic in furtherance of the general “Big Lie” strategy: which is all about misdirection, confusion, distraction –clogging of the audience’s bandwidth so that it can’t focus on the real issue and cannot separate truth from lie.

    For what it’s worth, Wikipedia says this about the “Big Lie” as developed and applied, with such tragic success, in Nazi Germany. The gist of the description is entirely in keeping with the point that Richard Courtney was making when he introduced the idea into the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

  129. sunsettommy says:

    “sceptical says:
    June 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    How bizarre that so many people still can’t move beyond a reconstruction from the late 1990′s which has been validated numerous times since.”

    Pure delusional thinking.

    For one thing.It is a NORTHERN HEMISPHERE reconstruction paper.Not a global temperature paper.Thus it is incomplete from the start.

    Secondly,it contradicts decades of well established research in several fields.Such as History,Archaeology,Botany,Biology and of course climate science.Research that TO THIS DAY still insist that the MWP and LIA existed and was widespread.

    Thirdly,there are many published science papers attesting to the existence of the MWP :

    Medieval Warm Period Project

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    You need to wake up to reality.

  130. Don K says:

    Nick Stokes, sceptical, et. al, seem to be confident that the hockey stick has been validated. But not a single reference. Would it be too much to ask for a link to a coherent, fully documented, validation of MBH98 that handles the LIA and preferably MWP as well reasonably, and is robust to the removal of bristlecone pine data? I’ve spent some time a few miles down the road from bristlecone country. The region is quite warm and very dry in Summer. IMO, the bristlecones are very likely to be better precipitation proxies than temperature proxies.

  131. Mark Nutley says:

    It shocks me that anyone even others to try arguing with the “true believers” such as sceptical and stokes. Really guys, don`t waste your time on them.

  132. Richard S Courtney says:

    Nick Stokes:

    I write to offer you some friendly advice.

    The above item (which is the subject of this thread) concludes by saying;
    “It’s sad that we have arrived at this place. But at every juncture in this journey, Mann has chosen the wrong path.”

    I suggest that conclusion is correct and it seems you are incapable or unwilling to learn from it.

    Not content with your attempts to defend and excuse the behaviour of Michael Mann, you make another serious error when at June 3, 2011 at 4:00 am and again at June 3, 2011 at 4:35 am you attempt to deny a comment of Joseph Goebbles.

    At very least, this denial provides doubt to your judgement on whom to defend. And your attempts at defending Mann and defending Goebbles are both doomed to failure. Indeed, nobody needs to – or will – address your defence of Goebbles because few would want to be associated with such a discussion.

    So, my advice to you is that you should reconsider whom you want to defend because others could think your support for them indicates you have an afinity with them and that you support what they have done.

    Simply, I beg you – in your own interest – to consider that, like Mann, you have chosen the wrong path.

    Richard

  133. Huh Mr Stokes? Please don’t play literalism games. Read your own post above, against the overall thrust of its argument was my response.

    A real enquiry/inquiry is where the natural questions that arise out of the contents of the emails and their implications are adequately raised, verified and cross-checked.

    Did any of these happen in the PSU ‘inquiry’? It clearly did not – you can take Dick Lindzen’s word for it, if you don’t like mine.

    Your falsehood consists in representing this non-inquiry as though it was an onerous imposition that was placed on Mann where his very motives and honesty were under attack, and as a result of which he deserves sympathy from reasonable people. He is very much a man who has been through much in your book, isn’t he?

    He is not. Certainly w.r.t to the fake PSU inquiry he did not go through anything. In fact, Mann is yet to recieve a ‘proportionate response’.

  134. Mark T says:

    If Nick thinks Mann simply subtracting a mean from the wrong period is all that is wrong with MBH98 then I have grossly overestimated his actual knowledge of the subject matter.

    Mark

  135. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    The journal Nature admitted that Mann’s Hokey Stick was erroneous.

    Unfortunately, all that link shows is how incredibly deceptive your sources at Heartland are! That they spin a corrigendum (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf) that just makes some corrections to the listing of the proxy data sets in the supplementary information (which were used and which weren’t and what the start dates were) and expands the discussion of the methological details as showing the Mann hockey stick was erroneous especially when the last line says, “None of these errors affect our previously published results” is just an implicit acknowledgment that they don’t have any real arguments to make.

  136. Don Keiller says:

    Nick Answers
    Don,
    1) A mean for the wrong period was subtracted
    2) Wegman noted this, as did M&M
    3) No, the paper should not be withdrawn. There were some other data handling errors, and an erratum was issued noting this, and saying that . A similar erratum might have been appropriate here. But it’s a bit redundant now.

    So answer to
    Q1- MBH98 statistics were incorrect
    Q2 – Wegman proved they were incorrect
    Q3 – Yet Nick says, despite 1 and 2, that the results were unaffected.

    This addresses the nub of the arguement, wrong statistics, right answer.
    However I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways. If the methodology is incorrect (and it was not just the statistics), then the answer, by definition, cannot be relied on.

    The point is not redundant, because MBH98 is still being used to “prove” AGW and drive insane economic policies. The paper must be withdrawn.

  137. Alcheson says:

    Phil, I think you are sadly mistaken about how open and honest Mann and climate scientists needs to be. When one is using the results of their public funded research in order to justify massive changes in the world society and impose massive tax increases and lowered standard of living on everyone, except those invested in the rediculous carbon trading scheme, then the bar for transparency and proof is much higher than say… publishing a scientific paper on black holes.

  138. G. Karst says:

    “But I don’t think snooping through people’s private emails is a dignified activity.”

    I am sure Richard Nixon felt the same about oval office recordings. Nasty, unpleasant duty, but someone had to do it! GK

  139. Let me offer a summary here. I defend Mann because I think he is a fine scientist who wrote a pioneering paper, which included an error of small consequence. This set others on the same path, and they have amply verified his results. I think his science is very good.

    He is not without faults. He can be more stubborn than I would wish. I’ve never communicated with him, but it is possible that he is impolite to some.

    But there is also the issue of proportionateness of response. He has had a Republican House Committee holding hearings. He has had the Va Ag exercising oppressive powers. His enails have been stolen and published. He was subjected to a PSU enquiry. And of course these recent FOI cases.

    And why? The case is set out in this head post. It is that he wouldn’t provide data and code (5)? Oh, he did(2)? But he didn’t make it convenient. Or he wouldn’t provide stage outputs, forcing us to compute that ourselves. Or he failed to provide the R2 statistic.

    Oh, and then there is the email issue. Mann is not committing any offense legally (the UK requirement is for UEA to produce docs that UEA holds, which only binds UEA statff) even if he did delete emails. But breaching the spirit?

    How did we get so precious about FOI? I’ve mentioned the story about the Bush admin. Massive use of backdoor accounts, under the AG’s nose, in breach of PRA. 22 million emails deep-sixed. And the Va AG is supposed to use his nuclear weapons over Mann’s forwarding an email?

    That’s the proportionality issue. I think there are things I would have preferred him to do otherwise. I think the PCA issue was a simple programming error, with small consequence and unlikely to be repeated, and should have been acknowledged as such. But how this gets to a “nuclear” response is beyond me.

    Lies are long and the truth is short. Has all the requested information been released? No. Is there any reason not to release it? No. Is there any reason to release it? Yes. Your attempt to compare science with auditing is crap. In a process that involves so many steps from input to results, you compare methods and results at each step for confirmation/consistency.

    Your most telling statement though is when you complain that no one appointed Steve the auditor of this material. While it’s not surprising to see that coming from a defender of The Team, in the real world where people are held responsible for their work and their results, we don’t get to ‘appoint’ our own reviewers. Anyone and everyone who thinks they can do a better job is welcome to try and prove that themselves. Steve has proven himself.

    To your point of proportionality, while I have no idea what Mann’s opinions are and don’t much care, his work and the work of his colleagues has and is being used by a bunch of people who are politically and economically retarded and dead set on decimating the accumulated capital structure that has allowed us to live relatively better lives over time. Even if you agree with the alarmists, the idea that we are better able to deal with the consequences by crippling our economies is pure idiocy. That in and of itself is reason enough to nit pick the hell out of every study such people champion.

    If you’re going to take public money to do work which will influence public policy and the public’s current and future prospects for a better life, you’d better be ready to put all your cards on the table. If you’re not, shut up and ‘study’ something of lesser consequence. It’s really that simple, and you can’t have it both ways; you’re either a scientist and you lay out everything for scrutiny, or you’re a magician and you keep the chosen secrets to yourself with the implicit understanding that you’re at least partially bullshitting people about the results.

  140. Jeremy says:

    The whole story would have gone differently for Mann if he had simply made a friend of Steve McIntyre. In fact, if Mann had befriended rather than antagonized Steve, it’s highly likely that CAGW would not have unraveled as it has now.

    Imagine this. Imagine Mann complies fully with Steve. Mann knows that Steve will likely find errors, so he expresses extreme interest in knowing what Steve finds. Mann attempts to make a colleague out of McIntyre. Steve, being a nice guy, shares his results with Mann before publishing anything. Mann, knowing he’s likely been caught out, agrees with Steve’s results and now having established a rapport, asks to for help on a new project.

    With no mystery, there’s no climateaudit.org website. With no climateaudit, there’s no crowds of internet saavy users prowling temperature records, no dogged investigations into other papers that “confirm” the hockeystick, and more importantly no critical eye turned towards the IPCC process because one of the IPCC bigwigs is working with the internet population to improve his reports.

    And of course, the CAGW bandwagon would be churning along at full steam. California would be following Spain (though they didn’t need more regulations to do that apparently). Copenhagen would had a much better chance at being a political success for all parties. Windmills would be replacing farms. Coal plants would be shutting down., etc..etc..

    All undone by the pride of one man and his pride in his miniscule contribution to science at large.

  141. nandheeswaran jothi says:

    ShrNfr says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    You are right about lying to an officer. That jeopardy exists — if he lied to Federal officials. However. That requires that AG Holder wants to prosecute the warmistas for their crime. That is a long long wait.

    as for lying to the state officials, it requires that cuccinelli gets Mann under Oath, in VA. You know Pennsylvania will rally around their precious State U metereology dept. He will be stuck in harrisburg arguing the need to get this crook to Virginia

  142. James Sexton says:

    Icarus says:
    June 3, 2011 at 5:24 am

    I have a simple question on this issue:

    Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98, and if so, what does that tell us about anthropogenic global warming?
    ======================================================
    The first part of your question was answered by Smokey. Go here, http://climateaudit.org/, to find many smack-downs of Mann98 and subsequent variants of the same stick.

    As to the second part of the question, “…..what does that tell us about anthropogenic global warming?, it tells us plenty.

    First, is tells us it is very probable the MWP and LIA weren’t confined to NW Europe…….. Other observations confirm this. So, while it doesn’t specifically address AGW, it does tell us the earth’s climate does change, in extremes, by itself, without mankind’s influence. So, it is entirely possible that the changes we’re observing today are nothing more than naturally occurring changes……….. but I think you knew that already.

  143. NikFromNYC says:

    Nick wrote: “I think the PCA issue was a simple programming error, with small consequence and unlikely to be repeated, and should have been acknowledged as such. But how this gets to a “nuclear” response is beyond me.”

    The Six Million Dollar Mann is co-author on another “simple programming error”, whose co-author Steig secretly became reviewer of the skeptical article which eventually exposed the “error”:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/nature09data/cover_nature.jpg

    Doesn’t that count as showing a pattern of repeat “errors” and of pal instead of peer review?

  144. Frank K. says:

    Smokey says:
    June 3, 2011 at 5:40 am

    From Smokey’s Link:

    Theory Losing Support

    Mann, an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had ferociously defended his hockey stick papers and had launched several personal attacks on McIntyre and McKitrick. The corrigendum listed five references but did not cite the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (“Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series,” Energy and Environment 14(6)) that first drew attention to the mistakes in the original “hockey stick” article.

    And who can forget this climategate e-mail…

    From: Phil Jones
    To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
    Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

    Mike,
    In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
    another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
    to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

    Cheers
    Phil

    [my bolding]
    I believe IPR stands for “Intellectual Property Rights”…

    Welcome to Transparency in Science!

  145. Frank K. says:

    Here’s another climategate e-mail documenting the openness and transparency that is the hallmark of climate science…

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18
    Date: Mon Feb 9 15:50:09 2004

    Mike,
    These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess
    these are the ones that aren’t available on web sites. Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I’ll baulk at that. Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve’s going to find it very hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 10:19 09/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:

    HI Phil,
    Personally, I wouldn’t send him anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.
    There are a few series from our ’03 paper that he won’t have–these include the latest
    Jacoby and D’Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven’t made it
    publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn’t be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our ’99 GRL paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
    I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!
    talk to you later,
    mike
    At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,
    FYI. Sent him the two series – the as received versions. Wonder what he’s up to?
    Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn’t want the Alerce
    series. Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
    Cheers
    Phil

    From: “Steve McIntyre”
    To: “Phil Jones”
    Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
    Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:23 -0500
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
    X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
    fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID
    at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500

    Dear Phil,
    Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in
    Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre


    Note Steve McIntyre’s outrageous e-mail request… /sarc

    I’ll stop here…

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

  146. Icarus says:

    Smokey says:
    June 3, 2011 at 5:40 am
    Icarus says:

    “Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98…?

    The journal Nature admitted that Mann’s Hokey Stick was erroneous

    As far as I can see, the only thing Nature published was a few minor corrections to citations etc. in MBH98 that had no effect on the results. Correct?

  147. Scarface says:

    @ Jabba the Cat:
    I like the sequel to that also very much:

    @sceptical (June 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm)
    You forgot /sarc

    @Anthony and Steve:
    This post is one of the best imho in the endgame on the definite destroying of the HS-lies and cover-ups. I’ve bookmarked some comments of you to be used later, when some CAGW-believers need to know what it is all about.

    @Nick Stokes
    How you can defend the undefendable is beyond me. Yet it is freightening in the sense that you show how far CAGW-believers will go in order to save the image of an infallible theory and dito science, where it has all the signs of a religion.
    Religion is not science. You are free to believe what you want, but not seeing what is wrong with a secular scientific approach by the HS-teammembers just shows that you’ve lost the ability to be objective. And that proofs to me that you apparently need the CAGW-cult for some sort of religious reasons. But you are being deceived by the people that you so convulsive defend. The truth will set you free.

    And to everyone who needs a break:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=related M4GW rule!

  148. Icarus says:

    James Sexton:

    So would it be correct to say that there are no published papers substantially contradicting any of the findings of MBH98?

  149. theduke says:

    Mann says: “There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”

    This gets to motive and the motive is fear that the methods and data are wanting and that exposure will sink the ship.

    Of course, Nick will spin it differently. But the intent is clear: they don’t want people to have a full understanding of how they came to their conclusions. If they did, they would have released everything requested a long time ago.

    If Mann doesn’t want to be accused of being party to the greatest hoax of our age, he better open up the safe.

  150. Bad Andrew says:

    “Note Steve McIntyre’s outrageous e-mail request… /sarc”

    Yes, quite vexatious, exceedingly ludicrous and wholly sedatious. /sarc

    Andrew

  151. wws says:

    Michael Mann and his defenders are in exactly the same position as Rep. Anthony Wiener is today. They are lying, they know they are lying, their accusers know they are lying, there is no honest, serious doubt anymore about the lying. “Restore the integrity of Climate Science”??? Not only is there no such thing, we are at the point where EVERYONE on both sides now knows there is no such thing!!!

    All that is left is the raw power play, the push that “We are powerful enough to impose our narrative no matter what the “Truth” is!” as opposed to Cucinelli, “You’re not more powerful than I am, and I’m gonna prove it.”

    This is now just a bare knuckles fight to the virtual death. The warmists have nothing else left – certainly not “Integrity”.

  152. James Sexton says:

    Icarus says:
    June 3, 2011 at 9:15 am

    James Sexton:

    So would it be correct to say that there are no published papers substantially contradicting any of the findings of MBH98?
    ====================================================
    lol, No, that wouldn’t be correct. I can’t tell if you’re attempting to be coy or are simply a novice at this. Start with MM(McIntyre and McKitrick)03, move on to Soon & Baliunas (03 I believe), go back to MM05, you can also read von Storch04, or, you can cut through all of that and go to McShane & Wyner10 which seriously calls into question not just Mann’s methodologies, but the value of the proxies themselves. It turns out, treemometers are as about as useful as fur-lined syrup pitchers when it comes to temp reconstructions. (You can just use the search bar on this site for M&W10) The fact is MBH98 and all the subsequent nearly identical studies(Briffa, Jones, etc.) are of little or no value.

    Hope that helps to clear things up.

    James

  153. TomB says:

    I believe the Mother Jones links were to highlight hypocrisy. They host a repository of emails that they hope will smear Republicans, then cry foul on doing the same thing with the correspondence of their ideological comrades.

  154. It is truly unfortunately that, in all likelihood, If Mann and others were brought before the Grand Jury in an effort to clean up the entire mess, they would ALL likely plead the 5th to avoid self prosecution. So unless one volunteers to turn states evidence, nothing is likely to come of the effort

    A few points: you cannot “plead the 5th” in front of a Grand Jury. You can, of course, refuse to provide evidence, & you can sit in federal prison until you do provide the evidence requested of you. I don’t know the rules in every case or every state, but you aren’t always allowed to have a lawyer at a Grand Jury hearing, either.

    & to James of the West: a Grand Jury can’t acquit. They can only decide whether or not the evidence justifies charges & what charges may be justified.

    But again: if a Grand Jury demands ALL of Michael Mann’s e-mail, he can either pony up or rot in prison until he changes his mind.

  155. glacierman says:

    James Sexton Said:

    “It turns out, treeometers are as about as useful as fur-lined syrup pitchers when it comes to temp reconstructions.”

    Yes, and combining and averaging a bunch of their faulty signals together doesn’t give a better signal, it just smoothes out the BS.

  156. ldd says:

    As they say, follow the money and green stocks are flat.
    Wonder why?

    16C today near Ottawa, June 3rd.
    Last night here it was +3.1 C at 4:am here.

    I really wish we were warming – not because of the lies of Global Warming, but because I hate the cold and the earth would be far nicer, weather wise, if it was a bit warmer.

    Anyone who says the science is settled on this is nuts, seriously.

    How can they say that with all the variables at play and all that remains unknown, and IS known to be unknown and could be significant factors like how our earth is affected within our solar system, and within another giant system in space that changes all the time! ( please excuse my clumsy attempts at explaining myself better, not a word wizard with this subject…wish I was!)

    Hardly anyone I know believes in GW anymore. Couple of years back it was different.
    Anything that pushes green on us, it’s mocked and reject outright now. Including for example, the extra tax dollar now on all communications/media billings for the paper invoice – be vocal and complain – I am. Canada should have a robust wood and paper manufacturing industry with – replanting already proved successful there’s no reason to pay ‘extra’ for this green lie, we should NOT be held responsible financially at this personal level(millions every month) for the other parts of the worlds ‘social problems’ or for the ‘weather’ in years, decades or centuries to come.

    Later, out to burn garbage, yard debris, other useless stuff without guilt and warm this frigid area up!/

  157. rmiglobal says:

    Good stuff, the flim-flam artists are in a corner ;-)

  158. Smokey says:

    Icarus says:

    “As far as I can see, the only thing Nature published was a few minor corrections to citations etc. in MBH98 that had no effect on the results. Correct?”

    As James Sexton shows: no, that is not correct.

    And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart.

    And the IPCC absolutely loved that chart. They published it numerous times before it was debunked. Now they no longer use it, because it has been shown to be a deceptive fabrication. In other words: alarmist propaganda disguised as science.

  159. R.S.Brown says:

    Anthony/mpaul,

    Michael Mann was at the University of Massachusetts for a brief period
    in the late1990s. His curriculum vitae indicates he taught a
    single class while there: GEO 591 Data Analysis & Climate Change.

    See:

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

    although he doesn’t say anything about his time at the University of
    Massachusetts in his posted Department of Meteorology bio at Penn State:

    http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

    When you turn to outside sources, you’ll find his academic titles while
    at the University of Massachusetts:

    Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts, Department of
    Geosciences, 1997-1998

    Research Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts, Department of
    Geosciences, 1998-1999

    See:

    http://climatechange.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=009952

    The University of Massachusetts is covered by the Massachusetts Public
    Records Act. Mann’s notes, emails and work, if any, now held by him or
    by the University of Massachusetts are subject to requests under the
    Massachusetts Public Records Act at:

    http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Massachusetts_Public_Records_Act

    Features of the Massachusetts Public Records Act:

    http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/75-1.htm

    In Massachusetts:

    Public records are defined as,
    “All books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements,
    statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of
    physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee
    of any agency”.

    There are twelve ways for information or material to qualify for Exceptions
    from a Massachusetts Public Records request.

    Mike Mann’s unknown material from his time at the University of Massachusetts
    might qualify for an exemption from the Public Records law if he or the
    institution could prove the stuff was made up of:

    #6. Trade secrets and proprietary business information

    We aren’t hearing of the University of Massachusetts being inundated
    with FOI requests for Mike Mann’s leftovers from the quality time he spent
    at that institution.

    I’ll bet nobody’s ever thought to ask.

    WUWT ?

  160. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart.

    And the IPCC absolutely loved that chart. They published it numerous times before it was debunked.

    Well, it is technically true, but deceptive, to say that they don’t publish that chart any more if by that chart you mean simply the one reconstruction. And, the reason is that the field has moved on and there are now many more reconstructions, so what they now publish is a figure that includes all of them, including the one that you wrongly claim is “debunked”: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

    Some of these reconstructions do show a somewhat more pronounced MWP and LIA than Mann et al. found, although I think they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph and they all show the modern instrumental temperature record most likely exceeding the temperatures determined from the proxy reconstructions for the MWP.

  161. Mac the Knife says:

    Steeptown says:
    June 2, 2011 at 10:32 pm
    ” Who is Nick Stokes?”

    He sure as hell isn’t John Galt! Goes for ‘s(c)eptic al’ as well…..

  162. sceptical says:

    Smokey, “And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. ”

    And yet the attacks on the scary chart continue. Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?

    The IPCC, and science, have moved forward. Reconstructions since have shown much the same, just more precisely. The only folks not moving forward are those to whom the scientific method is something to fear (scary chart).

    James, are there any papers (Wahl 2007) calling into question the conclusions of MM, or did the science stagnant for you as soon as the infallible MM paper was published?

  163. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Well, it is technically true…” blah, blah & etc.

    Joel, give it up. The IPCC LOVED Mann’s alarming chart at the top of this article. They would NEVER have given it up if it hadn’t been debunked.

    Mann’s phony chart attempted to erase the MWP and the LIA. He was deceptively trying to show that there was no appreciable temperature variation until the industrial revolution. In other words, Mann was falsely claiming there was no ‘climate change’ until CO2 emissions began to rise.

    And the IPCC would still be using that chart today, if Mann hadn’t been caught cherry-picking proxies. Because the IPCC loved that chart above all others.

  164. glacierman says:

    Sceptical says:

    “Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?”

    Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies. Defending it indicates an ulterior motive.

  165. MarkW says:

    which has been validated numerous times since

    It’s hardly surprising when friends of the original author, using the same data and the same techniques arrive at the same result.

  166. TonyG says:

    This whole debate is vastly different than what I’m used to reading about in the various physics books (lay stuff, like by Gribben & Davies) I’ve read – stories where physicists with ideas & theories actively engage in bets about whose theory will be disproven.

    Whatever happened to that sort of approach to science?

  167. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Smokey, “And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. ”

    And yet the attacks on the scary chart continue. Why are so many so afraid of Dr. Mann’s reconstruction?

    The IPCC, and science, have moved forward. Reconstructions since have shown much the same, just more precisely. The only folks not moving forward are those to whom the scientific method is something to fear (scary chart).

    James, are there any papers (Wahl 2007) calling into question the conclusions of MM, or did the science stagnant for you as soon as the infallible MM paper was published?
    ====================================================

    lol, boy I love questions directed at me that come with their own answer! So which MM are you referring to? (Notice how I didn’t answer the question but know the answer anyway?) I certainly have no intention in re-hashing the Mann/MM/Wahl stuff other than to state my questions were sufficiently answered at ClimateAudit. I would encourage you to go over there and peruse the site. Also, if you were to read my comment in its entirety, you’d see where it isn’t really relevant, because the proxies themselves are in high doubt. You can have the most elegant of arguments and the most clever of statistical approaches and none of it will matter because treeometers simply can’t give us anything more than a general idea of climate. Its ridiculous to believe otherwise.

    Also, “The IPCC, and science, have moved forward.”—— yes, it has, in part of the basis of the flawed hockey stick. No one is afraid of the iconic, yet errant graphic, just disgusted by what was advanced because of it. Does a bad tree bear good fruit? The problem is the idea of catastrophic climate change really took off because of that graph. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. People around the world were screaming it was wrong. Historians, geographers, archeologists…..you name it, …….but the graph attempted to revise history. I’ve no tolerance for history revisionists. They are a contemptible group. Given the money, time and energy wasted on this farcical graphic, I’d say it is way past time we stop taking anything serious that group of people have to say.(the IPCC and the team) We’ve simply have many more important issues to deal with other than some imaginary molecular bogey man.

    Best wishes,

    James

  168. Mac the Knife says:

    ‘This isn’t about truth at all. It’s about sounding plausible.’
    Quite adequately describes the underlying themes of the posts from ‘Nick Stokes’, ‘s(c)eptic al’, and similar. Same cadre, same ‘jail house lawyer’ argumentation of half truths and willful omissions….

    Rather than wasting time responding to the disingenuous AGW believers, I whole heartedly suggest that each person reading this and other WUWT posts contact their federal, state and local representatives and focus your efforts on educating them on the fallacies and deceits embedded in the hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming. Educate your friends and families. Provide fact based information to your coworkers, garden clubs, drinking buddies, and political associates. It will be time far better spent than trying to score semantics points with the dwindling cadre of AGW faithful….

    The AGW faithful will become evermore vocal and strident now, as we continue to hammer the ‘wooden stake’ of honest science through the heart of the economic blood sucking AGW vampire! There cries of anguish should be just confirmation (and music to our ears!) that the combined efforts of each one of you are succeeding in that honest and open effort. Keep ‘pounding away’ and Thank You to Anthony and each of the knowledgeable posters to WUWT! You provide such reliable ‘ammo’ to folks like myself that shotgunning the ‘clays’ and ‘balloons’ launched by the AGW folks has become progressively easier and easier!

    Sincerely – Many Thanks and Keep Up The Good Work!

  169. sceptical says:

    glacierman, “Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies.”

    Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?

  170. sunsettommy says:

    Sceptical,

    Not once have you commented on my post.Here is a partial quote from my post:

    “Secondly,it contradicts decades of well established research in several fields.Such as History,Archaeology,Botany,Biology and of course climate science.Research that TO THIS DAY still insist that the MWP and LIA existed and was widespread.

    Thirdly,there are many published science papers attesting to the existence of the MWP :

    Medieval Warm Period Project

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    You need to wake up to reality.”

    I have pointed this out to other H.S. lovers (that is never global anyway),over the years.That there are many other fields of research.That clearly establishes the existence of MWP and LIA.

    They chose to ignore it and continue to be irrational over a long discredited paper.A singular claim AGAINST decades of verified research of the opposite position on the existence of the MWP and LIA.

    The laughable part about Dr. Mann’s H.S. paper is that it is based only for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.Plus a significant proxy he used (Bristlecone pine) grows in a few scattered regions,high elevation parts of Western America.They occupy a climatic niche that is seen mostly over 7’000 elevation.

    Quoting from Wikipedia:

    “Bristlecone pines grow in isolated groves at and just below the tree line. Because of cold temperatures, dry soils, high winds, and short growing seasons, the trees grow very slowly. The wood is very dense and resinous, and thus resistant to invasion by insects, fungi, and other potential pests. As the tree ages, much of its vascular cambium layer may die. In very old specimens, often only a narrow strip of living tissue connects the roots to a handful of live branches.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

    Not a compelling proxy to apply to an entire hemisphere with.

    LOL

  171. sunsettommy says:

    “sceptical says:
    June 3, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    glacierman, “Because it is an inaccurate rewriting of Earth History that attempts to undo countless other published studies.”

    Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?”

    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

    He was referring to Earths HISTORY.

    Hint: Greenland and Vikings.

  172. Phil Clarke says:

    Nick Stokes – 3:25.

    Nice summary, Nick. The lack of perspective/proportion is indeed breathtaking. Skipping lightly over the sockpuppets, false credentials, nitpicks, Nazi comparisons, personal remarks, mountains and molehills I would remind folks of some more of that ‘information’ that Mr McIntyre accused me of spreading …

    The first MBH study, MBH98, only went back to 1400 so claims the intent was to get rid of the MWP must be in connection to the sequel, MBH99.

    MBH99 was all about the uncertainties in reconstructions going back so far (The clue is in the title). This detail has got lost in the noise, as has the fact that the graph picked up by the IPCC came with substantial error bars (The grey regions in the graphic above). I think Joel is right that all or most of the subsequent studies fall within those error bars, including the sequel to the sequel, Mann 2008 – with its complete code & data archive.

    The curve has undoubted visual impact and it is arguable that the IPCC over-relied upon and overhyped it, and the original uncertainties, caveats and error bars got lost along the way, – but how this translates to the opproprium heaped on Mann passes all my understanding.

    Icarus asks ‘Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98, and if so, what does that tell us about anthropogenic global warming?’

    Smokey’s risible Heartland link notwithstanding, and extending MBH98 to both studies, the answer is that Mann 2008 showed greater variability (a less flat blade) but the central conclusion of anomalous recent warmth remains our best understanding.

    The argument seems to go The Hockey Stick is broken => recent warmth is not unprecedented => it must be natural => AGW is a hoax. I leave the logical flaws in this line of reasoning as an exercise for the reader. As to the relevance of paleoclimate to the AGW controversy I can do no better than these words:

    “In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues [climate sensitivity and feedbacks] to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues”

    written by Steve McIntyre.

  173. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 11:15 am
    “And I will add one more fact: the UN/IPCC no longer publishes Mann’s scary chart. “

    More fact-free stuff. MBH99 results are in Fig 6.10 of the AR4. The difference is that now they are one of twelve plots showing the same HS pattern.

  174. MarkW says:

    sceptical: CO2science has links to several hundred studies showing that the MWP existed, was world wide, and warmer than today. Would that be enough for you?

  175. Theo Goodwin says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    Smokey says: June 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    “Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.”

    “That’s the difference between the scientific approach and the auditing approach. In the scientific approach the data is available and the method described. Here, as a bonus, you have the computer programs. The results can be reproduced.”

    “The auditing approach is not part of science. And no-one appointed Steve as auditor.”

    How nice to have someone make a claim about scientific method. However, the claim is false on its face. It is the duty of each scientist to make his work reproducible. What that means in practical terms is that, at this time in the Climategate scandal, all of the information requested by McIntyre should have been made available. In fact, given its importance, it should be iconic. Every high school senior with a serious interest in the matter should be able to explain just what Mann did in the work that McIntyre discusses.

    The idea that there is an “auditing approach” that is different from the “scientific approach” is a clever feint but it is nothing but a feint. Responsible scientists requested assistance in reconstructing Mann’s reasoning and methods. The information requested was essential to that reconstruction. Mann as scientist has an iron clad duty to provide that information. If the reason for this is not obvious, let me make it clear. Mann has to take responsibility for his work. If that work is being questioned by a responsible scientist then the author must sign on to each and every element of it; that is, Mann must turn each piece of data and each inference into an individual assertion. It is not a matter of auditing but a matter of personal responsibility.

    The feint to the “auditing approach” is simply an attempt to avoid personal responsibility on the part of scientists. (Apparently, the only forum for Mann is a court of law where these points will not be in debate. Mann does have a duty as scientist to take responsibility for each piece of data and each inference.)

  176. glacierman says:

    Sceptical:

    Your’e funny. Here try this: http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    I didn’t count all of the references because there were too many.

  177. Theo Goodwin says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 3, 2011 at 5:23 am
    Shub Niggurath says: June 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
    “you are having to utter obvious falsehoods -i.e., Mann was subject to enquiry.”

    “Huh? That sounds like one. Are you saying there was no PSU inquiry?”

    Everyone knows there was no independent inquiry. The investigators reported that they asked Mann if he had engaged in various kinds of wrong doing and he replied “No.” They declared that he was innocent. That is a sham. Are you saying that you do not understand that the process was, and remains, a sham?

  178. Theo Goodwin says:

    Icarus says:

    ‘“Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98…?’

    Was Briffa’s work part of the Hockey Stick? Was “hide the decline” part of the hockey stick? I believe they were. If so, then outrageous dishonesty about data underlies the hockey stick. What more do you need to reach the obvious conclusion that the work is worthless.

  179. Theo Goodwin says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 3, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Have the reconstructions acknowledged the worthlessness of Briffa’s data and the fact that his work calls into question all of the data from tree ring proxies? If not, then it too is dishonest in the strict scientific sense of not disclosing all the important information about the data.

  180. BravoZulu says:

    [i](a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;[/i]

    It is very clear that he at least cherry picked and/or used inappropriate data to SERVE a given predetermined outcome. He also clearly obstructed efforts to determine that obvious fact. He probably didn’t directly manipulate the data. He just manipulated how it was interpreted. How can you interpret the data backwards like he did with the Tiljander data and say, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.” If that isn’t evidence of intentional data manipulation and obstruction, I don’t know what would be.

  181. Luther Bl. says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 2, 2011 at 5:56 pm
    What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?

    As sunsettommy in effect points out above, two things: the medieval warm period, and the little ice age.

  182. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    (Emphasis added)

    From Joel Shore on June 3, 2011 at 11:33 am:

    And, the reason is that the field has moved on and there are now many more reconstructions, so what they now publish is a figure that includes all of them, including the one that you wrongly claim is “debunked”: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

    From sceptical on June 3, 2011 at 11:44 am

    The IPCC, and science, have moved forward. Reconstructions since have shown much the same, just more precisely.

    Likely not plagiarism, at least not by both, but it bears the appearance of at least the paraphrasing of “talking points” from someone’s theoretical (and unsuccessful) refutation, by the similar wording and the ‘moving on’ before “reconstructions.” The close timing is likewise suspicious. Did someone just release something to be used by anti-skeptic bloggers? By proper academic standards, should those two bloggers have referenced their source?

    I will note something that is curious in itself, that “sceptical” says other reconstructions since say “much the same,” while Joel says “all” the reconstructions since are in the mentioned IPCC figure. What, there have been NO reconstructions since MBH98, absolutely ZERO, that disagree with MBH98?

    Question: Smokey is referring to MBH98. Joel said it was included in that congealed IPCC figure. Yet that figure is clearly labeled as using MBH99. Are MBH98 and MBH99 both referring to the same paper?

  183. golfcharley says:

    sceptical

    “Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?”

    With that post concerning the existence of the MWP and LIA you have destroyed any remaining credibility for your arguments.

  184. Brendan H says:

    Smokey: “Because the IPCC loved that chart above all others.”

    I think everyone should love their work just a little bit. I know I do. That way one gets to combine the two great motive forces of human achievement: hard work and good loving. And vice versa.

    Many scientists are passionate about their work, but there can also be little love lost between individual scientists. The spats between the great Newton and some of his contemporaries are well known, although he managed to (sort of) make up with Hooke.

    Can climate scientists learn some man-love, share a malty beverage, and respect their differences? Or would the prospect of burying the hatchet present too great a temptation?

    Declaration of personal interest. My feelings for the Hockey Stick are great admiration, especially for the more developed “spaghetti” graph with its graceful curves and clean and fresh – but not brassy – lines. However, given my sceptical nature, I and the various incarnations of the Hockey Stick are, for the moment, “just good friends”. Can friendship develop into love? We shall see.

  185. Smokey says:

    Herbert M. Jones II, where ya been?! Slumming over at RC?☺

    # # #

    Nick Stokes says:

    “More fact-free stuff. MBH99 results are in Fig 6.10 of the AR4.”

    That’s a completely different chart! I’ve been specifically referring to the chart at the top of the article here, and I’ve also linked to a bigger copy. Since you read and referred to my post, you had to have been aware of that fact.

    Did you really think you could slip that one past us? As I’ve stated several times here: the IPCC can no longer use Mann’s scary chart. The one you linked to isn’t scary at all, it’s just confusing to the average person; it’s weak tea by comparison with Mann’s original… which CAN’T BE USED any more. Why not? Because it’s been debunked.

    If that’s the kind of shenanigans you’re resorting to now, it’s pretty clear you’ve lost the argument. But by all means, argue away, and let others see the weakness and desperation of Mann’s defenders. No wonder Michael Mann hides out, and makes only tightly scripted appearances where he never has to answer inconvenient questions. [*Go Cuccinelli!*]

    And do you still believe in Mann’s contention that there was no MWP, and almost no climate change until after the start of the industrial revolution? Just wondering. Because that’s what Mann claimed – before his chart was debunked by McIntyre, McKittrick and others.

  186. Joel Shore says:

    Question: Smokey is referring to MBH98. Joel said it was included in that congealed IPCC figure. Yet that figure is clearly labeled as using MBH99. Are MBH98 and MBH99 both referring to the same paper?

    MBH98 just went back as far as 1400 or thereabouts. MBH99 went back to 1000 AD. The link that Smokey gave to the IPCC figure shows MBH99.

    glacierman says:

    Your’e funny. Here try this: http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    I didn’t count all of the references because there were too many.

    Random pieces of data showing a Medieval Warm Period do not a reconstruction make. In particular, while lots of data show some period of warmth in the interval between about 800 and 1300 A.D., they tend to be asynchronous (i.e., the warm periods occur at different times during that period for different places). As a result, when the records are combined to make a worldwide average, what you tend to get is a broad period of somewhat elevated average temperature…but not as elevated a warm period as the late 20th century.

  187. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    I believe that Fig 6.10 of the AR$, which incorporates Mann’s results along with 11 others, is the best knowledge we have of recent temperature history.

    M&M did not debunk MBH – they pointed to an error without saying what effect it would have. They carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann. MBH result verified.

  188. Smokey says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    “M&M did not debunk MBH …”

    Sure they did. McIntyre found Mann’s hidden ftp file labeled “censored“. That showed conclusively that Mann had cherry-picked his proxies to produce a fictitious hokey stick. By only using a small, hand selected group of tree rings, and hiding the much larger and better proxy set, the hockey stick appeared. But it was bogus. When the “censored” proxy is included, the hockey stick shape disappears. Mann played the same games in Mann ’08.

    Read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford. It lays out the “censored” file and many other Michael Mann shenanigans, with copious references.

  189. Anti-Mann says:

    Mann will be conveniently disposed of by a mechanic of the International if it’s get to that. They’ll probably hang him by his own belt and call it auto-erotic asphyxiation.

  190. _Jim says:

    In honor of the The Team ® © supporters, dissemblers, apologists and advocates; antagonists, alarmists, pleaders and polemicists; patrons, proponents and multi-degreed sophists, the Nick Stokes, Phil Clarkes, s(c)eptics and Joel Shores of the world …

    I give you “Hey – the gang’s all here!

    (or “Party like it’s MBH 1998 !!”) . . .

    (Advisio PG14)
    [snip - TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BLOG - Anthony]

    .

  191. Nick Stokes says:

    Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    “McIntyre found Mann’s hidden ftp file labeled “censored“. That showed conclusively that Mann had cherry-picked his proxies to produce a fictitious hokey stick. By only using a small, hand selected group of tree rings, and hiding the much larger and better proxy set, the hockey stick appeared.”

    That is complete nonsense. It was dealt with, irascibly, here.

    First, the file was in no way hidden. It sat next to the other data files. CA discussed it over a period of about 15 months – the file was open for all to see.

    Second, there has been much talk of the name, which simply refers to the standard statistical term censored data. Data that has a (usually) one sided restriction.

    Third, the use of the data was nothing like you describe. The data sets in the file were a copy of a subset of the data in the main file. Someone had done a separate analysis on them for some reason. This in no way affected the main published analysis, which included all the data that had been copied into that file. No data was omitted from that.

    REPLY: While Nick is mostly an annoying PITA on the wrong side of many other issues, he has a point about this. See this article on censored data use. Mann’s folly here is creating an FTP folder with the name “censored” knowing full well it was in public view. He could have named it in a way that would not invite suspicion. A better name might have been “data below noise threshold” or some such label – Anthony

  192. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Joel, Nick, sceptical, and Phil: I can see why you are trying to defend the practices of Mann but you are doing a lousy job e.g. “they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph…” The hockey stick chart is an icon, not science. Error bars were the last thing the public needed to see hence they were lightly shaded, not explained to the public, etc. Plus the wrong error bars were shown (calibration period residuals instead of verification period) so they would look small.

    OTOH, the act in question, FATA, http://www.taf.org/virginiafca.htmis very clear. It requires a “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” (meaning approval of a payment). It has nothing to do with the quality of the work involved. Nothing to do with “fraud” in the work even if Mann’s hockey stick is the worst science in the world, it doesn’t matter. The whole discussion over his work and this entire thread is irrelevant starting with the quoted post by mpaul. None of mpaul’s points are relevant to FATA.

    For the record, I am a Virginian, supported McDonnell with donations, and voted for him and Cuccinelli. I seriously doubt this investigation will succeed since it has already been rejected on the grounds that no FATA violation was shown.

  193. Eric (skeptic) says:

    My comment disappeared, oh well. Here’s the link to the FATA act: http://www.taf.org/virginiafca.htm Cuccinelli has already been shot down by a judge for not showing evidence that the act was violated. The defense of Mann (Nick, Joel, etc) has nothing to do with that act or any violation. Your defense of Mann e.g. “I think they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph…” is pretty weak. You think? He used the wrong error bars (calibration period, not verification period). Had he used the right ones and depicted them (to the public) in a less misleading way, his iconic hockey stick would have been a hockey rink (i.e. a large blob).

  194. _Jim says:

    [snip - TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BLOG - Anthony]

    I admit it was close to/perhaps over the/an edge … but, did you get to view a little bit of the vid? Or just the static image? I didn’t realize the static image was what it was until after I posted the vid … sometimes it’s after clicking ‘Post’ one wishes things were different …

    REPLY: The first minute or so of video showed a woman getting into a car, and then somebody putting a plastic bag on her head…struggle ensues, she doesn’t exit the car. I stopped watching there. We don’t need that sort of garbage here and you get a black star for suggesting it. Really. What could you have possibly been thinking? – Anthony
    .

  195. _Jim says:

    REPLY: The first minute or so of video showed a woman getting into a car, and then somebody putting a plastic bag on her head…struggle ensues, she doesn’t exit the car. I stopped watching there. We don’t need that sort of garbage here and you get a black star for suggesting it. Really. What could you have possibly been thinking? – Anthony

    Hmmm … the Climate Scientists video maybe? (You did ask what I possibly could have been thinking). I might have missed that part you describe as well, sometimes I multi-task and ‘miss bits’ while a vid plays.

    In any case, I am sorry and I apologize. (No strings or qualifiers attached.)

    Friends again, Anthony?

    .

  196. Joel Shore says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    That is complete nonsense. It was dealt with, irascibly, here.

    First, the file was in no way hidden. It sat next to the other data files. CA discussed it over a period of about 15 months – the file was open for all to see.

    Smokey has had the facts explained to him many times. However, it seems Smokey has a c0mplete disinterest in facts that conflict with his ideology; he just ignores them and repeats whatever falsehoods he is wedded to.

  197. Steve McIntyre says:

    Nick Stokes continues to fabricate a fake history, He says above:

    They carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann.

    This is totally untrue. In MM2005(EE), we discussed virtually all of the permutations and combinations that were subsequently discussed by Wahl and Ammann. Things like 2 covariance PCs, 5 covariance PCs, 2 correlation PCs, no PCs. Our analysis of these cases was, in part, responding to the cases previously argued in the Mann et al 2004 response to our Nature submission (also presented in early realclimate posts.)

    While Nick disappointingly too often just invents history rather than documenting it, in this case, part of his mistaken belief in Wahl and Ammann’s priority in the discussion of these issues arises from Wahl and Ammann plagiarism of arguments originally presented by Mann – without attributing or acknowledging him. For example, Wahl and Ammann stated:

    After testing verified that our algorithm could reproduce the original MBH results (Figure 1), we developed six reconstruction scenarios to examine the different criticisms of the MBH approach made by MM…

    In fact, the majority of the scenarios had been developed by Mann and were not “developed” by Wahl and Ammann. Even small details of Wahl and Ammann (a 1404 start date for certain calculations; a 1971 end date for other calculations) plagiarize decisions previously made by Mann, and not cited by Wahl and Ammann.

    Wahl and Ammann exacerbated their plagiarism of Mann by not clearly reporting that their results matched ours on point after point.

    As I reported at the time, in December 2005, we proposed (both orally and in writing) to Ammann that, since our codes reconciled exactly, that we declare a temporary ceasefire and allot 60 days to write a joint paper setting out precisely what results we agreed on, what we disagreed on; and, if we were unable to do so, we could end the ceasefire.

    Ammann refused, saying that this would be “bad for his career”. Even Nick Stokes should have contempt for this sort of conduct, but, no doubt, Nick will be along to praise Ammann’s decision. BTW I noticed recently that Ammann’s CV says that he was promoted from Scientist I to Scientist II in 2006 – I guess that was the promotion that was on his mind at the time.

  198. Steve McIntyre says:

    ON the “censored” data – the important point is that we were able to figure out that the ‘censored” directory tested results without Graybill strip bark bristlecones and the resulting PCs did not contain a hockeystick.

    Mann therefore knew of the non-robustness of his results to bristlecones. Nonetheless, MBH98 contains claims that definitely lead readers to the impression that the reconstruction was robust to the presence/absence of dendro indicators – something that they knew to be untrue because of the tests on bristlecones.

  199. sceptical says:

    glacierman, why do you think Dr. Mann was trying to undo anything which to you linked?

    James, thanks for the reply. Seems that too many “skeptics” have complete faith in a few studies, such as MM, and refuse to acknowledge subsequent studies. For these “skeptics”, scientific advancement stops once their preconceived notions are supported. You have had your notions supported so no reason to go farther for yourself.

  200. Jeff B. says:

    It is all going to end very badly for Michael Mann and sycophants like Nick Stokes. They get what they deserve.

  201. Nick Stokes says:

    Steve McIntyre says: June 3, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    “Nick Stokes continues to fabricate a fake history, He says above:

    They carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann.

    This is totally untrue. In MM2005(EE), we discussed virtually all of the permutations and combinations that were subsequently discussed by Wahl and Ammann.”

    No, Steve, I think you’re making stuff up. Where in MM2005EE is your plot of what the result would have been without the decentring? Your equivalent of the plot of Wahl and Ammann? Which figure number? And how did Wegman come to miss it in his report, which included a summary of that paper? So that when asked by Stupak:
    “Does your report include a recalculation of the MBH98 and MBH99 results using the CFR methodology and all the proxies used in MBH98 and MBH99, but properly centering the data? If not, why doesn’t it?”
    He replied:
    “Our report does not include the recalculation of MBH98 and
    MBH99. We were not asked nor were we funded to do this.”

    It would seem to be an obvious thing to mehtion. And when asked:
    “I understand that Wahl and Ammann actually examined, among other things, the problem of data decentering, the main focus of your report, and corrected the emulation of MBH98 by recentering the data.”
    he did not dispute this, insisting only that Ammann had been a student of Mann.

  202. Alcheson says:

    Phil says “The argument seems to go The Hockey Stick is broken => recent warmth is not unprecedented => it must be natural => AGW is a hoax. I leave the logical flaws in this line of reasoning as an exercise for the reader. ”

    Actually I think the argument goes more like => hisotrical and physical evidence shows that recent warmth is not unprecedented, contrary to what the Hockey Stick claims=> thus there are likely natural factors as or more important in recent warming than CO2 => claims by warmists that the science is settled is therefore BS and therefore the proposed solutions are likely BS.

  203. sunsettommy says:

    I see that sceptical will continue to ignore me and my comments.Here again are my words you keep ignoring.My original post is here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673033

    A partial quote:

    “Secondly,it contradicts decades of well established research in several fields.Such as History,Archaeology,Botany,Biology and of course climate science.Research that TO THIS DAY still insist that the MWP and LIA existed and was widespread.

    Thirdly,there are many published science papers attesting to the existence of the MWP :

    Medieval Warm Period Project

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    You need to wake up to reality.”

    Because YOU know deep down that you can not credibly answer it.Therefore just ignore it like so many have in the past.To my similar comments about the H.S. paper.And the large body of research that has the opposite conclusion about the existence and depth of the MWP and the LIA.

    The “Hockey Stick” paper sticks out like a sore thumb.It is very very wrong.

  204. kim says:

    It’s disconcerting to see the once mighty Nick Stokes stoop so low, and it is disconcerting the the hockey stick stumbles on, a once proud icon so tarnished and tattered, a paupered deity. Gavin gave up the Stick at Keith’s last year; it’s no good before 1500. Steve reiterates here the evidence that Michael knew his graph was not robust.

    I warned you, Nick. There are now people who won’t believe you when they should. That’s a shame for them, and for you.
    ==============

  205. Richard S Courtney says:

    Alcheson:

    At June 4, 2011 at 1:25 am you rightly say;

    “Actually I think the argument goes more like => hisotrical and physical evidence shows that recent warmth is not unprecedented, contrary to what the Hockey Stick claims=> thus there are likely natural factors as or more important in recent warming than CO2 => claims by warmists that the science is settled is therefore BS and therefore the proposed solutions are likely BS.”

    Or, to put it another way, the argument goes like this.
    1.
    The null hypothesis is that the climate system has not changed unless there is evidence that the system has changed.
    2.
    It is asserted that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have changed the system (i.e. the AGW hypothesis).
    3.
    A change to the behaviour of the system following the emissions would be evidence that the system has changed and probably as a result of the emissions.
    4.
    But, to date, there is no evidence of any kind that the system has changed since the emissions began.
    5.
    The MBH ‘hockey stick’ seemed to show that the system has changed and that the start of the change was coincident with the start of the emissions.
    6.
    Several studies (notably those of McIntyre and McKitrick) proved the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was a result of faulty analysis and, therefore, it does not show that the system has changed.
    7.
    The fact that there is no evidence that the system has changed is important because some people argue for actions to correct the change to the system which they believe has been caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
    8.
    Some people who believe in the AGW hypothesis refuse to accept that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ could be wrong so (as this thread demonstrates) they fabricate facts and histories, and they defame and smear people (notably McIntyre and McKitrick) who point out that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ is an artifact of very faulty analysis.

    Richard

  206. sunsettommy says:

    What is really sad is the determined effort to IGNORE several fields of research over many decades.That convincingly attest to the existence of the MWP and LIA.

    I personally knew about it back in the 1970′s.It was THEN well understood.That those two major climate epochs existed.That they strongly effected us.

    The “Hockey Stick” paper has become a millstone for those who irrationally cling to it.

  207. EternalOptimist says:

    This debate has all of the hallmarks of a religious wrangle. The only difference being that when rapture day came and went, the good prophet had the grace to hide himself away in a motel room.
    Here, when the sea refused to rise up over the streets of Manhatten, the good Mannian prophets make stuff up

  208. Smokey says:

    kim,

    I agree, Nick Stokes used to be a credible voice for the alarmist crowd. But true belief has clouded his ability to think rationally. I doubt he would read The Hockey Stick Illusion as suggested, because he would see that Mann’s “censored” file was deliberately withheld despite years of requests for the data.

    I think the reason that Mann refused to disclose the censored file was because it had a more valid range of proxies, and the resulting chart would have shown temperatures going in the opposite direction.

  209. Frank K. says:

    There’s an easy way to fix this problem of climate scientists’ reluctance to share their data and methods:

    GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CLIMATE SCIENCE INDUSTRY!

    We could start by zero-funding all non-essential NSF and DOE projects related to “climate change”. The affected scientists could then appeal to the private sector (like the rest of us who work for a living) for their funding. I’m sure companies and individuals like GE, BP, George Soros, WWF, Greenpeace, Mother Jones, Sheryl Crow, and Fidel Castro would gladly contribute to their research. But best of all, as a private enterprise, they wouldn’t have to share their data or methods with anyone! It’s a win-win for both the taxpayers and the climate scientists!

  210. Venter says:

    Only element of surprise here is why these utterances of Nick Stokes are even being described politely as ” disinformation”, They should be bluntly called as lies which is what they are.

  211. Joel Shore says:

    Steve McIntyre says:

    ON the “censored” data – the important point is that we were able to figure out that the ‘censored” directory tested results without Graybill strip bark bristlecones and the resulting PCs did not contain a hockeystick.

    Mann therefore knew of the non-robustness of his results to bristlecones.

    Steve, how does this relate to the following discussion from MBH99? ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.955&rep=rep1&type=pdf ):

    Due to the leverage of ITRDB PC #1 in the millennial reconstruction, any non-climatic influence must be removed before it can meaningfully be used in the reconstructions. Spurious increases in variance back in time associated with decreasing sample sizes [see e.g. Jones et al, 2 1998] are not an issue with this series, owing to the high degree of replication in the underlying chronologies back to AD 1000. A number of the highest elevation chronologies in the western U.S. do appear, however, to have exhibited long-term growth increases that are more dramatic than can be explained by instrumental temperature trends in these regions. Graybill and Idso [1993] suggest that such high-elevation, CO2-limited trees, in moisture-stressed environments, should exhibit a growth response to increasing CO2 levels. Though ITRDB PC #1 shows signi cant loadings among many of the 28 constituent series, the largest are indeed found on high-elevation western U.S. sites.

    It is furthermore found that only one of these series — PC #1 of the ITRDB data — exhibits a signi cant correlation with the time history of the dominant temperature pattern of the 1902-1980 calibration period. Positive calibration/variance scores for the NH series cannot be obtained if this indicator is removed from the network of 12 (in contrast with post-AD 1400 reconstructions for which a variety of indicators are available which correlate against the instrumental record). Though, as discussed earlier, ITRDB PC#1 represents a vital region for resolving hemispheric temperature trends, the assumption that this relationship holds up over time nonetheless demands circumspection. Clearly, a more widespread network of quality millennial proxy climate indicators will be required for more con dent inferences.

  212. So who is Nick Stokes and why is he an apologist for Michael Mann?

    Well if my livelihood/career depended on aligning my opinions on global warming with those of my employer (as is the case with Professor Nick Stokes, BSc, MSc, Phd)then I suppose I might share the same opinions as apologist Nick. Thankfuly I don’t.

    http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/

    In my case I’m self-employed and have spent far too much time on ClimateAudit (almost from it’s inception) and so know who is the telling the truth (Steve and Ross) and who is ‘making it up as he goes’ along in order to keep his employer happy.

    Sadly Nick doesn’t understand and certainly doesn’t appreciate quite how foolish his persistence on attempting to rationalise Michael Mann’s despicable activities looks. You may have done alright up until recently Nick, browning nosing your employer, but ‘wake up and smell the roses’. The tide has changed and is now rapidly ‘FASTFLOwing’ in the other direction. Your organisation will shortly be suffering severe cuts once the whole ‘CAGW game’ is up in Oz which it will be very shortly.

    Perhaps, Nick, it’s now time to put aside all this climate change stuff (especially apologising for the Hockey Stick) and to finally ‘stand on the shoulders’ of your ‘giant’ great-great grandad George? God knows the climate models could do with the injection of some ‘non-parameterised’ reality. Surely with your pedigree you can put them straight Nick?

  213. Alcheson says:

    I think it would be nice to start a new thread on sea level rise due to AGW too while these warmist guys are around commenting. There is much to be said there as well.

  214. Joel Shore says:

    sunsettommy says:

    Because YOU know deep down that you can not credibly answer it.Therefore just ignore it like so many have in the past.To my similar comments about the H.S. paper.And the large body of research that has the opposite conclusion about the existence and depth of the MWP and the LIA.

    The “Hockey Stick” paper sticks out like a sore thumb.It is very very wrong.

    No…There are many others who have confirmed the basic picture of MBH http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html (albeit some with some with a little bit more variability in temperatures over the millenium, mainly due to a somewhat deeper LIA). Of course, all of these are based on proxy temperature records, so the usual caveats apply, but the best evidence that we have is that the late 20th century warmth appears to be higher than any other time in the last ~1300 years.

    As I explained http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673318 , cherry-picking studies that show the existence of some warmth over some part of a broad period that is called the MWP does not disprove this.

    Smokey says:

    I doubt he would read The Hockey Stick Illusion as suggested, …

    Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources? All more objective sources, like the National Academy of Sciences or the various investigations of Mann, reach different conclusions. It is like if I argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm!

    sceptical says:

    Seems that too many “skeptics” have complete faith in a few studies, such as MM, and refuse to acknowledge subsequent studies. For these “skeptics”, scientific advancement stops once their preconceived notions are supported. You have had your notions supported so no reason to go farther for yourself.

    Exactly…And, that is why they are continually puzzled by the fact that the scientific community, as evidenced by all the IPCC, the various scientific societies, etc., are reaching conclusions very different from their own. Of course, they are willing to explain this away as evidence that there is a mass conspiracy impacting the entire scientific community worldwide (and extending through much of the policy community and now even private industry), rather than to reach the more obvious conclusion that their own very narrow, partisan sources of information might be biased.

  215. Alcheson says:

    Joel says: “It is like if I argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm”

    I think you should have said:” It is like if argued about AGW based only on writings from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Joe Romm, Michael Mann, and the IPCC.”

  216. kim says:

    The game is now played so cynically in some quarters that the idea of a hot MWP is gaining currency in some quarters as a rationale to cry ‘Uncertainty’ and ‘High Sensitivity’ and misuse both concepts.
    =============

  217. pochas says:

    Joel Shore:

    “Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources? All more objective sources,…….”

    Joel, Thank you so much for a real thigh-slapper! You made my day.

  218. Alcheson says:

    Perhaps a more appropriate response to Joel regarding ” rather than to reach the more obvious conclusion that their own very narrow, partisan sources of information might be biased.” would be:

    Not only is MBH98 wildly inconsistent with the fact that the Vikings settled and thrived in Greenland for a while and that the Thames River was frozen over in the LIA (but not before) but even the IPPC before the Hockey Stick arrived on the scene, accepted that it clearly existed in the data.
    Now as far as narrow and partisan I guess the list of research institutions from which published evidence for the MWP project was obtained is considered narrow and partisan:
    Argentina
    – Departamento de Geologia, Universidad Nacional del Sur, San Juan
    Australia
    - Advanced Centre for Queensland University Isotope Research Excellence, University of Queensland
    - Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Hobart
    - CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT – Department of Geology, The Australian National University, Canberra
    - Geoscience Australia, Hobart
    - Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart
    - Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory, Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, University of Queensland
    - School of Geosciences, University of Wollongong, NSW
    Austria
    - Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck
    - Institute for High Mountain Research, Innsbruck
    - Institute of Limnology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Mondsee
    Belgium
    - Department of Biology, Ghent University
    - Department of Biology, Section Protistology & Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, Ghent
    - Faculte Polytechnique de Mons, Mons
    - International Bureau of Environmental Study, Brussels
    - Universite catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve
    Brazil
    - Department of Geology, Center of Technology and Geosciences, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife
    - Laboratory of Coastal Dynamics, Federal University of Para´, Bele´m (Pa)
    Canada
    - Alberta Research Council, Calgary
    - Biology and Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna
    - Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta
    - Centre d’Etudes Nordiques, Laboratoire de Paleoecologie Aquatique, Universite Laval, Quebec
    - Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
    - Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
    - Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
    - Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta
    - Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Birtish Columbia
    - Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia
    - Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
    - Department of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
    - Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo
    - Geological Survey of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.
    - GEOTOP, Geochemistry and Geodynamics Research Center, Montreal, Quebec
    - Institut National de la Recherché Scientifique, Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement, Quebec
    - Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
    - Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
    - Pacific Geoscience Center, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney British Columbia
    - Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Lab (PEARL), Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
    - Paleolimnology-Paleoecology Laboratory, Départment de géographie et Centre d’études nordiques, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec
    - Parks Canada Fire and Vegetation Specialist, Radium Hot Springs, B.C.
    - Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, Brotish Columbia
    - Saskatchewan Isotope Laboratory, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
    - School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia

    Chile
    - Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology and Biodiversity, Departamento de Ecologia, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago
    - Center for Oceanographic Research in the Eastern South Pacific, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
    - Department of Geophysics, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
    - Department of Oceanography, University of Concepcion, Concepcion
    - Departamento de Geologia, Facultad de Ciencias Fisicas y Matematicas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago
    - Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity, Las Palmeras, Santiago
    - Servicio Nacional de Geologia y Mineria, Santiago
    - Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion

    China
    - Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21th Century, Beijing
    - Center for Arid Environment and Paleoclimate Research, Lanzhou University
    - China Center of Desert Research, Beijing Normal University
    - Climate Data Center of Qinghai, Qinghai Meteorological Bureau, Xining – Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
    - College of Marine Geosciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao
    - College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun
    - Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Peking University, Beijing
    - Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China
    - Department of Environment Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an
    - Department of Resources and Environment Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
    - East China Normal University, Shanghai
    - First Institute of Oceanography, Qingdao
    - Geological Analysis Center, Beijing
    - Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Institute of Chinese History and Geography, Fudan University, Shanghai
    - Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an High-Tech Zone, Xi’an
    - Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Science
    - Institute of Hydrologic and Environmental Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Zhengding
    - Institute of Peatmire, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin
    - Institute of Plateau Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration, Chengdu
    - Institute of Resources and Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing
    - Institute of Salty Lake, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining
    - Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai
    - Key Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    - Key Laboratory of Marine Geology and Environment, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao
    - Key Laboratory of Submarine Geosciences and Prospecting Techniques, Ministry of Education, Qingdao
    - Laboratory for Climate Studies, National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing
    - Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing
    - Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Nanjing
    - Laboratory of Quantitative Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Laboratory of Watershed Hydrology and Ecology, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
    - Lanzhou Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
    - Lanzhou Institute of Glaciology and Geocryology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    - Marine Geology College, Ocean University of China, Qingdao
    - MOE Key Laboratory of Western China’s Environmental Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
    - Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing
    - National Marine Data and Information Service, Tianjin
    - School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing
    - School of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Gansu
    - Second Institute of Oceanography, Hangzhou
    - South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    - State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Cold and Arid Regions Environment and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
    - State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, Guizhou
    - State Key Laboratory of Frozen Soils Engineering, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou
    - State Key Laboratory of Lake Science and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing
    - State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an
    - State Key Laboratory of Mineral Deposit Research, Institute of Surficial Geochemistry, Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University
    - State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Adademy of Sciences, Beijing
    - Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi
    - Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai

    Czech Republic
    - Geophysics Institute, Czech Academy of Science

    Denmark
    - AMS 14C Laboratory, Institute for Physics and Astronomy, Århus University
    - Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Aarhus, Århus
    - Department of Geophysics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
    - Geographic Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
    - Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen
    - Geophysical Isotope Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
    - Natural Science Research Institute, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen
    - The Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
    - Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde

    Estonia
    - Institute of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn

    Ethiopia
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa

    Finland
    - Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi
    - Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki
    - Department of Chemistry, University of Oulu, Oulu
    - Department of Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
    - Department of Geophysics, University of Oulu, Oulu
    - Department of Geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
    - Department of Geology, University of Turku, Turku
    - Department of Geosciences and Geography, Division of Geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
    - Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Oulu
    - Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki
    - Department of Quaternary Geology, University of Turku
    - Department of Teacher Education, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna
    - Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Joensuu, Joensuu
    - Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki
    - Geological Survey of Finland, Kuopio
    - Mekrijarvi Research Station, University of Joensuu, Ilomantsi
    - North Savo Regional Environment Centre, Kuopio
    - Rovaniemi Research Unit, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Rovaniemi
    - SAIMA Unit of Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education, University of Joensuu, Savonlinna
    - Vantaa Research Unit, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa

    France
    - Centre Camille Jullian, UMR 6573 CNRS/Aix Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
    - Centre de Bio-Archeologie et d’Ecologie, Institut de Botanique, Montpellier
    - Centre Littoral de Géophysique, Université de La Rochelle
    - CEREGE, BP 80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 4
    - CEREGE, UMR 6635 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
    - Départment de Géologie et Océanographie, Université Bordeaux, Talence
    - Départment Écologie et Gestion de la Biodiversité du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
    - Départment Paléoenvironments, Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, Université de Montpellier II, Montpellier
    - Département Terre-Atmosphe`re-Oce´an and Laboratoire de Me´te´orologie Dynamique/IPSL, Ecole Normale Supe´rieure, Paris
    - DIMAR, Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9
    - EPSHOM, Cellule sédimentologie, Brest
    - Geoarchitecture & Geosciences, Universite Europeenne de Bretagne, Vannes
    - Geosciences Department & Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
    - Geosciences Rennes, Universite de Rennes, Rennes Cedex
    - IMEP, UMR 6116 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence
    - Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution de Montpellier, Equipe Paleoenvironments
    - Institute of Alpine Geography, University of Grenoble, Grenoble
    - Laboratoire d’Etude de Geo-Environments Marins, Universite de Perpignan
    - Laboratoire de Chrono-Ecologie, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Besançon
    - Laboratoire de Chrono-Environnement, UFR Sciences et Techniques, Universite de Franche-Comte
    - Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environment du CNRS, Saint-Martin d’Heres Cedex
    - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climate et de l’Environnement, Domaine du CNRS
    - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, Unité de recherché mixte CEA/CNRS, Campus du CNRS
    - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, Gif sur Yvette
    - Laboratoire EDYTEM, Universite de Savoie
    - LODYC, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris
    - Morphodynamique continentale et côtière, Université de Caen
    - Université de Caen, Caen
    - Université de Perpignan, Perpignan

    Gabon
    - IRSH/GREH, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique et Technique (CENAREST), Libreville
    - Wildlife Conservation Society, Libreville

    Germany
    - Academy of Sciences, Humanities, and Literature, Mainz
    - Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven
    - Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research Unit Potsdam
    - Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Hannover
    - Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Ltd. (UFZ), Department of Hydrogeology, Research Group of Palaeoclimatology, Halle
    - Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen
    - Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Bremen
    - Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, Potsdam
    - Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz
    - Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg
    - Department of Geosciences, University of Bremen, Bremen
    - Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universität Bremen, Bremen
    - Faculty for Physics and Geoscience, Institute for Geophysics and Geology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig
    - Forschungsstelle Radiometrie, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
    - GeoConsult Rein, Oppenheim
    - GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam
    - GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences, Kiel
    - German Advisory Council on Global Change
    - German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam
    - Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg
    - Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, MPI fur Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg, Heidelberg
    - Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg
    - IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel
    - Institut fur Geowissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt
    - Institut für Geowissenschaften, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz
    - Institut für Geowissenschaften, Universitat Kiel, Kiel
    - Institute for Geology, Technical University for Mining and Technology, Freiberg
    - Institute for Geosciences, University of Mainz, Mainz
    - Institute of Geography, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nurnberg, Erlangen
    - Institute of Geography, Stuttgart
    - Institute of Geological Sciences, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin
    - Institut und Museum für Geologie und Paläontologie, Universität Göttingen, Göttingen
    - Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemunde
    - Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel
    - Meteorologisches Institut, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg
    - Potsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgen-forschung, Potsdam
    - Research Centre Julich, Sedimentary Systems, Julich

    Hungary
    - Geophysics Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Science, c/o Geophysics Department, Eötvös University, Budapest

    Iceland
    - Department of Geosciences, University of Iceland, Askja, Reykjavik
    - Earth Science Institute, University of Iceland, Askja, Reykjavik

    India
    - Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow
    - Department of Geology, Lucknow University, Lucknow
    - Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
    - Department of Schence and Technology, New Delhi
    - Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad
    - Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun

    Ireland
    - Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway
    - Non-institutional

    Israel
    - Department of Environmental Sciences, The Weizmann Institute of Sciences, Rehovot
    - Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem

    Italy
    - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa
    - C.N.R. Centro di Studio per la Geodinamica Alpina e Quaternaria, Milan
    - C.N.R. Centro di Studio per la Geologia Strutturale e Dinamica dell’Appennino, Pisa
    - CNR – ISMAR, Istituto Scienza del Mare, Bologna
    - CNR – Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi, Verbania Pallanza
    - Department of Chemistry, University of Florence, Florence
    - Dipartimento di Fisica Generale-Universita, Torino
    - Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e del Territorio, Universita de Milano, Milano
    - Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Universita di Pisa
    - Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Ambientali e Marine, Universita di Trieste, Trieste
    - Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Universita di Milano-Bicocca, Milan
    - Dipartimento Scienze della Terra, Universita di Bologna, Bologna
    - ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Santa Maria di Galeria, Rome
    - European Commission-DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Ispra
    - Instituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, Torino
    - Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Trento

    Japan
    - Aso Volcanological Laboratory, Institute for Geothermal Sciences, Kyoto University, Kumamoto
    - Center for Advanced Marine Core Research, Kochi University, Nankoku, Kochi
    - Center for Chronological Research, Nagoya University, Nagoya
    - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya
    - Department of Earth System Science, Faculty of Science, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka
    - Department of Environmental Sciences, Shinshu University, Matsumoto
    - Department of Geography, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji – Department of Geology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa
    - Department of Geology and Paleontology, National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo
    - Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Tokyo
    - Environmental Chemistry Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
    - Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo
    - Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Ibaraki
    - Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Kyushu Research Center, Kumamoto
    - Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tohoku Research Center, Morioka
    - Geological Survey of Japan, Tsukuba
    - Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sappora
    - Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya
    - Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka
    - IGG, Geological Survey of Japan, AIST, Tsukuba
    - International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto
    - Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa
    - Institute for Hydrospheric-Atmospheric Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya
    - Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba
    - National Institute of Polar Research, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo
    - Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Tokyo

    Kenya
    - Department of Geology, Chiromo Campus, University of Nairobi, Nairobi

    Korea
    - Department of Marine Science, Pusan National University
    - Department of Science Education, Chungbuk National University, Chongju, Chungbuk-do
    - Geological and Environmental Hazards Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon
    - Marine Environmental & Climate Change Laboratory, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute
    - Polar Sciences Laboratory, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute

    Lithuania
    - Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda
    - Institute of Geology and Geography, Vilnius
    - The Institute of Baltic Region History and Archaeology, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda

    Mexico
    - Departamento do Ecologia y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
    - Departamento de Ecologia y Recursos Naturales-IMECBIO, Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur, Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco
    - El Colegio De La Frontera Sur, Herbario, Chetumal, Quintana Roo
    - Laboratorio de Paleomagnetismo y Paleoambientes, Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacan
    - Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Francisco J. Mujica S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, Edifico R. Morelia, Michoacan

    Nepal
    - Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu

    Netherlands
    - Department of Marine Biogeology, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam
    - Department of Marine Geology, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Texel
    - Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), Paleoecology and Landscape Ecology, University of Amsterdam
    - Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam
    - Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht
    - Palaeoecology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht

    New Zealand
    - Chemistry Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton
    - Gondwana Tree-ring Laboratory, Little River
    - Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Palmerston North
    - National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd.
    - School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland
    - Wildlands Consultants Ltd.

    Norway
    - Botanical Institute, University of Bergen
    - Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen
    - Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen
    - Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen
    - Department of Geography, University of Bergen
    - Department of Geology, University of Oslo, Olso
    - Department of Geology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø
    - Geological Institute, University of Bergen, Allégaten, Bergen
    - Geological Survey of Norway, Trondheim
    - Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Bergen
    - Norwegian Fishery College, University of Tromso, Tromso
    - Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar Environmental Centre, Tromsø
    - Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim
    - SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Trondheim
    - University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen

    Poland
    - Department of Palaeoceanology, University of Szczecin, Szczecin
    - Department of Plant Ecology, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk
    - Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw

    Portugal
    - Departamento de Geologia Marinha, INETInovação, Estrada da Portela – Zambujal, Amadora
    - Department of Geoscience, University of Azores
    - Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas (INIAP), Lisboa
    - Marine Geology Department, National Institute of Engineering, Technology and Innovation-INETI, Alfragide

    Russia
    - A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
    - Cosmic Ray Laboratory, A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg
    - Dynamical-Stochastical Laboratory, Hydrometeorological Research Centre of Russia, Moscow
    - Geophysics and Mineralogy, United Institute of Geology, Novosibirsk
    - Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
    - Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
    - Institute of Geology, URS Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa
    - Institute of Geophysics, UB Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg
    - Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg
    - Limnological Institute, Irkutsk
    - Moscow State University, Moscow
    - Shirshov Institute of Oceanography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
    - Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademgorodok, Krasnoyarsk
    - Trofimuk United Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy, Novosibirsk
    - West-Siberian Center of Monitoring on Environment Pollution, Novosibirsk

    South Africa
    - Archaeology Department, University of the Witwatersrand
    - Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
    - Dating Research Unit, CSIR, Pretoria
    - Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town
    - Department of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State
    - Quaternary Dating Research Unit, CSIR
    - School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand

    Spain
    - Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Ceintificas, Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, Madrid
    - CSIC_UB Limnology Group, Centre for Advanced Studies of Blanes, Blanes
    - Departament de Biologia Animal, Vegetal, i Ecologia, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona
    - Departamento de Edafologia y Quimica Agricola, Santiago de Compostela
    - Department of Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Chemical and Environmental Research (CSIC), Barcelona
    - Department of Geology, University of Alcala, Madrid
    - Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona
    - Department of Stratigraphy, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid
    - Direccion de Geologia y Geofisica, Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana, Madrid
    - Direccion de Recursos Minerales y Geoambiente, Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espana, Madrid
    - Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Barcelona
    - Instituto Pirenaico de Ecologia (C.S.I.C.), Zaragoza

    Sweden
    - Angstrom Laboratory, Division of Ion Physics, Uppsala
    - Climate Impact Research Centre, Umed University, Abisko
    - Department of Earth Sciences-Marine Geology, Goteborg University, Goteborg
    - Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala
    - Department of Earth Sciences, Palaeobiology Program, Uppsala University
    - Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umea University, Umea
    - Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea
    - Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm
    - Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm
    - Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall
    - Department of Oceanography, Earth Sciences Centre, Goteborg University, Goteborg
    - Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
    - Department of Physical Geography, Umea University, Umea
    - Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
    - Department of Quaternary Geology, Lund University, Lund
    - Department of Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
    - Department of Quaternary Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm
    - Earth Sciences Center, Göteborg University
    - GeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Solveg
    - Regional Climate Group, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg

    Switzerland
    - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Bern, Bern
    - Department of Geography, University of Berne, Bern
    - Department of Geography, University of Zurich-Irchel, Zurich
    - EAWAG, Duebendorf
    - Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule, Geologisches Institut, Zurich
    - Geological Institute, University of Bern
    - Institut de Mineralogie et Petrographie, Lausanne
    - Institut fur Geologie, Isotopengeologie, Universitat Bern, Berne
    - Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern
    - Institute of Geography, University of Lausanne, Lausanne
    - Institute of Particle Physics, ETH-Hoenggerberg, Zurich
    - Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern
    - Laboratory of Radiochemistry and Environmental Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen
    - Limnoceane, Institut de Geologie, Neuchatel
    - National Centre of Competence in Research on Climate, Bern
    - Natural History Museum of the Canton Ticino, Lugano
    - NCCR Climate, University of Bern, Bern
    - Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern
    - Paul Scherrer Institut, Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry
    - Swiss Federal Research Institute, Dendro Sciences Unit, Birmensdorf
    - Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf

    Taiwan
    - Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei
    - Department of Life Sciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei
    - Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei
    - Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, National Taiwan University, Taipei
    - Research Center for Environmental Change, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei

    United Kingdom
    - British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
    - Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham
    - Centre for Environmental Research, University of Sussex, Brighton
    - Centre for Quaternary Science, Coventry University, Coventry
    - Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich
    - Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London
    - Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham
    - Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea
    - Department of Geography, University College London
    - Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter
    - Department of Geography, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne
    - Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton
    - Department of Geography, University of Wales, Swansea
    - Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
    - Department of Mathematics and Information Science, Coventry University, Coventry
    - Environmental Archaeology Unit, University of York
    - Environmental Change Research Centre, University College London, London
    - Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
    - Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
    - Long-term Ecology Laboratory, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, School of Geography, South Parks Road, Oxford
    - NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, British Geological Survey, Nottingham
    - Palaeoecology Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton
    - Petroleum and Environmental Geochemistry Group, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth
    - School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Durham, Durham
    - School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth
    - School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
    - School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
    - School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews
    - School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford
    - School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh
    - School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
    - Scott Polar Research Centre, Cambridge University, Cambridge
    - The Godwin Laboratory, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
    - York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research, Aldwark, York

    United States
    - Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York, Albany, NY
    - Big Sky Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
    - Biodiversity Research Center and Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
    - Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    - Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, Livermore, CA
    - Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Center for Environmental Sciences and Quaternary Sciences Program, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
    - Center for Isotope Geochemistry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
    - Center for Materials Research and Education, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, MD
    - Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
    - Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, ME
    - Climate Change Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
    - Climate System Research Center, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
    - Coastal and Marine Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
    - College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    - College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL
    - College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
    - Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
    - Department of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
    - Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, WA
    - Department of Anthropology, Western State College, Gunnison, CO
    - Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany-State University of New York, Albany, NY
    - Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
    - Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
    - Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK
    - Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina, NC
    - Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
    - Department of Biology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT
    - Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
    - Department of Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
    - Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
    - Department of Chemistry, State University of New York-ESF, Syracuse, NY
    - Department of Computer Science, University of Maine, Orono, ME
    - Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
    - Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
    - Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM
    - Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, NJ
    - Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
    - Department of Earth Sciences, California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA
    - Department of Earth Sciences, Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
    - Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
    - Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME
    - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
    - Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
    - Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - Department of Ecology and Limnological Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    - Department of Geography, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY
    - Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    - Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, CA
    - Department of Geography, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
    - Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
    - Department of Geography, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
    - Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Department of Geography, University of Wyoming, WY
    - Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI
    - Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, CA
    - Department of Geological Sciences, Land Use and Environmental Change Institute (LUECI), University of Florida, FL
    - Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    - Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
    - Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
    - Department of Geology, Baylor University, Waco, TX
    - Department of Geology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT
    - Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
    - Department of Geology, The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH
    - Department of Geology, University of Akron, Akron, OH
    - Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
    - Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
    - Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
    - Department of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, TX
    - Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, CA
    - Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    - Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
    - Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
    - Department of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Department of Geosciences, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
    - Department of Geosciences, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
    - Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - Department of Geosciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
    - Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
    - Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
    - Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL
    - Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico
    - Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    - Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
    - Department of Statistics, Baylor University, Waco, TX
    - Desert Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - Earth and Environmental Science Program, New York University, NY
    - Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
    - Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicolas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC
    - Environmental Science Department, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, AK
    - EROS, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux City, SD
    - Florida Integrated Science Center, United States Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL
    - Geography Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
    - Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
    - Geology Department, State University of New York College at Cortland, Cortland, NY
    - Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL
    - Institute for Quaternary and Climate Studies, University of Maine, Orono, ME
    - Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
    - Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
    - Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, NJ
    - Institute of Marine Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
    - Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
    - Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY
    - Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN
    - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA
    - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Center for Accelerated Mass Spectrometry, Livermore, CA
    - Limnological Research Center and Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
    - Lone Pine Research, Bozeman, MT
    - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
    - Mountain Research Center and Department of Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
    - Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
    - NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY
    - National Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
    - Natural Resources Division, Paul Smith’s College, Paul Smiths, NY
    - Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC
    - NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO
    - National Science Foundation-Arizona Accelerator Facility for Isotope Dating, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - Program in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
    - Raytheon Polar Services, Centennial, CO
    - Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Key Biscayne, FL
    - School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    - School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
    - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA
    - Sierra Nevada Research Center, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA
    - Skidaway Institute for Oceanography, Savannah, GA
    - St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota, Marine on St. Croix, MN
    - Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, NY
    - Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY
    - Tree Ring Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
    - University of Maine, Department of Geological Sciences, ME
    - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
    - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK
    - U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Coastal and Marine Geology, St. Petersburg, FL
    - U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
    - U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Surface Processes Team, Reston, VA
    - U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
    - U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, CA
    - U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL
    - White Mountain Research Station, Bishop, CA
    - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA

    Venezuela
    - Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Pedagogica Experimental Libertador, Caracas
    - Estacion de Investigaciones Marinas de Margarita, Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Porlamar

    Vietnam
    - Northern Mapping Division, DGMV, Hanoi

  219. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources?”

    My source for this was twofold: A.W. Montford’s book, and Climate Audit.org. Those two sources are far more unbiased than Joel Shore, and the bought and paid for dissembler Nick Stokes, and sockpuppet “sceptical” among others of their ilk, who are merely propagandists for the repeatedly falsified runaway global warming scare.

    A decade ago Prof Richard Lindzen wrote this paper showing the rise of the CAGW movement. Since then the wild-eyed alarmist claims have been on an accelerating trajectory, even as the evidence continues to pile up showing that CAGW is an impossibility, and that AGW is becoming highly questionable, since the planet has gone through much more severe temperature fluctuations prior to the industrial revolution, and for the past decade or more the planet has been flat to cooling even as harmless CO2 continues to rise. Who should we believe? Planet earth? Or the alarmist Joel Shore?

    Shore impotently tries to dispute that “version” of reality, but I am simply reporting what the climate is doing. He also cherry-picks the MWP, saying that current temperatures are higher. That is highly doubtful at best, and most likely flat wrong. But on the slim chance it could be right, why did Shore stop at the MWP? Prior global warming episodes were much warmer than at present – when CO2 was very low by comparison.

    Finally, as Dr Lindzen and others have shown, the AMS, the IPCC, and most similar organizations fight tooth and nail to keep their memberships from having a say in the positions decided by a handful of people in control – and who are every bit as bought and paid for as Mr Stokes. For example, there are now no openly skeptical scientists in positions of power within the IPCC. Everything written by that corrupt UN organization is generated by self-serving climate alarmists. There may be some accurate information in the IPCC Assessment Reports, but it is drowned out by misinformation and WWF propaganda, driven by the money-hungry Rajendra Pachauri. These are the false authorities that Joel Shore constantly refers to.

    According to the scientific method the only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist. But none of the IPCC scientists follow the scientific method. None of them. Neither does Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc., etc. Why are they being dishonest? Fame? Fortune? Status? Their motivations vary, but they have one thing in common: their refusal to follow the scientific method. The result is alarmist propaganda, not science.

  220. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 3, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    glacierman, why do you think Dr. Mann was trying to undo anything which to you linked?

    James, thanks for the reply. Seems that too many “skeptics” have complete faith in a few studies, such as MM, and refuse to acknowledge subsequent studies. For these “skeptics”, scientific advancement stops once their preconceived notions are supported. You have had your notions supported so no reason to go farther for yourself.
    ===================================================

    sceptical, and I thank you for your reply. Sadly, you seemed to have missed the thrust of my comment, or ignored the details. Yes, MM03 was a watershed moment. And, perhaps it would have been better for the world if that particular line of “science” stopped there. It didn’t. There were rebuttals, sequels, responses, arguments, innuendo, characterizations, mischaracterizations, retorts, and a whole plethora of events which lent to the appearance of malfeasance. The fact is, science didn’t advance. It stopped at Mann98. Nothing new has been presented for over a decade in spite of the fact that several “new” studies had been offered.

    It doesn’t pass notice that I mentioned McShane and Wyner but no one from the alarmist side addresses it. I find this amusing. If M&W10 isn’t properly refuted, none of this matters. (With the exception of M&M exposing dendrochronology for what it is……..numerology blended with a strange form of phrenology.) There have been a few very feeble attempts, but they don’t even pass the smell test, much less present any scientific basis for refutation of M&W10.

    It also doesn’t pass notice that most of the arguments presented here against M&M have already been dealt with at ClimateAudit. Do people think skeptics confine themselves to one website or one source of information? I don’t know, its difficult to grasp what goes on in the minds of alarmists.

    It seems to me, alarmists would be better off focusing on an arm of the science that hasn’t been totally discredited. Perhaps then science could move forward. It won’t until then. Did people really think we wouldn’t notice the graph is a replica of Ehrlich’s population forecasts? Did they not believe we would see through all of the elegant mathematics and know this is simply another form of misanthropy? Alarmists may as well parade Malthus. History has shown that from MBH98 and all of the subsequent clones were nothing but result driven drivel. They wanted needed a hockey stick graph and by God they would have one! Then reality set in and anyone that cares to know, knows nothing could be further from the truth…………. something us skeptics knew well before MBH98 was ever conceived. Its shocking that we’re still discussing this dark moment of science. It would be far better to acknowledge the errant thinking and move on.

    By looking at this tree ring(or several tree rings), I can tell the earth’s temp was 54.85 degrees F.
    Anyone believing that thought has any validity is operating solely on faith, not science.

    James

  221. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    Prior global warming episodes were much warmer than at present – when CO2 was very low by comparison.

    Greenland does not the globe make. It is well-understood that the trend due to orbital variations should result in cooling over the Northern hemisphere high latitudes over the last several thousand years.

    As for the rest of your post, it is the very same sort of argument one hears from all the losers in scientific debates on ideologically-contentious issues: “the scientific societies are run by people biased against us” and so on and so forth. You hear the exact same thing from those who argue against evolution.

    This clearly shows the AGW skeptic movement for what it is: a movement that disputes the science because they don’t like the ideological implications of the science. There is really nothing new here.

  222. EternalOptimist says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources?”

    I did laugh at this. I don’t even have a version, my sources can’t be biased, because I don’t recognise sources. Not Mann, not Hansen, not Anthony

    I am a sceptic.

    If you want to convince me, go ahead and try. I’m listening

    EO

  223. John Whitman says:

    Richard S Courtney,

    Thanks for your 8 step generic argument. It is essential thinking.

    Below I have inserted my comments in blockquotes into your post.

    John (jmw)

    = = = = =

    ‘’’’’’’’’’Richard S Courtney says:
    June 4, 2011 at 3:07 am

    1. The null hypothesis is that the climate system has not changed unless there is evidence that the system has changed.

    jmw comment: I concur. Yet the consensus AGW counter argument will either just be to invoke Post Normal Science’s precautionary principle on uncertainty grounds. Or using PNS they will try to invert the null, make the null to be ‘the climate system has changed’ instead of ‘the climate system has not changed’. PNS is their last resort to salvage the failing credibility of the AGW consensus.

    2. It is asserted that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have changed the system (i.e. the AGW hypothesis).

    jmw comment: Yes, nicely put. In addition I would suggest that for the AGW consensus the AGW hypothesis you stated is epistemologically an ‘a priori’ premise that is held to be true beyond science or denial. To them proof of the AGW hypothesis is not necessary. This is the false start to their faulty logic.

    3. A change to the behaviour of the system following the emissions would be evidence that the system has changed and probably as a result of the emissions.

    jmw comment: I think the word ‘probably’ should be replaced with the word ‘possibly’ . But, still we would need to be cautious not to make the error of ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ just because the system behavior changed after emissions increases/decreases. The AGW hypothesis needs more than that to be substantive.

    4. But, to date, there is no evidence of any kind that the system has changed since the emissions began.

    jmw comment: Especially the IPCC has not shown evidence that the system has changed. But, in fairness the IPCC was charted specifically only to show the negative impacts of the ‘a priori’ starting premise of the AGW hypothesis. The IPCC was chartered to hold the AGW hypothesis as true and just look for all the negative climatic/environmental impacts from it. The IPCC is therefore, by charter, immune to science critical of the AGW hypothesis.

    5. The MBH ‘hockey stick’ seemed to show that the system has changed and that the start of the change was coincident with the start of the emissions.

    jmw comment: The HS was the breathtaking singular icon of the AGW consensus. You have to hand it to the AGW consensus team . . . . it was a scientific looking PR coup d’etate. The AGW consensus team were really good at being scientifically ‘flexible’ with data and analysis. Flexible in the PNS sense.

    6. Several studies (notably those of McIntyre and McKitrick) proved the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was a result of faulty analysis and, therefore, it does not show that the system has changed.

    jmw comment: And those several critical studies improved the science by highlighting a better methodology and more openness. Science was advanced by those critical studies, in spite of the negative view of them by the AGW consensus.

    7. The fact that there is no evidence that the system has changed is important because some people argue for actions to correct the change to the system which they believe has been caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

    jmw comment: Yes, no evidence, and yet the drum beat by the MSM and IPCC to act on the AGW hypothesis still continues on unabated. However the drums seem to have lost their hypnotic effective on the independents and those not yet inside the AGW consensus. We see much more open critical discussion of the AGW consensus now.

    8. Some people who believe in the AGW hypothesis refuse to accept that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ could be wrong so (as this thread demonstrates) they fabricate facts and histories, and they defame and smear people (notably McIntyre and McKitrick) who point out that the MBH ‘hockey stick’ is an artifact of very faulty analysis.

    jmw comment: My view is that PNS enthusiastically supplied a well-stocked pseudo-scientific toolbox to supplement the secretive and manipulative AGW consensus science. Without a broad academic support of PNS in the humanities and social sciences we would not see the proliferation of pseudo-science in the study of the Earth’s climate system.

    Richard’’’’’’’’’’’

  224. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Greenland does not the globe make. It is well-understood that the trend due to orbital variations should result in cooling over the Northern hemisphere high latitudes over the last several thousand years.”

    Wrong again, Joel. But thanx for your conjecture. In fact, there is close correlation between the hemispheres. That empirical evidence shows that the MWP and other temperature changes were global. Sorry about your conjecture.

    And really, Joel, more of your ‘ideology’ name-calling? If it weren’t for your own psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. Saying “the very same sort of argument one hears from all the losers in scientific debates” turns reality on its head: every major debate, from Lindzen’s whipping of Gavin Schmidt, to Lord Monckton’s destruction of his alarmist opponents, has been won by the scientific skeptic side. What is more, the audiences were inclined to support the alarmist side before the debate – until they heard the debate. Then the majority turned skeptical.

    But since you know this, it means you’re just carrying water for the dishonest alarmist scientists and their enablers, who don’t mind that the scientific method has been dispensed with because it is inconveniently in the way of their agenda. After all, you’ve got a planet to save, right? Not to mention that tasty grant trough.

  225. JPeden says:

    Joel Shore says:

    Does it ever trouble you guys that the only sources that seem to support your version of reality are clearly biased sources?

    No, Joel, it’s pretty simple. I in fact like my sources biased toward objectivity, reality, and empiricism and the use of the Scientific Method, all in service of improving the well-being of Humanity. However, by virtue of your own antagonism to my “biased sources”, that necessarily leaves you in league with the cynically propagandistic “CO2=CAGW” purveyors of what is clearly Dogma [a.k.a., the PNAS's "tenets"] whose intent is to use their “method” and the words of their “theory” not toward the interests of science, understanding, and the practical well-being of Humanity, but instead as anti-intellectual means in service of completely other, destructively manipulating and regressive ends – such as “equality” and “sustainability” = Social Justice = Communistic Slavery.

    To make a long story short, according to your “biased sources” – rational thought and real science be damned! – “the ends justify the means”, but it turns out also that the means you favor are the same as the ends you favor = Totalitarian Thought Control, from which all other Control flows.

    Joel, from your above question as well as your other output, I already pretty much know that this certainly doesn’t bother you. And that makes all the difference between you and me, Joel.

  226. JPeden says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “Greenland does not the globe make.”

    Right, and who needs Greenland when you’ve got Mann’s bristlecones and Briffa’s YAD061 to tell you what GMT’s have been doing for a thousand years?

  227. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    Wrong again, Joel. But thanx for your conjecture. In fact, there is close correlation between the hemispheres. That empirical evidence shows that the MWP and other temperature changes were global. Sorry about your conjecture.

    You are showing graphs on a totally different timescale and temperature scale. Yes, when you look at dramatic changes in temperatures that occur on the time scales of ice ages, then there is a pretty good correlation of the change in the two hemispheres (probably thanks, in large part, to the greenhouse gases which help to synchronize the two hemispheres). However, this does not mean that there are not less dramatic temperature changes on shorter timescales that do not have a larger effect on some areas than others.

    Saying “the very same sort of argument one hears from all the losers in scientific debates” turns reality on its head: every major debate, from Lindzen’s whipping of Gavin Schmidt, to Lord Monckton’s destruction of his alarmist opponents, has been won by the scientific skeptic side.

    The irony…It burns. I was talking about SCIENTIFIC debate…you know the ones that occur in the scientific journals. You responded by just giving another example of how you are exactly like those who question evolution. They also want to have the science decided on the basis of public debates, where deception will often beat out science and substance, rather than in the proper scientific venues. The more you try to claim you are different, the more similar you sound to those of us who are familiar with all attacks on science.

  228. HenryP says:

    I am busy doing a statistical analysis of some weather stations to determine whether global warming is natural or man made.
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    I stumbled upon some data from Gibraltar (UK) which appear strange when compared to the neighbouring Spanish stations. More specifically it seems the incline of maxima at Gibraltar does not tie up with that observed by other surrounding stations. That would seem like a case of “hide the incline” . Funny enough I noticed the same opposite trend result on Hunululu. As a result I now view all USA and UK results with some suspicion. Any comments on this by WUWT from the USA?

  229. Joel Shore says:

    JPeden says:

    No, Joel, it’s pretty simple. I in fact like my sources biased toward objectivity, reality, and empiricism and the use of the Scientific Method, all in service of improving the well-being of Humanity. However, by virtue of your own antagonism to my “biased sources”, that necessarily leaves you in league with the cynically propagandistic “CO2=CAGW” purveyors of what is clearly Dogma [a.k.a., the PNAS's "tenets"] whose intent is to use their “method” and the words of their “theory” not toward the interests of science, understanding, and the practical well-being of Humanity, but instead as anti-intellectual means in service of completely other, destructively manipulating and regressive ends – such as “equality” and “sustainability” = Social Justice = Communistic Slavery.

    This is what it all ends up coming down to for you guys. You have this extreme ideological viewpoint under which everybody is corrupted and the only people who can be trusted are those who share your extreme ideology. The Far Right has invented your own “facts”, “evidence”, and “science” because the real facts, evidence, and science conflict with your ideology.

    This whole debate has very little to do with science and very much to do with ideology…just like the debate regarding evolution. Really, when you boil it down, all ideological attacks on science are very much the same.

  230. Steve McIntyre says:

    Joel Shore asks about the MBH99 discussion relating to the PC1. A couple of issues. Part of the problem is that inconsistent claims are made on behalf of the reconstruction. For example, MBH98 claims: “the long-term trend in NH is relatively robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network, suggesting that potential tree growth trend biases are not influential
    in the multiproxy climate reconstructions.” A related claim is made in Mann et al 2000. In fact, the Mann reconstruction is really only the bristlecones plus a sprinkle of noise.

    MBH99 also asserted that the dependence on bristlecones was restricted to the AD1000 network:

    Positive calibration/variance scores for the NH series cannot be obtained if this indicator is removed from the network of 12 (in contrast with post-AD 1400 reconstructions for which a variety of indicators are available which correlate against the instrumental record).

    This isn’t correct for the AD1400 network either (which was what we primarily looked at in our 2005 articles.)

  231. Steve McIntyre says:

    NIck Stokes continues to defend his fabricated history of events. He originally made the untrue statement:

    They {MM} carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann.

    I responded that this was totally untrue

    This is totally untrue. In MM2005(EE), we discussed virtually all of the permutations and combinations that were subsequently discussed by Wahl and Ammann.

    Nick asks:

    Where in MM2005EE is your plot of what the result would have been without the decentring? Your equivalent of the plot of Wahl and Ammann? Which figure number?

    Every so often, Nick should try reading something other than Team accounts. As I said previously, Wahl and Ammann’s claim to have developed the scenarios in their article is untrue – most of the scenarios were originated by Mann, not by Wahl and Ammann.

    The results were shown in Figures in MM2005 and archived at the time. These results were replotted on the same scale as WA here – see particularly this figure.

    While Wahl and Ammann do not clearly state that their methods almost exactly replicated ours, buried in their text are concessions that their scenarios 5a and 6c match ours.

    The divergence of scenario 5a from WA in the early 15th century is comparable to the difference shown in MM05b (their Figs. la and b). ..

    Scenario 6c (purple/green curve in Figure 4) parallels scenario 1 (fitted instrumental PCs not rescaled), and is comparable to Figure 1c in MM05b.

    On any specific calculation, Wahl and Ammann got the same results as we did. The difference was their spin and misrepresentations. For example, they claimed that MBH had argued in favor of RE as against verification r2 (or CE). Untrue. They only attempted to argue against verification r2 when the failed MBH results were exposed.

  232. Alcheson says:

    Joel, in regards to “… clearly biased sources”, I would also like to point out that WUWT that links all the important warmist blogs, lukewarmers , and skeptical ones on the right of the webpage for all to visit, read, and study. If you visit Realclimate and other pro warmists sites, they like to pretend the skeptical sites don’t exist, they do NOT want people who visit warmists sites to know about any skeptical sites if they already aren’t aware of them. Kinda like they are afraid to let people read arguments from both sides. So who do you think people should trust more? The side trying to control what evidence gets seen or the side that encourages you to look at all the sides and then make a decision?

  233. Bill says:

    The number and nature of the above inputs from Joel Shore, Nick Stokes , sceptical, and Phil Jones are probably part of the AGW Communities’ recently announced plan for active resistance against the Global Warming Deniers. The battle may be on!

  234. Richard S Courtney says:

    Joel Shore:

    At June 4, 2011 at 11:51 am you assert:

    “Really, when you boil it down, all ideological attacks on science are very much the same.”

    That may be true.

    But it is certainly true that when you boil it down, all fabricated misinformation attacks on science are very much the same: the Piltdown Man and the MBH Hockey Sticks being prime examples. Red herrings about ideology cannot hide this truth.

    Richard

  235. sunsettommy says:

    “This whole debate has very little to do with science and very much to do with ideology…just like the debate regarding evolution. Really, when you boil it down, all ideological attacks on science are very much the same.”

    Oh the Irony!

    The INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel for Climate Change

    The Kyoto Treaty

    The many politically designed climate conferences

    The Politicization of the science

    The smearing of skeptics,by environmentalists and warmist blogs

    Need I go on?

  236. Phil Clarke says:

    FAO James Sexton

    It doesn’t pass notice that I mentioned McShane and Wyner but no one from the alarmist side addresses it. I find this amusing. If M&W10 isn’t properly refuted, none of this matters.

    “McShane and Wyner (2010) analyze a dataset of “proxy” climate records previously used by Mann et al (2008) to attempt to assess their utility in reconstructing past temperatures. MW introduce new methods in their analysis, which is welcome. However, the absence of both proper data quality control and appropriate “pseudoproxy” tests to assess the performance of their methods invalidate their main conclusions.”

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=sc06400f

    See also Tingley on the Lasso method http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/Blakeley_Discussion_Tingley_Submitted.pdf and 13 contributions in the original journal (S&W was published as a discussion paper) and RC http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/

  237. golf charley says:

    Joel Shore

    AGW theory has always been an idealogical attack on science, the Hockey Teamsters trashed science to get their ideology imposed.

  238. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “You are showing graphs on a totally different timescale and temperature scale.”

    I just knew this would be coming from Joel Shore!

    A while back Shore argued about a few graphs I had posted. So I posted FIFTY new graphs, from numerous sources – most peer reviewed – showing the same thing the original graphs showed. Joel Shore disputed all 50 new graphs in one comment, every one of them. Joel Shore is just like Harold Camping. Instead of Camping admitting that he was wrong about the end of the world, Camping just re-scheduled doomsday to October.

    Joel Shore’s mind is made up, and closed to verifiable facts that contradict his belief system. Joel’s beliefs are all based on models, not on the real world; when recently I asked him to provide real world evidence of global damage due to CO2, per the scientific method, he quietly went away and didn’t respond.

    Anyone who cannot provide empirical evidence of global harm to support their belief system [after a very significant ≈40% run-up in CO2] should honestly admit that the real world is demonstrating that CO2 is harmless.

    Such logic is foreign to the alarmist crowd. They’ve made up their minds that CO2 is all bad, when the planet is showing that it is harmless and beneficial. The net effect of more CO2 is a good thing. More warmth is a good thing. Joel just doesn’t see it. His mind is made up.

  239. Jim D says:

    Smokey, your view seems to be that if we haven’t seen damage from 1 C, we won ‘t see any damage from 3-4 C. Correct?

  240. Smokey says:

    Jim D,

    Incorrect. If global damage traceable specifically to higher concentrations of CO2 starts to appear, I will begin to change my view. But so far, there is no evidence of any global harm due to CO2.

    Don’t you think you should adopt a more skeptical view regarding the demonization of “carbon”? After all, those banging that drum have an enormous financial motive to demonize CO2. An entire university / journal / pal review industry has grown up around the $6 – $7 billion of government grants handed out every year to study “climate change”.

    That grant money does not go to scientists who point out that the whole scare is model-based, with no empirical evidence identifying global harm. The ones who get the taxpayer loot are the ones predicting climate catastrophe. Don’t you even wonder why practically every paper that is published has some kind of reference to CO2, or to carbon, or something similar?

    You should be at least a little suspicious. Where is the escalating global temperature? Where are the annual increases in tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts? Where is the accelerating sea level rise? In fact, they are all moderating, not increasing. Just about every alarmist prediction has been falsified. Why do you still believe what they’re saying?

    “If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?” ~Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Science, February 5, 2010

    Exactly. And:

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”.
    ~ President Dwight Eisenhower

    Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. You don’t see that?

  241. JPeden says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 4, 2011 at 11:51 am

    JPeden says:

    “No, Joel, it’s pretty simple. I in fact like my sources biased toward objectivity, reality, and empiricism and the use of the Scientific Method, all in service of improving the well-being of Humanity. However, by virtue of your own antagonism to my “biased sources”, that necessarily leaves you in league with the cynically propagandistic “CO2=CAGW” purveyors of what is clearly Dogma [a.k.a., the PNAS's "tenets"] whose intent is to use their “method” and the words of their “theory” not toward the interests of science, understanding, and the practical well-being of Humanity, but instead as anti-intellectual means in service of completely other, destructively manipulating and regressive ends – such as “equality” and “sustainability” = Social Justice = Communistic Slavery.”

    This is what it all ends up coming down to for you guys.

    Correct so far as to my view, Joel, that is, until you next returned to your apparently obsessive need to resort to describing the elements of your own psychological projection, which then define what you mean by “ideological”, contrary to what I described asmy definition of “bias” regarding the need for objectivity, etc., but which you then attribute to me and the “Far Right”:

    You have this extreme ideological viewpoint under which everybody is corrupted and the only people who can be trusted are those who share your extreme ideology. The Far Right has invented your own “facts”, “evidence”, and “science” because the real facts, evidence, and science conflict with your ideology.

    Then you conclude with another self-serving, but again self-projecting, platitude, from which you seem to think you have excluded yourself, when you haven’t, as I then re-emphasize following your weak attempt to place yourself “above it all”:

    Really, when you boil it down, all ideological attacks on science are very much the same.

    Obviously so, Joel, but, once more, unless you consider being “biased” toward the practice of real, scientific method, science to be included within your definition of “ideological”.

    Such “ideological” attacks, which my “bias” precludes, would otherwise have been totally irrelevant to a truly scientific discussion of the climate, again as they should be, had ipcc Cimate Science simply adhered to practicing real, scientific method and principle, science, instead of specifically avoiding it in favor of the prosecution of its CO2=CAGW Climate Science Propaganda Operation, with its ultimate intent being Totalitarian Controlism!

    But my post to this same effect is one to which you have not yet responded, Joel, except by simply and quite lamely repeating your original charge alleging that the skeptics here get their info from “biased [Far Right] sources”. Which makes your most recent response only exactly like more of the same old Climate Science Propaganda Operation itself, both in form and content – granted that possibly as a matter of your own personality you might simply be innocently stuck on an infinite infantile cycle of, “No, you can’t make me’s,” in other words that we simply can’t make you admit that you are wrong as to your charge, which no one is disputing! But which nevertheless still does in fact characterize your own response to evidence and logic as well as that of CO2=CAGW’s “Climate Science” – very pointedly, again, when it simply won’t let its “theory” be called into question by empirical evidence, much less be falsified.

    Joel, if you are not getting paid to apply your Political Science to Climate Science’s Political Science or are not simply a being born as natural fodder for and requiring Totalitarian rule, you need to make a break with Climate Science’s anti-science.

  242. Joel Shore says:

    Steve:

    So, in regards to this post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673759 and in light of your previous post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/#comment-673396, are you saying that they knowingly hid the fact that their reconstruction from AD 1400 was sensitive to these particular proxies although they very publicly announced to the world in their 1999 GRL paper that their reconstruction from AD 1000 was in fact sensitive to these particular proxies?

    If so, what would even be their motivation for doing that? (After all, although the MWP is often used to label a broad interval of time, it seems like most people date the MWP as being before 1400 anyway.) If not, then what exactly are you claiming?

  243. JPeden says:

    Bill says:
    June 4, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    The number and nature of the above inputs from Joel Shore, Nick Stokes , sceptical, and Phil Jones are probably part of the AGW Communities’ recently announced plan for active resistance against the Global Warming Deniers. The battle may be on!

    I agree, but they really offer no more than their same old Post Normal [Climate] Science Propaganda Op.’s m.o., which specifically avoids using real, scientific method and principle, science. As to the latter, they’ve toted up a big Zero. Some Post Normal Science advocates actually admit and even argue that, once you’re there in a Post Normal “condition” – which they think is societal when it actually describes only some people’s panicked state of mind – real science will not be applied.

  244. Steve McIntyre says:

    Joel, as I observed, whatever the reason, it isn’t true for the AD1400 network. I suspect that the reason was that they didn’t want to retract any claims in their Nature article, but that’s just a guess.

  245. barry says:

    Not only is MBH98 wildly inconsistent with the fact that the Vikings settled and thrived in Greenland for a while

    Viking settlement of Greenland lasted from ~1000 (when it was warm) to 1400AD (when Greenland was much colder). MBH98 temperature reconstruction begins in 1400. There’s wild inconsistency here, but not as you perceive.

  246. James Sexton says:

    Phil Clarke says:
    June 4, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    Blather……more blathering…….. most blathering.

    Phil, this is the stuff that angers me the most. Phil, I like you. You are an intelligent person………seemingly. I’m saddened and a bit disheartened by your comment. You responded to some of what I stated, but not the heart of what I stated. My summation was clear. I’ll repeat.

    By looking at this tree ring(or several tree rings), I can tell the earth’s temp was 54.85 degrees F.
    Anyone believing that thought has any validity is operating solely on faith, not science.

    Lasso that.

    Phil, at this moment, I’m drunk, but even in my worse state, I can beat your treeometers to death. Its hilarious that people feel compelled to defend tree rings and the idiotic HS graph………….. Why don’t we look at a real temp graph?…….. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001

    Phil, I apologize for the bluntness, but your insult to me doesn’t go unnoticed. Your offerings are pathetic. It is beneath you to present such tripe and, as I stated, it doesn’t address my summation. I’ll repeat, ….only because it is apparent some people are a bit slower than others……….. By looking at this tree ring(or several tree rings), I can tell the earth’s temp was 54.85 degrees F.

    I’ll be more than happy to address the issues you brought up as soon as you show the ridiculous thought that treeometers carry such precision as the posit I presented.

  247. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    |If so, what would even be their motivation for doing that?|

    $

  248. Mac the Knife says:

    Alcheson says:
    June 4, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Bravo, Alcheson! Bravo!
    Does the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ of peer reviewed science hold any weight with the AGW faithful? Or must it only be ‘peer reviewed’ by their own disciples?

  249. Richard S Courtney says:

    I write in attempt to refocus this discussion on the real issue and not opinions concerning ideologies and motivations.

    Whatever the merits of statistical procedures and tests, one finding of the MBH 98 and 99 studies is not disputable: viz.

    The indications of global temperature provided by the MBH method showed falling global temperature after 1960 while the surface temperature measurements showed rising global temperature after 1960.

    This divergence of the two sets of measurements after 1960 could only be indication that
    (a) the MBH method provides false indications of global temperature change
    or
    (b) the surface temperature measurements provide false indications of global temperature change
    or
    (c) the MBH method and the surface temperature measurements both provide false indications of global temperature change.

    These indications were – and could only be – the most important finding of the MBH studies.

    Any paper reporting results of the MBH method which failed to mention these indications would be severely flawed. But MBH98 and MBH99 did not mention them. Instead,
    (i) those papers made a deliberate attempt to hide the divergence
    while
    (ii) their authors attempted to protect themselves from having made this deception by mentioning the problem in another paper in another journal.

    The deception was severe and consisted of obscuring the divergence by plotting the two data sets on the same graph with the plot of surface temperature measurements being placed over the MBH results to obscure them. Phil Jones called this “Mike’s Nature trick”.

    And ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ is precisely the same activity as the infamous Piltdown Man. In both cases, parts of two different items were grafted together as a method to construct an artefact which provides a misleading indication, and the artefact was presented to the scientific community with deliberate intent to mislead.

    It is appalling that anybody would condone the deception or would pretend that the artefact (i.e. the MBH Hockey Stick) has any worth. But, as this thread demonstrates, there are people who do both.

    Richard

  250. sceptical says:

    James Sexton, ” The fact is, science didn’t advance. It stopped at Mann98. Nothing new has been presented for over a decade in spite of the fact that several “new” studies had been offered.”

    Exactly the point of my previous post. As I said before, for you and most other “skeptics” the scientific method is no longer needed. Learning stops when you have learned what you want to hear. From then on, it is only about reinforcing.

  251. Smokey says:

    sceptical,

    Pull your head out: MBH98 has been debunked.

    *sheesh!* Harold Camping’s got nothing on you.

  252. John Whitman says:

    Ahhhhhh, the subject of Science &/vs Ideology! Appreciate the discussion.

    Sure an objective climate scientist can also have a multitude of ideologies even ones that are inimical to the basis of the scientific methods he applies to nature and he can even hold ideologies that conflict with one another. Note: interesting, although one wonders how a person would internalize such conflicts.

    But as a scientist, he is objective only if the ideologies are shown to be irrelevant to his professional application of his rational facility to all aspects of nature (reality).

    Ideologies should be irrelevant to science. However, this does not seem a PNS or even a Kuhnian concept. Fun stuff.

    John

  253. James Sexton says:

    sceptical says:
    June 5, 2011 at 6:33 am

    James Sexton, ” The fact is, science didn’t advance. It stopped at Mann98. Nothing new has been presented for over a decade in spite of the fact that several “new” studies had been offered.”

    Exactly the point of my previous post. As I said before, for you and most other “skeptics” the scientific method is no longer needed. Learning stops when you have learned what you want to hear. From then on, it is only about reinforcing.
    ====================================================

    So, tell me what is new that has been presented? The fact is MBH98 and all of the clones to that study has been debunked………… several times. What is ironically hilarious is that you don’t see how your words apply to you. Nothing new has been brought to the table towards treeometers. You say we stopped at MM03? But what of M&W10 and all of the offerings in between? Even the simplest and most uninitiated can see the flaws in your arguments. Alarmists are so stuck on the population bomb graph, excuse me, hockey stick graph, that they refuse to acknowledge reality. The methodologies were wrong. The graphics were intentionally deceptive. And the proxies are useless towards the sensitivity necessary. There is nothing in them that even remotely resembles reality. And here’s the kicker. Time has bore this out! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend We’ve had 13 years since MBH original. Does that resemble a blade of a hockey stick?

    Sis, I’ve given you several offerings that show how wrong the dendrochronology was. If you were to scroll up this thread, you’d see several more. I didn’t stop learning from MM03, and neither did anyone else…….save for the people that refuse to acknowledge reality. (read “alarmists”)

    There was a time when I took delight in showing these things. It was fun to be vindicated by science and math. Today, I just shake my head in disappointment. It was expected by myself, and I’m sure by many more, that climate science would advance beyond this bit of sophistry. It hasn’t. As a skeptic, I’ve been forced to endure some of the most viscous of slurs and pejoratives. Anti-science, is one that comes to mind. Ironically, it is the alarmists who are the roadblocks for advancements in this field. Acknowledge the failings of the studies and move on. The concept of treeometers is dead. It holds no validity. The thought was laughable 13 years ago. Its simply pathetic now. Use your energies in a more productive pursuit. Alarmists aren’t just wasting their time, energy,and money but they’re wasting the entire world’s time, energy and money, and its past time for this nonsense to stop. Or, you can continue to attempt to defend the indefensible, but it won’t work out for you. I think Cide Hamete Benengeli would be better to relate this bit of history.

  254. JPeden says:

    sceptical says:
    June 5, 2011 at 6:33 am

    As I said before, for you and most other “skeptics” the scientific method is no longer needed.

    Another well known propaganda tactic in support of propaganda: take the major criticism against your own position, such as your own position is – mere propaganda, and repeat it back against your antagonists, the “skeptics”. The “science is settled” people, 1] made a statement which contradicts the practice of real science, and 2] referred to a kind of “science”, theirs, which is not real science.

  255. mpaul says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 4, 2011 at 11:51 am

    This is what it all ends up coming down to for you guys. You have this extreme ideological viewpoint under which everybody is corrupted and the only people who can be trusted are those who share your extreme ideology. The Far Right has invented your own “facts”, “evidence”, and “science” because the real facts, evidence, and science conflict with your ideology.

    Science isn’t about “trust”, it’s about replication or falsification. The public has an absolute right to inspect the claims that are being made by publicly funded climate scientists. And, other scientists, engineers and statisticians have an absolute right to attempt to reproduce the findings of publicly funded climate scientists. If the results can stand-up to inspection, then they survive, if not, the results suffer a Darwinian death. If you want to move this debate from one of ideology and politics (and now law enforcement) to one of science, then you should join with the people who are asking the obstructing climate scientists to release all of the data and all of the methods necessary to reproduce the results.

  256. Frank K. says:

    James Sexton says:
    June 5, 2011 at 9:42 am

    “Alarmists aren’t just wasting their time, energy,and money but they’re wasting the entire world’s time, energy and money, and its past time for this nonsense to stop.”

    Thank you James for summarizing my own opinion of the CAGW mania with one sentence.

    The sad thing is that the majority of people aren’t against sensible environmentalism (i.e. land preservation, reforestation, recycling, energy efficiency, hybrid vehicles, alternative energy sources etc.). They are, however, against a cult of scientists using crappy science to both keep government money flowing to them and their cronies and attempt to scare the public (especially the young) into thinking THEY are causing glaciers to melt and polar bears to lose their homes.

    And it should be pointed out that the CAGW climate scientists have no one but themselves to blame for the public ridicule currently being brought down upon them. After all it is THEY who decided to step into the political arena in a big way in an attempt to control other people’s lives through their “science”. I guess they didn’t count on the blowback…

  257. Joel Shore says:

    Steve McIntyre says:

    Joel, as I observed, whatever the reason, it isn’t true for the AD1400 network. I suspect that the reason was that they didn’t want to retract any claims in their Nature article, but that’s just a guess.

    I must admit that I haven’t followed the “hockey stick wars” in great detail because I think they are mainly a sideshow from the more important and interesting science. But every time I do try to delve into an aspect of it, I always seem to find that behind all of the “smoke” of dramatic accusations floating around, there seems to be very little actual “fire”.

    At this website, we regularly have Smokey making a big hullabaloo about “censored” files and implying all sorts of nefarious things going on. However, when we dig into it, it turns out that the only real disagreement is a largely irrelevant technical argument about whether ITRDB PC #1 is important only to extend the reconstruction back to 1000 AD, as Mann et al. very publicly stated in their 1999 GRL paper, or whether it is in fact also important to obtain the reconstruction even from 1400 AD. Since the reconstruction discussed in the IPCC report was the one from 1000 AD … and that pre-1400 part defines the Medieval Warm Period by most accounts, it really is a wonder to me as to why so much has been made about so little!

  258. Joel Shore says:

    mpaul says:

    Science isn’t about “trust”, it’s about replication or falsification. The public has an absolute right to inspect the claims that are being made by publicly funded climate scientists.

    That view seems to be rather selective. I haven’t heard a lot of complaining about Wegman being unwilling to answer even some very basic questions about his work: http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/24/david-ritson-speaks-out/

    By contrast, for Mann, it seems that even though he has released more than the journal requires him to do, more than the NSF funding agency requires him to do, and in his recent work released so much that even Steve McIntyre says “Mann’s recent materials are archived responsibly”, yet that is still not enough. Frankly, I would be head-over-heels-in-heaven if some of the work of others in physics (my field) that I have looked into was as accessible as Mann’s stuff is!

    It makes one wonder if the real issue has anything to do with replication and falsification and all that wonderful stuff and more to do with people just not liking the results.

  259. Robin Edwards says:

    Thank you, Nick Stokes, for the link to Mann’s data. I’ve collected some that I shall be able to compare with my earler set, from about 2005.

    Robin

  260. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore’s beliefs are based on computer models. That’s why pointed I out that I had repeatedly asked him to provide “real world evidence of global damage due to CO2, per the scientific method.” As usual, he quietly went away and didn’t respond to that, but instead started arm-waving over my posting of Mann’s “censored” chart.

    Why is Joel Shore being so ornery? It’s because the real world is contradicting his alarmist belief system. That’s why he’s attempting to re-frame the argument onto Wegman now. That’s why he’s backing and filling regarding Mann’s shenanigans in MBH98. And that’s why he doesn’t respond to my straightforward request for any empirical [not model] evidence showing convincingly that CO2 has caused, or is causing global damage. Because if the only result of more CO2 is greater agricultural productivity, then the central issue in the entire debate – demonizing “carbon” – goes away.

    All the available evidence shows that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. The real world evidence shows that the net effect of more CO2 is good, not harmful. Which of course destroys the central pillar of the AGW movement.

  261. suyts says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    ……….. his recent work released so much that even Steve McIntyre says “Mann’s recent materials are archived responsibly”, yet that is still not enough. Frankly, I would be head-over-heels-in-heaven if some of the work of others in physics (my field) that I have looked into was as accessible as Mann’s stuff is!
    ===================================================
    Joel, Wegman was asked for an opinion by Congress. He gave it. The Congressional record has an entirely different set of standards they go by. Attempting to apply journal and academic standards to Wegman’s work is simply wrong on so many different levels its laughable that you draw comparisons as such. For a proper comparison, all one has to do is look at the offerings of more recent congressional testimony. None that I read elevated to the level of academic or journal standards. Even though the information presented may have been correct, it doesn’t operate under the same set of rules.

    I’m happy Mann finally learned something……..it only took him a decade or so, but as I stated earlier, some people are just a bit slower than others.

    As to your assertion that other fields of science aren’t as open, I’d say “so what?” Are they attempting to change the socio-economic landscape of the entire world? And is anyone taking them seriously? No? Then your comparison is of apples and oranges. Personally, I couldn’t care less what some people believe about trees and tree rings. Some people read tea leaves, too. Others, bumps on people’s head. But when this bit of nonsense starts costing money, lives and freedom, I’ll demand openness, verification and replication ’til the cows come home.

    Further, after seeing some of the antics of those twits(mostly through Steve Mcs website and the e-mails), they’ve shown that they simply can’t be trusted to present unbiased science.

    James Sexton

  262. Joel Shore says:

    suyts says:

    Joel, Wegman was asked for an opinion by Congress. He gave it. The Congressional record has an entirely different set of standards they go by. Attempting to apply journal and academic standards to Wegman’s work is simply wrong on so many different levels its laughable that you draw comparisons as such.

    As to your assertion that other fields of science aren’t as open, I’d say “so what?” Are they attempting to change the socio-economic landscape of the entire world? And is anyone taking them seriously? No? Then your comparison is of apples and oranges….

    I think what it really comes down to is that you have two sets of standards. Wegman is making conclusions that agree with your ideology and the government policies (or lack thereof) that you want, so you want to give him a free pass. He doesn’t even have to answer reasonable questions about how he obtained his results.

    Mann is making conclusions that threaten your ideological beliefs and might lead to government policies that you don’t like, so you have another set of standards: He has to turn over everything, including every bit of code he has ever written pertaining at all to any papers, be they now 13 years old and superceded by his and other’s later work. It is not enough for him to describe his methods and what data was used.

  263. suyts says:

    Joel Shore says:
    June 5, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    I think what it really comes down to is that you have two sets of standards.
    ==================================================

    Easily refuted……. As I already noted, for comparisons, one should check more recent congressional testimony. Joel, I can’t help but wonder if you have read other offerings for congress or not. Alarmists and skeptics alike were recently asked to give testimony. Do you hear about anyone screaming that their testimony didn’t rise to academic or journalistic levels? You don’t, and they didn’t. Heck, Mueller even gave an opinion about data he hadn’t looked at yet. How come you’re not screaming about his? And what of all the others? I’ve got their testimony in PDF, I can attest that they don’t rise to the typical journal level. Nothing but crickets chirping from the alarmist side. Its breathtaking that people like you would then accuse people like me of having double standards.

    It is only Wegman that some seem obsessed with. It isn’t my standards that are broke in two. It is the alarmists HS believers. And again, Wegman isn’t advocating the upheaval of the socio-economic structure of the world, either.

  264. HenryP says:

    I am puzzled at you still going at each other’s throats. Why don’t we all just go back to the weather station in your neigbourhood and prove for yourself that the global warming (and resulting climate change) is just a natural phenomena.
    like I did here:

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    A small warning: it seems to me that some stations in some countries – presumably those that have a lot to loose if it is proved global warming is natural – have been compromised.

    I am going to investigate that now- that will be an investigation within an investigation.
    Give me some time on that.

  265. Venter says:

    Spot on Suyts, when somebody who’s supposed to be a qualified physicist steadfastly supports Mann’s garbage and goes into irrational arguments, you know that belief has transcended science.

  266. cope says:

    Two days have now passed since McIntyre’s deconstruction of Nick Stokes and we have not seen any response from Nick. This is rather telling from someone who has exhibited a tendency over many years and multiple climate blogs to respond very quickly and in great volume. Nick has also developed quite the reputation for not admitting when he is wrong even when caught in blatant errors. So we can take Nick’s reticence here as tacit admission that he was wrong. A more explicit acknowledgement and apology would be nicer, but with Nick you take what you can get…

    And Nick, while you defending Mann, how do justify his clearly erroneous response to the MM comment on his 2008 PNAS piece pointing out that data fed into the CPS reconstruction was upside down? (“The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.”) It appears that Nick and Mann follow the same credo of no retreat, no surrendoer, never admit a mistake.

  267. Nick Stokes says:

    Cope,
    “we have not seen any response from Nick

    No, there gets to be a stage when the thread gets ragged, and you’ve said what you can. As far as Steve’s latest “deconstruction”, there just aren’t answers to my questions – where is the M&M equivalent of Amman’s fig? And if there is one, how come Wegman didn’t know about it?

    In fact the story is a bit more complicated – it’s true that Fig 1 of MM05EE does contain a recomp of a case with and without decentering. It’s tangled with Gaspe pines, etc, but it’s there. Wegman didn’t notice either, in his summary of the paper. And guess what – centering makes no difference at the HS end. It does make some difference at the 15th century end, where data is getting low. But that will all be different in MBH99.

    But it’s a confused narrative now – it seems to go –
    1. the HS is broken because of decentering
    2. W&A may have shown that you get the same result with centering, but you can’t trust that because Ammann was a student of Mann (Wegman)
    3. Anyway, Steve did it first

    The end of a WUWT thread is not a good place to try to sort that out.

  268. cope says:

    Nick,

    “…it’s true that Fig 1 of MM05EE does contain a recomp of a case with and without decentering…”

    Apology noted.

  269. Nick Stokes says:

    cope says: June 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm
    “Apology noted.”

    Ah, yes, but who knew? That Steve in 2005 had done a recalc with centering which shows, yes, a hockey stick! Just like MBH98. It might as well have been in a CENSORED directory.

  270. cope says:

    Nick,

    Who knew that Steve had done a recalc in 2005? Why, anyone who had bothered to read MM05EE. Your failed attempt at sarcasm just makes you look foolish (and the “hockey stick” does show significant differences from Mann’s).

    And given that on other threads you feel very free to express your opinion on plagiarism charges against Wegman, how about addressing Steve M’s charges above about plagiarism in WA?

  271. Tom says:

    Nick,

    Wahl and Amman got a hockey stick by including all the way down to the 4th PC. MM had shown this earlier. But that just begs the question of why a 4th PC should determine the shape of the reconstruction. If the 4th PC is deciding the shape then the obvious conclusion is that the reconstruction is spurious.

    There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. And there is more than 1 way to get bristlecones into the reconstruction. Dr. Mann accomplished this by short centering the PC analysis which made the bristlecones PC1. Wahl-Amman accomplished this by indluding PCs all the way to PC4 which got the bristlecones into the reconstruction. Neither method is particularly valid.

  272. Rob says:

    While we are at this FOI – in a nutshell, and responses to the “vergano” post on CA, can ATI please provide the FOI request that they apparently filed to GMU, including investigation of Wegman’s work ? Because so far David Schnare at ATI did not provide that information, even though it was central to the post, and CA apparently has shut-off further comments.

Comments are closed.