Steve McIntyre is blogging again. This time it is about a little noticed Climategate email where Dr. Raymond Bradley disses skeptics as being too unsophisticated to be able to figure out what was withheld.
I agree with Steve, when he says it is rather “repugnant”.
Here’s the relevant passage from Bradley
…in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).
Commenter “Baa Humbug” quips:
What they failed to realise is that the “antis” are like bloodhounds. We only need a few molecules per thousand to pick up the trail.
The issue is that MBH98 withheld vital R^2 goodness of fit data which could have alerted most anyone with a basic understanding of such a problem where the proxy data “missed” replicating an entire year, but as we’ve seen time and again, they chose not to let such adverse information become publicly available then.
Even Bradley has doubts, as Steve points out in a second post, here’s more from the same Climategate email by Bradley:
Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in the (very few) proxies that we used. We tried to demonstrate that this was not a problem of the tree ring data we used by re-running the reconstruction with & without tree rings, and indeed the two efforts were very similar — but we could only do this back to about 1700.
Yet, even today, we have people who defend the hockey stick as truth, and say that people like Mr. McIntyre are in error, or simply disingenuous.
It is truly amazing to see people defend such behavior by the team. Repugnancy is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, rather like a choice of true faith.
What i find even more repugnant is that journalist like Black,Harribin,won’t give air time to these kind of mistakes and keep the dogma going depsite overwhelming evidence like this!
I’ve heard of witch doctors who act more like scientists than this Climategate bunch …
people do what they do for a reason.
and
people don’t do what they don’t do for a reason.
there’s a reason why information was withheld. there’s a reason why data were manipulated. only true sociopaths lie for no reason at all.
“Yet, even today, we have people who defend the hockey stick as truth, and say that people like Mr. McIntyre are in error, or simply disingenuous.”
Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.
The “climate change skeptic” community is still stuck on MBH98-99
REPLY: and the AGW community is still stuck on thinking that CO2 is the cause of everything – A
Someone ought to tell Dr Bradley that egotistical hubris and wishful thinking isn’t science…
Tea leaves also carry a strong scent until doused with divining waters! Only then are they able to be successfully read by those with the appropriate foreknowledge.
I was under the impression that no matter what numbers you put in, you got a hokey schstict……
Steve Goddard has been posting the historical records, glacier retreat, heat waves, flooding, etc, from newspaper articles, etc, on his website for a while.
Interesting reading, considering they were complaining about “climate change” over a 100 years ago……….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
Well, if hounds we be then, in the immortal words of the Bard, “Cry ‘havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war.”
I wonder what level of sophistication would Bradley ascribe to the “antis”, now?
This email by itself almost proves that global warming alarmism is not a science. If it were a real science the scientists would publish all their data, no matter if it agreed with their theory or not, and let the chips fall where they may. But here we scientists trying to hide the “scent” of errors from investigation.
[Posted to the wrong thread. ~dbs, mod.]
Sharperoo. The hockey stick does go away if you take the most basic of reconstructions from the historical record. even a cursory glance will show you the Little Ice Age and Medievial Warm period, and only slight digging brings up the Dark Age and Roman Warm period (please note the Euro-centric names on global phenomena due to the fact that these labels are over a 150 years old).
Any reconstruction that does not match this basic history is false on its face. Mann’s attempt to rewrite history notwithstanding, you cannot deny that the world has had (at least) four major climate cycles since the start of the Common Era with warm periods of similar magnitude to today’s climate. Natural variation of this magnitude completely belies climate models (which cannot explain this cycle) and eliminates the IPCC’s ridiculous proof-by-exhaustion fingering of CO2 (since we cannot show that whatever happened this isn’t happening now).
“REPLY: and the AGW community is still stuck on thinking that CO2 is the cause of everything – A”
What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.
Claiming that either McIntyre is right or there’s a hockeystick is a false dichotomy. McIntyre has never produced his own reconstruction and has only ever critiqued others, which is certainly his right but that also makes it impossible to apply his work to what’s actually happening as opposed to what might be wrong with what others say is happening.
You can accept everything McIntyre says (or at least a lot of it) and still say there’s modern temperatures are the hottest in a thousand years.
While it’s easy and indeed common for the blogosphere to get caught up in “the debate” and the personalities (see also Steig/O’Donnell) there’s still an underlying reality which is being investigated. The investigation suggests time and again that as above it’s now hotter than in recent history. This in itself says nothing about why that is and ultimately almost everything in the paleo climate record is going to be little to do with human activity.
REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP
denierdoubter, which is the crux of the problem – Asharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:00 am
“Yet, even today, we have people who defend the hockey stick as truth, and say that people like Mr. McIntyre are in error, or simply disingenuous.”
Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.
The “climate change skeptic” community is still stuck on MBH98-99
======================================================
lol, uhmm, MBH 98-99 wasn’t the only hockey stick study
deconstructeddemolished by the skeptics. Sharp, you should peruse Steve Mac’s archives. You’ll find several refutations of various hockey stick studies.sharper00 says:
“Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
You’re right, the hockey stick does not go away as long as you slap recent temperature data onto past temperature reconstructions that have not been demonstrated to match current trends and that hide the decline in past reconstructions.
The hockey stick does not go away, but then neither does creationism nor 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Ah, so it is revealed that they (the “team”) were acting as politicians all along, not scientists. Interesting but hardly surprising.
The investigation suggests time and again that as above it’s now hotter than in recent history
==================================
nope
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2011/trend
“REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier, which is the crux of the problem – A”
I think ignoring on-topic and relevant arguments and going with glib dismissal using terminology which itself is often the topic of entire posts when used against your position is deeply ironic and an unfortunate representation of where “blog science” has landed.
REPLY: Oh gosh, put in my place by yet another anonymous troll who can’t or won’t understand the base issue presented here, but complains that we are spending too much time looking at old papers while denying the existence of the MWP which was disappeared by the paper while at the same time withholding important verification data. That’s not science. – A
Just a note on0 terminology in the email:
“(they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).”
Sophistication: The act of sophisticating; adulteration . From sophistry: – a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.
Hockeyteam fool the people once (Mann) shame on you.
Hockeyteam fool the people twice (Steig) shame on ????
Sharper00 said:
Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.
And, most of those either follow the same flawed methodology, or use the same cherry-picked BCP data to anchor the hockey stick in place. As SM has pointed out, even the studies that supposedly don’t use the BCP’s, actually include them through back-door methods.
The hockey stick doesn’t go away because the climate scientists in question are doing everything in their power to keep them there.
“Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
Only if you beleive tree rings are a proxy for temperature. They aren’t. They are a proxy for optimal growing conditions, which means just the right amount of moisture and sunlight. Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry and growth is reduced.
This explains whey we are now hearing that AGW causes increased temperatures, decreased temperatures, decreased snowfall, increased snowfall. The wrong proxy was used for the temperature reconstruction. It wasn’t a proxy for temperature at all. It was a proxy for the Goldilocks conditions. Not too hot, not too cold, not too wet, not too dry, just right — and tree growth is maximized.
So, according to the hockey stick, conditions for tree growth have slowly gotten worse for the past 1000 years, until the last century where both tree growth and human civilization improved.
@P Wilson
“Just a note on0 terminology in the email:”
Note: “A piece of paper currency.”
Therefore you are attempting to produce currency, this is likely illegal in your jurisdiction. Therefore you a criminal and a fraudster.
Sure I could have picked the meaning closest to the one you meant and the most appropriate for the context but hey the “Pick the most nefarious definition” game is fun for everyone!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophistication
1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.
The problem with many Warmists is they still don’t get it. They don’t get that the proxies are in error and that was recognized by the CRU correspondents who knew the raw data and the Briffa methodology. They read, but do not understand that Mann and CRU had absolutely no confidence in their climate paleontology. Warmists gloss over the failure of a scientists to provide the thermometer readings from 1652 that were used as benchmarks. They gaze over the fact that Briffas tree rings were improperly cataloged and perhaps not even preserved. And differed dramatically from the Russian readings at the same site which were on an order of 10 greater in number.
Now they read that some omitted thermometer data would turn the hockey stick into a sine wave and they again see something else entirely.
Is this disease contagious?
Of course, McShane & Wyner smacked down all the reconstructions done by tree rings. I’d bet we’d see similar results with other reconstruction objects.
sharper00: “Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
A. Most of the reconstructions that you are thinking of were done by collaborators or students of Mann.
B. Most of the reconstructions share many of their proxy series. For example, the cherry picked Graybill western US bristlecone series; or the Briffa Yamal series that had an inadequate number of tree for drawing the conclusions that it drew.
C. Those reconstructions are now a great deal less hockeystickish than Mann’s original hockey stick. Even Mann’s most recent reconstruction is much less hockeystickish than his original.
D. There are also numerous independent reconstructions from areas all over the world that disproved Mann’s hockey stick.
E. None of the reconstructions are able to reflect the contemporary instrument record. They either fall short of the instrument warming or they don’t show any warming.
F. When going outside Mann’s 2000 year period we find numerous sources, like ice core reconstructions, that tell us that both the magnitude and rate of climate change that we are currently witnessing is very common to the earth.
G. The “hide the decline” evidence that recent proxy data gives us tells us that proxy data may not have followed surface temperature any better in the past than it is following it today.
In other words, the agenda that Mann had in mind when he created his reconstruction has been thoroughly debunked. If a few reality challenged warmers want to continue to believe in Mann’s hockey stick, then no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
If the silly arse would like to visit the hunt I follow in Devon I would gladly introduce him to the sport of being publicly horsewhipped.
I’d have had the Labour government arses in Parliament horsewhipped too after their class angst-ridden vote at the time.
“”””” sharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:31 am
“REPLY: and the AGW community is still stuck on thinking that CO2 is the cause of everything – A”
What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.
Claiming that either McIntyre is right or there’s a hockeystick is a false dichotomy. McIntyre has never produced his own reconstruction and has only ever critiqued others, which is certainly his right but that also makes it impossible to apply his work to what’s actually happening as opposed to what might be wrong with what others say is happening. “””””
Well there was a time when I believed that thoae people who “did the experiments” and took the data, would then use it to explain what happened.
It is quite unreasonable to expect those who do not have the data, and cannot get the data, despite earnest trying. to describe what is happening.
So release the raw data to McIntire; and then you are free to complain if he improperly interprets it.
From the words, I see in Bradley’s comments; there isn’t a one of those so-called “climate scientists” who is even aware that there is a formal science of sampled data systems; let alone has any working knowledge of that discipline.
sharper00 –
Your willingness to ignore (“ignorance”) is showing. The “multiple reconstructions by different individuals” all fundamentally suffer from inclusion of subsets of the same bogus proxies (bristlecones, foxtails, Tamiyr upside-down, etc) and similar statistically innumerate methodologies.
Check the archive pages of ClimateAudit (reconstructions) or read it all in very plain, simple English in Montford’s excellent “Hockey Stick Illusion”.
The statistical big lie that is the hockey stick remains a lie, no matter how oft told.
Now, go do your homework and don’t come back until you have something useful to add.
Sharper00,
Talking louder and more often does not make you, algore, or any other hysterical climate “doomer” correct.
By the way, what “new” work–by the author or others—are you refering too. And please give me some resources that do not refer to MBH98.
Also, are you an MWP denier?
“REPLY: Oh gosh, put in my place by yet another anonymous troll “
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or is skepticism only something that’s for other people and not the things you say?
“who can’t or won’t understand the base issue presented here2”
I understand the base issue just fine – more outrage about a paper written over 12 years ago regarding “just so” interpretation of an email written 11 years ago and which was release almost a year and a half ago.
“denying the existence of the MWP “
This terminology just rolls off your tongue. I haven’t addressed the MWP at all, I’ve simply stated that it’s warmer now than anytime within the last 1000 years. It’s another false dichotomy to say we have to pick between a MWP and total relative global temperature between then and now.
“That’s not science.”
Science involves investigating the underlying reality I mentioned above. “Blog science” concerns itself mostly with petty squabbles while ignoring that reality, that is the point I’m making.
REPLY: “I’ve simply stated that it’s warmer now than anytime within the last 1000 years. ”
Just to be clear, you are saying then without a doubt, that it is warmer now than the MWP. It’s important to be succinct on that point.
– Anthony
A new gem from the climategate emails! Even though there would seem to have been a thorough reading of these historical documents by several people it seems there is still more to discover.
By the way Sharperoo, why don’t you apply your skill to explaining why the remarks in the subject email are totally misconstrued by the “antis” and that they don’t trouble you in the least.
Certainly it is a legitimate newsworthy matter when a new egregious email passage is unearthed from these historical documents that revealed the real methodology behind the fabrication of the hockey stick. Hey we’re still talking about Galileo being dragged before the inquistor to recant his book on the motions of the planets and the heliocentric theory. Did you know that the Catholic Church quietly exonerated Galileo in the 1960s. There were throngs of sharperoos to be sure that supported the inquisitor guardians of the status quos of history. How dare Galileo question the Ptolemaic consensus.
What we have here are climate scientists forming their own version of the scientific method unlike any other branch of science and redefining academia… with the added aroma of a holier-than-thou attitude and then attempting to make it look like that’s the way it’s always worked.
The only thing these “professionals” are accomplishing is gifting the entire scientific community a huge disservice in the public eye.
“You can accept everything McIntyre says (or at least a lot of it) and still say there’s modern temperatures are the hottest in a thousand years.”
And it is a good thing. As the temperatures have gotten warmer, human civilization have improved by just about every measure imaginable. Lifespans, health, wealth, education, freedom.
It was only a few generations ago when a large percentage of children born never made it to adulthood. This is still the reality in the poorest of countries, those that have not yet industrialized. In those countries if you do make it to adulthood, then once you are past 40 any trip to the hospital is likely to be your last.
Sharperoo has proved time and again that he ain’t too sharp and his logic is totally daft. More kangaroo than sharperoo.
Sorry, that’s personal and not very gentlemanly of me, but sometimes I HAVE to react to such idiocy.
The “climate change skeptic” community is still stuck on MBH98-99
The whole of Climate Science have made little progress in the last 20 year. Watch this doco from 1990. You’ll see familiar names making familiar arguments.
The only thing that has changed is the perception of danger among the general population and politicians. This is not the result of better climate science in the last two decades. Rather, it’s the result of better propaganda by CAGW dogmasphere.
Indeed, once upon a time it was possible to see documentaries like the one below on TV.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59HS6g58Y9k&w=480&h=390]
sharper00: “What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.”
This is an interesting fallacy. The idea here is that we didn’t know what we were doing 12 years ago, but we do today. And from this follows the idea that 12 years from now the reconstructions that we have today will still be good. I would consider this as highly unlikely. Twelve years from now today’s reconstructions are likely to be considered as faulty as those that were done twelve years ago.
sharper00: “The investigation suggests time and again that as above it’s now hotter than in recent history.”
The evidence is not conclusive that it is hotter than in the MWP. But the important point is that over the entire record of earth’s climate there are thousands of points at which one could have made the statement, “it’s now hotter than in recent history” – assuming we had been there to make the statement. And the answer is “so what”. I’m simply not alarmed by 0.8C of warming over 150 years. And I’m not willing to allow an agenda driven left to stamped me with pseudo science.
sharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:06 am
I haven’t addressed the MWP at all, I’ve simply stated that it’s warmer now than anytime within the last 1000 years.
====================================
uh no
You simply stated “in recent history”…….
…now you’ve move the goal post again to last 1000 years
Got any more dates you’d like to cherry pick?
re: sharperoo
Prior to 1850, all the reconstructions in the IPCC “spaghetti” graphs are incoherent with each other on all timescales. The only reason there is any coherence after 1850 is because that is the time period they are all calibrated to.
If you can point to any 2 of the reconstructions that are independent of each other and display any coherence prior to 1850 then please let me know.
Since they all show different things at different time periods and scales can you also point out how we can determine which is correct?
“Science involves investigating the underlying reality I mentioned above. “Blog science” concerns itself mostly with petty squabbles while ignoring that reality, that is the point I’m making.”
A valid point. There are some well established mainstream sites that don’t allow contrary opinions to be posted. The moderators routinely delete them. We are fortunate that WUWT doesn’t operate that way.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_I_may_not_agree_with_what_you_say_but_I_will_defend_to_the_death_your_right_to_say_it
I keep coming back to this analogy with the Tobacco Institute.
Mainly, the work now being done in the “climate industry” would make these folks (i.e. Bradley et al) prime candidates for plum positions within the Tobacco Institute if it still existed.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p111/lectures/grehab.htm
Oops forgot a link. Note that even though the church exonerated Galileo after 350 years they rationalized (we really weren’t so bad) as much as they could.
What better approach is there to discrediting the conclusions of IPCC reports that were based on said papers? Is your answer, truly, “well there are newer papers now, so that conclusion is still valid.” ??
Indeed, claiming McIntyre is right or a hockeystick exists is a false dilemma. There could technically still be a hockeystick increase in temperature. For this to be true you have to ignore historical evidence from many centuries of recorded history. Also, McIntyre isn’t paid to do reconstructions. The people in question are. That an unpaid retired person can find holes in the work of highly paid, highly regarded climatologists should at a minimum give you pause. If, as you say, McIntyre’s work is so easily ignore-able by those who have found “the hockeystick” in other work, why all the obstruction? Why the denial of FOIA requests? Why the insults? The way to respond to someone proving you wrong is to display how you corrected your mistakes in subsequent work. No one from the warmist side seems to do this, they just point randomly to “newer work that supercedes those old papers.” You cannot make this claim here without me directly referencing a specific paper that replaced MBH98-99 and/or corrected and improved on the method used while retaining the hockeystick shape.
That’s a misrepresentation of fact. The blogosphere is not caught up in personalities, it is caught up in Steig outright lying about what he did/did not do as a reviewer. Feel free to catch up in the story so this is clear to you, I’m sure the blog posts on these facts haven’t moved far down the main pages.
@ sharper00:
No, you did not say that it is warmer now than in the medieval warm period, you said:
Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.
Hockey stick: ______/
MWP: __/\___/
You obviously have some very odd shaped hockey sticks wherever you live. It is… odd, to say the least, if you claim that “I never said the MWP didn’t happen” and yet say that “we’ve got a hockey stick shape for global temperatures”. Just how *do* you square the two, anyway?
The biggest problem facing the “antis” is the number of avenues there are to track. The warmists have built up such a structure of bad data that it takes time to go through each and every one.
We will, it will just take time.
John Kehr
sharper00
“Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
Which is very ironic since the hoockey schtick truly went away, last year I believe ’twas, when the mann himself found some of the missing MWP and reintroduced that into his schtick.
But I do agree multiple reconstructions really did demonstrate that pretty much everything was turned into a “hockey stick” graph by using the mannschtick method.
Well Sharperoo you have livened up the debate. Michael Mann certainly gets some stick from skeptics – some of it fair, some of it unfair. There is no doubt that his original work was just that, highly original. But it was flawed and SM has done the climate science community a great favor by putting his work to the sort of scrutiny that should have been applied by the peer reviewers before publication. Would the subsequent studies and the debate that ensued have occurred without his critique? I doubt it very much. It was not SM’s role to come up with any alternative reconstruction – it was up to the scientific community to get its house in order, open its data to scrutiny and meet the criticism with the sort of openness common across other scientific disciplines.
Up until the so-called climategate I took much of the science on global warming on trust. They led me as I am sure they did many others to seriously question the science. What was apparent from the leaked emails was the contempt that the individuals concerned had for those who criticized them and their willingness to gerrymander the peer review process by locking-out work they regarded as contentious. My own experience in the area of financial economics is that when such a lockout occurs (as it did in the finance literature in the 1970’s and 80’s) the discipline is put back in its development by a generation. Neither side of this debate is blame free of course, but there is too much easy recourse to ad-hominen attacks often delivered across the blogosphere by anonymous individuals who are not willing to put their name where their mouth is. It is this lack of honesty and openness which bedevils this debate – whether is is in concealing data, the manipulation of the publication process or being willing to say who you are when you put the knife in.
Fact 1: The massive majority of scientists are paid by governments either directly, or indirectly.
Fact 2: Those embrased within Fact 1 are behoven to their paymasters to keep food on the table and feather the nest, thus….
Fact 3: In the light of fact 2, they will write what the paymasters want to read, who will then disseminate scientific opinion, especially when a major part of their incomes come from government grants.
Fact 4: Politicians in a democracy will tell the people what they want to hear, and then carry on with their own agendas.
Fact 5: Enter AGW. “I/we will save the world”. Who can resist that? And we need the tax revenue. Therefore, “the science is proven. Shut up sceptics, Big Brother knows best”.
Fact 6: Non-democratic countries (with possible exceptions – but not within the G7) stick up a rude finger(s) sign, and carry on regardless, or simply ignore the whole shebang.
I really enjoy this blog, but I do beleive that the WAWT gently-gently approach is now insufficient to kick-start our political masters into re-evaluating the entire issue. See Fact 5, 3rd sentence.
Bugs Man is based in the UK. Diesel fuel today hit USD 8.38 per US gallon. Taxation will make it will go up again in April, to save the UK economy and the planet, but not necessarily in that order.
Now I am going to get political.
The AGW lobby is a spent force. To all governments: re-direct the funding towards regenerating the economy of your country, and stop funding the “proven science” free-loaders.
sharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:06 am
……….
I understand the base issue just fine – more outrage about a paper written over 12 years ago regarding “just so” interpretation of an email written 11 years ago and which was release almost a year and a half ago. ……
=======================================================
Sharp, no that’s not the issue being presented here. I’ll try to go slow. When trying to discern a topic of a writing, it is often useful to read the opening paragraph. It is common in many styles of writing to call it an “introductory” paragraph. I believe in this case, this approach applies. So, let’s see what Anthony wrote………
“Steve McIntyre is blogging again. This time it is about a little noticed Climategate email where Dr. Raymond Bradley disses skeptics as being too unsophisticated to be able to figure out what was withheld.
(emphasis mine)
Now, most normal readers of the English language would note that there isn’t an explicit mention to a paper in this paragraph. It is several sentences later that Anthony mentions MBH98. While the intent of Anthony’s inclusion of the reference may be interpretive, many would read it as providing a thing we like to call “context”. While most of us regulars are very well aware of the e-mails and papers wrote by Bradley, it very well could be that some readers aren’t as familiar with the works of Bradley and the e-mails, so it behooves Anthony to provide a modicum of background.
This issue in this posting, as I read it, is twofold, but related. One would be the elitist attitude displayed in the correspondence. The other would be the intentional withholding of information that would directly address the validity of a paper he helped publish! Sharp, this is disturbing to me, as it should be disturbing to all. The implications here are immense! Bradley is, in ‘a matter of fact” tone, discussing his intentional deception to another colleague. An intentional deception that deceived a great part of the world’s populous.
Now, are we clear as to what the issue and topic of discussion should be or do you require more detail?
Apologies for the typographical errors above.
sharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:00 am
Claiming that either McIntyre is right or there’s a hockeystick is a false dichotomy. McIntyre has never produced his own reconstruction and has only ever critiqued others, which is certainly his right but that also makes it impossible to apply his work to what’s actually happening as opposed to what might be wrong with what others say is happening.
sharper00, in the realm of both its predictions and now its on the spot ex post facto explanations, which CO2=CAGW “Climate Science” has finally been reduced to using as its alleged proof – in other words, concerning “what others say is happening” – CO2=CAGW “Climate Science” simply hasn’t gotten anything right as to “what’s actually happening”.
Therefore, sharper00, do you think this resounding failure might have something to do with what’s “wrong” with the way the Climate Scientists do their “science”? Which is what Steve McIntyre is displaying when he ~”applies his work”?
Let’s start a conspiracy theory! I claim that Sharperoo is simply a skeptic trying to stir up action in the skeptic bloggosphere to improve ratings. His/her arguments are just too easy to hit out of the park to be the work of a serious warmer. When this skeptic gets tired he/she will just disappear.
REPLY: No, let’s not. AFAIK, he/she is just an uninformed travel agent/developer trying to argue from a position of ignorance about what has transpired with climate science in the last couple of years. -Anthony
sharper00,
In science, you are not required to come up with an alternate theory when you are demonstrating that an existing theory is false.
That other people using the same flawed data and the same discredited methods come up with results similar to the Hockey Stick is not surprising. That they continue to insist that this proves something is.
sharper00,
The comment by:
February 22, 2011 at 8:52 am
@P Wilson
was quite correct. The reason you don’t like it is because a troll is a sophist, by definition. And you are a troll, (though not particularly sophisticated.)
Could it be the case that there were more hockeysticks than one ? Will history allow us to find the real culprits ? Is really the first hockeystick which is completely Mann-made ?
sharper00 says, February 22, 2011 at 8:31 am
You can accept everything McIntyre says (or at least a lot of it) and still say there’s modern temperatures are the hottest in a thousand years.
There might indeed have been ‘modern temperatures [are] the hottest in a thousand years’ – those were in the 1930s … until a certain Mr Hansen fiddled with them, sorry: adjusted them down, then up, then down again and up again … to keep that famous hockey stick alive.
Sadly, they were hotter than those in the 1990s …
You might find posts on these extraordinary adjustment events right here on WUWT, just check the archives.
Of course, another underlying issue or topic worthy of discussion would be why so many people accept the words of habitual deceivers as truth. Is this related to the behavior of abused spouses remaining with the abuser? Or is it more akin to the masochism seen in a fetish relationship?
What Steve Mac points out, is simply another example of a known behavioral trait seen all to often with alarmist climatologists. They intentionally deceive. They lie. They cajole. They rely heavily on fallacious argument tactics. They manipulate scientific journals and literature. They withhold pertinent information. And in general have shown themselves to be of untrustworthy character. And yet, a large portion of the population still lends credence to their statements. I am not sure what word would be used in describing this behavior, but a study of such should span several behavioral disciplines.
@1DandyTroll
Which is very ironic since the hoockey schtick truly went away, last year I believe ’twas, when the mann himself found some of the missing MWP and reintroduced that into his schtick.
Indeed. It was Mann et al 2009. It came out just before COP15. By then, of course, the hockey stick graph had done its work of creating fear and building momentum for political action. He was free to re-discover the MWP.
Apologies to everyone who addressed me but I don’t think the sharper00 V Everyone thread is what anyone rants to read.
@Jeremy
“What better approach is there to discrediting the conclusions of IPCC reports that were based on said papers? Is your answer, truly, “well there are newer papers now, so that conclusion is still valid.” ??”
My answer is that there are newer papers therefore continuing to attack old papers is a waste of time. It’s like going to a political blog and finding people still arguing over whether Gore or Bush won the 2000 election.
“Also, McIntyre isn’t paid to do reconstructions.”
I didn’t say that he was however the argument that was presented was “McIntyre is right, therefore no hockeystick”. McIntyre’s work says nothing about paleoclimate because he has done no reconstruction.
“Why the denial of FOIA requests? Why the insults? “
I don’t know, why does Anthony Watts keeping calling me that word which is considered so obscene to even use it would land this comment immediately in the spam filter?
It’s not a distraction from your question, it’s a way of answering your question which is to say the individuals involved felt frustrated and attacked for various reasons which may or may not be valid. Whatever the answer it says nothing about the nature of reality either way.
“No one from the warmist side seems to do this, they just point randomly to “newer work that supercedes those old papers.” You cannot make this claim here without me directly referencing a specific paper that replaced MBH98-99 and/or corrected and improved on the method used while retaining the hockeystick shape.”
I hardly think it’s “random”. Science progresses and new work is published.
I assume you’re aware that Mann has published subsequent reconstructions but see here for a more complete list. Note the relative position of modern day temperatures with the MWP for all of them.
sharper00 says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:00 am
“Yet, even today, we have people who defend the hockey stick as truth, and say that people like Mr. McIntyre are in error, or simply disingenuous.”
“Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
Once Mann and friends had proved themselves to be liars and activists for AGW why would anyone reconstruct the hockey stick? The hockey stick attained a special status as tainted long ago.
If by “hottest”, you mean: “.6 DegC-rise-observed-between-1880-and-1998” then yes. (WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, SEND ME 20 TRILLION!!!)
But unfortunately for you, and your Fabian friends, is was hotter in the 1930’s….yet THAT keeps getting “corrected” 80years after-the-fact, not just 12.
^^^ Exactly the behavior of a troll, btw. You posted absurdity, then went to find the low-hanging fruit created that was perhaps slightly off-topic. My post wasn’t completely on-topic, and deliberately left open not to mention displaying a bit of arrogance itself. You’re completely revealing your intentions in who you chose to respond to. If you had anything of substance to say on this topic, and you weren’t putting the lead weights of your intellectual ego into every keystroke, you would simply say, “It’s unfortunate that these highly regarded people in these positions of influence said and did these things,” and move on. Because, as you’ve made clearly obvious, there’s no reason to assume that any paradigm is at stake. McIntyre’s work doesn’t disprove the hockey stick, right? as you said? So why bother even posting in this thread? This is just about bookkeeping the climategate files and discovering a little more to the story. So who cares right?
Only a troll cares.
In your own words:
Right, and would you post in such a way on one of those blogs, or would you ignore it? I can’t think of any behavior other than troll behavior that would do such a thing.
McIntyres work says something about paleoclimate. It calls into serious question the conclusions of at least one paleoclimate paper. Therefore, you’ve spoken falsehood again, more Troll behavior.
And you don’t care.
@Patvann
“But unfortunately for you, and your Fabian friends, is was hotter in the 1930′s….yet THAT keeps getting “corrected” 80years after-the-fact, not just 12”
You’re confusing the United States with the entire planet.
This thread should definitely be sub-titled ” sharperoo gets shampooed” .
“REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier, which is the crux of the problem – A”
Now now Mr Watts lets not drop down to the level of name calling! Really now, the “D” word? Tsk tsk tsk. We must wash your fingers off with soap for typing that one. Just be careful not to say it or you won’t like the taste.
We must be patient with those who refuse to accept that the more recent studies do nothing to address the issue. Having your world view pulled out from under you and having things and people you BELIEVE in with all their heart and soul is very unnerving.
Cheers
REPLY: You are correct, the word to use is “doubter”. I’ve been abused a bit too much lately by hostile ugly people, – Anthony
” Taphonomic says: February 22, 2011 at 8:34 am
The hockey stick does not go away, but then neither does creationism nor 9/11 conspiracy theories. ”
Yes especially that conspiracy theory about a talentless dweeb named Hani Hanjour flying an 80 ton 757 through a maneuver that even ace pilots like Commander Kolstad say he personally would have a hard time doing. Sorry but I agree with the good commander on his comment that the government’s story “stinks to high heaven”.
Oh well you are 2 for 3 in that one and we agree on the invalid nature of the hockey STICKS (plural for a reason). No matter how they cut it they can’t get rid of the MWP and my favorite explanation of why warming isn’t a concern of mine is this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Hmmm. To follow this analogy, even a dog with stuffed sinuses can detect something very rotten in this. Thhat the AGW gang doesn’t, or doesn’t want to, reveals that they have been permeated by the steadily increasing stench and have just got used to it… or the ones who are more aware are like people who cut one at a party and then pretend they didn’t and, in this case, suggest that the skeptic beside them did it.
In any case, comments like this are like Marie Antoinette’s ‘let them eat cake’ for its effects.
Well, Sharperoo has managed to derail this thread didn’t he/she? Totally deflected the discussion from the idea that a (reportedly) serious scientist deliberately held back information and was arrogant about the ‘deniers’ not being ‘sophisticated’ enough to find it to a thread revolving around his/her (Sharperoo) own sweet self.
@Jeremy
“^^^ Exactly the behavior of a troll, btw. You posted absurdity”
There’s nothing absurd about what I wrote and it’s interesting to note that WUWT is now the site where polite disagreement is met with the “D” word and accusations of being a troll.
“McIntyres work says something about paleoclimate.”
If McIntyre wants to say something about paleoclimate then he needs to actually do some work that says something about it. He hasn’t to date and that’s an entirely uncontroversial position. You may wish he has but he hasn’t, his work says nothing about what temperatures were or were not at any point in time.
A little thought experiment I suggested a while back, but didn’t get any takers.
Suppose you live a thousand years in the future and want to do a proxy reconstruction of the climate from now to say two hundred years previous. What artifact would you select and from where on the planet which would accurately reflect what the instrumental record currently suggests for recent climate history?
Good attempt at deflection Sharp.
The age of the papers doesn’t matter because the people involved are still practising. They do so on their reputation and standing. Their conduct in honouring the scientific method is relevant.
Unless you don’t care about that – but the right thing to do would be to just darn well say so.
And on the subject of the HS, other authors will have referred to this work in support of their own. If failings are found long after publication, linked research is affected.
It says a lot that you should take issue with it.
@sHx says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:19 am
Indeed, once upon a time it was possible to see documentaries like the one below on TV.
—-
Reply: Thanks for that clip, it was excellent! UHI in 1990, a young Richard Lindzen etc.
What about the quite apparent cold NH? Past is just that :past. I feel we are cooling off.
The Pac Nw is in for a big, nasty, late winter storm. and nothing we do can prevent
it Certainly heating with wind power and solar cells. Bob Tisdale has an interesting
analysis of the COLD waters surrounding North America:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
I see the oceans as the heat sink for the planet. We are cooling off.We also are foolishly
converting food to fuel-just saw we have 18 days reseve in the USA, this is beyond stupid…
And so to hopefully end this entire sharperoo back and forth: Never wrestle with a pig in the mud. You are soon to discover that you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Now back to our feature presentation……
Sharper00,
“You’re confusing the United States with the entire planet.”
No sir, the “bristleconeistas” have confused the US for the rest of the planet—teleconnect ring a bell?
Come on sharper00, are you gavin?
Gary Pearse says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:08 am
A new gem from the climategate emails! Even though there would seem to have been a thorough reading of these historical documents by several people it seems there is still more to discover.
By the way Sharperoo, why don’t you apply your skill to explaining why the remarks in the subject email are totally misconstrued by the “antis” and that they don’t trouble you in the least.
Certainly it is a legitimate newsworthy matter when a new egregious email passage is unearthed from these historical documents that revealed the real methodology behind the fabrication of the hockey stick. Hey we’re still talking about Galileo being dragged before the inquistor to recant his book on the motions of the planets and the heliocentric theory. Did you know that the Catholic Church quietly exonerated Galileo in the 1960s.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I agree wholeheartedly with your point, Gary.
Just want to point out for general interest (and the record) that the Vatican did not wait until the 1960’s to quietly exonerate Galileo.
Some important dates:
The Inquisition’s ban on reprinting Galileo’s works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.
In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of an edition of Galileo’s complete scientific works which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue.
In 1758 the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of prohibited books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus remained.
All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.
In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the “most audacious heroes of research … not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments”
A statue of Galileo is going up in the Vatican Gardens commissioned by Benedict XVI (Ratzinger)
Sharper 00 said:
My answer is that there are newer papers therefore continuing to attack old papers is a waste of time. It’s like going to a political blog and finding people still arguing over whether Gore or Bush won the 2000 election.
The older papers are relevant, as most of the newer papers still use the data and / or techniques of the older ones as references.
Regarding the creditworthyness of those dendrochronology/multi proxy studies leading to the famous hockey stick curve, it should appear to any observer that they are losing ground (at least in Europe) in scientific assessments of the global warming / climate disruption issue.
Indeed, the UK based Royal Society as well as the France based Academy of Sciences so to speak no longer really mention paleo climate reconstructions in their 2010 lines of argument of their continuing support to policies aiming at mitigating climate change.
It looks like many scientists got it all, following McIntyre / McKitrick demolitions of the paleo recontructions by Mann, Bradley, Briffa and the likes !
TimM says:
February 22, 2011 at 11:34 am
“REPLY: spoken like a true MWP and RWP denier, which is the crux of the problem – A”
Now now Mr Watts lets not drop down to the level of name calling! Really now, the “D” word? Tsk tsk tsk. We must wash your fingers off with soap for typing that one. Just be careful not to say it or you won’t like the taste.
—-
I personally LOVED Anthony’s use of “denier” appropriately for those who really do deny reality.
But even Watts is denying something important there. Until the Climate Liars came along, warm periods were called “climate optima.” We should restore that name, for it reflects the reality for the sake of living things.
Warmist hysterics are “Optimum deniers.” And that in two ways–denying that past optima were warmer than today, and denying us hope for a more fruitful Earth in our own time. They are willing to spend so much and do so much damage that they have crashed the world economy. And all in an effort to bring about conditions that would cause extinctions. See http://www.CO2science.org for the best collection of data on that.
Re Latitude says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:04 am
Seems Steve Goddard’s point might be that it is a hell of a lot harder to adjust an old newspaper headline temperature than one in an electronic data file?
sHx says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:19 am
From the Greenhouse Conspiracy video:
Prof. Wigley: (responding to questions about UHI effect.)
“There are a number of ways that one can account for that problem. The obvious way is just to eliminate those stations from the data set that you use to calculate the large area average temperature values.”
Yet the very opposite procedure became standard so as to manufacture an upward trend, for it was to turn out that only the stations NOT located in UHI affected areas would be the ones eliminated.
Re: sharperoo
I afraid you are displaying a severe lack of understanding on how science progresses and on how the IPCC works.
By your argument any paper in print should never be attacked since once it is in print it is an old paper. Or is there a time limit? If there is a time a limit could you please tell me what it is and how that time limit was calculated?
As for the IPCC, unless a paper is refuted in a peer reviewed manner they will use it to further their aims no matter how erroneous the paper is known to be.
Could you please point to any 2 of these reconstructions that are both independent and demonstrate coherency prior to 1870? If not then all you are presenting is a random series of squiggles that contradict each other prior to 1870.
“not clever enough” was what Madoff thought for years and years.
Sharperoo
“Even if you accept Mr. McIntyre is not in error the hockey stick doesn’t go away as demonstrated by the multiple reconstructions by different individuals performed to date.”
Actually, yes it does. It is clear that Manns method produces hockey sticks out of random data and that proper treatment of reasonable data sets do indeed make the hockey stick disapear.
Updated versions of Mann do not correct the problem.
It isn’t M&M’s job to have their own reconstruction. Pointing out that someone else has screwed up does not create some magic requirement that you re do it. Wrong is wrong whether we fix it or not.
Thread highjacks are such a bore. As are thread highjackers.
sharper00 says (February 22, 2011 at 10:54 am): “Apologies to everyone who addressed me but I don’t think the sharper00 V Everyone thread is what anyone rants to read.”
Au contraire. Whether he’s a paid troll or true believer, I quite enjoy watching him get shot down in flames. It’s one of the advantages of reading a blog that doesn’t ideologically censor commenters *cough*RealClimate*cough*.
It’s more entertaining, though, when the troll also tries to provide some of the references and, you know, science-y type stuff behind his claims (hint hint).
I’m off to make popcorn…
Rhoda R says:
February 22, 2011 at 11:57 am
Well, Sharperoo has managed to derail this thread didn’t he/she? Totally deflected the discussion from the idea that a (reportedly) serious scientist deliberately held back information and was arrogant about the ‘deniers’ not being ‘sophisticated’ enough to find it to a thread revolving around his/her (Sharperoo) own sweet self.
You know, now that you mention it, a “scientist” holding back information and arrogantly referencing other actual scientists that hold a differing opinion is worthy of discussion.
Good observation Rhoda.
Shampooroo
well, wrong. If you look at the state of the science as compiled by the IPCC you will see whole sections that rely upon suspect early papers. You will see that graphs or data lines from suspect papers persist. Climate “science” is primarily a HISTORICAL science. there are no controlled experiments, there is the uncontrolled experiment we are doing today with C02, but for the most part the science is historical science with some physics and stats thrown in. Paleo is (until recently) entirely a statistical effort with very little “climate” science. Work with GCMs to help with recons and forward modelling of proxies makes it a bit more physics based. The point is these flawed papers continued to lend more weight than they should and the methods they employ ( in certain cases) are suspect.
Actually wrong. If Mann says that he knows the temperature if the MWP was
13C +- .5C, and McIntyre points out that mann is over confident in his calculation
of CIs, then he has said something about the paleo climate. Namely, that it is Not known as well as people think. However, you are correct MANY people misunderstand Steve’s work to imply that there was a MWP that was warmer than today. His work has no such implication. His conclusion is very narrow. His conclusion is not a skeptical victory ( he wouldnt say it is). What is odd is that more warmists dont embrace his conclusion. That we are not as certain about the MWP as mann purports. Nothing turns on this conclusion. Mann for example, would conclude that we are maybe 90% certain that the MWP was cooler than today. McIntyre might say “its a coin toss” or “we cant tell”. Neither of those positions is inconsistent with the core science of AGW.
And you know the magic ingrediant is in all of those. I had a talk with Steve about this. To try to distill all his work down to one main insight. That insight was this.
Without bristlecones everything falls apart and we know much less than we think we know. Now, the interesting thing is this.
We know that we need a bristlecone to get a hockey stick. What should that tell a curious scientist?
1. if something is amiss with bristlecones, then we potentially have a problem. Our
answer is not robust.
2. We had better look more closely at this key bit of information. Down to the core.
its a precious bit of info. It better get a complete review.
3. Can we get new data from the bristlecones? update the proxies.
In a nutshell that is steve’s whole point. The methods, ALL methods, will take a HS and noise and produce a HS. duh. So, ya better take special care with the HS you feed
the system. Do more study of bristlecones.
Amazing, McShane and Wyner destroy an entire sub-discipline and people here still wish to discuss a particular paper based on the sub-discipline, dendrochronology. It isn’t valid. Tree-rings don’t have a strong enough temp signal to conclude temperatures within the necessary parameters. Bradley, by his e-mails, knew this, ……..“Whether we have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).”
A submitted, peer-reviewed paper in which one of the authors admits privately that he doesn’t have much faith in the veracity of the paper. This is science? Quite obviously, by the off-hand tone and tenor of his correspondence, this seems to be an accepted behavior in the circle of climate alarmists. Dating back, at the very least 13 years ago. I suspect it goes back much further. How does anyone believe the science (of this alarmist climatology) is valid? It isn’t. How many more papers, submitted, reviewed, and accepted were only done so with the glaring errors hidden? Errors that would demonstrably invalidate the paper’s assertions.
Thanks sHx (9:19 am) for that fascinating video link.
It also shows how essential Mann’s original ‘hockey stick’ graph (MBH98-99) has been to the CAGW crusade (together with the 1998 El Niño event I think).
@steven mosher (see I can get your username right, it’s easy actually)
“Actually wrong. If Mann says that he knows the temperature if the MWP was
13C +- .5C, and McIntyre points out that mann is over confident in his calculation
of CIs, then he has said something about the paleo climate. “
No he hasn’t. All he’s said is something about Mann’s argument concerning paleoclimate. McIntyre has produced nothing that says what the climate was at anytime or anywhere, only critiques of arguments concerning it. This is his stated purpose (i.e. his site is “Climate Audit”).
“His conclusion is very narrow. “
I agree which is why I say above you can accept all most of what he’s been said and reach conclusions concerning paleoclimate other than what was claimed in this post.
Instead his work is habitually trotted out to support arguments far beyond its scope and then that already stretched position is further extended as some sort of vague disproof of AGW.
@Everyone complaining about thread hijacking: I neither encouraged nor wanted comment after comment addressing me and completely missing the point of what I said. I said above I wasn’t going to be replying to everyone and stuck to the topic I wanted to discuss.
Gary Pearse says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:08 am
Hey we’re still talking about Galileo being dragged before the inquistor to recant his book on the motions of the planets and the heliocentric theory. Did you know that the Catholic Church quietly exonerated Galileo in the 1960s. There were throngs of sharperoos to be sure that supported the inquisitor guardians of the status quos of history. How dare Galileo question the Ptolemaic consensus.
———–
Actually, Pope John Paul II not-so-quietly exonerated Galileo in 1992 – it made the front-page news. He acknowledged the errors made by the tribunal that had judged Galileo’s case. He also declared that Galileo’s teachings and cautions to the Church should be considered a guide to how to conduct relations between religion and science. He issued a formal apology in 2000, as a part of the apology for the many failings of the Catholic Church over its past 2000 years.
Apparently , according to Wikipedia (my apologies) “In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls” but these plans were later abandoned or postponed.
Hope we don’t have to wait 400 years for the Church of Climate Science to acknowledge its errors.
I like the approach taken by Tilo Reber who says:
February 22, 2011 at 9:20 am
sharper00: “What you want to say about the pros and cons of that argument it’s still the case that continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach.”
Tilo: “This is an interesting fallacy. The idea here is that we didn’t know what we were doing 12 years ago, but we do today. And from this follows the idea that 12 years from now the reconstructions that we have today will still be good. I would consider this as highly unlikely. Twelve years from now today’s reconstructions are likely to be considered as faulty as those that were done twelve years ago.”
++++++++++++++
The implications are interesting: It seems no one blogging here thinks the Hockey stick 1998 is valid. Sharperoo points out that there are later more accurate reconstructions (meaning the 1998 one was not all very skillful). Others point out that all the hockey sticks are deeply flawed, or rely on the same flawed data processed in a modified manner (MM 2009). If the 1998 Stick is inaccurate, unrepresentative, not skillful, debunked, over-ridden by more recent work or simply exposed, any plans for climate action based on the defective work should also be reviewed, correct?
As far as I have read thing topic, a great deal of the IPCC climate action plan was based on what everyone, including Sharperoo, agrees was deelpy flawed. I add ‘deeply’ because it is an unsupportable reconstruction that does not reflect temperature – its sole purpose and claim.
It has, in the words of science, been refuted. Conclusions drawn directly from its demonstrated errors, demonstrated by MM himself in 2009 with a much amplified MWP, must also be reviewed in the light of new information. Even in MM’s circles, the implications of his 2009 paper include a much larger natural variation that undermines many alarmist claims for the present temperatures.
That review has not happened at the IPCC.
I have read many mindless defences of the Stick. In whose interests are these defences written? What’s the point? Some suggest it is money, lots of it. That is a theory I have been unable to debunk so it remains my present consensus.
The deconstruction of MBH 1998 will continue until the grevious policy errors consequent to its publication and indeed glorification are similarly undone.
Sharperoo, your inexcusable defence of the indefensible actions of the self-named team render you similarly guilty, by proxy.
Mark Wagner says:
February 22, 2011 at 7:59 am
people do what they do for a reason.
and
people don’t do what they don’t do for a reason.
there’s a reason why information was withheld. there’s a reason why data were manipulated. only true sociopaths lie for no reason at all.
Sociopaths lie for the following reasons.
[1] It validates their belief in their inherent superiority over you – I.e. – you are so easily fooled, gulled and led astray.
[2] The practice of deception is habitual, and the option of first recourse, as the truth would reveal the predatory nature of all the sociopaths relationships, and therefore must be hidden at all costs.
So there are at least two core reasons – 1. Narcisstic Self Validation, and 2. The playing out of a specific strategy for living in a world full of targets.
sharper00:
Instead his [McIntyre’s] work is habitually trotted out to support arguments far beyond its scope and then that already stretched position is further extended as some sort of vague disproof of AGW.
sharper00, it was the hockeystick Team, enc., themselves who were the ones who were rather absurdly claiming that the hockeystick only going back 1000 yrs. was some sort of strong proof for AGW, so it’s they who set that particular standard of disproof! Add another “zero” to your name.
continuing to attack papers written over 12 years ago which have been superseded by new work both from the author in question and other authors is not a good approach
Huh? If the basic work is bunk, the extensions and elaborations are bunk, too.
Steve McIntyre is blogging again
Nice to see. He’s thought provoking! And he accomplishes important things!
Meteorologists provide the most important data for building code called regional climatic data. That tells us as builders and energy providers the temperatures we are to insulate or provide energy for. Meteorologists also tell us in building code to reflect or protect from solar radiation or the exterior will be radiated by the high speed emfs.
Meteorologists don’t know that buildings are signed off as compliant without verification. The entire United Nation’s membership is blind to temperature on climate change, here is an example of what we missed in the calculator.
On February 20, 2011 the weather station was reporting 26 degrees F at 1 PM and the solar radiated building development was as hot as 125 degrees F. Look at the new high end community living with a lake view. The entire solar exposed side of the development is over 100 deg. F without emissions produced. That heats the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Experiments in 7 provinces and 25 states produced the same results with buildings being impacted by solar emfs.
Global warming by man is very real.
Help me out Anthony. I have been through the threads but did sharperoo answer your “Just to be clear, you are saying then without a doubt, that it is warmer now than the MWP. It’s important to be succinct on that point.”
I must have missed it if he did!
REPLY: Did he answer? Not that I’m aware of. -A
James Sexton says:
February 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm
It certainly doesn’t give one much reason to trust the “system”, does it?! As for how many more papers…”, considering their acceptance of Steig et al (2009), perhaps a “review” of Nature cover stories would be a good place to start 😉
(With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning …) How do they lie to us? Let us count the ways.
Sharperoo… Lets help you a little!
“Mann wrote that “everyone in the room” agreed that the Briffa series was a “potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show”. Briffa recognized there was “pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more ’”, but expressed many caveats, in particular that the proxies were not responding the way that they were supposed to and that that the recent warmth was “probably matched” 1000 years ago.”
(Thank you Judith 😉 )
I enjoy it when I see trolls like sharperoo get their hides tanned by the rest of you. Makes for an interesting thread.