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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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……