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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/06/prof-kelly-shows-the-middle-way/
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.
sceptical,
Pull your head out: MBH98 has been debunked.
*sheesh!* Harold Camping’s got nothing on you.
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
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.
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.
Joel Shore says:
June 4, 2011 at 11:51 am
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.
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…
Steve McIntyre says:
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!
mpaul says:
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.
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
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.
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
suyts says:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nick,
“…it’s true that Fig 1 of MM05EE does contain a recomp of a case with and without decentering…”
Apology noted.
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.
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?
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.
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.