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.
Nick Stokes says:
June 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Smokey says: June 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“Mann’s actual results for the individual steps remain unavailable to this day.”
“That’s the difference between the scientific approach and the auditing approach. In the scientific approach the data is available and the method described. Here, as a bonus, you have the computer programs. The results can be reproduced.”
“The auditing approach is not part of science. And no-one appointed Steve as auditor.”
How nice to have someone make a claim about scientific method. However, the claim is false on its face. It is the duty of each scientist to make his work reproducible. What that means in practical terms is that, at this time in the Climategate scandal, all of the information requested by McIntyre should have been made available. In fact, given its importance, it should be iconic. Every high school senior with a serious interest in the matter should be able to explain just what Mann did in the work that McIntyre discusses.
The idea that there is an “auditing approach” that is different from the “scientific approach” is a clever feint but it is nothing but a feint. Responsible scientists requested assistance in reconstructing Mann’s reasoning and methods. The information requested was essential to that reconstruction. Mann as scientist has an iron clad duty to provide that information. If the reason for this is not obvious, let me make it clear. Mann has to take responsibility for his work. If that work is being questioned by a responsible scientist then the author must sign on to each and every element of it; that is, Mann must turn each piece of data and each inference into an individual assertion. It is not a matter of auditing but a matter of personal responsibility.
The feint to the “auditing approach” is simply an attempt to avoid personal responsibility on the part of scientists. (Apparently, the only forum for Mann is a court of law where these points will not be in debate. Mann does have a duty as scientist to take responsibility for each piece of data and each inference.)
Sceptical:
Your’e funny. Here try this: http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
I didn’t count all of the references because there were too many.
Nick Stokes says:
June 3, 2011 at 5:23 am
Shub Niggurath says: June 3, 2011 at 4:49 am
“you are having to utter obvious falsehoods -i.e., Mann was subject to enquiry.”
“Huh? That sounds like one. Are you saying there was no PSU inquiry?”
Everyone knows there was no independent inquiry. The investigators reported that they asked Mann if he had engaged in various kinds of wrong doing and he replied “No.” They declared that he was innocent. That is a sham. Are you saying that you do not understand that the process was, and remains, a sham?
Icarus says:
‘“Have any subsequent papers presented a substantial challenge to the findings of MBH98…?’
Was Briffa’s work part of the Hockey Stick? Was “hide the decline” part of the hockey stick? I believe they were. If so, then outrageous dishonesty about data underlies the hockey stick. What more do you need to reach the obvious conclusion that the work is worthless.
Joel Shore says:
June 3, 2011 at 11:33 am
Have the reconstructions acknowledged the worthlessness of Briffa’s data and the fact that his work calls into question all of the data from tree ring proxies? If not, then it too is dishonest in the strict scientific sense of not disclosing all the important information about the data.
[i](a) he had never falsified any data, nor had he had ever manipulated data to serve a given predetermined outcome;[/i]
It is very clear that he at least cherry picked and/or used inappropriate data to SERVE a given predetermined outcome. He also clearly obstructed efforts to determine that obvious fact. He probably didn’t directly manipulate the data. He just manipulated how it was interpreted. How can you interpret the data backwards like he did with the Tiljander data and say, “Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.” If that isn’t evidence of intentional data manipulation and obstruction, I don’t know what would be.
Nick Stokes says:
June 2, 2011 at 5:56 pm
What do you think was hidden by Mann re MBH98?
As sunsettommy in effect points out above, two things: the medieval warm period, and the little ice age.
(Emphasis added)
From Joel Shore on June 3, 2011 at 11:33 am:
From sceptical on June 3, 2011 at 11:44 am
Likely not plagiarism, at least not by both, but it bears the appearance of at least the paraphrasing of “talking points” from someone’s theoretical (and unsuccessful) refutation, by the similar wording and the ‘moving on’ before “reconstructions.” The close timing is likewise suspicious. Did someone just release something to be used by anti-skeptic bloggers? By proper academic standards, should those two bloggers have referenced their source?
I will note something that is curious in itself, that “sceptical” says other reconstructions since say “much the same,” while Joel says “all” the reconstructions since are in the mentioned IPCC figure. What, there have been NO reconstructions since MBH98, absolutely ZERO, that disagree with MBH98?
Question: Smokey is referring to MBH98. Joel said it was included in that congealed IPCC figure. Yet that figure is clearly labeled as using MBH99. Are MBH98 and MBH99 both referring to the same paper?
sceptical
“Which published studies was the reconstruction attempting to undo, or did you mean “countless” as in without count because ther are none?”
With that post concerning the existence of the MWP and LIA you have destroyed any remaining credibility for your arguments.
Smokey: “Because the IPCC loved that chart above all others.”
I think everyone should love their work just a little bit. I know I do. That way one gets to combine the two great motive forces of human achievement: hard work and good loving. And vice versa.
Many scientists are passionate about their work, but there can also be little love lost between individual scientists. The spats between the great Newton and some of his contemporaries are well known, although he managed to (sort of) make up with Hooke.
Can climate scientists learn some man-love, share a malty beverage, and respect their differences? Or would the prospect of burying the hatchet present too great a temptation?
Declaration of personal interest. My feelings for the Hockey Stick are great admiration, especially for the more developed “spaghetti” graph with its graceful curves and clean and fresh – but not brassy – lines. However, given my sceptical nature, I and the various incarnations of the Hockey Stick are, for the moment, “just good friends”. Can friendship develop into love? We shall see.
Herbert M. Jones II, where ya been?! Slumming over at RC?☺
# # #
Nick Stokes says:
“More fact-free stuff. MBH99 results are in Fig 6.10 of the AR4.”
That’s a completely different chart! I’ve been specifically referring to the chart at the top of the article here, and I’ve also linked to a bigger copy. Since you read and referred to my post, you had to have been aware of that fact.
Did you really think you could slip that one past us? As I’ve stated several times here: the IPCC can no longer use Mann’s scary chart. The one you linked to isn’t scary at all, it’s just confusing to the average person; it’s weak tea by comparison with Mann’s original… which CAN’T BE USED any more. Why not? Because it’s been debunked.
If that’s the kind of shenanigans you’re resorting to now, it’s pretty clear you’ve lost the argument. But by all means, argue away, and let others see the weakness and desperation of Mann’s defenders. No wonder Michael Mann hides out, and makes only tightly scripted appearances where he never has to answer inconvenient questions. [*Go Cuccinelli!*]
And do you still believe in Mann’s contention that there was no MWP, and almost no climate change until after the start of the industrial revolution? Just wondering. Because that’s what Mann claimed – before his chart was debunked by McIntyre, McKittrick and others.
MBH98 just went back as far as 1400 or thereabouts. MBH99 went back to 1000 AD. The link that Smokey gave to the IPCC figure shows MBH99.
glacierman says:
Random pieces of data showing a Medieval Warm Period do not a reconstruction make. In particular, while lots of data show some period of warmth in the interval between about 800 and 1300 A.D., they tend to be asynchronous (i.e., the warm periods occur at different times during that period for different places). As a result, when the records are combined to make a worldwide average, what you tend to get is a broad period of somewhat elevated average temperature…but not as elevated a warm period as the late 20th century.
Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I believe that Fig 6.10 of the AR$, which incorporates Mann’s results along with 11 others, is the best knowledge we have of recent temperature history.
M&M did not debunk MBH – they pointed to an error without saying what effect it would have. They carefully did not show what the result would have been without the error. Neither did Wegman. That was left to Wahl and Ammann. MBH result verified.
Nick Stokes says:
“M&M did not debunk MBH …”
Sure they did. McIntyre found Mann’s hidden ftp file labeled “censored“. That showed conclusively that Mann had cherry-picked his proxies to produce a fictitious hokey stick. By only using a small, hand selected group of tree rings, and hiding the much larger and better proxy set, the hockey stick appeared. But it was bogus. When the “censored” proxy is included, the hockey stick shape disappears. Mann played the same games in Mann ’08.
Read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford. It lays out the “censored” file and many other Michael Mann shenanigans, with copious references.
Mann will be conveniently disposed of by a mechanic of the International if it’s get to that. They’ll probably hang him by his own belt and call it auto-erotic asphyxiation.
In honor of the The Team ® © supporters, dissemblers, apologists and advocates; antagonists, alarmists, pleaders and polemicists; patrons, proponents and multi-degreed sophists, the Nick Stokes, Phil Clarkes, s(c)eptics and Joel Shores of the world …
I give you “Hey – the gang’s all here!”
(or “Party like it’s MBH 1998 !!”) . . .
(Advisio PG14)
[snip – TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BLOG – Anthony]
.
Smokey says: June 3, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“McIntyre found Mann’s hidden ftp file labeled “censored“. That showed conclusively that Mann had cherry-picked his proxies to produce a fictitious hokey stick. By only using a small, hand selected group of tree rings, and hiding the much larger and better proxy set, the hockey stick appeared.”
That is complete nonsense. It was dealt with, irascibly, here.
First, the file was in no way hidden. It sat next to the other data files. CA discussed it over a period of about 15 months – the file was open for all to see.
Second, there has been much talk of the name, which simply refers to the standard statistical term censored data. Data that has a (usually) one sided restriction.
Third, the use of the data was nothing like you describe. The data sets in the file were a copy of a subset of the data in the main file. Someone had done a separate analysis on them for some reason. This in no way affected the main published analysis, which included all the data that had been copied into that file. No data was omitted from that.
REPLY: While Nick is mostly an annoying PITA on the wrong side of many other issues, he has a point about this. See this article on censored data use. Mann’s folly here is creating an FTP folder with the name “censored” knowing full well it was in public view. He could have named it in a way that would not invite suspicion. A better name might have been “data below noise threshold” or some such label – Anthony
Joel, Nick, sceptical, and Phil: I can see why you are trying to defend the practices of Mann but you are doing a lousy job e.g. “they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph…” The hockey stick chart is an icon, not science. Error bars were the last thing the public needed to see hence they were lightly shaded, not explained to the public, etc. Plus the wrong error bars were shown (calibration period residuals instead of verification period) so they would look small.
OTOH, the act in question, FATA, http://www.taf.org/virginiafca.htmis very clear. It requires a “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” (meaning approval of a payment). It has nothing to do with the quality of the work involved. Nothing to do with “fraud” in the work even if Mann’s hockey stick is the worst science in the world, it doesn’t matter. The whole discussion over his work and this entire thread is irrelevant starting with the quoted post by mpaul. None of mpaul’s points are relevant to FATA.
For the record, I am a Virginian, supported McDonnell with donations, and voted for him and Cuccinelli. I seriously doubt this investigation will succeed since it has already been rejected on the grounds that no FATA violation was shown.
My comment disappeared, oh well. Here’s the link to the FATA act: http://www.taf.org/virginiafca.htm Cuccinelli has already been shot down by a judge for not showing evidence that the act was violated. The defense of Mann (Nick, Joel, etc) has nothing to do with that act or any violation. Your defense of Mann e.g. “I think they all basically fall within the error bars shown on the Mann et al. graph…” is pretty weak. You think? He used the wrong error bars (calibration period, not verification period). Had he used the right ones and depicted them (to the public) in a less misleading way, his iconic hockey stick would have been a hockey rink (i.e. a large blob).
I admit it was close to/perhaps over the/an edge … but, did you get to view a little bit of the vid? Or just the static image? I didn’t realize the static image was what it was until after I posted the vid … sometimes it’s after clicking ‘Post’ one wishes things were different …
REPLY: The first minute or so of video showed a woman getting into a car, and then somebody putting a plastic bag on her head…struggle ensues, she doesn’t exit the car. I stopped watching there. We don’t need that sort of garbage here and you get a black star for suggesting it. Really. What could you have possibly been thinking? – Anthony
.
Hmmm … the Climate Scientists video maybe? (You did ask what I possibly could have been thinking). I might have missed that part you describe as well, sometimes I multi-task and ‘miss bits’ while a vid plays.
In any case, I am sorry and I apologize. (No strings or qualifiers attached.)
Friends again, Anthony?
.
Nick Stokes says:
Smokey has had the facts explained to him many times. However, it seems Smokey has a c0mplete disinterest in facts that conflict with his ideology; he just ignores them and repeats whatever falsehoods he is wedded to.
Nick Stokes continues to fabricate a fake history, He says above:
This is totally untrue. In MM2005(EE), we discussed virtually all of the permutations and combinations that were subsequently discussed by Wahl and Ammann. Things like 2 covariance PCs, 5 covariance PCs, 2 correlation PCs, no PCs. Our analysis of these cases was, in part, responding to the cases previously argued in the Mann et al 2004 response to our Nature submission (also presented in early realclimate posts.)
While Nick disappointingly too often just invents history rather than documenting it, in this case, part of his mistaken belief in Wahl and Ammann’s priority in the discussion of these issues arises from Wahl and Ammann plagiarism of arguments originally presented by Mann – without attributing or acknowledging him. For example, Wahl and Ammann stated:
In fact, the majority of the scenarios had been developed by Mann and were not “developed” by Wahl and Ammann. Even small details of Wahl and Ammann (a 1404 start date for certain calculations; a 1971 end date for other calculations) plagiarize decisions previously made by Mann, and not cited by Wahl and Ammann.
Wahl and Ammann exacerbated their plagiarism of Mann by not clearly reporting that their results matched ours on point after point.
As I reported at the time, in December 2005, we proposed (both orally and in writing) to Ammann that, since our codes reconciled exactly, that we declare a temporary ceasefire and allot 60 days to write a joint paper setting out precisely what results we agreed on, what we disagreed on; and, if we were unable to do so, we could end the ceasefire.
Ammann refused, saying that this would be “bad for his career”. Even Nick Stokes should have contempt for this sort of conduct, but, no doubt, Nick will be along to praise Ammann’s decision. BTW I noticed recently that Ammann’s CV says that he was promoted from Scientist I to Scientist II in 2006 – I guess that was the promotion that was on his mind at the time.
ON the “censored” data – the important point is that we were able to figure out that the ‘censored” directory tested results without Graybill strip bark bristlecones and the resulting PCs did not contain a hockeystick.
Mann therefore knew of the non-robustness of his results to bristlecones. Nonetheless, MBH98 contains claims that definitely lead readers to the impression that the reconstruction was robust to the presence/absence of dendro indicators – something that they knew to be untrue because of the tests on bristlecones.
glacierman, why do you think Dr. Mann was trying to undo anything which to you linked?
James, thanks for the reply. Seems that too many “skeptics” have complete faith in a few studies, such as MM, and refuse to acknowledge subsequent studies. For these “skeptics”, scientific advancement stops once their preconceived notions are supported. You have had your notions supported so no reason to go farther for yourself.