…and retweets from his phone:
Twitter / caerbannog666: CRU now uses NMS homogeniz
[Retweeted by Michael Mann] CRU now uses NMS homogenized data. Want NMS raw data? Ask NMS’s for it. WUWT’ers too dumb to figure that out.
Twitter / MichaelEMann: @edbegleyjr @B4Blast @Piac
@edbegleyjr @B4Blast @Piacats Right back at you Ed 🙂 Here’s the other photo. After a few drinks I think… pic.twitter.com/05N6lbmp
(Don’t blame me, if Dr. Mann wants to post publicly viewable pictures on his Twitter feed showing himself “after a few drinks” while simultaneously suggesting other people are dumb, who am I to argue?)
h/t to Tom Nelson
For the record, we know they use homogenized data at CRU, its the raw data we want. But Jones doesn’t want to share (more on this at Lucia’s here)Maybe if we get a few drinks in him?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I may be permitted a cross-post with what I just said on Bishop Hill (referencing a post by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit), I think the following topic could be a valuable discussion on WUWT. Perhaps people have comments about how Michael Mann and the Team (along with a much wider and more powerful animus to “do something now” about supposed catastrophic AGW) have contributed to an atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting views within and beyond fields of climate science.
I’m thinking about Steve McIntyre’s comment on dissenting scientific views which are being self-suppressed:
Steve McIntyre on scientists reluctant to speak up
Wondering if we might have a WUWT thread with an appropriate article (if there is such) for discussion of scientists who may see flaws in the CAGW “consensus” (sic) for whom the personal and/or career cost of speaking up seems to great. I think this is not only an issue of courage, since many people may make a kind of cost-benefit assessment of comparing the apparent futility of speaking up (adding merely one small voice to a loud and noisy debate) to the certainty or near certainty of paying a personal price for…. what?
Of course, the particular cases SM is referring to may not dissent from the overall CAGW picture but may simply view the Mannian approach to proxy data as flawed etc. There are many levels of possible dissent, some dealing only with specific kinds of evidence and analysis. I don’t mean to suggest that every scientist who silently objects to Mannian science thereby rejects C-AGW, although some may think that the case is not nearly as complete or air-tight as the activists claim.
Nerd says:
June 2, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Interesting that Ed had same clothes from Mann’s tweet and on Fox News.
=======================
Sharp eye.
Nothing changes.
You know, for someone on the taxpayer’s dime, this guy needs to understand who puts food on his table and booze in his mouth. I am no where near the stupid or dumb category. And lately, I have gotten a whole lot wiser.
Retweeted??? Perhaps that should have been Retwited.
Sorry, Anthony. I just can’t bring myself to care very much what Dr. Mann utters any more. The man has proved to be such a congenital liar and egomaniac over the years that I automatically discard anything he says as utter rubbish.
@ur momisugly graphite
In this context Mann intends NMS to mean “National Meteorological Services” (plural)…therefore
” want NMS’s raw data?” is perfectly correct. I fear the number of people in your country who understand the proper use of the possesive apostrophe has just plummeted to 174!
Moral: Don’t post when you’re drunk or angry…(a crime, by the way, of which I am not entirely innocent myself!)
Steven Mosher;
Its tedious work. I suspect you are not up to doing it. But the tools exists. They are freely available.>>>
The ones that are available can be cross checked. Not all are available.
A man walks into a bar carrying a goldfish in a bowl under his arm…
“Where did you get that?” asks the barman.
“I won it in a lottery” says the goldfish.
…and by the way Mr Mosher, what exactly is the hangup? If everything is “freely available” then why respond that we have to get it from the NSM’s (note, in the computer era it has become common to put an ‘s after an acronym to denote plural)?
Graphite says:
June 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm
As one of just 175 people in my own country – and fewer than 15,000 worldwide – who understand the correct placement of the apostrophe in all cases, I carry a heavy burden but try to assist when and where I am able.
______________________
“Y’re ‘n ‘ld c’*t”- Keith Richards
L’excentricité n’est pas contagieuse, quelle honte!
I’m interested in knowing why Steve Mosher doesn’t question GISS adjustments such as what Steve Goddard notes here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/lukewarm-this/
I like some beer
And like to glow
And see my inhibitions
Go.
I like to rave
And slam da wall
Within my cave
Neanderthal.
But dawn’s first light
Reveals to me
Why God created
The “delete” key.
And that is why
I will not own
Nor tweet upon
A —- cell phone.
Beware tedium, it has its moments.
Sorry for harping on this, but let me make the point in a different way.
Yes Mr Mosher, I know about your tool and yes Mr Mosher, I’m up to the task if I choose to take it on. What you are missing here is that there should be no task in the first place, It should be easy. We’re talking grid data here. Nothing fancy, a spreadsheet with a few lines of dcoumentation and presto! all the data is available to everyone.
We’re facing (according to the IPCC) the biggest danger to humanity in all of history. It is crucial that we take action if the danger is real, and if it is not, that we do nothing rather than waste prescious resources that could be put to better use, or worse, invoke the law of unintended consequences.
The UN has many functions on the world stage. Standardization of telecommunications protocols for example is what makes it dead simple to make a phone call from pretty much anywhere in the world to pretty much anywhere in the world. Making climate data available in a standard format that is easily accessed and easily verified is both a simple task and their responsibility. They have failed their responsibiulities in that regard, and Jones and the CRU are simply an extension of that failed responsibility.
If publishing gridded data was an onerous task, I might understand. But it isn’t. Compared to keeping the telecommunications network running world wide, publishing temperature data in a fashion easily accessed and easily verified is grade school stuff at best. Yet this has not been done, and the excuses from CRU and GISS are ridiculous.
As long as the IPCC with the willing cooperation of CRU and so many others fail in their responsibility, they are twice dam*ed. Once for failing to make the most important data in human history available for as broad an audience as possible, and once more because, having failed to do so, there will always be suspicion that some sort of game is afoot.
So apparently Michael Mann actually reads WUWT blogs. So, Michael, here’s my question for you:
What made you decide to hide the decline in 20th century ree ring proxy temperatures? desire for fame? peer pressure? blind faith ? which is it?
Anthony,
“It blows my mind that people like Jones and yourself argue against having all data for full reproducibility. “
There’s a basic problem that I keep coming back to – you need to specify the data you are asking for.
As Steven says, you have available everything needed to reproduce what CRU does. It seems what you may be asking for is the raw data that the NMS’s homogenize. If you want raw station data in general, GHCN is the place. But if you want that exact data, I doubt if anyone has ever collected it together. It wouldn’t be of any use to CRU. And aggregated, it wouldn’t allow you to reproduce anything, because each NMS has its own metadata and own homogenization methods.
Dmhoffer seems to be asking for something else – gridded data. That isn’t raw. That’s why specification matters.
REPLY: Nick inspires me to think of a famous line in The Shawshank Redemption. Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
One day CRU says they don’t have it (their selected raw station data prior to homogenization), another day it suggests they do, then they ask permission to release it. Not lying about what you have/have not matters too, and as we’ve seen from the mailserver backup episode, CRU has lied. They obfuscate too. Look how long it took McIntyre to get a simple station list.
Just saying “go to GHCN” doesn’t cut it, as that is incomplete. You wouldn’t tolerate incomplete data used in a criticism of CRU so I won’t either.
Still no comment on your being taken in by the fake ANU death threats and defending it here as if there were?
No more comments then until you address the question. A simple apology sans your usual obtuse caveats will do. – Anthony
UPDATE: I’ve found your comment addressing the issue on the other thread, again simple is better, your caveat filled comment reads like a small novel. Might I suggest you simply say.
1. There are no credible death threats, nor were there.
2. The media made it appear as though there was.
3. I like many others thought there were, I was wrong
Real simple.
Thanks though for the suggestion on Googling. Using that, I’ve located your CSIRO page http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/index.htm
– Anthony
davidmhoffer says:
June 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm
“…”
_______________
Feeding the trolls again, are we?
Have to agree with davidmhoffer. NMS’s should be eagerly publishing their data into a collection maintained by the UN. If AGW is really that big of a threat, the data should be made available for all to review and study in a central repository. This is pretty much of a nothing deal. Hire a coordinator or two to set up accounts for the NMS’s and get the project going. This should have been done a decade or two ago. Geez, you could easily stuff all of this data into a free google account. lmao.
I am going to have to moderate the moderator. Anthony, your needling of little nicky on that ANU foolishness is going to cause trouble. Little nicky is going to tell one of his nervous Aussie climate scientist friends that your are harassing him. That clown will tell the next hysterical clown that you are threatening little nicky, and pretty soon the Aussie left-stream media will have a story about a denier plot to cull the noble iluminati of the Aussie climate science industry. You know how sensitive these people are.
If I was Varney, I would have killed that interview 30 seconds into it before I killed him. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone as aggressive or obnoxious in any interview as that arrogant/ignorant asshat.
Keep spewing that angry flat earth zealotry Ed, it’s more than slightly ironic that a man with no more than a high school diploma feels free to instantly dismiss others with a lifetime in studying science whilst at the same time trying to sound like an expert in the field.
Geologists and physicists have no right to question a scientific hypothesis because it’s not their speciality? If that’s the case computer scientists should play no role in climate science either. Bad modelling is 50% of the problem, the other 50% being dishonesty.
The thing with watermelons is they can’t see and don’t care about the consequences of their actions, merely the possible consequences (within a wide margin of error and subject to change) of inaction. Cali may well have better air now, it’s also effectively bankrupt as a result of heavy handed green legislation. There is no middle ground with them, merely levels of extremes.
There are some legitimate arguments to be made about climate change and some illegitimate ones. One of the most illegitimate arguments I can think of is what one’s opponent’s use of English is. Who care how Dr Mann uses apostrophes,come on.
Stokes says:
” If you want raw station data in general, GHCN is the place. But if you want that exact data, I doubt
if anyone has ever collected it together. ”
We’ll there is E.M. Smith ( the Chiefio ) http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/ghcn-v1-vs-v3-1990-to-date-anomalies/
Having done the analysis he reports — assuming I understand him correctly — there is no such thing as raw data, there are only versions, and versions, and other versions of adjusted data. Stations are included in, and excluded out, and never mentioned why. Anything more than 1 to 2 degrees C accuracy is an unwarrented assumption.
Then the adjusted data from GHCN is adjusted into CRU. Why THIS historic station is chosen to fill in THAT cell in THOSE years, but not THESE … is also an exercise left to the student. And policy maker.
I wouldn’t want to run a business on this sort of data.
So, why doesn’t one of us collect all the available data, organize it, categorize it, and make it available for any layman (like me) to download it and load it up on a spreadsheet, and actually see first hand where the cherry picking/problems are. I bet it would drive certain individuals bananas to have thousands of amatuer average joes scrutinizing thier work, asking the tough questions, etc.
(don’t look at me… I don’t even have the latest excel)
Since Nick Stokes is here I thought I’d repost this just in case he missed it.
Gunga Din says:
May 31, 2012 at 3:28 pm
(I still didn’t do the whole song but I revised the second verse to fit the situation better.)
To the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You”
Well I don’t know why I caused such a fright,
I had the feeling that something ain’t right,
I made a scare of some emails out there,
And I’m wondering how my rep now will fare,
Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in Yamal on a yew.
Yes I’m stuck in Yamal on a yew,
The “threats” were against kangaroos,
It’s so hard to keep this egg off my face,
Damage control, yeah, “Someone invaded their space,”
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in Yamal on a yew.
@davidmhoffer 6:46 pm
Keep harping. Your case is well stated and needs further repetition.
If the UN IPCC cannot get accomplished something as simple as providing data in a standardized set of formats as a basif for their most important work, how can we trust the harder modeling, interpretation, and recommendations.