![wmo913[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/wmo9131.png)
Today I will review the timeline of the above WMO 1999 graph in the light of the ClimateGate (CG) letters. The main events took place on Tuesday, November 16th, 1999.
Things start rolling 9 AM (UK time), when Tim Osborn sends the new Briffa and recalibrated Jones (1998) time series to Phil Jones along with the suggestion to hide the decline.
It is ready calibrated in deg C wrt. 1961-90, against the average Apr-Sep land temperature north of 20N. It goes from 1402 to 1994 – but you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed temperatures due to the decline.
Twenty minutes later Jones writes to the MBH crew (cc Briffa and Osborn) explaining WMO plans and exactly what the graph will look like.
Jones explained that the graph was intended for the cover of the WMO annual statement, which had a print run of 10,000. Jones said that he had voted against using the millennial series in the promotion because he knew that he had “oversold the advances in paleoclimate”:
The pertinent item from Geneva concerns the WMO statement on the Climate of 1999. WMO has been issuing these for the past 6 years. There are 10,000 printed each time. There were two possibilities for the front cover (1998’s showed the instrumental record from 1856) – the millennial long temperature series or the contrasting storm tracks for 1998 and 1999. I was the only one voting for the latter – partly personal as I knew I would have to organise the former. I was outvoted 12-1, maybe because in a brief presentation I oversold the advances made in paleoclimate studies over the last few years !
Jones explained the planned figure to MBH as follows:
WMO want to go with the millennial record on the cover and I said I would produce something and some text. The figure will be the 3 curves ( Mike’s, mine amd Keith/Tim’s). Tim is producing this curve (all wrt 61-90 and 50 year smoothed). Each will be extended to 1999 by instrumental data for the zones/seasons they represent.
Along is also attached the draft of the brief text to appear on p.4 of the report for the comments. Jones further brags about the importance of the WMO publication.
The full text of the report is then printed during Feb 2000 – last year’s was 12 pages long. It will be released on March 15 in Geneva to coincide with WM (World Met) day and the 50th anniversary celebrations of WMO as well. WMO are planning to print at least twice as many copies as usual and were talking about 25,000 ! Copies go to all WMO members and are distributed at countless meetings and sent to loads of address lists available.
After that Jones apparently begins to work with the times series. He’s ready 1:30 PM and sends the now infamous trick email. (Bradley appears to have commented already, but the email is not in the dossier.)
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Note that Jones clearly explained what he means by “Mike’s Nature trick”. Mann has claimed that his “Nature trick” was nothing more than clearly showing observations and reconstructions on the same graphic with proper labeling. But the direct comparison of observations to reconstructions is as old as statistics – and Jones and Briffa had themselves made such comparisons in prior articles without regarding clear labeling as anything more than elementary hygiene. In this email (which is often shortened in quotation), Jones says that Mann’s “Nature trick” is “adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s”, as originally explained in November 2009 here.
Two hours later Michael Mann, who according to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ), responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC [AR3]“:
The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.
There is no objection to the graph, which, according to Mann’s book of Fairy Tales, is undisputably misleading (crediting the whole figure to Jones).
Read the entire post here: http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/22/black-tuesday-of-climate-science/
“The first one is to accept that they have always been as they are; they didn’t just wake up one morning a few months ago and decide to become a low life. The further back you go into their history, the easier it’ll be to find and dig out the skeletons. They will be there. Like all beginners, even spinners of webs of deceit, that’s where they’ll have made the most detectable blunders. If my cheque from big oil ever arrives, I’m very definitely going to spend the lot combing through the early background of a number warmists, confident of finding some interesting stuff.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/a-climate-of-deception-deceit-lies-and-outright-dishonesty/
Keep digging, I’m sure you’ll find more.
Pointman
Every time Michael Mann stands before an audience he must surely sense that everyone present has heard about his ‘trick’. And that even though they may be outwardly supportive of ‘the cause’, and would never dare criticise him openly….they secretly believe that he is a second rate scientist. That must be tough for him.
I think you give Mann too much credit. “Second rate scientist” should read “second rate”.
Personally I object to labeling him as a scientist due to his dishonesty and disregard for proper science.
I couldn’t agree more! This crew manipulated data to fit a hypothesis. That’s not science, it’s anti-science. These people are NOT scientists. They are charlatans and witch doctors.
The political lesson of the last several decades is, if you are caught in deceit, brazen it out. No matter how egregious, you will have supporters and, if they are more vocal and powerful than your detractors, you will win the battle.
I suppose “might makes right” is not really of such recent vintage, but it certainly seems the audacity quotient seems to have been kicked up several notches of late.
As a citizen of Canada, McIntyre cannot be compelled to testify in the Mannian suits. But his testimony via his website is very damning. I have no idea if subpoenaed, would McIntyre take it upon himself to testify (there is a lot of hassle involved, and sure to be a load of animosity – perhaps more than there already is). But through his articles, he is making it clear he sees Mann and Cuccinelli in the same vein. And Mann’s problem is that this is not a scientific journal that he and his teammates can cow into silence.
Well done Jean S. I have read all of his contributions. And they are indeed damaging to Mann. The only question is – will they ever get a chance to use them in court?
“As a citizen of Canada, McIntyre cannot be compelled to testify in the Mannian suits.”
I am not aware that not being a citizen of the U.S. gives one immunity from courts in the U.S., particularly when living in the U.S.
They usually do not request extradition for “witnesses”. However, if he is living in the US (I thought he lived in Canada), then he can be compelled to testify.
Groupthink
When does manipulation of data become fraud?
It’s about time some proper judgements were made on these people, they have cost the planet in money, development and lives. They should all be brought to book for their crimes.
Class action lawsuit by everyone who has paid extra on their electric bill in order to subsidize windmills and unicorn farts, aught to end his days with money forever.
http://www.lesechos.fr/monde/ameriques/0203796173640-les-rockefeller-se-detournent-de-lenergie-fossile-1045419.php?qOuT1rhcgFGFrQwb.99
Did you know that the Rockeller are no longer interested in fossile energy ? Nice peope
the subsidy income for the other types are much more valuable to those ‘evil capitalists’.
The Rockefeller family is at least a couple generations past those who know how to create and build wealth. That family is well into the generations that only live off the efforts of prior generations and have never had to live life as an average working person might. Like all the celebrity supporters of green energy, no Rockefeller will have their daily life affected in the least by the rules they want to impose on others.
NOBODY, the divestment is only a fourth of the endowment of the Rockefeller Brothers foundation. The journalists are too lazy to check the numbers.
Jean S writes at Climate Audit
=====
This type of documentation by Jean S is the coup de grace that will clarify to those who have not been following CAGW issues for quite some time just what/how the “team” and those implementing/promoting the “cause” have perpetuated one of the biggest academic scams in history. That scam has had serious consequences in world economic activity, not to mention an extreme loss in credibility in science, academia, and governments.
The repercussions of this will take decades and generations to recover. Very sad times indeed.
I might also add that if those responsible escape accountability similar scams will continue to occur.
I read the article yesterday at Climate Audit. IMO, it is a master piece by Jean S, a perfect summary. I wouldn’t change it the slightest. Everything that there is to be told about the “hide the decline” issue is told and in a very clear way, understandable by anyone. Just perfect.
Sadly the true believers think that the hockeysticks have been replicated so many times that this is legitimate fabrication of a front piece illustration.
It hasn’t.
It wasn’t.
Two hours later Michael Mann, who according to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ),
Typical of the selective quoting one finds at Climateaudit which always requires going back to the original to see what was actually said, anytime you see ellipses in a McIntyre quote you know that something important has been omitted.
responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC [AR3]“:
The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.
There is no objection to the graph,
Not surprising since, according to the Jean S narrative, he hadn’t yet seen it.
How do you get that perspective from Jean S.’s narrative?
Even for you that is a far stretch and twist.
Perhaps you’ve twisted the words in the hope that newcomers might not have read Jean S.’s narrative? Instead framing your email ‘quote’ to fit the mislead you are tossing out of the pigsty.
Really? Jean S comments that when Mann responded to the text he did not also comment on the graph, implying that he had no objection to the graph. However, he knows based on his analysis of the emails that the graph had not yet been sent at that time. It’s not me who is ‘twisting the words’.
Phil.:
I suspect my post is trapped in moderation because I quoted the pertinent emails in full and did not redact email addresses. However, when dealing with slippery characters like you a quote has to be exact or complete to avoid ‘red herrings’ about alterations. So, I here copy my post without the emails which can be accessed from the above article.
Phil.:
I have copied two emails from links in the above article. They demonstrate beyond doubt that your spin is – as usual from you – pernicious falsehood. You could have checked them at source but – it seems – have chosen not to.
I copy the pertinent email from Phil Jones which very clearly states he had completed “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
And its context is clear because the entire email is quoted.
Importantly, Michael Mann was on its circulation list.
Later that same day Michael Mann wrote an email to Phil Jones which agreed what Phil Jones was doing and does not object to the description of “Mike’s Nature trick” or its purpose. I also copy that email.
I fail to understand your assertion that Mann had not seen the email from Jones when he posted his email to Jones some hours later. Are you claiming that Mann did not read the email from Jones before writing his response to it? Or, as is your usual practice, are you making a ridiculous assertion as a method to distract onlookers from the real issue under discussion?
Richard
Phil.:
I have copied two emails from links in the above article. They demonstrate beyond doubt that your spin is – as usual from you – pernicious falsehood. You could have checked them at source but – it seems – have chosen not to.
I copy the pertinent email from Phil Jones which very clearly states he had completed “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
And its context is clear because the entire email is quoted.
Importantly, Michael Mann was on its circulation list.
Later that same day Michael Mann wrote an email to Phil Jones which agreed what Phil Jones was doing and does not object to the description of “Mike’s Nature trick” or its purpose. I also copy that email.
I fail to understand your assertion that Mann had not seen the email from Jones when he posted his email to Jones some hours later. Are you claiming that Mann did not read the email from Jones before writing his response to it? Or, as is your usual practice, are you making a ridiculous assertion as a method to distract onlookers from the real issue under discussion?
Richard
My head is about to explode from all this “Peoples Climate March” fallout. Even WUWT has kind of gone “off the rails” from it’s usual science articles.
What bothers me here about this interview (which is supposed to be Leo DiCaprio) but is more about Bernie Sanders, is that what Sanders says is the message that most all of these people believe. It is not about the facts of science, they don’t want to hear facts. Sanders speaks for this administration and the MSM and what is happening in our government today. Give it a listen, it’s short:
http://www.pjtv.com/v/10273
The climate wars have nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. That is even the message in the PJTV video. It is a good thing that WUWT is now publishing more articles on the politics because that is where the answers are to the question of how skeptics can respond.
dp, good point. If it was a science war, the general public wouldn’t be hearing about it. This was a political campaign from Day 1. Who started “The globe is heating up too fast,so we need to take control of coal and oil resources from private (even public-shareholder-owned shareholders)?” The UN. There’s a reason Al Gore and IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on global warming, and many scientist-wannabes tried to claim laureateship as contributors to the second AR. Something like 2000 scientists got ink-jet-printed copies of the IPCC’s award, and a letter saying, “No guys really won this award.” They didn’t get 1/2000 of the prize money apiece, or 1/2000 shaved out pieces of the Nobel Medal, or even “contributor” copies ordered for minting by the Nobel Committee, or even the IPCC. The IPCC decided not to do to avoid charges of counterfeiting.
Phil: Mann approved the text under the graph, as per the emails. Mann has the graph in his CV, as referenced. Mann said the graph is “misleading” in his book. Mann in his court documents says that he had nothing to do with the graph.
So, which is true, which is false? As the same person makes the same claims, 1/2 the statements above have to be untruths.
Maybe it was an intern’s graph that MM supplied but didn’t do it!
Since there is no ‘text under the graph’ he can’t have approved it (he had no status with WMO anyway so was being shown the material as a courtesy because it included his data). The text referred to in the email is Jones’s contribution to the report (the blue insert in the report). Nothing misleading in that to object to.
The cover graph was produced by Osborn at Jones’s behest, and according to the emails Mann hadn’t yet seen it at the time he commented on the text. It’s also clear that the version of the graph that was referred to wasn’t the version that made the report. In fact in an email in early 2000 Hughes asked if he could have a copy of the one that was actually used so it would seem that the WMO version wasn’t circulated to MBH.
What is actually said in Mann’s court papers is: “Dr. Mann did not create this depiction”, which is accurate, it was produced by Osborn and there’s no evidence in the emails that I have seen that indicates that Mann had any input in its creation.
If you’re going to contrast different statements by someone you should at least be accurate in your quotations.
Oh please. Mann knew exactly what was going into the graph. In trying to defend him, and/or put down Jean S and CA, you are actually claiming that Mann was too stupid to know in his head what the graph would look like. Nice work.
This is another example of my frustration with how articles are written on this site. Very few people outside of climate skeptic geeks are going to understand what this article is saying, and even fewer are going to consider what is being said has any substance. You read the whole article and the big smoking gun is described as “adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years” without any further explanation how that is corrupting the data. The natural reaction to that statement is “Why is including real temps bad?” If you are not already convinced the temperature data is corrupted this article is not going to change your mind. Reading that the process is called a “Trick” is nothing, it means nothing in terms of trying to claim it corrupts the data. Everyone knows of all kinds of “Tricks” that are legitimate, fast, smart ways of doing things, but that is not what this article is trying to say the adjustment process is. At a minimum, right up front, two graphs should have been shown side by side showing here is what the data would be without their adjustments, next to what it looked like after the adjustments ( I assume that is what is shown, but is poorly labeled). Then try to explain what the adjustments are based on and why they are not legitimate.
Excellent point. Never rely on the reader, or juror, to draw his own conclusions. Spell it out for him.
Well said.
Everyone knows of all kinds of “Tricks” that are legitimate
Examples?
Steve
If there are people who don’t know what ‘hide the decline’ is about then this short item will tell them.
Richard
Tree rings are excellent temperature proxies. They are also proxies for reindeer droppings and rain.
Maggie Gray (@imaggination) September 24, 2014 at 11:37 am
Oh please. Mann knew exactly what was going into the graph. In trying to defend him, and/or put down Jean S and CA, you are actually claiming that Mann was too stupid to know in his head what the graph would look like. Nice work.
No, he’s not psychic, how would he know from Jones’s email that they would omit to minion that they weren’t going to differentiate between the proxy data and the temperature measurements? After all that’s what he did in his published work, and that is the point at issue not the look of the graph.
Hate spell checker should be ‘mention’ not ‘minion’. 🙂
Unfortunately the court is likely to disallow use of the climategate emails as evidence. I suspect therefore that Mann will not get the spanking he deserves for this false statement in his legal documents.
They’d also have to be quoted accurately rather than paraphrased and truncated as they are on the web. Rather harder to show that it’s false when you’re limited to what he actually said and what he actually knew when he said it.
Chubby Checker, is that you?
Utter tosh. Can’t believe that anyone with two cells to rub together wrote this and that you are an academic. Do you actually know what you are saying?
Repeat a lie often enough… where the truth is just as prominently displayed gets you nowhere, Phil. They must’ve left that bullet point out in your copy of Alinsky’s handbook.
Phil.
You say
I refer you to my earlier response to your misleading spin which (when out of moderation) will be here in this thread. I there quote the pertinent emails in full and I point out that the quotations would not have been necessary if you had used the links in the above article.
The emails make very clear “what he actually said and what he actually knew when he said it”.
Richard
PS I suspect my earlier post is trapped in moderation because I quoted the pertinent emails in full and did not redact email addresses. However, when dealing with slippery characters like Phil. a quote has to be exact or complete to avoid ‘red herrings’ about alterations.
Richard
Phil.:
This is a link to a version of my earlier reply which does not include the emails.
Richard
Thanks, Jean S. Good audit.
I read the text before I saw the graph and I knew from the text almost exactly what it would look like…pathetic excuse Phil!
‘Almost’ isn’t good enough for a court of law.
Well, it is good enough that it will be tested there, in a court of law.
Which isn’t good enough for a real scientist.
richardscourtney September 25, 2014 at 2:24 am
PS I suspect my earlier post is trapped in moderation because I quoted the pertinent emails in full and did not redact email addresses. However, when dealing with slippery characters like Phil. a quote has to be exact or complete to avoid ‘red herrings’ about alterations.
To be a quotation it should always be exact, that’s what to quote means, you don’t have the freedom to alter it, if you do it’s called ‘paraphrasing’ and you should say that is what you’ve done. For example, McIntyre is very crafty like this he leaves out bits of quotes that don’t work for him and indicates that with ellipses (…..). Someone who manipulates ‘quotes’ is the ‘slippery character’, not the person who refers to the exact quotation.
I fail to understand your assertion that Mann had not seen the email from Jones when he posted his email to Jones some hours later. Are you claiming that Mann did not read the email from Jones before writing his response to it?
I fail to understand why you are unable to understand plain english, I said that Mann did not comment on the graph because Jones had not sent it yet.
The text which was sent was the p4 insert and the precursor to this:
“Front cover:
Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov). (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).”
Based on what Jones said in the email the original may have been subsequently edited because it was too long.
There is no indication how the graph of the proxy data and instrumental records are to be presented.
Mann’s practice was to indicate the data separately, the graph from Nature, which Jones refers to as Mike’s trick, is described thus:
“Figure 5 Time reconstructions (solid lines) along with raw data (dashed lines). a, For principal components (RPCs) 1–5; b, for Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (NH) in C. In both cases, the zero line corresponds to the 1902–80 calibration mean of the quantity. For b raw data are shown up to 1995 and positive and negative 2σ uncertainty limits are shown by the light dotted lines surrounding the solid reconstruction, calculated as described in the Methods section.”
Or, as is your usual practice, are you making a ridiculous assertion as a method to distract onlookers from the real issue under discussion?
The issue under discussion, raised in the original post, is what contribution Mann had in the production of the WMO cover graph. Jean S implied that Mann had no objection to the graph because he didn’t refer to it in the email, however it is clear from the email sent by Jones that he had not sent the graph yet as Osborn was still working on it. So it is you who is trying to distract the onlookers from the issue under discussion.
richardscourtney September 25, 2014 at 2:18 am
Phil.
You say
“They’d also have to be quoted accurately rather than paraphrased and truncated as they are on the web. Rather harder to show that it’s false when you’re limited to what he actually said and what he actually knew when he said it.”
I refer you to my earlier response to your misleading spin which (when out of moderation) will be here in this thread. I there quote the pertinent emails in full and I point out that the quotations would not have been necessary if you had used the links in the above article.
The emails make very clear “what he actually said and what he actually knew when he said it”.
For once you agree with me, that is exactly my point, Jean S implied something that the emails show to be incorrect.
Venter September 24, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Utter tosh. Can’t believe that anyone with two cells to rub together wrote this and that you are an academic. Do you actually know what you are saying?
Yes, are you of the opinion that in court the emails would not “have to be quoted accurately rather than paraphrased and truncated as they are on the web”?
Phil.:
You have adopted your usual behaviour of infantile obduracy when confronted with the blindingly obvious.
The facts are that
1
Jones circulated his email to Mann and that email said he was adopting “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in the graph under discussion,
and 2
“Mike” (i.e. Michael Mann) replied to that email without dissent from its contents and with an offer of assistance.
But you say that somehow did not happen although the documentary evidence clearly indicates it did.
I wrote of Michael Mann
and you have replied
But Jean S implied nothing. Jean S made clear statements of documented fact.
Please state in clear and unambiguous language what it is you think “Jean S implied” which “the emails show to be incorrect”.
I don’t want an evasion; e.g. a false but unjustified assertion that you have provided what you have not.
I don’t want a ‘red herring’; i.e. mention of some irrelevant detail(s).
I don’t want one of your infantile temper tantrums where you throw insults like confetti.
I want you to say what you are accusing Jean S to have implied.
Richard
Your inability to understand plain english continues to amaze.
Here’s what I said which set off this Brouhaha and to which you replied without addressing the point made and dragging in the ‘red herring’:
“I fail to understand your assertion that Mann had not seen the email from Jones when he posted his email to Jones some hours later”, clearly I made no such assertion (see below):
Phil. September 24, 2014 at 7:11 am
“Two hours later Michael Mann, who according to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph (that is still worth a mention in his CV ),”
Typical of the selective quoting one finds at Climateaudit which always requires going back to the original to see what was actually said, anytime you see ellipses in a McIntyre quote you know that something important has been omitted.
“responds. He completely agrees with the text adding that it will “help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC [AR3]“:
The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.
There is no objection to the graph,”
Not surprising since, according to the Jean S narrative, he hadn’t yet seen it.
So in answer to your question:
Jean S implies that Mann had seen the graph and had no objection to it.
However the email to which Mann is replying to says:
“Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.”
So as I stated Mann hasn’t seen the diagram yet, in fact he says the following in his reply (conveniently omitted by Jean S):
“Just for comparison to what Tim is producing, I’m attaching the plot you
may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the
final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your
memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but
we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the
instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the
Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you
think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we
should discuss.”
This graph uses the actual ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ of including the instrumental data with the proxies and indicating that he had done so, in this case plotting using a different color:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-21.gif
I don’t want one of your infantile temper tantrums where you throw insults like confetti.
That’s your province (as indicated here).
Phil.:
I do understand “plain English” and I am never astonished by the your always predictable behaviour.
I wrote
Sadly, and as I anticipated, your reply provides examples of each behaviour I said I did not want.
However, contrary to your usual practice, on this occasion you actually do provide the requested clarification!
Hidden among all the blather you write
No, Phil., as you so often are, you are completely wrong.
Jean S stated that the emails show Mann knew and approved of the data in the graph, the nature of the graph, the data presentation to be used in the graph to “hide the decline”, and he approved of it.
Jean S did not say, did not suggest, did not infer, and did not imply that “Mann had seen the graph”,and if he had then that would have been irrelevant to the fact that Mann approved of the stated intention to use his “trick” to “hide the decline”.
Everything else in your post is what I told you I did not want, and I see no reason to be deflected by such childish and irrelevant nonsense which does you no credit.
Richard
Phil,
The e-mails have been quoted well and in full and the context is clear for any rational person to see and make up their minds. Of course that description does not apply to you.
If you have evidence that they are truncated, put up or shut up. Show what you mean by ” full context “. And show evidence for that in terms of non truncated full texts showing ” context “.
Your canard has been repeated enough by die hard warmists whose first reaction anyway is to run away and disappear when asked for facts.
On the web they have frequently not been “quoted well and in full”. The example I referred to was Jean S omitting parts of the emails which clearly indicated that Mann had not yet seen the diagram which Jean snidely implied that he had approved, and omitting Mann’s suggestion that the format of the IPCC fig 2.21 could be followed, had Jones and Osborn done so there could have been no suggestion of ‘misleading’. Hughes also favors Mann’s approach.
Not in the emails but in the preamble above, to which I objected, Jean S says:
“Michael Mann, who according to his legal documents “had absolutely nothing to do” with the graph”
note the abbreviated quote taken out of context, always something to be wary of in CA posts.
What is actually said in Mann’s brief is:
“The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him”, which is quite different in meaning from what Jean S implies.
If you have evidence that they are truncated, put up or shut up. Show what you mean by ” full context “. And show evidence for that in terms of non truncated full texts showing ” context “.
Your use of quotation marked implies that I used those terms, I did not another example of sloppy usage.
Here’s an example of what I mean from CA:
IPCC Lead Authors met in Arusha, Tanzania from September 1 to 3, 1999 … at which the final version of the “zero-order” draft of the Third Assessment Report was presented and discussed…
No minutes of this meeting are available, but Climategate correspondence on Sep 22-23, 1999 provides some contemporary information about the meeting. Mann noted that “everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that the [decline in the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem”
McIntyre clearly truncated the quote and inserted his own inaccurate commentary without indicating that it was not part of the original.
He goes on to say:
IPCC Chapter Author Folland of the U.K. Hadley Center wrote to Mann, Jones and Briffa that the proxy diagram was a “clear favourite” for the Summary Policy-makers, but that the existing presentation showing the decline of the Briffa reconstruction “dilutes the message rather significantly”
He quotes Folland:
“A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly… This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.. (Folland, Sep 22, 1999, in 0938031546.txt)”
Note the ellipses.
What Folland actually wrote was:
“A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.”
So it is not ‘the decline’ which Folland says ‘dilutes the message’ but the ‘lack of multicentury time scale variance’, so the omission of part of the email allows McIntyre to initiate a thread based on a deliberate misquotation.
Going back to the ‘everyone in the room’ with McIntyre’s erroneous commentary insert, what the email actually said was:
“But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.”
So the ‘this’ in the email refers to “Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours” not “he decline of the Briffa reconstruction”, had McIntyre quoted accurately such an interpretation is not tenable.
There are many more such examples, if you think that this “The e-mails have been quoted well and in full and the context is clear for any rational person to see and make up their minds”, then there’s no hope for you.
Ventner
Sadly, you are getting the ‘Phil. treatment’.
His long-winded blather supposedly in reply to you only consists of assertions he has said what he has not together with a shoal of irrelevant ‘red herrings’ intended to deflect the discussion away from its subject, and it concludes with a childish temper tantrum in which he says “there’s no hope for you”.
This always happens when Phil. has lost an argument.
At this stage all onlookers can see the facts for themselves, so I suggest it is time when we can ‘stop feeding the troll’.
Richard
Ventner asked me: “If you have evidence that they are truncated, put up or shut up. Show what you mean by ” full context “. And show evidence for that in terms of non truncated full texts showing ” context “.”
Which I answered with the requested examples, your aversion to facts is irrelevant. You are correct that onlookers can see that misquotations from the emails have been used to mislead
Phil.
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, you have ended as a victor in your own mind and a hero in your own lunchtime, and all for nothing.
Richard
richardscourtney September 26, 2014 at 7:07 am
Phil.:
I do understand “plain English” and I am never astonished by the your always predictable behavior.
But it still took you 6 posts to actually address the point which was made instead of producing irrelevant red herrings, so if you have no problem understanding plain english that suggests you were guilty of deliberate obfuscation.
Sadly, and as I anticipated, your reply provides examples of each behaviour I said I did not want.
We know that you don’t want facts and accurate quotations, tough.
Jean S stated that the emails show Mann knew and approved of the data in the graph, the nature of the graph, the data presentation to be used in the graph to “hide the decline”, and he approved of it.
Not true, he knew which data was going to be used but not the nature of the graph or the data presentation since he had not yet seen it (it hadn’t been finished by Osborn at that time).
Jean S did not say, did not suggest, did not infer, and did not imply that “Mann had seen the graph”,
On the contrary, Jean S says: “There is no objection to the graph,”, how could there be an objection to something he has not seen?
and if he had then that would have been irrelevant to the fact that Mann approved of the stated intention to use his “trick” to “hide the decline”.
In his reply Mann suggested a format for the graph based on the IPCC graph which he included with the email. It used the actual ‘Nature Trick’ and had it been used in the WMO report there could have been no claim that it was ‘misleading’. Jones ignored that advice and went with the version produced by Osborn, Hughes later stated his preference for the version proposed by Mann, having seen both. So if you want to use the emails to suggest that Mann was responsible for the ‘misleading’ graph you have to get past the awkward fact that he suggested a different version which did not have the features which caused the problem.
Everything else in your post is what I told you I did not want, and I see no reason to be deflected by such childish and irrelevant nonsense which does you no credit.
We know you don’t like to be rebutted by facts and accurate quotations, which are neither ‘childish’ nor ‘irrelevant’, you’ll just have to put up with it.
Phil.:
I repeat,
Yeah, whatever.
As usual, you have ended as a victor in your own mind and a hero in your own lunchtime, and all for nothing.
And I add,
You could learn from this but I suspect you won’t.
Richard
I already suspected that you’re paid to disrupt any threads on here if they deviate from your paymaster’s meme so probably not.
Phil. you disgust me. If you make one more accusation like that I WILL reveal your full name and affiliation that you are so afraid to put your words to. I grow tired of your cowardice while hurling baseless claims like that.
Mr. Courtney is not paid to be here, not one single commenter is paid to be here. WUWT does NOT pay anybody for commenting.
Either withdraw your accusation or accept a one week time-out.
Phil.
I have no “paymaster” of any kind.
The nearest you could find to that is my treatments are provided under the National Health Service so are free at the point of use.
Richard
Anthony Watts September 27, 2014 at 7:56 am
Phil. you disgust me. If you make one more accusation like that I WILL reveal your full name and affiliation that you are so afraid to put your words to. I grow tired of your cowardice while hurling baseless claims like that.
Mr. Courtney is not paid to be here, not one single commenter is paid to be here. WUWT does NOT pay anybody for commenting.
Sorry if I caused offense, I was not suggesting that WUWT paid anyone.
Either withdraw your accusation or accept a one week time-out.
I will accept Mr Courtney’s assurance that he has no paymaster, however I wonder why there was no indignation when he claimed that I was being paid to post here? When he joins a thread we are subjected to insults and ad hominem attacks which do the site no credit, such as the following:
“And obnoxious miscreants like Phil. who are making a living from these environmental scares pretend the CFCs are known to be responsible for the ozone depletion. Contemptible is too good a word for such people.”
A baseless claim which is totally false.
“I am saddened that you refused to follow my instruction and return to your playpen until you had overcome your temper tantrum.”
“Now suck your dummy, cuddle your ‘blankie’, and play with your toys instead of bothering the grown-ups with your screaming.”
In response to a post citing scientific papers, apparently that is a ‘temper tantrum’.
Perhaps you could ask Courtney to ease up on his outbursts, as you did before regarding his ‘food fights’?
You could both ease up on comments, Richard and Phil.
Richard’s accusation did not impugn the host. You really need to learn WHERE you are posting.
Phil
I would reckon I spend about 500£ a year on travel, research, buying paywalled papers etc connected with my articles on climate change, quite apart from spending far too much of my time.. No one pays me a cent. It is a myth that sceptics are in the pay of Big Oil or any other organisations. We are just ordinary people from all walks of life and all political persuasions who have bothered to look into the science and don’t like what we see.
I do respect yours and Nick Stokes’ comments but you really must get it out of your head that sceptics equate to ignorant, ill educated and selfish people in the pay of some giant corporation and that we don’t care about the future.
tonyb
I’m sure that you do Tony, you post interesting and well researched posts, if I can ever help you with research material let me know. I certainly don’t believe that sceptics are in anyone’s pay to post, just like I am not. When you come across someone like courtney who abuses people who disagrees with him and attempts to shout them down with out bringing anything factual to the discussion, you do wonder as to motivation.
Phil.
You say
That is absolutely untrue.
As this thread demonstrates, you are an anonymous troll who misrepresents clear information.
I provide correction to your misrepresentations; for example in this thread by quoting in full the documents you tried to misrepresent.
You always respond – as this thread again demonstrates – with long-winded blather that only consists of assertions you have said what you have not together with a shoal of irrelevant ‘red herrings’ intended to deflect the discussion away from its subject, and concluding with a childish temper tantrum.
And you provide this behaviour in support of ‘environmental’ issues related to your academic employment. Your asserting doubt to my motivation is a clear attempt to deflect from your clear motivation which is support of your employment.
Richard
Phil.
You assert of me
No. That is falsehood.
Also, your quotations are examples of my ridicule in response to previous temper tantrums directed at me and of the kind you have again provided in this thread: frankly, ridicule was the kindest response I could imagine.
The exception to that was my claim which you quote where I pointed out that your academic employment relates to the ‘environmental’ issues you promote.
Having addressed the matters you have raised, I will say no more on this off-topic issue.
Richard
Actually the record shows that’s exactly what happens. For example in the thread you link to below you were warned about your behavior:
“REPLY: Richard, this is the point at which you start becoming annoying. Dial it back. – Anthony”
When you continued to object to McIntyre’s criticism of your posts, you were given a time-out:
“Anthony Watts May 13, 2014 at 12:05 pm
OK Richard S. Courtney you’re done on this thread then.”
Phil.
Thanks for the publicity. With that build-up others can only be encouraged to read the item at the link to see what you are blathering about. To help them find it, I provide the link again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Richard
PS Phil, your veracity is again displayed. It is a falsehood that was given a time-out because I “continued to object to McIntyre’s criticism of [my] posts”.
Again, thanks for the publicity.
Richard
richardscourtney September 28, 2014 at 1:51 am
Phil.
You say
When you come across someone like courtney who abuses people who disagrees with him and attempts to shout them down with out bringing anything factual to the discussion, you do wonder as to motivation.
That is absolutely untrue.
I’ll leave that to the readers.
And you provide this behaviour in support of ‘environmental’ issues related to your academic employment. Your asserting doubt to my motivation is a clear attempt to deflect from your clear motivation which is support of your employment.
You’ve been told before that that’s not true, kindly desist from repeating it.
Phil.
Your record demonstrates your veracity.
If I believed a word you wrote then I would “desist” from repeating what you deny but refuse to ‘correct’ by saying who and what you are.
Richard
Did I read this right? Non-50 year smoothed annual observations were tacked onto proxy reconstructions that had a 50-year smoothing algorithm applied? That is like saying up to this point we have grossly approximate apple data, but after this point we have detailed orange data, however we are going to call the whole thing fruit and leave off the apples and oranges labels.
Pamela Gray:
Please be assured that you did “read this right”.
I again provide the link I provided for “Steve” earlier in this thread. It is an explanation of the matter by our host.
Richard
PS I objected to “tacked on” within a week of the publication of MBH98. Michael Man was informed of that and I learned of his response in a ‘Climategate’ email from him. That matter was discussed here.
Richard
Sorry. This is the direct link that should have been in the PS
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/
Richard
Further discussion on the differences between 50 year smoothed proxy data, observations, and obvious differences between non-treering and treering proxy data sets.
Trees do indeed generally reflect climate changes but may not do so in the same way other proxy entities do. In fact, until we know the true sensitivities of proxy entities to absolute and relative temperature change, the best we can hope for is to find signals of trends, not the absolute temperature measurements that make up those trends. Further, trees may be more sensitive to decreasing trends than they are to increasing trends, depending on the species. Frost warnings related to plants are provided far more frequently than heat warnings are. Why? Heat stress is not nearly so damaging to plants as is frost stress. Leading me to suggest that warm temperatures may be diminished in tree rings (they just don’t seem to be overly sensitive to warming trends) as opposed to cold temperatures, which may even be exaggerated in the tree ring.
One thing for sure is known. Proxies without tacked on observations don’t show anything unusual about the current warm spell, and if anything, are flat relative to the instrumental readings.
http://www.image.ucar.edu/~nychka/manuscripts/JASALiPaleo.pdf
oops. Don’t know how that model paper got pasted in there. I thought I was pasting in a link to another paper. And now I can’t locate it. bummer
richardscourtney September 29, 2014 at 8:47 am
PS Phil, your veracity is again displayed. It is a falsehood that was given a time-out because I “continued to object to McIntyre’s criticism of [my] posts”.
It certainly wasn’t because of your pleasant demeanor.
Again, thanks for the publicity.
I don’t think that behavior is something you’d want publicized