Nom, nom, nom: more leaked email chum for sceptics…
[Climategate: for the un-initiated see here]
The denial-o-sphere is all a-titter this morning with the exciting news that the Climategate “whistleblower” has come forward and is making available their vast trove of emails.
To recap: in 2009 a cache of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were released. Selective parts were cherry picked and turned into a scandal.
Despite the fact that nine seperate (and independent) enquires across the world cleared the scientists of anywrong doing, sceptics continue to point to Climategate as evidence of a massive conspiracy.
Thus, every 12-18 months they seek to revive the scandal by releasing “new emails”, forever feeding the sharks with chum.
In an email now doing the rounds across the climate community on both sides, the individual who claims to have leaked the documents (they refer to themself as FOIA) is now requesting others help shift through some 220,000 emails:
It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉
If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
The “all.7z” password is [redacted]
DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.
I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
In other words, a massive cherry picking operation is about to begin that will keep sceptics busy for months.
Of course Anthony Watts and other deniers are all over this, instantly proclaiming the world shattering importance of this latest storm-in-virtual-tea-cup. Watts breathlessly announces that “Climategate 3.0” is here:
A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment.
James Delingpole proclaims FOIA is humanity’s savior:
I hope one day that FOIA’s true identity can be revealed so that he can be properly applauded and rewarded for his signal service to mankind. He is a true hero, who deserves to go on the same roll of honour as Norman Borlaug, Julian Simon and Steve McIntyre: people who put truth, integrity and the human race first and ideology second. Unlike the misanthropic greenies who do exactly the opposite.
Move over Jesus, FOIA just knocked you of the saviour pole.
Just a tad bit of hyperbolic James?
Climategate got press coverage, but Climategate 2.0 was ignored by the world (but not by excited sceptic bloggers).
Climategate 3.0 will also quickly pass into obscurity.
It’s like flogging a dead horse and throwing it to the sharks for chum, who then work themselves up into a feeding frenzy.
However with the IPCCs report coming out in 2014 expect to see much more of these tactics.
Watching the Deniers 
cue Eric
Like I said, the gift which keeps on giving. We’ve already dug up one email which suggests Hadley Centre privately thinks the Mann reconstruction (i.e. the Hockey Stick) is junk.
I’m sure we’ll find more interesting material in the rest of the 200,000 emails.
For me though, CG3 is a real problem. When I add all the emails, that will bloat my Climategate app to around a Gb. Not only will the search not work properly, but there is a real chance Apple will no longer accept it as a free app, because it will be too big. Quite a technical challenge.
The fact that Delingpole can put Steve McIntyre name next to Norman Borlaug proves that he is floundering in the dark. {as if more proof were needed].
And FOIA has,in describing most of the 200,000 emails as ‘irrelevant’,simply outed him/herself as a troll feeder. The noble cause was always a self-serving transparency.
This is either trying to poison the well for WG1,as Steve Bloom suggests below, or throwing some imagined shit at Mann while he’s taking Tim Ball et al through the courts.
What dullards. I heard a clamour, and thought it might be a peer-reviewed paper from a ‘skeptic’ group at last…..but,no,it was just more fantasy ‘incrimination’.
Eric has identified the salient feature of CG3. It’s bloated. Well done Eric,starting to get it…
To me this latest Climategate release similar to another internet hoax and seems to be following a similar path. This latest release served two purposes:
1) To prop up the Climategate Hoax
2) To try and throw someone off the scent of who FOIA really is.
Extrapolating from the other Hoax, FOIA will be taking a more and more direct hand in keeping it alive. Someone familiar with the various denier websites could probably identify FOIA by looking to see when postings about this latest release from FOIA occured since FOIA was probably distributing information about this latest release under his/her real name.
Aha. Where is this e-mail then?
Aha. Where is this e-mail then?
Check out the WUWT post – Watts is posting new tidbits as they are found.
Reading Watts’ expose is as exciting as watching a gaggle of teenage girls reading the latest edition of Heat, exclaiming, “Ooh, look at her!” I wonder how many boxes of tissues the quote miners have been through in their excitement?
Thieves.
Minor correction, Mike. There’s been *nine* investigations into Climategate: http://sks.to/climategate
Noted. I thought nine 🙂
Also: go to SkS link for Climategate guys.
And then there was Deniergate, with Bast lying about a forgery.
Trying to poison the well for the WG1 release. But based on last time, very few will fall for it.
hmmmmm at WTFIUWM
paulhan says:
March 13, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Phil Ford says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:54 am
Seconded. Do we really want to be rummaging around their pecadillos?
Anybody notice the date? 031313 or in Europe 130313
My favourite was the Oxburgh inquiry – Oxburgh forgot to mention he was a senior executive of GLOBE, a well funded green / alternative energy advocacy group.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/
But regardless of whether you believe hiding the decline is a valid scientific protocol, the fact is Climategate created enough doubt to derail Copenhagen, and helped to harden the republican position – for that we’ll forever be grateful.
It’s conspiracies all the way down for Erric.
Putting someone like Oxburgh in charge of an inquiry is like putting an employee of Koch brothers in charge of an inquiry.
They might conduct themselves with integrity and be totally fair and honest in their appraisal – but noone would ever believe it, unless the result happened to be something they wanted to hear.
Just another eight excuses to go. Put Weatherboy in jail.
Whatever Oxburgh forgot to mention,you forgot to mention you have no science. Hurry up and publish,dumbnialists!
Anthony has dropped his ‘reasonable’ mask completely now. As he intended, the thread is attracting the more odious scum from denierland – perverts and peeping toms. Watts doesn’t bother with the dog-whistle this time, he’s blowing a trumpet.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/hotwhopper-odious-quote-of-day.html
Shall I dig up a load of quotes suggesting “man is a cancer” on the Earth, and that man is the problem, and similarly misanthropic nasties, or shall we simply accept your team has a lot of misanthropes in its ranks?
If you accept that nearly all of your lot are moronic beyond belief although that would mean only you were telling the truth.
Oh yes Erric, please do. I love it when you talk dirty.
David Attenborough claiming we’re a plague upon the Earth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266237/David-Attenborough-warns-mankind-plague-Earth.html
There are plenty of other quotes like it – calling mankind a cancer, claiming that animals are more important than people, wishing death and destruction on mankind so that nature might be saved, that kind of thing.
I’ll see if I can dig up a quote collation I saw a while ago.
Speaking of plagues, I am still waiting for you to tell me how many people this planet can support. You did say that there are no ecological limitations on consumption.
Speaking of plagues, I am still waiting for you to tell me how many people this planet can support. You did say that there are no ecological limitations on consumption.
Vastly more than now. If the entire Earth was as densely populated as China, the Earth could support 1.3 billion x 144 million km^2 / 9.7 million km^2 = 19 billion people.
Of course, this doesn’t include the possibility of living permanently on the sea, in vast floating structures.
Aquiculture has barely scratched the surface of what is possible. Ocean Thermal energy could substantially increase ocean fish stock, by creating artificial, nutrient right upwellings. It would also produce some alternative energy, which should make you happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
Higher density housing, in the form of Arcologies, could fit an entire modern city’s population into an area of a few square kilometers – leaving even more land free for food production.
And when we finally started touching the limits of what the Earth can provide, there’s always space. Project Orion proved cheap access to space is possible, though I hope this isn’t the major choice, for reasons which should be obvious to a scientist.
Frankly I’d like to see an early move to space – I’ve no wish to see say the Amazon and Congo cleared for farmland. But if necessary they could be.
Putting aside your numbers and your quips about the amazon and fishstocks and whatnot because quite frankly, they are ridiculous, I am most interested in this…..
“And when we finally started touching the limits of what the Earth can provide, there’s always space.”
Just yesterday or the day before you said this….
“We need to use more per capita, to make life easier, richer, and happier. There are no ecological, or any other limits.” https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/nature-v-technology-climate-belief-is-politics-not-science-reprint/#comment-31330
So on one hand you say there are no limits of any kind and then you say there are? Which is it? I get the feeling Eric that you just speak shit all the time and don’t actually know what you are saying. You speak so much shit you can’t remember what position you hold. So, which one of those statements is a lie Eric?
If you include space technology, there are no ecological or resource limits to the carrying capacity of the Earth. So my statement stands.
The only reason we haven’t exploited space for resources is we haven’t had to – there is still plenty of stuff lying around just waiting to be dug up and processed on Earth. But we’ve had the capacity to exploit space since the 1950s – Project Orion demonstrates we’ve got the capacity to launch multi million ton industrial plants in a single lift, if the need to do so arises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
So if we have to launch vast industrial machines into space, to say mine Asteroids, increase terrestrial power capacity with solar power satellites, melt permafrost with large orbital mirrors, to increase food production, or any of a host of other activities which could increase Earth’s carrying capacity, then we could.
But I think by the time space technology has reached that level, there will be no need – a lot of people will voluntarily choose to live in space based habitats, to escape the overcrowded Earth, and to find new opportunities. Pretty much the same reason people have always been attracted to new frontiers. And quite a lot of industrial activity will need no supervision whatsoever. Computers are still doubling in capability every 18 months or so, so even the next decade should see currently unimaginable advances in artificial intelligence and robotics.
Uh huh, sure Eric, I am prepared to let you try to wriggle out of what you said like the slimy coward you are. You’re pathetic.
Sez the man who went to see Monckton – a man who characterises his enemies as Nazis. Give me Attenborough any day.
Eric and his space technology ! Chuckle…. Let’s all go down to the docks to see a few hundred kilos of Martian grit that’s been 17 months in arriving from the red planet’s mine. Apparently there”ll be another ‘load’ coming in a few months,also at enormous energy cost. The conquest of space resources is proceeding apace! There are only limit is your lack of faith!
“Lots of people will volunteer to live in space-based habitats” He’s been watching Wall-E again.
Uh huh, sure Eric, I am prepared to let you try to wriggle out of what you said like the slimy coward you are. You’re pathetic.
We already use a significant amount of space based technology – weather satellites and the like – so its no stretch to suggest that exploitation of space shall not only continue but shall expand.
I’m not suggesting we’ll be terraforming other planets and pushing Asteroids around in the next couple of years – the economics simply don’t support it, despite some intriguing first steps in that direction – http://news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-meteors-meteorites/could-asteroid-mining-drive-21st-century-space-industry-130204.htm
I understand that this assumption might not have been clear from my “resources are unlimited” comment – but I guess I assumed that a scientist should not need such things explained to them.
pathetic.
Don’t be such a sore loser.
Wonder how many people in the world think Eric Worrall knows more about the natural world that does David Attenborough?
Ooh, please sir! I know!
The answer is one (Erric).
Calling humans a plague is a value judgement, it has nothing to do with our relative knowledge of science. In this instance i was criticising his misanthropic values, not his science.
If Attenborough actually liked people, he might have said “I’m worried people shall be forced into harsher, more difficult activities to sustain a growing population, and that we might reach some limits”. Instead he said “humanity is a plague”.
The first expresses his scientific concern from a humanist perspective, the second classifies people as a scar on the face of nature’s beauty – the second view is the misanthropic perspective.
“our relative knowledge of science.”
Good thing you put the word relative in there if you’re including yourself because your knoweldge of science makes everyone around you seem like Einstein.
When are you going to invite me to meet your class?
If you’re citing me as a denier, and telling them all about how wrong I am, you might as well give them a chance to meet me – to gather first hand information as it were.
eric “I’ve no wish to see say the Amazon and Congo cleared for farmland. But if necessary they could be.”
go and have a lie down eric, reality may return
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-025
.
Cool, I guess it would save a lot of chopping wood if they burn down instead.
From Watts’–who has not noticed that he’s reproduced one email twice.– these ‘nuggets’:
So far a scientist thinks that Mann’s study wasn’t very good….wow,so everyone has an opinion. As if they are not varyingly critical of each others work. Christ,how naive is FOIA?
So far, Ed Cook thinks the evidence for a globally synchronous MWP has some strength,but cannot be concluded to be warmer than now….wow ,how is that seriously discordant with discussion in AR4? And we know from direct proxy observation–glacial melting revealing organic artifacts–that the MWP glacial cover in Europe was more extensive than at present. And we know that a global MWP is not actually good for the ‘arguments’ of low sensitivity whackjobs.
So far, a scientist thinks one issue in a Naomi Oreskes book was not well handled…wow,people have opinions.
And so far ‘FOIA’ has stated that the juicy stuff is already out there…wow. It doesn’t take much to confuse the prejudiced.
This is so obsessively aimed at Mann,not even Bradley and Hughes, it will ASSIST Mann’s case in the eyes of anyone who is interested and informed.
I found some people who’d appreciate a bit of global warming…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-13/snow-disrupts-transport-across-north-western-europe/4569134
A spot of weather mediated by low Arctic sea ice no doubt.
Yeah, skeptical, you should know by now an 8 day heatwave in Melbourne is climate, but bitter cold and extreme snowfall across the Northern hemisphere is just weather.
The area covered by anomalous heat extended from eastern WA through southern NT SA, SW NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. Many long duration warmth records were broken.Why do you have to omit relevant matter?
The article linked covers snowfall [not unheard of in March!] in north western Europe and the UK over a few days. Sure,it was anomalously cold in some places for some of that time,but Japan and E China,eastern Europe and much of Africa was experiencing above average warmth over parts of the last week,too.
Record heat versus non record cold, therefore no global warming. Climate pixie logic fully explained.
Record heat versus non record cold, therefore no global warming. Climate pixie logic fully explained.
No, I was simply pointing out the double standards you apply to evaluating the significance of weather events.
The only way you could fake an ‘example’ of ‘double-standards’ was by attempting a misleading diminution of one event and a misleading exaggeration of the other. Can’t you even read what you write?
No, I was simply pointing out Skeptitank’s and your’s logic gaps. Fish and barrel. Or nuts in fruitcake.
What double standard is it to point out that heat records are being broken at three times the pace of cold records? Yes, even on the surface.
The good thing for Watts about making Climategate 3 [snigger] a ‘sticky’ is that it keeps one from quickly seeing the train wreck of articles that he’s posted since,including the Eschenbach fumbling-about-argument-from-incredulity/because-I-don’t-know-what-they-did-the-paper-is-bunk on Marcott et al 2013. The man is a massive idiot. He even complains they don’t show the raw data except in the supplement .Face-palm.
CG3 is a warmist conspiracy to supply Stephen Lewandowsky with material for a third paper, https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/recursive-fury-the-involvement-of-conspiracist-ideation-in-rejection-of-science/.
Strange that you AGW kiddies are getting so excited and abusive over something you claim to consider to be a non-serious and entirely unimportant non-event, isn’t it?
As for the lack of influence of Climategate, that’s not what John Kerry thought. He reckoned it had damaged belief in AGW by 10 to 20 points. But what would he know, right?
Shorter C’weazle : ‘CG3 must be important because they’re laughing at us again.’ The rational community is basically showing concern for your mental capability.
I would hardly call it worked up or abusive. We do however need to express our incredulity at the sheer stupidity of the people pushing this non-issue. It’s amazing to see morons working themselves into an orgy of conspiracy ideation over a word or two of individual opinions, feeding off each other and turning them into some sort of plot for world domination. Batshit crazy, hilarious and disturbing to watch all at the same time and let’s not forget the bootlicking hero worship of the new saviour of the world, FOIA. It’s compulsory viewing for those of us who need to brush up on our facepalming skills.
+ 1,uknow. Like you I am simply bemused at the self-deception of the anti-science mob.
Eric your tiny rhetorical vocabulary is beyond boring. And your grip on reality is pretty weak. Climategate [dumb name,remains dumb] was a tiny media bubble,and has had little to no effect on the working life of scientists that were targeted.
Phil Jones,Mann,Trenberth,Briffa,Cook et all remain employed,tenured and have all been authoring and co-authoring papers since CG1. They remain a small unfairly maligned sub-group of a climate science community that is funded, functional and productive.
Your bumbling narcissists have managed to avoid doing any science as usual.
That is a simple and fair summation of reality.
We don’t expect to affect fanatics like you Uki, but people who aren’t blinded by their alarmist faith see some really dodgy things in the Climategate emails – trying to rig peer reviews, inciting others to delete material to dodge FOIA requests, pruning data to present nice tidy stories. It doesn’t inspire confidence.
Climate what? Oh that thing that was investigated 9 times and each time cleared all involved of the things you keep mentioning? You really need some new material. All good comedians tend to update their material regularly.
Truly a faith based response from a Weatherboy fanboi. “I don’t believe nine investigations found the truth, but I know the truth”.
Most climate scientists have barely heard of climategate,have been unaffected by it and it has no bearing on their working lives. How could it? The first thing they know if anything is that emails expected to be confidential were stolen and filtered by someone with an agenda. It really does not matter what that agenda was,the action speaks loudly enough. IT SCREAMS BAD FAITH! Theft and an attempt to discredit by any means other than scientific! Don’t you understand that,idiots? If you had any detachment you would.
You are cranks with a vested interest in grossly inflating and exaggerating your knowledge,importance and impact. You see yourself as whistleblowers,but their is no parallel,when it is clear you are fanatical activists without work experience in science. The real world has barely heard of you,and those who have like us hold you in contempt…what else could rational people think in the light of your abhorrent repetitive behavior and the simple undisputable evidence that you do NO science?
Why is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
any different from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29#Surface_Stations
(last paragraph)
My guess is that it is what you call “faith”.
Climate what? Oh that thing that was investigated 9 times and each time cleared all involved of the things you keep mentioning?
Have you ever truncated your data to hide a divergence between predictions and observations? You must think that this is acceptable technique, otherwise you wouldn’t keep defending the scientists who practice such shoddy tricks.
Where’s your science?
Yes,Eric,it is acceptable to cut out irrelevant material from a minor graphic now and then. The divergence was no reflection of current regional atmospheric reality in the simple sense of average temperature anomaly. And the argument that it threw doubt on palaeo techniques that already come with detailed caveats is only for the peanut gallery. Perhaps you need to read all the background material?
There is still no adequate explanation I know of for why the divergence problem occurred, and why similar divergences could not have occurred in the past.
The hockey stick is junk science. Mann snipped off data to hide the decline, to maintain the fiction that tree rings are a good proxy for temperature.
Where’s your science Eric?
I’m trying to work out what you mean by science Uki. So far your idea of science seems to include defending shoddy data manipulation tricks to create false conclusions.
Nobody is surprised you dont know what science is. All you have is discredited propaganda and wilful ignorance. That is all you have in what you would like to think is a scientific debate and that demonstrates how weak your position is. A good thing for you weren’t around to be on the wrong side of the nazis. You would have been the first one gassed for being mentally retarded./
Eric you are mixing up different papers by different people, and as always not stepping back to look at as much data as you should.. The post 1960s divergence was Briffa’s study,and it is localised to part of the Siberian Arctic. He and others have proposed and published reasons for this divergence. It is intriguing but not exactly significant to whole world understanding. The divergence was ‘hidden’ in a graphic produced for a WMO presentation IIRC. It was not hidden in published papers. Mike Mann had nothing to do with it. What happened was that Phil Jones described what his group did as like “Mike’s Nature Trick” of adding real observations on the end of reconstructions,when the recon data ended in 1960 or 1980. It’s visually suggestive and not physically plausible when understood. And you guys do it all the time!! Witness grafting Marcott onto a fake GISP temp recon,while failing to reveal the GISP data finishing in 1855. In reality temps now at the GISP site are as warm/warmer than the past 5000 years’ maxs
Mann, or more correctly Mann Bradley and Hughes 98/99 found hockey sticks in grouped proxies. MBH then outraged deniers by showing a less dramatic MWP as they extended their recon back in time. For this ‘sin’,be they are forever damned! You folk lied that they disappeared it,in typical hyperbolic style. Your auditor claimed that Mann’s de-centered PCA technique was invalid and produced HSs out of noise. HE BULLSHITTED YOU. You need to read the criticism’s of McI and McKittrick by Dr. David Ritson,and Deep Climate. You also need to know that the vehicle for attacks on Mann,the Wegman inquiry set up by Joe Barton,is a discredited mess. Not only did Wegman fail to test McI’s method,he produced a document full of plagiarised material. Wegman and an associate have been stood down over yet further demonstrated plagiarism of material in other work they has produced for WIRES Computational Statistics journal.
And what I keep tellin’ ya is that we have observational support for the shape of all the hockey stick recons including Marcott. That support is in carbon dating of organic matter revealed by ice retreat in the northern hemisphere,plus updated ice core data. IOW you do not have to rely on the generalisations of tree ring /bark inference to realise that the climate history of the Holocene is well enough known to state that we are going to be as warm as the Optimum soon if not now.. We know why the mid Holocene was ‘warm’…and we know that warmth was summer centred—winters and springs were relatively cooler because of orbital issues. Summer insolation is slowly declining at high latitude. We should be no warmer than the LIA. But we are because of the counter forcing of ACO2 induced warming overwhelming the insolation decline..
.
Nick, I’m impressed – you almost admitted your climate heroes did a naughty.
As for future temperatures, I’m not disputing the late 20th century / early 21st is warm, though the relative warmth of the 20th century compared to say the medieval warming is open to dispute – a lot of Viking farms in Greenland are still covered in permafrost.
And to anyone who wants to flog the dead horse “the MWP was local”, please don’t make me produce my Oroko Swamp email again – there are so many lines of evidence the MWP was global, you’ll just embarrass yourself.
But as to what is causing the current warmth, while I am not disputing CO2 is a contributing factor, the fact the sun hit an 8000 year grand maximum in the 20th century might have something to do with it. The failure of the planet to warm for the last 17 years, despite a 50ppm rise in CO2 levels, suggests that the cooling sun is potentially at least as powerful a forcing as the warming which should have occurred from a 50ppm rise in CO2. If the cooling sun can halt global warming in its tracks, then a warming sun must have been a significant contributor to the 20th century warming.
If even 50% of the 20th century warming was caused by the solar grand maximum, RIP alarmism. No amount of CO2 we are likely to pump into the atmosphere could cause dangerous climate change.
Eric likes putting words into people’s mouths. Nick said no such thing.
The heat is going into the deep ocean, despite your ignoring it. I won’t repost those links again. Besides you’ll just accuse the world’s journals of being alarmist.
New nonsense about the cooling sun and 8,000 year maxima. Citations please. Using Watts is an instant loss. Use tis if you like. Warning, it says you’re wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
I’ve left out an “im” in my ramble …’not physically IMplausible’…poorly expressed anyway with a double negative. Sorry.
“a lot of Viking farms are still covered in permafrost” Reference? There is no permafrost over 400km of coastal country at the southern end of Greenland today,and areas of only sporadic permafrost for over 1000km up east and west coasts according to the Permafrost Lab at UAlaska.
Then we have work from Baffin Island observing that a lot of ice that has recently disappeared was there since at least 350AD, thus was present throughout the MWP. In other places in the Canadian Rockies and Coast mountains,in situ stumps are seen,recently revealed by glacial retreat. A fair amount of these are in the 6000 to 9000 years BP age group. Think about it Eric,perishable matter covered by ice throughout the Holocene until now. Other sites have revealed tree stumps in situ that have been covered since 2000-3000yBP. So modern warming is the greatest since Roman, Minoan and even the highest point of the Hypsithermal/Holo Optimum.
The synchronicity of MWPish events globally is wide open. There is no temporal tie-up with quite a few sites.. You have to crack out more than Oroko, I suspect you haven’t looked at the details and the variations in techniques and graphic presentation of various papers
The MWP is very much over-rated in the light of meta-studies of past glaciation. We are warmer now,and we are yet to reap the full warming of our current CO2 output because of ocean heating lags.
Just keep claiming that they are making them up, then they will have to release the lot.
Stolen emails No3
“The Watts selection”
credibility zilch.
With you maybe – but not with people who matter.
Climategate destroyed bipartisan support for CO2 mitigation in the US, and has helped give Canada, Japan and Russia the courage to repudiate Kyoto.
Without FOIA, Copenhagen would have been a success.
You could not even address what i wrote, your comprehension is pathetic
now how will you develop an app if you are only going to get what Watts wants you to have,?
hence “the Watts selection”
Most people have never heard of climategate or whatever, flogging a dead horse is very apt.
One of them claims
“I write frequently about the climate bible – the massive report produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) every five years or so. The climate bible is supposed to summarize the current state of our knowledge with respect to climate change. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this document. It is treated as gospel by governments around the world – and is the reason billions are being spent on carbon dioxide emissions reduction.
while eric claims” destroyed bipartisan support for CO2 mitigation in the US, and has helped give Canada, Japan and Russia the courage to repudiate Kyoto”
Canada dropped Kyoto for one reason only, they had not reduced emissions in line with commitment and would have been up for massive compensation,
arguing as usual from ignorance.
.
Governments have been evading their responsibilities for thirty years, making agreements to ‘continue the dialogue’ for a generation. Their perceived self-interest [actually that of transnationals] has governed their inaction. FOIA had nothing to do with it.
FOIA remains a moron with his false dichotomies and fake hand-wringing about the global poor to attempt to justify his petty actions.
Its possible Copenhagen would have failed without FOIA – but Climategate remains a terrific archive of credibility damaging quotes.
I doubt Mann and Jones will ever hear the last of “Hide the Decline”. Their attempt to spin the “nature trick” as a valid scientific protocol made them a laughing stock.
Where’s your science?
Climategate is just evidence that people work together and apart,and have strong opinions sometimes. No evidence of alien intervention,or secret factor X or that Phil Jones is King Rat.
Someday a scholar or two will look at the archive for a philosophy of science dissertation or the like,if they haven’t already started. The most important issue is the group hysteria shown by a denialist mob in the internet age.
Whats your explanation of Mike’s nature trick Uki?
Have you ever attempted to hide a decline in one of your papers? Perhaps you should provide an example of how you might use the nature trick in your field – replacing part of a data series with another data series, to hide the decline.
Because if hiding the decline is a valid scientific protocol, then it should be applicable to other fields which rely on numerical / statistical analysis.
I do plenty of tricks when I manipulate my data. I also discussed them at length with colleagues and reviewers in emails. Quick better get an foi request ready. Better yet. Get someone to break the law and steal them. Let mcintyre and watts handle the stolen property. Whip morons like you into an orgy of conspiracy ideation and trigger 9 independent investigations to show you how stupid you are so you can then come into forums like this to let everyone know what a dickhead you are.
Eric,it is obvious you know little or nothing about the ‘hide the decline’ matter.
You should be aware that: the divergence ‘problem’ has been discussed for almost wenty years in peer-reviewed publications starting with Jacoby 1995. Briffa and others have published on mechanisms that might explain the divergence between tree response and observed temperature observed post 1960. Pollution of various kinds is a favored rationale. The decline was in a regional series,not in global scale data. Mike Mann did not truncate any data in his recons.
The decline was ‘hidden’ in a graphic produced for the COVER of a 1999 WMO report [that few read at the time]. This was just a cover illustration. This is what all the BS has been about since. The fact was that the caption did not explain what had been done to combine the data in the manner displayed,and this was criticised by the email review. From this trivial transgression grew a confusion of delusion from pseudo-skeptics. This reaction was another demonstration to the rational community that you guys are not skeptics,but are looking for something to feed your misplaced rage.
Splicing and combining reconstructions or other graphed data together, with the data sources referenced and procedure explained is unremarkable,and is done all the time in reports and papers in a heap of disciplines…so what is your point?
The decline was in a regional series,not in global scale data. Mike Mann did not truncate any data in his recons.
That is nonsense – the Harry Read Me file contains software which truncates data series to hide the decline.
You are outstanding in your stupidity
The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.
Keep arguing for high climate sensitivity though if that is your thing
So the observation is tree rings only agree with real temperatures 50% of the time?
What a useless proxy.
What is your problem with understanding up to 1960 ?
you are a goose
this is so old hat but you will still be trotting out your nonsense as your children are faced with the reality.
sad sad man you are
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
Harryreadme was about UEA CRU…and a nothing issue .Certainly nothing to do with Mann, or MBH99. Eric your approach is wrong.
Watts in nonsense. Why not just tattoo the word “stooped” on your forehead and be done with it? Why do you think SciAm blocks it?
Eric,I’ve made a terrible mistake…..
Actually,revisiting the offending WMO document graphic featuring the ‘trick’ the caption DOES INDICATE THAT INSTRUMENTAL DATA WAS BLENDED IN…so the inquiry actually got that WRONG. Briffas 1999 recon shows a dip before the instrumental data is grafted on, the caption reads:
“Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years up to 1999,using palaeoclimatic records…along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50 year smoothed differences from the 1961-1990 normal….”
The caption also provided DIRECT links to Briffa’s discussion of divergence,and to the instrumental data via NOAA.
There you have it. NOTHING was hidden. This ‘great malpractice’ [sarc] in a cover graphic on a document read by barely more than a few hundred is what keeps the hate campaign going?
SciAm says Watts doesn’t matter.
The radio silence is probably the frantic scurrying of the deniar rats amongst the chicken bones of the email bin they have emptied. The numpty tabloids (Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc) will be full of air head quotes for a couple of weeks.
We hope so. Something about Climategate allegedly got the DOJ quite excited, it could have been material in the third archive.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/tallblokes-computer-siezed-jeff-id-threatened-in-climategate-retaliation-its-intimidation/
Chances are the third archive is as boring as FOIA says it is, but why conduct a police raid after the release of CG2, if all the dirt was already in the open?
Whre’s your science?
Yeah, I can understand how a hacker breaking into a computer system, anonymously releasing thousands of emails and selectively quoting them to create a false impression of misconduct would get the DOJ quite excited.
From FOIA’s actions it looks like some forum somewhere on the web has figured out who he/she is. At some point, for whatever reason, FOIA will disappear from the web, never to be heard from again. Climategate will mutate, probably adding some Alien Nazi UFO’s or secret military satellites to the coverup to give it credibility in the eyes of its future believers.
Oh,please Eric don’t be obtuse. The second release stimulated some more action in attempting to find the hacker,simple as that. Nothing to do with the content of the emails,around which nutters have invented a fantasy meaningfulness.
You do appreciate from the police point of view it is just a mundane matter of illegal access and theft,don’t you?
Yawn.
Wake me up when you find something incriminating.
(especially any emails quoting Dr No)
Maybe they’re arresting the thief and those who handled stolen emails?
Jo Nova’s track record for truth is, amazingly, even lower than Weatherboys.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/07/kansas_global_warming_denying_bill_dies_by_default.html
You do appreciate from the police point of view it is just a mundane matter of illegal access and theft,don’t you?
Then why isn’t Gleick answering to charges for his illegal access and theft? Why does Gleick walk free, while someone in a foreign country who is remotely connected to FOIA suffers search and seizure?
Where’s your science Eric?
Maybe he walks free because: a) they know Heartland is a con; b) Gleick confessed; c) everyone (except Bast, his dog and you) know the papers weren’t forged.
Why weren’t Watts, McIntyre and Delingpole charged with CG1 or 2? Why haven’t they repaid the public costs for the nine investigations that were instigated and you l-o-s-t?
It’s actually quite funny. These are the types of papers the denier tools have been quite happily chucking at Mann and company for years. with their denial of science FoI attacks, http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/doj.jpg
“Why is Gleick free,and Tallbloke etc…”? Knickers in a twist again.
Really is is this a question? Two different jurisdictions anyway,so different processes anyway if evoked.. Secondly,Gleick has never been charged except in the rhetorical la-la land of nutters,where he has already been found guilty and shot metaphorically…do we need to pretend that this is not the case?. Why has Heartland not proceeded? To spare their dirty tricks operation further embarrassment when eyes turn to background and context. Heartland are scum,liars for hire on many fronts. They prefer not to be too well known except to their clients. Any public scrutiny of their modus,and the inevitable realisation that their charitable status is a rort and their product is FUD, and their clients will slink off to a lower profile rival. They have probably been counselled by their remaining clients to not proceed.
If Heartland were to proceed,Gleick’s act would inevitably be seen to be a public interest one,his ‘crime’ victimless, and his actions investigative. Ask yourself what really happened. Gleick WAS SENT a document anonymously that seemed a genuine budget doc from Heartland. Rather than release that to the public,he indulged in some ID trickery to get more documents in an attempt to confirm the likely authenticity of the first. It may be that the first document was fake,a fake generated by Heartland to entrap their target Gleick when he released it . He puts it out,and they can say ‘hey this is not our real budget,it’s fake’. Gleick did not fall into that trap instead he stung the stingers,gathering documents which H could not plausibly deny to be genuine….revealing among other things that various ‘independent’ contrarians were on a payroll which they had publicly denied previously. Revealing that H was actively attempting interfering with the science curriculum without a declaration of their real interests.
Gleick has BLOWN Heartland out of the water. Good riddance.Thanks Dr Gleick.
Tallbloke had his gear investigated several years ago.He was not charged either. It was a simple search warrant. Police had plenty of justification for investigating folks like him as they publicly claimed to be conduits and therefore had some greater potential proximity to the criminal act. What would you do in their circumstances [assuming you can think dispassionately for a moment]?
Maybe he walks free because: a) they know Heartland is a con; b) Gleick confessed; c) everyone (except Bast, his dog and you) know the papers weren’t forged.
I see – so if you confess to a serious crime, you shouldn’t be punished? Would you extend that forgiveness to FOIA, if it turns out FOIA is a thief, and they confess to their crime?
Why weren’t Watts, McIntyre and Delingpole charged with CG1 or 2? Why haven’t they repaid the public costs for the nine investigations that were instigated and you l-o-s-t?
The public should be entitled to a refund on at least one of the inquiries, the Oxburgh inquiry – run by a green entrepreneur who forgot to declare some of his interests.
And republishing material which is already in the public domain is not a crime, otherwise anyone who quoted people like Assange, or republished any of his material, would face criminal prosecution.
Forgive Eric,he’s under pressure to present his own tidy story….
Put Weatherboy in jail for CG! and 2 then come back and talk about Gleick.
Nine times loser.
There must be next to nothing in CG3 if all Eric can do is recycle a 2011 Jo Nova article. Maybe no one will want his bloated app.
He is a bit of a sicko
“Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.”
so this moron believes that drowning them and starving them to death is the answer.
twisted mind
It must be true. I read it in Faux News. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/15/human-induced-climate-change-played-big-role-in-somalia-2011-famine-new-study/
It’s actually quite funny. These are the types of papers the denier tools have been quite happily chucking at Mann and company for years. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/doj.jpg
There’s a huge difference between a lawsuit to gain access to material which should have been publicly available, because it was paid for by the taxpayer, and a DOJ campaign to harass a blogger in a foreign country.
It’s theft. It’s about time deniars were brought to justice. Their squeals are a delight. It’s ok for them to dish it out. But they can’t take it. Quote mining for fun and profit has a price.
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own” wrote Joe Bast.
Anything in CG3 that exposes our plot for world domination, one world government and the destruction of agriculture?
No idea, i don’t have the password.
In any case, I don’t think anyone is deliberately plotting to destroy agriculture – the damage to date seems to me to be more the consequence of ham fisted ignorant carelessness by meddlesome bureaucrats who think they know more than farmers about how to manage land.
And I’ve already made my skepticism of one world government etc. fairly clear – happy to explain again if you want.
I thought you went to Monckton’s diatribe the other night?
One of his slides exposes our plot to destroy agriculture (amongst other things) when we establish the new world order. You must have fallen asleep by then.
There are some seriously damaging environmental measures, but I don’t agree with Monckton’s view that its a plot to return us to the stone age. Rather I think you are deluding yourselves into thinking you can have your cake and eat it too – you guys really believe you could enjoy the benefits of modern civilisation if all existing generators were replaced by wind turbines, or solar panels, or whatever.
I’m sure there are some deep greens who would like to go further, to truly return us to medieval or even stone age levels of technology, so we could live in “harmony” with nature, but I’m happy to accept these are not representative of the views of most alarmists – you guys would probably be in the first ranks of the protestors if a hypothetical deep green government started say closing hospitals and schools to reduce national energy consumption.
So you admit that one of your climate heroes is a fruit loop?
Another strawman from Eric…
So you admit that one of your climate heroes is a fruit loop?
No, I’m saying I disagree with Monckton on this issue.
I can understand though why Monckton has a bee in his bonnet about some of the freakier deep greens in positions of too much power or influence.
The following is a letter from me printed by New Scientist in response to futurist James Martin suggesting we should all subject ourselves to an unaccountable, all powerful international police force.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125710.400-policing-power.html
New scientist is strongly pro-alarmist, and printed James Martin’s freaky suggestion, but the obviously though enough of the issues I raised to print my reply.
Monckton is a fruit loop. New Scientist is just a good science magazine. As is Scientific American. Did you know SciAm block Watts links as anti-science? ’cause he’s a fruit loop too.
And NSIDC links to Neven’s blog, that is real endorsement for a reliable blog
oops http://nsidc.org/
I’m pretty sure the following is a link to the original article. Unfortunately its paywalled, but my memory of it is James’ suggestion was pretty iffy – it contained a prescription for a powerful international police body, with power to prosecute environmental crimes in member states and enforce emissions and other UN directives, answerable only to the UN, to avoid the risk of political interference with its mission.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.800-interview-agent-for-change.html is the original article.
All high minded stuff, some of you might even support the idea – the idea was to create a body with the power to sweep aside all the petty populist objections and denier inspired obstacles to saving the planet.
Farmers have been known to screw it up. Bureaucrats have been known to get it right. Just because you’re anti-government doesn’t make government always wrong.
Meanwhile, as we argue about the dangerous “global warming” which is occurring…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21806043
Lets hope the military tanks rescue the snowbound motorists in time, before they freeze to death.
I’m not able to access the article, so I may well be wrong, but did Martin actually suggest this Global Police Force should be unaccountable and all powerful? Simply not providing a means of accountabiltiy is not the same believing that it should be unaccountable. I’d be very suprised if that was actually what he meant.
Many of Monckton’s views exists on the absolute limits of plausibility. You do yourself no favours by latching onto his coat tails. He completly lacks credibility, for example, one of many, his recent embrace of the whole “birther” craziness. Stuff like that just makes him seem like an attention seeking nut.
No, he thought it should be powerful and accountable to the UN.
I’m pretty sure this is a link to the original article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.800-interview-agent-for-change.html
My point is he wasn’t giving any consideration to how such a powerful organisation could be held to account – how someone with a grievance could seek redress, if the organisation was not answerable to elected politicians.
Its easy to sneer at the spinelessness or unreliability of elected politicians, but they actually do perform an important job – they can force bureaucrats to answer questions, and ultimately have the power to fire bureaucrats who upset people too much.
Even as a lowly Parish councillor I could force government agencies which wouldn’t normally give me the time of day to answer my questions, and modify their behaviour. There was one occasion in which the water people were not maintaining the drains properly, which caused serious flooding in the area I was responsible for. They tried to exclude me from a public meeting, because they knew I had the goods on them – I had copies of a series of photos I took a year before the flood, which they had not acted on, so having me at the meeting waving my photos about rather upset their narrative that they were as surprised as anyone at the problems.
It’s the old “who watches the watchers” argument. The UN is accountable to all its member states. Is that clunky? Yes. OTOH, multinationals are virtually unaccountable? Is that very, very clunky? Oh ,yes.
Record setting heat in Australia versus non record setting cold in Europe therefore no global warming. Eric demonstrates climate pixie logic.
Heat records are outpacing cold records by over three to one.
If anyone’s interested but doesn’t want to visit the murky depths of denialist delusion, I’ve done a summary of the revelations so far. No wonder the mainstream media ignores it.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/a-short-note-on-stolen-emails.html
A few citations might have made it more interesting, made it seem more like a researched summary than a handful of prejudiced quips.
I love your line Dr Briffa finds that global warming may have affected tree growth, making dendrochronology less reliable when applied to the most recent decades.
Like I said, you guys don’t know what caused the divergence problem – but you try to block it out, to sweep it under the carpet, because you don’t want to face the fact that the divergence problem is strong evidence that tree rings are a poor proxy for temperature.
You might find the following climategate email interesting – Tom Wigley tries to explain to Michael Man that tree rings are not a good proxy for temperature, without hurting his feelings:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0682.txt
A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage nonstationary.
You are a total joke
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=+tree+ring++divergence+problem+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
JB is right Eric. The state of scientific knowledge and discussion on the divergence issue is not defined by your personal ignorance.of the matter,or Watts’ feigned ignorance.
Noone knows for sure what causes the divergence problem, and there is no evidence similar divergences didn’t happen in the past.
The only part of the proxy series we can seriously check against the instrumental record, and the proxy and instrumental readings shoot off in opposite directions. Its pathetic.
We are going round in circles. The disagreement happens post 1960 in one region. Pre 1960 the recon and the observation record agree very well in that region,as they do well enough everywhere. We do not have a lot of such proxies post 1980 anyway. It is not as important as you’d like to make it. I’ve already mentioned other proxies and observations and what they tell us about the past. You ignore them. Ho hum…
“You guys try to avoid the divergence problem..”
Yeah,we’re the guys who have to repeatedly point out to you just how much is written on it,and where you can find it. And all that is written on it is by the scientists who were supposedly trying to hide it!!!!
Everything is arse backwards in your world,Eric.
Pre 1960 the recon and the observation record agree very well in that region,as they do well enough everywhere. We do not have a lot of such proxies post 1980 anyway. It is not as important as you’d like to make it. I’ve already mentioned other proxies and observations and what they tell us about the past. You ignore them. Ho hum…
If tree rings match observations half the time, and diverge sharply from observations the rest of the time, they are useless as a proxy, and should be dropped from the set.
Because there is no way of knowing whether similar divergences occurred in the past, and the magnitude of the impact of such divergences on your analysis.
Its not good enough to suggest that other proxies can carry tree rings through their periods of poor performance – if tree rings have to be carried, whats the point of having them? They simply add uncertainty to your data set.
You have no idea what you are talking about. All you can do is repeat garbage shat out to you by the idiot watts. Not only can you not think for yourself, your juvenile understanding of stats backed up with strawmen is stupid beyond belief. I am convinced from what I’ve seen you wouldn’t make it through the first year of a basic undergraduate science degree.
I wonder which proxy Eric approves of to substantiate his (erroneous) statement that the sun hit an 8000 year maximum in the 20th Century? And, almost certainly, it will would probably have to use the much disparaged (but very sound and clever) Mann “trick” to come up with such.
There must be a conspiracy, says Eric. I can feel it in my bones…
“If tree rings have to be carried..” Ah, this is a clue to your view of science as advocacy. Trying to establish a case and working backwards to support it. Well,no.That’s not it at all. The ‘case’ is no such thing but an interest in the past in a broad sense. Interest in that past and climate change predates any recent issues with GW.
Actually there is a duty to think laterally and explore as many direct and indirect pathways as possible to reveal past climates,Tree rings are one method. The many other methods were not developed simply to SUPPORT tree rings,or any other method. If they actually support one another,that’s not unexpected,but it is not conditional,As much as they may be supportive they are also possibly superseding or superior. And certainly if you want to explore past climate in the oceans you need to look at other materials and processes.
8000 year solar maximum:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
Over the last decades the Sun has had a markedly high average level of sunspot activity; it was last similarly active over 8,000 years ago.[10]
The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation over the period since 1979, when satellite measurements of absolute radiative flux became available.
If you follow the cited reference 10, you’ll see a peer reviewed NOAA paper which contains the following from its abstract:-
According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.
Oh, so now we’re shifting to sunspots cause global warming. So, over the last 35 years (that’s more than double 17 btw) sun activity has been diminishing. So, you who claim that global average surface temperatures levelling off for the last 17 years disproves CO2 is the cause, you are happy to claim that reduced sunspot activity over the last 35 years is the cause. How odd.
A good review of all the evidence is here, http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm.
Ah, *now* tree ring records are ok. ” Dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations have allowed for a reconstruction of sunspot activity dating back 11,400 years, far beyond the four centuries of available, reliable records from direct solar observation.”
Besides, the graphs then don’t say what Eric asserts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
Climategate – whacks the thieves on the butt as they scurry out. The fack Yamal controversy laughs McIntyre out of town. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yamal_controversy
Eric,read the whole exchange you link to please. Then maybe offer an opinion.
You mean Keith Briffa’s advice, from the same email?
Mike
there is often no benefit in bandying fine points of emphasis and implication- Hence, I think that what you have already drafted is fine. Do not start to dilute or confuse the issue with too much additional detail. The job , as you state , is to place on record the statement of disagreement with the “science(!)” and spin.
Those guys love their nice tidy stories.
Meanwhile in the present reality the Arctic sea ice is going down the gurgler
Well,they knew Soon and Baliunas 2003 was an even more tidy story that was in fact crap…as you can read in the full transcript. Why exactly do you find the exchange so…what,sinister?
Why did you try to make it look like Wigley was ‘schooling’ Mann,rather than giving his opinion to the group? Because you want it to look like that? Your own ‘tidy story’ perhaps?
The “science(!) and spin” is their opinion of Soon and Baliunas 2003. But we know that because they wrote a paper in reply in the peer-reviewed lit at the time. Why do we need to read the email?
Why did you try to make it look like Wigley was ‘schooling’ Mann,rather than giving his opinion to the group? Because you want it to look like that? Your own ‘tidy story’ perhaps?
My interpretation is Wigley was trying to voice his gentle disagreement, without hurting Mike’s feelings. Your suggestion I was trying to mislead is ridiculous, considering I provided a link to the original source material.
There is other evidence Mann’s work is not well regarded – such as the latest juicy tidbit from CG3, which implies the general opinion in Hadley is Mann’s work is junk, and Briffa’s statement in another Climategate email that he believes the current warmth was matched a thousand years ago. But they’d never go so far as to embarrass one of the chaps, by say actually challenging their work in public – for alarmists, IMO, friendship is more important than integrity.
Here’s another old favourite – Briffa suggesting that the world was a warm place 1000 years ago:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4872.txt
I do believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike’s series (or Jone’s et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. … I don’t see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming … . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.
You’ll note that I’ve again provided a link to the original material, so don’t give me more BS about trying to deceive people.
You’ve played that little edited loop before. Briffa in 1999. Why is Briffa the paramount expert,seriously? Specialists are not necessarily across every branch of science that feeds into a full picture of past warmth. That’s why the IPCCs chapter on Palaeo is full of papers and has many authors. And we have not stood still : there have been scores of papers including ones you never look at since 1999 with many new observations. Sea level in the MWP was lower than now. While there was glacial retreat around 850/900- 1100/1150 in various places it was not as extensive as now. The RWP was warmer than the MWP in various proxies.
Today Briffa’s ‘belief’ looks far less likely.So you mislead by omission with your facetious handling of a very small bit of correspondence and avoidance of a better,fuller reading of the science now.
And you’re trying to turn Briffa’s pursuit of refined understanding and a better expressed TAR Palaeo chapter against him. If you want to compare TAR sfinal positions and references and these preliminary conversations that would be more interesting than trying to spin some myth about unresolved issues.
It was on my reading of your link hat I saw how your prejudice against Mann coloured your ‘intro’.
Briffa in 2012, still finding the MWP was as warm as today (at least in the region he was helping to analyse).
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364
At least he’s gone public with his beliefs – I guess after Climategate, he no longer feels so much pressure to tell a nice tidy story.
Duh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period. Different proxies show different results – this is not real news.
It’s a funny old line of argument from the crazies. Warm temperatures once disprove man causing warm temperatures now. All four legged mammals are cows climate pixie nonsense.
It’s a funny old line of argument from the crazies. Warm temperatures once disprove man causing warm temperatures now. All four legged mammals are cows climate pixie nonsense.
No but warm temperatures in the recent past prove current temperatures are not unprecedented, that something was causing substantial short to medium term climate shifts before anthropogenic CO2.
Given that the sun is currently experiencing, or was until recently experiencing, a solar maximum no equalled since the start of the holocene optimum http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html , I suggest there is a case for a substantial solar component to late 20th century warming.
If the solar grand maximum was a significant contributor to 20th century warming, then the case for alarmism collapses – because a substantial solar contribution would imply climate sensitivity is significantly lower than IPCC estimates, low enough such that no amount of CO2 we are ever likely to produce will create a dangerous climate shift.
Why contend about solar influence on post 1850 warming when you can actually find papers that attempt attribution/partitioning of various forcings influence.? More refs,Eric. You want to make a case,start backing it.
Re things solar,the best thing [the only good thing] about Watts is that he gets visited now and then by Dr Leif Svalgaard,who has drawn a line in the sand to shorten up the solar cranks and the wild claims there. His research page is worth a look Eric,. He presents a very well documented case for solar variation to be less than inferred over the last few thousand years.
From Eric “9TL” Worrall’s own citation, “we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”.
“so don’t give me more BS about trying to deceive people.”
But, Eric, it’s obvious that you are and always have been (not just trying to deceive people, but also being very trying).
Like other fake sceptics and disinformation merchants you cherry-pick from stolen email discussions rather than look at published research.
In your most recent cherry pick, you neglected to write that Briffa’s email was written fourteen years ago. A lot of research has been done since then, including numerous other paleo reconstructions.
Because my contention is that alarmist scientists are falsifying parts of their work – not because they don’t believe in global warming, but because they believe their mission is so important, there must be no room for doubt.
As evidence I site numerous instances of poor scientific practice – hiding declines, snipping away inconvenient data, and such like.
With regard to Briffa, here is some recent research – Briffa in 2012 stating that the Swedish high arctic was as warm during the MWP as it was in the late 20th century.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364
The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century.
Unless your theory is that a bunch of Martians fired a heatray at just that region of the Arctic, its not much of a stretch to suggest the rest of the arctic must have been pretty warm 1000 years ago as well.
That’s the point, it is a stretch.
From the wiki article, “Temperatures in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, while globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Eric is just another crank conspiracy theorist with a fixation on the medieval climate anomaly, who throws about nasty baseless accusations as part of his disinformation propaganda.
Eric will need to avoid reading this paper because it will shatter his rigid brain into tiny pieces, especially if he notices who the authors are:
Click to access 2011%20D%C3%ADaz%20et%20al.pdf
“Falsifying parts of their work…” Extraordinary charge needs extraordinary evidence…any evidence,even. I reject that charge.
‘similar’ levels…not ‘as warm as’. Margin of error is significant. They do not have that precision. Resist the temptation to overstate.
You do not have ‘numerous examples of poor scientific practice’ either.You have a couple of examples you are obsessed with,that are not actually what you think they are. Then you have an interesting view of scientific practice,uninformed by experience,and strawmanned into a purity of your own fantasy.
You do have your own state-of the-art hyperbole and overreach,though
Meanwhile I’ve showed you a bunch of North American and European observations independent of tree rings,using carbon dating, and you have ignored them. Otzi is laughing…
Hilarious – if you look at their maps, they put New Zealand into one of the MWP cold spots.
However, we have the Oroko Swamp climategate email:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3759.txt
Hi Keith, Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!).
Quite apart from the intriguing suggestion that Ed Cook’s official data has been doctored somehow to remove or at least reduce the strong MWP and LIA signals, this email shows there was substantial evidence that New Zealand was not cold – it was warm during the MWP, and cold during the LIA.
So Mann’s map is wrong, and his conclusion is dubious.
In regards to the James Martin article, you’re commenting on a post that is basically about misrepresentation and to bolster you’re argument you’ve misrepresented what James Martin actually wrote, someone uncharitable would say you’re actually lying about it. When pressed you admit Martin included in his article that this police force would be accountable to the UN. You may not believe this is sufficient, but that is wholly different from your assertion the Martin advocated the creation of an all powerful and unaccountable police force. This is extremely poor form.
Enviromental damage impacts on more than just greenies, from the Dust Bowl of the U.S to salinity issues back home, from the smog in China to arsenic contmaination of ground water in India, this affects real people, kills real people and to simply dismiss it, is to show callous disregard of human well being, the kind you usually mock.
Most people would agree, that protection of the environment world wide is pretty poor, in many places virtually non-existant. Given your humanist rhetoric, I’m suprised you don’t support Martin’s environmental police?
Your accusations that I am trying to deceive you about this are tedious.
My point was James did not give enough consideration to how the powerful agency he proposed could be held to account by the people it was supposed to protect.
If you create a powerful agency, you better have a clear idea of how you can contain it, or dismantle it, should you find it has been abusing its power.
If your local police force has done something wrong, you can complain to your newspaper or MP. If your MP doesn’t adequately address your concerns, then you can damn well vote in a new MP.
But who do you complain to if you have a grievance against a UN agency? Ban Ki-Moon? And how do you put pressure on UN officials if they refuse to adequately address your complaint?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
What’s hilarious is that Eric thinks ‘red’ means cold. Must be colour blind. (Unless he was looking at one of the maps of wet and dry areas, or modern day temperatures – which would be even more hilarious!)
Where is “the intriguing suggestion that… data… has been doctored somehow” ?? Eric,you are seeing things you want to see. The paper to be reviewed? Mann? Less well based than this Oroko data? So what? It does not say it is without basis! What do you know of the relative merits of each work? Try and put aside your Acquired Mann Derangement Syndrome,and think….
Yes there is “MWP” and LIA evidence in New Zealand ….Everybody knows that,and nobody has tried to hide it!!! One of the bits of ‘MWP’ ‘evidence’ in NZ is actually for a warm burst well AFTER the supposed MWP. Wilson et al 1979. Cook et al in 2002 finds something generally synchronous at Oroko with the European definition of MWP,but it is barely warmer than many of the following centuries and the LIA is not particularly pronounced. The error bars are big,and ‘the divergence’ renders all tree ring studies suspect for you, doesn’t it?!!! Oroko is definitely a Hockey Stick,the handle is quite flat….
In the directly observed world the major eastern valley glaciers of the NZ Alps are in very dramatic retreat from their LIA maxima which they held onto until relatively recently,longer than The Alps’ ice. The Tasman Glacier had such great mass at low altitude that it resisted retreat quite well for a while, but warming is unequivocal.
MWP? Wrong again, Eric “9TL” Worrall. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm. I feel free to use SkS as Yale feels he’s reputable.
It must be hard to move from cherry picking and quote mining to rolling up all the evidence to come to a view. But you could start.
Yet it warms.
From the wiki article, “Temperatures in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, while globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Your missing the point. Even if the MWP was cooler than today, if it was driven by solar variation, and was even say half as warm as today’s anomaly, then alarmism is dead.
Because if even half the 20th century warming was driven by the solar grand maximum, then the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is at least twice as high as it should be.
A climate sensitivity of half the IPCC estimate, 1.5c / doubling, or less than half the IPCC estimate, is simply not alarming. With a sensitivity that low, all the CO2 we are ever likely to produce will not significantly shift the climate.
No, I got your point. It’s simply not based in fact. You need to test your hypotheses. The balance of the papers do not point your way, http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm.
Why would it follow that if a past warming or cooling was driven by solar variation, greenhouse gases don’t exist?
That’s called a logical fallacy and complete nonsense – as is the rest of Eric’s post.
You’re out there making stuff up….we don’t know whether an MWP was globally synchronous yet. Really we do not. The IPCC position is still the best expressed.
‘MWP’ studies put warm periods all over the place in an only occasionally regionally synchronous way. Interhemispheric variation is great. Sea level did not change. Forget the tentative conclusions of ‘similar’ temperatures to early or late 20thC,plenty of the studies show an ‘MWP’ that was clearly cooler than present,not to mention no warmer than 1300s to 1500s events. Christ, not even LIAs are entirely similar of synchronous. ‘LIA cooling’ got under way in the late 1100s in Alaska, or 1300s an 1500s in some places and the 1700s in others
It cannot be concluded yet that the MWP and all detected variations are more than regional and occasionally hemispheric short to medium term events,while the extent of current warming is unambiguous with its synchronous and dramatic global glacial retreat.
And Eric seems to think a ‘low’ sensitivity of 1.5C/2xCO2 will not significantly shift climate!!! What have we ‘achieved’ in the Arctic with just 40% of a doubling,Eric? What have we achieved with 40/100 in the cryosphere,with Quelcaya thawing to a point not seen since 5200yBP? SLR at around 3mm/annum currently:what does that tell you about ocean response time? Do you really think you have given it the consideration of the authors of WG1?
Come on man, think!
Here’s me being uncharitable.
What’s tedious, is you being wrong and not admitting it. Your post is there and everyone can read it, you can backtrack and fumble about saying what I really meant is this and that, however, it seems clear that in order to portray Martin as some nutbag, comparable to the obscene craziness of Monckton, you lied about what he wrote in his article. Simple as that.
I’m not particularly good at analogies, however, let’s imagine some 200 odd years ago I told you that Interpol would exist, wereabouts you tell me that the local sherrif couldn’t possibly keep an eye on all those police around the world, I would then tell you that you’re stupid.
The U.N might, at the moment be a semi impotent freak show, this doesn’t mean it will always be that way. Globlization demands strong international governance, Martin obviously understands this, why don’t you?
By the way, if you have a complaint about the police, the correct course of action is to contact the Police Ombudsman, an arm of the political establishment, however politically independent. Local MPs can refer matters to the ombudsman, but otherwise have absolutely no power in regards to handling complaints about police.
Erric never admits he’s wrong, about anything.
It is amusing to compare the great fear of the UN on the one hand, and realise how hide bound, conservative and reactive it is in reality. And, often, it’s the same people complaining about both at the same time.
One single MP has no power to fire a police officer, but an MP can get some mates together and vote in parliament to fire a police chief, or install a police chief who will do a better job.
The national police are *not* completely independent – there is a buffer, to reduce the risk of one or two corrupt politicians interfering with due process, but ultimately national police are under the control of voters.
Even Interpol operates through agreements with national police – any abuse would rapidly see a change to those agreements. Interpol is in no sense senior to national police forces.
James’ plan was different – he wanted a police force with the power to intervene in the local affairs of countries, to force national governments to comply with UN directives. This would have effectively put the new proposed police force beyond democratic oversight.
Firstly, no it wouldn’t have put the police force beyond democratic oversight. Secondly, it’s not going to happen.
Lets face it. Eric is basically dishonest. On the one hand he bleats about low resolution proxy data being married with our latest high resolution data, saying that’s misleading, when in fact there is no evidence of intention to mislead; and then gives Watts a free pass when he gets his yellow highlighter out with every intention to deceive.
At least we will call out the scientific community if they don’t do the right thing, but when was the last time Eric criticised Watts or Nova et al for their blatant fraudulent activities.
Talk about being a hypocrite!
Yes ,it is an uneven exchange. The standard of ‘argument’ from rejectionists is all over the shop, consistency unheard of, self-contradiction frequent. And they don’t think others notice. A blend of demonisation [‘but,Mike Mann’] and any old thing [attracted to the sound of the ‘grand’ in Solar Grand Maximum] and sure as shit they have not read the report they reject.
They are not ‘arguing’ of course. They are bullshitting themselves because they are shitting themselves about their superannuation..
Give me an example of blatant fraud by Watts or Nova.
You don’t have to look far:Nova’s last post on eight years of temp data was fraudulent. Or better put down to incompetence? Suggesting ‘it would look like this’ if we were cooling was a lie by omission:she ignored just about every measure she could,and what should be by now general knowledge about inertia in systems.
Here is another one Eric,A blatantly fraudulent argument:
Nova is fond of an argument–an obvious false equivalence– ‘comparing’ total government spend on ‘climate-related science’ with what ‘skeptics’ and lobbyists spend on on anti-AGW PR activity. She then produces a huge figure for one and a tiny one for the other,and says ‘look how unequal the spend’,etc.
What she does not point out is that ‘climate-related science’ spending by her criteria includes rent,infrastructure,salaries,hire,cleaning,admin,outreach/PR and most significantly whole budgets spent on barely related research that may have a spin-off or indirect application in climate sci. After all,climate science is a synthesis of many disciplines: if someone got a grant on some fluid dynamics question with general application,then Nova’s broad-brush classification would count it as climate related.
Meanwhile the anti-AGW PR sector does NO pure or applied scientific research,does second hand data searching to cherry pick and produces and disseminates AGW specific briefs to credulous and/or collusive media.
So Nova is attempting to equate basic research and its costs with a PR budget…implicit in her equation is that running general and applied research at institutions is simply pro-AGW PR.
False equivalencing. That is a fraudulent argument. Also quite infantile.
Here’s another fraudulent ‘argument’,this time from WUWT just today:
Willis Eschenbach has attacked Dr James Hansen–what a surprise!!!– and accused him of wanting “..to deny cheap energy to all those folks in the bottom half of the chart above.” ‘All those folk’ being the poorer nations.
This is a fraudulent claim on several levels. Hansen has never literally said that he wants to deny those folk cheap energy. Oh,sure,it’s only rhetorical… if Hansen and realists succeeds in realistically pricing coal use [i.e. accounting for ‘externalities’] FF energy will become more expensive,you say…
Fact is,in many poor countries FF use and energy infrastructure is already too expensive,and has been for decades. Many have very limited grids,and grids that supply power unreliably or for only part of the day. So who was responsible for denying those folk ‘cheap energy’? And where is the magick economics that will make it affordable for them?
Go to Watts and you will get this kind of bullshit. In fact all kinds. Fraudulent,tendentious,inaccurate,selective,misdirecting and manipulative ‘arguments’ are all the house menu can offer.
WUWT is a fraud science site.
Cripes Eric! Are you not paying attention?
My previous post was an example! Watts ‘fact check’ of a graph of ocean temperature cherry picked a start date then extended a horizontal line to the bottom of an error bar.
This was clearly a Fake trend line hence fraudulent. When picked up on this he tried to say that it was ‘just a highlight’, but this was belied by the fact that when a later commenter said he couldn’t see a horizontal trend, Watts said ‘hint, look at the yellow line’.
Oh he meant for it to be mistaken for a trend line all right. Thats Fraud, pure & simple.
Hopefully Eric’s silences mean that he is accepting some of this in the right spirit…and not just holding his breath 😉
Hes a cyborg and hes refilling his data banks with next load of Crap from wuwt to regurgitate here
Eric, 9TL, asks for fish in a barrel. http://skepticalscience.com/oilprice-watts-interview.html
Why the silence on this Eric? We have given you plenty of examples of Fraud by these two. What say you?
Regarding Watts, here is a link you originally posted on another blog:
As was pointed out to you at the time, Watts used a FAKE trendline.
When he was rumbled on this he made the following excuses;
“REPLY: It is a highlighter marker, used to call attention to the area, like I routinely do with text. If I wanted to make a plot trend line, I would have used a plot trend line. – Anthony”
“REPLY: and again as answered previously and made clear in the story, it isn’t a trend line (though you want it to be) it is simply a yellow highlight to draw attention to the section of interest, just like I use the same highlight tool on sections of text or tables I post. – Anthony”
BUT…
“Mark Buehner says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Anthony, what’s your evidence the warming has paused? The data you present show the warming continuing.”
WATTS “It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line).”
So Watts hadn’t really intended it to be a highlight. he intended for it to be mistaken for a trend line. In fact, you yourself were taken in by this fraud, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted it.
There it is. At least one case of fraud by the esteemed Watts. Are you man enough to admit it?
It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line).”
SciAm blocks anti-science nonsense from Watts – because it’s blatant nonsense – or fraud, if you’re trying to convince someone up is down. See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/
The Sci Am link goes to a rather long and rambling post John, here is the money quote:
“I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen”
What say you Eric? Scientific American has a long and distinguished history of factual scientific reporting. The fact that they have singled out Watts for erroneous information is pretty damning. Erroneous is too kind a word though. That implies honest intentions marred by incompetence.
We would go further. Watts is not merely incompetent, he is devious, misleading and fraudulent. You obviously have been forced to agree, since you remain silent
on the issue.
The post is long, agreed. It’s aimed at moderators. Its point is that allowing charlatans to comment on your board does not forward the discussion.
Just wanted to make it easier for Eric. We know he has limited attention span and comprehension skills…. 🙂
Another example of blatant fraud from Watts.courtesy of SKS:
Here Watts claims:
“the climate of the past has been warmer than today as well as colder as indicated by ice core isotope records.”
Watts then shows a graph of (ONE!) ice core, (so not Global then! – why is it that the deniers can’t get it into their heads that local temperatures are irrelevant), and fraudulently claims that the graph shows up to the present, but actually cuts off 150 years ago, conveniently missing out on 1.5 degrees of warming. The link below shows Watt’s graph but with the extra data points added in.
Now you could argue that Watts is just incompetent, and you would have no disagreement from me, but what shows fraudulent intent is that SKS pointed this out to him and he merely deleted the comment.
Fraudulent? Anyone got a better explanation? Anyone? Eric?
Hilarious – Steve McIntyre has uncovered how Marcott fabricated his uptick.
Obviously it would have been a lot easier if Marcott’s paper was reproducible – it would have saved McIntyre a lot of analysis, to find where Marcott made his “mistake”.
Fools rush in. Watts and McIntyre appear to be saying they think earth hasn’t emerged from the LIA. Pack o’ bloody drongos!
The thing is, the Auditor is obsessively fixated on the ‘uptick’ and appears to pay scant attention to the very detailed description of the data analysis of Marcott et al, let alone show the slightest interest in the inferences of Marcott in regard to the climate changes and causes over the Holocene.
It’s an interesting paper, but deniers are only interested in the global temperature for the most recent 20 of the entire 11,300 years covered by M13.
What is also interesting is that they seem to be saying ‘it’s not warmed this past 100 years. Which is very odd, because AFAIK, they generally accepted the temperature record. Then again, so often they accept a 400-year old dutch painting as absolute proof that today’s temperature is wrong.
I’ve been reading Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians and his description of right wing authoritarians fits most of the extremist deniers. Illogical, compartmentalised thinking (‘believe’ two or more contradictory facts), dogmatic “nothing will convince me”, aren’t aware their views are minority views etc.
In the USA, the real extremists like that are only 8% of the population (a/c Yale Climate group research) so probably even less here. They think they are mainstream, which is only one of their delusions.
McIntyre is fumbling in the dark,Eric…his echo-chamber’s chortling has got you thinking he’s onto something. He’s an ‘auditor’,and you are impressionable and predisposed to believe him….step back and think.
Marcott tells us nothing we do not already know about the trajectory of Holocene climate. You need to start researching fluctuation in Holocene glaciation around the world. Lots of papers over the last forty years. Marcott has not reshaped that understanding.
You yourself will quote knowledge about the Holocene Optimum if you think it serves your argument. Records from hundreds of sites agree on an optimum and a reasonably tight date for the beginning of the insolation-driven glacial advances that continued,with brief reverses up until the LIA. They all demonstrate that recent glacial retreat is exceptionally widespread,synchronous and extreme,and counter to the insolation sign. That is basically the ‘shape’ Marcott finds with his suite of proxies,ditto Mann.
Never mind, Eric. I see in the comments some people are trying to tell McIntyre what Marcott et al described in detail. And the authors are going to provide an even simpler explanation than they did in their paper and supplementary material. A Marcott et al for dummies (eg McIntyre).
A good approach to take. Much better than getting caught up in an endless loop with moronic McIntyre, a to and fro that would tie them up for months.
From pjclarke on Shaping Tomorrow’s World.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=5&t=209&&n=159#674
pjclarke at 09:52 AM on 11 September, 2012
You’re in real trouble now, Professor. You’ve come to the attention of The Auditor. He has asked you Questions. You now have two choices:-
(1) You could assume the questions are posed in good faith, The Auditor is genuinely interested in the knowing the answers, and will make constructive and reasonable use of the information. This would be a category error. It’s like those email scams where if you respond the spammers know the address they’ve hit is real. Next thing you know there will be a second round of followup questions, and so on ad nauseum. Dr Gerald North writes:-
“This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”
Do you really want that?
(2) You ignore the questions. This will lead to a post at the Audit weblog using words like ‘stonewall’, ‘petulance’, ‘refusal’. You won’t be directly accused of malpractice or fraud, naturally, however the comments will be a playground where those with a desire to speculate about ‘What is Lewandowsky hiding?’ will be given free rein. There will then be a short hiatus during which you may think your life is getting back to normal, but then the orchestrated FOI requests for any and all emails relating to the paper will start …
Do you really want that?
There is no 3rd choice.
————————————
Except pjclarke was wrong in the second choice, McIntyre has been known to directly accuse fraud.
Andy Revkin indicates what Marcott et al are proposing, which may or may not help McIntyre because he does seem to be acting like a fish out of water.
————-
Peter Clark of Oregon State replied (copying all) on Friday, saying they’re preparing a general list of points about their study:
After further discussion, we’ve decided that the best tack to take now is to prepare a FAQ document that will explain, in some detail but at a level that should be understandable by most, how we derived our conclusions. Once we complete this, we will let you know where it can be accessed, and you (and others) can refer to this in any further discussion. We appreciate your taking the time and interest to try to clarify what has happened in our correspondence with McIntyre.
———————-
And in the light of Don Easterbrook’s ridiculous posts (and his constant misplaced reference to Alley as the ‘gold standard’) you may be interested in the comments from Alley as well.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
By ‘gold standard’ I’m referring to Don’s false attribution to Alley of a flawed drawing some denier cooked up.
Alley is indeed one of the ‘gold standards’ of paleo work.
Except pjclarke was wrong in the second choice, McIntyre has been known to directly accuse fraud.
Part of the reason alarmist climate science is in such a terrible state is everyone seems to bend over backwards to avoid challenging the findings of other scientists (unless they are “deniers”).
Even when they disagree with their findings, such as Briffa’s disagreement with Mann’s work, do they write a paper challenging their opponents? No, they keep it in house – maybe a few strongly worded emails to the club, but publicly they maintain the facade of the nice tidy story.
As for McIntyre’s reconstruction of Marcott’s work, two thoughts:-
a) If Marcott did shift the dates of his proxies, as McIntyre says he did, then he has been very naughty – especially since the shifts appear to be aimed at generating a predetermined result. That is an absolute no no in normal science. The right thing to do would have been to publish the anomalous result, then discuss why you think your analysis got it wrong.
b) McIntyre shouldn’t have had to put all this effort into attempting to reconstruct Marcott’s paper – it should have been possible to simply load the Marcott supplied data sets, run the Marcott supplied code, and generate the Marcott results. If the results differed from expectations, McIntyre should have been able to simply step through the code to discover where the anomaly occurred.
Instead McIntyre had to perform painstaking analysis to work out how to replicate the kinks in the Marcott processing of the data.
But like Phil Jones said, reviewers of climate seance papers don’t ask to see the data or code used to produce reported results – they just take the other chap’s word for it. Only busybodies like McIntyre go around actually questioning the words of the prophets.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html
Yawn.
Same old, same old, debunked a dozen times already. Are you a masochist Erric?
And where’s your plot of the 17 year flatline with error bars?
I would not put to much faith in Mcintyre being able to provide a peer reviewed paper of rebuttal,
here are a few of his that have crashed and burned
McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) “Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series” [Abs]
Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” [Abs, Full]
von Storch & Zorita (2005) “Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick” [Abs, Full]
[M&M reply]
Mann et al. (2007) “Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications” [Abs, Full]
Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
Eric and his paranoid conspiracy theories: “Keep it in-house”? Like in scientific journals rather than on denier blogs. Yes of course. If you want to refute someone’s peer reviewed findings you’ve got to do the same – subject your argument to peer review. Write a comment on the paper and get it published, or write a completely new paper.
Blog science and pseudo science as is done on WUWT and CA isn’t worth a brass razoo. (Worth no more than cherry-picked phrases from stolen emails).
Eric and his lack of science: And you haven’t read Marcott have you. ‘Being very naughty’ indeed to align the different proxy series by time. (Your as bad as the worst of the DK wattsonians with that one.)
Remember they were not just looking at one data set, they were looking at 73 independent sets. They had to allow for both age uncertainty (do the ages of the proxies line up across the series) as well as how well the proxies reflected temperature (comparing different proxies in the same area). They did standardisations and cross-checks, that you can read about in the paper and supplementary material.
“McIntyre had to perform painstaking analysis” – and from what I’ve read, he is still wide of the mark because he either hasn’t read or hasn’t understood their detailed description of how they handled the data.
He’s making wild guesses when he could have read their material and taken note of their patient response to his queries. Instead he is using his incompetence as a launching pad for deniers on his own blog (which most people avoid because of its tedium) and other anti-science blogs that deniers are attracted to. (People flock to WUWT in the same way as people prefer reading comics to reading a book with no pictures!)
“Alarmist climate science is in a terrible state” I agree. Such a terrible state that it does not actually exist. However if we remove the hysterical prefatory “alarmist”….
“Climate science” does exist and it seems quite healthy. Plenty of publications are coming forth,monitoring and observation has its limits,imposed by funding,personnel commitment an etc. It’s not all essential reading and sure there are some misfires. Other fields are any different?
As for disagreement and challenge,I would not rely on your obviously limited readings to form a judgement. I’ve seen plenty of discussion that details disagreement politely and firmly,and with detail. What do we want: email style snark? Attracted to the colour but missing the substance much?
McIntyre has invited himself to look at Marcott et al 2013. Plenty of snark for his gallery. Not much more than the usual huffing and puffing.
“McIntyre shouldn’t have too etc…” He does not have to do anything. McIntyre can please himself. Perhaps shut up and go through it carefully…is that too much to ask? The data is available. If he’s going to question it,he’d better bloody take pains to do it or we end up with Wattsing around,don’t we?
McIntyre has a huge backlog of auditing work to do,why has he suddenly got interested in this paper? Because he hated the publicity it got? Who gives a shit really?
Another blogger [Nick Stokes @Moyhu] has done a quick limited emulation of the whole thing. Seems pretty OK,though the uptick at the end scares some. Haven’t heard him complaining,or sycophantic complaints on his behalf. Hey,there’s nothing really wrong with this paper,it is backed by much other research. The shape of the Holocene is well known from numerous proxies.and we know from instrumental observation that the uptick now is enormous relatively speaking….human knowledge didn’t exactly cry out for Marcott et al 2013,but it’s here and let’s stay calm.
I tried to tell ya…
Eric, 9TL, wraps up today’s fish in yesteryear’s non-news. Climate science is robust. Denialism is in retreat, hence the shrieking.
Yet it warms. http://skepticalscience.com//pics/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201302.png
I think Marcott et al would be disgusted by Eric’s comment “…instead McIntyre had to perform painstaking analysis…”
The researchers are the ones who put in the hard yards. McI did no ‘painstaking analysis’.
Not just Marcott et al, either. The people who did the toughest work were the ones who travelled the world, possibly even risked their lives – who knows. They collected the samples that provided each of the 73 proxies. Then there were all the other people who worked with them on the initial dating and analysis. Scientists and technicians. Then came Marcott and his team who spent years doing further work.
McI has spent a few hours at most. That’s what he does. He trades on years of work of the dozens (at least) of people who’ve contributed to this knowledge – all to collect accolades from deniers and appease the idiots at WUWT and CA and other silly blogs. Not one word of credit or acknowledgement that he gets all this for free and without having to break a sweat.
People like him deserve no respect at all. They are beneath contempt.
Just think, McI could contribute to knowledge if he wanted to. But he doesn’t. He’s a doubt merchant, a fake skeptic – cut from the same cloth as the professional disinformers.
“People like him deserve no respect at all. They are beneath contempt.”
He is respected by only by wilfully ignorant morons.That is hardly a feather in his cap. The scientific community certainly don’t respect him. He’s a joke.
I love it when you talk about how science should or shouldn’t be done. Allow me to offer my services to you as an app developer. I know nothing about it but I am certain I can do it better than you.
The Cheerleaders seem to have skipped the review phase. Again. Odds are very good it’ll be McIntyre with the mistake…again.
A link for Erric: http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/statistical-significance-the-simple-one/
Eric on copying: load the Marcott supplied data sets, run the Marcott supplied code, and generate the Marcott results
What would that show? Nothing at all. What a real scientist would do would be to do an independent analysis and see if there are discrepancies, just like Marcott et al did compared to Mann et al and others.
I can give you data and code and you can get exactly the same results as me. You’d have proved nothing. You’d not know a) if the data was flawed or not; or b) if the code was faulty or not or c) if the analysis was fundamentally sound or not or d) any combination of a, b and c.
McIntyre has shown his incompetence on more than one occasion. Has he ever attempted to point out the flaws in any of the questionable papers in E&E for example? Why wasn’t he raging over the silly McLean, Carter et al paper that got into a decent journal?
Tamino, on the other hand, is prepared to look at any paper that he thinks might have less than adequate statistical analysis. McI just wants to harass scientists, slow or stop their research by sending and inciting frivolous FOI attacks, and foment doubt among the denialati. If anyone outside the blogosphere had ever heard of him he’d try to influence them as well.
Exactly. McIntyre’s schtick is obvious and partisan. Bad faith operator. Surely he can see the corner he’s backed himself into?
The thing is the paper and supplement go into exquisite detail of their methodology. McI has ignored it or doesn’t understand it. If the former it shows bad intent if the latter his incompetence.
Let the experts have their time. Who knows, McIntyre might even be correct. Granted, his track record is poor, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre, “The McIntyre factor is the amount that you have to multiply the size of an adjustment in the GISS US temperatures by to get the number of words in the resulting Steve McIntyre post. Empirical evidence puts the McIntyre factor at 125,000.”
“He might even be correct”…indeed he might. I doubt it is material or anything more than trivial. Will choices in handling end data really add or subtract to the sum of knowledge on the Holocene?
This paper is just one in a vast library in one field of science,developed from person years of field work and data extraction,huge amounts of cross-disciplinary fertilisation on method, and the experience and knowledge to meaningfully present it. If you want to challenge monolithic sector knowledge you need to work through a meta-analysis of procedures and you need to be a polymath with staff.
Is this posturing supposed to be some substitute for real work. Nah. Doubt is their product.
“He might be correct”, but the odds are, of course, slim. Of course his analysis hasn’t been subjected to any review. But Eric got his pom-poms out along with the rest of the cheerleaders. They keep declaring the hockey stick dead – and keep finding they’re wrong. They can’t handle the truth so shout “conspiracy!” Yet the only conspiracies are theirs…
It might be McI’s found some irregularities produced by some of the data processing. You wonder how many studies in all disclipines involving large swathes of data have a bit of junk in them here and there,and does it matter? Obviously in some cases yes,in others no or little effect. As I’ve said before the physical basis of Holocene knowledge has many lines of support,and data handling pedantry is a diversion in that context.. But that’s his modus,never mind it only makes his targeting choices more obviously motivated.
I really cannot stomach the man’s approach. He has made many errors himself that he has refused to admit: quote mining,false accusations,misrepresenting the ‘hide the decline’ issue, actually already possessing data that he continued to demand tedious snark and his bungled analysis of MBH. The whole construct of pushing for higher standards is a pose. I don’t expect him to police and counsel his fellow travellers often,but once or twice would be good for credibility,no?
On the other hand a calmer character like Stokes at Moyhu will work at it with genuine interest and no ‘audit’ baggage.
McIntyre seems to have finally decided it’s worth reading the paper to see what the researchers actually did. Took him a while though.
David Rose daily mail scam graph
The actual IPCC graph
Data Sets
He’s amazing isn’t he? Apparently,he’s a journalist.
He writes fairy tales for the uneducated right, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/12/08/207156/daily-mail-david-rose-destroys-his-credibility-error-riddled-climate-science-reporting/
‘Bishop Hill’ presented Rose as an ‘expert’ when introducing the members of an expert panel having a wee debate with old Dick Lindzen. Snort.
Phil Plait, Bas Astronomer, takes on David Rose, poor journalist in http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html
Yep, Rose serves up a truckload of dumb to order for the Daily Fail. He is known as the guy who interviews scientists and then can’t remember what they actually told him. I remember the misquoting of Dr Mojib Latif years ago,that was Rose.
Then we have people who complain that scientists are advocates,but fail to notice the template that these tabloids use.
They tack the aggrieved David Bellamy on for even more misdirection which boils down to ‘The Met Office invented climate change to get me sacked from the BBC’. Whatever it takes…
Bellamy could well have been sacked for being an anti-science whack job. Denying climate change is count 1. Advocating homeopathy is count 2. You can’t say someone is a scientist who doesn’t understand Avogadro’s number.
The reality is less prosaic. Bellamy complained in November 2008 that his dissent from global warming has resulted in rejection for his BBC TV programme ideas. However…Bellamy stopped making television programmes in 1994, some ten years before his first public statement showed scepticism about climate change.
Watts mass debating himself
No wonder he misdirects,he’s an idiot. The only mildly interesting thing about Watts is figuring out how much is deliberate and how much is accidental misdirection. Therefore whether he is to be more pitied than scorned…
AT WUWT
Gary Pearse says:
March 17, 2013 at 8:46 am
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
“Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade”
You can imagine how long this method would have lasted if it didn’t leave significant warming over the past decade. Also, note this is 2009! It gives a sense of the panic that these charlatans must be feeling after almost 5 more years of no warming. I think we should be going with something stronger than “travesty” by now. Kevin Trenberth is getting near retirement age – he doesn’t have long to make the shift…
I note the link to RealClimate’s graph done by Gavin S. to debunk Monckton’s view of it has disappeared: Monckton’s “deliberate manipulation” must have borne itself out.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktonsdeliberate-
manipulation/).
Oh we have a big mess to clean up after these guys
SO did it disappear or is Gary a moron?
Moron
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
he removed part of the url
They won’t be cleaning up any mess,they’re too busy making it!
Wigley’s second suggestion manifested as Foster and Rahmstorf,and an elegant paper that was.
Monckton is reduced to picking fights in Tasmania to get some bums on seats
Only the loonies left
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/the-mini-ice-age-has-arrived.html
I keep thinking I should archive these pages because of the sheer batshit craziness of them with the thought that in 10 years time when warming has continued unabated I can go back and remind these idiots of their ridiculous positions. I’m sure it wouldn’t be too difficult to go back through TCS archives and find a few David Archibald predictions for 2 degree drops in temps this year but I don’t think its actually worth it. Surely the fence sitting lurkers can see how ridiculous these people are? TCS though are irrelevant. They poll less than the sex party and the informal vote and as more and more people feel first hand the effects of global warming and as the angry old men in that party start pegging out they will be swept even further aside and nobody will remember them.
We have a local member who often pops up in the letters to the editor section.
will stuff this up his reccy
Speak of the devil Leon Ashby TCS has a letter in today’s paper, great opportunity to ask him about the mini ice age we are now in..
will put up after it goes in the paper ( if it goes in)
“Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release. ”
I won’t hold my breath about what kind of mail will be chosen and put forward. But this is a great opportunity to impress me for once, and correct the opinion I hold on so-called skeptics after careful observation over the years.
But again, predicting what will be used will not be that hard. Morano is unlikely to resist, for example.
As watts has done before, takes the high moral ground and then does a reverse pike with twist,
how long before he releases the code?
A week,
funny, they are all on the back foot at the moment over some legal sounding email
good article
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4584296.html
the comments at unleashed are always entertaining
lets see if johnm and geoff from the climate sceptics turn up
The billy goat plum is a beautiful tree similar to the sea almond
They are calling it The Kakadu plum or ‘gubinge’ in the opinion piece
The silence from Eric has been deafening lately. Maybe he has taken on board the examples of fraudulent behaviour from his climate heroes which we gave him? Perhaps, as a result, he is going through some existential crisis?
One can but hope…. Far more likely, he has no answer and is feverishly searching denialist blogs for some other nugget he can throw in to distract attention. Typical denialist modus operandi, when hit with a clear factual smack down, never discuss, never admit you are wrong, just regurgitate the next meme thrown up by the deniosphere…
If wishes were Debunker, pigs would fly. Eric I think is out downloading garbage into his teenie little cyborg brain ready to disseminate in his manner. Meanwhile he is being deceptive over at WTFIWWAW http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/cant-help-themselves/
if wishes were wings. I thought it but forgot to type it lol
Climategate 3.0 is no longer Wattsawasteoftime’s sticky post of the week. 200K stolen emails, dozens of trawling deniers and nothing to be found. The freak show is over, folks, nothing to be seen here.