• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Reality Check said:
What he got was an explanation about why Real Climate is just as much a Warmer porn site as Climate Audit ia a Denier porn site.

That specific article is quite clear why the "hide the decline" remark was a bad choice to describe what actually happened - a bad caption for the diagram that was produced.

Wrangler:
That PDF has nothing at all to do with your original question about the papers. It is an fairly denier biased analysis of the stolen emails, e.g. it links to Climate Audit (does this make it a Denier porn PDF :rolleyes:).
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed and responded when you shoved at him what he had just said he didn't want. If it wasn't robotically obsessive comedic the irritating myopic blindness of certainty of a True Believer might show through.

Let's just go back to playing Hide the Decline, shall we? Here's how we play. How about the Hide the Decline in the prestige and authority of the IPCC game?

What's the latest?

Lies from the IPCC discovered about the (non) alarming problems of the Amazon Rain Forest?
 
lomiller said:
Please, enough of your science hatred. The only bias realclimate has is they are scientists. I suppose to someone like you who views science as the enemy this qualifies as biased, but it’s not an argument anyone but political ideologues are going to listen to.
Click to expand...
Translating:

We gonna shove this RC climate porn at you, Chump, whether you like it or not!
 
lomiller said:
Please, enough of your science hatred. The only bias realclimate has is they are scientists. I suppose to someone like you who views science as the enemy this qualifies as biased, but it’s not an argument anyone but political ideologues are going to listen to.
Click to expand...

Science hatred? Interesting.

What I do understand is that realclimate is paid for by scientists who are in the field, it is self promoting, it rejects ideas that do not follow the party line, and as I say is a porn site for warmer ideologists.

We might say too that Climate Audit is a porn site for the denier - I ignore both as a source of information (generally) as neither can be ultimately trusted with the truth; they both have an agenda.
And, at the end of the day that is the bottom line here and (in part my point), neither of these sources can be trusted; neither are impartial.

So, please find other sources to use, rather than peddle your porn here.

Fair enough?
 
mhaze said:
Yes, I noticed and responded when you shoved at him what he had just said he didn't want. If it wasn't robotically obsessive comedic the irritating myopic blindness of certainty of a True Believer might show through.

Let's just go back to playing Hide the Decline, shall we? Here's how we play. How about the Hide the Decline in the prestige and authority of the IPCC game?

What's the latest?

Lies from the IPCC discovered about the (non) alarming problems of the Amazon Rain Forest?
Click to expand...
You really cannot understand that the "hide the decline" email was about making a pretty graph can you, mhaze?

Here is something that will shock you from the "irritating myopic blindness of certainty of a True Believer":
I agree - The IPCC report lied about the Amazon Rain Forest.

Wow that was irritating :rolleyes:!
Wow that was blind :rolleyes:!
Wow that was myopic :rolleyes:!

Wow that was a really silly statement from you when you have no idea what I believe. It coule almose be a kneejerk reaction from a global warming denier projecting their own weaknesses onto others.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Start here and follow the links
Click to expand...

BD7, thanks for the links...some appear to be redundant, but most have good info.

....however, it was stated earlier (by Alfie, maybe) that the "trick" issue in the CRU e-mails was a bit of subterfuge by the scientists.

What I am looking for is a description of the data handling "trick" in the original published paper in Nature, or something published about the same time by the same authors that details the data handling.

The first Realclimate link you posted has a bit of information about the paper:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
Click to expand...

I can find no reference to the bolded and highlighted description in the MBH 1998 Nature paper, but I might be missing it. Perhaps the whole paper is detailing the reconstruction "trick"?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Science hatred? Interesting.

What I do understand is that realclimate is paid for by scientists who are in the field, it is self promoting, it rejects ideas that do not follow the party line, and as I say is a porn site for warmer ideologists.

We might say too that Climate Audit is a porn site for the denier....
Click to expand...
Except that McIntyre is on the record on multiple ocassions on the question of whether AGW is warming the planet as saying:

"I don't know".

Thus it seems to apply the word "Denier" we must assume that Warmers want to use the phrase "Denier" to mean "People who don't agree 100% with the WARMER VIEWPOINT OF THE MOMENT ".

But we knew that.
 
mhaze said:
No, actually that neither is a splice, nor does it involve dissimilar data sets.

As I mentioned, it is simply the method used and that's understood.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a splice. How do you not have a "splice" when you drop one company's stock price from your data-set and add another?

And yes of course it involves "dissimilar data sets." By what bizarre denier logic do you say that the stock price of a railway company is the "same" data set as the stock price of a sugar company?

It's hilarious to see that the deniers inability to think clearly replicates itself at every single level of debate.

If you think some kind of fraud was perpetrated, produce the paper which contained the fraud. The fact that all you've got is a couple of emails that you have to consistently and blatantly misinterpret in order to make them seem vaguely disquieting makes it abundantly clear that you've got no case whatsoever.
 
Ben, that blogger almost got it right.

Mann has been cleared of 3 of 4 "questions" (the most sigificant three, I think); what remains is the verdict of a second panel convened to determine whether is behaviour undermined public faith in climate science.

How they will determine that is anyone's guess.

ETA: Here is the actual findings document, a good read.

Specifically, the fourth question to be answered is explained as such in the findings document (bolding is theirs):

Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.
Click to expand...

All in all, it seems like due diligence is being served.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
BD7, thanks for the links...some appear to be redundant, but most have good info.

....however, it was stated earlier (by Alfie, maybe) that the "trick" issue in the CRU e-mails was a bit of subterfuge by the scientists.

What I am looking for is a description of the data handling "trick" in the original published paper in Nature, or something published about the same time by the same authors that details the data handling.

The first Realclimate link you posted has a bit of information about the paper:

I can find no reference to the bolded and highlighted description in the MBH 1998 Nature paper, but I might be missing it. Perhaps the whole paper is detailing the reconstruction "trick"?
Click to expand...
Hi Wangler, in case bobdroege7 does not get back to you for a while:
The neat trick is how to create a nice graph (I forget which one it is in the MBH 1998 Nature paper).

The temperatures derived from the MXD tree ting data in Briffa et al 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682) diverge from the instrumental temperatures from 1960 onwards. This is noted by the authors and they recommend not to use this diverging data.

"Mike’s Nature trick" is to follow the recommendation and not plot the data. Instead they plot the instrumental data from 1960 onward. This is to indicate the warming trend that shows up in the instrumental temperatures. That should be mentioned in the caption to the figure but is not. The bad aspect of this mislabeled graph is that it was used in the 2001 IPCC report without updating the caption.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
He is being investigated by his own staff?:eek:
Are these not the same (type) people who peer reviewed it in the first place? Is not their reputation also on the line?:rolleyes:

Is nothing in this field independant?:confused::boggled:
Click to expand...
He is being investigated by his own university :eye-poppi
There are the same type of people who peer review papers in science. Their reputation is not on the line.

Is everything in this field independent ?:confused::boggled:
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Nothing that you parrotted makes sense RC.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the post I parotted made sense either.
But seriously:
  • He is being investigated by his own university. The reason for this is because the university are the only ones can take any action, e.g. fire him.
    It would have been better if the university had spent the money and time to find an outside group to investigate. You would have to ask Penn State U why they did not.
  • The university staff are the same type of people who peer review papers in science. Their reputation is not on the line by reviewing his actions.
  • Most things in fields of science are independent, e.g. individual scientists, teams, universities, research facilities, etc. That includes climate science.
ETA
The report from the first enquiry in case you missed it.
RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann (PDF)
 
Last edited:
Thanks, RC.

It appears that the scientists were not purposefully trying to be secretive, evasive or disengenuous when applying the "trick".
 
Text of the key finding from the report re the "trick":

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Click to expand...

But they used the word "trick"!!!! No one uses the word "trick" unless they're evil!!!!
 
Yoink said:
Text of the key finding from the report re the "trick":



But they used the word "trick"!!!! No one uses the word "trick" unless they're evil!!!!
Click to expand...

Especially key because of magicians. Obviously magicians are evil, because they do magic 'tricks' and anyone associated with them is evil too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom