That does not accurately describe McIntyre's assertions about Mann and Jones. One key is the exaggeration "all" ("all climate data", "all science journals").
I wasn't responding to McIntyre, I was responding to your words, which were
By cherry-picking tree rings, "adjusting" thermometer measurements, and skewing the peer-review process, Mann, Jones, and their friends sabotaged the feedback process.
"Skewing the peer-review process" to "sabotage the feedback process" does imply that Mann, Jones "and their friends" (no names?) can indeed dictate to
all journals and all rival scientists what data they can use. In reality, a tree-ring sequence doesn't become unacceptable because Mann didn't use it in his original reconstruction and Jones can't dictate what data research groups gather (paying for it if necessary) and process. They don't have any oversight of peer-review around the world.
Something McIntyre
has told you is that Mann cherry-picked tree-ring data in his original reconstruction to get the result he did. That accusation has a long history, McIntyre has never presented any valid evidence for it, and, of course, the Mann
et al reconstruction has been confirmed many times over by unrelated research groups in a number of countries using entirely new data and different (but valid) statistical methods.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the deliberately manipulated reconstruction which you believe in has turned out to be essentially correct? Doesn't this throw some doubt on McIntyre's cherry-picking accusation?
As for adjusting temperature records (something else I expect you got from McIntyre), the BEST program used raw data. It seems the adjustments are not to blame for global warming.
He offers abundant evidence. For example, why, as the aggrieved party in Mann and Jones denial of data, did neither the Muir Russell inquiry into Jones nor the Penn State investigation into Mann contact McIntyre?
Because they were investigating accusations that the stolen emails revealed data manipulation and academic misconduct. They were not about McIntyre's FoI campaign. His accusations (along with all the others) were what prompted the investigations. All investigations have concluded that the accusations are without foundation - which they are.
McIntyre wasn't trying to get emails with his FoI campaign.
Why did not Muir Russell, charged with investigating, among other issues, Jones' email deletions, ask Jones about deleting emails?
I rather doubt that was in the inquiry's remit : do you have a source for that?
Of course that has nothing to do with McIntyre's FoI campaign, which is anyway
sooooo last decade. Now he has the data and he doesn't want it.
1. That's at issue. You presume the conclusion.
It's not at all at issue : Mann and Jones are highly-respected scientists who have done (and are doing) great work with many colleagues. McIntyre is clinging to his glory days, when he made made himself an hero by promoting Mann as a villain. The "broken hockey-stick", that's what got him from nontentity to internet star.
2. Yes. And to various writers for science magazines.
I think you misunderstand what "ad hominem" means. Trash-talking does not an ad hominem make. An ad hominem argument would be, for instance, refusing to consider science because you regard the scientist behind it as fraudulent.
McIntyre, and the denial machine he's a prominent part of, has
always depended on ad hominem arguments. Make the issue personal and attack the person.
3. Based on what example of his observable behavior? Link?
Try his website. He makes no secret of his nature.
4. I guess that "proprietary" excuse is no longer operable, huh?
When its value has expired. You should realise that all of this is about things which happened years ago.
5. It always has and always will.
You may well have grown up with the idea that it's quite normal for climate change to be a pervasive issue in political life. This is actually quite a new phaenomenon. As recently as the 70's nobody talked about climate change - they talked about the weather, of course (we Brits more than most), but climate has always been a given.
Ther reason why climate change has become of ever-increasing interest over the last thirty years is that it
ain't normal.
If anything, it's people who manipulated the data to eliminate the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age who deny climate change.
No such things have occurred. McIntyre's told you that they have, but I think we all know what that's worth, don't we?
Mann
et al's early reconstruction did not conceal the LIA, it simply showed it to be less impressive than people who'd never made any reconstructions desired. The LIA was meant to show that rapid climate change such as we're experiencing
has always happened. Nothing to see here, move along. It was backed up by paintings of Frost Fairs and some really sub-standard history half-remembered from school. Washington's triumph at Trenton, that sort of thing. After some digging an exotic orchard in China was thown out there.
It's always struck me as amusing that AGW deniers assign so much climate influence to historic events when they're searching for evidence of the LIA/MWP/RWP while denying that it could possibly matter at all in the modern world. It demonstrates a familiar flexibility of mind.
The Medieval Warm Period was latched onto later (it has no connection with US history classes, but some people have nothing better to do than dig), and again does show up in reconstructions which go back that far. It's noteworthy that vulcanism in the latter 10thCE was unusually low, and this extended into the early 12thCE at least. A similar situation has obtained since the turn of the 20thCE. This has a warming influence insofar as it removes a
cooling influence (from ash and sulphates mostly). The influence stops when the cooling influence disappears, which it does over a few decades. Those long summers of the 20's and 30's, cricket and cream-teas on the lawn, were very much of the MWP.
It's warmer now, and something's causing it. My money's on a cause which was not only predicted but is also based on the laws of physics.
.
