The Barton letters have occasioned an active debate in blogworld. Here are some links to some of the more active discussions. I’ll add others as they come to my attention as well as some blog comments without chats. Some of the links have a list of outbound topical links as well.
Many posters do not distinguish between the PC codes for tree ring which are on Mann’s FTP site and the code for the rest of the calculation, which Mann has refused to provide. We are obviously aware of the code on the site, since we published an article discussing it and specifically cited the URL. I’ve made this distinction on several occasions in very specific terms, but many blog posters have failed to make this distinction. As far as I’m concerned, the problems with the code which we’ve been able to examine demonstrate that the rest of the code needs to be examined as well. Tim Lambert has written in to say that, even though Mann has not provided his source code, Mann has provided his “algorithm”.
Why should anyone be content with Mann’s verbal summary of his methods, when the verbal summary has been demonstrated to be unreliable when compared to actual code in the case of the tree ring PC calculations, when series said to have been used have not been used and when undisclosed extrapolations material to 15th century results have been misrepresented? Lambert’s position is contradicted by Mann’s own explicit statement to the Wall Street Journal that he would not be “intimidated” into releasing his algorithm.
Lambert’s explanation for this (see posting below) is that the Wall Street Journal either misquoted Mann or that Mann got mixed up. I will bet Lambert that Regalado did not misquote Mann on such a sensitive point. To give an example of the degree of Regalado’s fact-checking, Regalado cross-checked with McKitrick that the picture that I sent him was actually a picture of me. (Update: It may amuse readers to contrast a comment of Lambert’s at this blog with his posts here. At this blog, he says:
I have never said that Mann has released all of his code. He has, however, released the data, the algorithm, and some of the code. Perhaps McIntyre is unable to fathom the disticntion between “code” and “algorithm”.
When asked about this in post #53 below, his exact words were:
“code” and “algorithm” mean different things. An algorithm is a method for doing a computation, while code is an implementation of an algorithm in some programming language. The WSJ either misquoted Mann, took something out of context, or Mann mixed the two things up.
Myself, I think that Lambert is trying to make a distinction without a difference. But did anyone see Lambert say:
“Perhaps Mann is unable to fathom the distinction between “code” and “algorithm.
I didn’t think so.
Also one more time, Wahl and Ammann have not replicated anything that we had not already done. They have emulated Mann and their emulation of the RPCs using same assumptions was identical to mine to 10 decimal places, as I reported here previously. Wahl and Ammann do NOT replicate many aspects of MBH98 calculations and do NOT report on any of the specific issues noted in the Barton letters. Most posters don’t seem to understand the difference between publishing an article in a journal and highlighting your own journal articles in your capacity as an IPCC author. Vranes gets close to this point, but doesn’t follow it through to its logical conclusion. Anyway here’s some discussions – some friendly, some unfriendly.
JREF: Science forum JREF: Politics forum
UK Weatherworld discussion group
Debunkers Kevin Vranes at Prometheus Outside the Beltway
David Appell 1
David Appell 2
Tim Lambert 1
Tim Lambert 2
Chris Mooney
escribe discussion group
[note: edited slightly on July 6, 2005 and again on July 24, 2005]
Real Climate; EGU ; AAAS; Nature; Distinguished Scientists; Crowley in EOS; House Science Committee; Henry Waxman
Climate Audit 
103 Comments
I can add a couple more:
JREF: Science forum and JREF: Politics forum
Opinion seems divided with most people accepting that the methodology needs to be fully disclosed but some baulking at the Committee’s request for CVs, funding sources and other bureaucratic stuff. “Why the intrusion?” appears to be a common refrain (although some people seem to have answered this at length)
One poster pointed out that its not just the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that’s involved, but also members (including the Chairman) from the ominously sounding “SubCommittee on Oversight and Investigations”
I wonder if “why the intrusion?” were to come up if funding questions were asked of Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, etc, instead of MB&H.
I am not so sure that the request for CVs and funding sources is “bureaucratic”. I also am not sure that it is hostile to MBH or intrusive. In the academic world, CVs and funding sources are integral to establishing the scientists’ credentials. If the committee had not asked for these, I suspect that it would have been criticized for ignoring the usual standards by which academic careers are judged. The bottom line of the investigation is that if the work is excellent and the authors have nothing to hide they can only benefit from the process. In fact, they should welcome the opportunity to show the doubters they had the analysis correct all along and the criticisms are totally unwarranted.
I also reject complaints that such an inquiry is unreasonable because investigating the validity of scientific hypotheses should be left to scientists. Once the science has been used to support public policies that are potentially extremely costly, politicians have a responsibility to ensure that the likely benefits are commensurate with the likely costs. Governments that have signed on to the Kyoto Protocol without a thorough independent investigation of the science are the ones that have behaved irresponsibly.
Just thought I would keep this up to date –
"The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of climate proxy-data used in the reconstruction. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented to examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analysis via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analysis of principle component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction of 1998 is highly robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed temperatures are demonstrated to be virtually unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region (both in terms of the time period used to "center" the proxy data before PC calculation and the way the PC calculations ‘are done), as long as the full information in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for this criterion. Also, recent "corrections" to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is appropriate for the early 15th century (~ +0.05°), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our new reconstructions are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced downward magnitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400-1900, suggesting that from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses may be smaller than those reported in other recent work. "
Steve: This is the abstract from the Wahl and Ammann submission to Climatic Change. I discussed Wahl and Ammann at length in several postings in May which I urge you to consult. The Wahl and Ammann submission to GRL has been rejected. Wahl and Ammann emulate a few steps of MBH98, but do not replicate the entire study and cannot reproduce MBH results other than at an approximate level. Their emulation is almost identical to ours: thus every point that we’ve made about replication stands as originally asserted. They are close associates of Mann and not independent.
John A, opinion not that divided overall. Most people seem reasonably convinced this a politically inspired witch hunt and that Mann has already published all of the data and information that he needs to. Many seem convinced (sigh) that the ftp site has all of his code, and that W&A have successfully replicated MBH98. The usual f*wits like Dano are trolling as is their wont.
What is amazing that on one blog (one of the Mannians), climate sceptics are equated to Lysenko. Strange twist of logic and confirms the fact that the Mannians seem impervious to rational argument. Doesn’t say much for the education systems that spawned these commentators.
Re #3, and the cost of doing nothing isn’t potentially extremely costly?
Why don’t the costs of doing something ever include the benifits of prolonging the time we have oil? Or the benifits of not having all our energy provided by non renewable sources? Or the benifits of anthro climate change being moderated and thus the upheavals to agriculture likewise? Or the costs of the risk (for the sake of argument I’l just call it a small risk) of climate change exceeding the dangerous (from a feedback pov) 2-3C?
Politicians have a responsibility to ensure that the likely benefits are commensurate with the likely costs…of doing nothing – surely? Remember, ALL the measure of global temperature are now coming into line following the revisioms to the S&C data.
#6. Ah yes, the latest revisions to the satellite data. The most precisely measured data available and it is being constantly “revised”.
On the other hand, the ocean data and land based station measures, open to much more imprecision and urban heat effects are apparently as accurate as any temperature data could ever hope to be. gee whizz
I (partially) agree with Peter Hearnden for once. If “Politicians have a responsibility to ensure that the likely benefits are commensurate with the likely costs…of doing nothing” then this would eliminate the stupidity of the “precautionary principle” being applied to things with obvious benefits. On the other hand, with weak evidence, like for anthropogenic global warming (when an effect is small enough to get lost in the uncertainty, or can only be produced by computer programs, then the evidence is weak) then the cost of not doing anything isn’t readily estimated.
Pressure of work has kept me away from this site for some weeks but last nights incredible BBC Newsnight feature on contrarians has brought me back. It was by far the most partisan BBC programme ever. Why was all the bile heaped upon us poor sceptics? Now I see. President Bush does not plan to be humiliated by our Tony next week and has been keeping his powder dry.
Re#6
And just what is the benefit of prolonging the time we have oil? Perhaps it’s extending the time Arab terriorists have ready sources of unlimited funding? Or the length of time renewable energy sources have to stay in the background because they’re still not cheap enough to be profitable? Or perhaps it’s just that you’re expecting a nuclear war any time now which will put us all back in the caves, and we’ll need it to start the neo-industrial age?
Re # 10. A nice re working of the ‘you lot want to send us back to the stone age’ insult Dave. Care to address my points, or was that the best you have?
Re#7, Amazing! Not so long ago, Paul, the S&C satellite temperature record was *the* data used by sceptics to doubt agw (see for instance the webpages of the late John Daly). Now, when their record starts to show warming in line with others, all of a sudden they are wrong. So, when they didn’t find warming they were right (and hero’s), when they find warming they are wrong (and shown contempt, at least by you). Funny that, it’s almost as if it’s not data that matters to but data that shows what you want it to show…
Mr. McIntyre, you haven’t addressed the issue of whether Barton’s requests are legitimate. If you believe they are, one way you could move the process forward is to voluntariy post what your answers to questions 1-4 (shown on Chris Mooney’s site) would be.
Steve: I don’t understand what privilege relative to the House Committee is held by the IPCC, the NSF or IPCC authors. I was not an IPCC author. I don’t see why I should respond to questions from Chris Mooney, who does not acknowledge our work. Nevertheless, I don’t see anything objectionable in any of the questions.
1. I don’t happen to have an up-to-date c.v., but would certainly provide one if asked. I don’t see that this should be a problem for Mann et al., as Mann, for example, has a c.v. on his website and can hardly claim confidentiality if he’s made it publicly available. I’m sure that his c.v. would need a little updating, but I’m sure that won’t be a problem for any of them. As to the articles, here are our articles:
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003), Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series, Energy and Environment, 14, 751– 771.
McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, (2005a), Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance, Geophys. Res. Let., 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.
McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005b), The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications, Energy and Environment 16, 69-99.
No funding was received for any of them.
2. None. CEI/George Marshall Institute paid for some travel expenses to Washington in relation to presentations, but I did not receive any honoria for these presentations.
3. Not applicable.
4. We have answered any inquiries about our methods on a prompt and cordial basis. Auxiliary material is available at:.
McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] . The archive is at http://www.climate2003.com/SI.MM03.htm
(a) to my knowledge, yes. At least one researcher has used the code for cticial examination. (b) October 2003; (c) October 2003 at McKitrick’s webpage and in the publication; d) several hyperlinks have been edited; (e) to my knowledge, information is fully available.
McIntyre and McKitrick [2005a]. The archive is at ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750.
(a) to my knowledge, yes. At least one researcher has worked through the code. (b) concurrent with publication in February 2005; (c) in the publication itself; (d) none; (e) to my knowledge, information is fully available.
McIntyre and McKitrick [2005b]. The archive is at http://www.climate2003.com/data/MM05.EE and http://www.climate2003.com/scripts/MM05.EE. (a) to my knowledge, yes. At least one researcher has used the code. (b) March 2005; (c) in the publication itself; (d) none; (e) ito my knowledge, information is fully available
Mann has many more publications, but these questions are simply clerical. As I mentioned above, I’m not an IPCC author and did not, in the capacity of an IPCC author, highlight or promote my own journal articles. Quite different considerations apply to me than to MBH. However, I don’t think that any of these questions are intrusive to an IPCC author or to a recipient of federal fund, whose work has been used for social policy, and who has stated publicly that he will not be "intimidated" into disclosing his algorithm.
Re#9
The BBC has been rabid for about three days now. When they start talking about how London is soon to be awash… With respect to Blair, it’s Mann that walks the dog, not Bush.
re#11
Your points weren’t addressed to me. But they’re all varients of “Why are you still beating your wife?”
One of your points implied that there are benefits to extending the time large amounts of oil are available. I want to know what you consider those benefits to be. You, apparently, want to change the subject.
Peter,
Which points would they be?
As I see it this site is about auditing. It seems that the White House has finally figured out that the numbers may not add up and at last we may start to see a return to more careful scrutiny of the science underpinning policy. If the precautionary principle has any validity at all it must require that we only act on fully verified calculations.
Mr Schmidt, your turn now, what sources of funding do you receive from the public purse for any of your activities, your cv please, all your work archives, published please and fully available. Who has audited your work or attempted replication. Failure to answer is sheer hypocrisy, thank you.
Next, Chris Mooney perhaps
Steve V
Ok the Iraq war was a cheap shot. But, lets assume for arguments sake that one of the principal reasons for the war is to ensure oil supplies. How much more use would that money have been invested in renewable energy research so the west is less reliant on oil. Even if the rise in CO2 has zero effect on temperature we know it is going to upset ecosystems in unpredictable ways because of the fertilisation effect and the change in ocean pH. By 2100 we will have to have switched to non fossil fuels to a significant extent becasue there will be no oil or gas left at economic prices, so why not start now and preseve our petrolium reserves for things for which there are no alternatives eg aviation.
People, becoming a tad acrimonious are you not?
Over what? Computerised projections?
How about some facts.
re # 18 Methods of converting coal to liquid and gas products has been known since at least the mid 20th century. We won’t have to ground all airplanes just because there’s no more cheap oil. For that matter, aviation fuel could be produced from Soybean or palm oil if desired.
This is getting a bit far afield of this topic (and the topic for this website as well), but the short answer is you’ll end up spending just as much money if not more than you would using oil/natural gas. Now maybe it is worth it, but to the best of my knowledge there has been little analysis of such a switch. Most proponents of such a switch state that the switch would be a good thing based on little more than faith. Those opposed, and I admit I tend to fall into this camp, tend to resist the notion on about as much evidence/analysis. However, I will say that I doubt many who insist on alternates like solar, wind, biomass and geothermal are really being completely honest. Do you really expect me to believe they’d be happy with covering the Mojave in solar pannels? I don’t think so. I’d be willing to be a good lunch that as soon as somebody started doing that, they’d start squaking about the detrimental impacts of all those mirrors. For many on the environmentalist side it isn’t the size of humanity’s ecological “footprint” but the mere fact that there is a footprint.
Steve (posting #13):
> I don’t happen to have an up-to-date c.v., but would certainly provide
> one if asked
It have always seemed a bit strange to me that details surrounding the ownership of this site are so obscure (as you know, I tried in vain to find out a bit more about the mysterious "John A"). In particular, given the extent and publicity of your comments on climate change, I am surprised that you have not posted your CV on this site, as so many scientists (including myself) do on their own sites.
So, yes please — I am asking for you to send me a copy of your CV, or alternatively to post it on this site.
Steve: The ownership of this site is not obscure. I own it, as I’ve told you before, and I pay for it myself. As I’ve told you before, John A. is a computer consultant, who has to get contracts, and does not wish to jeopardize this by potential retaliation. If he changes his mind, I’ll let you know. I would certainly provide a c.v. if asked by a House Committee; I’m not sure whether being asked by John Hunter is quite the same. However, my exact words in the post didn’t make that clear, not that Hunter would have cared. On the one hand, I don’t propose to make it an issue ; on the other hand, I am hugely busy and responding to Hunter requests is far from the top of my to-do list. I’ve recently made a short bio in connection with being introduced as a speaker and will post that up.
Steve (posting #22): I did not say that the ownership of this site is obscure. I said "details surrounding the ownership of this site are so obscure" — the statements are rather different. I was indicating that we know very little of your background and virtually nothing about John A’s. You must be able to see that this puts you at a distinct (and unfair?) advantage over the scientists that you criticise, whose histories are generally there for all to see. It is all very well for you to say that John A "does not wish to jeopardize this (i.e. his consultancy) by potential retaliation", but would you be happy if all the "IPCC scientists" were effectively anonymous and invisible (thereby avoiding "retaliation" from people like you)? I think not.
Steve: I own this site – what “details” are obscure. I do not have the faintest interest in personal details of various climate scientists – where they work, where they got their degrees, what their marks were like in grade school, who employs them, what their summer jobs were 15 years ago, whether they are straight or gay, whether they have children or dogs. I think that most academics post up c.v.’s for vanity rather than public disclosure. If people like Mann, Jacoby etc. were interested in public disclosure as opposed to vanity, they’d spend more time disclosing their code and data, rather their c.v.’s. I am only interested in what they write about, rather than who they are. You should try it.
I found it interesting that on another board where I was discussing energy efficiency with a fellow, he sent me (a couple of days ago) a .pdf of a hearing before a commission in Ohio concerning a proposed new energy efficiency program, and the first few questions to the person presenting the proposal were exactly the same ones which have been criticized when coming from the Congressional committee. I suspect that such questions are standard boilerplate and sent to all people who are going to appear ahead of time so that they can either send in the answers or have the answers available when they come.
Re #23, so Steve, do you find Joe Barton’s demand/question no 1 uninteresting?
Re: 23/25
It’s telling that John Hunter and Peter Hearnden are trying to turn this into an argument over credentials and funding; after all, that’s been the standard MO of the pro-IPCC lobby for several years now. When you don’t want to deal with the substantive argument, accuse your opponent of being a stooge for shadowy corporate interests; if that tack fails, drop dark hints that your opponent’s funding sources are “mysterious”, nudge-nudge; when that fails, just declare that my-CV-is-bigger-than-your-CV, and hope that gullible people will swallow it. Whatever the motivations, I suspect that this consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection on the part of IPCC proponents has created more skeptics than anything else.
As for your question, Peter, Steve can speak for himself, but I can’t see how you could possibly misunderstand his response to John H. in #23. Joe Barton has asked Mann et al for CVs and funding sources, and Steve says that he’s not at all interested in those things. What’s ambiguous about that?
Murray, let me clarify a little: I’ve just posted a bunch of information on Jacoby’s funding so I can’t say that I’m uninterested in the funding, but for a specific reason. I’m interested in data archiving and accessibility. So if federal funding has been used to produce the data and there are federal policies that require authors to archive data and that’s a lever for getting the data archived, then you bet I’m interested in it. I’m not interested in funding in the way that Hearnden and Hunter and Mann are interested in it: I wouldn’t argue that just because Crowley works at the Nicholas School of the Environment and the brother of the Nicholas who endowed the school is the Chairman of the Environmental Defense Fund that Crowley’s work is flawed. I think that Crowley’s work is flawed but that has to be shown on the merits. Mann’s attitude is different: he sent scurrilous and untrue Environmental Defense Fund material to Natuurwetenshap in an effort to block publication; the sending was both malicious and reckless (in the sense that Mann made no effort to determine whether the Environmental Defense Fund material was true or false). I figure that, in the long run, it says more about Mann than about me. Steve
John Hunter’s arguments become more interesting.
Somehow, the fact that we don’t have a potted bio of SM puts him at an advantage ! This is the epitome of the ad hominem argument; ignore what the argument is about, and attack the man.
what possible advantage could there be for SM’s arguments because we don’t know his CV ?
yours
per
Steve and Murray (postings #23, #26 and #27): I’ll answer you both at once to save space. Firstly, I wish you guys would stop putting words in my mouth and claiming intentions for which you have absolutely no evidence. Where in this discussion, Murray, have I mentioned anything about funding? Where have I accused anyone "of being a stooge for shadowy corporate interests"? Where have I suggested anyone’s "funding sources are mysterious"? Where have I claimed that "my-CV-is-bigger-than-your-CV"? And, Steve, you say "I’m not interested in funding in the way that Hearnden and Hunter and Mann are interested in it" — please tell me where, in the present discussion, I said I was interested in funding.
(I have previously made comments regarding funding. Please see http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/home.html#new3 where I discussed the way in which the Greening Earth Society, fossilfuels.org, CO2 and Climate, New Hope Environmental Services Inc. and the World Climate report all have their roots in the fossil fuel industry (by way of Western Fuels Association). Now you may not find that very interesting, but if you think it is irrelevant, then I think you are being a bit naive.)
What I have been asking for is Steve’s CV, which is something which he said he would provide "if asked" (posting #13). However, when I actually asked for his CV, Steve back-tracked fast and qualified his promise with "I would certainly provide a c.v. if asked by a House Committee" (even though he was quite happy to answer the remainder of Chris Mooney’s questions publicly!). So the promised CV has now morphed into "a short bio in connection with being introduced as a speaker". No, Steve, that is NOT what I am interested in. Just as you are interested in what Michael Mann did 7 years ago, what Crowley and Kim did 10 years ago and what Wigley and Kelly did 15 years ago, I am interested in what do were doing those many years ago. This is a quite reasonable request that I would make of anyone who I am trying to assess. If you want to keep your background and history secret, then that is fine — but please just admit it to us all.
I also find it interesting how we find it difficult to understand the world from an "opponent’s" perspective — we are all guilty of it — it is a human trait. So when Steve says (posting #22):
> On the one hand, I don’t propose to make it an issue ; on the
> other hand, I am hugely busy and responding to Hunter requests
> is far from the top of my to-do list.
and yet, in the thread "The Crowley-McIntyre Letters", he seems to fail to understand that Thomas Crowley may actually have more important things to do than to respond to persistent badgering from Steve — well, I just had to smile. Doesn’t Steve have one inkling that many scientists would regard responding to HIS letters as far from the top of their to-do lists? Doesn’t he realise that they, also, may be "hugely busy"?
Finally Steve said (posting #23):
> I am only interested in what they write about, rather than who
> they are. You should try it.
I have heard a lot of what both Steve and John A have said. I would regard a lot of what Steve has said and most of what John A has said as wrong — that makes me interested in why they do it — foolishness or ill-intent? Things like CVs help answer such questions.
Steve: I am not backtracking or refusing to do anything. There’s nothing secret about my background. Right now I’m not applying for a job; I am simply allocating time. The Crowley situation is different. Crowley and Lowery 2000 was cited by the IPCC and many other studies. I was asking for information pertinent to the study, which Crowley has an obligation to provide. After 10 months, he failed to locate the information. What a joke. What if I adopted the same schedule for your request as Crowley did to mine?
I’m not interested in what Mann was “doing” 7 years or what Wigley was “doing” 10 years ago – I’m interested in their papers. How have I ever indicated the faintest interest in what they were “doing”?
Why are you trying to “assess” me – trying to figure out some way of pressuring me?
Per (posting #28): As regards your question “what possible advantage could there be for SM’s arguments because we don’t know his CV ?”, I have indicated, in a previous posting today, why it would be interesting and useful to see Steve’s CV. Incidentally, not having his CV is not actually an “advantage” for his arguments — quite the contrary: it renders his arguments less believable.
As for your “this is the epitome of the ad hominem argument” — I can only say that this site is brim full of ad hominems, from both Steve and John A. Would you like to save me the time and count them yourself? (You could start with the thread “The Hockey Team #1”.)
#29 “I would regard a lot of what Steve has said and most of what John A has said as wrong”
Good – please identify where they have gone wrong. This website has an enormous amount of detailed information and arguments, and I would be very interested to know where you have identified a flaw.
Of course, if you just mean you disagree with their conclusions, then I guess you either don’t understand the science, or can’t be bothered to read it, and hence you prefer to make your judgements based on faith in individuals.
This would explain your strange desire to see their personal information.
Peter and John,
Just imagine (I know it won’t happen) that at the end of the G8 Mr Blair and President Bush step forward with big smiles and say “Gentlemen we have just been studying new data and we are now satisfied that global warming is not such a problem after all. The data that has convinced of this was gathered using techniques that are proprietary and we can not therefore release it but you have our word of honour that it means we need no longer torment ourselves with this issue and can concentrate on eliminating poverty.”
Would you insist on seeing that data?
So long as any data or code used by the IPCC remains unavailable the debate must continue.
#29
John H,
It’s funny, but when I read “details surrounding the ownership of this site are so obscure”, I took it as yet another example of an IPCC proponent smearing by innuendo, an impression you inadvertently confirm by trying to divert the conversation into one about shadowy corporate interests manipulating the climate change debate. I entirely fail to see what material difference it would make to Steve’s arguments if the site were owned by Exxon. For a scientist, you seem to have real difficulty with the notion of treating arguments on their merits.
In my experience here, Steve’s focus has been relentlessly on what MBH wrote in their published articles and associated correspondence and what they said in relevant interviews. His interest in funding is limited to ensuring that Mann et al are following any data archiving rules required by their funding sources. Nowhere have I seen Steve speculating about Mann’s personal motivations, his personal history, or whether oodles of government funding have corrupted his judgement; in fact, my recollection is that Steve has always steered clear of such discussions.
But I, on the other hand, am free to stoop to your level: it is quite clear that the IPCC is an enormous gravy train for scientists, both directly and indirectly. IPCC members get to jet around the world to have important world-saving conferences in pleasant locations. Their wisdom is sought out by governments and journalists who want Rationales For Doing Something and Alarming Attention-Grabbing Stories, respectively. I can see how this could go to someone’s head. Less directly, climate change is a powerful motivator of government funding of science, engineering, environmental studies, anthropology, and no doubt several others, as I have seen first-hand: “Tell us the effect of climate change on X” or “Tell us the effect of Y on climate change”. (Notice the hidden premise?)
Now, Kyoto is dying, and it won’t be long before it dawns on people that if climate change is occurring, there is simply no way we’ll be able to muster the political will or economic resources to stop it. With that, public support for large-scale climate research will likely dry up, and we’ll have
lots of researchers fighting for a dwindling pool of money–an unpleasant reversal of fortune for many of you. Steve’s work threatens to hasten this process, hence the enormous obfuscating clouds of ink squirted by Mann’s defenders.
Now, I expect that you’ll scoff at this analysis: why, you’re a Scientist, motivated solely by the search for truth, interested only in unlocking the door to nature’s mysteries, etc etc. But who pays your way, John? Ever heard of Public Choice Theory? Most scientists haven’t, in my experience.
Here’s a light-hearted thought experiment which I hope will clarify matters.
Imagine an alternate universe in which, entirely independent of each other, two individuals have come up with the exact same critique of the Hockey Stick, which–mirabile dictu!–just happens to be the MM critique. The first individual (Steve A) is a well-known Nobel-Prize-winning scientist-philanthropist, a close and long-standing friend of the IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri and Kofi Annan, former disciple of Mother Theresa, and just one hell of a guy who, incidentally, paid for all his research out of his own pocket and opened his bank accounts to the public to prove it. The other individual (Steve Z) is a greasy, gelled, grasping Gordon Gecko type, a venal paid flack for the worst corporate polluters on the planet, so loathsome that his mother disowned him at age 5. He is paid handsomely by Dick Cheney in person, in various grubby Washington parkade basements.
Reagrdless of their manifest differences, Steve A and Steve Z make exactly the same argument re: the Hockey Stick.
The clear implication of the position taken by the John Hunters of the world, regarding funding and CVs, is that we should take Steve A’s arguments entirely on merit, since he is a transparently self-funded man of unimpeachable moral integrity, while refusing to even consider the identical arguments of Steve Z. And this is a tempting position to take: who among us hasn’t casually disregarded an argument by tobacco flacks, or Greenpeace activists, solely because of the assumption of bad faith? Nevertheless, I submit that it is wrong–and unscientific–to do so. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of the moral or intellectual qualities of those making them.
As I’ve said before, the fact that IPCC proponents seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time blustering about the fossil fuel industry and attacking the characters of climate skeptics rather than, say, their arguments indicates a rather transparent lack of confidence in their own beliefs. You guys, John, are your own worst enemies.
Re #34 That’s a good experiment Murray. An example of the struggle (which we all share) to separate fact from belief is John H’s comment “Incidentally, not having his CV is not actually an “advantage” for his arguments — quite the contrary: it renders his arguments less believable.”
John clearly lacks confidence in his ability to assess the merits of an argument – he also needs the reassurance of “belief”. The danger occurs when “belief” becomes a framework and filter for the assessment of fact.
fFreddy (posting #31):
> please identify where they have gone wrong
Just look at the various discussions I have already had on this site.
Steve: Why don’t you answer his question? If he looks through your various discussions, he’ll see a lot of ad hominem material?
David H (posting #32):
> Would you insist on seeing that data?
This is off the topic I was discussing in this thread. What I want to see is the CV
Steve: I would prefer that you were interested in science. As I’ve said before, there’s nothing secret about my bio and it’s not an issue for me. As I said before, I’m busy right now, you do not have the priority that a house Committee would have and I’ll get to it when I get to it. I’m not applying for a job and I’m not going to respond to taunts from you every few seconds till I get to it.
Murray Love (posting #33):
> it is quite clear that the IPCC is an enormous gravy train for scientists,
> both directly and indirectly. IPCC members get to jet around the world to
> have important world-saving conferences in pleasant locations.
Get a life, Murray. You should try jetting off halfway across the world for a few days of intense discussion with no time to enjoy anything of the so-called “pleasant locations”. I work with these guys and can assure you that it is no “gravy train” — it’s bloody hard work.
> Now, I expect that you’ll scoff at this analysis: why, you’re a Scientist,
> motivated solely by the search for truth, interested only in unlocking the
> door to nature’s mysteries, etc etc.
Yes, I agree. I am at the stage of my life when I actually need little money and I can afford the luxury of doing the job I like and feel is worthwhile.
> But who pays your way, John?
Again, this is not the subject of I was discussing in this thread. I have not mentioned funding, except in response to those who thought I had (posting #29). Anyway, you know who funds me — the Australian Government — who are refusing to sign up to Kyoto — so what do you make of that?
Murray Love (posting #34):
> The clear implication of the position taken by the John Hunters of the
> world, regarding funding and CVs, is that we should take Steve A’s
> arguments entirely on merit, since he is a transparently self-funded man
> of unimpeachable moral integrity, while refusing to even consider the
> identical arguments of Steve Z.
It is amazing how fast you guys get off-topic. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT FUNDING. All I asked for was the CV that Steve promised in posting #13. And, as I said in posting #29:
> I have heard a lot of what both Steve and John A have said. I would regard
> a lot of what Steve has said and most of what John A has said as wrong —
> that makes me interested in why they do it — foolishness or ill-intent?
> Things like CVs help answer such questions.
Steve: what do you think is wrong? I haven’t seen any comments from you on statistical issues.
Michael Mayson (posting $35):
> John clearly lacks confidence in his ability to assess the merits of an
> argument – he also needs the reassurance of “belief”.
If you can completely detatch a scientific argument from the proponent of that argument, then I think you are being very very naive.
(snip)
Steve and others (postings #36 and others):
> Why don’t you answer his question? If he looks through your various
> discussions, he’ll see a lot of ad hominem material?
> I would prefer that you were interested in science.
> what do you think is wrong? I haven’t seen any comments from you on
> statistical issues.
Firstly, I did answer the questions — all my gripes about what Steve and John A have said are posted on this site. I don’t have time to collate them.
Also, I agree that fFreddy will see a lot of ad hominem material — this site is full of it.
Secondly, I would have thought it was clear that I am interested in science — it has been my career. That doesn’t mean I am interested in straying into areas in which I am not confident. I have commented on Steve’s statements where I think they are clearly incorrect, but I don’t think you will find that I have got into the "Michael Mann is right; Steve is wrong" issue.
Thirdly, statistics is not my strong point, so I have mainly left such discussions to others. But I have commented where I believe Steve has tried to mislead the reader.
I have spent about as much time as I care to on this thread. (snip of taunts previously asked and answered)
Steve: If I may be permitted a facetious comment, it is quite obvious that statistics is not Hunter’s "strong point". Unfortunately he shares that attribute with many other prominent climate scientists e.g. the entire Hockey Team and the IPCC.
I reviewed your postings on this site and, for all the bandwidth that you’ve consumed, I’m surprised at how meagre your contribution has been on any scientific issue, although there is endless taunting if I don’t respond to one of your requests within 5 minutes, regardless of whether I’ve said that I would attend to the point in the future. Without putting you to the trouble of collating past points, could you enlighten me on ANY point in our 2005 articles which you believe to be wrong?
#38
What a drearily predictable and characteristically evasive response. You persist (by muttering darkly about the ownership of this site) in hinting that there’s more to Steve’s work than meets the eye, as if this would somehow make a material difference to his work, then go off on an otherwise inexplicable tangent about the Greening Earth Society et al, and then cry foul when people take your argument (such as it is) at face value.
As for the business about “doing a job I like and think is worthwhile”, I believe you are entirely sincere, which is more courtesy than you manage to extend to most people at this site. But it is also true that people are often at their most dangerous when they believe they are doing good:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
– C.S. Lewis
Funny how “omnipotent moral busybodies” brings to mind the IPCC and assorted environmental bureaucracies the world over, at least in their own dreams. (Yes, even in our native Australia–as Public Choice Theory predicts, all bureaucracies seek out “crises” that only they can manage, AGW fits the bill perfectly, and there’s really not a whole lot that John Howard can do about it.)
I am also most interested in your assertion in #40 that it is naive to detach the proponent of an argument from that argument. Could you please expand on this? Let’s say, for instance, that you read a scientific article on climate change that purported to be from a leading IPCC expert; that further, you found this article comprehensive and persuasive. Say that you later found out that due to a horrible printing mistake, the author’s name was printed in error and the article was really by a prominent climate skeptic. Do you really mean to say that you would suddenly change your mind on the article’s quality? ‘Cause that’s sure what you seem to be saying. And if that’s the case…
Be honest, John. Admit that you hold Steve to a higher standard than you do Michael Mann, because you’re afraid of giving aid and comfort to the “wrong” people. If you were, for instance, to admit the incredibly bleeding obvious fact that it would have been good scientific practice for Mann to release all his code right from the start … well, that just wouldn’t do, would it? As it is, you appear to be defending the right of scientists to be as secretive and dodgy as they like, as long as it’s in a good cause.
Re #40 John H. says “If you can completely detatch a scientific argument from the proponent of that argument, then I think you are being very very naive.”
If you use “naive” to mean “Free from guile, cunning, or deceit” then, thank you.
I would rephrase your comment:
If you are unable to detatch a scientific argument from the proponent of that argument, then you need to develop beyond the need for ‘authority figures’ to assuage your anxieties.
It’s really not amazing anymore that the only working scientist who frequently responds to this site with a critique, John Hunter, is the one so often censored. Oh, and of course I’ll be lambasted (probably worse…) for that comment but it happens to be the reality of the situation.
You’d surely think that, in a place *so* dominated by faithful supporters, that one dissenting voice might go un censored ( and, yes, I know what a terrible person JH is and how everyone else here is a pure as the driven snow and as un biased as any lord god allmight you care to name…).
Re CV’s. Why isn’t what’s sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
Re #40
If you *can’t* completely detatch a scientific argument from the proponent of that argument, then I think you are not a scientist.
Murray, Michael, fFreddy (postings #42, #43 and #45): O.K., I’ll be drawn for the last time into the issues you have raised (apparently) in order to distract attention from the fact that I simply took up Steve’s offer and asked for his CV. Your recent ire seems to revolve around my statement that "if you can completely detatch a scientific argument from the proponent of that argument, then I think you are being very very naive”‘?. Well, here’s how it works:
Probably the only person who regularly visits this site and who understands all the complexities of Steve’s arguments is Steve himself. Let’s face it — he’s not stupid. I suspect that most of the people who come here have some idea of what he is on about and accept it because it fits their preconceived notions that the world CAN’T be warming from anthropogenic effects. So they believe him. When Steve speaks to politicians, captains of industry and the general public, there will be virtually no one in the audience who has even a passing knowledge of PC analysis and its related statistics. I would put myself somewhere near the top of the former group — I understand a bit about PC analysis, but would find it hard to put my hand on my heart and say whether he or Michael Mann is right in any specific instance (but I do understand obvious bulls**t and point it out when it is evident on this site).
So, bearing in mind the fact that Steve’s audience is, for the most part, at an enormous technical disadvantage with regard to the techniques he is discussing, don’t you think it is amazing that no one seems to have asked for his CV before? He apparently doesn’t even have an up-to-date CV! If you are a politician with no background in statistics, listening to (and possibly ultimately acting on) one of Steve’s lectures, wouldn’t it be a complete dereliction of duty NOT to ask for some information on his qualifications — a CV perhaps? We hear an awful lot of posturing on this site about "full, true and plain disclosure" and "due diligence"; here is a quote from one of Steve threads:
> In a corporate world, there is simply no question about providing
> audit trails, and while they can take many different forms they
> all serve the purpose of ensuring the validity of information
> used for investment decisions.
Oh yes, Steve — pull the other leg. Take one (probably statistically challenged) captain of industry, sit him in one of Steve’s lectures and see what happens — does he really swallow it all without even asking for documentary evidence of Steve’s qualification? A CV perhaps? Apparently he does.
Great audit trail, Steve.
Steve: I think that I have provided an exemplary audit trail for my calculations. I know for sure that the archived code has been run by independent people either unassisted or with negligible assistance and they have been able to see exactly what it does. There really is no substitute for detailed reconciliation – perhaps you can spend some energy telling Mann that. I would like to think that my commitment to providing an audit trail has had some impact on improving practices in paleoclimate – for example, I hardly think that Wahl and Ammann would have provided their source code without my emphasis on this matter.
As to lectures, I have received very few invitations to make presentations. To date, I have not received any invitations from a university to make a presentation despite all the publicity and the funding of scientists to refute our work.
Thirdly, I do not purport to say what happened to climate in the past; I’m merely being critical of multiptroxy works, their methods and data. I have always attempted to make all becessary materials for the establishing of these points available to the reader.
Fourth, I have never expected anyone to believe anything that I said simply because I said it. In fact, I have always been aware (since I started at this) that my lack of history in this field was a big hurdle to the points being accepted, which was one further reason to always document things so thoroughly. As to people "swallowing" things that I said — I hope that they use the information and methods that I have provided to verify matters or arrange for experts to verify the claims from the source material, rather than because they "believed" me. I have always encouraged verification and audit of claims and would expect this from people who are sympathetic to these claims as well as to people opposed. The fact that I’ve disclosed the code, there have been concerted efforts to find fault with it and that I’m still standing shows something. Some claims have been enorsed by senior scientists (e.g. the bias in Mann’s PC algorithm); some claims Mann has acknowledged e.g. that he hasn’t released source code; some claims Mann has implicitly acknowledged e.g. the non-robustness of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of bristlecones; Mann’s silence on other claims should be a clue e.g. the catastrophic failure of the R2 cross-validation test.
Fifth, my background is not a secret. I’ve made it quite clear that I’m an aging Canadian businessman whose spent most of his career in mineral exploration projects, who studied math at university. I’m not sure what more will be added to this by a more detailed bio, but I will get to it when the current cruch is over. As to your taunts that I don’t have an up-to-date bio, one of the reasons is because I haven’t applied for government grants. I assume that people who apply for government grants (as I presume that you do and Mann did) are required to have up-to-date bios for inclusion in grant applications. An oversight committee would reasonably request that this information be updated if bio information had been part of the prior grant applications.
Doing a bio for a grant application is certainly useful, but I don’t view it as a badge of honor. In addition to not applying for government grants, I haven’t applied for a job in over 20 years so I’ve had no need to do one for many years and it would have been mere vanity for me to do one. So I hardly think that it’s worthy of taunting. However, I do chores and have said that I’ll do this one and I’ll do it in less-than-Crowley time.
The point of thinking about these matters from an "audit" viewpoint or even an engineering viewpoint is that,
Re #44
What posts from John Hunter have been censored, and where can we get to see them ? Or do you mean ‘censured’ ?
And where should I look to see the working scientist doing a critique of M&M’s science, rather than personal issues ? Because it sure isn’t in this thread…
re#44
Be honest, Peter. If John Hunter were a bank clerk instead of a ‘working scientist’ is there any message he’s ever posted here to Steve which couldn’t have be exactly the same? I see absolutely nothing myself.
I know nothing of the topic in question but I have plenty of prejudgements which I’m happy share with you.
May I suggest an experiment. After Mr. Mann provides the info to the committee of energy and commerce, one does the following:
1. One sets up the test environment as Mr. Mann wants.
2. Having done so, the data to fed to the system is gaussian noise.
-> If the system finds hockey stick in that noise, then we have a rat
someplace.
3. Next data fed into the system is same all the way. Braindead line.
-> the system should replicate a braindead line.
If possible, perhaps one could do the same for Wahl & Ammann.
I know nothing of the topic in question, but I have plenty of prejudgements which I’m happy to share with you.
May I suggest an experiment.
1. One will set up the test environment according to instructions given by Mann & Co.
2. Having done that, instead of feeding in the data used in studies MBH one will feed
in gaussian noise.
-> if the code finds a hockey stick in that noise, then we have bias somewhere.
3. Erase the input data, and feed in the next set. In this set we have identical data points
so the input forms a braindead line.
-> the code should repeat the braindead line.
Maybe one could repeat the same for Wahl & Ammann.
Steve: Take a look at our GRL article where we describe simulations on red noise showing that the MBH98 PC method is extraordinarily biased towards mining for hockey sticks. The existence of this bias has been confirmed by several scientists and is now pretty much accepted. In an earlier post (I’ll try to remember to insert link later), I reported that a mix of 1 simulated PC1 hockeystick and 21 white noise series always yielded hockeysticks, with an extremely high 99% RE benchmark – further confirming results previously reported. The response of Mann et al. is that the bias “doesn’t matter”, because they can get a hockeystick another way. However, every such other way relies on the presence of bristlecones – without the bristlecones, no hockey stick. All the MBH98 type reconstructions have an R2 of ~0, denoting total statistical insignificance. This information was withheld in the original article and Wahl and Ammann notably fail to report it. AskWahl and Ammann about their R2 statistics and see if you can get a straight answer.
Re#44 Peter,
Did you happen to see the debunkers thread I linked to in the past week or so? You can see your climate scientist uncensored there, and you can see exactly why he’s so prone to being censored elsewhere. It has nothing to do with him being a climate scientist or having views which oppose many of the people on this thread.
As I’ve told you before, I’m also censored a-plenty here. I just don’t make a stink about it because I can understand why certain statements of mine get deleted.
I find it a bit odd that Steve McIntyre is complaining about ad
hominem attacks in a post where he falsely claimed that I was "unable
to fathom the distinction" between codes for tree rings and the rest
of the codes and accused me of being of being a "devout Mannian".
Steve: I do try to stay away from editorial adjectives, but I agree that I lapsed here and am prepared to edit this language. I didn’t expect that you would take being described as a "devout Mannian" as an ad hominem attack. How would you prefer that your relationship with Mannianism be described?
I agree that for the point that I was attempting to make that it would have been more appropriate to simply state "failed to make the distinction". Looking in more detail at the post in question, I may have been attributing views of some of the posters who were not so distinguishing to you and I agree that you did eventually point out to a poster on your site that Mann’s source code after tree rings was not available, although I wouldn’t say that you did so promptly.
I do not understand the distinction that you make between Mann’s "algorithm" which you say is available and his code which you agree isn’t. Mann himself said that he was not going to get "intimidated" into releasing his algorithm, so he obviously doesn’t think that he’s released it.
Also you can’t rely on his verbal descriptions of what he did. The tree ring PCs are one glaring example where there was a huge difference between what he said he did and what he actually did, which was only revealed because he accidentally left a bit of code on this FTP site (I say accidentally because he had previously refused to provide this code to us and I found the code in late November/early December 2003 by examining datafiles.) The Preisendorfer retention scheme is another. You can’t replicate the actual retention of PCs. This is not merely incidental harassment because Mann made a big point of his Preisendorfer scheme in December 2004 arguing that not using his scheme constituted mathematical error. Well let’s see it.
Also it is impossible to replicate Mann’s reported 15th century results. I know exactly what Wahl and Ammann have and haven’t done and their emulation differs from what we used earlier this year only in a rescaling step, which they added in April 2005, presumably based on personal information from Mann. I’ve implemented this rescaling step and can exactly replicate Wahl and Ammann. I can assure you that they haven’t replicated Mann other than in a spaghetti diagram way.
Re: #44
How on earth could we do worse than lambaste you, Peter?
And, since you seem to have exceedingly delicate sensitivities when it comes to robust debate, let me just say again that I believe that John H. is entirely sincere and basically well-meaning. His apparent reluctance to accept non-preapproved arguments on their merits, and to hold his colleagues to a relatively low standard compared to those he expects of outsiders is almost certainly not malicious or dishonest, but a result of the kind of ideological blind spot to which we are all at risk. I hope that’s clear enough.
And since you seem to be so interested, could you please explain what aspects of Hockey Stick debate will be illuminated by Steve’s CV? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, fine, but Steve isn’t actually asking for anyone’s CV. If you really want sauce for the gander, you should be asking for Joe Barton’s CV, no?
Re #49. Michael, OK, then why draw attention to JH’s deletions with the word ‘snip’ (post #41)but not yours? At least if you’ve had some deletions I’d like to see some proof of it on screen – if only out of balance.
Re ’47. Well, if that’s what you think Dave then OK, but it’s not what I see.
Re #51, err, yes fairish point about Joe Barton (though Steve isn’t exactly shying away from publicising and supporting the letters is he…). What part of the hockey stick debate will be illuminated by publically disecting Michael Mann’s CV?
Incidentally Steve M., admitting errors (#50) can only improve the respect others hold you in. Though, being referred to by my surname never helps that same process (and, where have I been seen to be interested in funding? (both #27))..
Re: 54
What part of the hockey stick debate will be illuminated by publically disecting Michael Mann’s CV?
None, I’d say. It’s pretty clear from my comments that I think the whole CV issue is a red herring (and Steve seems to agree), which is why I was wondering what you and John H. thought could possibly be relevant about Steve’s.
Steve isn’t exactly shying away from publicising and supporting the letters is he…
It’s obvious that the substance of Joe Barton’s request is that MBH provide their source code and algorithm, which is what Steve has very reasonably been asking for for almost two years now. I expect he’s pleased that he may finally be able to get to the bottom of this matter, and I imagine that Professor Mann is a very worried man right now.
For reasons of his own (perhaps bureaucratic), Barton also chose to ask for their CVs, a request never made by Steve. John H., for reasons of his own, has chosen to conduct a rather lame “gotcha” campaign by demanding Steve’s CV–he’s careful not to say why, and I suspect he doesn’t really have a reason. Since you echoed this request, Peter, I thought you might be able to tell me what you thought might be achieved by it.
Re 54 What part of the hockey stick debate will be illuminated by publically disecting Michael Mann’s CV?
It will tell which part of his research is publically funded and therefore its results are publically owned (if I interpreted US law correctly).
Apart from the fact when a researcher doesn’t tell how he did it, he is not doing science in the first place…
Re#53b
Er, Peter. You mentioned the only working scientist posting here, i.e. John Hunter. Now, this would seem to imply that you feel there’s something in his posts which reflect this scientific acumen. Therefore you should be able to point to a post, directed to Steve, which shows this. I mean I’d like to help out, but if I point out a post which is clearly not based on scientific ability, that means nothing since the question isn’t whether or not ALL of John’s posts reflect a special scientific ability which can only be observed in the working scientist. The question is whether or not ANY of his posts do so. Therefore for you to simply disagree doesn’t help anything. You need to present a test case which we can examine and see whether or not an intelligent onlooker would agree that it shows scientific merit. Ideally you’d show a recent case to avoid presenting an old one and get the “Yeah, but what has he done for us lately” rebuttal.
Steve, I did not fail to make the distinction, I DID make the distinction. I did not make the distinction in my post because it was not relevant to my point.
“code” and “algorithm” mean different things. An algorithm is a method for doing a computation, while code is an implementation of an algorithm in some programming language. The WSJ either misquoted Mann, took something out of context, or Mann mixed the two things up.
You ask: “How would you prefer that your relationship with Mannianism be described?” I answer: I don’t think there is any such thing as “Mannianism”.
Re #57. That you spin my words say’s a lot about you…
I said (post #44) “the only working scientist who frequently responds to this site with a critique, John Hunter, is the one so often censored”. Read by words damn it! The whole of your post #57 is a red herring.
Ah, Mr Lambert. Since you are here, you have very publicly excorated Ross McKitrick for his degrees/radians error. Now, are you aware that Michael Mann confused cosine and the square of the cosine in MBH98 ? Care to comment on how this makes him thoroughly unreliable as a scientist as you did McKitrick ? Note also that he hasn’t corrected this yet.
You did post a comment on your own blog regarding the absence of all the code. However you did fail to make that point to at least three of your posters who have claimed, vehemently but falsely, that the code was available. None of them I notice has retracted or admitted their “mistake”, which is I must say, exactly as expected. You could also perhaps, in your quest for scientific accuracy, point out that Wahl and Amman have not replicated MBH98, and that they have pointedly released only one verification statistics for their reconstruction, and that surely a reasonable scientist would in fact release a range of such. Or are only those you disagree with to be asked for such things ?
Hans,
I agree with Murray Love’s answer in post #55. I just thought if Steve supports a letter demanding to see MM’s CV then it’s a fair call to want to see Steve’s CV. It now seems Steve only supports part of the Barton letter – OK.
Surly those with suspicious minds can find out what of naughty Mr Mann’s work was publically funded, it’s the responsibility of public bodies to have the records – surely? What are you suggesting btw?
Hans, how did you produce this page- http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/homogen.htm . Please send me details of *all* code, notes and thought process that went on, and publish them here. Additional please send me proof of how it was funded. When you’ve done that, then we can go through the rest of you site 😉 It’s not that i don’t trust you etc etc etc
>>The WSJ either misquoted Mann, took something out of context, or Mann mixed the two things up.
Too funny, Lambert!
Hang about, what’s going on? Have post numbers changed? My post #61 reffers to post #59 not #57. If it’s my mistake humble apologies Murray…
“At least if you’ve had some deletions I’d like to see some proof of it on screen – if only out of balance.”
The best I can do is to refer you to posts #15 and #29 here http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=232#comments
Steve removed comments from my post #15 and gave me a bit of a reprimand. His use of the word “temperature” had caused some confusion with another poster, so I made the clarification in post #29 that the “temperature” reference was made regarding my deleted comments.
I think that should be sufficient “on screen” proof.
Re #66 (at least it is #66 atm 😉 ), OK, fair enough 🙂
Re#65 (=) I guess there have been some number changes as the message you referred to earlier as #44 is now #45.
As to my twisting your words, I sure don’t see it. You said “…the only working scientist who frequently responds to this site with a critique, John Hunter….” What was the point of pointing him out as a working scientist if what I said in response is incorrect? Either you were trying to make a legitimate point, which is what I was assuming, or you were committing the fallacy of argument by appeal to authority. If the former, then my request of you is perfectly valid. If the latter, then that says a lot about YOU.
I have read most of the blogs linked above and now conclude that they pretty much add nothing to the discussion. Whoever posts as "per" should get some sort of award, perhaps a "Don Quixote" award for tilting at windbags.
Peter, you are trolling.
All my data sources and exact algorithm are already on that URL!
eg http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/uccleuhi2.txt
Ever heard of least squares fit?
Recently, however, the data archive at GISS was truncated at 1880, you have to go to GHCN for earlier data. Sorry, not my fault!
Now go harrass Mann for his source code.
Steve (your comment to posting #47): This thread seems to have undergone some significant reshuffling, so I will just respond to a few things you said and let other comments go. However, I’ll first note the many ad hominems against me from various posters in this thread (which escaped censor) and also note that I think you’d find it difficult to find an ad hominem from me against yourself — after all, I know so little about you. Note, in posting #47, that I did say of you "let’s face it — he’s not stupid". You also appear to be very careful about providing public details of the calculations you have done with regard to the "hockeystick" debate — however, I do not have the time to check all these, or to gain the necessary expertise to understand them at the level required of a satistfactory "audit", so do have to take much of this on trust.
I will take you up on one point though. You said:
> I assume that people who apply for government grants (as I presume
> that you do and Mann did) are required to have up-to-date bios for
> inclusion in grant applications.
> In addition to not applying for government grants, I haven’t applied
> for a job in over 20 years so I’ve had no need to do one for many
> years and it would have been mere vanity for me to do one.
If you read my CV (which is available for all to see), you would see that I have spent a large proportion of my career in commercial oceanography (often as a consultant) and I have actually applied for very few government grants. The commercial world I inhabited seems very different from the one you describe when you talk about "due diligence" and "audit trails" — CVs were de rigour for ANY consultant and were one of the first things I was asked for when meeting someone new in a business capacity. That is why my CV is on the web — I still get requests for it and it saves me having to carry a copy around with me. It was certainly part of of the "audit trail" when I was in the commercial world and I am just a bit surprised that your world was different.
Perhaps this is just a lesson that different activities (be they science and business, or mineral exploration and commercial oceanography) can progress quite satisfactorily under different sets of rules — no one set of rules fits all, and to try and transplant a set of rules from one field of endeavour into another may not be a very good idea.
Steve: My government grant comment was a bit chippy. I agree that bios are useful and that most people need them – this is true in Canada as well. I have no objection to them and certainly have looked at lots of other people’s CVs in my day. It’s just that I haven’t needed one.
As to taking things on trust, I certainly expect no one to take things on trust. I don’t. If I had a policy job or responsibility and the validity of Mann’s hockey stick calculation mattered to me, I would certainly have made a much concerted effort to get to the bottom of the problem than any government institution or IPCC have done so far. If I’d been in charge of IPCC WG1 or a government department, I’d have hired specialist consultants on both the statistics and the bristlecones and ask them to examine material from both contesting groups, effect a full reconciliation and resolve the matter. There’s nothing complicated in the reconciliation although it’s a bit laborious. I would get people that were not presently involved in the debate or associated with either party – for example, in a decision-making capacity, I would view any report from Wahl and Ammann, who are associates of Mann, as being irrelevant. I’m amazed at how quickly climate science people have been to grasp at realclimate posts, which are argumentative in the extreme, as providing a reconciliation. It is surely beyond ironic that climate science people who were quick to dismiss our arguments prior to a GRL publication so quickly accept Mann’s blog comments, which have not been peer reviewed, or Wahl and Ammann’s press release, one paper of which has been rejected and the other paper having no guarantee of being published. (Not that publication makes it true.)
Re #70 Where are the algorithims, Hans? Why the ad hom? You, of all people, you ought to practice what you preach…Something to hide? 😉
Now come clean, I want everything, all the details, all your notes, how to find said, a guide to how to do the maths, everything,…or I’ll set a politician on you!
Peter
PS, don’t you get my point, Hans? It took *ONE* post from me of the kind that Michael Mann must have recieved by the shed full to get you to ad hom me and be pretty darn rude back (I’m not a troll, you know that). I think that should make you think.
Cute update, Steve. I wrote "Perhaps McIntyre is unable to fathom the distinction between ‘code’ and ‘algorithm’." to mirror the language you used when you wrote "people like Tim Lambert seem unable to fathom the distinction". Oddly enough, that bit of your post has been deleted without any indication of what change has been made.
Steve: It’s hard to please people. First you complained about the language that I used. I acknowledged that I’d gone too far into adjectives and made the language in my post objective, noting at the bottom of the post that it had been edited. I don’t exactly see how I can simultaneously comply with your request that I tone down this language and also leave it up. I noted at the bottom that it had been edited and the comments speak for themselves. If you like, I can have the post include both “unable to fathom” and “fail to make the distinction”, but it seems like a lot of elaboration on a small point. Perhaps the logical course of action is for you to likewise tone down your language and I’ll edit once again.
re#72
Too bad your poor attempt to make a point shows you in such a bad light. Hans said his algorithm was on his site. You show no indication of having looked for it. The is the exact opposite of what Steve did when attempting to find data from Mann. He looked diligently in all the places to which he’d been directed by Mann or his colleagues. He then reported what he’d found and what was missing. Then he asked for that which was missing. You’ve not reported what you found at Hans’ site and what you feel is missing. The reason, of course, is that you have exactly zero interest in what you claim to want to know. And this shows up in your snotty rejoinder. This message, BTW, in case you couldn’t tell, is an attempt to show the same regard for you as you show to the people you communicate with here.
You’ve updated your post twice. In the first update you removed the false statement about me. That’s good, though a common blogging practice is to leave the words there wrapped in strike out tags. In your second update, the one that prompted my comment, you accused me of using a double standard on the “algorithm” vs “code” issue. And now you say that “It’s hard to please people”. Are you seriously trying to suggest that your second update was an attempt to please me?
And I don’t see what objection you have to my suggestion that you don’t know the difference between “code” and “algorithm” when you explicitly say that there is no difference.
Tim,
I did not know that there is “a common blogging practice”. Would you mind if I quoted you at Realclimate or Quark Soup?
Jeff
Re #72
LOL Peter, I use public available statistical software (Microsoft Excel), it’s not rocket science, and I don’t hide code. With the given formula you can exactly replicate the results. There is also unique source data on my site.
Here is part of the wiki definition of troll:
Why are you attacking Steve?
Tim, yet again, why won’t you answer ?
Mann makes an error, confusing the square root of cosine with cosine, no correction, no vilification from Tim Lambert. McKitrick makes an error, confusing radians with degrees, corrected, conclusions altered but still valid, widely vilified by Lambert, still.
What about a comment you hypocritical commenter on language. You seem unable to fathom a distinction between anything sometimes.
Re #74. Jese Dave, you just don’t get it either…
I actually rather trust/respect Hans, we’ve converesed/jousted for some time. He’s probably brighter than me (there, a perfect ad hom opportunity for you if you want to take it), but I think on one thing he’s wrong – in that he sees but little agw, I see rather more and I’m open to it being perhaps a lot more. But…I make *Two* posts trying to get you people to show me the kind of patience you expect Mann and co and, WHAM, you’re down on me like a tonne of bricks. You criticise Mann, but you can’t take it back, I dunno, what a funny lot.
I better leave it at that, you just do get irony.
Re#79
No, your messages didn’t try to get us to ‘show patience’ to you, quite the opposite. Steve corresponded with Mann over a period of months and, as I pointed out in the previous message, he only asked more than once for items which weren’t available through his own efforts. We can forgive the speed with which you re-asked for material since everyone knew you were simply exaggerating for effect, but your failure to understand what exactly happened between Mann and M&M is not so easily excusable. I can only see it as deliberate attempt on your part to try confusing the issue (and since I refuse to take the cheap shot you so graciously offered.) I suggest you know what you’re doing and that it’s not intellectually honest.
Steve (re. your response to posting #71): Tou say:
> If I’d been in charge of IPCC WG1 or a government department, I’d
> have hired specialist consultants on both the statistics and the
> bristlecones and ask them to examine material from both contesting
> groups, effect a full reconciliation and resolve the matter.
This is exactly my point. How would you know the consultants were “specialist ….. on both the statistics and the bristlecones”? You’d check their CVs of course. Now, to many people (politicians such as Barton, the Wall Street Journal, business leaders), you are a “specialist consultant” and yet no one seems to have asked for your CV — so aren’t they just as lax as you claim the IPCC to be? Why is Barton’s interpretation of the world any more valid than the IPCC’s, given that he appears to have failed to check your credentials? Do you not think that perhaps you are giving people the answers they want — answers that they are now very happy to use them without the unwanted complication of validation?
Steve: Barton hasn’t put forward any interpretation of the world based on anything that I’ve said. He’s asked pertinent questions of institutions and institutional nominees, which I hope they answer. Some of the questions appear to be based on issues that I’ve raised, but the questions stand up on their own merit. I’e asked questions and argued that Mann et al. can’t make the claims that they purport to make; I haven’t given answers of my own.
I just don’t understand you, Hearnden (and you can refer to me as “Snack”, I’m not concerned). You are not asking for “the kind of patience you expect Mann and co” (whatever that means), you are demanding (yes yes, your little joke, complete with smiley) something that is already there. If Michael Mann’s code and data was as available as Hans’, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, Rep Barton would be doing something else, and the dispute over MBH98 & 99 would have been resolved many months ago, although I am sure that any negative ramifications would still be being denied by the Realclimate crowd (and vv).
I think it your inability to see the point that irritates others, although I can’t claim to speak for them. Hans may or may not be correct in his interpretations, but at least you can have a discussion with him over the same data and attempt to resolve the differences.
You see the difference with MBH is this, M&M have reconstructed almost the same results as MBH, only their reconstructions show that the results lack statistical significance, and also show if you remove certain records (BCPs) the “hockey stick” shape disappears, contra Mann’s assertion to the contrary. MBH & others refuse to accept the reconstruction’s conclusions, asserting amongst other matters that the two are not the same, but they won’t allow access to the code to permit a direct re-creation. Hence in their terms, the results cannot be challenged, but, (and here you get on board) we (M, B, & H) are REAL climatologists, and IPCC authors, so our views must be the correct ones, believe us.
Get this too Peter, if Mann releases the code, and he is right, that is a slam-dunk, no easy way out, win for him, realclimate, the IPCC, and the whole AGW crowd. So, you and a great many others seem to think he IS right, so why aren’t you urging him to release the code. If it is fine, and reproduces his original results AND they can be shown to have statistical significance, I think we would all on this site be flabbergasted, but we’d have to admit the case and get on with it. We might (probably would !) dispute the matter and interpretation, but if the facts are available to the public, and reputable independent statistically competent people back up the “consensus” interpretation, an awful lot of our ground has been cut out from under our feet. Isn’t that what you and others want, to convince us of the error of our ways ?
So why not release the code ? M&M couldn’t possibly be RIGHT could they ?
Peter,
Check out the email exchange with Crowley on another thread. Or refresh your memory on the exchanges between M&M and Mann when M&M were doing their initial work. To compare that kind of long-term stonewalling, ignorance, and denial to the immediate actions you and/or Dr Hunter seem to expect from people like Steve and Hans is ridiculous.
Re #77, Hans, I’m not ‘attacking’ Steve, I was questioning you. Indeed my respect for Steve’s conduct increases. Re trolls, c’mon, if you think I fit that bill your’re ad homming me! I do think most here ARE ‘challenging the dominant discourse’ and attempting ‘to break the status quo of groupthink’, do I accuse anyone here of trolling? Show me an example, or please shurrup :(.
Michael, Look (and I’ll try to be brief else I’ll get accused of trolling). I tried to make the point that people here who get irritable when others dislike long inqisitions clearly don’t take kindly to (OK, something like) the same treatment in reply, even for two post! Hans is beyond reproach, an upstanding and trustworthy character who’s motives cannot be questioned. OK, why not show the same attitude towards M. Mann? Why is it wrong for me to seem to disrespect Hans Errin (Hans, this is an exercise btw) but Ok with Michael Mann?
re#83 That is totally illogical! Hans did not refuse you the information you asked for. You just pretended not to have access to it. Now we all know the point you were TRYING to make, but it just doesn’t match reality. Dr. Mann didn’t merely take more than two days to reply to legitimate requests from Steve, he took months and still didn’t deliver. The reason people here complain and wonder about Mann’s motives is precisely what he’s failed to do, not disrespect (pretend or not) for him. And BTW, when I’ve posted on RealClimate, I do not troll, but try to bring up specific questions about the science being discussed. Your messages have uniformly been concerning people, their motives, etc. not the science. If you started asking pertinent questions here, you’d find youself in much better odor.
Dear Peter Hurndon,
Firstly: My webpages are sufficient for replication, MBH98 isn’t. That is why I got irritated.
Secondly: Even if I gave you a dump of my PC’s harddisk, what were you going to do with it?
Thirdly: What I write on my website is only up to me, I am doing it in my own free time, in the first place to exercise my geophysics, and to share my findings in an extremely cheap way with the whole world. People that are genuinely interested do write me emails. Unfortunately, at the moment a lot of my private time is spent on blogging debates.
And yes, you are playing the devil’s advocate here, no, you don’t accuse anybody of trolling, I simply show that you do fit very well to the wiki definition of a troll. The groupthink here, however, doesn’t need breaking here, because Steve’s findings are self-explanatory and far from status quo. Pity you don’t see it. And finally: no, this is not an ad hom.
Hans, ‘Errin’ was a unfortunate typo – sorry, should have been more careful and typed slower. However, Steve’s view ARE the status quo here!
Dave, it’s get personal because it’s been made personal. The integrity, honesty and motives of a top scientist are in question. Some of the things I’ve read (not especially here) make me shudder. Imo, he’s perfectly within his right to keep any intellectual property he may have to himself. I would if I’d faced the persistent barrage as he has.
That said, as a compromise, I could, fwiw, go along with Roger Pielke’s last thoughts, could you? Pertinent enough?
Btw, you are wrong to claim my post are ‘uniformly’ personnal and you know that.
Re #63 “Why is it wrong for me to seem to disrespect Hans Errin (Hans, this is an exercise btw) but Ok with Michael Mann?”
Very simple – Hans is not hiding anything.
re: 86 OK
Steve’s views are very straightforward:
Data -> Method -> Results
The first claim by Steve was that the Data listed was not complete and poorly archived, hence a corrigendum by MBH.
The second claim by Steve is that the description of the method by MBH is incomplete, hence the question for the algorithm and code.
See? Simple. No need to play the devil’s advocate here.
Re #87. Indeed, you, like I do, trust Hans, his word is good enough. OK, why not trust Mann? Why not take ***HIS*** word on this?
If you take one man’s word but not another it’s…personal.
Re #88. Hans, thanks for that.
Let me see if I can put it simply enough for you: Why do you take Steve M’s word but not Michael M’s? (btw, I *do* take Steve’s word!)
“Imo, he’s perfectly within his right to keep any intellectual property he may have to himself.”
Tell you what, become a professor at a university, get federal funding for a project, and try to keep anything as “intellectual property.” Often, it all belongs to the public, the gov’t, or the university. For private funding, it often all belongs to the university or the funding agent. It depends on the funding agent, university policy, the property, the funding contract, etc.
You get the credit for doing it. You get it on your CV and some bravo points towards tenure. You get your name as author or co-author on the publication (if publishable). They’ll often pay to fly you around to present at conferences and hobnob with the other researchers out there. But the intellectual property often belongs to the university or funding agent. Of course, didn’t Mann claim he used “standard” procedures in MBH98? So what kind of intellectual property is there to keep as his own?
As I’ve said before, Mann’s selective use of statistics (and the general lack of use of statistics overall) raises serious questions in my eyes from my experience with graduate research and scientific publication. It’s a major stretch for me to think that Mann presented all of the statistics he calculated and didn’t bury any statistics which were weak or non-supportive of his conclusions. And there is no excuse for his stonewalling on data and code, making claims about their availability which have been shown to be false, etc. Furthermore, when an article is published in a scientific journal, theoretically it should be cookbook so that the results could be duplicated by other scientists if they have the same starting materials. So why can’t anyone duplicate Mann’s results? Steve has shown that Wahl and Amman get his results (not Mann’s) almost exactly, save for one re-scaling step W&A added.
Even if we/you were to trust Mann, how much does he really trust himself? After all, he’s the one who won’t release his code. If I were in such a situation and believed I was even 80-90% in the right as he seems to think he is, I’d reveal everything and put my critics in their place…and enjoy doing it.
I haven’t look much at Hans’ website or results, so I have no reason to question him or his results. I’ve see Mann’s results (or lack thereof). I’ve seen and understood the critques from M&M. I’ve seen the way Mann has acted over the resulting hockey stick debate. So there are plenty of reasons to doubt him in my eyes.
Re#90,
Steve M usually spells everything out thoroughly in gory detail. Can the same be said for Mann?
Re #89 and #90
Aha Peter, I think I now understand your problem. And I would imagine we all share it to a greater or lesser extent. Because you do not understand the science, and by that I mean the physics, formulae, algorithms etc and are therefore unable to follow the argument or replicate the work you can say either ” I don’t understand and thus I don’t know whether this is right or wrong” or, as you appear to want to do, “I trust(distrust) this person ( or the peer review process!) and thus ‘believe’ that his/her results are right(wrong)”. This would explain your fascination with words like “trust” and “taking word” and the “personalities” of contributors to this blog. Relying on trust is a rather insecure position to take. The only cure is to learn more about the science.
And it is because “trust” is such an inadequate measure of the correctness of scientific results that Steve M is asking for sufficent data and code to complete a replication.
So the issue then becomes not whether anyone “trusts” Mann (or Hans) but whether the science can be replicated so that we can simply argue about the science.
It is a matter of record that Mann’s work cannot be replicated.
Might I suggest that a permanent link to the UKweatherworld discussion forum be added?
Their thread on the investigation continues even today (7/18/05)! “US Government Questions MBH”
Link to climatology menu:
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=11
They also have a thread, “RealClimate fantasy or self-love island” and RealClimate shadow postings”
This thread might be of interest to people who really know their geological climate history “Aliens Cause Climate Change!!”:
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=21983&start=1
Status of the scientific discussion.
In respect of the scientific discussions about the MBH paper, I will be pleased if some could put together a short status of the discussion. How far away are M&M, MBH and Ammann in their reconstructions?
Joe Barton/M&M inquisitions:
I do not think it is a good strategy to solve a scientific problem by political means. Please let the scientists solve scientific problems and politicians solve political problems.
Please be aware of that Bush/White House/Congress/Joe Barton/American Petroleum Institute/ExxonMobile/GMI are a very powerful cocktail. For this reason it is a tremendous pressure Joe Barton/M&M have put one three very highly qualified scientists.
Joe Bartons inquiry/Chemical industries inquiry/Fishing expeditions
I will be pleased to draw your attention to a similar action taken by the chemical industry against scientists in US. It is the chemical industry’s lawsuit against Prof. David Rosner and Prof. Gerald Markowitz. The two professors have written a book about how the chemical industries and their trade organisations have tried to hide the connection between cancer and PVC/VCM and between lead pollution and health. The chemical industry is so upset over this books disclosure that they have filed a lawsuit. The layer of chemical industry went during the disposition on a fishing expedition to the files of the authors, peer reviewers, University of California Press and the Milbank Fund. This is similar to Joe Barton’s fishing expedition.
In addition to this the chemical Industry has hired their own “scientist” to discredit the two professors. M&M have a similar role in their attempt to discredit MBH.
It looks like that the same master plan is behind the way the tobacco industry, the chemical Industry, the petrochemical industry and other industries are trying to discredit scientists.
The effect of these inquiries could be that no scientists want to be involved in areas where there could be a conflict with major financial interests. This could be what Joe Barton/American Petroleum Institute/ ExxonMobile/ the chemical Industry/The Marshall Institute/the tobacco Industry etc. aim at.
I find both cases interesting, fascinating and frightening.
http://www.deceitanddenial.org/intro.html
There are a lot of similarities between the way American Petroleum Institute/ ExxonMobile/The Mashall Institute are trying to create uncertainty in respect of the climate science and the way the tobacco industry tried to create uncertainty about the epidemiologic methods used to assess the risk of passive smoking. From http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-JunkScience-Yach.pdf written by Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous I have copied: “The tobacco companies have carefully planned to undermine accepted epidemiologic practices and hoped that by partnering with a broad range of academic and private commercial interests, they could create confusion about the role of epidemiology and risk assessment in public policy development. The ultimate goal of the industry was to promote the trivialization of the risk of tobacco use, stating that nearly everything from eating Twinkies to crossing the street was harmful, and that tobacco was just one more “risky pleasure.” “Among the notable academics enlisted by the industry are professors such as A. R. Feinstein of Yale University, editor of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, who on many occasions has presented the argument that the epidemiologic methods used to assess the risk of passive smoking are inadequate. In a 1992 article, Feinstein supported the tobacco industry’s right to defend itself against the label of “bad guy” and criticized the “current atmosphere [in which a tobacco industry] consultant’s stature, credibility, and integrity become instantly impugned and tarnished by the depravity of associating with the tobacco “bad guy'”. He did not mention, however, that he was a tobacco industry consultant and the recipient of highly secret “special project” awards”. American Petroleum Institute network is promoting the message “The climate science is uncertain”, “the CO2 increase is good for the planet”, “the current temperature increase is natural and not harmful” and “it will be to costly to implement Kyoto” from a shareholder value perspective. To my understanding it is the same master plan American Petroleum Industry have adopted and Ross Mckitrick, Steve Mcintyre, Fred Singer, Soon and Baliunas, etc. have a similar role like Professor A.R. Feinstein. In respect of smoking, it is a matter of freedom to smoke and it is a criminal act to mislead the public and to distort the science in respect of health effects. In respect of climate change, it is a matte of freedom to disagree with IPCC or with API etc, but it is a criminal act to distort the climate science in respect of the potential effect of the climate change.
Steve: I receive no funding from ExxonMobil or anyone else. I’m just doing this for my own interest. Likewise with McKitrick. I think that the topic of potential antrhopogenic climate impact is an important one and worth studying – or else I wouldn’t bother. That’s also why it’s ridiculous that climate studies have such poor traditions of replicability. On your side, you should be critcizing clmate scientists for not being diligent in their archiving practices and permitting themselves to risk disrepute for their cause.
I think that people should examine the studies with great care, just as I think that Iraqi emigre stories about WMD should have been examined with great care.
Re: 98
Notice how for people like Klaus, and perhaps Michael Seward, John Hunter, Peter Hearnden et al., climate science is valuable primarily as a political enterprise? According to adherents of this outlook, the scientific or technical truth of any particular AGW-related claim is strictly subordinmate to the ideological hygiene of the claimant. If the claimant holds unapproved political opinions (or is merely suspected of doing so), their claims can be derided and dismissed out of hand, with no consideration due to the substantive merits of the claims. On the other hand, those who pass the hygiene test are given wide latitude to avoid responsibility to their funding bodies, obscure their methodologies, hide their data, and whine piteously about the personal motives of those who disagree with them.
In a scientific or technical field that hadn’t been captured by ideologues, Steve’s requests wouldn’t be regarded as anything particularly unusual or outrageous. Fortunately, I think we’re beginning to see a much wider recognition of the deplorable state of the IPCC process, and people discount their opinions accordingly.
If Steve is getting money from Exxon, he should have them shell out for a secretary who can read the posts and make sure that they follow normal rules for paragraphing.
Most of my posts were properly paragraphed.
I went back and added new categories to old posts about 4 weeks ago. For some reason, and it may have been a Word Press upgrade, it screwed up all my prior paragraphing. I’m re-editing old posts from time to time, but it’s really irritating.
You shouldn’t spend time on that. Get an Exxon-paid assistant to do it.
nice thinking…
data recovery