Environmental Science & Technology Article

There’s a long article in Environmental Science & Technology about the proprietor of this blog (thanks to Dano for the reference) .

Interviews with various eminent climate scientists produced much frothing at the mouth, a statement from Jerry Mahlman that we were "quacks", from Mann that our articles were "garbage". ES&T mentions that Mann has submitted an article to GRL – if so, I haven’t seen it. Maybe they mean the (rejected) article by Wahl and Ammann. The link is here.

I’ll try to post something on this tomorrow, but I’m going to watch Nadal at the U.S. Open right now.

73 Comments

  1. Posted Aug 31, 2005 at 8:29 PM | Permalink

    The article is amazingly incoherent! Why does such an allegedly inconsequential event revolving around such an apparently insignificant person merit such a long and desultory article? As the man says in the article “It was a strange story ’cause it had this bizarre undertone of being investigative but it didn’t investigate”.

  2. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 31, 2005 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    You wonder how someone could report on the Wall Street Journal article without mentioning Mann’s famous statement that he would not be “intimidated” into disclosing the algorithm by which he got his results.

  3. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 31, 2005 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    It’s amazing there was such a long and negative article and essentially nothing about the actual subject of the complaints against Mann. Since we regulars here are quite up on what the actual situation was /is it’s quite revealing to see how easy it is to distort things and make it look like Steve is totally incompetent. If such an article doesn’t give one total skepticism on what one reads by the “Establishment” ones objectivity must be doubted.

  4. Reid B
    Posted Sep 1, 2005 at 5:44 AM | Permalink

    It is obvious that climate science has been corrupted by the billions of dollars of research funds that have been pouring into the field.

  5. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Sep 1, 2005 at 5:52 AM | Permalink

    ES&T then emailed 19 questions and asked to receive a response within three days. Six days later, editor Bob McGough confirmed by phone that the questions had been received.

    ES&T has never received a response.

    Oh, poor ES&T. No mention of all the requests done by people like McIntyre which got the cold shoulder, got the “I’ll get back to you – not” response, the “I’ve misplaced the data,” story, etc.

    “It’s a legitimate scientific exchange that has been amplified and distorted by contrarians,” adds Mann. “That is strikingly different from this McIntyre stuff, which was garbage from the start.”

    “Garbage” that forced a correction to Mann et al’s Nature article. “Garbage” that has resulted in Mann and associates trying to publish counter-articles – some of which have been rejected.

    Oddly, the McIntyre incident is not an anomaly, according to Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There have been several examples of people who have come into the field of climate change and done incredibly stupid things by applying statistics in ways that are inappropriate for the data,” he says.

    Ummm…wouldn’t this apply to Mann, the user of “standard PC methods” who later admits he used non-standard methods? I continue to be amazed at the arrogance of climate scientists who seem to think they are the sole-source for statistical analysis in climate-related fields. Some of them don’t even know the difference between accuracy and precision yet pretend that they “know” Mann’s methods are appropriate and correct.

    As usual, nobody points-out specific flaws with M&M’s works, or things Steve has said on this blog. As usual, nobody defends the bristlecone proxies. Just a lot of, “We say that our side is right and his side is wrong – what more proof do you need?”

  6. Posted Sep 1, 2005 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    Whenever I read texts like this one by Paul D. Thacker, I get very angry. It’s always a combination of wrong science, stupidity, dogmatism, personal attacks, and misunderstanding of all the real values that create progress of the human society. Does he really believe that Steve McIntyre’s path to scientific prominence was "non-traditional"? Has Mr. Thacker ever heard of Albert Einstein who was a patent clerk when he essentially established the whole field of modern physics? What is the value of these historical arguments for a rationally thinking person? How can the previous profession of a researcher influence the probability that his published work is correct? Moreover, these people like Paul D. [redacted] are clearly fooling themselves. It’s just impossible that he really believes that Steve McIntyre is so insignificant: otherwise he could not write this long rant. Those people are dumb, internally inconsistent, and despicable.

    John writes: Luboà…⟬ I realise you may be upset, but can you please restrain your language from making gratuitous insults like the one above? Thanks, John

  7. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Sep 3, 2005 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    ES&T used 3,272 words in their attempt to slay the messenger, but only 57 to briefly describe the message. Most of ES&T’s article was ad hominem attacks on anyone who did not agree with their opinions.

    Perhaps I am confused, but whenever someone resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks, I always wonder why they do not want to address the underlying facts. Are the ad hominem attackers concerned that their argument will not stand up to scrutiny?

  8. Max
    Posted Sep 3, 2005 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    “While scientists have essentially dismissed McIntyre’s research, professional societies have gone after Rep. Barton and his letters. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the AGU, for example, have protested Barton’s intrusion into the scientific process. ”

    Perfect, then Science should also stay out of politics and we are all square.

  9. MItch
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    ahem… sorry to break up the party, but…

    Mike J. et al.
    1) No offense, but the first article in E&E was, in fact, “garbage.” Consider this: the whole analysis was done with the wrong data (obviously so… to a point that it was, in fact, “lampoonable”). Thus, the E&E paper was not an “audit” at all. (It is only ad hominem if it has no basis in fact).

    2) The corrections that Mann ended up making and publishing in Nature had no noticeable effect on the results and the conclusions remained the same. Not to mention the fact that a dozen other studies have confirmed the original “hockey stick” conclusions. We still await the GRL letters responding to McIntyre’s *one* peer reviewed publication.

    3) You guys miss the point of the ES&T article entirely. Why did a front page WSJ *news* article highlight McIntyre’s work when no other climate scientist had ever been featured in such a prominent spot in that paper? It is because the editors are ideological conservatives and by catapulting McIntyre from obscure contrarian to “mainstream scientist” they provided fuel for a political battle over scientific conclusions that they do not agree with.

    That’s the point (this is how science is politicized). The WSJ profile of McIntyre was just fuel for a political battle over scientific conclusions that they do not agree with. That’s it.

  10. TCO
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    I have a subscription to the WSJ–the article was well in keeping with the sort of quirky things that they put in that column. I agree that the prominence might have had some relation to the WSJ editorial page, but in general WSJ is far more fair than the NYT or NPR or the like.

    If the EE paper was on wrong data, that makes it a poor review, not an ad hominem. And the wrongness of the data probably had much to do with Mann et al resistance to showing the data or giving Steve wrong stuff. IOW Mann’s fault.

  11. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    RE 9-10

    It’s not a case of ‘probably”, TCO it’s been gone over in great detail by Steve as to how and what information was given to him as to where the data was to be found. It’s cheeky at least for MItch to come here where all the information on what happened is archived for all to see and imply that the E&E article was some school-boy silliness because they couldn’t find the library or something.

    Further, it’s more than a little ironic that he’s trying to draw attention to a paper which has clearly been superceded when at the same time people like dan0 are claiming that Steve should stop analyzing MHB98 at all because the science has ‘moved on’.

  12. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    Dear Mitch,
    One of the things that really irritates about climate scientists is the amount of disinformation and, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lying that goes on.

    First, the data set discussed in the EE03 article was obtained from a URL at Mann’s FTP site provided by Scott Rutherford. The data set was produced long before our inquiry; it was deleted only after the publicity surrounding MM03. We did not produce the data set. Mann said that the data set was produced in response to my inquiry. This is a lie. It was dated long before my inquiry. Mann said that it was produced because I requested an Excel spreadhseet. This is a lie – I requested an FTP location. I was quite intrigued by bold-faced lies by a famous scientist. I was irritated by the acceptance of these lies by climate scientists even when we provide4d correspondence and evidence to the contrary.

    Second, Mann suggests that we didn’t notice the defects in the "garbage" data set. This is a ridiculous claim. We sent the data set back to him and asked him to confirm that it was the data set used in MBH. We asked Rutherford about apparent collation errors in it. BECAUSE we noticed the errors, I went to the trouble of completely re-assembling over 300 tree ring series and carrying out brand new principal component calculations from scratch, since the main problems were localized to the PC calculations. We did not use any compromised data in our PC calculations. We did not use a garbage data set and have provided evidence and details proving it.

    Third, for non-principal component series, there was no difference between the "real" data that suddenly materialized in Nov 2003 and the "duplicate" books that I was originally referred to.

    If you look at MM03 Scorecard here , you will see that pretty much everything in MM03 stands up. We hadn’t figured out what was going on with Mann’s PC series, but with the attendant publicity from MM03, Mann had to disclose his real data and inadvertently disclosed the PC code, showing where Mann’s erroneous PC series were coming from. The only issue that may not hold is the collation errors – however, the deleted file pcproxy was used in a graphic by Rutherford and may affect some of Rutherford’s work, although perhaps not Mann’s.

    If there’s anything lampoonable in this sorry story, it’s the credulous behavior of climate scientists.

    Mann’s Corrigendum was NOT externally peer-reviewed and the extensive Corrigendum SI was not even edited. The listing of errors in the Corrigendum is incomplete – Nature said that "space limitations" prevented a full listing of the errors. Do the errors matter? Well, the PC error matters a lot. The "editing" of the Gaspe series matters a lot.

    ES&T suggests that the WSJ was the only media outlet that was interested in our story. Our articles have been heavily covered internationally. Look at the sidebar here for a partial listing – coverage prior to WSJ included mentions in Science, Nature, Economist, a big feature article in Natuurwetenschap, National Post. We’ve had prominent coverage in German, Swiss, Australian, Canadian newspapers. Even in the US, contrary to ES&T, there was a UPI article. There are not many articles that have got similar coverage.

    The other thing that you’re missing is that the story was about Mann as well as me. He brought attention to himself by saying that he would not be "intimidated" into showing his algorithm for these important conclusions. I don’t know whether there would have been a story if it were just me; there’s a case that it was Mann who made it into a feature story.

  13. MItch
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,
    “One of the things that really irritates about climate scientists is the amount of disinformation and, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lying that goes on.”

    “If there’s anything lampoonable in this sorry story, it’s the credulous behavior of climate scientists.”

    Your post seems to suggest that (the “Famous”) Dr. Michael Mann’s behavior can be extrapolated to that of all reputable “climate scientists.” With all dues respect, that is an unreasonable position. I have no doubt that Dr. Mann’s lack of diplomatic skill and/or lack of professionalism has made him look like a fool and made you feel resentful toward him. I am not defending or attacking anyone. I am also not blaming you for the way that the WSJ and their political allies have used your work to advance their own political agendas. Although, I do find it interesting that you have so publicly chosen your political allies… in your role as a scientist.

    I just have one question (which requires a very short answer). Was the data published in your E&E paper the exact same data that was published in MBH98 or MBH99?

    Regards, MItch

  14. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    The data set that we used in our E&E paper was described in detail there. We used archived versions of data sets wherever they were available and provided exact data citations including URLs. For example, Mann et al used “grey” versions of many data sets rather than archived versions. We discussed the TTHH series as an example. One of the criticisms by Bradley was that an “audit” should use exactly the same data set. I think that I can speak more expertly than Bradley as to what’s involved in audits – auditors examine invoices and original data. So if MBH used obsolete data, it is an entirely appropriate verification activity to examine the effect of using data as archived. In one particular case, there was a material impact. Mann et al. had fiddled the Gaspe data so that it would be eligible for the AD1400 network where it lowered values. We used the archived version – they then misrepresented the start date so it was impossible to know about the fiddle unless someone verified the data as used against archived data: that’s one reason why I think that data as used needs to be archived. In MM03, we didn’t fully realize the particular impact of this fiddle; but we described it clearly in our 2005 articles. In the tree ring networks, we used the listing of sites from the Supplementary Information at Nature. It turned out that this listing was inaccurate – that Mann et al had not used all the sites that they said that they usd. Our 2003 article listed 5 discrepancies but there eventually turned out to be 35 discrepancies. Nature has remarkably deleted the original SI – something pretty much unprecedented for them. There was another difference in the Stahle/SWM network: we used data from 10 sites as reported in the original SI. MBH actually used 11 sites and appear to have used differing editions of 1 site; two pairs of series have identical values for the first 120 eyars- this has never been explained. There are other little differences – Mann et al used some series in their AD1450 step and for no reason didn’t use them in their AD1500 step.

    It would have been impossible to figure out all the little errors in MBH and replicate them. The data set that WE reconstructed was not “garbage” in the sense used by Mann and did not contain collation errors, as did the dataset (now deleted) at Mann’s FTP site. This was pure disinformation by Mann.

    As to whether any of this was the “exact same data” as published in MBH98 and MBH99? No data was published in MBH98 and MBH99. What exists today exists as a result of our persistent efforts to obtain production of it. My surmise is that the data archived in July 2004 does correspond with the MBH98 data, but the only way to prove it is to be able to exactly produce MBH98 results using the July 2004 data. Both us and Wahl and Ammann have produced emulations that give roughly similar results to MBH, but not exactly the same. Wahl and Ammann dishonestly say that they exactly replicated MBH; they haven’t. I know exactly what W and A have done. Wahl and Ammann also know that the MBH cross-validation R2 is 0 and unconscionably have withheld this statistic, as did Mann.

  15. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    So who are you Mitch? And how much of the material on this site have your read? You seem very unaware of what’s actually been going on between Steve and the “Hockey Team”. They may not be all climate scientists, but I don’t see vast numbers of other climate scientists denouncing Mann, et. al. for their unprofessional actions.

  16. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

    By the way, I don’t feel “resentful” towards Mann. I don’t worry too much about that kind of thing. When I was younger, I might have, but I’ve been through a lot of different things and none of that bothered me. As I said, it intrigued me: a famous scientist lying made me all the more determined to get to the bottom of the story.

    I differentiate between a “lack of diplomatic skill” and lying. Mann’s statements about Excel spreadsheets and the date of making the pcproxy file were flat-out lies.

    My view in life is that Mann’s sort of behavior counts against him rather than me. So I don’t sweat it personally. On the other hand, I like to finish things.

  17. Ian Castles
    Posted Sep 9, 2005 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    Re #9 and #12-15. An Annex to a submission to a Committee of the Australian Parliament by CSIRO, Australia’s leading (governmental) scientific research organisation, was ironically titled “The Balance of Evidence”. Its author was a scientist who was subsequently selected as Coordinating Lead Author of the “Australia and New Zealand” chapter of the WGII Contribution to the next IPCC Assessment Report. Two extracts from the Annex follow:

    “McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) also claims that the 20th century warmth was not unusual, being exceeded by far greater warmth around 1400 and 1500 AD. However, MBH have shown that this conclusion was based on flawed data and analysis (see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo). Key indicators used in the report of MBH in 1998 appear to have been omitted by M&M for the period 1400-1600, producing anomalous warming in the 15th century, at odds with the cold conditions for that period found in many other climate reconstructions. In particular, three tree-ring datasets covering the period 1400-1600 appear to have been incorrectly eliminated or shortened, and MBH show that this explains most of the spurious 15th century warming. Unlike MBH in 1998, M&M also failed to use a standard statistical technique called cross-validation to verify the skill of their reconstructions. When MBH applied this technique to their data without the three tree ring datasets, the skill score was so poor that the result should have been discarded as unreliable.”

    “Castles and Henderson have claimed that the IPCC warming projections are based on greenhouse emissions that are too high because market exchange rates (MER) were used rather than purchasing power parity (PPP) in calculating future economic growth. The claims have been reviewed and refuted by international experts (Nakicenovic and others)…”

    There were 25 CSIRO expert reviewers of the last main scientific report (WGI of the TAR), but NO CSIRO reviewers (and no Australians) among the 89 expert reviewers of the SRES.

  18. TCO
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 4:30 AM | Permalink

    Could you translate all that into a point, Ian?

  19. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    re#18

    The point, TCO, is that we all know here that both the points in the annex cited are, if not outright lies, the next thing to it. And the fact that the author was “rewarded” with an IPCC position shows either a quid pro quo or a biased writer or both.

  20. Ian Castles
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    Yes, I agree my point was not clear. It will help if I paste in some earlier sentences from the article that CSIRO presented as “the balance of evidence”:

    “Political debates and decisions often involve the proponents of different positions selecting the evidence that backs up their argument. Professional scientists cannot do this as our job is to assess the risks linked to climate change, and estimate the potential impact of different policy-based decisions. Debate is a fundamental part of the method in which scientists develop new assessments, subject to rigorous analysis and review, and publication in scientific literature. In the case of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mandates a critical review process by scientists and governments, involving several thousand experts from around the world …The IPCC conclusions published in 2001 remain valid and in many cases have been strengthened by recent research.”

    This was the context in which (a) McIntyre & McKitrick and (b) Castles & Henderson were swept aside. CSIRO pays lip service to debate as a fundamental part of the scientific process, but when it comes to the crunch they don’t believe that those thousands of experts from around the world could ever be wrong. Compare the claim that M&M “failed to use a statistical technique called cross validation” with the last sentence in #14 above. Compare the claim that C&H “have been reviewed and refuted by international experts (Nakicenovic and others” with the finding of the recent UK House of Lords Committee finding that “We found no support for the use of MER in such [scenario] exercises, other than from Nakicenovic of the IPCC.”

    My last sentence did go off at a tangent. The point is that on the subject of the C&H criticism, CSIRO were not involved in the exercise in the first place, either as authors or reviewers. Yet they, like the IPCC itself, were ready to say that we had been “reviewed and refuted” on the say-so of the experts we had criticised. The Panel’s reaction to our criticism has confirmed precisely the larger point that we were making: that the IPCC needs to widen its horizons. They made an elementary error that any national accounts expert could have saved them from. Now they are going through the charade of reviewing criticisms of the SRES without involving any national accountants (or economic historians or historically minded economists).

  21. MItch
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre,
    Still, you have provided no evidence to support your suggestion that Mann’s (poor) behavior is somehow representative of all climate scientists’ behavior, including Bradley and Hughes. This is a serious and slanderous charge that does nothing but remind me of your powerful political allies in the US and your possible ulterior motives.

    I’m with Bradley on the point that a legitimate “audit” must use the original data. At the outset (in 2003, when, perhaps coincidentally, McCain-Lieberman was first being debated in the U.S. Congress), you cried fowl because the data that you published (in graphical form) did not match the data published in MBH98 (in graphical form). When one starts with different datasets… one expects different results. That you were working with two different datasets was patently obvious from a simple glance at the plots in question. In the subsequent political debate, apples and oranges were publicly compared by powerful politicians in a successful attempt to advance their own (anti-science) agendas. In this context, the character of the political and scientific debates surrounding MM03 was, in fact, lampoonable.

    I do not have the time or interest to follow all of the details that you find so worthy of pursuit. That you are splitting hairs is obvious from the fact that more than a dozen other attempts to reconstruct the past 1,000 years of global (or NH) temperatures (both proxy-based and model-based studies) have resulted in plotted curves that are very similar to that of MBH99 (and none of these look anything like MM03). Your attempt to dodge this reality only highlights the Lampoon quality of this debate.

    Regards, Mitch

  22. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

    MItch,

    It’s precisely because you have failed to “follow all the details” that you have the situation so backwards. Steve showed the non-matching graphs precisely to show that he had not been given the proper data and/or procedures. To blame him for proving that Mann, et. al. hadn’t given him access to the correct data is nothing but hypocracy. All the details are present on this site. If you’re not willing to read what actually happened, shame on you.

  23. JerryB
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    Since Steve did not suggest that “Mann’s (poor) behavior” is representative of all climate scientists, it seems that Mitch is simply playing troll du jour.

    The rest of his rant seems to confirm that impression.

    Next.

  24. per
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    Dear Mitch
    perhaps a couple of points of fact may be of interest to you ?
    In 2003, M&M tried to repeat MBH’98, based on the description as originally published in MBH’98, and based on data provided by MBH. The M&M’03 paper shows that there are many, many serious discrepancies between what MBH’98 originally published as their methods and datasets, and their results.
    When Nature was advised of this, they investigated; and I am sure you will agree that Nature is an impartial party here. As a result, MBH were obliged to issue a corrigendum, acknowledging the errors in their original description. As far as I know, all the data queries raised by M&M were found to be valid complaints. The Methods section and description of data was substantially re-written in this corrigendum.

    So what you say is absolutely correct. If you have two people starting from different datasets, and doing different things with these data, you will get different results. Surely we can agree that it is wholly inappropriate for scientists to publish a defective description of their methods and data; for then, no-one can test if what they did was good ?
    yours
    per

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    Mitch, I started looking at this out of personal interest. I was simply an aging Canadian businessman interested in promotions. I have not said that Mann’s poor behavior is "representative" of all climate scientists. However, the failure of climate scientists to articulate objections to Mann’s poor behavior speaks poorly of them. I also think that the failure of the Hockey Team to meticulously archive data and methods speaks poorly of them, especially when they simultaneously invite the public to adopt policy based on their conclusions. Crowley’s behavior is also very objectionable.

    I don’t know your background, but I’m sure that I have more experience in audits than you do. For example, Mann et al. provided an original SI listing the series that they supposedly used. An audit is not only entitled to look at this data set but is obligated to do so – even if, and, especially if, there are discrepancies between the "actual" data set and the listed data set. Similarly, notes to financial statements are an integral part of the statements. Under this analogy, methodology descriptions corerspond to notes to financial statements. If you treat ONE out of over 400 series uniquely, then an auditor would inquire into this accont – especially if there was a misrepresentation in the financial statements.

    Consider applying your philosophy to the Enron audit. An audit is not simply going from a trial balance to financial statements: an audit looks at invoices and financial notes. Auditors frequently require restatements. I don’t think that Bradley has a clue about what an audit does. BTW can you identify a URL for the archived Arctic sediment data that Bradley told the Barton committee that he had archived?

  26. TCO
    Posted Sep 10, 2005 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    1. Steve has not indicted all climate scientists. However he has written about issues similar to Mann (some worse than, some not as bad as) in terms of recalcitrance to show data by other climaters. Steve can direct you to the posts. They are on this site. (I know it is a hassel to read them all…no worries.)

    2. I don’t think Steve’s big problem with the MBH work was that he thought an illegetimate graph had been made from data, but that the data that MBH LISTED did not support their graph. And really his main point was not on this improper labeling of data, but on the statistical tricks (bristlecone sereis, accentric PCs and low R values). IOW, that the graph was not statistically significant. This is the case whether Mann shares his data or labels it properly or not.

    3. Don’t be put off by all that evil capitalist business talk from Steve about “audits”. anything that he is trying to do is well in keeping with the ideals of fact-based science (but not typical high pressure, Nature-publishing wheeler-dealers). All he’s trying to do is what a Feynman would do. It’s classic skeptical inquiry vice appeal to authority.

  27. Mitch
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

    McIntyre,
    With all due respect, you are all grasping at straws:

    “I have not said that Mann’s poor behavior is “representative” of all climate scientists.” -S.M.

    “Steve did not suggest that “Mann’s (poor) behavior” is representative of all climate scientists” -JerryB

    “Steve has not indicted all climate scientists.” -TCO

    That’s BS:

    “One of the things that really irritates about climate scientists is the amount of disinformation and, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lying that goes on.” -S.M.

    Please, back up your slanderous charges or shut it.

    Here is my point about MM03: Mann gave you the wrong data and that was his fault. You published an article in a journal (of dubious distinction), using the wrong data, and suggested, in the title that you were publishing a “correction” to MBH98. Does no one here at this site see the obvious disconnect here? Either you are publishing an expose on the lack of transparency in the scientific process or you are publishing a correction. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t “correct” anything in methods of MBH98 if you don’t have the real data! Thus, going ahead with publication of MM03, under the guise of “correcting” MBH98, despite the fact that you soooo obviously still did not have the right data was clearly a political stunt to make Mann (and all “climate scientists”) look bad. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and, yes, lampoonable.

    Say hi to Inhofe and Barton for me.
    -Mitch

  28. JerryB
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    Perhaps some cryptanalyst would help us find the name Mann in the sentence:
    “One of the things that really irritates about climate scientists is the amount of disinformation and, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lying that goes on.”

    Until then, next troll please.

  29. TCO
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    Mitch:

    1. For proof of poor behavior (refusal to show data to critics) by several other scientists than Mann see categories: “Disclosure and Due Diligence” and “Other multi-porxy studies”. Links available on this site, on bar on right.

    2. What does your comment about the incorrect data that Mann gave to Steve have to do with Steve’s fundamental points: 1. the reconstruction lacks statistical significance. 2. the method of using accentric PCA is cherry-picking to produce hockey sticks.

  30. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    Mitch, in addition to Mann, Crowley has made outright lies about my correspondence in print. That’s a lot of lying by prominent climate scientists and it “irritates” me. Lying irritates me it has been remarkable for me that there should be any outright lying at all. I haven’t noticed any climate scientists coming to my defence even though the correspondence is put up for all to see. That “irritates” me too. That’s enough to prove my point. It’s not a point that I’ve dwelled in titled posts; I made it as a comment in response to your comment. Other disinformation from realclimate has been documented in many locations on this site. You continue to distribute disinformation.

    After I explicitly told you that we re-collated the data set to avoid Mann’s errors, you assert again that we "used the wrong data". Disinformation.

    The idea of Mann having the "right" data and the "wrong" data is something that you should think about – are they keeping duplicate books for tax purposes? How can they have two sets of books? Why would he refer us to the "wrong" data?

    Again, there are two types of problems with the "wrong" data set. Most of the problems were also in the "right" data set: e.g. obsolete and "grey" versions of data; fiddling with the Gaspe series -see MM03 Scorecard. Others were with the PC series, which were botched in the "wrong" dataset. Mann said that we didn’t notice the errors in the "wrong" dataset. Disinformation. We spent 20 pages itemizing errors. In order to avoid the errors, we re-collated the data set.

    Transparency issues vary by author. I’ve emphasized many times that Mann is by no means exceptionally bad in terms of transparency. He gave a list of sites that he used in his original SI, whereas Briffa’s 387 sites were not reported and Briffa has refused to disclose their identity. If I notice that the PC series from these sites are screwed up, it is quite possible and reasonable to re-collate the over 300 series and do new PC analyses.

    In our 2005 article, we discussed these issues in terms of "robustness" rather than "correctness". In our 2003, we explicitly said that we did not endorse the MBH98 methodology and showed counterfactual calculations; however, this has been widely mischaracterized by friend and foe alike and has been the source of much frustration. We explicitly stayed away from "correctness" in 2005 and discussed the lack of robustness of MBH98 to issues like PC methodology, bristlecones etc.

    Your suggestion that it was a "political stunt" is imputing motives where you have no information. I started this for my own interest and I’ve done it on my nickel at considerable opportunity cost in income, but I enjoy it. My personal politics are not, in American terms, Republican. For all the publicity and international coverage that we’ve received, I’ve had very few invitations to make presentations and none from universities. So I’ve been happy to accept the few speaking invitations that I’ve received – which range from presenting in Washington to presenting at my tennis/squash club and not much in between.

    I met Inhofe once briefly and have never met or spoken to Barton. I would have quite happily met with any Democrat who was interested in the topic.

  31. Mitch
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre,
    Your claim to have no partisan position is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worse. Your frequent forays into discussions of policy proves that you are very keen to the political implications of your newfound hobby. Consider, if you were to spend 1% of the energy that you have invested in the use of R2 statistics into discussing the scientific (in)accuracy of floor speeches by your U.S. political patrons then I might appreciate your supposedly apolitical platitudes.

    BTW, showing at least the slightest bit of respect for scientists (e.g., “Esper the Magnificent”) would be productive if you expect any of them to return your e-mails. OTOH, perhaps you would rather have the scientists “lack of cooperation” to use as a politically-loaded bludgeon with which to later beat them over the head. In that case, then i could understand why you would be so petty, rude and sarcastic during public discussions of the same scientists from whom you so vociferously expect assistance.

  32. Ian Castles
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    Mitch. Re #27. The journal that you say is “of dubious distinction” has been described by the Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, as “a leading international journal” (Report of the Meeting of the IPCC Bureau in Paris, 18 February 2003, para/ 3.2.3).

  33. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

    Mitch, I don’t expect "assistance" and have never asked for "assistance". I expect climate scientists to do what they are obligated to do under journal policy, under funding policy and as proponents of climate policy. Why don’t you get after them for non-compliance?

    I was embargoed by Esper and the Hockey Team long ago – long before this blog.

    You seem to think that it’s OK for these guys to take shots at me. I haven’t seen you criticizing Trenberth or Mann or Ammann or Mahlmann. You seem to think that things are "lampoonable". So why shouldn’t I lampoon back?

    You haven’t looked at their stuff as carefully as I have. If you had, you would agree that these guys deserve ridicule.

    Why don’t you spend some energy in examining why adverse statistics were withheld? I think that that is serious stuff (and not lampoonable.)

    "Pstrons" give out money or reward; NSF is a "patron" of Mann and Ammann etc.; no politicians or anyone else are "patrons" of mine.

  34. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    Mitch, your attempts to get under Steve’s skin are so obvious that they aren’t even worth rebutting. Those who know what’s on this site know you’re bluffing.

    I would find in interesting, however, to see what you consider Steve’s “frequent forays into discussions of policy.” I’ve not noticed them and being quite partisanly Republican myself, I’d have noticed, and cheered them, if they’d been present.

    Come to think of it, I’d not mind an answer to another question. Why should what you think about someone’s behavior toward you color what your responsibility is in terms of scientific openness? Are scientists to be open unless they don’t want to be? Before you answer you might want to consider what you’d think of a person who said he was kind to people unless they weren’t of his race, gender, ableness, beauty, etc.?

  35. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

    The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods; bringing the proxies up-to-date; "full, true and plain disclosure" in climate science articles and prospectuses; and due diligence by IPCC. I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall taking any other public position here, although I do have views on other matters.

    If there is something partisan in these policies, then that is truly unfortunate. Mitch, which of these policies do you oppose and why?

  36. Mitch
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 9:58 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre,

    “”Patrons” give out money or reward… no politicians or anyone else are “patrons” of mine.” -S.M.

    Are you really denying this?

    “[McIntyre] was flown to Washington, D.C., to brief U.S. business leaders and the staff of Sen. James Inhofe…” – ES&T

  37. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    Mitch,

    Can’t you even read the very thread you’re posting in? Steve just said, “I’ve been happy to accept the few speaking invitations that I’ve received – which range from presenting in Washington….” Now unless you’re from some strange planet, you know that when you invite someone to speak before a group, you pay their expenses. This does not make you their patron, at least unless the amount paid to cover expenses is out of line with what the actual expenses are. “Was flown to” doesn’t sound like that, however.

  38. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

    I was "flown" to Washington by Air Canada and did not actually pilot the plane myself. The purpose of my trip was to make a speech in a Congressional hearing room, the audience for which was not "U.S. business leaders and the staff of Inhofe" but anyone who would come to listen. It included David Appell. I did not get paid for making this presentation. On that trip, I paid for my own air travel. My hosts agreed to pay travel and they might still honor an expense claim if I sent one to them.

    Ammann, Bradley and Crowley made a presentation in April – probably in the same room. They were all getting paid while they did this.

    Mitch – which policy are you against: archiving, disclosure or due diligence or all three? why do you believe that these are partisan issues?

  39. Mitch
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    “The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods.”

    Again, more foolish denials.

    “IPCC 2001 did not use the Mann hockey stick as a “useful illustration”, the phrases “warmest year of the millennium” and “warmest decade of the millennium” were central to IPCC promotion and certainly central to Canadian government promotion.” – S.M.

    Again, my main point followed from the simple observation “that you are very keen to the political implications of your newfound hobby.”. This is obvious to anyone with opposable thumbs.

    Given your deep concern for the forthrightness and honesty with which the science of climate change is presented, particularly in the context of policy, I would be a fool to imagine that your lack of criticism for the lies and misinformation spoken by Inhofe on the U.S. Senate floor was some sort of accidental oversight on your part. I eagerly await your next post on the subject of Inhofe’s public misrepresentation of science.

  40. MItch 2
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    Spam filter, eh? You are such a wimp.

  41. MItch 2
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    “The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods.”

    Again, more foolish denials.

    “IPCC 2001 did not use the Mann hockey stick as a “useful illustration”, the phrases “warmest year of the millennium” and “warmest decade of the millennium” were central to IPCC promotion and certainly central to Canadian government promotion.” – S.M.

    Again, my main point followed from the simple observation “that you are very keen to the political implications of your newfound hobby.”. This is obvious to anyone with opposable thumbs.

    Given your deep concern for the forthrightness and honesty with which the science of climate change is presented, particularly in the context of policy, I would be a fool to imagine that your lack of criticism for the lies and misinformation spoken by Inhofe on the U.S. Senate floor was some sort of accidental oversight on your part. I eagerly await your next post on the subject of Inhofe’s public misrepresentation of science.

  42. ba
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre:
    “Mitch” is very unhappy about being bounced, http://davidappell.com/archives/00000906.htm#comments. May I inquire whether you or the Deltoid spam filter bounced him? #35 seems to await a reply.

  43. TCO
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    It’s probably the filter. I had a bunch of problems with it initially. But it does learn who you are. Steve or John need to dig the comment out of purgatory.

  44. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 6:23 AM | Permalink

    re#37

    And it’s a good thing it recognizes you. As many messages as you’ve been posting lately, you’re practically a one-man spam machine!

  45. TCO
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    Would you like some viagra with that? ;)

  46. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 7:03 AM | Permalink

    Mitch, one of the criteria for Spam Karma is a sudden increase of activity by a new poster. It also considers duplicate posts. I keep a close eye on the blog, but I’m not 24/7. You were picked up by Spam Karma after I went to bed. Your posts have been recovered. You need to use a spam filter- if you look at the log at the bottom of this page, the filter has dealt with 7587 comments in the last 60 days or so sicne it was installed. This would be overwhelming to deal with manually. It gets to recognize people as TCO as found.

  47. Mitch
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    fair enough… ball in your court.
    -mitch

  48. Mitch
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 8:02 AM | Permalink

    Filter is still not fixed. I wonder why.

  49. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    Mitch, the filter’s working fine; it’s got quite a bit of autocorrelation in it and takes a while before you’re recognized. It would be courteous of you to amend you post at davidappell.

    Here’s a Spam Karma report on a recent posting of yours, the negative score putting into limbo.

    Report on comment number 2 (id=5815)
    Comment Author: Mitch
    Comment Type: Comment
    Comment Content:
    fair enough… ball in your court.
    -mitch

    Spam Karma 2 Report:
    Encrypted Payload: good_karma 0.5: Encrypted payload valid: IP matching.
    Link Counter: good_karma 0.5: Comment has no URL in content (but one author URL)
    Snowball Effect: bad_karma -8: Commenter granularity (based on IP): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0), 6 recent comment(s) (karma avg: 10.75).
    Snowball Effect: bad_karma -5.5: Commenter granularity (based on email): 0 old comment(s) (karma avg: 0), 7 recent comment(s) (karma avg: 5.64).
    Overall Karma: -12.5

  50. TCO
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    I never amended my post at Real Climate where I complained about you banning me. I think that means Mitch doesn’t have to either. ;)

  51. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    Actually I think that you both should. It’s amazing what comes back at you, if you don’t fix things.

  52. fFreddy
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

    Mitch, #39 and #41

    I would be a fool to imagine that your lack of criticism for the lies and misinformation spoken by Inhofe on the U.S. Senate floor was some sort of accidental oversight on your part

    What does this refer to ?

  53. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    Re #39 & 41:
    Mitch, welcome back from filter limbo!
    In all fairness, when you quote someone on the same blog on which you find the comments you quote, people will take you more seriously if you don’t forget to quote 2/3 of the relevant comments.
    Your version of Steve’s comments:

    “The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods.”

    Steve’s actual comments (#35):

    The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods; bringing the proxies up-to-date; “full, true and plain disclosure” in climate science articles and prospectuses; and due diligence by IPCC.

    In #31, when you say that:

    Your frequent forays into discussions of policy proves that you are very keen to the political implications of your newfound hobby.

    are you referring to discussions other than those in the #35 quote?

    Also, (e.g. in #41) you referred to your “main point”. I couldn’t quite figure out what it was — could you please restate it?

  54. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Re #41: Mitch, I’m trying to analyze multiproxy studies where I have developed a small niche. I can’t do everything in the world; as it is, I’ve got unfinished articles and can’t take on any new projects. No doubt there are other competent and interested parties that would be interested in the project.

  55. JerryB
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    When a troll pretends that such statements as:

    “I have not said that Mann’s poor behavior is “representative” of all climate scientists.”

    “Steve did not suggest that “Mann’s (poor) behavior” is representative of all climate scientists”

    “Steve has not indicted all climate scientists.” 

    are contradicted by a statement such as:

    “One of the things that really irritates about climate scientists is the amount of disinformation and, not to put too fine a point on it, outright lying that goes on.”

    or that an assertion such as:

    “The only policies that I can recall opining on here have been archiving of data and methods.”  

    constitutes a denial, it would seem unlikely that coherent discussion is on his agenda

  56. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 12, 2005 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

    When I was 13 years old learning geometry, one of the first things that you learned was the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions in a math proof. Geometry seems to have been devalued from modern high school curricula, which seems too bad. I really liked it when I was a teenager.

    It absolutely dumbfounds me how frequently people are fooled by jumping from one to the other. It’s one of Mann’s absolute favorite debating tricks – at least I hope it’s a debating trick and not just fuzzy thought. For example, he found an authority for the claim that a cross-validation R2 statistic is not a sufficient condition for a model to have statistical significance. OK. Then he will huff and puff and move the pea under the thimble and proclaim that the R2 is not a necessary condition for statistical significance.

    Or similarly for Preisendorfer’s Rule N.

    I haven’t noticed any climate scientists standing up to point out this defect in logic. Per does. James Lane does. But where are the climate scientists? They are too busy applauding the prestidigitation.

  57. James Lane
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 12:51 AM | Permalink

    It’s kind of Steve to remember me in the post above.

    I noticed Mann’s switch (regarding r2) from neccessary to sufficient in my first reading of his response to Barton (posted on relclimate).

    This is a clear example of sharp practice by Mann – it’s impossible to believe that he wasn’t conscious of this sleight of hand.n

  58. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    James, what grates me even more than the response is the docile response, and even applause, of climate scientists to this trickery.

  59. MItch
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    fFreddy,
    Since no one else seems to be interested in my main reason for posting on this ES&T article… I will leave you with this floor speech by the Honorable Senator James Inhofe.

    http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm

    Expect a condemnation of how willfully and shamelessly Inhofe misrepresents the science from Mr. McIntyre about the time that hell freezes over.

    apolitical my ass…

  60. Greg F
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    Mitch,

    Perhaps you could point out what parts of Senator Inhofe’s speech you find objectionable.

  61. ET Sid Viscous
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    You might want to use some punctuation there. When I read your sentence after the link I assumed you meant that Inhofe mis-represented McIntyre’s work, which obviously not what you meant.

    Fact of the matter is no, your not apolitical, you have your political position, and your pointing fingers at others seems more than a little hypocritical. I spent the time, I read all of Senator Inhofe’s speech and I can’t see one point that is not a decent position, some may be arguably to degree, but I don’t see anything blatantly mis-represented.

    Again, rather than making baseless accusations how about picking one or two points where you think Inhofe is wrong.

    What surprised me more than anything is that a politician went on for so many words and I can’t find much of anything that I disagree with him on. That is highly unusual.

    and again I’ll ask the questions I do of AGW supporters (which has yet to be answered by anyone).
    Given that the global average change in the 20th century is 0.6C/1.0F, also given that the climate is never steady state (accepting of course for Mann et al), it is always changing on any time scale. And this ~1 degree change is apparently un-acceptable

    Two Questions?

    A. What percentage of the ~1 degree change is anthropogenic?

    B. What amount of change is acceptable. Keeping in mind that there must be SOME change positive or negative.

  62. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    res #59.

    I second Greg’s report. I just went and read the entire speech and see nothing at all objectionable. Sure he quotes primarily skeptical scientists, but the things quoted are quite correct.

  63. MItch
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    Mr. McIntyre claimed to be apolitical WRT U.S. politics. I responded that if this was true then he would spend a fraction of the time that he spends on R2 statistics on debunking the BS that comes out of Inhofe’s mouth when he is on the floor of the US senate:

    For example: “But anyone who pays even cursory attention to the issue understands that scientists vigorously disagree over whether human activities are responsible for global warming, or whether those activities will precipitate natural disasters.

    I would submit, furthermore, that not only is there a debate, but the debate is shifting away from those who subscribe to global warming alarmism. After studying the issue over the last several years, I believe that the balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the overwhelming factor influencing climate.”

    Certainly, there is debate over “whether those activities will precipitate natural disasters,” but it is dishonest to suggest that the balance of the evidence has not been shifting from “if” to “how much” humans are causing global warming. This is fundamental, people… yet Mr. McIntyre’s political patron gets a free pass from this advocate of “honesty and integrity” in the use of science for policy-making.

    Much more:
    “Much of the debate is predicated on fear, rather than science”

    “I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.”

    This is nonsense.

    Also, Inhofe repeatedly refers to “the alarmist’s science” vs. his “sound science.” Thusly, he sets up the “debate” as if it were between the “alarmists” from Greenpeace (who certainly exist and I wouldn’t argue with his point that they sometimes get the science wrong) and the good guys, like him, and “nation’s top climate scientists.” It’s Hollywood’s The day After Tomorrow vs. James Inhofe. That’s total BS. Although it is a very clever way of framing the debate… so that he looks like a thoughtful moderate, comparatively speaking.

    The reality is that virtually all serious policymakers who support GHG emissions reduction policy get their information from professional career scientists not from Greenpeace or other alarmists. Inhofe knows this, but he chooses the path of deceit… and that is just fine with Mr. McIntyre.

  64. Ed Snack
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Wow MItch, a senator using the same tactics as the “green” political organisations, and you find only his tactics objectionable ? Why is Steve bound to intervene in US politics. Do you then support Chris Landsea in his efforts to correct the lies spread about by Kevin Trenbarth with respect to Hurricane activity ?

    And you say “yet Mr. McIntyre’s political patron gets a free pass from this advocate of “honesty and integrity” in the use of science for policy-making.” Please immediately provide evidence that Inhofe is “Mr McIntyres political patron”, or you will be treated for the liar that you are.

    I am afraid to see the real BS you need to find a mirror.

  65. ET Sid Viscous
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    Well at least you have put some things forward, however none of them relate in anyway to misrepresenting the science. You bring up his conclusions/opinions about the field as a whole, nothing to do with the science. But furthermore to your post.

    Mr. McIntyre claimed to be apolitical WRT U.S. politics.

    And this would seem to be true. In fact he doesn’t even seem to make a stand on Global warming at all, at least not a definitive stance yes or no. the only part that he chooses to play in this is to review the math behind the Bauer junior Hockey Stick. He can (not that he does) disagree with Mann’s math, and still believe fully in the AGW theories. But what has happened is that he has met serious resistance, and shady procedures, I believe this tends to cloud his opinions of said researchers. But this has absolutely 0 to do with his political opinion. He is doing science. And if Mann et al were forthcoming with the data and procedures, and he did the work, agreed with how the result was found and what the result was, I’m pretty sure he would say so.

    Your second comment about the debate makes little sense. But it comes with the “Consensus opinion” position of AGW. There is no consensus, and Inhofe made a very good argument for that, spending a large portion of his speech on it, and naming individuals who debate the issue. You may not agree, but you can’t say he didn’t put forth an argument. And you certainly can’t say that he misrepresented the science.

    As to the comment about Inhofe being McIntyre’s “Patron” this is clearly ridiculous. McIntyre isn’t even a U.S. citizen, and I think the likelihood that he has received any monies from the U.S. government to be slight, and to be patronized by Inhofe to be ludicrous (Hell Inhofe only mentioned Steve a couple of times at most, he talked about Singer and Lindzen much more). Your simply again casting baseless accusations

    Yes Inhofe did many times make the comparison to Alarmist Science vs sound science, and made a decent effort at proving his point. You can disagree but again this is not in anyway a misrepresentation of the science. It is his opinion and nothing more.

    So again, where exactly did Inhofe Misrepresent the science. Disagreeing with your opinion is not misrepresenting the science, maybe the scientists, but I don’t see where he has done that either but not the science.

  66. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Mitch,

    Actually your ‘serious’ policymakers, as opposed to the ‘frivilous’ ones like Inhofe or President Bush get their talking points from the IPCC and they get their talking points from things like Mann’s hockeystick, which this site has gone a long way in proving is nothing but hot air. And this is the sort of thing which Inhofe was referring to when he said the talk is shifting away from AGW.

    BTW, what precisely is the difference between your ‘not if but how much’AGW there is and Inhofe’s claim that “the vast majority of climate change” is natural? It seems to me that both could be true at the same time.

  67. MItch
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:39 PM | Permalink

    definition of Patron:
    “One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause…”

    So, Ed, did you read the ES&T article? It is very clear that Inhofe is, in fact, a patron of Mr McIntyre. Inhofe is also a U.S. politician. Thus, “political patron.”

    AFAIK, it is not a crime for Greenpeace to misrepresent the facts to the public. OTOH, it is a crime for Senator Inhofe to deliberately misrepresent the facts on the floor of the U.S. Senate. There is no equivalence here.

    BTW, I am not excusing the AGW alarmism promulgated by certain “greens,” as you suggest. In fact, I said that I agreed with Inhofe on this point. Read my argument again, and then try again.

  68. MItch
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Dave Dardinger,
    “…they get their talking points from things like Mann’s hockeystick, which this site has gone a long way in proving is nothing but hot air.”

    Delusions of grandeur further perpetuated by the rantings of Inhofe. Hilarious. While your sycophantic defending of McIntyre is almost comical enough to make me await your next comment, I must go home now.

  69. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    Mitch,

    IOW, you can’t come up with any specific refutations of Steve’s points but nonetheless, defending his complaints is sycophantic and his complaints themselves nothing but a delusion of grnadeur?

    Who was it who was complaining about personal attacks and all that here?

  70. Ed Snack
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    MItch, of course I read it, did you ? And your explanation is entirely misleading, Patron implies far more than “I read his work and have mentioned it once or twice in a speech”. To be Steve’s patron, Inhofe would have to be deliberately and directly advancing Steve’s interest, and you have utterly and completely failed to show that.

    Always amusing to see a complete Mannian sycophant trying to smear others with his own failings. How about trying some honest thoughts about the science behind MBH98 & 99.

  71. per
    Posted Sep 13, 2005 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Mitch said:

    Here is my point about MM03: Mann gave you the wrong data and that was his fault. You published an article in a journal (of dubious distinction), using the wrong data, and suggested, in the title that you were publishing a “correction” to MBH98. Does no one here at this site see the obvious disconnect here?

    You have the facts stated incompletely. When MBH published their original article in Nature, many of the details of their published methods were wrong. MBH have accepted that there were errors in their original paper, and they said this in their corrigendum of 2004. Many of these errors correspond to those pointed out by M&M.

    So Mann didn’t just give M&M the wrong data; their original paper had several errors as published.

    yours
    per

  72. Gert
    Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    The article is not online anymore at the mentioned URL. Well i’d taken it off too, seems to be a little bit embarassing now. Has everyone got a copy or is it available online somewhere else?

    • Henry
      Posted Jan 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

      There seems to be a copy (legal or not) here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: