It looks as though Mann produced his “original” data on Sep 4 and then sent it to WDCP the same day. On Sep 5, he noticed some “problems” with his “original” data and deleted the Sep 4 “original” data from the PSU website, but seems to have been stuck with the Sep 4 version at WDCP.

Given your doubts about this, I asked WDCP for information on when they uploaded the Mann SI and it was on Sep 4 as I surmised:

Hi Steve,
I downloaded the reconstructions and instrumental data files from
Mann’s site: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/
on Sept. 4, and requested a .zip of the individual proxy files, which
they produced on the 4th and I downloaded on the 5th. So yes, you are
correct, we have archived files as of Sept. 4.
-Bruce

Dave, perhaps you could acknowledge that, in this case, my surmise was correct and that yours was not borne out by further information.

As to the timing of Gavin’s inline response, I have reviewed the timing issues and will post on it sometime.

Then you said:

It looks as though Mann produced his “original” data on Sep 4 and then sent it to WDCP the same day. On Sep 5, he noticed some “problems” with his “original” data and deleted the Sep 4 “original” data from the PSU website, but seems to have been stuck with the Sep 4 version at WDCP.

This is the real point: your insinuations about these file sets are not supported by the evidence. In fact, to me, it looks like the two NOAA archives were copied temporarily to the SI site for the purpose of archiving them. They were then deleted, but the zip files were only uploaded to the NOAA site days later.

Look at the time stamp of the archives at NOAA and see for yourself:
08/09/2008 4:48:00 PM

So the scenario you have concocted where “inconvenient” file sets were mistakenly archived and couldn’t be withdrawn from NOAA site is clearly implausible. Of course, we still don’t know why they are different. But it is possible that the the two archives have a different purpose or requirement. Naturally at this point your relationship with Mann is strained by your constant accusations of bad faith, so it would be difficult to get what should be a relatively straightforward explanation.

You also said:

I’ll reserve comment for now on issues relating to the timestamp of this data set and the Gavin Schmidt hyperlink to it, presently pointing to a data version that did not exist at the time that the hyperlink was supposedly created.

This is misleading. The data set that existed in the directory pointed to by Gavin’s SI link when it was “supposedly” created (high time you gave up on that insinuation, by the way) was a superset of the one that is there now, and contained all 1209 non-infilled proxy sets (along with 148 others). Have you found any differences at all in those 1209 proxies between the two “original proxies” archives?

#6

I still can’t understand why you don’t call this what it is, Steve. You know what I mean, the word you snip out whenever mentioned. It’s so blatantly obvious.

Accusations – snip: forbidden word – , based on such flimsy “evidence” are utterly ridiculous.

I’m not sure if you noticed that *both* NOAA/WDCP “infilled” and “original” have 1357 series, whereas the SI has 1209 series (both original and infilled). Also notice that the timestamp of the files is Sep. 4, 15:14 in both the infilled and original WDCP archives. Also the file names don’t quite correspond.

It’s hard to keep up with all the different versions of Mann’s data. HOwever, your statement here is incorrect. The WDCP “original” dataset has 1357 series, but the WDCP “infilled” series has only 1355 series. There are more differences than it might appear at first sight.

Both have 1209 series in common, but the 148 extra series in the WDCP original data set are different from the 146 extra series in the WDCP infilled series. The WDCP original data seems to correspond to the deleted PSU Sep 4 original (common timestamps as well). The WDCP infilled data corresponds to a deleted PSU Sep 4 infilled version that I happened to save.

It has 146 “extra” series, which are 71 Luterbacher summer and 71 Luterbacher winter series, plus 4 log versions of the Lake Kortajarvi disturbed sediments.

It looks as though Mann produced his “original” data on Sep 4 and then sent it to WDCP the same day. On Sep 5, he noticed some “problems” with his “original” data and deleted the Sep 4 “original” data from the PSU website, but seems to have been stuck with the Sep 4 version at WDCP.

What a mess.

The “wrong” data set – the one deleted from Mann’s website – is the one that Mann sent to WDCP, an archive of record, where Mann can’t change “inconvenient” data sets without leaving a trace. So WDCP has one “original” data set and Mann’s website has another.

Steve, you and some of your readers seem to have problems with data sets and timestamps, so I’m going to help you out.

I’m not sure if you noticed that *both* NOAA/WDCP “infilled” and “original” have 1357 series, whereas the SI has 1209 series (both original and infilled). Also notice that the timestamp of the files is Sep. 4, 15:14 in both the infilled and original WDCP archives. Also the file names don’t quite correspond.

But this does mean that the 1357 “original” files were copied to the SI folder, archived, sent to the NOAA, then deleted and replaced with the 1209 “original” set actually used in the study. The end result is that the number of “infilled” and “original” data sets match up in each archive.

So your scenario of Mann trying to change an “inconvenient” data set simply does not hold up. Why would Mann send the *two* larger sets to NOAA on Sep. 4 (or 5), if he was trying to cover up their existence? I find this highly implausible.

As to why the SI contains only the set actually used in the study, while the NOAA contains a larger set, who knows. My guess would be that the 148 extra series were among those determined to be redundant or otherwise excluded as outlined in the SI.

If I cared more about it, I would read all the available material very carefully, and then if I still had questions about the discrepancy, I would simply ask the authors before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Steve: The WDCP 1357 file appears to be identical to the Sep 4 file that was deleted from Mann’s website. I did not “hypothesize” that Mann deleted the 1357 file from his website without a trace. That’s a fact. The disappearance of this file was documented and there is no change notice or change log at his site. It’s interesting that the infilled at WDCP is 1357 files as well. What a mess!

As to why he would send the 1357 file to WDCP – I presume that it was done by mistake. If it wasn’t a mistake, then why did he delete it from his website? But really, it’s his job to explain what he’s doing in SI. I have not been able to get any information from him on other inquiries and do not expect that I would get an explanation of these machinations either.

However, research by scientists (even Hansen) are not considered in the same light, because research is by definition exploratory.

Surely research, and published, peer reviewed papers are different? The latter are many times taken to be the final word, the definitive article.

In addition. I believe that any and all Federal Institutions should insist that all information they publish should be derived from data and methods which are open to the public scrutiny. In this way, they would be following the law, and also (for example) the Hockey Stick could never be published as it is derived from data and methods which do not meet the legal criteria. Equally Hansen couldn’t publish his T charts, and his model forecasts, cos none of them have had their data and methods open to third party scrutiny, to establish their veracity.

“Dr Ian Stewart’s analysis of the current scientific “consensus” of the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming had several serious omissions regarding:
1) The underlying statistics that form the basis of the so-called “hockey stick” still remain very questionable and so cannot be regarded with the level of certainty that he presents (Cf. the work of Steve McIntyre);
2) He complained that temperature measurements from the last decade of the 20th century were ignored in a plot of solar activity but, when showing a more complete plot, he then himself ignores the temperature trends of the last eight years, which show a distinct drop;
3) His statement about there being now only a tiny minority of so-called skeptics completely ignores the list of scientists who have signed petitions like the Manhattan Declaration (Cf. link at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org) and others like the Petition Project (www.petitionproject.org).

Based upon the above, along with the general tone of the presentation, Dr Stewart’s argument exhibits a clear bias that undermines any attempt to present a scientific assessment of this subject. This is indeed a pity because it would have been an ideal opportunity for the BBC to demonstrate its interest in scientific integrity and to dispel any suggestions of social or political bias.”

There were other things, like the way he seemed to edit interviews with people like Roy Spencer that, to me, made them look foolish, but I guess this is somewhat subjective. I also don’t understand why he mentioned that William Herschel believed that the sun was inhabited, immediately after saying that Herschel was one of the first to believe that the sun was a influence on the Earth’s climate — maybe this was an attempt at humor that I just didn’t get?

Having said that, the distinct lack of any mention of recent temperature trends did make me feel very uneasy. However, as the programme is intended to cover the arguments over the last three decades, I’ll give Dr Stewart the benefit of the doubt an assume he will cover this in the third and final part, next week, in which he will also discuss climate models.

Although Ababneh’s dissertation didn’t agree with her adviser’s POV she wasn’t willing to openly disagree with Hughes or archive or provide her updated data. She still hasn’t publicly commented (as far as I aware). And her adviser (Hughes) was part of Mann 2008 and still didn’t use the Ababneh update.