Catholic Climate Movement

[lynnvinc]

Tree ring data is left in when it supports global warming but left out when it does not.

No. Tree ring data used is for periods when they don’t have the more accurate instrumental data.

Actually I known about that for many decades well be fore GW became an issue. I think I learned it in a science class or from my science readings outside of class – the idea of using proxies, like tree rings, to give us a good (but not perfect) idea about temperatures.

I am sure other conclusions can be drawn from this circumstance, but it looks pretty damning.

It would look damning and downright fraudulent IF scientists use proxy data which had been shown to be inaccurate for a period, when they had better, more accurate instrumental data.

However, in the world of bizarro anti-science, I suppose just the opposite would apply.

 

[lynnvinc]

This is specious. We know what those researchers said because the emails in which they said it were made public. There is no question of what “may or may not” have been done.

Here is the relevant emailhil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: *

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.* (November 16, 1999)
That is, Keith Briffa’s proxy data went the wrong way from 1961 while other proxy data got off message in 1981. The solution to this “problem” was to replace the proxy data with temperature data from those periods. And then hide what they had done.
Who’s in denial now?

Ender

The “decline” refers to the tree ring data implying decreasing temperatures in the recent period when the instrumental temps were increasing. And I think that is because the type of GH effect GW has a harmful affect on plants, including trees.

The “trick” was the method they used to splice together 2 data sets.

They did not try to “hide” that they had spliced two data sets. Mann had only failed to cite this in the cover graph, but he did bring it out in the main article.

I just wonder what all the denialists are trying to hide. What is their motive for failing to address this serious problem of GW. Money, jobs, ideology, cognitive dissonance. What are they hiding??

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Lots of comments.

Enjoyable reading:

wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/17/claim-dams-are-major-driver-of-global-environmental-change/

 

[vz71]

If tree ring data does not correlate directly to temperature, using it simply adds inaccuracy.

It is not logical to talk about a rise or drop in temperature to a tenth of a degree accuracy while using data that is not that accurate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is specious. We know what those researchers said because the emails in which they said it were made public. There is no question of what “may or may not” have been done.

Here is the relevant emailhil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: *

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.* (November 16, 1999)
That is, Keith Briffa’s proxy data went the wrong way from 1961 while other proxy data got off message in 1981. The solution to this “problem” was to replace the proxy data with temperature data from those periods. And then hide what they had done.
Who’s in denial now?

Ender

Visit Amazon and purchase the East Anglia Emails. 1000 emails over ten years that describe in gory detail how they conducted fraud to attempt to convince people that global warming is man-made. When that failed, they changed it to “climate change”.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is specious. We know what those researchers said because the emails in which they said it were made public. There is no question of what “may or may not” have been done.

Here is the relevant emailhil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: *

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.* (November 16, 1999)
That is, Keith Briffa’s proxy data went the wrong way from 1961 while other proxy data got off message in 1981. The solution to this “problem” was to replace the proxy data with temperature data from those periods. And then hide what they had done.
Who’s in denial now?

Ender

To your point: these perpetrators of fraudulent data should be prosecuted under the statutes governing perjury.

If you fake the data on your IRS 1040 tax return, WHICH IS SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, then you are liable to be sent to FEDERAL prison.

Therefore, these perpetrators … WHO GAINED A BENEFIT BY LYING … they got more grants … should go to prison.

 

[MidwestGuy]

How many other e-mails do you have that confirm the “hide the decline” motivation?

How many more are needed?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How many more are needed?

Well, if these e-mail are being used to support a generalization that applies to the vast majority of climate researchers, there should be a vast majority of them. Otherwise you could have just one or two outliers and the majority of them would be ethical.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, if these e-mail are being used to support a generalization that applies to the vast majority of climate researchers, there should be a vast majority of them. Otherwise you could have just one or two outliers and the majority of them would be ethical.

They published a thousand.

Read those and then come back and tell us how many more would be persuasive to you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They published a thousand.

Read those and then come back and tell us how many more would be persuasive to you.

No, I am not going to go rooting through a thousand e-mails to find the ones that say they are deceptively hiding some decline. That’s your job if you have a point you want to make. You find just 5 such e-mails and quote them here and I will believe it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Visit Amazon and purchase the East Anglia Emails. 1000 emails over ten years that describe in gory detail how they conducted fraud to attempt to convince people that global warming is man-made. When that failed, they changed it to “climate change”.

These have all been investigated by reputable outside science institutes and they found nothing wrong with them – nothing that would in some way disprove GW.

You have to understand that Mann and his few associates who wrote those emails were under severe attack by denialist industry and other nefarious actors who even gave death threats to Mann’s small child. Also they have been plagued with superfluous FOI requests that hamper their work – and some of that info they cannot give because it was purchased, so the requester should also get it by purchasing it the way the Met did (not that those requestors would have the smarts or skills to analyze it). Phil Jones has even contemplated suicide and Mann has suffered from depression over all the harassment and death threats, etc. So if Mann and others wrote something in those emails against those evil-doers, like how to cope with, respond to, or evade them, then that would be quite understandable.

What would you do if someone were threatening your young children?

The wrong is entirely on the side of the denialist industry and their lackies and followers. Whatever wrong there may be on the side of Mann and his few associates who wrote those emails is in response to those vicious, horrible attacks and harassment.

And this whole fiasco is ridiculous from the get-go since GW was already well established BEFORE Mann came on the climate science scene and did his work. Even Mann acknowledges that. And when you consider Mann was dealing with “descriptive statistics,” only showing the temps, not other variables, no cause and effect, then it is even more ridiculous to use him as the object of hatred and vicious, mean-spirited and nefarious attacks.

GW reached statistical significance in 1995. Mann’s work came out years later.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“There is data that proves my worldview”
“There is contradicting data and criticism of that data”
“That doesn’t matter, the people with the original data have looked at the conflicting data and dismissed it”

Ah, ok.

 

[vz71]

The wrong is entirely on the side of the denialist industry and their lackies and followers. Whatever wrong there may be on the side of Mann and his few associates who wrote those emails is in response to those vicious, horrible attacks and harassment.

They lied but it isn’t their fault?

And you wonder why no one takes the global warming premise seriously.

 

[lynnvinc]

They lied but it isn’t their fault?

And you wonder why no one takes the global warming premise seriously.

I have no idea what you mean by “they lied.” To my knowledge they never lied about their CC work (which is also supported by many other studies from many other angles, actually making their work repetitious of other works and not at all necessary to establish
GW), so you must be referring to something else.

To put it more bluntly Mann and Jones are not the main scientists that established GW is happening and is mainly caused by human factors (carbon emissions and land use). It is just weird that you and many others have gone after them like sharks. Even if all their work is deleted, it wouldn’t put a dent in the robust knowledge re CC.

 

[vz71]

I have no idea what you mean by “they lied.” To my knowledge they never lied about their CC work…

I see.
Hiding results that do not support their conclusion isn’t really a lie?
Perhaps not, they did not actually speak a falsehood.
They simply engaged in a willful deception.

Sounds to me like more doublespeak from the global warming crowd.
-And another reason to distrust them and their conclusions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is specious. We know what those researchers said because the emails in which they said it were made public. There is no question of what “may or may not” have been done.

Here is the relevant emailhil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: *

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.* (November 16, 1999)
That is, Keith Briffa’s proxy data went the wrong way from 1961 while other proxy data got off message in 1981. The solution to this “problem” was to replace the proxy data with temperature data from those periods. And then hide what they had done.
Who’s in denial now?

Ender

This is an example of taking a private communication about technical matters and putting a devious spin on it. For a more competent explanation of what this e-mail means, there is this article, which states:

There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones’ email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones’ words in context.
The “decline” is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The “decline” has nothing to do with “Mike’s trick”.

Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes “Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline” as if its Phil Jones’s actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (a “trick of the trade”) by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

There is nothing secret about “Mike’s trick”. Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret “trick” or confusing it with “hide the decline” displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead

.

 

[lynnvinc]

I see.
Hiding results that do not support their conclusion isn’t really a lie?
Perhaps not, they did not actually speak a falsehood.
They simply engaged in a willful deception.

Sounds to me like more doublespeak from the global warming crowd.
-And another reason to distrust them and their conclusions.

I have no idea what results they supposedly hid. Global temps are widely published and known from various sources – in the US, Japan, UK, etc.

As for tree ring data, Mann did not “hide” such data. He just didn’t use it in his graph for the recent period because it is flawed as a proxy for temps in recent times. And as I mentioned earlier it could be “flawed” (not reflecting temps as in the past) because GW caused by the greenhouse effect may be negatively affecting trees, as it has been shown in other studies to negatively affect other plants.

So why this obsession fetish with Mann? You could throw out all his work and it wouldn’t make a bleep of difference in the findings from many sources that GW is happening and is mostly caused by human activities.

It is atrocious that the denialist industry lackeys and their followers have swarmed around Mann to attack him so wrongly and viciously.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is atrocious that the denialist industry lackeys and their followers have swarmed around Mann to attack him so wrongly and viciously.

Oh, I think he’s a big boy and can take care of himself. As you know, he sued Mark Steyn and National Review for questioning his findings and conclusions. ACLU jumped in on behalf of Steyn and National Review (bet they had to grit their teeth to do that) as a free speech matter.

Not trying to re-litigate the merits of that lawsuit here, but only saying Mann gives as good as he gets.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Lackeys. [Ooooh … got deleted.]

I love the unbiased opinions and characterizations.

Right out of the Hillary Clinton playbook: [Her words, not mine.]

nypost.com/2017/05/13/why-working-class-america-voted-with-their-middle-finger/

To the rootless global elites, though, tradition is subordinated to transgression. What society considers edgy, elites deem worthy of their praise. It isn’t acceptable merely to accept gay life, for example — it must be celebrated. Recalling moving to San Francisco and observing a fully naked man walking down the street, Williams recalls feeling proud of herself for being tolerant of such norm-shattering. Among the elites, she says, “It’s a point of pride not to be one of those petty bourgeois who’s shocked by sexual transgression.”

This attitude not only stuns the WWC but strikes them as a kind of attack on everything they hold dear. To them, bicoastal urban America is a joke to which they don’t get the punchline. They feel excluded, marginalized, left out. Worse than any of this, they feel condescended to, and it infuriates them, Williams writes.

Hillary Clinton did a marvelous job of confirming their suspicions when she said — in New York City, at an LGBT event — that*** “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”***

Being called names such as these is exactly what gets the white working class fired up. She might as well have told everyone from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, “Don’t vote for me.” Outside of Chicagoland, they didn’t.

This one outburst is why she lost the election.

Her very own words.

 

[Ender]

Well, if these e-mail are being used to support a generalization that applies to the vast majority of climate researchers, there should be a vast majority of them. Otherwise you could have just one or two outliers and the majority of them would be ethical.

Given the names of the scientists involved, they cannot be considered merely irrelevant “outliers”. These are some of the biggest names in the global warming controversy, just as the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia is one of the leading research centers in the world for climate research. No one feels that the majority of researchers are corrupt, but given the number of scientists involved it is hard to deny that corruption and collusion don’t run deep withing that community. But even this is not the point. What was being discussed was Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, and how it ought to be dismissed as utterly worthless.

Ender