Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

[LeafByNiggle]

That the data was made public and openly discussed before the emails were finally released doesn’t change what the emails showed, that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

If one is attempting to mislead by suppressing data one does not publish an article in Nature detailing exactly what it is you are supressing. And it was not misleading because the instrumental temperature readings are more reliable than tree ring density reconstructions. If they had continued with tree riding density reconstructions past 1960, that would have been deceptive. The intent was to convey temperature, and that they did to the best of their ability.

As Mann explained, the use of the word “trick” in the email referred to a clever solution to a problem - a trick of the trade - not to deception. And “hiding the decline” is just replacing less accurate data with more accurate data.

 

[Theo520]

People are often known to come clean once they recognize they have no other choice. That does not mean they didn’t try to hide something before coming out of the closet about it.

As any Crisis management PR firm will advise, it’s always better to get out in front of it so you can help shape the story.

 

[Mark121359]

What a silly question. Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to be skeptical about global warming? Most liberals or progressives I know are skeptical (to say the least) about the unborn being human beings!

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

“Hide the Decline” refers to suppressing what was known to be faulty data in tree ring density reconstructions of temperature in favor of instrumental data after 1960. Instrumental temperature records are more reliable than reconstructing based on tree ring densities, so why wouldn’t you want to switch over to instrumental data if it is available? The problem with the correspondence of these reconstructions after 1960 with instrumental data was published and discussed openly by the group a year before the East Anglia emails were released. So the charge that the group is hiding something about this is unbelievable. There was no deception.

Hi LBN,

Mann is being disingenuous when he calls the deleted data bad or faulty. In what sense bad? Tree ring measurements could be bad if the core samples were drawn improperly or for some other reason having to do with the data gathering. But there is no evidence of this kind of error affecting the data quality. For all we know, the tree rings measurements are reliable.

So when Mann calls the data faulty he means that they are not valid. After 1960 they stop measuring what they were supposed to measure, i.e. temperature. Why? We don’t know. There are conjectures as to why there is a divergence problem but no explanation. How then can we be sure about the validity of tree ring measurements as a proxy for temperature, especially in the past beyond the time when the thermometer record started? We can’t. This is a problem in the field of paleo climate.

But leading up to the 2001 IPCC report they needed a nice tidy story. Things like the divergence problem “diluted the message” [phrase from one of the emails]. It was no slam dunk that they were going to delete the decline in the diagram they were plotting to put in the report. Briffa wanted to keep the data. He was bothered by the uncertainties. But Mann, Jones, et al ganged up on him and he caved. The data was deleted. The honest thing would have been to keep the decline and put in an explanation about the divergence problem. But they didn’t do that. They needed their nice tidy story.

But Jones went further in the deception with his WMO diagram. He not only deleted, he also spliced. Even Mann, in his book, says he was wrong in doing this.

In the video and in his book, Mann tries to justify Jones’ deleting and splicing by saying he needed a simple presentation understandable by general public. This is in direct contradiction to what Jones told the investigators, Boulton and Clark. He said that the WMO report was not intended for the public but for professionals. So who do you trust about Jones’ motivations, Mann or Jones himself? Jones’ statement to the investigators shows he was aware that the graph was misleading to the public, and not only to Joe Six-Pack, but also to scientists in other disciplines not familiar with the relevant literature.

As physicist Richard Muller says in his lecture (source posted above), “This is not how any Berkeley scientist would have done it. I now know whose papers I don’t need to read anymore.”

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Mann is not a credible witness on this subject. His reputation for telling the truth is as bad or worse than Jones".

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Mann is not a credible witness on this subject. His reputation for telling the truth is as bad or worse than Jones".

The content of Mann’s remarks are either correct or they are not. They do not rest on the personal authority of Mann. So to dismiss his remarks because of your assessment of his character is a classic ad hominem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi LBN,

Mann is being disingenuous when he calls the deleted data bad or faulty. In what sense bad? …For all we know, the tree rings measurements are reliable.

The “divergence problem”, including your concerns about the reliability of tree ring data going back before thermometer measurements are described here. The essential points are these:

There is substantial overlap and agreement between tree ring proxies and thermometer measurements from 1880 to 1950, and between tree ring proxies and other proxies back to 1600. (Before that tree rings are too old to be reliable)

Starting at about 1960 the tree ring data diverge from thermometer measurements (the “decline”). Researches raised the problem in 1995 in a Nature article.

You are correct to say that any divergence in tree ring proxies data casts some doubt on the reliability of such data. However there is much more agreement than there is disagreement, and the disagreement seems to be localized to after 1960. As you said later, there are conjectures about why this is, and the article cited gives six possible and reasonable such conjectures. I think the most reasonable explanation is that proxies that have been calibrated for long-dead trees would not necessarily correlate with living or only recently dead trees. Since tree ring data for 1960 going forward would necessarily involve living or only recently dead trees, there is no reason to think they would behave the same as long-dead trees.

But leading up to the 2001 IPCC report they needed a nice tidy story
…
In the video and in his book, Mann tries to justify Jones’ deleting and splicing by saying he needed a simple presentation understandable by general public.

What more justification does one need beyond the fact that the graph is more accurate with the splicing than without it?

This is in direct contradiction to what Jones told the investigators, Boulton and Clark. He said that the WMO report was not intended for the public but for professionals.

Yes, meteorological services, not climate researchers. The needs of meteorologists are different from the needs of climate researchers, even through they are all professionals.

So who do you trust about Jones’ motivations…

Why should I care? All that concerns me is whether he was right in doing what he did.

Mann or Jones himself? Jones’ statement to the investigators shows he was aware that the graph was misleading to the public…

The graph was not misleading anyone. It was more accurate the way it was presented.

and not only to Joe Six-Pack, but also to scientists in other disciplines not familiar with the relevant literature.

It is unreasonable to expect that every communication regarding the temperature record contain a summary of all relevant literature in the field. If someone is concerned about the reliability of tree-ring proxies they should read the Nature article from 1995 where this issue was discussed openly.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

The content of Mann’s remarks are either correct or they are not. They do not rest on the personal authority of Mann. So to dismiss his remarks because of your assessment of his character is a classic ad hominem.

Mann is Professor Hintermeister in that he:

1. He hindered the auditing of his work. He was slow to release all his data. He didn’t give up his computer algorithm until he was subpoenaed. Some aspects of his hockey stick methodology are still a mystery. His motto is: Full disclosure? We don’t do that in paleoclimatology.
2. He failed to disclose adverse results in his Hockey Stick papers, namely that his reconstruction failed a verification test (R2).
3. He lied about his use of the R2 test. In his paper he said used R2. In an interview he falsely claimed his reconstruction passed that test. Under examination by a review panel he falsely claimed he didn’t use R2 at all.
4. He falsely claimed he used standard principal components analysis in his reconstruction when he used an odd-ball, ad hoc, unconventional version which was designed to produce a hockey stick. Both review panels, including one very friendly to him, agreed his statistics were garbage.
5. He truncated datasets, filled in gaps with his own numbers, used obsolete datasets, and used datasets known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions.
6. He participated in hiding the decline.
7. He conspired to suppress the publication of skeptics papers and otherwise tamper with journals.
8. He conspired to violate FOIA laws.
9. In his pleadings in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn he falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner.
10. He is indeed a Disgrace to the Profession. See Mark Steyn’s book.

I could go on an on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The content of Mann’s remarks are either correct or they are not. They do not rest on the personal authority of Mann. So to dismiss his remarks because of your assessment of his character is a classic ad hominem.

Mann is Professor Hintermeister in that he:

1. …

I could go on an on.

Yes, and it would still be an ad hominem attack on the content of the message I cited. The way you attack content is by showing it is wrong, not by showing something distasteful about the person who said it.

 

[Ender]

What more justification does one need beyond the fact that the graph is more accurate with the splicing than without it?

So if it is assumed that direct temperature readings are the most accurate method of determining global temperatures (which begs the question of why even those data points are being constantly adjusted because of “inaccuracies”), then yes, not including the inaccurate proxy data makes that part of the graph closer to reality. In explaining what the data does say it is always helpful to know what it is supposed to say.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi LBN,

Re you post at 287, splicing is not justified. Period. Even Mann agrees with me. So does Richard Muller.

Whether or not tree rings are good proxies for temperature is debatable. Any agreement with the temperature record, from the time records started being kept up until 1960, is not conclusive evidence that tree rings are a good measure of temps in the more distant past. For one thing, we can’t trust the surface thermometer record!

You are unreasonable in trusting Mann’s characterizations of the state of paleoclimate. He is not a trustworthy source, as I have amply demonstrated.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

It has been my experience in studying global warming that the claimed level of certainty for the various conclusions of the IPCC and surrounding climate science establishment is often greatly exaggerated. This in part a symptom of the larger problems addressed by Lindzen and Michaels: the post-WWII rise of the “scientific technological elite” (see Eisenhower’s Farewell Address), the co-opting of the universities and scientific organizations as tools for the needs of the regulatory state, the politicization of science, the role of the federal government in science funding, the failure of peer review to weed out bad science…I would also add as contributing factors the increasing prevalence of noble cause corruption (saving the planet is so important that it is OK to exaggerate) and the rise of post-normal science.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

So if it is assumed that direct temperature readings are the most accurate method of determining global temperatures (which begs the question of why even those data points are being constantly adjusted because of “inaccuracies”), then yes, not including the inaccurate proxy data makes that part of the graph closer to reality. In explaining what the data does say it is always helpful to know what it is supposed to say.

Hi Ender,

Rather than “inaccurate proxy data” let’s use “proxy data which does not agree with the surface temperature record.”

I still maintain that splicing is not appropriate. It is misleading to take a tree ring curve and then seamlessly join it to a surface temperature curve. They are two different data sets, and that should be apparent from the graph.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What more justification does one need beyond the fact that the graph is more accurate with the splicing than without it?

So if it is assumed that direct temperature readings are the most accurate method of determining global temperatures (which begs the question of why even those data points are being constantly adjusted because of “inaccuracies”), then yes, not including the inaccurate proxy data makes that part of the graph closer to reality. In explaining what the data does say it is always helpful to know what it is supposed to say.

That first assumption is not necessary. All that is necessary to assume is that direct temperature readings are more accurate than tree ring proxies. That still leaves open the possibility that other means, like satellite measurements, might be better in some ways.

But more importantly, the temperature series used in the graph is already processed heavily through calibration and coordination algorithms. They are not raw data. In measuring something so difficult to define as “the temperature of the earth”, how raw data is processed is very important. If we had the luxury of going back in time 50-100 years and choosing the ideal representative locations and placing perfectly calibrated instruments at these locations, we might be able to form a simple grade school average of the data across all locations. But we don’t have that luxury. So rather than throw up our hands and say “there is no way to know,” we have devised correction procedures to calibrate the raw readings and correct them for changes in the locations or the instruments over time.

One of the least-understood techniques is to use one reliablle time series to correct a less reliable series by using a period of time over which the two series should have comparable results. This method is quite powerful in that it allows for corrections due to factors that we can’t identify. Nevertheless scientist statisticians understand that such corrections are valid and do improve the overall reliability of the result. These are the “constant adjustments” you refer to. The adjustments are not constant. But when new data or improved methods come to light, it makes sense to adjust the way raw data is processed to take advantage of the new information.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi LBN,

Re you post at 287, splicing is not justified. Period. Even Mann agrees with me. So does Richard Muller.

Do you have any argument besides an appeal to authority to support that broad claim? (i.e. splicing data in any context)

Whether or not tree rings are good proxies for temperature is debatable.

Of course it is. And the scientific community is actively debating it - like scientists. They look for more evidence.

Any agreement with the temperature record, from the time records started being kept up until 1960, is not conclusive evidence that tree rings are a good measure of temps in the more distant past. For one thing, we can’t trust the surface thermometer record!

When two data series have lots of fluctuations and still track fairly well over a long period of time and through many fluctuations, it is a very reasonable assertion that the two time series are describing the same phenomenon. This is especially true when the sources of the two series are vastly different, so as to rule out a common procedural error in the way a series is developed. This is just common sense. If you have doubts about the surface thermometer record, it is unlikely that the problems with that record are going to be exactly the same as the problems with the tree ring proxies. This is the value in having multiple means of developing an overall result. In the case of paleoclimate, we also have ice core data, and perhaps others I am not aware of. We are always looking for means of cross-checking.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Do you have any argument besides an appeal to authority to support that broad claim? (i.e. splicing data in any context)

Hi LBN,

No. I will repeat what I said to Ender: It is misleading to take a tree ring curve and then seamlessly join it to a surface temperature curve, as if they constitute one data set. They are two different data sets, and that should be apparent from the graph.

Even in the case of only truncating or deleting the data with no splicing, there should be a big ol’ asterisk on the end of proxie curve leading to a an explanation that data is being deleted, explaining it however you will. (The problem with these spaghetti graphs is that the end of truncated curve gets lost in the tangle at the end.) That’s the honest and transparent thing to do. But folks aren’t even the habit of doing that.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

But folks aren’t even the habit of doing that.

On that score I cite Montford, . 170, wherein he explains that in a written submission to Boulton, the UEA Climate Research Unit [ see http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Climatic_Research_Unit.pdf] cited all the different ways they handled the divergence problem. 1) Show the whole curve, decline and all. 2) Delete the decline. 3) delete and splice, like Jones did for WMO. Along the way they admitted that whether or not the decline is deleted could be “important for assessing confidence in the earlier reconstructed values.” But they went on to say that when this was an issue and they deleted the decline they included “appropriate caveats and references to the articles where the limitations are explored in greater detail.” But Stephen McIntyre has described this assertion a fabrication. Montford quotes McIntyre:

In virtually all cases [of truncation], they included no caveats whatever. To date, I have not identified a single publication in which they explicitly state that they have deleted post-1960 data and why. In some cases, the caption says that the Briffa data is from 1402*1960, but in such cases there is no explicit statement that data was deleted and why. In other cases, there is not even a hint that the data has been chopped back to 1960. [New Light on “Hide the Decline” « Climate Audit]

So here is the takeaway: In their written testimony they admit that full and open disclosure of any deletion requires appropriate caveats, etc. Even the CRU and Phil Jones agree with me. And here is the kicker: McIntyre testifies that they don’t do what they themselves say should be done.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Mornin LBN,

I’ve been re-reading your posts, especially 294 and 296, which show much familiarity with the technical details of temperature records. You also use “we” quite often, which suggests that you work in the field. What zactly do you do for a living? Are you…could you be…a member of the CSELBTIPCC (Climate Science Establishment Led By The IPCC)?

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Yes, and it would still be an ad hominem attack on the content of the message I cited. The way you attack content is by showing it is wrong, not by showing something distasteful about the person who said it.

The point of my anti-Mannian litany is not to show something distasteful about the Mann. It is to show he lacks the character traits essential for any expert witness. To be sure my attacks on him, Jones, et al are ad hominem, but–dang it–dishonesty and disrespect for law and the norms of science are relevant when assessing their credibility.

We are therefore completely justified in dismissing anything he publishes or says. I am not alone in this assessment [See Mark Steyn’s book A Disgrace to the Profession]:

Eduardo Zorita, Phd: “Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmsdorf should be barred…because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Michael R. Fox, Phd: “We now know the hockey stick graph is fraudulent.”

Professor Darrel Ince, Phd: “If you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them, then you are not a scientist.”

Hendrik Tennekes, Phd: “The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession.”

Wallace Smith Broecker, Phd: “A lot of data sets he uses are [excremental expletive deleted]”

Denis Rancourt, Phd: “The hockey stick was a sham even allowing for statistical ignorance regarding the instrumental temperature record.”

Philip Stott, Phd: “Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data…Yet that’s exactly what he did.”

Robert Way, MSC: “They used a brand new statistical technique that they made up.”

Ian Jolliffe,Phd: “It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics.”

Eugene I. Gordon,Phd: “I don’t think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest.”

 

[MonteRCMS]

Michael Mann is very close to “losing it all”.

Michael Mann has spent so much time boxing himself into a corner that he has no place left to go.