Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[Kilbourne]

Lynn said:

I’m just wondering if Mann’s work is so fatally flawed why it matches up fairly well with these other 91 proxies. Perhaps it is flawed (we shouldn’t expect climate scientists to be all-knowing God), but I’m thinking it is not fatally flawed. Proxies are just proxies, but since we don’t have two or more earths on which to conduct our experiment, and accurate past data from accurately calibrated thermometers is hard to come by, esp 500 years ago, we can use proxies – to the extent that they reflect the temperatures.

Kama said;

But the twist is that there indeed was a hockey stick in the underlying data (as demonstrated by independent work). Hence, Mann obtained a result which was both correct and invalid. A rare situation, but one which happens. .

I guess I don’t know that the other 91 reconstructions do in fact line up with Mann’s result. But even if they did, given the corrupt state of scientific culture which produced them, it is unwise to accept them at face value.

There is warrant to doubt the independence of these studies, as I’ve said before. Another issue that arose during the Hockey Stick controversy was Mann’s use of bristlecone pine data. Even the NAS panel, overall favorable to Mann et al, agreed it was inappropriate to use them in temp reconstructions, but subsequent studies continue to use them.

 

[kama3]

I believe that it was proven a few years back that they were cherry picking data. I don’t have any sources;

To quote a classic, pics (sources) or it didn’t happen.

 

[kama3]

I guess I don’t know that the other 91 reconstructions do in fact line up with Mann’s result.

They do: ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/fig6-10b.png

MBH99 is Mann’s revised 1999 paper. (Not the flawed 1998 paper everyone is so fond of attacking).

But even if they did, given the corrupt state of scientific culture which produced them,

Unsupported slandering of the whole, worldwide, scientific community.

it is unwise to accept them at face value.

How many paleo-climatic reconstructions have you done?

There is warrant to doubt the independence of these studies, as I’ve said before.

Again. It’s very simple.

Go to this website: ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/pcn-recons.html

Press Ctrl-F, and type “Mann” into the search box that appears. That will identify three papers. Then, press Ctrl-F again, and type “Briffa”. That will identify five papers. Then search for “Jones”. That will find some papers, but they are already excluded because they are co-authored by Mann or Briffa.

So having excluded everyone implicated in the Climategate, we have thrown out 8 data series. There are still 84 to go.

Also, the database is very international. There are series by the French:

Chuine, I., P. Yiou, N. Viovy, B. Seguin, V. Daux, and E. Le Roy Ladurie. 2004. Grape ripening as a past climate indicator. Nature 432:289-290. DOI: 10.1038/432289a

Russians:

Hantemirov, R.M. and S.G. Shiyatov. 2002. A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia. Holocene 12(6):717-726.

Swiss:

Meier, N., T. Rutishauser, C. Pfister, H. Wanner, and J. Luterbacher. 2007. Grape harvest dates as a proxy for Swiss April to August temperature reconstructions back to AD 1480. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34:L20705. DOI: 10.1029/2007GL031381

Chileans:

Villalba, R., A. Lara, J.A. Boninsegna, M. Masiokas, S. Delgado, J. Aravena, F.A. Roig, A. Schmelter, A. Wolodarsky, and A. Ripalta. 2003. Large-Scale Temperature Changes Across the Southern Andes: 20th-Century Variations in the Context of the Past 400 Years. Climatic Change 59:177-232. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024452701153

Chinese:

Ge, Q., J. Zheng, X. Fang, Z. Man, X. Zhang, P. Zhang, and W.-C. Wang. 2003. Winter half-year temperature reconstruction for the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and Yangtze River, China, during the past 2000 years. The Holocene 13(6):933-940.
Tan, M., T.S. Liu, J. Hou, X. Qin, H. Zhang, and T. Li. 2003. Cyclic rapid warming on centennial-scale revealed by a 2650-year stalagmite record of warm season temperature. Geophysical Research Letters 30(12):1617. DOI: 10.1029/2003GL017352
Yang, B., A. Braeuning, K.R. Johnson, and S. Yafeng. 2002. General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(9):1324. DOI: 10.1029/2001GL014485.

Your climate conspiracy is becoming unpractically large.

Then, outside of these 92 which have been compiled into a single file, there is a heap of other reconstructions you can find here: ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

 

[kimmielittle]

They do: ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/fig6-10b.png

MBH99 is Mann’s revised 1999 paper. (Not the flawed 1998 paper everyone is so fond of attacking).

climateaudit.org/2008/04/23/univariate-calibration/

How can the tree ring data have ever been considered a good temperature proxy in the first place?

This is an important question about this proxy. This is why it is important that they truncated the display. If they had treated it honestly, they would have had to admit that this is a very poor proxy…and removed it completely from the graphic.

For others who are new to all this… remember:

The Hard Question is not whether it is warming today.

The Hard Question is: is todays climate unusual? To answer that, we need histories and data proxies for past climate, to tell us what happened 400, 1000, 2000 years ago.

What the embarrassing deleted data shows is that this tree ring proxy can’t predict modern climate, so it can’t be trusted for past climate.

Mann’s 2008

The big selling point of Mann’s new paper was that you could get a hockey stick shape without tree rings. However, this claim turned out to rest on a circular argument. Mann had shown that the Tiljander proxies were valid by removing them from the dataset and showing that you still got a hockey stick. However, when he did this test, the hockey stick shape of the final reconstruction came from the bristlecones [and other discredited data and methods]. Then he argued that he could remove the tree ring proxies (including the bristlecones) and still get a hockey stick—and of course he could, because in this case the hockey stick shape came from the Tiljander proxies [and discredited methods]. His argument therefore rested on having two sets of flawed proxies in the data set, but only removing one of them at a time. He could then argue that he still got a hockey stick either way. As McIntyre said, you had to watch the pea under the thimble.

This was by no means Mann’s only pea-and-thimble trick. He outdid “Mike’s Nature trick” that had been used to infamously “hide the decline” in late-twentieth-century proxy lines. This time he didn’t hide the decline, he showed a rising mirror image of the decline. A second statistical method that turned red noise into a hockey stick shape was found. A complicated filtering of proxy lines favouring those that added to the Hockey Stick effect was discovered. A proxy line designated as being temperatures in Africa turned out to be rainfall in Spain, and when corrected it altered the temperature of the eighteenth century by 0.5 degrees. These afflictions, remember, got past the vaunted peer review process with flying colours.

quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/7-8/the-tree-ring-circus

Proxies are only good… if there are no “divergences”.

Unsupported slandering of the whole, worldwide, scientific community.

Nonsense!

There is plenty of evidence in the dangers of “Politicization of science”

Piltdown man…

Consider the residue of such frauds as Rachel Carson, Alfred Kinsey, and Margaret Mead. Carson’s invented findings and unscientific methods led to the banning of DDT, which in turn cost the lives of tens of millions of children in undeveloped nations. Kinsey’s tortuously doctored “sex research,” as Dr. Judith Riesman has so amply demonstrated, was not only invented to sate his perverted lusts, but created scientific myths about normal and abnormal behavior which haunt us to this day. Mead also simply invented research to fit her idea of what the science of anthropology ought to be in order to justify her own immature and immoral behavior. Carson, Kinsey, and Mead had an agenda before they did any research, and this agenda governed everything else.

Science is supposed to be the impartial blend of data with theory that allows human knowledge to go wherever the evidence leads. Serious science must be firmly grounded in moral absolutes.

discovery.org/a/1169
21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk’s fake stem-cell lines [1] or Jan Hendrik Schön’s duplicated graphs [2] showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals, and how this can cause a waste of financial and human resources and might pose a risk to human health. How frequent are scientific frauds?

Consistently across studies, scientists admitted more frequently to have “modified research results” to improve the outcome than to have reported results they “knew to be untrue”

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

How many paleo-climatic reconstructions have you done?

Follow the pea…

One does not have to lay face down in poop…to know it stinks.

Your climate conspiracy is becoming unpractically large.

Follow the pea…

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Your climate conspiracy is becoming unpractically large.

Definitions of “Conspiracy”

Cabal, an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue
Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

Albet: Not ALL climate Scientists were involved - THE GATEKEEPERS CRU - IPCC - Hansen - Jones - Mann etc ] Did conspire / enter into a conspiracy to “Politicize the Science”. Did conspire to refrain from LEGITIMATE FOIA Requests. Did conspire to withhold data.

I notice you use the list of NCDC / NOAA…Yet these lists include studies that should have been removed i.e.

Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169–172. (PDF here)
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377–2380. (PDF here)

Among others - Why would you want them to be there? Why would the Scientific Community allow them to remain?

scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html

 

[lynnvinc]

Mann’s original (1998) algorithm for extracting temperature from tree ring data would produce a hockey stick graph when fed with random data. Since a correct algorithm should produce a flat graph in such case, that makes his algorithm invalid.

But the twist is that there indeed was a hockey stick in the underlying data (as demonstrated by independent work). Hence, Mann obtained a result which was both correct and invalid. A rare situation, but one which happens.

Hide the decline refers to a different problem with the tree ring proxy, i.e. the fact that it diverges from instrumental record after 1960.

Not sure what you are saying – that Mann purposely and knowingly used a wrong algorithm just to get the result he wanted, or he mistakenly used it, bec he was in a bit over his head on the algorithms.

I’m thinking it would probably be the latter, since he would surely be well aware others would be reading his work and trying to pick it apart (would that the denialist lit stand to as much scrutiny as peer-reviewed scientific work).

Also it would seem that it was a bit over the peer reviewers’ heads as well. That can happen; I know of a few stories (aside from cold fusion).

Climate scientists I know have stressed that peer-review is a necessary cause for scientific validity or facts, but not a sufficient cause. And also that it is the robustness of the science (e.g., those other 91 studies) that counts more than single studies, that a single study science does not make.

 

[kimmielittle]

To quote a classic, pics (sources) or it didn’t happen.

Or you won’t acknowledge it happened

It is actually very blatant that Mann did - he admits it. Tree rings diverged from his hypothesis…he deleted them after 1960.

If there is a confusion why tree rings diverged from his original hypothesis - Tree rings provide an accurate proxy for climate…It is Cherry Picking to use part of them - when they seem to support your hypothesis - and disregard them when they don’t.

Definition of “Cherry Picked”

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1[

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy

We know the bolded above doesn’t apply - Because Mr Mann admits he had a divergent problem and spliced other data to it.

Jones and Wang…used data sets…that aren’t found.

“Cherry Picked”

Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169–172. (PDF here)
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377–2380. (PDF here)

scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html

IPCC is rife with gray literature Cherry picked ]
[/quote]

 

[kimmielittle]

Not sure what you are saying – that Mann purposely and knowingly used a wrong algorithm just to get the result he wanted, or he mistakenly used it, bec he was in a bit over his head on the algorithms.

I’m thinking it would probably be the latter, since he would surely be well aware others would be reading his work and trying to pick it apart (would that the denialist lit stand to as much scrutiny as peer-reviewed scientific work).

Explain why Mr Mann After being shown his algorithm was faulty and why ] Continued to use such? Why refuse to hire a Statistician to review his stats / maths?

As smart as you say Mr Mann is…I can only conclude, he does it intentionally.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hide the decline refers to a different problem with the tree ring proxy, i.e. the fact that it diverges from instrumental record after 1960.

Do you think it might be in part due to the reasons I specified above about GH effect (esp faster warming minimual diurnal or nighttime temps) being bad for plants (and people)?

1960 seems a bit early for my hypothesis. I remember going to India in 1970s and the hot summer days were followed by somewhat cool nights – especially around 4 to 6 in the morning we’d have to cover up (I remember because I even included that in a short story I began to write). Now the summer nights are intolerable the whole night through – humid and hot. I call it the nighttime “blanket” effect of the GH effect (but some scientists have told me that is a bad analogy).

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

To quote a classic, pics (sources) or it didn’t happen.

The reason I posted it was because, I was was hoping someone may know what this was and so could give me sources for it. I’m not basing any argument off it and I think most people here have conceded Mann’s work to be flawed. I put my two cents in already in post #32.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Thank you very much Kimmie.

 

[kimmielittle]

Do you think it might be in part due to the reasons I specified above about GH effect (esp faster warming minimual diurnal or nighttime temps) being bad for plants (and people)?

1960 seems a bit early for my hypothesis. I remember going to India in 1970s and the hot summer days were followed by somewhat cool nights – especially around 4 to 6 in the morning we’d have to cover up (I remember because I even included that in a short story I began to write). Now the summer nights are intolerable the whole night through – humid and hot. I call it the nighttime “blanket” effect of the GH effect (but some scientists have told me that is a bad analogy).

You seem to have forgotten the particulars of “hide the decline.” No critics have claimed that some particular phenomenon explained the decline / divergence.

What we criticized was the failure of Briffa and others to undertake empirical research that would explain the decline / divergence.

They did not do it at the time… and they have not done it since. They pretended the problem / divergence did not exist.

The evidence against the scientific instincts of Briffa and others, is that empirical research which would explain the decline / divergence is eminently doable and should have been done decades ago. They chose not to find out why.

Outrageous assumptions about the reliability of proxies have been the order of the day for centuries. The work that went into the Hockey Stick and involved the conscious decision to “hide the decline” / divergence was most certainly not scientific.

The very fact that it DID diverge - For whatever reason…when taunted as an “accurate proxy for past and future climate swings”…AND admitting empirically The need to delete / truncate ] the graphs… They used tainted proxies when it suited them

Repeating:
How can the tree ring data have ever been considered a good temperature proxy in the first place?

This is an important question about this proxy. This is why it is important that they truncated the display. If they had treated it honestly, they would have had to admit that this is a very poor proxy…and removed it completely from the graphic.

For others who are new to all this… remember:

The Hard Question is not whether it is warming today.

The Hard Question is: is todays climate unusual? To answer that, we need histories and data proxies for past climate, to tell us what happened 400, 1000, 2000 years ago.

What the embarrassing deleted data shows is that this tree ring proxy can’t predict modern climate, so it can’t be trusted for past climate.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thank you very much Kimmie.

You are very welcome

 

[kama3]

kimmielittle

You’re using a non-standard definition of cherrypicking.

Suppose someone had 10 series of tree-ring data. 7 of these follow the same warming trend, 3 do not. Cherry picking is when you report only about the 7 series which match the theory and silently (silently is the operative word here) ignore the 3 which do not match.

What Mann et. al. had was that all their tree ring series would diverge from instrumental record after 1960. That problem was well known to everyone in the field (look up divergence problem, it even has a wikipedia page!). Even more, Briffa himself wrote the paper on this back in 1998! So, splicing tree ring and instrumental data became a standard procedure in the field. I have methodological objections over splicing two series, however, one cannot claim fraud here, since everyone in the field knew that the series was spliced.

The whole brouhaha only started when non-experts started reading through the Climategate e-mails and “discovered” the splicing (a.k.a. Mike’s Nature trick) – oblivious to the fact that Mann’s practice was commonly known in the field.

Again, I believe that tree ring proxy is objectively a bad proxy (it diverges and nobody knows why it diverges) and Mann’s methods are bad methods. Trash it. There is a multitude of other evidence for global warming.

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmielittle

You’re using a non-standard definition of cherrypicking.

I gave the reference for the definition

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy

)

I’ll add"

Definition of CHERRY-PICK
intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb
: to select as being the best or most desirable; also : to select the best or most desirable from <cherry–picked the art collection>

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cherry-pick

Investopedia explains ‘Cherry Picking’

1. Used by both fund managers and individual investors, cherry picking is a method that reduces the amount of time required for researching stocks as the pool of securities in which investors pick from is significantly narrowed. For example, rather than having to research all the stocks that deal with semi-conductors within the exchanges, an investor may instead look at a few mutual funds investing exclusively in these products and research only those investments picked out to be the best performers.

1. Legislation has been changing in order to stop this practice from continuing.

investopedia.com/terms/c/cherrypicking.asp#axzz1pETY4MHa

In science
Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as “cherry picking” and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011[3]

“Good science looks at all the evidence (rather than cherry picking only favorable evidence), controls for variables so we can identify what is actually working, uses blinded observations so as to minimize the effects of bias, and uses internally consistent logic.” [1]

answers.com/topic/cherry-picking-fallacy

Cherry picking is a familiar fallacy in research.* A simple definition of cherry picking is “the intentional or unintentional** selection of evidence to prove one’s point or support one’s position, in research that is presumably objective.” Here’s a more detailed definition.

clear-writing-with-mr-clarity.blogspot.com/2011/02/fallacies-2-cherry-picking.html

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmielittle

You’re using a non-standard definition of cherrypicking.

Suppose someone had 10 series of tree-ring data. 7 of these follow the same warming trend, 3 do not. Cherry picking is when you report only about the 7 series which match the theory and silently (silently is the operative word here) ignore the 3 which do not match.

AND this is the pea they wish for you to follow…

** The graphs are what? **

They are not a study on tree ring growth vs temperatures. As a fact, there is little empirical evidence that supports tree rings as reliable temperature proxies ]

They purport to be an accurate climate history of earth. This is where the actual pea rests ]

They used what for this history?

Tree ring studies - UNTIL THEY DIVERGED FROM DESIRED RESULTS.

AFTER the divergence - THEY PICKED ANOTHER CHERRY

They purport to be an accurate climate history of earth. This is where the actual pea rests… ]

Keep your eye on the pea…

 

[kimmielittle]

kimmielittle

The whole brouhaha only started when non-experts started reading through the Climategate e-mails and “discovered” the splicing (a.k.a. Mike’s Nature trick) – oblivious to the fact that Mann’s practice was commonly known in the field.

What are non-experts? Surely, you don’t mean the Statisticians / Mathematicians who challenged the ** stats / maths ** used within these claims?

I don’t think you can support your claim:

“only started when non-experts started reading through the Climategate e-mails and “discovered” the splicing”

Climategate was in 2009 - Climategate 2 was 2011

A HISTORY REMINDER:

1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. climateaudit.org/?p=877.

1. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
   climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).

1. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.
   climateaudit.org/?p=3099

1. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. climateaudit.org/?p=542

1. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. climateaudit.org/?p=3266

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

What are non-experts? Surely, you don’t mean the Statisticians who challenged the stats used within these claims?

I don’t think you can support your claim:

Climategate was in 2009 - Climategate 2 was 2011

A HISTORY REMINDER CONTINUED:

1. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. climateaudit.org/?p=7142

1. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)
   climateaudit.org/?p=7142

1. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.
   climateaudit.org/?p=7158

1. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.

1. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/

 

[Kilbourne]

I believe this was the issue that caused so much problem for and harassment of Mann, and maybe also some less powerful stats used in earlier studies, which I believe he has rectified in the present.

I think it is wrong to expect every scientists to be superman and total geniuses. They are doing the best they can on a scientifically complex and difficult problem. We should honor them for their work and efforts.

It is indeed wrong to expect every scientist to superhuman. But we rightly expect honesty, transparency and full disclosure from them. We got none of that from Mann during the entire episode. In a rational world, Michael Mann and his accomplices would never publish again.

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Kama,

MBH99 is Mann’s revised 1999 paper. (Not the flawed 1998 paper everyone is so fond of attacking).

You suggest MBH99 was free of the flaws in MBH98. How so? The 98 paper was 600 year reconstruction. The 99 paper merely extended it to a 1000 year reconstruction. It didn’t introduce a corrected methodology. No one knew of Mann’s errors until much later.

Unsupported slandering of the whole, worldwide, scientific community.

No, a justified conclusion about the whole, worldwide, climate science community based on my observations of the misbehavior of key players in the US and the UK, not to mention the IPCC.

How many paleo-climatic reconstructions have you done?

Alas, not a one. I imagine it is a daunting enterprise, which makes it all the more important for these studies to be thoroughly audited.