The thing(s) with climate change

[Ender]

Well, there you go! Why don’t you read a random sampling of them from primary sources, not extracts from someone who has carefully arranged his presentation to sell his view.

Had you bothered to go to the source I cited you would have seen that each email cited in the paper had a link to the original email. I did read a number of the originals just to ensure that the author was in fact not taking snippets out of context to change the meaning of the original authors. That is, I did my homework; why don’t you do yours?

Wait, no, you can’t read a random sampling. That is because the e-mails were pre-sorted by the hackers to select out of context the ones that would most tell the story they wanted to tell. As anyone knows, an e-mail selected out of the context of the entire exchange in which that e-mail is found can be interpreted in many ways. If there were e-mails that explained the context more fully, you can be sure those e-mails were suppressed by the hackers. In short, this “evidence” has me completely underwhelmed.

You of course don’t know the first thing about what emails were released, whether they were selected based on content or whether it was merely a data dump. This is simply an excuse to ignore the evidence.

That is exactly how I would have responded if I thought someone was unfairly attacking my work. Why should I cooperate with the unfair attacker if I don’t have to? That evidence shows nothing!

Both the US and the UK have FOI laws. I should think you would cooperate because that is what the law requires. Second, that is the way science works. One person makes a claim, and others try to replicate his work. Third, there was nothing demonstrably unfair about the request. McIntyre challenged Mann’s results (correctly as it turns out) and was simply doing what had to be done to show the validity of his own results.

My eyes are indeed lying if I allow what I see to be spoon fed to me by people who are admittedly out to wreck the work of these scientists.

You show the same paranoia as Mann, Jones, et al. You have no idea what motivated the email dump but you shut your eyes to everything it revealed because you cannot defend what it clearly shows. Let me point this out yet again: this is the way science is supposed to work. If whatever you claim is scientifically valid then it cannot be wrecked by others who oppose your view. Scientific claims must be validated by others who either can or cannot replicate your findings. Withholding the data and the programs used to process that data prevented others from replicating what Mann had done. His position - and yours as well - is…just believe.

But you still haven’t said how it is you reconcile your views of massive corruption and deceit with the fact that those views are so unbelieved.

Well, if you are a typical example, it appears that the problem is simply a desire to believe what one chooses regardless of the evidence to the contrary. It is hard for me to understand, but this perspective clearly exists, and on a rather industrial scale.

Ender

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Temperature fiddling

[See Horner’s book Red Hot Lies for a chapter on this topic.]

Take NASA GISS as an example. James Hansen became famous in 1988 or so when he starred in Al Gore and Tim Wirth’s staged congressional hearing on global warming. As director of GISS Hansen was an outspoken alarmist and remains so today in his retirement. His bias is undeniable. His sidekick Gavin Schmidt is equally partisan who actively participates in Mann’s apologetic website Real Climate.

During Hansen’s tenure he often cited individual year temps of evidence of global warming. “2005 Warmest Year in a Century,” etc. Early on it was difficult to make such claims because the 30’s were known to be so hot. No problem. Via multiple adjustments the 30’s were cooled down, thus making the late 20th century warming hotter.

Now adjustments to the temperature record are common, and it would be easy to argue that nothing sinister has been going on. Just routine maintenance, etc. However, if GISS hasn’t been systematically adjusting the record to suit its agenda, then why do the majority, if not all, the recent adjustments initiated by GISS work to make the past get cooler? What are the chances of that?

This touches on a problem with the surface temperature record which we will get to later, namely its contamination and unreliability. Anthony Watts has concluded that the present US temp record is so corrupt as to be useless. It couldn’t even be replicated because adjustments over the years have been so poorly documented.

Regarding the CRU dataset, there are some hilarious entries from Climategate called the “Harryreadme” files, wherein some poor guy who was charged with cleaning up the data despairingly raged about the lack of documentation and utter impossibility of figuring out what was going on. If you can’t replicate something, can you even call it science?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

The Deming Affair

David Deming did a borehole temperature reconstruction which gains him some recognition. He reports:

…with the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

When he came out with this revelation he was attacked and threatened by a wealthy university donor. Eventually his position at the U of Oklahoma was jeopardized.

Other dissenters didn’t fare so well: Henrik Tennekes, Aksel Winn-Nielsen, and many others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Had you bothered to go to the source I cited you would have seen that each email cited in the paper had a link to the original email. I did read a number of the originals just to ensure that the author was in fact not taking snippets out of context to change the meaning of the original authors. That is, I did my homework; why don’t you do yours?

How could have possibly seen the whole context of any given e-mail? That context includes the e-mails that preceded it. Not all those e-mails were even released by the hackers.

You of course don’t know the first thing about what emails were released, whether they were selected based on content or whether it was merely a data dump. This is simply an excuse to ignore the evidence.

Nor do you have any proof that the e-mails released were not selected, and there is every reason to believe they were selected, because of the stated goals of the group that released them. A strong case for careful selection can be made from the heuristics of the words involved in those emails.

Both the US and the UK have FOI laws. I should think you would cooperate because that is what the law requires.

But until it is shown that the law really applies in this case, there is no reason why the one withholding the information could not behave as he did. Once it was ruled to be required, the information was eventually released, wasn’t it? Your whole claim of corruption is based on his lack of enthusiasm for releasing the information. I don’t think FOI laws require that you be enthusiastic about releasing information. Even the Catholic Church is reluctant to release publicly information relating to sex abuse charges for fear that information might be misinterpreted. I don’t blame the Church and I don’t blame Mann.

Third, there was nothing demonstrably unfair about the request.

Except that it was Steve McIntyre making the request, and Mann was already aware of McIntyre’s agenda.

You show the same paranoia as Mann, Jones, et al.

…and the Church, when asked to release information on sex abuse cases?

You have no idea what motivated the email dump…

Of course I do. It is obvious, based on what the group did with the info.

Let me point this out yet again: this is the way science is supposed to work.

And it has worked that way. Others (not McIntyre, obviously) have confirmed the general conclusions of global warming.

Well, if you are a typical example, it appears that the problem is simply a desire to believe what one chooses regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

So you are saying this willful self-deception is quite common among otherwise intelligent people?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

That is exactly how I would have responded if I thought someone was unfairly attacking my work. Why should I cooperate with the unfair attacker if I don’t have to? That evidence shows nothing!

I’d be curious to know why you think McIntyre unfairly attacked Mann’s work.

Was it for insisting that he not use bristlecone pines for his temp reconstructions. Even the Mann friendly NAS panel dinged him on that one.

Was it for insisting that he make full disclosure of his data and methods so that his study could be replicated?

Was it for insisting that he disclose adverse results (i.e. that his reconstruction failed a key significance test (R squared)?

Was it for insisting that Mann not make false statements before the NAS panel about whether or not he even tested for R2?

Was it for insisting that he not use unorthodox and untested methods in calculating his principal components? Mann’s PC algorithm, BTW, mined the data for hockey sticks and gave them prominence in his reconstruction. Even Gerald North, chairman of the Mann-friendly panel agreed with the Wegman group on this.

cordially

ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Was it for insisting that Mann not misrepresent his data and his methodology in his Nature article (MBH98)? In MBH98 they said they used standard PC analysis. Mann eventually disclosed they used a “stepwise” approach. In their paper they said they used X number of series, but later he disclosed they used Y series.

How in the world can science advance if scientists don’t honestly and accurately disclose in their publications their data and methods?

Was it for insisting that Mann disclose by which rule he chose his PC"s? He never did.

Was it for insisting that Mann use up-to-date versions of his data?

Was it for insisting that Mann disclose how he filled in holes in his data?

…

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Even 99% of bishops would agree that Mann is guilty of conduct unbecoming a scientist, if not scientific fraud. Why don’t you?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

addendum to 145

Was it for insisting that Mann properly label his data?

Was it for insisting that Mann own up to his co-authoriship of the hide-the-decline article which hid the decline?

Was it for insisting that Mann not conspire to tamper with scientific journals, as amply demonstrated by the climate gate emails?

Was it for insisting that Mann not counsel others to violate FOIA laws?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Was it for suggesting–ever so politely–that Mann not be such a pompous person in his private climate gate emails with his colleagues, so pompous that he caused one of his co-authors to retch?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’d be curious to know why you think McIntyre unfairly attacked Mann’s work…

It does not matter what I think about this, or even whether I think McIntyre’s attack was unfair at all. All that does matter is if Mann thought it was unfair. Remember why we are talking about this. Mann’s emails about McIntyre’s attacks were presented as evidence for corruption. I pointed out that being uncooperative with someone you feel is attacking you unfairly is not a sign of corruption. It might be a sign of paranoia, but it is not a sign of corruption. Remember, we are not talking about scientific competency now (although we might talk about that later). We are only talking about deliberate corruption. And for that specific change, the evidence is lacking.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even 99% of bishops would agree that Mann is guilty of conduct unbecoming a scientist, if not scientific fraud. Why don’t you?

Are you downgrading your charge now, from deceit and corruption to “conduct unbecoming a scientist”? The first change is much more serious, and it is that more serious charge that I doubt any of the bishops would make on the “climate science establishment”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now adjustments to the temperature record are common, and it would be easy to argue that nothing sinister has been going on. Just routine maintenance, etc. However, if GISS hasn’t been systematically adjusting the record to suit its agenda, then why do the majority, if not all, the recent adjustments initiated by GISS work to make the past get cooler? What are the chances of that?

If it is a slim majority, that would be exactly what one would expect from random chance - about half would go up and half would go down. Majority means anything more than half, right?

Also, there must be, I don’t know, hundreds of monitoring stations? Have you verified that almost all of the adjustments for all those stations have made the past get cooler? I know that the few stations that were selected out by opponents of global warming did adjust that way, but how to you know they didn’t just look for and present the ones with the biggest adjustment in their favor to cast doubt on all the rest? You can even being to claim bias unless you examine, at least a random selection of the monitoring stations. And by random I do not mean stations that were selected for you by the opponents of the theory.

Anthony Watts has concluded that the present US temp record is so corrupt as to be useless.

There is an unbiased source to be trusted, eh?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

It does not matter what I think about this, or even whether I think McIntyre’s attack was unfair at all. All that does matter is if Mann thought it was unfair. Remember why we are talking about this. Mann’s emails about McIntyre’s attacks were presented as evidence for corruption. I pointed out that being uncooperative with someone you feel is attacking you unfairly is not a sign of corruption. It might be a sign of paranoia, but it is not a sign of corruption. Remember, we are not talking about scientific competency now (although we might talk about that later). We are only talking about deliberate corruption. And for that specific change, the evidence is lacking.

Being uncooperative in general is not a sign of corruption. But being uncooperative in this specific situation is. Remember these guys are scientists. They want us to trust them. They want us to believe their data and conclusions are reliable and vetted by the scientific community. Yet here they are conspiring to thwart an audit of their work. That is dishonest and deceitful. That is corrupt.

They also want us to believe that they are responsible and law-abiding. Yet here they are encouraging and plotting the evasion of FOIA requests. Mann, perhaps, is less culpable on this score than Jones, at least with respect the evasion of British FOIA laws. Jones very clearly threw up dishonest roadblocks along the way to the release of his data. One of his excuses was that the data was subject to confidentiality agreements. Not true.

 

[Ender]

Except that it was Steve McIntyre making the request, and Mann was already aware of McIntyre’s agenda.

You still don’t seem to understand this: this is the way science is supposed to work. Someone runs an experiment and makes a claim about the result. Others replicate his experiment to see if they get the same results. Science never works on a “just trust me” basis, except apparently in the area of global warming.

…and the Church, when asked to release information on sex abuse cases?

That was an entirely different situation…but it was equally indefensible.

Of course I do. It is obvious, based on what the group did with the info.

I love this one. The emails unequivocally demonstrate malfeasance on a rather grand scale, and pointing this out demonstrates the bias of the group making that point…meaning we should all just ignore the proof of the accusations.

So you are saying this willful self-deception is quite common among otherwise intelligent people?

Demonstrably so. When I was young I always considered the Emperor’s New Clothes to be the least reasonable of all the fairy tales; after all, how could people believe something so obviously untrue? I now see I sorely underestimated the power of - how did you put it - willful self-deception.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Being uncooperative in general is not a sign of corruption. But being uncooperative in this specific situation is. Remember these guys are scientists. They want us to trust them. They want us to believe their data and conclusions are reliable and vetted by the scientific community. Yet here they are conspiring to thwart an audit of their work.

You are assuming that McIntyre was only interested in a fair-handed audit of Mann’s work. Mann had reason to think otherwise. Whether he was right or wrong in so thinking is not the point. The point is that Mann’s initial lack of cooperation with McIntyre can easily be explained without recourse to outlandish corruption theories.

They also want us to believe that they are responsible and law-abiding. Yet here they are encouraging and plotting the evasion of FOIA requests.

Attempts to legally evade FOIA requests are not prima facie cases for corruption. I you believe someone is deliberately twisting your work to misrepresent it, you would do the same thing to try to thwart that person.

Jones very clearly threw up dishonest roadblocks along the way to the release of his data. One of his excuses was that the data was subject to confidentiality agreements. Not true.

Even if it was not true, Jones may have believed that it was. In that case the most you can accuse Jones of is ignorance of the IP situation. That is not equivalent to corruption.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You still don’t seem to understand this: this is the way science is supposed to work. Someone runs an experiment and makes a claim about the result. Others replicate his experiment to see if they get the same results. Science never works on a “just trust me” basis, except apparently in the area of global warming.

At best this amounts to circumstantial evidence. It is not direct evidence of corruption or deceit.

I love this one. The emails unequivocally demonstrate malfeasance on a rather grand scale, and pointing this out demonstrates the bias of the group making that point…meaning we should all just ignore the proof of the accusations.

Quote for me just one e-mail that unequivocally demonstrates malfeasance on a rather grand scale.

Demonstrably so. When I was young I always considered the Emperor’s New Clothes to be the least reasonable of all the fairy tales; after all, how could people believe something so obviously untrue?

There you go! Your young self had grasped a basic truth of reasoning. Don’t abandon that principle now.

I now see I sorely underestimated the power of - how did you put it - willful self-deception.

In that case all people with eyes were equally qualified in determining if Emperor was indeed clothed. With global warming, this is not the case. Relatively few people are able to make this determination accurately. Imagine a blind man in the crowd as the Emperor passed by. He asks the people around him what they see. If most of them say the Emperor is finely dressed, and one or two people say he is naked, who is the blind man to believe? Who would you believe if you were that blind man?

 

[vz71]

Quote for me just one e-mail that unequivocally demonstrates malfeasance on a rather grand scale.

First you push that the emails must be taken in context.
Then you want a single one quoted.

Which is it?

It seems your standard for sufficient evidence fluctuates based on your own designs and not necessarily fact and reality.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi leaf,

You are assuming that McIntyre was only interested in a fair-handed audit of Mann’s work. Mann had reason to think otherwise. Whether he was right or wrong in so thinking is not the point. The point is that Mann’s initial lack of cooperation with McIntyre can easily be explained without recourse to outlandish corruption theories…

I don’t think I am proposing an outlandish corruption theory. He didn’t play by the rules. That’s dishonest. That’s corrupt. Period. Real scientists don’t hide their data and methods. They don’t stonewall. They don’t encourage others to do so. I don’t care how unfair a scientist feels his auditor is or will be. I don’t care how noble a scientist feels his “cause” is. Play by the rules.

BTW, I have read both Montford’s account of the Hockey Stick and Mann’s account. I have good reasons to belief that McIntyre acted fairly and in good faith. I can’t say the same about Mann.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First you push that the emails must be taken in context.
Then you want a single one quoted.

Which is it?

It seems your standard for sufficient evidence fluctuates based on your own designs and not necessarily fact and reality.

I am lowering my standards to accommodate the limitations in what the other side is willing to do.

 

[lynnvinc]

… Both the US and the UK have FOI laws. I should think you would cooperate because that is what the law requires…

Ender

Except in the case in which they had purchased some of the data and were NOT a liberty to pass on proprietary data to other people. They did mention that those who wanted the data could purchase it from the same source.