Global Warming backdown

[TimG]

Climate science doesn't depend on testing subjects. It depends on testing the data, and there is more than one set of data, and thousands of ways to test that date.

There is one subject: the planet. All of the different datasets simply measure the state of the subject at different times and places.

Climate science is using dozens of proxy data sets in addition to the current record and all of them (with the exemption of tree rings for the last 50 or so years) say the same thing.

Proxies have their own problems and are not necessarily reliable records of the past. More importantly, there are a lot of important things that we have no proxy data for. Trying to draw conclusions based on proxy data is like trying to diagnose a patient based on the body temperature but without information about skin pallor, blood work or location of pain. IOW, a diagnosis under such conditions would be nothing but a wild guess.

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is one subject: the planet. All of the different datasets simply measure the state of the subject at different times and places.

The earth is a patient comparison is a really stupid one.

Proxies have their own problems and are not necessarily reliable records of the past. More importantly, there are a lot of important things that we have no proxy data for. Trying to draw conclusions based on proxy data is like trying to diagnose a patient based on the body temperature but without information about skin pallor, blood work or location of pain. IOW, a diagnosis under such conditions would be nothing but a wild guess.

You know what concordance is? It's when multiple data sets give you the same answer, in this case it's all of the different proxies that give us the same temperature. This includes modern temperature because all but one, and that one only for the last fifty years, give the same temperature read out as the modern temperature record. So unless your going to claim the modern record is wrong chances are pretty good that the proxies are right.

[TimG]

The earth is a patient comparison is a really stupid one.

No. What is stupid are comparisons between the level of knowledge we have in medicine and what we know about climate. There is no comparison. We know next to nothing about climate largely because we cannot test hypotheses with real world results.

You know what concordance is? It's when multiple data sets give you the same answer, in this case it's all of the different proxies that give us the same temperature.

The trouble is they don't give the same answer. And even if they did it they are still just a measure of one parameter among many. Doctors cannot diagnoses a patient by simply looking at a body temperature measurement.

This includes modern temperature because all but one, and that one only for the last fifty years, give the same temperature read out as the modern temperature record. So unless your going to claim the modern record is wrong chances are pretty good that the proxies are right.

Well the famous 'hide the decline' email was about how climate scientists really wanted to use a certain set of tree rings but they did not match the record for the last 50 years. To get around this little problem they chopped off the data that did not match and spliced the actual temperatures on the end. It was a nasty but of deception which is typical of scientists consumed by group think. The proxy series should have been discarded because of the mismatch but it was 'too useful'. In fact, if you look at other tree ring series from the same area you will see that there is no hockey stick - in fact, the tree rings look like random noise. That is why they tried so hard to justify the use of the one with bad data. It was the only one that would give them the story they wanted - as long as they got rid of the bad data. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Well the famous 'hide the decline' email was about how climate scientists really wanted to use a certain set of tree rings but they did not match the record for the last 50 years. To get around this little problem they chopped off the data that did not match and spliced the actual temperatures on the end. It was a nasty but of deception which is typical of scientists consumed by group think. The proxy series should have been discarded because of the mismatch but it was 'too useful'. In fact, if you look at other tree ring series from the same area you will see that there is no hockey stick - in fact, the tree rings look like random noise. That is why they tried so hard to justify the use of the one with bad data. It was the only one that would give them the story they wanted - as long as they got rid of the bad data.

absolute unmitigated bullshit... and you know it!

[TimG]

absolute unmitigated bullshit... and you know it!

Here is a lovely plot of all the Russian tree series that Briffa could have used for his papers:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/25/yamal-and-the-decline/

11 different series and he decides that the only one he should use is the one that looks like a hockey-stick (at least until 1940). One could naively assume that the selection was done for purely scientific reasons. Or one could be realistic and assume that it was picked because that was the series that best met Briffa's needs to get published in high impact journals.

[waldo]

Here is a lovely plot of all the Russian tree series that Briffa could have used for his papers:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/25/yamal-and-the-decline/

11 different series and he decides that the only one he should use is the one that looks like a hockey-stick (at least until 1940). One could naively assume that the selection was done for purely scientific reasons. Or one could be realistic and assume that it was picked because that was the series that best met Briffa's needs to get published in high impact journals.

which has nothing to do with your previous fallacious "hide the decline" email reference... notwithstanding, of course, McIntyre has no credibility - none. McIntyre, auditor extraordinaire, self-styled slayer of the hockey-stick... the guy who has had 10+ years to actually either issue a comment or publish a paper on his scatter-gun whack-job "analysis", and yet, just can't seem to find the time, being more content to continue funneling fodder to his denier blog minions... in spite of the numerous challenges that have been thrown his way. Publish - or give it up - hey Steve McIntyre?

of course, it's heartening to see you also haven't moved on and remain fixated with your hero's decade long pursuit for vindication... really, regardless of what they show, is there truly any value in continuing to harp on the earliest paleo-reconstructions?

[TimG]

which has nothing to do with your previous fallacious "hide the decline" email reference

Yes it does. It puts the hide the decline in context. I posted a link to a list of all tree ring series in the area. There are 11 sets and Briffa picked one. That is a fact that has nothing to do with SteveMc. You are free to post your own opinion on why Briffa picked the series he did but I suspect most people who understand the pressure to publish in the academic world will agree that Briffa went for the series that would give him the best story.

As for SteveMc publishing:

He just got a paper published in Atmospheric Science Letters that shows conslusively that the climate models have been predicting siginicantly more warming than is actually occurring: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/

He used the same method as Santar 2008 so there can be no complaints about the method unless one wishes to repudiate Santar 2008 as well.

Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

The trouble is they don't give the same answer. And even if they did it they are still just a measure of one parameter among many. Doctors cannot diagnoses a patient by simply looking at a body temperature measurement.

Again enough with the stupid comparisons. You don't get the same answer when you use different dating methods to date a sample either, what you get are dates that are very close to each other. Same thing it happening hear the temperature are very close to each other, and the all very nearly mach the modern record so it's a safe bet that the temps they give for the past are right as well.

Well the famous 'hide the decline' email was about how climate scientists really wanted to use a certain set of tree rings but they did not match the record for the last 50 years. To get around this little problem they chopped off the data that did not match and spliced the actual temperatures on the end. It was a nasty but of deception which is typical of scientists consumed by group think. The proxy series should have been discarded because of the mismatch but it was 'too useful'. In fact, if you look at other tree ring series from the same area you will see that there is no hockey stick - in fact, the tree rings look like random noise. That is why they tried so hard to justify the use of the one with bad data. It was the only one that would give them the story they wanted - as long as they got rid of the bad data.

Do you get your information from fox news? I'm going to defer this one to someone else, as this has already been answer plenty of times. But let me just make one thing clear, tree ring proxies are the weakest evidence they have, scientists know this which is why there are such large debates over whether to use them. It doesn't matter though because you could not use the tree ring data and the shift in the graph would be tiny, if it shifted at all.

Now about the hockey stick, if you look at the actual data you will see the the hockey stick is perfectly fine, I mean your 4 years behind on this one. My link

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

[TimG]

Same thing it happening hear the temperature are very close to each other, and the all very nearly mach the modern record so it's a safe bet that the temps they give for the past are right as well.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that temperature is a small part of what we call climate and determining what was really happening with climate 1000 or 10000 or 1000000 years ago requires data that we simply do not have?

It doesn't matter though because you could not use the tree ring data and the shift in the graph would be tiny, if it shifted at all.

They are playing a deceptive shell game. To understand the shell game you have to understand that there are two aspects to a temperature reconstruction. The first is the shape and the second is the significance. If the reconstruction fails the significance tests its shape is irrelevant because it is nothing random noise.

When Mann and Co produce reconstructions they pick two bogus proxies that have a nice hockey stick shape. And claim that their reconstruction is robust because you can remove one and you still get the same shape.

When confronted on that shell game they will remove both and claim it still does not affect the shape but they do not reveal that without the bogus proxies the reconstructions now fail the significance tests. This means the reconstruction is meaningless without and without the bogus proxies.

What this all means is no one has produced a useful reconstruction for more than the last 400 years. We can guess at the temps 1000 years but we don't have a clue whether they were warmer or cooler than today. We definitely have evidence that they could have been warmer and no one has been able to rule out that possibility.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that temperature is a small part of what we call climate and determining what was really happening with climate 1000 or 10000 or 1000000 years ago requires data that we simply do not have?

But we do have that data, if you want to ignore it fine. I'll stick to listening to the scientists who spent years researching climate. You on the other hand I'm done with, there's just no point.

[TimG]

But we do have that data, if you want to ignore it fine. I'll stick to listening to the scientists who spent years researching climate. You on the other hand I'm done with, there's just no point.

So where is the data on cloud cover from 1000s of years ago? Without that data all claims about past climate are nothing but wild, unsupportable guesses.

You also forget that some of these so called career scientists have been caught deceiving the public with junk science over and over again so I do not take their word for anything. Anyone who does take their word is being quite naive.

Here is a good explanation for how the deceptive tricks from MBH98 have continued in the more recent papers such as Mann 2008:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/

I am posting the link knowing that you won't read because you don't want to know how crappy some of this so called science is. You just want to "believe".

Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Well the famous 'hide the decline' email was about how climate scientists really wanted to use a certain set of tree rings but they did not match the record for the last 50 years. To get around this little problem they chopped off the data that did not match and spliced the actual temperatures on the end. It was a nasty but of deception which is typical of scientists consumed by group think. The proxy series should have been discarded because of the mismatch but it was 'too useful'. In fact, if you look at other tree ring series from the same area you will see that there is no hockey stick - in fact, the tree rings look like random noise. That is why they tried so hard to justify the use of the one with bad data. It was the only one that would give them the story they wanted - as long as they got rid of the bad data.

absolute unmitigated bullshit... and you know it!

Here is a lovely plot of all the Russian tree series that Briffa could have used for his papers:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/25/yamal-and-the-decline/

11 different series and he decides that the only one he should use is the one that looks like a hockey-stick (at least until 1940). One could naively assume that the selection was done for purely scientific reasons. Or one could be realistic and assume that it was picked because that was the series that best met Briffa's needs to get published in high impact journals.

which has nothing to do with your previous fallacious "hide the decline" email reference... notwithstanding, of course, McIntyre has no credibility - none. McIntyre, auditor extraordinaire, self-styled slayer of the hockey-stick... the guy who has had 10+ years to actually either issue a comment or publish a paper on his scatter-gun whack-job "analysis", and yet, just can't seem to find the time, being more content to continue funneling fodder to his denier blog minions... in spite of the numerous challenges that have been thrown his way. Publish - or give it up - hey Steve McIntyre?

of course, it's heartening to see you also haven't moved on and remain fixated with your hero's decade long pursuit for vindication... really, regardless of what they show, is there truly any value in continuing to harp on the earliest paleo-reconstructions?

Yes it does. It puts the hide the decline in context. I posted a link to a list of all tree ring series in the area. There are 11 sets and Briffa picked one. That is a fact that has nothing to do with SteveMc. You are free to post your own opinion on why Briffa picked the series he did but I suspect most people who understand the pressure to publish in the academic world will agree that Briffa went for the series that would give him the best story.

As for SteveMc publishing:

He just got a paper published in Atmospheric Science Letters that shows conslusively that the climate models have been predicting siginicantly more warming than is actually occurring: http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/

He used the same method as Santar 2008 so there can be no complaints about the method unless one wishes to repudiate Santar 2008 as well.

puts it in context? ... nice back-peddle! In any case, I already bequeathed you a lifetime meritorious recycling good-conduct medal in a previous MLW post - here ... hiding in plain sight!

my earlier reference to Steve McIntyre's failure and lack of any substantive credibility reflected upon his purposeful avoidance in publishing his vast decades+ knowledge in paleo-reconstructions/dendroclimatology (/snarc)... as I said, much better for him to avoid real scrutiny, and to be able to control how he feeds his denier blog lappers/minions. And wow! You now offer-up linked suggestion of a recent days McIntyre paper co-authorship (with McKitrick, no less) as some point of testament to counter his publishing non-prowess! Obviously, McIntyre has been feeling the heat lately given the constant refrain coming forward for him to publish... something... anything - so, of course, McKitrick throws McIntyre a co-authorship bone! Obviously, interested persons would have thought McIntyre might start with his failed decade+ 'slaying the hockey-stick' vindication pursuit. In any case, your latest link reference to the MMH2010 paper is already providing a wealth of initial critical response in just a single day since McIntyre coughs up reference to the paper on his denier blog... do you really think Santer will need to bother? I'm particularly fond of this initial response from Annan... one should think Annan's accepted credibility in climate modeling pretty much puts McIntyre and the MMH2010 paper in (failed) perspective. Notwithstanding Annan's model ensemble comparison critique, other significant criticism og MMH2010 is coming forward in just a single day. Like I said, do you really think Santer will need to bother? On the other hand, given everything McIntyre has done to hound/intimidate Santer, perhaps Santer just may rise to the occasion with the easy 'gimme' that MMH2010 has offered up.

I've also taken the liberty of bold, red colour highlighting a particular pointed reference... one you chose to ignore.

[waldo]

You also forget that some of these so called career scientists have been caught deceiving the public with junk science over and over again so I do not take their word for anything. Anyone who does take their word is being quite naive.

says you... and your denier brethern. Of course, you certainly have no problem in repeatedly drawing from the likes of denier blog non-scientists - hey?

Here is a good explanation for how the deceptive tricks from MBH98 have continued in the more recent papers such as Mann 2008:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/

I am posting the link knowing that you won't read because you don't want to know how crappy some of this so called science is. You just want to "believe".

ha! Buddy, already covered in this previous MLW post - here. BTW, are you enjoying the gradual unraveling of McIntyre/Montford over at Collide-a-scape?

[TimG]

ha! Buddy, already covered in this previous MLW post

Congradulations. You just proved that you are willfully ignorant. The new paper has nothing to do with hockey sticks. It is about how the models over predict much more warming than is actually occurring. But you would have known that if you have actually followed the link and read what was said. But you didn't. Like a good little robot you saw 'SteveMC' and pulled a random post and claimed was 'debunked'.

The fact that you would describe the thread at collida-a-scope as anything other than an evisceration of Gavin and the RC position shows that your are not actually reading and understanding the arguments being made.

The facts are: the Mann 2008 used proxies in a way that makes no physical sense. If these proxies are removed the reconstruction has no statistical significance. i.e. the reconstruction tells us nothing about past temperatures.

The facts also show that the Santer 2008 tests show that models overpredict warming and Santer likely knew that but choose to deceive the public and policy makers by publishing a paper in 2008 that only use data until 1998. To make matters worse the IJC collaborated with this attempt to decieve the public by refusing to publish a simple comment on Santer 2008 than showed that using the most recent data repudiates all of the conclusions of the Santer 2008.

These are the facts. Denying them is pointless.

Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is a good explanation for how the deceptive tricks from MBH98 have continued in the more recent papers such as Mann 2008:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/

I am posting the link knowing that you won't read because you don't want to know how crappy some of this so called science is. You just want to "believe".

ha! Buddy, already covered in this previous MLW post - here.

Congradulations. You just proved that you are willfully ignorant. The new paper has nothing to do with hockey sticks. It is about how the models over predict much more warming than is actually occurring. But you would have known that if you have actually followed the link and read what was said. But you didn't. Like a good little robot you saw 'SteveMC' and pulled a random post and claimed was 'debunked'.

and you are obtuse to the nth degree... you provide a link to McIntyre's spin/response to Tamino's review of Montford's book of McIntyre's decade+ obsessive hogwash... and I reply with the actual direct link to Tamino's review. All of which, your link and my reply link, reflect upon McIntyre's decade+ obsession with trying to vindicate his self-styled hockey-stick slayer self, and both of which have absolutely nothing to do with your other subsequent reference offering up your revered glee to your hero McIntyre's name suddenly appearing, in recent days, as a co-author to an obviously failed McKitrick modeling related paper (MMH2010). As you said, "Congratulations. You (TimG/Riverwind), just proved that you are willfully ignorant".

obviously you can't follow more than one topic at a time... and you certainly can't read, particularly my most pointed barbs that draw attention to McIntyre's decade+ failure to publish anything related to his hockey-stick obsession, to his sudden (days old now) appearance as a co-author to McKitrick's failed modeling related paper, and to my snarc comment that I've bold highlighted below... just for you! I also note you fail to comment on the initial Annan reference to MMH2010 - gee, I wonder why!

my earlier reference to Steve McIntyre's failure and lack of any substantive credibility reflected upon his purposeful avoidance in publishing his vast decades+ knowledge in paleo-reconstructions/dendroclimatology (/snarc)... as I said, much better for him to avoid real scrutiny, and to be able to control how he feeds his denier blog lappers/minions.

And wow! You now offer-up linked suggestion of a recent days McIntyre paper co-authorship (with McKitrick, no less) as some point of testament to counter his publishing non-prowess! Obviously, McIntyre has been feeling the heat lately given the constant refrain coming forward for him to publish... something... anything - so, of course, McKitrick throws McIntyre a co-authorship bone!

Obviously, interested persons would have thought McIntyre might start with his failed decade+ 'slaying the hockey-stick' vindication pursuit.

In any case, your latest link reference to the MMH2010 paper is already providing a wealth of initial critical response in just a single day since McIntyre coughs up reference to the paper on his denier blog... do you really think Santer will need to bother? I'm particularly fond of this

initial response from Annan

... one should think Annan's accepted credibility in climate modeling pretty much puts McIntyre and the MMH2010 paper in (failed) perspective. Notwithstanding Annan's model ensemble comparison critique, other significant criticism og MMH2010 is coming forward in just a single day. Like I said, do you really think Santer will need to bother? On the other hand, given everything McIntyre has done to hound/intimidate Santer, perhaps Santer just may rise to the occasion with the easy 'gimme' that MMH2010 has offered up.

The fact that you would describe the thread at collida-a-scope as anything other than an evisceration of Gavin and the RC position shows that your are not actually reading and understanding the arguments being made.

The facts are: the Mann 2008 used proxies in a way that makes no physical sense. If these proxies are removed the reconstruction has no statistical significance. i.e. the reconstruction tells us nothing about past temperatures.

perhaps you should read it again - I'm particularly taken with the assorted Tim Lambert/Deltoid home-runs showing the desperation McIntyre resorts to... also seeing Montford himself pull back on 2 highly contentious references in his book is gold - real gold! Your "facts" aren't standing up, are they? As I said, the McIntyre/Montford sleight of hand (two... er... three... er... four proxies) is part of what's slowly unraveling within that Collide-a-scape thread. Do you think we'll see McIntyre resurface within it again?

The facts also show that the Santer 2008 tests show that models overpredict warming and Santer likely knew that but choose to deceive the public and policy makers by publishing a paper in 2008 that only use data until 1998. To make matters worse the IJC collaborated with this attempt to decieve the public by refusing to publish a simple comment on Santer 2008 than showed that using the most recent data repudiates all of the conclusions of the Santer 2008.

These are the facts. Denying them is pointless.

no - the real facts don't follow your denial self. The most ethical Santer addressed the 'climatology conspiracy' in this lengthy and thorough open letter: here. He also followed that up directly with explicit fact references, while also leading into the antics of McIntyre's frivolous pattern:

* Fact 1: The only “power” that I had was the power to choose which scientific journal to submit our paper to. I chose the International Journal of Climatology. I did this because the International Journal of Climatology had published (in their online edition) the seriously flawed Douglass et al. paper. I wanted to give the journal the opportunity to set the scientific record straight.

* Fact 2: I had never previously submitted a paper to the International Journal of Climatology. I had never met the editor of the journal (Professor Glenn McGregor). I did not have any correspondence or professional interaction with the editor prior to 2008.

* Fact 3: Prior to submitting our paper, I wrote an email to Dr. Tim Osborn on January 10, 2008. Tim Osborn was on the editorial board of the International Journal of Climatology. I told Dr. Osborn that, before deciding whether we would submit our paper to the International Journal of Climatology, I wanted to have some assurance that our paper would “be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a comment on Douglass et al.” This request was entirely reasonable in view of the substantial amount of new work that we had done. I have described this new work above.

* Fact 4: I did not want to submit our paper to the International Journal of Climatology if there was a possibility that our submission would be regarded as a mere “comment” on Douglass et al. Under this scenario, Douglass et al. would have received the last word. Given the extraordinary claims they had made, I thought it unlikely that their “last word” would have acknowledged the serious statistical error in their original paper. As subsequent events showed, I was right to be concerned – they have not admitted any error in their work.

* Fact 5: As I clearly stated in my email of January 10 to Dr. Tim Osborn, if the International Journal of Climatology agreed to classify our paper as an independent contribution, “Douglass et al. should have the opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side…”

* Fact 6: The decision to hold back the print version of the Douglass et al. paper was not mine. It was the editor’s decision. I had no “power” over the publishing decisions of the International Journal of Climatology.

This whole episode should be filed under the category “No good deed goes unpunished”. My colleagues and I were simply trying to set the scientific record straight. There was no conspiracy to subvert the peer-review process. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories are easy to disseminate. Many are willing to accept these theories at face value. The distribution of facts on complex scientific issues is a slower, more difficult process.

Climate Auditing – Close Encounters with Mr. Steven McIntyre

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data – not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.

I had performed these intermediate calculations in order derive weighted-average temperature changes for different layers of the atmosphere. This is standard practice. It is necessary since model temperature data are available at specific heights in the atmosphere, whereas satellite temperature measurements represent an average over a deep layer of the atmosphere. The weighted averages calculated from the climate model data can be directly compared with actual satellite data. The method used for making such intermediate calculations is not a secret. It is published in several different scientific journals.

Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.

As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.

Mr. McIntyre’s own words do not present a picture of a man engaged in purely dispassionate and objective scientific inquiry:

“But if Santer wants to try this kind of stunt, as I’ve said above, I’ve submitted FOI requests and we’ll see what they turn up. We’ll see what the journal policies require. I’ll also see what DOE and PCDMI administrators have to say. We’ll see if any of Santer’s buddies are obligated to produce the data. We’ll see if Santer ever sent any of the data to his buddies”

(Steven McIntyre; posting on his ClimateAudit blog; Nov. 21, 2008).

My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.

[TimG]

no - the real facts don't follow your denial self. The most ethical Santer addressed the 'climatology conspiracy' in this lengthy and thorough open letter

Fact 1: Applying Santer's tests to most recent data over turns the conclusions of his paper.

Fact 2: IJC refused to allow a comment on Santer 2008 that pointed this out.

Santer can makes as many excuses as he wants but it is painfully obvious that he was either incompetent or dishonest when he produce the 2008 paper because he did not use the data available at the time of his paper.

There is also no excuse for the IJC refusing to allow a comment on the paper that points out that the conclusions to do not hold up if the tests are applied to the most recent data.

We can speculate about the motivations of the IJC editor but given the special treatment that Santer 2008 received prior to publication there is no reason to believe the IJC editor was acting out of a desire to promote good science.

Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

no - the real facts don't follow your denial self. The most ethical Santer addressed the 'climatology conspiracy' in this lengthy and thorough open letter: here. He also followed that up directly with explicit fact references, while also leading into the antics of McIntyre's frivolous pattern:

Fact 1: Applying Santer's tests to most recent data over turns the conclusions of his paper.

Fact 2: IJC refused to allow a comment on Santer 2008 that pointed this out.

Santer can makes as many excuses as he wants but it is painfully obvious that he was either incompetent or dishonest when he produce the 2008 paper because he did not use the data available at the time of his paper.

There is also no excuse for the IJC refusing to allow a comment on the paper that points out that the conclusions to do not hold up if the tests are applied to the most recent data.

We can speculate about the motivations of the IJC editor but given the special treatment that Santer 2008 received prior to publication there is no reason to believe the IJC editor was acting out of a desire to promote good science.

do you have something other than a days old failed paper reference (MMH2010) to support your "Fact 1"? Even if... even if... that single paper, now just published/referenced in the last couple of days had merit, (which it, apparently, has none of)... it's a single paper that Santer has the option to challenge. Your fast-track want to leverage something... anything... to disparage Santer, while propping up your hero McIntyre, is quite telling - indeed! I ask again, have you nothing to say about the initial Annan review of MMH2010? You know, the review (amongst other critical comment coming forward), that calls into question the foundation credibility of your, uhhh... "Fact 1".

Santer addresses your "Fact 2" in his thorough 25 page open letter and follow-up explicit fact references. You can continue to revel in the depths of your failed Hackergate wet dreams... how's that working out for you?

[TimG]

do you have something other than a days old failed paper reference (MMH2010) to support your "Fact 1"?

Failed paper? Have you replicated the work and shown that the calculations are wrong? If not you are blowing hot air. The results are: apply the same tests to the recent data and the models fail.

I ask again, have you nothing to say about the initial Annan review of MMH2010?

Annan is trashing MH2010 AND Santer 2008. If you agree with Annan then you must also agree that Santar 2008 was junk.

Santer addresses your "Fact 2" in his thorough 25 page open letter and follow-up explicit fact references.

Nothing in Santer's letter addresses the issue of SteveMc's attempt to comment on Santer2008. In fact, nothing in Santer's comments absolves the IJC editor of unprofessional uias in his handling of the Santer and Douglass paper. The only thing that Santer claims is he did not collude with the IJC editor which may be true but that is an entirely seperate issue. Edited August 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Failed paper? Have you replicated the work and shown that the calculations are wrong? If not you are blowing hot air. The results are: apply the same tests to the recent data and the models fail.

yeesh! Have you? No, of course not... but you're so prepared to double-down on it! I've highlighted examples of the many critical comments on MMH2010 coming forward (of which Annan's is but one of). It's literally days old... hot off the McIntyre blog denial machine! So, quite naturally, you (an avowed McIntyre lapper), are swimmingly taken with it. Oh ya!

Annan is trashing MH2010 AND Santer 2008. If you agree with Annan then you must also agree that Santar 2008 was junk.

have you seen/read me explicitly touting S08? Annan's initial criticism is over methodology and speaks to nothing about the, for example, apparent, improper standard error bars within MMH2010. Like I said, it's days old... not even in formal Peer Response... and you've decided it's the end-all/be-all! Spoken like a true and reverent McIntyre minion - well done!

Nothing in Santer's letter addresses the issue of SteveMc's attempt to comment on Santer2008. In fact, nothing in Santer's comments absolves the IJC editor of unprofessional uias in his handling of the Santer and Douglass paper. The only thing that Santer claims is he did not collude with the IJC editor which may be true but that is an entirely seperate issue.

anything coming from the mouth of McIntyre is suspect... one should just accept his self-serving agenda driven denier-blog belching? Sorry, the Hackergate express has recently blown-up... real good... or did you not hear?

[TimG]

have you seen/read me explicitly touting S08? Annan's initial criticism is over methodology and speaks to nothing about the, for example, apparent, improper standard error bars within MMH2010.

Sorry, I lost my temper. I am just so sick and tired of alarmist climate scientists and their endless evasions and half truths. FWIW, I think that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job and the troubles are largely caused by a few bad apples with huge egos and bullhorns (Gavin, Mann, Santer).

That said, I have read many criticisms of SteveMc as well as his responses. In my opinion he almost always has better scientific argument. In many cases, the "criticisms" like the ones Annan comes up with are totally irrelevant to the point being made. In the end we will have to agree to disagree.

Edited August 11, 2010 by TimG

[Pliny]

Pliny, your fixation on the IPCC/UN has you missing the bigger picture in terms of the "who else"... how about the USGCRP, EAA, the National Academies, the NRC, the scientific academies of world-wide countries, scientific organizations, etc., etc., etc.

Simply said, it was decided a long time ago, approximately a half a century, that we needed to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, not wantonly destroy forests, preserve endangered species, not pollute the waters and the lands, not over-populate the earth, and be kind and good to each other through the granting of human rights.

Over the years these concerns of world leaders have, somehow become the concerns of the whole global population. Imagine that! The common masses concerned about population growth, pollution, fossil fuel consumption, non-renewable resource depletion, exploitation of third world countries, what effect we are having on the atmosphere. What we can do about these problems seems to be the essential motivation and prime consideration in all our activities. And isn't that a good thing? We really care about the planet.

Or is it that governments have legislated we clean up our act?

I think it can be plainly seen that all facets of society, science, business, economics, technology, agriculture, industry, today concern themselves with environmental impact in their activities. One must ask if political policy is the main contributor to our concerns? What politicians are telling us is that political expediency in the resolution of the problems, that most everyone acknowledges, is necessary or we are going to destroy ourselves. Thus there has to be in the interests of the global good a central authority with enough power to override national interests and determine environmental policy. Essentially engineering the social and economic structure of the world.

Do we really need that? I can guess your answer is in the affirmative for you have little faith in people to do the right thing and science must provide the necessary leadership because it is void of selfish human interests and will always produce what is best for the collective good.

You don't mention politics much in your posts, Waldo but there can be little doubt you hold the world wide socialist movement in reverance.

[lukin]

Simply said, it was decided a long time ago, approximately a half a century, that we needed to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, not wantonly destroy forests, preserve endangered species, not pollute the waters and the lands, not over-populate the earth, and be kind and good to each other through the granting of human rights.

Over the years these concerns of world leaders have, somehow become the concerns of the whole global population. Imagine that! The common masses concerned about population growth, pollution, fossil fuel consumption, non-renewable resource depletion, exploitation of third world countries, what effect we are having on the atmosphere. What we can do about these problems seems to be the essential motivation and prime consideration in all our activities. And isn't that a good thing? We really care about the planet.

Or is it that governments have legislated we clean up our act?

I think it can be plainly seen that all facets of society, science, business, economics, technology, agriculture, industry, today concern themselves with environmental impact in their activities. One must ask if political policy is the main contributor to our concerns? What politicians are telling us is that political expediency in the resolution of the problems, that most everyone acknowledges, is necessary or we are going to destroy ourselves. Thus there has to be in the interests of the global good a central authority with enough power to override national interests and determine environmental policy. Essentially engineering the social and economic structure of the world.

Do we really need that? I can guess your answer is in the affirmative for you have little faith in people to do the right thing and science must provide the necessary leadership because it is void of selfish human interests and will always produce what is best for the collective good.

You don't mention politics much in your posts, Waldo but there can be little doubt you hold the world wide socialist movement in reverance.

Waldo has drunk too much green Kool Aid to realize the green agenda is driven by socialist/marxist politics.

[bloodyminded]

Waldo has drunk too much green Kool Aid to realize the green agenda is driven by socialist/marxist politics.

The Green Agenda. Sounds like a superhero.

[Pliny]

Waldo has drunk too much green Kool Aid to realize the green agenda is driven by socialist/marxist politics.

I think we are all on the green agenda to some degree or other. After all, we want a clean, healthy planet to live on.

It is when it becomes a stick for political interests, and the socialist/marxist agenda recognizes a big stick when it sees one. Their influence is quite obvious.

The Utopia that the socialist envisions cannot be achieved by the State nor is this Utopian dream desirable. Utopia is supposedly about the achievement of perfection and change is nothing more than an enemy of perfection. So change is resisted and to ensure Utopia is enjoyed by the citizens walls are built to keep them in. One man's Utopia is another man's hell.

[Yesterday]

The Green Agenda. Sounds like a superhero.

Green Agenda

Green Agenda

Does whatever

it darn well wants

Spins the truth

Into big lies

Catch us all

up in its trap

Lookout

The Agenda's on the move.

For those who need a tune...Spiderman, Spiderman....