How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

Another compounding issue is that there is virtually no private sector demand for climate science research.

You have no link, no proof - and have shown yourself to be yet another poster who gets his opinions from his own mind only.

[TimG]

Link, please.

I mixed up the papers but the rule that was broken was the requirement that the second order draft is not supposed to have any text that changes the substance of document added because there is no chance for reviewers to comment.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/17/climategatekeeping-2/

In today’s post, I’m going to place the money quote in context, showing that Jones and Trenberth did in fact live up to their threats, breaching other IPCC rules along the way.

...

Contrary to the spin of Prinn and others, it is a matter of fact that Trenberth and Jones kept Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the AR4 First Draft. (I searched and confirmed this.) As an IPCC peer reviewer, McKitrick and another reviewer (Vincent Grey) vigorously objected to the exclusion.

...

In the Second Order Draft, Trenberth and Jones were once again successful in keeping Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the IPCC Draft. Once again, as IPCC peer reviewers, McKitrick and Grey objected and once again, the Trenberth and Jones Author Responses were dismissive. For example:

...

This time, Trenberth and Jones grudgingly agreed to mention the two articles in the IPCC report. However, they accompanied the mention with an extremely dismissive characterization – a characterization which (1) was made without any citation to peer reviewed literature and (2) that had not itself been submitted to external IPCC peer reviewers; and (3) to which McKitrick and Michaels had no previous opportunity to reply. (The Review Comments were not placed online until after AR4 publication and then only because of a concerted Climate Audit effort.) AR4:

That's not true at all. As I said, current temps and tree rings are diverging. They have been used as temperature proxies for a long time.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Briffa made up excuses to justify the diversion but he has no evidence to show that those excuses have merit. Tree rings are also sensitive to local conditions. i.e. just because one set of tree rings correlates it does not automatically follow that all sets correlate. Anyways, this is a key issue. If you are going to refuse to engage your brain then you will not understand this issue.

Why would the UEA examine skeptic papers ? Their papers weren't under investigation - it's outside the domain of the UEA process.

I guess you have not had your morning coffee. The following statements are true:

1) Skeptics raised questions about papers that Jones/Briffa from UEA produced.

2) These papers were mentioned in the released emails.

3) The inquiries "examined" a subset of papers by Jones/Briffa in order to determine if there were issues.

4) This subset did NOT include the papers that were disputed.

5) This subset was NOT random. It was provided by UEA.

IOW. The inquiry deliberately looked where it knew it would not find anything.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Briffa made up excuses to justify the diversion but he has no evidence to show that those excuses have merit. Tree rings are also sensitive to local conditions. i.e. just because one set of tree rings correlates it does not automatically follow that all sets correlate. Anyways, this is a key issue. If you are going to refuse to engage your brain then you will not understand this issue.

Uncharacteristically of you, you're calling my intelligence into question. I won't do the same.

Tree ring data has traditionally been used to determine temperatures over time - it's ridiculous to throw out the entire history of tree ring data because of the recent anomalies and I don't think you will find any climate change scientists who support that approach.

The climate change community has gone far beyond the question of warming - they use a combination of tree ring data, bore hole data and other sources to approximate temperature and it is widely bought into by climate scientists.

I guess you have not had your morning coffee. The following statements are true:

1) Skeptics raised questions about papers that Jones/Briffa from UEA produced.

2) These papers were mentioned in the released emails.

3) The inquiries "examined" a subset of papers by Jones/Briffa in order to determine if there were issues.

4) This subset did NOT include the papers that were disputed.

5) This subset was NOT random. It was provided by UEA.

IOW. The inquiry deliberately looked where it knew it would not find anything.

How is point 1) relevant ? The skeptics have no standing whatsoever.

The other part of your post will have to wait - there's a lot there, and thanks for posting it.

[Michael Hardner]

The other paper by MM is just garbage …I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

I think the key to this controversy is in the first sentence. Whoever stated this was speaking privately - and notably they did not say something along the lines of "we're being found out" they said "this paper is just garbage". That is a candid, though admittedly unprofessional assessment that informs us of the mindset of the reviewers.

The professional assessment came later, when Jones was asked to review the MM paper and rejected it, citing reasons. The complaints seem to be that some of the criticisms weren't fully cited. That sounds fair, but it doesn't redeem the value of the paper.

Tree ring data is very important in determining local temperatures, and to throw out pre-1950 tree ring data that correlates well is a poor choice.

[TimG]

Uncharacteristically of you, you're calling my intelligence into question. I won't do the same.

I was not calling your intelligence into question - I was suggesting you were not applying your considerable intelligence to the question at hand. IOW, it is not enough to simply check if an excuse was provided you need to ask if that excuse makes any sense. In this case, the excuse is nothing but hand waving. It wouldn't be acceptable if a skeptic used the argument and it is not acceptable that an alarmist uses it.

Tree ring data has traditionally been used to determine temperatures over time - it's ridiculous to throw out the entire history of tree ring data because of the recent anomalies and I don't think you will find any climate change scientists who support that approach.

That is not the way science works. If the correlation breaks down for half the record then you have no evidence that this set of tree rings is a legimate proxy for temps.

The climate change community has gone far beyond the question of warming - they use a combination of tree ring data, bore hole data and other sources to approximate temperature and it is widely bought into by climate scientists.

The question I have is why are scientists so attached to this particular set of data if they have other sources? The answer is this data gives them a nice hockey stick and no MWP. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

That is a candid, though admittedly unprofessional assessment that informs us of the mindset of the reviewers.

They are entitled to their opinion but it is just their opinion. The IPCC is supposed to provide a forum where different scientific opinions can get a fair hearing. That is why all changes of substance are supposed to be put in front of the external reviewers so they will have a chance to object to bias and/or falsehoods inserted by chapter authors that have their own opinions on the science. Jones broke these rules and the IPCC refused to do anything about it.

[Michael Hardner]

That is not the way science works. If the correlation breaks down for half the record then you have no evidence that this set of tree rings is a legimate proxy for temps.

That is the way science works - tree rings have been widely accepted as a legitimate proxy and excluding them gives us less data to work with for the past.

The question I have is why are scientists so attached to this particular set of data if they have other sources? The answer is this data gives them a nice hockey stick and no MWP.

Because more sources mean a clearer and better picture of actual temperatures. "The answer" you give is the actual result - it would be just as easy to say "Why exclude data - the answer is it gives a false picture of the MWP". And anyway, whether or not there was an MWP doesn't change the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

[TimG]

That is the way science works - tree rings have been widely accepted as a legitimate proxy and excluding them gives us less data to work with for the past.

But they are not legimate proxies if the correlation breaks down and if a sceptic tried to do the same with a different proxy he would be panned. Climate science is very much a field where scientists change the rules depending on whether the results are "correct". Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

They are entitled to their opinion but it is just their opinion. The IPCC is supposed to provide a forum where different scientific opinions can get a fair hearing. That is why all changes of substance are supposed to be put in front of the external reviewers so they will have a chance to object to bias and/or falsehoods inserted by chapter authors that have their own opinions on the science. Jones broke these rules and the IPCC refused to do anything about it.

In Jones' review it seems he provided reasons, whether or not he had an opinion is beside the point. Opinions do not equal bias - you can't stop people from having opinions.

And again 'Climategate' was ostensibly about fraud and falsification of data, not giving a bad paper another shot at getting published. We hear it again and again from posters like Wild Bill who still think that the claims from the radio illiterati from years ago are true (even though WB claims to not listen to them, he listens to somebody who listens to them).

The problem with claims that the scientific community is keeping valid papers out of publication is that you need a background in the science to validate the claims. As far as that goes, it seems that there were valid reasons to dismiss the paper in question from what I can see.

[CPCFTW]

You have no link, no proof - and have shown yourself to be yet another poster who gets his opinions from his own mind only.

Nope. We can't all anoint ourselves pseudo-experts in every field because we read a few slanted articles and editorials.

[Michael Hardner]

But they are not legimate proxies if the correlation breaks down. The fact that some climate scientists take your position is one of the reason why I have little respect for the "authority" of climate scientists.

Why discount that data only because it has broken down in the last 50 years or so ? It seems more likely that discounting the valid data serves more of an agenda than including it does.

[Michael Hardner]

Nope. We can't all anoint ourselves pseudo-experts in every field because we read a few slanted articles and editorials.

You can read the abstract of the science itself, or other valid sources who explain it.

It's science, so there is objective knowledge at the base of it all.

[TimG]

Why discount that data only because it has broken down in the last 50 years or so ? It seems more likely that discounting the valid data serves more of an agenda than including it does.

You are ASSUMING that the data has 'broken down' and the data before 1950 is correct. What if the data before 1950 is the data that is broken? How can you know? Correlation is the only evidence that the tree rings are valid proxies and forcing the data to correlate by deleting data that does not correlate is junk science. I would say it is even fraudulent if I apply the standards of medicine or engineering. A drug company would be sued if they released a drug based on your logic. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are ASSUMING that the data has 'broken down' and the data before 1950 is correct.

NO. These things can and have been tested and they correlate quite well.

What if the data before 1950 is the data that is broken? How can you know? Correlation is the only evidence that the tree rings are valid proxies and forcing the data to correlate by deleting data that does not correlate is junk science.

You can correlate the pre-1950 data quite well.

I would say it is even fraudulent if I apply the standards of medicine or engineering. A drug company would be sued if they released a drug based on your logic.

No they would not. It's more suspect to my mind that MM throws out centuries of data because of the recent divergence.

[TimG]

NO. These things can and have been tested and they correlate quite well.

The peer reviewed literature on tree rings makes it very clear that tree rings can be proxies for many things and the only way to determine whether a particular tree ring set is a proxy for temperature is via correlation. In this case, the tree rings only correlate if they throw away the bits that dont correlate. That breaks one of the cardinal rules of statistics. It is junk science.

[Michael Hardner]

The peer reviewed literature on tree rings makes it very clear that tree rings can be proxies for many things and the only way to determine whether a particular tree ring set is a proxy for temperature is via correlation. In this case, the tree rings only correlate if they throw away the bits that dont correlate. That breaks one of the cardinal rules of statistics. It is junk science.

How so ?

If your data is contaminated and you know it, you can discard the bad data - that's just common sense.

[TimG]

If your data is contaminated and you know it, you can discard the bad data - that's just common sense.

Only if you know it is contaminated because you have some *independent evidence* that tells you it is contaminated. You do NOT simply assume that since the data does not correlate that the data must be contaminated which is what Briffa is doing.

[Michael Hardner]

Only if you know it is contaminated because you have some *independent evidence* that tells you it is contaminated. You do NOT simply assume that since the data does not correlate that the data must be contaminated which is what Briffa is doing.

They don't assume that it doesn't correlate - they can see that it doesn't correlate... since we have temperature readings for the period in question.

[TimG]

They don't assume that it doesn't correlate - they can see that it doesn't correlate... since we have temperature readings for the period in question.

You are missing the point. To legitimately delete adverse data you must have independent evidence that the data has been compromised. It is not enough to speculate some random effect must have compromised data. You must specifically identify the effect, quantify it and demonstrate that it actually applies to your data. Briffa did none of that. He simply deleted the data and came up with a unsupported hand waving explanation. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are missing the point. To legitimately delete adverse data you must have independent evidence that the data has been compromised.

Yes - the independent evidence are the thermometer readings.

It is not enough to speculate some random effect must have compromised data.

There is no speculation - the data is wrong. The reason for the divergence is not known, but that's all.

[TimG]

Yes - the independent evidence are the thermometer readings.

WRONG! The thermometer readings are being used for the correlation so they CANNOT be used as independent evidence that the data is bad (This is Statistics 101 stuff - I am surprised you even try to debate it). Independent evidence would be something like a lab study on that species of tree showed that growth declined when exposed to increased levels of 'pollution'. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

WRONG! The thermometer readings are being used for the correlation so they CANNOT be used as independent evidence that the data is bad (This is Statistics 101 stuff - I am surprised you even try to debate it).

They're not being used for the correlation- they're being used to verify the data.

Borehole and other readings are used for the correlation.

Independent evidence would be something like a lab study on that species of tree showed that growth declined when exposed to increased levels of 'pollution'.

That's looking for the cause of the divergence - which is nothing to do with statistics.

[TimG]

They're not being used for the correlation- they're being used to verify the data.

The correlation with temperatures is how the tree rings are shown to be proxies. There is no external evidence.

Here are Briffa's own words:

My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data. We do not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data. Chronologies are constructed independently and are subsequently compared with climate data to measure the association and quantify the reliability of using the tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature variations.

As you can see Briffa seems to think that the correlation with temperatures is how they show that tree rings are suitable proxies which implies that the correlation with temperatures cannot be used to justify the exclusion of some of the data. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The correlation with temperatures is how the tree rings are shown to be proxies. There is no external evidence.

Thermometer-measured temperatures can be regarded as factual. I'm not sure *why* they're saying it can't be regarded as external evidence.

Tree ring temperatures align to those temperatures very well up to a point - and those are correlated with other temperatures from other sources.

..."implies that the correlation with temperatures cannot be used to justify the exclusion of some of the data"

Why not ? It's clearly wrong. There's no reason to not discard bad data. What law of statistics says that you can't discard bad data ?

[TimG]

Why not? It's clearly wrong. There's no reason to not discard bad data. What law of statistics says that you can't discard bad data?

For starters: it is not clearly wrong. We have a set of tree rings which may or may not be a proxy for temperature. The hypothesis that the latter years are bad data is just a hypothesis. It is not a fact. Another hypothesis is the correlation before 1950 is a coincidence and these tree rings are not temperature proxies. You have no way to show that my hypothesis is invalid. Boreholes and other proxies are irrelevant when it comes to this question.

The rule of statistics is this: you can discard bad data if and only if you have independent evidence that the data is bad. You can never discard data simply because it does not fit into your model. Doing the latter is junk science. The latter is what you are doing by saying that data is bad because it does not correlate.

Perhaps Bonam or some other poster with a science background will follow up confirming that my understanding of statistics is the correct one.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG