Climate change - new view of the models?

[Bonam]

Well in my opinion the response is obvious too. Policies should be aimed at encouraging economic growth, because economic growth corresponds to technological progress, and greater technology will allow us to adapt to / mitigate any future challenges more easily. Climate change won't be solved by carbon taxes and wind mills, but by fusion reactors and nanotechnology. And what we need to focus on now is having the money to invest in the research and development that will get us those technologies in a reasonable time-frame. Burning fossil fuels for another couple decades in Western countries won't change a damn thing, especially as developing countries emit a bigger and bigger share anyway and there is no political possibility of imposing limits on them. But in the mean time, we can have incentives for using mature technologies that reduce CO2 emissions, like more efficient lighting, heating, and insulation, hybrid and electric cars, solar panels where appropriate, etc.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Tiljander is a series of measurements of sediment thickness over the last 1000 years. The modern part of the record is contaminated due to agricultural run off and cannot be used. Mann's algorithm requires the use of the modern part of the record which means it cannot use the Tijander data correctly. There is no excuse that can possibly justify the use of Tijander data in Mann's reconstruction.

Right - so Mann used different data from the set than Tiljander did - right ? Why was that so hard ?

[TimG]

Right - so Mann used different data from the set than Tiljander did - right ? Why was that so hard ?

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. There is no "other" data for Mann to use. He used the Tiljander data from the Tiljander paper. He should not have. Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. There is no "other" data for Mann to use. He used the Tiljander data from the Tiljander paper. He should not have.

Didn't Tiljander throw out the modern data, though ? Or did they use the exact same points ?

[TimG]

Didn't Tiljander throw out the modern data, though ? Or did they use the exact same points?

Tiljander is a data source. It does not "throw out" any data. It simply presented the data and provided instructions on what people should do if they want to use the data. Mann ignored those instructions when he used the contaminated modern data to calculate correlations.

Tiljander was right to include the modern data because it is just a datasource. Mann was wrong to use the modern data because he is attempting to analyze the data and the contamination means Mann's analysis produces incorrect results.

Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

WTF! Another thread... yet another thread... trashed/derailed.

Michael - once again, you've been the one to initiate this. I'm quite sure there have been at least a half-dozen threads where page-after-page of rat-hole rehashing of the same BS has gone on. At the end of the day, regardless of what side you take on the issue, the over-riding fact remains in place: After years now, with Blog huckster McIntyre (and his lapping minions) making this a decade long pursuit from within the isolated confines and safety of denierBlogWorld, no formal scientific challenge paper has been initiated, no formal scientific countering reconstruction has been brought forward. Hey TimG, is McIntyre making any progress on his formal challenging paper/reconstruction? What's he waiting for TimG?

[waldo]

From what I recall of when I read those papers:

Tijander presented lake sediment data over a long time period (many centuries). Tijander neither presented nor analyzed any temperature data, his paper was purely about the sediments in the lake. In his paper, he noted that there was significant contamination due to human activities over the last ~100 years, throwing off any correlations that may have existed between sediments and climate previously.

no - as was pointed out to you in the past: as I'm aware, to this date, Tijander has refused to be brought into this blog-level nonsense... she, let's her paper comment stand as to whether or not she believes the particular proxy can/should be used. She, the candidate Ph.D student at the time, stated in her paper: (as re-quoted from but one of the many, many threads chasing this McIntyre/TimG obsession):

The above-mentioned factors, the amounts of inorganic and organic matter, form the basis of the climate interpretations. Periods rich in organic matter indicate favourable climate conditions, when less snow accumulates in winter by diminished precipitation and/or increased thawing, causing weaker spring flow and formation of a thin mineral layer. In addition, a long growing season thickens the organic matter. More severe climate conditions occur with higher winter precipitation, a longer cold period and rapid melting at spring, shown as thicker mineral matter within a varve. However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated.

[GostHacked]

WIP I suggest checking out a user on youtube 'Suspicious 0bservers'. He has been dealing with the impact of space weather on our planetary weather and has made some interesting findings in that field. He is of the notion that the human impact of the weather is minimal compared to the impact from the sun.

www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/videos

[Michael Hardner]

Tiljander is a data source.

No "Mia Tiljander" is a person NOT a data source. She and her colleagues produced this paper:

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/paleolimnology/Tiljanderetal.pdf

It does not "throw out" any data. It simply presented the data and provided instructions on what people should do if they want to use the data. Mann ignored those instructions when he used the contaminated modern data to calculate correlations.

There is the matter of `flipped` value though - have you forgotten ? I'm trying to figure out if the so-called flipped value came out of a correlation that was used with the exact same data or not. That could explain something.

Tiljander was right to include the modern data because it is just a datasource. Mann was wrong to use the modern data because he is attempting to analyze the data and the contamination means Mann's analysis produces incorrect results.

But -

1 ) Mann was aware of the contamination.

2 ) The Tiljander data can be taken out and it doesn't matter.

I read through all of this long ago after we stopped talking about it.

[Michael Hardner]

WTF! Another thread... yet another thread... trashed/derailed.

Michael - once again, you've been the one to initiate this. I'm quite sure there have been at least a half-dozen threads where page-after-page of rat-hole rehashing of the same BS has gone on. At the end of the day, regardless of what side you take on the issue, the over-riding fact remains in place: After years now, with Blog huckster McIntyre (and his lapping minions) making this a decade long pursuit from within the isolated confines and safety of denierBlogWorld, no formal scientific challenge paper has been initiated, no formal scientific countering reconstruction has been brought forward. Hey TimG, is McIntyre making any progress on his formal challenging paper/reconstruction? What's he waiting for TimG?

bcsapper initiated the thread - check it yourself.

This isn't the same-old same-old from my POV. I looked into this myself after the last go-round.

[TimG]

No "Mia Tiljander" is a person NOT a data source.

Pedantic pettiness is not useful.

There is the matter of `flipped` value though - have you forgotten ? I'm trying to figure out if the so-called flipped value came out of a correlation that was used with the exact same data or not. That could explain something.

I have explained it many many times. The contamination means the apparent correlation with temperatures changes in the last 100 years. This means using the data by correlating it with temperatures results in the wrong sign being chosen when the data is subsequently incorporated into the reconstruction. This is identical to the scenario with the telephone poles. You can understand the problem of trying to use telephones poles to predict past neighborhood wealth. Why can't you understand that the same problem occurs if one uses correlation with contaminated data to predict past temperatures.

1 ) Mann was aware of the contamination.

Which makes his mistake gross incompentence rather than mere oversight.

2 ) The Tiljander data can be taken out and it doesn't matter.

YES IT DOES!!!!! Why do you keep ignoring what I said???? I repeated this at least two times in this thread:

The data matters because removing it means the reconstruction has no significance unless tree rings are included which invalidates one of the claims of the paper that it provided a significant reconstruction without the use of tree rings.

Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I have explained it many many times. The contamination means the apparent correlation with temperatures changes in the last 100 years. This means using the data by correlating it with temperatures results in the wrong sign being chosen. This is identical to the scenario with the telephone poles.

Your analogy is a little strange though. You can actually pick and choose which time periods to use and get a valid correlation in your example, and perhaps even over the entire 20th century although it won`t be as good a model.

Which makes his mistake gross incompentence rather than mere oversight.

You`re pitting one scientist against another here and deciding that Mann is incompetent when you can remove the datasets...

YES IT DOES!!!!!

and get this:

http://www.flickr.co...tte/4056990134/

[TimG]

Your analogy is a little strange though. You can actually pick and choose which time periods to use and get a valid correlation in your example, and perhaps even over the entire 20th century although it won`t be as good a model.

Pick and choose based on what? Whatever periods give you the result you want? That is not science. The only way to do that is if you have some independent data that tells how the contamination changes over time. There is no independent data in this case.

In any case, the magnitude of the contamination in this data set is huge. There is no signal to analyze in the 20th century. The data CANNOT be used in an algorithm that relies on correlation with 20th temperatures. Bonam agrees with me too.

You`re pitting one scientist against another here and deciding that Mann is incompetent when you can remove the datasets.

No. I am expecting Mann to demonstrate a basic understanding of science. Gross incompetence is the nicest way to describe what he did. Scientific fraud is a plausible explanation but it is impossible to prove.

and get this:

So? That still includes the tree rings. The paper claimed that it produced a reconstruction WITHOUT tree rings. This matters since you initially brought up the paper because it claimed to have produced a reconstruction without tree rings. It does not because of errors made by Mann that he refuses to acknowledge. If climate science had any integrity, Mann would have been forced to retract that claim and you would not have been fooled by it. Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

bcsapper initiated the thread - check it yourself.

This isn't the same-old same-old from my POV. I looked into this myself after the last go-round.

I was speaking to the derailing of this thread... once again, yet another thread derailed with the same rehashing. This isn't just the second or third time occurrence... even the fourth, fifth or sixth time happening! The last time yet another thread was derailed with page after page of this very same natter, I suggested keeping the subject all bottled in within one thread.

of course, this issue has no consequence on the climate of the relatively recent years. This is simply another means for the detractors to cast aspersion towards all climate scientists... to spread widely the meme about scientific fraud/dishonesty. Even if one bowed to the idiocy of the usual suspects as they cast their webs, you'd entangle a small subset of scientists - half a dozen... a dozen...??? You read it here on MLW... repeatedly - the same guy trots out his never-ending conspiracy themes targeting all climate scientists, always wrapped tightly around both explicit and implicit lying/cheating references.

[Michael Hardner]

Pick a choose based on what? Whatever periods give you the result you want? That is not science.

You do not have to be blind to the nature of the data. We had this argument already when you indicated that because some tree ring data didn`t correlate to pollution, tree ring data should never be used. The physical sciences don`t have the luxury to do that in many cases.

In any case, the magnitude of the contamination in this data set is huge. There is no signal to analyze in the 20th century.

I`m wondering why he used it, personally but ok. That`s the only quibble I would have with this.

No. I am judging Mann based on basic standards of science and he fails.

I disagree. You`re starting out with the goal of discrediting him. If you find one flaw in his paper, he`s a charlatan and liar in your eyes. I don`t judge Mann, but instead look at what the science produced.

So? That still includes the tree rings. The paper claimed that it produced a reconstruction WITHOUT tree rings. This matters since you initially brought up the paper because it claimed to have produced a reconstruction without tree rings. It does not because of errors made by Mann that he refuses to acknowledge.

You seem to be claiming that there is no graph in the paper without either tree rings or Tijander's data. I am not familiar enough with it to say. In any case, they have made constructions based on several factors - taken out factors that have been called into question and the result is little change.

Other reconstructions also recreate the hockey stick.

If we're arguing that yet another reconstruction would have helped, or that the flipped correlation in one model over another (possibly using different data) is a curiosity then I agree.

But if we're talking about whether warming has happened or debating whether the 'hockey stick' is real (remember that controversy ?) then this one went to bed a long time ago.

I will not join Waldo's team in saying that it's ridiculous to challenge these things, and furthermore I think that Climate Science could have done itself a favour in reaching out to the questioning public. My new view is if you take care of the public, the masses will be taken care off also.

The talk of Mann 'getting the sign wrong' was a misrepresentation in my view. That was the item that sparked my curiosity and that's why I wasted so much time looking into it.

[Michael Hardner]

I was speaking to the derailing of this thread... once again, yet another thread derailed with the same rehashing. This isn't just the second or third time occurrence... even the fourth, fifth or sixth time happening! The last time yet another thread was derailed with page after page of this very same natter, I suggested keeping the subject all bottled in within one thread.

Well, it`s a dense topic. Even someone with experience with models, or an understanding of climate would be challenged to review this.

And in the end, there are still accredited academics who challenge these things so please don`t make the mistake that deniers make in calling the opposition unreasonable, or worse "idiots"

of course, this issue has no consequence on the climate of the relatively recent years. This is simply another means for the detractors to cast aspersion towards all climate scientists... to spread widely the meme about scientific fraud/dishonesty. Even if one bowed to the idiocy of the usual suspects as they cast their webs, you'd entangle a small subset of scientists - half a dozen... a dozen...??? You read it here on MLW... repeatedly - the same guy trots out his never-ending conspiracy themes targeting all climate scientists, always wrapped tightly around both explicit and implicit lying/cheating references.

If they had found, for example, an oscillating temperature graph going back far in the past - which had somehow been obscured by using bad data - then it might indicate some unknown factor. Honestly I don't know...

In any case, Kyoto is dead and so with the cycle of life it's probably time to think about responses again.

[TimG]

The physical sciences don`t have the luxury to do that in many cases.

So? This is not an optional criteria. If the data is contaminated the results are meaningless. Simply really really really wanting the data to be useful does not make it so.

You`re starting out with the goal of discrediting him. If you find one flaw in his paper, he`s a charlatan and liar in your eyes.

Ah no. I think he is charlatan and a lair BECAUSE of crap like this paper. Your problem is you are so wedded to your illusions cannot accept the premise a scientist would be so dishonest. So instead of acknowledging the obvious failures you rationalize and make excuses for him. The problem is your attitude - not mine.

You seem to be claiming that there is no graph in the paper without either tree rings or Tijander's data.

Exactly. Such a graph shows that McInytre is 100% correct and Mann is a dissembling liar.

In any case, they have made constructions based on several factors - taken out factors that have been called into question and the result is little change.

More pathetic rationalizations. My complaint is simple. The paper made a claim that was shown to be false. Instead of correcting the claim when McInytre pointed it out in a peer reviewed comment, Mann lies and obfuscates. The question is why do you keep excusing such behavoir? What is it about your psychology that makes it so difficult for you to admit that in this one paper one scientist made a mistake and tried to cover it up? Why is it so important for you to believe that scientists never make mistakes?

The talk of Mann 'getting the sign wrong' was a misrepresentation in my view.

All that comment says is after all of this time you still don't have a clue what the issue is then. It came up in this thread because of my belief that climate science is a corrupt field that has no credibility. Incidents like the Mann paper are evidence of this corruption. It makes no difference that other papers produce the same result because the institutions producing these papers are cesspools of groupthink with no credibility.

If you really care about convincing the people who are not already believers then you need to stop defending crap science because you happen to support the people producing the crap. Stand up for science and in the long term science will be served even if that means in the short term many alarmists scientists will be censured for the garbage they produce.

BTW: None of the my feelings on climate science affect my opinions of the policy. Even if I was convinced that AGW was an imminent danger I would still take the position that a society with access to fossil fuels is a richer society and richer societies are better able to adapt to the changes. Mitigation strategies simply do not work and they are not worth discussing. I rant about climate science because it pisses me off that people are allowed to get away with the crap that climate scientists are allowed to get away with and still be called scientists.

Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

I will not join Waldo's team in saying that it's ridiculous to challenge these things, and furthermore I think that Climate Science could have done itself a favour in reaching out to the questioning public. My new view is if you take care of the public, the masses will be taken care off also.

nice misrepresentation of my statements! This subject has been beat on to no end in blog/forum worlds - and you/TimG keep resurrecting it here on MLW... if I'd really taken the bait, we'd be into another 10+ page diversion. As it is, MLW member WIP's recent interesting comments have been, for all purposes buried/lost to others who may casually run at this thread at its open end... taken over with yet another round of this whirlingDervish! And again, if you feel a burning need... if anyone feels a burning need to raise this issue, yet again, could there be a decision made to concentrate it within one of the many other threads where the many, many page discussions on the subject occur!

And in the end, there are still accredited academics who challenge these things so please don`t make the mistake that deniers make in calling the opposition unreasonable, or worse "idiots"

another misrepresentation of what I stated! Yes, outside of formal scientific challenge, many accredited academics have also beat on this subject - years ago! And everyone moved forward/on... because... no formal scientific challenges have been brought forward. Correction! Everyone has moved forward/on except the McIntyre's/Monford's/et al... and their loyal lappers!

[Michael Hardner]

So? This is not an optional criteria. If the data is contaminated the results are meaningless. Simply really really really wanting the data to be useful does not make it so.

Something that "contaminates" the data in the 20th century can be a physical change such as pollution, so you do not have to discard data back to the dawn of time.

Ah no. I think he is charlatan and a lair BECAUSE of crap like this paper. Your problem is you are so wedded to your illusions cannot accept the premise a scientist would be so dishonest. So instead of acknowledging the obvious failures you rationalize and make excuses for him. The problem is your attitude - not mine.

You are making this personal - as evidenced by your characterization of dishonesty vs simple incompetence or neglect.

You are upset because I have taken the [great] amount of effort to look into this and came up with a conclusion that disagrees with yours. Prior to my conclusion you were giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I on the other hand can see that reasonable and intelligent people can disagree with me.

Nope because such a graph shows that McInytre is 100% correct and Mann is a dissembling liar.

Where is such a graph ?

More pathetic rationalizations. My complaint is simple. The paper made a claim that was shown to be false. Instead of correcting the claim when McInytre pointed it out in a peer reviewed comment, Mann lies and obfuscates. The question is why do you keep excusing such behavoir? What is it about your psychology that makes it so difficult for you to admit that in this paper one scientists made a mistake and tried to cover it up? Why is it so important for you to believe that scientists never make mistakes?

What lies ? He doesn't believe they are mistakes even if you do so why attack him personally ?

All that comment says is after all of this time you still don't have a clue what the paper is about.[/size]

And you thought Tiljander was the name of a dataset (?) and apparently didn't read the original paper. You also seem to buy into McIntyre's assertion (and I am NOT calling it a lie) that Mann et al. flipped the sign, changed the sign or made some kind of error there.

I'm not really interested in us tit-for-tatting on who understands the science better. I would say that between us you do, and that there are people who understand it better than you or I who disagree with you and I.

The paper has been published and it stands. Maybe there is someone who will challenge inclusion of Tiljander`s data but why ? It's not going to overturn anything as far as I can see.

[Michael Hardner]

nice misrepresentation of my statements! This subject has been beat on to no end in blog/forum worlds - and you/TimG keep resurrecting it here on MLW... if I'd really taken the bait, we'd be into another 10+ page diversion. As it is, MLW member WIP's recent interesting comments have been, for all purposes buried/lost to others who may casually run at this thread at its open end... taken over with yet another round of this whirlingDervish! And again, if you feel a burning need... if anyone feels a burning need to raise this issue, yet again, could there be a decision made to concentrate it within one of the many other threads where the many, many page discussions on the subject occur!

I know it's been done to death but if there are doubts - and this is a complex issue so there will be - then we should have at them. I didn't read WIP's comments so I will do so.

And... you do deny the legitimacy of bloggers and so on to challenge things, which I think is incorrect.

This thread was started because of new information, and then reopening an old argument/wound, which to my mind is legitimate.

another misrepresentation of what I stated! Yes, outside of formal scientific challenge, many accredited academics have also beat on this subject - years ago! And everyone moved forward/on... because... no formal scientific challenges have been brought forward. Correction! Everyone has moved forward/on except the McIntyre's/Monford's/et al... and their loyal lappers!

[Edited to add: I didn't say YOU called people idiots, but this is something I have seen on the many boards I have visited...]

I have brought the matter to rest in my mind at least. All that is left for you to grind upon others' nerves for not being a published climate scientist or for entertaining the questioning minds of the lowly and for TimG to change his mind about my open-mindedness because I didn't agree with him in the end.

Luckily, I am only on here to learn and I have done so. So as much as I resent both of your positions' I am grateful to have arrived at this point.

[TimG]

Something that "contaminates" the data in the 20th century can be a physical change such as pollution, so you do not have to discard data back to the dawn of time.

There are two plausible explanations for the divergence: 1) tree rings do not correlate with temperature or 2) some unique 20th century event contaminated the series only during that period. There is no evidence that excludes 1) or demonstrates that 2) is the case. Therefore, 1) must be considered a possibility which means no useful results can be derived from the data.

came up with a conclusion that disagrees with yours. Prior to my conclusion you were giving me the benefit of the doubt.

You have not logically supported your conclusion. You use evasion and diversion and even make up assertions that are not true. Good example: you finally realize that Mann was deceiving you with the graph with tree rings and instead of simply acknowledging your mistake you start rambling about "other reconstructions". This kind of response shows that you are not sincere in your desire to learn and understand. Logically supported opinions that I disagree with I can respect. Your conclusion was predetermined - you were just looking for a way to say in words that you believe are correct.

What lies ? He doesn't believe they are mistakes even if you do so why attack him personally ?

Mann is the one that used the word "bizarre" in his response to McIntyre. That choice of wording can only mean he is a liar seeking to hide his mistake or an incompetent that does not understand his mistake.

And you thought Tiljander was the name of a dataset (?) and apparently didn't read the original paper.

WTF?? I linked to the paper and quoted extensively from it. In my post my use of "Tiljander" was clearly a short hand for the paper and contents. The fact that you sought to misinterpret in this way shows that you are not engaging in this discussion honestly.

You also seem to buy into McIntyre's assertion that Mann et al. flipped the sign

It is a fact. There is no grey area. It is not an assertion. There is no debate. If you do not see it then you do not understand the issues. I have explained it as best as I can but you refuse to see it because your ideology gets in your way.

Maybe there is someone who will challenge inclusion of Tiljander`s data but why ? It's not going to overturn anything as far as I can see.

More dishonest arguments from you. McIntrye DID challenge the inclusion. He did submit his challenge to the journal. Mann ignored it. Why wasn't this enough? It is pathetic arguments like this which make me despise alarmists. Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

And... you do deny the legitimacy of bloggers and so on to challenge things, which I think is incorrect.

when it rises to the level of this situation - most certainly I deny the legitimacy! So-called post-modern blogScience does not rule the day, no matter how hard the misinformers attempt to cast doubt/uncertainty. Certainly bloggers are free to do anything, to challenge anything. The problem arises when the mainstream gets engaged and influenced by denierBlog initiated statement/positions - those that carry no recognized and formal scientific placement/order. These so-called 'blogScientists' can and do say anything... while, typically, refusing to engage through the accepted formal scientific process (i.e., peer review). One need look no further than this thread's OP for this exact scenario and the illegitimacy of bloggers ; in this case, denierBlogWorld rattled this UK Met Office update around for weeks... and it finally worked its way up to one of the usual mainstream outlets - the National Post, repeating the fallacy of 'stalled' warming!

This thread was started because of new information, and then reopening an old argument/wound, which to my mind is legitimate.

this thread was started based on the incorrect National Post article concerning the Met Office update... that's legitimate to start a thread on MLW - certainly. Of course, these misinformation pieces require challenge/correction - hence my responses. The unrelated, what you call 'reopening an old argument/wound', has no place within this thread; most certainly not when the same subject has cycled repeatedly in half-a-dozen other threads... with the same players simply rehashing the same tired points.

[Michael Hardner]

There are two plausible explanations for the divergence: 1) tree rings do not correlate with temperature or 2) some unique 20th century event contaminated the series only during that period. There is no evidence that excludes 1) or demonstrates that 2) is the case. Therefore, 1) must be considered a possibility which means no useful results can be derived from the data.

"Unique" I don't know what that means but tree rings correlate well to other data prior to the 20th century from what I have read.

It is a fact. There is no grey area. It is not an assertion. There is no debate. If you do not see it then you do not understand the issues. I have explained it as best as I can but you refuse to see it.

It`s you who doesn`t understand multivariate analysis. The model provided the correlation not Mann directly but his model.

More dishonest arguments from you. McIntrye DID challenge the inclusion. He did submit his challenge to the journal. Mann ignored it. Why wasn't this enough? It is pathetic arguments like this which make me despise alarmists.

Well, I didn`t know that. You`re now calling me `dishonest` which is new, and makes me sad as you are now trying to come up with a narrative that explains why I don`t agree with you.

If Mann ignored that then he shouldn`t have. I suspect Mann is behaving as he likes rather than how he should but it doesn't matter. As with the emails, as with all of this it amounts to nothing. The temperatures all correlate with each other and this to my mind has always been about personalities for many skeptics.

Also - Where is the construction I asked for. I'm not going to call you dishonest or deceptive, though, I'll just assume you forgot it.

[Michael Hardner]

when it rises to the level of this situation - most certainly I deny the legitimacy! ... denierBlogWorld rattled this UK Met Office update around for weeks... and it finally worked its way up to one of the usual mainstream outlets - the National Post, repeating the fallacy of 'stalled' warming!

Hmmmm... we addressed this, I think. I believe it was two news releases, one marking down the temperature factor and another one declaring a 5-yr pause in warming. When it broke I noted that several papers including the London Times and others broke it at the same time so I assumed it was legitimate.

this thread was started based on the incorrect National Post article concerning the Met Office update... that's legitimate to start a thread on MLW - certainly. Of course, these misinformation pieces require challenge/correction - hence my responses. The unrelated, what you call 'reopening an old argument/wound', has no place within this thread; most certainly not when the same subject has cycled repeatedly in half-a-dozen other threads... with the same players simply rehashing the same tired points.

I have argued this myself with regards to other topics, however:

1 ) I am overruled by others' interest in rehashing

2 ) Not all posters were part of the original threads

3 ) To my chagrin, the rules don't prevent arguing things forever as long as the argument 'moves forward' which this does... at a glacial pace...

4 ) Most importantly - new grist for the mill in that I am able to speak to the facts directly now rather than just ask you and TimG questions and try to divine which assessment makes the most sense

It all came down to that correction in Mann et al - or rather to how the criticism was interpreted, received, and responded to by Mann and everyone here too. I read it and came to my own conclusions. Maybe it was tough to read but at least an opinion was made out of it in the end and that is what this board is about in my opinion.

I don't know how to prevent old arguments from resurfacing - maybe after they don't matter any more they just stop.

[TimG]

"Unique" I don't know what that means but tree rings correlate well to other data prior to the 20th century from what I have read.

Actually no. Tree ring data is extremely noisy and has poor correlation at the best of times. There are documented non-linear effects which which can destroy the correlation over long periods of time. In short, tree rings are bad proxies at the best of time - if they have contamination in the calibration period they are useless.

It`s you who doesn`t understand multivariate analysis. The model provided the correlation not Mann directly but his model.

More irrelevant arguments. Mann used correlation to select the datasets to use BEFORE he fed them into his model. This correlation test also determined the sign of the correlation for each dataset. The correlation test picked the wrong sign when it was fed into the model.

Well, I didn`t know that.

How could you not know it????? You quoted Mann's response to McIntyre. Did you even read McIntyre's arguments? The use of the word "dishonest" was reasonable if I assumed that you read and understood the stuff you were quoting. If you did not read and understand it then I guess it was unreasonable for me to use the term "dishonest".

The temperatures all correlate with each other and this to my mind has always been about personalities for many skeptics.

For me it is about the credibility of the institution. For an institution to be credible it must have procedures that allow bad science to be countered. At this point in time there is no evidence that climate science is willing and able counter bad science if that science supports the alarmist narrative. In the Mann case the editor should have refused to allow Mann to dismiss McIntyre's complaints - he should have insisted that they be addressed. Edited January 15, 2013 by TimG