The Global Warming Plateau

[waldo]

Here's a decent article that may offend those who treat the IPCC as a biblical truth.....but it boils down some of the braod agreements in the scientific community. I'm sure the usual suspects will simply ignore the content and bash the author - Richard Lindzen.....but it's worth a read.

ah yes, dated Sept 16, 2013... as highlighted earlier, there is a fevered-pitch from denialists as the release of the IPCC AR5 report nears - so, of course, we hear from Lindzen... gettin in his licks!

this is nothing more than the standard Lindzen 'delay, do nothing' mantra. It is based entirely on his failed attempts to claim low... as in the lowest of low, climate sensitively. His related studies have been squashed/debunked - they have no merit. In this article, of course, he downplays the impact of long-term feedbacks... the very thing that will absolutely move the warming sensitively needle ahead. This article simply feeds meat to the Simple types who revel in having their denial stroked!

[Michael Hardner]

You proved that you were not a rational actor on the climate debate in the long thread on the mann paper. You see I have the academic and work background to understand the paper and know with 100% certainty that mann screwed up. The fact that you refused to see that after my long and patient attempts to explain it to you shows that you either 1) dont have the math/statistical skills to understand the problem 2) you are not a rational seeker of truth.

I also have the background to understand it - I read the paper and the criticism.

It wasn't enough to reject it, from my assessment and reading of the facts.

And you need to take the big picture into account - the paper used different proxies to reconstruct temperatures in the past (responding to those who wanted to throw out tree ring data) and the author came up with a different coefficient for one of the reconstructions than the original author did.

Making a mountain out of a molehill, or in this case an anthill IMO.

Now it is likely that you are so wedded to your biases that you honestly believe that you simply 'disagreed with me'. However, on the point in the mann paper disagreeing with me means choosing to believe in a falsehood. Choosing to believe in a falsehood is something most typical of followers of religions which is why I make the comparison.

And your assessment is based entirely on the fact that I came to a different conclusion than you. So how is your position not religious ? I didn't come up with the same "truth" you did, why can't you just agree to disagree instead of invoking religious fervor ?

Note that I don't claim that everything I say is truth - 99% if what I say is just my opinion and I could end up being wrong. I singled out that paper because it was an example of where I was 100% certain that I am right. You are free to claim that I am wrong but don't expect me to see you as anything other than a religious zealot seeking to rationalize your belief system.

100% certain that you're right ? Does that mean "the science is settled" ? Listen to yourself.

[TimG]

I also have the background to understand it - I read the paper and the criticism.

Then do you agree that the Tiljander proxies cannot be used in that paper and that Mann was wrong to include them? If you don't agree then you are no different than Pliny on the dark matter thread. He believes he is right but anyone who understands the science knows he is clueless.

And you need to take the big picture into account - the paper used different proxies to reconstruct temperatures in the past

All I asked I that you concede the point which is self evident: that Mann was wrong to include the proxies. I was not trying to make the paper more significant than it is. Yet you refused acknowledge that small point. Why?

And your assessment is based entirely on the fact that I came to a different conclusion than you.

Is it wrong for people to assume that Pliny is motivated by things other than a desire for truth in the dark matter thread? From my perspective your position on the Mann paper is no different.

100% certain that you're right ? Does that mean "the science is settled" ? Listen to yourself.

Yawn - deflection. I was very clear I was talking about one narrow point in one paper. You should have understood that but instead you decide to inject this completely irrelevant comment.

It is worth keeping in mind why I responded to your initial post: I see you as a close minded religious zealot on the climate issue and you are the last person who should be deciding who gets heard on the climate debate. This discussion of the Mann paper simply gives the reason for my opinion.

Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Then do you agree that the Tiljander proxies cannot be used in that paper and that Mann was wrong to include them? If you don't agree then you are no different than Pliny on the dark matter thread. He believes he is right but anyone who understands the science knows he is clueless.

Michael, I must highlight the change! Per a few posts back, your disagreement with TimG in that MannMatter, saw you being labeled a religious zealot by TimG! We can now add to that TimG labeling... he now has added 'clueless' to that/your labeling!

of course, Michael... respectively, don't take the bait... don't allow yet another MLW thread to be deflected by TimG's obsession with Mann reconstructions. As I've stated the last 3 or 4 times this has happened in respective differing MLW threads, we already have a brazillion threads that have beaten this TimG obsession to death. Please leave the discussion of this beaten-to-death topic to a high-level discussion... stay out of the weeds!

equally, of course, in direct response to the above TimG quote, I will have no problem in my posting, equally for the brazillionth time, the ready go-to post I regularly trot out... the one that includes a direct quote from the author/creator of the proxy in question - the quote that has the proxy author/creator advising on just how her proxy can/should be used in a reconstruction. The point that so directly flies in the face of TimG's repeated claims that the Tiljander proxies can't be used... you know... the TimG parroting of his denier-blogger-in-chief, the GreatAuditor, Steve McIntyre!

[Michael Hardner]

Then do you agree that the Tiljander proxies cannot be used in that paper and that Mann was wrong to include them? If you don't agree then you are no different than Pliny on the dark matter thread. He believes he is right but anyone who understands the science knows he is clueless.

It was probably the weakest part of the paper, and as such he was criticized for it. It doesn't invalidate the paper, but he didn't back down from it.

What does it all mean ? Maybe it means Mann is a stubborn SOB, but it doesn't invalidate Climate Science.

All I asked I that you concede the point which is self evident: that Mann was wrong to include the proxies. I was not trying to make the paper more significant than it is. Yet you refused acknowledge that small point. Why?

Wrong how ? Was it a mistake ? I would say it probably was, as it didn't help his thesis much, and he qualified his use of it so he was aware of the weakness of the data.

Yawn - deflection. I was very clear I was talking about one narrow point in one paper. You should have understood that but instead you decide to inject this completely irrelevant comment.

Not irrelevant, as your entire thesis is that there is zealotry driving Climate Science, and yet your own attitude seems to demand penance on the part of Climate Science for this error.

It is worth keeping in mind why I responded to your initial post: I see you as a close minded religious zealot on the climate issue and you are the last person who should be deciding who gets heard on the climate debate. This discussion of the Mann paper simply gives the reason for my opinion.

So, because Mann made a mistake in including post 1720 data, that came up with a different coefficient than the original paper and had in the end not much impact on the thesis as a whole, we're supposed to accept charlatans like the NIPCC.

If Mann is an asshole, so be it. If he made a mistake and didn't admit it, so it is. Nobody should put scientists up on a pedestal as being anything beyond professionals who should be pursuing knowledge, IMO.

And, again, the real science continues - modifying warming coefficients, and looking at the data. If this is indeed a religion, then why do they continually modify their predictions and look for answers ?

[Michael Hardner]

stay out of the weeds!

equally, of course, in direct response to the above TimG quote, I will have no problem in my posting, equally for the brazillionth time, the ready go-to post I regularly trot out... the one that includes a direct quote from the author/creator of the proxy in question - the quote that has the proxy author/creator advising on just how her proxy can/should be used in a reconstruction. The point that so directly flies in the face of TimG's repeated claims that the Tiljander proxies can't be used... you know... the TimG parroting of his denier-blogger-in-chief, the GreatAuditor, Steve McIntyre!

Too late for the weeds. I get how the proxy can be used, and I still think that it's the weakest part of the paper - the use of the data is footnoted in the paper itself !

The criticism "the sign was flipped" itself seemed an inadequate description of what happened with those reconstructions, so maybe McIntyre himself isn't perfect either. Zounds.

If we step back and look at this, it's a big nothing - unless we're looking to prove that Mann isn't Christ, which I guess means case closed he's not.

[Michael Hardner]

I found this reconstruction here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-it-yourselves/

[TimG]

It was probably the weakest part of the paper, and as such he was criticized for it. It doesn't invalidate the paper, but he didn't back down from it.

Now you are re-writing history. If you remember way back you brought this paper up here because it was a 'reconstruction without tree rings'. Well without Tiljander the remaining non-tree proxies are not enough to produce a reconstruction. This means that the paper does not do what you (and many others) claims it did. If climate science was not broken the editor would have insisted on correction that retracted the claim that the paper provided a non-tree ring reconstruction.

With tree rings the reconstruction is still valid but it is dishonest to say that a paper produces a non-tree ring reconstruction when it does not. I don't see how you can defend this.

What does it all mean ? Maybe it means Mann is a stubborn SOB, but it doesn't invalidate Climate Science.

SOBs are everywhere and one SOB does not invalidate climate science. But the problem here are the journal editors which are enabling Mann's dishonesty by not insisting on a correction once the error was pointed out. When journal editors become part of the problem you may have a systematic problem that calls into question the integrity of climate science. Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Now you are re-writing history. If you remember way back you brought this paper up here because it was a 'reconstruction without tree rings'. Well without Tiljander the remaining non-tree proxies are not enough to produce a reconstruction. This means that the paper does not do what you (and many others) claims it did. If climate science was not broken the editor would have insisted on correction that retracted the claim that the paper provided a non-tree ring reconstruction.

I haven't read anything that says the paper doesn't work without Tiljander.

Please post a link.

[TimG]

I haven't read anything that says the paper doesn't work without Tiljander.

So you are saying you never read the many of posts I made on topic?

This is what I was saying over and over again but you simply dismissed it as 'not important'.

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

It turned out that the twentieth century uptick in Tiljander’s proxies was caused by artificial disturbance of the sediment caused by ditch digging rather than anything climatic. Mann had acknowledged this fact, but then, extraordinarily, rather than reject the series, he had purported to demonstrate that the disturbance didn’t matter. The way he had done this was to perform a sensitivity analysis, showing that you still got a hockey stick without the Tiljander proxies.

Great care is needed when reading scientific papers, particularly in the field of paleoclimate, and this was one of the occasions when one could have come away with an entirely wrong impression if the closest attention had not been paid. The big selling point of Mann’s new paper was that you could get a hockey stick shape without tree rings. However, this claim turned out to rest on a circular argument. Mann had shown that the Tiljander proxies were valid by removing them from the database and showing that you still got a hockey stick. However, when he did this test, the hockey stick shape of the final reconstruction came from the bristlecones. Then he argued that he could remove the tree ring proxies (including the bristlecones) and still get a hockey stick – and of course he could, because in this case the hockey stick shape came from the Tiljander proxies. His arguments therefore rested on having two sets of flawed proxies in the database, but only removing one at a time. He could then argue that he still got a hockey stick either way.

As McIntyre said, you had to watch the pea under the thimble.

Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry - is this about Mann or about reconstructing temperatures ?

I'm seriously not interested in investigating his character in any way, or trying to prove he's a 'bad person'.

Does this just say we can't reconstruct past temperatures without tree rings ? What are the other 1200 proxies besides Tiljander ? Are they all tree rings, or do they use other proxies like ice for example ?

Seriously, this discussion is not worth the effort. I looked into this years ago and the impact on the overall theory just comes to nothing, in my view. I have already said that I think you can use tree ring for past reconstructions so what is the issue here ?

[TimG]

Sorry - is this about Mann or about reconstructing temperatures ?

Here is what I said and it should have made it clear that this argument is not about Mann but the response of the scientific bodies to his actions:

SOBs are everywhere and one SOB does not invalidate climate science. But the problem here are the journal editors which are enabling Mann's dishonesty by not insisting on a correction once the error was pointed out. When journal editors become part of the problem you may have a systematic problem that calls into question the integrity of climate science.

Does this just say we can't reconstruct past temperatures without tree rings ? What are the other 1200 proxies besides Tiljander ? Are they all tree rings, or do they use other proxies like ice for example ?

Again - this is where you need you have some understanding of the methods used. Grabbing random data which may or may not be a temperature proxy is not good enough. You must test for statistical significance. Take out tree rings and Tiljander and the reconstruction has no significance. i.e. the claim made in the paper is false and the journal editors refused to insist on a correct even after it was pointed out in a formal comment to the journal. I realize that it seems non-intuitive but the other 1200 proxies are basically useless noise that are only thrown into the mix to make it seem like the study is thorough when all it is really doing is using two flawed proxies that produce the desired result.

I have already said that I think you can use tree ring for past reconstructions so what is the issue here ?

The issue is whether we can trust the science establishment to fairly judge the science. In this case the answer seems to be no because journal polices were ignored and a paper with a flaw that invalidates one of its results is allowed to stand uncorrected. If the system failed when it comes to this paper then the question is how many other examples of this exist when the failure is not as blatantly obvious? Edited September 21, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

If we step back and look at this, it's a big nothing - unless we're looking to prove that Mann isn't Christ, which I guess means case closed he's not.

in that those initial Mann reconstructions have been replicated independently, many, many times over... that Paleo has moved forward, moved on... that even more significant reconstructions have been done over the subsequent decades period, this (TimG parroted McIntyre obsession) is a, as you suggest, 'big nothing'! A big nothing, most pointedly, when discussing the actual state of global warming/climate change today. Obviously, as you know, the deniers obsession with Mann stems from the iconic positioning of those initial reconstructions... and the decades long failed attempts by the usual (McIntyre type) suspects to "break the hockey stick"!

TimG puts up this perpetual false front/narrative that "the editors" let this stand... that they refused to "correct it". If we get outside of the weeds, as I've continually highlighted, there have been no attempts - NONE - by denialists to formally challenge the Mann paper(s). Of course not, why would they leave the cozy confines of their sheltered denier blogs! BLOG SCIENCE RULES!!! There is nothing more telling than to highlight the absolute unwillingness of McIntyre (and anyone else) to formally publish a refutation of 'the Mann'. That kind of thing just gets in the way of a decades long denialist circle-jerk cottage industry of 'a thousand blog articles and millions of words' written decrying the Mann papers. Equally pointed is the most glaring fact that Steve McIntyre has never completed and presented even a single reconstruction of his own! What's he waiting for? Why does he refuse to formally challenge the long-standing Mann reconstructions? What's he waiting for? Is there a problem?

[waldo]

Does this just say we can't reconstruct past temperatures without tree rings ? What are the other 1200 proxies besides Tiljander ? Are they all tree rings, or do they use other proxies like ice for example ?

Seriously, this discussion is not worth the effort. I looked into this years ago and the impact on the overall theory just comes to nothing, in my view. I have already said that I think you can use tree ring for past reconstructions so what is the issue here ?

what is the issue... the real issue (other than obsessions with 'the Mann'), as I've pointed out in the past, this 'TimG parroted McIntyre' obsession centers on the fact that this particular reconstruction moved the needle a couple of hundred years! That's it... denialists went to the mattresses to attempt to isolate and "protect" 200 years from being included in yet another hockey stick reconstruction!

[waldo]

... and the journal editors refused to insist on a correct even after it was pointed out in a formal comment to the journal. I realize that it seems non-intuitive but the other 1200 proxies are basically useless noise that are only thrown into the mix to make it seem like the study is thorough when all it is really doing is using two flawed proxies that produce the desired result.

The issue is whether we can trust the science establishment to fairly judge the science. In this case the answer seems to be no because journal polices were ignored and a paper with a flaw that invalidates one of its results is allowed to stand uncorrected. If the system failed when it comes to this paper then the question is how many other examples of this exist when the failure is not as blatantly obvious?

utter BS! As discussed many times over, that journal comment you hang your hat on had no substantive/supplemental backing... it was simply a short disjointed verbal nothingness... one that Mann (and his co-authors responded to). Again, there have been no - NONE - formal published refutations of this particular Mann paper... no refutations that have gone into challenging the intricacies of the methodology used... of the results/findings presented. NONE! Ever! If you genuinely want to trash journal editors... you'll need to give them something to measure against! Again, what's McIntyre waiting for? Is there a problem? How many more years will he wait to formally publish a refutation? What's he waiting for? Is there a problem?

[Shady]

More politics from these supposid "truth" seekers.

From the Associated Press:

Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks

STOCKHOLM (AP) -- Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling over how to address a wrinkle in the meteorological data that has given ammunition to global-warming skeptics: The heating of Earth's surface appears to have slowed in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/20/climate_report_struggles_with_temperature_quirks_120017.html

In other words, they're having a really difficult time sticking to their already agreed upon "truth", and that some annoying inconvenient truths as of late are giving them quite a tough time with their report. Because they can't explain them.

These people can't be trusted anymore. It's as simple as that.

[gunrutz]

I think the real argument here is with mother nature, not with the skeptics. What does she think shes doing reversing the melting trend in the arctic, or not producing more hurricanes and tornadoes, not to mention not stoking the sun a little hotter or allowing the antarctic ice cap to grow, she did give us that one phony super storm, that was a bit of a boost, but come on, still a pretty weak effort overall. It's about goddamn time someone put her in her place, we drew this road map, decided upon a future, it's her duty to follow along, give us what we want bitch.

This is affecting some of our society in very negative way, while they put up an admirable fight, their denial goes against what even our scientists are saying, this shouldnt be. Some of them are falling into a depression, and while the future we all expected might not be as good as our present it really ins't fair to them that you haven't as of yet made it happen, just think of the smiles or their faces, like kids on christmas morning, when the ice caps do melt, when islands in the pacific do disappear, when that next super storm hits, won't that make it all worth it?

[TimG]

Seriously, this discussion is not worth the effort. I looked into this years ago and the impact on the overall theory just comes to nothing, in my view.

We, as a society, have outsourced the evaluation of science used for public policy decisions to the for profit companies that run the journals. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that these journals are fair and impartial.

This example of the Mann paper is like a video of a police shooting someone or a bag full of money being passed by a political worker. i.e. the fact that something went wrong with the journal handling of the Mann paper is an indisputable fact. What that means attracts a wide range of opinions from 'the cops were just doing their jobs' to 'gun happy police culture is out of control'.

However, in the case of the police there will always be an investigation and the parties will be asked to account for their actions. When it comes to science journals demonstrating bias in the enforcement of their rules there is no mechanism to call them to account. In fact, people who say they smell a rat are often told that they are making up conspiracy theories. I don't think it is reasonable to claim that journals are unbiased as long as they are not accountable to anyone for their editorial decisions.

If journals don't want to be held accountable (the mostly likely situation) then the public and policy makers need to assume that journals are biased and take this bias into account when assessing the science vetted by these journals.

Edited September 22, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

More politics from these supposid "truth" seekers.

Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks

STOCKHOLM (AP) -- Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling over how to address a wrinkle in the meteorological data that has given ammunition to global-warming skeptics: The heating of Earth's surface appears to have slowed in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

In other words, they're having a really difficult time sticking to their already agreed upon "truth", and that some annoying inconvenient truths as of late are giving them quite a tough time with their report. Because they can't explain them.

These people can't be trusted anymore. It's as simple as that.

scientists struggling??? Every scientist quoted or referred to in that lame article you link to/quote from... is not "struggling"! The slowed rate of global surface temperature warming is explained.

as you've been advised multiple times overs in this BS thread of yours, it's called 'global' warming, as in the complete assessment of energy transfer across the globe; one that doesn't stop and isolate only on surface temperature warming.

does your denialism allow you to simply wish away the science/results showing the increasing/accelerating warming of respective ocean layers? Does your denialism allow you to simply ignore ocean heat content... to turn a ShadyBlindEye to the global area where more than 90% of all warming goes into, the ocean?

even if you turn your wishful blind-eye against the oceans, surface temperature warming continues - the last decade has been the warmest on record! The 'top-10' list of warmest years on record reads as:

2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012

no matter how hard you bluster with all your denial might, there is no pause, no stop, no cooling! As you say, "it's as simple as that"!

[waldo]

I think the real argument here is with mother nature, not with the skeptics. What does she think shes doing:

- reversing the melting trend in the arctic,

there is no reversal in the melting trend of Arctic Sea Ice

- or not producing more hurricanes and tornadoes,

there have been no formal scientific claims/predictions that the frequency of hurricanes/tornadoes will increase in relation to global warming/climate change. There has been a formal scientific claim/prediction that the intensity of hurricanes will increase in relation to global warming/climate change

- not to mention not stoking the sun a little hotter,

whatever you're actually trying to say here, the following extract from an earlier post speaks to the comparison of a decreasing solar activity trend to an increasing surface temperature trend

the real crux of this denier/tabloid nonsense shows through in relation to the absence of any increased solar activity during the period of relatively recent warming... from an earlier post:

… the scientists at the World Radiation Center, the guys who have been constructing a satellite based, ‘Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from 1978 to present, somehow… those guys have been unable to show the presence of any increased solar irradiance during the same periods significant earth’s temperature increases. All they show, is a repeat of similar standard 11 year solar cycle patterns, absent any increases in solar irradiance, absent any increased trend in solar irradiance to match that of earth’s temperature trend increase. Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance – here:

... what about those scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research… somehow… those guys have also been unable to show any increase in solar irradiance to account and associate with the recent earth’s warming. Results graph showing no increase in solar irradiance… showing no correlation between solar irradiance and earth’s recent increased warming – here:

in fact, a more detailed view shows that solar irradiance has actually declined over the last 30+ years... suggesting that even if cosmic rays has a feedback amplifying effect on solar activity... it would be amplifying a cooling effect.

- or allowing the antarctic ice cap to grow,

you were responded to previously concerning Antarctic sea-ice versus land ice-sheets... again, an extract from a previous post

it's been talked about several times before on MLW. Of course, you're not distinguishing between Antarctic land ice, ice-sheets, which are melting at an accelerated rate, and Antarctic sea-ice which has shown growth... in certain areas. Equally, you can't be bothered to ask the basic question - why are certain sea-ice areas of the Antarctic growing in size? It's certainly not because it's cooling around Antarctica; rather, surrounding ocean has been warming more than the rest of the world's oceans.

as I said in my earlier post, as follows, one reason is an increase in the 'westerly circumpolar winds'... which causes increased sea-ice transport resulting in open water areas which freeze.

Of course in the Antarctic there is more ice than normal, no doubt you fine people already knew that.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

but I guess what you didn't know, is that it's the Antarctic Ice Sheet melt... not the Antarctic Sea Ice conditions, that is significant... and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting, increasingly. I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases."

1. supporting citation in regards to increasing wind affect on Antarctic sea-ice: Why Antarctic Sea Ice Cover Has Increased Under the Effects of Climate Change

2. relatively recent changes in continued Antarctic land ice-sheet mass loss... over the last decade, overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained at a relatively constant diminishing rate - with data suggesting a 50% increase in Antarctic ice loss (IMBIE)

.

[waldo]

When it comes to science journals demonstrating bias in the enforcement of their rules there is no mechanism to call them to account. In fact, people who say they smell a rat are often told that they are making up conspiracy theories. I don't think it is reasonable to claim that journals are unbiased as long as they are not accountable to anyone for their editorial decisions.

If journals don't want to be held accountable (the mostly likely situation) then the public and policy makers need to assume that journals are biased and take this bias into account when assessing the science vetted by these journals.

you continue to foster this imaginary claim that scientific peer-review is totally corrupted... that journals, that journal editors are biased. Apparently, biased favourably towards a facet of science you don't accept - go figure!

of course, as stated previously just a few posts back, hundreds of skeptical positioned papers are regularly published, year over year. And, again, unfortunately for your favoured skeptical denialist bent papers, they do not stand the test of peer-response.

and yes, you do swing to the conspiratorial side each and every time you bring forward this 'completely corrupted peer-review' position of yours. It's a conspiracy position that reaches deep and well beyond respective journals and journal editors... it presumes that, fundamentally, any scientists accepting to the publication of their research/findings you don't agree with are corrupted, unethical and dishonest... it presumes that world-wide academic institutions are a part of your conspiracy... it presumes that world-wide private scientific research companies are a part of your conspiracy... it presumes that world-wide scientific organizations and institutions are a part of your conspiracy, inclusive of the world-wide complement of respective countries 'national academies of science' (or their equivalency), etc., etc., etc.

your conspiracy is certainly 'big tent' inclusive!

[Michael Hardner]

Here is what I said and it should have made it clear that this argument is not about Mann but the response of the scientific bodies to his actions:

Is it normal for the journal editor to 'insist' on a correction ? I doubt it. The authors responded, so I think it's over. As for journal editors, we have seen them give more than due space to skeptics in the past, too.

Again - this is where you need you have some understanding of the methods used. Grabbing random data which may or may not be a temperature proxy is not good enough. You must test for statistical significance. Take out tree rings and Tiljander and the reconstruction has no significance. i.e. the claim made in the paper is false and the journal editors refused to insist on a correct even after it was pointed out in a formal comment to the journal.

Didn't I post the reconstruction without Tiljander above ? Leaving those constructions out doesn't seem to impact the overall numbers from pretty much everything I have read.

I realize that it seems non-intuitive but the other 1200 proxies are basically useless noise that are only thrown into the mix to make it seem like the study is thorough when all it is really doing is using two flawed proxies that produce the desired result.

So those 2 proxies were weighted so as to make the other 1200 (!) useless ? Really.

Can I have a link for that - it should be easy to show the coefficients used for the Tiljander proxies versus the others.

[Michael Hardner]

There is nothing more telling than to highlight the absolute unwillingness of McIntyre (and anyone else) to formally publish a refutation of 'the Mann'. ...

Equally pointed is the most glaring fact that Steve McIntyre has never completed and presented even a single reconstruction of his own! What's he waiting for? Why does he refuse to formally challenge the long-standing Mann reconstructions? What's he waiting for? Is there a problem?

Wasn't he permitted to submit questions and criticisms to the paper, though ? Did the editors have to allow that to happen, or could they have ignored them ?

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, they're having a really difficult time sticking to their already agreed upon "truth", and that some annoying inconvenient truths as of late are giving them quite a tough time with their report. Because they can't explain them.

These people can't be trusted anymore. It's as simple as that.

You see, the tough thing about publishing this, for extreme skeptics, is that:

1) They have to acknowledge that they now believe at least some information that comes from the IPCC.

2) They have to acknowledge that the big conspiracy to fudge temperature data never existed: for if it did, why would they have to modify the heating coefficients.

3) They have to acknowledge that - if "warming is slowing" - we're still warming, and as warm as we have been in hundreds, or thousands of years.

If they can't be trusted, then why are you quoting their science ?

[Michael Hardner]

What does she think shes doing reversing the melting trend in the arctic,...

That hasn't happened, but keep on clinging to hope. Somebody has to, I guess.