Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More Amazongate | Main | Comments pagination »
Thursday
Jul012010

Mann cleared

No surprise there then! The report is at the end of this post.

Night all.

Penn state clears Mann

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (78)

Nittany Liars.
========

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities?"

I guess that accepted practices within the academic community are quite low as Mann in his own admission is not above lying about Jones' publication record:

http://www.junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1213201481.txt

OK--thanks, I'll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

There's nothing like having your team provide the referee and linesmen; or the accused appointing the judge and jury.

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Penn State investigates Penn State ......surprise, surprise nothing to see here move along. It seems reading this that Penn State are more concerned about funding. With Willis, Oxburgh and now this, Whitewash sales must be booming. Better make an extra bucket full ready for July 7th when Russell reports.

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMacTheKnife

Apparently they never heard of the Wegman Report which was commissioned by congress and done by the National Academy Of Sciences. Wegman, a world renowned statistical expert and former head of the National Academy of Sciences statistics division, was the lead author. Here is his bio from George Mason U: http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.html Here is a short sample:
Dr. Wegman served in national office in the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the American Statistical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as President of the International Association for Statistical Computing. He has published more than 160 papers and eight books. His professional stature has been recognized by his election as Fellow of the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Washington Academy of Science and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. The report is at: www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Here are some key excerpts from the Wegman report (MBH is Mann’s hockey stick paper):

Wegman Report, page 4: In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete ... Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.

Wegman Report, item 7, page 49: Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.

Wegman Report, item 7, page 49: The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

Wegman Report, item 6, page 49: Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.

Wegman Report, page 52: Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

Wegman Report, page 49: 1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been. . .

Wegman Report, page 49: 2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. . .

Wegman Report, page 49, item 3: . . Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

Wegman Report, page 49: 8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years. . .

Wegman Report, page 52: Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

Thanks
JK

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterfreedom lover

Dr Mann's success in proposing research and obtaining funding to conduct it clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession. Dr Mann's work, from the beginning of his career has been recognised as outstanding [...] clearly, Dr Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of the accepted practices in his field.


ClimateGate. So last year.

Jul 1, 2010 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

"Dr Mann's work, from the beginning of his career has been recognised as outstanding [...] clearly, Dr Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of the accepted practices in his field".

Clearly not what some excitable conspiranoid, purulent bags of excrement had been led to believe by some recent exploitative works of fictional narratives.

Jul 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBishop Phil

Why did they bother wasting their time and money ? Freedom Lover --I strongly suggest you send your comment to all the authors of this "report". ( I'm sure someone can help with cintact details)
"....Dr Mann used and shared source codes has been within the range of accepted practices is his field. " We all know what those practices are !!

Jul 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

As a resident o pennsylvania, my answer is that the federal government should not give any grants to the University of PA system until it shows it can clean house of the deadwood, activist, communist/marxist, radical and fradualent faculty. Both of the remaining professors should then work to rebuild what once was a fine system. The University of California system should be sold to highest bidder since no one would be left.

Jul 1, 2010 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterLarry T

Just in time for the fireworks

Jul 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

guess we can all shut up now!

Discover Mag: Phil Plait: Climategate’s death rattle
Hear that choking sound? That’s the dying gasps of Climategate. The Pennsylvania State University’s investigation into allegations of misconduct by climate scientist Michael Mann found him innocent, specifically saying:...
This conclusion by the committee is yet another nail in Climategate’s coffin.
But let me be clear: that has almost no bearing on what the denialists will say or do. They will continue to beat this drum, have no doubt. Climategate may be dead, but the zombie attacks will continue...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/01/climategates-death-rattle/


Science Mag: James Hrynyshyn: Michael Mann cleared ... again
More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.
The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous. ..
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/07/michael_mann_cleared_again.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

1 July: BusinessWire: PennFuture Hails Vindication of Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State
“Dr. Michael Mann has been vindicated – again,” said Jan Jarrett, PennFuture’s president and CEO. “Every investigation here and across the world, including reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, exhaustive scrutiny by a team of Associated Press reporters, and now by Penn State, has found Dr. Mann’s science and methods above reproach. It’s time for the Commonwealth Foundation to stop the attack on science and the witch hunt against climate scientists.
“Right-wing apologists and polluters have attempted to discredit Dr. Mann and the other Nobel Prize winning scientists by creating the ‘Climategate’ scandal out of thin air,” continued Jarrett. “They have engaged in brutal assaults that misconstrue scientists’ statements or claim scientists have lied or suppressed information. But every serious expert review of Dr. Mann’s climate research has upheld his methods and conclusions.
“The work that was attacked, that of the fourth International Panel on Climate Change Report, was thoroughly vetted and approved by every nation involved in the U.N. process – including Saudi Arabia,” said Jarrett. “They all agree that global warming is occurring due to our use of fossil fuels...
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100701006485&newsLang=en

Jul 1, 2010 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Declared innocent, early and often. If only facts were as obliging as reviewers.

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

On a quick skim read this quote from page 19 of the report particularly caught my eye.

"Moreover, because he developed his source codes using a specific programming language (FORTRAN 77), these codes were not likely to compile and run on computer systems different from the ones on which they were developed (e.g., different processor makes/models, different operating systems, different compilers, different compiler optimizations). Since then, however, he has used a more accessible method for developing his source codes (MATLAB) and he has made all source codes, as well as intermediate data, available to the research community, thereby meeting and exceeding standard practices in his field."

Who penned this tosh? Having been a Computer Scientist for 40 years I hold no brief for Fortran 77 other than for its standardisation, portability (in the period to which Mann refers it was almost ubiquitous) across hardware platforms and operating systems and the availability of mathematical and statistical libraries of the highest quality. It most certainly was the programming environment du jour for for engineers and scientists.

An overall impression is that computational, mathematical and statistical methods in "the field" are so perfect that one wonders why other sciences followed an inferior scientific method.

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

Who am I to question the ability and motive of the following august bodies?

The House of Commons Select Committee
The House of Lords & The Royal Society
UEA
Penn State

But this particular zombie has been left with no alternative other than to question either their ability or their integrity.

A format has come through loud and clear, all have avoided the relevant questions, all have refused to talk directly with the people who have raised the questions. A format that will be repeated by Sir Muir Russell, I know that I should not prejudge, but has he spoken to Steve McIntyre? No, and he has announced publication on 7th July, hopefully 2010.

So then there will be 5, five independent inquiries all seemingly brought about by the issues raised by M & M and yet not one of the auspicious bodies thought it required them to give evidence in person. It is claimed to be possible to look into the eyes of Dr Jones and understand his motives, but what is it about Dr McIntyre’s eyes? How can they expect resolution or is it that they fear resolution?

Certain parties will suggest that my thoughts are pure conspiracy theory. Well somebody please explain how, irrespective of commission, how all 5 have the same modus operandi.

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

freedomlover, the Wegman Report was NOT 'done by the National Academy of Sciences'. Perhaps you are mistaking it for the National Research Council Report, which did represent the view of the National Academies ? If so, you will find that they did NOT criticise MBH in the way you think. Since you referred to one of the National Academies, I assume you take their views seriously and accept their judgement ?

Generally, though, I am not surprised that no-one here is able to accept that no matter how many enquiries are held, the science and the scientists will continue to be vindicated. Why ? Because that is the way it is in the real world.
How many more enquiries before some of you at least start to accept that you are being left behind and side-lined ?

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJMurphy

JMurphy, Phil, and your sockpuppet. The flaws of all the inquiries so far are blatant and damning. Why can't you see that?
===============

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:41 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"How many more enquiries before some of you at least start to accept that you are being left behind and side-lined ?"

Enquiries performed like this series of enquiries, you mean?

"no matter how many enquiries are held, the science and the scientists will continue to be vindicated"

I'd get started on this sooner rather than later, if I were you! :)

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

JMurphy: Since you referred to one of the National Academies, I assume you take their views seriously and accept their judgement ?
JK: Don’t make assumptions.

JMurphy: Generally, though, I am not surprised that no-one here is able to accept that no matter how many enquiries are held, the science and the scientists will continue to be vindicated.
JK: It many be a long wait for the truth to finally be recognized. Especially with all the money that floods into Penn state etal.

JMurphy: Why ? Because that is the way it is in the real world.
JK: Yep, money speaks louder than truth.

JMurphy: How many more enquiries before some of you at least start to accept that you are being left behind and side-lined ?
JK: As many as it takes to recognize that the leading climate “scientists” are lying to us.

For instance CRU head and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones finally admitted:
1) From 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
2) There has been a cooling trend from 2002 (but is not statistically-significant)
3) The rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significantly different from each other.
4) The reason that recent warming has been largely man-made is “The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ...”
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

So, just where is the case for man causing warming? Simply because we can’t figure out any other cause? That is laughable, just laughable.

Is there any rational reson to believe that man is causing the earth to warm?

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:21 AM | Unregistered Commenterfreedom lover

July 2, 2010 | JMurphy

Only one sir, the one that is truly independent, I fear that after the previous, nonsensical attempts that it will have to be in court, a barristers at dawn affair.

On this matter the scientific community has done its self a great disservice, missed golden opportunities to face down its accusers by resolutely refusing to do so. Why, if you are so sure of your position do you not get these people in and destroy them. Put it to bed once and for all. Five times, the opportunity has been there, 5 times it has been shunned. Irrespective of what the issue is, in this case it happens to be AGW, there can never ever be resolution until you face down the accusers.

Do you want resolution? Because I sure do and I am constantly being deprived of it, I have the capability to accept a resolution once all parties have had a fair hearing, so far I have no evidence that one has taken place. I might not be a climate scientist, but I have in the past commissioned research and I do have a very good understanding of how an inquiry should be carried out.

So I respectfully request that you do the AGW movement a great service and get them to demand that M & M are given a proper hearing in order that their claims may be destroyed once and for ever, then we all go away and plan our lives in the sure and certain knowledge of the future climate of our planet.

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Sorry about the error on the sponsership of the wegman report. Wegman appears to be chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, but the report was not under the banner of the National Academy of Sciences. From 07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf:

Dr. Edward Wegman, a prominent statistics professor at George Mason University who is chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, agreed to independently assess the data on a pro bono basis. Wegman is also a board member of the American Statistical Association.

About the Wegman committee: Dr. Wegman assembled a committee of statisticians, including Dr. David Scott of Rice University and Dr. Yasmin Said of The Johns Hopkins University. Also contributing were Denise Reeves of MITRE Corp. and John T. Rigsby of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. All worked independent of the committee, pro bono, at the direction of Wegman. In the course of Wegman’s work, he also discussed and presented to other statisticians on aspects of his analysis, including the Board of the American Statistical Association.

So, the report is highly credible, just not under the imprint of the National Academy of Sciences.

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterfreedom lover

I think Penn State will rue this decision. It is the sort of thing that comes back to bite with very sharp teeth.

Again, it is not scientific fact being argued.

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Green Sand
"then we all go away and plan our lives in the sure and certain knowledge of the future climate of our planet."

Science -- any science -- can't give you 'sure and certain knowledge' of anything, in the vernacular sense. In can only give you likely models based on current best evidence. Perhaps that's your problem.

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteven Sullivan

Committee: "Did you do anything wrong?"

Mann: "No."

Committee: "Ok, allegations dismissed. Time for lunch."

Jul 2, 2010 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterLiam

When the monkeys are in charge bananas are at a premium.

Jul 2, 2010 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterIanB

Penn State Porcines Perform Bi-pedallism! Mann is good after all, the committee now declares.
Shock, horror, Turkeys say No to Xmas! Define Gobble, they smirk hiding behind joke-shop masks of a recent US president.

Jul 2, 2010 at 2:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

Freedom Lover -- as well as your highlighting of the Wegman report , they should be reminded of what Mann did with the Tiljander data , not once but twice ( turning it upside down.)

This really is Penn State trying exonerate themselves.

Jul 2, 2010 at 2:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Establishment Science is now well and truly on trial for scientific homicide where logic, dispassionate analysis and objective viewpoints have become the victim of self-interest, self-importance and protectionism!
Shame on you, shame for your parents proud dreams, shame that your once honourable reputation will be torn into tatters!
They lied, you know it but you pretended not to see it. Fame is short lived, shame lasts for ever!

Jul 2, 2010 at 3:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

ZT was in straight away with the "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices ".

Mann is a charlatan whose future work will always be put under a microscope. If Penn State cannot see what a disadvantage that will be to future funding, well, they whitewashed their bed.

Jul 2, 2010 at 4:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Bishop

New looooonger format is SOOOOO much better! Thanks!

Jul 2, 2010 at 4:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

A theme of the Climategate emails that appears to be underexamined is the way in which funds for specific research projects might have been diverted to other researchers who were not an approved part of the submission that gained funding. At CRU, it gives a feel that there was a 'consolidated reserve' from which those pulling the strings would dole out funds to compliant people to make repots whose conclusions were foretold.

Climategate of itself does not give strong enough data for these allegations, but it can leave one with the discomfort that there might have been misuse of approved funding. That's where I'd be inclined to turn an Inquiry.

Jul 2, 2010 at 4:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

'Penn State is more concerned with funding', 'Mann is a charlatan', 'The flaws of all the inquiries so far are blatant and damning. Why can't you see that?'

"Oh, but it's not truuuueee!!!!..." [stamps foot]

And this is priceless -

Establishment Science is now well and truly on trial for scientific homicide

Not just more hyperbole and conspiracy theories, then?

Jul 2, 2010 at 5:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

The American Spectator
Group Demands REAL Investigation Into Mann
1.12.10 @ 2:40PM

"Commonwealth Foundation goes on to recommend that the state General Assembly commission an external, independent investigation. Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has already promised Penn State that if its investigation is a whitewash, he will do one that isn't."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/12/group-demands-real-investigati

So... We wait until after the weekend fireworks and see if Piccola keeps his promise.

Jul 2, 2010 at 6:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

See - he's a good boy is my Mikey. All those clever professors he works with say so.

Jul 2, 2010 at 7:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike's Mum

"This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of the accepted practices in his field."
Says it all really.

Jul 2, 2010 at 8:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Gallon

Who am I to question the ability and motive of the following august bodies?

The House of Commons Select Committee
The House of Lords & The Royal Society
UEA
Penn State

But this particular zombie has been left with no alternative other than to question either their ability or their integrity.

Actually there is an alternative. You could accept that the scientists in question did not actually do anything wrong.

Jul 2, 2010 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterandrew adams

Imagine Luther's surprise at finding the Catholic board appointed to review his theses found them to be without merit and him to be a heretic.

Jul 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

They have apparently neglected to acquaint themselves with CA at all, and seem to admit it freely:

"The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann's conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field."

Sure. "His field" is a collective enterprise, and when one player makes a mistake his team mates are there to cover him. This is indeed quite acceptable practice on the hockey field.

Jul 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterTim

Spot the BIG lie about Fortan 77.

re: "Moreover, because he developed his source codes using a specific programming language (FORTRAN 77), these codes were not likely to compile and run on computer systems different from the ones on which they were developed (e.g., different processor makes/models, different operating systems, different compilers, different compiler optimizations)."

Standardised Fortran 77 programs were highly portable in comparison to C programs, and it's successor Fortran 90. Back then all you needed to do was move the Fortran 77 source files to a new computer system, UNIX, DOS, etc, and call the complier - Hey Presto - your program was successfully ported.

How do I know this - it is because I did this, extensively, as a student and as a practicing engineer.

It is difficult to believe that Mann's excuse on this matter was readily accepted by a body of people who should have known better.

This Penn State committee have delibrately stuck it's collective head in the sands with regard this investigation, why else would they state, "With regard to sharing source codes used to analyze these raw climate data and the intermediate calculations produced by these codes (referred to as "dirty laundry" by Dr. Mann in one of the stolen emails) with other researchers, there appears to be a range of accepted practices."

They believed every word that Mann uttered - they didn't even make a cursory check.

A range of accepted practices??????????????????????

Tell that to Steven McIntyre, indeed why was McIntyre excluded from this investigation.

Jul 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

McIntyre was excluded because he is the anti-christ to climate scientists.

Oh, and he is paid for by big oil! But I keep asking, here is a guy who ISNT going to make tens, hundreds of millions or BILLIONS from Mann Made Global Warming (tm) YET alarmists want us to believe that McIntyre is the anti-christ. YET mention Gore becoming the first carbon billionaire and you get blank looks from alarmists.

Mailman

Jul 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Mac: Agreed. We had no problem porting various versions of FORTRAN on various computers, from CDCs to Crays to minisupers to workstations and with different compilers.

Jul 2, 2010 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Is the timing of this release meant to deflect anything that is about to appear in the Russell Inquiry I wonder. If Mann is to be castigated in anyway and has found out I can quite see he'd have the chutzpa to hurry Penn State along with the release of their findings to migitate the upcoming criticism.

Just a thought.

Jul 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

As someone who started off with FOTRAN-77 on PDP, VMS, UNIX before the internet age, the FORTRAN-77 statement is a "little" disingenuous.

Pre Internet, FORTRAN-77 was the personal "standard" for engineers, academics. These people moved jobs regularly. The programs and libraries they used they took with them. Post punch-card they spooled them to a tape. The first task on entering their new employment was a trip down to the Computer Room and asking the Operators to restore the files to their new home directory.

They then got everything working again. Easily.

Post internet it was even easier, because you could communicate with your old colleagues via email if you had a problem or a missing file.

Those were accepted practices. Porting FORTRAN-77 was normal and easily achievable.

Jul 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

July 2, 2010 | Steven Sullivan

Sorry, maybe I should have finished with "sarc/off" but at the time I did not feel it necessary!

Jul 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

If some of you went and read some of the 9/11 Troofer sites out there, you would see how similar you sound to them. It's amazing you can't see it !

Anyway, whatever you want to believe (and whoever), there are still a few things here that need to be corrected :

Wegman WAS a NAS chairperson but isn't anymore. Conspiracy anyone ?

And the Jones 'quotes' need to be completed with his actual words :

1) From 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

2) There has been a cooling trend from 2002 (but is not statistically-significant)
"No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

3) The rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significantly different from each other.
(Me, this time - So ?)

4) The reason that recent warming has been largely man-made is “The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing ...”
"...see my answer to your question D."
That answer :

"When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

Nothing controversial there - unless you don't believe the planet has been warming.

Jul 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterJMurphy

@JMurphy: I know it can be great fun coming into a forum and belittling those around you... however at least have the decency not to use "you" but instead "some of you" in your first paragraph, because people might get the impression that your behaviour is little different than the people you obviously feel so superior to.

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Note the dates.

May 26th - Mann and Co's late submission to the Russell review.

June 4th - Penn State Final report completed.

June 16th - Russell Review post date of the publication of their report, 7th July.

July 1st - Penn State Final report published.

July 7th - Russell Review to be published.

The Russell review was meant to be finalised and published in the Spring. In the end it lagged the Penn State investigation's final report and publication....... but the timetable for the revised Russell review has not only neatly dovetailed with the Penn State investigation but also with a series of media reports and other public efforts that support the AGW consensus.

It can't all be coincidental.

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Stan Kelly Bootle's description of Fortran portability in 'The Devil's DP Dictionary' has it accurately I think -

'More transportable than syphilis'

I'm still not convinced that the problems we see are necessarily problems of science per se. I see them as problems of Academia and the ivory tower, and how that has perverted the practice of 'science' in the academic environment. (And an honourable mention for Govt. funding of science in academia as well)

Jul 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

We now have FortranGate.

Fortran 77 was a god send for IT people who had to deal with porting a heap load of scientific and engineering programs over to many different types of computer systems.

Penn State concluded, "Also, he (Mann) developed his source codes using a programming language (FORTRAN 77) that was not likely to produce identical results when run on a computer system different from the one on which it was developed (e.g., different
processor makes/models, different operating systems, different compilers, different compiler optimizations)" - that needs more explanation.

If you look at that conclusion more closely you will see, "not likely to produce 'identical results' when run on a computer system different from the one on which it was developed". Now from my number-crunching experiences the "not likely" arguement does not stack up. There maybe arguements over precision, but not on accuracy.

For Mann and Penn State they have obviously thought that the use of the word "indentical" would provide a suitable cover. It doesn't.

The results of Mann's studies using Fortran 77 would have been 'replicable' on any computer system, and it is thru replication that Mann's science would have been validated or not.

By arguing the opposite is true by turning the known strengths of a certain technology on its head is more than being a tad disingenuous.

The "not likely" arguement is simply more than an excuse - what we have here is a deliberate attempt not to seek the truth.

Jul 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Jiminy Cricket wrote :

@JMurphy: I know it can be great fun coming into a forum and belittling those around you... however at least have the decency not to use "you" but instead "some of you" in your first paragraph, because people might get the impression that your behaviour is little different than the people you obviously feel so superior to.

My intention is not to belittle or feel superior to anyone (or give those impressions) so, yes, I should have started with 'some of you' and would like to apologise to those who don't go along with the 'all the enquries are biased, whitewashes and not to be trusted' meme.

Jul 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJMurphy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>