Bishop Hill Will Black react?
Jun 12, 2011 Climate: Jones Climate: Surface This is all getting rather interesting. Some very numerate people have been looking at Phil Jones' claim about statistical significance in the temperature records and the consensus seems to be that Jones has got it wrong.
First out of the blocks was Doug Keenan, who noted in the comments here that using the methodology described in Jones' IPCC chapter and data to the end of 2010, the confidence interval for the temperature trend still covered zero.
Meanwhile, Jeff Id wondered whether monthly data might produce a different result and Lucia looked at a slightly different version of the data - HADCRU3V. Their conclusion was that if you used the alternative dataset and used monthly data, the warming was indeed signficant and there was much tut-tutting over the failure to note these changes.
And lastly, with something of the feel of a coup-de-grace, Doug Keenan noted that Jones has previously inveighed against the use of HADCRUT3V for these sorts of calculations.
It will be interesting to see if we get some sort of a correction.
Reader Comments (84)
Bob
What nonsense.
------------------------
Let us pause to think
Why would Jones issue a statement like this?
One of the main concerns of the climate activist movement is their constant concern/fear over where their slowly built-up case would be overrun by some completely incidental epiphenomenon of modern-day communication (i.e., memes). Certainly, no insider in whatever capacity cannot contribute to this process himself!
The present episode establishes that Jones was seen as having done just that.
Bob, get over yourself, this self righteous indignation is more typical of the graun and Monbiot.
AR4, uncle Tom Cobbley, Richard Black + extrapolators galore 'predict' a rise of temperature of.......... well aught wot takes yer fancy. But, the underlying message is up, very up and more up and it's MMCO2.
This is where most of us here have a problem, not 1995 or 1750 or 11,000 BC, trends are what you make of 'em and where the start point is.
Richard Black is chief apologist and scurrilous agitator and No 1 BBC advocate of AGW, Jones is the fall guy [again - he should really know better by now] - he should be more careful and properly consider - never talking to that dolt Black again.
Am I alone in supposing that Bob = Zed'sDeadHead?
Or at least, sucking at the same taxpayer's teat.
Martin, Bob's style is rather different than Zed's, and to my mind (even) less pleasing. Also, I doubt that they are (directly) paid to do this - but they do both sound very emotional when they come here. As did our beloved Cedric.
CAGW bedwetters are undoubtedly very, very angry and this is why their posts tend to sound the same.
Along with the fact that they have only one argument, of course, and that an invalid one.
Richard Black's science-free nonsense is the very antitthesis of 'science' reporting and will be yet another nail in the coffin of the BBC.
I am interested in how this story came about.
The original answer given by Jones to Black was highly damaging to the AGW cause. It was a gross error on Jones's part to answer in this way. However the need for redress seems to have produced another calamitous error not only for Jones but this time also for Black. For it looks like Black did not check Jones's calculations.
So who was pushing who in trying get this story published? Was it Jones? Was it Black? Was there an agreement between both men? Was it their bosses? Was it other interested parties?
It all seems rather strange.
If answers are not forthcoming perhaps the threat of a FOIA might prompt a reaction.
quote
....just to spite you. You are only interested in smearing the man.... It's simply wanting to be able to smear.... there are no rules.
unquote
Jun 13, 2011 at 2:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterbob
A post which says a lot about the poster but little about the problem. Bob, you sound very young, like someone who has chosen a football team and is rooting for it with every chant and song. This is not a game. The science that Professor Jones is pushing (not too strong a word, I think, although perhaps 'science' in this context is a little inaccurate) is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. Policies supported by people like yourself and Professor Jones are causing problems for impoverished poor people right across the world, with food prices unnecessarily high because of, for example, biofuel production. Rainforests are cleared to produce palm oil, and Green concerns about species depletion and habitat destruction are over-ridden. Real damage is happening in the real world because of a virtual construct that people like you accept as truth and others want to check.
Bob, it's fun, isn't it, jousting with such luminaries as the Bishop, hiding behind a nickname and saying anything that you like? Try, as you brag and strut, to see the world from the point of view of a mother in the third world scraping together enough money to feed her children, or that of a pensioner going without his little luxuries to pay for the surge in fuel prices. Not a game for them, but fun for you -- do you think that is a moral or humane way to conduct yourself? Do you think asking for confirmation of his science from Professor Jones -- from a man condemned by his own emails as a cheat -- is some sort of bad manners?
My advice to you is to come out from behind your nickname and defend your point of view like an adult. Face up to the implications of what you defend. In other words, try be a man. If you think starving poor people in Africa is acceptable, then defend the choice. If you think ruining British industry and leaving pensioners in fuel poverty is an acceptable risk then say it. The alternative -- not following through the logic of your position -- is adolescent. As it is you come across as someone afraid to stand up and be counted.
Jun 13, 2011 at 4:20 AM Richard Drake wrote
quote
That is amazing, thank you. No rules at all. That is what the movement to open up climate data and code has come to, something agreed by all the inquiries into Climategate, despite their many inadequacies. You can provide the stuff if you want to but if you are feeling 'smeared' you can choose not to. And this is science?
unquote
I had a revealing insight into the mindset of the anti-science, anti-logic people in an exchange at Tamino's Open Mind. Someone had asked why the climate had warmed from the LIA. I said I didn't know, then, in a second paragraph, offered some handwavy speculations. The second para was snipped and the inline comment was something like 'typical denier, never offering a solution' or words to that effect. Let us ignore my wounded pride -- I like to think I am unusually full of it when it comes to offering alternative explanations of almost anything -- and let us ignore the damage Mr Foster does to his reputation every time he cheats in this way. We can't really ignore the damage he is doing to himself. He knows he has behaved in an underhand and sophomoric fashion and he doesn't care. Score the point regardless of how, lie cheat and steal but win at all costs seems to be the justification. He is destroying his conscience and ruining his self-respect for the fool's gold of a cheap shot at a minor poster on a minor blog. Perhaps it would be worth it to sell his soul to snipe at McIntyre or Watts, but Julian Flood? There is the problem -- he can allow no threat to go unanswered, no spark to go unstamped. He is like the boy at the dike with his finger in the leak, afraid that the leaks will multiply and he will run out of fingers.
I wish I could remember what I wrote, it seems to be something he's worried about and as such worth trying to get him to explain. Perhaps it was that the three warming periods we actually have records for -- 19th century, 1910 to 1940, 1970 to 2000 -- with different CO2 forcings are too similar, and he can't bear the thought that we have no explanation without allowing that other forcings must be understood before we go all out against CO2. Even Hansen has written on this -- his 'Global warming in the 21st century: an alternative explanation' is well worth looking at for its invocation of other forcings.
JF
The first paragraph of that Black article tells you all you need to know about his mindset
"Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair."
The world saw what was in those hacked e-mails as the exposure of some very rum goings on indeed
Black sees it as the 'targetting' of a scientist - laughable
I don't suppose Black would consider substituting the more accurate 'exposed' for 'targetted'? It would read rather differently then!
Exposed?
I very much doubt it, lets not forget that the BBC were in possession of the leaked e-mails for many weeks before the story finally leaked it yet suppressed publication - a scandal in itself
Black himself refused to go into any detail on the subject in any of his subsequent blogs either, not intil that is he was able to report that various enquiries had totally exonerated the 'targetted' scientists!
OP50: the BBC did not have the Climategate emails for many weeks before 17 November 2009. That would have been hard, given the dates of some of them. Paul Hudson had received some of the emails, because he was one of the intended recipients. That's it. Don't confuse the real scandal with make-believe.
Julian: Thanks. The corruption involved at all levels is always, it seems, justified by reference to the known fact that we, the deniers, have much worse motives. Thus any amount of unfairness and cheating can be justified in seeking to persuade others not to listen to us.
This level of behaviour is fairly common in politics - though I'm idealistic enough to believe that even there it's not the whole story, as for example Cameron highlights child immunisation with Bill Gates today.
But it's a real problem when this kind of lying and cheating invades science and the very same science is made an authority that policy-makers feel they must bow down to. It's much worse than merely the extension of 'war by other means'. It's deadly for our civilisation.
But, as I've made clear recently, I believe some policy-makers have more of a grasp of the situation than they are letting on. They are of course very aware of the views of voters, on both sides. And they have registered that there's a growing number with a more intelligent view of climate science and policy. It will start to affect decisions - like this one, perhaps.
Er, I meant the national curriculum decision at the end there. Thread confusion. Must lie down.
@Jun 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM | Julian Flood
I really couldn't agree more, Julian.
I think we all have to face up to the fact that (no exaggeration) we are fighting a war here, a war - not of our choosing - but essential for the survival of modern civilised society and for the hopes of the poor and disadvantaged across the world.
We have our big hitters like the Bish, McIntyre, Doug Keenan, Watts, Eschenbach, Lindzen and a host of others.
And we have the poor bloody infantry, in which I'm happy to do my little bit.
OK, in the famous phrase, "I'm not a Climate Scientist".
But I don't need to be.
Despite the best efforts of all the Emperor's tailors, PR men, Lord Oxburgh and all the rest, I'm perfectly capable of seeing Emperor Jones's scrawny dishonest arse and pointing it out to all and sundry.
And they'll not stop me in a hurry!
"Emperor Jones" - I like that!
The 'Emperor' moniker (and its implication) should get a bit of traction now it's the theme of a mainstream TV advertisement (Sky, I think - not something I care about, but I like an original ad). I think we should shout 'emperor's new clothes' at every opportunity!
JD
The wording the BBC used when they finally were forced to comment re Paul Hudson having those e-mails many weeks prior to their eventual worldwide release, is vague in the extreme - how many e-mails did he recieve? - we dont know, who did he pass the e-mails on to? we dont know, why wernt they reported on at the time? we dont know
Hudson has never been allowed to comment on the subject himself fully and the response of the BBC and Richard Black in particular since then re 'climategate' has been nothing short of scandalous
no comment on the content, initially running with the hack itself as the main headline and now trying to portray it as the 'targetting' of poor Mr Jones
OP50, let me quote you someone on Climate Audit on the Paul Hudson situation exactly seventeen months ago:
Or let me quote you Steve McIntyre on the same thread, the same day:
The first comment was by me. I was bored of this seventeen months ago, as was Steve. How stupid do you think it makes sceptics look when we continue to bash our heads against the wrong brick walls? But then I have no idea who you are. Steve McIntyre I know, Paul Hudson I know, Julian Flood I know, Martin Brumby I know. You could be Bob Ward or Bob Crow for all I know or all I care. But let's give the BBC conspiracy theory of Climategate a rest OK. What is known and in the open is easily enough.
Richard, I agree with you. Sorry to do so anonymously - but as someone who tries not to write nasty comments, I feel I'm allowed to remain anonymous and for people to judge my comments on their own merits.
As you pointed out previously, some of the emails released in November 2009 had been sent just a few days previously - Hudson appeared to be referring to something he had had weeks before. The most natural parsing of what he said at the time is that he could confirm that at least some of the emails were genuine, because he was the sender or receiver of them. I remember Steve McM's slightly grumpy dismissal of the Hudson issue and can remember agreeing with it then.
For what it is worth, the business about the nature of the BBC's pension fund investments influencing their line on climate change seems to me to be one conspiracy theory too far also. As Peter Sissons ably wrote, the BBC has a culture that is best described as small-l liberal with a propensity to subscribe to every right-on cause, and climate change is no exception. This is enough to explain their editorial attitude, together with the strong message they get from the scientific authorities that the Science is Solid.
On the particular issue here: I can't conceive that Black will retract his article in any way. It is not the BBC's practice in this area, and as shown by Bob here, the mentality on the consensus side is to consider that anything that the sceptics say is wrong. I'm sure that if Black does look at this issue, he will consider that he has nothing to retract.
But for interested readers of blogs like this one, it will prove one more instance of group-think and quasi-propaganda on the consensus side. I think that each of those instances 'converts' a few people to the sceptic side.
Jay (2:12): the expansion is intended as a friendly one.
I agree about the BBC pension fund theory. People here that I respect in other ways - some of whom use their real names - seem to have given it far too much credence.
I also agree that it's unlikely Black will retract. But I don't want the BBC to be in that business. I want Black to add something to the original report - a link to Phil Jones' code and the data. The principle, once established, should then be extended to every such BBC report. That will make a far greater contribution to the cause of truth than any individual retraction or its opposite.
Black himself doesn't need to undestand the code - but it would be worth training up a youngster who could check the reproducibility of the Jones' result.
Of course this wouldn't end all arguments. Why choose 1995? Why use HADCRUT3V? Why does it matter, given that such an 'increase' is so small compared to the scary scenarios of the IPCC GCMs, on which our doom is said to depend? But such basic opennes would get rid of a whole load of really stoopid arguments. And it would teach correspondents like Black - and their readers - something important about real science.
Lastly, I have no problem with your anonymity (or pseudonymity). It's allowed here and on every climate blog that I can remember. I've always accepted the need for that. Steve McIntyre's words about 'bender' last year when I had a cup of tea with him at the Festival Hall Riverside Cafe would have persuaded me, if I wasn't already persuaded.
But you're right to mention it. There are certain roles the anonymous should not in my view play in such extremely sensitive and important debates. They should not be as nasty, as you suggest. But it goes rather deeper than that. It certainly has to do with the asymmetry of the reputation cost. But it is really a deep matter. No easy answers.
Paul Hudson at the time
"I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic."
The chain of e-mails - sounds like more than just a few, sorry to labour the point, but given the significance of the evenjts and the fact the BBC were given a scoop of all scoops, dont you find it somewhat surprising that they have not made more of this than they have, or at least confirmed exactly how many of the e-mails were in fact sent to Mr Hudson
To be frank I myself am not surprised as it does not suit their agenda - would love to see the book the weatherman writes once the index linked gold plated BBC pension kicks in!
bob perseverates in regard to yet another divergence characterizing the CO2=CAGW Climate "science":
The fact is the significance of warming since 1995 is not a scientific issue and never has been.
= Propaganda tactic: "despite an obvious defeat, repeat, repeat, repeat."
That is, either Propaganda Tactic, linguistic derivation from a Religious "tenet", or perseveration as clinical sign of psychosis.
heh, bob then proceeds to hoist himself on his own petard:
If it was a scientific issue there would be a paper behind it, or a report or something with more details.
Ok, so where's Jones' paper, etc., backing up his new and still freely stated claim as to the "significance" of the recent, "1995 +", warming?
Unless, of course, the fact is that there is no question of "significance" in what is in effect a pseudo-scientific Propaganda Operation, itself based upon the rather telling, repetitive assertion - and also the "consensus" definition of the particular words involved - that ~" the 'significance' of the warming was never a scientific issue to begin with"?
- otherwise, the only objective time period of at least apparent scientific "significance" I've heard referred to by an official Climate Scientist [Gavin Schmidt] which would then throw the CO2 = AGW hypothesis into question, is, strangely, 15 years.
Perhaps the ultimate and most telling fact which characterizes the CO2 = CAGW Climate "science" is that in practice it simply won't let its hypotheses be thrown into significant doubt, much less falsified.
OP50:
The BBC were not given the scoop of all scoops, that is assuming what you have signally failed to prove. Because the simplest explanation that fits the facts is that Paul Hudson, on 12th October, received "a chain of emails" - ie one email - that was later found in the Climategate emails, on 17th November. Thus he was one of many who could vouch for the fact that some of the Climategate emails were genuine. That was important - for a day or two. But after the genuineness was generally accepted, from the testimony of a multitude of sources, the testimony of Hudson faded into insignificance. The real brains assessing the emails - Mosher, McIntyre, Watts, Jeff Id - accepted this and moved on. Where was OP50 at that moment? Why do they persist in wasting time with it now?
As I said on 13th Jan 2010,
The simplest explanation that fits the facts remains the same. We should not still be arguing about this. The reason I do write back is that you cause BBC insiders and others like them who read such drivel to think all secptics are like what OP50 seems to be, are idiots. But all that really has been been shown, beyond much doubt, is that someone calling themselves 'OP50' on Bishop Hill wants all sceptics to look like idiots. And to waste peoples time having to answer.
JPeden:
Very good point from James Peden, atmospheric physicist, or so I believe him to be.
We should attack the Black story at the most basic level - that there was no openness that would have allowed immediate checking. Black and others read the Climategate inquiries and saw in every one the need for openness of code and data in future. I genuinely believe that they failed to realise that this impacted then, as well as the editors of Science and Nature. This is a golden opportunity to drive home that very simple point.
On the general subject of anonymity and pseudonymity, here's a wonderful interaction between a pseudomymous poster calling themselves 'willard' on Judy Curry's Climate Etc and a chap calling himself 'steven mosher', who sounds very like the real deal.
willard:
stephen mosher:
At that someone calling themselves Eli Rabett said to Mosher:
This defence of the honour of the inane and the insult to Steve was too much for one Richard Drake:
That's all here.
But taking the completely pseudonomous seriously - those who, unlike James Peden here, or Eli Rabett on Climate Etc, are completely unknown to all - is ridiculous, as Mosh said so well. The way he was attacked by Rabett for pointing this out is another example of how warmist partisans behave with zero integrity, at every level, as Julian Flood said so well above. Everyone needs to wise up.
As always I am a little late to this party but you will all recall this quote from Lord Hunt of King's Heath
'Observations collated at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit indicate that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature between 1975 and 1998 was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 (approximately 0.16 C° per decade).'
I just wonder how statistically significant those rises were?
I should be used to these Alarmist games by now, but it still really annoys me.
Richard Drake - re: the honour thing. Ever heard of Nigel Persaud?
I wasn't following the blogs then, but, from what I've seen Steve Mc, used a sock puppet. I don't know what his motivation was but, if he did, it shows the idea that "A Real Name Poster" carries some special honour and value is flawed. In the blogosphere what counts is what people argue, the evidence they support it from and how they respond to valid new or contrary views - I've learnt from many anonymous/pseudonomous posters.
Remember, for all that blog followers know, Richard Drake and ANOther could be one and the same...
Nby, of course, given my interests, I know all about the Nigel Persaud episode - Nigel Persaud is an item in my wiki, with just one reference to it. As well as criticism by Tim Lambert about this in 2007 it has a snip of something from Deltoid that mentioned this in Aug 2005. Can you point me to anything earlier?
Of course the Nigel Persaud item links to Steve McIntyre, whose item is currently referenced 366 times in my wiki. The one reference versus the 366 shows the relative importance of the two in my mind.
But it happened that Steve used a pseudonym at one time, at least I assume the story is true. What's the problem with that? I know what a sockpuppet is and I disapprove. I don't know if Steve posted in his own name and as Nigel Persaud in the same thread very often. But as a general rule, I don't approve.
Note though something very important. Because Steve was found out (or owned up, I don't know which) his real world reputation was affected - for the worse I assume. Because Steve McIntyre is a known person.
That is not true of all anonymous or pseudonymous actors on the net.
All my earlier points stand - but you've just given a very good illustration of what I called "the asymmetry of reputation cost". If you're not careful, I will explain a whole lot more :)
"statistical significance in the temperature records and the consensus seems to be that Jones has got it wrong."
My paper in E&E, published last January (full text available here; pdf download) showed that Phil Jones at CRU historically and the UK Met recently have improperly applied the statistics of random error in analyzing the uncertainty in the surface temperature record, and have never even considered much less included systematic instrumental error.
Correcting those errors showed the entire 20th century anomaly trend has no statistical significance, at the 1-sigma level.
The second part of my analysis of the CRU/UK Met error methodology will be published in E&E 22(4), due out later this month. It will be open access. Here are the title and abstract:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMPOSED AND NEGLECTED UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE INDEX
ABSTRACT: The statistical error model commonly applied to monthly surface station temperatures assumes a physically incomplete climatology that forces deterministic temperature trends to be interpreted as measurement errors. Large artefactual uncertainties are thereby imposed onto the global average surface air temperature record. To illustrate this problem, representative monthly and annual uncertainties were calculated using air temperature data sets from globally distributed surface climate stations, yielding (+/-)2.7 C and (+/-)6.3 C, respectively. Further, the magnitude uncertainty in the 1961-1990 global air temperature annual anomaly normal, entirely neglected until now, is found to be (+/-)0.17 C. After combining magnitude uncertainty with the previously reported (+/-)0.46 C lower limit of measurement error, the 1856-2004 global surface air temperature anomaly with its 95% confidence interval is 0.8(+/-)0.98 C, Thus, the global average surface air temperature trend is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C. Regulatory policies aimed at influencing global surface air temperature are not empirically justifiable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those folks have bollixed the thing completely.
Richard Drake says:
Very good point from James Peden, atmospheric physicist, or so I believe him to be.
Alas, I am not him.
Pat: Sounds a blast. Talk about a zero sum game. In fact a minus n trillion dollars sum game I guess that should be. We're wrecking the chances of the poorest to get electricity for this?
JP: Still a good point :)
"A post which says a lot about the poster but little about the problem."
...
"My advice to you is to come out from behind your nickname and defend your point of view like an adult."
...
"...it's fun, isn't it, jousting with such luminaries as the Bishop, hiding behind a nickname and saying anything that you like?"
I hope you made the Bishop blush red like beetroot.
Stop whining about nicknames and get on with what you are gonna say. We all know you are not actually Julian Flood, but a young lesbian climate activist from Syria.