Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Phil Clarke denies Mann fails to present his data and that Jones lost his

Ken: How pitifully and predictably patronising. Suggest you look up definition of 'git'. Suits you sir. As well as being wrong.

Mar 26, 2016 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Harry,
It's almost as if you think my earlier response was unjustified. Why would you think that? Your most recent one appears to prove my point.

Mar 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Wow, your ability to misrepresent what someone else has said is impressive. Kudos.

Impressive isn't it? Even the title of the discussion is wrong.

Mar 26, 2016 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke says:

No forcing there. [Mann's] data [that was] requested was supplied by a colleague of Mann shortly afterwards.
I say Mann failed to present his data with his paper, Phil Clarke denies that.

Phl Clarke then says:

The claim does not stand up to scrutiny. I think the onus is now on you to provide evidence of Jones losing data.
I say Jones himself admitted to 'losing' his data, Phil Clarke denies that he did.

It follows from these two points that the title of this piece is correct.

Mar 26, 2016 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Clarity is a good thing.

Mann, Bradley and Hughes published two studies towards the end of the last century, one in 1998 MBH98, which was a NH multi proxy temperature reconstruction back to 1400, and another the next year, MBH99 which extended the reconstruction back to around 1,000 years. Raw data was released (it was in the public domain anyway) and methods described in the papers and the SI.

There were some novel techniques introduced and criticised but it wasn't until 2003 that McIntyre got around to emailing Dr Mann asking for details of collated datasets, which were, in fact, available on a public ftp site.

Jones was lead author on a study of UHI in China, his co-author Wang was responsible for collating station reports. These were available at the time of the study, but a clerical worker in China mislaid 42 of them at a later date. This is about as far from 'Jones lost all his data as it is possible to get. Jones and the CRU are of course more known for the CRUTEM global temperature product and the China study has since been effectively superceded by a more recent one, so yes, a tiny amount of data on rural China was lost, but the effect on the science today is effectively nil.

Mar 27, 2016 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Jones was lead author on a study of UHI
The buck stops where?
Jones concluded that UHI was no more than 0.5°. It wasn't until that was challenged that Jones (eventually) admitted the data had gone AWOL.
Just sayin', but I'm sure Ken can confirm that the temperature difference between central Edinburgh and, say, Port Seton can be anything up to 3°.

Mar 27, 2016 at 1:06 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

You are wriggling, PC. If the data was so freely available, why was one response to a request for the data: “Why should I give you the data, as you only want to use it try and prove me wrong”? Well… yes… that is one of the essential prerequisites of science: can the theory be proven wrong?

Mr Jones did lose all of his data, not just a paltry 42 Chinese records, a report that I found interesting, and suspiciously convenient at the time

It strikes me that you are of not so much scientific as of the legal persuasion, where facts are only useful for how you can mould and manipulate them to support your argument, no matter how outrageous it might be. The effect that this entire, appalling affair is having on science is truly tragic: “Forget the facts! Destroy those who question! We have to support the cause!” (“The cause”; a term used frequently throughout many of the CRU e-mails. There was also a lot of discussion on how to destroy the careers of Chris de Freitas and Otto Kinne, two who questioned, and the scholarly pedantry of Jean Grove was dismissed, in that they frustrated Jones’s desire for: “…a critical review that enables agendas to be set.”) Any who actively participate in support of this abnegation of science should hang their head in shame.

Mar 27, 2016 at 1:37 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Mr Jones did lose all of his data,

Evidence to back this up please?

Mar 27, 2016 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke says:

but it wasn't until 2003 that McIntyre got around to emailing Dr Mann asking for details of collated datasets
You just don't get it, do you Mr Clarke. Nobody, nobody should have had to ask for the 'details of the collated datasets'. They sould have been available from day ONE. Put it this way: you (ha!) have just come up with the most ground-breaking analysis of climate in human history (a Nobel Prize awaits!) yet you don't want to share the 'proof' of that breakthrough with anyone. They have to ask for it. And if you think the data was available on a 'public ftp site' then why did SM have such a problem with that? Or do you think SM was lying about the difficulties? (Did you not read about that?)

Such a pity you haven't read HSI and SM....there's so much there for you to learn from. And one thing I would say: after many, many years on BH and CA (and WuWT) I would say that Montford and McIntyre are not liars.

Mar 27, 2016 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:16:20 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <???@virginia.edu>
subject: RE: Energy and Environment Paper
to: "Langenberg, Heike" <???@nature.com>

Dear Heike,

Thanks for your message. We're happy to help Nature out in any way we can here...
First a little more background. McKitrick and McIntyre have been deliberately trying to
create a controversy where there is none. They know that their own published "correction"
has been shown to be total nonsense as demonstrated by a paper in submission (a preliminary
version of which was made for distribution after their study came out), and also this very
nice article published in "USA Today" by their staff science writer Dan Vergano the other
day:

[1]http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2003???-warming-debate_x.htm

So instead they've been trying to manufacture a controversy about data availability where
there is none (incidentally, they have been making similar false threats against NSF
program directors--I won't go into the politics behind this, but its pretty transparent
what they're up to).

They have been intentionally misleading about the availability of our proxy data. The data
have all been available on our public ftp site since July 2002 here:

[2]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/

and other scientists have successfully acquired that data. This forced USA to publish a
retraction of the claim made by McKitrick and McIntyre that we hadn't made our data
publicly available last week:

c) USA TODAY - THURSDAY - November 13, 2003 - 14A

Corrections & Clarifications
In an Oct. 29 Forum article about new research that challenges the findings of an
earlier study on global warming, the writer said the data on the original study by
University of Virginia assistant professor Michael Mann aren't available online. The
data can be accessed at [3]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/

Note that the full data set could not be made available until a few years after the '98
study, because we had to give various researchers who provided us unpublished data on a
proprietary basis the opportunity to publish those data first.

The description of the methodology used in our analysis in the MBH98 paper is complete
enough that other researchers have independently reproduced it without any additional
information from us:

Zorita, E., F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al. (1998) approach to
paleoclimate reconstructions in the context of a 1000-yr control simulation with the ECHO-G
Coupled Climate Model, J. Climate, 16, 1378-1390, 2003.

so we see no need to expand on it.

Source

Bye for now.

Mar 27, 2016 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

From Mann's email:

[...]They know that their own published "correction"
has been shown to be total nonsense as demonstrated by a paper in submission (a preliminary
version of which was made for distribution after their study came out
How would they 'know' if the the paper that shows their correction is total nonsense if it is still in 'submission'?
and other scientists have successfully acquired that data.
- but they are not named. And it is not known whether the 'data' they acquired was the genuine stuff.
As SM said, in 2005:
There is an archive of proxy data located at Mann’s FTP site at the University of Virginia and this is not a current problem area. This data has not “always” been available. The FTP site was started on or about July 30, 2002, about 4 years after publication of MBH98, so it was not available prior to then.
Followed by:
BTW my access to Mann’s FTP site from my computer has been blocked, although I can still get to it from computers at the University of Toronto. This seems a little petty.
And then:
There is source code at Mann’s FTP site for the calculation of tree ring principal components only. There is no source code for the calculation of reconstructed principal components, for the calculation of NH average temperature
And, finally (as if that isn't enough for a fair-minded individual):
The supporting calculations that I most want to see are the calculations for the AD1400 step which is in controversy. The only information available on this step is an RE statistic (of 0.51). Nature has refused to provide supporting calculations for the RE statistics. It is significant that the R2 and other verification statistics have not been provided.

How much more do you need, Mr Clarke? Mann did not make his data and methods available, and when he was encouraged to do so he limited the access and the amount of data. Like I said, Montford and McIntyre are not liars - and they are not the kind to claim they were Nobel Prize winners (which was a lie).

Mar 27, 2016 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Oh....and a final point by SM:

It should be easy to simply archive the programs. You’d think that it would be easier to archive the source code than to fight about it.Amen to that, eh?

Mar 27, 2016 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Cocked up the blockquote:

It should be easy to simply archive the programs. You’d think that it would be easier to archive the source code than to fight about it.
Amen to that, eh?

Mar 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

So it was four years after MBH98 before the data were published.

Note that the full data set could not be made available until a few years after the '98 study, because we had to give various researchers who provided us unpublished data on a proprietary basis the opportunity to publish those data first
Well now, ain't that convenient?
And all his pals who had access to all the data and his "novel" statistical methods came up with the same result, thereby proving ....... Dadaaaa!! ..... eff all, basically.

Both Mann and Jones worked the system to avoid as far as possible having anyone examine their results too closely. The evidence for that is abundant but there is little point in quoting the sources (yet again!) since you have no intention of opening your eyes in case you see the flaws in your belief system.
Climate scientists are no less prone than anyone else to finessing the facts. What these two did was probably no worse than what many a theoretical scientist has done in the past. The difference is that in climate science as practised these days they never had the guts to man up when they were sussed because they would have been lynched by the rest of the mob.
There is no room for doubt when science gets involved in policy-based evidence making — a place it has no business to be.

Mar 27, 2016 at 5:11 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

>>  but they are not named.

Jeez, Zorita is named on the very next line. Von Storch was another.

How much more do you need, Mr Clarke?

Rather more than just McIntyre's say-so, actually.

There is an archive of proxy data located at Mann’s FTP site at the University of Virginia and this is not a current problem area

SM's own words. I repeat, there is no obligation on any scientist to provide source code or handhold anyone who asks through every step of a calculation. As for the r2 numbers, which play such a pivotal part in the 'Jesus paper' post here, the NAS panel on 20th century reconstructions described r2, in the context of climate reconstructions as 'not in itself a useful indication of merit'.

[Source http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years Page 92.]

(This was the same panel that concluded 'The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.', which is the take away point, this 'discussion' being noise. )

This being McIntyre's style, obsessive focus on something that does not make much difference, insinuations of malpractice and dogwhistle postings. And of course when he says he has not received some data there's always the possibility that he himself is being a little economical with the truth.

Your case relies on taking everything McIntyre says as Gospel, however, in the UEA mails. Mann describes the accusation that McIntyre was blocked from the ftp site as a 'another lie'.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

so many words about one fucking tree . one......fucking......tree. poxy data indeed.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterbit chilly

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.
would that be the proxy warmth or the thermometer warmth, Phil?

And yes. I would tend to take McIntyre's word over Mann (and a few others, come to that). He is not, as you would have it, a 'Denier'. In his own words, he claims to be a luke-warmer. The thing is, he is FOR science, and against shonky processes. what he doesn't know about statistics isn't worth knowing - and he always publishes his work and workings.

Finally, I love the way that throughout all this discussion, here and in other threads, you have disparaged the climategate emails as just 'noise' and not to be believed, yet here you are, praying in aid that:

in the UEA mails. Mann describes the accusation that McIntyre was blocked from the ftp site as a 'another lie'.You do like it both ways. But then, it comes down to Mann's word against McIntyre's. Hmmmm.

Now, can I expect you to appear on CA and tell SM, 'to his face' that he is a liar (sorry, economical with the truth)? I'd pay good money to see that.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

BTW, Phil: You quote SM:

There is an archive of proxy data located at Mann’s FTP site at the University of Virginia and this is not a current problem area
but you fail to point out that SM went on to say:
A little while ago I mentioned that the original SI at Nature for MBH98 had been deleted. It contained some information which is not in the Corrigendum SI, such as RE statistics for the various steps and the original (incorrect) data listing. Now Mann has either deleted the UMass SI for MBH98 and MBH99 previously located at ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/MultiProxy and at ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium, or he has put a block on my access (I’m blocked from the UVirginia server).
You really need to know when to stop digging, Mr Clarke.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

A little while ago I mentioned that the original SI at Nature for MBH98 had been deleted.

Moved actually.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/suppinfo/392779a0.html

Like I said, taking everything SM says as gospel is perhaps unwise.

Mar 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

It is always best to take any remark by Phil Clarke as a joke.

Mar 27, 2016 at 7:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Mann to the world: "C'mon, can you guess which hand it's in? You can have it if you can guess.....but then again."

Mr Clarke, you are defending the indefensible. As I have said before, if you've come up with the (THE) definitive climate analysis of the last 1,000 years, why hide it; why make it difficult for others to replicate (with the same data and code)? WHY NOT?

Can you understand - and excuse - why Mann did not want others to have access to his data and code for many years? And even then, when it saw the light, why did he obfuscate so much? You'd have thought he'd be proud of his work.

Mar 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Just in case there is a functioning brain called Phil Clarke, a surmise that is open to doubt, if Zorita et al had "replicated" the stick, why was Mann so determined not to release data and code? It makes no sense unless you remember that "replicate", in climate scientivism, means "to produce a totally different result and claim it is identical". Keep on digging Phil, you are the funniest guy on the Web.

Mar 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Mr Clarke, you are defending the indefensible. As I have said before, if you've come up with the (THE) definitive climate analysis of the last 1,000 years, why hide it; why make it difficult for others to replicate

Publishing in Nature is 'hiding'? Freaky. And it was replicated by competent researchers.

You are still fighting a war that you lost a decade ago. I mean, who nowadays really cares about the ftp locations for the SI of a paper from 1998? The world has moved on.

Mar 27, 2016 at 7:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

"The world has moved on". Not one of those studies was past 2005. You even left out Marcott. (ho ho).

You, of all people, do understand that publishing in Nature is not the be all and end all. It is not a bible. It not not definitive. It is not proof. Mann published, is all. He did not release his data and methods when he published. His (specific) work is not capable of being replicated. Yes, there are other attempts at hockey sticks, but without the same resolution or 'Mike's Nature trick' they cannot come close. The point is, if Mann's work was so definitive, so ground-breaking, it would be capable of being replicated using the same data and code. But if, as time has found out, the data is iffy, and the code is shonky, then it fails, Nature or not.

I started this thread with the title it has: you have said nothing that shows me the title was wrong. You've even stopped defending Jones. And your measured response in your last comment equates to 'so what (the world has moved on)'. Unfortunately, Mann's and Jones's legacy to this world is the disgraceful ascendancy of the subsidy farmer and the corrupt politician.

Mar 27, 2016 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

He did not release his data and methods when he published. His (specific) work is not capable of being replicated.

The data was released as soon as practicable under intellectual property regulations, and the methods are sufficently well described that at least three other papers have been published reproducing the study.

In other words, you are talking through your hat.

Mar 27, 2016 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke