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

Heh, you silly thing; it was the shaft not the blade that was the lie.
============

Mar 31, 2016 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Alan Kendall, a while ago you did ask if I was a bit cynical about those who support and believe in Global Warming.

Phil Clarke 11:03 makes the case very well, though his concession that some aspects of Climate Science could have been been improved with a more scientific approach is welcome.

Mar 31, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil,

O.K. I get it, your opinions are not your own, you get them from other sources, which you quote in your last post.

Pity, I was anticipating a listing of specific facts that influenced your views and which might cause me to question my own prejudices. Instead I get homework. You have completely lost the argument with me, without Harry having to contribute anything.

I await with anticipation, the fillet-job that others, with much greater expertise than I, will treat material offered in your last.post. However, why should they bother? It is clear that you will never change your opinion (I'm not suggesting you should) and, as you have just demonstrated with me, you cannot convert anyone with an open mind (or at least someone willing to admit prejudice). It is for the same reasons that I gave up reading most of the websites you recommend. When I tried to get UEA students to make up their own minds by getting them to investigate both sides of the issue, I did read them. However, no more.

Mar 31, 2016 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

One only needs to understand how subsequent studies attempted to support MBH '98-99, with split-bark bristlecones, with upside down Tiljander, and with the Yamal tree, to see how poorly the claim that recent heat is unprecedented is supported. The chicanery is subtle and sadly, certainly, dishonest. You seem to be intelligent enough to understand this, but don't. What's silly about you is that you think your subtle dishonesties are convincing.
=====================

Mar 31, 2016 at 12:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Ignorant, or disingenuous, it's always the same question, the same question. You may be ignorant, from absorbing the disinformation from your alarmist sites, and not know any better, or you may be not. You write as if you may be not.
==================

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the present. The Earth has been cooling since the Holocene Maximum with short term excursions warmer and colder than the trend.

How much of recent warming is natural and how much is anthropogenic is completely unsettled, but given that the higher the sensitivity the colder we would now be without man's effort, you had better hope that the recovery from the coldest depths of the Holocene has been natural, for if man has done the heavy lifting of warming we can't keep it up much longer.

We are at half precession and at average age for recent interglacials. It is extremely important that we get this right. Supporting scientific lies like the Crook't Stick is dangerous.

Those who find themselves diminished because we've been false-footed into mitigating a warming that isn't happening instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening will wonder how their forebears were so fooled, and they will come looking for the cause.

And the evidence is here in black and white. The Piltdown Mann's Crook't Stick may end up one of the most damaging errors ever in science, but the error is in believing in it; the Stick itself is a lie.
===================

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

You get a hockey stick with standard PCA, you get a hockey stick using no PCA. You get a hockey stick without the NOAMER PC1 and Stahle series, you get a hockey stick without the Gaspe series.

Bristlecones are fine during the 'shaft' period …

The strip-bark forms in the bristlecones do seem to be influenced by the recent rise in CO2 and are therefore not suitable for use in the reconstructions over the last 150 years.  Gerald North, head of the NAS panel.

The Yamal 'one tree' thing is of course, a myth, and in any case Yamal data is only present in 4 out of 12 multiproxy studies considered by the IPCC, and because the authors warned about possible problems, it was frequently truncated in 1985, before the 'blade'.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm

Similarly modern contamination issues with the Tiljander lake sediment proxies were discussed in the SI for the paper in which they were used, and the reconstruction performed without Tiljander and other potentially problematic data. Still a hockey stick. The same study found that modern warmth is ' anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. '

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Alan,

My opinions are my own.

I was never going to 'win the argument' with you, was I?

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

golf Charlie,

I refute categorically the falsehood in your lasr (12.47pm) posting. I do not recall accusing you of specifically being a cynic regarding climate change advocates. I did however accuse you of more general cynicism, and that I will defend to the death (both my own claim and your right to be). If however your claim is correct, I can only plead a brain-freeze and I recant.

To be more serious I agree Phil's initial response was very welcome, but unfortunately was not sustained.

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Heh, Phil, again, it was the shaft, not the blade, that is the massively destructive lie. At least he got the trend right, cooling.

I'm very impressed with your chicanery. Unfavorably.
=============

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kim,

I am sure that Alan would be interested in the facts that underly your accusation.

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil (1.33, Mar 31)

You could have tried. I have changed my mind on major issues before when confronted with sufficient evidence. For example I was a strong advocate of peak oil (and used to scare UEA students about the subject) but no more. Good evidence trumps any prejudice. I was genuinely interested whether or not you had any.

Mar 31, 2016 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Well, the trigger for the thread was this exchange

Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his

Balony.

Just my opinion, but I think the information I've furnished supports the 'Balony' verdict fairly comprehensively while very little has been advanced from the other side.

I've just checked my calendar and I note it is 2016.

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Meh, possibly the most persuasive 'fact' is your continuing claim that recent heat is unprecedented.
=====================

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

They were both incompetent and deceitful. Jones was derelict, Mann is dangerous.
================

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Climategate revealed to the world that the settled science of climatology was a farce, and that UEA/CRU were not 'comfortable' with some of Mann's manipulations. As a result of this blog, I am now aware that UEA/CRU had internal divisions about what could be concluded from available evidence.

The amount of money now wasted on 'climate science' in futile attempts to prove that the Hockey Stick was a true depiction of temperatures is appalling. The amount of jobs and lives destroyed, based on Hookey Science is scandolous.

Any science, political beliefs, or economic policy that relies on Mann and/or his Hockey Stick should be treated as Unreliable and Untrustworthy, until proven otherwise.

Climate Science has found CO2 guilty, without trial, evidence or proof, with the self-appointed prosecution, self-appointed as Judge and Jury. Perhaps all pseudo-Climate Scientists should be given Life Prison Sentences, without a trial, and we could review their guilt in 20 years time, based on whether anyone notices any change in their lifestyle. Even then, it might be cheaper to keep them locked up, to prevent further vandalism of lives, politics, economies and science. Based on the Precautionary Principle, and evidence currently available, this would be the safest option.

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan, I regret that I can't source this quote, for he has reminded me of his authorship before: 'Petroleum is found in the human imagination, and reserves are found in the tax code'.

Those hydrocarbon bonds were much too lovingly formed to break simply for the energy within them. We need them for structure, to house and clothe us, and to keep all our 'stuff' in.

We'll never run out; it'll just gradually get more expensive, to the point that the structure of the bond becomes more valuable than the energy within it.
======================

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

gc, the 'pause' occurred just a bit too late for climate science to save itself. Climate science was already too committed to demonizing CO2, and had caught the ugly interest of the politicians. It couldn't self correct, and one day we may feel sorry for the mass of climate scientists who got so inadvertently trapped.

We can pity the mass, and despise the kernel, and will.
================================

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Well Phil, let's return to the original thread- Jones (actually more realistically CRU) lost its original data. If I recollect correctly it was the original raw data that disappeared, only the adjusted, manipulated and combined data that was retained. When one of my student groups made this assertion in a seminar in the presence of CRU personnel, it was not refuted. I know nothing first-hand about Mann, however, I have read the Climategate material and it is clear to me that CRU , Mann and colleagues were all trying to subvert the FoI system in order to keep potentially damaging material from coming to light. I find this truly reprehensible, especially because Mann is still using the courts to prevent access. With regard to CRU and the continued obfuscation carried out by UEA and other bodies, I do have some first hand experience in that, for a very short period, my views were sought (but ignored) so I am aware of just how seriously UEA considered the matter. My take on this was that they had serious matters to hide (but I have no information as to what might be being hidden).

However, Phil you yourself opened up the tread to other matters when you chose to defend hockey sticks. This despite evidence from a group of practicing and eminent statisticians that methods employed were without merit, that similar sticks could be obtained from white noise, and that much of the evidence used was itself suspect. The product also went against previous knowledge. I recall that within UEA at the time it was being argued that the LIA and MWP applied only to the northern Atlantic area and wasn't a global phenomenon. However when I looked into the matter I discovered that the hockey stick had no or very little coverage from the southern hemisphere, thus couldn't be global. Since then I have seen evidence for the presence of the MWP worldwide. So Phil, why do you still support the hockey stick? Where's the meat?

Mar 31, 2016 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, real witnesses to events are so much more reliable than computer generated imagery, designed to capture and feed the imaginations.

I hope your Granddaughter does not feel the need to caution you again!

Mar 31, 2016 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan: I appreciate your posting. It's refreshing to get an opinion from someone who was in the CRU. But now, I must put up my hands and admit to becoming the victim to hyperbole: In the title to this discussion thread I said that "[...]and Jones lost his data." However, in the original comment I left on the thread that spawned this one I did, rather lazily, insert the word 'all'. Since then, Phil Clark has refused to debate the title of this piece, and rather concentrate on the original comment. My bad.

It is one of the key elements of negotiating/debating theory that one should not offer a hyperbolic as it is a hostage to fortune - and will get battered by the opposition. And so it has here.

I support your contentions that Jones lost his raw data - and somewhere in the mists of Google there is a quote from Jones, that I remember, where he admitted as much (I think it was during the climategate investigations....). On the other hand, I have seen nothing to divert me from the belief that Mann tried his damnedest to prevent others (McIntyre et al) from getting hold of his data and code. He (Mann) admitted (and Phil Clarke confirmed) that Mann was using some rather esoteric stats processes, and that is probably why he didn't want to be 'found out'.

You asked for opinions. That is mine. I can only qualify it by virtue of extensive reading on the subject and following, as far as possible, technical discussions on other blogs and Montford's HSI (which I heartily recommend) and other publications.

It is interesting to note, that as time passes and the world moves further away from Mann's pre-eminent work, some members of the science fraternity - and some very close to him - have started to resile from taking a position on his work. That is a good start. It will take more than a generation - and blood and tears, I fear - before this whole UN scam is put back in the box (Pandora's?); I shall not be around to see it, but I shall make sure my grandson has my notes and writings and reference books. Maybe he will be able to explain to his children what this was all about. And he will not have to answer the old joke that I never tire of repeating:

Grandson to Grandpa: "What did you use for lighting before candles, Grandpa?"
Grandpa: "Electricity my boy, electricity <sigh>."

(I wish I could give a h/t to the person who first came up with it).

Mar 31, 2016 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

golfCharlie, my granddaughter ignores me. I "know nothing", and unfortunately it's becoming increasingly true. Do you have any similar constraints on your veracity/credibility?

Mar 31, 2016 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Heh, Harry, yes, bad opening; but in responding in force to take advantage of it, he's left his queen exposed.
==========

Mar 31, 2016 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

CRU do indeed retain the gridded, processed version of their time series. The raw data are not their property: they are owned by the National Weather Services who provide them, sometimes under non-disclosure agreements (some of the data has a commercial value). Anyone who wants the data has always been able to approach the NWOs and it is pretty nearly all available from GHCN. After the email theft, Jones undertook steps to make all the raw station data available from the CRU.

Nothing much changed as a result.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

My take on this was that they had serious matters to hide (but I have no information as to what might be being hidden).

No smoke without fire, eh?

The MBH99 - which contained the Hockey stick graph - was indeed NH only (I can assume you haven't yet got round to reading it as this is in the title) Nobody to my knowledge ever pretended otherwise. Proxies available at the time were overwhelmingly from the Northern Hemisphere. Things are better now, which is why time would be better spent on defending or attacking say Mann 2008 or PAGES 2K which have better coverage - and fall within the error bars of the Hockey Stick study.

 This despite evidence from a group of practicing and eminent statisticians that methods employed were without merit, that similar sticks could be obtained from white noise, and that much of the evidence used was itself suspect. 

Who were these eminent statisticians? Wegman?

M&M claimed that feeding persistent red noise (randomised data with auto-correlation) into the MBH algorithm produced hockey sticks and the myth took hold. It is true, well not really - the red noise used was unrealistically over-correlated, they conducted 10,000 runs and only stored the 100 most hockeystick-esque, (despite claiming that 'The simulations nearly always yielded PC1s with a hockey stick shape'), the magnitude was about 1/10th of the real thing and half the sticks pointed down not up.

BTW - when Stanford Professor David Ritson asked Wegman for details of the red noise experiment, he received no reply. Maybe Wegman had 'serious matters to hide'.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf

https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

Mar 31, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Harry, as I have repeated many times, I was not in CRU. Instead I was in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV). CRU was affiliated with ENV but was essentially supported by soft money. Sometime during my time in ENV senior personnel in CRU were appointed ENV professors.

Immediately after Climategate, I argued for the splitting off of CRU from ENV to avoid damage to ENV and UEA generally, but my advocacy was unsuccessful. UEA, I believe still saw CRU as a valuable asset and chose to ignore the furore generated (even from the likes of Monbiot!).

So I am somewhat sensitive to being considered part of CRU and to the opprobrium heaped onto the rest of my School. And University.

No need to apologize for the mistake. It's been many times before.

Mar 31, 2016 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall