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

GC, It was a 2010 Panorama broadcast. Why do you think he has changed his mind?

Mar 31, 2016 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke: Having now followed you through this thread, and many others, I have noticed something about your comments. Your last is a good example:

Jones' request was to delete mails relating to IPCC AR4, probably to pre-empt a future FOI request.This is against the spirit if the not the actual letter of the law and I certainly don't defend this action, however provoked he felt.

But these were personal emails, not data, or even draft papers[...]

You write as if you have a very personal insight to Jones - and some others who turn up in these threads. I can't help feeling that if Jones himself was writing here he would say as much.

BTW: You say: 'these were personal emails'. Nope. They were only personal in context. You see, just like all the 'personal' emails I sent when I worked for a large company, as I sent them on their server, they were theirs.

I really can't be arsed right now to go back through all your comments but it has grown on me that you seem to comment with an 'edge' about Jones, in particular, and Mann with some kind of inside knowledge. Maybe it's just your super ability with Google but I don't see that in any of the nuances you mention in the stories I have read. You and Phil? Related? Hmmmm :-)

Mar 31, 2016 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Strike 'personal', substitute inter-colleague, or whatever. Doesn't matter much.

You think Jones would self-describe as a lawbreaker? Hmmmm. Here's a rare interview with the man.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101115/pdf/468362a.pdf

Mar 31, 2016 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, you say Mann has tried to downplay the importance of the Hockey Stick, yet Mann in his submission to the US Court, again stated that the Hockey Stick had won him a Nobel Prize.

What part of changing his mind, does that not fulfil? Or does you mind possess logical inconsistencies that match Mann's?

Mar 31, 2016 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke is not a climate scientist. He knows enough to be able to cut and paste intelligently and he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of links. He has never had an original thought in his life
He is an acolyte, worst of all he is tribal.
Tribal in the sense that

Warmists have many faults
Deniers only two
Everything they say
And Everything they do

such bias is difficult to counter with argument or logic

notice that when he does lose the argument, he comes back a week later saying that he conceded the point.
As if not being a rabid, frothing linker on a point for a week is the same as saying 'ok you are right'

I think he has conceded ten points to every one we/I have conceded, but I think that one is valuable,
It's always good to hear the other point of view

Mar 31, 2016 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Phil Clarke, do you, or Mann accept there was a Medieval Warm Period and a subsequent Little Ice Age? The Hockey Stick Graph looks remarkably flat during these time periods.

I learnt at school in the 1970s that it was warmer at some time between William the Conk and Henry 8 (I can't remember any dates more precise, and the MWP was a term I learned this century) The fact it was colder during Victorian/Dickensian times is again widely acknowledged, and I also learnt that at school.

Proper scientists, historians, archaeologists etc all confirm the LIA and MWP.

Why do you persist in supporting Mann's Hockey Stick, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Has SKS generated a 97% Consensus of faith in the Hockey Stick?

Are you being provided with financial support to maintain this level of denial?

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

>>Phil Clarke, you say Mann has tried to downplay the importance of the Hockey Stick, yet Mann in his submission to the US Court, again stated that the Hockey Stick had won him a Nobel Prize.

No, he did not. Talk about an idée fixe.

Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to discuss more recent work, however it was not I who started the thread, which named me in relation to Mann's being 'forced' to reveal data years after publication, which never actually happened.

EO: I am going to ignore the personal stuff, but you might want to look up the idea of false equivalence.

Apr 1, 2016 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

>>Phil Clarke, you say Mann has tried to downplay the importance of the Hockey Stick, yet Mann in his submission to the US Court, again stated that the Hockey Stick had won him a Nobel Prize.

No, he did not. Talk about an idée fixe.

Yes he did.

2. Dr. Mann is a scientist whose research has focused on global warming. Along with other researchers, he was the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

In para 5 of the same document his lawyers refer to him as a Nobel Laureate and in para 17 it is again claimed that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Hockeystick.

In 2007, Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors for their work in climate science, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph.

The Nobel Savager

Whatever one thinks of Dr. Mann, claiming to be a Nobel Laureate without receiving the medal is either fraudulent or awfully stupid, it is surely a sign of Phil Clarke's philanthropy that he can leap to the defence of such a self-evidently phony/stupid person in their hour of need. It is, however, difficult to understand how Phil came to the conclusion that Mann had not claimed to have received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Hockeystick given that his lawyers actually said, specifically and unequivocally, that he had received the Nobel Peace Prize as a result of his work on the hockeystick.

Assumptions:

1. Dr. Mann supplied the lawyers with all the information related to his academic career and awards.
2. Dr. Mann read and approved the complaint before his lawyers sent it into the court.
3. Dr. Mann was privy to the subsequent removal of the claims to be a Nobel Laureate from the complaint.

Apr 1, 2016 at 9:54 AM | Registered Commentergeronimo

My turn to nitpick: the claim was Mann 'stated that the Hockey Stick had won him a Nobel Prize.'

We covered this already. 'The 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s' clearly does not reference the Hockey Stick, which was a paleo study covering the last 1K years.

The IPCC certificate acknowledging the contributions of some towards the winning of the award quite clearly stated that it was 'to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports.' which would be his Lead authorship in AR4 WG1.

'the Hockey Stick won him a Nobel Prize' is not the same as 'his contributions to the IPCC process and research, of which was the HS, was a part won him a share of the prize'.

Moot anyhow, as the submission has been redrafted.

No cigar.

Apr 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Outside of the most egregious politics, it's a curious pathology. I recall a Spitting Image sketch around the time of the end of the John Major government. It involved a corrupt back-bench MP (I can't remember his real name) who simply resorted to denying obvious facts when confronted with the truth. For instance, he would take a taxi ride then get out and refuse to pay the driver on the grounds that he had not had a ride in the taxi, even while his briefcase was still inside the taxi. And so on.

Even most of the alarmists have abandoned Michael Mann's hockey stick. It was disappeared by the IPCC. No one has volunteered to supply amicus curiae briefs for his court action against Mark Steyn. Yet there are some troopers still willing to fight-to-the-last-man defending a sandcastle being washed away by the tide of truth. A curious pathology indeed.

Apr 1, 2016 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Even most of the alarmists have abandoned Michael Mann's hockey stick. It was disappeared by the IPCC

Double balony.

Apr 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Enough already. Mann's claims vis-a-vis the Nobel prize have little to no significance. Let's get back to the real meat at the centre of this thread. Or am I being a control troll again?

Apr 1, 2016 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

1,984 citations, some from this year.

Do you have any idea how far from 'abandoned' that is? Most journal articles are lucky to get into double figures.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, would you like your double baloney served with, or without extra relish?

Plausible Deniability may satisfy your level of integrity, but you are now firmly established in the Implausible Deniability zone.

Mann's Lawyers must be quacking their pants. Steyn's may be having a laugh.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I just prefer whole truths to half-truths.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I'm with Alan on this. Phil Clarke is a Mann-fan and will not allow any character flaw in the man divert him from his hero-worship. It is a close-run thing with his admiration of Jones, but in the course of this thread he has at least acknowledged that Jones lost 'some' data and did hide emails on the basis they were 'private' (as if).

However, I can't let this get away:

We covered this already. 'The 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s' clearly does not reference the Hockey Stick, which was a paleo study covering the last 1K years.
[My bold]. The 'steep increase' that Mann showed in his 'paleo study' was only possible because his paleo study was going south while the temps were going north - so he just grafted (good word that: 'graft') the temps onto his stick. Seems the tree rings were not playing ball. But hey! What the hell. By Phil Clarke's definition, this is also moot: he only did it the once and did (finally) admit to it, when found out. So, really, he (Mann) is the good guy round here, and we're nasty people for calling him out.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

The 'steep increase' that Mann showed in his 'paleo study' was only possible because his paleo study was going south while the temps were going north

Nope.

Note that there wasn’t a “divergence problem” in Mann et al in the sense of Briffa et al. Mann et al match the observational record very well through 1980, which is the end of the calibration interval (owing to the fact that many proxies drop out after 1980). This is something else the deniers tend to get wrong; they try to conflate the Briffa et al post-1960 divergence problem Mann et al’s hockey stick work. There is no such issue with that work, in that there was no detectable divergence through the end of the calibration interval. Related to this, there was a correction of the Bristlecone Pine data for inflated 20th century increase (which was attributed to CO2 fertilization at the time) in MBH99. So we actually applied a downward correction of the trend in those data. McIntyre doesn’t want people to know that.

Malcolm Hughes (The 'H' in MBH99).

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

So Phil Clarke denies Mann failed to produce (at the time) data/code for his HS; believes Jones only lost some data (which wasn't important); and now denies there was no attempt to 'Hide the Decline' - on hte basis there was no decline.

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

I know what I believe, and that ain't it.

You have your myths all confused. If the author of a paper says there was no divergence problem in a study, well I find that rather more persuasive than an unreliable 'auditor' when it comes to what is actually in the study. For this I make no apology.

Try reading the paper that is the subject of Greg Laden's post; it's rather good.

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I know what I believe…
Yes, we all know that, too. At least you acknowledge that it is a belief, and we are all now well-aware that there is nothing anyone can do to cause you to alter that belief. Now that you have started to invoke Greg Laden, I moot that this thread be halted, and we move onto more constructive debates… Unless you want to tell us what your definition of “is” is?

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Heh, Phil, what's out of proportion is your tolerance for corruption in climate science. Your admissions against interest here would cause most observers reasonable doubt, if not outright skepticism. The more corrupt the scientists, proportionally the more the chances of getting the science wrong. Getting it wrong is what has happened. Tolerance like yours has been the operative mechanism for the failure to get it right.
==========================================

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Which part of this from his deposition are you failing to understand?

"In 2007, Dr Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors for their work in climate science,including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph."

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

See 10:19.

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Michael Hart, the alarmists haven't abandoned the hockey stick, it's all they have left. But from its de-emphasis among the mass of climatologists it is clear that the chicanery of the straight shaft(grin) and the pause blunted blade have caused doubt that it is accurate. It remains a powerful icon; it will be famous far into the future, not for fidelity to science, but for the opposite.
==============

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kim,

A single example of 'wrong science' please. With references.

Otherwise its just more noise.

Apr 1, 2016 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke