This guy’s grandkids should sue Hansen for plagiarism.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
h/t to glacierman
-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
May 2013 M T W T F S S « Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Recent Comments
- Dave Burton on Sea Level Data Corruption – Worse Than It Seems
- Chris Korvin on Canadian Polar Bears Doomed
- Scarface on Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- Barry Musser on Joe Bastardi Nailed It
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Rob Ryan on About Me
- Andyj on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
- Scott Brooks on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
Partners
Kaplan was pretty smart.. thus proving once again that smart people can think some really dumb things.
In 1981 Fred Singer predicted that in 20 years oil consumption would decline by 30 million barrels a day. Instead it has now gained 30 Mb/day.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lousy-prediction-on-oil.html
lol, yes, he’s a scientist. And the problem with scientists, and anyone else that makes a living being an academic is they’ve virtually no real world experience to draw upon when making their predictions. Most don’t leave the bosom of their alma mater before they’re 35, if ever. They simply move around in the very sheltered circles.
What does that have to do with Manhattan Drowning?
Most scientists have made bad predictions during their careers. Some admit it and some like Hansen and Mann defend theirs.
In 1981 most researchers thought the supply of oil would run out soon so Singer had a lot of company. That was one of the Chicken Little threats of the time!
What prediction has Mann put forth?
Yes, lots of people make lots of bad predictions. But only those of a certain subgroup of people are highlighted here. I’m pointing out that it goes both ways.
Mann Predicted conditions of past climate conditions based on corrupted methods and data.
Predictions are not just about the future as models show. They are trying to predict past conditions and the fail at that!
Which of Mann’s methods were corrupted, and which data?
A completely different method, based on Bayesian statistics, finds essentially the same result (Martin Tingley and Peter Huybers).
Which hindcast of Mann’s was inaccurate? For what (and when) exactly what is off?
That answer is funny. It is almost as if you are not aware of what has been discussed for the last six years or more!
BCP
PC
All of Man’s work has been discredited. He has jinxed every paper is has been involved in!
I’m very aware of the last six years.
So how about answering my questions?
BCP
PC
Upside down sediment core records
Smoothing the data to remove the signal!
Using different smoothing techniques for different periods!
If you were aware of the events surrounding Mann’s work over the last six years you would not have to ask the questions.
I will go so far as to provide a link:
http://climateaudit.org/?s=Mann
Which sentiment core records were “upside down?”
What were the different smoothing techniques used? For which different periods–please provide the start date and end date of each alleged period.
What data were smoothed, and by what methods?
Your own understanding, please, not just a link you’ve cut and pasted.
@David: Just off the top of my head (I’m heading out to run an errand) … I think Mike Davis is referring to the sediment core proxy that showed a hockey stick, but the other direction (ie: opposite pattern to his “famous” graph). By assigning it a negative value, it turned the hockey stick the other way, thereby showing an uptick at the end, rather than down. I will have to look it up again (it is well documented in the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, which is advertised on the right side of this page, as are many other statistical “tricks” that Mann used). I hope this helps.
It helps some, thanks. But which sentiment core proxy?
And I repeat again: the Bayesian methods of Tingley and Hubers found essentially the same results.
So did several other studies done with a PCA methodology.
David:
They are all proving the axiom, GIGO.
They used a spaghetti graph for AR4 because the series were so far apart and each one of the series was shown to use its own bad methods.
Maybe you should do a bit more studying before looking even dumber than you already do.
BPC= Bristle Cone Pine trees that have been shown to be problematic when used for temperature records because of the grwoth issues that are not related to temperature yet many of the reports continue to use them after being advised by the NAS not to use them.
The Tilligander series that showed human corruption during the last thousand years and Mann turned it upside down as that alignment agreed with what he wanted to show even though the original investigator advised against using the data after about 1000CE.
The bayesian methods used corrupted data as an input so the best they could hope to retrieve was garbage just like all the other papers used in the IPCC AR4.
I should not even have to bring up hide the decline or delete the e-mails about AR4 or any of the other items covered in the released e-mails from UEA. I also will not bring up the file documents that were released along with the e-mails that were more damning than the e-mails.
The Paleo work defines the past and is supposed to show something has chanced in the weather patterns in the last two thousand years. Without it the IPCC has to rely on the last fifty years that are consistent with variations in natural climate if not “Corrected” for imaginary problems and not corrected for problems that are known to exist.
The IPCC has no real world evidence that AGW is or will be a problem if it exists at all.
PS: The scientific case for AGW in no way depends on any of Mann’s work.
(His work, though, does help indicate its significance.)
Hi David:
Here is more info on the “upside down” sediment core:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/06/dirty-laundry-ii-contaminated-sediments/
As for Mann’s work, after reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, I was floored by what he did. When you strip it all away, Mann’s “hockey stick” is truly an illusion. While it doesn’t prove AGW wrong, it makes me much less trusting of anything else he, or any member of the “hockey team”, puts forward as evidence of AGW (pinch of salt, as it were!).
LLAP:
If you are into books about climate I would suggest the work of Doug Hoffman!
Here is his web site as well as information about the book he supplies recent research about climate and weather issues
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=blogs/doug-l-hoffman
If you just want a site to browse that has lots of information I would suggest this one:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
No, I don’t want a site to browse, I want some indication that you’re doing more more than parroting what you’ve read on lapdog sites. Something that shows you took time to understand the arguments, maybe tried to analyze some data yourself, asked good questions, and and researched the other side of the story. What was said in rebuttal? What about the rebuttals to the rebuttals? How have others have approached the same problem? I don’t see any of this, just cut and paste. Sure, you spend a lot of time reading blogs that are ideological compatible, and dashing off one snarky comment after another, but you don’t seem to read anything else (let alone actual scientific papers), because you seem very content to just mouth the same words and push the same drivel that all the other lapdogs do. There’s little effort to think for yourself or ask critical questions. You’re more than willing to believe anything McIntyre or McKitrick say, while ascribing the worst qualities and motives to professional scientists and editors who do this for a living. In short you’re a walking example of confirmation bias, and while you root well for your favored tribe, you have no concept of the larger war or civilization’s progress.
I was not directing those comments to you!
You are beyond help!
David:
You are a walking example of the engineers I had to fire because of incompetence when I was in a management Position. You are also a walking example of the people looking for work that I did not hire and those that I gave poor evaluations while I was training technicians.
I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of those the ride the middle of the road like McIntire but he was correct in the hockey game regarding the value of the proxies used and the results of the research. I actually have never read the Hockey Illusion or any of the other books out there from either side. I did visit many sites on both sides of the “Discussion” and attempted to contribute in the debate from a technical analyst position. My conclusion was that the IPCC process is political and is based on Pathological science as it can not be independently verified by an independent researcher. The historical temperature records are corrupted beyond value. There is no global temperature and what is called a global temperature is a model output based on extrapolated (Made Up) data loosely based on measured temperatures, NASA Q&A.
There is no real science to support the assumed theory of AGW. One other thing, you are a part of the Chicken Little Brigade with your own personal hen House where you promote fairy tales like the ones you are pushing when you visit this site and others that I have posted on over the years.
I can not stop examining all sides of a situation and analyzing if I wanted to as that was what I was trained to do and that is what I did for a living. Trust but verify. Take no ones word!
One of the first lessons a trouble shooter learns is to determine if trouble exists and what is the true nature of the trouble. Nothing I have read about AGW has changed my opinion that people like you are the trouble because you are promoting something that does not exist. That causes people like me to have to try to correct the problem by educating others about the fantasy.
Now be a good boy and run along home to play with your toys!
How do you know McIntyre was correct?
Have you read the letters from the reviewers at Nature where he first submitted his paper? (They’re posted somewhere on his site.) Even the reviewers admitted they couldn’t follow all the details without devoting days or even weeks to such analysis. And these were experts. They also said the details were interesting to probably just a handful of climate reconstruction people, and unlikely to make much difference. (Nature rejected the paper, not for its conclusions but because the level of analysis wasn’t appropriate for their journal or of wide enough interest.)
So it’s interesting you can make such a judgement like that. I’ve tried reading both the MBH papers and the MM papers, sat down for several nights with pencil and paper, and finally decided that unless I were to actually write a computer program and input every single number I can’t really say who is right. I’m sure you can’t either. I’ve asked a lot of scientists about it, and they seem to mostly believe that the MBH conclusions are valid — and not really that surprising, given the hockey sticks in world population and levels of CO2, CH4, and N2O — in part because several other studies give similar results, including now an entirely different mathematical treatment. I’ve finally decided that while it’s an interesting part of science history, it’s ultimately not worth the time to try to replicate because it’s old stuff by now, it’s not crucial to the case for, or concern over, AGW, and its value lies in its new approach (especially in establishing uncertainties) and like all fields of science the work evolves and is never laid down perfectly the first time.
Yet people like you see fit to treat researchers like punching bags and worse just because you don’t like the implications of their work. I just don’t get that. I think it’s a terrible thing to do when you haven’t done the work to earn a firm conclusion and are just cutting-and-pasting.
Hi Mike: The two sites you mention (resilient earth and “appinsys”) are excellent … I have them bookmarked under “favourites”.
Hi David: wrt to McIntyre … I have a lot to say, but no time to say it at the moment (marking papers). In short, what McIntyre did was out of pure curiosity, though he didn’t trust the hockey stick from the get-go, as he saw this sort of graph many times in the mining sector. What I didn’t like about Mann was he refused to release his algorithm to McIntyre, so he had to figure it out for himself. To this day, Mann still refuses to release his algorithm. Contrast this to the recent neutrino beam experiment:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5in1T5nvGNckqh0WyG9Y3B_YI4VQg?docId=94691396d0b44f3aa8105740b51e9e9f
The quote from the article that jumps out at me is: “Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that “they are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they’ve done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements.”
I would put a lot more stock in Mann’s work if he behaved the same way and made his work available for all to independently verify, rather than guess at.
LLAP:
That is why I was able to reference them to you. They are some of the few sites I now keep on my browser favorites. I have gone through 4 computers in six years and did not even bother transferring files from the last one.
If it was not for Steven starting this site I would probably not even be participating in this discussion any more.
Here at least things are not taken so seriously by most contributors!
LLAP: Why should Mann have shared his algorithm with anyone?
First of all, it’s his and his funder’s intellectual property, and their choice what to do with it. Second of all, it would do science no good. Science needs replication, not duplication. The same computer program will run the same on anyone’s computer. What’s needed is for someone to rethink the data, rethink the mathematics, rethink the algorithm, and get their own results.
Do you think the two experimental groups at CERN now looking for the Higg’s boson are sharing algorithms and programs? They’re not even sharing data, but collecting it themselves via detectors they have each built. (Paleoclimate proxy data is different, because there’s less funding to collect it individually; but that data is shared, and there are portals where it is centralized.)
What about the data that Hansen makes up? Will he show how he adjusts data that is decades old.
Kind of hard to replicate a moving target.
> What about the data that Hansen makes up?
> Will he show how he adjusts data that is decades
> old.
What data has he made up? (Be specific.)
What decades old data has been adjusted? (Be specific.)
Have you read GISS’s many papers on their data methodology? (Of course not.)
The CERN groups are not publishing final results yet either like Mann did. I am certain if the researchers at CERN want their results to be taken seriously they will provide the data and methods to allow replication. That is they are real scientists and not leaches sucking the funding agencies for all they can get like Mann and some others.
> I am certain if the researchers at CERN want
> their results to be taken seriously they will provide
> the data and methods to allow replication.
Really? Then can you point me to the data archive and methodology for, say, the discovery of the W and Z bosons at CERN in 1983? Or for any high-energy particle physics experiment ever conducted?
The Higgs experiments at CERN are currently collecting about 1 Terabyte/second. In a year they expect to collect about 10^16 bytes. Where would they store that to make it accessible?
You would have to use the Access to information act directly to those you addressed here to get that information, not Mike Davis as you suggested here as he doesn’t have that info for you at hand.
And I forgot to add you moron. That was for you David, you moron.
David:
You need to learn how to read!
IF is a really big word that has a really tough definition and that is probably beyond your level of education.
Taken Seriously
To allow replication.
I am surprised you do not have a copy of their data on your hard drive. Not being a government contract scientist and also not being under contract to any government agency the freedom of information act does not cover any information I may happen to have no matter how I received it. I would require a subpoena from a grand jury before I would need to pass over any information I may have and the federal secrets acts might actually cover some of that which would automatically put it off limits.
So it does you no good to ask me for the information.
I do not care what the folks doing experiments are finding at CERN as it does not affect my pension. However I will repeat for the slow members of the audience.
IF they want their RESULTS to be taken seriously they will allow others to attempt to replicate their results by providing access to the original data.
And you are trying to confuse the issue of Hansen Plagiarizing a scientist from 1957 that made the first prediction Manhattan would be underwater bu 2008.
It was not important the prediction failed completely. Following academic ethics policies that have been in place for many years to protect individual creativity Hansen disregarded the ethics policy and plagiarized a fellow academic and should have lost his credentials for that act. It was despicable for him to do that.
> I do not care what the folks doing
> experiments are finding at CERN
Now you don’t care? A few comments ago you said they had to make their data available to be taken seriously. As soon as I pointed out to you that that’s impossible and never happens anyway you changed your tune. How about some consistency?
lol, How about some consistency?
That’s too funny coming from the warmist camp you aspire from David A. Don’t forget the moron part I added to you earlier. That was most likely something steven added to you way back, but then again maybe it was maroon?
David:
I am not attempting to have a dialog with you but if you continue posting I will continue pointing where you are wrong!
Hi David: “What’s needed is for someone to rethink the data, rethink the mathematics, rethink the algorithm, and get their own results.”
I would argue that it would be much easier to rethink the algorithm if they knew what it was to start with. Then people like McIntyre could come up with variations of it easily. It took him a hell of a lot of work just to come up with an algorithm that seemed similar to Mann’s (ie: produced similar results). If McIntyre was indeed correct, some of the stuff Mann did was ridiculous. Here is just one example: there were two series of Bristlecone pines that McIntyre tested using Mann’s short centering method. The series were Mayberry Slough (peak growth in early 19th century, no hockey stick shape) and Sheep Mountain (hockey stick shape, sharp uptick in the late 20th century). What McIntyre found was that Mann had weighted the Sheep Mountain series 390 TIMES more than the Mayberry series. The only reason for doing this would be to make the hockey stick pattern more pronounced … unless I am completely missing something?
LLAP wrote:
I would argue that it would be much easier to rethink the algorithm if they knew what it was to start with.
Isn’t that the exact opposite of “rethinking?” That leads to the temptation not to rethink the fundamental approach to the problem–all the dozens of assumptions (large and small) that go into any piece of science, all the approximations used, the whole framing of the analysis. Those are the things that need questioned, and starting with someone else’s finished work already colors one’s mind. (That’s one reason I respect the Martin Tingley’s approach.)
Besides, the mathematics of PCA is well known and isn’t *that* complicated to apply. MBH’s advancement was to use it for global proxy data _and_ to calibrate them to today’s temperatures by their overlap. At the same time their method allowed a straightforward calculation of uncertainties. If you’ll notice the subtitle of their paper was “Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations.”
I’ll leave this one for someone else to say it.
David it was the wrong approach to use on the wrong proxy material. How many statisticians do you have to read make the statement that Mann’s statistical approach was flawed as in FUBAR.
The Proxy material is now known to be problematic which means the paper should have been withdrawn and redone using better proxy data. GIGO. There was something about the selection of temperature records to compare proxies to that was AFU and shown to cause problems. Then there was the divergence issue that showed all of mann’s recent proxies did not replicate surface temperature during any period but by coincidence the growth and ring measurement almost tracked each other for a short time if they hand picked the temperature record to use as it did not track the record closest to the proxy site.
Once the door was open for garbage science research papers lots of researchers wanted their piece of the pie and threw junk together to get their share.
The place to start is to see if the proxy material is valid. Until the proxy material is valid they are just following the GIGO rule that has been around since the start of computing! Actually it was known in the accounting field before computing replaced paper ledgers ,AKA Books.
Why not try to defend the proxy material used.
Don’t forget the CENSORED file where Mann proved his selection was not valid!
> David it was the wrong approach to use on
> the wrong proxy material.
Why?
@David: “Besides, the mathematics of PCA is well known and isn’t *that* complicated to apply”
The PCA used by Mann (short centering) is one of the big problems. If his algorithm was readily available, it would be so much easier to refute MBH 98.
P.S. Nothing to say about Mann’s weighting of Sheep Mountain being 390x more than Mayberry? Don’t you think that to be just a little out of whack? After all, MBH 98 was supposed to be superior to Lamb’s work which showed the MWP and LIA b/c MBH 98 was supposedly a global reconstruction of paleo temperature, while Lamb’s was only regional. With the weighting he used, the Mayberry series becomes effectively uselss, and may as well have not even been included. He did other things like this, which made his “global reconstruction” actually hang on only a select few proxies.
> The PCA used by Mann (short centering) is
> one of the big problems.
There’s nothing inherently problematic about choosing short centering, and this comes down to a legitimate difference of opinion that even the experts did not agree on.
David:
Because that is what this all boils down to.
FYI, The GAO has determined NOAA’s GHCN is FUBAR and needs attention to meet it’s own requirements for siting going forward.
The results are so bad historical records should be discarded, but that it what I have been saying for years.
As was just pointed out Mann’s paper was actually a regional reconstruction of a single site in the Sierra Mountains using trees that are now known to be useless for climate reconstruction because of their growth characteristics. It seem that if you take four cores from one tree you get four separate growth patterns and neighboring trees also have separate characteristics for the same years. It was just a matter of picking the trees that displayed the results you want.
That is just one set of trees and it destroys the entire paper’s results and Mann’s reputation because he continues to claim he was right.
Because of the actions of the Climate establishment they have destroyed their own reputation and pulled the IPCC down with them. Recently the scientific societies were damaged by not understanding the problem and you are guilty by your own words of encouraging illegal activity and aiding and abetting people that are using fraudulent means of obtaining money from the government.
There is no viable paleo record to compare today’s climate conditions with. There is no viable historic surface temperature record to compare today’s climate with. NOAA is a point where they have been told to start over and do it right next time because they failed to maintain their own standards. That just discredits all the work product of the NOAA. But of course they are the agency that provided the other groups around the world with the GHCN data.
Two legs of the IPCC tripod are broken. Should I discuss the third? Sure why not!
Models! Basics: The models can not replicate clouds which are an important part of global weather. Seeing how climate is weather over a long period of time. The model input as failed because it can not properly characterize clouds. But it gets better. With 22 model outputs, of which none can replicate past climate to any degree of usable accuracy, They each failed the test, they want to the the average of 22 bad model runs to show the most likely future scenario thinking that 22 failures will give a better projection than one good one.
Remember the models were tested against historic temperature records provided by NOAA, who has been found to have bad historic records. The models were tested against paleo proxies that have been shown to be worthless.
I wonder what the modelers were doing other than playing what if games on their expensive toys because they did not attempt to verify the value of the weather information that they were trying to replicate. GIGO big time!
Now stop and think about all the money that has been wasted chasing a fairy tale and out visitor Dave wants us to waste even more by throwing it down the hole that is the climatology and IPCC fiasco.
Dave:
Why do you insist on defending these frauds and promoting this Chicken Little Fairy Tale?
> The GAO has determined NOAA’s GHCN
> is FUBAR
You swallow every little thing those clowns put out, don’t you?
You’re just the kind of dub they’re counting on.
Aren’t these the same data Inhofe uses to claim there has been no warming for 15 years?
I think they are.
Funny how they’re good enough for that conclusion, but no other.
Don’t you think?
> It took him a hell of a lot of work just to come
> up with an algorithm that seemed similar to Mann’s
That’s exactly how it should be. I very much doubt he would have found the problems he claims if he had just gotten MBH’s program and reran it on his laptop–or even the algorithm. The scientific process needs replication, not auditing.
PS: McIntyre also came on very heavy handed, a trait he still possesses.
LLAP: The OPERA team said what’s needed it to *scrutinize* the data. They also called on people to do the experiment themselves, i.e. collect their own data. It won’t help if people just recheck their arithmetic — what’s needed are fresh eyes that consider all of the measurements, data collection and systematic errors.
@David: “LLAP: Why should Mann have shared his algorithm with anyone?”
What has he got to hide? If what he has done is on the level, why would he not share it? If it is then easily verifiable, his case for the “hockey stick” is much stronger, and therefore much harder to dismiss. Then we can stop arguing about whether AGW is real or not, and move on to the hard decisions (ie: what do we do about it).
> Then we can stop arguing about whether AGW is real or not, and
> move on to the hard decisions (ie: what do we do about it).
The MBH results have no part at all — AT ALL — in the proof of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. None. Zilch. Zero. Had their work never been done it wouldn’t change the case for AGW one iota.
Their work helps clarifies how fast the 20th century has been warming, but so do many other indicators. The proof of AGW is completely different, and replies on observations like less outgoing radiation at GHG absorption frequencies (Harries, Nature, 2001, with several followups), diurnal and geographic patterns of warming, stratospheric cooling (beyond that due to ozone depletion), tropopause changes, and more.
The fuss over MBH is, and always has been, only about manufacturing doubt by any means, including extremely personal attacks, by people with vested interests in fossil fuels and the lackeys that lick their boots, like a few obvious senators in Washington.
@David: “The MBH results have no part at all — AT ALL — in the proof of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming”
It seems that the results are being used for nothing BUT flogging AGW to the masses. So why did it get so much play by the IPCC … unless they have an agenda.
> If what he has done is on the level, why would he not share it?
He’s said why. First of all it was his intellectual work and he wasn’t finished with it yet. Probably he hoped to wring more results out of all the work he had put into it (and he has over the years) — that’s very common in science. Secondly he said that McIntyre was demanding and impolite and he didn’t have time to walk him through ever little step in the process. Mann was under no obligation to share anything more than his data (which was already on his Web site), and the NSF confirmed that to McIntyre.
Finally, who cares? This is just more flak being thrown up, another of a trillion attempts to smear MBH, and has nothing to do with either paleoclimate science or the science of AGW.
David:
The United States Government funded Mann’s research. The Tax payers paid for it. Science is about producing a theory based on a reproducible experiment. Without the Al-Gore-Rhythm Mann’s results could not be reproduced.
When doing research under government funding there is no intellectual property rights and the research should not have been published it the data and methods needed to attempt reproduce the results were not available. What you are promoting and defending is not even pseudo science it is not even Pathological science it is pure outright fraudulent activity.
Mann should only share his algorithm if he was interested in doing real science, which he obviously was not and still is not.
Others that have come up with similar results are also guilty of some of the same infraction that Mann is guilty of.
You are a propaganda machine and in no way a real journalist! Or are you still working on your adult fairy tales?
> Without the Al-Gore-Rhythm Mann’s results could not be reproduced.
More baloney, and obviously false, since others (McIntyre, for example) developed his own algorithm and methods, as did others (including Tingley & Hubers).
I honestly don’t know what the terms were of the funding contracts MBH had, and I doubt you do either. Competing research teams often hold their cards close to the vest in order to extract the most they can from the data they have collected, though there are exceptions like with the Human Genome Project. This tends to strengthens science.
Finally, McIntyre is Canadian, so there was no inherent right for him to possess intellectual material derived from US funding.
Once a paper is published they are supposed to provide all necessary material to replicate the results. That is a standard scientific practice that was followed in the field of real science!
Davis they were standard NSF research contracts. They are boiler plate because it is government funding. Now you want to act ignorant about government research funding and you claim to have received a PHD! Education does not always make people smart and you just proved that!
You also must have failed your reading comprehension courses because they were not able to exactly replicate but come close by reverse engineering and trial and error.
The results were reproduced in the IPCC report and the existence there meant the work should have been available to any one in the world who wanted to audit the results to verify the validity. That is what make science more reputable and advances science. Circling the wagons shows they have something to hide!
Maybe you do not understand how the IPCC was supposed to work!
Maybe you do not understand how science is supposed to work!
Funny thing is that McIntyre was trying to help them do it right and even offered to coauthor papers with members of the team because he wanted to prove the case for AGW! I am still laughing about that!
What is even funnier is that he still defends their actions as minor errors that can probably be corrected to better represent the science behind AGW!
Aint that a gas!
> That is a standard scientific practice that was
> followed in the field of real science!
I just told you earlier it’s not, as in the case of CERN’s 10 petabytes of data per year, or any number of big experiments taking place around the world.
All of MBH’s data was data was available on his Web site.
As was his censored file that proved his results were wrong.
The CERN experiments have nothing to do with Michael Mann’s actions are only your attempt to redirect the conversation away from Mann’s fraudulent activities!
The original data was actually the wrong data and that had to be corrected and the full data set was not made available until much later, After all the lies were told! Some of the stuff did not come out until after the e-mail fiasco he was involved in!
The CERN experiments are relevant, because they prove you don’t know what you’re talking about, and completely inconsistent besides.
By the way, MBH published a Corrigendum in Nature circa 2005 that clarified issues about their data.
MBH should have retracted their papers as well as all the other papers Mann was involved in!
Their supposed correction was as bad as the original! It was based on the same proxy studies. As long as they use bad proxies their results will be bad.
And no The CERN thing has nothing to do with this as no one has reported anything wrong with the research being done.No trouble reported no analysis needed.
Sorry Charley you are batting ZERO for a hundred!
@David A.
first off, it’s “sediment” not “sentiment”. second, you calling someone else out for ‘parotting’ material they’ve read is like a pot calling the kettle black. Not all citizens need be able to rederive from first principles (as I strongly suspect you cannot) every theorum they tend to believe is true. That certainly doesn’t make said work illegitimate, any more than your contrarian banter makes AGW alarmism non-specious. But thanks for annoying folks.