Yesterday, I tried to call attention to my latest post at Real Climate and request an explanation of the fact that CPS methods and r sorting can create any pattern you want from the proxies in Mann08 including sine waves and negative hockey sticks. I have been snipped before from Real Climate so I saved a copy of my post before I sent it.
I have just completed a post which demonstrates how you can pull any pattern you want from the M08 proxy set using CPS methods. Positive hockey sticks, negative ones, historic trends of any shape even sine waves.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/
I would like someone to review and explain why I am wrong in my conclusions that these methods are faulty.
I also implanted the CPS northern hemisphere result in red noise and used CPS to go find it. I found that the method distorts non-calibration range temperature scale. The red noise was not calibrated to proxy noise but I have used hundreds of different noise levels to the same effect.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/demo-of-flawed-hockey-stick-math-using-actual-nh-data/
Your site deleted my first post on this subject, leading me to spend hundreds of hours in study and even create an entire blog just to react to what seems like bad mathematics.
Now I posted this on his thread “Progress in reconstructing climate in recent millennia” which is a relatively old thread without much activity so my post was on topic. I wasn’t surprised not to get a reply.
I posted another comment on Open thread #6 at Tamino, hoping to get some of that open mind discussion group going on it. Tamino has in the past been impatient with me for asking Ian Jolliffe if he was the nature reviewer but he always let me post. This time though, when my first comment didn’t make the cut I assumed that it was my mistake so I tried again. The second comment didn’t make the cut for his Open thread either.
I didn’t save the posts but they simply asked his group who was still discussing weather PCA would induce the hockey sticks as pointed out by Climate Audit something like
– The r sort in CPS can produce any pattern you want from the latest proxy set and I had a higher correlation percentage to a negative slope on the non-infilled data than Mann08 achieved after painting in an upslope on 90% of the data series. And I provided a link.-
BLOCKED! From an open thread. Twice.
the Air Vent 
Too much cognitive dissonance to handle, perhaps?
Surprise, surprise —-.
Though it would be interesting to hear their side, wouldn’t it?
My experience with Tamino is one must:
1) Avoid links to “denier” sites (your blog would be in that category).
2) Avoid any statements that question the integrity of climate scientists.
3) Avoid posting any facts or arguments that he cannot refute.
Sticky to rules 1) and 2) gets most of my posts through. However, there is not much that can be done about 3.
I try to make the point that I am not a denier.
I dispute some of the alleged science and point out that AGW is more politics than science. I don’t dispute that increased CO2 might cause warming, but the science is far from settled as to how much.
I do dispute that we need to throw out what is left of our world economies to empower ever more massive governments because some politicized scientists are proclaiming the end of the world.
You know someone pointed out to me on another thread that Mann is not a government scientist. I haven’t done the research yet but who pays for his grad students? What money’s does his university receive for his work? How much above the standard professor pay grade is he? He has been made famous by governments as the poster boy for global warming just because of blatantly flawed hockey sticks.
I prefer the term climate “naturalist”.
Jeff,
Most skeptics will understand the distinction you make but people like Tamino don’t. Anyone who questions anything regarding the AGW othordoxy is a denier according to Tamino and he won’t let you post links to your blog on his site as a result.
He’s been beat up pretty badly lately. Perhaps someone else could get the discussion going there. I am actually pretty curious what they will say.
Jeff, Universities run on grants. The official negotiated NIH indirect rate at my institution is ~51%. Meaning, if you as a faculty member manage to get a big ol’ NIH three million dollar grant, the University gets 1.5 million. You can imagine how happy Universities are with faculty who bring in lots of government funded grants! So, I’d bet it doesn’t matter too much to Penn State what the state of the “science” is… as long as he’s bringing in those big grants, he’s gonna be considered golden by his employer.
Mann’s grad students are funded (if they are like grad students in other Universities, probably not well paid) by those grants. But it doesn’t matter much how they’re funded… the students are University employees.
Don’t know the salary for “standard pay grade climate science professor”, there’s a lot variability in pay depending on your background (e.g., an English professor is going to be a lower rate than is a physician/PhD. However, I bet the general salary information is available on-line. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/03/03-16-06tdc/03-16-06dnews-06.asp
Bruce
Jeff,
It needs to be advertised as widely as possible that RC and Tamino blocked your posts.
So much for their scientific “real climate” and “open mind”.
When I was a “newbie” I was surprised and shocked by this. You can submit something which is quite polite and perfectly on-topic at realclimate but if it points out a flaw in their argument, they simply won’t publish it. This was one of the things that helped me figure out who was telling the truth and who wasn’t. As #8 says it’s important to keep publicizing this fact.
I once thought of setting up a place where people could put all their rejected realclimate posts.
PaulM
I think your idea of setting up a place for rejected realclimate posts (as well as other climate ideology-touting sites?) is really great!
In the same general vein, I believe that in the future, work on advanced web archeology related to retracted/changed/forgotten/bawdlerized/doctored gistemp data stats and similar alarmist cllimate data sites will be very rewarding.;-)
Just for people who, like me, don’t like the current IPCC political ideology—climate science mix to be able to ask the future post-alarmist guys the question “where were you during the climate wars?”…
Having just had what seemed a reasonable post censored and any subsequent posts immediately rejected I am with you in the idea of a real climate rejects site. Censorship should not be a part of such a well publicised and rewarded website.
I can see a few problems in running a rejected posts site though – it would seem necessary to include posts by realclimate and what are the rejected posts, without including extraneous posting. Am not a blogger or specialist in this field though – any ideas??
Ah yes, a fellow blockee. You must have asked a tough question. Perhaps accidentally. My original statement on RC which actually got me blocked had to do with the fact that correlation sorting noisy data for a particular trend will guarantee you find it. I had no idea that so much work had been done to prove exactly my point – a very obvious one.
Al, I don’t know your background so forgive me if I say something too obvious. When I made my first posts there some time ago I didn’t know who Gavin was.
These people head up the GISS temperature data as well as publishing many papers supporting global warming. They will accept no dissent or tough questions to their points and will censor anything from me in the future for sure.
You have seen the ugly face of the consensus.
The only other time I have run into it was on Tamino- Open Mind (ironic). I didn’t know he was also part of the hockey stick paper crowd and I inadvertently pointed out that Tamino should reject Mann 08 for fabricating data just to retain credibility on AGW issues. I had no idea that his name was Grant Foster who has published with members of Real Climate. Well that land mine ended my posting there.
You can put your posts here if you want. I will continue to call attention to this issue because these are the leaders of the consensus and it is the height of hypocrisy to block scientists or anyone from even questioning. They would find tough questions from me but a truly open mind in response. — This however is not the goal.
I tried a post in the form of a simple question: Since both Tamino and Mann misquoted Ian Jolliffe in an effort to prop up the hockey stick, when can we expect an apology from Mann? At least Tamino was honorable enough to accede to Jolliffe’s demand.
Of course, this never saw the light of day.
Almost all alarmist climate blogs are strictly censored to stifle dissent and hide inconvenient facts. That is true of Real Climate, Rabett Run, Stoat, Skeptical Science, Green Grok, SeaMonster, Yale Climate Forum, Peter Gleick’s new National Geographic blog, and Tamino’s misnamed “Open Mind.” All of them are heavily censored. The only prominent exception I’ve found is Peter Sinclair’s ClimateCrocks.
In contrast, I’ve found that most skeptical climate blogs, like WUWT, welcome dissenting views, courteously expressed.
At “Tamino’s Open[sic] Mind,” Grant Foster (a/k/a Tamino) censors even poetry. Yesterday he posted a light-hearted “Pi-ku” in honor of “Pi day” (3/14), with verses having a number of syllables equal to the first six successive digits of the decimal approximation of Pi:
I posted the following friendly comment:
Tamino/Foster simply deleted it.