the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

A public note for UEA, RC and other advocacy groups

Posted by Jeff Id on November 30, 2011

I felt it was important at this stage of Climategate that I give some opinions and express where I’m at personally in this whole mess.  I started blogging on climate with a true interest in the science and numbers.  There is no question that I’ve been critical of the politically leftist nature of the environmental movement in general and I had been skeptical of the IPCC for its intentionally bias-creating structure.   It is clear that the IPCC can’t exist without extreme, dangerous climate change which requires expensive solutions.  Without that the group fails to continuously attract funding for the other groups.  Still, that is a completely separate issue from data, statistics and methods.  Since my introduction to climate science, I have been exposed to numerous flatly false statistical techniques which are often simply accepted by the science as long as the message is right.  Shrinking fish, goofy coral papers, false model comparison papers, ridiculous paleo work on and on…. I do not accept the claim that climate scientists believe that selecting preferred data doesn’t automatically bias the results.  Most high school students would be able to tell you that.  Why the community won’t reject them is now crystal clear.

These emails are actually far worse than the previous batch because we can see the bias in operation through the completeness of numerous conversations, funding discussions, blocked peer review, deletion of emails, promotion of the right kind of people and denial that anything is wrong. It shows the ugly underbelly of a single-minded group of people who have the firm belief that they are right and that it does not matter if data needs to be massaged to prove it.  Soon and Baliunas could not set-back a healthy scientific field by decades with a single paper.  In a healthy science, a paper strong enough to change opinions would be pushing it forward. From the emails and papers, the paleoclimatologists featured are convincingly not scientists and I beleive the same is true for many modelers who don’t seem to realize the models are running hot. Throughout these emails the featured advocates continually tweak, massage, adjust, reject and modify anything which takes away from the extremist message of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Real Climate website has made the claim that nothing important is in these emails but it is clear from some of the authors featured position in the emails (and the false claim) that RC authors are not in any way qualified to judge.  They are so close to their friends good intentions that they have even taken the position that there is nothing at all wrong with selecting the preferred data or adjusting the curves to show what you want.

This is not science.

Yes there is real scientific discussion in the emails, but all too often the discussion is which data supports the conclusions and how it should be used or conveyed for maximum public impact.  We can see the regular rejection of data which show X when the real answer you believe is Y.  Of course the public has to be able to read more than 3 words in a row e.g. ‘hide the decline’ to understand most of it but plenty of it is blatant.

It is clear now that climate science is sick in general.  This includes modelers, paleo, impact groups and even the biased handling of issues in basic thermometer data.  This does not preclude the real scientists who do exist which can see that there is real science to be done.  Because of the contentious and tenuous nature of the climate field, those who find contradictory results live ostracized from the field for saying the wrong things.  They are aggressively attacked if they don’t say the right Gaia-saving lines in every publication.  Ed Cook’s suggestion of publication followed by retirement to avoid the retaliation is a perfect example.

At this point I beleive that few if any of those featured prominently in these emails will go down in history as people who have contributed to understanding climate in a meaningful way.  They are to a person like-minded politically motivated people and it is disgusting to see their treatment of statistics and the abuse of science in general.  I’m a pro-business green company owning conservative who doesn’t care where the data leads because we need to know the truth.  Most of these featured individuals are extremist liberals who don’t care either because they need their funding, political result, and the support of their peers.  A condition which they, as scientists,  work to hide aggressively.  After all, it is for the public own good that “the-all-knowing” slave away at their keyboards.

We also understand from the emails that UEA,IPCC and RC scientists see themselves as good people doing the right thing.  This is very clear and the lack of separation of the two, brings their general scientific ability into question.  They should have shame.  They should realize their errors and the huge uncertainty in the results – but they won’t.

Yes I am tired of this bullcrap.  I didn’t want to spend time reading CRU emails – ever.  I am not interested in attacking climate science for good work. I was interested in knowing if dangerous global warming was correct.  After seeing how such key features of the science work in the backrooms, I don’t think we will find out until it happens (or doesn’t) from the caliber of today’s number mashers.  We certainly won’t find out from the UEA.   Therefore, I will continue to doggedly read and publish these emails in context despite “scientific” lies to the contrary, in the hopes that the media and public will understand the shenanigans and why the science is broken.

Maybe I’ll even do more presentations on the variance loss present in every single paleoreconstruction (hockey stick) ever made – it would obviously be impossible to put through a Mannian review.  It sounds worth doing except that nobody in paleoscience would listen.  It would be a shame if someone managed to create a paper which set paleoscience back a decade by simply pointing out the idiocy of pre-selecting data or regression of long noisy (and often pre-sorted) data on short temperature curves .  The little epsilon at the end of the regression guarantees a variance differential.  Oh yeah, I can’t publish because I haven’t taken climate matlab class yet.

What a waste of my life and talents.

If you are a climate scientist who does care, why haven’t you spoken up?  How is it that you don’t separate yourself from these people or call them out on the trickery?  Why so few comments on the fake investigations?  I know we are not alone in our opinions here.

Disgusted sincerely,

Jeff Condon


72 Responses to “A public note for UEA, RC and other advocacy groups”

  1. Jeff,

    Where are your own publications? What examples of “real science” can you present to contrast them with the “shrinking fish, goofy coral papers, false model comparison papers, ridiculous paleo work” etc? They don’t even need to be yours, just what would you recommend as the standard/best practice in climate science literature? Or are you actually want anyone to believe that a whole field of science, globally, is currupt and untrustworthy?

    The whole article is permeated with the sort of looney, ideological bias that deservedly gives the blogs like yours the name “denialosphere”. If you really believe that “Soon and Baliunas [...] set-back [the] scientific field by decades with a single paper”, then I suppose you’ll believe just anything, as long it fits the prejudice. I guess the guys who wanted to disrupt Copenhagen played on your bias two years ago with such a good result that they decided to play you again before Durban. And look how well it went.

    I can see that you desperately need the warmed-up leftovers of a scandal that wasn’t to inflate your own importance (“I felt it was important at this stage of Climategate that I give some opinions and express where I’m at personally in this whole mess” — indeed, Jeff, the world is holding its breath now). But you should have the decency to refrain from the baseless smear and unjustified judgments that you simply can’t argue for. Think what you want about the people, but if you choose to pontificate about the science, your righteous wrath means nothing without arguments. Start with something small. For example, try to argue convincingly that “the models are running hot”. I can’t wait to see you do that.

  2. Jeff Id said

    Ah Grzegors, all of what you seek is on this blog. You merely need to look.

  3. AGW_Skeptic said

    Come on Climate Scientists – step up to the plate and do the right thing. As the latest email release clearly shows, this will not right itself without you. This is not only impacting climate science in a very negative way, but all science. If scientists continue to allow this kind of behavior and remain silent, then they really aren’t scientists to begin with – they are politicians. Listen to Jeff’s plea and help stop this train wreck.

  4. John said

    Jeff Bravo – You honest skeptics Watts, Goddard, Real Climate, etc the list is to long have been the only real scientist in this whole mess. And they call you guys nuts. LOL

    I have wondered for sometime, was this scam planned?

    Because the trends are obvious and with just a small amount of effort and research it was easy. All you had to do was follow Real Science for a week (I remembered the next ice age scare in the 70′s). I love his articles from a hundred and fifty years ago.

    The trends have been around for hundreds of century’s and Liberal’s love to play the time game.

    I want to know when the seed was planted, who was around, when and where did the money start from. The very, very,very, beginning.

  5. kim said

    I’m beginning to think that G. Staniak is absolutely marvelous parody.
    ==============

  6. Jeff Id said

    #1

    Models – also covered in many other places – http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
    HS – also covered in many other places – http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-posts/
    Publication – “” – http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/antarctic-trends-graphics-and-discussion/

    etc…

  7. Josualdo said

    It’s terrible that these guys are unable to understand that having a brain and an inkling of training in science is enough qualification to know that the almost-entirety of climate science isn’t worth the name. Even a philosopher knows what the scientific method is — it’s nothing too difficult really. In the end, I’m left wondering what’s missing in them.

  8. diogenes said

    I agree Jeff, the whole thing is mind-numbing in the scale of the misdemeanours involved. But wow even here Grzegorz is setting out his stall. To my mind, the question is:

    1/ Has Troll Central told him to disrupt/divert every thread on this site by whatever means necessary in order to distract from the underlying corruption exposed by the emails
    2/ Is he a chronic narcissist who feels a need to be the centre of attention
    3/ Some combination of 1 and 2…

  9. Ed Moran said

    OMG “Looney (sic), ideological bias…”

    You cannot be serious! Read the emails, man. There is a lot of ideological bias around and we (all of use who aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid!) know where it’s coming from.

    Jeff Condon didn’t set up a system that gives a hockey stick no matter what data is put in. He didn’t hide the decline. He didn’t bet the farm on one tree. Oh! I haven’t got the time or inclination to continue.

    Mr. Staniak, do you often run in circles with fingers in ears chanting “Na na na na na, i can’t hear you”?

  10. T G Watkins said

    Well said, Jeff.
    John (1.04) Christopher Booker, UK journalist has written an excellent book forensically analysing the IPPC. The names Bert Brolin, now deceased, and Maurice Strong feature prominently.

  11. RomanM said

    The “useful idiot” was again first on the scene with his usual ad homs and parroting the same-old same-old instead of making cogent comments.

    Or are [sic] you actually want anyone to believe that a whole field of science, globally, is currupt [sic] and untrustworthy?

    Does it take millions of people to create a dictatorship in a country or can a relatively small but determined and ruthless group take control to impose their own agenda and suppress dissent? Try looking at the evidence objectively instead of spouting the party line.

  12. steve fitzpatrick said

    Grzeorz,

    Yes, the models are on average running warm: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/sensitivity-to-baseline-totos-question/

    Not yet consistently at the 95% confidence level, but it doesn’t look good for the model average. Wait a year or two. Should climate science cull the models which are way too high in projected warming? (Those are what is making the average look bad.) Sure they should, but I doubt they will.

  13. Thanks, Jeff, for having the courage to speak out at this time of great fear, social unrest and uncertainly.

    Earth’s heat source is radically different from the stable heat source “in equilibrium” that world leaders and their consensus scientists perpetuated for the last four decades by ignoring experimental data and observations:

    “Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)”

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Today there is even concern over implications of the pending vote in the US Senate on the National Defense Authorization Act bill:

    http://www.infowars.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    Video Summary (1961-2011)
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf

  14. steve fitzpatrick said

    Roman,

    Try looking at the evidence objectively instead of spouting the party line.

    He’s a left wing political hack; the party line is all that matters to him. And yes, of course a few determined people can impose their agenda on everyone… examples are Prohibition, dictatorships of the left and the right, and officially sponsored atrocities throughout history. It is only by resisting the likes of this particular troll, and many others like him, that their left wing agenda can be thwarted.

  15. diogenes said

    RomanM

    “Useful idiot” is exactly what he is, which is somewhat ironic given that he seems to be Polish. Maybe this sort of forum has been his home since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

  16. I’m sorry, you are not allowed to have a different opinion on this topic. Having a different set of politics renders your data/math/stats/logic invalid.

  17. Frank K. said

    kim said
    November 30, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    He’s working for “THE CAUSE”(tm)!!

  18. AMac said

    #1 Grzegorz Staniak

    > Start with something small. For example, try to argue convincingly that “the models are running hot”. I can’t wait to see you do that.

    For “are the models running hot?”, consider visiting Lucia’s Blackboard, e.g. yesterday, today. Many more posts in her archives. Much informed discussion in the comments: if you believe the models aren’t running hot, have at it.

    Re: “Start with something small,” I have to laugh. Again. Last week, you started with something small. You made three assertions about Tiljander-in-Mann08, that Mann08′s treatment was somehow okay. “Paleoclimate – Rotten to the Core” #14.

    Wrong — it isn’t okay at all.

    I focused on Tiljander because it’s something small and easily understood. I started a Tiljander-themed blog because of fruitless conversations with denialists like you.

    I’ve repeatedly pointed out that you haven’t provided any evidence for your assertions, and you haven’t retracted them, either. “Paleoclimate – Rotten to the Core” #25, #46, #59. “The Right Kind of People”, #20, #42.

    With your response, you are following in the footsteps of Prof. Mann, and many supporters of the Mainstream, scientists and advocates both.

    I have no desire to provoke a crisis of faith over Tiljander. Believe what you will.

    But this isn’t science.

  19. AGW_Skeptic said

    Climategate 2.0 – “The Cause” Movie Trailer

  20. TerryS said

    A robust scientific field wouldn’t have to have kangaroo courts either:

    The Soon/Baliunas/Idso/Idso/Legates paper is another contrived piece of hubris from convicted sceptics.

    So according to Mike Hulme being sceptical is a convictable offence (email 2973) although I don’t remember reading about any trial

  21. j ferguson said

    Mr. Staniak,
    You might find it useful to read the “Readers Background” thread which is one of the choices at the head of Jeff’s blog. This a listing of self-written biographies of many of the people who comment here – they are not innocents by any means.

    You might also consider the possibility that it might take a couple of years of careful reading to reach an understanding of the issues treated here.

  22. steveta_uk said

    What really upsets me about all this is that I missed out.

    I took astrophysics at university in the mid 70′s, and failed, mainly due to getting lost on the maths (yes, plural in the UK).

    Had I known then that there was a fledgling subject called “Climate Studies” where basic sums was all you required, I could have got in on the ground floor, and I too could have been flying around the world to conferences in nice hot countries complaining about how these nice hot countries were too hot.

    Instead I mistakenly though computing was the future, and have 40 years of programming experience, unsteady career prospects, regular lay-offs (8 so far) and poor pension prospects.

    C’est la vie, as those cheese-eating surrender monkeys say.

  23. TerryS said

    #1

    If you really believe that “Soon and Baliunas [...] set-back [the] scientific field by decades with a single paper”, then I suppose you’ll believe just anything, as long it fits the prejudice.

    Finally you begin to see the light!!
    This is from an email by Phil Jones (climategate 1.0 file 1047390562.txt) sent to:
    Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Scott Rutherford, Michael Mann, Tom Crowley, Keith Briffa, Keith Alverson and a dendro mailing list at Columbia.
    It was responded to by:
    Michael Mann, Tim Osborn, Edward Cook, Scott Rutherford and Tom Crowley in an email chain that covers 16 emails.
    Not one of the responders disagreed about Phil Jones’s assertion that Soon and Baliunas set the field back and their tone indicated that they agreed.
    So yes you are absolutely correct in that these people “believe just anything, as long it fits the prejudice.”

  24. [...] A public note for UEA, RC and other advocacy groups Share this:FacebookTwitterCorreo electrónicoMásDiggStumbleUponImprimirReddit   [...]

  25. steve fitzpatrick said

    Please take note of the time/effort wasted in multiple people replying to Grzegorz Staniak’s comments. I think that is probably his objective… to waste people’s time. Better to just ignore someone who does not want to engage the substantive issues. (See AMac’s multiple requests for substantive comments, all ignored). He has not demonstrated that he knows anything about any relevant subject; not worth the effort.

  26. TerryS said

    #23 Correction
    I mistakenly thought that drdendro@…. was a mailing list. It is, in fact, Dr Dendro himself – Edward Cook.
    I also missed Jonathan Overpeck from the list of recipients.

  27. EJ said

    #4 John asked if this was planned. I say yes.

    See http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf from a conference in 1975 Margaret Mead said

    “What we need from scientists are
    estimates, presented with sufficient
    conservatism and plausibility but at
    the same time as free as possible from
    internal disagreements that can be
    exploited by political interests, that
    will allow us to start building a system
    of artificial but effective warnings,
    warnings which will parallel the
    instincts of animals who flee before
    the hurricane, pile up a larger store of
    nuts before a severe winter, or of
    caterpillars who respond to impending
    climatic changes by growing thicker
    coats [sic].

    Artifical warnings!!!

  28. AGW_Skeptic said

    To the Trolls lurking about…..

    A Wish To Live Forever

    I met a fairy today that said she would grant me one wish.

    “I want to live forever,” I said.

    “Sorry,” said the fairy, “I’m not allowed to grant wishes like that!”

    “Fine,” I said, “then I want to die after Climate Scientists get their heads out of their
    a$$e$!”

    “You crafty ba$tard,” said the fairy.

  29. Patrick Moffitt said

    Grzegorz Staniak-
    The “problem” with environmental science may not be universal but it is certainly endemic and not limited to climate. Nitrogen is being prepared to replace the failing CO2 paradigm. It is following the same route with scientists being told in no uncertain terms to fall in line or else and contrary empirical evidence replaced with models. Any scientist that dares to question to new “right thinking” concerning nitrogen is first smeared in the press.
    Here from March 29, 2011article By Kevin Spear Orlando Sentinel Murky Waters: Pollution and snails figure into death of Florida springs
    “We found that that story is incomplete — that there are other things going on in these systems that probably, perhaps, are more important predicting algal accumulation.”
    Because that “nitrogen story” is regarded as something like environmental gospel, and nitrogen pollution is a major concern worldwide, Cohen and several of his students speak cautiously of their finding that nitrates may not be the only, or even the most important, cause of the algae overtaking Florida’s springs.”
    Why do you think scientists need to “speak cautiously” and should science ever be compared to a gospel? Consequences perhaps- tenure, grants or being publicly humiliated with no ability to defend oneself? Perhaps because these scientists had already seen what happened to other researchers that dared to contradict the NGO/EPA script:
    Herald-Tribune (Sarasota FL) 1/4/11LYONS: Is secret fertilizer report ‘tobacco science’?
    Sadly climate science is just another example. Nitrogen (reactive forms) cycles through the environment in complex and poorly understood ways. Nitrogen controls will be CO2 on steroids- and unfortunately EPA has just about all the authority it needs to regulate nitrogen.

  30. Harry said

    Dear Jeff,

    I am with you from the beginning to the ending of this post, and most of what you have posted on this blog.

    I am speechless about the lack of self-criticism of the Hockey-team.

    Keep up the good work, it is not wasted;)

  31. Harry said

    @All,

    Gregorsz is a system administrator. He is wasting his entire life responding to sites of which he obviously does not have a quantum of knowledge. He is wasting his life by wasting our time. A silly man.

  32. Tom Harley said

    Thanks Jeff for keeping up the fight. It is unbelievable that there are so many ideologues in the so-called ‘climate change’ business…it is not science, it is nonsense.

  33. [...] [...]

  34. Venter said

    An fantastic post Jeff, and hits the bulls eye. It’s time this rot is halted and the perpetrators are removed from the field.

  35. John said

    I had thanked Jeff the the network of others that have shown the light of truth on this scam. There are so many.

    But I forgot to thank FOIA2011 for thier part. Also, thanks for some more answers to my questions posed by some nice commentors.

    As I read, watch, and followed this unfold on the net and news I have been wondering where and what FOIA is doing now.

    He/She certainly has done a great service. Staying so quite and patient. No doubt looking over your shoulder to often.

    Anyway on the off chance you look this way thanks you very much.

    For the AGW cult – I have paid attention enough to sense a pattern have you?

    Like a Captain on a War Ship the first CL1 was a shot accross the bow.

    Not satisfied the players were willing to stop, FIOA2011 got serious. He/She has scored a hit but the ship is big.

    This shot was deeper more direct and implicated Universities, The CRU think groups, NGO’s, Publications, and targeted certain very specific bad players.

    It also hit very lightly on some US, UK, and a few other government agencies (even one CC to John Holdren, Obama’s Science CZAR).

    FOIA2011 has hit you with a cluster time bomb. Is there any doubt that the emails go much much deeper?

    Take down government’s deeper? Remember that one comment “they’ll kill us”.

    FOIA2011 has proved a very skilled and selected operator or operative.

    Now the rest of the key figures that are not in these emails (CG2) that wish to remain annonymus have a huge but simple decision to make.

    Retreat or advance!!

    I believe FOIA2011 is ready for that next move. He/she may have already sent a select few emails to key players not listed in either CL1 or CL2.

    I do not think the motive is to destroy the whole science just clean it up. CL1 and CL2 are very careful releases.

    PS – Where are those US deligaes in Durban by the way?

  36. Frank K. said

    AGW_Skeptic said
    November 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    LOL!! Thanks for showing us “THE CAUSE”(TM) movie trailer – by the way, they were reciting actual e-mails from the new batch.

    I’m also waiting for the password (unlocking the remaining e-mails) to be revealed at a very INCONVENIENT time for the climate cabal…

  37. George said

    If you are a climate scientist who does care, why haven’t you spoken up? How is it that you don’t separate yourself from these people or call them out on the trickery? Why so few comments on the fake investigations? I know we are not alone in our opinions here.

    That’s pretty easy to answer, sadly. There is no central PR organization on the opposition side as there is on the AGW side. People such as NRDC and WWF and many others have Fenton Communications to coordinate the message and provide additional outlets such as Real Climate. There is no similarly coordinated effort on the side of people who are skeptical of the doomsday message. I am very sincere in saying this. Have a read of this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54170138/4/Fenton-Communications and please read the entire thing. It is dated and does not focus on the AGW debate so much as it is devoted to past exploits of what amounts to the same players. The game is the same. You make people afraid of something and you use that fear to divert billions of dollars.

    There is nobody coordinating the message for the other side. We have to rely on truth. Nobody in the media seems to be interested in truth, they seem to be interested in sensational stories that attract eyeballs to ads. In the UK, you have Futerra that provides the “Fenton” service there.

    It is a very carefully orchestrated PR campaign. Real Climate was set up by Fenton Communications. It is part of the PR effort. The mistake people have been making is to attempt to have a scientific debate in a PR campaign. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. This isn’t about science at all. These people know full well they don’t really have any convincing proof of AGW, that isn’t the point. The point is a very structured PR campaign that convinces enough people that there is a problem and that causes them to roll over and tolerate billions of dollars going to the “right” people.

    Folks, there is nothing in this game about science. The game here is basically larceny on the largest scale ever perpetrated on the people of the world. Read the article I linked above. It will probably be easier to download the pdf and read it locally than attempt to read it in the scribd interface. Read every word if it.

  38. Arn Riewe said

    #4 – “I want to know when the seed was planted, who was around, when and where did the money start from. The very, very,very, beginning”

    This may not be the beginning, but at least you can’t say we weren’t warned:

    From Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address January 17, 1961:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    The rest is probably “follow the money”.

  39. George said

    Arn, the seeds would have come from Fenton who would have started beating the drums and the funding from Tides foundation who supplies the seed money to get things like this rolling.

  40. Mark F said

    Fenton: Also cited on one news/blog site that the Occupy movement funded by Soros, Strategy by Fenton, Money laundering by Tides, Communication and coordination by AdBusters. Dicking around with Canadian sovereignty as well, messing with pipelines, oilsands, fisheries, forests, albino bears and God only knows what else. Media – wake up!

  41. ob said

    if one wanted to show that paleo methods are bs, wouldn’t it be best to participate in the Paleoclimate Reconstruction (PR) Challenge? http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=503:1:1482449604800612

    and i do not accept something like: one wouldn’t be able to publish. even if, the blogosphere would amplify possible results as long as they are not ballyhooed or biased. that is both outcomes should be acceptable: good and no skill.

  42. Anonymous said

    Well thought through post Jeff. It does not matter that the msm are not properly covering this at the moment. It took a while the last time. One thing that is puzzling me ie the UK Guardian. almost complete silence and Monbiot nada?

    I think one other thing that is digusting is the libelling of their opponents one thing to use the term denier which could be fair comment or open to interpretation but to call other scientists frauds because you diagree with them well?

    Of course I am entitled to say that the Fiddlestick Team are frauds because they are.

  43. RomanM said

    Re: ob (Dec 1 10:03),

    #41 Ob:

    if one wanted to show that paleo methods are bs, wouldn’t it be best to participate in the Paleoclimate Reconstruction (PR) Challenge?

    Yes and no. The data and temperature series provided are all artificial so that the only things that can be tested are the mathematical properties of the various methods for processing the “proxies” to produce a reconstruction. Even these tests, however, are limited to the specific properties of the data which has been provided.

    This exercise cannot possibly evaluate questions such as “are proxies themselves capable of giving good information about the actual temperature record” given the multitude of effects which can influence a proxy throughout the period of time in which that proxy may be in existence and the means by which that proxy came to be observed and selected.

    That said, I am personally considering entering using several methods which I have been looking at in the past couple of years for reconstructing a multi-proxy series. However, it would be nice to have a team for the purpose to spread the work and add some fresh ideas.

    Craig? Hu? ;)

  44. Layman Lurker said

    That said, I am personally considering entering using several methods which I have been looking at in the past couple of years for reconstructing a multi-proxy series. However, it would be nice to have a team for the purpose to spread the work and add some fresh ideas.

    Great to hear. Will we see a post on this sometime?

  45. Blog Lurker said

    #1 Grzegorz,

    Are you still reading the comments on this thread?

    As Jeff & plenty of other commenters have said, answers to your questions HAVE all been discussed on this blog (& others). But, you seem to be new to his blog & convinced yourself that he’s in denial (or something). So, here’s a few direct answers to your questions. Let me know if they’re unsatisfactory.

    1.) Jeff has mostly been just presenting his analysis on this blog, so has not published much in the “peer reviewed literature”. But, Greg, do you really need the “peer review” filter in order to assess the validity of an argument? If you do, then I hope you realise that you are trusting in a fairly unreliable system. That’s one of the main problems Climategate 2 illustrates, and which prompted this angry post by Jeff.

    Nonetheless, Jeff has recently been publishing in the literature, so he’s not just blogging his analysis. In response to one particularly poor paper (Steig et al., 2009) which claimed that Antarctica has shown dramatic warming, Jeff co-authored O’Donnell et al., 2010. Here’s the link: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1

    2.) Jeff was NOT saying that Soon & Baliunas set-back the field for decades with a single paper. He was saying the exact opposite, i.e., that the intense viciousness with which a few climate “scientists” attempted to smear the paper was baseless. If it really was that bad a paper, then surely the way to counter it was with science? Do you not agree? Surely, the scientific community is able to tell for itself…

    3.) I can understand why you consider Climategate 2 to be “warmed-up leftovers”. It is mostly discussion of particular studies and events, so if you’re unfamiliar with them, it can seem harmless & innocuous. As a result, maybe it won’t make as big a splash in the media. But, to those of us who are (even partially) familiar with the studies & events, there have been some seriously astounding revelations.

    Does that make sense? Do you understand where he’s coming from?

    I know you might feel like you’re hitting a brick wall commenting here. But, if you are genuinely interested in understanding why we’re here, do persevere. And keep asking questions.

    But, please don’t assume people here are looney, anti-science ideologues. It’s mostly the exact opposite. Many of us have a passionate love for science, which is exactly why we’re so alarmed at what has happened to climate science…

  46. RomanM said

    Re: Layman Lurker (Dec 1 10:44), one way or another, I will likely post on the subject on my blog. There are details that need fleshing out so I would rather do this after proper evaluation rather than before.

    I might mention that the methodology that I am looking at does not require infilling of missing proxy values and can incorporate proxies that do not overlap with the temperature time period. Thus, the known-to-be contaminated portion of the Tiljander proxy could be removed and the remaining earlier portion still used in the reconstruction (right side up, of course ;) ).

  47. M. Simon said

    Nothing short of a long period (10 to 30 years) of declining temperatures will derail climate “science” as it now exists. The parasites are too deeply embedded.

  48. Jeff Id said

    Roman,

    I am very curious on your thoughts. Not for treerings or proxies but for something else I have in mind.

  49. AMac said

    RomanM #46

    > … the remaining earlier portion [of the Tiljander data series could] still used in the reconstruction…

    An obvious question that doesn’t receive nearly enough attention is: How can you tell if a data series actually has a high likelihood of being a proxy for a particular quality such as temperature, annual precipitation, windiness, or snowfall?

    Ojala, Tiljander, and their co-authors thought that Lightsum and Darksum are temperature proxies (the former inversely correlated and the latter directly correlated). But they didn’t provide much evidence to support their view.

    My own opinion is that Lightsum and Darksum values are orthogonal to temperature, i.e. that they are “proxies” for other things. Perhaps precipitation, or frequency of downpours, or frequency of forest fires.

    Underlying this issue is the problem of post hoc analysis — one of the deep flaws of the Mann08 approach, IMO. To perform a multiproxy reconstructions, how does one select which data series to incorporate without widening uncertainty intervals, and without cherry picking?

    This is a basic concern for studies in other high-stakes areas, such as clinical trial design and interpretation. Mainstream climate scientists can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t some peculiarity of the pharmaceutical industry — rather, it’s a fundamental statistical issue of great relevance to their own work.

  50. RomanM said

    Re: AMac (Dec 1 12:16),

    An obvious question that doesn’t receive nearly enough attention is: How can you tell if a data series actually has a high likelihood of being a proxy for a particular quality such as temperature, annual precipitation, windiness, or snowfall?

    Obviously, the starting point for the answer to this question must be basic research on the physical characteristics of the “proxy” itself. There must be justifiable valid reasons for the proxy to respond in a reliable measurable way to these stimuli. This must include ways of quantifying the response so that the statistical methodology can convert that response into “temperature units” or “precipitation units”, etc. This would provide a decent starting point for further analyses.

    Underlying this issue is the problem of post hoc analysis — one of the deep flaws of the Mann08 approach, IMO. To perform a multiproxy reconstructions, how does one select which data series to incorporate without widening uncertainty intervals, and without cherry picking?

    The first step in the selection is to select proxies whose general properties have been “justified” as I describe above (but on samples other than those to be used in the reconstruction). The methodology used in the reconstruction should be capable of weighting proxies according to not only how they reflect the calibration data, but also how they relate to each other. Validation procedures should examine how each proxy impacts the final result – something that most reconstructions in climate science do not seem to do. Comparisons of proxies of different types (i.e. that respond to different types of stimuli) can also give indications of whether the main observed response is temperature or rainfall or something else. Finally, simultaneous reconstruction of several factors from a given set of proxies is also a possibility to be further explored.

    None of these are guaranteed to be perfect, but IMO they can provide some information (with appropriately calculated levels of uncertainty) if properly done.

  51. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “Underlying this issue is the problem of post hoc analysis — one of the deep flaws of the Mann08 approach, IMO. To perform a multiproxy reconstructions, how does one select which data series to incorporate without widening uncertainty intervals, and without cherry picking?

    This is a basic concern for studies in other high-stakes areas, such as clinical trial design and interpretation. Mainstream climate scientists can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t some peculiarity of the pharmaceutical industry — rather, it’s a fundamental statistical issue of great relevance to their own work.”

    Amac, what you state above is my greatest concern. If we only knew what proxy data was not used but had met some unstated or stated a priori selection criteria, we might have a better insight into the validity of
    the reconstructions. I suppose if one knew all the data that was sampled and not used one could apply a Bonferroni correction, a method used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons. I have been told by econometricians the even a correction of this type is difficult to apply because of the number of comparisons that one makes under these undocumented and often unstated conditions is difficult to impossible to track. Much better is to provide, a priori, a reasonable selection criteria and then use all the data that that selection process provides. That I have never been able to find this process spelled out in detail by climate scientists leads me to believe there is little appreciation for the statistics involved in multiple comparisons.

    I have seen a dendroclimatologist, like Rob Wilson, talking about obtaining proxy thermometers using a wide range of tuning parameters like months of year in calibration of proxy response with temperature, using various portions of the TRW and MXD measurements and even selection amongst temperature records to use. While the use of a particular parameter value is usually given some discussion it appears that some if not most of the reason for use comes after the fact and little attention is given to the dangers of these processes.

  52. bob said

    Well said, Jeff. Your article are one reason I read your blog. Whatever you think, you say it, even if it is admitting you might have been wrong on an issue.

    As far as Mr. Staniak’s comment goes, perhaps an old country saying might help. “You don’t have to be a farmer to know when you have a rotten egg”. You also don’t have to be a PhD to understand that AGW model scenarios are not accurate. It gets real simple, real quick.

    “69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”

  53. AMac said

    #50 RomanM & #51 Kenneth Fritsch

    Thanks for the insightful comments. FWIW, I am not aware of any reasonable method by which either of the Tiljander series could (likely) be validated as a temperature proxy. That claim holds for the preferred “predefined selection criteria” strategy outlined by RomanM, and even for the less-rigorous, less-satisfactory post hoc approach.

    Bonferroni — yes. When procedures are too qualitative and too ad hoc to allow for such a correction to be calculated — I’m reminded of the old riddle, “What time is it when the clock strikes thirteen?”

    (The punch line: “Time to get a new clock.”)

  54. M. Simon said

    “What time is it when the clock strikes thirteen?”

    Time to switch to GMT.

  55. pauldd said

    “Underlying this issue is the problem of post hoc analysis — one of the deep flaws of the Mann08 approach, IMO. To perform a multiproxy reconstructions, how does one select which data series to incorporate without widening uncertainty intervals, and without cherry picking?”

    AMAC, you raise some issues that have struck me as important from the get go. This field is very frustrating, however, because before you can get practitioners to consider the more interesting questions, one has to get them to recognize problems at far more simple level (i.e. bristlecone pines, tiljander) and they seem unwilling to even do that.

  56. Espen said

    AMac #49: “To perform a multiproxy reconstructions, how does one select which data series to incorporate without widening uncertainty intervals, and without cherry picking?”

    In a statistically ideal world, I guess you would avoid post hoc completely and use pc/factor analysis or similar exploratory methods (I used both stepwise regression and cluster analysis when doing some work as an assistant for a biologist many years ago) in order to build your model and then go out and collect completely new random samples to run your actual statistic tests on… I’ve only done very simple statistics since back then, so I know very little of the various modern methods that have been developed to do these things in a sane way, but I still wonder if it’s possible at all to get any honest confidence intervals at all when you do it the way the “dendros” do it?

  57. steven mosher said

    #43.

    put me down for testing and documentation.

  58. kuhnkat said

    Blog Lurker,

    “2.) Jeff was NOT saying that Soon & Baliunas set-back the field for decades with a single paper. He was saying the exact opposite, i.e., that the intense viciousness with which a few climate “scientists” attempted to smear the paper was baseless. If it really was that bad a paper, then surely the way to counter it was with science? Do you not agree? Surely, the scientific community is able to tell for itself…”

    Actually, it should be pretty obvious by now that the papers being written and supported by the Hockey Team are NOT aimed at the scientists. These papers are mostly of such banal quality that they have to be specifically targeting non-climate scientists. They are propaganda to support their agenda and the IPCC and have nothing to do with advance the very real Science of Climate. Blocking real papers from muddying the waters is just as important in propaganda as putting out your own message.

  59. Ruhroh said

    Jeff,
    Of the many categories of email included (as you noted), plus the communications with media people;

    conspicuous by its complete absence is direct communication with politicians.

    Clearly, there had to be some direct comm, for example regarding the von Storch (?) resignation surprise at the DC hearings. They just enjoyed that too much for it to have been a big happy accident.

    Maybe I missed it, but none so far.
    I’m guessing that ‘potential scandal’ is more powerful motivation for politicians, vs.
    having actual scandal against which they can unleash the spin machine.

    Not claiming this is original idea (actually from Pointman), but it is resonating with me.
    RR

  60. clivere said

    Ruhroh – I remain unimpressed by Pointmans speculation and particularly for example his incorrect assertion that the BBC were approached prior to Climategate 1 which is based on a misread of what Paul Hudson said at the time.

    The people who released the emails are conflicted. They clearly have a strong desire to release content that identifies dubious behaviour but almost certainly do not have the resources to process over 200,000 emails which would take one or two people many years. They have demonstrated that they wish to read content prior to release and redact information they dont think should be released. However if they retain information on their harddrive in unencrypted form to continue searching then if the authorities should visit they would risk them finding incriminating evidence.

    There is evidence from the UEA enquiry that the people who released the information had access 2 GB of emails from at least three researchers which represents a lot more than 200.000 emails and there is now a hint from the CG2 release that they also got emails from at least one furtther researcher. We dont know if the 200.000 is a subset of what they actually took or represents all they could manage to take at the time. My speculation is the 2 limited releases so far represent the limit of what they have been able to process and if there was any significant political liason it would have shown up already. The interface with politicians is largely through the NGOs and the IPCC which is what we are already seeing.

  61. Blog Lurker said

    @ Kuhnkat #58,

    Before Climategate 1&2, I might have agreed with that. The lack of basic scientific and statistical robustness in the papers is astounding. More shocking is the absence of scepticism.

    If I have a preconceived view on a particular theory (& I recognise that we almost always do!), in my scientific analysis I intentionally try to disprove it. If I fail, then I have more confidence in the theory. If I succeed, then I try and disprove my disproof!!! ;) Then I repeat that process several times before I even consider publishing my analysis…

    It doesn’t mean I think the theory is right or wrong – it’s just a good way of distancing your analysis from your biases. It minimises confirmation bias, and leads to more robust analysis and conclusions.

    I always assumed all scientists did this. I now realise it’s not that common. :(

    Anyway, I agree with you that the “Hockey Team” papers are in general banal and non-scientific. But, I’m really not sure that it is intentional, particularly in the light of Climategate 1&2. Look at Phil Jones’ inability to calculate a linear trend on his CRUTEM dataset. I’m not objecting to him finding Excel difficult, and I actually think linear trends are wholly irrelevant for non-linear datasets such as CRUTEM. But, this was HIS dataset… that he had been developing since the early 1980s! :o It is shocking that he had to rely on others for basic analysis of his own data… Although in hindsight, it explains a LOT…

    I think Max Beran’s comment on CA was insightful: http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/23/phil-stumped-at-calculating-a-trend/#comment-311776.

    @Clivere #60,

    Yeah, I wasn’t impressed with Pointman’s analysis. Highly speculative & would make for a great film. But, I think your speculations may be closer to the truth.

  62. Mike Davis said

    AMAC #53:
    1300 to 2359 is standard technical time and is commonly used by the military because it is less confusing than a twelve hour clock. The system work I did was based on “Normal” 24 hour time rather than abnormal time that split a day at noon.
    There are logical explanations for “Lightsum” and “Darksum” in the sediment records and how they would generally relate to overall regional climate. My understanding was that they were testing the concentration of decayed plant mater in the sediment layer as well as the thickness of the layers.

  63. AMac said

    M. Simon, Mike Davis -

    “What time is it when the clock strikes thirteen twenty-five?”

    Mike Davis #62 -

    > There are logical explanations for “Lightsum” and “Darksum” in the sediment records and how they would generally relate to overall regional climate.

    Yes. The formula by which they are derived is shown here. Meant to represent minerals and organic matter, as you say.

    As to these data series serving as proxies for temperature, rainfall, the size of the local kangaroo population, or anything else: how would you know if they were or weren’t suitable?

    Tiljander03 claims that the series are contaminated by local non-climate doings after 1720, so the old standby of correlation to the instrumental record is out, unless you’re an author of Mann08 or Mann09. (Actually, the correlation of the contaminated modern portion to the temp record of the nearest weather station is quite poor. But that’s a story for another day.)

    It’s broadly agreed that Southern Finland experienced the Medieval Warm Period and then the Little Ice Age. How are these reflected in the Tiljander series? How are they reflected in other putative temperature proxies from from Southern Finland?

    MWP, I don’t have any data for a cross-(putative) proxy comparison. For LIA, see this post. Check out the figure that follows this text:

    “I just looked at Fig. 14 of TP Luoto’s dissertation on pg. 36; it includes a water temperature graph of Lake Hamptrask, Finland (just northeast of Helsinki) from about 1350 to the present.”

  64. clivere said

    Whoops – Should have said 7.95GB rather than 2 GB in my previous post.

  65. Mike Davis said

    AMac:
    The only thing you can find in the record is the degree of habitability for flora and fauna in the region. By digging deeper / finer resolution you might look for specific types and concentration of pollen in the in the cores that will give a better clue as to the type of vegetation present, similar to what was used to find the Younger Dryas. In some locations they found changes in the types and concentration of fish scales that showed historic variations in ocean climate conditions. Both pollen and fish scale concentrations can be related to recent historic conditions that resulted in similar deposits. While a range of temperatures can be withdrawn for the observations it would be rather course and you would be able to conclude warmer, similar, or cooler / wetter, similar, or drier.

  66. Mike Davis said

    AMac:
    On a 24 hour clock there is no 2400. It goes from 2359.59 to 0000 next day. ;)

  67. AMac said

    Mike Davis #65 -

    It’s worth noting that scientists at the Geological Survey of Finland and the University of Helsinki have published additional analyses of varved sediments from Lake Korttajarvi, including measurements of stable isotope concentrations. Selected references here.

    So there are two separate questions. The first is, “What can be learned from the four data series of Tiljander-in-Mann08 (thickness, XRD, lightsum, darksum)?” This is relevant because these are the series that Mann08 actually used.

    A broader issue is “What could be learned about the climate of the past from analyses of the varved sediments of lakes in Southern Finland?” This is likely to be a much more fruitful line of inquiry. At least compared to further defenses of the indefensible.

  68. Mike Davis said

    AMac:
    Other than observing problems with work done by the “Team” I tend to ignore their work as it is not based on scientific practices, but those used by political activists.
    The entire time period that Mann used was contaminated by human activity.
    Those series are valid for periods before human influence for climate conditions in that region.

  69. kuhnkat said

    #61 Blog Lurker,

    I saw that bit about him not being able to compute a trend in excel. Of course, I wonder if he used to be able to do it in some archaic thing like Fortran that isn’t available on his modern whizbang workstation?? I have an extremely low opinion of those guys, but, for some reason I think this might be one o’ them thar scarlet fish.

    Then again maybe he has a secretary, grad students… for the more cerebral work!!

  70. Blog Lurker said

    Kuhnkat,

    If he had been able to do it at one stage in Fortran or some other method, I think he would have come up with some software at this stage. I think its more likely he never figured it out, i.e., his limited use of Excel was the extent of his number-crunching abilities. I suspect his former boss, Tom Wigley, may have been more numerate. I know that I found the early CRUTEM data analysis at least to be very sloppy with a number of basic mistakes (haven’t looked at CRUTEM3 as much yet, cause they only released the data this summer). I puzzled over some of them for a long while – “surely, they can’t be that incompetent?”.

    I’ve found the same with the analysis of many of the “top” climate scientists, e.g., Trenberth, Hansen, Peterson, Mann, etc.

    I seriously considered the various conspiracy theories, but in the end I think they have about as much substance as the theories that us “sceptics” are all in the pay of Exxon. I don’t know about you, but I’ve yet to get my cheque! :( Interestingly, it seems it would be ok if we were in the pay of Exxon’s rivals, Shell. Does Shell sell a different type of oil than Exxon, do you know? ;)

    In the end, I think a lot of these guys were/are just out of their depth. They’re dealing with quite poor quality data – poorly documented weather station records, selections of temperature proxies with debatable signal-to-noise ratios, the results from simplistic computer models, etc,

    It is possible that useful information can be extracted from such data. But, you need to be very cautious and careful, and leave ALL your pet theories (e.g., “man-made global warming explains all”, or for that matter “solar activity explains all”) by the door outside, when doing your analysis. By the way, I suspect RomanM is more capable of that than some of the “Hockey Team” & hope he comes up with some useful approaches and/or results.

    I know it’s not as intriguing an explanation. But, I think Climategate 1&2 show us that Jones, Mann, etc DO genuinely believe the “IPCC message”. Maybe they have uncertainties about their own work, but they assume their colleagues know what they’re talking about.

    P.S. You reminded me that I never did understand that phrase “red herring”, so I looked up Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring . It’s a bizarre expression to be in such popular usage, don’t you think?

  71. Gigih said

    Hello Mr.Jeff
    Thanks the your post. If you mind, please visit my new blog.
    Thank’s

  72. levela said

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your efforts and I will
    be waiting for your further post thank you once again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: