Climategate?

djpbarry wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question - how is it "the opposite" and how was it produced? What's the source?

Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They found that overwhelmingly, within the scores of scientific articles that they reviewed, there was strong evidence to support the existence of these well-known climatic episodes that were largely absent from the “hockey stick” reconstruction, and appeared to have the effect of giving an inaccurate result"

McIntyre and McKitrick documented a number of errors in Mann's original procedure including inaccurate data descriptions, insufficient methodological details, data compilation errors, data handling mistakes, and questionable statistical techniques. They concluded that no individual mistake was likely sufficient enough in and of itself to throw into question the “hockey stick,” but taken together, the list of errors indicate a certain lack of rigour and attention to detail by the “hockey stick’s” creators.

Jan Esper and colleagues conclude that "... evidence that the “hockey stick” underestimates the true level of natural climate variation..."

Hans von Storch and colleagues in Science in late-2004. employed a methodology similar to Mann et al.’s, anc concluded that it underplays the importance of the LIA and MWP. Again, the von Storch finding adds further evidence that the handle of the “hockey stick” is too flat.

Anders Moberg and colleagues, in Nature Magazine, concludes after much examination that the handle of the “hockey stick” was found to be too flat.

It's probably unfair of me to say this, but your responses come over as not wanting to consider any evidence which disagrees with what you have decided to believe. That's understandable and a human trait, and something from which many of us suffer. however, consider that that very position has led Mann to conclude that "..this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."



Here are the references;

McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771.

McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.

Moberg, A., et al., 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617.

Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years. Climate Research, 23, 89–110.

Von Storch, H., et al., 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science, 306, 679-682.

Esper J., D.C. Frank, and J.S. Wilson, 2004. Climate reconstructions: Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. Eos, 85, 133,120.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, 2002. Low frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this? I have never claimed the Mann’s reconstruction is 100% accurate – in fact, I have already stated that, in the original paper, the plot that was produced had a huge standard deviation (about +/- 0.3 degrees at the ‘widest’ point). The fact that someone else has performed similar analysis (but one that they consider to be more accurate) and produced a different result does not imply that Mann et al. have been in some way dishonest. It may suggest that Mann’s method can be improved upon (which applies to virtually all scientific publications), but that would assume that McIntyre & McKittrick’s method (for example) was the more accurate – is such a conclusion valid? There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al. It’s difficult to arrive at any sort of conclusion without examining in detail the statistical approaches used in each publication, which is well beyond the scope of this forum.

However, this is something of a moot point, because (a) tree-ring data is recognised as being unreliable and (b) as bonkey has already said, in the statement from the emails attributed to Mann that you have highlighted, we have no idea what “this” is referring to. You are merely speculating that he could be referring to this particular publication, but that’s something of a stab in the dark, isn’t it?

Has it occurred to anyone else that there is a distinct air of hypocrisy evident in this thread? The following statement was made early on in this thread (and the general sentiment has been repeated several times):

‘Proper science is about evaluating all available information and using all known methods to do these evaluations (including data that goes against the expected outcome) not "cherry picking" to ensure that the outcome of the research confirms your preferred conclusion.’

It seems to me that there are quite a few posters here who are guilty of precisely such a practice, i.e., “cherry-picking” a few select statements from these emails which appear to support their predetermined position.

I'm not really interested in speculating about whether or not there are other posters here who are guilty of cherry picking, or whether or not it might occur to others whether or not there is an air of hypocrisy in some posts. I'm not even concerned to know where you, or anyone else, may be "going with this" (whatever that might mean)

I am interested in debate. I can't help noticing that you seem to quite often not respond to specific issues. For example, you asked for sources, and I went to some trouble to post them here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63333730&postcount=220 for you, and your response is to ignore them. Why did you ask for sources? Why do you not, yourself, give sources for your "There have also been several studies that have arrived at similar conclusions to Mann et al", while at the same time threaten members that they have to produce evidence or be on a "last chance"?

I can't help noticing that you asked for evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63321564&postcount=207 and when I give some evidence here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63323561&postcount=208 you don't make any response.

In another thread you asked for similarities between global warming and religions and, when a poster gave some, you closed the thread, without commenting on them!

I'm happy to debate and enjoy it, but have no interest in speculating about whether or not there are other posters here who are guilty of cherry picking, or whether or not it might occur to others whether or not there is an air of hypocrisy in some posts etc.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

...This is the type of tactic I would usually associate with a troofer... your friend Gore too.

This post made me laugh. Apart from using pejorative language, such as above, have you got a point you want to make?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is all starting to get very 9/11-troof-y...

Hey, whatever happened to those guys?

Oh yeah...

The above was your previous post, which also seems to obscure your point, assuming there is one.

It's interesting that this debate, both here and in the wider world, becomes so polarised.

So much so that those who have decided to believe in global warming seem unable to even contemplate that there may be something amiss.

Those of us who question (a pretty basic tenet of science) are accused of being a "deniers", much as, in earlier days, we might have been accused of heresy for daring to question an intolerant and all knowing church.

In my short life, I remember so many "scientists" telling us, with their serious faces on (and their grant applications and requests for more funding and all good copy for the News media who are always hungry for a good scare story), that we were entering a new ice age, HIV would mutate and we were all in danger of catching it, Bird 'flu, swine 'flu, SARS, acid rain, BSE, CJD, Nuclear holocaust etc etc. the list goes on. What we should learn from our experience is to examine and question what "scientists" tell us, rather than swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Even when other "scientists" make what appear to be valid arguments, they are dismissed as being compromised for some reason or other, although the same dismissers would never be even handed and suggest that, for example, Professor jones, who has received millions in funding (and enjoys a good lifestyle and ego massaging and much personal attention from world leaders and the UN) could be so compromised.

Here are some sample quotes from some people, and I'll bet that those who choose not to question will simply ignore them;

Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

…“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.



It would be great, but it seems impossible, to have some balance in the debate. Like many people I simply don't know if man is responsible for global warming. I certainly know that there are many respected scientists who say yes, and many others who say no.

While I am not impressed by the intolerance often shown by the "yes" side towards others who are not 100% convinced, that doesn't mean they are right or wrong. But I do know that, historically, intolerance has often been used to disguise and deflect from the evidence.