|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2011 9:48:19 GMT
Steve: Tree rings are not a good proxy for anything. There is a gal in Manitoba right now who is working on tree rings and .........thinking.....I can't remember the isotope right off the top of my head. Her reserach is showing, and should be published soon, that tree rings by themselves are subject to so many variable when they form that they are just basically worthless. Prof Mann has made some rather.......stretched conclusions......to put it kindly. I will not say that all of his papers, (I have read some that bear scrutiny)....but a lot of his papers are .......well.......they show his lack of perception. I will leave it at that. He has drunk the koolaid by the barrel. This has made his judgement somewhat clouded by his koolaid high. The point is what you and Mann have is a differing opinion that you could best argue through providing evidence, not by going through his rubbish bin.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2011 9:43:48 GMT
Note that at the time Mann said: If you disagree with him you have to say he is a bad scientist or an incompetent scientist or just simply a wrong scientist, not a fraudulent scientist. So you are claiming there is no fraud when the gypsy recoats your driveway with a mixture of dirt and used motor oil because his neighbors saw him make up the mixture? If I intercepted the gypsy's emails then I suspect he would admit to his mates that he'd made a lot of money off an idiot like me and suggesting to them that they try their luck with me next year when the job needs doing again. He wouldn't be insisting to his mates that he thinks he's done a fine job that'll last for years. (do they try that "we've just been doing a resurfacing job down the road and we've got some stuff left" trick in the US then?)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2011 9:38:10 GMT
astromet
Please do not annoy me, and no doubt others, by claiming that you forecast the Japan earthquake. You did not.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2011 1:05:06 GMT
This is simply not true, what was published in the 1998 paper was another version of the "trick" to "hide the decline". There was no reason given in the paper for not showing the complete data set, instead the data was truncated with the thermometer record spliced on. There is no excuse or explanation possible other than outright fraud. The publishing of his paper in 1998 only showed how little Prof. Mann knows about living things. What it does show is someone who has an agenda. NO one with integrity would have used the tree ring proxy and then added the temp record at the end because all of a sudden the proxy diverged hugely. This was done with intent to decieve. There is no other way of putting it. Anyone who denies this has their head where the sun doesn't ever shine. That's not quite what happened. The millennial construction clearly shows the proxy reconstruction and it doesn't diverge hugely. Divergence is discussed - it doesn't affect all records. You may argue that it suggests the proxies are not good enough, but currently you are losing that argument in the science.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2011 0:29:45 GMT
Icefisher, That Richard Muller bloke got it wrong because the reason for "hiding the decline" had already been published in a 1998 paper. This is simply not true, what was published in the 1998 paper was another version of the "trick" to "hide the decline". There was no reason given in the paper for not showing the complete data set, instead the data was truncated with the thermometer record spliced on. There is no excuse or explanation possible other than outright fraud. The 1998 paper I refer to is the Briffa paper that discusses divergence of some tree rings from the temperature record post 1960, not MBH98. Briffa, K. R. et al. “Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes.” Nature 391, 678–682 (1998) This was the justification(*) for Jones splicing temperature data onto the end of proxy data up to 1981 for two sets of data but only including proxy data upto 1960 for the Briffa data (to "hide the decline"). Timely post from he whose communications with Inhofe and Wegman will never see the light of day: climateaudit.org/2011/03/15/new-light-on-hide-the-decline/Nobody ever submitted an FOI request for an explanation for the WMO plot because the WMO plot was a pretty picture for the front cover of a short document that probably nobody ever read. *not sufficient justification for failing to properly describe the graph as was done. Note that at the time Mann said: If you disagree with him you have to say he is a bad scientist or an incompetent scientist or just simply a wrong scientist, not a fraudulent scientist.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 21:28:45 GMT
Astroposer,
To my mind there are two steps to astrology relating to the theory of planetary impacts on the sun.
One is to show that the movements of the planets have a noticeable effect on the Sun. It seems to me (after having calculated the tidal effects of Jupiter on the Sun) that as the planets are so small and so far away, all the things that go on *within* the sun which we have no idea about will dwarf the effects of the planets. How recently was it that we detected the sun ringing like a bell - we don't really know the causes of the ringing so how could we know about the effects of tiny perturbations from planets on them. It's a bit like trying to detect the pitch change in Big Ben when a pigeon lands on the roof of the Palace of Westminster.
Two, you have to show that such influences of the sun have a predictable effect on the sun and earth. If you could identify a specific causal effect that leads to a large CME or a rise in TSI then fair enough. But impacts that affect details of weather seem a little too unlikely to me.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 21:14:09 GMT
Icefisher,
That Richard Muller bloke got it wrong because the reason for "hiding the decline" had already been published in a 1998 paper. He seems to be conflating the issue with the FOI requests - no doubt it helps him get his support for his validation of HadCRUT3 and GISStemp.
Anyway it is not relevant here as we are discussing Mann, not Jones. I doubt that a WMO report was used to justify a Mann grant application.
(and hunter if you are going to tell lies don't make them so boring. I'd prefer it if you accused us of murdering our wives and their lovers.)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 16:54:12 GMT
No case for a "probable cause" has been made. Reading between the many lines of Icefisher, Icefisher may be making the claim that since this is a civil claim no probable cause has to be provided. In a civil claim there is discovery. So would you agree that if Cuccinnelli is right he can pick *anyone* who has ever received money from the State of Virginia and demand all their emails, correspondence and paperwork for *any* period on the spurious basis that just one of those emails *may* indicate that one penny of the money was spent incorrectly. He doesn't have to say *why* he picked them or *what* he thinks they have done wrong.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 16:44:28 GMT
steve, you don't think it is fraudulent to take public money and manipulate data to effect public policy? All science involves "manipulating" data, and there are always judgement calls on how best to display results while explaining the method of manipulation. It's questionable as to whether the science of tree ring analysis was established enough to give it a high priority in AR3, but the paper itself is not criminally wrong. Where have I labelled "anyone" who disagrees with me as a sceptic. I think labels are useful shorthand if the context is clear. In the preceding references Steve McIntyre does not agree with Cuccinelli's persecution of Mann, so is not included in that reference to "sceptic". "Sceptic" should not be taken in itself as an insult. All scientists should be sceptics. "Denialist", though, is always an insult.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 15:51:47 GMT
If Cuccinnelli is right he can pick *anyone* who has ever received money from the State of Virginia and demand all their emails, correspondence and paperwork for *any* period on the spurious basis that just one of those emails *may* indicate that one penny of the money was spent incorrectly. He doesn't have to say *why* he picked them or *what* he thinks they have done wrong. Mixing up that power with elected office is a recipe for disaster. we have a thing in the US called probably cause. No case for a "probable cause" has been made. Reading between the many lines of Icefisher, Icefisher may be making the claim that since this is a civil claim no probable cause has to be provided.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 12:31:21 GMT
If Cuccinnelli is right he can pick *anyone* who has ever received money from the State of Virginia and demand all their emails, correspondence and paperwork for *any* period on the spurious basis that just one of those emails *may* indicate that one penny of the money was spent incorrectly.
He doesn't have to say *why* he picked them or *what* he thinks they have done wrong.
Mixing up that power with elected office is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2011 10:34:31 GMT
Pooh, I'm a bit confused by this.
Surely the people who paid the grants still have the grant applications? Can't they check themselves? If they didn't understand the language in the proposal they should have either disregarded it or asked further questions. If someone applied to me for funds to build a machine that would harness anionic subspace fields to create free energy, I wouldn't say "Free energy? Great! Pay the man" I'd ask what the heck an anionic subspace field was. If there is a good answer supported by a wide body of scientific literature, then fair enough.
Since everyone knows that all science papers are not the final word on a subject, including Mann, then knowing that the papers are flawed or incomplete in some way is not evidence of fraudulent activity. Why would Mann need to write Mann 2008 if MBH98 were perfect?
Lawyers are very good at putting a bad spin on perfectly normal behaviour. But their techniques are easy to spot.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 21:25:37 GMT
That's complete rubbish. Only in your fantasy world does the IPCC process require that all communications between all scientists be recorded. It does not require that at all! Not even implicitly. The reality of report preparation is that the reports are written over a period of many months with, likely, many emails, phone conversations and meetings taking place, none of which need to be minuted to any agreed level of detail or otherwise formally recorded. It hasn't changed for AR5. It could only change if governments paid people to gather and audit the paper trail. From my experience scientists *do not* respond well to formalised procedures. The scientific method has a better history than ISO9000.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 17:48:37 GMT
I think Jones would have been one of the kids who looked guilty even when they weren't. In the case of the deletion email there was nothing to be guilty about.
So this case is *worse* than McCarthyism because Cuccinelli thinks it unlikely that fraud has taken place.
Probably a comparison with the persecutors of Galileo is more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 15, 2011 12:20:21 GMT
hunter
Even if what you say is true (and I agree that what you say looks *partially* true), what you say is different from "we have some emails for Michael Mann proving that he has participated in unethical science behaviors in regards to foreign policy".
You are demanding that Mann should be a complete saint while sceptics and deniers can say what they like because they are not, as you might say, insisting that we shut down the world economy on the basis of a hypothesis. I think Mann is far from saint-hood but the issues he seems to have are personality issues; there is nothing wrong in his work that wouldn't better be criticised by use of the peer reviewed literature.
Like it or not, if an alternate reasonable reconstruction could be made showing global MWP it would have been made by now, and all the doubts about whether proxies are good thermometers would suddenly be forgotton.
I am not saying that people should be investigated *at all*. You, the sceptics, are the ones with the double-standards, the hyperbolic comparisons of AGW scientists with murderers, and the wasteful legalistic challenges that are made because you have lost the science argument.
enormous double standards where you insist on seeing the mote in the scientists' eyes and then get off on dubious fantasies about Judith Curry.
|
|