Reply to: Institute Of Physics Calls for Climate-gate Enquiry

[BlasterBates]

Just one note on the above:

Yes having been exposed in 2003 of course it is in the public domain.

The original paper hockey stick paper was in 1998, that's where the suppression of the splicing was.

You can read the original, or the "corrected" version after Mann had to own up to major flaws.

McKintyre & McKitrick exposed it.

This is how Mann reacted to McKintyre:

In the case of the Mann et al [1998,1999] study, used for the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The National Post has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded.

In addition to the lack of due diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request. Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann’s personal commercial property. Mann recently told the Wall Street Journal that “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ”. My first request for source code was a very simple request and could in now way be construed as “intimidation”.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/14/s...imate-science/


His 1998 paper is indeed scary had it been true, his corrected paper indeed shows accurately what a heap of bollox proxy measûrements are. The claim tree rings are accurate up until 1960 but not afterwards is erm not very plausible.

[pjclarke]

so what we are going to do is have the proxy series for the period before the temperature readings were available and then, after that, splice on the temperature readings, and we admit that there has been a complete divergence of the two series since 1950 or 1960, if they had said that and been out in the open, it would be one thing, but they did not, they hid it.

<Sigh> Lord Lawson has not got clue number one. He asserts that there was an attempt to conceal the fact that some tree-ring proxies diverge from instrumental records in recent decades.

But this - the so-called 'divergence problem' is one of the most openly and widely discussed issues in dendrochronology. Lord Lawson is claiming something is 'hidden' when it has its own wikipedia entry!

A less kind person might enquire of his Lordship if he has tried to locate his gluteus maximus with both hands recently.

In other news, the Foundation chaired by Lord Lawson hardly seems a reliable source:

On 25 February, I wrote to Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is chaired by Lord Lawson, to warn him that a graph of "21st century global mean temperature" displayed prominently on his group's website contains an error.

Instead of showing that 2009 was the warmest year since 2005, the foundation's graph portrays it as slightly cooler than 2006 and 2007.

While it is a relatively small error, it is the kind of discrepancy that many sceptics would be seizing upon if it had been found on the website of the Climatic Research Unit.

Yet Peiser still has not responded to me and the foundation's graph still remains inaccurate. And it is not the first such error ....

[BlasterBates]

trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… to hide the decline"]trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years… to hide the decline

...hide the decline (submission of oral evidence to parliamentary enquiry)

that is the significance of the word "hide". Again, we are talking about openness, which is an essential element of integrity in science. If they had said openly that the proxy series does not fit - they say in their evidence here that it was only after 1950 or 1960 it did not fit, and that is actually not true, it is not a good fit in the latter half of the nineteenth century either, but, anyhow, if they had said it does not fit - so what we are going to do is have the proxy series for the period before the temperature readings were available and then, after that, splice on the temperature readings, and we admit that there has been a complete divergence of the two series since 1950 or 1960, if they had said that and been out in the open, it would be one thing, but they did not, they hid it.

...alll coming out now, yes they published a paper and ommitted the most important fact:

proxy measurements are complete bollox

[Paddy]

nice one on Antartic ice loss

Antarctic ice loss the size of Texas ?

I can't believe that such a twat must have used
Mercator Projection map of the Earth to do his calculations.

[EternalOptimist]

So because he thinks you are acting like religious nuts, you want to burn him at the stake. oh the sweet irony. as in 'Anyone who calls me a bully will get a beating'

If he had tried to hide his interest there might have been a story.

[Spacecadet]

An absolutely staggering, totally unexpected development ...

You are Phil Jones and I claim my £5

The Guardian is so warmist they've turned blinkered on the issue and are no better then the million and 1 crappy climate blogs (pro and anti) that are out there.
The IOP never contested the link between man, CO2 and Global warming, they just want some serious questions asked about how the CRU at UEA conduct themselves as they are in danger of tarnishing the reputation of science.

Yet still, because they've dared to challenge the prophets of doom that are the CRU the Guardian are jumping on the IOP and trying to bring them down to the ground.

Luckily the other news sources in the world seem to be a bit more level headed and are completely ignoring this

[pjclarke]

Crikey!

An absolutely staggering, totally unexpected development ...

Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion... the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.

According to Gill, Crestport offers "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says that it has worked with "oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman".

In an article in the newsletter of the IOP south central branch in April 2008, which attempted to downplay the role carbon dioxide plays in global warming, Gill wrote: "If you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. Unfortunately, for many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant."

[BlasterBates]

nice one on Antartic ice loss

Antarctic ice loss the size of Texas ?

[EternalOptimist]

I think there is enough meat on both sides of the argument now to describe this as a proper debate. So in the interests of a gentlemanly debate I would call on both sides to be both respectful and fair

which will mean one side refraining from language such as

Holocaust Deniers
Thieves
twisters
Cretins

and the other side to carry on being both respectful and fair

[BlasterBates]

interesting speculation....but that's all speculation. It isn't clear to me what he would gain by saying he had evidence and then saying he didn't really. I would imagine he has something.

let's see shall we

I will be awaiting the outcome of any scrutiny with interest.

[pjclarke]

The 'documentary evidence' is supplied by the former UEA Postgrad who unsuccessfully sued the University and refers to the UEA as an institution. He is inferring that because he believes the University lacks integrity, therefore the CRU must also. He has no documentary evidence against the CRU specifically, would be my guess.

Translation: a postgrad was turned down for a degree, unsuccessfully appealed, took the his case to the courts [ELR 685], lost again and is now using this enquiry as a vehicle to further his campaign. An irrelevance to the issues in hand.

[BlasterBates]

Er, you (or maybe The Register) dropped a word from your quote. Before the word 'suppression', was the word 'apparent'.

In fact nobody has shown any actual suppression, deletion or manipulation of any data whatsoever.

Looks like a small subgroup, with links to the Energy Industry, within the IOP were largely responsible for this submission.

well it's an accusation not a fact so fine....but that's why they ask for an enquiry.

...and lets see that documentary evidence and then maybe we can drop the word apparent, and if that's the case I think a few careers will have ended.

[pjclarke]

Er, you (or maybe The Register) dropped a word from your quote. Before the word 'suppression', was the word 'apparent'.

In fact nobody has shown any actual suppression, deletion or manipulation of any data whatsoever.

Looks like a small subgroup, with links to the Energy Industry, within the IOP were largely responsible for this submission.

[BlasterBates]

Lets just remind ourselves of what the Institute of Physics has said:

The body representing 36,000 UK physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climategate affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption.

It deplores the climate scientists’ "intolerance to challenge" and the "suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements."

sums it up well I think

[pjclarke]

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone

Do you not recognise hyperbole when you read it !? These data were a large part of Jones' 'life work' and it is not plausible that he is being serious here.

If he had written 'I'll send it over my dead body', would you have taken that as a serious suicide threat? Remember that these are snippets lifted selectively from long correspondences, we are seeing just what the hacker wants us to see.

Anyhow, in the event the station list was released.