climateaudit.org
Open in
urlscan Pro
192.0.78.25
Public Scan
Submitted URL: https://www.climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-on-climategate/
Effective URL: https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-on-climategate/
Submission: On June 06 via manual from US — Scanned from DE
Effective URL: https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-on-climategate/
Submission: On June 06 via manual from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
GET https://climateaudit.org
<form action="https://climateaudit.org" method="get"><label class="screen-reader-text" for="cat">Categories</label><select name="cat" id="cat" class="postform">
<option value="-1">Select Category</option>
<option class="level-0" value="79848">AIT</option>
<option class="level-0" value="197460">Archiving</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1099"> Nature</option>
<option class="level-1" value="173"> Science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="27936823">climategate</option>
<option class="level-1" value="7814166"> cg2</option>
<option class="level-0" value="22379">Data</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1604103">Disclosure and Diligence</option>
<option class="level-1" value="115816"> Peer Review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="228897">FOIA</option>
<option class="level-0" value="54">General</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1604117">Holocene Optimum</option>
<option class="level-0" value="335">Hurricane</option>
<option class="level-0" value="167929">Inquiries</option>
<option class="level-1" value="191042498"> Muir Russell</option>
<option class="level-0" value="49212">IPCC</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28646286"> ar5</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1604100">MBH98</option>
<option class="level-1" value="481477"> Replication</option>
<option class="level-1" value="18760"> Source Code</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604101"> Spot the Hockey Stick!</option>
<option class="level-0" value="19878">Modeling</option>
<option class="level-1" value="190681959"> Hansen</option>
<option class="level-1" value="16643095"> Santer</option>
<option class="level-1" value="7926170"> UK Met Office</option>
<option class="level-0" value="190682060">Multiproxy Studies</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604115"> Briffa</option>
<option class="level-1" value="565087"> Crowley</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337688"> D'Arrigo 2006</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604110"> Esper et al 2002</option>
<option class="level-1" value="692438"> Hansen</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604113"> Hegerl 2006</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337689"> Jones & Mann 2003</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604104"> Jones et al 1998</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604114"> Juckes et al 2006</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337690"> Kaufman 2009</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337691"> Loehle 2007</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337692"> Loehle 2008</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337694"> Mann et al 2007</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337695"> Mann et al 2008</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337696"> Mann et al 2009</option>
<option class="level-1" value="392846387"> Marcott 2013</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604125"> Moberg [2005]</option>
<option class="level-1" value="163294838"> pages2k</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337685"> Trouet 2009</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604109"> Wahl and Ammann</option>
<option class="level-0" value="152584">News and Commentary</option>
<option class="level-1" value="22336"> MM</option>
<option class="level-0" value="98266">Proxies</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337687"> Almagre</option>
<option class="level-1" value="9635"> Antarctica</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604105"> bristlecones</option>
<option class="level-1" value="151692"> Divergence</option>
<option class="level-1" value="763097"> Geological</option>
<option class="level-1" value="4778663"> Ice core</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604106"> Jacoby</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604112"> Mann PC1</option>
<option class="level-1" value="44421"> Medieval</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604119"> Noamer Treeline</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604116"> Ocean sediment</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604124"> Post-1980 Proxies</option>
<option class="level-1" value="45212"> Solar</option>
<option class="level-1" value="2154509"> Speleothem</option>
<option class="level-1" value="71346"> Thompson</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337686"> Yamal and Urals</option>
<option class="level-0" value="2201">Reports</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604107"> Barton Committee</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604111"> NAS Panel</option>
<option class="level-0" value="28496063">Satellite and gridcell</option>
<option class="level-0" value="4493">Scripts</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1219821">Sea Ice</option>
<option class="level-0" value="88329">Sea Level Rise</option>
<option class="level-0" value="5849">Statistics</option>
<option class="level-1" value="2839816"> chladni</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604108"> Multivariate</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337697"> RegEM</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604126"> Spurious</option>
<option class="level-0" value="28634138">Steig at al 2009</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1604120">Surface Record</option>
<option class="level-1" value="416165"> CRU</option>
<option class="level-1" value="25605617"> GISTEMP</option>
<option class="level-2" value="28337699"> GISTEMP Replication</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604122"> Jones et al 1990</option>
<option class="level-1" value="332357"> SST</option>
<option class="level-1" value="28337698"> Steig at al 2009</option>
<option class="level-1" value="1604121"> UHI</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1059117">TGGWS</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1">Uncategorized</option>
<option class="level-0" value="5663575">Unthreaded</option>
</select>
</form>GET https://climateaudit.org/
<form id="searchform" class="blog-search" method="get" action="https://climateaudit.org/">
<div>
<input id="s" name="s" type="text" class="text" value="" size="10" tabindex="1">
<input type="submit" class="button" value="Find" tabindex="2">
</div>
</form>POST https://subscribe.wordpress.com
<form method="post" action="https://subscribe.wordpress.com" accept-charset="utf-8" style="display: none;">
<div class="actnbr-follow-count">Join 3,687 other subscribers</div>
<div>
<input type="email" name="email" placeholder="Enter your email address" class="actnbr-email-field" aria-label="Enter your email address">
</div>
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="blog_id" value="1501837">
<input type="hidden" name="source" value="https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-on-climategate/">
<input type="hidden" name="sub-type" value="actionbar-follow">
<input type="hidden" id="_wpnonce" name="_wpnonce" value="687859cec0">
<div class="actnbr-button-wrap">
<button type="submit" value="Sign me up"> Sign me up </button>
</div>
</form>Text Content
CLIMATE AUDIT
by Steve McIntyre
Skip to content
* Hockey Stick Studies
* Statistics and R
* Contact Steve Mc
* Proxy Data
* CA blog setup
* FAQ 2005
* Station Data
* High-Resolution Ocean Sediments
* Subscribe to CA
* Econometric References
* Blog Rules and Road Map
* Gridded Data
* Tip Jar
* About
* CA Assistant
« Climategatekeeping: Siberia
Climategatekeeping: Schmidt 2009 »
TERENCE CORCORAN ON CLIMATEGATE
A very interesting two-part article on Climategate by someone who’s followed the
story for years:
Part 1
> Now that the Copenhagen political games are out of the way, marked as a
> failure by any realistic standard, it may be time to move on to the science
> games. To get the post-Copenhagen science review underway, the world has a
> fine document at hand: The Climategate Papers.
>
> On Nov. 17, three weeks before the Copenhagen talks began, a massive cache of
> climate science emails landed on a Russian server, reportedly after having
> been laundered through Saudi Arabia. Where they came from, nobody yet knows.
> Described as having been hacked or leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of
> the University of East Anglia, the emails have been the focus of thousands of
> media and blog reports. Since their release, all the attention has been
> dedicated to a few choice bits of what seem like incriminating evidence of
> trickery and scientific repression. Some call it fraud.
>
> Email fragments instantly began flying through the blogosphere. Perhaps the
> most sensational came from a Nov. 16, 1999, email from Phil Jones, head of
> East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), in which he referred to having
> “completed Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature.
>
> These words, now famous around the world as the core of Climategate, are in
> fact the grossest possible oversimplification of what the emails contain. The
> Phil Jones email and other choice email fragments are really just microscopic
> particles taken from a massive collection of material that will, in time, come
> to be seen as the greatest and most dramatic science policy epic in history…
Part 2
> In the thousands of emails released last month in what is now known as
> Climategate, the greatest battles took place over scientists’ attempts to
> reconstruct a credible temperature record for the last couple of thousand
> years. Have they failed? What the Climategate emails provide is at least one
> incontrovertible answer: They certainly have not succeeded.
>
> In a post-Copenhagen world, climate history is not merely a matter of getting
> the record straight, or a trivial part of the global warming science. In a
> Climategate email in April of this year, Steve Colman, professor of Geological
> Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, told scores of climate
> scientists “most people seem to accept that past history is the only way to
> assess what the climate can actually do (e.g., how fast it can change).
> However, I think that the fact that reconstructed history provides the only
> calibration or test of models (beyond verification of modern simulations) is
> under-appreciated.”
>
> If temperature history is the “only” way to test climate models, the tests we
> have on hand — mainly the shaky temperature history of the last 1,000 or 2,000
> years — suggest current climate models are not getting a proper scientific
> workout…
SHARE THIS:
* Facebook
* X
*
Like Loading...
RELATED
“Philosophy of Science and Climategate”Nov 10, 2010With 76 comments
The Copyright of the The Copenhagen DiagnosisJan 22, 2014Liked by 3 people
Rob Bradley: Climategate from an Enron PerspectiveFeb 24, 2010In "climategate"
This entry was written by Stephen McIntyre, posted on Dec 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM,
filed under climategate, Uncategorized and tagged corcoran, national post.
Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this
post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
« Climategatekeeping: Siberia
Climategatekeeping: Schmidt 2009 »
131 COMMENTS
1. Sean Peake
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM | Permalink
Slightly OT, but where is Briffa these days? Haven’t heard a peep or seen
an interview. Has he gone to ground?
* John A
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:07 PM | Permalink
Keith Briffa was reported recently as suffering from a kidney condition
and would therefore be recovering from that. In addition, it would be not
unexpected that Dr Briffa would be keeping a low profile in any case as a
result of the Climategate exposure.
At least Michael Mann is consistent in coming out swinging, even if he’s
not actually hitting anything…
* Sean Peake
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM | Permalink
OK. I thought Brifffa had recovered. As I never kick a man when he’s
down (but I would kick a Mann) I’ll drop the matter.
2. Calvin Ball
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:29 PM | Permalink
> The epic stories in the emails, in any honest reading, do not produce any
> concrete results or conclusions regarding the state of the science.
I’m not sure exactly what he means by that, but I think it is fair to say
that you can’t read the emails and continue to accept the “settled science”
meme.
* bender
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:32 PM | Permalink
What he means, I think, is that there is nothing revealed there that
clearly, unequivocally, and immediately overturns the consensus position.
i.e. The real implications need to be assessed through a methodical
re-analysis of all the available data.
* Calvin Ball
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Permalink
Right. There’s a lot of space between “the science is settled” and “AGW
is a hoax”. The fact that we hear so much of both is an indication of
how this has gotten out of the realm of science.
* Dana White
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:36 PM | Permalink
That caught my eye as well. All I can think is that ACG has become such a
partisan issue that some commentators bend over backwards to profess
being agnostic on ACG. The “I don’t know one way or another about ACG,
I’m just talking about the data” can be a bit frustrating. But I
understand why someone would want to avoid getting into the larger
political battle and staying non-partisan.
3. Kurt Repanshek*
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink
We must take it on faith that something is wrong with the atmosphere.
http://nationalparkstravelr.com
* Dave Dardinger
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Permalink
So Kurt,
Where do you have to go to learn to channel Al Gore? BTW, to keep this on
topic, I note in the Corcoran piece above that according to the original
IPCC idea, we were to move from about 80,000 worldwide per capita income
by 2100 to 40,000 per year if the sustainable route were followed. If we
assume 8 billion population that would be a 40,000 x 8,000,000,000 = 40
trillion per year reduction in income. Personally I’d prefer taking the
money and moving as necessary to survive 5 degree higher temperatures.
Actually when I got married 15 years ago I moved from central, OH to
Phoenix, AZ which is a lot larger difference in average temperature and
it was no big deal.
* Dave Dardinger
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM | Permalink
Make that 32 trillion. I’d originally thought about assuming 10 billion
population but figured a “sustainable” population would be somewhat
lower. Then I forgot to change the result of the calculation.
4. Calvin Ball
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM | Permalink
And, you may or may not have seen this at WUWT, but it ties in directly
with this, and the “Climategatekeeping” threads.
* bender
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:42 PM | Permalink
I read that, Calvin Ball. That makes conspiracy to thwart publication or
subvert the review process re: all three pillars of AGW. We have:
(1) Kamel on overly warm instrumental data;
(2) Auffhhammer et al on the paleoclimatic proxies lack of fit to
instrumental data;
(3) Douglass, Christy et al. on the models fit to instrumental data.
.
Jones had a hand in each of their killings.
* deadwood
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM | Permalink
Far more than any “hide the decline”, the suppression of free
scientific inquiry through the peer review process is the smoking gun
of these emails.
5. KevinM
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM | Permalink
“a Russian server,… laundered through Saudi Arabia.”
Also he’s willing to toss big oil chaffe to confuse the AGW AK-AK.
Perhaps Corcoran’s not an allied force, just a mercenary with a word
processor.
6. Follow the Money
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink
Corcoran’s two articles are both excellent in knowledge and tone. Provides
the background and an apparent bullseye narrative to explain the cast of
characters and their journey.
In my opinion, necessary reading.
7. Peter Lloyd
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink
Has anyone seriously examined the possibility that the UAE emails were
released by an internal whistleblower – a scientist with a conscience, but
also a family and mortgage?
* deadwood
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink
I’ve read a couple of accounts that suggest Briffa is the leaker.
* ScientificEconomist
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:10 PM | Permalink
What source identifies Briffa as the leak?
* deadwood
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:22 PM | Permalink
Try here: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861
* onlyme
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM | Permalink
Yes,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters®-an-alternate-explanation/
as well as
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861#more-11861 on AJ
Strata which suggests that it may have been Briffa who was having
conscience problems and posted them on the russian open ftp server.
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:50 PM | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
A couple other posts that look into the possibility that it was a leak,
though not naming any names are:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%C2%AE-an-alternate-explanation/
and
> Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak
8. Splice
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Permalink
I thought the two Corcoran articles very thoughtful. Any reading of the
emails throws up many questions with regard to professional ethics:
distortion of the peer review system; gatekeeping; attempts to evade
obligations under the FOIA and ultimately to destroy files that are part of
a pending FOI request etc. These are serious issues and subject to at least
two inquiries, one at the UEA and one at Penn State. I hold out no great
hopes for either of these and suspect that the defense will be that these
documents simply reflect robust discussion amongst a close cohort of
scientists with occasionally inadvisable and intemperate language.
What Corcoran does highlight is that the key issue is that the science is
not settled. The importance of the palaoclimate data cannot be
underestimated. The general public has the hockey stick graph deeply
imprinted in their psyche as though the IPCC and every government agency
has been indulging in subliminal techniques. There remains a long hard road
ahead to develop a robust palaeoclimate record, let alone one that has sub
degree resolution. However, I am optimistic that climategate will have
immediate impacts with regard to gatekeeping and open up the doors of the
‘professional’ climate journals (JGR, GRL, Holocene etc.) to a wider
spectrum of studies.
* Dana White
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:29 PM | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think you’re being overly optimistic about gatekeeping.
IPCC scientists are in now in full bunker mode. Look at Mann’s recent
editorial. There’s no admission of having gone overboard. Indeed, Mann
seems to be arguing that the whole climategate email scandal is a
distraction meant to confuse the public. Many of Mann’s fellow climate
scientists concur. The only thing that will change is the group will be
watching more carefully what they write in emails.
9. Thumbnail
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:24 PM | Permalink
Hello CA – I came across this website, purporting to be a resource for
educating Australians.
http://www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=193
Here is their educational material for a start:
Click to access res_aninconvenienttruth.pdf
They cite Karoly and Bragnanza 2004 for a graph produced which seems to
show an increase in temperature, and make statements about Climate Change
which, in my view cannot be supported.
Can someone smarter than me provide comment?
It disturbs me to think that our children are being educated using Al
Gore’s material and they may not get the other side of the story.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
10. Dana White
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:53 PM | Permalink
The other thing that bothers me about this is that “climate science” is
really not much of a science at all. Think about it. You measure the
temperature in a particular year either directly or through proxys and then
you plot it on an X/Y graph against time. When you compare this to some of
the great scientific achievements, e.g., special and general relativity,
quantum physics, structure of the DNA double helix, nuclear fission/fusion,
understanding the immune system, it really does seem like it should be that
complicated. The mere fact that it is makes me think that much of climate
science is about making the data fit a preconceived notion.
* Robinson
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 7:46 AM | Permalink
I was thinking about this while trying to get to sleep last night. People
should consider the Scientific Method as separate from the process used
to disseminate scientific knowledge (peer review, press-release,
comment).
The former has a fairly sound philosophical basis; the latter does not.
The problem in Climate Science is that the two are confused. I keep
hearing people like Bob Watson talking about “the science” but all I can
hear is an appeal to authority, based on what are effectively press
releases made by the very people who’s authority is being appealed to!
* potentilla
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM | Permalink
Dana you are right. Much of “climate science” is not science at all.
Clearly, efforts to understand the physics of the atmosphere are
definitely science in the traditional sense. However, reconstructing
temperature series and making computer model projections of future
climate are “applied science” which should really be in the realm of
engineers, planners and policy makers either working for government or as
independent consultants. Corcoran explains this problem very well when he
discusses the trouble they had developing the SRES scenarios for the
global climate modelling.
I can speak from personal experience regarding the use of applied science
in consulting. Consultants in climatology and hydrology might use
“tricks” to improve presentation of data to clients if neccesary to
clarify results. Furthermore the statistical methods we use are not
really science but science-based and certainly would not stand up to the
kind of scrutiny that Steve McIntyre provides. Scientific climate
research conducted for the IPCC should have been scrupulously separate
from policy and planning as well as being open, transparent and
verifiable.
11. Follow the Money
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:57 PM | Permalink
From Corcoran’s second article:
> Mr. Jones, in strong words, then rips into Mr. Mann. He accused Mr. Mann
> of “slanging us all off to Science.” We all have disagreements, wrote Mr.
> Jones, but “We have never resorted to slanging one another off to a
> journal … or in reviewing papers or proposals.”
Now the first line of Mann’s Wash. Post editorial:
> I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested
> in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British
> university.
>
> > More “slanging”
* Follow the Money
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:58 PM | Permalink
More “slanging” is my comment.
* pete m
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:56 PM | Permalink
Mann is referring to the email request to delete other emails. This is
likely very naughty, so he has to distance himself from that. He isn’t
saying their choice of words to describe other people needs distancing
from (eg the slanging), as he said these himself as well.
The simple fact is Mann agreed to contact another scientist with the
message of delete the emails when he had the prime opportunity to say
to Jones – “No, I will not delete any emails. I will not counsel others
to do so. I counsel you to not delete any emails either. And by the way
your emails are handled externally to your computer and saved
externally, so deleting them off your computer will not delete them off
the central stored system.”
The first time he distanced himself from this request was when it went
public.
Too late Mike! Far, far too late.
Re the opinion piece. It did put things together quite nicely without
having to explain any of the tricks going on.
I am interested in where to from here. We have 2 university run
internal inquiries with external overview. We have a possible US senate
inquiry. There is a possible complaint to the police over deleting
emails, but I don’t know if anyone has made any such complaint. There
are appeals likely over the FOI refusals. There will be an interest in
what the cabal achieved in stopping publication. There has been limited
release of further data. There is an internal review by the MET of
their data.
The media interest seems to be picking up now some of the more far
reaching points are becoming clearer.
I’d like to see governments take back control of their data and force
anyone who uses it in any publication to freely make available their
methods. I’d like to see an inquiry into this whole mess at Hadley by
an independent judge with strong powers to obtain records. I’d like to
see step by step analysis of the world temperature records with raw
data shown, any adjustments justified with factual basis and a proper
accounting for UHI effect.
I’d like scientists to stand up to bullies and not be afraid to
criticise their so-called peers, and to respond when someone misuses
their research.
* Greg F
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:41 PM | Permalink
> The simple fact is Mann agreed to contact another scientist with
> the message of delete the emails when he had the prime opportunity
> to say to Jones – “No, I will not delete any emails.
Wouldn’t that email from Mann to the other scientist make for an
interesting read?
12. PaulH
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 7:58 PM | Permalink
Can someone here help out Terence Corcoran:
“Climategate: Why and When did Keith Briffa change his views on
temperatures?”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/21/climategate-why-and-when-did-keith-briffa-change-his-views.aspx
* Greg F
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:38 PM | Permalink
Don’t have an account at the National Post but you can pass this along as
a possibility. Briffa appeared to spend some time on the unemployment
bubble.
Email 0906137836
Fri Sep 18 12:57:16 1998
> Frank knows that I am currently involved with writing a bid on behalf
> of the earth science community to try to extract 8 million pounds for a
> 5 year project from NERC to support Palaeo/Modelling validatin work. I
> was not allowed to say no to this request and it is involving me in a
> lot of meetings and associated crap. I am now redrafting the proposal.
> Also I must write my application to NERC for a fellowship – if this
> fails Sarah and I are unemployed after December as things stand. God
> knows there is little chance of success but the application must be in
> be the end of September and I have not started it yet.
13. ErnieK
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:02 PM | Permalink
“Of course there are FOIA requests. But to be successful at that, you will
need to litigate the matter, which can be quite expensive.”
Perhaps Steve could contact Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, for
some legal help with FOIA requests – that is right up their alley.
14. ZT
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:09 PM | Permalink
Thanks – good journalism.
Here’s a review of something which isn’t:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/12/21/pbs-ombudsman-agrees-newshour-slighted-fascinating-climategate-e-mails
Amusing to see the WMD comments at the end.
15. Richard
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 8:47 PM | Permalink
Forget it – why have you brought this up here? The analysis of those
articles cover the manipulation of science, politics, many, many things
absolutely taboo under your rules. What do hope to achieve by this?
This is like being shown an elephant in a zoo and being asked to comment
only on its toenails.
16. RB
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM | Permalink
If that is a scientifically provable, then it might be true that the last
50 years have been the hottest in a thousand years, offering some support
to the idea that man-made climate change is changing the climate in a
significant and unprecedented way. But if the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
and the Little Ice Age did occur, then the Earth may have been just as warm
today as it was 1,000 years ago.
I don’t understand this argument. You could believe there was a MWP, you
could believe that temperatures today are the same as existed 1000 years
ago and still posit that human-induced emissions under a business-as-usual
scenario would lead to unprecedented warming based on 1000 years of
history. When I superimpose the Loehle-McCulloch reconstruction with a
temperature minimum in 200AD for the earlier period with the more recent
one starting with a minimum in the 1600s padded with instrument readings
from 1935 onwards, I find the same peak global mean is obtained about a
100-200 years faster. While the precedented is not scientific, why is the
MWP inconsistent with a human influence? It should be not just the amount
of warming but also the time taken that should be factored in.
* DeWitt Payne
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM | Permalink
> why is the MWP inconsistent with a human influence?
It’s not. But it is inconsistent with computer climate models. Absent
greenhouse gas forcings, the climate models produce flat to slightly
negative global temperature trends. Guess what the shaft of the HS looks
like? If there were a global or even NH only MWP, mot to mention a Roman
WP, then the understanding of the climate used to construct the models is
wrong. If they are that wrong, then scenarios derived with them have
error bars so large as to meke them meaningless.
* RB
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM | Permalink
I’m not an expert here, but this article says that models turned out to
be correct and point to a flaw enabling a reconciling of satellite
readings with the currently discussed surface temperatures while the
Copehagen diagnosis report apparently seems to show model forecasts
correlating well with real-world measurements. Perhaps noise, perhaps
not, but probably provides some ground to not dismiss the climate
models, don’t you think?
* RB
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:27 PM | Permalink
I understand though that a more pronounced MWP would change the
sensitivities used in projecting forward.
* Luke Lea
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:32 PM | Permalink
My layman’s impression was that any number of climate models could be
made consistent with any pattern of past warming. The problem was
making them consistent with each other going forward.
* Robinson
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM | Permalink
Correct. The models are calibrated against past temperature. It’s
effectively a process of curve fitting (!). The parameters are
adjusted for the hind-cast until it fits. It is then assumed the
parameters must be correct (please, we can play spot the fallacy
here) and so the model is run forwards to make its prediction.
* Jsco
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:08 AM | Permalink
One issue is the “disaster scenario” If the current period is one of
unprecendented warming, then you can entertain all sorts of disaster
possibilities. “We are in uncharted territory therefor…maybe there are
huge positive feedbacks at his level of warmth…etc.”
If the MWP had a similar degree of warming as today and what followed
was cooling rather than disaster, then that is not great for people
wanting to talk disasters.
jsco
* Follow the Money
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM | Permalink
“why is the MWP inconsistent with a human influence?”
It is inconvenient for human politics. Cap and trade and other financial
schemes and funding requests require scare factors. If the earth was
warmer during the MWP this reduces the fear in the public over the
purported dangerousness of current warming, whatever its cause.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM | Permalink
Yes, but it’s more than that. Amyone wanting to know why the MWP
matters should read the blog.
* RB
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM | Permalink
My previous comment disappeared. Specifically with regards to this:
“Cap and trade and other financial schemes and funding requests require
scare factors. “, my comment was that the 1997 Kyoto protocol predated
the MBH98 and related hockey stick issues. Therefore, the statement
isn’t necessarily true.
* Follow the Money
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:27 PM | Permalink
I wouldn’t say it is “not true.” But before Kyoto/Enron ’97 the scare
factors had no mascot, the hockey stick. There were graphs ‘n stuff
that were scary, just B movie stuff. Mann’s stick=Stephen King. It
was so good there was a anti-skeptic British television show
extolling the stick, parading it around London. I forgot its
provenance, but it was the one with the bloke saying “those bitching
scientists” Link anyone?
* RB
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM | Permalink
I agree that the hockey stick makes it much easier politically. I
actually am not familiar with how the countries that signed the Kyoto
protocol mustered the political will with something like the IPCC
1990 dimensionless graph which fully shows a prominent MWP and recent
temperatures below the MWP peak. To me, it suggests that this case
for AGW will remain even if the hockey stick is demolished and the
MWP is acknowledged. Furthermore, interestingly to me as an
observation, political will in developed European nations and Japan,
for instance, seems to have been generated with something far more
sketchy.
* Greg F
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:37 PM | Permalink
> … I find the same peak global mean is obtained about a 100-200 years
> faster.
I would suspect that the reconstructed temperatures are effectively low
pass filtered which would slow the rise time and reduce the peaks.
Found the paper and it says:
> Note that the use of smoothed data (29-year running mean) and the
> existence of dating error in the series means that peaks and troughs
> are damped compared to annual data and are likely even damped compared
> to the true history (Loehle, 2005). Some of the input data were also
> integrated values or sampled at wide intervals. Thus it is not possible
> to compare recent annual data to this figure to ask about anomalous
> years or decades.
The running mean is a low pass filter. As suggested the proxy’s would
also have a natural low pass filter.
* RB
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM | Permalink
I took a 29-year mean of the surface temperature readings as well.
* RB
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink
And adjusted up values from 1936 onwards by the delta between
Loehle-McCulloch reconstruction and surface temp average for year
1935.
* Greg F
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM | Permalink
Still have the problem of the natural low pass present in the proxy’s
which I would guess would be a lower cut off frequency then 29 year
mean. For example:
> For example, the pollen-based reconstruction of Viau et al. (2006)
> has data at 100-year intervals, which is now assumed to represent
> 100 year intervals (rather than points, as in Loehle, 2007).
That limits the rise time to 100 years no matter how fast the
temperature rises for this proxy.
* WHR
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:43 PM | Permalink
That would be a “posit” based on assumptions rather than data. Given that
the MWP did exist, then we have no way to reliably say what “normal” is,
what the normal rate should be, what it is in the past, or what it might
be in the future. No models can be relied upon…therefore, “positing” that
current climate change is human caused is about as reliable as “positing”
that 2012 will be Armageddon based on ancient astrological predictions.
17. Michael B Babbitt
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink
RB: good points. My beef is that for the community that wants to fight
global warming, warming is always presented as bad by defaut, no ands, ifs,
or buts. Even if we find ourselves in a warming trend equivalent to the MWP
— or even if we find ourselves in a faster trajectory — why does so much of
the science seem to be so stacked against warming? That has always been my
question. I also always wonder the obvious: if cooling was the present
consensus and the research and financial scheme money was in that
direction, would the balance of fearful scenarios be shifted to the horrors
of a colder planet? I don’t have much doubt about that.
* Jsco
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:12 AM | Permalink
Absolutely. Change always creates winners and losers. The key is to find
the source of the change. Do that and the losers can try and recover
damages from whoever is the source of the change.
If emissions caused cooling, I’m sure someone on the planet would call
foul and ask for damages. The key is whether emissions are causing
anything or not imo.
jsco
18. Mac Lorry
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 10:04 PM | Permalink
In reconstructing temperature history form proxy data it’s evident that the
temperature signal is below the level of background noise. There are
techniques for detecting such signals, but you have to know what you’re
looking for. In developing and tuning such techniques it seems there’s some
tendency to home in on those that produce the expected results. Thus, we
get hockey sticks from those who accept the inevitability of CO2 forcing.
Yes, the disappearance of well documented warmer and cooler climates in
such hockey stick graphs should be a clue that the researcher has imprinted
their belief onto the techniques they use to detect the temperature signal.
Another clue that this is so is when white or red noise is used as input
and the results are still a hockey stick graph.
Medical science recognizes just how powerfully a person’s beliefs alters
their perception and terms it the placebo effect. Thus, double blind
studies are the gold standard in medical science, but what’s the equivalent
in climatology?
If “reconstructed history provides the only calibration or test of models”
and the researchers who construct both have the same belief in the
inevitability of CO2 forcing, then it seems one will use the other to judge
the correctness of their own work. Is that not circular logic?
I could go further into what’s underlying the Climategate emails, but it
gets into snip territory.
* Jsco
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:16 AM | Permalink
This seems spot on. With very few testable hypotheses and an ability to
block anyone from replicating your results, it seems very tempting to
“find” whatever you are looking for in a given dataset.
jsco
* Mac Lorry
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM | Permalink
Finding what you are looking for in a dataset is deeper that being
“tempted” in the sense that there’s a conscious awareness of doing
something. The placebo effect is so difficult to avoid that double
blind studies are required to remove it from results. In my opinion, no
one was more surprised by the errors found in Mann’s hockey stick than
Mann. His actions in responding to criticism define his character, but
the original errors that made the results show what he believed only
define his humanity.
What we should learn from climategate is that there are systemic flaws
in the study and review methodologies climatology is build upon. If
climatology wants to be taken seriously enough for governments to act
upon their science then they need to adopt new standards in how they do
that science.
* Jsco
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink
Good point. I personally believe it went from subconcious at the
start (e.g. publishing the Hockey Stick result without much careful
review because the result fit with Mann’s worldview) to concious when
the Team felt locked in a battle to “prove” they were right even if
their original analysis had some flaws.
Time will tell, but I agree that for many situations the subconcious
could be the key player.
jsco
19. George Steiner
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:03 PM | Permalink
The question should not be: is there global cooling now or is there global
warming now. It is not arguable that there were periods in the history of
the planet much colder than now. It is not arguable that there were periods
in the history of the planet much warmer than now. It is certain that in
the future there will also be periods warmer and colder than now.
The question should be this: what is the influence of CO2 in raising or
lowering the temperature of the planet in the context of what it is known
to be, a trace gas. Arhenius’s hypothesis has been resurrected and blessed
as requiring no proof. Who says so?
With due respect to statisticians this requires work in areas of heat
transfer mechanisms and solar activity of somewhat bogling complexity. This
must be done using what our present knowledge of physics is. Manipulating
questionable data with arguable methods will get us nowhere.
* Mac Lorry
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM | Permalink
The so called greenhouse effect that Arhenius’s hypothesis is based on is
real and yet it can be shown from little more that high school physics
that Arhenius’s hypothesis is wrong. Unfortunately, using first
principles to disprove Arhenius’s hypothesis is in the snip zone. The
house called “consensus” is built on sand, but many profit from its
standing.
20. Stephen Pruett
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM | Permalink
These articles are fascinating to me, a person who has not followed climate
science until recently. It seems that the combination of Phil Jones “going
to town” in reviews to keep papers critical of the CRU’s analysis of data
from Siberia from being published and the recent stories that only data
from only 25% of the Siberian stations were used in the CRU analysis, even
though more complete data series were available from other stations.
Of course, it is possible that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for
excluding data from these stations. However, this brings to mind the
McIntyre analysis indicating that the raw data in the CRU data set yielded
0-slope oscillations, not a hockey stick. It seems that the 25% of stations
selected for inclusion and adjustments for changes in elevation due to
station relocation (and presumably for other reasons as well) yielded a
distinctive upward slope. Wouldn’t it seem more likely that selection of
particular stations (even if the reasons were valid) and adjustment of data
for particular reasons would lead to some increases and some decreases as
compared to the raw data record? Instead, it seems that most of them
contributed to the positive slope.
Am I off base in thinking (in light of all the recent revelations) that
this seems a little suspicious? If an objective re-analysis of the data set
revealed that the slope was nearer the 0 slope indicated by the raw data,
would this have a major impact on the field, or are there numerous
independent data sets that also show a hockey stick? Is it possible that
the coercive group-think that seems to be revealed by the leaked documents
could have affected analyses by other groups as well?
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:10 AM | Permalink
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/01/rank-gavin-noise/ is a link showing
how a hockey stick graph can be constructed using proxys not temperature
related at all.
Currently there is a post on Wikipedia that has not yet been removed by
alarmists which reads in part
“On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a
paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the
methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the “Hockey
Stick” shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[16]
They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to
obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99
percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input.[17] This
paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical
Union,[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for
its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Given the revisions which have been made to any wiki postings which are
antithetical to AGW theories, the length of time this post will remain is
problematic.
Steve McIntyre’s written testimony to the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS, ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
is available at
Click to access McIntyre.pdf
and includes discussion of hockey stick graphs produced using red noise.
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
climateaudit.org/2009/11/01/rank-gavin-noise/ is a link showing how a
hockey stick graph can be constructed using proxys not temperature
related at all.
Currently there is a post on Wikipedia that has not yet been removed by
alarmists which reads in part
“On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a
paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the
methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the “Hockey
Stick” shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[16]
They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to
obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99
percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input.[17] This
paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical
Union,[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for
its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Given the revisions which have been made to any wiki postings which are
antithetical to AGW theories, the length of time this post will remain is
problematic.
Steve McIntyre’s written testimony to the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS, ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
is available at
republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf
and includes discussion of hockey stick graphs produced using red noise.
21. Tom C
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM | Permalink
These are tremendous articles by Corcoran. Far more insightful than
anything written to date on Climategate. I was really interested to read
about Mann instructing Briffa to refer to proxy data strictly in terms of
“global temperature”. Seems like the whole preposterous idea of
teleconnection to GMT was an edict from this thug and that everyone
willingly complied.
The other fascinating thing is the centrality of Mann in corrupting the
entire climate science field.
22. Barry R.
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM | Permalink
Interesting aspect of the articles: It sounds to me as though Global
Warming has been very good to these guys professionally/financially,
especially Mann and possibly Briffa. It sounds as though Mann was very low
on the academic totem pole when he got involved in this–essentially gypsy
faculty.
Just a personal opinion here, but it looks to me as though when the
question of CO2 and global warming came up and the politicians asked for
answers, the careful, high quality scientists in the field said basically
“we’re so far from being able to answer that question that we would barely
know where to start.” Politically savvy second and third-raters jumped in
and basically said, “They can’t do it, but we can.” They started getting
the grants and the attention, but then ran into the fact that the basic
science is a long ways from being able to answer the question, and some of
these guys are much better at politics than science.
23. dan
Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM | Permalink
For me, the greatest thing to come out of Climategate was the context to
better understand the issues that Steve has been writing about all these
years.
24. Jack from Vancouver
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:13 AM | Permalink
After reading both parts of Terence Corcoran’s excellent article and
considering the total failure of climate talks in Copenhagen is there any
way to determine if Climategate led to or aided the failure of talks in
Copenhagen? Would the Copenhagen Conference have ended differently, meaning
some sort of legally binding agreement, if Climategate hadn’t happened?
25. Ted Swart
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:18 AM | Permalink
The very last sentence of Corcoran’s Part 2 strikes me as hitting the nail
on the head:
“Exactly who did what with which data requires a full investigation by
competent scientists and official bodies.”
For the rest his very interesting write-up seems to have all the hallmarks
of someone who is holding back from comitting himself.
* hro001
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 3:36 AM | Permalink
Ted, with all due respect, in any of Corcoran’s articles I’ve read, he’s
been very much on the side of the non-alarmists.
But that aside, in a series such as this, he’s probably acting as a
“professional” journalist should – by not editorializing or letting his
personal views/bias affect the tone of his article.
Considering that for some readers, the articles may well have been their
first exposure to Climategate – or even to the “climate wars” – I believe
that Corcoran’s apparent “holding back” (although I would not describe it
as such!) was the right choice.
* JBean
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 4:55 AM | Permalink
Corcoran has taken exactly the right approach, IMO. Chronology is very
important, especially for those unfamiliar with the science. Those
scientists who have been wronged by the inner circle are slowly filling
in the contextual gaps in some exchanges, while the McIntyre/McKitrick
argument is vindicated.
There’s a full-length book in these emails — perhaps several books —
and Corcoran seems to have written the thoughtful opening chapters. I
hope he continues.
* John Costella
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:07 AM | Permalink
Their certainly is a full-length book in them — click my name to see
the start of one — but I think you’ll find that quite a number of the
key players on this site will, ultimately, provide even more
thrilling accounts.
* WHR
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM | Permalink
Dr. Costella,
I have gone through about half of the e-mails you have analyzed and
commented on. Great insights. I was struck by a thought that really
puts the entire lot of it in perspective, I think. These climate
researchers simply do not have confidence in their own work. There is
a pervasive paranoia even when a colleague is critical. This is
especially true with Mann, and it seems, if you follow the
chronology, that his defensive, paranoid behavior rubs off on
otherwise thoughtful men and women. Yet their agreed upon policy is
to present a united front to the public at large. Jones in particular
becomes plotting and secretive. This is a standard meme repeated on
blogs such as this, but if the science were so settled, why not sing
it from the mountaintops with all the facts and figures to back it
up? They are acting on whims that they know, deep inside, are not
fully vetted by the data, thus their behavior.
I felt the need to comment. I think a webring of yours, McIntyre’s,
and others’ analysis needs to circulate through the public somehow. I
do not think this is getting enough attention by the media. They
aren’t digging deep enough into the context when they take bits and
pieces and publish off-shelf explanations from the AGW
science-activists-politicians.
One more comment. I do not see this as an active conspiracy so to
speak. It is hard to explain what is right there before our eyes. It
seems like Mann just burst onto the scene, a young, ill-tempered, yet
savvy political type. His hockey stick paved the way for the others
to set aside their scientific integrity and rationalize their
activist yearnings. It is very disturbing. I hope this doesn’t get
the snip. I understand Mr. McIntyre’s desire to keep away from
speculation and editorializing. I’ll take my snip if he sees fit. It
proves to me that he is fair and balanced and justifies my skepticism
of those who aren’t. These things just need to be said and I do not
have the vehicle nor credentials say it elsewhere. Our voices of
dissatisfaction need to be heard.
26. John Costella
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:19 AM | Permalink
What do you think those other institutions did when Climategate broke? It
would be a difficult decision — to protect or destroy? (Damned if you do,
damned if you don’t.)
I’d guess that there would have been enough wise heads to protect rather
than destroy, although getting at those records would take a lot of legal
firepower.
27. Ted
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:51 AM | Permalink
I only stumbled over to this site about a week or so ago. Personally, I
have been intrigued by the whole process. I think that as the scientists
who have found themselves to be on the receiving end of these gate keeping
schemes see the written evidence, there will be professional consequences.
Every graduate student not currently affiliated with the Hockey Team will
be gunning for these guys. And journals will fall into disrepute to be
replaced by others who would like to gain respect from the scientific
community. Michael Mann’s days in his field are numbered … at least in
terms of the credibility he has within the scientific community. Several
others may lose their tenured jobs by the time this all shakes out.
28. onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:58 AM | Permalink
Is there some reason that my posts have not been approved?
29. P Gosselin
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 3:31 AM | Permalink
“…that will, in time, come to be seen as the greatest and most dramatic
science policy epic in history…”
I certainly agree with this statement, but most likely this will be years
into the future. It’ll take awhile for all the climate
Meisterburger-Burgermeisters to go away.
30. Phil Roberts
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 4:32 AM | Permalink
People seem to think that Copenhagen was a failure, it was not, the primary
aim had nothing to do with CO2, it was about keeping the Elite’s cash cow
going, one of those aim’s was achieved, that of a global transaction tax
which will cost every American and every Brit about $2800 Dollars a year.
31. Stacey
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:33 AM | Permalink
Our Gav says at UnReal Climate:-
Response: People are free to clutter up all manner of bulletin boards and
forums and threads elsewhere with repetitive, oft-debunked random talking
points. Just not here. If you want to have a dialog about science then
we’re good, but if you want to insult scientists, insinuate wrong-doing or
post random links to the same, then that isn’t going to work. Feel free to
try again. – gavin”
Modest you are Gav to a fault. Now Gav you mustn’t get upset no one is
trying to rubbish scientists only self named climate scientists who:-
1 Conspire to prevent publication of other scientists work.
2 Conspire to pervert the democratic process.
3 Distort and delete data to arrive at an answer they want to suit their
political ends.
4 Destroy public property
Give my love to your mates, naughty little boys see.
32. Geoff Sherrington
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:06 AM | Permalink
In time the trials will be held and the sentences passed, but much science
remains. It might not be very exciting science, but there are many
influential people who need to be exposed to the best of what can be
devised.
It would not be prudent to dismiss all past work that has a view that might
jangle with ones preferred view.
Regarding the distant past, it would be prudent to start publicity about
which hurdles need to be met for each proxy reconstruction to be considered
valid for further use.
For the instrumented period, there is value in a comprehensive quality
check, however boring that might seem to be.
For the future, there is some value in trying to set down criteria that
define the best parts of the best of models, then apply them with skills
appropriate to the task.
The difficulty is management. The IPCC appears to have painted itself into
a corner of no return, so the perhaps the baton should pass to
non-political professional associations and learned bodies.
That would possibly be the future course that other scientific disciplines
would adopt.
Remember that it is easy to stray from the concept of this site as an Audit
and to become partisan. Mea culpa at times.
Audits, as conducted in financial circles, are governed by rules distilled
by common sense and often by laws. Is it time to formulate some model
guides for conduct?
Personally, I am unwilling to be tarred as a bad person because I am a
scientist. I am not a climate scientist and there is a difference. The
wiser general scientists have an obligation to tidy up the unsightly bundle
dropped in their laps.
33. Magnus
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:45 AM | Permalink
Ray to Keith after reading excuse from Mann:
“Excuse me while I puke…
Ray”
(0926681134.txt)
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM | Permalink
Ray: you’re not alone. We are with you.
34. HotRod
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 9:03 AM | Permalink
Truly excellent article.
35. Dudley
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM | Permalink
From Part I:
“One immediate observation is that the early years — from 1996 to maybe
2000 — seem have been organized and whittled down to eliminate the long
trails of redundancy that pile up in email communication. The emails in the
later years remain cluttered and at times impossible to follow — as if
whoever was collecting them ran out of time or had not finished the
assembly work before they hit the Internet, whether by chance or by
choice.”
Counts of Email Grouped by Year(In 1996 there were 22 “climategate”
emails):
1996 – 22
1997 – 19
1998 – 46
1999 – 68
2000 – 54
2001 – 46
2002 – 33
2003 – 96
2004 – 73
2005 – 145
2006 – 157
2007 – 75
2008 – 112
2009 – 127
The big jump starts in 2003. Guess I could make a graph.
Maybe someone is trying to get lost in all those emails from 2005 to 2009…
* Dave Dardinger
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink
Hmmm. There’s a pretty good start to a hockeystick there until 2007.
Perhaps you could figure out what the last three years should be and hide
the decline?
* jim edwards
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:20 PM | Permalink
Don’t forget that while acting as an official IPCC reviewer, Steve was
making noise Re: “academic check-kiting” because Wahl/Amman, Amman/Wahl
had apparently missed the publications deadline for IPCC AR4 but was
reflected in the report, anyway.
Jones’ infamous 2008 e-mail subsequently suggests Mann, Wahl, Amman,
and Briffa “delete any emails you may have had … re AR4”
From the trend, it looks like 80+ emails should be there. How many
related to the Wahl and Amman paper’s special treatment Re: IPCC ?
36. Dave in Canada
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM | Permalink
I almost get the idea that perhaps Keith Briffa was an unwilling partner in
all this and only went along under pressure from those above him.
37. Ted
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM | Permalink
The email reconstructions are indeed fascinating…One thought that comes to
mind, as a guy who has worked on policy related social science … Yup that’s
science. Messy, contested, highly uncertain, always with an eye toward the
next source of funding, which means with an eye toward the political winds.
A process filled with bullying and hubris. Always has been this way …
always will be this way.
38. Syl
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM | Permalink
LOL – Battle of Mike Mann edits on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981
Select Next Edit on the right pane
39. Robert Wilson
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM | Permalink
Excellent article by Terance Corocoran.
In part I he quotes an email from Mann to Jones in 1998 in which Mann says
“I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore
applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains
high priority.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=59&filename=898099393.txt
Then Corcoran comments “Exactly what those words mean is hard to know. It
must be science talk.”
It seems clear to me thet Mann is commited to synthetic datasets (just
average a couple of teperature records and you’ve got one of these) with
manufactured biases in. No wonder they hide their code!
40. bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM | Permalink
Corcoran strikes a gem here:
“What with sampling issues, missing data and other problems, by November of
1997 Mr. Briffa is struggling with results. While the Russian tree rings
produce seemingly good results for past climate, results for the 20th
century are a problem. On Nov. 3, he writes to Tom Wigley: “Equally
important though is the leveling off of carbon uptake in the later 20th
century.” The density of the tree rings also declines, a finding
inconsistent with carbon-induced warming. “I have been agonizing for months
that these results are not some statistical artifact of the analysis
method, but I cannot see how.””
41. bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM | Permalink
Very well researched articles, Mr. Corcoran.
42. bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM | Permalink
Corcoran says:
“As recently as Nov. 28, a posting on the Mann-related website,
RealClimate.org, continues to claim the Medieval Warm Period and the Little
Ice Age never happened.”
And commenter jblethen replies that:
“there are no posts dated Nov. 28 on Real Climate.”
This is true, so I don;t know what Corcoran is referring to.
But we can read “mike” here, ca. 2004:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/
> Weren’t temperatures warmer than today during the “Medieval Warm Period”?
>
> This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations
> in past centuries. At hemispheric or global scales, surface temperatures
> are believed to have followed the “Hockey Stick” pattern, characterized
> by a long-term cooling trend from the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”
> (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the “Little Ice
> Age” (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid
> warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th
> century warmth. The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global
> scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed
> the peak warmth of the “Medieval Warm Period”. Claims that global average
> temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based
> on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of
> drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish
> regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire
> “20th century” to describe “modern” conditions , fail to differentiate
> between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously
> warm late 20th century conditions.
* Syl
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM | Permalink
They always use the adjective “peer reviewed” since they control most of
what is peer-reviewed.
* John Baltutis
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM | Permalink
> Corcoran says:
>
> “As recently as Nov. 28, a posting on the Mann-related website,
> RealClimate.org, continues to claim the Medieval Warm Period and the
> Little Ice Age never happened.”
>
> And commenter jblethen replies that:
>
> “there are no posts dated Nov. 28 on Real Climate.”
>
> bender says:
>
> This is true, so I don;t know what Corcoran is referring to.
IMO, he’s saying that the last time he checked, Nov. 28, that there
remains a posting by Mann that claims the MWP and LIA never happened.
Everywhere that the MWP pops up at RC, you’ll find this:
[Response: The topic has already been discussed in some detail on the
site. The best place to start is our glossary entry on the “Medieval Warm
Period” (due to a glitch we are in the process of trying to fix, most of
our glossary items are currently not showing up in the “Glossary” page
link). A site search on “Medieval Warm Period” yields many other
instances of discussion of the topic on the site. -mike]
Here’s the glossary entry link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
NB: Couldn’t find the formatting rules for this revised site, so I don’t
know how this will turn out
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, John.
* John Baltutis
Posted Dec 23, 2009 at 2:56 AM | Permalink
Well, well. The formatting worked.
43. Robert
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:52 PM | Permalink
Excellent summary by Mr Corcoran. Second article touches on the crux of the
whole matter which most lay people do not understand. Given the earth’s
age, it is highly likely in a statistical sense that similar warmings and
similar rates of warming have occurred. To defend a contrary position would
be illogical. To defend it on the basis of sketchy data is very perplexing,
given the risks that poor data and analysis techniques would eventually be
exposed by the scientific community.
The only other option was to attempt to control the whole process. So it’s
not surprising to see the lengths the team went to in their attempt to do
this. Unfortunately, once they jumped into this abyss, there was no turning
back. The whole enterprise was high risk and high stakes, but ultimately
doomed to failure. Thank goodness someone released these e-mails. They will
greatly accelerate the team’s demise, and hopefully re-vamp and
re-invigorate the scientific process. Keep up the good work Steve!
* RB
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM | Permalink
Temperatures in the dinosaur age are not relevant.
* Robert
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM | Permalink
Sorry RB. Not taking your bait.
44. Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM | Permalink
> It is, in my view, not possible for a layman, or even an expert, to make
> any assessment of the tree ring data conflicts — to pick one issue —
> based on the emails. Masses of computer code and data are imbedded in the
> Climategate documents, enough to keep a full science inquiry busy for
> months, if not years. Exactly who did what with which data requires a
> full investigation by competent scientists and official bodies.
I have to agree with Mr. Corcoran that yes, it is not possible for a layman
or even an expert to many any assessment based on the emails. Yet, that is
precisely what everyone is doing. I agree with his assessment that it will
take years and a full investigation by experts and official bodies to be
able to make sense. Everything else is just people making s*&^ up.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 4:11 PM | Permalink
Who’s making stuff up, Susann. Please be extremely specific.
45. Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM | Permalink
Well, if I agree with Corcoran that it’s not possible to make sense out of
any issue based on the emails, and I do, then I have to conclude that
anyone who draws conclusions about, say, tree ring data based on the
emails, is making s*&^ up.
I’ve seen countless people on numerous blogs declaring that it’s all a
fraud, that the scientists are fraudulent, and etc. based on reading a few
emails. People are ready to throw them in jail, have them fired, and
probably far worse, based on a few lines taken from emails and reposted on
blogs like this.
YMMV
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM | Permalink
Susann:
I assume you have not looked into the computer code and datasets released
with the emails in the same file. That is where the truly damning
evidence lies.
Also, I disagree with your contention that it is not possible to make
sense out of ANY ISSUE based on the e-mails, unless you close your eyes
and refuse to read through them and follow the several trails woven
through the correspondence.
There are several relevant posts on THIS blog regarding both issues.
Perhaps you could pick one of the commented upon email trails and one
analysis of the code and data and show where each does NOT make sense, or
how the computer code and data sets do NOT show evidence of at least
manipulation if not outright fraud.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM | Permalink
I think what Corcoran was arguing, and what I was agreeing to — was
that we can’t, layman or expert alike, assess the science issues from
the emails alone:
> It is, in my view, not possible for a layman, or even an expert, to
> make any assessment of the tree ring data conflicts — to pick one
> issue — based on the emails. Masses of computer code and data are
> imbedded in the Climategate documents, enough to keep a full science
> inquiry busy for months, if not years. Exactly who did what with
> which data requires a full investigation by competent scientists and
> official bodies.</blockquote.
>
> I think he's referring to assessing the science, not the character of
> the scientists and he's clarifying he means the emails, not the code
> or any data embedded in it. Even so, he argues for expert analysis,
> not a bunch of us laymen who don't know the science.
>
> > The epic stories in the emails, in any honest reading, do not
> > produce any concrete results or conclusions regarding the state of
> > the science.
> > What exists now in the public domain is scientific conflict and
> > uncertainty that goes to the heart of climate change science —
> > past, present and future.
>
> Scientists can be absolute foul-mouthed jerks and still produce
> accurate results. They can be backstabbing SOBs and still get the
> science right. They can plot and plan their career paths, step on
> other’s toes, bully and bellow and still produce a proper accounting
> of the science.
>
> I’m not saying they did — or didn’t.
>
> I’ll wait for the experts to weigh in. In other words, non-scientists
> mining the emails for juicy quotes and then concocting grandiose
> stories about frauds, hoaxes, deceits, and conspiracies is just
> mental, well, you know.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:26 PM | Permalink
I agreed with that at 5:59. But you went further, and claimed that’s
what “everybody” was doing. I do not agree with that.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM | Permalink
Well, ok, everyone who *was* doing it, was *doing* it. I’m not above
the occasional overstatement.
But it seems that *many* people (how’s that?) are drawing conclusions
about the science based on the emails and based on the scientist’s
apparent behavior. IMO, there isn’t adequate information in the
emails, or maybe even in the emails and code, etc. combined to do so.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink
“I’m not above the occasional overstatement.”
.
This is the same “Susann” from years ago, is it not? Then you are
correct.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:51 PM | Permalink
At least I always admitted I was not up to speed on the science. I’m
interested in it, but I’m one of those laymen Corcoran wrote about
and so I should probably not draw conclusions about the science.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:54 PM | Permalink
Oh, and a lot of people here seem quite busy discussing everything
but science.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM | Permalink
Yes, it’s a problem. How are you helping?
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:45 PM | Permalink
The topic of the post is Corcoran’s article on Climategate.
Discussing the article and ideas in it would seem to be fair game. I
commented on two non-science threads. Steve posted them. I’m not the
only one who is discussing non-science issues. It seems to me you’re
just being a curmudgeon-for old time’s sake, I imagine.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink
Yep. Welcome back.
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:05 PM | Permalink
Susann:
Read the title of the thread, this discussion is regarding the
Corcoran dissection of Climategate, not the science behind it to the
exclusion of any or all other issues raised by the leaked documents.
Perhaps you could return to the home page and scroll down to the
threads discussing the science behind the debate and you would feel
much more at home disparaging others for commenting on things other
than science in science threads.
In this thread, any aspect touched upon by Corcoran is fair game
IMHO, and evidently in Steve’s as he has not used his snipper to
force people to keep on track as he does when things go astray.
Straw man arguments in this thread are likely to get noticed and
commented on.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM | Permalink
onlyme, if you read the sequence of posts, you’ll see I agree with
Corcoran. People think he’s written a great post and I agree. He’s
left his best advice for the second article, last few paragraphs:
1) The epic stories in the emails, in any honest reading, do not
produce any concrete results or conclusions regarding the state of
the science.
2) It is, in my view, not possible for a layman, or even an expert,
to make any assessment of the tree ring data conflicts — to pick one
issue — based on the emails.
I’m just agreeing.
IMO, it would be judicious to take his advice and stop trying to play
cop, CSU, DA and Judge/Jury and leave that to the experts who will
have access to all the relevant evidence.
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:11 PM | Permalink
Given that the scientific method is NOT a method that proves
anything, but relies on scientists or even non scientists producing
theories to explain observations then on others working to DISPROVE
the theories so they can either be upgraded or discarded, yes, you
are correct regarding the statement regarding assessment of tree ring
data. What is, however, shown in the e-mails is a concerted effort to
PREVENT the disproving of the theories and the climate modeling which
is done based on the theories.
This is directly discernable from reading the emails and is
independent from any assessment of the tree ring data conflicts
(which are however amply shown to be strongly and artificially biased
in the code released).
The emails DO give insight into the state of the science in as much
as there is clear evidence of collusion between principles in the
IPCC AR4 and later assessments to halt the progress of science by
means of attempting and in some proven cases actual prevention of the
publication of dissenting papers and in the IPCC method itself of the
censoring of objections made in the review process itself and the
refusal to even note the objections in the final report.
Stifling dissent in science is not science.
* Dana White
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink
snip – piling on
* onlyme
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink
To repeat:
There are several relevant posts on THIS blog regarding both code and
email issues. Perhaps you could pick one of the commented upon email
trails and one analysis of the code and data and show where each does
NOT make sense, or how the computer code and data sets do NOT show
evidence of at least manipulation if not outright fraud.
Without showing at least one instance where you disagree with another
layman’s analysis of the code and an instance where you disagree with
a layman’s analysis of one of the email threads, your posting has, to
me, zero relevance, as both have been well commented upon with
excellent analyses.
I look forward to your showing what exactly does not make sense in
any one of such lay analyses on this forum.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM | Permalink
Corcoran said “layman”. So now please point to laypersons here at CA
making things up, or retract your statement.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:26 PM | Permalink
I see lots of unsubstantiated opinions and comments on this blog so why
should I retract mine?
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:28 PM | Permalink
All incorrect statements should be retracted, not just yours. Not
“everybody” is analysing emails. Some are analysing literature in the
context of the emails.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink
snip – stop feeding food fight
46. Dana White
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:30 PM | Permalink
Does UK law provide for discovery?
47. bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM | Permalink
> I have to agree with Mr. Corcoran that yes, it is not possible for a
> layman or even an expert to many any assessment based on the emails. Yet,
> that is precisely what everyone is doing.
Although I agree that not much can be made from a read of the emails, I
would also point out that NOT everyone is doing this; some people, in
contrast, are analysing the literature in the context of the emails.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:28 PM | Permalink
I would suggest that everyone who is drawing conclusions about the
science based on the emails is overstepping.
* bender
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:29 PM | Permalink
What do you make of the Auffhammer and Kamel papers? Papers that we
would not have known about had it not been for the CRU dump.
* Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 6:35 PM | Permalink
I think that a lot of good will come of the hack/leak. And a lot of
needless bad as people rush to judgement and use select quotes to
support their own position and trash their opponents.
* Syl
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 9:16 PM | Permalink
Well – just read the harry_read_me.txt file. You will see that the CRU
data is a mess. They have no QA control, no version control, no
documentation. They can`t reproduce their own results!
No wonder they wouldn`t release their code. BY default, no one can
reproduce the results – no even themselves.
48. Syl
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM | Permalink
Here`s a comment from Rex Murphy (Canadian TV reporter)
49. Susann
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:28 PM | Permalink
> The emails DO give insight into the state of the science in as much as
> there is clear evidence of collusion between principles in the IPCC AR4
> and later assessments to halt the progress of science by means of
> attempting and in some proven cases actual prevention of the publication
> of dissenting papers and in the IPCC method itself of the censoring of
> objections made in the review process itself and the refusal to even note
> the objections in the final report.
Not all dissenting (or assenting for that matter) papers on any science
issue will rise to the level of quality required to be published so the
fact that some scientists lobbied to keep certain papers out of
consideration or publication is not in itself proof absolute that science
was done a disservice. It may be — one would have to know the facts and be
able to judge the merits of the papers in question and the discipline in
particular.
There will be gatekeepers of necessity — that’s why there are editors or
editorial boards and reviewers involved in selecting papers to be published
or included in conferences, etc. The processes put in place should work to
ensure the editors are fair and the reviewers are fair but the leaders in a
field will be the ones solicited to do reviews. They are expected to be the
ones who are capable of evaluating the work. They might work to keep out of
publication those papers they feel are substandard, both assenting and
dissenting. That is supposed to be the role of peer review.
The frauds in the past show that this is not enough to ensure that only
deserving papers are published or considered as part of the literature.
50. Tilo Reber
Posted Dec 22, 2009 at 11:56 PM | Permalink
Corcoran wrote an excellent article. The only thing that I would want to
correct is the assertion that Briffa cherry picked tree rings. We have no
evidence that he cherry picked tree rings or individual trees. He did,
however, cherry pick series to match the surface record. Briffa admitted to
this and seemed to indicate that he considered it standard practice. A
crazy standard in my mind, but there you have it. Also, as far as I know,
Steve never accused Briffa of picking individual trees.
5 TRACKBACKS
1. By Climategate, what is going on? - EcoWho on Dec 21, 2009 at 7:02 PM
[…] Terence Corcoran on Climategate A very interesting two-part article on
Climategate by someone who’s followed the story for years. […]
2. By KRudd fails and glibly signs away Australia’s best interests « TWAWKI on
Dec 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM
[…] Climategate continues, […]
3. By Climategate/Copenhagen: after words « Spin, strangeness, and charm on Dec
22, 2009 at 1:09 PM
[…] Terence Corcoran on Climategate […]
4. By Top Posts — WordPress.com on Dec 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM
[…] Terence Corcoran on Climategate A very interesting two-part article on
Climategate by someone who’s followed the story for years: Part 1 […]
5. By Climategate Emails and the evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
« Socrates Paradox on Dec 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM
[…] calibration or test of models (beyond verification of modern
simulations) is under-appreciated.” (From a post by Terence Corcoran) In
light of the Climategate emails, “under-appreciated” is probably one of the
greatest […]
* TIP JAR
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location)
* PAGES
* About
* Blog Rules and Road Map
* CA Assistant
* CA blog setup
* Contact Steve Mc
* Econometric References
* FAQ 2005
* Gridded Data
* High-Resolution Ocean Sediments
* Hockey Stick Studies
* Proxy Data
* Station Data
* Statistics and R
* Subscribe to CA
* Tip Jar
* CATEGORIES
Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate
cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene
Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication
Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick! Modeling Hansen Santer UK
Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D'Arrigo 2006 Esper
et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones & Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998
Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et
al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg
[2005] pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM
Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological
Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean
sediment Post-1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and
Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts
Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics chladni Multivariate RegEM
Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP
Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS
Uncategorized Unthreaded
* ARTICLES
* CCSP Workshop Nov05
* McIntyre/McKitrick 2003
* MM05 (GRL)
* MM05(EE)
* NAS Panel
* Reply to Huybers
* Reply to von Storch
* BLOGROLL
* Accuweather Blogs
* Andrew Revkin
* Anthony Watts
* Bishop Hill
* Bob Tisdale
* Dan Hughes
* David Stockwell
* Icecap
* Idsos
* James Annan
* Jeff Id
* Josh Halpern
* Judith Curry
* Keith Kloor
* Klimazweibel
* Lubos Motl
* Lucia's Blackboard
* Matt Briggs
* NASA GISS
* Nature Blogs
* RealClimate
* Roger Pielke Jr
* Roger Pielke Sr
* Roman M
* Science of Doom
* Tamino
* Warwick Hughes
* Watts Up With That
* William Connolley
* WordPress.com
* World Climate Report
* FAVORITE POSTS
* Bring the Proxies up to date
* Due Diligence
* FAQ 2005
* McKitrick: What is the Hockey Stick debate about?
* Overview
* Responses to MBH
* Some thoughts on Disclosure
* Wegman and North Reports for Newbies
* LINKS
* Acronyms
* Latex Symbols
* MBH 98
* Steve’s Public Data Archive
* WDCP
* Wegman Reply to Stupak
* Wegman Report
* WEBLOGS AND RESOURCES
* Ross McKitrick
* Surface Stations
* ARCHIVES
Archives Select Month June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 December 2023 November
2023 October 2023 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 March
2021 July 2020 March 2020 October 2019 July 2019 February 2019 October 2018
July 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November
2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 November 2016
August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016
January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015
April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014
October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April
2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013
October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April
2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012
September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012
February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September
2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February
2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010
August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August
2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January
2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July
2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December
2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June
2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005
November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May
2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October
2004 January 2000
* NOTICE
Click on the "Reply" link to respond to a comment.
Frequent visitors will want the CA Assistant. Sort/hide comments; improved
reply box, etc.
* SEARCH
* BLOG STATS
* 18,749,665 hits since 2010-Sep-12
*
*
* TWITTER UPDATES
Tweets by ClimateAudit
* RECENT POSTS
* Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill Revisited
* D’arrigo et al 2006: NWNA Alaska
* Sheenjek, Alaska: A Jacoby-MBH Series
* RECENT COMMENTS
* Jit on Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* joethenonclimatescientist on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer
in 2000 Years
* Stephen McIntyre on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in
2000 Years
* DaveS on Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* Jeff Alberts on Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* Danley B. Wolfe on Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* sherro01 on Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction
* Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Ulf Büntgen - Climate- Science.press on Jan and
Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* jddohio on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Ulf Büntgen – Watts Up With That? – The Insight Post
on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Ulf Büntgen – Watts Up With That? on Jan and Ulf’s
Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* Andrew Russell on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in
2000 Years
* ccscientist on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* joethenonclimatescientist on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer
in 2000 Years
* A on Jan and Ulf’s Nature Trick: The Hottest Summer in 2000 Years
* META
* Register
* Log in
* Entries feed
* Comments feed
* WordPress.com
*
*
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. |
* Reblog
* Subscribe Subscribed
* Climate Audit
Join 3,687 other subscribers
Sign me up
* Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
* Privacy
* * Climate Audit
* Customize
* Subscribe Subscribed
* Sign up
* Log in
* Copy shortlink
* Report this content
* View post in Reader
* Manage subscriptions
* Collapse this bar
%d