In The News

[sunny starry skies]

It's not my comment, it was llifted straight from the article.

On the subject of balanced reporting and getting quotes from those who support AGW....I've worked on and off in the publishing world for years, freelance work, especially work from verified, legit sources is always welcome (more so if it includes quotes or opinions from those difficult to reach people) -use your contacts SSS and get writing is my advice.

Yeah, I think that's part of the issue is how much more media-savvy certain elements of the debate are, and it's something that mainstream climate scientists need to combat. I wonder how much of it is the fact that if you want to find the opinion of a respectable 'climate sceptic' you really only have about five or six people to choose from, worldwide, compared to thousands on the pro-AGW side. Those five or six have a fame far exceeding their scientific talents, indicating they are called on rather often! I'd get writing if my academic climate science credentials were sufficiently good, but they're not, compared to specialists in that field. In the case of this article, it's pretty plain Fred Pearce wanted to set an angle of controversy so he could sell his book, so I doubt he searched very hard for good 'pro-AGW' scientists.

sss

[jethro]

You don't need to know the subject inside out to write about it, you just need the desire to do the leg work to talk to those who do know the subject well, plus a note pad and the willingness to write an interesting article. I've worked on specialist mags about sea fishing, CB radios, computers, rallying, health&fitness, needlepoint, cross stich and knitting to name but few; my knowledge of most of these could be written on a postage stamp and still have room to spare.

I would imagine that being an academic would indicate to the scientists that you have a genuine desire to get their opinions expressed and that they would be more willing to talk to you, or similar people, than a journalist from a newspaper.

Give it a go, it could be lucrative and you never know what doors it could open.

[Gray-Wolf]

Knowing the subject well , but not having any creds, doesn't bring me much in the Arctic ice thread J'. It's not what you know............now where did I loose my 'contacts' book........

[VillagePlank]

CCE review has reported it's findings (bolded bits not present since cut and paste doesn't cut and paste formatting)

1.3 Findings

13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards

of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific

allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their

rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of

advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of

behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display

the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the

part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory

requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to

the credibility of UK climate science.

1.3.1 Land Station Temperatures

16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not

in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We

demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly

from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence

of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is

robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted

data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly

unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.

Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various

independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.

18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should

have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the

versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record

(CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to

reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.

19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to

which CRU‟s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon

and we find no evidence to support that implication.

1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis

20. The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work,

both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU

scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and

to set aside inconvenient evidence. More specifically, it was implied in the

allegations that this should reduce the confidence ascribed to the conclusions in

Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Report, Working Group 1 (WG1).

21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described

and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In

particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we

found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions

that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of

uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this

respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment

Report (TAR).

22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence†may not have been

properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated

with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the

subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU

papers.

23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to

„hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of

intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic

significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third

Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was

misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at

some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures

should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly

described in either the caption or the text.

24. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning

the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU

did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the

single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw

data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly

be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe

that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their

publications relied, was archived in a more timely way.

1.3.4 Misuse of IPCC Process

26. On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by

CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and

policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld. In addition to

taking evidence from them and checking the relevant records of the IPCC

process, we have consulted the relevant IPCC review Editors. Both the CRU

scientists were part of large groups of scientists taking joint responsibility for the

relevant IPCC Working Group texts, and were not in a position to determine

individually the final wording and content.

1.3.5 Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act

(FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations

(EIR)

27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way

consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there

was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails

might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a

subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should

have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for

FoIA and EIR compliance.

1.3.6 Other Findings on Governance

28. Given the significance of the work of CRU, UEA management failed to

recognise in their risk management the potential for damage

Full report, here (PDF), news summary, here

Edited July 7, 2010 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Two important paragraphs relating to all of us NetWeatherers;

35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the

most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the

blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand

alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned

conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized

critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance.

This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The

Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work

in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how

scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space

can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms,

where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised.

36. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the

extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise

this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by

feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide

no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has

to be conducted in this century.

See Section 5.8 in the document for discussion.

Not sure if this is deliberate - but it made me smile - in paragraph 26:

.... It is difficult at the moment to predict whether....

Yup - we knew that already

Edited July 7, 2010 by VillagePlank

[sunny starry skies]

Very intersting indeed VP - was reading it as you posted. Looks like as far as CRU are concerned, their basic science is good (in as much as the emails do not cast doubt on it, however they are spun), but their approach to openness with their data has been quite strongly criticised. This sounds similar to the previous reports' findings, and I think we'll see a general move to make data from relevant publications a lot more accessible. That said, most of the data is there if you go looking for it, as said above in point 16 of the report:

e.g. palaeo data to reproduce things that look like 'hockey sticks (NCDC, and a great example at Skeptical Science posted yesterday: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tai-Chi-Temperature-Reconstructions.html, based on the work of Ljungqvist 2009) - I've had a go with this and it's rather intriguing the kind of analysis you can do with just palaeo data and get rather close to some of the published reconstructions (this isn't accounting for spatial distributions any more than NH, SH), and not splicing on temperatures. Using this data, and accepting significant spatial limitations, the 20th Century 'uptick' (and it's specific kinked shape) is quite a robust feature, with or without bristlecone pines, though not always passing peak Medieval warmth... Y.S. will enjoy hearing some of that!

and e.g. for temperatures themselves - Tamino and others have independently replicated the temperature records from

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/replication-not-repetition/

http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-simple-model-for-spatially-weighted-temp-analysis/

I think all using GHCN raw data.

Now I'm not here to drive more discussions on hockey sticks , or 20th Century temperature reconstructions, but to say that the best way of testing the conclusions of any study or research group is by accessing the raw data and replicating the conclusions through your own analysis. If you can show your methodology is sound, and others can do the same from the same raw data then your result is all the more sound. It seems that with CRU, they fell down a bit in how they gave access to certain kinds of information (albeit that not all raw data was theirs to give out), but that their results are sound, replicable, and replicate the results of other groups. In an Internet age with easy access to data, this is all the more important. So I'd see the report as a step forward for bridging the gap between published science and the wider community, if its findings are acted upon where they haven't been already.

One thing I haven't seen - any comment in there about access to published research, e.g. key papers behind paywalls as far as non-University people are concerned? Although my opinion is that you can get most by visiting a University library and some even in other libraries.

sss

[Yorkshiresnows]

Very intersting indeed VP - was reading it as you posted. Looks like as far as CRU are concerned, their basic science is good (in as much as the emails do not cast doubt on it, however they are spun), but their approach to openness with their data has been quite strongly criticised. This sounds similar to the previous reports' findings, and I think we'll see a general move to make data from relevant publications a lot more accessible. That said, most of the data is there if you go looking for it, as said above in point 16 of the report:

e.g. palaeo data to reproduce things that look like 'hockey sticks (NCDC, and a great example at Skeptical Science posted yesterday: http://www.skeptical...structions.html, based on the work of Ljungqvist 2009) - I've had a go with this and it's rather intriguing the kind of analysis you can do with just palaeo data and get rather close to some of the published reconstructions (this isn't accounting for spatial distributions any more than NH, SH), and not splicing on temperatures. Using this data, and accepting significant spatial limitations, the 20th Century 'uptick' (and it's specific kinked shape) is quite a robust feature, with or without bristlecone pines, though not always passing peak Medieval warmth... Y.S. will enjoy hearing some of that!

and e.g. for temperatures themselves - Tamino and others have independently replicated the temperature records from

http://tamino.wordpr...not-repetition/

http://clearclimatec...warming-effect/

http://rankexploits....-temp-analysis/

I think all using GHCN raw data.

Now I'm not here to drive more discussions on hockey sticks :unsure: , or 20th Century temperature reconstructions, but to say that the best way of testing the conclusions of any study or research group is by accessing the raw data and replicating the conclusions through your own analysis. If you can show your methodology is sound, and others can do the same from the same raw data then your result is all the more sound. It seems that with CRU, they fell down a bit in how they gave access to certain kinds of information (albeit that not all raw data was theirs to give out), but that their results are sound, replicable, and replicate the results of other groups. In an Internet age with easy access to data, this is all the more important. So I'd see the report as a step forward for bridging the gap between published science and the wider community, if its findings are acted upon where they haven't been already.

One thing I haven't seen - any comment in there about access to published research, e.g. key papers behind paywalls as far as non-University people are concerned? Although my opinion is that you can get most by visiting a University library and some even in other libraries.

sss

Hi Starry Skies,

Just been reading the comments above.

I am quite frankly amazed at some of the report observations ...... perhaps I should not have been. I don't want to go over old ground and state old arguments, but some of the conclusions of the above report are a little bizarre.

The Hockey stick by Mann could not be replicated without the use of very questionable statistical manipulations .... this much has been made clear and is accepted - all the various Expert panels observations at the very least pointed out that the statistical methods used were poor and should have included a suite of verification statistical methods (which when performed ....... failed !!)

The published critisisms made by McIntyre have not been refuted in this area. Also, the use of Tree-ring proxy data is also universally accepted as being very questionable (and I am being charitable with this statement). Yet it is used in the majority of papers supporting the original Mann publications.

Why on earth did the hockey stick need to splice 20th century temperature instrumental records on top of the proxy data when they had proxy data to 1980 if not to hide the fact that the 20th century proxy data they had showed a downturn in temperatures. This would have sort of questioned the value in the tree-ring proxy data to begin with.

Also, I am unsure of some of the comments on the blogs - these are mainly used to get easy access to the published and submitted papers, .. as well as looking at the background comminications. Seems perfectly reasonable to use these (and by this I mean both Climate audit (skeptical) and Climate Science (pro-view).

I agree entirely with your last point Starry Skies, and that is you need to be able to replicate Experimental work to confirm its validity (its what I do in my day to day job). This means making all of the source data available if requested and also to provide detailed explanations on why certain data is used, not used and what statistical manipulations you have used. In this way, you can avoid a whole lot of trouble. Also, how can you effectively review a scientific paper if you cannot see how the graphs and data have been used to generate the final conclusions. This was the case with the hockey stick papers - would they have been accepted for publication had the verification statistics been presented (irrespective of the inclusion of the bristlecone proxy data ?

Food for thought !

Y.S

Edited July 8, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi Folks,

I know that this may be seen as 'bad form' and so I will apologise in advance, but thought you'd enjoy a look at some recent posts on the 'skeptic's site' (I freely admit to being a member of this nut-job club): http://climateaudit.org/

Fred Pearce, whose one-man inquiry into Climategate (The Climate Files), remains the only reasonably objective inquiry to date observes( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists) that nobody on the Muir Russell panel even asked Phil Jones whether he deleted emailsâ€

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

You Can’t Be Serious!

Jul 7, 2010 – 3:24 PM

One of the most famous emails was Jones’ request to Mann, Briffa, Wahl and Ammann to delete AR4 emails (including the surreptitious Wahl-Briffa exchange) a day after David Holland’s FOI request for AR4 emails. It read:

29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new

email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewiseâ€.

This is the email that the ICO said to offer the most cogent prima facie evidence imaginable.

Muir Russell says that they “have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already madeâ€, noting two emails relating to deletion including the famous one cited above:

There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to deletion:

2nd February 2005: ―The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for

years. 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 anyoneâ€.

29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re

AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new

email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewiseâ€.

This is getting stupid. Jones’ email came immediately following David Holland’s FOI request.

Plus, Muir Russell evaded discussion of the equally damning “Keith should say†email. 888. 1212009215.txt where Jones says that Briffa should deny the existence of the Wahl correspondence:

Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.

As John McEnroe said, You can’t be serious!

Y.S

[Devonian]

Hi Folks,

I know that this may be seen as 'bad form' and so I will apologise in advance, but thought you'd enjoy a look at some recent posts on the 'skeptic's site' (I freely admit to being a member of this nut-job club): http://climateaudit.org/

Fred Pearce, whose one-man inquiry into Climategate (The Climate Files), remains the only reasonably objective inquiry to date observes( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists) that nobody on the Muir Russell panel even asked Phil Jones whether he deleted emailsâ€

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

You Can’t Be Serious!

Jul 7, 2010 – 3:24 PM

One of the most famous emails was Jones’ request to Mann, Briffa, Wahl and Ammann to delete AR4 emails (including the surreptitious Wahl-Briffa exchange) a day after David Holland’s FOI request for AR4 emails. It read:

29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new

email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewiseâ€.

This is the email that the ICO said to offer the most cogent prima facie evidence imaginable.

Muir Russell says that they “have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already madeâ€, noting two emails relating to deletion including the famous one cited above:

There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to deletion:

2nd February 2005: ―The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for

years. 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 anyoneâ€.

29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re

AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new

email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewiseâ€.

This is getting stupid. Jones’ email came immediately following David Holland’s FOI request.

Plus, Muir Russell evaded discussion of the equally damning “Keith should say†email. 888. 1212009215.txt where Jones says that Briffa should deny the existence of the Wahl correspondence:

Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.

As John McEnroe said, You can’t be serious!

Y.S

People deleting emails? How shocking! I guess I'll just have to keep all mine for ever to make sure I never find the sceptic thought police after me...

[Yorkshiresnows]

People deleting emails? How shocking! I guess I'll just have to keep all mine for ever to make sure I never find the sceptic thought police after me...

Depends if you've been asked for the information under the freedom of information act on a particular subject though doesn't it ?

Also, why ask folks to delete all mail on a particular subject that is under outside discussion and you know is of a sensitive nature.

Maybe its all innocent .... maybe not .... guess we will never know for sure.

Just posted it (there's a load more on the blog) to illustrate that this area is never as black and white as we all would like it to be (skeptic, pro or neutral thinker alike).

Y.S

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi All,

McKitrick's Initial Response to the Inquiry is here:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/mckitrick-preliminary-response/#more-11365

Whether he makes any good points or is talking rubbish is I guess up to each and everyone to decide for themselves !!

Y.S

[sunny starry skies]

methinks the black helicopters are on therir way... Yes, Y.S., it's obvious you subscribe to Climate Fraudit, and it's also obvious that you credulously believe everything they have to say. Five independent investigations find no evidence of scientific misconduct, yet clearly Fred Pearce, a journalist who has money to make over a very dubious book on the climategate story is obviously right where the inquiries are all wrong! Riiiiiight... WIll someone please tell the glaciers to stop melting [see links lower down], the boreholes to stop warming, the instrumental temperatures to stop rising etc etc, they can safely stop now that Steve MacIntyre has said there's been a load of whitewashes.

For an alternative view (with evidence):

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/07/muir-russell-emails-climategate-vindicates-climate-science-cru/

There's no evidence that incriminating emails were actually deleted, and hence no evidence of an actual crime, but that's not enough to quell your suspicions is it or crucify Jones, and clearly you're happy to cry "guilty" without and direct evidence of a crime. Fortunately the multiple independent inquiries are able to do so, and while criticising Jones' comments, they categorically state that no crime was comitted. If I say I'm going to, or can my friend Mike please drive at 120mph down the A1 a.s.a.p., does it mean a crime has been comitted?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/ [among many others]

Quoting Y.S.:

"The published critisisms made by McIntyre have not been refuted in this area [1]. Also, the use of Tree-ring proxy data is also universally accepted as being very questionable (and I am being charitable with this statement) [2]. Yet it is used in the majority of papers supporting the original Mann publications.

Why on earth did the hockey stick need to splice 20th century temperature instrumental records on top of the proxy data when they had proxy data to 1980 if not to hide the fact that the 20th century proxy data they had showed a downturn in temperatures [3]. This would have sort of questioned the value in the tree-ring proxy data to begin with."

[1] Er, yes they have - MacIntyre critcises the original paper, but numerous subsequent papers have found Mann's conclusions to be basically OK, by using a variety of different methods and proxies. Some of these are linked to in the NAS report, others are more recent than that.

"As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)." [NAS report] Bristlecone Pines affect the early part of the 1999 curve, but not the later part too.

[2] "universally accepted" err, by who, the denier community? MacIntyre? Certainly seems alive and well to me, and to the wider climate science community who are happy to use it. See the NAS report among others, and numerous peer-reviewed publications. The 'Divergence problem' is specific to some trees in some regions, but does not show up in other tree records, instrumental records, and crucially other long timeseries proxies - hence why you can still use the tree rings alongise other methods.

[3]All you have to do is look at a load of these reconstructions to see that this one is blatantly false. The reconstructions, whether tree-ring derived, or specifically not tree-ring derived do not show a downturn at their cut-off in the 20th Century. See the many figures in links here. As I linked to in my previous post, and you can do for yourself, you can reproduce the 20th Century's kinked rise very nicely with just proxy records. The only difference when adding the instrumental record is it tends to produce a higher spike at the end of the 20th Century. But all this does is take the temps from as high/slightly higher than the MCA up to much higher than the MCA. That's still a valid line of debate, but with Arctic temperatures and some individual retreating glaciers/ ice caps proving locally higher temperatures than in thousands of years, I suspect the instrumental record to be the best on here.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/03/science-study-hockey-stick-human-caused-arctic-warming-overtakes-natural-cooling/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/langswitch_lang/in/

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Buffen%20et%20al%202009.pdf [Quelccaya Ice Cap smallest in 5000 years]

Anderson et al 2008: A millennial perspective on Arctic warming from ¹⁴C in quartz and plants emerging from beneath ice caps. GRL:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032057.shtml [Arctic ice caps melted for first time in >1700 years]

Here's all the data that went into the Mann et al 2008 PNAS paper:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/NHcps_no7_v_orig_Nov2009.pdf

Note the specific figure that shows what the curve is without tree rings and 7 'problem series'.

Seriously, Y.S., when you can go yourself and reproduce the results reasonably well of both the instrumental records and the 'Hockey Stick' from the raw timeseries, and this has been done by many independent research groups, researchers and bloggers, you wonder at the competency of those who bleat that they could not get access to the data, or could not do the reconstructions.

Prof Peter Clarke's comment seems particularly pertinent to Steve MacIntyre and his ilk:

"It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance."

Competent? MacIntyre? Aye right!

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian....-expert-verdict

Some nice comments from folk 'accused' by the 'media witch hunt' which went on after the E-Mail thefts.

The folk who thought they had some 'real' gripe will now be pawing over everything to 'show' how right they were ......... and how 'wrong' the 5 'expert' panels were to find the 'accused' hard working ,honest scientists......

The last thing you ever want to do is listen to 'experts' or trust scientists now is it?

I mean what is wrong with just making up lies instead???

Edited July 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

It looks as if my original suspicions have been borne-out by the enquiries...The whole Climategate brouhaha was merely a politically-motivated charade, designed to divert public attention away from what really matters and onto the egos of various publicity-seeking subscientists who are incapable of making any meaningful contribution themselves...

Reminds me a bit of Rob Grant's novel Incompetence: bad is the new good...

Aye SSS. Bring on the black helicopters!!

[full_frontal_occlusion]

The media - in particular the owners and editors of the media - imho are responsible for more and bloodier wars than religion. They can destroy lives, whole companies, industries and demonise cultures to stoke war without any accountability and then hide behind the protection of democracy and freedom of speech.

I'm not suggesting for one second we abandon of the latter two, but surely there needs to be some 'stiffer' incentive to responsible reporting.

ffO.

[pottyprof]

I'm rather pleased at the outcome of the investigation. The scientists involved deserve an apology from some of the sceptics who have accused them of poor work etc. They have had a slap on the wrist though for not sharing the research data, which if they had done so, the mess which they have found themselves in wouldn't have happened. At the end of the day, there is no I in teamwork, which I feel is how all the research into climate change should be done if it's such an important issue. There should be no secrecy. There should be no reason to make a profit from their work as it is all in the public interest and they are getting paid to do the research anyway.

Let's wait and see if there is any change in attitudes now from either side of the fence.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think it remains true that it was a very good thing that there were enquiries and an investigation. That is the essential part of being a sceptic. Yes, one or two sceptics go too far, but then as PP also says, the scientists should be open with their research in the first place..

Questioning of the science (any science) is essential all of the way. Much healthier than blindly supporting the science (any science) without any questioning at all. That is something that some AGW proponents should remember, and not get put out when their science is questioned or ever doubted. Scepticism provides that extra locking and checking mechanism - as well as providing altenative science to suggest reasons for changes within this relevant climate change and environment area.

The research of the science within the framework of this investigation has been shown as legitimate enough but that should not be confused by any suggestion that it is necessarily right.

Edited July 9, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Yorkshiresnows]

methinks the black helicopters are on therir way... Yes, Y.S., it's obvious you subscribe to Climate Fraudit, and it's also obvious that you credulously believe everything they have to say. Five independent investigations find no evidence of scientific misconduct, yet clearly Fred Pearce, a journalist who has money to make over a very dubious book on the climategate story is obviously right where the inquiries are all wrong! Riiiiiight... WIll someone please tell the glaciers to stop melting [see links lower down], the boreholes to stop warming, the instrumental temperatures to stop rising etc etc, they can safely stop now that Steve MacIntyre has said there's been a load of whitewashes.

For an alternative view (with evidence):

http://climateprogre...te-science-cru/

There's no evidence that incriminating emails were actually deleted, and hence no evidence of an actual crime, but that's not enough to quell your suspicions is it or crucify Jones, and clearly you're happy to cry "guilty" without and direct evidence of a crime. Fortunately the multiple independent inquiries are able to do so, and while criticising Jones' comments, they categorically state that no crime was comitted. If I say I'm going to, or can my friend Mike please drive at 120mph down the A1 a.s.a.p., does it mean a crime has been comitted?

http://www.realclima...russell-report/ [among many others]

Quoting Y.S.:

"The published critisisms made by McIntyre have not been refuted in this area [1]. Also, the use of Tree-ring proxy data is also universally accepted as being very questionable (and I am being charitable with this statement) [2]. Yet it is used in the majority of papers supporting the original Mann publications.

Why on earth did the hockey stick need to splice 20th century temperature instrumental records on top of the proxy data when they had proxy data to 1980 if not to hide the fact that the 20th century proxy data they had showed a downturn in temperatures [3]. This would have sort of questioned the value in the tree-ring proxy data to begin with."

[1] Er, yes they have - MacIntyre critcises the original paper, but numerous subsequent papers have found Mann's conclusions to be basically OK, by using a variety of different methods and proxies. Some of these are linked to in the NAS report, others are more recent than that.

"As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)." [NAS report] Bristlecone Pines affect the early part of the 1999 curve, but not the later part too.

[2] "universally accepted" err, by who, the denier community? MacIntyre? Certainly seems alive and well to me, and to the wider climate science community who are happy to use it. See the NAS report among others, and numerous peer-reviewed publications. The 'Divergence problem' is specific to some trees in some regions, but does not show up in other tree records, instrumental records, and crucially other long timeseries proxies - hence why you can still use the tree rings alongise other methods.

[3]All you have to do is look at a load of these reconstructions to see that this one is blatantly false. The reconstructions, whether tree-ring derived, or specifically not tree-ring derived do not show a downturn at their cut-off in the 20th Century. See the many figures in links here. As I linked to in my previous post, and you can do for yourself, you can reproduce the 20th Century's kinked rise very nicely with just proxy records. The only difference when adding the instrumental record is it tends to produce a higher spike at the end of the 20th Century. But all this does is take the temps from as high/slightly higher than the MCA up to much higher than the MCA. That's still a valid line of debate, but with Arctic temperatures and some individual retreating glaciers/ ice caps proving locally higher temperatures than in thousands of years, I suspect the instrumental record to be the best on here.

http://climateprogre...atural-cooling/

http://www.realclima...switch_lang/in/

http://bprc.osu.edu/...20al%202009.pdf [Quelccaya Ice Cap smallest in 5000 years]

Anderson et al 2008: A millennial perspective on Arctic warming from ¹⁴C in quartz and plants emerging from beneath ice caps. GRL:

http://www.agu.org/p...7GL032057.shtml [Arctic ice caps melted for first time in >1700 years]

Here's all the data that went into the Mann et al 2008 PNAS paper:

http://www.meteo.psu...tiproxyMeans07/

http://www.meteo.psu...rig_Nov2009.pdf

Note the specific figure that shows what the curve is without tree rings and 7 'problem series'.

Seriously, Y.S., when you can go yourself and reproduce the results reasonably well of both the instrumental records and the 'Hockey Stick' from the raw timeseries, and this has been done by many independent research groups, researchers and bloggers, you wonder at the competency of those who bleat that they could not get access to the data, or could not do the reconstructions.

Prof Peter Clarke's comment seems particularly pertinent to Steve MacIntyre and his ilk:

"It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance."

Competent? MacIntyre? Aye right!

sss

Starry Skies,

Chill me old mate

I do not subscribe to climate audit. I use it to gain information. Its a crap site because it questions the science of certain papers ? Don't quite follow your reasoning on that one. I think its great that folks do question things, that how progress is made.

We have gone round and round in circles on this one. Most of the papers that support Mann use the same sets of flawed proxy data (see earlier posts on the other thread). I believe I am right in thinking the Hockey stick is a load of crap and I have provided plenty of evidence and links and papers to suggest that there is a least major controversary over the Mann papers, but you have just as much right to state your views.

The Mann 2008 paper uses a dodgy set of lake bore hole proxies (see my earlier posts about a circulat argument), Without this or the tree-ring proxy, .... you don't get the graph (here's an exert from my earlier post on this paper again ....)

"Mann et al 2008: Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS, abstract here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...8/mann2008.html

[this one's particularly useful as it takes on board the findings of the reviews regarding the statistical criticisms of Mann et al 1998, No tree rings, so no bristlecone pines here YS!, many more proxies, different stats]"

This paper was an attempt by Mann to take on board some of the critisism levelled at his earlier papers and to resurrect the Hockey stick. But I am afraid that this paper has been exposed to the following flaws:

1) It still uses a load of tree ring proxy data (relying on no less than 112 Oak tree proxies):

"Doug Keenan has received a favorable decision from the FOI Commissioner in his lengthy FOI/EIR battle for tree ring data collected by Mike Baillie of Queen’s University, Belfast. The data is from Irish oaks and was collected mostly in the 1970s"

"Baillie and Wilson argued that oak chronologies were “virtually useless†as temperature proxies and “dangerous†in a temperature reconstruction. Nonetheless, as I report below, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies (including 3 Baillie chronologies) were used in Mann et al 2008 without any complaint by Wilson or other specialists"

And of the author of the original oak tree study that was used In Mann 2008:

"Although ancient oaks could give an indication of one-off dramatic climatic events, such as droughts, they were not useful as a temperature proxy because they were highly sensitive to water availability as well as past temperatures"

“It’s been dressed up as though we are suppressing climate data, but we have never produced climate records from our tree rings,†Professor Bailee said.

“In my view it would be dangerous to try and make interpretations about the temperature from this data.â€

2) Almost all of the non tree proxy data do not even show a 'modern warming', one major exception being a group of four lake sediment series from Finland known as the Tiljander proxies.

However, again, the original paper was written by a pHD student (a thesis paper), author Mia Tiljander. It turned out that the 20th century up-tick (hockey shape) in these proxies was actually caused by artificial disturbance of the sediment caused by ditch digging rather than anything climatic.

Mann acknowledges this fact but rather than reject the series, he stated that the disturbance did not matter. He provided a 'sensitivity' analysis, showing that he still could get a 'hockey stick without the Tiljander proxies.

The BIG selling point of this paper was exactly this point. You could get a hockey stick shape even if you looked at non-tree ring proxies. And here is the slight of hand:

This claim rests on a circular argument:

Mann had shown that the Tiljander proxies were valid by removing them from the database and showing that you still got a hockey stick. However, when he did this test, the hockey stick shape of the final reconstruction came from ...... BRISTLECONES (universally accepted as flawed). Then he argued that he could remove the tree ring proxies (including the Bristlecones) and still get a hockey stick ......... and of course he could, because in this case the hockey stick shape came from the Tiljander proxies.

His arguments therefore rested on two sets of flawed proxies in the database but only removing one at a time and arguing that you get a hockey stick either way !!!!

3) Briffa's discredited tree ring proxy series is also included in this paper, with the same inconvenient divergence in the latter part of the 20th century truncated down to 1960. The data series actually shows a down-tick therafter (there's a lot on this from previous publications - see Climate audit for more information).

4) One of the 'new' proxy series included is a documentary record of temperatures in East Africa dating back to 1400. If true, this would have overturned everything known about the history of the continent ....... but it was discovered that Mann had inadvertantly swopped the the latitude and longitude, and the series should have been located in Spain. It became farcically apparent that the proxy was not a documentary record at all ...... but a rainfall record.

To be fair to Mann on this point, once this error had been made public, he corrected the data, with the effect of a change in 0.5 degrees C in the 18th century.

5) McIntyre and McKitrick published (late 2008) in the same journal a short comment dealing with the major flaws as they saw them:

a) The use of confidence levels in the statistics used - they pointed out that using conventional statistical methods, they could show that Mann's uncertainty bounds were infinately large prior to 1800 ..... in other words that his new reconstruction was of no use prior to that date.

the calibration process producing hockey sticks from 'red-noise'

c) the Tiljander issue

d) the use of proxies which were not responding to temperature, including Bristlecones.

There's a load more, but I think you get the point !!

Its funny dude, but you really seem to want to take an aggressive line with me as though I am in some way responsible for the mess that is the Hockey stick. You do read some of the contradictory papers don't you, and you seem an intelligent sort of person. If you are happy with it then that's your view and your welcome to it.

I am a scientist by trade and I publish and review several papers on a yearly basis. In submitting papers for publication you must include all relevant data and make clear what you have done with the data to achieve your tables, summary graphs etc. In addition, you must keep any other relevant data which includes e-mails etc that could have any relevance to decisions taken and archive these with the raw data. In this way, you are making it possible for a second party to recreate your work ...... this is good science and forms the basis for GLP (Good Labortaory Practice). Mann and his cronies have done absolotely everything possible not to provide the data that is needed to attempt to replicate their original findings ..... (by not releasing the computer code or indeed revealing what they did and did not do with certain data) this would be unacceptable in the field of medicine.

I am not a complete denier and believe that Man is influencing the climate (I am not a 'denier' of greenhouse gas effects EITHER), but my belief is that the greenhouse 'power' of Co2 is limited and that natural cycles have a major part to play in what we are currently seeing. This is just my personnal view from the papers and data I have looked at (not to say that I do not have more to learn).

As a scientist it is my view that the climate change science in terms of the proxy data and how this has been presented in published papers has been poorly handled. There are the books, the blog and the papers that question this . In regards to the Hockey-stick, then we have an old saying round these parts:

"You cannot polish a turd" !!

So, lets keep things friendly Starry Skies. Have a great weekend and lets do battle another day ?

Y.S

Edited July 9, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[sunny starry skies]

I see you're still keen on repeating MacIntyre's tired old arguments. If you're right, why is it I (and Peter Hogarth in the Skeptical Science link below) can reproduce the 20th Century 'uptick' from this data set:

Ljungqvist 2009, TEMPERATURE PROXY RECORDS COVERING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA: A TABULAR AND VISUAL OVERVIEW (capitals not mine!)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122225084/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

with the source data in .xls format here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/ljungqvist2009/

Don't think there's any Tiljander data there (Scandinavian lakes are a smallish subset, and the data is from NCDC which has no Tiljander in the author search), there are four bristlecone series easily removed, no oaks, and yet the 20th Century uptick happily remains in a great many proxies, enough to show quite clearly in an overall average of the series. This involves no principal components, or computer code to do. See the link below, the results of which I have replicated with a couple of hours work on Excel, using nothing more complex than AVERAGE, IF or STDEV:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tai-Chi-Temperature-Reconstructions.html

And have you actually looked at Mann's supplementary figure S8, which removes 7 problem series (the Tiljander proxies) and the tree rings, yet still shows basically the same shape? I linked to the figure in my previous post. No sleight-of-hand, though MacIntyre would have credulous people believe it. The Ljungqvist data amongst others shows that Mann's results are hardly implausible and certainly not deliberately misleading.

We're back to one of the fundamental issues dealt with by Muir Russell: that the data is available, and any competent researcher can download it themselves and analyse it. I would hold this true for both the instrumental series and for the millennial-scale proxies. MacIntyre spent a lot of time bleating that he couldn't get data (when he either actually had it, or had straightforward access to it), and bleating about the code, when he could have, were he a competent researcher, analysed the available data himself, using his own code or favourite statistical package. But of course he didn't, he cried 'foul' wherever he could, as like Watts and the failed surfaceStations project (Menne et al proved that one a red herring), if you actually do the analysis, you'll find the original researchers were either right, or as near as right as makes no difference!

I fear you're a little too keen to use your scepticism on the published science, but are not using your natural scepticism on the sources of the fallacious information you keep presenting, as above. I thought you were signed up to Fraudit from your comment that you were a member of their club BTW, no slight intended as I really do hope you're rigorous enough to be truly sceptical of the things people like MacIntyre say as you would any other piece of science.

The only thing I will agree on is that Mike Baillie's comments, referring specifically to his irish oak sequence means that the Irish series is no good for palaeoclimatology, mainly due to the way in which the series was collected from random locations across Ireland, which was never standard enough for a palaeo series. On the other oaks, the only source seems to be a one-liner by Rob Wilson in the Times article - not where I get my scientific information! Do you have a peer-reviewed source that says oaks of all kinds are no good for reconstructions like Mann's? They're definitely fine for precipitation (though not Baillie's for the reasons he cited), not necessarily for temperature. Quite a lot of literature on oaks out there...

Lots of links in my previous post on competence, 2000-year glacier retreats, vindication of scientists by multiple independent panels, I won't repeat them here.

Enjoy your weekend, relax and apply as much scepticism to the climate skeptics as you would in every one of the papers you publish annually, Y.S.

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

Though maybe 'off topic' it appears to me that there is a body of people who choose to ignore the mountains of growing data (which all backs up the basic principle of climate shift) in favour of looking for accidental flaws in the data or ways to question sound data by attacking the people who brought the info to us all.

Is this true sceptical investigation or is it something else? What do we gain from such?

[loafer]

Though maybe 'off topic' it appears to me that there is a body of people who choose to ignore the mountains of growing data (which all backs up the basic principle of climate shift) in favour of looking for accidental flaws in the data or ways to question sound data by attacking the people who brought the info to us all.

Is this true sceptical investigation or is it something else? What do we gain from such?

An interesting question.

I looked at the data posted above and as someone used to modelling, and who has no axe to grind, it looks like rubbish. It's impossible to create annual data from what is reported to be such subjective and patchy data without making huge smoothing assumptions which destroys the integrity of the "data" created.

Combine that with obvious PR sites like the skeptcalscience one also above, and you can see why interested people like myself feel wary.

I just wish for a bit more scientific objectivity and less emotion.

[Yorkshiresnows]

An interesting question.

I looked at the data posted above and as someone used to modelling, and who has no axe to grind, it looks like rubbish. It's impossible to create annual data from what is reported to be such subjective and patchy data without making huge smoothing assumptions which destroys the integrity of the "data" created.

Combine that with obvious PR sites like the skeptcalscience one also above, and you can see why interested people like myself feel wary.

I just wish for a bit more scientific objectivity and less emotion.

Agree (I guess that comes as no suprise) !!!

Personally I am very sorry that what I originally wanted to get across regarding this subject has been swallowed up in somewhat silly and aggressive arguments (a lot of which has been my own doing).

I'm also sorry that I seem to have alienated certain folks on here ..... not my intention.

It feels pretty strange for me as until a relatively short while ago, I would have ploughed the supportive side of the field. However, I bought a few books, looked at a few papers and started to question how certain things looked against historical records .... and suddenly I'm thinking differently. Of course, this does not mean my views are correct.

I am not sure if you agree with this but a possible summarisation of the whole 'hockey stick' argument could be distilled as:

Does the data presented by Mann et al (98, 99 and 2008) point to a flat period of global temperatures (past 1000 to 2000 years ago ....or ...not .. (basically removing past assumptions of a global 'medieval warm period' and cooler 'little ice age' ? ..... which is what the original paper was all about).

To me (at least) it does not.

To use the statistical manipulations that he did (only fully discovered over nearly a decade of investigation) asks many questions ... to which the answers are unsatisfactory.

Y.S

[loafer]

I don't know what the truth is, but I recognise statistical rubbish when I see it.

Mind you, I'm the sort of person who builds a new model each time, because that's how you see the errors...

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't know what the truth is, but I recognise statistical rubbish when I see it.

Mind you, I'm the sort of person who builds a new model each time, because that's how you see the errors...

Only if your new model 'learns' from the errors you spotted on the last one otherwise you'll just make the same mistakes again!!!

This is where I feel climate science is with the 'hockey stick'. It has built it again and again using all manner of proxies and found the same result. Though there may well have been issues with some of the origional proxies surely the 'later models' ironed out such 'issues'?

[Yorkshiresnows]

I see you're still keen on repeating MacIntyre's tired old arguments. If you're right, why is it I (and Peter Hogarth in the Skeptical Science link below) can reproduce the 20th Century 'uptick' from this data set:

Ljungqvist 2009, TEMPERATURE PROXY RECORDS COVERING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA: A TABULAR AND VISUAL OVERVIEW (capitals not mine!)

http://www3.intersci...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0

with the source data in .xls format here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa....ljungqvist2009/

Don't think there's any Tiljander data there (Scandinavian lakes are a smallish subset, and the data is from NCDC which has no Tiljander in the author search), there are four bristlecone series easily removed, no oaks, and yet the 20th Century uptick happily remains in a great many proxies, enough to show quite clearly in an overall average of the series. This involves no principal components, or computer code to do. See the link below, the results of which I have replicated with a couple of hours work on Excel, using nothing more complex than AVERAGE, IF or STDEV:

http://www.skeptical...structions.html

And have you actually looked at Mann's supplementary figure S8, which removes 7 problem series (the Tiljander proxies) and the tree rings, yet still shows basically the same shape? I linked to the figure in my previous post. No sleight-of-hand, though MacIntyre would have credulous people believe it. The Ljungqvist data amongst others shows that Mann's results are hardly implausible and certainly not deliberately misleading.

We're back to one of the fundamental issues dealt with by Muir Russell: that the data is available, and any competent researcher can download it themselves and analyse it. I would hold this true for both the instrumental series and for the millennial-scale proxies. MacIntyre spent a lot of time bleating that he couldn't get data (when he either actually had it, or had straightforward access to it), and bleating about the code, when he could have, were he a competent researcher, analysed the available data himself, using his own code or favourite statistical package. But of course he didn't, he cried 'foul' wherever he could, as like Watts and the failed surfaceStations project (Menne et al proved that one a red herring), if you actually do the analysis, you'll find the original researchers were either right, or as near as right as makes no difference!

I fear you're a little too keen to use your scepticism on the published science, but are not using your natural scepticism on the sources of the fallacious information you keep presenting, as above. I thought you were signed up to Fraudit from your comment that you were a member of their club BTW, no slight intended as I really do hope you're rigorous enough to be truly sceptical of the things people like MacIntyre say as you would any other piece of science.

The only thing I will agree on is that Mike Baillie's comments, referring specifically to his irish oak sequence means that the Irish series is no good for palaeoclimatology, mainly due to the way in which the series was collected from random locations across Ireland, which was never standard enough for a palaeo series. On the other oaks, the only source seems to be a one-liner by Rob Wilson in the Times article - not where I get my scientific information! Do you have a peer-reviewed source that says oaks of all kinds are no good for reconstructions like Mann's? They're definitely fine for precipitation (though not Baillie's for the reasons he cited), not necessarily for temperature. Quite a lot of literature on oaks out there...

Lots of links in my previous post on competence, 2000-year glacier retreats, vindication of scientists by multiple independent panels, I won't repeat them here.

Enjoy your weekend, relax and apply as much scepticism to the climate skeptics as you would in every one of the papers you publish annually, Y.S. :lol:

sss

Hi Starry Skies,

Why are you going on about 20 th century upticks ?

That's a given isn't it .... we have instrumental data that proves this ..yes ? ..... and anybody over the age of 30 can see its got a lot warmer ... The question is whether this warming is unprecedented over the past 1000 - 2000 years as what Mann et al was suggesting and whether we are warmer than at any other point in recent history. All the proxy data that show an uptick would be correct for that period !!

The fact that a lot of the tree-ring proxies show a 'downturn 20th century tempwise' suggests (as all of the expert pannels considerations reveal) these should not be relied upon to construct past temperatures ... yes ?

It's the smoothing of the medieval warm period and flattening of the little ice age that is the controversial and ... in my mind ..... erroneous bit.

Get away with that and you have your convincing argument that man's activity is the key reason for whats been occuring in the late 20th century and nataural cycles have little to no impact aginst the overwhelming power of greenhouse gas emissions. It was the key aim of the paper(s)

If you have to apply a ton of manipulations to your data, weight it, condense certain areas, fill in other blank spots and backfill others with mathematical assumption, (because you do not have the data), then ignore later data series from the same proxy series, have correlation statistics that show ..... no correlation ..... invent a new statistical verification that allows you to accept the data .... and then present the graph that looks the most controversial from all the possibilities you could have chosen ..... then .......

You have a Turd (in my opinion).

Take a look at the original Mann graph (not the highlighted hockey stick)...... but the confidence intervals for the time period prior to 1850 ....... what do you reckon ?

Had a few black-sheep ales tonight (highly recommend .... if from a skeptical view !!!)

Y.S