Kim,

Dr Mann disclosed everything he was required to.

The report of the NAS panel I mentioned above is here. In the chapter on verification statistics, they are quite clear; in the context of low resolution proxy reconstructions the R2 measure has no merit (Page 94). Not something you'd discover from reading McIntyre or indeed Montford, who did their usual mountain molehill thing, which you've swallowed uncritically.

Perhaps what people will remember is the attempt to elevate this non-issue into yet another lame conspiracy theory.

Phil

You're right that Dr Mann disclosed everything required to thus far - nothing. However, given that disclosure/discovery normally takes place at an early stage of any civil litigation, perhaps you can explain to me how this case hadn't reached that stage after 8 years?

Perhaps what people will remember is the attempt to elevate this non-issue into yet another lame conspiracy theory.

Sep 23, 2019 at 8:27 AM | Phil Clarke

No. People will realise that Climate Science is full of luxuriously funded lies, and they will ask how it started.

Mark,

You're determined to milk this one huh? The sad history of the action is given in the dismissal judgement, which you've read, other than that there is only what's been released to social media by the parties, - one sentence in Dr Ball's case.

(That would be the Dr Ball who lies about his qualifications, was described in another court as a paid promoter of fossil fuel interests, describes science education as 'indoctrination' and denies that greenhouse gases cause any warming).

Sep 23, 2019 at 10:17 AM | Phil Clarke

You are in denial of the evidence as explained to you previously.

Climate Science does not support Mann.
The Law does not support Mann.
US Democrats are split about supporting Mann.

If Trump wants to stop US Taxpayers from funding faked up Climate Science, Mann and his devoted Hockey Teamsters have erected great big flagposts over targets that need firing.

Phil,

No, I'm not determined to milk it. I think I've been scrupulously fair in dealing with whatever points you've made about it.

Rather, I was determined to get you (undoubtedly an intelligent individual) to ask some intelligent questions about the case, what Mann's motivation was, why the case was sat on for years, rather than pursued, and to think about the implications, especially regarding what I consider to be Mann's near-hysterical and highly-spun response on Twitter to the judgment against him.

However, as you seem to be unprepared to do that, I give up. I have better things to do. But at least I now know that appeals to reason and thought are a waste of time when debating with you.

Phil, re you're 9/23 8:27 AM.

Funny that the Piltdown Mann didn't try to defend his science with your contention.

He did do Verification R2 statistics, which in your eyes would make him incompetent. I guess that's better than crooked from the suppression of the failed verification.

I dare you to argue this @ StevieMac's place.
====================================

Read the report - R2 has its uses, but there are applications where it is the wrong tool.

Funny that Mann didn't try to defend his science with your contention.

Wrong again, when asked by the NAS panel about r2, Mann replied that use in this context, use of the verification r2 statistic “would be silly, and incorrect reasoning.”

Interesting that you believe the NAS has got it wrong and given McIntyre's record, your faith in Climate Audit as a level playing field is amusing.

PS The case for dangerous AGW does not rest on modern global heating being unprecedented, and the case for unprecedented recent heating does not rest solely on 2 decades-old papers.

PPS The problems with r2 as a verification of surface temperature reconstructions were thoroughly rehearsed in the literature over a decade ago, eg Wahl & Ammann 2007

These results highlight the need to be very careful about the logical framework for determining the kinds of errors for which minimization is being sought in validation. To use, for example, just the interannual information available from r2 would, under the criterion of minimizing the risk of committing a false positive error, lead to verification rejection of most of the MBH/WA emulations and all of the MM-motivated scenarios reported. However, this judgment would entail committing large proportions of false negative errors for these reconstructions at the low frequency scale of the overall verification period, whose multi-decadal perspective is the primary temporal focus of this paper. Our assessment is that such a rejection of validated performance at the low frequency scale would be a waste of objectively useful information, similar to that documented for micro-fossil based paleoclimate reconstructions that use highly conservative criteria focused on strong reduction of false positive errors

(Unbelievably, McIntyre claimed the climate discipline did not read this paper in detail!)

PPPS The reconstruction published by McKitrick and McIntyre (MM2005, rejected by Nature) with high medieval warmth had a data handling error, which when corrected, um, gave it a validation score indistinguishable from a random estimate. Again, this is old, old news.

Sep 25, 2019 at 7:31 AM | Phil Clarke
Sep 25, 2019 at 8:52 AM | Phil Clarke

Your lies and misinformation have not improved, they are still of poor quality. Are you depending on the same professional sources?

Well, I got the Mann quote from Steve Mcintyre - draw your own conclusions :-)

Heh, Phil, take it to StevieMac.
======================

Lame.

It's really not that difficult. R2 is a statistical metric that compares the variance of two data series and measures to what extent one 'explains' the other. But it ignores the mean and standard deviation (two series where one was simply the other multiplied by 10 would have a 'perfect' r2 of 1, but would hardly be a good match). R2 has some value where resolution is high, such as the relatively dense annually-resolved proxies from recent centuries but can give misleading results where values are more sparse, such as proxies from earlier centuries.

True, MBH98 included r2 statistics (from AD1820 if memory serves.)

but the r2 from earlier periods was not published -, yes it is low, but this is insignificant, and expected. Gavin put it well:

The ‘R2’ issue similarly – the NAS Chapter 9 deals with the issues there very clearly. The basic point is that when you get to the relatively sparse networks further back, the reconstructions don’t have fidelity at the year-to-year variability. If that is something you care about (i.e. whether 1237 was warmer or cooler than 1238), then you are out of luck. If instead you are interested in whether the 13th Century was cooler than the 12th C, it’s not the right metric to be using. 

This did not stop the usual suspects jumping up and down and claiming the low r2 was catastrophic and weaving conspiracy theories about its being withheld (although calculating it is fairly trivial, and in any case it was included in the Wahl and Ammann paper above).

So a discussion on this at Climate Audit would have to start with an admission that this is an irrelevant nitpick and McIntyre has been disingenous at best and dishonest at worst.

I can't see it myself.

Well, I got the Mann quote from Steve Mcintyre - draw your own conclusions :-)

Sep 25, 2019 at 8:07 PM | Phil Clarke

Do you get your lies direct from Hockey Teamsters?

In retrospect, the “hockey stick” studies that I’ve criticized have been used by climate scientists, journals and IPCC to promote concern, but the most important outstanding scientific issue appears to me to be the amount of “water cycle” feedback, including clouds as well as water vapor. This controls the “climate sensitivity” to increased CO2.

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues.

https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/26/unthreaded-n/#comment-195090

It was true in 2009, its even more true now.

Sep 25, 2019 at 10:53 PM Phil Clarke
How much of Hockey Teamster science is similarly contaminated by adjustments and lies?

Back during the 1998-2012 14-year warming "pause" everyone was fixated on it; now we are in the midst a 2005-2019 14-year warming "acceleration" that is just as far above the long term trend as the "pause" was below it.

Drawing conclusions about the long-term trend from a selected 14 year period is not very meaningful. At the same time, I can't help noticing there are relatively few academic papers or misguided breathless articles trying to explain the "acceleration"!

-Zeke Hausfather

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1175874681108344832
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1175874683952095233

Gosh, what does Zeke Hausfather call the interval 2005-2012, the "accelerated pause" or the 'pausing acceleration"? Surely the essential element is that acceleration is predicted, nay hyped by climate models, but pauses were verboten?

One wonders if Mann takes the same approach to his work as he does to his legal "strategy"?..... iirc the Climategate emails seem to show that he's pretty quick resorting to bluster when he discovers what he perceives a challenge.

AK

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037810

Phil. Lost your ability to communicate properly?

Apologies, I thought it was self-explanatory.

Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming.

If you're going to assess the 'skill' of a prediction (or projection) it is surely important accurately to state was actually predicted or projected. Another paper, written mid-pause and discussed here predicted the pause would continue, but overestimated its length:

We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

In fact as the new WMO report makes clear, the 'acceleration' has kicked in and it is highly likely that the 5 years 2015-2019 will be the hottest on record.

Oh fantastic! two quotations saying the pause was predictable by models after it had occurred. Earth-shattering!
As I thought the papers you wanted me to consult do not explain how someone like Zeke Hausfather can designate the same years as both pause and accelerating.

Pause end: 2012
Manuscript received: 18 February 2009