I have raised this discussion to see if Phil Clarke cannot be persuaded that Drs Mann and Jones were rather cavalier with their data and code. The original discussion can be found in the Bish's post: "Corporate worms starting to turn" here.

This came about because Clarke, who has a habit of injecting unattributed screeds of text lifted from Wiki into comments, asserted, with quotes (cited, no less) that Mann's data and code was made available to all, notwithstanding that Steve McIntyre had said otherwise.

Phil Clarke:

[Harry Passfield said] Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his[to which Clarke replied]:
Balony.

Clarke then comments (note: his HTML doesn't work):

[blockquote]“Dear Mr. McIntyre, I apologize if my last electronic message was not clear but let me clarify the US NSF’s view in this current message. Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate. I would expect that you would respect the views of the US NSF on the issue of data access and intellectual property for US investigators as articulated by me to you in my last message under the advisement of the US NSF’s Office of General Counsel.
Respectfully,
David J. Verardo,
Director, Paleoclimate Program,
Division of Atmospheric Sciences.”

[/blockquote]

Mail to McIntyre from the NSF confirming that Dr Mann disclosed everything that he was obliged to; all data necessary to reproduce the study were freely available on the internet.

[blockquote]To be specific, they claimed that the hockey stick was an artifact of four supposed “categories of errors”: “collation errors,” “unjustified truncation and extrapolation,” “obsolete data,” and “calculation mistakes.” As we noted in a reply to a McIntyre and McKitrick comment on MBH98 that had been submitted to and rejected by Nature (because their comment was rejected anyway, our reply would not appear there either), those claims were false, resulting from their misunderstanding of the format of a spreadsheet version of the dataset they had specifically requested from my associate, Scott Rutherford. None of the problems they cited were present in the raw, publicly available version of our dataset, which was available at that time at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/.

Mann, Michael E. (2012-01-24). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (p. 263). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition. [which I have read]

Footnote confirming the above.

[blockquote]
Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies. The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).[/blockquote]

UEA Press release.

Clearly the absurd claim that 'Mann would not show his data/code until forced to do so years later; and Jones 'lost' all his'

Is utter bollux, unless data can simultaneously be lost and 95% available. Lol. Denier Doublethink?

Mar 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Readers should be aware of this article from CA from Dec 2004 seems to put the lie to Clarke's claims. However, I draw your attention to the fact that Clarke thinks McIntyre is "a man given to bad faith" (from one of his comments).

In fact, if you go to CA and search on "Mann data" you can pick nearly all the older posts from Steve on the subject. There's an equally deep mine of data on Phil Jones' data to be found.

Except McIntyre is capable of denying he has data even after it has been provided: as in the case of the Yamal data from Hantemirov.

After accusing McIntyre of 'amnesia', Hantemirov, a professional dendrochronologist added

"Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job?"

You know what? Not everything you read at CA is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The claim was that Man was 'forced' to supply his data, but here's a mail from Steve McIntyre (my bold):-

Dear Dr. Mann,

I have been studying MBH98 and 99. I located datasets for the 13 series used in 99 at ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINEPREPRINTS/Millennium/DATA/PROXIES/ (the convenience of the ftp: location being excellent) and was interested in locating similar information on the 112 proxies referred to in MBH98, as well as listing (the listing at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/data_supp.html is for 390 datasets, and I gather/presume that many of these listed datasets have been condensed into PCs, as mentioned in the paper itself.

Thank you for your attention. Yours truly,

Stephen McIntyre, Toronto, Canada

No forcing there. The data requested was supplied by a colleague of Mann shortly afterwards.

Note also that other, competent researchers had no difficulty in reproducing Mann's work e.g. Zorita et 2003.

The claim does not stand up to scrutiny. I think the onus is now on you to provide evidence of Jones losing data.

There are some tedious blowhards who don't deserve a thread.

In fact, if you go to CA and search on "Mann data" you can pick nearly all the older posts from Steve on the subject. There's an equally deep mine of data on Phil Jones' data to be found.

And here is Tim Lambert on why everything McIntyre asserts should be treated with an appropriate scepticism.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/category/global_warming/mcintyre/

RadRod/TBYJ: I fear I may have just produced a feast with which to feed a troll. Phil Cluck is past saving: there is nothing one could say to him that he would not ignore/not read or pretend didn't exist, because his bible at SkS etc has bought him totally. My take is that anyone who relies so whole-heartedly on Wiki for the (un)biased source of their citations is a desperate case and beyond redemption. He will be back here spouting the same old rubbish in future. I should know to ignore it. My positive take on this is that someone who has so obviously not followed (say) Steve Mc or our own Bish, is a proven failure in this dialogue and obviously has other reasons to believe the nonsense he does. Maybe he's a fan of Corbyn (the politician). I hope to God he's not advising Rudd - but from her utterances lately, he might as well be.

Sorry, I thought this was to be a discussion: I've provided solid evidence that Mann produced all the data he was required to, Jones and the CRU lost nothing and also that McIntyre is not above hiding data that he has received. No backing has been provided for the ridiculous claim that Jones lost all his data.

I won't make the same mistake again.

According to McIntyre - who you dispute:

Proxy data:
There is an archive of proxy data located at Mann’s FTP site at the University of Virginia and this is not a current problem area. This data has not “always” been available. The FTP site was started on or about July 30, 2002, about 4 years after publication of MBH98, so it was not available prior to then. The proxy data is presently located at the url and bears a date stamp from 2002.

So Mann did not release his data with the paper (MBH98). Part of the problem with peer-review is that, in order to carry out a thorough peer-review one needs access to the same data and code as the author of the paper, or do you dispute that? In the absence of the data (let alone the code - which McIntyre had to reconstruct) how could a peer-review be accomplished.

As for Jones 'losing' data, he admitted as much to the Guardian.

So the backpedalling begins. The claim that I called BS on was that Jones lost all his data. That was and is, balony. The lost records were '42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China', and were actually the responsibility of a co-author, Wang who was investigated for misconduct and exonerated. The paper that used the data was not materially affected. The data for the CRU's global temperature reconstructions, surely the more relevant information, was never lost.

The second accusation was that Mann hid his data until forced to disclose it. More balony, the authors published a supplement to MBH98 with all raw data included. McIntyre was referring to collated proxy data and when he requested these, some years after publication, Mann's initial response caused McIntyre to compliment Mann on the 'excellent convenience' of the ftp location.

Doesn't sound like somone being forced unwillingly to disclose anything. Relations broke down subsequently as McIntyre began his campaign of smear and insinuation. During this period Nigel Persaud was logging onto sci.environment, consistently smearing MBH and bigging up McIntyre and McKitrick. Turned out Nigel was a sockpuppet of McIntyre's. A minor deception - but it speaks to the man's integrity.

Scientists have a duty to disclose as much data as needed to review and replicate their work, they have no responsibility to spend their time hand-holding anyone through every step of a study. Other researchers (eg Zorita) had no problems replicating the MBH reconstructions.

Taking a step back, this fixation on two last-century studies is bemusing. MBH98/99 were groundbreaking, they did not get everything right, but the central conclusions of modern warming exceeding past warming have been confirmed time and time again.

Part of the problem with peer-review is that, in order to carry out a thorough peer-review one needs access to the same data and code as the author of the paper, or do you dispute that?

Raw data, yes, code not so much - in fact for independent replication it is often better to develop your own code, and as a matter of law code may be intellectual property. The NSF confirmed that Mann complied with all his disclosure obligations.

The biggest miss in climate science must be how on earth did Mann miss the MWP and LIA out of his Hockey Stick? Maybe a tree ate them or, he accidently carbonised the data.

Of course some climate scientists still mutter "We have to get rid of the Hockey Stick", or else, as Private Frazer would say in Dad's Army "We're Doomed!"

Phil Clarke, I am sure Mann's legal funding can afford to fly you to the USA and testify to all this in court.

The thing is, Phil Clarke, if you had read the HSI you would understand what is meant by 'the code'. Mann introduced a rather strange statistical contrivance in his HS calculations and would not tell anyone how he did it. It was up to the likes of SM to come up with the possibilities for creating the HS by using standard statistical methods. Of course, when they show that the HS is a fraud because their code shows it to be, Mann and his acolytes claim that's because SM writes crap statistical code. So you see, it would be a great help to have the 'code' when doing PR. The fact that Mann would not release it was because he was using non-standard methods to achieve his ends and, when that was discovered the resultant ridicule of his paper has virtually led to its demise. It is only the politically motivated who still worship at the icon of AGW.

You will need to do a lot more reading of SM and HSI to get the full picture - but you won't, will you?

You will need to do a lot more reading of SM and HSI to get the full picture - but you won't, will you?

If you got that delusional stuff from HSI then I'd have to say I am not missing much.

The idea that AGW theory begins and ends with the hockey stick is another logical fallacy, BTW

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

PAGES 2K

However many series that Pages2k flip, the end results do not change. This is climate "scientivism", a quasi science rather than a real field of knowledge. And the fan web sites are run by gag writers rather than knowledgeable people.

Phil Clarke: when you come out with:

If you got that delusional stuff from HSI then I'd have to say I am not missing much.

you have to realise it's the most oxymoronic argument ever. You state that HSI is 'delusional', while at the same time - and in the same sentence - admit you haven't read it. C'mon! Even you, of all people, can see that that is a hollow argument. It doesn't even get you into 'Debating 101' class.

The icing on the cake is when you, the most active of Mannian supporters - who up until now gave fierce and unswerving support for the hockey stick - has now, in one sentence, totally disowned it with:

The idea that AGW theory begins and ends with the hockey stick is another logical fallacy

So there we have it: Phil Clarke does not believe in the Hockey Stick.

So what does the AGW theory begin with, Phil - other than a political ambition to profit from 'carbon'?

Harry Passfield, you must remember that Mann's Holy Hockey Stick is the foundation of most climate science funding. Without it, no burger chain will have job vacancies any more.

phil clarke plays the part of the pig in a metaphor about pig wrestling rather well.

You state that HSI is 'delusional',

I did not.

So there we have it: Phil Clarke does not believe in the Hockey Stick.

Complete non-sequiteur.

It doesn't even get you into 'Debating 101' class.

Pot, kettle.

Sheesh! Delusional: You charged that I was getting 'delusional stuff' from HSI, ergo, you must believe that the HSI is full of delusional stuff. You haven't read it. You are not qualified to comment on it.

If it is a 'logical fallacy' that AGW 'begins and ends with the hockey stick' then the hockey stick has no bearing on the argument. You believe that it's a logical fallacy, ergo, you believe the hockey stick has no bearing on the argument. You are a denier of Mann. Good to know. Now go away and read a bit more of McIntyre and Montford so that you too can understand more thoroughly the way the so-called scientists of whom they write have mislead the public by hiding their data and methods and discouraging others from publishing.

Harry,
Wow, your ability to misrepresent what someone else has said is impressive. Kudos.

Ken: Clarke figures I quote 'delusional stuff' from HSI. He admits he hasn't read HSI so his comment is worthless. Clark figures the the importance given to the HS is a 'logical fallacy'. He therefore must believe it of no import as it is a fallacy.

Where did I misrepresent him?

Harry,
Oh, I have no interest in discussing this. It's fairly obvious that Phil did not say what you've claimed he's said. However, in my experience discussing this further will either lead to you maintaining that he did, or constructing some kind of argument justifying your interpretation ("I know what he meant", for example). I was simply applauding your ingenuity. Kudos.