Phil, I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when Mann's lawyers discovered they had to modify their submission. Perhaps that's why they are so dilatory now about charging into court to defend his reputation.
====================

Phil Clarke, if Hughes identified and corrected problems with divergence, observation, tree rings, corrected corrections etc, how the heck did they lose data for the MWP and LIA? You seem to ignore Inconvenient Truths.

Phil Jones did lose his Chinese data, the MBH data loss IS a separate act of deliberate carelessness.

When mistakes are made in any walk of life, that were based on the BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, they were at least honest mistakes. MBH ignored the best information available at the time, as it did not fit the required conclusion.

I don't know if you have a financial motivation for posting here, but your attitude towards Non Violent Direct Action reveals contempt for Legal Principles, when it suits YOU, or your chosen cause. Your devotion to Mann makes sense.

Easy, Kid; MBH '98-99. Well, that's two.

'Wrong science' refers to all the alarmist literature, which has badly, sadly, perhaps crookedly, exaggerated the sensitivity of temperature to CO2.
==============

It's pretty clear that Phil is a la-la-la-la, three silent monkeys sort of dude. Trenchant criticisms he calls 'noise'.

He has ridden in on his 'unprecedented warming' horse and it turns out it is a donkey, whose rider is mulish.

It's all foundering, Phil, not AGW, the catastrophism.
================

'three silent monkeys' is incorrect; two are sensory deprived and one mute. Phil is sensory deprived, but prohibited from speaking of evil.

Free Phil Clarke!
===========

'It is wrong because I say it is wrong' really does not get us very far. Though I am sure you find yourself very convincing.

The authors of more than 2,000 articles saw fit to cite these two 'wrong' studies.

gc, I was at Keith Kloor's, in fact being edited by him, the day that Gavin gave up the hockey stick before 1500 AD. And now Phil wants to talk about 'error bars'.
================

Phil, the shaft inappropriately smooths, and the blade is blunted. Your 2,000 cites is a measure of the corruption.

It might be interesting to take a peek at the rate of citation over time. If it hasn't already dropped, it will.
==============

Did you mean this?

 There are so many false premises and misunderstanding in your ‘logic’ that I don’t even know where to start. I’ll start off with by pointing out that I was just reading the papers concerned and reported what they said – there was nothing new to my comments at all. If other people had not read those papers, that is not my fault. I certainly don’t think that proxies are useless before 1500, and neither do I think we have no information from the medieval period, and neither do I think that tree rings are dubious – they have issues (as do all proxies) but that doesn’t make them useless. And look at Osborn and Briffa (2006) or Moberg et al (2004) – different methodologies completely.

Gavin Schmidt at Keith Kloor's

If so, well a new high in 'inaccurate precis'.

Of course the citation rate is slowing - we are talking about papers from the last century - it peaked in 2005, and in any case Mann 2008 (680 cites) was basically an update,

I figure that I should take Radical Rodent's advice and bring this thread to an end. So, please....

You need more than 16 minutes to explore the subtleties of Gavin's surrender.

To be more plain; the Crook't Stick, probably deliberately, suppressed evidence of previous warming. Your 'unprecedented warming' is a canard, a foul piece of science, which has corrupted the discussion since.

This is the judgement of 21st century science on your 'last century' paper.
===============

Heh, Harry, when 'no' means 'yes'. Perhaps a new discussion thread where I can continue to rope-a-dope Phil?

Fight like a flutterby, string like a bead.
================

It seems that McIntyre raises interesting questions about Hughes's reconstruction in this post:

http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/19/reply-to-laden-and-hughes-on-sheep-mountain/

The most interesting thing to me is this quote:

"The Mann reconstruction, either intentionally or by accident, ends in 1980, pretty much exactly at the top of the market of the Sheep Mountain chronology and did not show or discuss the divergence between the bristlecones and temperature that had already occurred in the 1980s. Instead, Mann has repeatedly asserted that his proxies tracked temperature to 1980 and were not impacted by the post-1960 divergence problem of the Briffa reconstruction. Laden repeats this talking point as follows:

Note that there wasn’t a “divergence problem” in Mann et al in the sense of Briffa et al. Mann et al match the observational record very well through 1980, which is the end of the calibration interval (owing to the fact that many proxies drop out after 1980). This is something else the deniers tend to get wrong; they try to conflate the Briffa et al post-1960 divergence problem Mann et al’s hockey stick work. There is no such issue with that work, in that there was no detectable divergence through the end of the calibration interval."

Phil is truly on form, attributing opinions to McIntyre that he does not hold and slavishly quoting an internet source that has never been correct about anything.

Even more inance comedy gold from Phil:

"So we actually applied a downward correction of the trend in those data. McIntyre doesn’t want people to know that. "

How does this square with McIntyre writing on his blog:

"First, even the Graybill chronology (to 1990) went dramatically down after 1980. While the Salzer chronology doesn’t show the dramatic decline of the Graybill chronology, this is because it doesn’t have the same dramatic increase. The Graybill chronology in 1980 is dramatically higher. "

It seems to me that he has observed this "downward correction" that Hughes & co inserted, no doubt without any rational empirical grounds whatsoever.

Harry Passfield

something here reminds me of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2, on remote Pacific Islands in the 60s and 70s, because they had not received an Order from a Superior Officer to stop.

This may hurt aTTP's sense of superiority.

As my final word, here is a post by Jeff Id which shows just how nonsensical it is to mine for hockey sticks and how you can use noisy proxies to create any trend you desire.

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/

Particularly amusing was how he managed to get a sinusoidal trend while still retaining 18% of the proxies. Mann only retained about 40% in his hockey-stick.

Hee, hee, RR; I was sure it was gonna be the furious typist 'Someone is wrong on the internet'.
========================

One delicious irony of the Crook't Stick is that because of its massive impact, its wrongness will be assiduously dissected in coming years.
==============

gc, I'm reminded more of the desperation of the kamikaze pilots rather than the ignorance and loyalty of the stranded Japanese soldiers, but there are surely elements of both.
=================

OK....if you won't STOP...

Alas, Harry, it is so much fun arguing with believers in the Crook't Stick. Here, this one admits its wrong, admits, against interest, the corruption, and still believes recent warming is unprecedented.

Perhaps I should give up the fun for mercy, instead.
===========================

It seems to me that he has observed this "downward correction" that Hughes & co inserted, no doubt without any rational empirical grounds whatsoever.

Absurd, he's talking about the dendro chronologies.

It was known that high-elevation trees are often not limited in growth simply by climate conditions such as growing season warmth, but also by carbon dioxide levels. Trees need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, but immersed in the thinner atmosphere of high elevations they may be somewhat starved of this resource. In a 1993 article, Graybill and Idso had shown that these very trees might be expected to exhibit a positive growth response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.25 This so-called CO2 fertilization mechanism could explain the divergence between the growth rates of the high-elevation western U.S. trees and the low-elevation boreal tree line stands: The timing of the divergence was almost perfectly correlated with the exponential rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the early nineteenth century associated with the Industrial Revolution. The disappearance of the divergence in the twentieth century was consistent with warmth once again returning as the key factor controlling the growth of the high-elevation trees in the presence of adequate carbon dioxide. By correcting for that carbon dioxide effect through comparing otherwise similar trends in low- and high-elevation temperature-sensitive North American trees,26 it seemed we might now be able to make use of the far-longer-term western U.S. data. Indeed, when we used the corrected version of the western U.S. tree ring data in our analysis, our validation tests gave us the green light; we could indeed now meaningfully reconstruct Northern Hemisphere average temperatures over the entire past millennium.

Mann, Michael E. (2012-01-24). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (pp. 51-52). Columbia University Press. Kindle Edition.

Hughes was right, McIntyre hand-waving.

Heh, a marvelous example of the plasticity of treemometry. You've admitted corruption, you now show the fertile field it thrives in.
============