Disgraceful. McIntyre attempting to abuse his position as IPCC reviewer to bully his betters. I'd have sacked him.

Dec 30, 2016 at 5:17 PM | Phil Clarke

What a wonderful and simple summary of what is so wrong with Climate Science, and the mental state of those advocating for it, demonstrated by Phil Clarke, in full blown Denial mode.

I am predicting that 2017 will see an Unprecedented cut in Climate Science finances, and Phil Clarke has just confirmed, yet again, why this is necessary. Draining the Swamp will help clear the air. Who needs an EPA anyway?

I
For the climate demented, tough questions are "bullying" and if the one asking the question is not one of the "betters", then the unworthy questioner must be run off. Pathetic and kooky on your part, PC

"You surely cannot be unaware that the hockey stick uptick in the 20th Century was as a result of a single set of bristlecone pines in the South West USA? A series documented by Graybill and Idso who specifically warned against using them as a temperature proxy for the last 150 years.

That is one of the McIntyre Myths demolished by Wahl & Ammann"

In which paper?

For the second time, this one:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7

Heh, The Veterans of the Climate Wars; founding chapter forming here, first round of salutations and libations on me.

I reach for me wallet and I get me hat?
=========================

kim, it is worth checking the references cited at the article linked by Phil Clarke. It reads like a Who's Who of Hockey Teamsters, co-authors and probably, (based on past performance and ClimateGate revelations) Peer Reviewers aswell.

It is all frightfully, jolly hockey sticks, but if you are not on the team, it just doesn't pay very well, if at all.

Of course, it is rumoured that devoted Hockey Teamsters may well be looking for an alternative game during 2017. Some may struggle in any game involving actual science, and many politicians are already counting the cost of having supported them.

"For the second time, this one:"

Sorry Phil, just making sure we had the correct paper. This would be the paper in which the validation statistics for WA were almost exactly the same as MM05, but went unreported in the WA paper. You should read the rebuttals as well as the criticisms, keeps you more informed. McIntyre's response is here McIntyre response to Wahl and Ammann paper.

McIntyre ran the Wahl Ammann verification code on Mann's data and found that:

MBH RE = 48
MM05 RE = 46
AW RE = 47

Looking good? Not really.

MBH r2 = nr CE = nr
MM05 r2 = 0.02 CE = -0.26
AW r2 = 0.02 CE = -0.24

As an added piece of information this is from the NAS report:

"Reconstructions that have poor validation statistics (i.e., low CE) will have correspondingly wide uncertainty bounds, and so can be seen to be unreliable in an objective way. Moreover, a CE statistic close to zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no better than the mean, and so its skill for time averages shorter than the validation period will be low. Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to –0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried."

They also said that the usual RE benchmark wasn't appropriate.

Are you sure you've read the NAS report Phil? They do agree with Wegman, although they've cloaked their criticism in the most Sir Humphrian prose.
h

geronimo, I wonder if Phil Clarke has fallen for the Climate Disinformer William M Connolley's deliberate tricks to con the gullible? Taken from this Thread at Climate Audit in the month after ClimateGate

https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/

Steve McIntyre Posted Dec 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

"Norbert asked about attempts by the Team to “rebut” the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of MBH by cynically using “MM” to conflate the Michaels and McKitrick paper – a paper on an unrelated topic that I had nothing to do with it – with the critique of MBH. This was done, in particular, to capitalize on a programming error that Ross had made (resulting in radians being input instead of degrees to a cosine formula) – an error that was identified because Ross placed his code online and which Ross promptly acknowledged and issued a correction for."

A particular egregious admission of this intentional campaign was admitted by Connolley in the Wikipedia discussion here

Connolley:
"As to Mann’s error: if he was wrong (and he might be) its a small effect. M&M’s error (confusing radians and degrees) completely scrambles the data. William M. Connolley 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)."

Another Wiki contributor reported that the MBH critique M&M did not make this particular error:

M&M didn’t make a mistake in degrees and radians I think you mean McKitrick in a not related article made that mistake.

Connolley cynically retorted:

"Of course M&M did. But McK and McI don’t have a trademark on the M&M label."

Wiki contributor Sirks criticized Connolley for “deliberately misleading” people through this “trick”:

And thereby deliberately misleading people who read this talk page. –MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Another reader observed that the only purpose of the comment on work that I had not been involved with was to damage our reputation:

That is the reason why I am amazed that you want to mention it here. You give the impression that you want to suggest that McKitrick doesn’t know the differnce between radians and degrees.(thereby suggesting that you can’t trust the work of M&M.)

On the latter point, definitely. William M. Connolley 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC).It doesn’t surprise me, but now it is in writting.–MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

GC. My point is that it is highly unlikely that Mann will go to trial. The NAS investigation cleared him of wrongdoing, yet they called the science - for want of a better word - junk. Wegman wasn't happy his "Wrong Method + Right Result = Bad Science" quote being the key message from his report. None of the investigations were about whether Mikey's graph was fraudulent, except maybe the Penn State. If Mikey goes to court, on the evidence available, the judges will have to assess whether the rubbish that is MBH 1998 was deliberately manipulated to get the hockey stick shape, or whether Mann is a complete fool who didn't understand what he was doing. He doesn't win either way.

He has deep pockets, and a seemingly vengeful nature, so he's dragging Steyn and Professor Ball through the process having taken the latter's life savings already in costs. When it comes down to the wire he'll drop the case rather than risk the court judging his graph fraudulent. Steyn knows this and that's why he wants to get to trial as soon as possible.

As I've said before the Hockey Stick is a dead parrot, a Polly Gone, no one really believes there wasn't a MWP. Except Phil and EM of course. Not sure why.

geronimo 4:36, I am not disputing anything you say! US Justice is the most expensive that money can buy, and Mann has access to other people's very deep pockets, having conspired with fellow collaborators to pick the Taxpayer's pockets for years.

That is why I wonder whether Trump might ask Agents acting on behalf of the US Criminal Justce Services to review certain matters relevant to the financial probity of Climate Scientists. Shukla and the RICO 20 might produce a stool pigeon, much as FIFA was blown apart.

Climate Scientists have not been shy of criticising Trump, and seeking to undermine him, they have also blatantly conspired to subvert the Justice system against those that expose the short comings of Climate Science.

A televised criminal trial of a few climate scientists over fraud and corruption involving Taxpayers Money, possibly dragging some senior Democrats and media reporters through the mud, might have some appeal to the new White House staff.

Geronimo

Are you sure you've read the NAS report Phil?

Oh, yes, and so I can recognise your selective quotation when I see it. Your censorship in bold.

 Reconstructions that have poor validation statistics (i.e., low CE) will have correspondingly wide uncertainty bounds, and so can be seen to be unreliable in an objective way. Moreover, a CE statistic close to zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no better than the mean, and so its skill for time averages shorter than the validation period will be low. Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to –0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried. Although some debate has focused on when a validation statistic, such as CE or RE, is significant, a more meaningful approach may be to concentrate on the implied prediction intervals for a given reconstruction. Even a low CE value may still provide prediction intervals that are useful for drawing particular scientific conclusions.

You apparently place some faith in the NAS Panel, so shall we get their opinion on r2, in the context of paleo reconstructions, apparently such a big deal to McIntyre, Montford and your good self?

However, r2 measures how well some linear function of the predictions matches the data, not how well the predictions themselves perform. The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not in itself a useful indication of merit

Poof!

My point is that it is highly unlikely that Mann will go to trial. The NAS investigation cleared him of wrongdoing, yet they called the science - for want of a better word - junk.

The chairman, Gerald North, actually said this:

The Mann et al., results were not 'wrong' and the science was not 'bad'. They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made. 

I think you're full of it, G.

They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made. 

I think you're full of it, G.

Dec 31, 2016 at 11:33 PM | Phil Clarke

That is a bit like saying they fitted all the right numbers into their equations, just not necessarily, in the right order.

Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05’s arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise.

But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction – that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let’s face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone’s attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right – it would make no practical difference at all.

From <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/>

From James Delingpole, fed up with corruption in Climate Science, after ClimateGate, and ref William M Connolley. Phil Jones emails William M Connolley and Caspar Ammann, and yet Phil Clarke on this thread thinks Climate Science is trustworthy.

"Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:"

>> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
>> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments…
>>

"and here are some of his associates:"

From: Phil Jones
To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov,rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David (GA)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”

"Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists."

Phil Clarke, why do you defend corruption and lies and attack anybody interested in truth and honesty? It seems honesty is not regarded highly by Climate Science. Trump knows how to fix Climate Science.

Climate Science is full of it. Flush the toilet, then drain the swamp.

"I think you're full of it, G."

What can I say? Thanks? Happy New Year?

"The Mann et al., results were not 'wrong' and the science was not 'bad'. They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made."

I missed that in the NAS report, where exactly was it?

We're talking about a possible court case, where people will have to go on record under oath, not some SkS yah boo forum.

We've already shown that North and Bloomberg did not contest Wegman's withering conclusions about MBH1998 in the Barton enquiry, So that's the risk for Mikey in a court case, if North and Bloomberg, admit, as they did both in the NAS report and in Congress that the statistics were naff and the use of bristlecone pines was unwise (from the NAS report. "While ‘strip- bark’ samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions..."), and the inconsistencies in Mikey's stories (like using only RE as a statistical verification, and not trying the reconstruction without the bristlecone pines and finding no hockeystick and much more). His refusal to hand over data, one of his excuses being that they were asked for in excel, when there is an email chain that shows this to be untrue. Plus the myriad other inconsistencies in his narrative. All these things considered he risks a less comradely enquiry to judge that here had indeed been skulduggery. That's his problem with going to trial.

That's all I'm saying, the hockey stick, may, or may not have been a Michael Mann contrivance. For sure these days it isn't taken seriously outside of SkS, Reailclimate, and wannabe youngsters seeking fame in the mistaken belief that Mikey is a scientific icon. No serious scientist really believes there wasn't a MWP. Hence he risks breaking cover from the scientific establishment that has obfuscated the train wreck that is MBH1998 and being held to account by defence attorneys uninterested in the niceties of keeping a solid front in the face of criticism from outside scientific circles.

That's why Steyn wants to get him into court and has consistently asked to go straight to trial.

North was speaking at the Press conference for the NAS report, you may describe the Wegman criticisms as 'withering', however even had Wegman been part of the MBH team and made what he considered better methodological choices, the conclusions would have been unchanged. And strip bark bristlecones are only problematic over the last 150 years, so irrelevant to the MWP.

And Steyn's defamatory accusation was fraud, not poor stats.

We're talking about a possible court case, where people will have to go on record under oath, not some SkS yah boo forum.

It could indeed be a good 2017 if we saw that happen. Mann initiated the suit. Steyn is ready to rumble. I'm sure even Phil Clarke can agree with the idea of settling it in open court. :)

And Steyn's defamatory accusation was fraud, not poor stats.

Jan 1, 2017 at 10:48 AM | Phil Clarke

Surely Mann would be keen to get to court and prove this, if he can?

It would establish Phil Clarke and Mann as being honest, reliable and trustworthy, at a time when Climate Science needs to prove itself honest, reliable and trustworthy.

Phil Clarke: "And Steyn's defamatory accusation was fraud, not poor stats."

"Fraudulent hockeystick" I believe was the phrase. And the risk for Mikey is that the defence will present a case that will satisfy the court that there is enough doubt about the science to make a reasonable person assume some sort of skulduggery. Mann's behaviour, his book, The Climate Wars, his easily proven untruths, the fact that experts in PCA have said that they can't see how any worthwhile signal can come from detrended PCAs, the fact that Graybill and Idso specifically said in their paper that the bristlecone pine rings were affected by other environmental events, his refusal to provide his code and data to McIntyre and McKitrick, the fact that he has not one amicus curiae (friend of the court) supporting his case. No scientist or scientific institutions have stood behind him.

It's a big risk to go to court his sympathisers will not be able to waffle generalities about how the methodology was flawed, but the result was right. All the data, code, emails, files and any other information relevant to the trial will have to be provided during discovery and the defence will have had time to go through it in detail looking for evidence of skulduggery.

Even if there wasn't any, and it's not clear to me that there wasn't, there's a chance that innocent mistake could be taken by the court as evidence of fraud.

Mikey will be in court, because Steyn has counter-sued, so he's got himself into a bit of a pickle, his only hope is the sclertoic court system in DC will delay it long enough for Steyn to pop his clogs.

Well, to repeat the OP, the Court has already determined that Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice

Which rather puts the onus of Steyn to make his case.

So many myths, so little time. What is fraudulent about Mann's book on the HS? I've read it and he deals with pretty much all of the McIntyre Myths above, even if just as footnotes. About the only issue McIntyre could come up with in its 263 page was a nitpick about what format a data file was supplied in, completely dealt with by Mann in footnote 45 to Chapter 8.

You clearly don't understand the function of an amicus curiae.

Provide a couple of Dr Mann's 'easily proven untruths'? Imagine you're under oath for a minute, not on a blog.

Phil

You don't seem to have read (or to have taken in) what I said earlier in this thread about the significance of the words from the Court you have quoted. Mann has just jumped over a very low hurdle to allow him to get on with his case (assuming he wants to). If it ever gets to trial, there will be lots more evidence than just the pleadings for the Court to consider.

Piltdown Mann won't you come out tonight, come out tonight, come out tonight?
Frolic with the Friends of the Court, Friends of the Court, your friends are all without.
Prance about your Crooked Stick,
Tuck it through a dirty trick,
Like an elevator, zoom!
Dance in the light of your doom.
==================

kim, if Michael Mann prances about with his Hockey Stick, it will disintegrate. It is a fragile relic of when Climate Dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and should have been fossilised years ago.

How Mr Phil Clarke dances delicately around the topics! A defence of the hockey stick becomes a defence of Mr Mann's book about the hockey stick.

I have no doubt that most of the book is true, just as most of his his writing will probably be grammatically correct. But that's not the issue. Even on the simplest issue, Michael Mann produced a graph that is at best mendaciously deceptive, in the way that Piltdown Mann was mendaciously deceptive: Presenting two or more pieces of physical evidence that should not have appeared in juxtaposition.

Mark Steyn, quite reasonably, described it/the author as fraudulent. He is entitled to express his opinion (which I agree with), and is going to defend it with the full backing of the US constitution. That is what the case is primarily about. But then Mr Clarke links to a Climate Audit article which was not even about the book. Phil, you are all over the place. It seems like a mental diarrhoea. The trial is primarily about Steyn's rights of free speech, not about Michael Mann's right to tell lies, nor to adjudicate on scientific conclusions that might be drawn by those less aware of the details. That is why Michael Mann found himself with zero allies when the MSM sided with Mark Steyn in their amicus curiae. Many of them despise Mark Steyn, yet go to court to support him against Michael Mann. Ouch.

But if, like Phil Clarke, a wilfully ignorant MSM chooses to present the Mann-Steyn trial as meaning something else, then good luck to them as they light the fire of their own suttee.