I'm getting fed up with this, it's off topic. Now, back radiation or TOA height change, which is it to be?

(I don't buy gravity and gas alone, won't pass the sniff test to me, but I don't mind destroying it again.)

""Montford's entertaining conspiracy yarn reaches two apparently devastating conclusions about the work of climate scientists, partly based on his analysis of the hacked email messages."

Mar 6, 2018 at 11:17 PM | Phil Clarke
"The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford was WRITTEN before ClimateGate and the release of E-Mails, so your expert opinion is flawed from the outset."

The part in italics was a quote from a review of the book, written in August 2010 by Bob Ward. At that time the book included a chapter on Climategate.

True or False?

Whether it was strictly a hack or not, the release was certainly unauthorised. Releasing correspondence without permission is always unethical. As for evidence, several enquiries have reviewed the material and found nothing that indicates any kind of malfeasance. For example, here's the conclusion of the US EPA:

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

Mar 7, 2018 at 8:01 PM | Phil Clarke

You are clutching at straws. The Hockey Stick Illusion was written before Climategate. Do try to check your sources.
Has Bob Ward read it now? It is doubtful whether he did in Aug 2010. Just because you trust Bob Ward, does not make him a reliable source, in fact it indicates the opposite. If you had read the book, you would not be trying to rewrite such recent history.

"As for evidence, several enquiries have reviewed the material and found nothing that indicates any kind of malfeasance."
You may believe that, Mann is still relying on it. If Mann could find someone to vouch for that, he would not be reluctant to appear in Court.

By copying the EPA's opinion, are you confident that it would stand up to a review? A lot of the EPA's pollution of science is being reviewed, and large chunks may be thrown out, especially in relation to Climate Science.

Which bits of Climate Science are worth saving?

Phil Clarke,

perhaps you could address the points raised by JayJay and rhoda?

C'mon GC. Bob Ward was reviewing a version of the book that included a chapter on ClimateGate. True or False? Simple question, yes or no. Why do you find it so difficult to answer?

Tamino and Gavin Schmidt have shredded Montford's already diminutive credibility. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the elements of McIntyre's critiques that have any merit have no meaningful impacts and those that might have any significance have no merit.

By contrast Dr Mann now has more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal. In other words, people who know what they're talking about rate his contribution to our understanding of climate extraordinarily highly.

Meanwhile McIntyre is blogging about air pressure in footballs.

So it goes.

ar 8, 2018 at 12:24 AM | Phil Clarke

Bob Ward was reviewing a book he had not read. It was written before Climategate. Would it have made a difference if he had read the original?

"Tamino and Gavin Schmidt have shredded Montford's already diminutive credibility. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the elements of McIntyre's critiques that have any merit have no meaningful impacts and those that might have any significance have no merit." No they haven't. Just because you believe something does not make it true

"By contrast Dr Mann now has more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications." Are they all as bent as his Stick, or Harvey et al 2017?

When you start demanding True or False answers, do reread. I said something true, which you said was false. Climate Science never admits being wrong, can't self correct, and so the EPA are likely to bin it. No one will miss it.

Michael Kelly is entitled to his opinion, of course

Say what?

http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pll

Index

http://www.di2.nu/foia/


Dear Steve,

AZ510.crn is a bristlecone pine chronology. I suspect the others you are
working with are ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. In this region, these
lower-elevation species have quite a different response to climate than the
bristlecone. I haven't worked with the AZ510 chronology, but I would
guess that bristlecone tree growth at this site would be favored by warm
winter temperatures and perhaps somewhat drier conditions, while the
ponderosa and Douglas-fir do well under cool, wet winter conditions. This
may be the reason for your poor correlations.

regards,

Connie Woodhouse

Meanwhile McIntyre is blogging about air pressure in footballs

https://climateaudit.org/

The bristlecone pine business is a red herring. If the bristlecone
pine record is removed from the composite of a dozen or so records,
it will show slightly greater warming in the Middle Ages. But one
record can only make so much a difference when it is averaged among
a dozen, especially since the general shape of the bristlecone pine
record is comparable to the other records.

The honourable Bart Stupak

Sorry, forgot the source.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

Phil Clarke, your source, Mr Stearns:

"So, I mean, for anybody on the other side to say this not a legitimate hearing is incorrect. We have taken people that Dr. Mann wanted and we put them on here as witnesses. We have asked Dr. Mann to come to this hearing. We have asked him to come to the 27th. He won't come. He has hired a lawyer to spar with our people to say why he won't come. By golly, if he really is interested in solving this problem, I would cut my vacation short and whatever he is doing to say I will be here because I think in the interest of science, I would like to have an open hearing and talk about it. So I think, one, it is a legitimate hearing. Two, we have offered Dr. Mann two opportunities and yet his lawyer has indicated he won't show up. So this is a very important issue but I think overall, all of us here are trying to understand this and we would agree that there is probably global warming. What we want to know is, is this sinusoidal or is this something that is aberrational."

Hardly the actions of an open minded and honest scientist.

How do you hope to convey an impression that Climate Science is honest?

GC - You accuse Bob Ward of reviewing a book he hasn't read, you accuse Dr Mann of lacking openness and honesty because he did not attend a House Oversight committee investigation into temperature reconstructions.

But, people reading the committee report find this

We have reconvened this hearing to accommodate a key person in the matters before us, and that is Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University. Dr. Mann was unable to attend the session on the subject last week, and we are looking forward to his testimony.

My irony meter is broken. How do you hope to convey an impression that you are honest?

Here's a flavour of the testimony Dr Mann magically gave without being at the hearing

The 1999 study included a graphic depiction of the
temperature history over the last millennium, which
demonstrated an unprecedented rise during the 20th Century.
Some have dubbed this graphic the hockey stick. If the
question this committee seeks to answer is whether knowing
what I know today, a decade after starting the original
study, my colleagues and I would conduct it in exactly the
same way, the answer is plainly no. The field of
paleoclimate reconstruction has evolved tremendously over
the past decade.
Important new proxy data have been developed.
Reconstructions have been compared with independent
estimates from climate model simulations and confirmed by
those simulations. Statistical methods for reconstructing
climate from proxy data have been refined and rigorously
tested, and I have been actively working in each of these
areas. This is important because all the focus of criticism
on our work in the late 1990s has been on the statistical
conventions we used. My co-authors and I have not used those
conventions in our later work.
The critique goes only to our first reconstruction effort. It
does not apply to our more recent studies all of which
indicate the same basic hockey stick result. Exhibit B
demonstrates this point. The green reconstruction does not
use principal component analysis at all so the statistical
conventions being discussed here have no relevance, and it is
the same basic reconstruction, if you will, essentially the
same "hockey stick." Now our critics do not confront the
fact that our basic conclusion is not an isolated or
aberrational finding reached only in one study. Every
climate scientist who has performed a detailed reconstruction
of the climate of the past 1,000 years using different proxy
data and different statistical methods has come up with the
same basic hockey stick pattern, that is to say a
reconstruction that agrees with our original reconstruction
within its estimates uncertainties.

"https://climateaudit.org/"

Well, quite. Nothing from the Auditor since November of last year.

In the same period…

Pennsylvania State University professor and climate scientist Michael E. Mann has been selected to receive the 2018 AAAS Public Engagement with Science Award. The honor recognizes Mann’s “tireless efforts to communicate the science of climate change to the media, public and policymakers.”

In the past year, Mann has had 500 media interviews and appearances and directly reached public audiences via social media. His op-eds and commentaries have been published in dozens of outlets, including The Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, CNN and The New York Times. 

….

In 2017, Mann was recognized with the Schneider Award from ClimateOne and the National Association of Geoscience Teachers’ James H. Shea Award. He was also inducted into the Green Industry Hall of Fame. He was elected a AAAS fellow in 2015.

History loves winners.

From <https://www.aaas.org/news/michael-e-mann-receives-aaas-public-engagement-science-award>

My irony meter is broken. How do you hope to convey an impression that you are honest?

Mar 8, 2018 at 9:24 AM | Phil Clarke

When you and Climate Science get honest about Mann and his broken Stick, you might have a hope. Climae Science must have a financial interest in supplying defective irony and hypocrisy meters, as well as reonstructions of past climate.

Mar 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM | Phil Clarke

If Mann is honest, he should stand up in Court, and say so, in the Legal Action he instigated.

From <https://www.aaas.org/news/michael-e-mann-receives-aaas-public-engagement-science-award>

Mar 8, 2018 at 9:36 AM | Phil Clarke

Did he have to collect many empty packets of cornflakes to win that award, and did it come with a free set of Mickey Mouse ears?

With Climate Science credibility being actively reviewed, the incredible mutual backslapping at Taxpayer's expense, is sure to come in for scrutiny. If only Climate Science had got honest about the Hockey Stick, before its 20th fabrication anniversary.

Would you care to address the queries raised by JayJay and rhoda?

Why does Mann require a lawyer to attend a hearing about the science that was paid for out of the public purse. Suspicious.

"Every 
climate scientist who has performed a detailed reconstruction 
of the climate of the past 1,000 years using different proxy 
data and different statistical methods has come up with the 
same basic hockey stick pattern, that is to say a 
reconstruction that agrees with our original reconstruction 
within its estimates uncertainties."

Mar 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM | Phil Clarke

How did they all miss the MWP and LIA, and get Peer Reviewed?

Same insults. Same zero supporting evidence. Situation normal.

Why does Mann require a lawyer to attend a hearing about the science that was paid for out of the public purse. Suspicious.

Ooh yes, very shady. Dr Mann's lawyer's involvement was to ask for a date when all relevant witnesses could attend. Mann himself could not make the first part of the hearing due to family commitments - he sent along a representative - and then attended the second part of the hearing in person. I've no idea why Mann used a lawyer to manage his calendar, yes that puts all the science in doubt ....

Don't get so uppity Phil, I merely was asking why a climate scientist might have found it necessary to employ a lawyer. At several times in my life I have had to testify in a court about my geological work and it never crossed my mind (or that of my employers) to rely upon a lawyer. Any additional implications have come from your own imagination but I'm sure others here have speculated similarly.

basing his opinion of it on the opinion of other who also confesses to not having read the book.

Who would that be, exactly? I am informed by Tamino's superb and devastating review at RC, the comments after it, and ...

Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work. Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail, with a focus on the actions and words of its protagonists. Undoubtedly there have been shortcomings in working practises, many a result of the sustained pressure these individuals have been under from a small but determined group of sceptics (most recently in the UK through the repeated use of freedom of information requests), but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system. Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better. Readers of Chemistry World  will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book. 

- Chemistry World

The real wickedness of Montford’s book is his use of innuendo. Consistently and without evidence he queries the actions and motives of those with whom he disagrees. ‘Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the hockey team’ is one leitmotif. If you are, it is clear that you are as bad as Joe McCarthy’s communists, a charlatan with malign motivation. Failure by his opponents to publish results or datasets is for Montford a clear indication of a wish to obfuscate. McIntyre’s failure to publish the results of his own tree-ring research passes without comment.
Recent books by Mooney (The Republican War on Science, Basic Books, 2005) and Oreskes and Conway (Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury 2010) have shown how those with vested interests such as politicians or big business consistently try to suppress or misrepresent conclusions of scientific research that they find inconvenient. Whether global warming is man-made or not is a question that needs informed and honest debate. Montford’s book is not an honest contribution, and I very much regret that Prospect chose to promote it.

…this incredible yarn is based on a misleading and one-sided version of events, littered with inaccuracies …The hero of Montford’s story is Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mining consultant, who has fiercely attacked the methods of Michael Mann and colleagues. McIntyre’s criticisms were at least partially responsible for prompting the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review Mann’s work. The investigation concluded that while McIntyre had made some valid observations about the limitations of the statistical techniques used to construct the Hockey Stick, Mann and co-workers’ overall conclusions were plausible - though subject to greater uncertainty than had been originally acknowledged. McIntyre dismissed the NAS report as “schizophrenic” because it did not accept the bulk of his complaints.

Montford’s book presents McIntyre’s case, complete with speculations about his opponents’ motives, and gives little space to the detailed rebuttals provided by Mann and his co-authors. Indeed Montford admits in his Preface that the book grew out of a summary of postings on McIntyre’s blog ‘Climate Audit’. This explains the bias in his story.

- GeoScientist

Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. Credibility counts. Mann has published over a hundred relevant contributions to scholarly journals compared, seemingly, with McIntyre, three, and Montford, nil. Meanwhile, Mann and his colleagues get on with refining their methods and datasets, publishing in such world-renowned journals such as Nature and Science.
 
The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog.
 
At best it will help to keep already-overstretched scientists “on their toes”. At worst, it’s a yapping terrier worrying the bull; a spinning ball that cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods.

- Scottish Review of Books.

The book concludes with speculation about the underhanded meaning of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K. It’s really just the same quote-mining and misinterpretation we’ve heard from many quarters of the so-called “skeptics.” Although the book came out very shortly after the CRU hack, with hardly sufficient time to investigate the truth, the temptation to use the emails for propaganda purposes was irresistible. Montford indulges in every damning speculation he can get his hands on.

Since that time, investigation has been conducted, both into the conduct of the researchers at CRU (especially Phil Jones) and Mike Mann (the leader of the “hockey team”). Certainly some unkind words were said in private emails, but the result of both investigations is clear: climate researchers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in their research and scientific conduct. Thank goodness some of those who bought in to the false accusations, like Andy Revkin and George Monbiot, have seen fit actually to apologize for doing so. Perhaps they realize that one can’t get at the truth simply by reading people’s private emails.

Montford certainly spins a tale of suspense, conflict, and lively action, intertwining conspiracy and covert skullduggery, politics and big money, into a narrative worthy of the best spy thrillers. I’m not qualified to compare Montford’s writing skill to that of such a widely-read author as, say, Michael Crichton, but I do know they share this in common: they’re both skilled fiction writers.

The only corruption of science in the “hockey stick” is in the minds of McIntyre and Montford. They were looking for corruption, and they found it. Someone looking for actual science would have found it as well.

- Tamino

From <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/>
From <http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2010-montford-hockey-stick.htm>
From <https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/October-2010/Climate-scientists-are-innocent--OK/Not-so-jolly-hockey-stick>
From <https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/mean-spirited-scepticism-montford-hockey-stic>
https://www.chemistryworld.com/section/review/climate-change-scepticism/3006182.article