Entropic man:

JayJay
You may be familiar with the philosopher Thomas Kuhn and his concept of the paradigm.

Yep :)

You start with hypothesis generation, testing by observation and experiment a la Popper. Experimental data then feeds new hypotheses. All this is quality tested by peer review and published.

Indeed, but peer-review is (or was) not really part of that. What is required is publication in verifiable format (and under quality control).

The quality control, by the publisher, is one of form (a.o. should have abstract, conclusion and references), of argumentation completeness (not whether you agree, but whether each premise is covered by a valid reference or data; and when using data, that the data must be described and supplied, all of it) and of sufficiently describing the methods and formulae to reproduce the results.
Indeed nowadays much of this quality control is supposed to be done via peer review. But really the publisher should ensure that everything is covered, including availability of data.

The issue is that we have moved from the publisher doing the quality controls to handing that over to external experts, which then later became those 'peers' which do the review. Note that they are NOT supposed to censure, hence they are NOT supposed to tell us whether they agree or disagree, they are NOT to do validation, that is supposed to come AFTER publication.
But instead nowadays the 'peers' do exactly that and are effectively used to censure what Kuhn would call Normal Science in order to prevent any Revolutionary Science, i.e. science that does not expand the existing paradigm, but which (intends to) refute & replace it via a paradigm shift.

Mistakes and fraud become obvious because bad work does not fit in with the rest.

Simple errors, like typo's, incorrect or incomplete references, missing or incomplete data and even errors in formulae, sure. Well except in some sciences (...) where not supplying the underlying data is way too common.
Real fraud is normally not detected by peer-review, unless the peers do more than normal, which usually only happens when they are from an opposing camp.
Fraud detection is more part of the later validations, after publication.

Over time a body of evidence builds up and converges on a particular world view, a paradigm. That becomes the consensus world view until enough evidence builds up to replace it, usually with a more extensive version.

Only when the paradigm still holds, then the current one is simply extended, but when the paradigm is replaced that is done because of a paradigm shift, which is only done by Revolutionary Science. Hence the need to prevent censure of science.
Unfortunately that seems now the norm, at least in some of the sciences...

One of many examples below:
Climate Audit: Lindzen’s PNAS Reviews
JoNova: When top scientists take 2 years to publish, it’s time to give up on old “Peer” review
MasterResource: Lindzen-Choi 'Special Treatment': Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?

Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to Master Resource by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view.
In this case, Lindzen's submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was subjected to unusual procedures and eventually rejected (in a rare move), only to be accepted for publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

I, too, have firsthand knowledge about receiving special treatment. Ross McKitrick has documented similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a self-generating consensus slows the forward progress of scientific knowledge—a situation well-described by Thomas Kuhn is his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. –Chip Knappenberger

“If one reads [our new] paper, one sees that it is hardly likely to represent the last word on the matter. One is working with data that is far from what one might wish for. Moreover, the complexity of the situation tends to defeat simple analyses. Nonetheless, certain things are clear: models are at great variance with observations, the simple regressions between outgoing radiation and surface temperature will severely misrepresent climate sensitivity, and the observations suggest negative rather than positive feedbacks.”
– Richard S. Lindzen

So yes, if you are prepared to redefine what Medieval means, and widen the net to a 800 year window, you can find some regional warmth.

Mar 10, 2018 at 6:57 PM | Phil Clarke

How did Mann redefine the Medieval Warm Period into a flat line?

The first MWP Project paper I looked at was Arsenault and Payette 1997, a tree ring proxy from North West Canada which found a 'well-defined' MWP between 850 and 1000AD. The next Canadian study listed is Zabenskie and Gajewski 2007 which according to CO2Science shows a MWP between 1200 and 1500, and cooler conditions during the period of the other study.

Study #1: "Winter-damaged trees dominated during periods of suppressed growth at AD 760–860 and AD 1025–1400, whereas undamaged trees were more frequent during periods of rapid growth around AD 700–750, 860–1000, 1400–1450, and 1500–1570. Fast growth between AD 860–1000, along with the concurrent establishment of symmetrical trees, suggests well-defined boundaries for the Medieval Warm Period in northeastern Canada. "

Study #2 say MWP 1200-1500 but also has chart that shows a dip before 1200 and much warmer period again before that, so also warm in 800-1000. Can't check further details due to paywall.

Study #1 also mentions a bit how warm it was during that MWP (which in their case perhaps just means that peak 860–1000).
In addition, on the basis of the then-current annual temperatures at their study site and at the northernmost 20th-century location of the forest, which was 130 km south of their study site, they concluded that the Medieval Warm Period was ~1°C warmer than what it was when they conducted their work, which was concluded about the time when 20th-century warming leveled off and reached a plateau from which there has been no further warming over the ensuing years.

Study #2 does not mention this in the abstract, but the MWPP concludes: "In fact, from data presented in their Figure 7, we calculate that peak MWP temperatures were fully 1.0°C warmer than it is currently, and that the MWP occurred between AD 1200 and 1500"

So yes, if you are prepared to redefine what Medieval means, and widen the net to a 800 year window, you can find some regional warmth.

The MWP is not one long period of warmth, it had peaks and dips; start and finish are not exactly the same everywhere.
Medieval is period between c. 500 and 1500, both studies have a peak c. 850-1000.
Indeed study #1 does not mention the recovery to similar levels as 850-1000 by 1200 but only by 1400.
Study 2# merely has a dip around 1000, otherwise warm between c.850- c.1500.
So after 1000 apparently a different profile, but that is just based on these summaries and abstracts.

But separated by centuries, not a homogenous, simultaneous global warm period.

Not completely the same, nor is that expected or needed.
But otherwise I disagree, same period, perhaps a different profile after peak of 1000 AD.
Apparently different methods used, at least in reporting, so that explains a lot. Study #1 reports on frost damage, which can happen in even a local 'relatively warm' period, which that high north is perhaps just 8 deg C (on average).

And Mann's series are not homogeneous as well. Nor is that expected because for example trees of different species behave differently, even when rather close in location. Same for the same species in somewhat different circumstances or locations. And climate is not expected to have the same effect and profile everywhere. And Mann 1998 has many other proxies as well.
Issue for Mann is that both these studies show 1.0°C warmer than current (CWP), hence both are (quite far) outside of the uncertainty range of Mann et.al., which just reaches CWP levels, hence a significant difference.

"All this is quality tested by peer review and published" Entropic Man. Climate Science sets appalling standards for "quality", "peer" and "review" as the published works confirm.

JayJay, once Pruitt/Trump or even the EPA conducts some further investigations, they may conclude that 97% of Peer Reviewed and published Climate Science amounts to little more than "what if scenarios", and how increasingly likely they may occur, in accordance with Climate Models.

Genuine observations reveal how hopeless the Climate Models are, and most of the "what if scenarios"are based on computer models.

After Mann's contribution to one of the worst bits of nonexistent science ever Quality Tested by Peer Review and Published, Harvey et al 2017, it seems only fitting to reverse the warped psychology incorporated, and ignore the published work of everyone involved, and the opinions of those blogs and Climate Scientists that thought Harvey et al 2017 was a positive contribution.

This would be a simple statistical exercise, and Harvey et al 2017 can then be seen as a very cost effective solution for Trump and US Taxpayers.

Harvey et al 2017? Ah you mean the one that is reviewed here:
Climate Audit: Polar Bears, Inadequate data and Statistical Lipstick

Just a small quote:

The closely bunched points massed together in the circled groups create an impression that the data from which it was generated must be based on a set of carefully crafted “measurements” capable of representing in-depth rigorous scientific assessments of a set of papers and blogs. To understand what it actually represents and how it came to be, we start by examining the methodology described in the paper for creating an appropriate data set:
As natural and social scientists, we grounded our study in Nisbet’s (2014) typology of frames used by science policymakers and journalists and provide full context and statistical analysis with objective interpretation.

Say what? In order to make sense of what this might mean we look at the Nisbet reference referred to in the above quotation. I found the following indicating what “framing” can be used for.

(From Nisbet, p.43):
Scientists can use framing to motivate greater interest and concern; to shape preferences for policies informed by or supportive of science; to influence political or personal behavior; to go beyond polarization and unite various publics around common ground; to define policy choices or options; and/or to rally fellow scientists around shared goals or strategy.

OK. Got it. Translation: We need to produce some climate science propaganda so we will design the method for collecting our data with that in mind.

And it goes rapidly downhill from there ...

Review ends with:

The 182 vectors each consisting of the seven scaled and infilled and scaled again answers were passed through a sophisticated mathematical procedure to calculate a pair of coordinates for plotting each point on the graph. This should generate 192 points, right? Well, yes and no. Principal components have the property that if all of the answers are identical for two blogs or papers, then the coordinates for those sources will be exactly the same and one point will cover the existence of the other when plotted. Since there are only 25 distinct sets of answers, only 25 points will actually show on the plot. I have added a fifth category consisting of several points which were shared by Pro blogs and Pro papers.

Fig2Actual

So how did the authors create the plot near the top of the post. The last line of the quoted text provides the answer for that question . “Datapoint[s] were slightly jittered…” For those not familiar with this concept, “jittering” is the addition of random amounts to each coordinate of overlapping points for the purpose of causing a slight separation . I would suggest that in this case “slightly” is in fact a gross understatement. The relatively large amounts added to each coordinate create a very different impression of a data set with sufficient information and discriminatory power to justify being real “science”, something that clearly is not the case for this data. Furthermore, it appears that all of the points were treated in this fashion including the ones that were not covered by any of their neighbors and therefore should have been left alone.

Figure 1 also has some problems, but this post is long enough.

The data and the statistical aspects of this paper are lame lipstick for a propaganda attack on everyone who does not share the beliefs of the authors. It is sad that cursory peer review persists in the climate change world allowing incompetent papers to pass through over and over again.

LMAO

Mar 10, 2018 at 10:34 PM | JayJay

It would be a shame if the corruption of science that Harvey et al 2017 represents, was not used in evidence before the EPA.

Just as a credibility litmus test, certain expert Climate Scientists can be excused from giving further faked up evidence, and dismissed, to save US Taxpayer's money.

It may then be possible to determine whether there is any truth to GHG Theory and AGW, because 97% of Climate Scientists have never been interested.

'Medieval is period between c. 500 and 1500, '

A medieval millenium? Well there you go. Redefine at will and anything becomes possible.

So, list any proxy that shows warmth any time in a thousand year period, even if separated by centuries or thousands of miles and declare a 'warm period'.

Not intellectually honest or particularly convincing.

'The MWP is not one long period of warmth, it had peaks and dips; start and finish are not exactly the same everywhere. '

Indeed. Which destroys the argument that modern global warming has a natural precedent.

Thanks for that.

Which destroys the argument that modern global warming has a natural precedent.

Mar 10, 2018 at 11:31 PM | Phil Clarke

??????? No it doesn't

Phil Clarke, Trump seems quite well informed.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/10/washington-post-trump-wants-government-climate-scientists-to-stop-being-dramatic/

"What a shocking development – government climate scientists are being required to objectively report their findings, instead of trying to influence the political process by publishing emotionally charged official press releases."

'I offered a few papers to Phil Clarke, to which he then disagreed without much reason as to why.'

Oh please. Your first paper was Moberg et al, presented as refuting MBH98/99. The paper itself states it is in agreement with those studies. IN THE TEXT.

Are we to believe you know Moberg's findings better than Moberg himself?

Modern AGW became distinguishable from natural variance around 70 years ago. It has the characteristic of temperatures rising nearly everywhere across the globe.

If, to claim a 'natural precedent', you need to widen your comparison period to 1,000 years. Well, you've simply failed.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm
5

'Medieval is period between c. 500 and 1500, '

A medieval millenium? Well there you go. Redefine at will and anything becomes possible.

A bit rusty on your history? That's what the period is called. Yes 1000 years from the end of the Western Roman Empire....
The MWP is shorter of course :) Near 405 it was very cold, Rhine froze over. Around 500 still quite cold.

The MWP should be between 850 and 1450. With a dip around 1000, another after 1250/1275. So typically 3 bumps.

'The MWP is not one long period of warmth, it had peaks and dips; start and finish are not exactly the same everywhere. '

Indeed. Which destroys the argument that modern global warming has a natural precedent.

Of course not, much of it was just as warm as now or much warmer. You didn't read quite well in those papers, both studies have it about 1 degree Celsius warmer than today.
Similar all around the globe, you have seen the list.

And of course other warm periods before that: Roman and before that Minoan etc.
But just MWP will do for now.

'I offered a few papers to Phil Clarke, to which he then disagreed without much reason as to why.'

Oh please. Your first paper was Moberg et al, presented as refuting MBH98/99. The paper itself states it is in agreement with those studies. IN THE TEXT.

Are we to believe you know Moberg's findings better than Moberg himself?

It is all about data not opinion. No matter whatever anyone says to make it less painful for the high-priests of CAGW and to save his job.
And, by the way, this is what it actually says in the abstract of his study (which I already quoted op page 61):

"... According to our reconstruction, high temperatures--similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990--occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue."

He thereby confirms the existence of the MWP.

We already went over this. His data shows a MWP similar to today (CWP) in warmth. Hence the average for his MWP is ABOVE the maximum uncertainty range of MBH98 as that doesn't even come close to the average temperature today or 30 years ago.
That means these studies are not in agreement, there is statistical significant disagreement, no matter whatever opinion, and that includes statements by Moberg.

You have fallen for the fallacy that I called Appeal to the Excavator (see page 62 of this thread in case you missed that), perhaps I should rename it to Appeal to the Data Collector?

Data overrules Opinion.

The MWP was real and warm.

IT IS KNOWN! :)

From Wikipedia
"In the history of Europe, the  medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. The Middle Ages is the middle period of the three traditional divisions of Western history: classical antiquity, the medieval period, and the modern period. The medieval period is itself subdivided into the Early, High, and Late Middle Ages."

The Mannian Warmest Period started in 1998, and may be over before Christmas 2018

Modern AGW became distinguishable from natural variance around 70 years ago. It has the characteristic of temperatures rising nearly everywhere across the globe.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Or is this link below it? If so that I fail to see the logical link.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm

?
That is a study that seems to claim that it was COLD in Greenland during the time of the Viking settlements, in fact soo cold that the Vikings could not have lived there at the time that they are known have lived there ... (? que ?). That they lived there in that period is certain, a.o. the settlements have been excavated and remains have been dated, also by 14C.
So even at the outset this does not pass the smell test.

"A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world."

Yet amazingly enough the Vikings lived in both South and West Greenland, near the coast.
And they farmed and grew grains. For their beer you know, Vikings couldn't live without it. And also to feed their life-stock.
Small issue: YOU CAN'T GROW GRAIN IN GREENLAND TODAY!
So it must have been quite a bit warmer there than it is today.

Now I checked out that reference and even after initial reading I'm quite unconvinced.
Which is to be expected, how else can we explain the fact that they lived there, sailed there, fished there and yes farmed there?
And how else can we explain all those other proxy studies that say that it was quite a bit warmer there during the Viking settlement period?

"We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. "

When we check the map we see that these glaciers are very far to the North and North-West of the Western Settlement (distance is about the length of Brittain ...), even much farther from the South Settlement. Baffin Island isn't even on Greenland, but on the other side of the water (hence NW of WS).
So I fail to see how that relates to the settlements themselves.
And century scale resolution (!?), that is quite inaccurate. Give or take a few points means give or take a few hundred years...

"Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. "

Quite meaningless as we also have paleoclimate data from a.o. Greenland that shows otherwise, and then some.
And it seems a wonderful mix of proxies, several quite remote. I see no variance indicated in the charts. Also no concrete data, no exact temperatures apart from that chart. It looks like they merely quote some proxy studies in the general area, a very large area by the way, and compiled that into this chart.
Their supplement has details for the Be dating of the glaciers, but nothing on the temperature proxy data,.
We are just sent on a reference hunt to see for ourselves, or we just have to trust a complex chart with zero uncertainty ranges, which makes it less usable.
But I can see that in fact the proxies quoted by them show high temperatures for that period, similar or higher than current. So I do not see how they can conclude it was cold there. This is what is shown in that chart, the only place we see any detail about their temperature data.

[this is all the temperature data in the chart]
J: Similar, or slightly colder (but Swiss Alps)
I: Warmer than today (Hvitarvatn, Iceland)
H: Warmer than today (Iceland)
G: Similar (North Atlantic Oscillation)
F: data ends ca 1750 (...) so not usable to determine temp, has a few suspicious extremes which may be data errors, seems meaningless to me (Labrador)
E: data ends ca 1850, again can't anchor to temp today, hence not usable to determine temp. Shows wilder fluctuation than the others but no suspect sudden extremes as F showed; (Greenland)
D: Warmer or Similar with a few colder periods in between (Greenland)

[this seems glacier related - quite unclear how to interprete]
C: Cumberland Pen. Vegetation; why not 10Be? And where is that? Why no data for much of the period?
B: Naqsaq valley 10Be; unclear what this composite chart is supposed to indicate
A: Baffin Island Vegetation; why no 10Be, we were promised 10Be?

Ergo temperature data that can be linked to today shows warmer or similar conditions. And as stated above, we know that it must have been warmer there than today, at the very least in that area of Greenland.

Presentation of the glacier data in that chart is confusing, but the data itself is already covered in the text (and probably in that supplement). It is unclear what message they like to tell.
So those glaciers where there and were extensive. So what? The extent of glaciers in that area is also dependent of the nearby sea due to warm currents, and as long as the ice cap still connects northern Greenland to Canada those currents will have had less influence that high north.

And see I lots of weasel words in several sections, so their may very well be more findings.

Ergo: Unless they can show how you can grow grain in the frozen ground and in the temperatures as they are there even today, let alone in case it was much colder there than today, this pig can't fly.
Or at least the conclusion can't fly, but then I do not see the conclusion supported by the evidence that they supply. Which is a bit odd given the rather extreme claim they make.

Let's repeat: YOU CAN'T GROW GRAIN IN GREENLAND TODAY!

The aims and methods of CO2Science are transparent. Take any proxy that shows warmth in a range about twice as long as the usual definition, and however localised, the two I looked at were a woodland and a lake in Canada, which had warmth between 850-1000AD and 1200-1500AD respectively (Moberg finds warmth inbetween the two Canadian peaks.). Then claim these localised episodes separated by hundreds of years mean there was a global MWP

Jayjay then adds another layer of redefinition by truncating the current warming in 1990, removing about half a degree celsius from the comparison.

Jayjay apparently finds CO2Science convincing Well, we're all entitled to our beliefs, he also believes MM2005 'debunks' the hockey stick and the MBH algorithm generates hockey sticks from random noise.

None of these beliefs is true.

Mar 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM | Phil Clarke

The aims of Climate Science are transparent.
The methods of Climate Science are deliberately obscured.

Harvey et al 2017 is a wonderful example to sort out the sheep from the goats, and Mann is a proud co-author.

The review of the EPA and the fabricated evidence it has been fed, will be a major breakthrough in the US Taxpayers understanding of what Climate Science represents, in the run up to the midterm elections.

Mar 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM | Phil Clarke

Have you tried similar analysis on Mann's Hockey Stick and found nothing wrong with it?

Do you have any beliefs in Climate Science that are based on fact?

Mar 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM | Phil Clarke

Have you tried similar analysis on Mann's Hockey Stick and found nothing wrong with it?

Do you have any beliefs in Climate Science that are based on fact?

Mar 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM | Phil Clarke

Did you learn your statistical analysis from Mann and Climate Science, or McIntyre and Climate Audit?

If only Climate Science had understood McIntyre and Climate Audit's statistical analysis, Climate Science would not have boomed, and now be going bust.

Meanwhile, some warmists have realised that fears about Global Warming are not worth worrying about, and a warmer climate is not a problem.

http://progressandperil.com/2018/02/23/the-conquest-of-climate/

PROGRESS AND PERIL

Energy, Environment, Science, Fear

The Conquest of Climate

by Will Boisvert

"How bad will climate change be? Not very.

No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic.

Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards."

Climate Scientists who have aligned themselves as Lukewarmers are most likely to get anything that is left of Trump's Climate Science budget. See Judith Curry for details.

None of these beliefs is true

Only my beliefs is true,

Clipe, Global Warmists have decreed that their beliefs are true, and everyone else must pay.

Criminals refer to it as a Protection Racket.

Climate Scientists refer to it as the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, that they can not find any fault with, because they authorised payments to each other to Peer Review it.

What would happen if the EPA asked Mann to explain and justify the purpose of Harvey et al 2017?

Mar 11, 2018 at 9:08 PM | Radical Rodent

The IPCC forced the goal posts so far apart in 2001, that no one could see them.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html

"The concepts of climate change ‘detection’ and ‘attribution’ used in this chapter remain as they were defined in the TAR (IPCC, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2001). ‘Detection’ is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change (see Glossary). In this chapter, the methods used to identify change in observations are based on the expected responses to external forcing (Section 9.1.1), either from physical understanding or as simulated by climate models."

Note that it was decided that any garbage generated by Computer Climate Models was considered acceptable.

If the EPA reconsiders the decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, and also sets some form of US EPA performance assessment for Climate Models, before the US will consider them as any form of evidence in Peer Reviewed Climate Science, the responsibility for "proving the validity" of any Climate Science will rest with Climate Scientists. None of them understand this concept.