Tree Ring Circus

3 views
Skip to first unread message

James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 12:26:27 PM7/30/05
to
Tree Ring Circus
Thursday, July 28, 2005
By Steven Milloy
Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?

We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him
by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.

On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing
the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise
in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of
supposedly little change in global temperature.

The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto
Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

The graph has been criticized for many reasons, including its reliance on
dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree rings.
Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree growth
(as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of the hockey
stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree.

Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with
public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of
Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph. Dr.
Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other climate
researchers who had requested it.

Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data and
computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
the data and code.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a proponent of
global warming alarmism, chided Chairman Barton in a July 13 letter that Dr.
Mann's hockey stick had already been accepted by the United Nations' global
warming organization and that Congress ought not interfere with that
process.

Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
fact.

Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
scientists can be intimidating."

But congressional committees send out requests for information from private
parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey stick
graph.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only conceivable
explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent
scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific
debate. The precedent your investigation sets is truly chilling."

But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had
previously refused to do when asked by private parties. Chairman Barton isn'
t trying to influence scientific debate. He's trying to make scientific
debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the public's
access to affordable energy.

In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
investigation. But these records would have established that the research
and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
funded.

The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
"witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."

Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
methodology is suspicious. Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded
scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous; but
estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.

The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.

For the sake of national energy policy and the global economy, let's all
thank Chairman Barton for his reasonable inquiry into the questionable
hockey stick.


W. D. Allen Sr.

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 1:41:20 PM7/30/05
to
an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."

But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?

Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of journalism
school grads employed at the Washington Post?

end

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42eba...@news.iglou.com...

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 1:53:34 PM7/30/05
to
W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
> an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
> data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."
>
> But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?
>
> Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of journalism
> school grads employed at the Washington Post?

Mann has sufficient training and experience to make use of such data.
Please tell us the extent of Barton's coursework and professional
experience in statistics, dendrochronology and exploratory data analysis.

James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:12:31 PM7/30/05
to

"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y8PGe.225157$nG6.191452@attbi_s22...

So you think he wants it for his own personal use? ROTFLMAO


Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:21:47 PM7/30/05
to

Actually Hughes is the one who has the professional experience in
dendrochronology.

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:20:34 PM7/30/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42eba...@news.iglou.com...
> Tree Ring Circus
> Thursday, July 28, 2005
> By Steven Milloy
> Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
> the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
>
> We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
> Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at
> him by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent
> inquiry.

A strange characterization of a handful of mildly written letters and
undelayed compliance with his requests. Also rather a stretch to hope that
Congressman Barton will contribute anything substantive to this field of
science.

> On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
> Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for
> developing the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a
> dramatic rise in global temperatures during the 20th century after a
> millennium of supposedly little change in global temperature.
>
> The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
> warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the
> Kyoto Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy
> use.
>
> The graph has been criticized for many reasons, including its reliance
> on dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree
> rings. Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree
> growth (as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of
> the hockey stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single
> tree.

Typical slimy journalism: "has been criticized". No disclosure of where the
criticism has come from. Reminds me of the OutFoxed video highlighting of
the "Some people say" technique of reporting what ever personal opinion you
wish to emphasize. "Some people say" the moon is made of green cheese too.

> Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
> scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with
> public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of
> Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph.
> Dr. Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other
> climate researchers who had requested it.

Why does this author not mention the other extremely invasive and
unwarranted requests about financial disclosures and material spanning the
entire careers of these researchers? This was by far the most important
reason for the small outcry there was.

> Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
> code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data
> and
> computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
> Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
> global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
> the data and code.

The handful of responses can be read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=172 and it is easy to see the
objection is the form and tone of the request and the extraneous iformation
that put peoples hackles up. Also the request is entirely one-sided. If it
were truly an attempt to assess the Hockey Stick controversy, similar
material should have been requested from M&M, the referenced critics.

> The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a
> proponent of global warming alarmism, chided Chairman Barton in
> a July 13 letter that Dr. Mann's hockey stick had already been
> accepted by the United Nations' global warming organization and
> that Congress ought not interfere with that process.

Actually what the letter said was:

"There were more than 100 authors of Chapter 2 in the IPCC's 2001
"Scientific Basis" report, where the Mann et al. work was cited, and two
extensive rounds of review by scientific experts and government
representatives were conducted after those authors agreed on their initial
draft. It should be added that the Mann et al. work was far from the only
basis for the conclusion that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the last
part of the 20th century were likely the warmest in 1000 years; a variety of
independent lines of evidence, summarized in a number of peer-reviewed
publications, were cited in support of this conclusion."

and this:

"We very much appreciate the Committee’s interest in this important field.
Your letters, however, in their request for highly detailed information
regarding not only the scientists’ recent studies but also their life's
work, give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit
these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for
understanding. With all respect, we question whether this approach is good
for the processes by which scientific findings on topics relevant to public
policy are generated and used."

> Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
> arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
> organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
> fact.

Indeed. So is the House of Representatives not a political organization?
Is Barton's House Energy and Commerce Committee not a political
organization? This is a remarkably shallow and transparently flawed point
as a defense of Barton's letters.

> Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
> wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
> scientists can be intimidating."
>
> But congressional committees send out requests for information from
> private
> parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
> has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
> without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
> doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey
> stick graph.
>
> Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
> melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only
> conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to
> intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs
> on the scales of a scientific debate. The precedent your
> investigation sets is truly chilling."
>
> But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
> Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had
> previously refused to do when asked by private parties.

A contemptible effort at feigned innocence here, "merely asked Dr Mann to
provide some information". Here are the requests Barton made:

1. Your curriculum vitae, including, but not limited to,
a list of all studies relating to climate change research
for which you were an author or co-author and the source
of funding for those studies.

2. List all financial support you have received related to
your research, including, but not limited to, all private,
state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including
subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or
honoraria.

3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding
support under which you were a recipient of funding or principal
investigator, provide all agreements relating to those underlying
grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions,
adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the
dissemination and sharing of research results.

4. Provide the location of all data archives relating to each
published study for which you were an author or co-author
and indicate:
(a) whether this information contains all the specific data
you used and calculations your performed, including such
supporting documentation as computer source code, validation
information, and other ancillary information, necessary
for full evaluation and application of the data, particularly
for another party to replicate your research results;
(b) when this information was available to researchers;
(c) where and when you first identified the location of this
information;
(d) what modifications, if any, you have made to this
information since publication of the respective study; and
(e) if necessary information is not fully available, provide a
detailed narrative description of the steps somebody must
take to acquire the necessary information to replicate your
study results or assess the quality of the proxy data you
used.

5. According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release
the exact computer code you used to generate your results.
(a) Is this correct?
(b) What policy on sharing research and methods do you follow?
(c) What is the source of that policy?
(d) Provide this exact computer code used to generate your results.

6. Regarding study data and related information that is not publicly
archived, what requests have you or your co-authors received for
data relating to the climate change studies, what was your response,
and why?

7. The authors McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy & Environment, Vol. 16,
No. 1, 2005) report a number of errors and omissions in Mann et. al.,
1998. Provide a detailed narrative explanation of these alleged
errors and how these may affect the underlying conclusions of the
work, including, but not limited to answers to the following
questions:

a. Did you run calculations without the bristlecone pine series
referenced in the article and, if so, what was the result?
b. Did you or your co-authors calculate temperature
reconstructions using the referenced “archived Gaspe tree ring
data,” and what were the results?
c. Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature
reconstruction, particularly for the 15th Century proxy record
calculations and what were the results?
d. What validation statistics did you calculate for the
reconstruction prior to 1820, and what were the results?
e. How did you choose particular proxies and proxy series?

8. Explain in detail your work for and on behalf of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, including, but not limited to:
(a) your role in the Third Assessment Report;
(b) the process for review of studies and other information,
including the dates of key meetings, upon which you worked
during the TAR writing and review process;
(c) the steps taken by you, reviewers, and lead authors to ensure
the data underlying the studies forming the basis for key
findings of the report were sound and accurate;
(d) requests you received for revisions to your written contribution; and
(e) the identity of the people who wrote and reviewed the historical
temperature-record portions of the report, particularly Section
2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?”


What was that again? "Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some
information"? Yeah, what's the big deal, he just wants to learn a little
about dendrochronology.

> Chairman Barton isn'
> t trying to influence scientific debate. He's trying to make scientific
> debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
> Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
> he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
> and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the
> public's access to affordable energy.
>
> In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
> records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
> research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
> investigation. But these records would have established that the research
> and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
> funded.

So why was it for
"all financial support you have received related to
your research, including, but not limited to, all private,
state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including
subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or
honoraria."
rather than just about funding for MBH98? The request was similarily for
"all data archives relating to each published study for which
you were an author or co-author"
again far beyond MBH98.

> The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
> with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
> "witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
> going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
> rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
> scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."
>
> Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
> methodology is suspicious.

Yes it would be. But this never happened. Nothing was unavailable with the
exception of the exact code used, which is normal. The algorithm, methods
and data were *all* publically available for some time before this "request"
from Barton. And it is a stretch to call M&M "colleagues".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Acolleague

> Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded
> scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous;


It is ludicrous to request that which is publically available to anyone with
a web browser or ftp program.

> estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.

This is not even remotely descriptive of MBH98.

> The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
> bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
> warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.
>
> For the sake of national energy policy and the global economy, let's all
> thank Chairman Barton for his reasonable inquiry into the questionable
> hockey stick.

Once again, the Hockey Stick is 7 years old and there are numerous other
studies with a variety of methodologies and variety of datasets that
corroborate the conclusions of MBH98.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The obsession about MBH98 is approaching comical.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 2:28:43 PM7/30/05
to

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ebc30f$1...@news.iglou.com...

The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if he
requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his committee's use.
If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed persons I
think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no scientists on his
committee, so why is he asking for this?

See this for good reasons this action is inappropriate.
http://www.realclimate.org/Boehlert_letter_to_Barton.pdf

Ian St. John

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 7:07:58 PM7/30/05
to
James wrote:
> Tree Ring Circus
> Thursday, July 28, 2005
> By Steven Milloy
> Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures
> over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?

Yes. It is called the science of dendrochronological climate reconstruction.
And it has confirmation is sea sediments, borehole temperatures, and ice
core sampling.


James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 8:48:21 PM7/30/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...

>
> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:42ebc30f$1...@news.iglou.com...
> >
> > "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:y8PGe.225157$nG6.191452@attbi_s22...
> >> W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
> >> > an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
> >> > data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."
> >> >
> >> > But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?
> >> >
> >> > Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of
journalism
> >> > school grads employed at the Washington Post?
> >>
> >> Mann has sufficient training and experience to make use of such data.
> >> Please tell us the extent of Barton's coursework and professional
> >> experience in statistics, dendrochronology and exploratory data
analysis.
> >
> > So you think he wants it for his own personal use? ROTFLMAO
>
> The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
> request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if
he
> requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his committee's
use.
> If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed persons I
> think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no scientists on his
> committee, so why is he asking for this?
>
He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not. The hockey stick
has been under a microscope with no complete data and it's finally time to
look at the stuff with an unbiased eye whether the stuff is looked at by by
undisclosed people or not as long as they are reputable people that know the
stuff. Why in hell would anyone care if it is what he says it is? Mann
should be questioned as well. There are bound to be some.


James

unread,
Jul 30, 2005, 9:18:33 PM7/30/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:SxPGe.149079$HI.132184@edtnps84...

Barton's reasonable request
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
July 28, 2005

When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a word
rarely used these days. Take, for instance, what happened to House Energy
and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton recently. In June, Mr. Barton
requested research information from the authors of a controversial
global-warming study, because "this dispute surrounding your studies bears
directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which
climate studies rely."
Sounds reasonable, but to House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert, this constituted "intimidation" of the scientific community. The
New York Republican responded to Mr. Barton's inquiry with another letter,
saying that it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation." The
Washington Post and columnist David Ignatius quickly followed. "This is a
bizarre episode that deserves much wider condemnation from congressional
leaders," The Post editorialized. Nonsense.
Using historical climate data and computer models, the study claims that
for the past thousand years the earth had experienced relative little change
in temperature until the 20th century, when temperatures suddenly spiked --
a phenomenon called the "hockey stick." It was principally authored by
Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who was a co-author of the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report. It isn't surprising,
then, that that report claimed the 1990s was the warmest decade in a
thousand years, citing Mr. Mann's research.
The problem is that the study is an outlier -- it dramatically overturns
the accepted view of paleoclimatologists, who generally believe that the
planet has experienced many warming and cooling trends in the past 1,000
years. Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the
beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century. Other
critics have found flaws in the study's use of certain data sets and
methodology. But since the study fits perfectly with the argument of
global-warming supporters, they don't want to see it robustly debated.
As chairman, Mr. Barton is responsible for making absolutely sure that
the science used to justify legislation is thoroughly vetted. Any changes to
the energy policy of the country to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would
cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American jobs. President Bush
wasn't exaggerating when he said that the Kyoto Protocol would derail the
U.S. economy. So, instead of angry condemnations, how about a little more
civility?


Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:14:21 AM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ec1fd4$1...@news.iglou.com...

>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...

>> The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to


>> request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if
>> he requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his
>> committee's
>> use. If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed
>> persons I think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no
>> scientists on his committee, so why is he asking for this?
>
> He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not.

And he is as qualified to judge this as you are. I think the point sailed
right over your head.

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:20:45 AM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ec2...@news.iglou.com...

>
> Barton's reasonable request
> TODAY'S EDITORIAL
> July 28, 2005
>
>
>
> When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a
> word
> rarely used these days. Take, for instance, what happened to House Energy
> and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton recently. In June, Mr. Barton
> requested research information from the authors of a controversial
> global-warming study, because "this dispute surrounding your studies bears
> directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which
> climate studies rely."
> Sounds reasonable,

Sounds reasonable except this is by no means all that was requested. So
this article starts out with a straw man, and the next paragraphs
predictably tear it down.

> Using historical climate data and computer models, the study claims
> that
> for the past thousand years the earth had experienced relative little
> change
> in temperature until the 20th century, when temperatures suddenly
> spiked --
> a phenomenon called the "hockey stick." It was principally authored by
> Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who was a co-author of the
> U.N.
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report. It isn't
> surprising,
> then, that that report claimed the 1990s was the warmest decade in a
> thousand years, citing Mr. Mann's research.
> The problem is that the study is an outlier -- it dramatically
> overturns
> the accepted view of paleoclimatologists, who generally believe that the
> planet has experienced many warming and cooling trends in the past 1,000
> years.

This may well have been the case a decade ago, maybe when the study came
out, I don't know, but as this article was written a few days ago it is a
blatant untruth. The study fits right in with numerous other
reconstructions based on different methods and different data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

> Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the
> beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century.

How about some substantiation of this statement?

> So, instead of angry condemnations, how about a little more
> civility?

How about a little more intelligence?

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:27:25 AM7/31/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:xeYGe.165236$9A2.6899@edtnps89...

Yes, he is. He wants all the data upon which to determine. He will make a
decision based on feedback he gets from those that are qualified that are
not part of the obstinate crowd that insist no more data is necessary other
than what they have been given.

It's pretty obvious that you, as well as many others here, are sticking to
the original conclusions that have not been given a decent Q & A. It's your
way or none at all. Why haven't we heard yet that Barton is an oil man that
takes campaign money from evil oil companies. Any other time we would have
heard about it ad nauseum.

Apparently, the science can only be questioned by those that agree with the
minority conclusion but the science isn't settled and never has been, though
that has been preached for years. You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
they are on record as supporting it. I'm tempted to say you just don't get
it but I think you do very well and want to keep wagging the same advocates
with false indignity.


Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 12:50:04 PM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ece...@news.iglou.com...

> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:xeYGe.165236$9A2.6899@edtnps89...
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>> news:42ec1fd4$1...@news.iglou.com...
>> > "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...
>>
>> >> persons I think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no
>> >> scientists on his committee, so why is he asking for this?
>> >
>> > He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not.
>>
>> And he is as qualified to judge this as you are. I think the point
>> sailed
>> right over your head.
>
> Yes, he is.

So what's this? A Ronald Reagan "mediocre people deserve a chance too"
argument? I guess for you any opinion is as valid as the next? This data,
methodology and study are very technical and the plain fact of the matter is
that few people can truly judge MBH98 on its scientific merits alone. That
is why you ask a scientific body for their analysis and don't ask for the
data to be sent to you (an action which by itself demonstrates incompetence
considering it is frely available).

> He wants all the data upon which to determine. He will make a
> decision based on feedback he gets from those that are qualified that are
> not part of the obstinate crowd that insist no more data is necessary
> other
> than what they have been given.

Hint: if you can't find a single scientific organization that disagrees with
a scientific conclusion and you do not have any new and contradictory
finding you should accept the conclusion and move on.

> It's pretty obvious that you, as well as many others here, are sticking to
> the original conclusions that have not been given a decent Q & A.

Actually, the original conclusions can be ignored if your concerns are
sincere. Look instead to other reconstructions for their conclusions.
(Hint: they are largely the same: late 20th temperatures are likely the
highest in 2000yrs and the 20th warming trend is anamolous when compared to
the last 2000 years of temperature flucuations)

> It's your
> way or none at all. Why haven't we heard yet that Barton is an oil man
> that
> takes campaign money from evil oil companies. Any other time we would have
> heard about it ad nauseum.

What's your point here? Barton's actions speak for themselves?

> Apparently, the science can only be questioned by those that agree with
> the
> minority conclusion but the science isn't settled and never has been,
> though
> that has been preached for years.

No, the science can be questioned and study by anyone. But in terms of
people or organizations acting in governmental capacity, the science should
only be questioned by scientific bodies. The House Energy Committee is not
a scientific body and thus not qualified to interpret the information they
are requesting. It is thus highly suspect that they make this gesture.

> You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
> they are on record as supporting it.

I am not aware of any NAS examination of MBH98.

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 2:20:14 PM7/31/05
to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:0j7He.172820$tt5.25642@edtnps90...

LOL This is precious. And obvious of being scared of flaws being discovered.
Being so bloody science minded, you should be welcoming examination into
such an important science thing rather than protesting it. Isn't that what
science is all about? Always examining the science? The fact that you don't
like the methodology is irrelevant.


Roger Coppock

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 3:43:12 PM7/31/05
to
James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 4:27:06 PM7/31/05
to
On 31 Jul 2005 12:43:12 -0700, "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com>
wrote:

>James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
>Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
>takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.

Barton is a politician and it is consistent and rational to consider
his requests to be pursuing a political agenda. Those suspecting a
politician of being political doesn't amount to an accusation that
should be taken with any shock or mental agitation, for gosh sake!
James almost seems disturbed that anyone might dare suggest
Barton-the-politician might actually be acting politically.

It's possible that he is seriously trying to understand things, but
his requests don't support that belief.

By the way, the response letters were quite clear, surprisingly so in
some cases. For example, with Mann's reply, where it was possible to
provide a reasoned response, he did. And where it was important to
retain rights, he did so while at the same time providing the
information requested as a matter of volunteering it, but written
clearly so it wasn't to be taken as a matter of being forced to do so.

The other responses were generally excellent and spoke in general
concert. Yet, also each as individual and human and varied as one
might expect from people speaking for themselves.

If Barton and his office were serious about trying to understand the
science, then that fact would be demonstrated by their approach. So
far, they done everything they possibly could to confirm the opposite
-- it wasn't a respectful inquiry about the science itself at all and
wasn't looking for a comprehensive viewpoint. And the fact that it
garnered a response from the AAAS expressing "deep concern" about the
apparent attempt to "discredit these particular scientists and
findings" supports the point that Barton's request carries a political
message and no real desire to examine the facts.

But Barton's narrow focus on just a few scientists and Barton's
failure to recognize that their work is only one small part among a
very large body of work -- albeit one chart of theirs is one of the
more highly popularized parts of it -- shows that Barton is focusing
on tarnishing exactly those messages that are somehow reaching the
public and not at all exhibiting a serious desire to understand the
comprehensive body of climate science. If he were serious about it,
he wouldn't focus so much attention here.

It's all about the message reaching the public, for Barton, and not
about gaining a comprehensive view. But such concerns are the meat
and potatoes for politicians, so it's not like this is new behavior.

Jon

Coby Beck

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 5:47:20 PM7/31/05
to
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42ed165d$1...@news.iglou.com...

>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:0j7He.172820$tt5.25642@edtnps90...

>> No, the science can be questioned and study by anyone. But in terms of


>> people or organizations acting in governmental capacity, the science
>> should only be questioned by scientific bodies. The House Energy
>> Committee is not a scientific body and thus not qualified to interpret
>> the information they are requesting. It is thus highly suspect that
>> they make this gesture.
>>
>> > You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
>> > they are on record as supporting it.
>>
>> I am not aware of any NAS examination of MBH98.
>>
>
> LOL This is precious. And obvious of being scared of flaws being
> discovered.
> Being so bloody science minded, you should be welcoming examination into
> such an important science thing rather than protesting it. Isn't that what
> science is all about? Always examining the science? The fact that you
> don't
> like the methodology is irrelevant.

This reply is competely non seqitur and more than a little non-sensical.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:12:00 PM7/31/05
to
In article <b6bqe19i4h6rlubf6...@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote, in part:

> ... the response letters were quite clear, surprisingly so in


> some cases. For example, with Mann's reply, where it was possible to

> provide a reasoned response, he did. ...

Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me. The claim that Zorita et al.
was a replication of MBH seems to me to require a quite peculiar
definition of replication. And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

James

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:47:08 PM7/31/05
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1122838992.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> James actually thinks that Congressman Joe
> Barton, R-Texas has an unbiased eye! This
> takes the prize for the stupidist post of the month.
>

I believe he is looking to see what is unbiased and what is not regardless
of his position.

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 9:51:37 PM7/31/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.

Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
same conclusion.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 11:48:19 PM7/31/05
to
In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
the speakers' table and at the microphone.

The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
there's other published works which may have received no better review
than MBH98.

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:37:58 AM8/1/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
>>
>> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
>> same conclusion.
>
> The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
> summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
> in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
> older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
> uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
> same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

Re-read my comment. Since you are attempting to change the subject to
"visual impact", it can be safely presumed that you cede the larger
point; i.e., that late 20th century warming is confirmed in numerous
other studies.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:45:37 AM8/1/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:12:00 -0400, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me.

It was well done.

>The claim that Zorita et al. was a replication of MBH seems to me
>to require a quite peculiar definition of replication.

That's not what he said. Your implication is an example of setting up
a strawman.

Quoting, "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit
researchers to independently produce the key algorithms." Where here
in his comment does he characterize it as a replication? I took the
comment to mean exactly what Mann said it meant, namely the point that
Barton's question makes a false presumption. Mann wrote, "The key to
replicability is unfettered access to all of the underlying data and
methodologies used by the first researcher. My data and methodological
information, and that of my colleagues, are available to anyone who
wants them." And he cites what you are referring to as an example
demonstrating his point.

>And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
>actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
>calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
>this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
>paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
>a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
>continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
>et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
>many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.

I stand by my points, none of which you did the least damage to in
your reply.

Jon

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:49:18 AM8/1/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:48:19 -0400, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

><snip -- I'm sure you won't mind my snipping as freely as you do>

>Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

><snip>

So you admit Barton's choice is about the visual impact, then, and not
about gaining a comprehensive view, at all. Your admission is noted.

Jon

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 7:40:54 AM8/1/05
to
In article <GGhHe.230213$nG6.221336@attbi_s22>,
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I respectfully disagree that my comments represent a change of subject.
And I'm puzzled at your apparent notion that the late 20th century
portion of the hockey stick is somehow a larger point than the whole
Mann-made warming schtick.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:36:32 AM8/1/05
to
In article <9h9re15fv1q21tc2m...@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:12:00 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me.
>
> It was well done.
>
> >The claim that Zorita et al. was a replication of MBH seems to me
> >to require a quite peculiar definition of replication.
>
> That's not what he said. Your implication is an example of setting up
> a strawman.
>
> Quoting, "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit
> researchers to independently produce the key algorithms." Where here

> in his comment does he characterize it as a replication? ...

That's a fair question. And my answer is to look at all the mentions of
words like replicate and replication in Mann's response, including the
paragraph from which you quote, and the later use of plural in Mann's
claim that "other scientists have used the methods we described and the
data we archived to replicate our results".

> ... I took the


> comment to mean exactly what Mann said it meant, namely the point that
> Barton's question makes a false presumption. Mann wrote, "The key to
> replicability is unfettered access to all of the underlying data and
> methodologies used by the first researcher. My data and methodological
> information, and that of my colleagues, are available to anyone who
> wants them." And he cites what you are referring to as an example
> demonstrating his point.

And what did you take the later plural to mean?

> >And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
> >actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
> >calculated. It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
> >this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
> >paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
> >a question or two more. I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
> >continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
> >et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
> >many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.
>
> I stand by my points, none of which you did the least damage to in
> your reply.

Didn't you say something about how clear Mann was in answering? He was
asked a quite clear question about R2. Yet his answer in no way hinted
that yes, MBH did calculate r2. Thus, I respectfully disagree with your
overall conclusion about clear answering. Whether you consider your
praise for clear answering to be one of your "points" is entirely up to
you.

Ian St. John

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:32:58 AM8/1/05
to
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:48:19 -0400, Steve Schulin
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip -- I'm sure you won't mind my snipping as freely as you do>
>
>> Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>> same visual impact as IPCC's choice?
>
>> <snip>
>
> So you admit Barton's choice is about the visual impact,

Illustrating the facts is about visual impact. That is not a derogatory
claim. You do not print reports with the intent of 'obscuring the facts'
unless you are a fossil fool or political spin master.

> then, and not about gaining a comprehensive view, at all

Illustrating the facts is the process of 'gaining a comprehensive view', so
that is not a derogatory claim. The whole point of a comprehensive view is
to see the forest, not the trees.

> Your admission is noted.

Admitting to making the graph clear and comprehensive is not derogatory.
Why would you think that?

>
> Jon


Eric Swanson

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 11:21:06 AM8/1/05
to
In article <steve.schulin-A06...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...

>
>In article <JefHe.207029$x96.60313@attbi_s72>,
> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
>>
>> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
>> same conclusion.
>
>The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
>summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
>in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
>older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
>uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>same visual impact as IPCC's choice?

I think RA was pointing to the other studies since the TAR. Science isn't
a static thing and the TAR is not the latest effort, as it was a summary.

>The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
>the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
>conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
>blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
>mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
>the speakers' table and at the microphone.

Ever heard of "in press"? It takes a long time to produce the final printed
version of anything book which was as nicely done as the TAR. Lots of lovely
color graphics that were printed very well. The Summary for Policy Makers
could have been produced much more quickly as a PDF, thus it appeared much
sooner than the final report. But, since Old Nuke doesn't write for
journal publication, he ignores this aspect of the issue.

>The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
>what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
>tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
>article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
>others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
>there's other published works which may have received no better review
>than MBH98.

Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific Creationist.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:41:15 PM8/1/05
to
In article <dcleku$3kr$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:

> > Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
> >>
> >> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
> >> same conclusion.
> >
> >The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
> >summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
> >in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
> >older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
> >uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
> >same visual impact as IPCC's choice?
>

> I think RA was pointing to the other studies since the TAR. ...

Maybe you're right. But he was replying to comment about IPCC's embrace
of the hockey stick.

> ... Science isn't

> a static thing and the TAR is not the latest effort, as it was a summary.

I agree that science is not settled. The A in TAR stands for assessment
-- and if it had better lived up to its name, perhaps the Mann et al.
hockey stick would not have been so enthusiastically embraced.

> >The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
> >the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
> >conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
> >blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
> >mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
> >the speakers' table and at the microphone.
>
> Ever heard of "in press"? It takes a long time to produce the final printed
> version of anything book which was as nicely done as the TAR. Lots of lovely
> color graphics that were printed very well. The Summary for Policy Makers
> could have been produced much more quickly as a PDF, thus it appeared much
> sooner than the final report. But, since Old Nuke doesn't write for
> journal publication, he ignores this aspect of the issue.

LOL - I've previously noted how the IPCC process (finalizing the
policymakers summary and then revising the scientific text) is properly
characterized as the political tail wagging the scientific dog. If you
have any evidence that the revisions to the body of the report were
complete when the policymakers summary was leaked, your ranting might
have more basis in reality.

> >The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
> >what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
> >tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
> >article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
> >others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
> >there's other published works which may have received no better review
> >than MBH98.
>
> Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
> rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
> I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific Creationist.

M&M have been quite vindicated. And I highly value the scientific
method. Not nearly so much as I value God's Word. That doesn't make me
anti-scientific. But your take on the matter sure makes you sound like
an unreasonable demander -- demanding that others share your apparently
anti-religious assumptions.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:44:05 PM8/1/05
to
In article <42eba...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Tree Ring Circus
>Thursday, July 28, 2005
>By Steven Milloy
>Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over
>the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?
>
>We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe
>Barton, R-Texas -- who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him
>by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.
>

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the scientific community?"

>On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
>Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing
>the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise
>in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of
>supposedly little change in global temperature.

Read what Rep. Boehlert said to him.

>
>The hockey stick graph has been key weapon in the arsenal of the global
>warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto
>Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.
>
>The graph has been criticized for many reasons,

Big Oil money.


>including its reliance on
>dubious estimates of historic temperatures based on the size of tree rings.
>Not only is temperature merely one factor that contributes to tree growth

>(as evidenced by the ring size), but a 15th century portion of the hockey


>stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree.
>

>Noting that "sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open
>scientific inquiry" and that the hockey stick research was paid for with

>public funds, Chairman Barton asked Dr. Michael Mann of the University of


>Virginia for the computer code used to generate the hockey stick graph. Dr.
>Mann had previously refused to provide his computer code to other climate
>researchers who had requested it.
>

>Dr. Mann apparently decided that he cannot withhold his data and computer
>code any longer from the public and agreed in a letter to post his data and
>computer code on the Internet -- but not without squealing about it first.
>Before Dr. Mann turned over his data, virtually the entire spectrum of
>global warming alarmists attacked Chairman Barton for requesting access to
>the data and code.
>

>The American Association for the Advancement of Science, long a proponent of
>global warming alarmism,

OK, Idiot Alert!

>chided Chairman Barton in a July 13 letter that Dr.
>Mann's hockey stick had already been accepted by the United Nations' global
>warming organization and that Congress ought not interfere with that
>process.
>

>Although the AAAS apparently believes that the UN should be the final
>arbiter on scientific matters, it's not at all clear that political
>organizations have any special insight into what constitutes scientific
>fact.

IPCC is not the UN. Idiot alert raised to level orange.

>
>Dr. Ralph Ciccerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
>wrote in a July 15 letter to Chairman Barton that "a focus on individual
>scientists can be intimidating."
>
>But congressional committees send out requests for information from private
>parties routinely. Moreover, I doubt that Dr. Mann felt "intimidated." He
>has previously testified in person before Congress about global warming
>without complaining of any intimidation. It's more likely that Dr. Mann
>doesn't want to run the risk of more criticism directed at his hockey stick
>graph.
>
>Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee,
>melodramatically wrote Chairman Barton claiming that, "The only conceivable
>explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent
>scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific
>debate. The precedent your investigation sets is truly chilling."

Q: when 2 Republicans are on opposite sides of something, how does Fox News
know how to slant its coverage?

>
>But Chairman Barton merely asked Dr. Mann to provide some information to
>Congress, including his computer code - something that Dr. Mann had

>previously refused to do when asked by private parties. Chairman Barton isn'


>t trying to influence scientific debate. H


Yeah, and Exxon isn't trying to drill in ANWR.

>e's trying to make scientific
>debate possible -- a good thing in a free society. What's chilling is Dr.
>Mann's past stonewalling and utter refusal to permit the public to see how
>he concocted the hockey stick -- research that was paid for by the public
>and that is being used by global warming advocates to restrict the public's
>access to affordable energy.
>
>In his request for information, Barton had also asked Dr. Mann to provide
>records of the grants and other sources of funding that had financed his
>research, no doubt fueling suspicion about the intentions of Barton's
>investigation. But these records would have established that the research
>and methodology that Dr. Mann was refusing to share had been publicly
>funded.
>

>The Washington Post seized upon this point when it chimed in on the debate
>with an editorial likening Chairman Barton's request for information to a
>"witch hunt." The Post added that ". to pretend that [Chairman Barton] is
>going to learn something useful by requesting data on 15th century tree
>rings is ludicrous; to demand decades worth of financial information from
>scientists who are not suspected of fraud is outrageous."
>
>Well, a scientist's refusal to provide colleagues with his data and
>methodology is suspicious.

Peer-reviewed scientific journals. Maybe someone can read one to Barton.


>Chairman Barton's request for publicly funded

>scientific data concerning a major public policy issue isn't ludicrous; but


>estimating global temperature data based on a single tree certainly is.
>

>The global warmers are trying to demonize Chairman Barton to make him the
>bad guy out to harass and intimidate Dr. Mann, now a martyr for global
>warming hysteria. But it appears that just the opposite is the case.

Or you're a doofus. Much higher probability.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:54:00 PM8/1/05
to

Lie. Science doesn't work that way. Of course, James has as much experience
with the workings of science as he does with the workings of warp drive.


>and it's finally time to
>look at the stuff with an unbiased eye whether the stuff is looked at by by
>undisclosed people or not as long as they are reputable people that know the
>stuff.

Bush requested and got a report from the NAS. Nuff said for intelligent folk.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 12:59:16 PM8/1/05
to
In article <42ec2...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:SxPGe.149079$HI.132184@edtnps84...
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>> news:42eba...@news.iglou.com...
>> > Tree Ring Circus

When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a word


Irrelevant, as been pointed out to you dozens of times.

>Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the
beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century.


James, that's a lie. It's like saying "some scientists think the earth is
6000 years old."

>Other
critics have found flaws in the study's use of certain data sets and
methodology.

Creationists make the same claim about evolution.


>But since the study fits perfectly with the argument of
global-warming supporters, they don't want to see it robustly debated.

James, you are a liar. Present something worth debating. You're a
creationist, pure and simple, and you cannot stand the light of day.

>
As chairman, Mr. Barton is responsible for making absolutely sure that
the science used to justify legislation is thoroughly vetted.


No he isn't. Let him introduce some legislation first, and I doubt it would
go to his committee first.

>Any changes to
the energy policy of the country to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would
cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American jobs.


James, you are lying.

>President Bush
wasn't exaggerating when he said that the Kyoto Protocol would derail the
U.S. economy. So, instead of angry condemnations, how about a little more
civility?

How about a little more intelligence and a little less regurgitating
right-wing swill?

Eric Swanson

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:39:10 PM8/1/05
to
In article <steve.schulin-E55...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...

>
> swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> steve....@nuclear.com says...
>> > Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Steve Schulin wrote:
>> >> > That the IPCC embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick is a big deal.
>> >>
>> >> Not really. It's just one of many studies that come to essentially the
>> >> same conclusion.
>> >
>> >The MBH graph selected by IPCC to highlight in Fig. 1 of the policymaker
>> >summary had at least two features which I don't recall as being included
>> >in any other construction of NH temperature at the time: MBH spliced the
>> >older construction with modern records, and MBH included an estimate of
>> >uncertainty. Would any of the many studies you have in mind have had the
>> >same visual impact as IPCC's choice?
>>
>> I think RA was pointing to the other studies since the TAR. ...
>
>Maybe you're right. But he was replying to comment about IPCC's embrace
>of the hockey stick.
>
>> ... Science isn't
>> a static thing and the TAR is not the latest effort, as it was a summary.
>
>I agree that science is not settled. The A in TAR stands for assessment
>-- and if it had better lived up to its name, perhaps the Mann et al.
>hockey stick would not have been so enthusiastically embraced.

Science has always been directed toward increasing knowledge and understanding
of the universe. As such, it is almost never a done deal. The TAR was a
summary report of the state of published climate change science as the date of
the cutoff for consideration. MBH was the best information available at that
time.

>> >The summary for policymakers was leaked to public almost 9 months before
>> >the full WG1 report, with its explicit discussion of data which tends to
>> >conflict with the hockey stick. When the full WG1 report was released, a
>> >blowup of the Mann et al. hockey stick, complete with the two features I
>> >mentioned, was quite prominent in the background of photos of folks at
>> >the speakers' table and at the microphone.
>>
>> Ever heard of "in press"? It takes a long time to produce the final printed
>> version of anything book which was as nicely done as the TAR. Lots of lovely
>> color graphics that were printed very well. The Summary for Policy Makers
>> could have been produced much more quickly as a PDF, thus it appeared much
>> sooner than the final report. But, since Old Nuke doesn't write for
>> journal publication, he ignores this aspect of the issue.
>
>LOL - I've previously noted how the IPCC process (finalizing the
>policymakers summary and then revising the scientific text) is properly
>characterized as the political tail wagging the scientific dog. If you
>have any evidence that the revisions to the body of the report were
>complete when the policymakers summary was leaked, your ranting might
>have more basis in reality.

That depends on what you call "revisions". There are always last minute glitches
to be fixed in the editing process. Was there a wholesale re-write of the
other parts of the TAR after the SPM was released? I really don't know, but as
I recall, the only gripe was that the SPM was revised by higher ups in the IPCC
after the scientific reviewers were finished. I never thought it was a big deal.

>> >The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
>> >what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
>> >tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
>> >article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
>> >others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
>> >there's other published works which may have received no better review
>> >than MBH98.
>>
>> Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
>> rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
>> I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific Creationist.
>
>M&M have been quite vindicated.

Sorry, they screwed up. They didn't understand that the programming language
they used required radians as input instead of degrees.

>..And I highly value the scientific

>method. Not nearly so much as I value God's Word. That doesn't make me
>anti-scientific. But your take on the matter sure makes you sound like
>an unreasonable demander -- demanding that others share your apparently
>anti-religious assumptions.

Creationists are anti-scientific, as they do not accept the scientific results
regarding the age of the Earth. I've just read most of Robert Gentry's 1986
book about polonium halos, which is full of errors, IMHO. Yet, he concludes that
the science is wrong and goes round and round about what he considers to be
"proof" of instantanious creation. His conclusions have been rather firmly
debunked, AIUI. Do you accept the science that debunks Gentry?

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/>

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:07:18 PM8/1/05
to
I bet you think Fox News is unbiased too!

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:51:13 PM8/1/05
to
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-A5C...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

>
> Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me. The claim that Zorita et al.
> was a replication of MBH seems to me to require a quite peculiar
> definition of replication.

Zorita's name only comes up twice in the same place in a footnote. The
footnote is referenced here:

"My data and methodological information, and that of my colleagues, are

available to anyone who wants them.[3] As noted above, other scientists have
reproduced our results based on publicly available information."

The "other scientists" here clearly refers to Ammann and Wahl. The part of
footnote 3 that refers to Zorita is:

"The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit researchers to

independently produce the key algorithms. See, e.g., Zorita, E., F.
Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al.(1998) approach to
paleoclimate reconstructions in the context of a 1000-yr control simulation
with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, J. Climate, 16, 1378-1390 (2003); Von
Storch, H., E. Zorita, J.M. Jones, Y. Dimitriev, F. Gonzalez-Rouco, F., and
S.F.B. Tett, Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data, Science, 306,
679-682 (2004)."

The key phrase is "independently produce the key algorithms". This does not
seem to me to be a claim of replication. So what is peculiar here, Mann's
claim or your presentation of it?

> And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
> actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
> calculated.

This is true, but his point was very clearly that r2 is not relevant and
therefore the question is not relevant.

> It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
> this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
> paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
> a question or two more.

Judging this on its own merits is definately over my head. Reading Mann's
letter it is clear that a good r2 result does not tell you if your
reconstruction has "skill" but it is not clear whether or not a bad r2 is a
reliable indicator of a lack of skill. Perhaps if it is, and if the r2
result were bad, then hiding that fact is a way of claiming more confidence
than warranted.

Is this the case in MBH98?

> I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
> continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
> et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
> many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.

It is still not clear to me why this would be a big deal for anyone trying
to understand GW. Even if this study were flawed and fraudulently so, it
would be a "victimless crime" as the fraudulent conclusion appears to be the
correct conclusion. If this study were flawed, fraud or not, it should be
an issue of concern for the IPCC process and then the investigation should
be focused on that process, not on MBH98, and on verifying all the *other*
studies relied on by the IPCC, not on MBH98.

So I see only the following possibilities as to Barton's motive and method:

1 He wants to understand climate science and is therefore misguided
in focusing on a single study.
2 He wants to understand the IPCC process and is therefore misguided
in focusing on the science.
3 He wants to uncover a fraud and is therefore simply attempting to
score political points and is way outside of his jurisdiction.
4 He hopes to create confusion and noise and thereby hinder any possible
progress on climate change policy.

Taking him at his word, we must believe it is a combination of 1 and 2 above
and he is therefore misguided in focusing on the science and on a single
study and it is inappropriate to be taking this directly to climate
researchers. Examining his letters, it is apparent that his public focus is
3, even if that is not his publicly professed focus. His requests are
without a doubt those of a prosecutor trying to expose criminal behaviour -
all kinds of financial disclosures requested, history going back decades,
insinuations of conflict of interest in his role as lead author etc.

But the bird's eye view of the whole affair leads me to conclude the major
effort is the number 4 possibility. He may well believe there has been some
fraud, that is hard to know, but he probably does not care, the 4 result is
the main goal, if 3 happens that is just gravy.

Any other possibilities I may have missed?

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:01:58 PM8/1/05
to
In article <42ece...@news.iglou.com>, "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:xeYGe.165236$9A2.6899@edtnps89...
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>> news:42ec1fd4$1...@news.iglou.com...
>> >
>> > "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:vFPGe.149133$HI.74799@edtnps84...
>>
>> >> The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
>> >> request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume
>if
>> >> he requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his
>> >> committee's
>> >> use. If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed
>> >> persons I think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no
>> >> scientists on his committee, so why is he asking for this?
>> >
>> > He is asking for it to make sure this is accurate or not.
>>
>> And he is as qualified to judge this as you are. I think the point sailed
>> right over your head.
>
>Yes, he is. He wants all the data upon which to determine. He will make a
>decision based on feedback he gets from those that are qualified that are
>not part of the obstinate crowd that insist no more data is necessary other
>than what they have been given.

So he won't ask the scientists but the lobbyists?

>
>It's pretty obvious that you, as well as many others here, are sticking to
>the original conclusions that have not been given a decent Q & A.


Liar.

> It's your
>way or none at all. Why haven't we heard yet that Barton is an oil man that
>takes campaign money from evil oil companies. Any other time we would have
>heard about it ad nauseum.
>
>Apparently, the science can only be questioned by those that agree with the
>minority conclusion but the science isn't settled and never has been, though
>that has been preached for years.

Goebbels tactic -- repeat a lie often enough and hope people accept it.


>You want the NAS to pass judgement, when
>they are on record as supporting it.

I bet they're on record accepting evolution too. And atoms.


>I'm tempted to say you just don't get
>it but I think you do very well and want to keep wagging the same advocates
>with false indignity.
>

I'm tempted to say you have no business debating science when you're unarmed.

>
>
>

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 2:10:42 PM8/1/05
to
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-BFC...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

I think he means the point that late 20th century warming is unprecedented
in the last 2000 years and it is warmer now than at any time in the last
2000 years. Do you disagree that this is the larger point? Do you disagree
that this is true?

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 3:18:22 PM8/1/05
to
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-E55...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> M&M have been quite vindicated.

What makes you say they have been vindicated? (As opposed to right all
along...)

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 9:41:28 PM8/1/05
to
In article <dclmns$7e6$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:

> ... The TAR was a


> summary report of the state of published climate change science as the date
> of the cutoff for consideration. MBH was the best information available at
> that time.

MBH was unreplicable as published. How can you possibly contend that it
has ever been the best information available? I hope everybody
interested in climate policy understands that the IPCC process was not
scientifically up to the task of adequately assessing MBH in the Third
Assessment Report.

> ... Was there a wholesale re-write of the other parts of the TAR


> after the SPM was released? I really don't know, but as I recall,
> the only gripe was that the SPM was revised by higher ups in the
> IPCC after the scientific reviewers were finished.
> I never thought it was a big deal.

After the SAR controversy, immortalized by such as the editorial board
at Nature, IPCC developed a number of corrective actions. One of these
was that all changes made late in the process (I don't recall the
trigger, but I'm sure it covered at least changes made after the
policymaker summary was adopted by the national representatives at
plenary) would be documented. Alas, the IPCC didn't specify that the
documentation would ever see the light of day.

> >> >The climate science community, and the IPCC, had so little interest in
> >> >what MBH actually did that, until non-climate-scientist Steve McIntyre
> >> >tried to replicate the research, nobody apparently knew that the Nature
> >> >article listed some datasets that weren't included and failed to list
> >> >others that were. Pray tell what solace you get from knowing that
> >> >there's other published works which may have received no better review
> >> >than MBH98.
> >>
> >> Same Old Nuke BS. M & M have been throrughly debunked, as they made some
> >> rather serious errors, yet, Old Nuke still takes their work as Gospel.
> >> I suppose that's what one should expect from an anti-scientific
> >> Creationist.
> >
> >M&M have been quite vindicated.
>
> Sorry, they screwed up. They didn't understand that the programming language
> they used required radians as input instead of degrees.

There was a McKitrick and Michaels paper which included such an error.
McKitrick's prompt attention to the error, and the recalculations
published as part of the journal erratum, was a stark contrast to Mann
et al's reaction to apparent errors identified in their paper. It was
McKitrick and Michaels' disclosure of their methods which allowed the
error to be discovered, BTW. In fact, Tim Lambert found the apparent
error before he obtained a copy of the paper.

> ... Creationists are anti-scientific, as they do not accept the
> scientific results regarding the age of the Earth. ...

LOL - the data can be interpreted in different ways. You appear to
demand that everybody share your assumption that radioactive decay rates
have been constant or close to constant. That seems an unreasonable
demand to me. A much better indicator of anti-scientific perspective is
whether folks think that science needs to be replicable.

> ... I've just read


> most of Robert Gentry's 1986 book about polonium halos, which is full
> of errors, IMHO. Yet, he concludes that the science is wrong
> and goes round and round about what he considers to be
> "proof" of instantanious creation. His conclusions have been rather firmly
> debunked, AIUI. Do you accept the science that debunks Gentry?
>
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/>

It's been many years since I've read much about the implications of the
evidence of radioactive decay within primordial rock. I recall that
Gentry had a lot of his research published in mainstream peer review
science journals. I'm sure the essays by talk.origins aficianados are
interesting, but could you recommend something in the peer review that
criticizes any of his papers which were published in Science or Nature?

ponced...@yahoo.com

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:34:53 PM8/1/05
to
More support for Joe Barton:

The untold story of the Global Warming Fiasco:


"Barton Investigation Uncovers
Key Puzzle Piece In
Global Warming Mystery

(July 24 2005)

Howling yelps of protest are yipping: "Inquisition"!
"Intimidation"!, and "Witch Hunt"! after the sending of some
letters by Rep. Joe Barton Chairman of the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce to key figures in the Global Warming Mystery.

Concealed by the volume and hysteria of the biteless bark of protests
by promoters of Global Warming Alarmism, was a quiet voice of caution
displayed by key figures in the investigation and their most prominent
supporters. Carefully hidden in their subdued message was a reluctance
to support what once was a major pillar of Global Warming Theory, the
claim that

"It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th
century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years"."

continues===>
http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ClimateChange/Rsquared.htm

Not mentioned in the link, is that the House Science committee has been
caught flat footed on this, so their response is to attack Joe Barton!

Eric Swanson

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 10:59:46 PM8/1/05
to
In article <steve.schulin-D03...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...

>
>In article <dclmns$7e6$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
> swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
>
>> ... The TAR was a
>> summary report of the state of published climate change science as the date
>> of the cutoff for consideration. MBH was the best information available at
>> that time.
>
>MBH was unreplicable as published. How can you possibly contend that it
>has ever been the best information available? I hope everybody
>interested in climate policy understands that the IPCC process was not
>scientifically up to the task of adequately assessing MBH in the Third
>Assessment Report.

Where is there a requirement that all scientific studies be replicated?
At the time, as I recall, thee were no other such studies which extended
as far back in time as MBH. Of course, now there are several others.
Nuke, have you considered that by repeating a complicated analysis step-
by-step might mean that one simply repeats any errors which may be included?
That's why other efforts have used different approaches and different proxy
data sets. There appears to be overall agreement among these different
analytical efforts.

[cut]

>> ... Creationists are anti-scientific, as they do not accept the
>> scientific results regarding the age of the Earth. ...
>
>LOL - the data can be interpreted in different ways. You appear to
>demand that everybody share your assumption that radioactive decay rates
>have been constant or close to constant. That seems an unreasonable
>demand to me. A much better indicator of anti-scientific perspective is
>whether folks think that science needs to be replicable.

While it's not my field, I suspect that only the creationist would suggest that
radioactive decay, which is central to radiometric dating, has varied so much
that 4.55 billion years of radioactive time can be compressed into less than
10,000 "orbital years". Here's further discussion:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>

>> ... I've just read
>> most of Robert Gentry's 1986 book about polonium halos, which is full
>> of errors, IMHO. Yet, he concludes that the science is wrong
>> and goes round and round about what he considers to be
>> "proof" of instantanious creation. His conclusions have been rather firmly
>> debunked, AIUI. Do you accept the science that debunks Gentry?
>>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/>
>
>It's been many years since I've read much about the implications of the
>evidence of radioactive decay within primordial rock. I recall that
>Gentry had a lot of his research published in mainstream peer review
>science journals. I'm sure the essays by talk.origins aficianados are
>interesting, but could you recommend something in the peer review that
>criticizes any of his papers which were published in Science or Nature?

Gentry says that he intentionally toned down the implications of his findings,
by simply presenting the results. When he actually included his creationist
interpretation in his later submissions, they were not accepted. BTW, he
includes several of his papers in the book. He also includes some
correspondence between himself and other researchers. The book ends with a
description of his presentation at a trial about teaching Evolution in Arkansas
schools. He was apparently fixated on the fact that science had not been able
to reproduce granite in the lab, which he had proposed as an ironclad test of
his hypothesis. The mere fact that it was technically impossible to re-create
the conditions which were thought to be necessary to do so was something he
ignored. As I looked at it, Gentry had by then drifted far from the usual
scientific debate realm, having become a "believer" instead of a scientist.

As for your call for published peer reviewed rebuttal, I suggest that the
rejection of his later work accomplished the same thing. After that, Gentry
went into the public arena and presented his case outside the scientific
publication process. Of course, you blow off the link which I presented, as
if the comments presented have no merit just because they aren't in a peer
reviewed setting. However, the comments include references to peer reviewed
reports, as support. As usual, Old Nuke ignores scientific discourse, perhaps
because he is incapable of understanding the details.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 9:02:25 AM8/2/05
to
In article <litHe.175650$tt5.157604@edtnps90>,
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:

> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com>...


> >
> > Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me. The claim that Zorita et al.
> > was a replication of MBH seems to me to require a quite peculiar
> > definition of replication.
>
> Zorita's name only comes up twice in the same place in a footnote. The
> footnote is referenced here:
>
> "My data and methodological information, and that of my colleagues, are
> available to anyone who wants them.[3] As noted above, other scientists have
> reproduced our results based on publicly available information."
>

> The "other scientists" here clearly refers to Ammann and Wahl. ...

And that's not the only place that the plural is used. That's a lot of
plurals for referring to one as-yet-unpublished paper. Mann chooses his
words carefully, so I guess it's fair to presume that he chose to refer
all those times to all those other scientists instead of saying "hey,
there's one paper that, although not doing some of the stuff we did, was
able to use the information we provided since McIntyre & McKitrick's
first paper to replicate much of what we did. And at least the initial
submission of that paper didn't report r2 either!"

> ... The part of

> footnote 3 that refers to Zorita is:
>
> "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit researchers to
> independently produce the key algorithms. See, e.g., Zorita, E., F.
> Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al.(1998) approach to
> paleoclimate reconstructions in the context of a 1000-yr control simulation
> with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, J. Climate, 16, 1378-1390 (2003); Von
> Storch, H., E. Zorita, J.M. Jones, Y. Dimitriev, F. Gonzalez-Rouco, F., and
> S.F.B. Tett, Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data, Science, 306,
> 679-682 (2004)."
>
> The key phrase is "independently produce the key algorithms". This does not
> seem to me to be a claim of replication. So what is peculiar here, Mann's
> claim or your presentation of it?

LOL - do you recall if replication was mentioned in say, the line
preceeding "the part of the footnote" you quote? I do. And please don't
forget Mann's repeated use of plural form regarding such as those who
have replicated methods and results. But as you say, maybe Mann was just
referring to one paper those times.

> > And I was disappointed that Mann didn't
> > actually say yes or no to the question about whether r2 had been
> > calculated.
>
> This is true, but his point was very clearly that r2 is not relevant and
> therefore the question is not relevant.

Yes, that seemed to be the point he exclusively discussed rather than
actually admitting that yes, they did calculate r2.

> > It turns out, from the old code he released in another venue
> > this month, that the answer is, yes, MBH did calculate r2. Had MBH98
> > paper actually reported r2, perhaps the peer reviewers would have asked
> > a question or two more.
>
> Judging this on its own merits is definately over my head. Reading Mann's
> letter it is clear that a good r2 result does not tell you if your
> reconstruction has "skill" but it is not clear whether or not a bad r2 is a
> reliable indicator of a lack of skill. Perhaps if it is, and if the r2
> result were bad, then hiding that fact is a way of claiming more confidence
> than warranted.
>
> Is this the case in MBH98?

That would have been an interesting topic for Mann to discourse upon.
McIntyre's July 20, 2005 discussion of the matter is a real rip-roar.
Here's how he ends it:

"I have no doubt, as Iąve mentioned recently, that, if the IPCC had
reported that the MBH98 reconstruction had a cross-validation R2 of ~0.0
(rather than claiming that it had łsignificant skill in independent
cross-validation tests˛), the MBH98 hockey stick graph would not have
been featured in IPCC. If it had been reported in the original
publication, itąs possible that the original article would not have been
published in the first place. It will be interesting to see what the
various learned societies and individuals will make of this."

The full post and comments are available at
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=268#more-268


> > I'm grateful that aspects of MBH methodology
> > continue to be made publicly available. That the IPCC embraced the Mann
> > et al. hockey stick is a big deal. I'm grateful that Rep. Barton asked
> > many of the questions he did, and am looking forward to follow-up.
>
> It is still not clear to me why this would be a big deal for anyone trying
> to understand GW. Even if this study were flawed and fraudulently so, it
> would be a "victimless crime" as the fraudulent conclusion appears to be the

> correct conclusion. ...

I'm regularly amazed that folks take solace in the fact that other
papers, each of which may have received even less thorough assessment
than did Mann et al., have some similarities. The presumed flatness of
century scale unforced variation in global mean is an assumption, not a
settled scientific issue. And the notion that we are warmer now than
during the periods often referred to as Medieval Warm Period or Roman
Optimum is not a settled scientific issue either. Heck, the warming in
earlier part of 20th century appears comparable in extent (about 20% of
CRU grid cells showed statistically significant warming then, compared
to 19% in the most recent Jones and Moberg J. Climate update).

> ... If this study were flawed, fraud or not, it should be

> an issue of concern for the IPCC process and then the investigation should
> be focused on that process, not on MBH98, and on verifying all the *other*
> studies relied on by the IPCC, not on MBH98.

MBH98 is the starting point. I was glad to see Barton asking about IPCC
process as it related to Mann et al. hockey stick, as I was glad to read
that at least one of the current IPCC lead authors thought it important
to find out how some of the flaws in Mann et al. research were not
identified during the IPCC TAR assessment process.

>
> So I see only the following possibilities as to Barton's motive and method:
>
> 1 He wants to understand climate science and is therefore misguided
> in focusing on a single study.
> 2 He wants to understand the IPCC process and is therefore misguided
> in focusing on the science.
> 3 He wants to uncover a fraud and is therefore simply attempting to
> score political points and is way outside of his jurisdiction.
> 4 He hopes to create confusion and noise and thereby hinder any possible
> progress on climate change policy.
>
> Taking him at his word, we must believe it is a combination of 1 and 2 above
> and he is therefore misguided in focusing on the science and on a single
> study and it is inappropriate to be taking this directly to climate
> researchers. Examining his letters, it is apparent that his public focus is
> 3, even if that is not his publicly professed focus. His requests are
> without a doubt those of a prosecutor trying to expose criminal behaviour -
> all kinds of financial disclosures requested, history going back decades,
> insinuations of conflict of interest in his role as lead author etc.
>
> But the bird's eye view of the whole affair leads me to conclude the major
> effort is the number 4 possibility. He may well believe there has been some
> fraud, that is hard to know, but he probably does not care, the 4 result is
> the main goal, if 3 happens that is just gravy.
>
> Any other possibilities I may have missed?

LOL - the hockey stick scandal stinks. Maybe he just hates that the
stench hasn't prompted more action by the climate science community. For
example, immediately following publication of McIntyre and McKitrick's
first article, Mann told journalist that the ballocksed data file was
created in attempt to be helpful to McIntyre, and that the correct data
had long been available in an ftp directory. It turns out that the
particular ftp directory cited had never been mentioned in any public
document, and that it included the same file, dated long before
McIntyre's inquiry, that Mann claims was created for McIntyre. Within
days, the file was removed from the ftp directory.

James

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 10:44:19 AM8/2/05
to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dclks6$oq8$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu...

I'll bet you think you are unbiased.


James

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 10:54:30 AM8/2/05
to

"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dclkd4$oq8$7...@puck.cc.emory.edu...

You are a pretty stupid person Lloyd. You don't know if I am a creationist
or Beelzebub. The arguments you come up with are almost as good as pointing
out missspellings. Your conclusions (when you have one) are laughable.

>
> >
> As chairman, Mr. Barton is responsible for making absolutely sure that
> the science used to justify legislation is thoroughly vetted.
>
>
> No he isn't. Let him introduce some legislation first, and I doubt it
would
> go to his committee first.

You know nothing of the process either dumbass.

>
> >Any changes to
> the energy policy of the country to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would
> cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American jobs.
>
>
> James, you are lying.

Show us your numbers stupid.

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 3:17:26 PM8/2/05
to
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@notspam.net> wrote in message
news:dcmnj0$mej$1...@news3.infoave.net...

>>MBH was unreplicable as published. How can you possibly contend that it


>>has ever been the best information available? I hope everybody
>>interested in climate policy understands that the IPCC process was not
>>scientifically up to the task of adequately assessing MBH in the Third
>>Assessment Report.
>
> Where is there a requirement that all scientific studies be replicated?
> At the time, as I recall, thee were no other such studies which extended
> as far back in time as MBH. Of course, now there are several others.
> Nuke, have you considered that by repeating a complicated analysis step-
> by-step might mean that one simply repeats any errors which may be
> included?
> That's why other efforts have used different approaches and different
> proxy
> data sets. There appears to be overall agreement among these different
> analytical efforts.

Thanks for making this important point. I actually had not thought of that
before but it is quite correct. Replication in the sense M&M seem to be
seeking is in fact a very superficial way of verifying any scientific
finding, just a small step above checking the arithmetic.

It is much more convincing to understand the method, use the same data and
have an independantly developed run at it. Convincing as in reproducing,
that is. But even more important is to have different data, different
methods and different people arrive at the same conclusion.

As this latter has happened now several times it really makes the obsession
with checking MBH's arithmetic rather irrelevant.

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 2:55:06 PM8/2/05
to
In article <1122950093....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

ponced...@yahoo.com wrote:
>More support for Joe Barton:
>
>The untold story of the Global Warming Fiasco:
>
>
>"Barton Investigation Uncovers
>Key Puzzle Piece In
>Global Warming Mystery
>
>(July 24 2005)
>
>Howling yelps of protest are yipping: "Inquisition"!
>"Intimidation"!, and "Witch Hunt"! after the sending of some
>letters by Rep. Joe Barton Chairman of the House Committee on Energy
>and Commerce to key figures in the Global Warming Mystery.
>
>Concealed by the volume and hysteria of the biteless bark of protests
>by promoters of Global Warming Alarmism, was a quiet voice of caution
>displayed by key figures in the investigation and their most prominent
>supporters. Carefully hidden in their subdued message was a reluctance
>to support what once was a major pillar of Global Warming Theory, the
>claim that

Huh?

>
>"It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th
>century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years"."
>
>continues===>
>http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ClimateChange/Rsquared.htm
>

Your blog is not science.

Coby Beck

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 4:24:02 PM8/2/05
to
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-160...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <litHe.175650$tt5.157604@edtnps90>,
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com>...
>> >
>> > Mann's reply didn't seem so laudible to me. The claim that Zorita et
>> > al.
>> > was a replication of MBH seems to me to require a quite peculiar
>> > definition of replication.
>>
>> Zorita's name only comes up twice in the same place in a footnote. The
>> footnote is referenced here:
>>
>> "My data and methodological information, and that of my colleagues, are
>> available to anyone who wants them.[3] As noted above, other scientists
>> have
>> reproduced our results based on publicly available information."
>>
>> The "other scientists" here clearly refers to Ammann and Wahl. ...
>
> And that's not the only place that the plural is used. That's a lot of
> plurals for referring to one as-yet-unpublished paper. Mann chooses his
> words carefully, so I guess it's fair to presume that he chose to refer
> all those times to all those other scientists instead of saying "hey,
> there's one paper that, although not doing some of the stuff we did, was
> able to use the information we provided since McIntyre & McKitrick's
> first paper to replicate much of what we did. And at least the initial
> submission of that paper didn't report r2 either!"

Searching for the word "replicate" and discarding the couple of times it is
used in a general way (ie not as a claim about this or other particular
studies) we end up with this:

pg 1, introductory material:
"Other scientists have replicated all facets of my research and have found
it accurate and reliable."

[A general claim that seems to be justified. AW replicated the study
itself, others have replicated different facets. A reasonable summary.]

pg 2, Answering "the most serious contention" regarding lack of
replicability
"an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues
and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability
of our findings. See Wahl, E.R., Ammann, C.M., Robustness of the Mann,
Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examination of
Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence,
Climate Change (2005) (forthcoming) and associated website:
http://www.cgd.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html."

[A very specific claim with a very specific example. No false pretense
here.]

pg 3, Answer to Q4 regarding provision of data and methods
"sufficient to permit other researchers to replicate the research"

pg 4, part of footnote 3
"we replicated our results with a different methodology (Rutherford, S.,
Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones,
P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target
Domain, Journal of Climate (2005) (to appear in July issue)"

[Note replicate is used even though it is specified to mean using different
methodology. Clearly "replicate" for Dr Mann does not mean "duplicate" in
the sense M&M are attempting.]

pg 4, part of footnote 3
"an independent group has replicated our original methods and results (See
Wahl, E.R. and Ammann, C.M., Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes
Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on
the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence, Climatic Change (2005)"

[again a specific claim with the same specific example]

pg 5, Answer to Q5 about why computer code was not provided.
"Since other scientists have used the methods we described and the data we
archived to replicate our results, the issue of whether my computer program
is available has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of our results."

[Here, take it how you choose, "precise" replication and "other scientists"
means A&W, or "general" replication and "other scientists" means all of the
others cited.]

So I think Steve, you may have a beef about what the word "replicate" means
to you as opposed to Dr. Mann, but clearly you have no basis to denigrate
his response because of it. Further I would suggest that the onus is on you
to show that Dr Mann's use of the word, in the obvious and specific context
of scientific research, is "peculiar".

>> ... The part of
>> footnote 3 that refers to Zorita is:
>>
>> "The initial description of the work was sufficient to permit researchers
>> to
>> independently produce the key algorithms. See, e.g., Zorita, E., F.
>> Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al.(1998) approach to
>> paleoclimate reconstructions in the context of a 1000-yr control
>> simulation
>> with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, J. Climate, 16, 1378-1390 (2003);
>> Von
>> Storch, H., E. Zorita, J.M. Jones, Y. Dimitriev, F. Gonzalez-Rouco, F.,
>> and
>> S.F.B. Tett, Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data, Science, 306,
>> 679-682 (2004)."
>>
>> The key phrase is "independently produce the key algorithms". This does
>> not
>> seem to me to be a claim of replication. So what is peculiar here,
>> Mann's
>> claim or your presentation of it?
>
> LOL - do you recall if replication was mentioned in say, the line
> preceeding "the part of the footnote" you quote? I do.

Do you? That line is "For these reasons, charges that our work is not
subject to replication are unfounded." This is not even a claim that it
*has* been replicated by anyone just that it is *subject to* replication.
This sentence refers to the preceeding listing of where all of the material
required is available, and as that material is available, it is a simple,
well founded conclusion. The quote I provided is complete for the purposes
of debunking your claim that Mann is distorting anything. The line you
object to having been left out does not help your case.

> And please don't
> forget Mann's repeated use of plural form regarding such as those who
> have replicated methods and results. But as you say, maybe Mann was just
> referring to one paper those times.

I prefer to focus on the more detailed presentation I made above, but I must
question why you think it is strange to refer to Ammann and Wahl as "other
scientists", not withstanding that there is only one relevant paper
(according to *your* interpretation of replicate). This is hardly an
exageration or whitewash, it is merely proper English grammar. It is not
like this is a 1000 page document and the fact (according to *your*
interpretation of "replicate") that only one paper is actually relevant is
buried deep in the appendix to section 20.

Yes, I've read that thanks. McIntyre should move on, this is a mole hill
built up into a mountain long since trampled flat to the ground. MBH98 is
ancient history in the search for understanding. You and McIntyre are not
searching for understanding. If including MBH98 in the TAR was wrong and
due to a break down in process, then devote your energy to improving or even
policing the process. It is reasonable to try to find and expose other
problems. But this just is not the smouldering bomb crater you try to
portray it as. There are a thousand other studies and scientists that all
make up this big picture, get your head out of this squirrels nest and have
a look at the forest all around you.

I repeat:
What you have here is a 7 year old study whose conclusions have been well
coroborated many times over. So regardless of any flaws there may be, the
conclusion is still correct. If the conclusion is correct, and science has
moved on who cares?

The only possible remaining issue is whether or not we have a fraud, and a
fraud that produced a correct conclusion at that. So this is *not* a GW
issue any more, it is simply one of alledged ethical violations. The fact
that this is still hauled out to attack AGW theory is ample evidence that no
one doing so really cares about the science of the issue.

> I'm regularly amazed that folks take solace in the fact that other
> papers, each of which may have received even less thorough assessment
> than did Mann et al., have some similarities. The presumed flatness of
> century scale unforced variation in global mean is an assumption, not a
> settled scientific issue. And the notion that we are warmer now than
> during the periods often referred to as Medieval Warm Period or Roman
> Optimum is not a settled scientific issue either. Heck, the warming in
> earlier part of 20th century appears comparable in extent (about 20% of
> CRU grid cells showed statistically significant warming then, compared
> to 19% in the most recent Jones and Moberg J. Climate update).

It is not clear to me what you think this means in terms of this discussion.

>> ... If this study were flawed, fraud or not, it should be
>> an issue of concern for the IPCC process and then the investigation
>> should
>> be focused on that process, not on MBH98, and on verifying all the
>> *other*
>> studies relied on by the IPCC, not on MBH98.
>
> MBH98 is the starting point.

How many more years before we get off the blocks then?

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 8:54:31 PM8/2/05
to
James wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
SNIP...

>
> You are a pretty stupid person Lloyd. You don't know if I am a creationist
> or Beelzebub.

Thought we settled that ages ago.

josh halpern


James

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 9:16:01 PM8/2/05
to

"Joshua Halpern" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bBUHe.7651$4e6.1614@trnddc04...

Just like the climate science Josh. Without a clue.


Joshua Halpern

unread,
Aug 2, 2005, 9:25:09 PM8/2/05
to
Finess James, finess.

josh halpern

Josiah Thrupp-Mabberley Bt

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 6:53:38 AM8/3/05
to
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:

>"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message

>news:42ebc30f$1...@news.iglou.com...
>>
>> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:y8PGe.225157$nG6.191452@attbi_s22...
>>> W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:
>>> > an Barton ... going to learn something useful by requesting
>>> > data on 15th century tree rings is ludicrous...."
>>> >
>>> > But Dr. Mann, however, did learn something useful?
>>> >
>>> > Is the quoted statement above typical of the objectivity of journalism
>>> > school grads employed at the Washington Post?
>>>
>>> Mann has sufficient training and experience to make use of such data.
>>> Please tell us the extent of Barton's coursework and professional
>>> experience in statistics, dendrochronology and exploratory data analysis.
>>
>> So you think he wants it for his own personal use? ROTFLMAO
>

>The proper way to investigate a scientific issue like this would be to
>request a report from the NAS or some similar entity. One must assume if he
>requests this info on behalf of his committee it is for his committee's use.
>If it was his sole intent to get it to pass it on to undisclosed persons I
>think this is more questionable behaviour. There are no scientists on his
>committee, so why is he asking for this?
>

>See this for good reasons this action is inappropriate.
>http://www.realclimate.org/Boehlert_letter_to_Barton.pdf

One would have thought that as firstly, Mann's work was publicly
funded and, secondly and more importantly that it and similar models
are being used to justify what may turn out to be catastrophic
economic effects on both the developed and developing world, that he'd
be duty-bound to put all his work - computer code, parameter sets,
data sets, etc - into the public domain in order that it be given the
widest possible degree of scrutiny, by as many people as possible.

Witholding such work on the basis that "you aren't qualified to
understand it" makes Mann et al appear to be not much more than
snake-oil salesmen.

Ian St. John

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 9:21:39 AM8/3/05