ClimateGate 2.0? Are you fucking kidding me?

[GIGObuster]

FX really exudes it and enjoys his ignorance. Of that there is no doubt.
For him it is not just necessary to deny that reviews and inquiries to investigate impropriety have taken place already, he has to even deny that I already posted the information and the cites with links that go to investigations and the science that confirm that Climategate was a manufactured scandal.

Even after the investigations by academic institutions and the ones set up by the governments exonerated them, even of the apparent impropriety to deniers (not to the science), just by looking at the context early in the game it was very clear that there was virtually nothing there:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/12/cru-emails-whats-really-there/

FX now thinks that new emails make a difference, but there was a reason why they were called a 2 year turkey, the clips taken out of context also come form the originally stolen group of emails from 2 years ago and as one reviewer put it, if they had been that important they should had been released before with the original hack, well good luck on making a moot point larger than it needs to be, FX is only showing that there are denier sources out there that guys like him continue to look for “information”.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@FXMastermind

I’m not surprised that nobody wants to take my bet about Climategate never being discussed.

I do! I do! Ooh, ooh, pick me! Just find me the emails you object to, and post them in their full context, and I will respond to them! It’s that simple! I posted this challenge several times over the last few pages and am still waiting for a reply.

@FXMastermind

Assbackwards idiots will preach and lecture for thousands of posts, but they won’t lift a finger to actually read the emails, much less understand the complicated issues and stories involved.

[…]

Like this latest batch of releases. The believer already KNOWS there is nothing there. He doesn’t need to read anything.

Ignorance, it’s everywhere

When a set of docs like this is revealed, it is up to you. YOU! The person making the claim! To present your case and the evidence involved. It sure would be convenient if I could just say “he’s guilty, here’s the proof” in court, throw down a pile of 10,000 letters, and claim that if the defense doesn’t read all of them, the evidence is 100% valid proof. That’s not how shit works. You make your case, then we respond. I’m not sure that there’s nothing in those emails that’s damning. But I know sure as hell that it hasn’t been posted, be it in the Daily Mail or in this thread.

So no, I will not read the emails. I will not sift through 25,000 pages of data. You wanna make accusations based on them? That’s your job. Find me single emails or conversations, and I will review them. I will not hunt for a needle in a haystack.

[FXMastermind]

The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking about over-fitting and the potential bias of
screening against the target climate parameter.

Therefore, I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.

I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel – I did not try and approximate the
persistence structure in tree-ring data. The autocorrelation therefore of the time-series
was close to zero, although it did vary between each time-series. Playing around therefore
with the AR persistent structure of these time-series would make a difference. However, as
these series are generally random white noise processes, I thought this would be a
conservative test of any potential bias.

I then screened the time-series against NH mean annual temperatures and retained those
series that correlated at the 90% C.L.

48 series passed this screening process.

Using three different methods, I developed a NH temperature reconstruction from these data:

1. simple mean of all 48 series after they had been normalised to their common period

2. Stepwise multiple regression

3. Principle component regression using a stepwise selection process.

The results are attached.

Interestingly, the averaging method produced the best results, although for each method
there is a linear trend in the model residuals – perhaps an end-effect problem of
over-fitting.

The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the
phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4191

Noe that is of course a shortened version of the email. The link allows anyone to read the entire thing.

So in 2006 one of the insiders pointed out he reproduced a problem with the hockey stick reconstruction. A randomly generated temperature series (actually 48 of them) produced a hockey stick.

This is one of those things that actually doesn’t mean much taken out of context. You have to know a lot about the issue to even understand what it might mean.

Once more, I am so confident the emails (and the related issues) will NOT be discussed, no matter what, I can post part of an actual email (that was just released), and it won’t matter.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

It never was my official test to begin with, and so we reach stupid layer #220.

To clarify further, it is not my test because we got there thanks to your “debating”, we got into more and more improbable predictions to make you happy

You posted the quote in question in reply to another poster entirely. You came up with it, on your own, when someone else asked for your answer; I don’t know why you posted it, if it wasn’t your test of choice – but it wasn’t in response to me, or thanks to my debating; you did so in response to Bricker, and thanks to his blandly open-ended request.

The moronic thing here is that you still think that that prediction was wholly mine when it was the result of the demands of what it could be considered to be a petulant child that is pretending to debate.

The prediction was ‘wholly yours’ in that you supplied it, for reasons I can’t imagine: you didn’t, say, merely fire back a quick “yes” approving of someone else’s proposed test – but instead made up the whole thing on your own, in response to a debater other than me asking a perfectly reasonable question. I don’t know why you provided that answer to begin with, but I’m glad the test you mentioned is now unequivocally off the table; I see little reason to discuss it further going forward, as we can instead (a) make a clean break from it and (b) stick to discussing the predicted rise in temperature over the specified decades as per the link.

[FXMastermind]

The big lie is that small bits are being used out of context from the emails.

In the real world, it’s thousands of connected emails, huge complicated issues, and quite difficult for anyone trying to make a point with the documents. Like the hockey stick stuff. Jesus fuckChrist, you have to read a shit ton of documents, and follow all these complicated science based discussions, and you still may not be able to grasp what the fuck they are on about.

I mean, they go on and on and connect the dots over a period of years! It’s actual fucking work trying to just follow it, much less to be able to know if it’s bullshit or not.

The true believer who wants to debunk a single sentence has it easy I tell ya. The science part is hard.

[FXMastermind]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You posted the quote in question in reply to another poster entirely. You came up with it, on your own, when someone else asked for your answer; I don’t know why you posted it, if it wasn’t your test of choice – but it wasn’t in response to me, or thanks to my debating; you did so in response to Bricker, and thanks to his blandly open-ended request.

I don’t think there is any point in holding his feet to the fire any longer. If he hasn’t displayed an open mind by now, it’s not going to happen.

But, please, by all means, avoid discussing Climategate in any form, and keep making this a global warming argument thread. Because you can never have too many of them.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@FXMastermind

I don’t think there is any point in holding his feet to the fire any longer. If he hasn’t displayed an open mind by now, it’s not going to happen.

But, please, by all means, avoid discussing Climategate in any form, and keep making this a global warming argument thread. Because you can never have too many of them.

Hey, I expect to be out now that I’ve got clarification; his feet were apparently at the fire for exactly long enough, and all apologies for the hijack.

[FXMastermind]

No worries.

[Norse]

GIGO: I’ve only got Gobbledygooker 1.7 installed on my computer, and it’s not able to parse the latest posts from FX and TOWP. I’m just getting noise. Would you mind running the stuff through the 2.0 version and posting the results? I’m totally at a loss as to what they’re really saying.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Norse

I’m totally at a loss as to what they’re really saying.

Do you want to extend the hijack, or let it die?

On page five, GIGO did what he could have done on page one: briskly answered my question about his off-topic reply to Scylla’s off-topic point. Since he’s done so, I currently have no further interest in continuing the hijack.

[GIGObuster]

@Norse

GIGO: I’ve only got Gobbledygooker 1.7 installed on my computer, and it’s not able to parse the latest posts from FX and TOWP. I’m just getting noise. Would you mind running the stuff through the 2.0 version and posting the results? I’m totally at a loss as to what they’re really saying.

As mentioned, I already pointed out that the discussion on that stale 70’s test is not relevant anymore, and not only because it is not related to the OP, I only need to point out that TWOP is indeed a coward for avoiding dealing with climategate and to avoid it he has to concentrate on an idiot point.

Making look even more like an idiot by continuing to press on on that, but I do not mind.

[FXMastermind]

Just taking bits out doesn’t really help the uninformed to understand much of anything.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

• Peter Thorne, research scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre, to Phil Jones (email 1939)

“Getting people we know and trust [into the IPCC report team] is vital.”

• Phil Jones, UEA, to Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, 15 September 2004 (email 714)

“Mike, the figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

• Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, US, to Michael Mann, Penn State University (email 2884)

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

• Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona, to Ricardo Villalba (email 4755)

“For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”
• Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona, to Ricardo Villalba (email 4755)

“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot here!”

• Keith Briffa, UEA, to Edward Cook (email 2009)

You actually have to know a lot more about the subjects to grasp what the hell a lot of it means.

[FXMastermind]

You see how confident I am? No matter what, the true believer isn’t going to want to discuss something like, oh, let’s say, the emails.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4191

Noe that is of course a shortened version of the email. The link allows anyone to read the entire thing.

So in 2006 one of the insiders pointed out he reproduced a problem with the hockey stick reconstruction. A randomly generated temperature series (actually 48 of them) produced a hockey stick.

This is one of those things that actually doesn’t mean much taken out of context. You have to know a lot about the issue to even understand what it might mean.

Once more, I am so confident the emails (and the related issues) will NOT be discussed, no matter what, I can post part of an actual email (that was just released), and it won’t matter.

And I was so confident that that was already looked at in investigations and by independent surveys, and sure enough:

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style

In summary, then, I have shown in Wegman et al a misleading focus on one particular step of the Mann et al algorithm, accompanied by a refusal to substantively consider the the peer-reviewed scientific critiques of M&M.

And to top it all, Wegman et al flatly stated that the biasing Mann et al algorithm would produce “hockey stick” reconstructions from low-order, low-autocorrelation red noise, while displaying a set of curves from the top 1% of “hockey sticks” produced from high-persistence random proxies. Those facts are clearly apparent from McIntyre and McKitrick’s source code, as modified and run by Wegman et al themselves.

Make no mistake – this strikes at the heart of Wegman et al’s findings, which held that the writing of Mann et al was “somewhat obscure”, while McIntyre and McKitrick’s “criticisms” were found to be “valid” and their arguments “compelling”. And yet the only “compelling illustration” offered by Wegman et al was the supposed consistent production of “hockey sticks” from low-correlation red noise by the Mann et al algorithm. But the M&M simulation turned out to be based on nothing of the kind, and, to top it all, showed only the top 1% of simulated “hockey stick” PC1s.

So there you have it: Wegman et al’s endorsement of McIntyre and McKitrick’s “compelling” critique rests on abysmal scholarship, characterized by deliberate exclusion of relevant scientific literature, incompetent analysis and a complete lack of due diligence. It’s high time to admit the obvious: the Wegman report should be retracted.

[Update, November 22: According to USA Today’s Dan Vergano, a number of plagiarism experts have confirmed that the Wegman Report was “partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report”. The allegations, first raised here in a series of posts starting in December 2009 (notably here and here), are now being formally addressed by statistician Edward Wegman’s employer, George Mason University. ]

The main trust of the complaint in the email is the same as the Wegman report, besides finding that nowadays the Wegman report was a masterpiece of plagiarism, the complaint Mcintire and others report here is not correct.

So, it was found not be as damaging as the denialist spin claimed to be. What FX is doing here is reheat a 2 year old already debunked baloney, and he once again he demonstrates that the spin he is referring here came from a denialist cite, not from his own rotten skull.

[FXMastermind]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Just find me the emails you object to, and post them in their full context, and I will respond to them! It’s that simple!

I never can tell if somebody is being funny (and that was) or if they seriously believe something like that.

It’s that simple!

The clarion call of the terminally ignorant.

All over the city the cries were starting up, keen
and sonorous, heralding the chances that the slip-
ping of one cogwheel in the machinery of time had
made; apportioning to the sleepers while they lay
at the mercy of fate, the vengeance, profit, grief,
reward and doom that the new figure in the calen-
dar had brought them. Shrill and yet plaintive
were the cries, as if the young voices grieved that so
much evil and so little good was in their irresponsible
hands.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

You see how confident I am? No matter what, the true believer isn’t going to want to discuss something like, oh, let’s say, the emails.

With his ignore act (of ignoring me and the cites that deal with the issue) he is like Elmer Fudd running off the cliff, lets see how far he will go before looking at the ground!

[Tom_Scud]

Sorry, Gigo, I can’t trust your analysis any more. Everyone knows it’s Wile E. Coyote who runs off the edge of the cliff.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Just taking bits out doesn’t really help the uninformed to understand much of anything.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

• Peter Thorne, research scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre, to Phil Jones (email 1939)

“Getting people we know and trust [into the IPCC report team] is vital.”

• Phil Jones, UEA, to Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, 15 September 2004 (email 714)

“Mike, the figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

• Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, US, to Michael Mann, Penn State University (email 2884)

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

• Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona, to Ricardo Villalba (email 4755)

“For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”
• Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona, to Ricardo Villalba (email 4755)

“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot here!”

• Keith Briffa, UEA, to Edward Cook (email 2009)

You actually have to know a lot more about the subjects to grasp what the hell a lot of it means.

And that was even already touched at in the thread itself, what you see there is that indeed scientists are the most merciless critics of themselves, far from condemning the scientists, those “new” emails are actually a confirmation that scientists do care more about the truth and indeed the accusations of conformity that could lead to a validation of a conspiracy are really not there. (This also shows why these “new emails” were not released early, they really did not fit with the narrative of the first release that scientists were conspiring to modify the data).

As demonstrated one of those harsh critics even worked later with Michael Mann to make the most up to date hockey stick on 2008, making a mockery of the idea that climate researchers are not constantly looking at the corrections needed to make better papers and in the end… better science.

[GIGObuster]

@Tom_Scud

Sorry, Gigo, I can’t trust your analysis any more. Everyone knows it’s Wile E. Coyote who runs off the edge of the cliff.

Ah, but you forget that besides being a historian I was trained as an animator, and the history of animation shows (and I remembered correctly) that Elmer did also go a few times over the cliff.

The Big Snooze

Yeah I know that you are jesting there, but I could not resist when I remembered that.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@FXMastermind

I never can tell if somebody is being funny (and that was) or if they seriously believe something like that.

It’s that simple!

The clarion call of the terminally ignorant.

In this case, you’re asking us to talk about the Emails, and not providing any of your own. That’s what’s so simple. Not the science, not the discussion itself, but how to get us to talk about the emails. At least in my case, this is very, very simple.

@FXMastermind

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4191

Noe that is of course a shortened version of the email. The link allows anyone to read the entire thing.

So in 2006 one of the insiders pointed out he reproduced a problem with the hockey stick reconstruction. A randomly generated temperature series (actually 48 of them) produced a hockey stick.

This is one of those things that actually doesn’t mean much taken out of context. You have to know a lot about the issue to even understand what it might mean.

Once more, I am so confident the emails (and the related issues) will NOT be discussed, no matter what, I can post part of an actual email (that was just released), and it won’t matter.

Hey, that’s a start! Let’s talk about the contents of this email. 'Cept… I don’t have to, because GIGO already offered a source thoroughly debunking the idea that this means anything at all. But actually providing the emails is a start! Keep 'em coming, we’ll get to the bottom of this yet!

@FXMastermind

The big lie is that small bits are being used out of context from the emails.

…No, actually, there are multiple citations of major right-wing sources doing exactly this. But all right, I’ll assume that you didn’t fall for such facetious examples of quote mining, and it’s just the major news sources that did.

In the real world, it’s thousands of connected emails, huge complicated issues, and quite difficult for anyone trying to make a point with the documents. Like the hockey stick stuff. Jesus fuckChrist, you have to read a shit ton of documents, and follow all these complicated science based discussions, and you still may not be able to grasp what the fuck they are on about.

I agree. It is complex and difficult to understand. But here’s what I’m wondering: how do you know that the emails are so damning? Did you read them all and cross-report? Or did you do what you claim is “the big lie” and just take snippets (often out of context) and use that to reinforce your own pre-existing opinion? And if the former (giving you the benefit of the doubt, here)…

I mean, they go on and on and connect the dots over a period of years! It’s actual fucking work trying to just follow it, much less to be able to know if it’s bullshit or not.

The true believer who wants to debunk a single sentence has it easy I tell ya. The science part is hard.

…Why does your opinion differ so completely from most of the other sources that looked into it? At the moment, Wikipedia lists 6 independent sources that have, while perhaps not gone through the emails, done what’s more important: independently verified the results of the studies that Climategate would put into question, at which point whether or not Climategate’s assertions are true or not becomes a moot point. And before you start crying about bias, one of the studies was funded by Koch Industries. You know, the guys who really wanna get global warming ignored.

TL;DR:

1. Did you put in the work in reading all the emails to form your opinion?
2. If so, why is your opinion different than that of the 6 independent commissions who investigated the issue and completely debunked it, including one paid for by Koch Industries?