# I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347 "2009-11-20T22:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/181 "2009-11-24T14:39:35Z")
There’s a shill wind blowing again. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/182 "2009-11-24T14:59:12Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Sam Stone, while you are right to call for transparency, that’s a scientist’s job description. It is indeed tragic that we have to make a special call in climate science for what is taken for granted in almost every other scientific field, and many non-scientific fields. If a medical researcher or an accountant tried this shit, he’d be strung up by the thumbs. But when Jones and Mann do it, scientists look the other way, and idiots on the SDMB line up to defend it … pathetic. > > In fact, the NSF (which funds much of the US climate science) has clear policies on this. Nature and Science and the other journals have policies on this. Lack of policies is not the problem, it’s lack of enforcement. They just ignore their own policies all the time. Even when the journals are called on it, or NSF is called on it, they just look the other way and play dumb. So even if we adopt the Sam Stone plan, there’s the tiny problem of making it work … That’s why I’d tie it to funding. If they won’t self-police, cut their funding off. Witholding data and methodology is completely unscientific. I’m flabbergasted that it’s tolerated like this. Alarm bells should go off in any reviewer’s head if he or she can’t get access to the data used to support a theory. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/183 "2009-11-24T15:13:12Z")
> [@intention](#): > > In other words … debunked, because of newbie mathematical errors. Not debunked because I say so. Debunked because it was built on bad math. I also note that Wegman’s findings on the “independence” of the studies and the concealment of data by Mann et. al have been amply borne out by the CRU emails. Lurkers can notice that you choose to deal with the old reconstruction and not the new, of course that would require to explain why is it that the evidence perversely agrees more with the other reconstructions posted by NASA after Mann and others published. > **[RealClimate: The missing piece at the Wegman hearing](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/)** > > RealClimate: It's not often that blogs come up in congressional hearings, but RealClimate was mentioned yesterday in the Energy and Commerce hearings on the 'Hockey Stick' affair. Of course, it was only to accuse us of being part of tight-knit social... > [@](#): > > It’s not often that blogs come up in congressional hearings, but RealClimate was mentioned yesterday in the Energy and Commerce hearings on the ‘Hockey Stick’ affair. Of course, it was only to accuse us of being part of tight-knit social network of climate scientists, but still, the public recognition is nice. > > There is much that could be said about the hearings (and no doubt will be) and many of the participants (Tom Karl, Tom Crowley, Hans von Storch, Gerry North) did a good job in articulating the big picture on climate change independently of the ‘hockey stick’ study as we’ve highlighted before. But it seems to us that there was a missing element in the discussions. That element was the direct implication of the critique that was the principal focus of Wegman’s testimony and that was mentioned periodically throughout the day. > > Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05’s arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree – both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance. > > But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction – that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let’s face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone’s attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right – it would make no practical difference at all. > **[Hockey stick graph (global temperature)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)** > > Hockey stick graphs present the global or hemispherical mean temperature record of the past 500 to 2000 years as shown by quantitative climate reconstructions based on climate proxy records. These reconstructions have consistently shown a slow long term cooling trend changing into relatively rapid warming in the 20th century, with the instrumental temperature record by 2000 exceeding earlier temperatures. > The term hockey stick graph was popularized by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to descri... > [@](#): > > At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special “Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years” was assembled by the National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change. > > The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[30] > > ``` > * The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models. > * Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain. > * It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. > * Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified. > * Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods. > > ``` > > In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, “the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously.”[31] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a “near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.”;[32] Nature reported it as “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.”[33] No, the point of using the hockey stick controversy as a good measuring stick 🙂 to see who is an skeptic and who is a denier still stands. People who stomp their feet and continue to claim it “debunked” can not be taken seriously. They willfully ignore that other scientific organizations supported Mann’s conclusions and then ignore his more recent reconstruction. Nasa, Nature, and several scientific researchers and panels supported and confirmed the reconstruction by Mann and others. All readers should notice how deftly other reconstructions like the ones posted by Nasa are ignored by deniers to continue to say “debunked”. An skeptic could take the biased Wegman report and the the more reliable ones and just be able to report that there is controversy, I still have to say that people pushing just for “debunking” are deniers. Not only of the overwhelming support of the researchers doing the reconstructions, but of the reports in scientific periodicals. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vrKfz8NjEzU/hqdefault.jpg "Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU) > [@](#): > > The so called Medieval Warming Period is an article of faith among deniers. But what does the “Supreme Court of Science” say? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/184 "2009-11-24T15:43:54Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s why I’d tie it to funding. If they won’t self-police, cut their funding off. > > Witholding data and methodology is completely unscientific. I’m flabbergasted that it’s tolerated like this. Alarm bells should go off in any reviewer’s head if he or she can’t get access to the data used to support a theory. I don’t disagree with that; however, by the discussions regarding the stolen email at realclimate it is clear that the skeptics and deniers are often willfully ignoring the proper process. > **[RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/comment-page-5/)** > > RealClimate: CRU hack, "climategate" context, fudge factors, Kevin Trenberth travesty, Wigley, hide the decline, Mann's Nature trick, UEA emails, Climate Research, Soon and Baliunas, peer-review > [@](#): > > Robert.I says: > 23 November 2009 at 7:44 PM > > I’m still waiting for a rational explanation as to why researchers should release data they’ve only gotten access to by signing agreements stating they wouldn’t release it. > > I’m still waiting for a rational explanation as to why, if researcher A says “I can’t release data from B”, denialists just don’t get off their lazy ass and ask for data from “B” rather than file FOI requests trying to force researcher A to violate the agreement entered into. And then why the FOI filer bitches when the FOI compliance officer says “sorry, we can’t do that”. > > Explain it to me in baby-steps so I can understand, please. > Comment by dhogaza — 23 November 2009 @ 7:22 PM > > ——————————- > I would suggest that it isn’t just about the raw data. It’s also about the processes that “B” employed to produce their results. I am sure you will agree that transparency in science is critical for searching out the truth. Science only becomes credible when independent verification of Data + Verified Methods = Results is achieved. I must admit, I don’t understand why there needs to be agreements in place between A and B except for revenue purposes. Surely the agreement, if not for revenue, is a direct violation of the scientific method? On this basis, results that are not verifiable from data + method are not credible. > > [Response: Not true. You can verify using other methods and other data and in the end that’s much more important. - gavin] Well, yes, but the point still stands, independent verification is needed, however it would stretch credibility to say that this has not taken place as some in this thread are assuming. “Independent” does not equal “enemy”. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/185 "2009-11-24T16:25:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > . “Independent” does not equal “enemy”. But it does mean: not a “friend”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/186 "2009-11-24T16:48:29Z")
Where, then, do we find such “independents”? **Intention** is quite correct to point out that he is “outnumbered”. Which is not a consensus, mind, just that one side has many more supporters than the other. How many scientists are left who have no opinion? Suppose we were to establish a blue-ribbon panel to decide the issue, who might we choose? Can’t do it proportionately to the number of adherents, **intention** couldn’t get a fair hearing there, what with the “outnumbering” issue. And if we split the panel between “warmers” and “deniers”, that isn’t reflective of the state of science on the issue, it grants more power to the “deniers” side than they “deserve”. But all of this evades a central issue: how did this outnumbering which-is-not-a-consensus come to be? Treachery and skulduggery? Are the scientists who have converted to the warmer cause, are they math retards, incapable of understanding, mere clods who would believe if they “found it scribbled on a bathroom wall”? The most economical explanation is that the science and the math have been analyzed and found adequate. The most economical explanation is that the growing number of adherents to the “warmer” view is based on sound reasoning. If **intention** has a better explanation, let him bring it forth. If he wishes to embroider the explanation with sneering references to myself and others, fine and dandy. Just so long as he can offer a plausible explanation as to how he got to be “outnumbered”. The simplest beng that he is wrong, if he has a better one, let’s see it. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/187 "2009-11-24T18:04:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The most economical explanation is that the science and the math have been analyzed and found adequate. The most economical explanation is that the growing number of adherents to the “warmer” view is based on sound reasoning. First, a “growing number” of people in the U.S. are in fact abandoning the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) view. [Cite](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey). Barely over a third believe in AGW, not that it matters right? Because science isn’t about consensus. In saying that the “most economical explanation” is science-based, you are assuming that the primary motivating factor for those considering the issues is a belief in good science. However, as demonstrated countless times in this thread, important in the AGW camp are practicing bad science by hiding data and advocating opacity. Politics is the explanation behind the currently held “consensus.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/188 "2009-11-24T18:26:25Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > But it does mean: not a “friend”. But it seems to me that that ignores the history of how we reached the current consensus. Up to the 60’s most of the reviewers and scientists dismissed AGW, they were indeed “enemies”. (They checked the new evidence and now almost all are “friends”) It is very naive to ignore the past and conclude that all scientists suddenly became friends just for shits and giggles. The stolen letters show IMO the same attitude of scientists involved in evolution have with creationists. By this time virtually all biologists are buddies accepting evolution. All independent research will have this “disadvantage” but I think it is silly to say that it is a deal breaker for science progress. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/189 "2009-11-24T18:39:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But it seems to me that that ignores the history of how we reached the current consensus. I could give a flying fuck about the ‘consensus’. We aren’t talking about the consensus. If your data and process is only verified by friends, it is not independently verified. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/190 "2009-11-24T19:16:03Z")
How soon is it going to be before someone decides that this is to important to be left up to the scientists. I mean basically there is a movement in place now that’s simply waiting on the smoking gun, in the emails there is a reference to an umbrella group called NERC that called for proposals to move from pure science of Agw to applied science of remediating it. A number of Sam Stones posts regard letting the market decide how best to implement solutions, as well as other posters who are positing more patriarchal ways and means. So far the amount of money spent on research amounts to a pittance compared to what some folks hope to realize in terms of real money or the power to dole out or withhold same monies. We are on the precipice of a global change and more than enough people want to kick off the crusade , and as such would have no problem telling or threatning to withhold funding if they don’t get on the same page with a ends justify the means mentality. It behooves you to get your shit together now, before that choice is taken away from you and we all pay a more imediate price. Declan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/191 "2009-11-24T19:26:33Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > First, a “growing number” of people in the U.S. are in fact abandoning the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) view. [Cite](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey). Barely over a third believe in AGW, not that it matters right? Because science isn’t about consensus. A good number of people in the US also reject evolution, resorting to an ad populum fallacy does not change the science. > [@neuroman](#): > > In saying that the “most economical explanation” is science-based, you are assuming that the primary motivating factor for those considering the issues is a belief in good science. However, as demonstrated countless times in this thread, important in the AGW camp are practicing bad science by hiding data and advocating opacity. I just wanted to point out that many skeptics have not thought carefully what they are demanding here. Not all scientists advocate opacity, and it was demonstrated countless times that there are very good explanations on why sometimes it is opaque to some “researchers”, it does not mean that I support the current state of affairs; however, I do think that many critics are not aware that the changes needed will affect research that very powerful interests (in medicine and genetics just to mention a few) will have a cow on releasing the full data and programs used. The surprising thing is that I would be happy to see that released as many times the opacity is there to allow big corporations to profit from even public research. As a liberal minded fellow, I would tell the big corporations that fund even public research to take a hike when preventing releases. Not that climate researchers are gaining a profit or are big corporations, the point here is that climate researchers are following the ways many researchers in other fields have done before. A change is needed, but I have the feeling that at the end of the day many conservative organizations will act against that. > [@neuroman](#): > > Politics is the explanation behind the currently held “consensus.” No. Read the history to learn the truth: [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/192 "2009-11-24T20:11:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Lurkers can notice that you choose to deal with the old reconstruction and not the new, of course that would require to explain why is it that the evidence perversely agrees more with the other reconstructions posted by NASA after Mann and others published. If we’re talking about the Hockeystick, we’re talking about the Hockeystick. This was the Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998 paper containing the iconic hockeystick image used by the UN IPCC. If you want to talk about the other succeeding papers, I’m willing to do that as well. However, first I want to actually hear you say that the Hockeystick, the original one that we were talking about, has been debunked. If you are unwilling to admit that you were wrong about that, there’s no point in my continuing. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] No, the point of using the hockey stick controversy as a good measuring stick 🙂 to see who is an skeptic and who is a denier still stands. People who stomp their feet and continue to claim it “debunked” can not be taken seriously. They willfully ignore that other scientific organizations supported Mann’s conclusions and then ignore his more recent reconstruction. Nasa, Nature, and several scientific researchers and panels supported and confirmed the reconstruction by Mann and others. All readers should notice how deftly other reconstructions like the ones posted by Nasa are ignored by deniers to continue to say “debunked”. An skeptic could take the biased Wegman report and the the more reliable ones and just be able to report that there is controversy, I still have to say that people pushing just for “debunking” are deniers. Not only of the overwhelming support of the researchers doing the reconstructions, but of the reports in scientific periodicals. [/quote] Read what the Wegman Report said again. The so-called “independent” reconstructions are not independent. While each of them has their own flaws, they all depend strongly on a small group of tree-ring data in the Southwestern US called “bristlecone pines”. The NAS report recommended that these pines not be used in reconstructions, as they give bogus results … but noooo, Mann and his friends have continued to depend upon them up until today. It’s not like they don’t know the bristlecones are flawed. From the CRU emails, Ed Zorita to the usual suspects. > [@](#): > > The recent NAS report clearly states that the bristlecone pines should not be used for reconstructions in view of their potential problems. They cite previous analysis on this issue. Mann and his friends, of course, have ignored this clear recommendation and continued to use the bristlecones right up to his most recent paper. As an expert on the hockeystick controversy, perhaps you could give us a cogent scientific reason for continuing to use discredited proxies after even your friends tell you not to? … You say the new papers agree with the Hockeystick. Didn’t you notice the topic of this thread? Haven’t you been following the news? The CRU tapes reveal that the very “researchers doing the reconstructions” are the ones that are currently shredding their emails so that their actions don’t come to light. Those are the “researchers” that you refer to, the ones that review each other’s latest feeble attempt to show “yes, the Hockeystick really is really real, really” papers and give them a free pass. Of course they agree. They are all using some combination of the same bogus proxies, including the bristlecones (despite the bristlecone records being controverted by the NAS, the [Ababneh thesis](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2208), and other studies), the [Yamal](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7241) “most important tree in the world”, and the upside-down [Tiljander](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3536) proxies to try to prop up a false claim. Garbage in, garbage out. Since they’re putting the same garbage in, you should not be surprised when the same hockeystick garbage comes out. The Tiljander proxies are a great example of Mann’s stupidity. In addition to once again recycling the tired bristlecone proxies, the Tiljander proxies were used by Mann in his most recent attempt (2008) to rehabilitate the hockeystick claims. Unfortunately, although they go up strongly in the recent past, the Tiljander proxies are said by their original author to react negatively to temperature … which means that they go up when the temperature goes down. Mann was so desperate to find a proxy that shows “unprecedented warming” he used them upside-down without even noticing … then denied he’d done it … then said it makes no difference. Makes no difference, my ass. The best part of the Tiljander proxies (lake bed sediment records) is that the guys who measured them and wrote about them put a big sign on them that said WARNING - DO NOT USE FOR PERIODS AFTER ABOUT 1800 BECAUSE OF FALSE READINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL SEDIMENT. Mann, of course, knows better than them, so in addition to using them upside down, he used them all the way up to the present, which gave him another lovely hockeystick to present to the world. And we know it must be science, because his friends peer reviewed it. But GIGObuster knows that’s all OK, he is a true believer. People are referred to my analysis at “[Can’t See The Signal For The Trees](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428)” for an interesting look at the proxies in the Mann 2008 “Here’s another Hockeystick, see, I was right” study. There is also a cluster analysis of the proxies at [Comment 127](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428#comment-313975) on the same page, GIGObuster, that might be of more interest to you, as it contains pictures and no math. GIGObuster, point me to a paper trying to prop up the Hockeystick that does not use those bogus proxies, and I’ll be happy to talk about it. But first, you have to admit that Mann’s original Hockeystick is trash, flawed both by bad math and bogus proxies. Man up, you were wrong about the Hockeystick, admit it. If you can’t admit when you were wrong, there’s no sense in continuing. Mann’s original Hockeystick is unlike the other subsequent “Hockeystick wannabe” reconstructions in one way. They retained the bogus proxies, but at least they got the math right. But with bogus proxies, even plain old averaging gives a hockeystick shape. But you knew all of that, about Yamal and Tiljander and the Ababneh thesis and the difference between uncentered and centered principal component analysis and proxy cluster analysis, of course, because you’re an expert on the Hockeystick Controversy. After all, you’ve read the wikipedia article, and it’s approved by [William Connolley](http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx), so it must be right … PS - You say “other reconstructions like the ones posted by Nasa”. A link would be good so we can find out what that means. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/193 "2009-11-24T21:32:11Z")
For those interested in scientific malfeasance, I have posted up a full account of my interaction with the CRU, along with quotes from relevant emails, [here](http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/). That’s what “ignoring the proper process” looks like, please read that so it is clear how the process is being not only ignored, but criminally abused. Next, in that regard, GIGObuster, you say (emphasis mine): [QUOTE=GIGObuster] … by the discussions regarding the stolen email at realclimate it is clear that **the skeptics and deniers** are often willfully ignoring the proper process [/QUOTE] I’ve been studying the emails quite closely, but there’s over a thousand of them … perhaps you could cite the emails that support your claim that the “skeptics and deniers” are ignoring the proper process. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/194 "2009-11-24T23:09:21Z")
> [@intention](#): > > PS - You say “other reconstructions like the ones posted by Nasa”. A link would be good so we can find out what that means. It was linked early, but as usual you miss stuff really easy. Whatever denier, You deny that even on scientific periodicals it was the reconstructions that show that the warming of today is still more than in the so called medieval warm period, but more importantly the evidence still shows that the recent warming of today is being driven by unnatural causes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/195 "2009-11-24T23:45:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > For those interested in scientific malfeasance, I have posted up a full account of my interaction with the CRU, along with quotes from relevant emails, [here](http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/). That’s what “ignoring the proper process” looks like, please read that so it is clear how the process is being not only ignored, but criminally abused. From your cite: > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, behind the scenes at CRU, I now find out that they were circling the wagons … what follows are their internal discussions about a series of FOI requests from myself, Steve McIntyre, Doug Keenan and others to CRU for various data. Phil Jones to Tom Keenan and Wei-Chyung Wang, 6/19/2007: > > ``` > Wei-Chyung and Tom, > … > 1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit. > 2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. [EMAIL NOT FOUND IN CRU EMAILS – Willis] He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites. > 3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo. > Cheers > Phil > > ``` > > Well, that explains a few things … they’ve managed to “persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” I hadn’t noticed that exemption in the FOI documentation I’d seen. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s legal, and it definitely isn’t ethical. Well, based on what they did to the “kind” Barbara Schwarz yes, you are crazy, it is likely legal and I have the suspicion that they contacted the FCC and the INC(?) in England and I think they already have convinced many officers on how to deal with any FOI requests coming from Climate Audit members. Once again, I agree with releasing that data, but I do think scientists do have the right to not give it to persons that historically demonstrate that they will ignore the data that they have to continue their harassment. And that IMHO will be demonstrated in a court of law if this issue is pressed. And I will welcome that development, because even when I do think that some scientists will be burned for allegedly not following procedure, the burn will be more severe for the denier movement. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/196 "2009-11-25T01:07:04Z")
> [@intention](#): > > The Tiljander proxies are a great example of Mann’s stupidity. In addition to once again recycling the tired bristlecone proxies, the Tiljander proxies were used by Mann in his most recent attempt (2008) to rehabilitate the hockeystick claims. Unfortunately, although they go up strongly in the recent past, the Tiljander proxies are said by their original author to react negatively to temperature … which means that they go up when the temperature goes down. Mann was so desperate to find a proxy that shows “unprecedented warming” he used them upside-down without even noticing … then denied he’d done it … then said it makes no difference. Makes no difference, my ass. [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/tiljander\_again.php](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/tiljander_again.php) > [@](#): > > 28 > > AMac, > > I beg to differ with your conclusion. The Tiljander proxies were known to be problematic, however they may have contained valuable information prior to the MCA. As I stated in a previous post for this reason the temptation to use the proxies was great, since there are damn few annually resolved proxies which stretch back to the days of Jesus F. Christ. However, Mann was aware of the problems with these 4 proxies, as well as 4 others that McI did not complain about, before the paper was published and did an analysis of the impacts of these 7 proxies (probably because he knew that McI was going to scream bloody murder). > > Note that all of this was done before the paper was published. Did I say that loud enough? It was all done before the paper was published. And what were the results? No real difference, so he probably figured it was OK to leave them in. In or out, it doesn’t make a lot of difference. Sitting here doing blog science, I might have made a different decision, but I can understand and accept Mann’s decision. After all, it was at the bleeding edge. > > The screaming, shit flinging monkey chorus over at CA started complaining about other proxies that Steve did not like over the last couple of months. What did Mann do? He generated an amended figure S8a which dropped tree ring proxies (because apparently using a tree ring proxy, which is well understood, as opposed to lake varves, which are not, is a cardinal sin in CA world). Guess what? Now that most of your data is gone – because most highly resolved millennial scale proxies are tree rings – you still get a pretty good recon except that in the earliest portion there is a lot of noise because most of the data is gone. The core of the reconstruction still stands though, it’s gettin’ hot out there. > > So, unlike you, I think things are working out just fine. Whenever a researcher responds to the monkey troop and answers their complaints, they get substantially the same answer. It may not be the answer the monkeys want, but it is an answer to their complaints. The problem is that the monkeys are very practiced at moving goalposts. The minute one complaint is answered another is made. You can witness this in McI’s and the monkeys response to Briffa’s response going on at CA right now. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > On review, Mann et al may conclude that the calibrations and orientations of the four Lake Korttajarvi proxies were justified. > > They didn’t. They said, up front, “we’re not sure”, then showed the results with and without the problematic proxies. Since there was no substantial difference between the reconstruction with and without the proxy, why not throw it out there with the appropriate caveats and let future work - by Mann et al or others - sort it out? > > This isn’t unusual in science, you know. The CA crowd - and you - totally ignore the caveats, the clear statement that the proxies in question are problematic, etc - in favor of “he’s performing bias-driven science!!!” Same with Mann’s original “hockey stick” paper, which was full of caveats. The denialsphere did, and still does, pretend as though Mann et al in that first paper said “this is all cast in concrete, proven beyond reasonable doubt, above criticism” when the paper very clearly pointed out its innovative and exploratory nature. > > Why do they ignore obvious qualifications like this? Obvious … it’s hard to scream “fraud” when someone acknowledges potential problems in the very paper itself if you acknowledge the fact. Once again, sincere skeptics can say that there is a controversy, when someone screams “debunked”, that someone is a denier. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/197 "2009-11-25T02:24:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > PS - You say “other reconstructions like the ones posted by Nasa”. A link would be good so we can find out what that means. It was linked early, but as usual you miss stuff really easy. Whatever denier, You deny that even on scientific periodicals it was the reconstructions that show that the warming of today is still more than in the so called medieval warm period, but more importantly the evidence still shows that the recent warming of today is being driven by unnatural causes. [/QUOTE] I post detailed facts about the problems with the proxies used to create the reconstructions. Problems with Yamal, problems with bristlecones, problems with Tiljander. I post citations about those problems. I post a link to my analysis of the Mann 2208 latest attempt to give artificial resususitation to his dead Hockeystick, along with picture specially for you that shows the effect of the various proxies on the result. I cite a report by three eminent mathematicians showing that Mann’s Hockeystick was mathematically fatally flawed. I ask you to admit that you were wrong about Mann’s Hockeystick … nothing. Don’t you understand that when you are wrong, admitting you are wrong gains you points? And you think I deny stuff? Your response? Ignore all that, don’t address a single one of the important scientific issues I’ve raised about the wannabe hockeysticks, don’t discuss the bristlecones or Yamal or anything at all. Just keep saying the reconstructions are right, the reconstructions are right and making appeals to authority. I don’t give a shit about authority, I’m interested in science. Address the science issues or admit that you don’t have the horsepower to do it, I don’t care which, but stop repeating I’m right over and over. Next, perhaps I’m just dense, but I just took another look and I don’t see anything linked to NASA. Perhaps some other reader would be kind enough to tell us all what GIGObuster is talking about. Note that I’m not asking you, GIGO, I’ve already been insulted for my stupidity when I asked you. I want to hear from the bright sparks among us if they know what NASA link you are talking about. Anyone but GIGO speak up, I can’t find the NASA link. Next, you say: \… the evidence still shows that the recent warming of today is being driven by unnatural causes.\ Cite to some evidence? Note that computer models are not evidence of anything other than the assumptions of the programmers, so don’t bother citing model results. I once made an intricate model that showed that our company would make big bucks in the future. Wrote it in STELLA, a great modeling language. Was that computer modelled result showing that we’d make a big profit evidence that we would make money? As things turned out, I’d say no, sadly it wasn’t evidence at all, it was just my wishful thinking encapsulated in lines of computer code. But if you think it was evidence, please send me the big profit, along with some real evidence that recent warming is “driven by unnatural causes”. Make sure that your evidence also explains why we haven’t warmed for the last decade, as recently reported in [Science Magazine](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5949/28-a) and [Der Spiegel](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html). (And yes, before you get all huffy and say I’m misquoting, the Science article also says that scientists claim that it will start warming again, any day now, honest, it will. I know that it says that, but those warming predictions are being made by the same scientists who failed to predict that temperatures would flatline for a decade, so their record isn’t all that good … truth is, nobody knows which way the frog is going to jump from here.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/198 "2009-11-25T05:23:04Z")
> [@intention](#): > > (And yes, before you get all huffy and say I’m misquoting, the Science article also says that scientists claim that it will start warming again, any day now, honest, it will. I know that it says that, but those warming predictions are being made by the same scientists who failed to predict that temperatures would flatline for a decade, so their record isn’t all that good … truth is, nobody knows which way the frog is going to jump from here.) Good to see some honesty. 🙂 But I you are ignoring the research of Latif, and on purpose. Now, I got confused, but it was not Nasa who I quoted early but the NOAA > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... Once again, that you and a few claim that it was debunked, that is true, that the overwhelming number of researchers and entities do not think that it was debunked is the \*\*whole \*\*truth. “researchers” that claim dogmatically that it was debunked are not being taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/199 "2009-11-25T09:28:21Z")
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:198, topic:518347”] Good to see some honesty. 🙂 But I you are ignoring the research of Latif, and on purpose. Now, I got confused, but it was not Nasa who I quoted early but the NOAA No, asshole, you didn’t “get confused”, you accused. You posted bullshit, and when I couldn’t find it, you accused me of being stupid. I’m tired of your games. Never an apology, and you’re never wrong. I post eminent mathematicians to show that you are wrong, you just ignore it and keep going. Now it sounds like you are posting drunk or really tired, I don’t know. I do know I’m tired of your stupid games. I post facts and ideas and citations, you repeat that you are right. And what do you mean by accusing me of\* “ignoring the research of Latif, and on purpose?”\* That’s the first mention of Latif in this entire thread, and you want to slam me for “ignoring it”? What on earth does Latif have to do with anything? Never mind, don’t answer, I don’t care. Dude, you’re losing it badly. I’m outta here, this is nonsense and I’m tired of it. Catch you on the next thread, my thanks to everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/200 "2009-11-25T13:38:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > No, asshole, you didn’t “get confused”, you accused. You posted bullshit, and when I couldn’t find it, you accused me of being stupid. I’m tired of your games. Never an apology, and you’re never wrong. I post eminent mathematicians to show that you are wrong, you just ignore it and keep going. Now it sounds like you are posting drunk or really tired, I don’t know. I do know I’m tired of your stupid games. I post facts and ideas and citations, you repeat that you are right. > > And what do you mean by accusing me of\* “ignoring the research of Latif, and on purpose?”\* That’s the first mention of Latif in this entire thread, and you want to slam me for “ignoring it”? What on earth does Latif have to do with anything? Never mind, don’t answer, I don’t care. Dude, you’re losing it badly. I’m outta here, this is nonsense and I’m tired of it. Catch you on the next thread, my thanks to everyone else. Meh, what is fun to notice is that you did not check the cite, you claimed that we were not talking about other reconstructions, and yet that is a basic thing to do to verify if a reconstruction is valid, other reconstructions supported the one of Mann, and it is really silly to assume that other mathematicians did not look at the evidence when the other less biased teams did look at the evidence and supported it. Scientific magazines and others did check to see if the main idea of the hockey stick had value and so concluded and made an update declaring again that it is a myth that the hockey stick was debunked. And what if Latif is mentioned in the the thread for the first time? We discussed him before. Could it be that the fact that you admitted then that you were not aware of him undermined the proposition that you follow the controversy closely? As he was mentioned prominently in the previous “Global warming is false, so there” dust up it is silly to be indignant, it demonstrates why you are not dependable, you ignore stuff that disagrees with your preconceptions. A very bad way way to do science. > **[Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks...](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/)** > > The blogosphere has been atwitter over the latest supposed defection of a climate scientist to the dark side. Once again, the contrarians have been egged on by a well-timed fabrication from Marc Mo… If others continue to wonder why is that I brought forth him again is to show that deniers do twist misunderstandings in scientific publications. One should not gave them the chance to do the same with stolen information that is easier to twist, the “trick” email referenced early is a good example that demonstrates the mindset of the typical denier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=11)