Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
So...the cabal conspires to shut out those researchers they don't agree with and then put some pressure on the editorial boards..
Any researcher worth his salt would stop sending in papers to a journal whose editors don't understand the subject material and who continue to distort the content to promote their own agenda. Moreover, this is ONE case of ONE researcher contemplating boycotting ONE journal and asking what his colleagues think.
Any researcher worth his salt would stop sending in papers to a journal whose editors don't understand the subject material and continue to distort the content to promote their own agenda.
Nothing to see here.
And who makes that judgment? The other side of the issue? So this little GW cabal should dictate what a publication accepts? What they publicize? How does that make any sense?
Obviously, the editors are perfectly aware of the issues, but it is the GW fanatics who want ot shut down debate and silence the other side. Why is that?
I can't recall a "skeptic" ever trying to muscle an editorial board in the hopes of shutting down debate.
Typical liberal mentality.
Take the blindfold off, the ear plugs out and the tin foil hat off...maybe that will help.
Any researcher worth his salt would stop sending in papers to a journal whose editors don't understand the subject material and who continue to distort the content to promote their own agenda. Moreover, this is ONE case of ONE researcher contemplating boycotting ONE journal and asking what his colleagues think.
Moreover, this is ONE case of ONE researcher contemplating boycotting ONE journal and asking what his colleagues think.
Uh...no. Trying reading the links and then the emails. Multiple occurrences, whenever the cabal didn't like a paper that called into questions their conclusions.
And who makes that judgment? The other side of the issue? So this little GW cabal should dictate what a publication accepts? What they publicize? How does that make any sense?
Obviously, the editors are perfectly aware of the issues, but it is the GW fanatics who want ot shut down debate and silence the other side. Why is that?
I can't recall a "skeptic" ever trying to muscle an editorial board in the hopes of shutting down debate.
If a journal wants to try to debunk global warming, then that is their right. That doesn't mean anyone has to send in their papers to them - that is also their right. Therefore this is a non-issue.
Surely such a blatant confession should be widespread news instead of being confined to the city data forums don't you think?
Apparently you are so uninformed on the topic that you are unaware that this is all over the scientific information realms, not simply a random blog attempt as you appear to suggest.
Do to your ignorance, the last ditch efforts made by Gavin and his wonder crew are using bobble heads as a means to try to spin this. The problem is, you can't spin when people have the facts and when those attempting to spin are shown through the facts to have serious credibility issues.
Let us first start with your "out of context" claim. First off, the only one making these claims who is even close enough to the issue is actually one of the people implicated in this scandal. You know, Gavin Schmidt at RC? The "scientist" who has known about these issues for a long time and has on several accounts been caught doing his own spinning of the information in support of Mann, Jones, Santer, etc...
No doubt you were easily swayed by his clever claims of "out of context" and the numerous attempts to explain away occurrences where we have records that specifically contest his "explanation". Chances are you have really no clue who Gavin is and merely picked up that standard retort that has been cut and pasted across the net in defense of these emails.
So, lets look at the big one, the one that received the most attention and the one to which has had the most "cut and past" out of context claims made.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Now I am sure Gavin explained how this "trick" is simply a wording for "cleverly" appling a particular method, and to give him credit, I guess he is right as the method applied is not simply "grafting the thermometer on to the reconstruction" as they would like you to believe, this is not the "trick" and as the link says, it is much more sophisticated than such:
Quote:
But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)
Here is more specifically what was done and really why arguing over the "definition" of terminology is merely a diversion, the proof is in the data:
Quote:
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
So you see, there is no out of context, maybe to some who have no clue about what they are talking about and will so conveniently bobble head their excuses out the public.
Also, if you had spent the time to educate yourself on the issues here (and actual science sites, not political blogs), you might have already tracked the fact that many of these issues have been discussed on Climate Audit and in fact, many of the e-mails deal with them trying to figure out ways to hide the fact that McIntyre had found discrepancies in their work which pointed to these "tricks".
You would also then understand that you can line these e-mails up nicely in a time line using McIntyre's work to see when a lot of these problems were encountered and questioned as well as the responses internally in these e-mails concerning his work.
I doubt you even read the mails and it is likely you haven't even the slightest clue about the science anyway and are yet another pawn out spreading ignorance on the issue because you are so emotionally attached to your position.
Also, here is another issue due to your ignorance which your "out of context" excuse does not account for.
If you will note that even the code that was obtained from these files supports this sort of tampering of conclusions.
Quote:
Here’s the code with the comments left by the programmer:
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter, refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
; and later the same programming comment again in another routine:
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
So, we are taking the e-mails out of context right? Why does the code specifically point to manipulation? Can you explain this Mr. Wizard? Hurry, run off to your talking point site and look for a response, I think Gavin might have commented on this with another excuse. Get in line though he has a lot of people questioning and he is spinning enough excuses that I doubt we will be cold this winter as he will provide enough sweaters to keep us all warm.
Do you have a response or must we go straight to the data itself so you can't find purchase in the political realm?
If a journal wants to try to debunk global warming, then that is their right. That doesn't mean anyone has to send in their papers to them - that is also their right. Therefore this is a non-issue.
Great idea, contact Jones and Mann, maybe they can work a deal to have their team do the peer review and bully the journal into accepting their policy. Then it will come out exactly how you like it!
Oh wait, they were caught doing that too.... So much for "peerreviewedliterature"!
Seriously, you are simply making yourself look foolish here. Please inform yourself rather they playing parrot for the arrested pirate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
