That is an opinion, but a judge strongly disagreed with your opinion, and he had to process and comprehend the arguments from both sides.
I'm happy to defer to the result of the legal argument as I have no particular expertise in this area. However I must point out again that even if no law has been broken, the Science has long since been tarnished by the impression of supporting dogma with financial interest, rather than an attempt to get to the facts of the matter. The conflict of interest is what leads me to this conclusion, along with the general refusal to share code, data and methods (not really in the best traditions of Science), particularly as it has long been obvious to me that simply appending "due to Climate Change" to any proposal and sending out a press release is probably enough to guarantee it research grant support.
Has the reputations of scientists been tarnished so badly that you cannot trust anything a scientist says,
For me personally, yes it has. I now assume any scientist is talking complete bollocks on any subject that supports a fashionable paradigm. I note with interest that James Hansen assured us Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000. Are things like this not indicative?
I've recently been reading Descartes Meditations. When he says the only thing he can be certain of is that he exists, I am pretty sure I know exactly what he means.
Yes, it is insane and dishonest but not in the way you think.
"Hiding a decline", actually hiding the divergence problem, is done for purely cosmetic reasons. That is to say, to avoid having to answer questions about it which those outside of the field have no knowledge of, but might be inclined to question when presented with such a graphic. Although this is presenting your case in the best light, I do not think things like this are in the best traditions of the scientific method. Or perhaps they are? In the second half of the 20th century, when research funding comes from government and government tends to give you more money to study the things that greatly concern it, it is probably good business to change your presentation to show your results in the "best" light (the most alarming light). Still as I say, it isn't science, it's marketing.
With respect to not needing tree ring data, yes, M&M demonstrated that you can produce a hockey stick without using tree rings. Indeed if you throw out all of your proxies and use red noise instead, you will still get the same result!
The judgement is made on the basis of there being sufficient prima facie evidence to show a crime may have been committed. In my personal opinion there's ample evidence to show that a crime was committed. Indeed were it not for the 6 month limitation clause of UK FOI legislation, Jones would almost certainly be in the dock himself here in the UK.
On the general accusation that science has been distorted in order to secure continued funding for the institutions these people work for, I hardly think you can deny it. There's a powerful conflict of interest in the field as I'm sure you'll agree. The only resolution of this conflict is given by assuming the Scientists in question have some personal integrity. I find it impossible to see how anyone could argue that they do given their behaviour.
Assuming the charge of plagiarism is true, it damages Wegman personally, but says nothing about the accuracy of the report itself, and has no relevance to McIntyre and McKitrick's demolition of the "Hockey Stick".
I plagiarised the above sentence from another comment elsewhere. We are going around in circles.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
That has not been demonstrated, but I trust that you sincerely believe so.
I agree it's not been demonstrated beyond doubt, but it has been demonstrated enough for me personally that there's a problem with the integrity of Climate Science, if not with individuals then with the establishments and institutions keen to continue receiving millions of pounds in grant funding from public bodies. That is to say, everyone is a Climate Scientist today given that in order to receive funding your proposal simply has to include "effects on climate". Doing so allows you to study the consequences for global sea level of Camels farting in the Australian outback. Was there ever a more idiotic waste of public money? And Scientists are complaining about cuts in funding!
With respect to what Physicists think about it, I find this resignation letter (from the APS) instructive. I post it below so you don't have to soil your browser cache with a visit to Watts.
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence--it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of i
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Did Mann delete the emails? What did they contain? Why were they deleted? Would it be valid to issue an FOI request to recover the deleted emails? I think so. As I've said before, these aren't the actions of honest men of Science.
I'm pretty sure that if Mann had complied with FOI requests and not attempted to hide his methods, code and data, he wouldn't be a target right now. The general perception is that there's no smoke without fire.
Again, where have I said he his arguments are void because he is motivated to defend himself? I haven't said anything of the sort. I've said he is demonstrably of poor character and that therefore an attack against the man is not fallacious.
What part of "So you're seriously posting links to realclimate, a site that is very much associated with Mann and his "hockey team", to respond to criticism of their own work?" did you not understand?
Yes, I am. If that wasn't the case, character witnesses would not be allowed in court in mitigation and neither would entering into evidence history of past behaviour. For example: Mann has shown a pattern of morally dubious behaviour (evidence: climategate emails, deletion of emails subject to FOI requests, etc.). Are you suggesting that none of this reflects on his character and that I wouldn't be justified in believing that such evidence as there is may be only the tip of the ice-berg? If we were debating the merits or otherwise of MBH98, then of course the Ad Hominem would be a fallacy because it has no bearing on the question. However as we're discussing the attempt by a prosecutor to investigate possible further transgressions, it is not a fallacy. The suggestion implies a pattern of behaviour. The judge may disagree of course, but that is not the point.
Note that my original reply was to a similarly "fallacious" point as it introduced an argument from authority (number of papers published). I think you must have missed it, because otherwise I'm sure you would have pointed it out.
If you read my post, I was inferring that if it's ok to post links to real-climate, a website associated with Mann, to refute claims made by McIntyre, then it's ok for me to post a link to ClimateAudit, a website associated with McIntyre, to refute claims by Mann, as I've pointed out below.
Ad Hominem is only relevant if we are refuting facts not concerning the man by attacking him personally, rather than facts unrelated to the man. Given that this case concerns fraud, or ethical/moral behaviours of the man, attacking him personally is not fallacious.
Please quote where I said that. I simply pointed out that someone responding to criticism of their own work does not further validate that work, particularly as the response to the criticism has been refuted by the very people who made the criticism in the first place. The OP implied that because realclimate refuted the paper, that was enough to prove the paper was invalid. Given that McIntyre knows more about statistics than Mann (and Wegman, being a world authority on the subject agrees with McIntyre), I wouldn't side with real-("Mann & Friends")-climate as to the facts of the matter. If you're going to make an argument by authority, then you surely have to side with Wegman/McIntyre. Well, based on your logic, I guess not.
If you read my post, I was inferring that if it's ok to post links to real-climate, a website associated with Mann, to refute claims made by McIntyre, then it's ok for me to post a link to ClimateAudit, a website associated with McIntyre, to refute claims by Mann. 0/10 for reading comprehension.
Can you point me to a source that does not use Mannian methods that also returns a hockey stick shape? That is to say, minus the medieval warming period and/or a similar step change up to 1940 as we see from 1980 to 2000 (not post-2000, I might add). I don't think you can, because there isn't one that shows the 20th century to be unique, catastrophic or in any way unusual in the context of natural variability. At least that is to say, there isn't one where the figures haven't been "adjusted" (fiddled), or declines in various proxies "hidden".
So you're seriously posting links to realclimate, a site that is very much associated with Mann and his "hockey team", to respond to criticism of their own work? That's a little like the inbreeding Wegman noted in Climate Science (a group of friends all peer-reviewing and citing each other's papers). McIntyre and McIntrick adequately dealt with the objections (which pretty much amounted to nothing more than arm-waving). You might like to browse http://climateaudit.org/ for more details.
Oh good god do me a favour. If Mann is at the top of his field, then I think the field must be full of fucking retards. You only have to look at McIntyre & McIntrick's generation of hockey-sticks with red noise to see that Mann doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing (or if he's so clever, perhaps he does - which is even more worrying). Mann is very good a soliciting grant money. That's about the only thing I would say in his favour. Otherwise, history will remember him only for his infamous "hide the decline" comment.
It's about an inch a year I think. So in 1,000,000,000 years time it'll be 4,000km further away than it is now (assuming, incorrectly probably, that it's always 1" per year, i.e. that the effect doesn't get smaller as it moves away). I'm not sure how far away it has to be to be in danger of escaping orbit entirely though. I expect it's a lot, lot further than that!
If you can do it with a GUI and prefer to use a GUI, then use a GUI. If you can do it with a CLI and prefer to use a CLI, then do it with a CLI. What you shouldn't do is write an article about it, because it's an unbelievably banal observation to make.
I've spent many hours playing that game; actually around 800. When I'm lying on the hospital bed reflecting on my life, I don't know whether I'll be more pissed about having wasted 800 hours of it playing team fortress, or that not once during those 800 hours did I manage to get a pyro brigade helmet
Slashdot Mirror
I'm happy to defer to the result of the legal argument as I have no particular expertise in this area. However I must point out again that even if no law has been broken, the Science has long since been tarnished by the impression of supporting dogma with financial interest, rather than an attempt to get to the facts of the matter. The conflict of interest is what leads me to this conclusion, along with the general refusal to share code, data and methods (not really in the best traditions of Science), particularly as it has long been obvious to me that simply appending "due to Climate Change" to any proposal and sending out a press release is probably enough to guarantee it research grant support.
For me personally, yes it has. I now assume any scientist is talking complete bollocks on any subject that supports a fashionable paradigm. I note with interest that James Hansen assured us Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000. Are things like this not indicative?
I've recently been reading Descartes Meditations. When he says the only thing he can be certain of is that he exists, I am pretty sure I know exactly what he means.
Yes, it is insane and dishonest but not in the way you think.
"Hiding a decline", actually hiding the divergence problem, is done for purely cosmetic reasons. That is to say, to avoid having to answer questions about it which those outside of the field have no knowledge of, but might be inclined to question when presented with such a graphic. Although this is presenting your case in the best light, I do not think things like this are in the best traditions of the scientific method. Or perhaps they are? In the second half of the 20th century, when research funding comes from government and government tends to give you more money to study the things that greatly concern it, it is probably good business to change your presentation to show your results in the "best" light (the most alarming light). Still as I say, it isn't science, it's marketing.
With respect to not needing tree ring data, yes, M&M demonstrated that you can produce a hockey stick without using tree rings. Indeed if you throw out all of your proxies and use red noise instead, you will still get the same result!
The judgement is made on the basis of there being sufficient prima facie evidence to show a crime may have been committed. In my personal opinion there's ample evidence to show that a crime was committed. Indeed were it not for the 6 month limitation clause of UK FOI legislation, Jones would almost certainly be in the dock himself here in the UK.
On the general accusation that science has been distorted in order to secure continued funding for the institutions these people work for, I hardly think you can deny it. There's a powerful conflict of interest in the field as I'm sure you'll agree. The only resolution of this conflict is given by assuming the Scientists in question have some personal integrity. I find it impossible to see how anyone could argue that they do given their behaviour.
Assuming the charge of plagiarism is true, it damages Wegman personally, but says nothing about the accuracy of the report itself, and has no relevance to McIntyre and McKitrick's demolition of the "Hockey Stick".
I plagiarised the above sentence from another comment elsewhere. We are going around in circles.
I agree it's not been demonstrated beyond doubt, but it has been demonstrated enough for me personally that there's a problem with the integrity of Climate Science, if not with individuals then with the establishments and institutions keen to continue receiving millions of pounds in grant funding from public bodies. That is to say, everyone is a Climate Scientist today given that in order to receive funding your proposal simply has to include "effects on climate". Doing so allows you to study the consequences for global sea level of Camels farting in the Australian outback. Was there ever a more idiotic waste of public money? And Scientists are complaining about cuts in funding!
With respect to what Physicists think about it, I find this resignation letter (from the APS) instructive. I post it below so you don't have to soil your browser cache with a visit to Watts.
Did Mann delete the emails? What did they contain? Why were they deleted? Would it be valid to issue an FOI request to recover the deleted emails? I think so. As I've said before, these aren't the actions of honest men of Science.
I'm pretty sure that if Mann had complied with FOI requests and not attempted to hide his methods, code and data, he wouldn't be a target right now. The general perception is that there's no smoke without fire.
Again, where have I said he his arguments are void because he is motivated to defend himself? I haven't said anything of the sort. I've said he is demonstrably of poor character and that therefore an attack against the man is not fallacious.
Where did I say he wasn't allowed to defend himself?
What part of "So you're seriously posting links to realclimate, a site that is very much associated with Mann and his "hockey team", to respond to criticism of their own work?" did you not understand?
Yes, I am. If that wasn't the case, character witnesses would not be allowed in court in mitigation and neither would entering into evidence history of past behaviour. For example: Mann has shown a pattern of morally dubious behaviour (evidence: climategate emails, deletion of emails subject to FOI requests, etc.). Are you suggesting that none of this reflects on his character and that I wouldn't be justified in believing that such evidence as there is may be only the tip of the ice-berg? If we were debating the merits or otherwise of MBH98, then of course the Ad Hominem would be a fallacy because it has no bearing on the question. However as we're discussing the attempt by a prosecutor to investigate possible further transgressions, it is not a fallacy. The suggestion implies a pattern of behaviour. The judge may disagree of course, but that is not the point.
Note that my original reply was to a similarly "fallacious" point as it introduced an argument from authority (number of papers published). I think you must have missed it, because otherwise I'm sure you would have pointed it out.
The kind of misinformation campaign that attempts to hide inconvenient declines in temperature proxies?
If you read my post, I was inferring that if it's ok to post links to real-climate, a website associated with Mann, to refute claims made by McIntyre, then it's ok for me to post a link to ClimateAudit, a website associated with McIntyre, to refute claims by Mann, as I've pointed out below.
The Chairman of the National Research Council also agreed with Wegman.
Ad Hominem is only relevant if we are refuting facts not concerning the man by attacking him personally, rather than facts unrelated to the man. Given that this case concerns fraud, or ethical/moral behaviours of the man, attacking him personally is not fallacious.
You're not the brightest either, are you?
Please quote where I said that. I simply pointed out that someone responding to criticism of their own work does not further validate that work, particularly as the response to the criticism has been refuted by the very people who made the criticism in the first place. The OP implied that because realclimate refuted the paper, that was enough to prove the paper was invalid. Given that McIntyre knows more about statistics than Mann (and Wegman, being a world authority on the subject agrees with McIntyre), I wouldn't side with real-("Mann & Friends")-climate as to the facts of the matter. If you're going to make an argument by authority, then you surely have to side with Wegman/McIntyre. Well, based on your logic, I guess not.
If you read my post, I was inferring that if it's ok to post links to real-climate, a website associated with Mann, to refute claims made by McIntyre, then it's ok for me to post a link to ClimateAudit, a website associated with McIntyre, to refute claims by Mann. 0/10 for reading comprehension.
Given that the OP is about whether or not Mann is a fraud (an accusation against the man), I find the Ad Hominem particularly appropriate.
Can you point me to a source that does not use Mannian methods that also returns a hockey stick shape? That is to say, minus the medieval warming period and/or a similar step change up to 1940 as we see from 1980 to 2000 (not post-2000, I might add). I don't think you can, because there isn't one that shows the 20th century to be unique, catastrophic or in any way unusual in the context of natural variability. At least that is to say, there isn't one where the figures haven't been "adjusted" (fiddled), or declines in various proxies "hidden".
So you're seriously posting links to realclimate, a site that is very much associated with Mann and his "hockey team", to respond to criticism of their own work? That's a little like the inbreeding Wegman noted in Climate Science (a group of friends all peer-reviewing and citing each other's papers). McIntyre and McIntrick adequately dealt with the objections (which pretty much amounted to nothing more than arm-waving). You might like to browse http://climateaudit.org/ for more details.
Oh good god do me a favour. If Mann is at the top of his field, then I think the field must be full of fucking retards. You only have to look at McIntyre & McIntrick's generation of hockey-sticks with red noise to see that Mann doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing (or if he's so clever, perhaps he does - which is even more worrying). Mann is very good a soliciting grant money. That's about the only thing I would say in his favour. Otherwise, history will remember him only for his infamous "hide the decline" comment.
It's about an inch a year I think. So in 1,000,000,000 years time it'll be 4,000km further away than it is now (assuming, incorrectly probably, that it's always 1" per year, i.e. that the effect doesn't get smaller as it moves away). I'm not sure how far away it has to be to be in danger of escaping orbit entirely though. I expect it's a lot, lot further than that!
If you can do it with a GUI and prefer to use a GUI, then use a GUI. If you can do it with a CLI and prefer to use a CLI, then do it with a CLI. What you shouldn't do is write an article about it, because it's an unbelievably banal observation to make.
I've spent many hours playing that game; actually around 800. When I'm lying on the hospital bed reflecting on my life, I don't know whether I'll be more pissed about having wasted 800 hours of it playing team fortress, or that not once during those 800 hours did I manage to get a pyro brigade helmet