5 Filters

Media Lens 'climate change', vs Daily Skeptic, somewhat of a poll of 5F posters

#61

I think you’re defintely being too hard on Media Lens - because you dont know what their level of knowledge is. Have you tried contacting them?

If they were sure about the covid narrative I would agree with you. I think they are silent because they are unsure, whereas on climate change they have read enough to be able to form a view of the science. People who don’t know what they are talking about don’t necessarily help when they start screaming, getting shot down etc. Media Lens arent the screaming type though - I imagine if they scratched the surface, they could pitch in at a level that they could support by evidence.

Doctors are different - they are a key part of the system, and live comfortably from it, but allowed themselves to be sidelined when covid arrived, or was made to arrive. As medical specialists they are both well-placed and bound by duty to use their expertise to help their patients. Most have been negligent in this respect on covid. They could pick up on the issues quite quickly - if only they would open the box. I think they know deep down what the box contains, and are living the lie at least partly deliberately, and partly out of fear that to challenge the system would set them on a dangerous path.
Amnesty is compromised in a similar way - human rights is their business, and what they sell themselves on. They are fair game.

It’s not just AstraZeneca - but you’re in the realm of medical information there. The media is within the realm of ML though. It IS the realm. You could show them how the media have supported a range of key covid deceptions. ML are already experts on propaganda techniques like framing, citing opinion as fact. Examples abound, irrespective of any medical knowledge. Might breathe fresh life into their project, and could be tackled quite easily, without even forming a view on covid itself. Cheers

4 Likes
#62

Hi folks, for those of us here who feel strongly about Monkton I suggest that the original published paper by the original authors is re-examined. I could not find it through google or dogdog searches but I did find it on Yandex:

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

ENERGY &
ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 14 · NUMBER 6 · 2003
ISSN 0958-305X
©2003
MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom

CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998)
PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES
Stephen McIntyre
512-120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;
Ross McKitrick
Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1.

ABSTRACT

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,“MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects .We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in theMBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

CONCLUSIONS
The MBH98 hockey stick-shaped NH temperature reconstruction discussed here has
been extremely influential in discussions of 20th century global warming. Together
with a pre-1400 extension derived in Mann et. al. (1999) and a spliced instrumental
temperature series, this index figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment
Report (IPCC 2001) and numerous other publications. However, the dataset used to
make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or
extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations,
geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects
substantially affect the temperature index.
Although not all of the dataset could be audited, it was possible to prepare a data
base with substantially improved quality control, by using the most recent data and
collating it correctly, by avoiding arbitrary filling in or truncation of data and by
computing principal components using standard algorithms. Without endorsing the
MBH98 methodology or choice of source data, we were able to apply the MBH98
methodology to a database with improved quality control and found that their own
method, carefully applied to their own intended source data, yielded a Northern
Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th century is unexceptional
compared to the preceding centuries, displaying neither unusually high mean values
nor variability. More generally, the extent of errors and defects in the MBH98 data
means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and cannot be used for
comparisons between the current climate and that of past centuries, including claims
like “temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented,” and
“even the warmer intervals in the reconstruction pale in comparison with mid-to-late
20th-century temperatures” (see press release accompanying Mann et al 1999) or that
the 1990s was “likely the warmest decade” and 1998 the “warmest year” of the
millennium (IPCC 2001).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Helpful comments and encouragement were received from R. Carter, R. Courtney, D.Douglass, H. Erren, C. Essex, W. Kininmonth, T. Landscheit and referees. All remaining errors are ours. No funding from any source was sought or received for this research.

I emboldened the last sentence - this should be a requisite for any paper of substance!

As I understand it no-one has debunked the statements in this report although the green world and his wife have had lots to smear about the authors!

cheers

3 Likes
#63

This report actually did have a long series of rebuttals and counter rebuttals and generated quite a long scientific discussion. In the end it was shown that their conclusions are not correct, the PCA and other statistical concerns they were worried about were not a factor and the hockey stick was reproduced several times with different statistical techniques (including without the use of PCA) and the original paper was shown to be pretty accurate.

Some of the detail on this was in the New Scientist link that I posted above.

Monckton is totally discredited on this subject and remains a very untrustworthy source.

Cheers

1 Like
#64

Futurama as predictive programming

1 Like
#65

Hi @PontiusPrimate , I checked the link to the New Scientist and from there I had a few link breaks but found the 2006 National Academy report here is the summary:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006)
Chapter:Summary
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:“Summary.” National Research Council. 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11676.
×
"Summary

Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.

Figure S-1 shows a compilation of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions from different research groups, each using its own methodology and selection of proxies, as well as the instrumental record (beginning in 1856) of global mean surface temperature.
Page 2
Suggested Citation:“Summary.” National Research Council. 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11676.
×

FIGURE S-1 Smoothed reconstructions of large-scale (Northern Hemisphere mean or global mean) surface temperature variations from six different research teams are shown along with the instrumental record of global mean surface temperature. Each curve portrays a somewhat different history of temperature variations and is subject to a somewhat different set of uncertainties that generally increase going backward in time (as indicated by the gray shading). This set of reconstructions conveys a qualitatively consistent picture of temperature changes over the last 1,100 years and especially over the last 400. See Figure O-5 for details about each curve.

After considering all of the available evidence, including the curves shown in Figure S-1, the committee has reached the following conclusions:

The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C 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 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.

Page 3
Suggested Citation:“Summary.” National Research Council. 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11676.
×

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.

The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. Other factors limiting our confidence in surface temperature reconstructions include: the relatively short length of the instrumental record (which is used to calibrate and validate the reconstructions); the fact that all proxies are influenced by a variety of climate variables; the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time; the lack of agreement as to which methods are most appropriate for calibrating and validating large-scale reconstructions and for selecting the proxy data to include; and the difficulties associated with constructing a global or hemispheric mean temperature estimate using data from a limited number of sites and with varying chronological precision. All of these considerations introduce uncertainties that are difficult to quantify.

Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations. Our confidence in the results of these reconstructions becomes stronger when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general result, as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling and the 20th century warming.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically
Page 4
Suggested Citation:“Summary.” National Research Council. 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11676.
×

diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

Surface temperature reconstructions also provide a useful source of information about the variability and sensitivity of the climate system. To within existing uncertainties, climate model simulations show that the estimated temperature variations during the two millennia prior to the Industrial Revolution can be explained plausibly by estimated variations in solar radiation and volcanic activity during the same period.

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to further improve our knowledge of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, particularly if additional proxy evidence can be identified and obtained from areas where the coverage is relatively sparse and for time periods before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900. Furthermore, it would be helpful to update proxy records that were collected decades ago, in order to develop more reliable calibrations with the instrumental record. Improving access to data used in publications would also increase confidence in the results of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions both inside and outside the scientific community. New analytical methods, or more careful use of existing ones, may also help circumvent some of the existing limitations associated with surface temperature reconstructions based on multiple proxies. Finally, because some of the most important potential consequences of climate change are linked to changes in regional circulation patterns, hurricane activity, and the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods, regional and large-scale reconstructions of changes in other climatic variables, such as precipitation, over the last 2,000 years would provide a valuable complement to those made for temperature."

The bolding is mine above - aren’t they saying what Mcintyre and Mcitrick said - apart from the insults - the Academy has little confidence in Mann’s figures?

The Academy does not seem to have an external peer review system and who knows how the scientists are chosen for the job.

cheers

2 Likes
#66

Does anyone, what ever side of the argument you are on, think that this is a good idea…

This article is from early January, and since then this scheme has been going full steam ahead: British farmers are being paid quite large sums to grow wild flowers, instead of wheat, barley, etc (just this year alone it’s estimated that a million tons of food production will be lost; but the wild flowers are really rather lovely, aren’t they). The lunatics in charge would have known that it could all kick off in Ukraine anytime soon.

Anyone would think that the coming food shortages have all been engineered…

2 Likes
#67

Thanks for that @CJ1 - I enjoyed reading that.

My reading of your quote is that the NAS thinks that there are a lot of uncertainties in the data record for various reasons, but that on its own Mann’s analysis is plausible. When you add in the other data that was already becoming available by 2006 then it seems likely than Mann et Al were correct. But it’s far from certain.

As I said, there was substantial discussion on this subject in the scientific literature. But in the end the original hockey stick graph was reproduced several times, by different teams with access to different data and with different statistical techniques. In other words, the original paper was found to be broadly correct, despite the uncertainties (which I
I believe were understood even in the original paper). The fact that it was challenged, refined, and reproduced seems to me to be excellent science and gives me confidence that it’s correct. Something that was missing from a lot of the covid stuff BTW.

I don’t think this question is still debated. I haven’t seen any studies over the last 10-15 years that shows the hockey stick graph from Mann et al’s paper to be wrong. I could be wrong, as I don’t read every climate paper that gets punished(!) I have seen papers that corroborate the original graph, though. If you discover recent evidence that shows the various studies that reproduce the hockey stick graph were all wrong, that temps and CO2 are not at the highest levels today than they have been for a very long time, then I would be very interested in reading that. In fact, I would be hugely relieved to read that paper, so if it’s out there please do drop it on this forum.

I’d be (almost) equally interested to see if you can find anything from Monckton admitting that the hockey stick graph is now established science. Anything at all from him over the last 10-15 years that acknowledges the full picture, and the final conclusions.

I’d be very surprised if you did. My memory of Monckton was that he quietly dropped an argument as soon as it stopped agreeing with his preconceived ideas, and looked for something else instead. Until that was subsequently dropped and replaced in turn. This is the classic sign of a propagandist, uninterested in the truth. A technique I saw repeated many times by climate change deniers as well as a whole lot of people on both sides of the covid debates.

Monckton was, and remains, a totally unreliable source, on this subject and every single point he made about climate change should be treated with great suspicion. Isn’t it interesting, for example, that Monckton had no reference to the NAS paper you quoted above? Isn’t it interesting that he makes only a single mention of the paper in his report and carefully omits any mention of the committee supporting Mann’s conclusions? He is totally dishonest in his treatment of the subject.

The best thing to do is to keep as up to date as we can on the actual data and the most tested analysis. If that means we have to change our minds then so be it.

Cheers

1 Like
#68

This thread could run and run and set a new record for 5f.

So, in reply to @PontiusPrimate here is my short response. Sadly, I don’t have the time to research Monkton and his ‘debunkers’ so here is a simpleton’s response.

Two thousand of the worlds best scientists (or so we were told) signed up to one of the early IPCC’s reports. At the time I was living in East Anglia. By around 2000, much of the Anglian coastline was supposed to be under water. Several of London’s underground stations were expected to be flooded. Well I guess those ‘facts’ were wrong.

It just seems to me that it is like the Covid plandemic. By Ferguson’s model, 250,000 in the UK would die. Well I guess that ‘fact’ was wrong too.

As has been said many times on 5f (I paraphrase) by many posters, make your own decisions but not hastily. I found Monkton about whom I know nothing, from a source I trust. The paper I posted sounded reasonable and well sourced. Having skimmed the first ‘debunk’ link you posted I could see nothing objective (but lots of assertions) that refuted Monkton’s view or the paper he based his article on.

So to convince me that ‘global warming’, now ‘climate change’ and soon to be the ‘New Green Agenda’ is an impending disaster and therefore we need to regreen farmland as @RobG has pointed out, or spend billions on carbon sequestration or any of the other NWO agenda’s, you’ll have to do better to shake my belief that we are being scammed, again.

2 Likes
#69

I’ve enjoyed reading all this, thanks to everyone. Pontius, if you already know then you can respond quickly, I’m not asking you to take a lot of time on this, but another ‘climate skeptic’ claim that has been going around is that in a court case Mann refused to provide his evidence for the ‘hockey stick’ and thus the case he made against others for defamation was thrown out of court. This was quite recent.

“Mann has always refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.”

2 Likes
#70

Hi PatB

I live in East Anglia now as it happens. Glad it’s not under water yet! If be interested if the IPCC really did predict that London underground stations would be flooded by the year 2000… My take away from the IPCC is that they are overly cautious and tend to be late in their predictions. If you have a reference for that to hand I’d be interested.

Monckton is and has been wrong in every single thing he said about climate change. Don’t like my links? It’s simple to Google his claims and find out for yourself. It’s very easy to see that he has a pretty clear almost 100% record of being wrong. I really suggest you don’t use him as a source.

Hmmm. So what exactly would you need to see to actually believe that human caused climate change is a real thing? Is there anything that you would find convincing?

What data or analysis would change your mind?

#71

Hi @Everyman

I do remember the controversy about Mann refusing to release his data. In fairness I disagreed with that at the time and still do - I’m 100% in favour of total transparency in academia and in government. He had his reasons for doing that (in fact he wrote a whole book about it if you’re interested) but in the end it really doesn’t matter that much.

His analysis has been independently verified more than a dozen different times (at least) in the years since he published his article. The new papers all more or less agreed with his original analysis.

Once a study has been reproduced with the same result more than a dozen times I think we can finally accept it as a real thing.

Cheers
PP

1 Like
#72

I think the (slightly “starry eyed”), fear-mongering is simply posturing from most…do you remember a little thing called M.A.D? We were all terribly concerned about it at one time (in-fact still should be), but once we’d solved it we though we’d be dancing in elysian fields…most of the posturing now is from those who are in-denial about the implications of an evolutionary paradigm shift…they want to limit the effects for such offend their “liberal” sensitivities…it may be sometime before these neo-liberals realise that; “like a dream, a life, a season…everything must change!” …and they consign the WiFi devices, they cling on to like ship-wreck victims in a hurricane, to Davy Jones’ Locker along with particle beam technologies and nuclear power (Monbiot), …

1 Like
#73

I’ve always thought it might be fun (although hugely near the knuckle), to sport a T-shirt with Bender’s face on the front and; “Kill all humans!” underneath…Bender’s shiny metal ass and; “Kiss my shiny metal a**e!” underneath on the back…

#74

Hi @PontiusPrimate , if you search on yandex for mcintyre and mcKitrick you will see commentary from the former from his earliest criticisms of Mann to 2 November 2021 where he shows how many “scientists” are just repeating many of the mistakes Mann made which were admitted by the NAS. McKitrick also comments but not recently.
The problem to my mind is that the IPCC is far too politicised and their “science” begins to look like that of the WHO and the CDC and EPA cherry picked to make the facts fit the policy.

When it’s like squeezing blood out of a stone to get Mann to release his data and code, and he still is hoarding a lot of it - this is not science.

If the IPCC is still claiming headlines on the basis of material described by the NAS as in part plausible, in other parts as far less reliable and other parts not reliable at all then they should not be dictating policies to the world. They need to come clean and open up their books.

We also have to remember that the so-called “scientific journals” are effectively controlled by the highest bidder, so small independent fry like McIntyre and McKitrick have no chance!

I don’t doubt that State and corporate excesses over the last 100 years have poisoned our atmosphere and environment adding to higher temperatures in many areas but Mann and the IPCC are still saying its the warmest its ever been for over 1000 years and even the NAS don’t believe this is credible. They know they can’t afford to tell the truth now, it would completely shred their credibility.

cheers

2 Likes
#75

Hi @CJ1

You make a number of points in your post that I think are worth looking at.

So every researcher out of the two dozen or so teams who have looked at this and published on this subject is wrong, but McIntyre (who seems to be only researcher still trying to disprove this) is right? That seems unlikely, doesn’t it? And why the “scare quotes” around the word scientists? Were the people who did the studies and got their results published not scientists? What were they?

I didn’t see any mistakes being admitted to by NAS in your reference above. Can you point them out? All I saw was NAS agreeing that Mann was probably right, but the level of uncertainty made it hard to sure. What were Mann’s errors that NAS exposed?

Hold on a minute… Two dozen studies by different teams around the world over twenty years with different data sources and different statistical techniques all coming to the same conclusion is cherry picking? Do you know what cherry picking means? This is the opposite of cherry picking in my opinion. This is reproducible science. Can you think of any other result that has been tested in this way and stood the test of time?

Moving on

What difference does it make now more than 20 years later if Mann releases his data or not? The study has been independently verified more than 20 times. Have other researchers released their data? Any one of the 20 studies would work. Let’s look at the most recent one with the best data… All this focus on Mann actually is the definition of cherry picking. Ignoring the totality of the data to focus in on one tiny bit. That’s what cherry picking is, isn’t it?

It’s not, though, is it? The NAS report was more than 15 years ago. More data has been gathered the study has been replicated and found to be accurate. The science is solid.

The hockey stick has a ton of evidence for it now, independent of the paper by Mann, who was simply the first person to notice it. It’s only a small piece of a much bigger set of data that all points the same way. The IPCC is looking at a much, much broader set of data than just one study from 20 years ago. You do see that, don’t you?

Well, they did get published (twice), they made it all the way to the front page of the Wall Street Journal (something almost no climate scientists can do) they were invited to Congress and had access to plenty of funds if they needed them to get published. One of the authors is an academic and presumably gets published as part of his day job. The problem was not their lack of influence or how “small-fry” they were - the problem was that their criticisms (particularly around the stats) were incorrect.

The reason that they can’t get published is that they don’t get past peer review because they are wrong. The reason the hockey stick chart stands is that it was reproduced many times and is now shown to be correct.

Can you find me a recent quote where NAS looks at the data and the two dozen replications of the hockey stick graph and says that the result is not credible?

Even 15 years ago the NAS said this:

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium

“Finds it plausible” doesn’t equal “not credible” does it? Where do you get “not credible” from?

So reproducing a study many times to show it is correct is not science and not the truth? What is the truth then? And how are we to come by it?

I’m very curious…

Cheers
PP

#76

Hi @PontiusPrimate, All I can say is that IPCC is a globally state funded operation and at the crucial stage of PR the best their scientists could do in comparing earlier periods was to produce something “plausible” - amongst data that was less than plausible and other data that was unacceptable. Conclusions that are only plausible are not definite or certain or more likely than not, a 25% chance of being right could be said to be plausible! This is exactly how covid “ scientists” have behaved in the last 2 years and there will be thousands of so-called experts that keep on repeating the same mistakes.

Quantity of experts does not equal quality, particularly if they are all feeding from the same trough, imo. How many scientists challenged the Ferguson computer models, lockdown policies, face mask mandates, asymptomatic infection, vaccine, covid deaths and pandemic redefinitions? How many of those hit the headlines in any form of media?

I will reply point by point to your posts as soon as I can.

cheers

#77

Hi CJ

The IPCC puts forward the best data that they have to hand at the time of publication (and then it gets watered down by corporate and government interference). That data has been growing massively over the last decades as more and more research is done. What was “plausible” 15 years ago can be obvious today (like the hockey stick, for example). The evidence is always growing.

Don’t fall into the trap of limiting yourself to what one paper wrote 20 years ago as if that is the entire dataset. It is far, far greater. I hope you take the time to look for yourself into the data, right up to the present day instead of focusing on what was known in 1998 (or even 2006). It’s a big but important thing to do.

Perhaps not, but two dozen independent replicates of a study using different data and methodology and coming to the same conclusion is - literally - the best you can do. That is the gold standard that all science is aiming for, and that is what we have here. This is (again) not cherry picking, this is how science works.

Loads. Loads and loads of scientists challenged all of that, from Yale, from Oxford, from Karolinska, from Stamford, from Edinburgh, from UCL just to name a tiny few. Then there were studies from other countries around treatments etc. There was a ton of dissent in the scientific community from doctors, nurses, academics, policy makers etc. That doesn’t mean the dissenters were correct (or that the mainstream was either) but there was a lot of debate. What is needed is the kind of gold standard replication that we have in something (dare I say it) like the hockey stick model of climate change. That would help to settle some of the Covid issues.

This is a good question, but what does or doesn’t get printed in the controlled media has nothing to do with what is or is not settled science.

I look forward to your replies, but don’t lose track of the main thrust. The climate today is provably warmer than at any time in a long while, and it’s still getting warmer at an unprecedented rate. This is the issue. It’s been demonstrated over and over and over again with a huuuuuge variety of data and studies. Whether or not a single scientist published his 20 year old data is completely irrelevant to the main topic.

Oh yes, and the other point is that Monckton is a totally untrustworthy source who can be dismissed on this subject.

Cheers
PP

Edit: As a result of our chat I"ve been looking at some of the history of this analysis, and have found - to my surprise - that Mann published the data that he used as well as the fortran computer code that he wrote as long ago as 2003 (possibly even before). You can find it here, with a description here:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/MASTER

#78

Hi @PontiusPrimate
[on your edit point I noticed the publication of Mann’s data and code - this was forced on him by a US congressional committee he had been denying access for years.
McIntyre maintains that he has still not released all his data and code.]
Your questions numbered
My answers A. + number in bold.

  1. So every researcher out of the two dozen or so teams who have looked at this and published on this subject is wrong, but McIntyre (who seems to be only researcher still trying to disprove this) is right? That seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

A 1. I would have thought by now that the corruption of science by the lavish purchasing of opinions from “scientific experts” is definitely likely!

  1. And why the “scare quotes” around the word scientists**?[ Were the people who did the studies and got their results published not scientists? What were they?**

A 2. In today’s climate I do not accept that everyone who is labelled a scientist is acting scientifically, the accepted view of scientists is that the opinions of people in white coats should be revered over everyone else. We have seen the results of this approach in many areas supported by “scientists”

the IAEA and WHO in relation to radiation damage from Chernobyl, Fukushima

NIST in relation to Building 7 collapse

The UN on Iraqi WMD

Anthrax poisoning reports in the US

OPCW reports on Douma bio-chemical attacks

Vaccine claims for many vaccines not just the recent MRNA experimental gene therapy over the last 18 months

Pharma drug claims – like thalidomide

Climate Change is now big business and there seem to be many sides to the issues all with money attached!

  1. I didn’t see any mistakes being admitted to by NAS in your reference above. Can you point them out? All I saw was NAS agreeing that Mann was probably right, but the level of uncertainty made it hard to sure. What were Mann’s errors that NAS exposed?

A 3. NAS uses the term “plausible” – this is a strange word in scientific assessment - it could mean all sorts of things including “believable” which is what many people think about visitors from outer space!

NAS use the term “substantial uncertainties” in relation to parts of Mann’s work – suggesting errors or mistakes in his opinions by seeking to reach conclusions on the back of those uncertainties

NAS finally in the same paragraph states clearly: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” – to my mind this means they think Mann made serious errors in making such claims and as such are not credible.

  1. their “science” begins to look like that of the WHO and the CDC and EPA cherry picked to make the facts fit the policy.

Hold on a minute… Two dozen studies by different teams around the world over twenty years with different data sources and different statistical techniques all coming to the same conclusion is cherry picking? Do you know what cherry picking means?
This is the opposite of cherry picking in my opinion. This is reproducible science. Can you think of any other result that has been tested in this way and stood the test of time?

A 4. I said that the IPCC were cherry picking science to support their policies – there are no checks and balances on the way in which scientific committees of the IPCC are picked but they all seem to come to the desired conclusions.

Where you have 2 parties with opposing views and the IPCC completely ignore one of the opposing sides they have cherry picked the side they want.

McIntyre has made monthly additions to his Climate Audit web site from 2004 to November 2021 in which he looks at all these studies and disputes them.

McIntyre clearly disputes these tests and has done so regularly on his website as no “reputable journals” publish him – well there’s a surprise!

  1. When it’s like squeezing blood out of a stone to get Mann to release his data and code, and he still is hoarding a lot of it - this is not science

What difference does it make now more than 20 years later if Mann releases his data or not**? The study has been independently verified more than 20 times**

A 5. obfuscation and secrecy and deliberately flouting rules of scientific bodies requiring complete transparency goes to the nature and personal qualities of the person, and should shade all his statements. If the person refused to operate transparently we should assume there is a reason for that! If he can do that once then why should he be trusted thereafter?

If no-one can check the data and code he is using how is it possible for anyone to independently verify it? It took a congressional committee to obtain the release of some data but not all of it has been released, as I understand it.

We are getting the same runaround from the “scientists” employed by Pfizer – only data hacking has shown the hidden horrors of their scientific testing protocols!

More importantly this matters for another reason. We should not forget Dan T. Gilbert’s analysis of how humans react to new information and later attempts to change that reaction. The first exposure to new information establishes a deep hold on us, so much so that it is very difficult to change that view

So the IPCC coming out with Mann’s initial claim that his hockey stick shows it has never been as warm as this before and that the uptick in the hockey stick all started after the increase in co2 releases due to man’s activities. Being first out with this information meant that it stuck in the public mind. Repeating it regularly, without any serious debate over its accuracy just made it impossible for anyone to change the record.

What had until then been possible was to say, well its certainly been hotter over the last few years but it was the same or even hotter in the mediaeval period 1000 or more years ago at a time when man-made co2 was not a factor! The IPCC, adopting Mann, enabled them to junk that claim. This is not an insignificant point , imo.

It should be noted that McIntyre continues to claim and has done for decades until November 2021 that alternative proxies for temperature measurement as produced by other teams all fail to provide certainty of Mann’s hockey stick. See his archives on his climate audit site:

www.climateaudit.org

https://climateaudit.org

  1. Sundry other additional questions:
    Have other researchers released their data? Any one of the 20 studies would work. Let’s look at the most recent one with the best data… All this focus on Mann actually is the definition of cherry picking. Ignoring the totality of the data to focus in on one tiny bit. That’s what cherry picking is, isn’t it?

If the IPCC is still claiming headlines on the basis of material described by the NAS as in part plausible, in other parts as far less reliable .
It’s not, though, is it? The NAS report was more than 15 years ago. More data has been gathered the study has been replicated and found to be accurate. The science is solid.

The hockey stick has a ton of evidence for it now, independent of the paper by Mann, who was simply the first person to notice it. It’s only a small piece of a much bigger set of data that all points the same way. The IPCC is looking at a much, much broader set of data than just one study from 20 years ago. You do see that, don’t you?

so small independent fry like McIntyre and McKitrick have no chance

Well, they did get published (twice), they made it all the way to the front page of the Wall Street Journal (something almost no climate scientists can do) they were invited to Congress and had access to plenty of funds if they needed them to get published. One of the authors is an academic and presumably gets published as part of his day job. The problem was not their lack of influence or how “small-fry” they were - the problem was that their criticisms (particularly around the stats) were incorrect.

The reason that they can’t get published is that they don’t get past peer review because they are wrong. The reason the hockey stick chart stands is that it was reproduced many times and is now shown to be correct.

Mann and the IPCC are still saying its the warmest its ever been for over 1000 years and even the NAS don’t believe this is credible

Can you find me a recent quote where NAS looks at the data and the two dozen replications of the hockey stick graph and says that the result is not credible?

Even 15 years ago the NAS said this:

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium

“Finds it plausible” doesn’t equal “not credible” does it? Where do you get “not credible” from?

They know they can’t afford to tell the truth now, it would completely shred their credibility.

So reproducing a study many times to show it is correct is not science and not the truth? What is the truth then? And how are we to come by it?

A 6. Mcintyre is not convinced that the studies you mention are doing anything more than repeating some of the mistakes made by Mann and hence disputes their credibility.

I have explained why I think - the terms “plausible” “substantial uncertainties and “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann “ justifies the statement that the NAS find him not credible. If they found him totally credible then belief wouldn’t enter into their description and definitely not the terms “substantial uncertainties” and “even less confidence”!

I think science is never “settled” – doubts foment below the surface of MSM and Corporate controlled Science journals – and certainly numbers of opinions never affect the truth of those opinions. In fact I don’t know whether truth is ever a scientific objective?!

What are scientists doing – investigating material and forces to understand them, their origins, their relationships and their future paths where discernible. Rarely is truth mentioned – except in relation to statements made where the speaker could be telling lies or the truth – and in relation to science this is usually with regard to the way in which experiments are conducted and or recorded. Assuming honest scientific methods truth may not be the central tenet of science – it’s more likely to be understanding or knowledge. But of course the pursuit of knowledge within science stops where personal beliefs and feelings begin which of course may be the source of real knowledge and truth.

Some interesting statements here on the insignificant effect of Co2 and Methane on global warming and the use of upper atmosphere data to show no major releases of energy due to warming or anything else :

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #488 – Watts Up With That?

Also the issue of cloud cover has never been solved – clouds affect the amount of radiance we experience at ground level and therefore temperatures – more so than Co2 and Methane in the atmosphere. No one has done the work to find out.

The last link had this to say about the IPCC 2021 SPM:

“In a post on McIntyre’s website, Donald Rapp goes into the specific deficiencies of the proxy data, which was featured in the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021). The lack of rigor in the SPM illustrates the politicized nature of the IPCC’s science.”

I’m very curious… **that makes 2 of us I’ve never heard of these developments questioning the fundamentals of global anthropogenic climate change - the proxy issue ( introduced here by @PatB ) turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg and we haven’t touched on the antics of the Climate Change “tribe” revealed in Climategate"

When I look at this stuff ( for me for the first time) I am reminded of the problems loads of researchers have had in getting their discoveries out there - Chris Busby on nuclear radiation impacts, the 9/11 groups of experts opposing the official narrative, the whistleblowers in the OPCW on Syrian bio-chemical weaponry, the scientists and doctors recommending hydroxychloroquin and ivermectin and all the researchers warning of the dangers of MRNA injections and all the other highly dangerous legal drugs - I’m sure we could all spend hours listing these valiant efforts only to find they are mostly squeezed out of any attention from the public.
But nothing is settled if voices continue to raise questions which are never answered. Given the amount of money now involved in the Global Warming issue we can see why much of this material never sees the light of day, and in my view it has nothing to do with the quality of the opposition’s work.

Cheers

1 Like
#79

Hi CJ - thanks for the detailed answers! I’ll do a little <snipping> in my reply for the sake of keeping the lengh of the post down as much as poss. It’s probably gonna be way too long in any case. I apologise in advance!

On the Mann data, what do you mean “forced on him”? Was the data subpoenaed? Was there a legal requirement that he had to comply with, or did they simply ask him to make the data public, and he did? In any case, publishing the (a) input data, (b) the computer code, and (c) the outputs is really more than enough for anyone who wanted to replicate his work to be able to do so.

So, as a general point this might have some merit. But this has very limited weight as the basis to disregard a scientific study that has been replicated two dozen times. At some point you have to believe the evidence, unless you have definite proof that the evidence is flawed, which I don’t see here.

Indeed. I can’t disagree with that. However comparing the teams that worked hard to replicate and extend the work of Mann et al to NIST or the OPCW etc is way off. How many teams of scientists have independently verified the NIST report? How many teams have independently verified the OPCW? How many vaccine companies publish their data in an open source format? Mann published (as we have established) his data and his methods, and the latest hockey stick data is all open source and available on the web for any scientist to work with or question. That is a big difference between real science and the corporate science you rightly castigate. Tarring all scientists with scare quotes because you don’t agree with them speaks of a very closed minded approach.

Well… I, for one, find the concept of visitors from outer space more than plausible! :wink: More to the point, I think the use of the word plausible speaks for itself. The conclusion agrees with the data, but it’s not certain. There is a lot of inherent uncertainty in the data (small dataset/high variance for example) and that means that there are significant error bars around the data. NAS also talk about the possibility of other variables affecting the proxy record, or the possibility that the proxy record is time-varying etc. These are possibilities, and simply point out that more studies should be done. They don’t negate Mann’s work at all.

The term “substantial uncertainties” does not at all mean errors or mistakes in the technique. Nowhere in the part that you quoted do NAS identify even a single error in technique, as far as I can see.

That’s not at all how I understand that quote. NAS are saying that we cannot place much confidence on the fact that a particular year (1998) or even the 1990s can be said definitely to be the warmest in a millenium. Importantly, they are not saying they disagree. In fact, they clearly say they think he’s right. It’s just not something that they could say with confidence in 2006. There is no reason to believe that Mann made any serious errors or that the claims are not credible.

That’s not the case today, incidentally. The datasets have improved and the uncertainties are much smaller. Today it has become clear that Mann was, in fact, correct to a very high degree of confidence (>90%).

100% disagree. I think there is a lot that could be said about the extremely long and involved process that the IPCC use to analyse, assess and compile all the relevant data into their reports, but that’s for a different thread.

No surprise. He did publish, was rebutted and proved wrong. Many times. This is the point - if an individual wants to show that the majority of scientists in a field are wrong, he needs to show a compelling reason. McIntyre is simply unable to do that.

In this regard, he is totally different to those folks like the FLCCC who are bucking a huge vested interest, but doing so with study after study and with good, replicable science. When independent teams tried to replicate McIntyre’s own published paper they reproduced the hockey stick from Mann’s original paper!. McIntyre had to make a mistake in his technique (a real, actual mistake this time) in order not to reproduce the hockey stick himself!

This doesn’t inspire much confidence in his analysis. Although, to be fair, climate scientists are still clearly listening to some of what he has to say. I just saw him cited recently in a climate paper where he did discover an error in a dataset, and this was duly noted, reported and changed by the authors of the paper. So when he’s right, he has an impact.

I think we can put this canard to rest now. Mann’s data and computer code were both published by 2005 at the latest, and possibly much earlier. I know that given his input data, his computer code and his paper, I could almost certainly replicate his results. I don’t need to see all his workings to do so. Anyone who was interested, could have independently verified Mann’s paper.

And, as a matter of fact, nearly 2 dozen different teams have actually already done so! Paper verified, results confirmed. To claim otherwise is simply wrong at this point.

Completely disagree. Where has Pfizer published it’s data? Mann and a whole bunch of other climate scientists have done so - there is no comparison that I can see.

AFAIK, our understanding of the MWP has also evolved. It seems there was no global warm period - just a few countries in the northern hemisphere, and not all at the same time. It’s part of the uncertainty in the data record that we spoke about earlier which is becoming clearer over time. It seems that globally, temperatures were actually colder than todays temperatures.

Incidentally, CO2 is not the only driver of temperatures on the planet - just the main driver today. There have certainly been times in the past (MWP nothwithstanding) when the global temperature was (much) hotter. That does nothing to limit the catastrophe coming our way.

I think you misunderstood the technical detail of “confidence” in models as related to the error bars. If you go back and look, you will see that NAS broadly agreed that the main message in Mann’s paper was correct. And as I’ve said about 1000 times now, this has been independently verified over and over and over again, and the datasets have improved over the last decades. There is a very high degree of “confidence” in the hockey stick today.

AFAIK this is an active area of research. There are lots of different models of how clouds affect warming, and the details are still being worked out.

All I would say about this, however, is that however the IPCC is taking account of cloud cover at the moment,

  • the earth is currently warming at a faster rate than predicted by their models.
  • The seal levels are rising at a faster rate than predicted by their models.
  • The arctic ice is melting at a faster rate than predicted by their models
  • Storm intensity and frequency is increasing faster than predicted by their models

Real life is getting worse measurably faster than the IPCC models have predicted. Clouds ain’t gonna save us, however we end up taking them into account.

This is not the problem, though. The voices are answered. There were rebuttals and investigations into McIntyre’s work. He was wrong but he cannot accept it. These issues are all answered. Many times. The deniers ignore that uncomfortable fact.

Anyway. Hope that you made it to the end, and found at least some of it useful. Sorry that it was so long a post, but this is an important subject and worth spending the time on.

Cheers
PP

#80

Thanks for your quick response - I think in the main we will have to agree to disagree - I have only quoted 2 links which support my thoughts - the Climate audit website run by McIntyre where he debunks lots of research work on proxies :

and the wattsupwiththat link

which supports McIntyre and links to new developments which to my mind blow the lid completely off Co2 as a problem for our atmosphere - doubling the Co2 released into the atmosphere would have negligible effects on our climate!

My thanks to @PatB for raising the initial paper which aroused my interest.

A final thought - I just listened to Delingpole and Sally Beck via TCW here:

which maybe a key factor in many scientific fields where people are afraid to risk their careers by standing up ( there are many Covid era examples of this fascistic approach to science! )

cheers