January 1, 2010 
I’m going to be spending a lot of time examining Climate Audit over the next while. The reasons is that it is seen as the voice of skepticism among many of McIntyre’s followers and as Denialist Central by many AGW Supporters. I am not sure where to properly put McIntyre or how much credit to give his work, and so I will be reviewing his posts and trying to form a more educated opinion on his project and what it is.
To that end, McIntyre has a new post out titled “Sent Loads of Station Data to Scott” based on the email exchange in 2005 between Jones and Mann in which Jones indicates he sent “loads of station data” to Scott Rutherford. Based on that quote, McIntyre opines that not only are Jones et al. “Masters of the Universe” in that they get to decide who gets what data, but they apparently betrayed the confidentiality agreements they hid behind when denying McIntyre’s requests for data.
Here is the relevant quote:
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
My first thought after reading this post was that McIntyre’s request was for the entire data set, and if so, it would be impossible to do comply, since some of the data was covered by confidentiality agreements. If you only wanted part of the data, and that data wasn’t covered, then there would appear to be no restriction.
Here is the quote from the McIntyre post taken from Heffernan’s blog post:
He says that, in some cases, he simply couldn’t hand over entire data sets because of long-standing confidentiality agreements with other nations that restrict their use.
Surprise surprise — I just posted this over at CA in response to McIntyre’s post and it apparently is not being held up in moderation. Maybe they just missed keeping me from posting on the new thread. We shall see what transpires…
Susann
Re: sending “loads of data” to Rutherford, the term “loads of data” is too ambiguous to know for certain what was sent.
Do you have any evidence that the station data sent to Rutherford included any of the data covered by confidentiality agreements?
Do you have any evidence that Jones did not receive approval by the countries in question to share with Rutherford any of the data covered by confidentiality agreements ?
It seems pretty clear to me that Jones had no intention of sharing any data with Steve McIntyre or McKitrick but if they asked for the entire data set, then he had a legitimate reason to deny. He couldn’t turn over the entire data set because some of it was covered by agreements, as McIntyre himself shows.
So far I’ve had one response to my questions — WillR:
WillR Posted Jan 1, 2010 at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Reply
I am sure that Steve would rather answer you — but I have a spare $0.02 tonight.
First — you should read the agreement document.
They all had a “non-copy” provision — as I recall. Maybe I’ll re-read it.
Dr. Jones did say that all of the data was covered by some sort of confidentiality agreement. After all — that’s why he could not share with Steve — or anyone else — as much as he would have liked to!
If he had received agreement to share the data I am certain that he would have informed Steve and offered to supply same. He does seem to be a gentleman and all that!
As for “loads of data” — perhaps that query should be addressed to Dr. Phil Jones hisself. But I do know from experience that it’s a lot more than a “whole bunch” — being a computer geek an’ all that. Beyond that you are asking for something none of us could possibly know. It would just be speculation.
Happy new year Susann!
Here is my response:
Shewonk Posted Jan 1, 2010 at 9:33 PM | Permalink | Reply
They all had a “non-copy” provision — as I recall. Maybe I’ll re-read it.
Dr. Jones did say that all of the data was covered by some sort of confidentiality agreement. After all — that’s why he could not share with Steve — or anyone else — as much as he would have liked to!I thought that Jones claimed that only certain countries were covered by confidentiality agreements, so it seems to me that much of the data *could* be released if Jones felt inclined. The “some” meant that he couldn’t release the entire record because some of it was covered by confidentiality agreements. Maybe I’m wrong about this.
If a colleague wanted data from a country not covered by confidentiality agreements to do some kind of specific research, perhaps the confidentiality agreements would not matter?
I tried to see what papers Rutherford had written that might have used the “loads of data” myself so I could get an idea of what data he was sent, but I haven’t finished going through what is available online yet.
But I do know from experience that it’s a lot more than a “whole bunch” — being a computer geek an’ all that. Beyond that you are asking for something none of us could possibly know. It would just be speculation.
My point exactly.Happy New Year WillR!
And another reply:
WillR
Posted Jan 1, 2010 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Reply
Susann:
I have read the “Harry” file and now most of the emails.
This is my assessment.
There is far too much (Station/Raw)data for which they do not know the provenance. The agreements in place may mean something (maybe not). In which case the only safe course is to never share station/raw data unless you have a sense of unquestionable provenance — and permission to do same.
Based on my assessment I would not even share the zero bits of the station data as there are too many incidences where “Harry” claims that he does not know the data source.
Now I would be prepared to contest any position desired based on the agreements — can’t share, must share, could share, don’t like you so shan’t share… Being a techy I get to prep cases like this sometimes — since I have to understand the agreements and the science and the data, and be able to work with the law and sometimes the customs and cultures of various countries. It can be tedious.
I have no idea what their agreements really mean. See my previous long post.
Your questions will simply lead to idle speculation. It’s not worth the time — but knock yourself out speculating — it’s your right and your privilege.
- shewonk
Posted Jan 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Reply
Your questions will simply lead to idle speculation. It’s not worth the time — but knock yourself out speculating — it’s your right and your privilege.My questions were intended to clarify what is known and what is not known about this and to point out that what has already been claimed is also speculation and is not based on all the necessary information.
If I understand correctly, Steve McIntyre asked for the entire data set, but since some of it was covered by confidentiality agreements, the entire data set could not be released.
Does this mean that a “subset” of it couldn’t be released — the data that they knew was not covered by confidentiality agreements?
I don’t know that and I don’t believe the emails themselves tell the whole story.
We’ll see if it stays up or not.
It’s pretty clear that McIntyre is trying to build as much of a case against Jones and Mann and “the team” as much as is possible, to milk the CRU incident for as much as is possible to score more PR points.
Some of the wording he uses is quite, to be polite, loaded:
“I guess that it didn’t occur to Nature or to Gavin Schmidt that confidentiality agreements also apply to masters of the universe.”
This is war. He brings up the issue of the “H-Index” which is some measure of the number of citations one has for one’s papers in publication. Jones points out that there is another Phil Jones in Biological Science and so his index number might be overly high by this other scientist’s work. Mann claims he will use the larger number to help Jones become an AGU Fellow – in other words, dishonestly using an inflated number.
Here is a quote from the email in question, which clearly shows Jones advising Mann to use 52 rather than 62, which probably included citations from another scientist. Jones was being honest.
On 1, this is what people call the H index. I’ve tried working this out and there is software for it on the web of science.
Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.
Mann responds;
HI Phil,
OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.<br>
I don’t know what number was actually used to support Jones’ bid to become an AGU Fellow. I can’t prove based on the emails that Mann submitted bogus numbers even though he says in his emails that he will. For all we know, Jones wrote back to say “Use 52” and Mann complied. He may have spoken with him on the phone. I can’t tell if every relevant email was included in those emails released and until I can, I can’t be certain that there was a subsequent email or conversation that might shed more light on this matter.
So I won’t make a claim about it.
That’s the only truly honest thing to do. If I had access to the application and Mann’s support for it and could see which number he used and could check to see if it was legitimate, then I could tell. Since I can’t I won’t other than to say that it Mann did use the larger more inaccurate number, it would be dishonest. Would it make a difference — would 10 fewer citations have prevented Jones from being accepted as an AGU Fellow? I don’t know that either but I would always advise against using false information on any application or process so I don’t approve of this at all.
Still, as I say, I have no idea what number was used and until I can see proof, I won’t speculate.
Yes, McIntyre is working really hard to gather as much evidence as he can to condemn Jones, Mann and others from the emails, but in my opinion, much of what he is suggesting is not backed up with other evidence that would prove anything. As such, I find it is more like gossip and innuendo that anything solid enough to form valid conclusions.
Which makes me all the more suspicious of McIntyre’s motives…
One can’t tell what another person’s motives are — but one has to only go on their actions and so far, I am not impressed with McIntyre’s actions. In my next post, I’ll be perusing some of the comments of McIntyre’s followers — while he takes care to avoid making clear statements himself, his followers do not and I find it laughable that he moderates me and deletes my posts but lets so much absolute rubbish get through by his acolytes.
That in itself is pretty revealing.
The Policy Lass 
If he gave the wrong H value to AGU, then Mann lied. If he didn’t, then he lied to Jones that he would. That exhausts the logical possibilities. He lied.
Do you personally know which it is?
I don’t so I don’t know if he lied, either to the AGU or Jones. The other alternative is that he didn’t lie at all.
To claim otherwise is to overstep.
The emails & code are self-incriminating in various ways – discussion of avoidance of FOIA requests, including suggestions to delete emails, using subterfuge (‘Mike’s nature trick’) to avoid crucial questions about the fitness of their proxy data (‘hide the decline’), harbouring important doubts not revealed to a wider audience, and the presence in the code tree of versions of code which manipulate data by artificial adjustments.
They also reveal an aggressive effort to influence which climate science papers get published or rejected,.
What I’m interested in is evidence of illegal or unethical or fraudulent action, not statements in emails.
What’s more important is whether any of the statements were followed up by actions that had consequences in the real world.
People can say many things in email in private to close confidants that they might never act on. Only if it can be shown that they acted as they said in the emails would the emails be evidence of anything.
In other words, show me that they acted illegally with respect to FOI requests. Show me that they incorrectly adjusted the temperatre data. The mere fact of adjusting data does not in itself suggest deceit or fraud. Adjustments are made for valid scientific and technical reasons. So show me that the reasons that the adjustments were made were not scientifically or technically valid and then you’re telling me something important.
A lot of what you claim appears to be still under debate. Until I see further actual proof of illegal action, unethical action, I will wait for the official investigation before drawing any conclusions.
Which “official” investigation are you waiting for, exactly ?
Perhaps the Norfolk Police trying to find the source of the email dump ? Even if they are successful, this won’t bear upon any of the issues raised here … nor will such a report be released, unexpurgated, to the public
Perhaps the two Universities’ in-house enquiries ? Why do you think that any report compiled from these enquiries will be released, unexpurgated, to the public ?
I’m saying that what counts when judging a person’s ethics is what they actually do, not what they say because talk is cheap. I want to see evidence of actions, not pixels in an email. Until I do, my ethics say I can’t form a valid conclusion. None of us know what number he used to support Jones’ AGU Fellow application.
If you found a piece of paper from another neighbor’s garbage can with something like “If I find that little b*&^%$ I’ll kill him!” written on it, would you talk to other neighbors, telling them what you’d read about the man’s murderous plans? Would you post it on your website, claim he is a murderer and say you don’t need a trial and jury and investigation to know he is because all the evidence you need was on the slip of paper you took from the man’s garbage?
What if weeks later, you overheard the neighbor talking to his wife saying that he finally caught the little b*&^%$# of a mouse in the trap under the sink and is so glad she went out and bought the new mouse traps…
It sounds from the email as if Mann was willing to use a number that even Jones questioned, even after Jones said to use the smaller number. To know if he did or not, I have to see evidence that he actually did. If he used 52, are you still going to hold to his guilt because he said he’d use 62?
It would be easy enough to request the information under the FOI act. If the AGU is a public body, it would be covered by the FOIA. If people want to prove Mann’s guilt or innocence in this issue, they could go that route. I would be happy to accept whatever the evidence from such a venture reveals. Until I see that number, I won’t convict.
shewonk: “I am merely asking for what i consider to be adequate proof or better evidence before I try and convict.”
We don’t know if there’s enough there for a conviction in court, but there was certainly enough questions raised by the emails to cause Prof. Phil Jones to step down, pending an investigation by an independent review headed by Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE .
From http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUreview
— begin quote —
“The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. The review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.
Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully.
The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEA’s response.”
— end quote —
McIntyre is not alone in the scientific community in criticising the CRU’s behaviour. Eduard Zorita felt strongly enough about the matter that he called for Phil Jones to be removed from the IPCC proccess. Von Storch has also spoken out. In this respect, they are joining other scientists like Vincent Gray who has been documenting the IPCC’s scientific shortcomings for some time.
I found it interesting to read the responses, some by fellow scientists, to Mann’s Washington Post article, which starts off by Mann pointing a finger of blame at Jones and colleagues : “I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university.”
You may of course want to argue that Mann is not specifically talking of Jones or anyone in particular. Or you may wish to argue that Mann’s statement is hypocritical and self-serving. The responses in the comments clearly show that not everyone is willing to accept Mann’s protestations of innocence. Outside the judicial process, “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply – an individual doesn’t need strong proof of trustworthiness or untrustworthiness to form an opinion. Letters will be written, legal and corporate actions will be initiated and votes will be cast based on these opinions.
Above reply was meant to be to shewonk’s post at January 2, 2010 at 10:08 am, sorry.
So you do edit posts – gee, what a surprise !!
I edit my own posts and comments to correct typos and awkward wording but I never edit other people’s posts or comments nor do I move posts or delete posts or comments. I think oneuniverse replied to the wrong thread comment above.
Here, what you see is what you get.
IanL, my post wasn’t moved by shewonk or anyone else – I accidentally replied to the wrong comment.
re: Jones
“For all we know, Jones wrote back to say “Use 52″ and Mann complied.”
Whether he did or not, what does this tell us about Mann’s ethics?
It tells us nothing if he didn’t act on it. It might say he has a lot of false bravado. Or is prone to belligerence or what we call “shooting the shit” where I come from or even just schmoozing. The only thing that matters is what number he included on his nomination form. When I see that, I’ll know what it says about his ethics. Until then, it’s all speculation.
Shewonk,
Are you really so uninformed that you do not know about Mann’s ethics????
Did you not see the email in which he agrees to delete emails and provides Gene Wahl’s new email to Phil Jones so Jones can ask him to delete emails also?
How about the CENSORED directory? Did you know about that?
How about the fact Mann knew his confirmation statistics showed one thing but he claimed another in his paper?
You need to read http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
Natuurwetenschap & Techniek is a well-respected Dutch science magazine and this is an English translation of a major article on Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick.
I have read a lot of speculation about Mann’s ethics from CA and other similar blogs, yes. I don’t know personally if that speculation is accurate because a lot of it seems to rely on assumptions that are not proven and a great deal of creative thinking about motive, etc.
So I don’t go into this with preconceived notions about Mann and his motives or Jones or any of the others. I try to read the emails fresh, and see what, if any significance they appear to have and what else might be required before being able to draw valid conclusions about the particular people involved.
People at CA are very ready to try and convict people at CRU and elsewhere based on the emails alone. Based on what I’ve read at CA and places like WUWT, I understand that they all have preconceived ideas and existing biases about them and so they read the emails differently than I do.
Susann, please.
I am not asking if you have read speculation. I am asking you about specific example of Mann’s ethical failings. Here are the questions again:
*Have you read about the CENSORED directory? If you have, then you will know why I capitalized it.
* Did you know Mann had run certain confirmation statistics and did not like the answers so he did not report them? Did you know that? Is that kind of ethical failing important to you?
Please read the English translation article titled “Kyoto Protocol Based on Flawed Statistics.” http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
“It tells us nothing if he didn’t act on it.”
He was willing to contemplate it, and suggested it as his desired course of action. Therefore, that tells us he’s someone who’s willing to contemplate and suggest unethical and fraudulent behaviour. That is not “nothing”.
As Steve says : “Jones’ desire for coauthorship may be understandable in academic terms, but it is totally irrelevant to his obligations under the NMS confidentiality agreements.”, which means that one topic must coatrack another in the story.
“When I see that, I’ll know what it says about his ethics. Until then, it’s all speculation.”
You have Mann’s professed intention that he will use a higher number, from a conversation which was private. What he actually did is immaterial. If he did put a higher number in the nomination paper – it is outright fraud. The fact that he says that he’ll do that is reflective enough of his ethics. Why don’t you file an FOI request to the AGU for the nomination paper? We all have Mann’s own words in the email. If anyone has to defend Mann in this regard it can only be with the actual papers. And even then, the defense could only be partial.
This is not the only instance where Mann has to be defended with “said that he’ll do it but did he actually do it” type of defense. It just doesn’t work.
If you desire to apply rigorous standards to climate science debate – it should *start* with the climate scientists *first*. It is *their* cache of emails that look suspicious. Behind the dignified facade of tenured professorship and the walls of academia may hide a pernicious groupthink. When their emails reveal to us glimpses of this charade – to expose widely, to clarify obscure issues and lay bare the underlying ideologic motivations should be our primary concern.
Yes McIntyre wants to dig as deep as possible into the emails, but why? Because you don’t do it now, the evidence is going to go stale. There is enough slimy wriggling and whining that the emails are just hot air and nastiness but nothing substantial. The overall thrust in McIntyre’s posts seem to show that this is indeed not the case.
In order to critique this effort, you have to bend over backwards to defend Mann and his ethics. That is funny. Instead of claiming McIntyre’s digging of the emails looks suspicious, why don’t you acknowledge first, that the emails themselves look suspicious?
What he actually did was material to the issue. He says he’ll use 62 but if he didn’t, he did nothing wrong. I want to see the number used to actually support the application before I convict him of fraud. Maybe he had an attack of conscience and used 52? Maybe he wrote “over 40” or “more than most Fellows in the AGU” – until I see actual proof he used the wrong number, I won’t do more than say it suggests he wrote he was willing to use the inflated number in a fraudulent manner.
I’m only asking for more proof of wrongdoing. How can that be so terrible?
I would say that as a person who is looking at this from a sociological / historical perspective, both sides of the debate are interesting to me. I think subjecting the “critics” to a close read is as good as doing so to the subject of their criticism.
No, see, here is where there is a clear problem in your thinking. What you see as defense of Mann et al I see as a rational and just response to inadequate evidence of wrongdoing.
McIntyre and all of his followers who agree with him are willing to attack Mann et al’s ethics and speculate and spread rumors without what I consider to be adequate evidence. Many things look suspicious to me, but I know that looks can be deceiving. I am merely asking for what i consider to be adequate proof or better evidence before I try and convict.
I am not defending Mann or Jones, and if I appear to do so, it is only because you have already tried and convicted. I am trying to see all options when considering the case and what little evidence is before me. I think I need more evidence before I feel able to make a case, regardless of how suspicious out-of-context emails might appear.
shewonk, you’ve thrice in this article referred to commenters at ClimateAudit as “followers” (and once again in the comments).
The Merriam-Webster definition of followers is:
1 a : one in the service of another : retainer b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another c : one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
3 : a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture or other deed
4 : a machine part that receives motion from another part
5 : a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm’s magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion into the chamber
6 : fan, devotee
Discarding definitions 2, 3, 4 & 5 as not pertinent, which of 1a, 1b, 1c or 6 did you mean? And please could you produce the evidence that that is an accurate description of ClimateAudit’s interactive readership ?
I would use #6 to describe many followers, and b of number 1 for others.
In that case, you would have been better off with a more precise, less loaded word, than ‘follower’ – unless of course your intention was to cast some aspersions, in which case it was a good choice.
Follow-up question : would you classify commenters at RealClimate in the same way?
I think follower is loaded, and so I will henceforth use ‘aficionados”, which is what I intended to connote.
” want to see the number used to actually support the application before I convict him of fraud. ”
“I am not defending Mann or Jones, and if I appear to do so, it is only because you have already tried and convicted. ”
Mann’s own words about not having a problem with putting 62 down do not trouble you? Only what he did will count for you? Why the generosity?
Even if you want to look at this from a purely sociologic perspective you could be saying “although Mann’s own words do not show him in a complimentary light I wouldnt rush in to judge him…etc etc”. I do not see you doing that too. Given as you are representing your efforts as attempts at greater accuracy.
When there is talk of beating up Pat Michaels, when Jones gloats mildly over John Daly’s death, when Jones calls almost any skeptic scientist ‘a prat’, when Mann calls von Starch an ‘odd fellow’, it just sounds like colorful language. When Mann says he’ll just go with 62, it doesn’t. Irrespective what might have been done in the real world in all these instances.
And for the record, I do not think these are fundamentally dishonest or crooked people at all – Mann, Jones and the others. Some of their actions and words are less than glowing. No harm in calling it so.
It’s one thing to claim that people may have written emails that are less than glowing and inadvisable and another that the emails are proof of fraudulent activity or that they are clear evidence that a larger conspiracy to defraud the public about climate change.
How people read the emails and the conclusions they make based on them is useful in understanding their overall perspective.
You will notice that not once has Steve ever claimed that the emails are “clear evidence that a larger conspiracy to defraud the public about climate change.” In fact, he has never claimed that the conclusions any of “the team” have made about the climate changing are in fact false. What he has claimed, and I believe based on what I have read, proved beyond reasonable doubt, is that these conclusions were in part based on flawed statistical methods, and that there appears to have been a concerted effort to prevent him and others from being able to fully replicate their methods upon which said conclusions were based.
Some of the commentators have made the claims you’ve mentioned, and most have been scolded for making grandiose claims of that nature. Steve for the most part tolerates dissenting comments on his blog, however he has the right to edit or delete any that violate his clearly articulated blog rules. If comments make it through the moderation process, that does not mean he supports the opinions included, nor that he doesn’t support the opinions in the ones that don’t. ALL COMMENTS ARE THE VIEWS OF THOSE WHO POST THEM, NOT THE VIEWS OF THE BLOGGER WHOSE BLOG THEY ARE POSTED ON. You would do well to remember this in commenting about Climate Audit. I am sure that you don’t share all the views that are expressed in these comments following your own blog post.
In Steve’s own words, he doesn’t know whether climate change is a small medium or big problem. He also does not seem to be interested in trying to PROVE anything about the greater climate picture – merely in laying bare the methods that are used by the individual scientists.
In terms of your viewpoint, I believe it is perfectly valid to state that there does not appear to be incontrovertible proof of massive fraud and intentional wrongdoing on the part of Jones, Mann et. al. However you must admit that there ARE reasonable grounds to question their ethics in some of the emails in question. As one who has been at the receiving end of a number of the questionable statements and actions by Jones, Mann and others, Steve is within his rights to question the ethics of their behavior, and the validity of their work, and there is nothing suspicious about him doing so.
I admire your commitment to remaining skeptical in all things, however skepticism to a degree that questions the integrity of forming hypotheses on incomplete data is not useful, in that it does not allow for the advancement of knowledge.
Faced with the Climategate Emails and Documents, there are a number of reasonable and unreasonable falsifiable hypotheses that can be made. Steve’s comments have been in the form of reasonable and falsifiable hypotheses about their methods and behavior, or statements about what he has personally seen and experienced. I suggest before you start accusing him of “suspicious” behavior, you should find evidence that proves he is wrong about his statements, AND that he made them with full knowledge of whatever information proves them wrong. Otherwise, there is nothing disingenuous about Steve’s blog points about the appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Mann and Jones, and his own interactions with them over time.
Not everything can be proven, and not everything that can’t be proven should be dismissed.
Let me get this straight.
You posted comments in that thread at CA under the name Susann and then switched to the name Shewonk. I gather you felt like you were being over-moderated?
Well, I’ve read your comments in various threads at CA and to be honest, you do tend to go off topic. McIntyre gave you plenty of reminders to stay on topic but you refused. I saw plenty of instances where your comments were posted provided they were on topic so I fail to see how you were over-moderated.
Do you intend to inform the readers at CA that you are switching from using the name Susann to shewonk? Given that you have made yourself prominent there it seems like that would be the right thing to do.
It’s actually the result of being logged in at wordpress at some times when I post and not logged in at others and was not intended to deceive.
I will clarify.
That’s happened to me too so I can certainly understand. Thank you.
HI Phil,
OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.
A third possibility: Suppose it was a typo and Mann meant the lower number, agreeing with Jones. In fact, wouldn’t the comment make more sense? i.e. 52 is still an “impressive number” and would be “higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows”. Earlier he mentions that N=40 is a threshold for NAS (presumably much harder to get into than AGU). If that was the number used in the end, I would say that would be confirmation enough of this interpretation.
BTW, I used to post at CA sometimes. Now I don’t bother. You may be interested in some of my posts on McIntyre, e.g.:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/06/the-times-climate-e-mail-hackers-aimed-to-maximise-harm-to-copenhagen-summit/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/
DC, sorry your post didn’t get in until now. My spam filter thought it was spam and I am not all that familiar with the wordpress control panel and didn’t recognize it was in moderation.
I agree that H=62 might be a typo.
If he intended to use 62 in order to inflate the number, he would have probably said, “No, I think I’ll stick with H=62. It’s an impressive number and will be sure to get you in, as it’s far more than most AGU Fellows” or words along those lines.”
But, as I have said, I don’t know what H value he used to support Jones’ candidacy, and the email alone is not enough to prove anything as it could be a typo, which would only prove he was a sloppy typist.
Susann.
One of two cases obtains.
1. Jones sent data to rutherford that included confidential data.
2. Jones sent data to rutherford that excluded confidential data.
case 1. Jones violates the agreements. ( psst CRU appeal officer has already copped to this crime.. read all the documents)
case 2. Jones was able to segregate confidential from non confidential data AND
then he lied to the appeals officer when he said he couldn’t
Put on your logic hat. Liar or Cheat?
I’ve already said that Jones and others did not want to send Steve McIntryre any data, probably seeing him as part of the denialist brigade out to discredit them by magnifying small inconsequential errors to cast “doubt” on the science.
If Jones is found to have lied about the data or violated the agreements, does it invalidate the science? If not, what is your point?
Does it invalidate the science? What an utterly stupid question Susann. there is no “science” in the matter of the global temperature index. It’s an accounting problem largely, a records keeping problem, and a statistics problem. Second, you should well know that one fact would not invalidate a body of science. Again with the false frame.
My point is this. Starting with the founding of the IPCC there has one important series of data that is instrumental to getting the science right. That piece of data is the instrument series. It’s data. It’s observations. When one does science, Like run a GCM, you use this data. When one does science, like a climate reconstruction, you use this data. That data can be more or less accurate and it does not go to the truth of the science but rather the accuracy. Please refrain from this stupid characterization that the science isnt wrong. Its not an issue of wrong or right. Its an issue of accuracy and certainty. Duh.
The IPCC is pretty clear on this. This data is important. Our governments are pretty clear on this. We are putting money into these observations. So, what’s the quality of this data? Did the people who did the work have record keeping competence? are they trustworthy? will they open their process? If not, then I would suggest that somebody else be put in charge of it and let a proper job be done.
So, does adding C02 to the atmosphere warm the planet? WELL DUH! that’s basic radiative physics. It’s lukewarmer 101. Do you not read? Anyways How much will the planet warm? I dunno what does HADCRU say?
Crap!: they say they lost the data, they said the couldnt give me the data, then said they cant reconstruct what they did, the PI has threatened to delete data, he’s threatened to corrupt the database ( you missed that mail ) GOSH, I’d like to know HOW MUCH it has warmed. Over land it looks like maybe .7C.. well is it really .6C or .9C or .5C?
Gosh, that question could drive the results of GCMS. Looks like the work should be redone ( hint hint, cru wants to redo it so you would be wise to agree with that ) now, who should redo it?
Do think Jones should?
So, what’s my point.
1. The work needs to be done right.
2. Hopefully the numbers wont change that much.
3. keep phil jones away from job.
4. the sooner the better, we potentially have a planet at risk.
First to claim there is no science in the global temperature index is, well, it’s difficult to believe that anyone could make that claim, especially since so many people at CA are claiming “OH MY LORD THIS ISN’T SCIENCE!”. I think climate researchers would suggest that there is a lot of science behind constructing a global temperature index in conceptual terms. Certainly a lot of science that goes into analysis of it.
Second, whether the accounting, record keeping and statistics problems invalidate the record and the research premised on it are *the* important questions to many people involved in both sides of this debate. Certainly many people at CA laud Steve for his posts on the errors in accounting, record keeping and statistics as if he has found the smoking gun to defeat climate science, despite his denials to the contrary.
It seems that the “skeptics” claim that the errors and problems in the data and record keeping, etc. are proof that it’s all a big hoax, a fraud — that it proves there is no global warming. They LOVE the CRU email event because it proves — in their minds — that climate science is a big hoax after all and is now finished. Period.
For many AGW supporters, it is the most important question because they know how the emails are being perceived by skeptics and deniers. That is why they are pushing the message that the emails only show that scientists are humans and that they are under siege and wrote a few inadvisable emails. That is why they keep pushing the multiple independent lines of evidence supporting the AGW paradigm.
You think the climate scientists claim there is a lot of science in the temperature index?
Really? Please go read the IPCC and see what they think the 4 most critical elements of the global index are. Climate science aint one of them. Now you go off and READ. then you come back with something. But since I’ve trudeged through every last bit of gisstemp code I will have to say the “science” in that code is rather mundane. Is calcualting an area average “science?” I suppose in a trivally true.
With regards to skeptics Almost no one claims there is no global warming. Crap, go read WUWT and you’ll see a topline post on what skeptics believe. In the published literature the most ardent skeptic holds that AT MOST 50% of the warming seen over land (30% of all warming) could be due to UHI. So, 15% high. Jones himself argued that the record was 5% or so high. we are talking jones saying UHI =.05C warm and publsihed skeptics saying .15C high.
Finally they did more than write a few emails. They took actions. Jones deleted mails. Not just threatened to he did. The whole conspircay to thwart FOIA is an ACTION, not just emails. getting journal editors removed? ACTION. Hiding the decline? ACTION.
Shoehorning Amman07 into Ar4? ACTION.
Not just mails susann. READ.
WRT multiple lines of evidence. First and foremost is “running for the ice” saw that pattern back in 2007. But let me just give you a structure for this.
AGW supporters argue the following. The temperature record and other lines of evidence show that it is getting warmer.
But its more specific than that.
1. The land/sea record is the longest and most spatially diverse.
2. Satillite only shows the last 30 years or so.
3. Ice? last 30 years or so.
4. Glacial retreat? spatially limited.
5. Species migration? not a temperature record its an effect.
So the BEST LINE of evidence is the temperature record. Its best because:
1. Longest
2. Its actually a TEMPERATURE FIGURE
3. Spatially complete.
So, when that record comes into doubt, when people wonder if UHI might be a part of the warming ( maybe its not 1C of warming maybe its only .85) Then it makes NO logical sense whatsoever to appeal to mulitple lines of evidence.
What in the world do the ice melting have to do with the question of whether the UHI effect is fully accounted for? Nothing. What does a 30 year record of ice have to say about veracity and accuracy the land sea record from 1850-2010? Not much. yes the ice “shows” not really but whatever, the ice is consistent with warmer temps since 1979.
Yup. now back to the question that skeptics asked. is the record from 1850 to 2009 accurate? how accurate. Dont be stupid and point me at ice data or glacier data or anything else to answer a specific doubt about the measure of TEMPERATURE.