Monday, July 05, 2010

It's the end of the world as we know it!

Or maybe not.

Hot on the heels of the latest exoneration (and in anticipation of the next - possibly the last?), Fred Pearce has rounded up a handful of the usual suspects to claim that the stolen emails have been a "game changer".

I suppose as it becomes increasingly clear that there really was nothing to get excited about we can look forward to increasingly desperate attempts to puff up this irrelevant sideshow into something worthwhile. After all, a lot of journalists (and some scientists too) staked a fair bit of their credibility on this actually amounting to a hill of beans.

Talking of my pal Fred Pearce, he couldn't resist trying to push a "climategate" frame on the McLean et al stuff just recently. Of course there is absolutely no link other than that a couple of our wholly innocuous emails were revealed amongst the hacked documents. Other than that, the article is just some rather empty he-said-she-said and it seems Pearce didn't even bother to confirm that the MFC's reply really was rejected by JGR, merely reporting this as an allegation. [He did email me with some questions just before writing that article, but nothing related to what he actually wrote.]

27 comments:

Bryan Lawrence said...

I used to take Fred Pearce seriously. But no longer. For me, he's the big loser in all this: UEA made some mistakes, but at least weren't trying to manufacture headlines.

Pete Ridley said...

James, in your 4th July comment on your “Penn State Live - Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete “ thread you said that you had read my blog but I suspect that you didn’t bother reading my articles about the Climategate whitewashes (Notes 1, 2 & 3). In the UK the first two enquiries were nothing more than attempts to whitewash over the issue and the Russel enquiry can be expected to be the same. As for the Penn University investigation, Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is quoted in the Washington Post as saying “Penn State clears Mann in Climate-gate probe” (Note 4) with It has been designed as a whitewash .. To admit that Dr. Mann is a conman now would be extremely embarrassing for Penn State. But the scandal will not be contained no matter how many whitewash reports are issued. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong."

I look forward to hearing more this month and next about the action being taken by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

NOTES:
1) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/05/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html
2) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/04/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html
3) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html
4) see http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html
5) see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/the_university_of_virginia_tol.html

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Tony Sidaway said...

Wow, Pete, even McIntyre and Watts have stepped back rather than be seen to endorse the Cuccinelli intervention. Just how are you willing to follow down this path? What would it take to convince you, finally, that Dr. Mann is innocent of all wrong-doing?

Carl C said...

jeez Pete if you're calling the investigative panels all "whitewashes" and using references to right-wing non-scientist hacks Ebell & Cuccinelli, what the hell do you think a bona-fide scientist like Annan could provide you?

I had a feeling James would start attracting these losers once he got his name on a paper with Chip Knappenberger! ;-)

Pete Ridley said...

Bryan, there are those who would disagree about CRU not manufacturing headlines. There have been plenty scary headlines about humans causing catastrophic global climate change which some might argue arose in no small part from the work of the CRU members of the “hockey team”.

Tony, although McIntyre is against such an investigation I’m not so sure about Anthony Watts. Have you read Paul Driessen’s commentary “Ken Cuccinelli versus 810 academics” on Watts Up With That (Note 1)? He says “The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University .., East Anglia University .. and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct .. We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price .. for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.

We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)

It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.

We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action”.

Perhaps you’d like to provide a link to something that supports your opinion on Anthony Watts’ stance.

Under normal circumstances I would also step back from supporting legal action being taken against any scientist who clearly had claimed what he genuinely thought was correct. The debate about those horrendously complicated and poorly understood process and drivers of global climates is not normal scientific debate. Politics would appear to be the driving force behind it, with the UN politicians shouting loudest.

Having read plenty of the UEA CRU E-mails and now “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford I suspect that the only thing that would convince me that Michael Mann is innocent of all wrong-doing would be for Steve McIntyre or some other independent expert statistician with no vested interest in maintaining support for The (significant human-made global climate change) Hyupothesis. Even if Mann has to answer charges and was found not guilty I suspect that I’d be troubled by the need for Cuccinelli to prove “beyond reasonable doubt”. Political shenanigans are not only carried out by politicians.

As Gad Levin said on 3rd May in Steve McIntyre’s article “The Virginia Statute “ (Note 2) “ I’m sure that if the situation was reversed, and you were under investigation for the actions you took in order to expose the fraud of Mann et al, Michael Mann would encourage such an investigation and complain that it is not harsh enough. So let’s all wait and see what comes out of this and then comment based on facts not speculation”.

BTW, is this you (Note 3)?

Carl, there is a lot that James can provide me with, particularly to do with the involvement of expert statisticians in climate research.

NOTES:
1) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/
2) see http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/the-virginia-statute/
3) see http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Tony_Sidaway#Everyone_Hates_Tony

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Carl C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carl C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carl C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pete Ridley said...

Carl C, methinks that either you are quite deliberately being unsure of my point or you must try to read more carefully. I’ll leave it for you to think again about your “ .. everybody in every field writes about climate change, so statisticians have complete freedom to do so .. “. As for calling DA Cuccinelli an “independent investigator” – I genuinely do not have a clue what you are on about and wonder if you do.

The Guardian’s panel might reasonable be considered somewhat unbalanced:
- George Monbiot, Chair, environmental journalist,
- Professor Bob Watson, past chair of the IPCC,
- Fred Pearce, of “green warrier” fame,
- Doug Keenan, ex-banker.

It will be interesting to see how Keenan presents the sceptical point of view.

Back in a few days.

BTW, why did you remove your comments?

Best regards, Pete Ridley.

Carl C said...

I took my comments down because it's pretty pointless trying to educate a "concern troll", especially a Cuccinelli fan. Do your own fucking research....

Carl C said...

oh lord I actually looked at Pete's blog - full of "Al Gore is Hitler" and BS from Lyndon Larouche (ultra-ultra right-wing nutter that makes the BNP in the UK seem "moderate-left"). stop clogging up real blogs with lame appeals to get hits on your stupid blog....

David B. Benson said...

But its always the end of the world as we know it.

Every day.

Chuck said...

Are any of y'all guessing at sea ice this year?

James Annan said...

Well I've no idea why there is no trace of Chuck's comment, but he said....

"Are any of y'all guessing at sea ice this year?"

(my bid of 4750+-80 is not up yet, but I think he has moderation switched on)

crandles said...

>"(my bid of 4750+-80 is not up yet, but I think he has moderation switched on)"

So that means you will be taking up WC on his standard bet?

James Annan said...

Oh, that's an interesting idea. I should look at his post. However I chose my figures largely on where the gap in the bidding was, they are not really a true belief.

Incidentally, the comment problem seems to be a Blogger thing - I'm not deleting them or anything like that. Luckily I get sent them by email.

crandles said...

I didn't think you believed the sigma 80.

Stoat bet terms:
"That the september mean ice *extent* be below 4.835; but with a "buffer" where we call it a draw: between 4.735 and 4.935, no one wins. I'm taking the "high" side of this; anyone interested in the "low" side let me know."

Central est of 4.75 suggested to me more chance of below 4.735 than above 4.935 though likely not by enough to make it a large bet.

However I hadn't looked up the gaps. The gap 4.6 to 4.851 is bigger than 4.851 to 5 so I guess that gives you enough wriggle room to say you think stoat's standard bet terms are either fair or marginally in his favour and therefore not worth taking up.

(Yes, OK I was just trying to stir up trouble seeing if you believed what you wrote ;o) ... and didn't do enough research to see if you had enough wriggle room.)

Chuck said...

James, I lost two of my *own* comments yesterday, so I have no idea what else may have gone walkabout.

James Annan said...

Ah, on checking it seems that Stoat's position is not really very sceptical: if I had to bet I'd choose the low side but there's not really much in it.

EliRabett said...

A couple of comments on RR also appear to have gone missing. This may be generic

Hank Roberts said...

Well, James still has a working "Post a comment" link.

Over at the Run, for me for the last few days, those words were there but they weren't clickable and had no html behind them when I viewed the page source.

Today in your new topic about the problem, there's not even a line of text offering the false hope of posting.

Pete Ridley said...

PART 1

Ebell and his associates at the CEI, the UN, its IPCC, the politicians, the UEA CRU, the UK Met-Office’s Hadley Centre, etc. etc. etc. all have their own vested interests at heart when pushing their propaganda about humans causing catastrophic global climate change through using fossil fuels. It is prudent for us all to be sceptical about everything that they say. Despite what people here like Carl may think of Myron Ebell, his comment about Climategate “,,But the scandal will not be contained no matter how many whitewash reports are issued. The evidence of manipulation of data is too obvious and too strong .. ” ring true. Members of the general public that I talk with are becoming wise to the fact that they are being conned from all sides.

The Hadley Centre plays a significant role in supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis and one of its senior executives acknowledged during the first UK’s political whitewash enquiry into Climategate that it used the same computer model for its climate projections as it uses for its weather forecasting. The “Wet”-Office has since stopped even trying to forecast medium-term weather because it had failed so miserably in recent years.

As I commented recently on James’ “Penn State Live - Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete” thread (Note 1) none of the computer models used for global climate projections has ever been subjected to independent and professional VV&T. When checking into Carl C’s background I happened across a Jan 2007 slide presentation (Note 2) by the Hadley Centre presenting information about its HadSM3 climate modelling and climateprediction.net (Note 3). It states two goals:
- Improve public understanding of the nature of uncertainty in climate prediction,
- Harness the power of idle home and business PCs to help forecast the climate of the 21st century.

I see no evidence of the first objective being attempted, never mind achieved. Attempts are made through the mainstream media to brush those enormous uncertainties under the carpet out of sight of the general public and emphasise speculation about climate catastrophe. As for the second objective, the relatively sinmple models currently in use have not yet been independently validated, so what chance is there for the globally networked “idle home and business PCs”? Can anyone point me to a site which tells how much money has been thrown at this project so far and how much used to undertake that vital independent VV&T. I can find no funding details for this particular piece of climate research nonsense so I’ll guess:
- network development - $billions,
- VV&T - $0.

Pete Ridley said...

PART 2

Carl C, try to make a more worthwhile contribution to the debate about The Hypothesis than your comments of 6th. Am I correct that you are not the Carl Christensen who contributed to that HadSM3/ climateprediction.net presentation and papers referenced therein? Despite that, if you are an IT manager you’ll be fully familiar with the concept/application of professional and independent VV&T. Have you any comments on the extent to which such procedures have been used within the climate modelling community? (Please try to refrain from using inappropriate language such as that in your 6/7/10 6:12 AM comment as it does lower the tone somewhat, detracting from your professional standing).

Chuck (Charles Jnr?), I love your idea in “A libertarian response to Global Warming (all-in-one post)” thread (Note 4) that those believing they have been affected suing the users of fossil fuels. The Hypothesis really would be subjected to a thorough investigation independent of its supporters. This could begin in a few months as a result of Cuccinelli’s activities.

If you aren’t getting many takers for your “2010 minimum arctic sea ice betting pool”(Note 5) why not start another “book” – guessing at 2010 mean global temperature. Thousands of concensus scientists currently pretend to be able to do that. I’m not so sure that the equally large number of sceptical ones would join in.

James, you say of your ice guess “they are not really a true belief”. Are your other pronouncements on matters relating to global climates to be regarded in the same light?

NOTES:
1) see http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/07/penn-state-live-investigation-of.html
2) see http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2007/jubilee/saunby_ftn50.pdf
3) see http://climateprediction.net/
4) see http://libertariangreenhouse.blogspot.com/
5) see http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-minimum-arctic-sea-ice-betting.html

Best regards, Pete Ridl

Pete Ridley said...

PART 2

Carl C, try to make a more worthwhile contribution to the debate about The Hypothesis than your comments of 6th. Am I correct that you are not the Carl Christensen who contributed to that HadSM3/ climateprediction.net presentation and papers referenced therein? Despite that, if you are an IT manager you’ll be fully familiar with the concept/application of professional and independent VV&T. Have you any comments on the extent to which such procedures have been used within the climate modelling community? (Please try to refrain from using inappropriate language such as that in your 6/7/10 6:12 AM comment as it does lower the tone somewhat, detracting from your professional standing).

Chuck (Charles Jnr?), I love your idea in “A libertarian response to Global Warming (all-in-one post)” thread (Note 4) that those believing they have been affected suing the users of fossil fuels. The Hypothesis really would be subjected to a thorough investigation independent of its supporters. This could begin in a few months as a result of Cuccinelli’s activities.

If you aren’t getting many takers for your “2010 minimum arctic sea ice betting pool”(Note 5) why not start another “book” – guessing at 2010 mean global temperature. Thousands of concensus scientists currently pretend to be able to do that. I’m not so sure that the equally large number of sceptical ones would join in.

James, you say of your ice guess “they are not really a true belief”. Are your other pronouncements on matters relating to global climates to be regarded in the same light?

NOTES:
1) see http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/07/penn-state-live-investigation-of.html
2) see http://www.fortran.bcs.org/2007/jubilee/saunby_ftn50.pdf
3) see http://climateprediction.net/
4) see http://libertariangreenhouse.blogspot.com/
5) see http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-minimum-arctic-sea-ice-betting.html

Best regards, Pete Ridl

Pete Ridley said...

Sorry about the double posting of PART 2.

How do I remove it? - Carl, your an expert at this, can you help?

Best regards, Pete

James Annan said...

Pete, my guess on Chuck's sea ice pool is an honest (albeit a bit approximate) attempt to maximise my winnings according to how the contest is structured.

Martin said...

Pete,

there's supposed to be an icon of a garbage can next to your post. That's where it belongs anyway ;-)