BS: the hockey stick and climate change.

Subject: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 09:48 AM

michael "hocky stick" Mann defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. A possible outcome: Mann's humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

At issue is the claim data was massaged to give a hockey stick like graph of recent global temperature rise and diminishes the graph for the medieval Warming Period.
The complete story is in the link attached.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

What impact will this have on climate change science? Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann's work. If this becomes discredited then likewise at least certain parts of the the content of the papers citing his work. This could become messy.

Subject: RE: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 10:12 AM

"What impact will this have on climate change science?"

Not a lot, this is a non-story driven by right-wing science denial. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the field knows we've moved beyond trying to prove anthropogenic climate change is happening and are now trying too understand how it is happening and the processes behind it.

Principal Scientific are a fringe group and the papers on their site are self-published and scientifically worthless, as they sort of admit themselves when they say in their front pages: "This is a PROM* Paper and subject to ongoing review" This means it's not peer reviewed and is therefore nothing more than an opinion.

For a more balanced view: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

The hockey stick is discussed own more detail here: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Mind you, that's only part of the problem. Here's new paper on the sixth mass extinction published in an actual peer-reviewed journal: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/05/1704949114.full.pdf

Subject: RE: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 10:13 AM

This needs moving into the reason-free void below the line.

Subject: RE: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 11:38 AM

Stu. I agree it needs moving below the line. My own view is that the hockey stick controversy has been left behind by later research.
However the fact that the controversy has become a subject of court action and the defendant is dragging his heels over supplying his data to the court does his cause no good. By association related science quoting the paper is also to an extent discredited. This only plays into the hands of the deniers.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 03:12 PM

And here I thought it was because the ice was melting...

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 03:53 PM

Dear oh dear Iains, just a brief look at "Principia Scientific" reveals a long list of people with no credibility at all. Only one person I have heard of (we will come to him later) and nobody at all with any current affiliation to an academic department active in earth or climate research (in a UK context one which made a submission to Unit of Assessment 7 of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework). As Stu says, they describe a lot of their papers as "PROM reviewed", which means not peer reviewed at all.

And the one person I have heard of? One Piers Corbyn, very bad weather forecaster and brother of the current Labour leader. Describes himself as an astrophysicist, but the sum total of his output is four non-peer reviewed papers mostly on bonkers alternative cosmologies.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 17 - 04:06 PM

The northwest passage is still alive and well as it was last year to the delight of Russia. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/northwest-passage-clear-ice-again-2016


Climate.gov is censored in 2017 by order of Trump so no new data is available to us (the public)

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:07 AM

I wrote a long reply but my efforts were in vain as Mudcat went bristols skywards when I pressed "submit message" and lost the lot. Bah.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 09:26 AM

Ah, yes. John O'Sullivan.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 10:24 AM

a non-story driven by right-wing science denial.

Sounds just up Iains' usual alley.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 12:33 PM

What is the definition of a " non story "?   Does it mean it don't matter ?                            The OP raised a news item , and did not seem to go beyond asking questions .             That must be reasonable whatever you think about climate change .                               Is it true this scientist refuses to surrender his work to the court ?                                     Is that because he had falsified the information ?                                                             Does his chart dismiss established historic information.                                                    Are the bulk of papers on the subject heavily leaning on this disputed and us surrendered graph?

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 12:41 PM

The OP raised a news item

No, the OP is disseminating and perpetuating unscientific bullshit.

As is his wont.

And, pete, per your anti-scientific, creationist bent, you're coming to his aid.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Jul 17 - 02:33 PM

..oddly enough, it was reported today that a bloody great big iceberg broke off in penguin land..

.. and on this same day, my ice lolly dripped down my wrist and arm..

It was a "Rocket" lolly... so I guess it is rocket science... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 05:47 AM

In an interesting documentary on the habits of animals and insects, there was the explanation of why the Monarch butterfly flies a thousand miles to breed.

Basically it evolved to need the nutrients of certain plants, and breed on certain trees. Which were for hundreds of thousands of years located in the same warm place, tolerating at the edge of their extremes. As the ice age receded the butterflies kept to that locked-in regime but the plants slowly edged north because they couldn't cope with the increasing heat. The trees thrived where they were (heat or soil or something). So the butterflies migrated annually over ever longer distances, and evolved to forage more intensely to store energy.

The prognosis is that, this will happen to certain butterflies we have hitherto enjoyed in most of Britain. And is discernible already!

And isn't growing rocket lettuce easier in the last 50 years in the UK? It ain't rocket science............... or is it? Quantum lettuce anyone?


No hockey sticks were hurt in this analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 06:43 AM

It is interesting that people think courts of law are the correct places to address such issues: this is a classic category error. Scientists can commit legal fraud, by fiddling grants and so forth, and they can commit academic fraud by falsifying data but they are quite separate things - the people with the skills to detect one sort are not the same as the other, nor are the tools to detect the offence the same. A court of law is ill-equipped and not designed to address claims about falsified data.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 08:01 AM

Is it true this scientist refuses to surrender his work to the court ?

No. The data has been in the public domain since 1999 and it has been used in several other papers. The data are sound. In fact, they're available right HERE. You're welcome.



Is that because he had falsified the information ?

He hasn't. See above.


Does his chart dismiss established historic information.

Depends what you mean by historic information. There are many ways of obtaining climate and metrological data including historical records, ice cores, isotope analysis etc etc


Are the bulk of papers on the subject heavily leaning on this disputed and us surrendered graph?

If they were it wouldn't matter as the data and Mann et al's conclusions are sound, and these have been verified for not only the northern hemisphere but the whole planet. The hockey stick is real.


DMcG:

It is interesting that people think courts of law are the correct places to address such issues: this is a classic category error

That's not what the case is about, it's a defamation case essentially and the sort of tittle-tattle in the OP's link deliberately misrepresents this in an attempt to validate their own fringe view. It's nasty stuff, but typical of science deniers.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 08:04 AM

Thanks; I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 09:10 AM

A court of law is ill-equipped and not designed to address claims about falsified data.

call in James Randi.................

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 12:04 PM

As you say Stu there are many ways of obtaining the information . But it seems it leads to different graphs . One of the graphs in the linked article is presumably wrong , if not fraudulent . I can see your argument Dmcg re courts deciding in such matters, but if Mann is refusing to give the data for legal examination, it hardly looks as though he has nothing to hide , but there might be some other reason not disclosed ..... And if this data is already in the public domain,as stu says , why is he refusing to surrender it!?

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 12:13 PM

Science - If I'd kept a 1967 ice lolly in the freezer and got it out now side by side with a near identical 2017 ice lolly..

which would melt fastest...???

Would out doors on a sunny day or indoors with a hair dryer make a significant difference to the result...???

PFR: failed chemistry and physics O level at school 1975 [ but did get B in Biology ]

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: frogprince
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 12:28 PM

" a bloody great big iceberg broke off in penguin land..

.. and on this same day, my ice lolly dripped down my wrist and arm"

Obviously the result of quantum intanglingment between the two...

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 01:16 PM

if Mann is refusing to give the data for legal examination, it hardly looks as though he has nothing to hide , but there might be some other reason not disclosed

Indeed there might, or it may have been disclosed and not reported. As I indicated above, I do not know the details of this trial, but I have been in research where we would have had problems releasing information in court.   To give a simple example - which does not apply in this case, I freely admit - I am currently part of a cohort undergoing some medical trials. Releasing any data beyond the aggregated and anonymised would hit legal problems in its right because of Data Protection Act and other rights to privacy. In other cases, I have run research projects which had lots of non-disclosure agreements.

So simply being unable to think of the reason why this might be withheld is more a statement about our lack of imagination and/or the specific case. The line "If you are innocent you have nothing to hide" is a very dangerous one beloved by governments everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jul 17 - 02:17 PM

"And if this data is already in the public domain,as stu says , why is he refusing to surrender it!?"

HE ISN'T.

"but if Mann is refusing to give the data for legal examination"

HE ISN'T. He hasn't been asked to. Also giving this data to a lawyer is a waste of time, what's he going to do with it?

"One of the graphs in the linked article is presumably wrong , if not fraudulent"

Why do suggest a graph is fraudulent? Which one? Why is it fraudulent?


"Indeed there might, or it may have been disclosed and not reported.

Christ on a bike. For the last time: the data was released in 1999. There is NO data to release, there is NO data being withheld. I've given you a link to the sodding data.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 02:07 AM

Sorry if I didn't express myself well enough, Stu. If a person is open minded data is all that is needed to demonstrate something one way or the other. However if someone is sufficiently stubborn data is rarely enough. For example, however much is published they can always demand more, either of the same kind or metadata (eg You collected the data by machine? We need to see its calibration data to be sure it is accurate)

So we also need to tackle this aspect. And if this metadata hasn't been published - and should the calibration data be available they will find something else - we have to insist the "would publish if there is nothing to hide" is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: the hockey stick and climate change.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jul 17 - 05:22 AM

Apologies for my snappiness... I'm too easliy trolled by Pete.

"And if this metadata hasn't been published - and should the calibration data be available they will find something else - we have to insist the "would publish if there is nothing to hide" is wrong"

You're correct, but this doesn't happen as a paper wouldn't get through peer review if the method and data were not available. None of this has happened in Mann's case, he and his colleagues are simply on the arse end of a smear campaign.

Empirical data is the raw material of science and essentially is owned by no-one. It might be hard for the conspiracy theorists, inverted snobs, capitalists, religious fundamentalists and politicians to believe but most scientists just want to find out why things are like they are, why the happen as they do and what it all means.

There's no agenda apart from the discovery of fundamental truth. To suggest there is is simply wrong.