archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 111

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • stokes « Climate Audit
    measure that we termed its Hockey Stick Index HSI In MM05 Figure 2 we showed histograms of the HSI By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged mm05 PC1 Comments 58 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/stokes/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • PAGES2K: More Upside Down? « Climate Audit
    that people who are the real experts in their field the ones who are genuinely top rank whatever field that may be one of the distinguishing features of such people is that they think so completely in the language of that field and are thus almost automatically able to detect errors and inconsistencies in the work of others that relates to the language of their field statistics in this case The casual intuitions of such people are very often born out when the language and methods of the field are rigorously applied because their intuitions are guided by a deep almost uncanny understanding of both the physical and mathematical behavior of the processes involved Maybe you feel the same way Tony Marchaj another master in his field used to use the example of Frederick W Lanchester who was able to intuit that the importance of the difference in the flow pattern about two and three dimensional foils was caused by the difference in spanwise lift distribution in a wing and which is itself traceable to the disposition of the circulation seven years before the Wright brothers flew and before or the experimental discovery of a finite wing s tip vortex system Marchaj wrote on an observation by Sir Graham Sutton It is worth noting that at the time Lanchester evolved his concept of circulation and tip vortex efffects such evidence did not exist and the whole idea is an outstanding example of a man of genius finding the correct solution to a baffling problem without any experimental results to guide him a feat perhaps more appropriate to the world of the ancient Greeks than our own Eventually wind tunnels were constructed that could visualize the twisting strands of vorticity being shed from the trailing edge of a wing or sail eventually gathering themselves into a much larger wing tip vortex system and eventually a mathematics was developed to analyze the phenomenon but those efforts were guided by one man s intuition and a hand drawn sketch derived from a well founded imagination https www princeton edu maelabs hpt his aerodynamics htm Some people think they are that guy some people wish they were that guy some people are that guy Now you figure out who is who in this case W 3 stevefitzpatrick Posted Oct 5 2014 at 2 38 PM Permalink So this is nothing but an appeal to authority right w w wygart Posted Oct 5 2014 at 4 10 PM Permalink I think that is probably part of it but it seems to me that there is also a lot of people who have fooled themselves into thinking that they are that guy but are not that guy going on Keith Sketchley Posted Oct 5 2014 at 7 07 PM Permalink Um wygart what you describe is a theory later validated by tests There is an essential distinction Many theories don t work out Theorizing is fine for finding a way to an answer but what climate alarmists do is confuse theory with reality That s consistent with their underlying beliefs about the world BTW a good book about the scientific method with historical examples is David Harriman s The Logical Leap He includes at least one case where a generally good scientist got an answer wrong because he was blinded by his irrational personal beliefs w w wygart Posted Oct 5 2014 at 7 39 PM Permalink Keith Ok we are in complete agreement as far as I can see most people are later shown to be in variance with nature in their wild suppositions some people are later found to be concordance with nature The trick is to be the one later shown to be correct another lesser trick is to be able to spot the ones who will eventually proven right W 3 Richard Drake Posted Oct 6 2014 at 7 25 AM Permalink w w wygart 7 39 PM most people are later shown to be in variance with nature in their wild suppositions some people are later found to be concordance with nature The trick is to be the one later shown to be correct another lesser trick is to be able to spot the ones who will eventually proven right An even lesser trick is to praise someone who brings such things to our attention But I want to thank you anyway www Once we answer Steve s Does it matter whether proxies are used upside down or not strongly in the affirmative you re indicating a plausible middle way between complete incompetence and deliberate deception Those responsible are perhaps students of other great scientists and the wish fulfilment aspect may be strong Or maybe it s all the will to power Keith Sketchley Posted Oct 6 2014 at 11 15 AM Permalink Well wygart my point is that the successful are either happenstance hardly a method of knowledge for life or did their homework including properly thinking through then testing I re iterate that testing is essential w w wygart Posted Oct 6 2014 at 12 17 PM Permalink Keith Let me clarify since it seems you ve taken me a bit backwards I never said that testing a hypothesis isn t an essential part of science What I suggested is that some peoples intuitions once tested turn out to be in accordance with nature more often than some others People who s intuitions turn out to be correct not due to happenstance but due to a deep almost uncanny understanding of both the physical and mathematical behavior of the processes involved I call masters If you are not an expert yourself figuring out who the real experts are can be an important method for navigating life otherwise you tend to be left in the position of giving credence to whoever supports your own biases hardly a method of knowledge for life W 3 Ian Blanchard Posted Oct 6 2014 at 4 10 AM Permalink w w wygart An interesting comment although I m not sure I quite agree with your diagnosis Indeed I think sometimes the defence being put up by the Palaeo reconstruction guys come from them being so focussed on the mathematical and statistical minutae that they forget the big picture in that proxies are supposed to represent to a greater or lesser extent a real world process How else do you explain for example Mann s response to Steve McI s criticism of Tiljander being used upside down as per the following quote The claim that upside down data were used is bizarre Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors Yes the statistical techniques typically used in the reconstructions don t care whether the data series is orientated in a more warmer or less warmer in very basic terms but they do have the potential to incorrectly invert series if there is a spurious correlation between the calibration period i e a section of the last about 100 years of the supposed proxy data and the temperature series being used It is in this case that the a priori understanding of the behaviour of the proxy is essential and seems to be largely ignored by those who are happy to simply dump a load of data series into their statistical processing code Jean S Posted Oct 6 2014 at 7 04 AM Permalink Ian the problem especially in Mann et al 2008 EIV is actually much worse than what I believe you even know First Mann checks for the orientation of the proxies in the screening step this is how we know that the Tiljander series were upside down also in the EIV reconstructions but after that it does not enforce the correct sign That is proxies intended to be of a certain orientation may well be and are flipped to the opposite orientation Second even worse Mann 2008 is a stepwise procedure as MBH98 and the orientation of the proxies is decided in each step So proxies end up to different orientations in different steps We illustrated this by an example here Let me reproduce that example with additional descriptions what is plotted in the figures UC is sometimes very economical with his descriptions So I plotted the proxies and the corresponding reconstructions in two consecutive steps AD500 and AD600 in Mann s NH EIV reconstruction The corresponding result reconstruction for the step is plotted in the right low corner in both figures Pink there denotes the 100 year part that is taken to the final reconstruction cyan is the instrumental The rest of the boxies are the proxies for the corresponding step plotted in the same location in both of the figures Notice that there is only one change between the steps a proxy fisher 1996 cgreenland was added into AD600 step plotted in the left top corner an arrow pointing to it Each proxy is plotted such that it is normalized as in the algorithm and scaled by the final weight In other words if you just add those proxies together you get the final step reconstruction shown in the right low corner Additionally I showed by the color of the proxies the sign of the proxies with respect to the original orientation blue no change red flipped So here are the figures Now notice especially the curtis 1996 d13cpyro arrows pointing to it not only it flips the sign but the weight changes considerable from relatively minor proxy in the AD500 step it becomes the dominating proxy in the AD600 step Richard Drake Posted Oct 6 2014 at 7 19 AM Permalink Jean S I want to register a complaint that you re using your moderation privileges to blank out some or all of the subsequent comments How did you do that Firefox 32 on Mac here Jean S It took me a while to even realize what you mean as only thing I did was that I answered to Ian s comment The thing that you probably are referring to is that I put the size of the figures width 450 to the maximum that they appeared side by side Apparently this software is calculating when it should divide the figures on different lines from the total length of the comment area not from the width reserved for the comment in the reply tree And hence the comment went a bit over the space I now put the width smaller width 400 is that fine now to you Richard Drake Posted Oct 6 2014 at 8 16 AM Permalink No it s increased the very narrow width of my text by 50 pixels as seen by Firefox Same on Safari Chrome is fine though Cross browser testing s a bummer Jean S Don t know what to do everything looks fine to me Win 7 Ian Blanchard Posted Oct 6 2014 at 8 43 AM Permalink Jean Thank you for the clarification and extension Based on this can you clarify that I understand this correctly The proxies to be included in each calculation step are calibrated on their behaviour in the recent past give or take any hidden declines by comparision with some form of the temperature record global or local annual or seasonal This calibration is used to weight the importance of each proxy in the overall reconstruction for the different time periods For series such as treemometers a number of individual measurements are combined into a single proxy so that for example there is an average of 100 measurements in the 1800 present step 50 in the 1700 to present step and 10 in the 1500 to present step These different series are then separately calibrated in constructing the 1800 present 1700 present and 1500 present steps Surely if I understood this correctly if a data series is transposed between the different steps the only conclusion that can be reached is that it is not a reliable temperature proxy and must be discarded from all calculation steps Jean S Pretty much so except that it s not only treemometers tha are done in the stepwise manner all proxies are done that way First you take all proxies that are extending back to 1800 Then you calibrate them simultaneously against the instrumental regression done by RegEM calculate the corresponding reconstruction and take 1800 1853 instrumental starts 1854 IIRR to the final reconstruction Then you take all the proxies extending bach to 1700 calibrate and construct your reconstructiom and take 1700 1799 to the final recon And so on in hundred year steps Now the point was that both the sign and the amplitude of the weighting of the individual proxies are varying from step to step Steve McIntyre Posted Oct 6 2014 at 9 11 AM Permalink The orientation of M08 proxies can also change depending on whether it is calibrated on the late or early period Jean S Posted Oct 6 2014 at 9 38 AM Permalink Hah I had not noticed that Ian Blanchard Posted Oct 6 2014 at 9 27 AM Permalink Jean Further to your second reply I m now slightly more confused Surely for a proxy series to flip between stepwise calculations there has to be a change in the dataset in the calibration period Surely some series sediment core data for example only comprise one data series through the entire duration of the reconstruction so their calibration will stay consistent through all the time step calculations I only used tree rings as an example of series where there are potentially a lot of measurements in the recent part of the reconstruction and a decreasing number through time As someone whose PhD is in analytical geochemistry I really don t like the use of the term calibration to describe the process of comparing supposed proxies with temperature measurements To me it suggests far greater precision and scienciness than can possibly be justified for the methods that are being used and for the complexity confounding factors that affect the development of the tree rings sediment sequence etc Jean S Sure the number of proxies is changing like in the example there is an additional proxy in AD600 step Notice that they calibrate all available proxes at once i e it s multivariate calbration not individually I sure understand your feelings about terminology Steve Ian says Surely some series sediment core data for example only comprise one data series through the entire duration of the reconstruction You have to distinguish between Mann EIV 2008 and other methods as Mann EIV 2008 permits requires idiosyncratic flipping that would not occur in other methods That s not to say that other practitioners don t use contaminated data or data upside down as they do most recently in PAGES2K Arctic Craig Loehle Posted Oct 6 2014 at 9 30 AM Permalink This stepwise procedure is the part that simply burns my grits There is no possible justification for this nonsense except to try to save an analysis that simply does not have enough data Jean S Posted Oct 6 2014 at 9 48 AM Permalink I think in Rutherford et al 2005 they were doing it as RegEM mainly due their own coding mistakes modifications was not simply converging without the stepwise procedure Don t know why they continued to use it later Mann works in mysterious ways rovingbroker Posted Oct 6 2014 at 11 13 AM Permalink Jean S wrote Jean S Don t know what to do everything looks fine to me Win 7 Win 8 1 IE 11 It doesn t display right for me Jean S I took off the alignment tags I think they will show up nicely now with every combination but the figures are not likely side by side as I intended Keith Sketchley Posted Oct 6 2014 at 11 17 AM Permalink Keep It Simple for Success is a very sound maxim Of course we already know WordPress churn their code on the fly without adequate testing bernie1815 Posted Oct 6 2014 at 5 02 PM Permalink Isn t the instability in the sign a reflection of how tenuous or weak the relationship signal is I can t imagine that the sign of a strong signal would flip with the addition or subtraction of a data series or a change in the length of the series Seems to me to be dustbowl empiricism at its worst Steve in some cases i d agree but when I compare the Hvitarvatn varve series and the Big Round Lake Baffin varve series they cohere so well that it seems to me that that there is actual information on them And yet both have been used upside down to the interpretation presently adopted by PAGES2K for Hvitarvatn It s very odd tho w w wygart Posted Oct 6 2014 at 12 01 PM Permalink Ian Thanks for the reply I m not discounting the possibility that much worse things are going on with these paleo reconstructions and the people creating them far from it it just that I m trying not to overlook the more mundane explanations which may be closer to a root cause rather than the proximal As you said It is in this case that the a priori understanding of the behavior of the proxy is essential and seems to be largely ignored by those who are happy to simply dump a load of data series into their statistical processing code That basic strategy for applying a tool to a job hoping or assuming the tool will do the right job is pretty damned common and would actually have described my level of statistical expertise when I was in the QA business journeyman If I had a problem or a question I could and did pick up the phone and call the top stats specialist at Boeing and get a completely correct and authoritative solution to my problem I was required to get approval from them for any change I

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/04/pages2k-more-upside-down/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • d18O « Climate Audit
    al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click on the

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/d18o/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Gleick’s AGU Resignation « Climate Audit
    did he make schoolboy errors in copying information from the budgets into the fake documents It s not like he has no experience reading 503 c s budgets he has ran one for 20 years Again it suggests rush 6 It is nice to believe that Gleick thought the game was up because of the speculation at Lucia s Mosher fingering him as a suspect or Roger s tweet but he seems to have resigned from AGU before he knew about this 7 If you read the first Kaminsky article at American Spectator where he fingers Gleick as a suspect he seems to be doing so using an entirely separate basis from the blog speculation Go down to the comments section Kaminsky is asked why he didn t credit Mosher but Kaminsky replies he doesn t know who Mosher is so it seems unlikely that he got his suspicions from the blogosphere 8 Gleick runs a 503 c himself When pretexting he would surely not have expected to find anything much in budgets and fund raising plans that get discussed at board meetings Furthermore he had been examining Heartland s form 990 since at least early January 2012 so he knew approximately their total funds etc just not the names of specific donors He also surely knew the sort of activities Heartland does because it s nearly all listed on their website it s no secret for example that they organize skeptical conferences on climate change or write the NIPCC report The worst that he could expect to find in these types of documents is that Heartland is funded by Koch and big oil but he has or greens generally have been claiming that for years anyway and nobody except them really cares at best the documents would serve as proof of this allegation 9 If he s prepared to invent an anonymous whistleblower for the fake document why didn t he invent an anonymous whistleblower for sending him the real documents 10 Why would he mention himself and his Forbes column in the fake So here is a hypothesis The fake document was created to cover up the pretexting Note I am not saying this is what happened I do not know what happened I am saying this is merely one possibility for what could have happened The hypothesis goes 1 In August 2011 Gleick becomes a Forbes contributor 2 In January specifically January 12 he gets into a fight in the Forbes comments column with a fellow Forbes blogger James Taylor of Heartland Gleick demands to see who is funding Heartland see http www forbes com sites jamestaylor 2012 01 12 please global warming alarmists stop denying climate change and science commentId comment blogAndPostId blog comment 1363 294 2369 3 By early February Gleick decides to do the pretexting Maybe it is because he now considers himself a journalist and considers this to be investigative journalism 4 It works he s got the documents and he plans to write about it perhaps even as a scoop in his Forbes column He can explain the documents as having come from an anonymous source 5 At some point he discovers pretexting is illegal and or Forbes would not publish a column based on stolen material Gleick begins to fear Heartland is on to him 6 Somehow perhaps via the grapevine at Forbes some kind of hint of what has happened and that it involves Gleick gets to Kaminsky 7 Gleick however doesn t know for sure whether Heartland are on to him He still wants to use the material he pretexted but he has a dilemma if he simply forwards the stolen documents to Desmogblog etc he has removed himself from the story despite doing all the work and taking all the risks 8 Some Gleick comes up with a cunning plan he just needs to create one new document but he needs to do it quickly Richard Drake Posted Feb 23 2012 at 7 03 AM Permalink Couple of things I see wrong with this 6 It is nice to believe that Gleick thought the game was up because of the speculation at Lucia s Mosher fingering him as a suspect or Roger s tweet but he seems to have resigned from AGU before he knew about this He resigned on the 16th Mosh had begun to finger him publicly by 3 26am collide a scape time that day possibly before Word travels fast on the internet Steve s suggestion that someone at the AGU asked him a direct or perhaps indirect question later on 16th seems to me eminently plausible given what we know At that point he knew the game was up with the AGU and they agreed his rather silent resignation 7 If you read the first Kaminsky article at American Spectator where he fingers Gleick as a suspect he seems to be doing so using an entirely separate basis from the blog speculation Go down to the comments section Kaminsky is asked why he didn t credit Mosher but Kaminsky replies he doesn t know who Mosher is so it seems unlikely that he got his suspicions from the blogosphere Kaminsky s article was on 17th at 5 10PM American Spectator time and he explicitly references an earlier commenter on Forbes who mentions the point Mosh had already made about use of the term anti climate in the faked document So Kaminsky never need have heard of Mosher for this evidence to have come from the blogosphere and ultimately from Mosh Copner Posted Feb 23 2012 at 7 47 AM Permalink Okay let s eliminate Kaminsky being separate from Mosher We re left with 1 According to Heartland Gleick did the pretexting in early February This would mean he sat on the genuine documents for a couple of weeks before releasing them But the faked document was knocked up at the last minute on February 13th 2 If you read the faked document except for some word choice tells it does not read like Gleick s professional documents nor like his Forbes column or his documents at the Pacific Institute It actually reads like Gleick s blog comments especially the rushed and highly emotionally charged ones like where he s angry about the book review 3 Why would he copy and paste an information free line about Dr Wojik s from a real Heartland document It stands out line a sore thumb He didn t even bother to re phrase it He didn t add any information Again it suggests rush 4 Why would he not add any real information except for some errors about Heartland to the fake document when there is plenty of information out there that he could have used Again it suggests rush 5 Why did he make schoolboy errors in copying information from the budgets into the fake documents It s not like he has no experience reading 503 c s budgets he has ran one for 20 years Again it suggests rush 8 Gleick runs a 503 c himself When pretexting he would surely not have expected to find anything much in budgets and fund raising plans that get discussed at board meetings Furthermore he had been examining Heartland s form 990 since at least early January 2012 so he knew approximately their total funds etc just not the names of specific donors He also surely knew the sort of activities Heartland does because it s nearly all listed on their website it s no secret for example that they organize skeptical conferences on climate change or write the NIPCC report The worst that he could expect to find in these types of documents is that Heartland is funded by Koch and big oil but he has or greens generally have been claiming that for years anyway and nobody except them really cares at best the documents would serve as proof of this allegation 9 If he s prepared to invent an anonymous whistleblower for the fake document why didn t he invent an anonymous whistleblower for sending him the real documents 10 Why would he mention himself and his Forbes column in the fake So here is a hypothesis The fake document was created to cover up the pretexting Note I am not saying this is what happened I do not know what happened I am saying this is merely one possibility for what could have happened The hypothesis goes 1 In August 2011 Gleick becomes a Forbes contributor 2 In January specifically January 12 he gets into a fight in the Forbes comments column with a fellow Forbes blogger James Taylor of Heartland Gleick demands to see who is funding Heartland see http www forbes com sites jamestaylor 2012 01 12 please global warming alarmists stop denying climate change and science commentId comment blogAndPostId blog comment 1363 294 2369 3 By early February Gleick decides to do the pretexting Maybe it is because he now considers himself a journalist and considers this to be investigative journalism 4 It works he s got the documents and he plans to write about it perhaps even as a scoop in his Forbes column He can explain the documents as having come from an anonymous source 5 At some point he discovers pretexting is illegal and or Forbes would not publish a column based on stolen material Gleick begins to fear Heartland is on to him 7 Gleick however doesn t know for sure whether Heartland are on to him He still wants to use the material he pretexted but he has a dilemma if he simply forwards the stolen documents to Desmogblog etc he has removed himself from the story despite doing all the work and taking all the risks 8 So Gleick comes up with a cunning plan he just needs to create one new document but he needs to do it quickly Richard Drake Posted Feb 23 2012 at 8 19 AM Permalink It may have been written in a hurry but I don t think you ve explained why Copner Posted Feb 23 2012 at 8 59 AM Permalink Assuming Gleick made the fake I m looking for a explanation of why the Gleick made such a poor job of it Gleick is familiar with corporate documents and 503 c s and writing formally So if making a fake was part of careful and cunning plan he might have left some language tells but you d expect him to a not to copy and paste a whole sentence b put in some of the corporate fluff you d expect in a document of this type and c write a formal document actually you know formally The memo looks like Gleick writing in an emotionally charged and panicky rush Why the rush if he had 2 weeks to write it And if he s prepared to invent an anonymous leaker for the fake document why not instead invent an anonymous leaker for the real documents and claim the credit for the scoop himself Richard Drake Posted Feb 23 2012 at 3 09 PM Permalink And if he s prepared to invent an anonymous leaker for the fake document why not instead invent an anonymous leaker for the real documents and claim the credit for the scoop himself Once Gleick was talking about receiving some document early in the year from an anonymous leaker not necessarily the faked one as many have said I think it s fair to assume he was in panic mode Perhaps even his advisers were not in the most positive frame of mind This part was likely rushed and under duress As for the rest I agree with Dave that we have too little to be sure But it s worth trying out some scenarios thank you for doing so Copner Posted Feb 23 2012 at 9 22 AM Permalink I have a comment stuck in moderation in reply to your message which answers It was Posted Feb 23 2012 at 8 59 AM I don t think I said anything wrong in that comment so I d appreciate if it was published hro001 Posted Feb 24 2012 at 6 02 AM Permalink Richard I m going to step out on a speculative limb in response to your reasonable request for an explanation of why the rush Consider the following possible scenario 1 Gleick had to have realized at some point that declining the HI invitation was probably not a very smart move 2 Additionally someone more objective than he could ever be about his own words could well have pointed out to him that he was not doing well in his battle with HI via Forbes 3 His impersonation act was Jan 27 this was the same day that Lindzen et al had their Op Ed in the WSJ It would be interesting to know whether his impersonation preceded or followed publication of Lindzen et al but this timing is not crucial to my speculative hypothesis 4 Investigative mashups are really more up Mashey s alley than his My guess would be that when he got the purloined docs from HI he sent them to Mashey who then began working furiously on his complaint to the IRS or to work them into whatever existing material he might have already conjured up 5 The counter attack in the WSJ by Trenberth and the gang of 37 including Gleick occurred on Feb 1 Even though Gleick was in possession of the stolen goods this was not stuff that could be used in that missive which as far as I can tell didn t do them much good anyway 6 The evil deniers funded by Big Oil meme had been wearing more than a little thin for quite some time even as MM was busy flogging his Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann Those on the warm sde needed something fresh to uh reframe the message And the overwhelming scientific consensus was being undermined by many rumblings of uncertainty Gaia forbid that these should be permitted to enter the wider public consciousness a distraction would be very welcome in warm circles don t you think 7 Maybe the Climate Rapid Response Team Gleick Abraham Mandia and Trenberth somewhat scorched by the lack of desired positive feedback from the efforts of the Gang of 38 and by now fully aware that they would be unable to pin Big Oil to HI did a little brainstorming and came up with Plan B 8 How about a new improved message The science is clear but the debate about how to respond to it is broken it s all being undermined by powerful anti science lobbyists funded by a cartel from Big Business and the perfect example we can now disclose is HI cuz we ve got the goods on em If we can somehow get this into the hands of our media stooges partners during the run up to AAAS Annual Meeting those in attendance can spread the word Hey Mashey s working on something planning a Valentine s Day Massacre let s use it payback for Climategate Who knows this might have already set the wheels in motion for the Open Letter to HI from the gang of 7 9 Feb 12 Mashey sends draft to Gleick Gleick and perhaps a few select others decides that no this isn t going to work Even he recognizes that Mashey is far from being a polished presenter Sooooooooooo 10 Feb 13 Gleick very quickly creates strategy memo pulling some stuff from Mashey s original and padding with flourishes of his own Someone has a chat with Mashey asking him to defer his launch but only for a day or so Gleick bundles strategy memo with stolen goods in his possession and sends it off to his 15 fences and the rest as they say is history IMHO his claimed receipt of an anonymous document in the mail is a fignment of his imagination constructed simply because as Mosh had said Gleick thinks he s too smart to get caught And I would add to this that he probably figured that in the unlikely event that he did get caught he could easily smother it with silence while one or more of his fences came to the aid of his party as it turns out they appear to have been doing As for this resignation on the 16th I don t buy it Given past performances I d be more inclined to think that at that point he still figured that by hook or by crook he could bluff his way out of culpability until it all blew over He may have said something about his escapades on the 16th but it wasn t until several hours after his confession that AGU even silently commented out his name on the Ethics Committee webpage and as I recall it wasn t until several hours later that they announced his replacement Richard Drake Posted Feb 24 2012 at 7 57 AM Permalink Hilary I m going to step out on a speculative limb Be my guest I have my choppers ready 6 The evil deniers funded by Big Oil meme had been wearing more than a little thin for quite some time even as MM was busy flogging his Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann Those on the warm sde needed something fresh to uh reframe the message And the overwhelming scientific consensus was being undermined by many rumblings of uncertainty Gaia forbid that these should be permitted to enter the wider public consciousness a distraction would be very welcome in warm circles don t you think This is a good summary but they needed something more specific than a distraction In the mid 90s they all knew that they wanted to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period as Deming reported long ago and in the event the

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/22/gleicks-agu-resignation/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • agu « Climate Audit
    Mann By Steve McIntyre Posted in MBH98 Wahl and Ammann Also tagged ammann r2 wilks Comments 21 Ammann at AGU If You Had One Question Jan 9 2006 11 33 AM Ammann made a presentation at the same AGU session as me spending a considerable amount of time criticizing us though with nothing new to say that we haven t already rebutted here and in print There was time for one question AGU is fanatical about schedules and I was recognized So here s my question to By Steve McIntyre Posted in MBH98 Wahl and Ammann Also tagged ammann wahl Comments 83 AGU 2005 1 Dec 11 2005 7 54 AM The size of the AGU convention is really daunting Up to Thursday there were 11 903 attendees But that doesn t really portray the size of the presentation effort Most of those attendees are also presenters I didn t see a total of the number of oral and poster presentations although it would be readily available from AGU By Steve McIntyre Posted in General Also tagged ammann Comments 5 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/agu/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • gleick « Climate Audit
    on climate science there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal Given the need for By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Comments 533 Peter Gleick and the Fourth Horseman May 11 2011 4 10 PM In 2009 Peter Gleick wrote Fear is an effective tool A lesson it seems that was not lost on Gleick himself who used the occasion of the recent tornado outbreak to prophesy accelerating death and destruction While Gleick s opportunistic attempt to exploit the tornado event has been criticized e g Pielke here it seems to me By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged pielke tornado Comments 47 The Hartwell Paper May 11 2010 1 45 PM Pielke Jr and 13 other authors have published a paper advocating a re framing of climate policy Co authors that may be somewhat familiar to CA readers include Atte Korhola and Mike Hulme a seemingly anomalous search term in the Climategate letters Daniel Sarewitz checked in briefly at CA a few years ago The coauthors tend to By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged hartwell nuclear Comments 297 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/gleick/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • mcfadren « Climate Audit
    2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000 NOTICE Click on the Reply

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/mcfadren/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • pages2k « Climate Audit
    2008 Ljungqvist et al 2010 Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 Shi et al 2013 A distinctive feature of these and other recent multiproxy studies is the incorporation of varve thickness and near equivalent mass accumulation rate By Steve McIntyre Posted in Uncategorized Also tagged big round bradley c2 donard hvitarvatn iceberg kaufman korttajarvi ljungqvist overpeck silvaplana varve Comments 40 More on Hvitarvatn Varves Dec 4 2013 3 31 PM In a previous post on PAGES2K Arctic I pointed out that they had used the Hvitarvatn Iceland series PAGES2K version shown below upside down to the interpretation of the original authors Miller et al who had interpreted thick varves as evidence of the Little Ice Age A few days ago Miller and coauthors archived a variety By Steve McIntyre Posted in pages2k Uncategorized Also tagged hvitarvatn miller varve Comments 15 PAGES2K Online Journal Club May 9 2013 10 06 AM I m listening to a presentation by PAGES2K authors sponsored by Nature http blogs nature com ofschemesandmemes 2013 05 02 npg journal club how has earths climate changed in the past 2000 years npgjclub comment 1503 Started at 11 am Eastern 11 30 Open for questions I have submitted the following Can you explain the decision to label the article as only a Progress Article rather than a Research Article Nature s definition of Progress Articles http www nature com ngeo authors content types html says that such articles By Steve McIntyre Posted in Multiproxy Studies pages2k Uncategorized Comments 76 Older posts Newer posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/pages2k/page/2/ (2016-02-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •