Odd. The mechanisms are global in scope – THC, polar annular modes, changes in atmospheric angular momentum, shifts in upwelling. The indices can be seen as chaotic oscillating nodes on a network through which the propagating signal is tracked. These nodes appear to synchronise at critical points in the modern surface temperature record in the model of Tsonis et al.
I am not sure what you mean by a physical wave. The signal may be propagated through various mechanisms – the wave is a metaphor.
I am surprised to learn of Germany’s rules on research data. One thing the progressive movement got right is the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant, particularly in government, or for government funded research. That is one thing Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and people of liberal principles up to the present day could agree on. You find yourself in the company of Richard Daly, Richard Nixon, and the CIA and NSA. Hope you feel comfortable.
Did a paper get published?
> Why should I say anything when an expert like McSteve is explaining far better than I could?
There’s not need to explain, AK: all you have to do is to find where you can find any doctrinal point on this 1:100 selection in the recent racehorsing of the fiercest player in the history ClimateBall ™
I’ll make TJA happy;
Amajor criticism is that using de-centered PCA, as per Mann, actually creates hockey-sticks, even out of ‘red noise’, ie. there is no hockey stick in the data, it’s a creation of the (erroneous) method.
All good?
So there are 16 possible interpretations of your final sentence. I have in the past admired the clarity of your prose, but perhaps you meant something entirely different from what I perceived. I’ll cleave that with you.
But of course that is dishonest…..or more accurately, grossly exaggerated.
There does indeed appear to be a tendency in Mann’s method to introduce some hockey-stickedness in to the result.
And that’s the key – ‘tendency’.
What’s the magnitude of this tendency?
It’s quite small.
Use the ‘correct’ centered method – you get the same HS result.
This is where the dishonesty of McIntyre et al come in, and shows that this is a political/ideological attack on Mann. They emphasize the ‘flaw’/’error’ and hide that the magnitude is very small and that the result is the same with the ‘correct’ method.
That Judith promotes, repeats and supports these attacks shows an alarming lack of Integrity (TM).
+ 1
It does seem that the Trots et al have moved on from insisting that the change they seek can be brought about only by blood in the streets (which they did in the 60s and 70s) to more devious and unfortunately more effective modi operandi.
Mann should have ignored Steyn’s “fraudulent” article which would have soon been forgotten. The more you read from Steyn, the more he looks like an attention-seeking comedian with no credibility and even less expertise in the subject at hand, who has a big vendetta against Mann. Lots of vitriol and nothing to offer in insights. His own sideshow in the larger debate.
Gosh, we must be wittier than I thought!
Climate alarmism seems ter arouse list compila-shun sin-drome
as in ‘ I’ve got u on my list ‘ … ‘ We know where u live ‘ … ‘ a
catalogue of climate offenders ‘ … eeek … shades-of-u-know
-what. (
Did a paper get published?
That’s climateball for you: moving the goalposts is perfectly OK, as long as your side does it.
NPR has been putting out some pretty bad global warming propaganda lately.
It’s a lynch mob attitude. They take out their general frustration with the climate scientist majority on Mann when they think they smell blood. Lot’s of piling in going on here.
Piltdown Mann was questioned very early by noted scientists.
“As early as 1913, David Waterston of King’s College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[7] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[8]”
Challenged dawson claimed another find and some dropped their objections. Think of the multiple studies supporting Mann.
it took 40 years to remove the bad science.
why? many reasons. One being that the discovery played into a socially charged issue.
I can well imagine the fights over the hockey stick lasting many years.
or at least until the end of Mann’s trial.
mannhas already given over most of it. Thats not the issue
–Any field that is communally unable to respond to (and in fact, implicitly condones) such behavior in a scientist is a field that doesn’t have the ability to self-correct and is therefore not really worthy of being called “science.”–
I agree, but also believe that because is public servant, his behavior is far more evil.
And there few dimension to it, but which include his disservice to this fellow public servants.
