wrong. The past climate of different regions at different times has been BOTH wetter and drier, hotter and colder. If we are to believe the proxy reconstructions the total temperature of the globe AT ONE TIME has not been hotter - but that is not my point. For example, Europe in the MWP was certainly warmer, Greenland glaciers had retreated far more than today, tree lines were higher, and the Western US much drier - but people change and adapted.
I'm RIGHT in both cases, the first WRT MEAN global temperatures and WRT regional temperature differences (that's a no brainer, since point measurements (or subsets thereof) don't represent a GLOBAL AVERAGE
). Don't parse my understanding of the science (the entire body of PC evidence) with your (or M&M's) POV!
I wonder if you can understand even the layman's versions of this controversy, but as you acknowledge me as your manifest superior in this matters, I shall be happy to correct "the errors of your ways".
I fully understand that you understand M&M's take on things!
First, M&M (and Von Storch, and Burger & Chumash, etc.) have published peer reviewed articles - contrary to whatever screeds you may be consulting.
Yes, the etcetera part of your above comment IS VERY important here, what others in the field of PC think on the subject, NOT just M&M's take on things! I quess those would be the "screeds" you are referring to?
An excellent guide to the controversy can be found in the following links, but you ought to start with the layman's article:YOUR READING LIST:
(See the links boldfaced beneath your reading list)
"What is the Hockey Stick Debate All About..."
NAS Panel Presentations (PDF PPT)
NAS Supplemental Info (PDF)
The Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate ReconstructionsPeer-Reviewed:
Research Published on MBH98 January 27th 2005http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=11#more-11
(Geophysical Research Letters, Feb 2005)http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
Energy and Environment (2005)http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
Mann's Responses and Our Counter-Argumentshttp://www.climate2003.com/mann.responses.htm
For more detail on Counter-Arguments:
Errors Matter #1 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=52
Errors Matter #2 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=53
Errors Matter #3 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=62
Was Preisendorfer’s Rule N used in MBH98? http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=34
Find these Key M&M Presentations at:http://www.climateaudit.org/Presentations to Scientific Panels and Congressional CommitteeMcKitrick, 2005, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? (4 Star)http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdfMcIntyre and McKitrick, Presentation to National Academy of Sciences Panel, NRC
March 2006 A Detailed Presentation
PPT http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/NAS.M&M.pptMcIntyre and McKitrick, Supplementary Presentations to National Academy of Sciences Panel, April 2006
McIntyre, Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee,
July 19, 2006Video http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...87/McIntyrepdf
July 27, 2006Videohttp://energycommerce.house.gov/108/ram/07272006_oi.ram
Low Frequency Ranges in Multiproxy Climate Reconstructionshttp://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdfThe Impact of NRC Recommendations on Climate Reconstructionshttp://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/agu06.ppt
Also for an excellent Powerpoint Presentation from a global warming skeptic, Joe Aleo
Yes I have most of those, but what I don't have I'll get. But remenber this is ONE POV (M&M's), and not the ENTIRE PC body of work! And of ALL those links above (WOW!), how many of those were original research in established peer reviewed scientific climate journals? Please correct me but it is one or two at best. Commentary, in and of itself isn't peer reviewed, since it's supposed to be an additional "peer" review buy the outside readership, usually this is just bickering amongst individuals, as was the case here. Presentations and conference proceedings aren't peer reviewed, in and of themselves.
Being that your "take" is woefully uninformed, do not despair - when you read the links recommended that should no longer be an issue. Till then, I will give you "my take":
A) McIntyre was the second highest scoring student in Canada in mathematics the year he graduated from high school, and majored in mathematics/geology as an undergrad. He was offered a graduate scholarship to MIT by Paul Samuelson in econometrics. That he chose to work in private industry and in geology was, in fact, fortunate. His primary work has been in statistical modeling and analysis in an industry that takes turth telling very seriously; i.e., climate modeling is a sham compared to the full disclosure and auditing requirements for investments in his industry. After reading him, and those that support him, it is clear that his statistical and mathematical talents far exceed those of any paleo climate modeler. Mann, in particular, is a physics drop-out who drifted into climate studies when it was sort of a nerdish for 3rd rate scientists - before it got "relevant" through global warming. McKittrich is an accomplished econometricians - a discipline that is wholly statistic based. Many of the statistical approaches new to climate science have been routinely practiced by economists for decades.
Yes most people have math training that go to college, how many of those (including M&M) spend their life's work on one specific subject area, that's my point!
As Mann has pointed out in his defense "I'm not a statistican" - well, Dr. Wegmen and his two associates are, and Wegmen is at the top of his profession as Chair of Applied Statistics for the National Association of Science. He and his team confirmed every one of M&M's criticism, as well as the need for R2 and cross-validation statistics. His report (which I will find the link for) is very direct and less polite than M&M when it comes to Mann's shortcomings.
My "take" on Mann and his site, RealClimate, is that it is populated by some or many thin-skinned and emotional individuals. I first read some climate science from that site, only later finding Climate Audit. In the process I read all the private correspondence between Mann and McIntyre and most of the background. Here is what I noted: McIntyre published all communications between himself and Mann, Mann would not. McIntyre published all his code and databases, methods, and results, Mann would not. McIntyre has been relatively restrained, Mann and his boys lash out, smear, make patently false claims and routinely censor posts from professionals who agree with McIntyre when they try to post to his board. McIntyre invites anyone to post. Mann hid his R2 calculations and has never released them. Mann never released all his data, or computational methods, fighting every step of the way.
Let me give you a few examples. You said Wegman was not peer reviewed, as does Wikipedia. That is not true, but from the day Wegman released his report the Mann crowd has attacked him on peripheral issues and repeated that claim (they know its dicey trying to question him on statistics). Wegman was peer reviewed by the board of the American Statistical Association, but the "not peer reviewed" phoney accusation by Mann and his supporters keep getting recycled and becomes an urban myth. AND, ironically, Wegman does not need to be peer reviewed ANYWAY - HE IS THE PEER reviewer of MBH (Mann's work) and M&M...you don't peer review the peer reviewer! LOL...
Links please? BTW, your above comment IS very ambigious, it needs a FULL audit trail!
One person (Wegman) does not constitute a "peer review" by most people's understanding of the peer reviewed literature/process, usually a minimun of 3 independent peer reviews of a study are necessary to constitute peer review. Also, in this context of science, follow on work, or the scientific debate, provide course corrections, to correct past "mistakes." And that's my main point here, after all the M&M "dust" has settled, what's the final verdict, and as far as I can tell the PC "dust" has definitely NOT settled, irregardless of the M&M spin!
Or take your link on Von Storch, the author said that Von Storch said "nonsense" about the hockey stick and tried to show it was bogus. THAT IS NOT TRUE - Von Storch very clearly said he thought Mann's methods were shabby BUT that it did not materially change the results. (BTW, my comment regarding Von Storch is not support for his particular criticism of Mann on methods, the specifics of which M&M do not agree with either, but Von Storch's criticism of Mann and others for failing to make data and documentation available).
So...here are two mistakes or lies (I believe the later) which confirm the repeated attempts to smear anyone who is not a hysteric (mind you Von Storch believes in human caused global warming and McIntyre is neutral on that issue).
Now that you know McIntyre has published in peer reviewed journals, been invited to make presentations at science conferences, and has been backed up by a top statistician then I expect you will read their "ilk".
I will give their POV some review, along with all others in the PC body! I'd suggest you do the same! "Been invited to make presentations at science conferences." Please explain this, was he singled out specifically, by which conference(s)? Anyone can submit a paper to a conference, last time I checked, conferences papers in and of themselves, are not the end all be all to scientific acceptence. Heck, I've known some conferences that accept all papers submitted meeting the minimum editorial format requirements!
PS You might clarify your comment on ORIGINAL data and sharing...
I work for the US Army COE (formally employed presently contracting), they have their IP requirements when doing outside work with contractors, and I'm quite sure all branches of the government have their IP documentation WRT work funded to other parties. VERY lengthy, VERY complex, and VERY long. Lawyer stuff, you know? You usually have relatively easy access to government work conducted purely by government employees, in a timely fashion, these days most computer codes have some input from outside contractors, so it is rare that others can obtain such (source) codes without the approval of those parties involved. And there are additional costs involved when requesting additional data over and above the standard data products that you can find on the web, nothing is free you know? In the old days (think 1960's and before) most governmant research work was done in house, now most of the heavy lifting is done with the help of outside contractors, thus the IP logistical log jam!
The point is that the feds are very sensitive to protecting the IP rights of those that do work for them, otherwise, if they didn't, those that would otherwise do contract work for them wouldn't!
In summary then, your POV is essentially ONE POV, the M&M POV, a detour into PC methodology, and a SMALL one at that.
My POV is taken from many scientific
POV's, including the scientific
PC POV (which includes the M&M scientific
POV), with all the other GW scientific
POV's. The scientific POV embodied in original works, and subsequent original works, or course corrections if you prefer, not in rehashing methodology details of past works, that appear to have little bearing on the current SOTA (other than everyone is on their toes now WRT PC).
So essentially my POV isn't filtered through the one POV that people like M&M would want people to take. It appears that you have bought into their single POV, lock, stock, and barrel!
Get it? Really!
PS - Like I said initially, when M&M publish scientific peer reviewed PC work, subsequent to the above detour, I'll listen, they haven't so far, that fall '06 AGU PPT wasn't peer reviewed within the PC community, when it is I'll read it.