"You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now."

The only people using the word conspiracy here are Sou and Poirot. Its a standard ploy...accuse others of being believers in conspiracy (without the slightest evidence) so as to avoid having to engage. I guess it helps to avoid all that pesky thinking.

Few, if any, leading skeptics (and none that I'd take notice of) think there is a conspiracy here. As the movie said, "Not evil, just wrong". On the other hand, any vaguely familiar with the Climategate emails knows that there is a certain collegiate solidarity among the Hockey Team.... a term they themselves created. The quote I mentioned earlier shows how they keep doubts about each others research in-house - hardly the way science should work.

Bugsy wrote: "mhaze, please don't complain that Marcott et al didn't post their datasets, other people seem to have no trouble finding it. Your lack of understanding their methodology is not a reflection on them." Unfortunately for Bugsy, I never did complain they didn't post their data....but then for him facts are a second order issue.

I did however point out that we are uncertain of their exact methodology. Bugsy seems to think that a rough idea of how they went from raw data to HS is good enough and I'm sure for most alarmists being assured that they don't need to look further is second nature. But again, if you are familiar with the original HS and how it was finally shown to be wrong, it was really all about the minute detail of how data was selected and rejected and how data and uncertainties within it was combined and manipulated.

/cont

/cont

Mann sought to keep much of that secret and it basically took an act of Congress to pry it out after which various statisticians were able to show the errors of logic. Until ALL the processes involved in Marcott et al are revealed such that others are able to replicate their results we can't be sure they've found something real as opposed to some artefact of the data.

In proper science, replicating results is absolutely critical. In climate science alone, they demand the right to stop people trying to replicate their results.

Frankly I'm perfectly comfortable if it turns out that they are right or even in the ballpark. Anything that says that 3000 of the last 12000yrs were hotter than now is fine by me and fits very well with my view that the current warming is largely or entirely natural.

If there is a paradox between Quantum Mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity, why should it be surprising that there would be apparent paradoxes between various theories of Climatology?

The physical world is telling us a story, if only we were bright enough to join the dots.

Causation and the mechanics of Entropy and Resilience - the human experiment is not a one-sided equation, nor in a vacuum. Action begets reaction. If it quacks like a duck .... A knife will cut you, no matter how many times, or how fervently you try to convince yourself you are impervious. Time we worked harder to join those annoying dots.

So what did you mean when you wrote " the authors intend to keep their data and methods secret", mhaze?

It's pretty clear that they are doing neither.

There is a difference between reproducing results and duplicating the same result using exactly the same code etc. There is no point in duplication, as that proves nothing. But if you run through a similar analysis using different code and the same datasets, and come up with the same answer, then that becomes more robust. And publishable. But that would require work and actually thinking through the problem, which you guys couldn't be bothered doing.

Bugsy wrote: "So what did you mean when you wrote " the authors intend to keep their data and methods secret", mhaze?"

By "their data" I meant the raw data after it'd been through their adjustment mechanisms.

After questions raised by McIntyre and others and potential discoveries of errors and/or rather questionable practices in regards to this new HS graph, the authors are now writing and new set of FAQ's to explain what they did. Some are already calling for the paper to be withdrawn.

Several questions arise from the need for this new FAQ posting:

* if, as you previously snidely asserted, they had fully published their methodology, why the need for this 2nd supplementary paper? I accept your apology with grace. :)

* the bigger question is why they only now have to do this? Why didn't the reviewers raise these same questions? I'm assuming that, as with much of climate science, peer review will turn out to be peer rubber-stamping.

"There is no point in duplication, as that proves nothing." Oh dear Bugsy, you really don't understand, do you? It is vital to duplicate (replicate) results to check the methodology. By using the same data and same processes, checkers can determine (1) if there were errors in the calculations (2) if the processes where correctly applied and (3) fully understand the validity or otherwise of the processes. Most science relies completely on replication of results to ensure experiments and results are valid. Climate science on the other hand....

The best example of this was the recent Gergis et al paper which was finally pulled after checkers (ie McIntyre again!) found errors that the peer reviews somehow missed.

These people (the warmists) are becoming desperate as the climate refuses to tow-the-line. If they issued a paper saying the sun rises in the east, I'd want it checked.

bugsy wrote :Also, make sure you have plenty of tissues, drawn the curtains and wash your hands afterwards."
Very evocative prose there. Do I detect the voice of experience?