Mann vindicated, yet again

In not-very-exciting news just in National Science Foundation vindicates Michael Mann. Or you can read Romm’s version.

[Well, who would have guessed it? This non-news really riles the denialists and the trolls. To be open, I knew it was troll-bait but couldn’t resist. And perhaps it is useful to see just how badly broken the septic talking points are. Can you believe that people are saying “We all know that the Earth’s temperature has been increasing steadily since the last ice age (this is obvious…”? But apparently this is the level of disinformation that people are so confident of, they will post to blogs. Ah well; the next post is clearly needed -W]

Refs

* The Climate Scum NSF: It is reasonable to suspect Mann of falsifying data
* TPL has a nice pic
* Who broke the build? (via Paul)
* KK

A mistake with consequences?

There is an interesting new post up at KlimaZweibel about a paper by Smerdon et al.. This is going to be all over everywhere very soon, so I may as well jump in.

The title, of course, is a snark at RC; see the article A Mistake with Repercussions which points out some errors in a Zorita and Von Storch paper (they got their model setup wrong). [I’ve just snarked them in their comments; it will be intersting to see if it stays]

In this case the problem is rather more arcane, but worth explaining, so let me do that first.

[Update: no, let me first point out that there is a response by Rutherford et al. which appears to say that they fixed all these problems ages ago.]

[And second, let me recommend that instead of reading about yet another minor fuss, you read the lovely post about DLR by SoD.]
Continue reading “A mistake with consequences?”

Mann cleared, again

RC has said this already, but perhaps you want to talk about it here. Not great surprise I think; see the press release or the final report.

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined
that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

Just to prove I’ve read, or at least skimmed, it: Lindzen’s bit is jolly.

[Update: that was a bit of a boring post (JA doesn’t manage any better) so how about some more Tiljander? I only mention it because someone manages to say William Connolley’s position is too subtle, nuanced, and complex for me to summarize – isn’t that just what you’d like *your* position to be? Anyway, I don’t think anyone has managed better than me, in this post. AGW Observer has a go, and while I’m happy to quote his “Looking at McIntyre’s claims on this and the real situation descibed above shows that McIntyre’s claims are false” I didn’t read carefully enough to work out what McI’s claims might be. Unfortunately Ari seems to have missed a very fundamental point – the sign-invariance one even though I hammered that several times. Oh well. APS also has a post with loadsa comments (I’m sure I left him one too but I see it not, never mind, it was only to point to my post and explain, yet again, why the Tiljander series don’t matter much in the reconstruction). Apart from that it looks like cue the go-round-in-circles-again kind of stuff we’ve come to know and move on these kinds of issues]