Trebuchet Revisited

It has been a "best of times, worst of times" kind of week.

I started with the ability to rotate the shoulders and "spin" and had one of the best ball striking rounds of my life.

Of course by Tuesday that was no longer possible.

Then Wednesday brought sunny skies and incredible putting, how about 11 putts for the first nine?  Yes, well, more a demonstration of exquisite chipping than putting, but nothing makeable got away.  But the back nine was another story; the putting as fine, but the chipping as weaker and swing thoughts stopped being effective.

I took the day off today and went to the range.  I'd like to recapture some of the early round swing thoughts from Monday.  I also had looked at a number of videos that provided some insights that I wanted to test.  One of the videos talked about our old friend the trebuchet. 

The trebuchet had been in operation as the superior siege weapon from about 40 BCE until gun powder siege weapons took over.  So, per Wikipedia, 1200 years or so.

The trebuchet uses a weight to swing an arm, to which is attached a rope with a sling on the end of the rope.  A full sized trebuchet can toss a 200 pound payload a couple of hundred yards with the properly sized counter weight.

The golf swing has been compared to the trebuchet.   We have the lower body acting as the weight.  The hips turn and eventually the left hip will move away from the target.  That provides a slow down / stop that transmits energy to the arms.  As the arms approach the left thigh (assuming a right handed golfer) they slow down and the club finishes the job by pivoting through the wrists with all the stored up energy. 

What I was trying to do today was to not interfere with this sequence of the various levers.  The physicists will tell you that you can actually help the club whipping by the additional application of torque, but it's very difficult and the timing has to be exact.  The thought is that you can't do it consistently and thus is probably not worth the effort.

My swing thoughts were to make sure I got the left hip to turn properly.  Thus I'm avoiding a slide towards the ball and hoping the hip, getting to the proper position, would provide me enough speed to give me as much or more ball speed.  I would expect that since I am not trying to do more than spin the hips that I ought to get more consistency out of this type of swing.  The second thought was to just let everything but the hips react to the torque of the hips and not try to help it.

As usual with this kind of change is that I'm trying to do less and it's difficult to "just let things happen" and not try to help it.  It requires mental discipline to do this.  Perhaps that is more aptly called a fear response.  Afraid that if I don't hit the ball "hard" it will not go far.  I find myself swinging harder the more yardage I'm expecting.  This is an on going problem and I get away with it for the most part.  But there is something about the driver that brings out the worst in this.  I think that just moving hips and waiting for the rest to happen is a very good thing for me and is worth the effort to do it enough so that I will trust it.

At the range, this seemed to be pretty effective.  I pulled a few and such, but when I could just wait for the club to come around and square itself, I was getting good contact and good distance.

Chipping with a modest amount of shoulder turn and wrist hinge, is a lot like the full swing.  It was good practice to chip and pay attention to the unaided swing of the arms and club.  It seemed to work well too.


Speaking of mental games, I ran across a video in which a sports psychologist was interviewed.  He was talking about the thoughts of winning before you've won and the fear of losing before you've lost.  His take was that we all do this.  We can't not do it.  The solution is to let your mind babble along, but turn your concentration to what you are trying to do.  Or "get in the moment."  The thoughts of what you are trying to do, will drown out the unproductive thoughts of the various fears and "what ifs."


The new putter is continuing to perform quite nicely -- thanks mom!  Putting requires a lot of concentration for me.  That might be because I'm not a very natural putter and have, until lately, not paid a lot of attention to the skill.  But I'm practicing more and the number of putts is dropping.  It's rewarding to see the progress.

Ok, tomorrow is another round and many chances to try new things.

New Putter Report

A new putter has joined the bag of implements.  Thank you, mom!

It's an Evnroll ER8, which is a mallet style with the asymmetric grooves that the Evnroll putters are known for.

I used it at the the local muni for the first time out and I was pleased, but there was no real magic there.  But then I took it to Wente the other day. 

Wente has bent grass greens.  Bent grass is found on a lot of the high end courses and if you listen closely to a TV golf telecast, they will mention the grain frequently if this type of grass is in play.

The grass grows to the side and not up.  It usually is "bent" towards the west in the northern hemisphere.  In Wente's case, this is toward Veterans park.  One can say that all putts break towards the park.  If you've not been on these greens they are very hard to read as gravity seems to take a secondary position to the alignment of the grain.  Putts seem to break up hill on occasion.  It is very difficult to trust this.  Your mind says one think and your emotions and the trust you've placed in Sir Isaac Newton, says another.   Typically the greens will have a very fast direction where gravity and grain align, and then a very, very slow direction when you are fighting both grain and gravity. 

On Tuesday, I gather my gear, trust the rains will not fall, and head over.  When the round was in the books I had all of 27 putts.  This was, I am sure, a record at Wente for me.  Now, to report honestly, I must admit that a lot of my one putts were due to my chipping.  And on this occasion, I was chipping like Phil Mickelson on a good day.  I'd chip and the other players would just knock the ball back.  That probably account for 4 or 5 of the nine one putts. 

When I assess a round in re putting, I feel good if I've not missed any of the putts I should have made.  We are talking from three or four feet in.   I have no expectation of making the longer ones -- and the pros' statistics that they don't make a lot of them either.  Ever watch Rory on a bad day?  It can be scary what he can't do with a putter.

I'll drop in a short description of the Evnroll putters and their unique grooves.  The striking area is not very wide, maybe an inch and one half.  The grooves are designed to impact the ball more solidly as you move away from the center.  All other putters, even those with grooves, have the center point, aka sweet spot, as the most solid strike.  Or the most efficient area that will create the longest putt with the best direction. 

If you don't hit a conventional putter in the sweet spot, the ball will either move left or right and will travel a shorter distance.  Guerin Rife is the designer of the putters.  He  did something about this hit/miss of the sweet spot.  His grooves cause a ball that is struck off of the sweet spot to travel as far as one properly struck.  He also measured a bunch of professional putters and found that the best ones will hit the sweet spot about two times out of seven.  The grooves also will angle a bad hit back towards the aim line. 

Before we call this the magic machine, we must realize that you have to do an awful lot correctly before the grooves come into play.  You can't pull it, push it, not hit it hard enough, nor too hard, and then we have to consider reading the green.  But it does seem to remove some of the errors and besides the putters are nice to look at!

The putters are not cheap and I saw one at Golf Mart that was marked down.  I played with it for a half hour and couldn't make up my mind.  I finally decided to let it go.  I continued to regret that decision as the weeks ran by.  But I was back at Golf Mart the other day and there it was again, but now in the used rack.  I asked for more discount and they took another $20 off the price and so it followed me home.

I have another round tomorrow at the local course.  The greens have been soaked and not in their usual condition.  We shall see what tomorrow brings.

Doubts

Golf and Self Doubts

The more I look into this sport, the more frequently I imagine that I've been doing it all wrong and need a major revamp.

This happened today too.  Now it's all of 11:30 and I've not tried any of this, but I saw a YouTube video about putting and the guy said that the putting stroke is done with the core and not the shoulders.

What?

Yes, it seems that while they are connected, they are different.

I wandered out in the backyard to collect some cans that the wind has blown around -- well that was my excuse if Barb asked, but I wanted to play with this core movement too.  I found that it did a couple of things.  It moved my shoulders, but left them relaxed.  I think that may be important or useful.  It also seems gentle and soft and yet, not giving up a lot of control.  I was swinging a sand wedge and was delighted by the feel of the swing, its path, and speed.  I suspect that moving the shoulders might tighten the core, i.e., create some resistense to a full turn, before the turn is made away from the ball.  We all want a full turn, so this might be important too.

I'll play with this a bit.  I found the putter of my current dreams the other day, used, at considerable discount; and I wanted to try the core stroke with it.  Barb is off for some sewing this afternoon and weather willing, I'll wander off to the range and play around a bit.


Rich II and myself have an on going debate on whether golf skill is technique versus physical ability.  R2 advanced Fred Funk as evidence that  it is not technique as Fred can't hit it very far and certainly he has access to all the instruction he might want and the time to incorporate it.  I have no answer for that.  This core stuff might be important and that leads me to question all my earlier understanding of the swing.  I was not putting with this.  I was trying to move my shoulders and getting more handsy that I wanted to. 

I'm also a lot shorter off the tee than I used to be  -- this may help.  Now, I'm not hurting my neck or back either, so I need to tred carefully.

It's always something new...

A Request For More Golf Stuff

It seems I was mistaken and that there might be more than three readers out there!  Jay, pseudo-son, requested more golf related posts.  I'm happy to oblige and I happen to have a story to relate.

At the local range, there are range rats, who are there most days.  I've got to put myself in that category, though since retirement I've dropped well away from my bucket a day habit.

To service the rats, we have instructors.  They have varied backgrounds and the lengths of their tenure is highly variable.  They last from months to decades.

We have Stan, who has been there since the place opened, I think.  We are talking at least 20 years.  He has a office in the back and comes out to teach kids and adults and the odd birthday group.  He and I have known each other for most of those 20 years.  We have developed a friendship over the years.  He puts up with my over the top technical questions and we enjoy the same threads of humor and politics. 

Which leads us to "Bill."  Bill has worked with Stan for probably those same 20 years. He has had a lesson with Stan every Sunday afternoon -- you can check your calendar with this.  Sunday, a prime day to practice, for me has caused Bill and I to become friends too.

Bill is a nice guy, but kind of tough to teach.  Stan has missed a couple of days and Steve has been picking my brains on how to chip.  I chip a lot and Stan has mentioned that that is unusual.  Everyone hits the long ball, but few hit the many chips. 

Jay and Bill can't chip.  Jay can hit it miles past me, but when we get to the green he needs to on it or the "favor" nod moves in my direction.

Bill's chipping is currently dominated with a nervous flip.  Flipping is the result of a panic reaction to the fear that the club will not hit the ball.  The hands get active and release the wrists. 

Sadly, when this happens, the club either hits the dirt or blades the ball.  The contact is not consistent and the wrist stuff is pretty scary.  You can call it chipping yips and probably be accurate.

I've realized that I have this kind of wrist movement in my full swing.  When I revamped the swing to fix that, I applied it to the short game as well.   I always look for the "GUP" or Great Unifying Principle.

I think this is properly applied to chipping and pitching.  To be consistent, you have to present the club face to the ball  with as little variation as possible.  And that means no flipping.   I'm simplifying this a bit as there are shots where this is not true.  But for the basic chip, pitch, iron, or wood, this is accurate.

The question is how to pass this on to Bill.  Stan will tell you, if you ask, that he really ought to charge extra for lesson if the student is an engineer.  You can't just tell them what to do, you have to explain all the whys and hows too.  Much, too much work, and then they might not believe you!

Bill is not an engineer, but he has a high order of anxiety in his golf game.  He is currently worried about the short game and like many of us, got on YouTube to look for answers.

"OK, fine.  You're flipping.  Just rotate your shoulders back and then through and keep your wrists firm.  Like this." I said and demonstrated - chip, chip, chip.

"I see.  I think I got it," said Bill and then proceeded to flip, flip, flip.

"You're still flipping.  Hold the wrist angle past your left thigh."

Flip, flip, flip.  "There is this guy on YouTube who says that you can watch the club head going back and then, I forget what it was, but it was something important," says Bill.

"Don't worry about the club head, it will get there.  Trust in gravity and basic physics -- the club head will be there in due time."

Flip, flip, flip.

I grab the club.  "Ok, rock back and forth," I said.  He does and I force the grip and his hands past his thigh.  "Just like that!"
"Now I see.  Ok."  Flip, flip, flip.

"I have to go, but work on that!"  I beat a retreat.  Perhaps he can't be helped.  But this is not an unusual problem, but maybe Bill won't get it.  I might mention that Bill is a very good golfer.  Approaching 70 years old, and still shooting in the 70s.  Except when things go wrong and then the nightmares start.

I thought about this over the next couple of days.  One of the drills that I did to trust that the club would move the ball efficiently was to practice putting with a wedge.  Because the wedge weighs more than the ball, a putt with the wedge will create a ball speed faster than the speed of the wedge.  This is true of all of the clubs and is known as smash factor.  The wedge has the least smash factor due to its club face angle, but the ball will still be accelerated to a faster speed.  So you can make a slow putting motion and watch the ball leap onto the green.  Enough of those and you begin to believe that the club will do its work without any help required.

Like all shots, chipping comes down to trust.  Whip the shoulders around and trust the legs to get into position, the wrists will hinge and unhinge and by God, the club will whip around and launch the ball.  If you trust this, you will not try to help and helping screws up everything!

Chapter 3, feeling and such continued

If we accept Swain's view that a salable story requires that the point of view of the hero must be cast from his emotional outlook, then can we extend this to real life?  Is it salable and interesting for precisely that reason?  Or is literature different from real/rational life and its escapist view is what makes it of interest?

I've been thinking about this today.  There is a lot of Twitter action in re AOC's "new green deal" and let's look at this issue from an emotional point of view.  Did AOC create this due to her emotional view of what was true?

The NGD makes no economic sense and almost nothing in it is of practical value.  That probably sounds a bit harsh, but if you look at what the proposal requires, there is not enough money in the world several times over to implement it.  Nor are the required technologies existent.  It requires rebuilding ever structure in the USA, a new smart electrical grid, guaranteed income and retirement, etc., - even if you are "unwilling" to work.  All good stuff, if I were younger, I'd sign up for the "unwilling worker" position.

You'll have to take my assumptions on the costs, etc.; but if you object to my assumptions, make sure you look at the assumptions in the first few sections of the NGD.  The environmental disasters they "know" are going to happen are all long overdue and are only on Al Gore's fevered horizon.

Thus allow me to conclude that I've proven that this proclamation is nothing but an emotional smorgasbord and little in it is rational.

Now, it is pretty amusing reading and someone suggested that AOC was a creation of Trump to reassure re-election...  But seriously, we have some proof here that some portion of the ruling class is driven solely by emotion.  There also seems to be a lot of folks eager to support this manifesto, a number of her colleagues have signed on to sponsor the proclamation.

As voters perhaps we should take this emotional motivation into account at the ballot box. Do we want to empower folks who are guided by this lack of rationality?

I have a friend who is an avowed socialist.  As various public debates came under discussion, her only "solution" was to implement a new tax and spend money to "fix" it.  No sense of scale of what was required and no sense of unintended consequences and no understanding that folks who were going to be the victims of the new taxes might not look fondly on it.

It seems I'm making a pitch for a political party made up of engineers.

In the past I thought, sometimes out loud, that it might be nice to have a businessman in the White House.  We have one now.  I, for one, am not disappointed.  I think his doing the things he promised when running is setting a severe precedent for the next president.  We don't usually expect our legislative bodies and presidents to actually do anything and especially what they promised us.

I thing Trump is pulling us into interesting situations.  The future changes will be quite profound unless Trump's mode of operation is erased and the various interests manage to return to the old ways.  There are a lot of vested interests in the old ways.   I think it's more likely that we will slide back then continue Trump's style of governing.  But an engineer can hope.
  

Chapter 3, Plain Facts about Feelings

This is a long chapter...  About half way through we have the concept of M & R units.  That being Motivation and Response.  String enough and your novel is done!

We have to have a hero, and he must be emotional.  The world revolves around his feelings -- at least in the story one will write.

Ok, enough about all of that.

I've not yet gotten around to declare my happiness for waterproof golf shoes.  I found some Sketchers, on sale, quite comfortable, and made out of a rubberized material.  Or as they put it, "Artificial upper and balance man-made material."  Basically made from old dinosaurs and trees. 

While cold and wet have claimed the courses, my feet have been warm and dry.  A rubber upper will not breath!  But when the frost is on the fairways, no complaints will I make.


We're having lunch at Wente, an upscale course and there's a guy putting out racks of golf wear.  Smelling a possible bargain, Sonny and I wander over to talk shop. 

"What's this going for?" I ask with a simple black jacket in my hands.

"Oh, we are just demoing the clothes.  They are not for sale here.  That's our top of the line Gortex jacket, MSRP is $499."

Gulp!  So you want to see the feelings from our hero?  I dash back to the table quickly slug down some water and then some wine and then some more water.  "It should last you five years," says Sonny trying to be helpful.  Yeah, $500 for a jacket.  I don't think so. 


I'm cautiously thinking that I may have fixed the take away and down swing.  I played the short course late this morning and then did some pitching practice.  It all looks good.   I'm making a better circle around my body, but keeping the hands in a reasonably upright plane.  Coming down, I'm managing to copy the arc of the backswing.  The feeling of rotating everything around my body is keeping me from lurching forward and allowing the club to whip out in front of me.    I'm ending up in balance and happy.

It all feels good, controllable, repeatable, and the ball is going straight too!   Works on long and short shots and even the greenside bunker.

Tomorrow is an off day, but I may hit a bucket.  Stay tuned loyal readers.

Back to Golf for a Moment

The rains have retreated for a few days.  The cold has arrived.  The temperatures are down 15 degrees and the hand warmers are are kept, well, handy.   I played today.   It was at Wente, an upscale course in Livermore.  The course runs through the hills and a lot of the holes can be described as steep.

Carts are required and included in any golf package.  But when the rains have come, the carts have to stay on their paths.  So there is a lot of walking.  But it could be worse.  They used to have one of the lower level pro golf tours at the site.  I went to watch one and walked the course.  There are not too many times when my life flashed before me and I thought death was near and walking the course was one of them.

The cart path between the 9th and 10th holes is called Lombard street.  They have a snack shop at the base of the hill.  Then up you go and it is switchback after switchback until you get to the top.  Boards and stout posts guard the road as a moment's grope for a sandwich or a hot drink in the lap would put you off the path and down the hill. 

One summer, as I rode up Lombard street, each guard post had its own lizard, perched, waiting for love or food, I suppose.

I got to the top and waited patiently for my lungs to recover.  I also walked to the driving range which is at the highest point on the course.  Another killer climb.

Today it was cold and wet and we were walking from carts to ball and back.  That is not as bad as it sounds and one of the aspects I dislike about cart golf is the lack of exercise.  Getting out to your ball, carrying some clubs, and maybe even walking all the way to the green from there is a welcome means to keep warm.

There wasn't a lot of wind and the sun was out intermittently.  The company was good and the lunch is always a pleasure.  All items neatly summed up, it was a good day.

One of our players, Kwan, hits the ball a long way.  He sets his hands forward, cocks the wrists, and seems to keep them there.  The backswing is lacking length.  Kwan doesn't, but he could boast of a manly torso and the shoulders of Atlas.  This means of hitting the ball is not unknown.  Imagine you are swinging an axe.  You wouldn't release your wrists totally in that case either.  Another useful trait of this method, is that it will de-loft the golf club face, giving you a lower and longer shot for any particular club.

This forward hand position creates a solid hit and looks a useful technique to steal.  I tried this with one shot and hit one about 30 degrees right over a small hill into tall grass.  Other attempts were more successful. 

I also seemed to find a wider swing around my body.  That helped with all shots.  I wasn't longer, but the timing was better and I even hit a couple of drives that split fairways.

I'm looking forward to drier, warmer weather.  Hope, once more, is on the rise...

Techniques Chapter II - Be Vivid!

Chapter two is about words.  Swain suggests that nouns and verbs deliver the goods.  Avoid adverbs and the verb to be.  Don't use the pluperfect either, id est, remove the word "had" from all verbs.  With this in mind, let me tell you an amusing story from the old climate blogs.  This might be long as there is some ground to cover and back stories will need to be told. 

One more caveat on the dinner plate is that the details for a lot of this are going to come from my recollections.  I may be off on some of the details, but I believe I have the overall facts correct.  If any of you wish to confirm them, I can provide links and such.  Just let me know.  My mother was shocked that I was not a believer in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that she had read about in the Albuquerque journal and the New York Times.  As I was exposed to all of this, I've concluded that The Old Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.  Ok, on to our story.

------

We can start with the UN. It created a group, the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to look into human caused climate change. The first point that we should note is that they assumed that it existed. The group spawned a multi-billion dollar industry. The US spends about $5 billion a year on climate research. This has been going on for a long time.

The IPCC has a number of groups within it and they selected the group leaders for each. One of the selected was Micheal E. Mann, a newly minted PhD.

Dr. Mann famously created the ubiquitous hockey stick graph, which showed that the current world temperature was unique, dangerous, and projected to kill us all. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Politicians like Al Gore picked up some of this and ran with it.  It was obvious from this that carbon dioxide, liberated by modern life was to blame.

The hockey stick graph became the darling of the early IPCC reports. It's quite dramatic and if you believed it, you had to react. To this day we are still getting calls to restrict air travel, the burning of fossil fuels, the eating of meat, warming your house, and all manner of other things that have made our current civilization comfortable, healthy, and for some, happy.

The hockey stick graph may be discussed another day. There are books out there if you want to look for them. What I want to talk about an instance in the “science” of the climate research and how I was drawn into it.

Mann's work reflects his research into the paleo-record of the earth's climate and temperature. Thermometers didn't exist in the year 900, so researchers looked for proxies. A proxy is not a thermometer but it reacts to temperature and retains that information. What are the properties of a proxy? It has to exist and change due to temperature across hundreds of years. Certain trees are thousands of years old, there are also ice cores taken from the Arctic and other areas, and some lake sediments are thousands of years old. There are others like corals and such.

Mann used trees for a large part of his discovery of the hockey stick.  Trees...  If you've done any gardening you might think that plants respond to a lot of things other than temperature.  Water is kind of important for plant growth, yes?  How about fertilizer?  So when some researcher, looking at tree ring widths only, looks you in the eye and tells you he knows the temperature in the year 900, you too might suddenly decide to be skeptic.  And when they realized that the tree ring temperatures didn't match the current times when thermometers exist, and they hid that by removing "tree data" and substituting instrument data, you might wonder, if they know that trees don't match the instruments now, how can they be so certain the trees were accurate about pre-instrument centuries?

The longest thermometer record is the Central England Temperature record. It started in 1659 and has been updated ever since. But Mann went back further. His research shows the world wide temperature back a thousand years. He used trees and sediment records for his proxies.

One of the foundations of the modern business of science is the peer review process. You send a paper to a publisher. The publisher sends it out to three reviewers. Usually the reviewers are not supposed to know who wrote the paper and the reviewers are not revealed to the writer. The reviewers are not paid and do it as a duty to their field. The reviewers are experts in the area of research.

There are a lot of interesting things about what peer review actually is, what it should be, and what people who are not involved expect it is. I've been lectured by a Facebook friend, who holds a doctorate degree, that if it's peer reviewed, then you should accept and trust  the research at face value.  Knowing what I know now, I'm saddened by that belief.

Dr. Mann submitted a paper for publication. One of the reviewers was a Canadian named Stephen McIntyre. He is associated with the mining industry.

McIntyre got interested in the paleo data and began to investigate it. He was selected as an IPCC reviewer, has published in the climate areas, and at this point probably knows as much as anyone about the proxies used for temperature reconstruction.

The mining industry has a lot in common with proxy data and the work I did had a lot of sampling issues. It's easy to measure something, but if you are going to claim that the sample is representative of a larger group, you have to be very careful. The issues of sampling and error bars and uncertainty drew me in. I knew enough about them and their calculations to find it worthy of my interest.

For example, Slippery Sam has a property, which has gold on it and he wants to sell you the mining rights for $100,000,000. He shows you an assay report that shows that there are 5 ounces of gold per ton of ore in the mine. Gold goes for $1300 an ounce, so every ton might be worth about $6000. If there are enough tons, then $100 million might be a reasonable price. But is it? Let's assume the assayer, Joe, is independent, honest, and knows what he is doing.

But let's talk samples for a bit. Joe probably didn't process a full ton of ore. And he certainly didn't sample 100 tons of ore. He might have been working with pounds of rock and then multiplying to get the amount per ton, with assumptions. Ah, yes, assumptions: the sample matches the rest of the rock in the mine? Did Slippery Sam grab any old rock to give to the assayer? Or was he very careful about selection? The old phrase is “salting the mine.”

If the mining company is interested they probably take their own samples and use their own assayer and then do their own calculations of worth. But if you were going to trust Slippery Sam and his work, then you'd want to know sample number, sizes, the quality controls used by the assayer, etc. Basically, doing due diligence. I understand that there are some interesting rules in the mining and mining prospective business. And that's why they have statisticians to check these kinds of things.

McIntyre's background was well suited to looking at a research paper.

In the world of science there is a guy named Richard Feynman, who is known for a lot of things, but he has stated things about science that are accepted as the way to properly do science. For example, you have to disclose everything that might be wrong with your theory. You have to disclose all assumptions you made. You should be open about your work and bend over backwards to be honest. If you assume that this is what really happens in science, then Sam and I have a gold mine to sell you...

Dr. Mann, poster child for a doomed world view, submits a paper to one of the bigger Climate Magazines. McIntyre is chosen as one of the reviewers. Stephen requests the data and the code behind Mann's paper.

Dr. Mann resists the request. The editor states that in 34 years of publishing research papers, no one has ever asked for the data behind a paper. He passes the buck to his editorial board. Mann protests again.

The editorial board decides that the data have to be made available. This is the current default requirement for most research today. Sometimes it is even observed. Back when our current bit of history was going on, data were considered by some climate researchers as intellectual property and they were not going to give it up readily. An other quote from Phil Jones, another climate big wig, is, "Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

At that point Mann had to decide to comply with the editor or withdraw the paper.

We must discuss why this is an issue and important to us and not just Dr. Mann. Science has a reputation to being “self correcting.” There are jokes about this; one of which is that “science advances one funeral at a time.” The scientists who command the “idea whose time has come” tend to circle the wagons and work feverishly to rebut, terrorize, and intimidate views that differ from the “consensus.” Again, this is nothing new. The climate scientists did/do this. We know they were active then because two batches of their emails were made public.

The other company line was that the IPCC would use only peer reviewed information when forming their policies. That was applied very selectively. If the information came from sources that fit the “proper narrative,” then they were accepted. If a paper was going to come out that suggested that the current climate theory was not quite correct, then games were played. They used due dates to exclude it from the IPCC process, they pressured editors, and Phil Jones threatened to “redefine” what peer review was to exclude a paper.

We can look at this as “boys will be boys” and, I repeat the question, why should you and I care? The problem is that politicians and governments were/are excited by this climate “problem.” If you are a politician, you really don't care if something is true or important, or useful. An excellent problem should 1) threaten all life on earth, 2) will not be resolved in a close time frame, 3) will allow you to shame anyone who disagrees with you, and 4) Allow you to increase taxes.

Environmental issues check all boxes. Who wants to destroy the earth? We have to act now because in 2100 we project that rain/drought/sea rise/temperature will make the earth uninhabitable. What, you don't want to save the earth and the polar bears and stop the spread of malaria? What kind of a monster are you? Oh, and carbon taxes will be 50 cents per gallon of gas.

A climate scientist has a different agendum. 1) They have to publish, 2) They don't care much if they are wrong or right as long as they publish, and 3) They don't want to be caught doing something too questionable.

Let's return to Dr. Mann, darling of the Green lobby, defender of the faith, protector of the world. Presumably his paper was important. The future of all mankind might well hang on the research and results he's developed. However, he now has McIntyre, who wants to go over his data and his methods. I don't know if McIntyre had his current reputation then, but he would have looked at everything. Imagine a complete IRS audit. So prove everything and save the world, or retract the paper and move on?

Dr. Mann chose to retract the paper.

----

McIntyre wrote extensively about the climate issues as it played out in the various blogs.  That battle seems to have moved to Twitter these days, though there are still active blogs.  His blog was called ClimateAudit.org and he was interested in data and looking at where and how published papers came to their conclusions.  He never took a position on whether we are all doomed, but he took positions on a lot of the high level climate papers and the scientists behind them.