Over the past few days we have had another outbreak of stories of how global warming has been totally disproved. For example, James Delingpole: the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.

i-39cac8c39626aa095097c89af8534b49-rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif

The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.

Andrew Orlowski (This was linked and quoted in a Climate Audit post.)

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

Chris Horner:

The inescapable and powerful conclusion is that Mann-made warming is real, while man-made warming remains at best a theory, more likely a hypothesis.

Jennifer Marohasy

It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.

Anthony Watts

the Briffa tree ring data that purports to show a “hockey stick” of warming in the late 20th century has now become highly suspect, and appears to have been the result of hand selected trees as opposed to using the larger data set available for the region.

Ross McKitrick:

Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

Melanie Philips:

The scandal not only shows once again that AGW is a fraud but shoots to pieces the integrity of scientific peer-review.

Now these seem a little silly to me. We don’t need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre’s black line doesn’t prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren’t good proxies for temperature.

Briffa replied

My attention has been drawn to a comment by Steve McIntyre on the Climate Audit website relating to the pattern of radial tree growth displayed in the ring-width chronology “Yamal” that I first published in Briffa (2000). The substantive implication of McIntyre’s comment (made explicitly in subsequent postings by others) is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases. …

The basis for McIntyre’s selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

And McIntyre then complained about how unfair Briffa was:

Briffa’s comment leads off with the accusation that I had implied that the recent data had in this chronology had been “purposely selected” by Briffa “specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases”. I want to dispense with this up front. While I expressed surprise that there were so few cores, not only did I not imply that Briffa did any sub-selecting, but I specifically said the opposite.

With “specifically said the opposite” McIntyre refers to comment 254 (yes, 254 comments in!) in the discussion where he says:

It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.

This isn’t the opposite of saying that Briffa deliberately cherry picked, since it is consistent with McIntyre believing that Briffa was guilty of fraud but had been subtle about it. In any case, what McIntyre says in the post is more important than stuff buried deep in comment threads and there we see

The [image above] is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit. …

I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference.

it’s very hard to think up a valid reason for excluding Khadyta River, while including the Taimyr supplement.

As well as this:

Sure enough, there was a Schweingruber series that fell squarely within the Yamal area – indeed on the first named Khadyta River – russ035w located at 67 12N 69 50Eurl . This data set had 34 cores, nearly 3 times more than the 12 cores selected into the CRU archive.

And yet, in his new post:

I did not propose the results of these sensitivity studies as an “alternative” and “more robust” chronology. I am not arguing that the Yamal versions using the Schweingruber data provide the “correct” climate history for the region.

Poor misunderstood McIntyre. How is it that this keeps happening?

RealClimate comments:

So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever. …

The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.

Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we’re confident that the corrections will appear any day now…. Oh yes.

Well, if McIntyre won’t do it, maybe Roger “middle ground” Pielke Jr will demand that Watts and co correct the record. Let’s see:

Gavin’s outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin’s most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn?

There is one minor mistake in the RealClimate post. In his post McIntyre did not “declare” that Briffa cherry picked, rather he strongly implied it. In his post Briffa says “implication” without being denounced by Pielke, so the entire basis of Pielke’s accusation of dishonesty is just the use of the word “declares” instead of “implies”. I do think that is an error, but it makes no substantive difference and Pielke has no basis at all for his claim that it was deliberate.

Look at what happened here. Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying. Not one word about the claims of fraud that McIntyre’s post spawned.

And if you think that Pielke is likely to behave like a decent human being and apologize, you don’t know him.

See also David Appell.

Update: Deep Climate has written a more extensive analysis of why poor Steve McIntyre was so misunderstood by everybody.

Update 2: As I predicted, Pielke has been shamelessly dishonest. Look at this exchange in his comments: andrewt

Courtesy Deep Climate at Deltoid, a Steven Mcintyre quote I missed:

“I’d be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.”

I assume you missed this too Roger, and will now be retracting the claim that Gavin lied and apologizing.

Roger Pielke Jr:

You guys are hilarious. There is no need to pluck out-of-context quotes from deep in comment threads to divine what McIntyre really thinks. He spoke directly to this point as follows:

“I don’t wish to unintentionally feed views that I don’t hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. “

How clear is that?

But Pielke’s quote was from much deeper in the comment thread than andrewt’s. When called on this Pielke came back with:

Actually I had no need to pluck anything for the comments since Steve McIntyre did a headline post on this exact subject: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7257

Which was posted after Gavin Schmidt’s post. So Pielke’s thesis is now that Schmidt is a liar because he did not take into account a McIntyre post that was written after Schmidt posted.

Comments

  1. #1 laolaolao
    October 3, 2009

    Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying. Not one word about the claims of fraud that McIntyre’s post spawned.

    Typical. Denier. Behaviour.

  2. #2 Geoff Larsen
    October 3, 2009

    At RC Comment 108; TrueSceptic says:
    51 Gavin,
    “I’m sorry but what’s required is specific quotes, with URLs of course, to refute nonsense immediately. Replies like yours just feed nonsense claims of “snark””.

    [Response: “Fair enough, so here goes (a couple of allied quotes as well): 1) “In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection”, 2) “It is highly possible and even probable that the CRU selection is derived from a prior selection of old trees”, 3) “I do not believe that they constitute a complete population of recent cores. As a result, I believe that the archive is suspect.”,4) (Ross McKitrick) “But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.”, 5) (Anthony Watts) “appears to have been the result of hand selected trees”, – gavin”]

    Only points 1, 2 & 3. apply to Steve McIntyre. Regarding point 2. the full sentence from Steve McIntyre was: –
    “In my opinion, the uniformly high age of the CRU12 relative to the Schweingruber population is suggestive of selection – in this respect, perhaps and even probably by the Russians”

    Sorry Gavin’s tilting at windmills; not his best day. Perhaps Roger Pielke Jun. is “on the money”.

  3. #3 sod
    October 3, 2009

    good post.

    while i have a certain respect for Steve’s work (at least he is doing some real work..), he simply isn t doing enough to stop the abuse of his results.

    [Jennifer Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/) for example made the false claim, that the black line represents the entire dataset.

    When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely.

    basically the same is happening on a German blog, [readers edition](http://www.readers-edition.de/2009/09/30/das-ende-der-klima-wissenschaftlichen-glaubwuerdigkeit-ein-drama-in-5-akten/), that has made many weird claims in the past. (Beck was posting there..)

    Und nicht nur das, die Kurve wird für die jüngste Vergangenheit sogar negativ. Kombiniert man die beiden Datensätze, so ergibt sich für das 20. Jahrhundert ein flacher Kurvenverlauf. (if both datasets are combined, the curve will show flat behaviour)

    the truth of course is, that the combined datasets show nearly exactly the same increase, because all post 1990 data is from the CRU data. so the full combination shows a hockeystick, and only the combination with all data after 1990 removed, shows the flat curve.

    both blogs simply denied to correct their errors. everybody in the denialist blogosphere is well aware of their position, in fulfilling their purpose.

    Steve provides ammunition, others spin it into oblivion.

  4. #4 Ezzthetic
    October 3, 2009

    … explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign

    Oh come now, there’s no need for that.

    Just don’t renew their contracts.

    the dozen were cherry-picked

    Sorry, have we confirmed that the trees in question were in fact cherry trees?

    The scandal not only shows once again that AGW is a fraud

    We all owe Melanie Phillips a dept of gratitude. First, she proves that all of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were definitely found and secretly smuggled to Syria by the CIA (as she wrote in The Spectator two years ago). Not content with that, she also finds time to mindlessly parrot another baseless claim. I can only hope they pay her what she’s worth.

    Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

    I don’t think anyone’s going to argue with that.

  5. #5 Bengt A
    October 3, 2009

    Because of the 9 years delay of releasing the data no one knew that Briffa had selected those twelve trees. So no one could ask him Why did you make this selection? Refering to McIntyres ivestigations this selection seems to be quite questionable.

    You put a lot of effort in your comment to investigate whoever said what on this matter, but you seem to missunderstand what are the core (!) issues of this Yamal mess.

  6. #6 bi -- IJI
    October 3, 2009

    Shorter Geoff Larsen:

    Here’s the full context of the McIntyre quote that Gavin quoted, which doesn’t actually change hte overall meaning of the quote, but in any case this shows that maybe Pielke Jr. was right in calling Gavin a liar.

    But please note I never actually said that Gavin was a liar; I only insinuated that Gavin was a liar. There’s a very important difference here.

    * * *

    Shorter Bengt A:

    We shouldn’t care about what McIntyre said, but we should care about the core issues, which are whatever McIntyre said they are.

    * * *

    Well, these days there certainly seem to be an awful lot of ‘skeptics’ who are being ‘misunderstood’. Besides McIntyre, there’s the US Chamber of Commerce, who

    > doesn’t oppose all efforts to deal with climate change — only those, like the Waxman-Markey bill, and its likely equivalent in the Senate, that are actually being considered.

    And not forgetting our very own dearest barry, who’s merely trying to bring some balance to the debate by insinuating that Monbiot was lying.

    Heheheh.

  7. #7 pough
    October 3, 2009

    How did Briffa and Mann manage to get every thermometer on the planet to lie during these last 50 years?

  8. #8 pough
    October 3, 2009

    Last month:
    Climate scientists used tree rings that matched temperature records well. FRAUD!

    This month:
    Climate scientists didn’t use tree rings that didn’t match up with temperature records at all. FRAUD!

    [Doug Henning Voice]Claims of fraud are projection. They are the projection of fraud.[/Doug Henning Voice]

  9. #9 Michael
    October 3, 2009

    pough,

    Never underestimate the evil genius of the cabal of scientists running the world. Yes, they even control all the thermometers.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    October 3, 2009

    Ah, pough, [you beat me to it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow.php#comment-1977231).

    On another note, a lot of the Denialati chatter on [the Real Climate thread](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/) is fixated with the “withholding of data/code/pick-your-other-conspiratorial-bugaboos-about-AGW-shenanigans”. It seems that many are concerned that the world’s scientists, whilst sitting around the table of the Great Global Scientific Conspiracy, are stonewalling Truth, Justice, and the Denialati Way by preventing ‘replication’ of the results.

    As several commenters have rejoined however, besides the fact that there is ample access to relevant data, there is nothing stopping sceptical (in the true sense of the word) scientists from collecting their own samples and performing their own analyses. Given the amount of $ sloshing around the Denialosphere it shouldn’t be an insurmountable burden to do exactly this, and to publish the results in a peer-reviewed forum. This is certainly what ‘replication’ means in the scientific context: rejigging someone else’s data is not.

    So why, exactly, is it that the braying hoards simply do not side-step those Nasty Conspirators and conduct their own work, rather than trying to smear petroleum jelly on the focussed lens of the science of the experts?

    Hmmm?

  11. #11 Gil
    October 3, 2009

    Don’t you know, global warming is one of the three all-time super-hoaxes? The other two are the Moon landing and the Theory of Evolution. ;)

  12. #12 Malcolm Helm
    October 3, 2009

    Please stick to the point — the science. Was the data mishandled? Was the data withheld? Are Briffa’s results trustworthy or not.

    All of the irrelevant brouhaha about who is being misunderstood is the mark of childish diversion.

    Please stick to the science on a “science blog!”

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    October 3, 2009

    Malcolm Helm.

    I’m not quite sure what your point is, but if you are interested in ‘trustworthy results’, you might ask why McIntyre’s 20th century trajectory peaks in the region of the middle of the second World War (I am doing a quick and dirty calculation with a dodgy ruler), and then drops precipitously thereafter.

    As [pough pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow.php#comment-1977231), McIntyre’s plot is rather at odds with every thermometer (and satellite) on the planet…

  14. #14 sod
    October 3, 2009

    Please stick to the point — the science. Was the data mishandled? Was the data withheld? Are Briffa’s results trustworthy or not.

    so let us stick to the point:

    Was the data mishandled? that is what Steve and Co should e able to tell you. but apart from vague accusation, there is nothing.

    Was the data withheld? people bringing up this point, expose how clueless they are. in short: in general, scientists are NOT oblidged to provide their raw data. if they are nice, they might do it. in general, people are supposed to get their own data.

    Are Briffa’s results trustworthy or not. another thing, that you would expect to learn from Steve and Co. but again, all that we have are extremely vague claims.

    All of the irrelevant brouhaha about who is being misunderstood is the mark of childish diversion.

    Deltoid did provide a link to realclimate. in short, the hockey stick is not broken. case closed.

  15. #15 Malcolm Helm
    October 3, 2009

    You gentlemen are “dropping the ball” as you say.

    You poor old sod, of course researchers must comply with the data archiving requirements of publishers. The fact that Science and Nature allowed this type of stonewalling is a scandal on real science.

    Stick to the science. What was Briffa hiding all those years? Oh yes, of course. He was hiding the unrepresentative nature of his precious samples. How silly of me not to say that up front.

  16. #16 Hank Roberts
    October 3, 2009

    This kind of stuff must be why Nature is recommending Piekle on their short list of authors for the Copenhagen meeting (sigh)
    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/mustreads_for_copenhagen.html

    Because he’s such a _political_ scientist.

  17. #17 Bart Renson
    October 3, 2009

    They (the hockey stick team) got caught with their pants down (eeewwww). Now they are running around doing damage control. Even the NY Times opines it’s a sad day for science when data lies end up in the IPCC reports. You’d be better serve rapping the stick’s knuckles then parsing McIntyre’s words.

  18. #18 luminous beauty
    October 3, 2009

    Malcolm,

    The data isn’t Briffa’s. It is Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s data. More precisely, the property of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Most of it is, I believe, archived in the ITRDB. It is Briffa’s, Osburn’s, Hughes’, Schweingruber’s, H&S’s and others’ sometimes competitive and other times collaborative analysis of that data, which they have been quite transparently debating and refining in an on-going discussion in the literature and doubtless numerous personal communications for years.

  19. #19 pough
    October 3, 2009

    Stick to the science. What was Briffa hiding all those years? Oh yes, of course. He was hiding the unrepresentative nature of his precious samples. How silly of me not to say that up front.

    Sorry. I didn’t catch on that you were just kidding. Sometimes it’s hard to tell satirical posts from actual stupidity.

  20. #20 DavidCOG
    October 3, 2009

    I quite like this latest “*OMGZ!1! Global warming is the hoax11!*” from the Deniers – it really exposes their hysterical desperation. They’re scraping the barrel so hard all they’re getting is splinters for their troubles.

    Regardless of what the trees are telling us, there are thousands of other natural data proxies that all point in exactly the same direction – the planet is warming. Growing seasons, bird migration, blooming of flowers, migration and spawning of fish, dates of mountain snow melt, peak flow of glacier-fed streams and disappearing ice sheets and glaciers.\* They’re all telling us the same thing. Thermometers and satellites concur.

    Are the birds, fish and ice all in on this global conspiracy?

    Perfect observation, Tim: “*Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying.*” It’s just more evidence, as though any were needed, that exposes Pielke Jr’s dishonest agenda.

    Once again the Deniers obediently comply with the clear definition of [denialism](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php):

    > Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

    \* hat tip [greenman3610](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610).

  21. #21 luminous beauty
    October 3, 2009

    Hank’s [URL](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/mustreads_for_copenhagen.html) corrected for markdown mess-up.

    I find it interesting that a dyed-in-the-wool Right Libertarian like Pielke Jr. is citing an anarcho-socialist like James Scott. What with the fall from grace of Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, is a reassessment of Chomsky and Herman and consequent mea culpa for his prior manipulative behavior imminent?

    I jest, of course.

  22. #22 Former Skeptic
    October 3, 2009

    Good point about RPJr., Tim. I’m not the slightest bit surprised as well, given his previous examples of (poorly) playing role the misunderstood victim in the various train wrecks and wildly – and falsely – accusing Eric Steig of plagiarism.

    Pielke Jr, like his father, are mere opportunists and poor spin doctors at distorting reality. Why are they still given due respect when their recent behavior deserves and demands scorn instead?

  23. #23 bi -- IJI
    October 3, 2009

    Shorter Malcolm Helm:

    Hey, I asked a question! Why won’t you simply give my preferred answer? Stick to the science! By that, I mean, stick to my conspiracy theory!

    * * *

    Shorter Bart Renson:

    McIntyre said he was misunderstood, which means when he said that he didn’t accuse Briffa of fraud, he should actually be understood that he did accuse Briffa of fraud. Check your pop cryptography handbook, peeps.

  24. #24 Dave Andrews
    October 3, 2009

    shorter bi–IJI,

    I believe everything Gavin says!

  25. #25 Dave Andrews
    October 3, 2009

    pough, Hank, Tim et al

    Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper. There were no caveats included in his original paper and it has been used by at least another 10 papers since to back up what he said. Now suddenly it seems the original was not that robust!

    But that’s ok, its not as if its been used by a UN agency to support a specific point of view about climate change at all, is it?

  26. #26 pough
    October 3, 2009

    Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust

    He did? Where? Not that it means much. It certainly doesn’t mean anywhere near what you imply, that without the Briffa paper, everything else comes tumbling down. There’s a lot of “everything else” which doesn’t at all use his data, most of which is actual temperature measurements.

    That’s really what makes this whole thing such a farce. I’m used to denialists using confusion and insinuation to further the FUD, but this one really takes the cake. To be honest, I’m shocked that anyone is so stupid that they’ve managed to be hoodwinked by this. I’d be less surprised to find out McIntyre has been a Poe all along and this is his coup de grâce.

    The guy who does Denial Depot should copy the story verbatim.

  27. #27 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2009

    Does Marohasy have any position, anywhere, other than PR flack?

    If so, we should make this a PUBLIC CHALLENGE.

    posters, everything. with her words it is time they explain how mcintyre is wrong or RESIGN.

    Rub her nose in this, and everyone that prints what she says, until no one will touch her.

    She should back up her libels with facts or RESIGN.

    She should, ideally, be pursuing her real vocations in either the food service or housekeeping industries. Seriously.

  28. #28 tommy
    October 3, 2009

    Now these seem a little silly to me. We don’t need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre’s black line doesn’t prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren’t good proxies for temperature.

    Moral of the story: the trees were good evidence for global warming before they weren’t.

    I’m kidding, and I take your point. More seriously, I think the moral of this story is that AGW researchers don’t do themselves any favors when they don’t demand full disclosure from researchers.

  29. #29 lenny
    October 3, 2009

    Longer Dave Andrews:
    I believe nothing climatologists say, and everything said becranks, frauds and ideologues that contradicts AGW. This makes me a “skeptic”.

  30. #30 Shoter Dave Andrews
    October 3, 2009

    I just make stuff up, who needs citations and quotes!

    I do this all the time!

  31. #31 JennieL
    October 3, 2009

    I’ve just read the RealClimate post and the statement by Briffa which were linked, so I think I’m now closer to working out what’s going on. So let’s see if I have this straight:
    Briffa uses a dataset obtained from some Russian researchers, but because he wants to look at longer-term variations, processes this data in a way which will better resolve these long-term variations. (It looks to me as though he’s saying that he selected trees based on ability to construct temperature trends over a wider geographical area? But I could be misinterpreting, I don’t understand the data analysis jargon).
    McIntyre then decides to toss out Briffa’s trees and run the analysis including a different set of tree-ring data, with no particular rationale; he gets a different result and writes this up, but apparently does not intend to be making, or even implying, any point whatsoever in doing so.

    I think Briffa is being very careful in his statement, as a good scientist should be. But this makes it easier to misunderstand what he is saying, or (especially for the mendacious) to misinterpret it. When he says

    McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation

    this (AFAICS) means that McIntyre’s original writeup has a bunch of hedges saying that he, that is McIntyre, would need to investigate further before being confident about any conclusions. It could be read (by the mendacious) as saying that Briffa is admitting that McIntyre’s criticisms are valid and that they should be investigated further (by himself or other climate scientists). Similarly, saying

    Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established

    may, to a certain mindset, be read as saying that the McIntyre analysis has equal initial plausibility to Briffa’s own. But it should probably be read instead as saying that Briffa will not definitively state that the analysis is rubbish until he’s done a bit of extra work to demonstrate what, precisely, is wrong.

  32. #32 JennieL
    October 3, 2009

    Tommy jokes:

    Now these seem a little silly to me. We don’t need proxies to know that temperatures increased in the 20th century, so McIntyre’s black line doesn’t prove that temperatures have not increased, rather it shows that those trees aren’t good proxies for temperature.

    Moral of the story: the trees were good evidence for global warming before they weren’t.

    Heh. I was initially puzzled by this. Was the point that those trees could be excluded from the dataset on the grounds that they didn’t show the increase in temperature we knew to be there; when the dataset was supposed to be used as evidence in support of the conclusion that there was a temperature increase?
    Looking through the linked posts, it’s obvious that there were independent reasons for selecting the cores that were included – they weren’t included on the grounds that they showed a 20th-century temperature increase that we already knew was there.
    However, thinking further, it would be OK to use failure to show the known 20th-century increase as grounds to include or exclude data, since the known 20th-century increase results from data which weren’t vetted on those grounds. The series of graphs at RealClimate is an excellent illustration of the large range of data supporting the existing conclusion.

    Incidentally, can any of the expert commentariat here tell me if there is a good introductory source for statistics/data analysis, specifically regarding climate? I’m going to take some courses in stats and (hopefully) environmental science but I wouldn’t mind something to read in the meantime. The denialists do like to throw around the bafflegab, and although you guys are doing a wonderful job smacking it down, I’d like to acquire a modest level of competency of my own.

  33. #33 P. Lewis
    October 3, 2009

    Statistical Analysis in Climate Research by von Storch and Zwiers may be what you are looking for. Perhaps someone who has used it can tell you for sure.

    I’m sure there’s another one that escapes me for the moment.

  34. #34 lenny
    October 3, 2009

    Jennie,
    [This](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/message-to-readers/#comment-36094)is the simplest and most sensible explanation I’ve found.

  35. #35 Michael
    October 3, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper. There were no caveats included in his original paper and it has been used by at least another 10 papers since to back up what he said. Now suddenly it seems the original was not that robust!

    Only if you believe in a cartoon version of science.

    The real one involves continuous evolution of knowledge, with later researchers trying to improve on what preceded them.

  36. #36 Stephen Gloor (Ender)
    October 3, 2009

    Will the Hockey Stick is Broken zombie NEVER die?

    The really sad thing in all this is that MacIntye, I think, genuinely thinks that he is doing good things for science. For him to continue in this fashion for so long indicates an obsessive nature. If he was on Dr Phil that is a show that I would watch.

    When hacks like Morohasy hang off his every word this only reinforce the obsession. I mean when your written word gets picked up and talked about by so many people it must feed the gratification cycle.

    You have to think about a person that could be this obsessed for so long about something that is insignificant at best. I guess giving people the answers that they want keeps him going.

  37. #37 Deep Climate
    October 3, 2009

    Here’s my take on the McIntyre-Briffa controversy. Wading through McIntyre’s tiresome posts and comments was tough, but I figured somebody should do it. It should put paid to suggestions that McIntyre did not make explicit accusations of cherry-picking.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

    Some sample quotes (the last one is the best one, but you’ll have to go to the post to read it, since it’s definitely a spam filter risk).

    One doesn’t expect Team adjustments to leave even small scraps on the table and this proved to be the case here as well – the added data substantially increased 20th century values and substantially lowered 1150-1250AD values, thereby altering the medieval-modern differential in favor of the 20th century.
    =========
    I’d be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.
    =========
    Jacoby, D’Arrigo, whatever other faults they may have, use the entire crossdated population from a site. (They cherry pick sites, but don’t cherry pick trees within a site.)
    =========
    I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like ***** ******* by paleoclimatologists.

  38. #38 Oakden Wolf
    October 3, 2009

    Usually I like to say my own piece, but after reading the Deep Climate compilation, I sure liked this:

    “Somehow, we are to believe that the mountainous scientific corpus that overwhelmingly demonstrates the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic genesis is a vast conspiracy, one involving thousands of scientists and other professionals. And we must further believe this conspiracy has been exposed by the scattergun technical analysis of a mining consultant turned blogger.”

    To put this in perspective, there are still large groups of American conservatives who even fall back to saying that it can’t even be proven that the 20th century rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is anthropogenic, because natural fluxes are so much larger. So, yes, they do believe “the mountainous scientific corpus… is a vast conspiracy”, as strongly as they believe that the IPCC is a key component of a vast, sinister, globalistic, socialistic takeover of the free market system, as well as part of a vaster, larger plot that intends as its final outcome the eventual undermining of Western civilization.

    The difficult thing about this is, as I alluded in a RealClimate post, that much of the opposition in Congress to climate change legislation is fomented by this core of like-minded thinkers (and thinktanks), and because they form a large part of the population of states with as many Congressmen as Senators (or less), their voices are listened to, and they are given undue weight in the debate.

    Oh wait — did I say undue weight in the debate? I might be pulling a McIntyre-type analysis here.

  39. #39 JennieL
    October 4, 2009

    P.Lewis, that book looks like the ticket – thanks!

    And lenny, thanks also for the link – the entire discussion there was very useful.

  40. #40 dhogaza
    October 4, 2009

    Briffa acknowledges that more work needs to be done to make his results robust. This is TEN YEARS after he published his paper.

    The actual statement is:

    My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data.

    This is a general statement of ongoing work and doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    He would’ve said the same thing 10 years ago, and indeed when he started working in the field, and will say the same thing up until the day he retires.

  41. #41 Hal900
    October 4, 2009

    I suspect if there had been a blogosphere around when the Phlogiston/Oxygen controversy was all the rage, and Phlogiston theory supported the economic status quo, there would have been the same denialism. There is always a lucrative market for people prepared to soothe the popular mind about lingering concerns that we may not live in the best of all possible worlds. What else can explain the continued presence of the terminally boring likes of Gerard Henderson in the pages of our daily newspapers? And the great thing about writing op-ed pieces is you never have to apologise when proven wrong. Almost everything Greg Sheridan, for example, has ever written has in time been shown to be diametrically opposite to the truth, but his penance has been to be promoted. Marohasy’s resignation demand is in the same vein – the day she calls for Plimer to be put in the von Daniken pile, we can maybe consider taking her seriously.

  42. #43 Steve Chamberlain
    October 4, 2009

    Marion (27): “[Marohasy] should, ideally, be pursuing her real vocations in either the food service or housekeeping industries. Seriously.”

    I have enough problems with the wrong meal being delivered by accident. The last thing I want is waitresses who deliberately misinterpret my order ;-)

  43. #44 Paul UK
    October 4, 2009

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned this Tim, but when I first read the title of your post, I thought it meant McIntyre was a misunderstood person. Yet again!

  44. #45 P. Lewis
    October 4, 2009

    Anyone else think that there’s more than a little displacement going on in RP’s “attack” on Gavin/RC over the McI issue?

  45. #46 Bob Levinstein
    October 4, 2009

    Tim:

    You have an amazing ability to generate lots of text without ever once addressing any of the real issues here:

    1. Refusing to publish raw data is wrong and is endemic to the whole AGW movement.

    2. Yamal’s results are fatally flawed (one tree–YAD061– skewed the entire curve) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a flat temperature trend. Intentional fraued or good faith error, this was bad science and it had consequences. If Briffa can’t stand up and admit that, he’s not much of a scientest or a human being.

    3. IPCC, Mann and others DID rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the lastest UMASS meta-proxy study used it–and wouldn’t have been able to make their “warmest decade in 2000 years” claim with its data removed.

    Funny how the “deniers” focus on facts, and all you can do is argue about how many times the word “cherry picked” was used.

  46. #47 Former Skeptic
    October 4, 2009

    Bob Levinstein:

    You have an amazing ability to generate lots of BS without ever once addressing any of the real issues here:

    1. Refusing to see that McI is mistaken about raw data access is wrong and is endemic to the whole Climate Fraudit movement.
    2. McI’s analyses are fatally flawed (click here and here for Tom P’s analysis) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a massive Hockey Stick. McI’s analysis was bad science and it had consequences. If McI can’t stand up and admit that, he’s not much of a scientist or a human being.
    3. IPCC, Mann and others DID NOT rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the latest RC post has a summary of all the other studies w/o the Yamal data–and STILL have been able to make their “warmest decade in 2000 years” claim with its data removed.

    Funny how the “deniers” make up facts, and all you can do is argue about how many times the word “Yamal” was used.

  47. #48 sod
    October 4, 2009

    Refusing to publish raw data is wrong and is endemic to the whole AGW movement.

    it is not wrong. how do you come to the conclusion, that everyone has to give away raw data for free?

    Yamal’s results are fatally flawed (one tree–YAD061– skewed the entire curve) and reconstructions using far larger samples show a flat temperature trend. Intentional fraued or good faith error, this was bad science and it had consequences. If Briffa can’t stand up and admit that, he’s not much of a scientest or a human being.

    basically everything in this post is wrong. starting with “tree YAD061″. the tree is named YAD06. the 1 identifies the core.

    the other approach is not “much larger” and doesn t show a flat curve either. (the merged dataset shows the same behaviour as the BRIFFA sample alone after 1990). neither fraud nor errors have been shown.

    and the conclusion you draw about a person you don t know go at least one step too far.

    IPCC, Mann and others DID rely on Yamal to convince others of global warming trends. Even the lastest UMASS meta-proxy study used it–and wouldn’t have been able to make their “warmest decade in 2000 years” claim with its data removed.

    the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data.

  48. #49 Dave Andrews
    October 4, 2009

    Michael,

    “The real one involves continuous evolution of knowledge, with later researchers trying to improve on what preceded them. “

    No disagreement with that. The difference in this area is the political spin being put upon the science. Climate science no longer operates in the realm of ‘normal science’ it is promoted in the cause of an ‘agenda’

  49. #50 Dave Andrews
    October 4, 2009

    Deep climate,

    Just what is the problem with using crack and cocaine in the same sentence?

  50. #51 pough
    October 4, 2009

    Climate science no longer operates in the realm of ‘normal science’ it is promoted in the cause of an ‘agenda’

    So if any science is promoted in the cause of an agenda, it ceases to be true? Hmm. That’s a crazy, unpleasant fantasy world you live in. No wonder you’re so bewildered.

  51. #52 stonefish
    October 4, 2009

    There is one minor mistake in the RealClimate post. In his post McIntyre did not “declare” that Briffa cherry picked, rather he strongly implied it.

    Having used the methods of the creationists, they now appear to be moving on to the methods of the Holocaust Deniers.

  52. #53 Deep Climate
    October 4, 2009

    #50
    I couldn’t get through some spam filters with that phrase (at RC for one). So I just started taking out. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.

    #45, #52
    The point of my post (at top of deepclimate.org) is that McIntyre did more than imply “cherry-picking”. I don’t think Gavin was wrong when you look at the whole record.

    RP jr is doing his usual act: attacking the climate scientists he supposedly agrees with for a minor or non-existent transgression, and refusing to criticize contrarians like McIntyre and McKitrick even when they are making outrageous baseless accusations.

  53. #54 Dave Andrews
    October 4, 2009

    sod,

    “the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data.”

    Which particular “hockey stick” are you talking about here? The discredited Mann ‘hockey stick’ the now suspect Briffa ‘hockey stick’ or the numerous derivative ‘hockey sticks’ base on the former two?

  54. #55 dhogaza
    October 4, 2009

    Davey boy, if they don’t contain the tree ring data from Yamal, they do not depend on the Yamal data.

    Gosh, that’s simple.

  55. #56 Generic Denialist
    October 4, 2009

    Scientists are hiding the raw data. We need the raw data.

    Therefore I demand that all satellite data is beamed directly into my brain, and I want to see all the Yamal tree data in binary code form, or the hockey stick is a fraud.

    I think we should also have access to the DNA sequence of all climate scientists in amino acid base pair format, just to be sure.

  56. #57 Stephen Gloor (Ender)
    October 4, 2009

    Generic Denialist – “Scientists are hiding the raw data. We need the raw data.”

    However you have missed a crucial point. The makers of the various operating systems may be also in on the conspiracy so you will need the source code to MS Windows if any of the analysis was done on a Windows machine and/or OSX10 or Solaris. Failure to provide such source code will be of course mean that the hockey stick shape is built into the operating system so therefore all of AGW will be proven wrong once again.

    Microsoft, Apple and Sun cough up your source code or risk being implicated in the AGW conspiracy.

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    October 4, 2009

    *Climate science no longer operates in the realm of ‘normal science’ it is promoted in the cause of an ‘agenda’*

    should more appropriately read:

    Climate change denial has never operated in the realm of ‘normal science’, because it has long been promoted in the cause of an ‘agenda’

    That`s more like it.

  58. #59 Alan D. McIntire
    October 4, 2009

    Gil juxtaposed the moon landing and global warming in a prior post. It reminded me of this:

    “Former astronaut speaks out on global warming”
    By Associated Press

    Sunday, February 15, 2009 –

    SANTA FE, N.M. – Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon
    and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans
    are causing global warming.

    “I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural
    effect,” said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next
    month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

    Schmitt contends that scientists “are being intimidated” if they disagree
    with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels,
    temperatures and sea levels.

    “They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they
    haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a
    human-caused global warming,” Schmitt said.
    Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a
    science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied
    geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology
    from Harvard University in 1964.

    In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.”

    – A. McIntire

  59. #60 Generic Denialist
    October 4, 2009

    There was no moon landing/walk.

    Astronauts know that if they don’t go along with the political consensus of the moon landing they loose their jobs with NASA.

    And potential astronauts know that admitting to being a moon landing skeptic is career suicide – that’s clear intimidation.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    October 5, 2009

    In my view Schmitt is full of… well, let me just say it rhymes.

    The only wafer-thin excuse for the denialists can grasp at is the “scientists cannot secure grants if they do not go along with the argument that humans are main driving force behind climate change”.

    The evidence procured? None. Not a shred. The fact is that scientists test hypotheses. These can be directed (e.g. We are testing the hypothesis that humans, through the combustion of fossil fuels, are the main driving force behind the current changes in climate) or neutral (e.g. we test the hypothesis that climate change is occurring within natural boundaries and that there are multiple forcings).

    Given that most of the sceptics accept that climate is changing, but believe so within ranges that are normal, and that other factors (the sun, natural cycles) are responsible, there is nothing remotely controversial about them applying for grants in the same way as all scientists do by applying straight forward hypotheses. Furthermore, there are many quite outspoken sceptics who are Professors or hold senior positions in research institutes. I do not seem them on the streets holding out caps begging for funds.

    The underlying message here is that sceptics are not doing much in the way of climate research, but are instead hounding the much larger body of scientists who believe that humans are the main drivers behind climate change. In my view, the reasoning is simple. As I have said before it is highly unlikely that the sceptics will ever win a scientific victory in this field, but that is not their aim. Their aim is to discredit AGW, and thus to spread doubt amongst the public and policymakers. As several have said on this thread, why don`t the sceptics get off of their butts and do their own comprehensive climate research? A few do, but it seems to me that most sceptics don`t. Instead, they harp away at the sidelines, claiming a big scientific victory when they poke a few holes in some are of climate change science undertaken by researchers who are actually doing the primary resesarch.

    Bear also in mind that many scientists in the denial camp are older researchers, a large number who are past their retirement or close to it. If you look at the publication of these older scientists before climate change become a focus of scientific interest, you will find that they have very poor or at best modest publication and citation records. So they were not doing much in the way of science even then.

    Finally, as Bernard and I have said, there are huge amounts of money sloshing around the denialasphere. Billions of dollars, in fact. many PR firms and think tanks are becoming rich on denial. Given that many of the prominent sceptics have appalling publication records over many years (and in their own fields that are not climate change related) the grant argument does not hold any weight. It is a desperate attempt to counter the fact that some of the prominent sceptics are closely associated with polluting industries or think tanks funded in part by fossil fuel industries who oppose regulations limiting C02 emissions. When I see some prominent sceptics writing papers in defence of the coal industry or a relaxation of pollution regulations and then venturing into climate science claiming that AGW is a myth or that warming is due to other factors, it should be patently obvious that their motivations are questionable at best. Yet the sceptics come across as all innocent where this is concerned, and have tried to counter with the grant story. I say: prove it.

  61. #62 el gordo
    October 5, 2009

    It may be of no great importance, but the IEA says human induced CO2 emissions are down 2.6% because of the financial crisis. It seems its the lowest in 40 years.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE58K2AN20090921

  62. #63 MarkB
    October 5, 2009

    Good post all-around. I’m glad some are exposing the rhetorical tactics of the “skeptic” crowd. McIntyre slings mud, and when the target calls him out for it, he pretends he didn’t do it. He strikes me as someone torn between trying to be relevant in science (many in his crowd have no such desire or propensity) and getting easy attention. If he engages in real objective science, assumes good faith on the part of others, submits his work for peer-review, and keeps issues in their proper context, he’s like any boring scientist in the field. If he makes highly-provocative statements to a desperate crowd of individuals eager to absorb “AGW is a hoax” rhetoric, he gets major political attention, which he seems to relish.

    “When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.”

    Any article accusing others of “lying” better first get their facts right. McIntyre’s proxies were all from a single location. What Briffa used (see his response) was from at least 3 different locations. So Briffa’s range is larger in this case.

    The scientific relevancy of this issue is summarized on the 2nd half of the Real Climate post.

  63. #64 Dappled Water
    October 5, 2009

    #64, whatever the case, I hope he continues to do so.

  64. #65 el gordo
    October 5, 2009

    ‘I do feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is one day going to be looked upon as a low point in this debate. Climate change is important, but so too are other values, and freedom of expression is among them.’

    Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus
    22 July 2008

  65. #66 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    RE: this quote by Steve M appended to Biffa’s response:

    > On a closing note, as I said from the outset, I did not say or imply that Briffa had “purposely selected” individual cores into the chronology and clearly said otherwise. Unfortunately for himself, Briffa’s tactic of withholding data and obstructing requests for data has backfired on him, as some people (not myself) have interpreted this as evidence of malfeasance…

    Is it wrong that I find that similar in tone to the reporting of the Obama “birther” wingnuts?

  66. #67 Dave
    October 5, 2009

    @el gordo

    > freedom of expression is among them

    Freedom of expression is all well and good. On the other hand, I have every right to eject someone from my reading group if they don’t read the book under discussion, but instead turn up every week with a megaphone and spend an hour shouting that the earth is flat.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    October 5, 2009

    Is this not a science blog? Do science and banning coexist?

    Posted by: Girma | [October 5, 2009 6:18 AM

    OK, Girma Orssengo, if you’re going to be so high-and-mighty about this being a “science blog”, perhaps you will finally capitulate and deign to answer the very basic questions about the statistical and scientific fundamentals [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1962957) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1964372).

    You have been asked dozens of times now to do so: if you’re so precious about scientific integrity, you’ll rush to answer immediately, and fill in the yawning chasms of your own scientific oversight.

    If you can’t answer the questions, then you will automatically have your answer to the purile question that you put to Tim Lambert.

  68. #69 Martin Vermeer
    October 5, 2009

    > Don’t you know, global warming is one of the three all-time
    > super-hoaxes? The other two are the Moon landing and the Theory > of Evolution. ;)

    Well, the Moon landing clearly is a hoax. I mean, would you believe that those bootprints were put there by the only industrialized nation incapable of extending proper health care to its own people?

  69. #70 Tim Lambert
    October 5, 2009

    Girma is only allowed to post to the thread where Bernard J has asked his questions. Please do not respond to him on other threads, as will delete responses as well as his comments.

  70. #71 Bob Levinstein
    October 5, 2009

    So let me get this straight:

    1. Refusing to release raw data temperature (Jones & Wiley) or tree-ring data (Briffa) so conclusions can be studied and verified is the same as protecting computer software trade secrets?

    2. A scientest who looks at this series:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world/
    and can’t tell that one tree is an outlier is worth defending?

    3. For all the talk about “actual temperature data”, why isn’t clear to you that a global temperature measurement system that isn’t accurate within a couple of degrees
    (NOAA’s standards) can’t measure changes on the order of .1 degree per decade?

    4. And besides, we’re not talking about “actual” temperature data, we’re talking about “adjusted” temperature data with the source data generally unavailable and the adjustments not explained. (And gee, all of the “adjustments” just happen to exaggerate the warming trend, what a shock).

    But despite all of this–and the fact that none of the models have come remotely close to predicting anything–the science is “settled” right?

  71. #72 Mark
    October 5, 2009

    1) Yes, it can be. What’s the difference between protecting a slice of code that says “if c -gt 42)” and this?
    2) WUWT trolling
    3) It can. A ruler with 1mm markings can measure the wavelength of red laser light at 600nm. It just takes intelligence to work out how.
    3) All temperature is adjusted. The WUWT site spawned a complete US-wide manhunt to show how unadjusted temperatures from US sites would be wrong.

    > and the fact that none of the models have come remotely close to predicting anything

    Where did you get that idea from? Hansen’s 1988 (?) paper predicted that a large volcanic eruption would have a certain effect on the global temperature record. Pinatubo erupted. Prediction was shown to be right.

  72. #73 bi -- IJI
    October 5, 2009

    Poor, poor misunderstood McIntyre. He’s been misunderstood as insinuating that Briffa was committing fraud, even though he assures us he never once did that, but still, he tells us that it’s only natural, nay, it’s only right and proper that he’s being misunderstood!

  73. #74 dhogaza
    October 5, 2009

    So let me get this straight:
    Refusing to release raw data temperature (Jones & Wiley) or tree-ring data (Briffa) so conclusions can be studied and verified is the same as protecting computer software trade secrets?

    When Briffa, Jonens and Wiley don’t own the right to redistribute the raw data then, yes, it’s exactly the same.

    Why would you think it’s not?

    The Russians shared their data with Briffa, what’s your evidence that, back when Briffa 2000 had been published, that the Russians had also granted Briffa the right to redistribute the raw data?

    Without hard evidence of this, your screeching boils down to insisting that Briffa should’ve ignored the Russians’ right to their own data.

    Now skip forward to 2008 … one of the Russians is a co-offer on Briffa et al 2008 (hat tip to Rabett’s blog). And subsequently the raw data became available. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s the kind of tit-for-tat tradeoff that makes sense to academics, though, “we’ll co-author a paper and then yes, I (the Russkie), will publicly archive our data”).

    Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or *you* demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit.

  74. #75 dhogaza
    October 5, 2009

    A scientest who looks at this series: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/mirror-posting-yad06-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world/ and can’t tell that one tree is an outlier is worth defending?

    Except one working scientist has already shown that this conclusion is false, and Briffa himself is already working on a detailed response.

    Why does your skepticism not extend to being skeptical of McI, who has no relevant credentials in the field? Why do you accept as gospel McI’s claims of fraud while being “skeptical” of the work of real scientists?

  75. #76 pough
    October 5, 2009

    So let me get this straight:

    You were fine until right after this part.

  76. #77 sod
    October 5, 2009

    i am very busy at the moment, but spent my break reading [WuWt.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/04/trees-named-tyranny-and-freedom-which-tree-in-the-photo-below-is-the-older-one/#comments)

    the comments are a blast. everybody who ever saw a tree in his life, thinks that he is an expert on Siberian larchs.

    take a look and enjoy the show.

    ps: my first thought was this one: when the nice tree on the left is that young, would it be chosen to take a sample?

  77. #78 el gordo
    October 5, 2009

    The MBH98 paper showed unprecedented 20th century warming, so McIntyre and Kitrick tried to discredit it. Nothing wrong with that, except that climate change has become a very big political issue.

    Briffa has been made unofficial captain of the ‘hockey team’ and, as he is one of the lead authors of AR4 along with Overpeck, it’s a surprise they left out the graph from the SPM.

    On a slightly different bent, it appears this northern hemisphere winter in the US will be mind-numbing. Because El Nino is weak the hot money is moving towards an increase in consumption of fuel oil. There is a 75% chance that this will come to pass.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE

  78. #79 Dave Andrews
    October 5, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    “Finally, as Bernard and I have said, there are huge amounts of money sloshing around the denialasphere. Billions of dollars, in fact.

    If I thought your grasp on reality was tenuous before, I now realise it is non-existent.

  79. #80 Michael
    October 5, 2009

    Fancy that, Dave Andrews offers a fact-free snark.

  80. #81 MarkB
    October 5, 2009

    “And if you think that Pielke is likely to behave like a decent human being and apologize, you don’t know him.”

    I just read through that thread. Pielke Jr. appears very good at the art of dodge and strawman construction (not unlike Pielke Sr.).

    Take for example Lambert’s comment:

    “RPJr isn’t convincing the skeptics of the errors of their ways because he isn’t trying to.

    For instance, he’ll criticize Gore, but he he won’t breathe a word of criticism for George Will.”

    Notice how Pielke Jr. spins this…

    “The question of why I don’t cheer-lead for a side in the climate debate has come up before….Tim Lambert is disappointed that I do not cheer for his team”

    Lambert is clearly criticizing Pielke Jr. for never or rarely attempting to correct obvious skeptic errors or calling out their poor behavior. Pielke Jr. attempted to morph the criticism to the equivalent of Lambert criticizing him for not commenting on the scientific community approvingly, an entirely different charge that Lambert isn’t making. He completely dodges the charge that he rarely criticizes skeptics. It’s understandable why the self-described “honest broker” does this.

  81. #82 el gordo
    October 5, 2009

    Pielke Jr. has a natural bias, yet prefers to sit on the fence. This is uncomfortable, but academics have the right to remain silent.

    Sceptics and deniers are, after all, just a few voices arguing about trees in the Siberian wilderness.

  82. #83 Jeff Harvey
    October 5, 2009

    Dave Andrews, with his Fox news view of the world intact, must apparently and sincerely believe that the denial industry is underfunded.

    Clearly, Dave, you have your head stuck up your posterior too much if you do not know how much corporate money has been invested in denial. If you can read – just – I suggest you check up on who funds the very large number of right wing think tanks who focus on issues dealing with environmental regulation, as well as astroturf lobby groups (there are thousands of them), the Public Relations Industry and the like. Some PR firms were set up actually on the basis of lobbying against environmental regulations, and have become multi-billion dollar industries in their own right. Also go to your library and check out how much money the fossil fuel and automobile industries alone spend lobbying members of Congress each year, much of it on environmental regulation. See how much the fossil fuel lobby donates to certain politicians as well as to some scientists.

    What I find amusing about your posts is that it is clear that, unlike me, you have not read anything about lobbying and about politics in the environmental arena. I have read volumes of information and researched it – hence why I am invited every year to give lectures at universities about the interface between politics and the environment. It appears that you, by contrast, peruse a few skeptic web sites for your worldview (judging by the simplicity of your posts on this and other threads) and that you castigate those who rain on your parade.

    It is clear that you do not know very much about a lot of issues, and your way of showing this is to write witless remarks attacking not the facts as they stand, but the people who are writing them. Your posts have, without exception, been shallow and without empirical depth.

  83. #84 Mark Byrne
    October 5, 2009

    Jeff, I’d suggest anyone who doubts the extreme levels of spending of big coal and big oil to buy power, then they should run for Congress as a little experient.

    Dave Andrews has proved himself yet again an unending source of consistent bunk.

  84. #85 Chris O'Neill
    October 5, 2009

    El gordo/gullibo:

    Briffa has been made unofficial captain of the ‘hockey team’ and, as he is one of the lead authors of AR4 along with Overpeck, it’s a surprise they left out the graph from the SPM.

    They didn’t leave out the words:

    “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}”

    and they didn’t leave out the reference to the graph.

  85. #86 mr irony
    October 5, 2009

    “Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or you demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit.”

    That is an interesting take. According to ‘Nature’ (who I know you respect a great deal):

    Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions.

    One could almost make the case that Nature thinks that data should be made available just because someone demands it. Oddly, they say ‘readers’. They don’t say editors or reviewers (or even subscribers). Anyone who reads. Imagine that. So, I’m curious how dhogaza could come to a conclusion that is at such odds with the editors of Nature… Anyone want to bet that we will get an explanation? Now, not all publications have such stringent requirements. But it seems odd to use the word ‘bullshit’ to describe a scenario where authors are required to provide materials and data and associated protocols to readers, doesn’t it?

  86. #87 Deep Climate
    October 5, 2009

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/06/delayed-oscillator-on-divergence/

    Introducing “Delayed Oscillator” or D.O. as I call this new blogger. Some key quotes:

    In other words, Yamal’s “enormous HS blade”, said by McIntyre to be like “crack cocaine” for paleoclimatoligists, is much reduced in DO’s first version, using a standard RCS implementation instead of McIntyre’s home-grown version.

    And DO’s conclusion:

    my quick review of these data here shows that including Khadyta River raw data in the Yamal chronology does not result in a more accurate nor precise understanding of past temperatures in the region.

    Yep, he actaully went and compared the two series to the corresponding gridcell temp, and found the new Khadyta series showed modern divergence from 1970 on, while Yamal tracked quite well.

    Read my summary above, or dive into the originals here:

    http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yamal-emulation-i/
    http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yamal-emulation-ii-divergence/

  87. #88 Michael
    October 5, 2009

    How ironic, mr irony, that you didn’t represent the Nature data guidelines accurately.

    Nature does allow for restrictions on access to data, but that these must be made clear in the orginal submission.

    Oh, and just in case you’re trying to imply something about the Briffa paper that McI has been waxing stupid about, Nature implemented this policy in 2007.

  88. #89 nanny_govt_sucks
    October 6, 2009

    …. rather it shows that those trees aren’t good proxies for temperature.

    Like the Polar Urals aren’t good proxies for temperature, right? Except they were (Briffa 1995), then they weren’t (Briffa 2000). Hmmm….

  89. #90 Nathan
    October 6, 2009

    nanny

    What’s so strange about a scientist, 5 years later, changing their mind? It would only be a problem if the scientist simultaneously held two opposing views.

  90. #91 Nathan
    October 6, 2009

    Deep Climate

    That’s quite interesting. Have you linked DO’s stuff at Climate Audit? I am sure they’d LOVE to hear about it. Is DO a dendro? I would post it there but for some reason when I post there it fails… And it’s an awful place to hang out.

  91. #92 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    “Data has value, expecting it to be given away for free just because McI or you demand that it be given away for free is just bullshit.”

    That is an interesting take. According to ‘Nature’ (who I know you respect a great deal):
    Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions.

    One could almost make the case that Nature thinks that data should be made available just because someone demands it.

    They’re not asking it being given for free. They’re saying if you want to reap the value of being published in Nature (which is VERY HIGH) you have to agree to make data valuable.

    Sort of like a restaurant saying if you want to eat, you have to pay money for your meal.

    Which is not like a restaurant saying “your money is worthless”.

    What you’ve done is essentially proved the opposite of what you wanted to prove: data is very valuable. In science, it’s a bit like currency in the real world.

    So, I’m curious how dhogaza could come to a conclusion that is at such odds with the editors of Nature…

    The editorial policy of Nature does not triumph law. In the case of Briffa, the data wasn’t his, and he had no legal right to make it available.

    Nature’s recourse if presented with a paper where the author doesn’t own the data, therefore can’t archive it, is simple: they can refuse to publish it. If they do, anyway, it still doesn’t triumph over law.

    I happen to believe in the rule of law. McI, you, Watts, and others don’t. Fuck you, I say.

    (It just happens that I make my living on my intellectual property so perhaps I more fully understand my rights in that property than you do)

  92. #93 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Like the Polar Urals aren’t good proxies for temperature, right? Except they were (Briffa 1995), then they weren’t (Briffa 2000). Hmmm….

    Research moves on, therefore science is worthless, while Ayn Rand is the true child of God, infallible in her fiction which is much more worthwhile than truth.

  93. #94 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Oh, and just in case you’re trying to imply something about the Briffa paper that McI has been waxing stupid about, Nature implemented this policy in 2007.

    Obviously, since Briffa didn’t anticipate this in 2000, he’s guilty of scientific fraud.

    McI and friends have pulled this several times regarding published papers not meeting standards set down years after publication (Lonnie Thompson, for instance).

    Despicable.

  94. #95 nanny_govt_sucks
    October 6, 2009

    Nathan,dhogaza,

    Funny that some tree ring chronologies are temperature proxies, some are not, and some apparently can switch. Perhaps this is less about scientists moving on and more about the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies.

  95. #96 Nathan
    October 6, 2009

    Nanny

    It isn’t funny or strange or unusual. It’s perfectly reasonable.
    And in the example you gave it may be that Briff thought the tree rings formed a good temp proxy, but then discovered that they didn’t.

    “Perhaps this is less about scientists moving on and more about the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies.”
    Perhaps this is more about you not having any idea what you’re talking about.

  96. #97 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    Well we already know why nanny wants AGW to be a conspiracy and false. They have the religious belief that any involvement of government is bad and cannot lead to anything good.

    Maybe Grima’s got his little brother involved.

  97. #98 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > The MBH98 paper showed unprecedented 20th century warming, so McIntyre and Kitrick tried to discredit it. Nothing wrong with that, except that climate change has become a very big political issue.

    Nope, the thing that was wrong with it was that the discredit was itself far more flawed than the paper it was discrediting.

    Eff all about how it’s become political.

    And it’s weird that an AGW denialist fluffer like you accuse the survival of the MBH98 paper and the dismissal of MM’s discredit to politics when the entire reason for the MM paper was political: to delay political movement on an issue for the interests of monied powers.

    Accuse others of what you’re doing is a very boring and standard tactic.

  98. #99 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    Nanny, you ninny:

    If a tree lives 10 years and you have to select 20 trees to cover 100 years, this means you have 20 opportunities for calibration error.

    If a tree lives 100 years and you have to select 1 tree to cover 100 years, this means you have 1 opportunity for calibration error.

    Ergo, you should pick long-lived trees.

    McI picked short-lived trees.

    Guess whether he gave any thought to calibration errors between trees.

Current ye@r *