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 Mark Byrne
    October 6, 2009

    Gordo, why waste yours and our time with this junk:

    >”The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications”

    Can’t you piece together why this commentary is worthless bunk? (Go check the source of the “wiki’ graphic, was it from wiki mystery data?)

    It is so much worse than useless.

  2. #2 nanny_govt_sucks
    October 6, 2009

    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.

    And if your tree is not a temperature proxy then your error is 100%

    Here’s a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

    Until that question is answered all the tree ring proxies in the world won’t mean squat.

  3. #3 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Here’s a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

    Until that question is answered all the tree ring proxies in the world won’t mean squat.

    It’s been answered, you silly little cut-and-paste WUWTdroid.

  4. #4 pough
    October 6, 2009

    Wasn’t that question answered on the same day that thermometers were invented?

    You know what would be interesting, though? If there were trees that grew in places where the temperature was the limiting factor in their growth. Then those trees could, at least to a certain degree (no pun intended), be used to figure out what past temperatures were like. Of course, you’d have to take all factors into account and examine the data to make sure you’re getting rid of as much noise as possible to pull out the actual signal. Too bad scientists never think to do things like that.

  5. #5 Majorajam
    October 6, 2009

    Here’s a better question ninny: are scientists morons that just happened to breeze through undergraduate courses you couldn’t pass at the point of a gun before earning PhDs and devoting their lives’ work to highly specialized inquiry within broad fields of science you couldn’t find with two hands if they were your arse. Until that question is answered all the inane second-rate second guessing in the world won’t mean squat.

  6. #6 mr irony
    October 6, 2009

    “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.”

    (I assume you meant ‘available’)

    I didn’t even get that Nature doesn’t think that the author could charge for the data. I just interpret that that Nature is saying that authors should provide the data without preconditions to readers (again, not editors or reviewers, just readers). Given that, it hardly seems like bullshit that a reader of a paper might ask for the data. If they get a reply that it will cost $XXX, that wouldn’t seem unreasonable, as long as everyone knew the cost ahead of time and everyone had to pay the same price.

    “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)”

    I missed the part where I was advocating overturning the rule of law. Perhaps you could clarify that for me? I just think that it is reasonable for people to want to see the data that went into a published scientific paper. You think it is bullshit. I think that is an odd point of view (but given you just saying F*** you and I expect a F*** yourself is probably coming my way again, so maybe it isn’t so odd that you think so). You know, Nature isn’t the only publication that requires that data be made available. Not all do, but there are several. The US governments policies on availability of data from federally funded studies is also pretty clear. If I thought it would make you happy I would do some research on this for you (but, to be honest, I really don’t think it would make you happy. You might tell me to go f*** myself if I did that).

    For some reason, I get the impression that some people want to discuss this and you just want to kick anyone who disagrees with you.

  7. #7 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    I missed the part where I was advocating overturning the rule of law. Perhaps you could clarify that for me? I just think that it is reasonable for people to want to see the data that went into a published scientific paper. You think it is bullshit.

    I don’t think it’s bullshit, simply that authors don’t always have control over the datasets they are using.

    When they don’t, they do not have the legal right to make that data available.

    Science rejected McI’s requests because Briffa had already released every bit of work that was *his*. McI wasn’t bright enough, apparently, to go ask the Russians for the underlying tree core data.

    That’s not Briffa’s problem.

    You know, Nature isn’t the only publication that requires that data be made available. Not all do, but there are several.

    Actually, your understanding of what’s required isn’t entirely accurate, not surprising since you’ve lifted it from McI, who himself clearly doesn’t understand.

    Here’s the actual requirement for Science (thanks to Eli Rabett):

    Data availability After publication, all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. We recognize that discipline-specific conventions or special circumstances may occasionally apply, and we will consider these in negotiating compliance with requests. Any concerns about your ability to meet Science’s requirements must be disclosed and discussed with an editor.

    Obviously, the “special circumstance” in this case is that Briffa didn’t have the right to distribute the data, and all this was negotiated to Science’s satisfaction.

    Indeed, Science’s response to McI makes it clear:

    They argued that Osborn and Briffa 2006 did not use the Yamal measurement data, but only the chronology and I should contact the “original authors” for the measurement data. The source of the chronology was, of course, Briffa 2000. I wrote Tim Osborn and asked him for the data and he said that he didn’t have it. So I wrote Keith Briffa and he stonewalled me. I wrote back to Science rather crossly about the nonsense.

    The “original authors” referred to in Science’s response are the *russians* who own and control the data. McI wasn’t smart enough to figure that out, and y’all are crying a river over it.

    The US governments policies on availability of data from federally funded studies is also pretty clear.

    What’s clear is US policy for federally-funded studies varies. You can’t get the original data on the Mike shot, much less modern fusion warheads.

  8. #8 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Oh, gosh, Mr Irony, look at this caveat in the Nature requirement:

    Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission.

    The irony of it all …

  9. #9 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Oh, gosh, Mr Irony, look at this respose Briffa sent to McI when McI asked for the data in 2006 (McI’s claim that he’s been asking for it for TEN YEARS is a little white lie):

    Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues – will pass on your message to them.

    cheers, Keith

    Oh, gosh, looky, looky, Briffa passed on Steve’s request to his Russian colleagues and TOLD STEVE he would do so. And if he didn’t? McI knew who to ask at this point …

    McI is spewing shit.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Here’s McI’s note that Briffa responded to (more thanks to Rabett Run):

    Dear Dr Briffa,
    On April 28, 2006, I asked Tim Osborn for the measurement data for Polar Urals, Tornetrask, Yamal and Taimyr sites, supporting the chronologies used in Osborn and Briffa [2006]. Osborn says that he does not have the data, but did not say that you didn’t have the data. Do you have the data? If so would you please comply with the request below and voluntarily provide the measurement data used in Briffa 2000, and relied upon in Osborn and Briffa 2006, for these sites.
    Thank you for your attention. Steve McIntyre

    So, the chronology is clear:

    1. McI asks Briffa
    2. Briffa says, it’s not mine, I’ll pass along the requests to my Russian colleagues
    3. Apparently nothing happens (maybe the Russians, after reading CA, decided “nyet!”)
    4. McI publicly accuses Briffa of stonewalling, withholding data, not being in compliance of publication policy, blah blah blah.

    And people wonder why right-minded folk think McI is despicable.

  11. #11 Bart Verheggen
    October 6, 2009

    Further on how McIntyre is often misunderstood, I assembled some quotes of his, which seem to vary between thinly veiled insinuations of fraud, and retractions of those statements after the damage is done: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/mcintyres-role-in-the-latest-teapot-tempest/

  12. #12 nanny_govt_sucks
    October 6, 2009

    are scientists morons that just happened to breeze through undergraduate courses

    … like statistics?

    “I am not a statistician” – Michael Mann

  13. #13 pough
    October 6, 2009

    mr irony wrote:

    For some reason, I get the impression that some people want to discuss this and you just want to kick anyone who disagrees with you.

    How ironic. I get the impression that the relevant scientists have spent decades “discussing” this just fine, but when their results pointed towards a change in climate that necessitates action, entire websites popped up for the express purpose of kicking anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what.

  14. #14 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Ninny, everyone who gets a PhD in the physical scientists gets a healthy dose of statistics as part of their education. This does not make them a professional statistician (what Mann says) but does not mean they’re ignorant of statistics, either.

  15. #15 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    RPJr is a prick.

    But then, everyone here with triple-digit IQ already knew that …

  16. #16 mr irony
    October 6, 2009

    “I don’t think it’s bullshit, simply that authors don’t always have control over the datasets they are using.”

    I’m sorry. I guess I misunderstood. The way you presented yourself, it certainly seemed like you thought that asking authors for their data was an outlandish request. Now I get you… You think that it is perfectly reasonable. I’m glad we agree. When you referred to me trying to overthrow the rule of law, I had the impression that you were having a different conversation, perhaps with someone else. You mentioned my understanding wasn’t complete:

    “Actually, your understanding of what’s required isn’t entirely accurate, not surprising since you’ve lifted it from McI, who himself clearly doesn’t understand. Here’s the actual requirement for Science (thanks to Eli Rabett)”

    I have to confess, that confused me. I actually haven’t read anything that McI has written on the current subject. I also didn’t mention anything about Science. But, thanks for quoting Eli Rabett anyway. Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can’t share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well? Certainly there are some funding bodies who require it, but it seems like two of the most prestigious publications seem to think that sharing data, if at all possible, is a requirement for publication. That certainly would lead one to believe that sharing data is important, wouldn’t it?

  17. #17 mr irony
    October 6, 2009

    “How ironic. I get the impression that the relevant scientists have spent decades “discussing” this just fine, but when their results pointed towards a change in climate that necessitates action, entire websites popped up for the express purpose of kicking anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what.”

    What part did you think was ironic? That a guy who said “bullshit” and then said “F*@$ you” to me because it seemed like I disagreed with him seemed like he really just wanted to fight and not talk like someone who wasn’t slavering on themselves?

  18. #18 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can’t share data, the data should be shared.

    What version of “should” are you using, mr.

    Is it “you should do it, even though you don’t have to” or “you should do it because we tell you to”?

    Also note it isn’t Briffa’s data to give.

    Also note that copyright says you get your right to protect your work in the public eye, but though that means you should release your source code, Microsoft and many other companies think that is a *terrible* idea and refuse.

  19. #19 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > McI publicly accuses Briffa of stonewalling, withholding data, not being in compliance of publication policy, blah blah blah.

    A publication policy, please note, that didn’t come into effect until _*five years*_ after the publication.

    No ex posto facto laws is generally the case, isn’t it..?

  20. #20 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > And if your tree is not a temperature proxy then your error is 100%

    a) if wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets.

    So WHAT THE FICK does that “if” mean.

    If you want to use that, show that the trees are not proxies for temperature.

    Go ahead.

    We’ll wait.

    Now, IF the trees are proxies for temperature, you can find that out by analysis. Do you think that *maybe* the people who are making scientific papers for peer review in august publications like “Science” and “Nature” have already done this?

    Have YOU?

  21. #21 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > Here’s a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

    Here’s one for the fkwit in the back:

    Are the only temperature proxies thermometers?

  22. #22 Dave Andrews
    October 6, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    First I have never seen FOX news and deplore Murdoch’s approach to the media. FYI, as an example only, I have been a reader of the Guardian for over 40 years. (Though I have to add that it is not the paper it once was :-) )

    Second, your appeal to ‘authority’ in relation to your academic work cuts no ice. Plenty of professors have been shown to repeatedly get things wrong, just like other folk.

  23. #23 Dave Andrews
    October 6, 2009

    Mark & dhogaza,

    Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

  24. #24 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    Duck’s Arse, all your responses are slathered deep in hysterical blathering.

    All just innuendo and fact-less gossip, because you have no facts on your side, so you must pound on the table.

  25. #25 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    > Plenty of professors have been shown to repeatedly get things wrong, just like other folk.

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    Next time Ducky posits AGW is wrong because of what one professor of geology says, shall we remind him of this?

  26. #26 Mark
    October 6, 2009

    Shorter Duck:

    That you have made many rebuttals to arguments here shows that you must be desperate.

    Yeah, right.

    Based on that, you must agree that your AGW denial is well stuffed, since your people still yibber on about how it’s the sun wot does it.

    Desperate or what?

  27. #27 Michael
    October 6, 2009

    Dave Andrews”

    Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation

    Correct.

    They are becomoing desperately annoyed with the morons, such as yourself, who are aghast at the ‘tone’ etc, of the people who are reposnding to the dissembling of McIntyre, while having nothing much to say on the said dissembling and associated screeching of ‘fraud’ throughout the sheep-like denial-o-sphere.

    And just how many times in comments will Dave ‘ducky’ Andrews tell us he reads The Guardian?? And what the hell is this meant to signify???

  28. #28 trrll
    October 6, 2009

    Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can’t share data, the data should be shared.

    Most scientists will share data with other scientists as a professional courtesy, although they are not obliged to do so unless it is required by contractual obligations related to funding or publication. One obvious exception is if it isn’t your data. If somebody else collected the data and gave you access to analyze it, you wouldn’t be able to redistribute it, any more than you are allowed to make copies for all your friends of that movie you rented from Blockbuster.

  29. #29 pough
    October 6, 2009

    What part did you think was ironic?

    The part where the discussion you want to focus on only exists because of people who are willing to make things up, exaggerate trivialities or (McIntyre’s specialty) string together non-related truths in a misleading way to imply fraud – all because they want to “(kick) anyone who disagrees with the idea that all business should be free to do as they please no matter what”.

    So in essence, you want to discuss FUD initiated by – um – kickers, and you are being “kicked”. In my opinion, the scientists do not deserve what they get from McIntyre and you do deserve what you are getting from dhogaza. Isn’t it ironic? Just a bit?

  30. #30 pough
    October 6, 2009

    Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

    Might I suggest that you switch to saying stupid, wrong things over and over and over again? That way, you can be sure you’ll never get intemperate responses. No, sir. None. Never an intemperate response to repeated inanity. That’s not the way things work anywhere on planet Earth.

  31. #31 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Might I say that your intemperate responses are beginning to suggest a hint of desperation.

    May I suggest that I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think?

  32. #32 dhogaza
    October 6, 2009

    Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can’t share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well?

    Yes or no, it’s good to see you acknowledge the fact that Briffa could not do what McI insists he should’ve done, because yes indeed, there are strict legal reasons why you can’t give away OTHER PEOPLE’s data.

    That should not be hard to understand.

    As far as the general principle goes, many things in science and other professions are changing along with technology. 20 years ago asking that all data used in the creation of a scientific paper be put up in a public database or site on the internet would’ve been and impossible requirement. The standard seems to have moved to journals often requiring it, with caveats regarding special cases where for some reason it’s not practical or doable. Judging Briffa 2000’s not abiding by today’s standards is unfair. No, dishonest. Briffa 2006 apparently met Science’s requirements. It’s their call (Science) not McI’s as to whether or not he did.

  33. #33 Majorajam
    October 6, 2009

    Ha! Ninny thinks undergraduate statistics courses qualify one as a statistician.

    Is that the source of your novel ideas about paleoclimatology, ninny? Some buddy of yours drew you a Venn diagram and went on to divulge that bone headed climatologists think trees are thermometers? Silly scientists! What a bunch of thickos!

    There are too few of you on the right side of what’s right ninny. Keep up the good work bringing light to the masses.

  34. #34 mr irony
    October 6, 2009

    >>Everything that we seem to be reading is giving me the impression that unless there is some strict legal reason for why an author can’t share data, the data should be shared. Is that your impression as well?

    >Yes or no, it’s good to see you acknowledge the fact that Briffa could not do what McI insists he should’ve done, because yes indeed, there are strict legal reasons why you can’t give away OTHER PEOPLE’s data.

    So, now that its clear I’m not talking about Briffa or McI, but about sharing data… Is it important? Why? Nature and Science think so. At least, they think its important until they think it isn’t important. What changes? What is it about the reason for why you can’t share that makes it unimportant? Does the fact that some scientist in bureaucracy in Eastern Europe or university in England wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of a data set mean that sharing data isn’t important anymore?

  35. #35 TrueSceptic
    October 6, 2009

    133 Majorajam,

    You set the bar too high. Most Denydiots appear to lack the basics required for GCSE (UK high school) maths and physics. I don’t know if formal logic is a GCSE subject now but if so, they’d fail that too.

  36. #36 mr irony
    October 6, 2009

    >What version of “should” are you using, mr.

    >Is it “you should do it, even though you don’t have to” or “you should do it because we tell you to”?

    >Also note it isn’t Briffa’s data to give.

    >Also note that copyright says you get your right to protect your work in the public eye, but though that means you should release your source code, Microsoft and many other companies think that is a terrible idea and refuse.

    That is inane. Microsoft isn’t producing Windows in an attempt to prove that they have made a significant discovery about Computer Science. When Microsoft makes a claim that SQL Server is 30% faster than Oracle in their tests, you bet that everyone demands to know every detail of how that test was run. And if Microsoft doesn’t provide the details of that test, how much attention do you suppose their results should be given? Is Microsoft and copyright really the parallel you want to draw?

    Second, I’m saying it is the “you should do it, even though you don’t have to”. Because really, you should have to, or expect no one to pay any attention.

  37. #37 TrueSceptic
    October 6, 2009

    134 mr irony,

    Have you learnt nothing from the replies to your posts? It appears so. Go back, reread, and come back to us.

  38. #38 MarkB
    October 6, 2009

    Dave Andrews (#123)

    If tone is indicative of desperation, McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, etc. must be some of the most desperate individuals on the planet. Some of the general irritation is in response not only to the baseless assertions and insinuations from these individuals of “selection”, fraud, “hiding” data, and general misconduct, but to how so many individuals uncritically parrot these assertions, without the slightest indication of critical thought. You ask someone to provide evidence supporting McIntyre’s assertions and you get a link to one of McIntyre’s posts. Such zealotry is a bit scary.

  39. #39 Fran Barlow
    October 6, 2009

    [Poe's Law alert]

    You make an excellent point, Mark, about whether we can really trust thermometers as temperature proxies. It’s ver troubling.

    If only we had better proxies than thermometers to test temperature we could have confidence that thermometers really were all they were cracked up to be …

    Maybe if we got some really long lived trees … and then tested the thermometers against them …

    [/Poe's Law alert]

  40. #40 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    137 skeptic

    Actually, I have learned a lot. Not many people here are really interested in talking about, well, anything. There is a pretty fair number of people that like to argue. Although posters on a blog seems like self selecting sample, so no real surprise, right? Do claims of ‘copyright’ seem like intelligent reactions to you? Or perhaps you just want me to reread the posts that tell me to f*@# myself? As I appear to not be cheering along with the rest of the crowd here, it now seems like a good time to start blaming me for all the evils executed by all those you disagree with. Grab your effigy of choice.

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    October 7, 2009

    Mr Irony,

    I would like exactly to know what your point is? If you are saying that science should be more transparent, then I agree with you.

    But what annoys scientists (myself included) and others here is that you are trying to corner them on a point which is not as straightforward as you make it appear to be. My belief – and I think there is a lot of evidence for this – is that a large number of the sceptics are not interested in science but in promoting a political agenda, using science as a tool to do so. Whereas I think that most data should be available from the journal in which it is published, the issue here is that, in promoting a political, anti-regulatory agenda, many of the sceptics are desperate to find flaws in research showing evidence for the human fingerprint on the current warming (bearing in mind that a large number of studies have shown this to be the case). Like creationists, they will pour over the data until they find some flaws based on there own analyses and voila!.. they run screaming to the corporate media screaming victory, that they have slain the AGW beast!

    I also wonder why so many of the sceptics have such shoddy publication records in their own right. Why aren`t these people doing their own research and publishing it in respectable jounrals, instead of baying like hounds for the rest of the scientific community to cough up their results, then going over these with a fine toothed comb? And don`t give me that nonsense that it won`t be published because of bias amongst the peer-reviewers; if the science is rigid it will get through, I can assure you.

    Again, I am all for transparency but, given the association of many sceptics with right wing think tanks and web sites openly arguing against regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions, then it should be obvious that there is an different motive at play.

  42. #42 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    Jeff, I guess I would ask you the same question. What is your point? Is it that science should be more open, but the danger is that the wrong people will be able to get their hands on the data and pour over it? So, given that there are people who will want to do things with the data that you don’t like, we shouldn’t be transparent?

    You make what seems like a very innocent point, but I don’t see your point as being very innocent. Nature seems to think that data should be available without preconditions. Do you agree? Or do you think that preconditions are necessary to keep the wrong people from getting their hands on the data? Your last sentence seems pretty clear that the data should only be shared with people who have the correct motives.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    October 7, 2009

    Steve McIntyre has every opportunity to go and chop down some trees himself if he wants tree rings.

    But no – he’s not interested in original research to test his theories (whatever they are). All he wants is to be given other people’s work so he can do funny stuff with it and try to then show…something-or-other…

    McIntyre’s latest effort is mind-boggling – he chooses a special selection of tree rings to prove that the tree rings he has chosen are not a good proxy for known recent temperature variations. WTF?

  44. #44 Jeff Harvey
    October 7, 2009

    Mr Irony,

    You are one strange guy. It appears that the only reason you ventured into this thread was to get people to say exactly what you want them to say. When they don`t, you get all huffy and puffy. Let us say that everyone here agrees with every word you say and every breath you take, will that make you sleep any better?

    I said that I think that research data should be transparent. However, this in no way says that it will be used honestly. Of course, this is a price that comes with doing open science. But, as Vince Whirlwind said after your post, many of the so-called scientists in the denial camp strangely do not appear to do primary research. Instead they snipe away at the sidelines and forever criticize the work of others.

    Now let me ask you this: why do you think they do not do their own research and feel contented want to re-analyze research done by other scientists? At the same time, do you think they are thoroughly editing the work of researchers (even the few that do) who produce results that are in agreement with their own conclusions about the current warming?

    Again, science should be transparent. But you can see what happens if one negligible error is found in the work of a climate researcher – every right wing rag, blog site and pundit screams from the hilltops. What do you think of this behavior? A bit ironic, don`t you think Mr Irony?

  45. #45 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    Hmmm… I guess I don’t see what I said was strange or huffy or puffy. I did resent being told to f*&@ off because I was trying to overturn the rule of law (not all huffiness is created equal it seems. I’m curious what choice of words it is that I used that prompted you). Am I any different than yourself or anyone else who wants to hear people agree with them? I think that we shouldn’t trust anyone. I think data should be freely available. I think the reality is that very few people can be trusted. I don’t think you can be trusted. I think you would prefer to set yourself up in judgment of the motives of others and be the arbiter of their access to the data. If not yourself, at least, then your proxy. I distrust that most of all.

    I think this is actually pretty straightforward. You just don’t like the result. Well, too bad. You say you are a scientist, well then, figure out a way to deal with people whose motives you don’t trust that doesn’t set you up as their censor. You are pretty clever in that you keep saying that you think science should be more transparent, BUT… Well, do you think it should be more transparent or not? Do you think people should have to pass your “motives test” before they get access to the data? Ever worked as a lawyer?

    Yes, I think it is bad when the blogosphere latches on to some unproven point and assumes that years of work is overturned. I think that is ironic, actually. It is interesting when things actually do turn out to be ironic. Despite what you say to make yourself feel good, I don’t think that there is a monopoly on it…

  46. #46 WotWot
    October 7, 2009

    Do claims of ‘copyright’ seem like intelligent reactions to you?

    Does persistently ignoring and/or deliberately misconstruing the legitimate explanation of why Briffa is legally (and ethically) prevented from releasing the raw data seem like intelligent and honest reactions to you?

    Not. Even. Close.

    Are you seriously suggesting that Briffa break the law (and permanently destroy the trust his colleagues have in him) by releasing the data without the copyright holder’s permission? Because that is the only logical outcome of your ‘reasoning’ about this situation.

    And you wonder why you are copping a bit of flack here? Totally justified, IMHO.

  47. #47 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Do claims of ‘copyright’ seem like intelligent reactions to you?

    IF you don’t like copyright, get in touch with your senator to have their accord with the Berne Convention on Copyright repealed.

    This requires that

    a) everything is copyrighted that is written
    b) that your country accept the copyright rights of other countries’ authors

    PS how much can you learn about how Microsoft writes an “Enterprise level” database when their source code is closed?

    Claims of copyright do not seem to bother you there, though.

  48. #48 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > That is inane. Microsoft isn’t producing Windows in an attempt to prove that they have made a significant discovery about Computer Science.

    No, irony, THAT is insane.

    From the US constitution discussion on Wikipedia:

    _Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time”, or, in the alternative, “to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries”._

    So if Microsoft aren’t purporting to show a significant increase in the knowledge of computer science, why are they asking for copyright? Copyright is for the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.

    You’ve just said there is no advancement of useful knowledge there.

    Either

    a) you’re wrong

    b) microsoft is wrong

  49. #49 Observa
    October 7, 2009

    1) What data was required of Briffa when he pubished? Did he provide it?

    2) What extra data are now required?

    3) Did Briffa provide the required extra data?

    3) Is there more extra data requested?

    4) What processes to do critics want changed?

    5) Are critics prepared to pay more taxes to instigate changes across the board (not just for temperature reconstructions)?

    6) Has the extra “auditing” of data overturned any broad conclusions relating to climate reconstructions?

  50. #50 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    1) is actually 2 questions

    1b) Yes

    2) None. Ex posto facto. (or “Grandfather” clause”)

    3) Some.

    3) From Science? No.

    4) They want AGW to be wrong. That’s all the change they want.

    5) Course not

    6) No. Lots of blog comments, though

  51. #51 Observa
    October 7, 2009

    Appreciated, thanks.

  52. #52 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    the bits I didn’t answer, I don’t know, but the rest are from

    a) actual law

    b) Science’s new (2006) requests for full submission acceptance

    But the entire denialist wank-fest over this is rather like their circle-fluffing over the data that was delayed getting in to Nature by MBH’s 98 paper. The data was put in as an addendum but McI didn’t bother looking and just proclaimed that MBH were hiding the truth that there was no hockey stick because they hid the data.

    They didn’t.

    Same deal here.

    Depressingly the same.

  53. #53 Hal9000
    October 7, 2009

    It’s a standard ploy for those wishing to sh*tcan a thesis they don’t like to focus on some detail, inviting others to assume the whole edifice is flawed. I’m sure it would be possible to find some flaw with the construction of the Great Pyramid, and then, eyebrows raised, ask whether the edifice would stand for even six months.

    The issue here is not the science, it’s the politics. Deniers want to delay action as long as possible. Their true confreres are those in apartheid South Africa whose slogan was ‘not in my lifetime’. Apres moi, le deluge. Who cares about the future?

  54. #54 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    > Are you seriously suggesting that Briffa break the law (and permanently destroy the trust his colleagues have in him) by releasing the data without the copyright holder’s permission? Because that is the only logical outcome of your ‘reasoning’ about this situation.

    No. I actually think I went out of my way once to say I wasn’t saying that.

  55. #55 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    >IF you don’t like copyright, get in touch with your senator to have their accord with the Berne Convention on Copyright repealed.
    >This requires that
    >a) everything is copyrighted that is written b) that your country accept the copyright rights of other countries’ authors
    >PS how much can you learn about how Microsoft writes an “Enterprise level” database when their source code is closed? Claims of copyright do not seem to bother you there, though.

    Right. I am honestly amazed that you think there is a parallel between Microsoft saying “I invented this to make a profit. I don’t want anyone to steal my invention so I get a copyright” and a scientific author saying “I think I have a theory for how stuff works. Please believe me. I have a method and data that show I am correct. But, I have that method and data copyrighted, so you are just going to have to take my word for the fact that I am correct”.

    Seriously? That is the point you are trying to make? I am amazed. If Microsoft gets a copyright on SQLServer so that I can’t examine the underpinnings of how it works, I don’t care. I pay for the license and use it. Or I don’t. The documentation is either accurate or it isn’t. The point is not whether or not copyright should exist. The point is whether or not someone who hides their intellectual property behind copyright should then be able to publish a scientific paper and skirt what seems to be a reasonable expectation of sharing data and methods. They have every legal and ethical right to do so. My point is that the expected response to that should be that we aren’t interested in your results unless you share the data and methods. If you want to take that to go make a profit, good luck. If you want to convince us that have discovered something, then share the data and methods.

    Honestly, I really don’t understand comparing the use of copyright by a company trying to make money and someone trying to show that they have figured something out.

  56. #56 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Right. I am honestly amazed that you think there is a parallel between Microsoft saying “I invented this to make a profit….

    And scientists want to get paid.

    So why is it that copyright, which is to advance the useful arts, shouldn’t be applied when it comes to science that you admit is advancing the art of science, but must be allowed to be applied to something you say DOESN’T advance the useful art of computer science?

    Remember: just because your code is out there to be read doesn’t mean you can’t make a profit: you can read books, can’t you? Therefore you can copy books or learn from books. Yet publishers and authors STILL make a profit.

    So MS’s closed source IS just as much a “should be released” as scientific data. But why do you fight that idea?

  57. #57 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > No. I actually think I went out of my way once to say I wasn’t saying that.

    > Posted by: mr irony

    then what WERE you saying? Or is your name ironically ironic?

    The data isn’t Briffa’s to give. So Briffa can’t give it. So why your DEMAND that he do so?

    If he gives the data away he breaks copyright: IT ISN’T HIS DATA.

    So are you saying he shouldn’t have given away the data? Because that’s the only “not breaking the law” he can do. But if you do, then what are you complaining about?

  58. #58 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    >No, irony, THAT is insane.
    >From the US constitution discussion on Wikipedia:
    >Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time”, or, in the alternative, “to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries”.
    >So if Microsoft aren’t purporting to show a significant increase in the knowledge of computer science, why are they asking for copyright? Copyright is for the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.
    >You’ve just said there is no advancement of useful knowledge there.
    >Either
    >a) you’re wrong
    >b) microsoft is wrong

    Wow, I would have guessed ahead of time that it would be impossible for someone to mis-characterize what I am saying so completely.

    I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability. Do you really think they have another motive? Seriously? Are you really going to compare someone writing a paper for publication with what MS is doing? Despite the fact that I have said that I am not interested in overturning the rule of law, people seem to ignore that and want to argue that I am saying that. Does that just make it more fun to fight with me?

    I’ll repeat and everyone can save the indignant outcries about rule of law. Copyright is a good thing. There. Happy?

    Now, if MS made a claim that they have discovered something new about the way a DBMS works and that SQL Server proves it, we could either believe them or not believe them or we could ask for proof. I would do the third. If they said, well, we have a copyright on SQLServer that prevents us from giving you the proof, I would say that is fine. I just don’t believe you. But I would still support MS right to sell SQLServer and have their IP protected from someone else trying to make a living from it. If MS profit base depended on us believing their claims, they might be in trouble. But, since MS profit really depends on SQLServer saving my data, regardless of how groudbreaking the mechanism behind it is, they are probably still going to have more money than god.

    Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad. If you want to continue to attribute all the evils of modern society to me and then argue with me that I am the cause of them, save yourself the effort. I won’t bother responding to another post that claims that I am trying to get rid of copyright.

  59. #59 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    Only because there’s no way to read your ramblings without coming to a conclusion you do not wish to be concluded.

    > I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability.

    You are wrong.

    Books are under copyright and the source code is completely open to anyone who reads the language.

    Book publishers have profits.

    Ergo, closed source is not required to preserve profit making abilities.

    Therefore you’re wrong.

    > I’ll repeat and everyone can save the indignant outcries about rule of law. Copyright is a good thing. There. Happy?

    So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

    > Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad.

    Yes you did.

    You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

    I.e. for science (where progress would be in a useful art) copyright us a bad idea.

    Or have you changed your mind?

    Have you changed your mind? Or are you going to keep ignoring the question?

  60. #60 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Now, if MS made a claim that they have discovered something new about the way a DBMS works and that SQL Server proves it, we could either believe them or not believe them or we could ask for proof.

    MS say that their SQL server is faster than their competitors.

    I.e. they’ve discovered how to solve a computer problem in a faster, more efficient way.

    So can we demand proof of this and say that the only way to prove it is to show us the source code?

    OR will MS have to stop saying that their product is faster than someone else’s?

  61. #61 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Nature seems to think that data should be available without preconditions. Do you agree?

    No, I don’t, because it’s a false statement. The policy has a process for not requiring it, i.e. disclosure at submission and also in the paper itself. You can look this shit up, you know. Google and all that.

    I think MS is asking for a copyright to preserve their profit making ability

    You don’t “ask for a copyright”. Until you understand copyright law, would you please STFU? You’re just embarrassing yourself by making a string of false statements.

    Do you really think they have another motive? Seriously?

    Copyright doesn’t enter into it – all open source software is also under copyright.

    Now if you want to discuss that LICENSE AGREEMENT you must agree to before using MS software, then, yes, you get to say that the motive behind the wording of the MS license agreement is to preserve their right to make money licensing (they don’t actually sell it) their software.

    The GNU license agreement does the opposite, but is equally based on copyright.

    Copyright merely establishes who owns the rights, not what they choose to do with them.

    And you don’t “ask for a copyright”.

  62. #62 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Copyright doesn’t enter into it – all open source software is also under copyright.

    > Copyright merely establishes who owns the rights, not what they choose to do with them.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal. It also considers the possible statutory damages for breech.

    Which one person breeching a mere 24 items under copyright has been charged with a bill for over $2M.

    And many people consider each and every fact potentially a single copyrighted element.

    Now, what is the readership of Science? What is the *potential* readership?

  63. #63 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    > So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

    Wow. Can you please quote where I said that? “All scientists to breech copyright?”. Didn’t you feel a little silly writing that? Take a deep breath before you reply again.

    > You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

    I think that is the first, possibly the only thing you got right.

    Let me explain again… Copyright is just fine. Use it to your hearts content. But, don’t expect me to trust you when you use copyright to protect your proof of something.

    MS does nothing that is not related to maintaining their markets. If you think they are getting a copyright for some reason other than that, you are wrong. Non-profits have things copyrighted. That doesn’t mean that copyrights are not used to protect markets and profits. MS is getting a copyright so that they can sue anyone, or threaten to sue anyone for any reason at any time. They have lots of money and lots of lawyers. If they have a copyright, they potentially claim that a competitor is breaching that and threaten to sue. They don’t have to have a valid claim, they just have to threaten to sue. They don’t have to win, they just have to be able to use it as an intimidation tool. Once again, I have no problem with that. They can go nuts. But if MS were to claim that they made an advancement in computer science, and the proof were buried inside the source code for SQLServer, I would want to see the proof. And they would say ‘sorry’. And that would be fine. I just wouldn’t believe them. My purchasing a SQLServer license may or may not be based on believing their claim, it may be based on the fact that no one ever got fired for buying MS.

    Once again, I just don’t understand trying to make a comparison between a company getting a copyright to protect their profit making ability and a scientist using copyright to refuse to share data or methods. I never said the scientist should be flogged (holy crap, how many times do I have to repeat that?). I just said we shouldn’t believe the scientist until he shares that data or methods.

    >>Now, nowhere have I said that I think that copyright is bad.

    >Yes you did.
    >You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

    I think this might be the problem. Those two things are not the same. Copyright can be good, yet at the same time, you can use copyright protections in a way that is bad. Those are not mutually exclusive. I think for us to discuss this any further, you will first have to agree that those are not mutually exclusive. Copyright is good. Using copyright to hide your proof on a scientific paper is bad. You should either be prepared to show your data/results/etc. when you submit a scientific paper, or you should be prepared to be met with incredulity. Despite how you are trying to twist my argument, that is what it boils down to and that is pretty simple.

    And, I’m not alone. Some very reputable publications believe that sharing data and methods is important as well. What I don’t have any sympathy for is when those publications decide that it is only important until it isn’t important.

  64. #64 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Wow. Can you please quote where I said that?

    In comment 140:

    > Do claims of ‘copyright’ seem like intelligent reactions to you?

    and in 163 itself:

    > > You complained that copyright is a bad reason and should be illegitimate reason to fail to open up all data used.

    > I think that is the first, possibly the only thing you got right.

    Both saying that copyright here should be invalid.

    > But, don’t expect me to trust you when you use copyright to protect your proof of something.

    Why? GSK doesn’t post the raw data to their medical procedures in trialing a drug.

    Yet you don’t care.

    And you can do your own research, requiring no copyright breech.

    > Once again, I just don’t understand trying to make a comparison between a company getting a copyright to protect their profit making ability and a scientist using copyright to refuse to share data or methods

    Once again you make the statement as if to pass it off as real with is absolutely known to be incorrect:

    Closing the source of a copyrighted work isn’t necessary to make a profit.

    Therefore MS isn’t using copyright to maintain a profit by keeping their source code closed. This source code is ABSOLUTELY analogous to raw data in a scientific paper.

    You say MS should be allowed to keep their source code (raw data) secret.

    You say science doesn’t.

    Why?

  65. #65 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Copyright can be good, yet at the same time, you can use copyright protections in a way that is bad. Those are not mutually exclusive.

    > Posted by: mr irony

    And microsoft keeping the source code closed, relying on copyright of that source code and claiming copyright on the non-expressive binary is an abuse of copyright.

    And one that you deem right.

    If you deem this use of copyright as a reason to keep the raw data (source code) secret, then claims of “copyright” are indeed intelligent responses to the demand “give me your raw data”.

  66. #66 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    We need to define a couple things… When I say use of copyright is bad, I don’t mean it is illegal or shouldn’t be allowed. I thought I had said this so many times it would be difficult to miss. The reason I say this is that I mean that if an author claims copyright for not sharing data or methods, the rest of us have no legal claims to sue or anything like that. In that sense, the use of a copyright claim is perfectly valid and legal.

    Now, the reason I am saying it is bad is that the author of a paper is trying to convince me that he did something that no one else did before or discovered something no one else has discovered or found a way to verify something. Typically though, a paper doesn’t get published unless there is something groundbreaking in it. It seems reasonable to ask for proof when someone makes a claim like that. To me, any refusals to supply the proof make the claim invalid. If you don’t want to supply the proof, why should I believe you? Now, please don’t get crazy. I’m assuming that there are standard ways to provide the data and methods and those could be well known ahead of time. I’m not saying that an author needs to respond personally to every request for every bit or byte. But it needs to be out there and available to all.

    > And microsoft keeping the source code closed, relying on copyright of that source code and claiming copyright on the non-expressive binary is an abuse of copyright.

    > And one that you deem right.

    Correct, that is how one one maintains a business. What I would have thought was painfully and blindingly obvious is that I think it is just fine if Briffa and the Russians want to stay home and generate temperature reconstructions from their data and keep someone else from generating temperature reconstructions, that is just fine. They have the same right to use that copyright protection to keep someone from using their data that MS has to keep someone from using their source code. If Briffa wants to license his reconstructions and sell them, the copyright should give him the same protection it gives MS. Please tell me that I won’t have to repeat that again…

    However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data. I don’t believe that he would HAVE to (i.e. he can’t be sued or sent to prison), but I believe that if he wants us to believe him, he should share the data and methods. And if he claims copyright for why he can’t share, we should express sympathy and say that if he wants to convince us of something he should find some not-copyrighted data that he can share with us that shows what he is trying to prove.

  67. #67 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    > Closing the source of a copyrighted work isn’t necessary to make a profit.

    I never said it was. You seem to be making the leap that since it isn’t necessary to make a profit, it is completely unrelated in all cases to making a profit. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow.

  68. #68 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    So you think copyright should be ignored if you don’t like the restrictions it places on you?

    Is that it?

  69. #69 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    > GSK doesn’t post the raw data to their medical procedures in trialing a drug.

    I have friends who work in QA and stats at a large pharmaceutical firm. I sent your quote to them. They had a pretty good laugh at that. If you think there isn’t a form or chart or temperature reading or note that isn’t organized and sent to the FDA for review (in well known, standard formats), you really don’t know anything about how pharmaceutical studies work. Drug/medical companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on that aspect of studies alone (I know, they have lots of money). The point is that if a drug company claimed access restrictions on their data, in the way you are saying, that drug would never see the light of day. It would probably never make it past laboratory trials to even be tested on people.

  70. #70 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    > So you think copyright should be ignored if you don’t like the restrictions it places on you?

    > Is that it?

    I have to say that conversing with you has been less interesting than watching paint dry. You seem uninterested in anything I say, only in how obtusely you can spin it back to me. Is that really what you got from what I said? Really? That copyright should be ignored if you find it inconvenient… Really? Everything I said and that was what you took away from it? I’m staggered. Enjoy your day.

  71. #71 Marco
    October 7, 2009

    Mr irony, can you perhaps point me to the PUBLIC access raw data of a drug trial? ANY drug trial will do.

    If not, I have a challenge for you. Call the authors of the linked paper (below), and ask them for the raw data:
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/98516958/PDFSTART

    Expect a loud laugh, or an incredulous silence. Public access is not the same as access by the FDA. And you won’t see the FDA publish its own analysis with that data.

  72. #72 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    So you don’t want to answer it?

    Is that because, basically, that’s what you want?

    You want Briffa to ignore copyright because you want the data?

    > I have friends who work in QA and stats at a large pharmaceutical firm. I sent your quote to them. They had a pretty good laugh at that. If you think there isn’t a form or chart or temperature reading or note that isn’t organized and sent to the FDA for review (in well known, standard formats)

    And the data is reviewed by the reviewers of a paper (or can you tell us all where to get the raw data for all medical trials?).

    Yet you DEMAND that this isn’t good enough.

    So why is it good enough for GSK?

  73. #73 kejr
    October 7, 2009

    Interesting that mr irony introduces drug companies to this issue of data access (i presume he is as combative and insistent on open access to their trial data given the stakes involved):

    http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/and-now-nerd-news/

    We have known for decades that academic publishing faces two serious problems. One is that trials often go missing in action: a drug company might do eight trials of a drug, say, but only two have a positive result. So those two positive trials will appear in an academic journal, while the six remaining with negative results quietly disappear. Bizarrely, regulatory bodies like the FDA get to see this negative data, but often enough doctors do not.

    This is a familiar problem, and a murderous one, because overall the results of all 8 trials combined might show that the treatment is ineffective: in the absence of this full information, people are subjected unnecessarily to side effects, and deprived of other more effective treatments.

  74. #74 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    However, there aren’t any patents needed in making a new discovery in science, whereas secrecy and patent protection exists in medicine that makes repeating the medical trial impossible, whereas repeating a science trial can be done without hindrance.

    In fact, since getting your own data should show up if there’s a bias in the data sample or a chance happenstance rather than a real effect, whereas these will remain hidden if all you do is the exact same calculation with the same data as the original study, this makes “do it yourself” a FAR better method of testing the validity of a science discovery.

    After all, the debunking of cold fusion was done by other people doing the procedure detailed in the paper again, not by taking the numbers the original authors used to see the effect.

  75. #75 mr irony
    October 7, 2009

    I don’t know if any of you will believe this, but I didn’t set up the rules for how the FDA operates. I posted your questions about missing trials to my buddies. They say that happens when people are committing fraud. I’m not sure if you hold me directly responsible for that fraud or not, but I can only say I’m innocent. I think the FDA should make that data available. Do you think they should or they shouldn’t? Are you jealous of how the FDA operates and so you think all science should get to operate that way until the FDA cleans up its act? This repeatedly accusing me of saying things I obviously don’t mean is just getting old and stupid. Yes I think that people should do their own studies. Yes I think there should be multiple copies of data gathered. Yes I think that people who use data in a published paper should have a responsibility to share that data? Yes I think the FDA should make fully public the results of drug studies?

    Are you still slavering? What other examples of injustice in the world will you use as an excuse for why a published scientific paper shouldn’t share its data? People are starving in Rwanda? Well, my data is copyrighted.

    > You want Briffa to ignore copyright because you want the data?

    No, you fool, I will say it again. I don’t want him to ignore it. I want him to use non-copyrighted data in his study in the first place. You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn’t Briffa go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it? Next you will ask why doesn’t McI or RPJ or someone else do that? I don’t know. Ask them. I’ve sent an email to Briffa asking him how he feels about trying to avoid issues like this by only using data that isn’t copyrighted. If he bothers to reply, I’ll let you know what he says. This slobbering that because someone else doesn’t do something the way we would like, no one should do it the way we like is childish at best. I really am done. You aren’t interested in a discussion, you want a shouting match. Tim once debunked a paper written by Ross McK by looking at the spreadsheet used to do the calculations and noticing that an empty cell had the net effect of a zero, not the effect of no data point. Do you feel that that was outrageous? Tim was easily able to check something and didn’t need to get his own data. Why aren’t all studies like that? You seem to be defending the status quo from some people but demanding more from others. That just makes you a frothing partisan. Trust me, you aren’t doing yourself any favors by boiling everything I say down to “So you think copyright should be ignored if you don’t like the restrictions it places on you?” or even worse “you want all scientists to breech copyright?”.

    You win. You get the final word. This really is becoming too cumbersome. Accuse me of puppy strangling, I won’t bother to defend myself…

  76. #76 Paul H
    October 7, 2009

    Mr Irony,

    You said:

    “I don’t believe that he would HAVE to (i.e. he can’t be sued or sent to prison), but I believe that if he wants us to believe him, he should share the data and methods.”

    Do you apply these same stringent criteria to other areas of science? Do you think it is common within scientific fields to be suspicious of any particular result until you’ve replicated the exact result using the same data? If not, why not on the latter?

    I certainly think that the sharing of data at the point of publication is useful for fellow investigators who are interested in the details of the method, but its overall usefulness, to some extent, is related to external factors regarding the results and conclusions of a particular study.

  77. #77 trrll
    October 7, 2009

    So, now that its clear I’m not talking about Briffa or McI, but about sharing data… Is it important? Why? Nature and Science think so. At least, they think its important until they think it isn’t important. What changes? What is it about the reason for why you can’t share that makes it unimportant? Does the fact that some scientist in bureaucracy in Eastern Europe or university in England wants to squeeze a few more bucks out of a data set mean that sharing data isn’t important anymore?

    Why is sharing data important? It’s important because other qualified scientists may be able to utilize that data to advance science. Publication is a way of sharing data. Most scientists will, as a professional courtesy, provide data after publication to qualified colleagues who feel that the data will advance their studies. Some funding agencies or journals may require some types of data to be made publicly available as a condition of funding or publication. In this case it is a contractual obligation, whether or not there is any scientific value to doing so.

    Of course, there have to be limits. In many labs, raw data is scattered through multiple notebooks and data files. Organizing raw data so that it will be interpretable to somebody else takes time and money. And with controversial issues, there is the potential for people who don’t like the results to try to impede a scientist’s work by burdening him down with extensive and arbitrary demands for data. So the the scientific value probably does not justify the scientific cost of expecting a scientist to send data to anybody who wants it, in whatever format they want it.

  78. #78 kejr
    October 7, 2009

    My point is that you seem exceptionally forthright on demanding the availability of tree ring data (ignoring many of the caveats about whose it is and when it was demanded) yet seem rather unphased re drug companies keeping trials secret. Moreover you seem remarkably accepting of ‘your buddies’ defences but seem very willing to suggest misbehaviour by climate scientists – is it just cos they aren’t your buddies? Or perhaps your skepticism is not so universal?

  79. #79 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal. It also considers the possible statutory damages for breech.

    No. Please, people, STFU when you don’t know what the F U are talking about.

  80. #80 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    I’ll try to make this simple, though Mark’s not really interested in learning, just pontificating …

    Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal.

    No, breeching the license is, itself, illegal. It falls under contract law.

    It also considers the possible statutory damages for breech.
    Which one person breeching a mere 24 items under copyright has been charged with a bill for over $2M.

    Wouldn’t surprise me.

    Without a license agreement, you can’t make use of someone’s intellectual property *at all*, other than in very limited ways enumerated under Fair Use provisions.

    Any and all unlicensed use is, therefore, a breech of copyright. As to damages, here in the US you are entitled only to reimbursement of actual monetary harm (typically what a license would’ve cost the user if they’d licensed the work legally). If you *register* a copyright that you own, you can win 3x your monetary loss as punitive costs and legal expenses.

    If you’ve licensed the work, and breech that license, the courts will treat that as a breech of contract case (your signature on the contract means the aggrieved party doesn’t have to prove ownership as they would if it were tried under copyright law).

    And many people consider each and every fact potentially a single copyrighted element.

    Copyright doesn’t apply to facts, only creative works, so they’ll be unhappily surprised when they learn the truth.

  81. #81 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    So why were you asking for Briffa and all scientists to breech copyright?

    Copyright doesn’t enter into this. The Russians own some data – just as I own my car. They can lend that data, just as I can lend you my car. If I lend you my car, and McI demands that you give it to him, you don’t have that right unless I’ve given my permission.

    So in practical terms, you’ve got the right idea – just the wrong law. Copyrighted creative work isn’t the only form of intellectual property.

  82. #82 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    You mention people going out and getting data. That is good advice. Why couldn’t Briffa go out and gather some data and use it in his paper and then share it?

    Because arranging a trip to a remote part of far northern Siberia is 1) expensive and 2) undoubtably involves a bunch of red tape (no longer Red tape since the USSR collapsed, but I can’t imagine modern Russia is all that much less bureaucratic).

    Since the Russians had already done the work, it’s not necessary to duplicate it.

  83. #83 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > I don’t know if any of you will believe this, but I didn’t set up the rules for how the FDA operates

    Strange.

    Didn’t know that the FDA REQUIRES that raw data for any medical trial be kept secret.

    You know, I don’t think it does.

    Therefore it isn’t about how YOU control the FDA but that GSK keeps their raw data secret and YOU don’t have a problem with that.

    Why then do you have a problem with other scientific endeavors?

  84. #84 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Copyright doesn’t enter into this.

    Yes it does.

    If there were no copyright, then there’s no need for a license to do what copyright restricts.

    Briffa could give out the raw data with no legal repercussions.

    Because copyright says he can’t do that without a license, he can’t.

    So copyright IS involved.

  85. #85 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > No, breeching the license is, itself, illegal. It falls under contract law.

    No, because without copyright, there’s no need for a license. Therefore a license breech is not possible.

    If you sign an NDA, that doesn’t need copyright law and is instead covered by contract law, but contract law has no statutory damage and is a tort problem whereas copyright is a strict tort: you have to show you can do what you did, whereas copyright law requires someone prove you couldn’t by that contract.

    Contract law is not licensing law.

    Learn The Difference.

  86. #86 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > Copyright doesn’t apply to facts, only creative works, so they’ll be unhappily surprised when they learn the truth.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    Incorrect.

    Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

    The metro in SF Bay have copyright on the facts that make up the metro time table.

    You may wish it otherwise, but this is the case.

  87. #87 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > No. Please, people, STFU when you don’t know what the F U are talking about.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    Interesting.

    Will you likewise shut the fuck up now that you have been shown not to know what the fuck you’re talking about?

    One hopes…

  88. #88 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > …but seem very willing to suggest misbehaviour by climate scientists – is it just cos they aren’t your buddies? Or perhaps your skepticism is not so universal?

    > Posted by: kejr

    It’s because GSK et al are corporations and they are Beyond Reproach(r)(tm).

    Whereas the journals in Nature and Science are being used to make a Socialist One World Order(tm).

    And wanting something from commercial entities is Socialist and hits at the very heart of mr irony’s rock-hard belief system.

  89. #89 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

    Dictionaries contain word definitions that are the creative output of language professionals.

    That’s why they’re all different.

    Being creative works, they are copyrightable.

    This is why the phone book is not copyrightable, for instance – at least here in the US. It’s just a list of facts – which a dictionary is NOT.

    You really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    The metro in SF Bay have copyright on the facts that make up the metro time table.

    No, they have copyright on the physical representation – the layout, print style, i.e. creative content – of that timetable. Not the timetable itself. I can take the underlying data and make my own timetable using my own style, media, etc.

    Here’s a definition under US Law:

    Copyright is legal protection for creative intellectual works. Just about any expression of an idea is covered by copyright, including text (such as books, articles, emails, and web-based information), photographs, art, graphics, music, and software. Also, note our guidelines in chart form.

    Creative intellectual works.

    Copyright does not protect works that: lack originality (like the phone book), are in the public domain, are freeware (not shareware), are US government works, are facts, or are ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works.

    I’m sorry, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    You can copyright a creative work built upon facts – dictionary – but not the facts, ideas, processes, methods themselves.

  90. #90 BdN
    October 7, 2009

    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.

    Yeah! I thought only creationists didn’t understand what a theory and a hypothesis are!

  91. #91 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Will you likewise shut the fuck up now that you have been shown not to know what the fuck you’re talking about?

    One hopes…

    Direct quote, US Code, Title 17:

    § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

    How Current is This?
    (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
    (1) literary works;
    (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
    (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
    (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
    (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
    (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
    (7) sound recordings; and
    (8) architectural works.

    (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

    You can’t copyright a fact. You can’t copyright data.

  92. #92 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    This is interesting.

    For a couple of reasons …

    The NYC MTA is suing a guy who wrote an iPhone app to generate MTA schedules on the phone.

    Now what’s interesting is that the article makes the point – correctly – that data isn’t copyrightable, so they expect the MTA to lose.

    Fair enough. But nothing in the article indicates that the suit is for breech of copyright in the first place. In fact, there’s nothing in the article to indicate that the suit’s nothing but legal harassment.

  93. #93 Deep Climate
    October 7, 2009

    Not sure if anyone else has noted this yet, but apparently updated Yamal reconstructions, using more live-core data, were made available by Rashit Hamerintov last summer. The information comes in an email to an anonymous third party that was released by Steve McIntyre today.The Yamal hockey stick is alive and well, apparently …

    Let the backpedalling begin …

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/

    The charts I show are from this PDF (in Russian of course).

    http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf

  94. #94 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Not sure if anyone else has noted this yet, but apparently updated Yamal reconstructions, using more live-core data, were made available by Rashit Hamerintov last summer.

    Not surprising, though. After all, McI is screaming about Briffa 2000, isn’t he? And there’s been at least a Briffa 2001 and 2006 on reconstructions, right? Probably more I’m not aware of …

  95. #95 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > But nothing in the article indicates that the suit is for breech of copyright in the first place.

    Well, the person has no contract with them, so what could it be?

    Trademark???

  96. #96 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > You can’t copyright a fact. You can’t copyright data.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    Ah.

    Seems you can’t STFU when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_dictionaries_public_domain

    > Dictionaries contain word definitions that are the creative output of language professionals.

    Nope, they are facts.

    Or, if you say this is enough to be creative, then the tree ring data is the creative output of a bunch of Russian dendrologists.

  97. #97 Mark
    October 7, 2009

    > (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

    So you try making a story about a youngster who is an orphan and finds out he has magical powers.

    See how quick you get sued.

    For (guess)?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1224264.stm

    PS can you show that the data was only kept secret by NDA? Or are you merely jumping at conclusions because you don’t think copyright is involved and do not want to be wrong?

  98. #98 luminous beauty
    October 7, 2009

    >However, as soon as Briffa decides to publish a paper saying that he has a great new way to do reconstructions, then he should share the data.

    There is nothing new about RCS, it has been around since the 1930s, though continuously undergoing refinement, as one would know if one was the least familiar with the last 70+ years of the literature. A fundamental ignorance Steve McIntyre is only too willing to exploit. Briffa’s rather pedestrian advancement in 2000 was in applying a well known method, RCS, to Hantimerov and Shiyatov’s _previously published_ chronology they had standardized by another, less skillful, method. Though Briffa may have received raw tree ring width data via personal communication with H&S, he was not obligated to publish that data, but only his own re-analysis, which is exactly what he published. Stepan Shiyatov, however, submitted that original data plus their standardized chronologies to the ITRDB in 1995. I have no clue why McIntyre was unable to find it for all these years. Additional subsequent data acquired by H&S and used in Briffa, et al.(2008) has been published in accordance with The Royal Society norms, which McIntyre has been quick as a monkey to misrepresent, misuse and abuse.

    So, mr irony deficient, what’s the beef?

  99. #99 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    So you try making a story about a youngster who is an orphan and finds out he has magical powers.
    See how quick you get sued.

    Very quickly.

    The US author who is suing the writer and publishers of the Harry Potter stories for allegedly…

    Mark:

    For (guess)?

    Not copyright violation?

    plagiarising her work is to reissue her own books.

    Nancy Stouffer of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania claims that JK Rowling lifted ideas for Harry Potter from her 1984 book, The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.

    I was right, and I’m not even surprised!!!

    STFU, Mark.

    plagiarising

  100. #100 dhogaza
    October 7, 2009

    Mark doesn’t even read his own links:

    But unlike many other types of literary works, dictionaries are full of non-copyrightable facts

    Non-copyrightable facts … hmmm.

Current ye@r *