McIntyre had the data all along

One of McIntyre’s repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa’s Yamal #1:

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website – after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).

I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) – at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.

This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:

The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn’t Briffa’s and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues – will pass on your message to them]
cheers, Keith

When a reader asked him why he didn’t just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn’t “diligent enough” in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004.

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre’s ability to make mountains out of molehills.

The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample:

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre’s accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa’s Yamal temperature reconstruction.

Lastly I note that Andrew Bolt back from vacation has used Yamal to declare that:

Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.

Comments

  1. #1 Dave
    October 8, 2009

    I love this quote from Stve M.:

    > if the author uses third party data and believes that he he does not have permission to provide the data, it is my practice to ask the author to obtain the required consent and then provide me the data so that the risk of inadvertently getting different data sets is minimized.

    Really? I’ve not seen that bit in the email exchanges published so far.

    So – he knew where to get the actual data, and indeed already had it (but AFAIK neglected to mention this for five years), yet still insisted that Briffa needed to supply the data he was not at liberty to supply so that he could check it was really, really the same data. Again, I’ve not seen an email exchange clarifying this was his intent yet (ie. “I’ve had this data from your colleagues, any chance of clearing up the issue of third-party consent and getting yours as well so I can ensure we all have the same source?”).

    Maybe its yet to be published.

    I would suggest we need the full email data. Otherwise we can’t be sure he’s not just cherrypicking the emails to get the result he wants.

    Why oh why won’t Steve M. just publish the full data?

    I’ve posted a comment on Deltoid just now and he’s stonewalling… ;)

  2. #2 Dan R
    October 8, 2009

    Actually, the choice quote from Bolt is this one from Wed’s column:

    “This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia.”

  3. #3 Mark
    October 8, 2009

    Great innit, Dan.

    When it comes to proving global warming, any data of any size is acceptable proof. Even irrefutable.

    But when proving it, nothing is enough.

    When it comes to disproving denialist creed, there is not enough proof in the world.

  4. #4 Michael
    October 8, 2009

    Shorter Steve McIntyre:

    Look at me!, look at me!!

  5. #5 Lars Karlsson
    October 8, 2009

    Bolt: “This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia.”

    This is an excellent example of “the silver bullet syndrome”, which you also find among creationists. The little piece of “evidence” that is supposed to sink the whole theory all at once.

    But maybe we should call it “wooden stake” syndrome in this case.

  6. #6 mulch
    October 8, 2009

    Apology from McIntyre coming in

    10…9…8…7…6…5…4…3…2…1…0…-1…-2…-3…-4………

  7. #7 hc
    October 8, 2009

    Real Climate now suggest McIntyre just got it wrong.

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

    The owners of the original data in unpublished work get a ‘hockey stick’ response.

  8. #8 Fran Barlow
    October 8, 2009

    Lars

    Silver bullets were for werewolves and wooden stakes for vampires — the same metaphor really

  9. #9 Hugh
    October 8, 2009

    H/T to DeepClimate, but it’s worth sharing this

    McI whinges on about how brave the Royal Society were to insist that Briffa submit the data to archive before publication would be agreed, despite Briffa having previously suggested that it would be impossible for him to do that because the data wasn’t his to give.

    Let’s reacquaint ourselves with the authors of the 2008 Phil Trans B paper shall we…Keith R Briffa; Vladimir V Shishov;Thomas M Melvin; Eugene A Vaganov; Håken Grudd; Rashit M Hantemirov; Matti Eronen; Muktar M Naurzbaev

    Don’t you think one of the principal investigators behind the creation of the ‘contentious’ series being one of the paper’s authors might have had something to do with the surrender of the data to archive….rather than the ‘bravery’ of the Royal Society?

    You couldn’t make it up!

  10. #10 Mark
    October 8, 2009

    > Silver bullets were for werewolves and wooden stakes for vampires — the same metaphor really

    > Posted by: Fran Barlow

    But the denialists keep trying to use wooden stakes on werewolves…

  11. #11 Michael
    October 8, 2009

    ….and McIntyre has a silver bullet in his foot.

  12. #12 Lars Karlsson
    October 8, 2009

    “But the denialists keep trying to use wooden stakes on werewolves…”

    No, they are trying to use wooden stakes on perfectly innocent people. Fortunately, they haven’t understood that you need to sharpen the stake…

  13. #13 Mark
    October 8, 2009

    > Fortunately, they haven’t understood that you need to sharpen the stake…

    > Posted by: Lars Karlsson

    No, they’d find that the stake didn’t go in but bounced off and claim “WITCH!!!!”.

    Or possibly “My brother eats apple pie”. You can’t tell what thought processes go through a denialist mind…

  14. #14 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    Hugh’s got it exactly right above – as Deep Climate shows, Hantemirov, who owns the data, was co-author of the paper that showed up in Phil Trans in 2008, and made the data available.

    Data which McI had since 2004 anyway. Anyone who doubts that McI is anything other than lying scum is just sticking their fingers in their ears singing “la-la-la-la I don’t hear you”.

  15. #15 TrueSceptic
    October 8, 2009

    12 Lars,

    But what do we use on denydiot zombies, the ones who never stop making the same false claims and asking the same questions already answered a thousand times? How do you destroy a brain that’s already dead?

  16. #16 Ezzthetic
    October 8, 2009

    The way I undestand it is this:

    McIntyre originally complained that Briffa had cherry-picked in Russia. McIntyre thought he should have been satisfied with good old American cherries.

    Briffa responded by saying that he couldn’t cherry-pick in the US because George Washington had cut down all the cherry trees, forcing them to perform in P.T. Barnum’s dastardly Tree-Ring Circus.

    Briffa then got upset because Anthony Watts called him a Dendro, which in scientific circles is like being called a Furry, only worse.

    I know I’m simplifying, but I think that’s basically right.

  17. #17 Mark
    October 8, 2009

    > How do you destroy a brain that’s already dead?

    > Posted by: TrueSceptic

    Find a 7th level cleric and get them to turn them. A result of “D” indicates the undead is destroyed…

  18. #18 Deep Climate
    October 8, 2009

    #9

    Yes. See this comment from CA regular MikeN on my latest post and my response.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/#comment-533

    MikeN // October 7, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    Yet Phil Trans made him distribute the data anyways, while Science did not. Nature made Moberg distribute as well, to the point that he had to pay the price of adding a coauthor.

    Deep Climate // October 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm (edit)
    MikeN,
    I thought I would check on who the co-authors were for Phil Trans. And guess what I found? A certain dendro named Hantemirov. But you knew that already, didn’t you.

    Nice try, though.

  19. #19 Chris O'Neill
    October 8, 2009

    Actually, the choice quote from Bolt is this one from Wed’s column:
    “This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia.”

    Briffa’s proxy is the 19th most weighted out of the 22 proxies used in the 1400 AD proxy set of MBH98, less than one-thirteenth the weight of the most weighted proxy. Briffa’s is the one called “Northern Urals in the full proxy list.

    What morons like Bolt are effectively saying is that choosing different trees for the Northern Urals proxy WILL produce, without doing any work, a proxy that gets vastly more weighting from the calibration process than the existing one and thus produce a flat hockeystick.

  20. #20 Dave Andrews
    October 8, 2009

    Perhaps you should check out this forthcoming chapter for a book by Briffa and others. It is pretty clear that Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) is replete with the possibility for misinterpretation. Pity Briffa wasn’t apparently aware of that when he published his 2000 paper!

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa_HB_2008.pdf

  21. #21 Dave Andrews
    October 8, 2009
  22. #22 Dave Andrews
    October 8, 2009

    OK, What is the problem with this site accepting pdf links?

  23. #23 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    Pity Briffa wasn’t apparently aware of that when he published his 2000 paper!

    Then why does the PDF you’ve referenced provides references to papers Briffa wrote on these issues back in 1992 and 1996?

  24. #24 luminous beauty
    October 8, 2009

    >It is pretty clear that Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) is replete with the possibility for misinterpretation. Pity Briffa wasn’t apparently aware of that when he published his 2000 paper!

    _”…wasn’t apparently aware…”?_

    OMG, Ducky! Briffa is one of the foremost authorities on RCS. He published the primary corrective method, known as the ‘Briffa bodge’, in 1992. A fact you might have learned if you’d actually read the chapter.

    Where do you get this crap?

  25. #25 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    I’m skimming it now – further proof that people like DaveA and Vernon who link to papers they don’t read/understand do at times perform a public service.

    I would imagine the tittering is mostly over the “modern (live) tree sample bias” problem, since McI has been focusing on the dozen or so live trees included in Briffa’s 2000 analysis.

    But Briffa was working on this problem in the 1990s and published on it in 1996, according to this chapter that DaveA so kindly linked to …

    Where do you get this crap?

    CA, I’m guessing.

  26. #26 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    He published the primary corrective method, known as the ‘Briffa bodge’, in 1992.

    The chapter DaveA so kindly provided us with discusses that, problems with it, and how improved techniques lead to better results than applying the kludge I mean bodge.

    There’s an interesting section where he talks about the pitfalls of trying to RCS on data with trees from different locales, a section perhaps McI should’ve read before just tossing everything into a single bin blindly and declaring victory.

  27. #27 luminous beauty
    October 8, 2009

    >OK, What is the problem with this site accepting pdf links?

    [markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus) writes any text between underscores as _italics_ and breaks the URL link at that point. Wrap your URL with angle brackets ( <> ) and this won’t happen.

    < http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa_HB_2008.pdf>

    You’re welcome, Ducky.

  28. #28 Michael
    October 8, 2009

    In Dave’s defence, he does read The Guardian.

  29. #29 TrueSceptic
    October 8, 2009

    27 luminous,

    You beat me to it, but how long has DA been posting here? He’s never noticed this issue with citing URLs?

  30. #30 luminous beauty
    October 8, 2009

    >McI has been focusing _obsessing_ on the dozen or so live trees included in Briffa’s 2000 analysis.

    FTFY

  31. #31 Bud
    October 8, 2009

    McIntyre: “If Briffa felt that he lacked authority to distribute the data, he should have obtained the consent of the Russians at that time – which seems to have been readily available.”

    You know yesterday when you asked me what the definition of chutzpah was, and I said…?

  32. #32 luminous beauty
    October 8, 2009

    TS,

    I don’t recall Ducky ever citing any URLs here before.

    _Apparently_, he thinks that makes him look like an original thinker.

  33. #33 luminous beauty
    October 8, 2009

    Bud,

    Schmekel is to putz as McIntyre is to chutzpah.

  34. #34 Bud
    October 8, 2009

    luminous,

    I had to look that up. And now I’m stealing it. :)

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2009

    “In Dave’s defence, he does read The Guardian”

    That is no defence these days, given the Guardians`s wretched performance on covering the resource/geopolitical wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and its pro-war posturing with regards to Iran. Perhaps this is because, like the other MSM, the Guardian is part of a giant media conglomerate whose primary aim is profit and attainign advertising revenue. The only journalists on the paper I remotely enjoy reading are George Monbiot and Seumus Milne; the rest are dross. The Observer is even worse.

    Dave Edwards and Dave Cromwell at Medialens.org shred the myth of the liberal media in their two books, “Guardians of Power” (2006) and “Newspeak” (2009). We all know how far right papers like the Times, Daily Mail and Telegraph are; for this reason Edwards and Cromwell target the “allegedly” left wing papers, which, as they demonstrate quite well, are pro-establishment to the core. I would therefore certainly not trust anyone these days whose world view was shaped by articles and editorials in the Guardian or its sister paper, the Obsever.

  36. #36 Rattus Norvegicus
    October 8, 2009

    McIntyre is to schmuck as McIntyre is to schmuck. This is really the only comparison.

  37. #37 Nasif Nahle
    October 8, 2009

    You’re confounding the “data” with the “database”. Steve McIntyre had the “data”, that is, the articles with the final results; however, he had not the database.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    October 8, 2009

    Nasif,

    I checked over your web site and, lo and behold, in my opinion its just another contrarian site dedicated to downplaying AGW. For instance, your site repeats the same fallacy of the sceptics, that *it has not warmed since 1999* (WRONG) and that *there is no correlation between atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and global surface temperatures* (WRONG AGAIN, since the inclusive time period is too short to derive such a conclusion from a deterministic system).

    Then the clincher was that your page links to the Heartland Institute, another free market deregulatory think tank.

    Three strikes and you are out.

  39. #39 Michael
    October 8, 2009

    “That is no defence these days, given the Guardians`s wretched performance on covering ….”

    Sorry Jeff, I should have included the sacrasm alert.

    Dave regularly mentions this, for reasons which remain obscure.

  40. #40 Nasif Nahle
    October 8, 2009

    Jeff…

    You say:

    “I checked over your web site and, lo and behold, in my opinion its just another contrarian site dedicated to downplaying AGW. For instance, your site repeats the same fallacy of the sceptics, that it has not warmed since 1999 (WRONG) and that there is no correlation between atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and global surface temperatures (WRONG AGAIN, since the inclusive time period is too short to derive such a conclusion from a deterministic system).

    Not true. I say in my articles the warming happened. What I assure you scientifically is that humans have nothing to do with that warming.

    You say:

    Then the clincher was that your page links to the Heartland Institute, another free market deregulatory think tank.

    That doesn’t mean that the articles published at BioCab are not true. Science magazine, Nature, etc. also link to many other sites. It has nothing to do with clean science.

    I’ll throw a single ball and you’ll make your punch:

    Only tell me, what’s the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide? :)

  41. #41 Bill O'Slatter
    October 8, 2009

    I like the way Lorax was allowed a thread to question the great man and then got a death threat. The Steve must be under a lot of pressure prior to Copenhagen.

  42. #42 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    You’re confounding the “data” with the “database”. Steve McIntyre had the “data”, that is, the articles with the final results; however, he had not the database.

    He can build his own database out of the data.

    Indeed, his screaming for “RAW DATA” means he doesn’t want the “database” (what if it’s stored in Oracle and he only uses Excel? then you’d scream “he only got the database dump that he couldn’t read, not the data!”)

    Idiot.

  43. #43 dhogaza
    October 8, 2009

    Then the clincher was that your page links to the Heartland Institute, another free market deregulatory think tank.

    That doesn’t mean that the articles published at BioCab are not true. Science magazine, Nature, etc. also link to many other sites. It has nothing to do with clean science.

    No, but at least it’s science, not crap, like yours.

  44. #44 Paul H
    October 9, 2009

    Bill,

    I missed that. It seems that the Lorax thread has been removed. What happened exactly?

  45. #45 dhogaza
    October 9, 2009

    PaulH, I don’t know, but google finds the Lorax thread, and if you chase the link, it’s gone.

    But of course, only Real Climate etc censure …

  46. #46 Bill O'Slatter
    October 9, 2009

    Looks like The Steve is going to keep that piece of data under his hat as well. The history rewrite machine moves on.Lorax ‘s line of questioning was to the nature of Steve’s auditing. It appeared to Lorax that Steve was biased towards critically examining the AGW literature rather than the anti-AGW literature. Also that he encouraged pile ons on his site and dog whistled to the anti AGW nutters. All familiar stuff no doubt but interesting to see how long he tolerated that. Not very long.

  47. #47 Observa
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif Nahle maks the wild claim that:

    >*”What I assure you scientifically is that humans have nothing to do with that warming.”*

    Scientists who actually publish their work with fact checking and the rigor of peer review have a [different explanation](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/) to Nasif.

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif is doing his best Plimer imitation in response to George Monbiot when he writes,

    *I’ll throw a single ball and you’ll make your punch: Only tell me, what’s the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide? :)*

    What a dumb question. You write as if you have a monopoly on wisdom. Tell me Nasif: how many papers do you have published in peer-reviewed journals that appear on the ISI Web of Science? Let me guess… hmmm…. nil?

    Two can play the intellectual snob game. I am a population ecologist, and I was a former editor at the journal Nature. If you want me to throw a bunch of complex questions at you that you won`t have a clue how to answer in my field of endeavor I will, but this is childish behavior. I am not a climate scientist but I do defer to the vast majority of climate scientists, some of whom I know personally, who are in broad agreement as to the human fingerprint over the current warming episode. Your web site is only that – a web site. If you have the acumen to defend your “science” then you will do so in a rigidly peer-reviewed journal.

    I pointed out the flaws in your “it hasn`t warmed since 1999″ thread. Moreover, the latest GISTEMP data from NASA reveals September 2009 to be the *warmest* September on record. Of course the time scale of one month to extrapolate trends is meaningless for a largely deterministic system. But so is ten years – thirty or even longer is the minimum requirement. Moreover, its ridiculous to throw up graphs showing the linear trend in atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and to use this as an argument to downplay temperature trends during this time. First of all, it has been warming since 1999; second, as I said ten years is much too short a time to extrapolate temporal trends for systems that operate over huge spatio-temporal scales. Lastly, the effects of increased C02 on temperature forcings are not instantaneous; this is grade school level science. There are time lags involved.

    Lastly, I would personally vouch for science in the pages of *Nature*, *Science* or the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* (as well as in dozens of other peer-reviewed journals) over anything that appears on think tank web sites.

  49. #49 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    Jeff… It is science.

  50. #50 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    Jeff… I don’t care what you think about my person. Yours are lies, ad hominem fallacies.

    Discuss the science of my peer reviewed articles. All my articles published in BioCab’s website have been peer reviewed.

  51. #51 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    I repeat, Steve McIntyre had only the data, the articles, not the databases. The databases remained hidden from the public scrutiny for 10 years.

  52. #52 Observa
    October 9, 2009

    >*All my articles published in BioCab’s website have been peer reviewed.*

    On what basis has your blog science been peer reviewed? Detail is relevnet to this point.

  53. #53 Marion Delgado
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif, although everything you’re saying about the databases being hidden from public scrutiny for 10 years is false, I won’t imitate you and say it’s all lies. I’ll assume you are ignorant and confused.

    Lurkers and scientifically literate people: next, I predict Nasif here will say, oh, I didn’t really just want the absoprtion coefficient of CO2 – I want you to show me you know the molar rate of extinction and other Heinz Hug nonsense.

    To preempt that, I direct him here:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-well-can-we-model-pressure.html?showComment=1185139560000

    And indeed, to everything on that site for about a week before that and almost a week after it, and perhaps most importantly, to the links from those posts. And after Nasif can demonstrate that he understands enough about absorption and re-emission of long-wave radiation and about saturation and the difference between forcing and feedback and the change in the altitude at which energy is re-emitted, and so on to actually pose questions to us, then we can play his game.

    Until then, it’s just more troll-sniping.

  54. #54 Janet Akerman
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif, When I click on your “Editorial Board” I get an email prompted to and address staff@biocab.org

    You look like a lousy astroturf front. Are you that bogus? Name names unless you are a fraud!

  55. #55 Tim Lambert
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif, no more off topic comments in this thread, please. If you want to argue that there is no AGW, take it to the open thread.

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif,

    What lies are you referring to? Please elaborate. I did intend to attack you personally, as I found some of your commentaries on ecology to be interesting, so if you think I was personally attacking you I apologize.

    However, I think that you are completely and utterly wrong to say that human activities do not account for the current warming. And I have science on that to back up this assertion. You do not.

    And to further Observa`s point: if you are chief editor of a web site on which you post your own articles, how can the peer-review process be judged as fair? What is the rejection rate of your own articles? I will venture a guess and say 0%. Am I correct?

    And what is the impact factor of BioCabs articles. Or do you have one? I do not think so. Nature and Science are the most rigid journals with high impact factors and rejection rates of 93%. That means only about 7% of articles submitted to these journals actually make it through the editorial and peer-review process to publication. Even journals like Ecology Letters and Ecology have rejection rates of over 80%. This is how sound science is advanced. All of the scientists on Real Climate are senior researchers with lengthy publication records. That is why I trust their interpretation of climate science much more than, say, the people at CA.

  57. #57 sod
    October 9, 2009

    Nasif is producing really absurd stuff. his science-speak might confuse the uneducated.

    check out this [article](http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html)

    he has identified the single warmest year in the yamal region, over the last 2000 years:

    The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD, during the Medieval Warming Period. Again, the relevance of the current warming is quite low in comparison with past warming periods.

    since my criticism on [Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/?cp=all#comment-139564) he seems to have removed (unless my mind is playing tricks with me) a completely absurd horizontal line, stretching from that maximum point. (and demonstrating how much higher that single year was, than any other one..)

  58. #58 Steve Bloom
    October 9, 2009

    Nahle spends a lot of time at WTF engaging in flights of pseudoscientific fancy. Not too respectable, even for a denialist.

  59. #59 sod
    October 9, 2009

    Tim is right, we should stick to the topic….

  60. #60 janama
    October 9, 2009

    Yawn – so you are still trying to protect Briffa’s arse cos he was lazy and didn’t post his data when he presented his original paper?

    You are scientists or are you just kiddin’ around like the rest of UNSW ?

  61. #61 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Sigh, still trying to divert attention away from the idiocy of your Gods, janama?

  62. #62 Ezzthetic
    October 9, 2009

    What I didn’t know until a couple of weeks ago was that this was the actual version that Briffa had used.

    McIntyre is clearly referring to the data set, not the results.

    Apart from that, extra marks for using “confound” in a non-Leonardo Lion context.

  63. #63 janama
    October 9, 2009

    I thought I was clearly back on topic Mark.

  64. #64 Michael
    October 9, 2009

    janama,

    so you are still trying to protect Briffa’s arse cos he was lazy and didn’t post his data when he presented his original paper?

    That’s a wonderfully succint summation of the denialists battle against the facts.

  65. #65 janama
    October 9, 2009

    “battle against the facts.”

    No the “facts” are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud – and you know it!

  66. #66 Dave
    October 9, 2009

    > cos he [Briffa] was lazy and didn’t post his data

    Lie, and one that is contradicted by Steve M.

    Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    October 9, 2009

    *No the “facts” are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud – and you know it!*

    What is this – a sandbox tantrum?

  68. #68 Jeremy C
    October 9, 2009

    I love it when Janama gets going. Trollop trolls like Nasif are amateurs compared with Janama and the rest of the Marohasy gang when it comes to serving up switchbacks faster than Goebbels ordering up lunch.

    “so you are still trying to protect Briffa’s arse cos he was lazy and didn’t post his data when he presented his original paper?”

    Isn’t that just wonderful stuff!!!!

    Can we have some guesses as to how Cohenite et al will spin McIntyre’s spill?

  69. #69 Jeremy C
    October 9, 2009

    Thanks Tim for allowing Janama back on. I laugh so hard at his posts I have to reach for my ventlin inhaler. Lets hope Cohenite surfaces so that Nasif can get some lessons in posting cool sounding, pseudo science phrases and I will be able to laugh even harder.

  70. #70 Michael
    October 9, 2009

    Besides the fact that Steve already had the data since 2004, when he asked Briffa, he was politely told where to go….to get it.

    What’s Steve going to do when one of the owners of the original data publishes his study next year using 120 cores that confirms Briffa’s findings.

    Poor Steve, I feel a bit sorry for him already. The slayer of hocley sticks finds out, again, that they just won’t stay dead.

  71. #71 janama
    October 9, 2009

    He he ….You guys just keep arguing BS

    Dave said

    “Lie, and one that is contradicted by Steve M you say.

    Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?”

    Yeah typical…nothing about the actual problem here…. that the temp chart for the 20th Century has been misrepresented when SM re-analysed the data.

    Now who amongst you is about to propose to SM that his reanalysis of the data is statistically incorrect with codes and charts etc. not personal attacks, Tom P tried, anyone else?………….
    ………………………….

    ………..I thought not.

  72. #72 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    > Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?

    How can you go back to someone when you didn’t go there in the first place?

    Ducky does that a lot: when cornered say “but you shouldn’t be saying that to MEEEEE!, talk to THEM!”. But, Ducky, YOU are the one who is arguing for them. If you don’t know or believe their arguments, then why did you take them up in the first place. If you DO know or believe their arguments, then YOU can answer queries on them.

    And janama, you’re still trying to tell us there is no elephant.

    > I thought not

    Your grammar is off: “No thoughts” would be closer.

  73. #73 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    > No the “facts” are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud – and you know it!

    > Posted by: janama

    Of course, these facts have to be kept secret, since The Great Conspiracy will ensure that reality is changed so that these facts that prove the hockey stick is fraud will always have been wrong.

    Having a time machine is a great thing!

    (if you can’t stop the lunacy of others, may as well push their insanity further and have a laugh at the ride…)

  74. #74 Dave
    October 9, 2009

    Janama:

    > [Briffa] was lazy and didn’t post his data

    Janama later:

    > Yeah typical…nothing about the actual problem here….

    Look at you there, skipping about, dancing away from the issues you yourself bring up, creating as many smears as possible. Its almost cute.

    Also your call for:

    > not personal attacks

    Is hypocritical in light of the first snippet I quoted above.

  75. #75 Jeremy C
    October 9, 2009

    Please guys don’t distract Janama. I’m looking for a good laugh and pointing out out the circular reasoning of his posts will only put him off.

  76. #76 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Sorry about that, Jeremy.

    In case you need some more laughter, look at this doofus’ argument that there is no greenhouse effect:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/limiting_growth_of_people_and.html#P86739697

    Again with the “there’s no greenhouse effect because there’s no glass holding the air down!!!”.

  77. #77 Ezzthetic
    October 9, 2009

    It’s Malcolm Turnbull I feel sorry for.

    If he gives into the hockey stick, he risks getting displaced by Joe Hockey, who, we all know, will stick at nothing.

  78. #78 Jeremy C
    October 9, 2009

    Ezzthetic,

    This is off the topic but I was in the UK when when the conservatives lost the 1997 election. Everyone then watched them tear themselves to pieces year after year, going through leader after leader for the sake of purity. In that case it was to do with who cleaved closest to Maggie’s legacy and those who were deemed to have betrayed the spirit of Maggie were knifed and knifed again. It wasn’t untill they had exhausted themselves over this internal war that they wrere able to start again. Its looks like the Liberals are following the same script with the help of the Nationals but instead of Maggie its AGW and the ETS.

  79. #79 bi -- IJI
    October 9, 2009

    OK…

    …so…

    …is McIntyre being ‘misunderstood’ again?

  80. #80 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood…

    (I don’t remember the next line saying “but if it pays well, heck, go ahead”)

  81. #81 Eli Rabett
    October 9, 2009

    No one is required to post their measurement data. Various journals require making it available to referees and some to readers. Posting it is one method.

    We still don’t know the history of how McIntyre got the Russian data.

  82. #82 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Rather like the GPL requires that your customer whom you sold your binaries to must have source on request, but most people who sell GPL software give out the source code to anyone who accesses their website to download it.

  83. #83 Deep Climate
    October 9, 2009

    Tim mentioned Andrew Bolt, whom I’m just catching up on.

    So this may be of interest: Andrew Bolt tries to read Briffa et al 2008 …

    “All those funny names look the same to Andrew Bolt”

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/09/all-those-funny-names-andrew-bolt/

    … but apparently he didn’t get very far.

  84. #84 Deep Climate
    October 9, 2009

    #71

    McIntyre’s technical analysis probably deserves to be graded, not peer-reviewed.

    There are a lot of problems. Hint as to one: Both Keith Briffa and Jim Bouldin have referred to errors in weighting the different series in McIntyre’s “sensitivity analysis”.

    At this point I’d say it’s hovering between a D and an F.

  85. #85 dhogaza
    October 9, 2009

    that the temp chart for the 20th Century has been misrepresented when SM re-analysed the data.

    Well, Janama’s right, give him his due. When SM re-analyzed the data it did lead him to misrepresent the temp chart for the 20th century, magically causing the last few decades to show rapid cooling.

  86. #86 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    > causing the last few decades to show rapid cooling.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    Not that there WAS rapid cooling, just that sufficient abuse of the data can show anything.

    Just ask Grima…

  87. #87 dhogaza
    October 9, 2009

    Not that there WAS rapid cooling, just that sufficient abuse of the data can show anything.

    Well, that’s what ” SM misrepresent” means.

  88. #88 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    I just didn’t want Ducky to misquote you to saying there WAS a cooling.

    It’s hard enough to kill them zombies.

    Think of this as hallowing the ground we’re putting the deaders in…

  89. #89 WAG
    October 9, 2009

    It’s really sad, to make people disbelieve global warming, you don’t actually have to say anything of substance. Just ask leading rhetorical questions that imply climate science is wrong, without ever offering evidence. It’s the same tactic American politicians like Rick Cantor use to scare the public over health care reform. Here’s an explanation:

    http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/lesson-in-denial-rick-cantor-videos.html

  90. #90 Rattus Norvegicus
    October 9, 2009

    This article is so bad that I doubt it could pass muster at E&E.

    It’s the sun, no it’s the GCR, no it’s volcanos. CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. The guy is so full of hot air he’s a major contributor to global warming.

  91. #91 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    Hah! You’re not discussing science, but politics. Take any of the articles which I have writen and tell me what point is not clean science. :)

  92. #92 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    I have taken this pseudoscientific-antiscientific post from your posts:

    “Nasif is producing really absurd stuff. his science-speak might confuse the uneducated.”

    Have you read the references? It’s not what I have produced, but what hundreds of biologists and scientists of all times from the whole world have discovered through observation and experimentation. Read the references.

    “check out this article

    he has identified the single warmest year in the yamal region, over the last 2000 years:

    The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD, during the Medieval Warming Period. Again, the relevance of the current warming is quite low in comparison with past warming periods.”

    Oh, no! You didn’t learn to read]!!! I wrote “…that the MAXIMUM” temperature was achieved in 980…” Can you contradict that from the NOAA database? Heh…

    “since my criticism on Marohasy he seems to have removed (unless my mind is playing tricks with me) a completely absurd horizontal line, stretching from that maximum point. (and demonstrating how much higher that single year was, than any other one..)”

    Nothing has been removed from the article. Definitely, your fanatic mind is playing naughty tricks with you.

  93. #93 Nasif Nahle
    October 9, 2009

    @sod…

    You lost the debate at Jennifer Marohasy’s website. I answered properly your “questions” there, but you didn’t continue the dialogue.

    The science in my articles are supported by the references and bibliography. Read them, Sod…

  94. #94 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Masiv: sod just remembered the advice his daddy told him: There’s no point wrestling a pig in mud: you’re just going to dirty and the pig’ll enjoy it.

    Squeal for us here, piggy.

  95. #95 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    > The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD

    Ah, the well-known dark-ages World Met Office…

    ‘course that was before the thermometer was invented and people thought the world was flat, so global temperatures didn’t mean anything then.

  96. #96 Dave Andrews
    October 9, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    “. I would therefore certainly not trust anyone these days whose world view was shaped by articles and editorials in the Guardian or its sister paper, the Obsever.”

    You must be a sad person if you think peoples world view is shaped purely by the papers they read. Just like your earlier comment about views shaped by Fox News.

    Perhaps you are too busy running around the academic world spreading ‘your message’ to realise what the real world is like.

  97. #97 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    I think I’d better stop this.

    Masif Nail is gonna get hammered.

  98. #98 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Course ducky doesn’t trust papers. Just listens to his maw and paw.

    They got all the learnin’ HE needs.

  99. #99 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Nail, why does your temperature graph go up to just end 2005, but your hydrogen (which can’t be intergalactic: we aren’t in our own separate galaxy, then again what do you expect from a biologist…) goes on for nearly another year?

    Or did you copy that idea from the swindle known as TGGWS?

  100. #100 Dave Andrews
    October 9, 2009

    Michael #39,

    The only reason I memtioned the Guardian was in juxtaposition to Jeff Harvey’s comment about Fox News. As far as the MSM is concerned the Guardian is probably as far away as you can get from Fox.

    But, as Jeff’s later post shows he doesn’t think much of the Guardian either. Presumably he publishes and reads his own paper because he can fully agree with it.

Current ye@r *