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 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    > Presumably he publishes and reads his own paper because he can fully agree with it.

    You do a lot of presuming, don’t you Ducky?

    Tried any “finding out”?

  2. #2 Dave Andrews
    October 9, 2009

    luminous beauty,

    “Wrap your URL with angle brackets ( <> ) and this won’t happen.”

    Thanks for that.

  3. #3 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    You know, Ducky, you must be a poor wasted weasel of a man to get your jollies slagging people off over the internet.

    Your mom would be proud of how low her son has crawled.

  4. #4 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    ‘nother question Nail, since the Voyager craft doesn’t record direction of irradiance, how do you know these protons were going towards the sun and not away?

    I mean, there’s this big hydrogen ball behind it…

  5. #5 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Anther problem with it Nail is that your protons you have going at 400kps, but 10MeV protons will be traveling at 0.1c or 30,000kps.

    Therefore taking not 14 months, but 5.6 days to get from Voyager to Earth.

    If, indeed, it is going that way, which we haven’t yet worked out…

    And in your graph you have 85AU but in your text, 95AU.

    Is this part of your 99% accuracy? You’ve included 10,000 numbers from NASA but made up 100?

  6. #6 Dave Andrews
    October 9, 2009

    Mark,

    You really are an unpleasant person.

  7. #7 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    From another of his papers

    > Did you know that the Earth at night does not freeze over because the oceans, lakes and ponds transfer heat more slowly than the atmosphere and ground?

    No, Nail, we didn’t.

    Mostly because it doesn’t.

    Else the cloudy weather would not make a difference to the temperature drop at night.

    > But what happens to all of the heat generated by the transformation of infrared radiation into kinetic and chemical energy in the atmosphere?

    Ah, no, I don’t think IR from the earth transforms into chemical energy in the atmosphere, nail.

    Or is this the source of “Crystal Energy” I hear about in “Leylines For Beginners”?

    > You should know that heat is not a thing, but energy in movement.

    Ah, so my stationary electric hob is cold.

    > In this case, as we are talking about heat, we are talking about energy in motion carried by photons as gravitational energy

    Worse, he’s underlined gravitational energy.

    I would have thought that he’d know photons aren’t involved in gravitational attraction. And someone who pretends to know so much science should at least have understood that the photon is a first gauge boson and a graviton is third gauge.

    > Given that the energy density of the atmosphere is higher than the energy density of the gravity field,

    Ah, New-Age Science Lives!!!

    If the energy density of the atmosphere was higher than the gravitational field, there would be no atmosphere. It would have leaked away.

    > The interaction between photons and gravity is a probability function.

    Hmmm. Photons don’t interact. Basic Quantum Optics. Ergo the probability function (whatever THAT is) is zero.

    And the paper he cites for that probability function talks about linearized heat transfer in biology, where their linearization is enabled by ignoring radiative transfer.

    Well, if you’re going to ignore that, I guess there’s a problem: there’s no way for the heat to leave the earth and we should already be incandescent!

  8. #8 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    And you’re a putrescent personality, Ducky!

    Try some thinking instead of slandering. After a while you may earn some respect.

  9. #9 Michael
    October 9, 2009

    Girma and Nasif just might be a perfect match.

  10. #10 Mark
    October 9, 2009

    Here’s more from that paper. It’s hilarious!

    > Heat radiated by the atmosphere to outer space and transferred to other systems is not the same as incoming heat from the Sun.

    I suppose a broken watch is right twice a day! Unfortunately he spoils it all by saying what the difference is:

    > Water vapor in the atmosphere and the land and oceans absorb incoming shortwave-infrared radiation from the Sun

    Aw. He was doing so well.

    Water vapour is transparent to shortwave, Nail. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see out!

    > and radiate longwave-infrared radiation released by the transformation of Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy.

    Potential energy from what? Ah well.

    > The heat produced by the movement of the molecules and the chemical reactions in the atmosphere is RADIATED from Earth to outer space

    No, the movement stays as movement. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere are miniscule. And most of the energy loss is RADIATED from the ground, not the atmosphere. But I suppose he could be confusing himself here.

    > The soil, the oceans, the snow and the clouds all REFLECT a percentage of the cosmic heat back to outer space.

    So a hot plate won’t glow red (radiate)?

    You’d think a biologist would know this.

    > Greenhouse gases are not a barrier preventing the transference of heat to other settings.

    What? Like Gas Mark 5?

    No, they prevent radiation passing through freely.

    > The “Greenhouse” gases are components of the terrestrial atmosphere which makes all life on Earth possible

    Well yes, without GG impeding the GROUND radiating heat away, we’d be 33C cooler and all dead from frostbite.

    > At its present concentration (378.9 ppmv or 0.0332%) in the atmosphere, CO2 is able to raise the tropospheric temperature by only 0.03° C;

    How does he work that out from those numbers? It’s less than 0.0332% of the temperature of the earth, so it can’t be that. Nothing about how he got THAT number. But we’ve upped CO2 by 100ppm, and THAT would make 0.03C. Has he REALLY just gone “all the warming must be due to there being an atmosphere, and all constituents are equally responsible”.

    Gosh.

    > however, the tropospheric temperature anomaly has reached 0.42° C.

    Uh, quite a lot more than that, actually. Unless you’re talking about compared to the 1930-1980 average.

    > This discrepancy reveals that the registered tropospheric temperature variability is not the result of CO2,

    My goodness. So the number he made up with unphysical malpractice isn’t the same as the number it’s gotten warmer and this is how he KNOWS it’s not CO2 (as opposed to his figure of 0.03C being wrong…). Gee willikers.

    > but of a higher density of incoming energy from the Cosmos –Solar Radiation and Interstellar Cosmic Rays (science article here)

    However, how much warming that produces isn’t calculated.

    Probably because of the earlier “eureka” moment when he found that 0.03 wasn’t the same as 0.42 and discarded CO2 as the cause. After all, when he finds out that this causes only 0.000000004C warming he’d have to admit that idea is wrong.

    By the way, the “science article” is titled

    > Solar Rotation Effects on the Thermospheres of Mars and Earth

    How that relates to what he thinks are intergalactic protons coming from outside the solar system is anyone’s guess.

    > In particular, we should bear in mind the following formulas:

    This should be good…

    > Daylight Events: Potential energy of atmospheric gases + heat from the Sun and other regions of the Universe –> Kinetic energy of atmospheric gases + heat released from movement of the molecules of atmospheric gases + heat released by collisions among molecules + cosmic heat absorbed by ground and water –> Earth warms somewhat, but is maintained fresh by the transference of heat from the ground and other solids to the oceans and atmosphere.

    Ah. Potential energy is only released when you move to a lower energy location. Gravitational PE as any kid in secondary school knows is g (the force of gravity) times h (the height above ground level).

    But convection rises first.

    And I thought heat WAS kinetic energy of the gasses. So isn’t he double-counting?

    No figures however. Despite having some very accurate ones for CO2 content….

    > Night Events: Kinetic energy of the molecules of atmospheric gases –> potential energy from the decreasing exchange of energy + diminishing heat incoming from outer space + radiation of atmospheric heat to outer space + heat transfer from the atmosphere to water –> Earth cools somewhat, but is maintained warm by heat diffused from water to the ground and atmosphere.

    Still no formula.

    Maybe he’s using Nu Math.

    > Many other factors warm or cool the Earth, but I have summarized matters here to improve comprehension of the text.

    Ah.

    You failed, Nail.

    You”ve also left out the role of CO2 in warming the earth.

    > For example, I have not taken into consideration the heat released by other sources (for example volcanoes).

    Or people not lifting their feet properly and shuffling about.

    > have also overlooked Interstellar Cosmic Particles, which evidently are warming the Earth and other planets in our Solar System (read here).

    And looking at the “read here” we see another fine example of “plotting a graph on different axises and end the graph early if it starts disagreeing with your beliefs” that TGGWS displayed so well.

    He does lose it with the smoothed lines though. He shows up that there’s an unaccounted bump quite a bit larger than many of the ones he thinks “key” in proving his point, but ignored because it’s best to ignore inconvenient facts when doing so is convenient…

    Honestly, I thought the Gerlich paper was barely pre-school, this one is worse!

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    October 9, 2009

    While Nasif’s stuff is well worth mocking, please take it to the open thread.

  12. #12 Chris O'Neill
    October 9, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    You really are an unpleasant person.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  13. #13 Rattus Norvegicus
    October 9, 2009

    Tim, such a spoilsport. It was fun seeing Nasif get eviscerated!

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    October 9, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    No, unlike you apparently, I read books (a lot of them), and peruse declassified files that tell me pretty much what western planners (and their counterparts in other countries) are up to. My parents were devout Guardian readers but much of the elite nonsense coming from even the allegedly “left-leaning” media has put me off.

    By the way, Dave, (or `ducky`), has anybody told you what an unpleasant person you are? Oh, glad to see that luminous beauty, Janet Akerman, Chris O`Neill, Mark, Michael and others have beaten me to it…

  15. #15 dhogaza
    October 10, 2009

    Crap, my endless ranting that DaveA is a fuckhead hasn’t been noticed by JeffH?

    Damn!

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    October 10, 2009

    Sorry dhogaza! My bad! I think your contributions to various threads on Deltoid, like those of the others above I mentioned, is excellent! And I am glad that we all agree about DA, or “ducky” as he is colloquially known……

  17. #17 Mark
    October 10, 2009

    Tim, but HE started it!!!

    ;-P

    Really, though. He’d demanded on this thread it be read, so I read it.

    I take it “latest open thread” is fine if Nail wants hammering some more.

  18. #18 Deep Climate
    October 10, 2009

    Global warming denialis the greatest deception and delusion of all times.

    FTFY

  19. #19 MarkB
    October 10, 2009

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

    Perhaps Bolt means these 10 trees are magical carbon sequestration trees, able to annually remove all the carbon emitted from human activities. This would be a marginally more ratinoal argument for him.

  20. #20 Dave Andrews
    October 10, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    Wow you read books! What are they? Oh you mean those things my partner is always complaining about as they spill out of the bookshelves and organise themselves in piles across other surfaces which necessitates mass movements before you can get to what you want in the container underneath.

    Glad to see you have sorted out how the world is run – when did you get to be omnipotent?

  21. #21 Dave Andrews
    October 10, 2009

    dhogaza,

    When I first came across you on Open Mind you used to be relatively civil in your postings. Both there and here your posts have tended to become increasingly strident and derogatory with use of abusive language.

    As I said before you must be getting desperate!

  22. #22 dhogaza
    October 10, 2009

    When I first came across you on Open Mind you used to be relatively civil in your postings. Both there and here your posts have tended to become increasingly strident and derogatory with use of abusive language.

    As I said before you must be getting desperate!

    Well, earlier I had hopes that your ignorance was curable. Unlike you, I’m capable of learning and have now given up that hope.

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill@optusnet.com.au
    October 10, 2009

    Andrews:

    when did you get to be omnipotent?

    Wow, a master of language too. Is there no end to this man’s talent?

  24. #24 Nasif Nahle
    October 10, 2009

    I repeat… Steve McIntyre had the data, but not the databases which were hidden by Briffa from the scientists’ scrutiny for 10 years.

  25. #25 Rattus Norvegicus
    October 10, 2009

    I started reading Nasif’s missive, but after a few sentences began hitting my head so hard against the nearest wall that I had to stop.

    He must be the dumbest denier I have ever seen. I have to take some ibuprofen now.

  26. #26 Tim Lambert
    October 10, 2009

    Nasif, I deleted your off topic comments. Do it again and you will be banned.

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    October 10, 2009

    Ducky boy Dave,

    If you have anything useful to say, say it. But until then, your brainless, vacuous posts just waste everybody`s time.

    What I have noticed with you is that when your simple facts are countered, you resort to witless remarks and insults. Take them elsewhere, ducky.

  28. #28 dhogaza
    October 11, 2009

    I repeat… Steve McIntyre had the data, but not the databases which were hidden by Briffa from the scientists’ scrutiny for 10 years.

    Databases are built from data. As someone who works with data and databases, this is …

    the most fuckingly stupid excuse I’ve ever heard.

  29. #29 dhogaza
    October 11, 2009

    Also, the R stuff McI runs are always based on flat files, not “databases”.

    Nasif is even more stupid than people imagine.

  30. #30 Dirk Hartog
    October 11, 2009

    Nasif’s comments on data and databases are more appropriate for DenialDepot, where there has been an [interesting post on this very topic in the Yamal thread](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/10/yamal-fraud-i-have-found-it.html?showComment=1255170405529#c25514776683269572). At least, I found it interesting.

    I wonder if the folks at ClimateAudit realize that a good third of the posts at their site are probably tongue in cheek from climate science grad students? In fact, you would have to wonder if the entire ClimateAudit site isn’t just an elaborate hoax. [Steve’s latest missive](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328) is such a bizarre attempt at obfuscating his way out of the mess that he has created for himself, that it can surely only be parody.

    Dirk (the sensible one)

  31. #31 Mark
    October 11, 2009

    > Both there and here your posts have tended to become increasingly strident and derogatory with use of abusive language.

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    That would be because when you hear someone being an arse or an idiot, you start off thinking “Well, maybe they just got the wrong end of the stick”.

    If they continue to look blankly, you may get a bit firmer to try and jolt them into thinking or even just listening.

    But you, Ducky, YOU are unwilling to change your confusion because you want to be an arsehole and a troll. After the hundredth time of ignorance and idiocy, swearing is the only thing left.

    And swearing at trolls like you is completely warranted.

    Get.
    A.
    Frigging.
    Clue.
    You.
    Wanker.

  32. #32 Mark
    October 11, 2009

    PS it’s rich coming from a serial abuser like you. Almost ALL of your posts degenerate into name-calling.

    See post 100 for recent examples, but anything with Monbiot or Greenpeace has you foaming at the brain trying to make them out to be spawn of satan’s scrotum.

    Then scurrying away or denying you said anything when asked for proof of your allegations.

  33. #33 Dave Andrews
    October 11, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?

  34. #34 Dave Andrews
    October 11, 2009

    Mark,

    I hardly think one use of the word ‘unpleasant’ counts as name calling. Whereas both you and dhogaza have used some pretty intemperate language.

    You also regularly exaggerate, as in your post 132. Still that must be your way and you presumably do it with everything you post.

  35. #35 anthony
    October 11, 2009

    Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?

    That’s existentialism, Daddio.

  36. #36 luminous beauty
    October 11, 2009

    >_ …a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?_

    My projection meter just broke its needle.

  37. #37 dhogaza
    October 11, 2009

    Dick Hartog:

    You’re right, McIntyre’s latest post is just bizarre, and of course other than Tom P, who’s continuing to try to educate folks there, the responses form one disturbingly long-winded circle-jerk.

    Of course, McIntyre’s martyring himself, whining about everyone picking on him, while not saying a thing about the flood of accusations of scientific fraud etc his dishonest claims let loose.

  38. #38 Janet Akerman
    October 11, 2009

    >*Get. A. Frigging. Clue. You. W$nker*

    One nil to Ducky!

    Even if Ducky has no idea about most of which he spouts, Ducky Dave knows how to press some people’s buttons.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    October 11, 2009

    Dave “ducky boy” Andrews,

    Read my post again from yesterday. Let it sink in this time. Go away.

  40. #40 Nathan
    October 11, 2009

    Dave Andrews:
    “Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?”

    That’s nothing to do with postmodernism. Postmodernism is an artistic movement, it is a rejection of modernism (which is basically based in rationalism). It has nothing to do with Communism nor being “of the left”. I don’t think there are many people in the world despairing at the failure of Communism.

  41. #41 dhogaza
    October 11, 2009

    Simple answers:

    1. Postmodernism rejects science. Jeff Harvey is a scientist who clearly does not.

    2. Ducky doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about.

  42. #42 Nathan
    October 12, 2009

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

    Very interesting… Sort of.
    What’s most interesting is that apparently Vlaclev Havel, that poster boy skeptic of global warming, actually seems to be a postmodernist. Who’d have thunk that? I suppose Dave Andrews already knew that, though didn’t he?

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    October 12, 2009

    Nathan,

    I think you mean Vaclav Klaus?

    J

  44. #44 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    > I hardly think one use of the word ‘unpleasant’ counts as name calling.

    No, but all the other things you say about people is name calling.

    Or are you part-goldfish and can’t remember anything more than 10 minutes ago?

  45. #45 Nathan
    October 12, 2009

    Jeff,

    My Bad, I thought that Vaclev Havel was the most recent Czech President. So I was mistaken about the poster boy skeptic remark.
    You are quite right, Vaclav Klaus, is the poster boy… And I have no idea if he is a postmodernist. Possibly if this is anything to go by:
    “In his public statement he described the bill as being “dangerous”, a threat to the fabric of Czech society and representing militant “homosexualism.” ”
    A Modernist has no fear of homosexualism, in fact Modernism rejoices in freedom of expression.

    :)

  46. #46 Nasif Nahle
    October 12, 2009

    Also, the R stuff McI runs are always based on flat files, not “databases”.

    Nasif is even more stupid than people imagine.

    Ooooh! What a scientific argument you have posted… hahaha!

  47. #47 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    About as scientific as “McIntyre has the data, but not the database”.

    However, “Nasif is stupid2 is at least a sensible thing to say. This makes sense.

  48. #48 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    > Even if Ducky has no idea about most of which he spouts, Ducky Dave knows how to press some people’s buttons.

    > Posted by: Janet Akerman

    Or I know how to push yours, Janet.

    PS this is quite off topic, but does ANYONE think that putting a $ sign in the place of an “a” hid anything?

    It’s like those who don’t like swearing but have no problem with cripes or heck.

    THEY ARE STILL BLASPHEMING!

    Blasphemy would be bad only if there really WAS an omnipotent god. Now who thinks that he’d be sitting up there saying:

    Well I *was* going to send him to hell for eternity for taking my son’s name in vain, but he actually said “Cripes”, which is *completely* different, so that’s allright.

    ?

    If you didn’t want to put a rude word, just put the number of the post.

  49. #49 Dave Andrews
    October 12, 2009

    Mark,

    Don’t be rude to Janet, it is very unbecoming.

    dhogaza,

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/10/culture-catcher-19

  50. #50 Dave Andrews
    October 12, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    “nd peruse declassified files that tell me pretty much what western planners (and their counterparts in other countries) are up to.”

    So is this omnipotence or post modernism?

  51. #51 dhogaza
    October 12, 2009

    PS this is quite off topic, but does ANYONE think that putting a $ sign in the place of an “a” hid anything?
    It’s like those who don’t like swearing but have no problem with cripes or heck.
    THEY ARE STILL BLASPHEMING!

    Or perhaps not aware that scienceblogs – unlike some others – allows the use of words like “wanker”.

  52. #52 Dave Andrews
    October 12, 2009

    Nathan,

    The Wikipaedia article you linked did indeed mention Vaclav Havel. Pity you mixed him up with Vaclav Klaus.

    Did you also notice this in the article?

    “It is possible to identify the burgeoning anti-establishment movements of the 1960s as the constituting event of postmodernism. “

  53. #53 Dave Andrews
    October 12, 2009

    dhogaza,

    Just because something is “allowed” doesn’t mean that you should do it.

  54. #54 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    > Just because something is “allowed” doesn’t mean that you should do it.

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    And just because you can slander on here, doesn’t mean you should do it every chance you get, Ducky.

  55. #55 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    re 151, that’s what I’m on about.

    It’s not like the substitution really worked, is it.

    PS: Ducky, it’s not nice to be rude to Jeff. Or Monbiot. Or all the others you’re rude to then scurry away when called on it.

  56. #56 Mark
    October 12, 2009

    PS Ducky, from someone who slates people left right and centre with insinuations of all sorts, it’s rather hard to know what you considered rude in that posting.

    “Or I know how to push yours, Janet” is no worse than Janet did to me.

    “Why not just use the post number” is not rude AT ALL.

    Someone who says

    > Jeff Harvey,

    > Wow you read books!

    > Glad to see you have sorted out how the world is run – when did you get to be omnipotent?

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    EVEN WHILE complaining about others being oh so *very* mean to him.

    Either a stunned goldfish level of memory or a totally nonhuman level of self awareness.

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    October 12, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    Read dhogaza`s response at # 141. Essentially, just because virtually everyone on this thread knows considerably more than you do about a wealth of topics does not mean that their philosophy can be classifieds as “either-or”. Your expertise is hit and run baiting – making simplistic remarks that are easily countered then using vacuous wit to cover your lack of knowledge and by trying and show how clever you are (without any empirical substance).

    If that makes your day – fine. But I have work to do. I try to not waste much of my time on people like you who actually have very little of substance to add to contemporary issues and debates. Perhaps you should attend one of my many university lectures on public policy and the environment some time – you would definitely learn something. As it is, your posts are nothing more than hollow posturing coupled with an apparent need to be noticed. That is why you write in every day with effectively a few quips and nothing else to say.

  58. #58 Janet Akerman
    October 12, 2009

    Mark, glad to see you are back on form. I was sorry to see Dave temporarily reduce you to useless name calling.

  59. #59 Janet Akerman
    October 12, 2009

    Ducky,

    Mark might have a volatile streak, but at least he is accurate in calling your empty guff, and tearing a new one for Nasif Nahle.

    But Jeff’spost @157 sums it all beautifully.

  60. #60 Rattus Norvegicus
    October 12, 2009

    In regards to Ducky:

    As it is, your posts are nothing more than hollow posturing coupled with an apparent need to be noticed. That is why you write in every day with effectively a few quips and nothing else to say.

    Yes he is rather like McIntyre, isn’t he?

  61. #61 Jimmy Nightingale
    October 13, 2009

    Re #41 and the related comments about the absence of the Lorax thread over on Climate Audit.

    I was enjoying watching McIntyre’s responses to the awkward questions that were evolving there and, like others, thought it very strange that the entire thread was wiped. I wrote my first post on their site to ask where it had gone (no hint of my thoughts on the subject and I didn’t include the link to my Helium site where I’ve posted pro-AGW articles).

    It seems that the mere mention of Lorax is enough to frighten them off. I tried to post on their new Unthreaded topic with a general clarification of ENSO and it appears I’m banned. Received this message:

    http://www.ioerror.us/bb2-support-key?key=a461-f554-dfd9-b1ad

    For McIntyre to whine about transparency and getting a fair go in the scientific community is hypocrisy of the highest order.

  62. #62 Mark
    October 13, 2009

    > I was sorry to see Dave temporarily reduce you to useless name calling.

    > Posted by: Janet Akerman

    Janet, it wasn’t me reduced to it I was not joking. Apart from that closing comment, I’m playing with the arrogant little arse in the hope that he’ll think before he posts.

    But he really, REALLY *needs* to get a frigging clue. That was dead serious.

    When you stub your toe, do you swear or go “Golly Gosh!”? PROPER swearing is genuine and real and the original emotional enhancer.

    Ducky needs to get a frigging clue.

  63. #63 Whale Spinor
    October 13, 2009

    Mark: ” And someone who pretends to know so much science should at least have understood that the photon is a first gauge boson and a graviton is third gauge.” Please supply a reference where the gauge bosons are classified numerically and in such a strange manner – “a graviton is third gauge”???

    There are five spin 1 bosons or three if you group the heavy vector bosons as one. The graviton is spin 2 and so if you list them numerically it comes in as number 6 or 4. If you are stupid enough to classify them that way that is.

    Stick to rants about climate change, you’ll never make it as a theoretical elementary particle physicist.

  64. #64 Mark
    October 13, 2009

    The spin number of photons, gluons and gravitons, Whale.

    All Gauge Bosons.

    The terminology I had remembered was to group them, so the five spin 1 bosons are all one gauge.

    > Stick to rants about climate change, you’ll never make it as a theoretical elementary particle physicist.

    > Posted by: Whale Spinor

    Not trying to, Whale.

    Don’t become a teacher: you have no talent in that direction.

  65. #65 Mark
    October 13, 2009

    ‘course Spiner is only wanting to defend a fellow denialist. He has form:

    > But then some bedraggled, haggish, young environazi behind me said, in a magnificently superior tone, “Don’t you know they harm the enviroment?”.

    > I said “no I didn’t” and gave the assistant a 50 cent coin and said could I have another five plastic bags please to carry my book in. The assistant (full marks to her), smirked and put my book in the six plastic bags I’d payed for.

    > The environazi, a woman whom only her mother could love and find attractive, was not amused and told me so in language that would make a shearer blush.

    > And so I payed the price (60 cents + abuse) of being a religious heretic.
    > Whale Spinor of Brisbane (Reply)

    Mind you, watch the spelling in there and then rejoice in reading his demands for Good English:

    > And that’s just his English, his geography is worse and his powers of reason non-existent. A tragic, truly tragic example of the shortcomings of the Australian education system.
    > Posted by Whale Spinor

  66. #66 TrueSceptic
    October 13, 2009

    It’s good to see Nasif here. Whatever you might think already, it gets better. He appeared (as Biocab) at the JREF forums a while ago. I collated his many, many posts on one bizarre claim [here](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3854567&postcount=779). You can follow up individual posts if you’re especially masochistic. ;)

    For those who “enjoyed” Girma, I can tell you that Nasif is in another league. :D

  67. #67 Former Skeptic
    October 13, 2009

    TrueSceptic:

    I don’t think I can untangle my mind anytime soon after following that magnificent display of loopy logic by Nasif/Biocab. That link needs a stronger warning label.

    For those who “enjoyed” Girma, I can tell you that Nasif is in another league. :D

    I don’t think the world can take another person like Girma. Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

  68. #68 Dave Andrews
    October 13, 2009

    Jeff Harvey “157

    Yet again your first impulse is to suggest that people who disagree with you are somehow ignorant.

    They are not.

    But let’s move on – where are all these university lectures you give taking place? Are they part of recognised university courses or ‘extra curricular’? Are they open to members of the public?

  69. #69 Dave Andrews
    October 13, 2009

    Janet Akerman,

    Good to see that despite Mark’s put down of you and his subsequent reiteration of it, you still jump to his support.

    Solidarity – excellent!

  70. #70 Dave Andrews
    October 13, 2009

    Mark,

    I said to Jeff Harvey ‘wow you read books’ as a direct response to his post insinuating that I didn’t do likewise.

    If my comment was what you call ‘name calling’ what was his?

    Or do you have a different level of tolerance for people you agree with than for people you don’t?

  71. #71 Chris O'Neill
    October 13, 2009

    Assertion of an ignoramus, e.g. Dave Andrews:

    “I am not ignorant.”

  72. #72 Whale Spinor
    October 13, 2009

    Mark – “The spin number of photons, gluons and gravitons, Whale. All Gauge Bosons.” Ah I see. That is why a graviton is gauge three. It has spin 3. Apologies, you got me there.

  73. #73 dhogaza
    October 13, 2009

    Yet again your first impulse is to suggest that people who disagree with you are somehow ignorant.

    They are not.

    Really? All of them?

    And if you count yourself in that group, why do you post so much ignorant shit?

  74. #74 Janet Akerman
    October 13, 2009

    Dave Andrews writes:

    >*Good to see that despite Mark’s put down of you and his subsequent reiteration of it, you still jump to his support.*

    Interesting the way you show us how your mind works Dave. My assessment is you need to develop your arguments further before you would make interesting discussion.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    October 13, 2009

    Ah I see.

    Bizarrely enough, this wasn’t said in response to anything Nail said.

  76. #76 david elder
    October 13, 2009

    As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.

    The main questions I got out of McIntyre were:

    1. The Yamal series seems to give a better outcome for the so-called ‘Hockey Stick Team’ than the Polar Urals in the same general area. The former tended to displace the latter in Team temperature reconstructions. Is there any independent and objective reason why Yamal should replace Polar Urals?

    2. McIntyre had Yamal data since 2004, but was unsure whether it was the same version as that used by Briffa. Wouldn’t prompt full archiving have rapidly resolved this issue? Hasn’t this issue of archiving been a longstanding complaint about the Team in general?

    3. The Wegman report of 2006 made criticisms of the Hockey Stick Team’s statistical methods. These were said to have the effect of ‘mining’ for hockey sticks. Is this not a matter of concern when the Yamal series is used in place of the Polar Urals? And/or when bristlecone pines are used (as is not uncommon), since they can show a hockey-stick growth response to elevated atmospheric CO2 as well as temperature?

    These were the main questions I got out of McIntyre. I must say that the voluminous and often abusive comments on this thread did not produce much illumination for me.

  77. #77 C.L.
    October 13, 2009

    H hd “vrsn”, h? Th <>Lnct nc hd “vrsn” f th MMR/tsm lnk. Nt s mch “bmbshll” s th brstng bbbl f rd hrrng’s brp. ncdntll, s ths pst s bng qtd td t th wbst f ntrs rcst nd gdfthr f th Nk Mcc mvmnt, Chrls Jhnsn. Nw dn’t blv tht, lk th LGF brgd, Tm blvs th Plstnns shld b < hrf="http://lttlgrnftblls.cm/shwc//">xtrmntd. Bt h shld bnc ll lnks frm Jhnsn.

  78. #78 Marco
    October 14, 2009

    @David Elder:
    Wrt point 1: Polar Urals show major divergence already early in the 20th century. That is, they clearly are poor temperature gauges in modern times. Putting them IN any reconstructions would require some major ‘splaining!

    Point 2: the data was archived…by the original authors. Briffa et al did not own the data. Moreover, let’s also remember that archiving data and making it available to everyone has only been ‘normal’ in the last few years. Let’s also remember that archiving data so everyone can understand it is NOT trivial and takes time. In fact, it would have taken McIntyre far less time to send a mail to Briffa asking him whether the data he received was the same Briffa used, than constantly harassing the non-owners of the data to release that same data…

    Point 3: The Wegman report actually forgot to look at the actual data, and merely said that the statistical method may indeed yield hockeysticks. It did not(!) investigate whether the data ITSELF contained a hockeystick shape. The Yamal series has little to do with the criticism of the statistical methods. Also, while concern was voiced about the bristlecones (notably an area on which the Wegman committee had absolutely no expertise), several studies after that have shown they actually are quite reasonable temperature gauges. Whether with them, or without them, the shape of the hockeystick is mostly the same.

  79. #79 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.

    The main questions I got out of McIntyre were:

    The Yamal series seems to give a better outcome for the so-called ‘Hockey Stick Team’ than the Polar Urals in the same general area. The former tended to displace the latter in Team temperature reconstructions. Is there any independent and objective reason why Yamal should replace Polar Urals?

    McIntyre had Yamal data since 2004, but was unsure whether it was the same version as that used by Briffa. Wouldn’t prompt full archiving have rapidly resolved this issue? Hasn’t this issue of archiving been a longstanding complaint about the Team in general?

    The Wegman report of 2006 made criticisms of the Hockey Stick Team’s statistical methods. These were said to have the effect of ‘mining’ for hockey sticks. Is this not a matter of concern when the Yamal series is used in place of the Polar Urals? And/or when bristlecone pines are used (as is not uncommon), since they can show a hockey-stick growth response to elevated atmospheric CO2 as well as temperature?

    These were the main questions I got out of McIntyre. I must say that the voluminous and often abusive comments on this thread did not produce much illumination for me.

    Posted by: david elder | October 13, 2009 10:34 PM

    Dear David,

    Pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. The better for you is to investigate ourselves everything looking to be supported by peer reviewed papers, science books, etc.

    As a general rule, “science” blogs often manage dirty science and do not tolerate you demonstrate the true science behind any issue, at both sides of this debate, I mean global warming and climate change. I suggest you to read Elsevier’s guideline on peer reviewed stuff:

    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf

    Kind Regards,

    Nasif Nahle

  80. #80 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    Dear David,

    Pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. The better for you is to investigate for yourself everything, looking for support on peer reviewed papers, science books, etc.

    As a general rule, “science” blogs often manage dirty science and do not tolerate you to demonstrate the true science behind any issue; it occurs at both sides of this debate, I mean global warming and climate change. I suggest you to read Elsevier’s guideline on peer reviewed stuff:

    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf

    Kind Regards,

    Nasif Nahle

  81. #81 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    @Marco | October 14, 2009 12:56 AM

    Whether with them, or without them, the shape of the hockeystick is mostly the same.

    I have plotted the raw data from the whole series and all treering samples and the shape is not a hockeystick:

    http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg

  82. #82 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    Oops! Sorry the link didn’t work. Let’s try again:

    http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg

  83. #83 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    Well… Look at the second graph here:

    http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html

  84. #84 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    Last trial:

    http://www.biocab.org/RawDataTreering-Yamal.jpg

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    October 14, 2009

    David Elder

    I am a senior scientist who works in The Netherlands.

    Nasif is correct when he says that pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. It is just too bad that the vast proportion of this science comes out of the denial industry, through PR campaigns, astroturf lobbying groups, corporate funded think tanks and the like. This kind of denial is rife in environmental research, because of the threat regulation pose to the profits of commerical elites. This is why they in vest so much money in denial.

    I also wound not trust Sense About Science with a ten foot barge pole. SAS is or has been funded by a number of corporations, especially those promoting GM crops. You can read how “objective” this lot is by reading these srticles in Sourcewatch:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tracey_Brown

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_about_Science

    A few years ago Stuart Pimm (Professor, Duke University) and I wrote a piece in the peer-reviewed journal Oikos in which we gave a list of recommendations for readers of web sites and environmental literature to check when validating or invalidating the authenticity of what they read. Two piece of advice are relevant here. First, follow the data. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary empirical evidence. For their part, most of the contrarians do not publish their research in rigidly peer-reviewed journals where it would be open to scrutiny, but on unaccountable web sites where almost anything can be printed and often is. The data trails of the denialists often grows cold very quickly. Second, follow the money. Many of the most prominent contrarians have received industry or think tank funding at one time or another, whether for research, consulting or travel fees. They try to downplay this, calling these criticisms ad hominem attacks, but that is a smokescreen. If you are a lawyer and I pay you money, you are working for me. Period. Why should it be any different for scientists?

    Finally, I would like to ask Nasif something I noticed about two of his responses to his critics (one of them being me).

    On post #40 (October 8), Nasif, in response to my post you said:

    *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*

    But on another web site of Emily Gertz, in July of this year, you (I assume it was you) wrote:

    *BTW, there is not global warming nowadays. Instead, the Earth is cooling*

    (Of course, the latter was said before the warmest September on record, but why quibble?)

    So which is it Nasif? Warming? Cooling? Both? Flip-flop? Left-right-left-right? In the space of two months you go from warming to cooling. Are you basing this on one blip in the data set (last year, given that the surface temperature this year is much warmer than last). This is NOT good science!

  86. #86 sod
    October 14, 2009

    here is your [link](http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg) Nasif. (markdown is described above the box in which you wrote your post…)

    is the raw data confirming [980 AD](http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html) as the warmest year ever? (nasif TM method)

  87. #87 Jeff Harvey
    October 14, 2009
  88. #88 Mark Byrne
    October 14, 2009

    Hope this bracketing <> helps Jeff’s link to overcome the mark-up.

    < http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/268982/sense_about_science.html>

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    October 14, 2009

    The simplest answer for underscored, or even just plain long, urls is to [tiny](http://www.tiny.cc/) it.

    You can put a ‘tiny’ button in your toolbar (at least, you can for Firefox), and your url problems are then one click from solved.

  90. #90 TrueSceptic
    October 14, 2009

    185 Jeff,

    Oh, yes, Nasif has certainly claimed it’s cooling, and he uses Nu Arithmetic to “prove” it. From the link I gave earlier:-

    Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven’t had any global warming anymore.

    I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

    -0.774 °C – 0.75 = -1.524 °C… Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

    So… A napkin for you to wipe the cherry juice off your face

  91. #91 Whale Spinor
    October 14, 2009

    “Ah I see.
    Bizarrely enough, this wasn’t said in response to anything Nail said.

    Posted by: Chris O’Neill | October 13, 2009 9:54 PM”

    Correct. Bizarrely enough, it was in response to Mark’s discovery of the “gauge 3 boson”.

  92. #92 sod
    October 14, 2009

    and as the majority of knowledge about AGW is based on The New York Times, your post has just killed the hockey stick. (again.)

    congratulations!

    oh, and the article you cited above is from the Quadrant. wonderful source. beats the AGW New York Times stuff everyday.

  93. #93 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    > As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.

    So dispassionately that Nail didn’t bother learning the science…

  94. #94 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    > Ah I see. That is why a graviton is gauge three. It has spin 3. Apologies, you got me there.

    > Posted by: Whale Spinor

    No need to apologise for the confusion: that was caused by poor memory of the *correct* terminology. It’s not widespread. So that’s my fault.

    Jumping to the conclusion that because you don’t understand the terminology means I know nothing about it was out of order, and an apology on that is warranted and accepted.

    Ta.

  95. #95 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    That could be misread:

    “you don’t understand the terminology *I* *used*” would be clearer.

  96. #96 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    > Or do you have a different level of tolerance for people you agree with than for people you don’t?

    > Posted by: Dave Andrews

    Because there’s the possiblitiy of understanding why the apparent insult occurs and either

    1) accepting that it was warranted

    2) accepting that it was unwarranted but arrived honestly (by misunderstanding)

    3) accepting that it was misunderstood as insult by the receiver

    which allows discourse.

    You just slate, slander and slag.

    That you fail to consider this as how you can insult without being rejected is one of the VERY MANY ways you have no clue and one must be found by you before people start considering you human.

  97. #97 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    > Correct. Bizarrely enough, it was in response to Mark’s discovery of the “gauge 3 boson”.

    > Posted by: Whale Spinor

    Bizarrely you seem to have forgotten the post you made at #172.

    Why?

  98. #98 Nasif Nahle
    October 14, 2009

    @Jeff Harvey…

    Yes, I noticed the Earth was cooling. However, in another blog, i.e. Watts Up With That, I said the cooling will be very short. I told WUWUT bloggers that the trend was to a warmhouse (AGWers call it greenhouse, which is the same), not to an ice age.

    A scientist must to consider all the possibilities working aroung a phenomenon. In this case, yes, we observed a cooling, but the general trend is towards a warming, which is the next climate phase.

    @Sod…

    Thank you, Sod, for helping me with the link. :)

    Regarding your question, yes; if we assume the treering growth was due to temperature, the raw database indicates the warmest year in the last 2000 years was 980 AD.

    However, as I indicate in the conclusions, the main factor which affects the growth of C3 plants is the insolation. There are many factors which affect the growth of green plants, but insolation is the strongest among them; so the data obtained from treerings is not a reliable source for paleotemperatures.

    From the comparisons with total solar irradiance, which affects insolation, we are confident that the treering’s growth was due to insolation, not to environmental change of temperature.

    Besides, the Siberian Larch trees, the bristlecone pines and almost all trees are C3 plants. Growth of C3 plants stops when insolation and/or temperature surpasses the optimal temperature for photosynthesis, which for pines is aroung 23 °C.

    By the way, it is not my TM methodology, but NOAA reccommended methodology. Sorry… ;)

    @TrueSceptic…

    It seems you know nothing about amplitude, do you?

  99. #99 Mark
    October 14, 2009

    > From the comparisons with total solar irradiance, which affects insolation,

    Isn’t insolation and solar irradiance the same thing?

    > A scientist must to consider all the possibilities working aroung a phenomenon.

    Have you considered the effect of lost socks on your phenomenon?

    And I notice that you haven’t explained why your cosmic rays are running at 10% of the speed they should be in your paper on how it’s all the protons doing it…

  100. #100 TrueSceptic
    October 14, 2009

    198 Nasif,

    I invite anyone to go to the [JREF link](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3854567&postcount=779) I posted and follow the “discussion” with Nasif (biocab). Does he know anything about amplitude? Heck, does he know anything about simple arithmetic?

    I wrote cooled 0.774 °C, that is -0.774 °C, right? Then I wrote, since the total warming from 1860 has been 0.75 °C, that is a positive amount, correct? Now, continue with the lesson:

    -0.774 °C – 0.75 = -1.524 °C… Which is a negative amount, agree? Then, there is not any warming anymore, but a cooling.

    You never did give your working did you? You just resorted to idiotic insults because you had nothing but arithmetic that would shame a 5-year old.

    To claim that someone knows less than you about amplitudes (or simple maths for that matter) is beyond stupid.

    Others here thought Girma was bad. They have no idea…

Current ye@r *