Mcintyre misunderstood somehow. Yet again.

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

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

i-39cac8c39626aa095097c89af8534b49-rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif

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

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

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

Chris Horner:

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

Jennifer Marohasy

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

Anthony Watts

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

Ross McKitrick:

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

Melanie Philips:

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

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

Briffa replied

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

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

And McIntyre then complained about how unfair Briffa was:

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

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

It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.

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

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

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

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

As well as this:

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

And yet, in his new post:

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

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

RealClimate comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also David Appell.

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Pielke Jr:

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

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

How clear is that?

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

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

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

More like this

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…
A new study has recently been published that looks at the ecology of bristlecone pine growth at Sheep Mountain, and the tree ring signal those trees produce, at high altitudes in the Southwestern US. This is important because tree rings are an often used proxyindicator for reconstructing past…
The Hook reports: In papers sent to UVA April 23, [Virginia Attorney General] Cuccinelli's office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann's receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann-- now director…
Which is, wittily, Yamal backwards. The shape of this is now becoming clearer; I think it is safe to post. I first ran across this in The Torygraph, which is worthless, but appears to be based on climateaudit.org/?p=7168. RC ripped into this but its a bit snarky (unlike me, obviously) and perhaps…

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

Typical. Denier. Behaviour.

By laolaolao (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

At RC Comment 108; TrueSceptic says:
51 Gavin,
"Iâm sorry but whatâs required is specific quotes, with URLs of course, to refute nonsense immediately. Replies like yours just feed nonsense claims of âsnarkâ".

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

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

Sorry Gavinâs tilting at windmills; not his best day. Perhaps Roger Pielke Jun. is âon the moneyâ.

By Geoff Larsen (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

good post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve provides ammunition, others spin it into oblivion.

... explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign

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

Just don't renew their contracts.

the dozen were cherry-picked

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

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

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

Whatever is going on here, it is not science.

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

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

Shorter Geoff Larsen:

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

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

* * *

Shorter Bengt A:

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

* * *

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

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

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

Heheheh.

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

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

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

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

pough,

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

Ah, pough, [you beat me to it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…).

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

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

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

Hmmm?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

Please stick to the science on a "science blog!"

By Malcolm Helm (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

Malcolm Helm.

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

so let us stick to the point:

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

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

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

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

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

You gentlemen are "dropping the ball" as you say.

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

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

By Malcolm Helm (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

By Bart Renson (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

Malcolm,

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank's [URL](http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/mustreads_for_copenhage…) corrected for markdown mess-up.

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

I jest, of course.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

Shorter Malcolm Helm:

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

* * *

Shorter Bart Renson:

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

shorter bi--IJI,

I believe everything Gavin says!

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

pough, Hank, Tim et al

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

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

If so, we should make this a PUBLIC CHALLENGE.

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

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

She should back up her libels with facts or RESIGN.

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

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

I do this all the time!

By Shoter Dave Andrews (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tommy jokes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Andrews:

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

Only if you believe in a cartoon version of science.

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

Will the Hockey Stick is Broken zombie NEVER die?

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

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

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

By Stephen Gloor … (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

One doesnât expect Team adjustments to leave even small scraps on the table and this proved to be the case here as well â the added data substantially increased 20th century values and substantially lowered 1150-1250AD values, thereby altering the medieval-modern differential in favor of the 20th century.
=========
Iâd be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.
=========
Jacoby, DâArrigo, whatever other faults they may have, use the entire crossdated population from a site. (They cherry pick sites, but donât cherry pick trees within a site.)
=========
Iâm assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like ***** ******* by paleoclimatologists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The actual statement is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 03 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

Tim:

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

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

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

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

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

By Bob Levinstein (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

Bob Levinstein:

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

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

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

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data.

Michael,

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

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

Deep climate,

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By stonefish (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

sod,

"the hockey stick does not depened on the Yamal data."

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

Gosh, that's simple.

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

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

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

By Generic Denialist (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

Generic Denialist - "Scientists are hiding the raw data. We need the raw data."

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

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

By Stephen Gloor … (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

should more appropriately read:

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

That`s more like it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

"Former astronaut speaks out on global warming"
By Associated Press

Sunday, February 15, 2009 -

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

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

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

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

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

- A. McIntire

By Alan D. McIntire (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

There was no moon landing/walk.

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

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

By Generic Denialist (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Dappled Water (not verified) on 04 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus
22 July 2008

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

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

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

@el gordo

> freedom of expression is among them

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

By Martin Vermeer (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

So let me get this straight:

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

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

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

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

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

By Bob Levinstein (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you think it's not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let me get this straight:

You were fine until right after this part.

i am very busy at the moment, but spent my break reading [WuWt.](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/04/trees-named-tyranny-and-freedom-w…)

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

take a look and enjoy the show.

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Harvey,

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

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

Take for example Lambert's comment:

"RPJr isnât convincing the skeptics of the errors of their ways because he isnât trying to.

For instance, heâll criticize Gore, but he he wonât breathe a word of criticism for George Will."

Notice how Pielke Jr. spins this...

"The question of why I donât cheer-lead for a side in the climate debate has come up before....Tim Lambert is disappointed that I do not cheer for his team"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

El gordo/gullibo:

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

They didn't leave out the words:

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

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

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Introducing âDelayed Oscillatorâ or D.O. as I call this new blogger. Some key quotes:

In other words, Yamalâs âenormous HS bladeâ, said by McIntyre to be like âcrack cocaineâ for paleoclimatoligists, is much reduced in DOâs first version, using a standard RCS implementation instead of McIntyreâs home-grown version.

And DOâs conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By nanny_govt_sucks (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

nanny

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

Deep Climate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is not like a restaurant saying "your money is worthless".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despicable.

Nathan,dhogaza,

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

By nanny_govt_sucks (not verified) on 05 Oct 2009 #permalink

Nanny

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

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

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

Maybe Grima's got his little brother involved.

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

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

Eff all about how it's become political.

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

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

Nanny, you ninny:

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

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

Ergo, you should pick long-lived trees.

McI picked short-lived trees.

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

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

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

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

It is so much worse than useless.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

Here's a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

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

By nanny_govt_sucks (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

Here's a question folks: Are trees thermometers?

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

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

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

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

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

By Majorajam (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

(I assume you meant 'available')

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not Briffa's problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The irony of it all ...

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

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

cheers, Keith

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

McI is spewing shit.

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

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

So, the chronology is clear:

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

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

are scientists morons that just happened to breeze through undergraduate courses

... like statistics?

"I am not a statistician" - Michael Mann

By nanny_govt_sucks (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

mr irony wrote:

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

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

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

RPJr is a prick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What version of "should" are you using, mr.

Is it "you should do it, even though you don't have to" or "you should do it because we tell you to"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So WHAT THE FICK does that "if" mean.

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

Go ahead.

We'll wait.

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

Have YOU?

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

Here's one for the fkwit in the back:

Are the only temperature proxies thermometers?

Jeff Harvey,

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

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

Mark & dhogaza,

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

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

> Posted by: Dave Andrews

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

Shorter Duck:

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

Yeah, right.

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

Desperate or what?

Dave Andrews"

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

What part did you think was ironic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That should not be hard to understand.

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

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

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

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

By Majorajam (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

133 Majorajam,

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

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

>What version of "should" are you using, mr.

>Is it "you should do it, even though you don't have to" or "you should do it because we tell you to"?

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

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

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

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

134 mr irony,

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

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews (#123)

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

[Poe's Law alert]

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

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

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

[/Poe's Law alert]

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

137 skeptic

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

Mr Irony,

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

Mr Irony,

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

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

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

Do claims of 'copyright' seem like intelligent reactions to you?

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

Not. Even. Close.

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

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

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

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

This requires that

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

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

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

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

No, irony, THAT is insane.

From the US constitution discussion on Wikipedia:

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

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

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

Either

a) you're wrong

b) microsoft is wrong

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

2) What extra data are now required?

3) Did Briffa provide the required extra data?

3) Is there more extra data requested?

4) What processes to do critics want changed?

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

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

1) is actually 2 questions

1b) Yes

2) None. Ex posto facto. (or "Grandfather" clause")

3) Some.

3) From Science? No.

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

5) Course not

6) No. Lots of blog comments, though

Appreciated, thanks.

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

a) actual law

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

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

They didn't.

Same deal here.

Depressingly the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And scientists want to get paid.

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

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

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

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

> Posted by: mr irony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong.

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

Book publishers have profits.

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

Therefore you're wrong.

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

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

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

Yes you did.

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

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

Or have you changed your mind?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you really think they have another motive? Seriously?

Copyright doesn't enter into it - all open source software is also under copyright.

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

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

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

And you don't "ask for a copyright".

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

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

> Posted by: dhogaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 140:

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

and in 163 itself:

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

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

Both saying that copyright here should be invalid.

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

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

Yet you don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say science doesn't.

Why?

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

> Posted by: mr irony

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

And one that you deem right.

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

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

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

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

> And one that you deem right.

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

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

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

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

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

Is that it?

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

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

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

> Is that it?

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

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

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

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

So you don't want to answer it?

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

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

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

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

Yet you DEMAND that this isn't good enough.

So why is it good enough for GSK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Irony,

You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright DOES make breeching the license illegal.

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

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

Wouldn't surprise me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange.

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

You know, I don't think it does.

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

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

> Copyright doesn't enter into this.

Yes it does.

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

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

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

So copyright IS involved.

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

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

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

Contract law is not licensing law.

Learn The Difference.

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

> Posted by: dhogaza

Incorrect.

Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

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

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

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

> Posted by: dhogaza

Interesting.

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

One hopes...

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

> Posted by: kejr

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

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

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

Dictionaries contain only facts, but the collection has copyright.

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

That's why they're all different.

Being creative works, they are copyrightable.

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

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

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

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

Here's a definition under US Law:

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

Creative intellectual works.

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

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

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

Chris Horner :

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

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

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

One hopes...

Direct quote, US Code, Title 17:

§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

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

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

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

This is interesting.

For a couple of reasons ...

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

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

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

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

Let the backpedalling begin â¦

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

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

http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog…

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

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

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

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

Trademark???

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

> Posted by: dhogaza

Ah.

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

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

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

Nope, they are facts.

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

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

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

See how quick you get sued.

For (guess)?

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

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

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

Very quickly.

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

Mark:

For (guess)?

Not copyright violation?

plagiarising her work is to reissue her own books.

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

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

STFU, Mark.

plagiarising

Mark doesn't even read his own links:

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

Non-copyrightable facts ... hmmm.

PS can you show that the data was only kept secret by NDA?

Or perhaps just professional courtesy, since it appears that Keith Briffa is an honorable man.

Or are you merely jumping at conclusions because you don't think copyright is involved and do not want to be wrong?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, just pointing out facts aren't copyrightable.

Stepan Shiyatov, however, submitted that original data plus their standardized chronologies to the ITRDB in 1995. I have no clue why McIntyre was unable to find it for all these years.

McI even says that Science told him "talk to the original authors", though they didn't explicitly say "H&S 1995" so apparently it went right above his head, as he asked Osborne and Briffa instead (and Briffa said "I'll pass on that request to the Russians").

No excuse whatsoever.

I don't think McI would have much success as a private detective ...

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

Even if this were true (that Briffa was publishing about a new invention, RCS, rather than using an existing technique) what we'd expect to see would be detailing of the mathematical analysis technique, not any particular data. You could, for instance, devise an artificial dataset and use that to explain the technique, and then go on to say "when applied to this interesting Russian dataset, this is what you get compared to the original Russian analysis" without disclosing their proprietary data.

Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is.

Although information systems theory works as if there is a neat distinction between data and information it's hard to imagine such a thing as raw data can in practice ever exist. I might walk outside my door and sense a warm breeze. Two bits of raw data to be sure, but if I document that somewhere I've already begun the process of turning it into information which at least in principle, is my intellectual property, or could be made so.

It's true that dictionaries contain non-copyrightable facts since much of the usages of dictionaries refer to pre-existing specifications of language and references to the speech of others, names, literary references and so forth. That that is so doesn't entail believing that the compilation of this stuff is copyright-free.

I recall a little while back in Australia that someone tried to design and market a mobile phone app that would allow commuters to work out when the next train was coming at a given station. The input data was the publioshed train timetable, but City Rail asserted that this data was copyright protected and it won. City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

Mark,

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

Quite apart from your gratuitous insulting namecalling, you really ought to read what I have said in my posts. I have questionned the knee-jerk response to Plimer so favoured here, but don't recall ever saying anything about his work proving things one way or another.

Your own 'certainty' seems to blind you to the reality of what others say.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

>*knee-jerk response to Plimer so favoured here*

Dave Andrews, you are beyond contemptible.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

>...don't recall ever saying anything about his work proving things one way or another.

Of course not, Ducky. Ignorance and its resulting profound uncertainty within which your mind is insularly cocooned is the game you play. Just like your failure to cite any of the prejudicial sources to which you allude, preserves your delusional opinion of your own objective disinterest.

You're only fooling yourself, Ducky.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is.

No, the work is not. However the tangible realization of that work - a published paper, for instance, is.

Fear not, however - if you gather data, you OWN it. Just as I own my car.

Here's something that might help ... if I sell you a book with my prose in it, you OWN that book.

I recall a little while back in Australia that someone tried to design and market a mobile phone app that would allow commuters to work out when the next train was coming at a given station. The input data was the publioshed train timetable, but City Rail asserted that this data was copyright protected and it won. City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

This is exactly the case in the NYC MTA suit mentioned in my link above, though nothing in the article says the suit is actually based on copyright.

Under US law, since the guy simply typed in the data, copyright law won't apply. Can't speak for Australia. However, there are other possibilities for getting yourself legally screwed - download the data from an online source and massage it, for instance, and you'll probably find yourself in violation of the published "Terms of Use" for the site ...

You can do *almost* whatever you want with it - you can read it. Sell it. Burn it. Wipe your rear with it.

What you *can't* do with it is to make copies of its contents.

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of *plagiarism*, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

Back to the Briffa/Russian case ... the additional information from Deep Climate includes a note from one of the Russian researchers saying "at the time, we and CRU were in close collaboration", which is why Briffa had access to the data.

"close collaboration" usually means some sort of agreement ... the Russians gave data, what did CRU give? Lots of possibilities - collaboration on a paper/co-authorship? (one of the Russians apparently appeared as a co-author on a follow-up paper by Briffa, IIRC). Some help with learning how to properly apply RCS to the dataset? Access to superior computing facilities? Visitation back and forth, sharing work?

All sorts of possibilities, at bottom is the fact that data has value, and the Russians might certainly have had many reasons other than "keeping it secret from McI" for not letting it loose.

Oops, something got pasted in the wrong place, breaking up the logical flow of my post:

Here's something that might help ... if I sell you a book with my prose in it, you OWN that book.

You can do almost whatever you want with it - you can read it. Sell it. Burn it. Wipe your rear with it.

What you can't do with it is to make copies of its contents.

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

---

I'll add a bit more ... this is why your notion of "Is it possible, Dhogaza, that while facts are not copyrightable, the work of gathering and composing them in ways that make them intelligible is" isn't true.

It has to be a tangible realization - a physical data file, etc. Under US law that tangible realization is copyrightable but not the data itself, or the process used to generate it (however, you can patent a process under today's greatly widened US law... :)

It has to be something you can give me and that I then can physically possess - tangible.

Tim,

It seems that 2 normally reliable contributors are behaving like cranks. What's the topic again? Perhaps a quick word?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above)

Better be careful here ... if you copy too closely and your work is declared to be a derivative work, then that's a copyright violation. So in Mark's case if a court declares that the fictional character is most likely to be assumed to be Harry Potter by the reader, then it can be a copyright violation - as a derivative work. So don't go off making Mickey Mouse knick-knacks for sale because the mouse gets very pissed off when people do this.

This is because the character itself - mickey mouse - is a tangible realization of creative work, having appeared in a multitude of comic books, movies, etc ...

It seems that 2 normally reliable contributors are behaving like cranks. What's the topic again? Perhaps a quick word?

I'm sorry, but when someone makes a mistaken claim then insults me when I point out they're wrong, I'm not letting them off the hook.

Copyright. NDA contract. Ethical obligations. Publishing conventions in peer review science.

It makes not one grain of difference which reason it is. The basic and central fact is that the raw data was not Briffa's to re-distribute. Something that mr irony seems completely incapable of grasping, or admitting.

And that is before we even get into the other important facts of the case, like the raw data had already been published! Which completely negates the central claim about 'hiding the data', and any imputation based upon it. (See comment #198.)

"Oh, well, so much for McI breaking the 2000 one using bad math. He'll have to start over with the expanded data set."

Is it safe to assume now that McIntyre will just fall back on the same old tired assertion that all tree ring proxies are bad?

Is it safe to assume that he and his fervent supporters won't apologize for or retract insinuations of cherry-picking, fraud, hiding data, or what not?

Is it safe to assume that within a few months, he will post another "of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit" and start the whole ball rolling again, with eagerly willing and duped media outlets helping him along the way?

... Ninny thinks that undergraduate statistics courses qualify one as a statistician

No, they certainly don't. But when one's paper essentially deals with only statistical issues (see any multi-proxy reconstruction, including those of Dr. Mann), you'd hope that those involved stepped up at some time in the past to take a few graduate courses, instead of blundering through with "novel" methods that can easily be shot down (once the methods are revealed) by even non-academics.

By nanny_govt_sucks (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

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

Ah, mr irony is a poe-tic example of nominative determinism.

Don't believe me? Consider this:

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

If mr irony is actually serious in his diatribe against Briffa, then he is not only suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance, but he has missed the whole thrust of the real nature of 'replication', and ignored his own suggestions to boot.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

sucks:

with "novel" methods

AFAIK, he's referring to a method that's more than 12 years old, is outdated and superceded. Sucks really knows how to keep up to date.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

To settle the can a dictionary be copyrighted, the answer is yes it can. I have sitting beside me a copy of the "Pocket Oxford English Dictionary" and opposite the table of contents is a page claiming Copyright (c) 1969, 1978, 1984... and on until 2002. So it would appear that yes dictionaries can claim copyright.

I would note that the last time I looked into copyright law -- this was in the early 1990's -- there was a concept called "compilation copyright". This sort of copyright did not protect the actual facts (the example was a phone book) only the presentation of those facts in a particular compilation.

But dhogaza has it mostly correct re:the data. If the data was provided to Briffa under personal communication then he really is not allowed to release it w/o the permission of Hantiremov and Shiatikov. This is why both Science and Briffa said "ask the original authors".

McIntyre seems to think that data ought to be covered by a sort of "data GPL", a worm which works to make all data free. Unfortunately, most journals seem to accept that there may be reasons why data which did not originate with a particular author or set of authors may not be able to be released except by the original authors. Well Stevorino, tough titties. You'll have to look in the footnotes and just contact the original authors.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

I think this quote from Mark Twain sums up SM and his followers at CA:

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so."

Trll [said it well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…), and I feel compelled to repeat his comments.

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

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

My own databases are huge arrays of millions of data-points, and derivations from such, and organising and annotating them so that any joe off the street could understand them would take many months, if not years. Even my own PhD supervisor's eyes glaze and roll back in his head when he tries to delve into them, simply because of the complexity of the data.

I have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours constructing routines that will check for logical consistency in my data, and for every error of entry and mishandling of which I can conceive. My databases are interpretable by a person well-versed in population biology and ecology, and who has the inclination to take the time to learn the architecture from me.

I have happily, and indeed enthusiastically, shared my data with other population ecologists and with relevant government agencies, but I would have misgivings in releasing it to anyone and everyone who had a mild curiosity to see it. Unless of course some benevolent donor was willing to fund me for the dozens of weeks every year that it would take to explain the data to inexperienced tyre-kickers, to correct misuse, misapplications and misinterpretations of the data, and to chase down the theft of intellectual property that has already occurred with my work once before.

If people want to know what my data 'say', they can in the first instance read the methodologies in my papers to understand what analytical processes and statistical procedures I employed. They can scrutinise my results for consistency. If they have any doubts, they are more than welcome to contact me and organise to see whatever data is necessary to resolve any problem that they perceive exists. However, the last is not replication, and if anyone did have misgivings about my results they should be performing their own work from scratch.

"Ah, but what if you are playing loose with the data?" you may ask. Well, that's why we have peer-review in the pre-publication process. My anonymous reviewers are provided with whatever data they require in order to assess whether I have played straight. Given that there is not a huge number of ecologists working with the taxa that I study, authors are usually known to the reviewers, and there is a very meticulous scrutiny of manuscripts and accompanying data, both through professional rivalry and through a desire to maintain the highest degree of integrity possible in our field.

Interestingly, although it's never happened to me, I know that the anonymous reviewers have been able to pick even subtle hiccups in results of colleagues without recourse to the raw data. This is simply because the reviewers are expert in the field, and thus are aware of the sort of glitches that may escape the author of a manuscript because s/he is too 'close' to the tables, graphs and statistics.

I'm all for transparency, and I am entirely open to it. Prior to the advent of the Interweb science was able to function with protocols for ensuring adequate transparency, and I don't see that these are all now redundant with the last decade of information technology. Indeed, given the enormous amount of resourcing that would be required to open the floodgates of all raw data to every one in the world, I believe that the established protocols are completely relevant and functional.

For high impact journals such as Nature and Science, which publish cutting edge work that has significant implications for the fields in which the papers are based, then there certainly is a strong argument for an extra level of data presentation: it's a bit like playing extra games for a semi-final and for a grandfinal, and I have no issue with providing supplementary data in these instances. Such authors are usually funded well in any case, and thus have the resources to undertake the required background work.

For projects that are simple in terms of data content and analysis, publication of raw data is certainly a feasible expectation too, with the caveat that such publication may increase the quantity of vexatious, irrelevant, misdirected or downright ignorant responses that demand reply.

For the enormous body of day-to-day data-dense science, the provision of every last item of raw information in a form accessible to every person on the planet would simply bring the progress of such science to a grinding crawl. If anyone with a legitimate concern or interest cannot use established protocols to address their questions, then they are probably not qualified to raise concerns in the first place. Contact the author/s, ask for access to data, then perform a new analysis â or perhaps better still, a meta-analysis. Or get off one's proverbial arse and gather one's own raw data from scratch, and in this way truly replicate or refute the study that one is so bothered by.

One final reservation I have is that publication of large raw databases would inevitably lead to the scientific equivalent of music sampling, with folk who have no funding or hard work of their own to show for themselves, publishing results from other people's hard-earned work, and reducing the capacity for original scientists to benefit from their own efforts. I could easily write a dozen papers from my PhD data alone: if I published the database with the first paper, I doubt that I could have extracted and written up the material for the other papers before someone else had dredged out papers themselves, or had at the least spotted the novel implications of my data and applied it to theirs before I have the opportunity to publish.

If this makes me a dog in a manger, sobeit. I worked damned hard for my data though, and I have no desire to lose my hard-won intellectual property as I did once before. If someone wants to check up on me, they have but to knock on my door, and if they don't like my response they can take it to my institution's appropriate oversight committee. If they want to use my data to publish their own paper/s, they can suggest a collaboration with me; or if they don't want to share their derivative work with me, they can just bloody well wait until I have had the chance to extract what I am able to with the resources available to me. Or they can undertake their own research.

Alternatively, they can pay me for the time and effort required to submit the grant applications, to organise and conduct the field/lab work, to collate and analyse the data, to present it in a form where they benefit from my intellectual insights, and for future lost professional return from my work on the project - then I'll happily transfer my share of the ownership of the data to them and they can do with it what they will... within the further constraints of my overseeing institution, of course.

Whilst science itself is an objective and impartial discipline, the humans who engage in it still have to put bread in their families' mouths, and I for one am not going to compromise my ability to gather due benefit from my own work.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

Bernard,

As always, a fantastic and timely post. I would very much like to hear from you personally about your research - you know my email and where I can be reached. It sounds fascinating!

As far as data is concerned, as Bernard says, there are often multiple ways to examine empirical data sets. Different kinds of analyses of data sets can yield different results, which gives some credence to the saying "lies, damned lies and statistics". I co-authored a paper that was published this year but amongst which several of my co-authors disagreed strongly over the correct statistical methodology. A few years ago a paper I submitted was rejected on the basis that one of the referees could not believe that the insects I was working with at the time could exploit resources one trophic level beneath them so efficiently. I offered to send the anonymous referee the data as well as the insects for them to experiment with, but they declined, and in the end I got the paper published in another journal (as a footnote, a referee of the second journal called the study "a model approach" which certainly differed from the referee of the first journal where it had been submitted!)

Ultimately, even in the case of lack of copyright, the one reason I believe that data transparency should be limited is if it used by the second party for reasons other than to advance science. I am disturbed when data is reanalyzed and then within hours every right wing pundit in the blogosphere is screaming for another Spanish Inquisition. In my opinion, if data is to be shared, there have to be conditions. One important one is that the second party cannot use the said data to advance any kind of agenda, whether it is personal or political. In other words, I do not think it should be callously appear on unregulated blog sites where it can be used by any readers to potentially smear the name of the scientist who conducted the original research. The data can be used if the scientist(s) who did the research and the journal in which it was originally published give permission in writing, and under the conditions that it may be re-analyzed and possibly submitted to a peer-reviewed journal only (1) if the scientist who did the research and the journal once again agree to this, and (2) in the case of differing conclusions, if the original scientist(s) are able to reply to the critcism him/her/themselves. In this way sound science is maintained and we do not get another furore over the internet and in right wing rags or blog sites.

At least this is the way I think that science should proceed. Call it conservative, but many right wing pundits in the media have taken it on themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner where climate science is concerned, not because they possess some inherent knowledge of the field, but in my opinion because any information downplaying the human role in the current warming fits their pre-determined world view.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

And that is before we even get into the other important facts of the case, like the raw data had already been published! Which completely negates the central claim about 'hiding the data', and any imputation based upon it. (See comment #198.)

Well, at least a paper based on it ... but regardless, McI, despite his claim to the contrary (I was busy sending 40 requests to Science magazine!), should've been able to figure out who to ask for the data.

This fits McI's profile - treat me special! Hold my hand! Don't expect me to be as smart as scientists asking for data! Whine whine whine whine.

It's no wonder that he's not treated with the respect he expects.

No, they certainly don't. But when one's paper essentially deals with only statistical issues (see any multi-proxy reconstruction, including those of Dr. Mann), you'd hope that those involved stepped up at some time in the past to take a few graduate courses

You're asserting Mann didn't take such graduate courses.

Proof?

Or libel ...

Bernard J., thanks for the reality lesson, which, of course, every denialist on the planet will reject, because wasting your time thus slowing research is the point ...

But dhogaza has it mostly correct re:the data. If the data was provided to Briffa under personal communication then he really is not allowed to release it w/o the permission of Hantiremov and Shiatikov. This is why both Science and Briffa said "ask the original authors".

Oh, I assure you, I have it entirely right.

The situation appears to be that CRU and the Russkies had a collaborative arrangement.

The contract has not been published, but given statements by Briffa and one of the Russians involved, it didn't include the right for CRU to release raw data.

Case closed.

McIntyre seems to think that data ought to be covered by a sort of "data GPL", a worm which works to make all data free. Unfortunately, most journals seem to accept that there may be reasons why data which did not originate with a particular author or set of authors may not be able to be released except by the original authors. Well Stevorino, tough titties. You'll have to look in the footnotes and just contact the original authors.

With the modern era, and easier storage of data and access (i.e. public databases), it's moving more and more to McI's position.

Not driven by McI, of course, but by researchers and publication.

Bottom line is about cost. There are public repositories where researchers can deposit date without having to pay for the bandwidth costs associated by (say) CA, WUWT, Slashdot and other referral sources.

Something missed in this that free access by researchers, forced to host on their own sites, can be extremely expensive.

Anyway, the system is evolving, and reasonably well, IMO ...

Is it safe to assume now that McIntyre will just fall back on the same old tired assertion that all tree ring proxies are bad?
Is it safe to assume that he and his fervent supporters won't apologize for or retract insinuations of cherry-picking, fraud, hiding data, or what not?
Is it safe to assume that within a few months, he will post another "of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit" and start the whole ball rolling again, with eagerly willing and duped media outlets helping him along the way?

I *might* (no guarantee, I'd have to think further) take a 1000:1 bet against you but I'd only put up a few dollars, no more...

Mr "irony".

Further to my beef with the misuse of data by unqualified people, let me tell you about some of my own experiences.

The first was an observation of apparently relatively compentent third-year undergraduate students taking an ecology course in which I was tutoring. In order to complete an exercise in data analysis and interpretation, I provided them with a small (and uncomplicated?!) extract from some of my fieldwork on habitat use. I knew the data (and the field behaviour of the animals) inside out, so I was very familiar with what it showed, but only the top few students out of about 60 were able to select the appropriate statistical tests, to present the results appropriately, and to come to the most parsimonious conclusions based on the analysis.

The second example is a bit closer to the Deltoid home. If you are in any doubt about the way that an incompetent outsider can mangle the import of even simple datasets, have a look at the efforts of one Girma Orssengo who has bastardised the HadCRU3 mean annual global temperature anomaly record, and who refuses to acknowledge his many errors of analysis, highlighted in questions repeated dozens and dozens of times.

Orssengo's efforts, and the scores of person-hours of time wasted in an attempt to straighten the record, can be followed through the links [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), or by simply starting at the top of that behemoth of a thread.

It's enough to make any half-competent scientist cry, and to question why s/he bothers with the Ignorati in the first place.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Oct 2009 #permalink

> Something missed in this that free access by researchers, forced to host on their own sites, can be extremely expensive.

> Posted by: dhogaz

Absolutely.

And who will pay for all that storage? It costs millions, tens of millions, maybe 100's even today to store the raw data for climate papers.

Bandwidth costs too. Unless the skeptics won't bother reading it.

And who will pay?

Will the denialists complain that the spending on climate science has gone up again and thereby use this as "proof" that it's all a money making scam for scientists (not *their* scientists, though).

> I'm sorry, but when someone makes a mistaken claim then insults me when I point out they're wrong, I'm not letting them off the hook.

> Posted by: dhogaza

WHO started with the "STFU"'s?

YOU did.

You arrogant prawn-whacker.

"You can't copyright facts", yes you can. What hook are you leaving me on here?

> Better be careful here ... if you copy too closely and your work is declared to be a derivative work, then that's a copyright violation.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening with copyright.

That law was written as a gentleman's agreement with the thought that it was obvious what was intended and what wasn't.

But first world economies outsourced all their actual work and now are mostly "knowledge economies".

There's a lot of money pretended to exist because of knowledge.

Lexmark printers sued for COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS someone who made replacement ink cartridges.

Sony suceesfuly sued for copyright violation the region-unlocking of the PS2.

Dimitry Slkarov was sued under copyright laws for making a reader for adobe books.

SCO sue for "negative knowledge". I.e copyrights in things they did and people DIDN'T copy.

NY metro is suing for copyright violations for their series of facts.

A musician is unable to get their own music listed on their MySpace page because Warner Music say erroneously they have copyright on it.

And so on.

And in this case, there is only one way a license is needed: because there is no right to do what Briffa wishes to do with the data (make a derived work). And that is a copyright issue.

Copyright defines what statutory rights the author has to take infringers to court.

Because a license grants rights you do not already have, breaking the license is not otherwise an offense. But with copyright, those rights do not exist and your only right to do these things exist because of the license agreement. Ergo, by default, you are guilty.

This is in contrast to a contract which can REMOVE rights you have by default, breaking the contract doesn't mean you do not have the rights you have but gave up by contract. Ergo you can only be sued for the breech of contract, but by default you have the right to do as you wish.

> Quite apart from your gratuitous insulting namecalling, you really ought to read what I have said in my posts.

> Posted by: Dave Andrews

And you have gratuitously namecalled.

You have no standing to complain, duck's arse. When you behave yourself and stop slagging people off with your scurrilous and baseless slurs, maybe you'd get less contempt.

> > For (guess)?

> Not copyright violation?

No.

Copyright violation.

Though since you have this endemically wrong (see the post on why a license breech is not itself wrong, exercising the right you don't otherwise have is -copyrights-), it is no surprise you get this wrong.

Learn the facts before opening your cavernous yap again.

> City Rail was in the process of producing its own version, apparently and as a side issue, to avoid looking precious, claimed that their version would be able to reflect timetable changes and perhaps changes in something like real time, but they relied on copyright to obtain restraint.

> Posted by: Fran Barlow

IIRC this one (and the SF Bay area metro) have both also said that if THEY weren't the ones making the timetable, then commuters may get the wrong date/time and miss their connections.

Chaos would result: cats and dogs living together, etc.

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

But such discoveries are given in patents, where you get the process to the result, NOT the data.

Given that you have so many pals in medical trials, one would assume you were cognizant of this.

Unless you're talking out your arse.

Hang on, there's our answer...

> Mark doesn't even read his own links:

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

> Non-copyrightable facts ... hmmm.

> Posted by: dhogaza

Dog doesn't even think beond his own crow.

Dictionaries are copyrighted.

Despite being solely facts.

Doofus.

> I also own the ideas expressed in that work. If you steal those, in an explicit enough manner, you are guilty of plagiarism, not a copyright violation (Mark's example above).

Maybe this will show why you consistently get this wrong.

Plagiarism is the breech of copyright and in addition the claiming of the copyright as the author yourself.

You CANNOT plagiarise what cannot be copyrighted.

"Harry Potter" are not the same words as "Larry Potter", so JK cannot be plagiarising the work itself as fixed.

What HAS been copied and you say this in the quota above is the idea or story, not the words in the story.

Yet you yourself in trying to show how copyright isn't applied in #189 say:

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

Ideas.

But you just said that "I also own the ideas expressed in that work".

Under what intellectual property right?

Patent?

No.

Trademark?

Hell no.

Trade Secret?

Double hell no.

So what's left?

Copyright?

In ideas?

That's unpossible!

You CANNOT plagiarise what cannot be copyrighted.

That's ridiculous. Plagiarism has zero relationship to copyright. Plagiarism is an ethical violation, copyright is a legal one. Plagiarism is misrepresenting work as your own, when it really is not. It doesn't matter whether that work is copyrighted or not; all that matters is whether you originated it or not.

> That's ridiculous. Plagiarism has zero relationship to copyright. Plagiarism is an ethical violation, copyright is a legal one.

In the cont4ext of someone sueing someone else for plagiarising, it's not an ethical violation, it's a legal one.

And copyright is the only thing that covers this.

"You can't copyright facts", yes you can. What hook are you leaving me on here?

I posted the relevant US Civil Code section.

Readers can decide for themselves: which source is more authoritative?

1. Mark.

2. US Civil Code

regarding what can and can not be copyrighted in the US, at least. I won't speak regarding oz or the UK.

Sometimes Mark is right. Often he is wrong. His inability to differentiate between the two cases is consistent.

> I posted the relevant US Civil Code section.

And people have posted relevant information anyone else can look up: open up the folio on your dictionary, full of nothing but facts.

See a copyright claim?

The US Civil Code talks about how business methods cannot be patented.

Guess what: they are.

Maths can't be patented.

They are (software patents).

There's how things OUGHT to be and how things ARE.

And the way things are, you're wrong dog.

You are often wrong on things. Sometimes you're right.

And when you're not willing to change, you'll yell STFU.

Who started that first?

You.

As I said, readers can decide for themselves whether Mark or the US Civil Code is a more authoritative source.

In the cont4ext of someone sueing someone else for plagiarising, it's not an ethical violation, it's a legal one.
And copyright is the only thing that covers this.

If you plagiarize copyrighted text, then it is both an ethical infraction (plagiarism) and a legal one (copyright violation). Plagiarism is simply the manner in which the copyright violation occurred. It would still be plagiarism if the text in question were in the public domain, but there would be no liability or violation of law involved.

Trrll, thanks for the clarification, you're right, I was mistaken in this instance.

As Mark is wrong regarding many other claims he's making about copyright.

No, you're wrong and you ignore any evidence that this may be so.

You won't listen to anyone even if it's not me about it, just insist that this isn't copyrights.

So instead I'll ask you: why are you so damned vehement about this not being about copyrights?

And Trll's point backs up my point: that there was legal attempts and attacks (what I find amusing about JK's response to this case is how many fansites she's shut down because they've "stolen her story". Ironic.) shows that this could only have been for copyrighted elements.

And the only copied element was the idea.

Which dog both agreed was wrong and illegal AND states categorically cannot happen because the US civil code says ideas aren't copyrighted.

So who do you believe:

a) Someone who is consistent and has actual cases on their side
b) dog who doesn't show consistency and has just what the law says not what the law's used for on theirs.

Oh, and dog, the US is a common law country.

Case law trumps the law text if case law disagrees.

Yawn. #248 proves you're not *always* wrong.

Oh, and congratulations on all the [Edit] embellishments you've earned at Real Climate.

And it does prove you are sometimes wrong.

So, will you answer why you are adamant that Copyright not be used here as a reason for keeping data undisclosed?

PS: Lots of people have managed that.

YOU would, if you were brave enough to behave on there like you did here.

Janet Akermann,

Please define 'beyond contemptible' and how you arrive at that remark in relation to what I have said? My guess would be that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 08 Oct 2009 #permalink

Mark/ luminous beauty,

Are you one and the same person or do you both just have an 'eider complex'?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 08 Oct 2009 #permalink

Dave Andrews,

Guess what you like, say what you like, You provide zero evidence for most of what you assert. So your guesses are pretty useless.

Your latest baseless claim of "knee jerk" reaction to Plimer (in the face of overwhelming specific and detailed criticism and exposure of lies) is just the latest example.

Your continuing record of poor critique,(which is actually reflexive, i.e DA is often either early or the first to post in response to Deltoid topics, and most often you fail to back your claims), is knee jerk. Your poor behaviour takes you beyond contempt.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 08 Oct 2009 #permalink

[Update 2] above: young Roger's not trying as hard these days to pretend to being an "honest broker" is he! Perhaps he feels the honest truth has become a tradeable commodity (brokerable) like everything else. Whatever, he's becoming insufferable; I wish him well.

Bernard J,

your post at 221 is an excellent summation of the problems of making data available to the public.

I've linked to it in a [response](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142) over at CA, if it gets approved.

> Are you one and the same person or do you both just have an 'eider complex'?

> Posted by: Dave Andrew

No, ducky.

Are you suffering from chronic rectal-cranial inversion syndrome?

I just had a terrible thought.

What if you had an Eider Complex and Down Syndrome?

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 10 Oct 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman,

I think I might have been the first to post to a single Deltoid topic, and that was just the luck of timing, so you are way off the mark here.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 10 Oct 2009 #permalink

>"*Your continuing record of poor critique,(which is actually reflexive, i.e DA is often either early or the first to post in response to Deltoid topics, and most often you fail to back your claims), is knee jerk. Your poor behaviour takes you beyond contempt."*

Ducky replies:

>"*I think I might have been the first to post to a single Deltoid topic, and that was just the luck of timing, so you are way off the mark here."*

Oh dear, Ducky, look at the many parts of my criticism of [your behaviour](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…) that you didn't address.

And how accurate is your assessment of me critique? Up to your usual standard: [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/shoddy_journalism_from_stephen…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/a_taxonomy_of_delusion.php#comm…) are two counts of Ducky reflex. And I counted more than 10 further occations where Ducky Dave Andrews was either 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th off the mark.

You are beyond contempt Ducky Dave.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 11 Oct 2009 #permalink

Well, Janet, imagine that! I posted 12 times in the first five but was totally unaware of it because I wasn't counting.

Perhaps, as I intimated, it has something to do with timing. I'm UK based but I can assure you that Deltoid is definitely NOT the first blog I check out when I go online (which is generally mid - late evening).

On the other hand, even if I did head straight to Deltoid what difference does it make?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 11 Oct 2009 #permalink

>_On the other hand, even if I did head straight to Deltoid what difference does it make?_

The difference between you addressing more substantive criticism and avoiding it while driving the thread even further off topic, perhaps?

You're a real larf, Ducky.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 11 Oct 2009 #permalink

Well Ducky,

You can choose to remain obtuse, and remain blind to conclusion that I [highlighted]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow…) both the misplaced nature and multiple hypocrisies of your whinge against Deltoid.

Regardless, at least now we have a suitable name, the **âDucky reflexâ**, to describe your inane outburst in reaction to Deltoid posts.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 11 Oct 2009 #permalink

luminous beauty,

And when are you going to comment anywhere seriously on dendro studies? Isn't what you do exactly what you are accusing me of doing, although you no doubt feel you do it in a more 'refined' manner.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 16 Oct 2009 #permalink