One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1:
A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).
I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.
This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:
The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.
But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:
Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them]
cheers, Keith
When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:
In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.
He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.
The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample:
Now comes new evidence that McIntyre's accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa's Yamal temperature reconstruction.
Lastly I note that Andrew Bolt back from vacation has used Yamal to declare that:
Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.
- Log in to post comments
Steve McKintyre says:
Briffa had three sites: Taimyr, Tornetrask and Yamal. The first time that data on Taimyr and Tornetrask became available was in Sept 2009. Statements to the contrary are disinformation. I had obtained a data set for Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 from Hantemirov in 2004. There are different data versions at many of these sites (Tornetrask for example); Briffa 2000 did not provide core counts or other identifying information and one could not assume that it was the same data set as was used in Hantemirov and Shiyatov (which did not cite Briffa 2000). On an earlier occasion, I used data from Mannâs website to which i had been directed by Mannâs associate and Mann later claimed that it was the âwrongâ data and a different version materialized. I therefore take care to ensure that Iâm using the ârightâ data. As it turns out, Briffa knew that Hantemirov had sent me the data for Hantemirov and Shiyatov and could have satisfied my rquest merely by saying that he had used the same data as Hantemirov and SHiyatov and that would have satisfied my inquiry. Or just sent me the data. Thatâs what any reasonable person would have done. Instead, Osborn lied to Sciencemag saying that he didnât have the measurement data. Phil Trans B did no more than require authors to comply with journal policies. When I examined the Phl Trans B archive, I learned that the data version in Briffa e al 2008 was the same as the small dataset that I had obtained previously from Hantemitov and reported this at Climate Audit. As I said above, briffa could have answered my inquiry in a straightforward manner, but refused to do so.
Also worth noting is that Rob Wilson tried to get Yamal data from Briffa and was also refused â a refusal that was disregarded in the âinquiriesâ.
>In response to your point that I wasn’t “diligent enough” in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004.
Here's McIntyre's next sentence: "What I didn’t know until a couple of weeks ago was that this was the actual version that Briffa had used."
That's some integrity OP shows.
I love this quote from Stve M.:
> if the author uses third party data and believes that he he does not have permission to provide the data, it is my practice to ask the author to obtain the required consent and then provide me the data so that the risk of inadvertently getting different data sets is minimized.
Really? I've not seen that bit in the email exchanges published so far.
So - he knew where to get the actual data, and indeed already had it (but AFAIK neglected to mention this for five years), yet still insisted that Briffa needed to supply the data he was not at liberty to supply so that he could check it was really, really the same data. Again, I've not seen an email exchange clarifying this was his intent yet (ie. "I've had this data from your colleagues, any chance of clearing up the issue of third-party consent and getting yours as well so I can ensure we all have the same source?").
Maybe its yet to be published.
I would suggest we need the full email data. Otherwise we can't be sure he's not just cherrypicking the emails to get the result he wants.
Why oh why won't Steve M. just publish the full data?
I've posted a comment on Deltoid just now and he's stonewalling... ;)
Actually, the choice quote from Bolt is this one from Wed's column:
"This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia."
Great innit, Dan.
When it comes to proving global warming, any data of any size is acceptable proof. Even irrefutable.
But when proving it, nothing is enough.
When it comes to disproving denialist creed, there is not enough proof in the world.
Shorter Steve McIntyre:
Look at me!, look at me!!
Bolt: "This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia."
This is an excellent example of "the silver bullet syndrome", which you also find among creationists. The little piece of "evidence" that is supposed to sink the whole theory all at once.
But maybe we should call it "wooden stake" syndrome in this case.
Apology from McIntyre coming in
10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...-1...-2...-3...-4.........
Real Climate now suggest McIntyre just got it wrong.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/
The owners of the original data in unpublished work get a 'hockey stick' response.
Lars
Silver bullets were for werewolves and wooden stakes for vampires -- the same metaphor really
H/T to DeepClimate, but it's worth sharing this
McI whinges on about how brave the Royal Society were to insist that Briffa submit the data to archive before publication would be agreed, despite Briffa having previously suggested that it would be impossible for him to do that because the data wasn't his to give.
Let's reacquaint ourselves with the authors of the 2008 Phil Trans B paper shall we...Keith R Briffa; Vladimir V Shishov;Thomas M Melvin; Eugene A Vaganov; HÃ¥ken Grudd; Rashit M Hantemirov; Matti Eronen; Muktar M Naurzbaev
Don't you think one of the principal investigators behind the creation of the 'contentious' series being one of the paper's authors might have had something to do with the surrender of the data to archive....rather than the 'bravery' of the Royal Society?
You couldn't make it up!
> Silver bullets were for werewolves and wooden stakes for vampires -- the same metaphor really
> Posted by: Fran Barlow
But the denialists keep trying to use wooden stakes on werewolves...
....and McIntyre has a silver bullet in his foot.
"But the denialists keep trying to use wooden stakes on werewolves..."
No, they are trying to use wooden stakes on perfectly innocent people. Fortunately, they haven't understood that you need to sharpen the stake...
> Fortunately, they haven't understood that you need to sharpen the stake...
> Posted by: Lars Karlsson
No, they'd find that the stake didn't go in but bounced off and claim "WITCH!!!!".
Or possibly "My brother eats apple pie". You can't tell what thought processes go through a denialist mind...
Hugh's got it exactly right above - as Deep Climate shows, Hantemirov, who owns the data, was co-author of the paper that showed up in Phil Trans in 2008, and made the data available.
Data which McI had since 2004 anyway. Anyone who doubts that McI is anything other than lying scum is just sticking their fingers in their ears singing "la-la-la-la I don't hear you".
12 Lars,
But what do we use on denydiot zombies, the ones who never stop making the same false claims and asking the same questions already answered a thousand times? How do you destroy a brain that's already dead?
The way I undestand it is this:
McIntyre originally complained that Briffa had cherry-picked in Russia. McIntyre thought he should have been satisfied with good old American cherries.
Briffa responded by saying that he couldn't cherry-pick in the US because George Washington had cut down all the cherry trees, forcing them to perform in P.T. Barnum's dastardly Tree-Ring Circus.
Briffa then got upset because Anthony Watts called him a Dendro, which in scientific circles is like being called a Furry, only worse.
I know I'm simplifying, but I think that's basically right.
> How do you destroy a brain that's already dead?
> Posted by: TrueSceptic
Find a 7th level cleric and get them to turn them. A result of "D" indicates the undead is destroyed...
#9
Yes. See this comment from CA regular MikeN on my latest post and my response.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/#comment-…
MikeN // October 7, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Yet Phil Trans made him distribute the data anyways, while Science did not. Nature made Moberg distribute as well, to the point that he had to pay the price of adding a coauthor.
Deep Climate // October 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm (edit)
MikeN,
I thought I would check on who the co-authors were for Phil Trans. And guess what I found? A certain dendro named Hantemirov. But you knew that already, didnât you.
Nice try, though.
Briffa's proxy is the 19th most weighted out of the 22 proxies used in the 1400 AD proxy set of MBH98, less than one-thirteenth the weight of the most weighted proxy. Briffa's is the one called "Northern Urals in the full proxy list.
What morons like Bolt are effectively saying is that choosing different trees for the Northern Urals proxy WILL produce, without doing any work, a proxy that gets vastly more weighting from the calibration process than the existing one and thus produce a flat hockeystick.
Perhaps you should check out this forthcoming chapter for a book by Briffa and others. It is pretty clear that Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) is replete with the possibility for misinterpretation. Pity Briffa wasn't apparently aware of that when he published his 2000 paper!
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa_HB_2008.pdf
Dang, link didn't come through ;-
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa_HB_2008.pdf
OK, What is the problem with this site accepting pdf links?
Then why does the PDF you've referenced provides references to papers Briffa wrote on these issues back in 1992 and 1996?
>It is pretty clear that Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) is replete with the possibility for misinterpretation. Pity Briffa wasn't apparently aware of that when he published his 2000 paper!
_"...wasn't apparently aware..."?_
OMG, Ducky! Briffa is one of the foremost authorities on RCS. He published the primary corrective method, known as the 'Briffa bodge', in 1992. A fact you might have learned if you'd actually read the chapter.
Where do you get this crap?
I'm skimming it now - further proof that people like DaveA and Vernon who link to papers they don't read/understand do at times perform a public service.
I would imagine the tittering is mostly over the "modern (live) tree sample bias" problem, since McI has been focusing on the dozen or so live trees included in Briffa's 2000 analysis.
But Briffa was working on this problem in the 1990s and published on it in 1996, according to this chapter that DaveA so kindly linked to ...
CA, I'm guessing.
The chapter DaveA so kindly provided us with discusses that, problems with it, and how improved techniques lead to better results than applying the kludge I mean bodge.
There's an interesting section where he talks about the pitfalls of trying to RCS on data with trees from different locales, a section perhaps McI should've read before just tossing everything into a single bin blindly and declaring victory.
>OK, What is the problem with this site accepting pdf links?
[markdown](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus) writes any text between underscores as _italics_ and breaks the URL link at that point. Wrap your URL with angle brackets ( < > ) and this won't happen.
You're welcome, Ducky.
In Dave's defence, he does read The Guardian.
27 luminous,
You beat me to it, but how long has DA been posting here? He's never noticed this issue with citing URLs?
>McI has been focusing _obsessing_ on the dozen or so live trees included in Briffa's 2000 analysis.
FTFY
McIntyre: "If Briffa felt that he lacked authority to distribute the data, he should have obtained the consent of the Russians at that time - which seems to have been readily available."
You know yesterday when you asked me what the definition of chutzpah was, and I said...?
TS,
I don't recall Ducky ever citing any URLs here before.
_Apparently_, he thinks that makes him look like an original thinker.
Bud,
Schmekel is to putz as McIntyre is to chutzpah.
luminous,
I had to look that up. And now I'm stealing it. :)
"In Dave's defence, he does read The Guardian"
That is no defence these days, given the Guardians`s wretched performance on covering the resource/geopolitical wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and its pro-war posturing with regards to Iran. Perhaps this is because, like the other MSM, the Guardian is part of a giant media conglomerate whose primary aim is profit and attainign advertising revenue. The only journalists on the paper I remotely enjoy reading are George Monbiot and Seumus Milne; the rest are dross. The Observer is even worse.
Dave Edwards and Dave Cromwell at Medialens.org shred the myth of the liberal media in their two books, "Guardians of Power" (2006) and "Newspeak" (2009). We all know how far right papers like the Times, Daily Mail and Telegraph are; for this reason Edwards and Cromwell target the "allegedly" left wing papers, which, as they demonstrate quite well, are pro-establishment to the core. I would therefore certainly not trust anyone these days whose world view was shaped by articles and editorials in the Guardian or its sister paper, the Obsever.
McIntyre is to schmuck as McIntyre is to schmuck. This is really the only comparison.
You're confounding the "data" with the "database". Steve McIntyre had the "data", that is, the articles with the final results; however, he had not the database.
Nasif,
I checked over your web site and, lo and behold, in my opinion its just another contrarian site dedicated to downplaying AGW. For instance, your site repeats the same fallacy of the sceptics, that *it has not warmed since 1999* (WRONG) and that *there is no correlation between atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and global surface temperatures* (WRONG AGAIN, since the inclusive time period is too short to derive such a conclusion from a deterministic system).
Then the clincher was that your page links to the Heartland Institute, another free market deregulatory think tank.
Three strikes and you are out.
"That is no defence these days, given the Guardians`s wretched performance on covering ...."
Sorry Jeff, I should have included the sacrasm alert.
Dave regularly mentions this, for reasons which remain obscure.
Jeff...
You say:
"I checked over your web site and, lo and behold, in my opinion its just another contrarian site dedicated to downplaying AGW. For instance, your site repeats the same fallacy of the sceptics, that it has not warmed since 1999 (WRONG) and that there is no correlation between atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and global surface temperatures (WRONG AGAIN, since the inclusive time period is too short to derive such a conclusion from a deterministic system).
Not true. I say in my articles the warming happened. What I assure you scientifically is that humans have nothing to do with that warming.
You say:
Then the clincher was that your page links to the Heartland Institute, another free market deregulatory think tank.
That doesn't mean that the articles published at BioCab are not true. Science magazine, Nature, etc. also link to many other sites. It has nothing to do with clean science.
I'll throw a single ball and you'll make your punch:
Only tell me, what's the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide? :)
I like the way Lorax was allowed a thread to question the great man and then got a death threat. The Steve must be under a lot of pressure prior to Copenhagen.
No, but at least it's science, not crap, like yours.
Bill,
I missed that. It seems that the Lorax thread has been removed. What happened exactly?
PaulH, I don't know, but google finds the Lorax thread, and if you chase the link, it's gone.
But of course, only Real Climate etc censure ...
Looks like The Steve is going to keep that piece of data under his hat as well. The history rewrite machine moves on.Lorax 's line of questioning was to the nature of Steve's auditing. It appeared to Lorax that Steve was biased towards critically examining the AGW literature rather than the anti-AGW literature. Also that he encouraged pile ons on his site and dog whistled to the anti AGW nutters. All familiar stuff no doubt but interesting to see how long he tolerated that. Not very long.
Nasif Nahle maks the wild claim that:
>*"What I assure you scientifically is that humans have nothing to do with that warming."*
Scientists who actually publish their work with fact checking and the rigor of peer review have a [different explanation](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-i…) to Nasif.
Nasif is doing his best Plimer imitation in response to George Monbiot when he writes,
*I'll throw a single ball and you'll make your punch: Only tell me, what's the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide? :)*
What a dumb question. You write as if you have a monopoly on wisdom. Tell me Nasif: how many papers do you have published in peer-reviewed journals that appear on the ISI Web of Science? Let me guess... hmmm.... nil?
Two can play the intellectual snob game. I am a population ecologist, and I was a former editor at the journal Nature. If you want me to throw a bunch of complex questions at you that you won`t have a clue how to answer in my field of endeavor I will, but this is childish behavior. I am not a climate scientist but I do defer to the vast majority of climate scientists, some of whom I know personally, who are in broad agreement as to the human fingerprint over the current warming episode. Your web site is only that - a web site. If you have the acumen to defend your "science" then you will do so in a rigidly peer-reviewed journal.
I pointed out the flaws in your "it hasn`t warmed since 1999" thread. Moreover, the latest GISTEMP data from NASA reveals September 2009 to be the *warmest* September on record. Of course the time scale of one month to extrapolate trends is meaningless for a largely deterministic system. But so is ten years - thirty or even longer is the minimum requirement. Moreover, its ridiculous to throw up graphs showing the linear trend in atmospheric C02 concentrations since 1999 and to use this as an argument to downplay temperature trends during this time. First of all, it has been warming since 1999; second, as I said ten years is much too short a time to extrapolate temporal trends for systems that operate over huge spatio-temporal scales. Lastly, the effects of increased C02 on temperature forcings are not instantaneous; this is grade school level science. There are time lags involved.
Lastly, I would personally vouch for science in the pages of *Nature*, *Science* or the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* (as well as in dozens of other peer-reviewed journals) over anything that appears on think tank web sites.
Jeff... It is science.
Jeff... I don't care what you think about my person. Yours are lies, ad hominem fallacies.
Discuss the science of my peer reviewed articles. All my articles published in BioCab's website have been peer reviewed.
I repeat, Steve McIntyre had only the data, the articles, not the databases. The databases remained hidden from the public scrutiny for 10 years.
>*All my articles published in BioCab's website have been peer reviewed.*
On what basis has your blog science been peer reviewed? Detail is relevnet to this point.
Nasif, although everything you're saying about the databases being hidden from public scrutiny for 10 years is false, I won't imitate you and say it's all lies. I'll assume you are ignorant and confused.
Lurkers and scientifically literate people: next, I predict Nasif here will say, oh, I didn't really just want the absoprtion coefficient of CO2 - I want you to show me you know the molar rate of extinction and other Heinz Hug nonsense.
To preempt that, I direct him here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-well-can-we-model-pressure.html?…
And indeed, to everything on that site for about a week before that and almost a week after it, and perhaps most importantly, to the links from those posts. And after Nasif can demonstrate that he understands enough about absorption and re-emission of long-wave radiation and about saturation and the difference between forcing and feedback and the change in the altitude at which energy is re-emitted, and so on to actually pose questions to us, then we can play his game.
Until then, it's just more troll-sniping.
Nasif, When I click on your "Editorial Board" I get an email prompted to and address staff@biocab.org
You look like a lousy astroturf front. Are you that bogus? Name names unless you are a fraud!
Nasif, no more off topic comments in this thread, please. If you want to argue that there is no AGW, take it to the open thread.
Nasif,
What lies are you referring to? Please elaborate. I did intend to attack you personally, as I found some of your commentaries on ecology to be interesting, so if you think I was personally attacking you I apologize.
However, I think that you are completely and utterly wrong to say that human activities do not account for the current warming. And I have science on that to back up this assertion. You do not.
And to further Observa`s point: if you are chief editor of a web site on which you post your own articles, how can the peer-review process be judged as fair? What is the rejection rate of your own articles? I will venture a guess and say 0%. Am I correct?
And what is the impact factor of BioCabs articles. Or do you have one? I do not think so. Nature and Science are the most rigid journals with high impact factors and rejection rates of 93%. That means only about 7% of articles submitted to these journals actually make it through the editorial and peer-review process to publication. Even journals like Ecology Letters and Ecology have rejection rates of over 80%. This is how sound science is advanced. All of the scientists on Real Climate are senior researchers with lengthy publication records. That is why I trust their interpretation of climate science much more than, say, the people at CA.
Nasif is producing really absurd stuff. his science-speak might confuse the uneducated.
check out this [article](http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html)
he has identified the single warmest year in the yamal region, over the last 2000 years:
The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD, during the Medieval Warming Period. Again, the relevance of the current warming is quite low in comparison with past warming periods.
since my criticism on [Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliab…) he seems to have removed (unless my mind is playing tricks with me) a completely absurd horizontal line, stretching from that maximum point. (and demonstrating how much higher that single year was, than any other one..)
Nahle spends a lot of time at WTF engaging in flights of pseudoscientific fancy. Not too respectable, even for a denialist.
Tim is right, we should stick to the topic....
Yawn - so you are still trying to protect Briffa's arse cos he was lazy and didn't post his data when he presented his original paper?
You are scientists or are you just kiddin' around like the rest of UNSW ?
Sigh, still trying to divert attention away from the idiocy of your Gods, janama?
McIntyre is clearly referring to the data set, not the results.
Apart from that, extra marks for using "confound" in a non-Leonardo Lion context.
I thought I was clearly back on topic Mark.
janama,
That's a wonderfully succint summation of the denialists battle against the facts.
"battle against the facts."
No the "facts" are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud - and you know it!
> cos he [Briffa] was lazy and didn't post his data
Lie, and one that is contradicted by Steve M.
Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?
*No the "facts" are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud - and you know it!*
What is this - a sandbox tantrum?
I love it when Janama gets going. Trollop trolls like Nasif are amateurs compared with Janama and the rest of the Marohasy gang when it comes to serving up switchbacks faster than Goebbels ordering up lunch.
"so you are still trying to protect Briffa's arse cos he was lazy and didn't post his data when he presented his original paper?"
Isn't that just wonderful stuff!!!!
Can we have some guesses as to how Cohenite et al will spin McIntyre's spill?
Thanks Tim for allowing Janama back on. I laugh so hard at his posts I have to reach for my ventlin inhaler. Lets hope Cohenite surfaces so that Nasif can get some lessons in posting cool sounding, pseudo science phrases and I will be able to laugh even harder.
Besides the fact that Steve already had the data since 2004, when he asked Briffa, he was politely told where to go....to get it.
What's Steve going to do when one of the owners of the original data publishes his study next year using 120 cores that confirms Briffa's findings.
Poor Steve, I feel a bit sorry for him already. The slayer of hocley sticks finds out, again, that they just won't stay dead.
He he ....You guys just keep arguing BS
Dave said
"Lie, and one that is contradicted by Steve M you say.
Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?"
Yeah typical...nothing about the actual problem here.... that the temp chart for the 20th Century has been misrepresented when SM re-analysed the data.
Now who amongst you is about to propose to SM that his reanalysis of the data is statistically incorrect with codes and charts etc. not personal attacks, Tom P tried, anyone else?.............
...............................
...........I thought not.
> Perhaps you should go back to Steve M. and argue this with him?
How can you go back to someone when you didn't go there in the first place?
Ducky does that a lot: when cornered say "but you shouldn't be saying that to MEEEEE!, talk to THEM!". But, Ducky, YOU are the one who is arguing for them. If you don't know or believe their arguments, then why did you take them up in the first place. If you DO know or believe their arguments, then YOU can answer queries on them.
And janama, you're still trying to tell us there is no elephant.
> I thought not
Your grammar is off: "No thoughts" would be closer.
> No the "facts" are that the hockey stick curve that you use to scare children is a fraud - and you know it!
> Posted by: janama
Of course, these facts have to be kept secret, since The Great Conspiracy will ensure that reality is changed so that these facts that prove the hockey stick is fraud will always have been wrong.
Having a time machine is a great thing!
(if you can't stop the lunacy of others, may as well push their insanity further and have a laugh at the ride...)
Janama:
> [Briffa] was lazy and didn't post his data
Janama later:
> Yeah typical...nothing about the actual problem here....
Look at you there, skipping about, dancing away from the issues you yourself bring up, creating as many smears as possible. Its almost cute.
Also your call for:
> not personal attacks
Is hypocritical in light of the first snippet I quoted above.
Please guys don't distract Janama. I'm looking for a good laugh and pointing out out the circular reasoning of his posts will only put him off.
Sorry about that, Jeremy.
In case you need some more laughter, look at this doofus' argument that there is no greenhouse effect:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/limiting_g…
Again with the "there's no greenhouse effect because there's no glass holding the air down!!!".
It's Malcolm Turnbull I feel sorry for.
If he gives into the hockey stick, he risks getting displaced by Joe Hockey, who, we all know, will stick at nothing.
Ezzthetic,
This is off the topic but I was in the UK when when the conservatives lost the 1997 election. Everyone then watched them tear themselves to pieces year after year, going through leader after leader for the sake of purity. In that case it was to do with who cleaved closest to Maggie's legacy and those who were deemed to have betrayed the spirit of Maggie were knifed and knifed again. It wasn't untill they had exhausted themselves over this internal war that they wrere able to start again. Its looks like the Liberals are following the same script with the help of the Nationals but instead of Maggie its AGW and the ETS.
OK...
...so...
...is McIntyre being 'misunderstood' again?
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood...
(I don't remember the next line saying "but if it pays well, heck, go ahead")
No one is required to post their measurement data. Various journals require making it available to referees and some to readers. Posting it is one method.
We still don't know the history of how McIntyre got the Russian data.
Rather like the GPL requires that your customer whom you sold your binaries to must have source on request, but most people who sell GPL software give out the source code to anyone who accesses their website to download it.
Tim mentioned Andrew Bolt, whom I'm just catching up on.
So this may be of interest: Andrew Bolt tries to read Briffa et al 2008 ...
"All those funny names look the same to Andrew Bolt"
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/09/all-those-funny-names-andrew-bolt/
... but apparently he didn't get very far.
#71
McIntyre's technical analysis probably deserves to be graded, not peer-reviewed.
There are a lot of problems. Hint as to one: Both Keith Briffa and Jim Bouldin have referred to errors in weighting the different series in McIntyre's "sensitivity analysis".
At this point I'd say it's hovering between a D and an F.
Well, Janama's right, give him his due. When SM re-analyzed the data it did lead him to misrepresent the temp chart for the 20th century, magically causing the last few decades to show rapid cooling.
> causing the last few decades to show rapid cooling.
> Posted by: dhogaza
Not that there WAS rapid cooling, just that sufficient abuse of the data can show anything.
Just ask Grima...
Well, that's what " SM misrepresent" means.
I just didn't want Ducky to misquote you to saying there WAS a cooling.
It's hard enough to kill them zombies.
Think of this as hallowing the ground we're putting the deaders in...
It's really sad, to make people disbelieve global warming, you don't actually have to say anything of substance. Just ask leading rhetorical questions that imply climate science is wrong, without ever offering evidence. It's the same tactic American politicians like Rick Cantor use to scare the public over health care reform. Here's an explanation:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/lesson-in-denial-rick-cantor-videos.h…
This article is so bad that I doubt it could pass muster at E&E.
It's the sun, no it's the GCR, no it's volcanos. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The guy is so full of hot air he's a major contributor to global warming.
Hah! You're not discussing science, but politics. Take any of the articles which I have writen and tell me what point is not clean science. :)
I have taken this pseudoscientific-antiscientific post from your posts:
"Nasif is producing really absurd stuff. his science-speak might confuse the uneducated."
Have you read the references? It's not what I have produced, but what hundreds of biologists and scientists of all times from the whole world have discovered through observation and experimentation. Read the references.
"check out this article
he has identified the single warmest year in the yamal region, over the last 2000 years:
The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD, during the Medieval Warming Period. Again, the relevance of the current warming is quite low in comparison with past warming periods."
Oh, no! You didn't learn to read]!!! I wrote "...that the MAXIMUM" temperature was achieved in 980..." Can you contradict that from the NOAA database? Heh...
"since my criticism on Marohasy he seems to have removed (unless my mind is playing tricks with me) a completely absurd horizontal line, stretching from that maximum point. (and demonstrating how much higher that single year was, than any other one..)"
Nothing has been removed from the article. Definitely, your fanatic mind is playing naughty tricks with you.
@sod...
You lost the debate at Jennifer Marohasy's website. I answered properly your "questions" there, but you didn't continue the dialogue.
The science in my articles are supported by the references and bibliography. Read them, Sod...
Masiv: sod just remembered the advice his daddy told him: There's no point wrestling a pig in mud: you're just going to dirty and the pig'll enjoy it.
Squeal for us here, piggy.
> The combination of several proxies reveals that the maximum temperature was achieved in 980 AD
Ah, the well-known dark-ages World Met Office...
'course that was before the thermometer was invented and people thought the world was flat, so global temperatures didn't mean anything then.
Jeff Harvey,
". I would therefore certainly not trust anyone these days whose world view was shaped by articles and editorials in the Guardian or its sister paper, the Obsever."
You must be a sad person if you think peoples world view is shaped purely by the papers they read. Just like your earlier comment about views shaped by Fox News.
Perhaps you are too busy running around the academic world spreading 'your message' to realise what the real world is like.
I think I'd better stop this.
Masif Nail is gonna get hammered.
Course ducky doesn't trust papers. Just listens to his maw and paw.
They got all the learnin' HE needs.
Nail, why does your temperature graph go up to just end 2005, but your hydrogen (which can't be intergalactic: we aren't in our own separate galaxy, then again what do you expect from a biologist...) goes on for nearly another year?
Or did you copy that idea from the swindle known as TGGWS?
Michael #39,
The only reason I memtioned the Guardian was in juxtaposition to Jeff Harvey's comment about Fox News. As far as the MSM is concerned the Guardian is probably as far away as you can get from Fox.
But, as Jeff's later post shows he doesn't think much of the Guardian either. Presumably he publishes and reads his own paper because he can fully agree with it.
> Presumably he publishes and reads his own paper because he can fully agree with it.
You do a lot of presuming, don't you Ducky?
Tried any "finding out"?
luminous beauty,
"Wrap your URL with angle brackets ( < > ) and this won't happen."
Thanks for that.
You know, Ducky, you must be a poor wasted weasel of a man to get your jollies slagging people off over the internet.
Your mom would be proud of how low her son has crawled.
'nother question Nail, since the Voyager craft doesn't record direction of irradiance, how do you know these protons were going towards the sun and not away?
I mean, there's this big hydrogen ball behind it...
Anther problem with it Nail is that your protons you have going at 400kps, but 10MeV protons will be traveling at 0.1c or 30,000kps.
Therefore taking not 14 months, but 5.6 days to get from Voyager to Earth.
If, indeed, it is going that way, which we haven't yet worked out...
And in your graph you have 85AU but in your text, 95AU.
Is this part of your 99% accuracy? You've included 10,000 numbers from NASA but made up 100?
Mark,
You really are an unpleasant person.
From another of his papers
> Did you know that the Earth at night does not freeze over because the oceans, lakes and ponds transfer heat more slowly than the atmosphere and ground?
No, Nail, we didn't.
Mostly because it doesn't.
Else the cloudy weather would not make a difference to the temperature drop at night.
> But what happens to all of the heat generated by the transformation of infrared radiation into kinetic and chemical energy in the atmosphere?
Ah, no, I don't think IR from the earth transforms into chemical energy in the atmosphere, nail.
Or is this the source of "Crystal Energy" I hear about in "Leylines For Beginners"?
> You should know that heat is not a thing, but energy in movement.
Ah, so my stationary electric hob is cold.
> In this case, as we are talking about heat, we are talking about energy in motion carried by photons as gravitational energy
Worse, he's underlined gravitational energy.
I would have thought that he'd know photons aren't involved in gravitational attraction. And someone who pretends to know so much science should at least have understood that the photon is a first gauge boson and a graviton is third gauge.
> Given that the energy density of the atmosphere is higher than the energy density of the gravity field,
Ah, New-Age Science Lives!!!
If the energy density of the atmosphere was higher than the gravitational field, there would be no atmosphere. It would have leaked away.
> The interaction between photons and gravity is a probability function.
Hmmm. Photons don't interact. Basic Quantum Optics. Ergo the probability function (whatever THAT is) is zero.
And the paper he cites for that probability function talks about linearized heat transfer in biology, where their linearization is enabled by ignoring radiative transfer.
Well, if you're going to ignore that, I guess there's a problem: there's no way for the heat to leave the earth and we should already be incandescent!
And you're a putrescent personality, Ducky!
Try some thinking instead of slandering. After a while you may earn some respect.
Girma and Nasif just might be a perfect match.
Here's more from that paper. It's hilarious!
> Heat radiated by the atmosphere to outer space and transferred to other systems is not the same as incoming heat from the Sun.
I suppose a broken watch is right twice a day! Unfortunately he spoils it all by saying what the difference is:
> Water vapor in the atmosphere and the land and oceans absorb incoming shortwave-infrared radiation from the Sun
Aw. He was doing so well.
Water vapour is transparent to shortwave, Nail. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see out!
> and radiate longwave-infrared radiation released by the transformation of Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy.
Potential energy from what? Ah well.
> The heat produced by the movement of the molecules and the chemical reactions in the atmosphere is RADIATED from Earth to outer space
No, the movement stays as movement. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere are miniscule. And most of the energy loss is RADIATED from the ground, not the atmosphere. But I suppose he could be confusing himself here.
> The soil, the oceans, the snow and the clouds all REFLECT a percentage of the cosmic heat back to outer space.
So a hot plate won't glow red (radiate)?
You'd think a biologist would know this.
> Greenhouse gases are not a barrier preventing the transference of heat to other settings.
What? Like Gas Mark 5?
No, they prevent radiation passing through freely.
> The "Greenhouse" gases are components of the terrestrial atmosphere which makes all life on Earth possible
Well yes, without GG impeding the GROUND radiating heat away, we'd be 33C cooler and all dead from frostbite.
> At its present concentration (378.9 ppmv or 0.0332%) in the atmosphere, CO2 is able to raise the tropospheric temperature by only 0.03° C;
How does he work that out from those numbers? It's less than 0.0332% of the temperature of the earth, so it can't be that. Nothing about how he got THAT number. But we've upped CO2 by 100ppm, and THAT would make 0.03C. Has he REALLY just gone "all the warming must be due to there being an atmosphere, and all constituents are equally responsible".
Gosh.
> however, the tropospheric temperature anomaly has reached 0.42° C.
Uh, quite a lot more than that, actually. Unless you're talking about compared to the 1930-1980 average.
> This discrepancy reveals that the registered tropospheric temperature variability is not the result of CO2,
My goodness. So the number he made up with unphysical malpractice isn't the same as the number it's gotten warmer and this is how he KNOWS it's not CO2 (as opposed to his figure of 0.03C being wrong...). Gee willikers.
> but of a higher density of incoming energy from the Cosmos âSolar Radiation and Interstellar Cosmic Rays (science article here)
However, how much warming that produces isn't calculated.
Probably because of the earlier "eureka" moment when he found that 0.03 wasn't the same as 0.42 and discarded CO2 as the cause. After all, when he finds out that this causes only 0.000000004C warming he'd have to admit that idea is wrong.
By the way, the "science article" is titled
> Solar Rotation Effects on the Thermospheres of Mars and Earth
How that relates to what he thinks are intergalactic protons coming from outside the solar system is anyone's guess.
> In particular, we should bear in mind the following formulas:
This should be good...
> Daylight Events: Potential energy of atmospheric gases + heat from the Sun and other regions of the Universe --> Kinetic energy of atmospheric gases + heat released from movement of the molecules of atmospheric gases + heat released by collisions among molecules + cosmic heat absorbed by ground and water --> Earth warms somewhat, but is maintained fresh by the transference of heat from the ground and other solids to the oceans and atmosphere.
Ah. Potential energy is only released when you move to a lower energy location. Gravitational PE as any kid in secondary school knows is g (the force of gravity) times h (the height above ground level).
But convection rises first.
And I thought heat WAS kinetic energy of the gasses. So isn't he double-counting?
No figures however. Despite having some very accurate ones for CO2 content....
> Night Events: Kinetic energy of the molecules of atmospheric gases --> potential energy from the decreasing exchange of energy + diminishing heat incoming from outer space + radiation of atmospheric heat to outer space + heat transfer from the atmosphere to water --> Earth cools somewhat, but is maintained warm by heat diffused from water to the ground and atmosphere.
Still no formula.
Maybe he's using Nu Math.
> Many other factors warm or cool the Earth, but I have summarized matters here to improve comprehension of the text.
Ah.
You failed, Nail.
You''ve also left out the role of CO2 in warming the earth.
> For example, I have not taken into consideration the heat released by other sources (for example volcanoes).
Or people not lifting their feet properly and shuffling about.
> have also overlooked Interstellar Cosmic Particles, which evidently are warming the Earth and other planets in our Solar System (read here).
And looking at the "read here" we see another fine example of "plotting a graph on different axises and end the graph early if it starts disagreeing with your beliefs" that TGGWS displayed so well.
He does lose it with the smoothed lines though. He shows up that there's an unaccounted bump quite a bit larger than many of the ones he thinks "key" in proving his point, but ignored because it's best to ignore inconvenient facts when doing so is convenient...
Honestly, I thought the Gerlich paper was barely pre-school, this one is worse!
While Nasif's stuff is well worth mocking, please take it to the open thread.
Dave Andrews:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Tim, such a spoilsport. It was fun seeing Nasif get eviscerated!
Dave Andrews,
No, unlike you apparently, I read books (a lot of them), and peruse declassified files that tell me pretty much what western planners (and their counterparts in other countries) are up to. My parents were devout Guardian readers but much of the elite nonsense coming from even the allegedly "left-leaning" media has put me off.
By the way, Dave, (or `ducky`), has anybody told you what an unpleasant person you are? Oh, glad to see that luminous beauty, Janet Akerman, Chris O`Neill, Mark, Michael and others have beaten me to it...
Crap, my endless ranting that DaveA is a fuckhead hasn't been noticed by JeffH?
Damn!
Sorry dhogaza! My bad! I think your contributions to various threads on Deltoid, like those of the others above I mentioned, is excellent! And I am glad that we all agree about DA, or "ducky" as he is colloquially known......
Tim, but HE started it!!!
;-P
Really, though. He'd demanded on this thread it be read, so I read it.
I take it "latest open thread" is fine if Nail wants hammering some more.
FTFY
"Bolt: "This mad global warming scare could at last be over. And all thanks to just 10 trees in Siberia."
Perhaps Bolt means these 10 trees are magical carbon sequestration trees, able to annually remove all the carbon emitted from human activities. This would be a marginally more ratinoal argument for him.
Jeff Harvey,
Wow you read books! What are they? Oh you mean those things my partner is always complaining about as they spill out of the bookshelves and organise themselves in piles across other surfaces which necessitates mass movements before you can get to what you want in the container underneath.
Glad to see you have sorted out how the world is run - when did you get to be omnipotent?
dhogaza,
When I first came across you on Open Mind you used to be relatively civil in your postings. Both there and here your posts have tended to become increasingly strident and derogatory with use of abusive language.
As I said before you must be getting desperate!
Well, earlier I had hopes that your ignorance was curable. Unlike you, I'm capable of learning and have now given up that hope.
Andrews:
Wow, a master of language too. Is there no end to this man's talent?
I repeat... Steve McIntyre had the data, but not the databases which were hidden by Briffa from the scientists' scrutiny for 10 years.
I started reading Nasif's missive, but after a few sentences began hitting my head so hard against the nearest wall that I had to stop.
He must be the dumbest denier I have ever seen. I have to take some ibuprofen now.
Nasif, I deleted your off topic comments. Do it again and you will be banned.
Ducky boy Dave,
If you have anything useful to say, say it. But until then, your brainless, vacuous posts just waste everybody`s time.
What I have noticed with you is that when your simple facts are countered, you resort to witless remarks and insults. Take them elsewhere, ducky.
Databases are built from data. As someone who works with data and databases, this is ...
the most fuckingly stupid excuse I've ever heard.
Also, the R stuff McI runs are always based on flat files, not "databases".
Nasif is even more stupid than people imagine.
Nasif's comments on data and databases are more appropriate for DenialDepot, where there has been an [interesting post on this very topic in the Yamal thread](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/10/yamal-fraud-i-have-found-it.htm…). At least, I found it interesting.
I wonder if the folks at ClimateAudit realize that a good third of the posts at their site are probably tongue in cheek from climate science grad students? In fact, you would have to wonder if the entire ClimateAudit site isn't just an elaborate hoax. [Steve's latest missive](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328) is such a bizarre attempt at obfuscating his way out of the mess that he has created for himself, that it can surely only be parody.
Dirk (the sensible one)
> Both there and here your posts have tended to become increasingly strident and derogatory with use of abusive language.
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
That would be because when you hear someone being an arse or an idiot, you start off thinking "Well, maybe they just got the wrong end of the stick".
If they continue to look blankly, you may get a bit firmer to try and jolt them into thinking or even just listening.
But you, Ducky, YOU are unwilling to change your confusion because you want to be an arsehole and a troll. After the hundredth time of ignorance and idiocy, swearing is the only thing left.
And swearing at trolls like you is completely warranted.
Get.
A.
Frigging.
Clue.
You.
Wanker.
PS it's rich coming from a serial abuser like you. Almost ALL of your posts degenerate into name-calling.
See post 100 for recent examples, but anything with Monbiot or Greenpeace has you foaming at the brain trying to make them out to be spawn of satan's scrotum.
Then scurrying away or denying you said anything when asked for proof of your allegations.
Jeff Harvey,
Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?
Mark,
I hardly think one use of the word 'unpleasant' counts as name calling. Whereas both you and dhogaza have used some pretty intemperate language.
You also regularly exaggerate, as in your post 132. Still that must be your way and you presumably do it with everything you post.
Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?
That's existentialism, Daddio.
>_ ...a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?_
My projection meter just broke its needle.
Dick Hartog:
You're right, McIntyre's latest post is just bizarre, and of course other than Tom P, who's continuing to try to educate folks there, the responses form one disturbingly long-winded circle-jerk.
Of course, McIntyre's martyring himself, whining about everyone picking on him, while not saying a thing about the flood of accusations of scientific fraud etc his dishonest claims let loose.
>*Get. A. Frigging. Clue. You. W$nker*
One nil to Ducky!
Even if Ducky has no idea about most of which he spouts, Ducky Dave knows how to press some people's buttons.
Dave "ducky boy" Andrews,
Read my post again from yesterday. Let it sink in this time. Go away.
Dave Andrews:
"Are you a post modernist? You know, a disillusioned person of the left who, despairing at the failure of communism, seeks refuge in solipsism?"
That's nothing to do with postmodernism. Postmodernism is an artistic movement, it is a rejection of modernism (which is basically based in rationalism). It has nothing to do with Communism nor being "of the left". I don't think there are many people in the world despairing at the failure of Communism.
Simple answers:
1. Postmodernism rejects science. Jeff Harvey is a scientist who clearly does not.
2. Ducky doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Very interesting... Sort of.
What's most interesting is that apparently Vlaclev Havel, that poster boy skeptic of global warming, actually seems to be a postmodernist. Who'd have thunk that? I suppose Dave Andrews already knew that, though didn't he?
Nathan,
I think you mean Vaclav Klaus?
J
> I hardly think one use of the word 'unpleasant' counts as name calling.
No, but all the other things you say about people is name calling.
Or are you part-goldfish and can't remember anything more than 10 minutes ago?
Jeff,
My Bad, I thought that Vaclev Havel was the most recent Czech President. So I was mistaken about the poster boy skeptic remark.
You are quite right, Vaclav Klaus, is the poster boy... And I have no idea if he is a postmodernist. Possibly if this is anything to go by:
"In his public statement he described the bill as being "dangerous", a threat to the fabric of Czech society and representing militant "homosexualism." "
A Modernist has no fear of homosexualism, in fact Modernism rejoices in freedom of expression.
:)
Also, the R stuff McI runs are always based on flat files, not "databases".
Nasif is even more stupid than people imagine.
Ooooh! What a scientific argument you have posted... hahaha!
About as scientific as "McIntyre has the data, but not the database".
However, "Nasif is stupid2 is at least a sensible thing to say. This makes sense.
> Even if Ducky has no idea about most of which he spouts, Ducky Dave knows how to press some people's buttons.
> Posted by: Janet Akerman
Or I know how to push yours, Janet.
PS this is quite off topic, but does ANYONE think that putting a $ sign in the place of an "a" hid anything?
It's like those who don't like swearing but have no problem with cripes or heck.
THEY ARE STILL BLASPHEMING!
Blasphemy would be bad only if there really WAS an omnipotent god. Now who thinks that he'd be sitting up there saying:
Well I *was* going to send him to hell for eternity for taking my son's name in vain, but he actually said "Cripes", which is *completely* different, so that's allright.
?
If you didn't want to put a rude word, just put the number of the post.
Mark,
Don't be rude to Janet, it is very unbecoming.
dhogaza,
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/10/culture-catcher-19
Jeff Harvey,
"nd peruse declassified files that tell me pretty much what western planners (and their counterparts in other countries) are up to."
So is this omnipotence or post modernism?
Or perhaps not aware that scienceblogs - unlike some others - allows the use of words like "wanker".
Nathan,
The Wikipaedia article you linked did indeed mention Vaclav Havel. Pity you mixed him up with Vaclav Klaus.
Did you also notice this in the article?
"It is possible to identify the burgeoning anti-establishment movements of the 1960s as the constituting event of postmodernism. "
dhogaza,
Just because something is "allowed" doesn't mean that you should do it.
> Just because something is "allowed" doesn't mean that you should do it.
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
And just because you can slander on here, doesn't mean you should do it every chance you get, Ducky.
re 151, that's what I'm on about.
It's not like the substitution really worked, is it.
PS: Ducky, it's not nice to be rude to Jeff. Or Monbiot. Or all the others you're rude to then scurry away when called on it.
PS Ducky, from someone who slates people left right and centre with insinuations of all sorts, it's rather hard to know what you considered rude in that posting.
"Or I know how to push yours, Janet" is no worse than Janet did to me.
"Why not just use the post number" is not rude AT ALL.
Someone who says
> Jeff Harvey,
> Wow you read books!
> Glad to see you have sorted out how the world is run - when did you get to be omnipotent?
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
EVEN WHILE complaining about others being oh so *very* mean to him.
Either a stunned goldfish level of memory or a totally nonhuman level of self awareness.
Dave Andrews,
Read dhogaza`s response at # 141. Essentially, just because virtually everyone on this thread knows considerably more than you do about a wealth of topics does not mean that their philosophy can be classifieds as "either-or". Your expertise is hit and run baiting - making simplistic remarks that are easily countered then using vacuous wit to cover your lack of knowledge and by trying and show how clever you are (without any empirical substance).
If that makes your day - fine. But I have work to do. I try to not waste much of my time on people like you who actually have very little of substance to add to contemporary issues and debates. Perhaps you should attend one of my many university lectures on public policy and the environment some time - you would definitely learn something. As it is, your posts are nothing more than hollow posturing coupled with an apparent need to be noticed. That is why you write in every day with effectively a few quips and nothing else to say.
Mark, glad to see you are back on form. I was sorry to see Dave temporarily reduce you to useless name calling.
Ducky,
Mark might have a volatile streak, but at least he is accurate in calling your empty guff, and tearing a new one for Nasif Nahle.
But Jeff'spost @157 sums it all beautifully.
In regards to Ducky:
Yes he is rather like McIntyre, isn't he?
Re #41 and the related comments about the absence of the Lorax thread over on Climate Audit.
I was enjoying watching McIntyre's responses to the awkward questions that were evolving there and, like others, thought it very strange that the entire thread was wiped. I wrote my first post on their site to ask where it had gone (no hint of my thoughts on the subject and I didn't include the link to my Helium site where I've posted pro-AGW articles).
It seems that the mere mention of Lorax is enough to frighten them off. I tried to post on their new Unthreaded topic with a general clarification of ENSO and it appears I'm banned. Received this message:
http://www.ioerror.us/bb2-support-key?key=a461-f554-dfd9-b1ad
For McIntyre to whine about transparency and getting a fair go in the scientific community is hypocrisy of the highest order.
> I was sorry to see Dave temporarily reduce you to useless name calling.
> Posted by: Janet Akerman
Janet, it wasn't me reduced to it I was not joking. Apart from that closing comment, I'm playing with the arrogant little arse in the hope that he'll think before he posts.
But he really, REALLY *needs* to get a frigging clue. That was dead serious.
When you stub your toe, do you swear or go "Golly Gosh!"? PROPER swearing is genuine and real and the original emotional enhancer.
Ducky needs to get a frigging clue.
Mark: " And someone who pretends to know so much science should at least have understood that the photon is a first gauge boson and a graviton is third gauge." Please supply a reference where the gauge bosons are classified numerically and in such a strange manner - "a graviton is third gauge"???
There are five spin 1 bosons or three if you group the heavy vector bosons as one. The graviton is spin 2 and so if you list them numerically it comes in as number 6 or 4. If you are stupid enough to classify them that way that is.
Stick to rants about climate change, you'll never make it as a theoretical elementary particle physicist.
The spin number of photons, gluons and gravitons, Whale.
All Gauge Bosons.
The terminology I had remembered was to group them, so the five spin 1 bosons are all one gauge.
> Stick to rants about climate change, you'll never make it as a theoretical elementary particle physicist.
> Posted by: Whale Spinor
Not trying to, Whale.
Don't become a teacher: you have no talent in that direction.
'course Spiner is only wanting to defend a fellow denialist. He has form:
> But then some bedraggled, haggish, young environazi behind me said, in a magnificently superior tone, âDonât you know they harm the enviroment?â.
> I said âno I didnâtâ and gave the assistant a 50 cent coin and said could I have another five plastic bags please to carry my book in. The assistant (full marks to her), smirked and put my book in the six plastic bags Iâd payed for.
> The environazi, a woman whom only her mother could love and find attractive, was not amused and told me so in language that would make a shearer blush.
> And so I payed the price (60 cents + abuse) of being a religious heretic.
> Whale Spinor of Brisbane (Reply)
Mind you, watch the spelling in there and then rejoice in reading his demands for Good English:
> And thatâs just his English, his geography is worse and his powers of reason non-existent. A tragic, truly tragic example of the shortcomings of the Australian education system.
> Posted by Whale Spinor
It's good to see Nasif here. Whatever you might think already, it gets better. He appeared (as Biocab) at the JREF forums a while ago. I collated his many, many posts on one bizarre claim [here](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3854567&postcount=779). You can follow up individual posts if you're especially masochistic. ;)
For those who "enjoyed" Girma, I can tell you that Nasif is in another league. :D
TrueSceptic:
I don't think I can untangle my mind anytime soon after following that magnificent display of loopy logic by Nasif/Biocab. That link needs a stronger warning label.
For those who "enjoyed" Girma, I can tell you that Nasif is in another league. :D
I don't think the world can take another person like Girma. Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Jeff Harvey "157
Yet again your first impulse is to suggest that people who disagree with you are somehow ignorant.
They are not.
But let's move on - where are all these university lectures you give taking place? Are they part of recognised university courses or 'extra curricular'? Are they open to members of the public?
Janet Akerman,
Good to see that despite Mark's put down of you and his subsequent reiteration of it, you still jump to his support.
Solidarity - excellent!
Mark,
I said to Jeff Harvey 'wow you read books' as a direct response to his post insinuating that I didn't do likewise.
If my comment was what you call 'name calling' what was his?
Or do you have a different level of tolerance for people you agree with than for people you don't?
Assertion of an ignoramus, e.g. Dave Andrews:
"I am not ignorant."
Mark - "The spin number of photons, gluons and gravitons, Whale. All Gauge Bosons." Ah I see. That is why a graviton is gauge three. It has spin 3. Apologies, you got me there.
Really? All of them?
And if you count yourself in that group, why do you post so much ignorant shit?
Dave Andrews writes:
>*Good to see that despite Mark's put down of you and his subsequent reiteration of it, you still jump to his support.*
Interesting the way you show us how your mind works Dave. My assessment is you need to develop your arguments further before you would make interesting discussion.
Bizarrely enough, this wasn't said in response to anything Nail said.
As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.
The main questions I got out of McIntyre were:
1. The Yamal series seems to give a better outcome for the so-called 'Hockey Stick Team' than the Polar Urals in the same general area. The former tended to displace the latter in Team temperature reconstructions. Is there any independent and objective reason why Yamal should replace Polar Urals?
2. McIntyre had Yamal data since 2004, but was unsure whether it was the same version as that used by Briffa. Wouldn't prompt full archiving have rapidly resolved this issue? Hasn't this issue of archiving been a longstanding complaint about the Team in general?
3. The Wegman report of 2006 made criticisms of the Hockey Stick Team's statistical methods. These were said to have the effect of 'mining' for hockey sticks. Is this not a matter of concern when the Yamal series is used in place of the Polar Urals? And/or when bristlecone pines are used (as is not uncommon), since they can show a hockey-stick growth response to elevated atmospheric CO2 as well as temperature?
These were the main questions I got out of McIntyre. I must say that the voluminous and often abusive comments on this thread did not produce much illumination for me.
H hd "vrsn", h? Th <>Lnct nc hd "vrsn" f th MMR/tsm lnk. Nt s mch "bmbshll" s th brstng bbbl f rd hrrng's brp. ncdntll, s ths pst s bng qtd td t th wbst f ntrs rcst nd gdfthr f th Nk Mcc mvmnt, Chrls Jhnsn. Nw dn't blv tht, lk th LGF brgd, Tm blvs th Plstnns shld b < hrf="http://lttlgrnftblls.cm/shwc//">xtrmntd. Bt h shld bnc ll lnks frm Jhnsn.
@David Elder:
Wrt point 1: Polar Urals show major divergence already early in the 20th century. That is, they clearly are poor temperature gauges in modern times. Putting them IN any reconstructions would require some major 'splaining!
Point 2: the data was archived...by the original authors. Briffa et al did not own the data. Moreover, let's also remember that archiving data and making it available to everyone has only been 'normal' in the last few years. Let's also remember that archiving data so everyone can understand it is NOT trivial and takes time. In fact, it would have taken McIntyre far less time to send a mail to Briffa asking him whether the data he received was the same Briffa used, than constantly harassing the non-owners of the data to release that same data...
Point 3: The Wegman report actually forgot to look at the actual data, and merely said that the statistical method may indeed yield hockeysticks. It did not(!) investigate whether the data ITSELF contained a hockeystick shape. The Yamal series has little to do with the criticism of the statistical methods. Also, while concern was voiced about the bristlecones (notably an area on which the Wegman committee had absolutely no expertise), several studies after that have shown they actually are quite reasonable temperature gauges. Whether with them, or without them, the shape of the hockeystick is mostly the same.
As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.
The main questions I got out of McIntyre were:
The Yamal series seems to give a better outcome for the so-called 'Hockey Stick Team' than the Polar Urals in the same general area. The former tended to displace the latter in Team temperature reconstructions. Is there any independent and objective reason why Yamal should replace Polar Urals?
McIntyre had Yamal data since 2004, but was unsure whether it was the same version as that used by Briffa. Wouldn't prompt full archiving have rapidly resolved this issue? Hasn't this issue of archiving been a longstanding complaint about the Team in general?
The Wegman report of 2006 made criticisms of the Hockey Stick Team's statistical methods. These were said to have the effect of 'mining' for hockey sticks. Is this not a matter of concern when the Yamal series is used in place of the Polar Urals? And/or when bristlecone pines are used (as is not uncommon), since they can show a hockey-stick growth response to elevated atmospheric CO2 as well as temperature?
These were the main questions I got out of McIntyre. I must say that the voluminous and often abusive comments on this thread did not produce much illumination for me.
Posted by: david elder | October 13, 2009 10:34 PM
Dear David,
Pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. The better for you is to investigate ourselves everything looking to be supported by peer reviewed papers, science books, etc.
As a general rule, âscienceâ blogs often manage dirty science and do not tolerate you demonstrate the true science behind any issue, at both sides of this debate, I mean global warming and climate change. I suggest you to read Elsevier's guideline on peer reviewed stuff:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf
Kind Regards,
Nasif Nahle
Dear David,
Pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. The better for you is to investigate for yourself everything, looking for support on peer reviewed papers, science books, etc.
As a general rule, âscienceâ blogs often manage dirty science and do not tolerate you to demonstrate the true science behind any issue; it occurs at both sides of this debate, I mean global warming and climate change. I suggest you to read Elsevier's guideline on peer reviewed stuff:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/ShortPeerReviewGuide.pdf
Kind Regards,
Nasif Nahle
@Marco | October 14, 2009 12:56 AM
Whether with them, or without them, the shape of the hockeystick is mostly the same.
I have plotted the raw data from the whole series and all treering samples and the shape is not a hockeystick:
http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg
Oops! Sorry the link didn't work. Let's try again:
http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg
Well... Look at the second graph here:
http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html
Last trial:
http://www.biocab.org/RawDataTreering-Yamal.jpg
David Elder
I am a senior scientist who works in The Netherlands.
Nasif is correct when he says that pseudoscience and antiscience are everywhere. It is just too bad that the vast proportion of this science comes out of the denial industry, through PR campaigns, astroturf lobbying groups, corporate funded think tanks and the like. This kind of denial is rife in environmental research, because of the threat regulation pose to the profits of commerical elites. This is why they in vest so much money in denial.
I also wound not trust Sense About Science with a ten foot barge pole. SAS is or has been funded by a number of corporations, especially those promoting GM crops. You can read how "objective" this lot is by reading these srticles in Sourcewatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tracey_Brown
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_about_Science
A few years ago Stuart Pimm (Professor, Duke University) and I wrote a piece in the peer-reviewed journal Oikos in which we gave a list of recommendations for readers of web sites and environmental literature to check when validating or invalidating the authenticity of what they read. Two piece of advice are relevant here. First, follow the data. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary empirical evidence. For their part, most of the contrarians do not publish their research in rigidly peer-reviewed journals where it would be open to scrutiny, but on unaccountable web sites where almost anything can be printed and often is. The data trails of the denialists often grows cold very quickly. Second, follow the money. Many of the most prominent contrarians have received industry or think tank funding at one time or another, whether for research, consulting or travel fees. They try to downplay this, calling these criticisms ad hominem attacks, but that is a smokescreen. If you are a lawyer and I pay you money, you are working for me. Period. Why should it be any different for scientists?
Finally, I would like to ask Nasif something I noticed about two of his responses to his critics (one of them being me).
On post #40 (October 8), Nasif, in response to my post you said:
*Not true. I say in my articles the warming happened. What I assure you scientifically is that humans have nothing to do with that warming*
But on another web site of Emily Gertz, in July of this year, you (I assume it was you) wrote:
*BTW, there is not global warming nowadays. Instead, the Earth is cooling*
(Of course, the latter was said before the warmest September on record, but why quibble?)
So which is it Nasif? Warming? Cooling? Both? Flip-flop? Left-right-left-right? In the space of two months you go from warming to cooling. Are you basing this on one blip in the data set (last year, given that the surface temperature this year is much warmer than last). This is NOT good science!
here is your [link](http://www.biocab.org/Raw_Data_Treering-Yamal.jpg) Nasif. (markdown is described above the box in which you wrote your post...)
is the raw data confirming [980 AD](http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html) as the warmest year ever? (nasif TM method)
More interesting info on SAS in Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comme…
Hope this bracketing <> helps Jeff's link to overcome the mark-up.
The simplest answer for underscored, or even just plain long, urls is to [tiny](http://www.tiny.cc/) it.
You can put a 'tiny' button in your toolbar (at least, you can for Firefox), and your url problems are then one click from solved.
185 Jeff,
Oh, yes, Nasif has certainly claimed it's cooling, and he uses Nu Arithmetic to "prove" it. From the link I gave earlier:-
"Ah I see.
Bizarrely enough, this wasn't said in response to anything Nail said.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 13, 2009 9:54 PM"
Correct. Bizarrely enough, it was in response to Mark's discovery of the "gauge 3 boson".
and as the majority of knowledge about AGW is based on The New York Times, your post has just killed the hockey stick. (again.)
congratulations!
oh, and the article you cited above is from the Quadrant. wonderful source. beats the AGW New York Times stuff everyday.
> As a retired biologist and lecturer I have tried to follow this debate dispassionately.
So dispassionately that Nail didn't bother learning the science...
> Ah I see. That is why a graviton is gauge three. It has spin 3. Apologies, you got me there.
> Posted by: Whale Spinor
No need to apologise for the confusion: that was caused by poor memory of the *correct* terminology. It's not widespread. So that's my fault.
Jumping to the conclusion that because you don't understand the terminology means I know nothing about it was out of order, and an apology on that is warranted and accepted.
Ta.
That could be misread:
"you don't understand the terminology *I* *used*" would be clearer.
> Or do you have a different level of tolerance for people you agree with than for people you don't?
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Because there's the possiblitiy of understanding why the apparent insult occurs and either
1) accepting that it was warranted
2) accepting that it was unwarranted but arrived honestly (by misunderstanding)
3) accepting that it was misunderstood as insult by the receiver
which allows discourse.
You just slate, slander and slag.
That you fail to consider this as how you can insult without being rejected is one of the VERY MANY ways you have no clue and one must be found by you before people start considering you human.
> Correct. Bizarrely enough, it was in response to Mark's discovery of the "gauge 3 boson".
> Posted by: Whale Spinor
Bizarrely you seem to have forgotten the post you made at #172.
Why?
@Jeff Harvey...
Yes, I noticed the Earth was cooling. However, in another blog, i.e. Watts Up With That, I said the cooling will be very short. I told WUWUT bloggers that the trend was to a warmhouse (AGWers call it greenhouse, which is the same), not to an ice age.
A scientist must to consider all the possibilities working aroung a phenomenon. In this case, yes, we observed a cooling, but the general trend is towards a warming, which is the next climate phase.
@Sod...
Thank you, Sod, for helping me with the link. :)
Regarding your question, yes; if we assume the treering growth was due to temperature, the raw database indicates the warmest year in the last 2000 years was 980 AD.
However, as I indicate in the conclusions, the main factor which affects the growth of C3 plants is the insolation. There are many factors which affect the growth of green plants, but insolation is the strongest among them; so the data obtained from treerings is not a reliable source for paleotemperatures.
From the comparisons with total solar irradiance, which affects insolation, we are confident that the treering's growth was due to insolation, not to environmental change of temperature.
Besides, the Siberian Larch trees, the bristlecone pines and almost all trees are C3 plants. Growth of C3 plants stops when insolation and/or temperature surpasses the optimal temperature for photosynthesis, which for pines is aroung 23 °C.
By the way, it is not my TM methodology, but NOAA reccommended methodology. Sorry... ;)
@TrueSceptic...
It seems you know nothing about amplitude, do you?
> From the comparisons with total solar irradiance, which affects insolation,
Isn't insolation and solar irradiance the same thing?
> A scientist must to consider all the possibilities working aroung a phenomenon.
Have you considered the effect of lost socks on your phenomenon?
And I notice that you haven't explained why your cosmic rays are running at 10% of the speed they should be in your paper on how it's all the protons doing it...
198 Nasif,
I invite anyone to go to the [JREF link](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3854567&postcount=779) I posted and follow the "discussion" with Nasif (biocab). Does he know anything about amplitude? Heck, does he know anything about simple arithmetic?
You never did give your working did you? You just resorted to idiotic insults because you had nothing but arithmetic that would shame a 5-year old.
To claim that someone knows less than you about amplitudes (or simple maths for that matter) is beyond stupid.
Others here thought Girma was bad. They have no idea...
Nasif,
You realize that TSI variability is undetectable at the Earth's surface, don't you?
Whale Spinor:
No shit Sherlock.
@Mark...
No, insolation and total solar irradiance are not the same thing. The total solar irradiance is the load of solar energy striking on the upper atmosphere, and insolation is the amount of solar irradiance which hits on the surface. Insolation is modified by many factors, like cloudiness, albedo, dust, aerosols, etc. TSI is not because it is the energy emitted by the Sun reaching our planet.
For your second question on protons speeds, it's off topic and Tim Lambert has notified me on not to write on off topic issues. Please, read the next reference:
D. A. Gurnett and W. S. Kurth. Electron Plasma Oscillations Upstream of the Solar Wind Termination shock. Science; Vol. 309, pages 2025 - 2027. 23. September 2005.
There you'll find what the speed of the GCR's protons from the termination shock is, which is the speed that I indicated in my article.
There are many books on astrophysics that confirm the speed consigned by Gurnett and Kurth in their article published in science.
@luminous beauty...
"Nasif,
You realize that TSI variability is undetectable at the Earth's surface, don't you?"
You're right; however, we can deduce it through the analysis of proxies. Solar physicists have developed a methodology for deducing the total solar irradiance from sunspots number from observations from ground (you say "surface") observatories; for example, Judith Lean, Wang and other scientists.
Other proxies for calculating the TSI from the "surface" are 10Be, 16C, and Ca-II. The accuracy of those proxies is high and the error of calculation is into acceptable parameters. Remember that most reconstructions of TSI go back to 1610 AD, while satellite measurements of TSI started in 1976.
Another reliable proxy is hematite stained grains, assessed by Bond and colleagues. We can reconstruct the Total Solar Irradiance based on HSG from 40000 years ago up to date.
All those proxies found on the "surface".
Jeff Harvey,
40 posts since I asked you for details of your University lectures, where they could be found and if they were open to the public.
Response -- zilch. Do they actually happen?
Mark,
So now I'm not 'human'?
Dang, the secret's out, I'm a Dalek. But remember RESISTANCE IS USELESS.....RESISTENCE IS USELESS...RESISTENCE IS etc.
Well, at least you've got all the spelling bases covered ...
Dave Andrews at [#210](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon…).
Ever thought that perhaps Jeff Harvey is busy doing real science rather than waiting with bated breat at his computer monitor for your every posting?
Nevertheless, if you are so keen to catch a Harvey lecture, perhaps you would go one step further and challenge him to a public debate. You live in the same corner of the world as he, and I am sure that Jeff would make space for such an event at his institution, seeing as his stance on matters bothers you so much. If he is in error you could set him straight, and it would do much to improve your firmly-cemented reputation here for producing absolutely nothing of any substance in any post that you make.
Please consider locking horns with Jeff in person. Tim Curtin threatened to do so before his trip to Europe last August, but when I tried to press him for a firm commitment he found the first excuse that he could to wriggle out of it.
I am sure that you are made of sterner stuff, so I look forward to hearing of the outcome of such a debate.
Dave Andrews,
Thanks Bernard, you summed it up perfectly.
DA: I am a scientist, I am on a sabbatical and I am doing three experiments right now, writing up a bunch of manuscripts and reviewing papers. I do not give your banal posts much priority, I am afraid.
Yes, I do give lectures on invitation and for student courses. I have spoken in several countries and at a number of universities on the interface between science and public policy. I have lectured at Princeton and Stanford Universities in the United States, Aarhus and Copenhagen in Denmark, University of Helsinki, and at a number of venues in The Netherlands.
Satisfied?
Mark & Chris O'Neill - There are 3 gauge bosons in the standard model; photons, W & Z bosons and gluons. Grand unified theories postulate another 2 but no experimental evidence for these currently exists. The gravitational interaction may be carried by a boson called the graviton but whether it is a gauge boson is still undetermined.
However it must be clearly said that there is no such entity as a gauge 3 boson as you have stated. I suspect Whale Spinor knows this well and is having a bit of fun at your expense. His/her name is presumably a play on the Weyl Spinors which are a particular decomposition of the Dirac Spinor used to characterise particle spin.
Mark, Nasif: I've deleted some off-topic comments. Please take it to the open thread.
A Physicist, you may need to read more.
Heck, even Spinor read more than you.
Jeff Harvey,
I don't doubt that you are a busy scientist with an academic background. But you as good as said to me that I should attend some of your lectures in order to 'improve' my understanding.
Now, how can I do that if you are currently not lecturing?
Bernard J,
Most of your comment is completely besides the point. (see above)
Dave Andrews:
Duh, wait until he starts again.
Dave Andrews,
I will let you know the moment I go to the UK (guessing that is where you reside) to speak about politics and the environment. Promise.
Satisfied?
J
Dave Andrews.
If you are only interested in Jeff's lectures in order to, as you say, 'improve' your understanding, rather than attending in order to improve your understanding, then I reckon that my comment is not as beside the point as you seem to think.
Well, surely Watts has your ass! Since he only has a high-school education, he's not burdened with your schedule and therefore is best equipped to eliminate science as a methodology with any explanatory power!
You've been owned!
Jeff Harvey,
Re 216, yes, look forward to it.
There's a Bill/PaulH/dhogaza exchange above regarding "the Lorax thread" at Climate Audit. The question is posed:
to which dhagoza replies:
Cute. What actually happened is that Lorax himself asked Steve to remove "his" thread after somebody figured out Lorax's Super Secret Identity and started dropping hints about it. Source: [comments at Rabett](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/10/auditing-auditor-or-dr.html)
Wow, first time I've read a thread here in a long time. Y'all sure enjoy ignoring science in favor of ad hom's! I'm sure you'll find plenty of ad hom fodder for me. After all, even people who have a clue (including posters here) sometimes make mistakes. Even speling errors. :)
I'll trust you really do want what you claim (facts, logic), so I'll supply some in spite of the venue.
A few items of clarification:
a) Source referrals
McIntyre was NOT "referred to the original source." Briffa said that he (Briffa) would contact the original source. Not the same. Even more important...
b) Data sets and data bases
I won't try to explain Nasif's "data" vs "database" as an explanation, although someone here certainly stuffed it in claiming a "flat file" is not a "database." (A database is an organized collection of information, usually in a computer, usually automatically searchable.)
To me, this is a more useful and accurate analogy:
Knowing you have a set of data from somewhere is insufficient information to know that you have the data used by someone else for a particular analysis, especially an analysis whose details were also withheld.
I may know that both I and my neighbor have a "Quick-set" key that came from Home Depot in 2005 (if I own a reasonably new home.) That's insufficient information to know that I have the key to my neighbor's home.
Amazing how easily people get confused on this!
c) Blocking
(For completeness; this has been mentioned on other blogs...): someone in #161 complained about being banned from a blog due to receiving a "blocked" notice.
Get a clue, that was a message from the popular WordPress Bad Behavior antispam plugin.
Hope that's helpful for somebody.
Let me also clarify a few things, MrPete:
a) Briffa told McIntyre he would send the request on to the owners of the data. Since Briffa in his articles very clearly indicates what the source of the data is, McIntyre should have had no problem identifying who it was. And lo' and behold, alreayd in February 2004 McIntyre had received the data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov.
b) If you are not sure you have the correct data, you can always ask whether it really is. Did McIntyre do so? No, he just kept on bugging Briffa to give him the data...
Oh, and no data analysis methodology was withheld.
>Get a clue, that was a message from the popular WordPress Bad Behavior antispam plugin.
So what? Bad Behavior can be configured to block individual IP addresses.
Mr Pete:
Have you published your paper yet overturning the warmer paradigm? You could be the first of the Chorus, Amen crowd to actually DO something.
So, how's the paper coming? Who has accepted the manuscript?
Let us know so we can all be the first to congratulate someone actually DOING something over there.
Best,
D
Marco, allow Eli a moment. In 2004 the Russians had ALREADY sent McIntyre the data set that they had shared with Briffa. They then get an Email from Briffa, saying, this guy wants the data set. They say to themselves: Been there, done that. McIntyre then engages in a five year hissy fit.
On yes, it appears that McI got the data set from the Russians when he first asked for it and it would not be surprising if his request said, that he wants the data set that Briffa used in his 2000 paper, and they said here it is.
Piece of work.
LB, you must be thinking of another tool. BB has no such ability, and in any case, CA has never manually blocked IP's (maybe you're thinking of the old Spam Karma?) WP anti-spam systems do auto-block spam IP's (Good thing, I've seen high volume WP sites get dozens of spams a minute...and my own email server receives multiple spam attempts per second. Totally crazy.)
M, Eli, you can surmise what you want, but McIntyre has published his communications on this. And my "key" analogy is apt. Even if Home Depot sells me a house key, that doesn't in any way confirm that I used the key. There's a long history of data sets being tweaked in various ways as part of the input filtering, so unless Briffa confirms his data sets, how can anyone know what's going on?
Think about the many go-rounds Steve had with Mann et al on this. Sent here, there, everywhere, at first believing and trusting. Ultimately he was told "you didn't use the RIGHT version of our data! Oh, we didn't give you that did we... go look in this folder we never told you about." One learns to be more cautious after a few such experiences.
Simple evidence that it isn't as simple and obvious as you want to believe: nobody else was able to confirm Briffa's data or analysis until now, including D'Arrigo et al. Why is the squash player the first to get there?
D, sorry, life's too full lately (coworker's kidney failure changes my Real World quite a bit.) And my perspective isn't disproof of a paradigm but rather (a) pushing for better scientific work in this area and (b) admitting that we all know less than we think. Particularly about our ability to understand the problem and be able to engineer a solution.
MrPete, Climate Audit has [accused me of deliberately blocking someone actually blocked by Bad Behavior](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/11/precondition-failed.php), so perhaps you could take it up with them?
Hi Tim,
Big Sigh. I'll gladly bring it up. Wasn't aware of any of this**
This is one of the frustrating aspects of my specialty (data, computers, etc). It's bad enough when poeple get fooled by spam-trash...and here we have a supposedly "helpful" message for users of Deltoid and CA. How can anyone imagine that "Precondition Failed" is a useful message to real people?! I'm glad BB has cleaned up their messages since then!
/rant=off :-)
** (My participation ebbs and flows... people only come and drag me in by the ear when systems go kablooey. If you guys need help with performance trouble, I may be able to help. (Check out the WPtuner plugin sometime :) )
McIntyre said he had "a version" of the data; not "the data" as dishonestly summarized between the quotes.
And, if you had followed the context of his messages, you would have quickly found that there were multiple versions of this data. Furthermore, the full discussion covers the team's failure to provide data on many counts.
Above and beyond that, if you had read this
article: The Yamal implosion
you will find that the Russian version of the data, "Yamal had little by way of a twentieth century trend. Strangely though, Briffa's version, which had made it into print before even the Russians', was somewhat different."
I have to conclude that your claim is incorrect.
McIntyre had data but not Briffa's data.
Let's see how long this post stays up and if the article gets corrected. I'll take some screen shots.
As it turns out, it was *the same*data. He says he didn't know it was exactly the same as used, but it's not clear he made any effort to find out, either. Questions directed to the Russians could've cleared it up. Of course, it's possible McIntyre had managed to piss them off but who knows?
There is no "Briffa data". Briffa's reconstruction uses a different technique than the Russians, and gives different chronologies (they were looking at different things), but both are performed on the same data, the Russian data, which McIntyre had. Briffa's RCS methodology is also established and published in the literature (he's the world authority on the methodology).
The main thing one gets from a critical reading of McIntyre's efforts to scuttle Briffa is that he really doesn't know shit about dendrochronology work.