The phrase "hide the decline" from the stolen CRU emails has been taken out of context and construed to refer to a decline in temperatures this century when in fact it was a reference to a decline in tree-ring density since 1961. Steve McIntyre knows this, but instead of a correction, he offers another misrepesentation of its meaning, quote mining the stolen emails to argue that the IPCC was hiding stuff:
IPCC Lead Authors met in Arusha, Tanzania from September 1 to 3, 1999 ... at which the final version of the "zero-order" draft of the Third Assessment Report was presented and discussed ...
No minutes of this meeting are available, but Climategate correspondence on Sep 22-23, 1999 provides some contemporary information about the meeting.Mann noted that "everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that the [decline in the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem"
But Mcintyre has mislead his readers by leaving out the parts of the emails that show that his intrepretration of them is false. Deep Climate has the bits that McIntyre deliberately left out:
But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa's reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction's length. Thus, once again, McIntyre's speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. ...
Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.
Seriously, any time one sees McIntyre using elipsis it's a good idea to check it out.
- Log in to post comments
If he's going to copy tricks from creationists, he should learn to copy them fully and leave out the ellipsis, as it makes it so much harder to detect quote mining ...
Then there's the Brent Bozell trick of using an ellipsis to cover [28 pages of text](http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112003.shtml).
CA has a case of OCD for that diagram. It's just nuts.
They're OCD for anything paleoclimate, period.
This is an egregious quote mine, imo. Not only does he quote mine individual phrases but he puts them together into a complete paragraph to basically say what he wants. That is a true sight to behold.
I'm half seriously entertaining the idea that someone has hacked CA and created a parody blog it's that damn awful.
So this is how McI earned the "..Mr Mc not entirely there.." tag. Oh, sorry...I mined that. Anybody mind?
Posted this at the Audit. We'll see if it ever appears...
Don't know much about Science Books or the French I took, but I don't need to to know that clipping this:
out of that:
and appending the newly robbed-of-context statement to the former sans disclosure would get you thrown out of respectable company. And it would take quite the chancer indeed to lie in such a transparent and public way smack in the middle of impugning the integrity of a number of scientists not so inclined. Which certainly rules out any pangs of conscience ever having been felt in these quarters.
There is one way I'd consider ever taking seriously any utterance of Steve McIntyre's ever again: if he released all his climate science related emails (both that ostensibly about the science, and that with other groups keen on discrediting mainstream climate science/scientists). Being so true a friend of transparency, surely no argument could be made against such a disclosure...?
Pretty shameless dishonesty. And they wonder why they are treated with contempt and ridicule? Totally deserved, IMHO.
Come on Tim! Your readers are not so stupid. The only reason people care about a "decline in tree-ring density" is because "tree-ring density" is used as a proxy for temperature. So, "decline in temperatures" and "decline in tree-ring density" are scientifically identical claims.
Umm, David, the only reason the decline is known to be a decline is that the tree ring proxies diverge from the temperature proxies. That's why it's called "divergence".
Anyway, high latitude phenomenological evidence supports the temperature record not the tree ring proxies over this time period.
For possible causes of divergence read Briffa's article from 1998 and 1999 discussing these boreal forest tree ring proxies. Sorry, don't have a more specific citation handy.
Well, there's at least one reader that's stupid.
Actually, I'm sure that David Kane and the other so called 'sceptics' don't understand what the "divergence problem" really means. That in itself doesn't make them stupid, just ignorant.
What makes them stupid is that once they're told, or pointed in the right direction - they just close their eyes, block their ears and shout to the heavens ... I can't hear you!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fraud by alarmists. But then again, it doesn't hurt. Compared to exploring the universe, the alarmists are a bunch of science amateurs.
Actually, you know it is more than just splicing raw data over statistical models. It is more than undocumented and unpredictable code. It is really just about the basics, and how not to do real science:
If anyone on the alarmist side wants to present a real error/uncertainty analysis, a professional one, they could convince me in a heart beat to support AGW.
I see that it took only 24 minutes for someone to point out to David Kane that he was mistaken in saying that
Spectacularly mistaken, in fact, since the divergence between tree-ring density and temperature is the central issue here.
And embarrassingly mistaken, in that he compounded his ignorance with the brassy "Come on Tim! Your readers are not so stupid."
Of course, in the past David Kane has shown himself to be ... how shall I put this? A little thin on the basics, perhaps? Multiple similar humiliations have not quenched his ardor for a good fraud allegation, so the fact that he mixes into this one is not in itself surprising.
But I still have to wonder -- what in the world did David Kane think Tim meant by that passage?
There were some denialists at the Perth Walk Against Warming talking up the CRU hack. They simply refused to acknowledge that dendrochronology could be left out of the record entirely and that you'd still see warming. Classic case of not being able to reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
Oh, and apparently the middle ages were warmer, there's more ice in the Arctic than ever before, and the Urban Island effect wasn't extensively corrected for in thermometer readings. Who knew? I guess all those journals I've been reading have been cutting into my denialist website reading time.
Shows how intellectually dishonest (not to mention scientifically dishonest) these "skeptics" are. How on Earth are they even taken seriously anymore?
Show us your and CA emails SteveM, all of them. You've tried to deceive once too many times and in your jealous zeal have overplayed your hand. Your little mind game is up. What little credibility you ever had has just tanked. Yet some devout MM acolytes will still try and defend your continued deception.
You have nothing to fear/hide right SteveM? So time to fess up. If your and CA emails are clean, you may redeem some integrity. Then again, you could simply print a public retraction and apology.
SteveM's moles, you can relay this message to him.
My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.
It's not even close to all tree-ring data that diverges. It's not even close to most tree ring data. This is so Creation Science 101. It's such a close parallel to their attacks on carbon dating, I suspect that Climate Audit just goes to the Discovery Institute and does a search and replace in the Young Earth pamphlets nowadays.
Before the era of Teabagger Science, this would have been described as simply pointing out which trees, at which altitude, had started varying from other temperature indicators, and when, and what to do about it.
I read this on Steve McIntyre's blog:
Similarly, I saw Anthony Watts say:
It's all there on there postings - one simply has to "read between the lines".
Erm, I had a "there" burp.
Man O' Man Tim, how do you keep up with these guys? Their collective spew-put is something fearsome to behold (although their good-put is somewhat less than machine epsilon, in units of bits per year). Since Copenhagen started, and the well-known D-graders writing in various newspapers went crazy over the CRU theft, I've found it way too difficult to keep up.
I saw on a blog, I think it was desmogblog, where he asked in a post what if our side did stuff like that. That was in response to cherry picking years (if we picked the lowest year, drew a line through it to the highest year, analogous to what many denialists do we could get "evidence" of a truly insane temperature increase.) but it might be a good idea for other distortions as well, such as the 28 page ellipsis!.
It could even be a theme for a blog or a series of posts. I think it's an effective putdown to those who take a faux position of neutrality and claim "denialists" on their one side and "alarmists" on the other.
Alarmists that are denialist-level crazy hardly exist, certainly not among climate scientists.
"The only reason people care about a "decline in tree-ring density" is because "tree-ring density" is used as a proxy for temperature. So, "decline in temperatures" and "decline in tree-ring density" are scientifically identical claims."
So obviously David Kane and the other deniers, when they want to know what the temperature is, immediately run out and drill a hole in the nearest tree to see how hot it is. This could be a bit of a problem for apartment dwellers.
Other people, since about 1700, have used a thermometer which is a much more accurate proxy for temperature than tree rings.
It's strange that in all this 'hide the decline' quoting no one actually quotes the source of it.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Timâs got a diagram here weâll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline. Mikeâs series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
I've quoted too much because now if you don't then you're guilty of misquoting.
There's no ambiguity here, he's plugging in real temperatures into other series'. By inference the others would be proxy series' as you wouldn't plug real into real, and importantly also, a chart was used by the IPCC at this time which showed Keith Biffa's proxy stop at 1960.
Note he's says "temps", not densities.
Now I've seen further debate regarding McIntyre's interpretation of other quotes - he may have got something wrong there, but in relation to "hide the decline" it was definitely about hiding a temperature decline (which contrasted with the real temp hence casting some doubt on the accuracy of the method)
Believing anything else will make you look like a fool.
It should be pointed out that McIntyre has amended his post now to give the quotes in full.
An ellipsis trick:
"There's no ambiguity here...he may have got something wrong..it was definitely about...Believing...you look like a fool."
It was definitely about truncating apparently poor data that is only unreliable in recent times.
The point is that it does not refer to thermometer readings, and the public should not be mislead about this.
This is a strange claim, given that we all know of the "divergence problem" and we know that McIntyre does too, as he has blogged on the topic several (or many?) times.
I fact, I'd say that McIntyre has probably done more than anyone to publicise the problem.
Factcheck has covered this.
They're telling people what they want to believe. The most basic principle of any con.
So Briffa's reconstruction was, in a sense, an outlier, and they were suspicious of it, and were discussing leaving it out of the report being prepared at that time.
And later work by Briffa, if I'm understanding correctly, using his RCS analysis technique that does a better job of extracting the low-frequency signal from the data, led to later papers that showed reconstructions that fit better with non-tree ring reconstructions, and these results eventually were used?
Is that about it or am I seriously off-track here?
If I'm more or less right, how is this evidence of "fraud"?
Eh. "If one is willing to cut and paste enough one can make a telephone directory say anything one wants it to." I've used that line very effectively to shut up Jesusists when they start spouting fragmented "scripture," a very well known and popular pastime among that bunch. It seems somehow odd that many of the climate change deniers are some of the biggest Christian believers. Go figure. Sadly, disastrously even, emotion trumps intellect nearly every time.
From the e-mails, the first part is exactly right. What is interesting is that the two figures displayed by McIntyre (draft and final) have different Briffa citations (1998 vs. 2000). It would be interesting to follow the progression of Briffa's analyses; the idea that science progresses seems to be foreign to some, but I guess it's so much easier to still be attacking the 2001 TAR in 2009. Is this about science or undermining the credibility of the scientists?
Hardly, but that doesn't stop the accusations. Every re-examination of an analysis is fraud; every choice of statistical tests is fraud, every new piece of information that supersedes the old is fraud, and disagreements in interpretation among collaborators mean that there was fraud or that fraud is being planned. New rules; didn't you get the memo?
McIntyre blogged on the divergence back in 2005. It's all a conspiracy, of course.
Of course, McIntyre can't use Google? Here's an editorial I found with little effort from CO2 Science, 2004, completely and openly laying out the tree ring proxy divergence issues:
"The year of coldest growing-season temperature in Briffa et al.'s reconstruction was 1912, after which temperatures rose in zigzag fashion to about 1930, whereupon they flattened out until approximately 1945, after which they declined in zigzag fashion to somewhere in the late 1970s, where they began to fluctuate about a well-defined mean that persisted to the end of the century. At the dawning of the new millennium, therefore, Briffa et al.'s proxy temperatures were considerably below the peak warmth of the 1930s and early 40s, in striking contrast to the instrumental temperatures, which soared to new heights in the 1980s and 90s to achieve the century's highest values, which were several tenths of a degree Centigrade greater than the temperatures derived from the 10,000 trees' maximum latewood density data. And, of course, it was the instrumental temperatures that Mann et al. (1998, 1999) used in lieu of the proxy temperatures over the latter part of the century to arrive at what they have called the "unprecedented" warming of its last two decades.
The dilemma we thus face is this: is it appropriate to "switch horses" part-way through the century and compare "apples and oranges," i.e., early-century proxy temperatures with late-century instrumental temperatures, to reach the conclusion that the 20th century experienced unprecedented warming over its final two decades, as Mann et al. do? Or is it more appropriate to finish the dance with the parameter with which you began, which course leads to the conclusion that the end of the century was likely no warmer than it was in the 1930s and early 40s?"
I read through McIntyre's several blog posts on this issue over the years, and he never states that the data for the tree ring proxies is rejected because it divergences from the more reliable instrumental record. He makes it all appear to be illegitimate data manipulation.
I'm all for questioning science, but this is nothing but false defamation. Whether on purpose, or just through incompetence, I leave t others to judge.
Briffa published on RCS as far back as 1992, and the technique predates him, so his later reconstructions improved for some other reason, apparently.
However, the storyline's the same - his later work supplanted his earlier work, and those reconstructions are more in line with the non-tree ring ones.
As Deech56 says, clear evidence of fraud :)
Religious authorities become more authoritative as you go back in time and as they get closer to the Original Revelation. Since all else depends on the infallibility of that Revelation, the standard method for attacking a religious opinion is to attack the farthest-back point of divergence from your own.
Sadly, the great majority of the world's population thinks this way; it may be the default for our species for all I know.
Now, consider that quite a few of the people we're talking about do subscribe to the religious epistemology, and even those who don't themselves know that their audience (Fox News plus our governmental Lords and Masters) do -- and thus pitch their material to appeal to that.
In that light, is it surprising that we see so many messages targeting Al Gore (as if he matters)? Is it really surprising that they lean so heavily on argumentum ad hominem?
The fact that earlier scientific work has known problems just makes it better for them. They get the benefit of an easier target (and later work has found the weak spots for them) plus the public actually considers an attack on the "root" to discredit all further work.
"For possible causes of divergence read Briffa's article from 1998 and 1999 discussing these boreal forest tree ring proxies. Sorry, don't have a more specific citation handy."
Rob Wilson's paper (2007 I think)is a good one.
Possible causes of divergence:
1. global dimming
2. local pollution effects
3. Snowpack decline
4. Breakdown in temp/growth connection at higher temps.
One thing that skeptics never get right is how limited the divergence effect is. It only occurs in boreal forests above 50N and not even in all of those. As a result of that and the fact that year to year growth rates still correlate with temperature, option 4 is unlikely. Options 2 and 3 have not been demonstrated through any correlation to my knowledge. Option one might be most plausible since global dimming has been theorized to affect plant growth the most in the arctic and subarctic.
This is my understanding of the issue, but I read Wilson's paper a couple years ago and I might be forgetting something or getting something wrong. The denialist argument that all proxies demonstrate divergence is simply wrong.
Here's the D'Arrigo et al 2007 paper Boris is referring to (Wilson is one of the "et als")
It's a good summary of the issues, as Boris says.
Quote mining is fun!
Look, the Bible actually mentions Steve McIntyre. The answers are in Genesis:
Your...mother...fornicates with...two of every animal.
DeepClimate's posting of the other parts of the email exchange appears deeply damaging to ClimateAudit's imputation of dishonest motives to the scientists. McIntyre claims to bring "context" to the emails, but he does not. He can hardly claim to bring context, without using all the available emails.
Reading it all, we can see the real motive, which is that the scientists think the tree-ring discrepancy (or "divergence") is not important. Why do they think that? Because there is so much other evidence. The hockey stick still exists without using any tree ring data, at all.
So, what did they do with one of the data-sets that diverges at one point for unexplained reasons? Well, they decided to mention these problems in a part of the IPCC report that actually begins with THIS SENTENCE: "Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions." --IPCC TAR (i.e. Third Assessment Report,) Ch 2, p. 131 (2001) And containing all the citations to the papers where the discrepancy is discussed.
Where's the beef?
I think there are growing grounds for a major psychological study and big book deal for a bright young scholar: It would concern this new combination of complex science misunderstanding, self-interested policy entrepreneurism, and emotional political economics, that is arising in our times.
The most charitable face to put on it, would be this: That basically the denialists are learning the science of climatology for free on the internet, by concocting false hypotheses that the teachers are compelled to work-out, without pay, on the public blackboard -- because now, if it isn't taught correctly, it infects the public conversation.
But there seems to be more to it than that.
Because the real science looks simple and clear: The decline in the Briffa construction IS a problem, and it is a WONDERFUL problem, because we still have to FIGURE IT OUT. We should be GLAD for problems, because that means we have to THINK more. Though unfortunately in this case it is thinking about TREE RINGS, and not about MUSIC or SEX.
And it is NOT critical to the temperature record.
Q's.: So, without using tree rings, do we still have a temperature hockey stick, that MATCHES a CO2 hockey stick? With both of them going straight up -- and much, much too fast? And for thousands of years there was nothing like the one, and for millions of years nothing like the other? And do we see a basic theory of physics that links them tightly?
Yes yes yes yes.
Ans.: Then give proof for another "climate forcing" right now, or else, go and learn the science at school. Sorry for yelling, but, like, you know.
Pardon me for hogging the electrons, but what interests me most, is something which is unlikely to interest anyone else, and that is the "methodological atomism" in the paradigm of Denialist Scientism. It spreads over the entire enterprise. It's a sort of random atomising, where you dive into any bunch of ideas and data, and start stringing them together in the order of your own importance.
But also look at the psychological atomism of taking email quotes out of context ("mining quotes, quote-mining") and then building the motives outward from each atom, each sentence, until they join into a conspiracy. It's the same epistemological pattern, a sort of roving mechanism of simple addition to build up to a "proof."
The U.S. has seen the same thing in public opinion about economic policy, for a long time. There is an atomistic strategy of taking certain economic indicators and stringing them into your own favorite explanation of things. In these instances, there has been less correction by real economists, and sometimes I chalk it up to the rather close analogy here of atomism with methodological individualism.
Of course it's been seen in both the left and the right, but in anti-climatologists it's sometimes hooked-up with right-wing libertarianism, fantasizing about a world communist menace.
What comes first, the bad economics or the bad climatology? Attribution study, anyone?
Indeed even the soberer critics get the real economics wrong, about the effects of the proposed climate policy. Because no matter how you look at it, from the neoclassical accent on capital investment to spur innovation, or from new growth theory's accent on private/public partnerships to spur innovation, there is NO downside to adjusting carbon prices (by carbon tax or cap-and-trade) to spur innovation. It is almost inconceivable that the full cost/benefits won't be a net plus -- a BIG net plus. Yet even critics like Lindzen and Dyson have fallen into the fear (though to be fair, they may be worrying about laws which start at zero-carbon -- yet here again to be fair, that's never been possible, so you have to wonder how well they're thinking it through.)
No real economist will go up against human creativity. Who would deny that NASA got to the moon in ten years? ... Oh ... wait a minute!
"Your...mother...fornicates with...two of every animal."
:) Tell me this is available in bumper sticker form.
Good post Lee A. Arnold, but I rather imagine those opposing pricing on carbon dioxide fear that it will lead to at least a short-term drop in consumption as consumers bear the brunt of passed-on costs. Less consumption is less profit -- easier to oppose the measures to begin with, then you don't have to take any action to keep your business growing.
This one manages to invoke pretty well every denier talking point, and in the appropriately ideological, extravagant, and inflammatory rhetorical style.
Sure he does. The only issue is that the context he brings is insulting and inaccurate.
Dunn thinks warming is politically dead. I don't share his optimism.
Did you know they found the MWP in New Zealand?
WotWot, thanks for messing up my morning ;-). The one thing that Dunn didn't mention is that there is a reality out there that does not depend on what scientists write in their e-mails.
Anyway, he made a point that working scientists that wrote in agree with him and he is happy about that fact. Well, this working scientist wrote in to disagree.
"Mcintyre has mislead his readers" -- er, has misled them.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Nils Ross :
here in the States we are beginning to see reportage from the field, describing a shift in tactics as Industry fears the EPA endangerment ruling, and instead sees maintenance of profit in the Waxman-Markey ACES bill up for debate in our Senate.
That is: straight restrictions are more damaging to profit than fiddling with numbers. So I expect Waxman-Markey to pass early 2010. Then we can have a Carbon Bubble!
[Here's](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;326/5957/1256?maxtos…) a map of temperature patterns for [the Medieval Warm Period](http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif) from which you can cherry-pick regions showing warming relative to the present to your hearts delight.
Knock yourself out.
[Here's](http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg) a map for [comparison.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html)
You guys do like to remain wilfully ignorant.
Judith Curry, from Georgia State Uni and participant in the IPCC process, says clearly that
"The defense that the emails don't change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here"
Did yo miss the part where Tim, and many commentors here, have clearly shown that what McIntyre put together was INTENTIONALLY FALSE AND MISLEADING?!
Sad to say it, but Curry has been duped-- if what Andrews says is even true. She is not the first one. CA can be very convincing unless one is willing to check the claims made there, and to some of your own homework. She seems to have been sucked into the cult that is CA.
Have the emails changed the science? Depends what she means by that. Dr. Curry needs to elaborate. Has it changed the radiative forcing properties of GHGs? Has it changed the fact that the planet is warming? Scientists have known for decades, heck since they started that, dendro chronologies have issues. So nothing new there. And they continue to work on those issues. Dr. Curry sadly seems oblivious to coming even close to understanding what it is like to try and do science with people observing your every move and breathing down your neck, harassing you, distorting your words and facts, slandering you, having people sue you. How the hell Mann, Briffa and these guys remain sane is beyond me. The undue pressure and stress imposed on them by the likes of McIntyre is criminal, and only goes to obstruct the advancement of science.
Can you imagine seeing your name (and associated false accusations) being blasted all over the internet day after day with a bunch of blood thirsty rabid dogs? I for one could not do it.
I will agree with here that this is going to force scientists to have to engage the public in a whole new way, but the science will be what it is, regardless of McIntyre's distortion and misinformation
When asked recently what he thought about AGW, McINtyre was non committal. He said he did not know if we were facing a small, medium or big problem with AGW? Really?! You'd think that someone as omniscient as he would have a much better grasp of the problem and risks involved. But his answer was designed to confuse. Joe soap hears and thinks "Well hell, if SteveM is not sure, why the hell should we do anything". Mission accomplished-- through deceit mind you, but heck, who cares about ethics when the end goal is to win and defeat?
Deep Climate has probably the best fisking so far. And he's following up with another post on it soon.
I think Curry's got a crush on McIntyre ...
And making death threats ...
Friends, go to American Thinker (h/t to WotWot). I had 3 very polite comments pointing out the error of their ways, including some links to scientific papers showing the evidence behind AGW. They deleted me! Here's the text of the e-mail I received:
It's funny because there are a number of people replying to me. I better wait for the trucks taking me to the gulag. Hey, does anyone know how I can recover my posts?
Dave Andrews @# 55,I have sympathy for Dr Curry's desire to build/re-build bridges,but sadly ,so soon after her gestures,she has been betrayed by the compulsive behavior of those she'd like to help. It is clear that McI's treatment of the email content is skewed.
Oh wait, I just remembered that in response to a post that contained this nugget:
I posted the YouTube video in which Monckton called the young activists Hitler youth. Now if they had just pulled that one post, I would have understood - maybe.
Ducky posts what he purports to be a direct quote attributed to Judith Curry:
>["The defense that the emails don't change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here"](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Ae…)
What she has [said:](http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-cl…)
>While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant.
The difference being that between 'public credibility' and 'science' in your apparently manufactured quote.
She further clarifies in [comments:](http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-cl…)
>There is nothing in the emails that directly discredits these datasets and findings...
Much less the IPCC.
Prove your not a lying sack of pig excrement, Ducky.
P.S. In skimming that comment thread I've decided Judith Curry has the hide of a walrus and certainly deserves a Mother of the Year Award.
As for myself, my tolerance for [Teh Stupid](http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns…) has been exhausted. Expect excessively colorful language directed at the next troll...
So the bold-font direct quote purportedly of Dr Curry at #55 is in reality a lie by Dave Andrews?
C'mon, give him a break.
You can be sure it wasn't Dave's lie - he just repeated someone else's.
luminous beauty knows David Andrews well enough to not take anything he presents at face value without first verifying it.
He hasn't earned the title "Dirty Dave Andrews" for nothing.
Until I see that quote in context I'd suspend judgement.
American Thinker must be an oxymoron in their case. They even [publish Mr O](http://www.americanthinker.com/girma_j_orssengo/) to advance "American Thinking".
In Ducky's defence I have tracked down the [quote](http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#comment-208573) and it is from Judith Curry.
Nonetheless, Ducky omits a fair bit of context. To wit:
>Is this scientific fraudulence as some people in this thread have suggested, or is something more complex going on here? In the assessment process, scientists infer pressure from policy makers to reduce the uncertainty.
And so on. Judith proceeds to climb on her personal hobbyhorse...
Dave Andrews writes:
>Judith Curry, from Georgia State Uni and participant in the IPCC process, says clearly that
>>**"The defense that the emails don't change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here"**
Dave, what is Curry refering too? If you wanted to release us from our "wilful" ignorance, how about presenting what ever it was that Steve "put together" that Curry was refering to?
And if it is as meaty as you infere, why not smack us with it, rather than relying on your selection of a Curry quote?
Goes to show that even Curry can be lead by insertion of strategic ellipsis and misleading quote mining.
In case anyone missed it,
Dave Andrews believes people are wilfully ignorant if they checkout the orignal quotes, and discover the [misrepresentation made](http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/).
Where as Curry has been relieved of "wilful ignorance" and been enlightened by reading McI, and taking what he presents at face value.
OK tnx. I don't read Dave's stuff (and doubted I was missing much), but a straight out lie rather than mere decontextualisation or peddling of nonsense sounded like the setting of a new low. That caught my attention!
Apparently, the days where scientific misconduct was assessed by scientific groups in impartial investigations is no longer applicable - it's now McIntyre and his raging mob that decide fraud!
I was under your spell until I reached the point where the earth became a hell. That looks a bit dodgy, everyone knows (including Tim Flummery) that the world has been cooling for the past decade.
Sorry, I'll have to fail you. Falsus in unum, falsus in omis.
"everyone knows (including Tim Flummery) that the world has been cooling for the past decade."
El Gordo's a silly troll.
elgordo, its bad enough when you simply use bad logic applied to poor scholarship to reach your absurd opinions, but please don't resort to also using statements that are simply false. The world is NOT cooling over the last decade - not in any of the analyses.
Pterosaur has called you out el gordo. It's your big chance to slap down your doubters;
>"everyone knows (including Tim Flummery) that the world has been cooling for the past decade."
el gordo's statements have an often odd relationship with [the evidence](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/fr…).
Like I said, "Sad to say it, but Curry has been duped-- if what Andrews says is even true".
Bets way to deal with el gordo, ignore them. If our toddlers are not behaving well, one of the most effective ways to discourage and prevent bad behaviour is to simply ignore said bad behaviour. They figured it out really fast that they were not going to get attention though bad behaviour, and the bad behaviour stops.
If toddlers can quickly figure it out one would hope that el gordo could figure it out.
So, Dave Andrews is a liar?
I'm shocked, I tell you, truly shocked.
Here is your chance to prove otherwise, Dave. Give us a link to the original source for that quote.
Thanks for nothing lads, you've just frightened Ms Beauty away. I agree with MapleLeaf, just ignore me.
So - gordo ISN'T going to defend his statement.
Boy am I surprised.
DC's fisking is nice, isn't it?
Some of the drive-by ignorants commenting there obviously wish that it were otherwise, but any rational being would acknowledge the utter mendacity of the Denialati's use of Steve McIntyre's trick, of subtracting excerpts and adding ellipses to each email from the last ten years or more, to hide the truth.
Well, not quite - I updated the original post to show the Briffa et al series from Science 1999, which looks very much like the final series in TAR (warmer than Jones, and terminating in 1960), and already had the processing to retain "low frequency". More inconvenient evidence against the McIntyre/Daily Mail twaddle that Briffa "changed" in accordance to pressure.
The context to keep in mind (there's that word again) is that the original 1998 Nature article was about volcano/temperature relationship, where interannual variations are the main focus. Obviously, a recon that did not capture low frequency variation would be of little use to shed light on the multi-decadal or centennial trends of interest.
McIntyre's gone back and filled in the missing sentences. Now the post makes even less sense, since he keeps talking about the "decline" where the emails are clearly talking about other aspects.
el gordo follows the Nazi advice, if you repeat a big enough lie enough times then people start believing it.
It was just a slip of the tongue when he said 'the computer modeling and the real world data disagree.'
> everyone knows (including Tim Flummery) that the world has been cooling for the past decade
Get it right, Gordo. You can't say "decade" because that excludes 1998. Oh, and you have to cherry-pick the HadCRU dataset and ignore everything else.
Wait... HadCRU? When all those "rational" commentators have been so utterly horrified by the CRU emails that they no longer trust anything that's remotely associated with the CRU?
When they've finished sharpening their pitchforks, they might just spot that they've stabbed themselves in the foot, what with having to rely on the GISS data and its 1998-beating 2005.
Some in the deniosphere believe they already demolished GISTEMP. That leaves NCDC (but their reconstruction is hardly ever used), RSS, and UAH.
Expect RSS to be the next victim.
Y'know, I've wondered about that. Didn't she invite McIntyre to speak at a conference a couple of years ago to try and "bridge the gap" between the scientists and the "sceptics"?
"even if the hacked emails from HADCRU..."?
How strange. HADCRU is the name used for the jointly produced datasets. The emails were hacked from CRU. There are no "HADCRU" emails. Surely she knows this?
And to think that he learnt how to use WoodForTrees here. :-(
Something like that, I think. Invited him to speak at her university, IIRC. To her department, or to her and her grad students, I don't remember the exact details.
This were my comments at the Audit:
*** Donât know much about Science Books or the French I took, but I donât need to to know that clipping this:
out of that:
and appending the newly robbed-of-context statement to the former sans disclosure would get you thrown out of respectable company. And it would take quite the chancer indeed to lie in such a transparent and public way smack in the middle of impugning the integrity of a number of scientists not so inclined. Which certainly rules out any pangs of conscience ever having been felt in these quarters. There is one way Iâd consider ever taking seriously any utterance of Steve McIntyreâs ever again: if he released all his climate science related emails (both that ostensibly about the science, and that with other groups keen on discrediting mainstream climate science/scientists). Being so true a friend of transparency, surely no argument could be made against such a disclosureâ¦?
Morgan responded: Why would the inclusion of a statement that amounts to âwe want the truth, but donât know what it isâ materially change things? There was pressure not to dilute âthe messageâ, despite the fact that there was (and is) uncertainty regarding its truth.
I responded: Because the modifier of âmost important issueâ for Chapter 2 is not âthe messageâ but the scientific matter at issue, which is lost by this edit. This alone calls into serious question McIntyreâs interpretation and yours. Is it really the case that there was pressure not to âdilute the messageâ by which you infer unscientific political pressure? You have no evidence whatsoever for that assertion fyi, other than your own manifest prejudices. All graphics have messages. This is why they exist- to communicate in pictures what can less effectively be communicated otherwise. I read this excerpt and exchange as saying that the graphic was ineffective at communicating the message of the underlying work due to differences in what the underlying proxies were measuring. Really, if thereâs evidence of perfidy here, Steve has done a good job concealing it.
Quite frankly, if it didnât change anything, why were these three sentences excerpted in the first place? Was it to save column inches in an already lengthy blog post, or was it to keep from âdiluting the messageâ? And thatâs the really irritating things about all this. I read this and was (provisionally) persuaded that others were deceitful by the very tactics they were being accused of. That quite cheeses me off. You can speak for yourself, but I personally donât like being duped.
In any case, my request of Steve to release all his private correspondence relevant to this clearly critical issue for humanity stands. He has asked plenty of those he criticizes. He has hardly shown any compunction about diving into other scientists private correspondence, and maligning them on the basis of it, not least on the lengthiest of interpretive stretches. Certainly, unless you can think of and state any clear reason why it should be otherwise, you will join me in petitioning him to do the right thing here. As he clearly believes, this issue is too important to ask anything less. ***
Two things on this issue. First, I think there should be a high profile push on any skeptics wishing to make a big deal out of these emails for their own climate science related emails. Transparency needs to be more properly defined as transparency on the part of anyone with access to a microphone.
Secondly, Judy Curry needs to be publicly asked whether she indeed meant to comment approvingly under a post in which Steve McIntyre said, amongst other unsubstantiated sleaze, this, "By the following day, matters seem to have settled down, with Briffa apologizing to Mann for his temporary pangs of conscience."
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
Secondly, Judy Curry needs to be publicly asked whether she indeed meant to comment approvingly under a post in which Steve McIntyre said, amongst other unsubstantiated sleaze, this, "By the following day, matters seem to have settled down, with Briffa apologizing to Mann for his temporary pangs of conscience.
This part of your comment doesn't appear in the thread.
Just yesterday I read an AP article that quoted McIntyre:
"McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. âEverything that Iâve done in this, Iâve done in good faith,â he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. âAnything I say,â he said, âis liable to be piling on.â"
Avoided editorializing? He must think people are stupid.
Regarding the tree-ring divergence problem, here's a good description (a must-read for McIntyre's choir):
Regarding Dr. Curry, she recently had a guest post on ClimateProgress. In response to some comments she says she distinguishes between deniers and skeptics, putting McIntyre in the skeptics camp and reserving "deniers" for those associated with advocacy organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Anyone doing "analysis" (the blogosphere qualifies) automatically exempts one from the "denier" term.
I suppose my requirements are more stringent. Anyone can pretend to do analysis or do knowingly shoddy analysis. McIntyre's behavior (insinuating fraud, dishonestly cherry-picking quotes as clearly indicated in DeepClimate's post, hyping the smallest and most insignificant of errors, etc.) does him no favors. Also, I did not get a response from Dr. Curry when I pointed out that McIntyre is clearly associated with the Heartland Institute, an advocacy organization.
See post #9 and my response in #26.
MarkB "McIntyre is clearly associated with the Heartland Institute"
Mark, McIntyre repeatedly claims to be clean. This is the first time someone has stated this in public (to my knowledge). Can you give us some more concrete? This could be huge!
All I got from Sourcewatch is that McIntyre spoke at the Heartland Institute "climate conference". I'm not sure accepting an invitation to speak on someone else's platform qualifies as an "association".
If McIntyre had any formal links with any rightwing thinktanks or special interests, someone would almost certainly have found them by now. That said, his "cleanliness" would not excuse the many times he has engaged in dogwhistle fraud allegations and mudslinging.
Thanks Bud. I know McKitrick has ties to the neocon "think" tank Fraser Institute.
What I want to know is why the media (especially in Canada) are fawning over McIntyre right now. I smell a rat. Someone is feeding the media these stories (CanWest in particular), and/or the journalists have been told to post stories. Seems said journalists have not done their homework, or have and a) Turned a blind eye to the obvious transgressions at CA, or b) Have been told to turn a blind eye and only report what they want people to think about CA.
Something fishy is going on.
MapleLeaf and Bud,
His top speaking engagement at the Heartland Institute conference is what I had in mind. Those who speak at a PR event that declares:
âThe purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.â
ultimately hurt their credibility.
[Heartland Institute Conference](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-…)
Accepting a Heartland invitation bears witness of poor judgement -- but nothing above and beyond what we have already seen from McI.
He is not a denialist; he has more than once stated that he accepts the reality of AGW, and I have no reason to doubt him. What drives him then? Honest 'auditorialism'? I don't buy it, precisely because of the transparent, ongoing intellectual dishonesty with which he runs his blog.
I would guess that he just holds a grudge, wanting to get back at Mann and 'the team' still after all these years.
Thanks Mark. So he did speak at the conference? We know this for sure, which one? I know, I'm being lazy, but if you already have the answer.....
The recent one:
He's also had political comments "published" by the Heartland Institute over the years. Example:
[Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data](http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/168…)
MarkB, thanks. Brilliant, some journalists need to know about this.
I believed him when he said he was clean.....should have known better.
On the topic of scientific conferences (real ones, not PR events like the Heartland Institute conference that gather fringe opinions to support a political thesis), is anyone attending the AGU fall meeting this week? Maybe Tim can do a post on this later and allow folks to discuss the various topics. These conferences tend to fly under the radar, as media and blogs focus on soap boxes like "ClimateGate". There remains a huge gap between real science and the public.
[2009 AGU Fall Meeting](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/)
[Program (large pdf)](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/pdf/AGU_FM09_Scientific_Program.pdf)
One of many potentially interesting lectures on climate change:
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
Presented by Richard B. Alley Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
[Town hall meetings](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/town-halls.php)
ali baba, the *s were meant to denote the text I had added to the climate audit thread. I tried blockquotes in several different variations, but the formatting was coming out all wrong.
So yes, that doesn't appear there. Since Dr. Curry was commenting there, I would have just asked her the question rather than suggesting it be asked.
As if having ties to the Heartland Inst. was not bad enough, McIntyre is also feature din a video on the web-site for 'Friends' of Science (an astroturf denialist group funded by the FF and energy sectors) in Canada. McIntyre and McKitrick are cited many time son their web-site:
I get the very strong impression that it's a desire to impose the norms of business and the law on science. The assumptions of incompetence and dishonesty on the part of one's opponents, the constant insinuations of a hidden agenda, the insistence upon accepting or rejecting lines of evidence according to whether or not they support one's agenda - all very evocative of a different mode of inquiry altogether.
He's really quite a clever man. He's taken the exoteric aspect of science, the idea that it's open to anyone who's willing to do the work, and used this as cover for an ongoing work of subversion. And I'd say that he's been pretty successful at it. That probably carries its own satisfactions. But it's also enabled the camp with which he most likely identifies to seriously hobble environmental research.
I've never tried nested blockquotes, but let's see...
That was (without the spaces)
< blockquote >
< blockquote >
< /blockquote >
< blockquote >
More nested stuff
< /blockquote >
< /blockquote >
luminous beauty, #68,
If you accuse me of quoting 'out of context' then I will say you did exactly the same.
Curry concludes her emails thus
"In defending the IPCC process the IPCC doesn't seem to have caught on to the need to make the assessment process more objective and scientifically watertight. Unless the IPCC reflects on and works to improve its assessment process, it risks becoming irrelevant oo even indefensible "
I note that you easily found the reference for yourself. Too many others here were simply calling me a 'liar' to bother doing even the most simple search to find out the facts. No doubt that is a reflection on how much research they actually undertake into the science of climate change.
No, it's a reflection on your posting history.
Thanks TrueSkeptic, but I can handle nested blockquotes- it's the multiple paragraph blocked text (on this editor) that has me laid low. The editor interprets the break in paragraph as ending the blockquote. I could've gone through and just individually blocked out each graf, but didn't have the time or inclination. Probably should've used some words to decipher the cryptic punctuation in any case, (though they would've been less so if the editor allowed for multiple sequential asterisks or dashes, but it's having none of that either).
Dave Andrews, perhaps the snap judgment of commenters here has something to do with the credibility you've heretofore established with them? Don't know for sure, but that's typically a quite common rationale for prejudicial dismissal of specific claims. Perhaps you should spend some time in reflection before making as rash an assessment on that issue as you have here.
PS would you agree that there needs to be more transparency on all sides of this public policy issue, not merely as regards summaries for policy makers of scientific assessments? If so would you support an effort to reveal the private correspondence of skeptical scientists such as McIntyre and Michaels (as they relate to this issue)?
Andrews, you stated earlier was in quotation marks! Do you know what that implies? I'll help, it suggests that those were her exact words.
You allege that Curry has said that "The defense that the emails don't change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here"
Where did she say these exact words? I searched CA, the quote that you posted earlier was nowhere to be found. I also Googled the quote (word for word) and the ONLY hit that I got was here on Deltoid. Hmm...
Also, what did she mean by "irrelevant oo even indefensible". Where is this email?
"In defending the IPCC process the IPCC doesn't seem to have caught on to the need to make the assessment process more objective and scientifically watertight. "
The only hit for that quote in Google was this thread. Hmm....
What you claimed that she said at #55 and what you posted in #111 are not the same thing. Claiming that she said what you posted in quotation marks earlier at #55 is thus a lie.
Can any of you denialists go a day without telling lies or grossly distorting something? Apparently not. And you have the audacity to falsely accuse the IPCC et al. of fraud, distortion blah blah blah. Good God man look in the mirror!
PS: This is another reason for SteveM et al. need to open their Inboxes, b/c I certainly can't believe a bloody word that you type.
Mark B #166 - MIchaeol Tobis is attending AGU:
Are we talking about 55 Dave Andrews?
(I do wish that people would cite comment numbers so there can be no misunderstanding!)
I found [this](http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#comment-208573) with close to zero effort.
Is there some doubt that Curry said this? Well, OK, a sockpuppet _might_ have said it but I'm not going with that idea.
Apologies. You did cite comment numbers. Too many people don't.
OK, I retract. That is really odd, I searched CA using their own internal search engine and found nothing. Perhaps my search criteria were too strict? Regardless, sorry Andrews. I'm willing to admit when I screwed up.
That said, I do not agree with Curry's statement as noted above.
Did you try the normal browser search (ctrl f or command f)? I searched for "curry" and just jumped to each hit because I thought the text might not be exact (line breaks, multiple spaces, that sort of thing).
Anyway, this is a defining difference: we admit error. When do denydiots do that?
BTW 117 was me cocking up. ;)
I note that you easily found the reference for yourself. Too many others here were simply calling me a 'liar' to bother doing even the most simple search to find out the facts.
DA @ 111
I found this with close to zero effort.
TrueSceptic @ 116
Sorry folks, but the onus has always been very firmly on the person making the claim to properly reference the source of evidence, not on others to waste their time chasing it down.
What Maple [demonstrates @118](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…) is proper practice for someone seeking clarity and persuing truth.
This is the sort of retraction and clarification sorely lacking in denialists. And its the reason Dirty Dave Andrews [got his tag](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…).
Hence [my continuing policy with Dirty Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…).
MarkB @101, 104 and 106. Also Mapleleaf @108.
With the greatest respect to both of you:
I won't argue that accepting a speaker invite from The Heartland Institute (or indeed appearing as a talking head for Friends of Science) displays, as [Martin Vermeer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…) says, poor judgement. I won't argue that it hurts his credibility. But I don't think allegations of "association" between McIntyre and either of the two Institutions mentioned are warranted, or likely to be of use against McIntyre. Best to concentrate on what he says, as I don't think arguing about tenuous links to right-wing tanks will get us anywhere against those who are taking his arguments to heart. If anyone asked me about McIntyre, I'd sooner point him to Deep Climate's brilliant post (linked by Tim above) than to his speaker slot at Heartland.
Denier or sceptic, interest mouthpiece or lonely blogger, the point is that he is usually wrong, and often maliciously so (although I often get the impression he doesn't even realise his malice). Martin Vermeer (linked above) has a pretty good perspective on the issue, and Lars puts it [pretty close to how I've felt all along](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…).
Mea Culpa yet again... [Lars' comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…)
Btw, [Mapleleaf @ 100](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo…)
Can I suggest that [this fantastic piece of journalism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQCcOSfaYw) may well hint at part of the reason? That busy journalists don't really do fact-checking any more?
I think that in the beginning, he was motivated by a desire to impose upon science the same standards as business (of course, given what we have seen over the last year or so, I'm not sure that business standards are to be emulated). However I now think that he is much more motivated by the notoriety he gets from his screeds against climate science and scientists. He also gets invited to speak at contrarian conferences (Heartland, ERICE), been the catalyst for getting a prominent scientist investigated (twice!), although not with the results he claims, and all of this attention for basically never having made a constructive contribution to the science.
I long ago learned to take whatever Steve said with a large pile of salt. It is about time the press learned to take a hard look at anything the man says.
Good thoughts. You guys are being too easy on me, but thanks for the support.
Bud, excellent example, wow. Regarding FoS and Heartland, I hear what you are saying. However, I do believe that it is important that lay people are aware of McI's affiliations. DC has done a most excellent job. Alas, it is not being picked up by the media-- not yet at least. There have been several articles in the Canadian media recently and the press are clearly blind to what the truth it about CA. If that were not bad enough, this is the kind of nonsense that we are being subjected to in Canada:
What to do.....
I'm reminded of the the song "Blame Canada, blame Canada" featured in SouthPark. First we brought you the tar sands, then Climate Audit, and now Harper. At the time we all laughed at those lyrics, but now they make us cringe, because now they are actually true.
Sorry, but having been involved in science-based conservation work in the western US for about 15 years (1985-2000) I would disagree. Funny, back in those days, the denialists would smear science but would at least admit "these people base their argument on science" and respect it ... while at the same time smearing it as not being particularly relevant.
His audit bullshit is an excuse. He's going one step beyond the old anti-conservation arguments we've seen in the past in the US, essentially saying that science itself is suspect. The "audit" paradigm is simply meant to discredit science, so that natural resource exploitation can march forward (McIntyre made his money in the mining industry, after all, which in the US at least loathes any science-based objections to the engineering that makes them money).
He's a smart guy - I give him that - but he's simply out to protect a world view which places economic exploitation above any cautions that science ("reality") might impose.
Maybe you should've come over to the dark side when we invited (oops invaded) you early in the revolutionary war, thinking you were as pissed at the brits as we were.
Just teasing ... however, it's interesting to see that Canada and Oz have strong anti-climate science factions as bad or worse (adjusted for population and influence) as in the US. England had a long antipathy towards "boffins" (those engineers were mostly scottish, after all), is anti-intellectualism part of our common heritage?
Oops, I understand of course that "boffin" is a term applied mostly to scientists, but still, the invasion of the non-gentry into tech fields came from the engineers and worked upwards to what's now known as science, which was long mostly a "gentlemanly pursuit" ...
>*The "audit" paradigm is simply meant to discredit science, so that natural resource exploitation can march forward (McIntyre made his money in the mining industry, after all, which in the US at least loathes any science-based objections to the engineering that makes them money).*
What is need to put help McI's "audit paradigm" into perspective is a similar resourced audit of every other aspect of science. Then we could have a baseline to compare the activity of the scientists that McI want the focus on.
There is so much noise from those receiving McIâs âdog whistlesâ, but so little substance. This latest beat-up is a prime example. How much innuendo can one insert into a group of academics debating the comparative validity of one of Biffraâs tree-ring proxy reconstruction (âwhich may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale varianceâ) compared to two multi-proxy reconstructions (âwhich seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variationsâ).. And how much relevant explanation did he [leave out]( http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/) to bolster the innuendo.
>The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents âTRUTHâ however is a difficult problem.
Why also did McI want to tie this in with the âhide the declineâ meme?
MapleLeaf, don't lose heart; you guys also brought us hockey and Molsons, and for those of us who grew up in Buffalo, Crystal Beach. :-)
I agree that DA should've given a URL when he first posted that quote, or at some point in the discussion, but to call him a liar because he didn't is not right either.
Just because DA is mostly wrong doesn't make him always wrong. The same applies to anyone we disagree with.
Which editor? The Markdown parser?
Multiple paras within a blockquote.
That was using, without the spaces,
The < p> tags can be on separate lines or at the start of the first line of each para.
You can also use > to start a blockquote.
123, 124 Bud,
I missed Lars's comment on McIntyre before. I agree too. As I've said many times, do not underestimate McIntyre. He might be wrong, but proving it is not as easy as some seem to think.
He might be wrong, but proving it is not as easy as some seem to think.
Look at the body of "work", not individual instances of x, y, z. He has a long history of mendacicization, and therefore is a time-waster. I think many in the decision-maker world are starting to get it and Stevie is just a media channel now.
Like you I thought McIntyre might have something of substance to offer; like you, I now see that he doesn't and is in fact a destructive force. Where I differ, is that as far as I'm concerned his history, especially in the beginning (co-operating with CEI, APCO, Fraser Institute etc.), shows that he has never acted in good faith. What I'm not sure of is whether he is simply dishonest or unbelievably delusional.
McIntyre has altered his story about "decline" (in the face of incontovertible evidence he was wrong), but now claims the issue resurfaced later. And he is still claiming that authors Folland and Mann pressured Briffa into changing his reconstruction, all of which is the version put out in the Daily Mail (and I'm sure more to come). Of course this story does not fit the facts (as I showed with my post update on Briffa's May 1999 Science piece).
So I'll probably be doing another post on this, especially if these falsehoods get more traction. But first a new surprise later today. You may be astonished - I know I was. To be continued ...
Dano used the term "mendacicization". That really doe sum up nicely what CA does. They are more obstructionist than anything, yet have the gall to claim that they are moving the science forward. Maybe DC is right, perhaps SteveM is delusional after all.
@Rattus norvegicus 125:
Looking back, I didn't express myself clearly enough and was too easy on McIntyre. And yes, you're undoubtedly right, the recognition and sense that he's part of a movement are probably very seductive. But I think that at the base of it all, what he wants to do is reduce the autonomy of science, make it subject to the epistomological norms of the legal and business worlds, turn it into something that is going to tell you what you want to hear, if you have enough money or political will behind you. Dhogaza has it right.
And I think that this should be pointed out frequently - what he's trying to subvert is the most fruitful method that we've ever stumbled upon for exploring the natural world. All for a bit of adulation. Or because it suits his politics. Or to protect his investments. Real admirable.
Thanks. Since I can't afford to buy a new laptop every time I read CA, and since I've not found one that can withstand being hurled across the room, I've only been following this through the rebuttalsphere :) In which you're doing a great job, DC.
It's really become more interesting for me to think about the deception and self-deception involved in interpreting the obvious talk about how to cook figure 2 as if it were about Briffa's tree ring density. When you look for an objective correlative for the deception in the quotes you can find only possible misuse of one pronoun. But the entire context shows that the Tanzania crowd were only concerned with the graphic, not the tree ring methodology. So, is the deception purposive or accidental, like missing seeing something that you think just should not be there? Lots of car accidents happen that way.
Folland: âA proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.â
Real Climate (RC): âHow can anyone read this and possibly come to the conclusion that what is being discussed is the âdeclineâ in the late instrumental period? And what word comes to mind for someone who would deliberately remove the fact that the âissueâ Folland raises is the lack of multicentury variance for the Briffa reconstruction as a whole?â
Me: Come now. The issue that is being discussed is overtly stated as how to present the Chapter 2 chart, not the underlying reasons for Briffaâs reconstruction. I concede that Follandâs use of the word, âthis,â in the last quoted sentence by Folland above, lends itself to interpretation; itâs usually preferable to avoid pronouns in such cases. But GCâs interpretation is misleading the reader away from the fact that the chart is the object of everyoneâs attention.
As for RC's, âHow can anyone read this and possibly come to the conclusion that what is being discussed is the âdeclineâ in the late instrumental period?â Why, anyone with an open mind who looks at the entire context that McIntyre presented, and which RC did and now Deltoid did its best to âdilute.â Filling the elipses does nothing to counteract the clear evidence that the folks involved in this chain of e-mails were cooking the chapter 2 chart. And Iâm sure the august panel who may eventually carry out the dispassionate examination of that context will eventually conclude likwiseâ if they even have to bother to get so far as this strained parsing of sentences.
A journalist writes:
"I am honoured by the kind comments on my article. For the record: without Steveâs brilliant work and this magnificent website, it could not have been written. May I also pay tribute to Ross McKitrick, who gave me several hours of his time on Thursday and helped clarify the issues in my mind.
"I am not a scientist, but an open minded investigative journalist. I have not written on climate before."
David Rose's love letter to M&M
If I may speak for all the Denialati, we are not against climate science. We study it with enthusiasm, just like you, and hope to win the debate.
The problem we both face is how to communicate the opposing views to the electorate, in bite size chunks that they can easily understand. The populace is not interested in splitting hairs, as we do here at Deltoid.
el gordo writes:
>*If I may speak for all the Denialati, we are not against climate science. We study it with enthusiasm, just like you [...]*
[Your recent post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou…) provides direct evidence to the contrary el gordo.
You employ to the ugliest propaganda when science could be instead used in truth seeking practice.
If you keep employing such ugly creepish behaviour you'll risk becoming that which you practice.
Steve McIntyre wrote recently that it's his impression that the science 'community' which is sympathetic to AGW have not 'expressed any disapproval of Climategate conduct (George Monbiot is a visible exception) and that the predominant public reaction of the 'community' is nothing-to-see-here-move-along.'
Truth is the enemy of the state.
Steve's wrong, there's been plenty of commentary on Jones' e-mail suggesting that e-mails be deleted rather than made available for a FOIA request. Gavin Schmidt called it "ill-advised", other scientists have responded negatively.
On the other hand, the other crap that McIntyre et al have tried to blow up into a scandal proving global science to be a fraud has not been negatively responded to because ... there's nothing negative to respond to. The fact that the science community refuses to accept the lies and misrepresentations of right-wing ideologues is a *good* thing.