Deep Climate investigates Steve McIntyre's claim that, in the IPCC TAR, Michael Mann used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in Briffa's tree-ring proxy. You will be shocked, just shocked, to discover that:
So, once again, the accusation that Mann "truncated" or "chopped off" the data set is proven to be utterly false.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
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…
Deep Climate has been reading the stolen emails that Steve McIntyre didn't mention:
Arguing from a cherrypicked selection of quotes from the "Climategate" emails, McIntyre has claimed that IPCC authors Chris Folland and Michael Mann pressured Briffa to submit a reconstruction that would not "dilute…
One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1:
A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on…
A new study has recently been published that looks at the ecology of bristlecone pine growth at Sheep Mountain, and the tree ring signal those trees produce, at high altitudes in the Southwestern US. This is important because tree rings are an often used proxyindicator for reconstructing past…
Ah yes, who audits the auditors.
As DeepClimate has shown, it is he who audits the Frauditors here, here , here & ad nauseam.
[snip]
McI feeding fodder to the "skeptics"? No, never!
Sigh, thanks DC for your tireless (and probably tiresome on your part)debunking of the frauds at CA.
This follows on the heels of by Arthur Smith finding Mosher guilty of telling fibs about the paleo SAT reconstructions. Not to be out done, his partner in crime, the "honoarable" Tom Fuller is continuing to do a fine job of misrepresenting and distorting over at Bart's place. One of the funnier examples was Fuller claiming that Watts believes that "the temperature record for the past century is not only accurate but evidence of the greenhouse effect".
I find Tom Fuller highly amusing.
Tom Fuller: "Deech, I must say youâre the first person I have ever seen who didnât understand what was meant by CAGW, including climate scientists from the consensus side. It might be an interesting exercise to find out where it originated, but I donât have time to do that for you.
I, like everyone else who uses the term, refer to those who believe the effects of global warming will be dramatically worse than predicted by the IPCC reports."
Everyone? This is where a Google citation is appropriate, as Rocco shows:
âThe IPCC has been riding a runaway bandwagon of CAGW for several years now.â
âDr. Lindzen calmly eviscerates the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and the IPCC âconsensusââ
âThe main chapters of the IPCCâs reports were written by around 50 true believers in CAGWâ
http://www.google.cz/search?hl=cs&source=hp&q=cagw+ipcc&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&…
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/climate-skepticism-c…
Tom Fuller seems to have a difficult time writing posts that aren't riddled with errors and knee-jerk assumptions.
Funny. When I first saw the acronym CAGW I didn't think catastrophic AGW, I thought Climate Audit GW.
If Tom Fuller ever had a modicum of credibility it has long since disappeared into the ether of space. And we are meant to take at face value the musing of Mosher and Fuller in their book? No thanks.
I have never known anyone to shown such a propensity to err, well, the crowd at WUWT do come close....
This is Mr. Fullers latest.
"Dearest Tom,
You claim "Compare that with Rabettâs self-citation to his weblog where he talks about a paper published in PNAS that says that humans cannot live in a 35 C environment. Disregarding the fact that people do live successfully in those temperatures today..."
No they most certainly do not, please read the paper. They are talking about the wet-bulb temperature for goodness' sakes! From the paper's abstract:
"Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31â°C. Any exceedence of 35â°C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7â°C, calling the habitability of some regions into question.
Sigh. Tom, why do you insist on misrepresenting the science? Are you simply ignorant, or willfully distorting. You obviously did not bother to peruse the abstract or Eli's post.
And Tom, if you are going to be graceful enough to apologize to Schneider, please do not follow up said apology with back-pedaling and more insinuations, hypothesizing etc. It makes your apology look insincere."
And I note that you have still to acknowledge your glaring error about Watts and the global SAT record.
These errors demonstrate that you are either incompetent, unqualified to speak to climate science or dishonest, or perhaps all three of the aforementioned."
Not that I don't appreciate his efforts, but hasn't DC done this debunking already? several times? Is there some subtle difference in what McI is asserting now from what he has previously asserted?
Can't speak for DC, but I think that it's important to confront McIntyre every time that he tries something like this, even if it's just a minor variation on an old theme.
Big Lies depend upon repetition, repetition, repetition, and a lack of contradiction.
Aside from this, letting McIntyre get away with it even once contributes toward his reputation as a pundit among the ignorant.
Despite his endless MannLove, McIntyre is all but irrelevant these days.
Even CA readership is down. Alas Alack etc.
James I think it has to do with there being several different versions of a similar graphic. So when people say to Steve McIntyre that he was wrong about what he says about one graph, he points to another and says 'but... but... but...'. So DC is going through each variation of the graphic and Steve's claims about that particular graphic and showing that he's wrong each time.
Surprising that an 'auditor' keeps getting it wrong... Perhaps they're not very good at it?
Perhaps he just wants to spread FUD.
RE #4 - I think I slept through my 15 minutes. So apparently I'm not alone in my ignorance.
My point in asking was that "CAGW" seems to be an ill-defined term, perhaps a straw man, that can mean whatever the writer wants it to be. I've never seen it used in scientific circles. But what do I know. ;-)
@Deech56
I often think of shrill cries about whether or not a paper endorses "C"AGW as a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
As in...
Blinkered Idiot A: This paper is skeptical of AGW
Long Suffering Argumentalist B: No, it clearly supports AGW
Blinkered Idiot A: Aha, but it doesn't mention "C"AGW, therefore it is skeptical of your liberal hysteria!
Long Suffering Argumentalist B: ...
It's self confessed ignorance.
Read his comments here
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/replication/
Googling 'CAGW' results in many hits linked to Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayer watchdog.
Maybe 'CA__*D*__W' would be a more useful moniker to describe Deltoid's denizens? 'Citizens Against Denialati Waste'?
"So, once again, the accusation that Mann "truncated" or "chopped off" the data set is proven to be utterly false."
In other breaking news, water, wet! Sky, blue! Darth Vader, Luke and Leia's Father!
In real breaking news: Mann cleared of all charges. Well they did give him a slap on the wrist for sharing an unpublished paper with Briffa w/o asking Ammann and Wahl for their permission saying, in essence, "you should have asked first", now can we get on with the science?
Tim,
If you looked beyond the headlines of DC's blog you might actually see that there is a fair amount of questionning of his ananysis.
Andrews, yes, questions with, for the most part, very little substance. Also quite a few questions asking about his analysis.
When you submit a journal paper for review you also have to answer lots of questions, that does not suggest your analysis or conclusions are wrong.
Dave
"If you looked beyond the headlines of DC's blog you might actually see that there is a fair amount of questionning of his ananysis."
That's not a fair comment.
People questioned what he had done, to clarify his method. They're not doubting what he has done.
Yes, good to see the news from Penn State that (yet again) an illustrious panel has exonerated Mann.