Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign
Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years – the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre (CRU), in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Met. Office have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Met. Office with incomplete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public – including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
***********
Notes and Links
[1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
The above chart shows the difference when the entire data set (black line) as opposed to a subset (red line) is used to reconstruct temperature. The chart is accompanied by the following comment from Mr McIntyre: “The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive [leaving the rest of the data set unchanged i.e. all the subfossil data prior to the 19th century]. The difference is breathtaking.”
Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1998), “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (PDF), Nature 392: 779–787, doi:10.1038/33859, http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#cite_note-17
CRU Refuses Data Once Again
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/09/the-hockey-stick-is-dead/
Hello Geoff,
Sorry, it’s a long thread, and that came in after I went to bed. Anyway, some queries:
Some of the dendro data counts diverge upwards, some downwards in the instrumented era as Steve shows.
Do you mean counts? or temperatures?
How is it valid to assume that this did not happen before the instrumented era?
I don’t think anyone assumes that. But SM’s plot showed that including the Schweingruber dataset made no difference in the pre-instrumented era (partly because the S data petered out quickly)
How is it valid to assume stationarity, given that we cannot show it today?
Are you sure stationarity is what you mean? I don’t think anyone assumes that.
I agree that proxies have a lot of uncertainties (and so does KB).
And yes, divergence is an acknowledged problem, because it makes calibration to instrumental temps harder. What has gone wrong with this discussion (and SM started it) is the notion that the blade of the HS is determined by proxy data. It isn’t – that’s instrumental. The point of the proxy data is to establish the flatness or otherwise of the shaft.
sod October 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Sod, the trend after 1990 is the Briffa data and nothing else, as the Schweingruber data end in 1990… Thus the “hockeystick” shape after 1990 is the result of only 10 samples and within these samples only from one (1) tree. Not directly a scientific approach which is beyond critique. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/more-broken-hockey-stick-fallout-audit-of-an-audit-of-an-auditor/
That means that all reconstructions which used this much too small sample (and that are many) need to be re-examined for the impact of these (not so) new findings. Seems to me that the MWP will get a little warmer in the spaghetty graph…
kd October 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 am
If that is all what they can use to defend the undefendable? Indeed there are a lot of hockeysticks in the world. Some of them have relevance, like the glacier retreat and the boreholes, which both prove that the LIA was much colder than the original MBH hockeystick shows. But as both don’t go back to the MWP, they don’t prove that the MWP didn’t exist or was less warm than today.
Is that important? Yes, if there was more natural variability in the past, that has as consequence that the models must include a larger natural variability at the cost of the impact of CO2 and other GHGs.
Further, see the reaction of McIntyre of the Yamal history on a lot of reconstructions:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7229
and on RealClimate from Roger Pielke Jr.:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/hockey-stick-gets-personal-lies-from.html
Nick Stokes October 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Nick,
One of the main problems with three rings is that trees respond on temperature with an optimum, an upside down U curve. Thus it is no wonder that many trees show a reasonable response to temperature in the 1900-1960 period (used for calibration), but don’t follow temperature after 1960-1980 or later. That makes that the graphting of the temperature record on the reconstructions gives a false impression. If you see many reconstructions alone, the temperature reconstruction is almost flat (or left out by the IPCC!) after 1960.
Thus even if by selective use of these trees which follow temperature closely now, that is no guarantee that these show smaller ring widths with warmer (or dryer) temperatures in the MWP.
Moreover, the calibration/selection method itself at the end of the reconstruction period is flattening the effect of the previous period. See what Jeff ID says on that:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/straightening-the-hockey-stick-blade/
of course the sentence in my previous message:
that is no guarantee that these show smaller ring widths with warmer (or dryer) temperatures in the MWP.
must be:
that is no guarantee that these don’t show smaller ring widths with warmer (or dryer) temperatures in the MWP.
[...] Yamal Implosion may be helpful. Other reactions: Ross McKitrick, Andrew Orlowski, Jennifer Marohasy, Gavin Schmidt, Jeff Id, Roger Pielke, Jr., Rudolf Kipp, Thomas [...]
Sod, the trend after 1990 is the Briffa data and nothing else, as the Schweingruber data end in 1990… Thus the “hockeystick” shape after 1990 is the result of only 10 samples and within these samples only from one (1) tree. Not directly a scientific approach which is beyond critique.
even if it is not beyond critique, that is not a reason for Cohenite to make false claims.
the merged grpah has a hockey stick form. the merged graph without data after 1990 has not.
many people here avoid pointing that out, because they made a great fuss about Briffa not using “ALL of the data”.
Sod wrote:
Neil, you are misstating my position. what Steve didon this minor point, is fine.
but Jennifer is making a false claim about what Steve did.
and cohenite accused me of being an idiot. when i was simply right.
if everybody here could finally admit that what Jennifer wrote is false and that cohenite made a false claim, we could move on to discuss more important stuff.
I find this extremely disquieting.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7244
Steve McIntyre is now trying to dissociate himself from the extreme responses to the storm he has stirred up.
Sod wrote:
My apologies if I have misinterpreted your position, Sod – that was not my intent.
Given the simplified nature of Jen’s post, and the fact that this site is considerably less technical than CA, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. YMMV.
Perhaps you have a taste of what SM seems to have experienced for over a decade – being called an idiot when you have simply stated the facts.
Exactly which part of Jen’s post do you consider false, bearing in mind that the technical detail is somewhat sparse? It’s certainly true that SM makes, as he usually does, some rather nuanced and technical points, which IMO are well related by Jen given the limitations I’ve already mentioned. Can you suggest a better synopsis, so we can all pick it apart, or will you just snipe at Jen for trying? Or is it simply that you find Jen’s attitude to AGW distasteful?
I’m not having a go at you here Sod, I just want a clarification of your position so that I do not (again) misinterpret it – something that is very easy to do in text only based media.
SJT wrote:
When people suggest you said the exact opposite of what you explicitly stated, it’s hardly dissociating yourself from such comments to point out the fact that you did not make such a comment, did not imply it, and in fact did state the exact opposite. If you find such behaviour objectionable, then I hope you will also have a go at RC for doing exactly the same thing – not just to SM, but also to Pielke Jnr, Pielke Snr, Wegman, Spencer etc etc. But that ain’t gonna happen, is it?
When people suggest you said the exact opposite of what you explicitly stated, it’s hardly dissociating yourself from such comments to point out the fact that you did not make such a comment, did not imply it, and in fact did state the exact opposite.
I think his meaning was very clear, the denialst crowd, including Jennifer here, knew exactly what he meant. Hence the calls for ‘explain or resign’.
Jennifer, in light of McIntyre’s backpedalling, perhaps you can remove any inferences of fraud and demands to resign.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7213#comment-358566
SJT wrote:
His meaning was crystal clear, written by his own hand, and repeated in the comments section several times. However, if you insist on making him responsible for what other say about what he said, then perhaps you should also take the time to point out that the faults and exagerations in AIT, for example, are the responsibilty of, oh, I dunno, Hansen or IPCC? If you feel that such is unfair, then I would respectfully suggest that you, sir, are applying double standards and that furthermore, you are expecting more from your opponents than from your supporters. I note that when the situation is reversed, and some denier makes a similar gaff, it doesn’t take you long to notice and shout this for the world to see. Will you withdraw your complaint, or will you continue to express this double standard? Your answer – or lack of one – will be quite telling.
You got me there, naahhhhttt.
After I wrote to SJT:
SJT replied with:
Which certainly seems to me to be a non-answer. It is quite telling, as I suspected it would be.
Just a thought SJT – apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to others; or better yet, apply an even higher standard. You may be worth talking with again if you do; if you do not, then I will point it out to you when I notice it, and remind you of the chance you have missed to be intellectually honest. Although I doubt you will care; people who pervert and prostitute their standards in order to “win” an arguement rarely care that they have done so, although those who pay attention, but rarely post, will notice and take it into consideration. Your call…
You ask that type of question, you get that type of answer. I stopped beating my wife years ago.
“Explain or Resign” is the message that needs to be heard worldwide by all those who took public funds and then distorted, ignored, or misrepresented experimental data in their reports back to the public.
CO2-induced global warming is only a part of “The Big Lie.” Experimental data accumulated from space-age measurements since the first analyses on Apollo lunar samples in 1969 [1] show clearly that:
a.) The Sun is a variable star, an unsteady heat source.
b.) Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive, not attractive.
c.) Hydrogen is a solar waste product, not the primary solar fuel.
d.) The stormy Sun has far greater influence on Earth’s climate than CO2 [2].
e.) The Sun is a plasma diffuser powered by repulsive interactions between neutrons [3].
f.) The Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is obsolete; Solar neutrinos do not oscillate.
How can we clean house?
Litigation? Can you imagine the impact of having Al Gore and/or James Hansen as sworn witnesses subject to expert cross-examination?
Legislation or an executive order? The experimental data supporting conclusions a.) – f.) above would probably be subjected to careful scrutiny and open discussion overnight if the director of the new CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security was instructed by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to protect National Security from any possibility of systemic intellectual dishonesty in federal research agencies: http://tinyurl.com/ya2jt7s
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo Samples
1. LSPET (The Lunar Sample Preliminary Examination Team): 1969, “Preliminary examination of lunar samples from
Apollo 11”, Science 165, 1211-1227.
2. Oliver K. Manuel: 2009, “Earth’s Heat Source- The Sun”, Energy and Environment 20, 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
3. O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat, and M. Mozina: 2006, “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-185
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3
Just a thought SJT – apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to others; or better yet, apply an even higher standard. You may be worth talking with again if you do; if you do not, then I will point it out to you when I notice it, and remind you of the chance you have missed to be intellectually honest.
You have to ask intellectually honest questions, first.
Demonstrate to me your intellectual honesty. Mr Manuel seems to be wrong about the sun, would you care to correct him.
SJT wrote:
On a quick read, and without checking his references, I’d say his points c, e and f would require some explaination, as they appear to go against accepted norms. That doesn’t make them wrong, just unpopular. If I had to bet, I’d say they were wrong.
So now that’s out of the way, will you post a demonstration of your intellectual honesty, or will you continue to espouse the double standards you have so far displayed?
So now that’s out of the way, will you post a demonstration of your intellectual honesty, or will you continue to espouse the double standards you have so far displayed?
I keep telling you, I stopped beating my wife.
The above conclusions a.) – f.) are based on research that I started with the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda in 1960 and continued for the next half-century.
The experimental data that support these conclusions are given in peer-reviewed papers shown with links on my research profile: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
“Weasle words” are not needed for conclusions based on irrefutable experimental data.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
SJT wrote:
Careful, your hypocracy is showing.
Oliver K. Manuel wrote:
Thanks for the link. I trust you were not offended by my post – as I said, it seemed to me that your views were hardly “mainstream”. Not that I imagine that you would be surprised at this.
Careful, your hypocracy is showing.
I ready to talk when you are ready to start off being reasonable.
SJT wrote:
I always try to be reasonable SJT. Since you seem to be offended by what I have asked, I’ll try again.
Now that I have pointed out what seems to me to be a double standard applied by you, would you be so kind as to offer your views on why it is not, or if you are prepared to concede the point, would you be so kind as to post such concessions.
You see, I would rather that we spent time finding out what we can agree on, rather than continually bickering over what we disagree on, so this is not some sort of trick on my part. It seemed to me that you accused me of doing the same thing, which I don’t believe is the case – after all, just as you do not attack each and every defect in AGW science, neither do I attack each and every defect in the, ummm, anti-AGW science; mate, I just don’t have the time, and I suspect you don’t either. [shrug] So what? I did, I think you will agree, try to point out to Tim what I believed to be errors in his reasoning, and would happily do so in similar situations again – if I have the time and inclination. Can you point out a post you have made that casts doubt on any AGW science, or the postings of those who support same? This would show that you do indeed care about getting correct answers rather than following an agenda. And while I do not recall seeing such, that’s hardly conclusive, is it?
I have referred to this critique of Hansen before, I’ll be buggered if I know where I posted it here.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/11/hansen_again.php
SJT wrote:
Can you give me an idea of the content of your comment? Because just the fact you referenced this link does not tell me if you thought the content of the link was accurate or inaccurate, true or false etc. After all, it may simply have been a comment of yours saying something like “deniers resort to ad hom” or similar. Just to be clear, you understand – I’m not implying that this is what you said, just that I don’t know.
It was posted in reference to repeated claims that I am a ‘disciple’ of Hansen. I am not, I think he is a good scientist who has got a lot right. I also think he is not perfect, and Stoat offers up an interesting critique of a paper, which does not at all just accept it as holy writ, but tries to see what he agrees with, disagrees with, and just doesn’t get. For McInytre, the idea that a paper may not be 100% bullet proof is completely baffling, and a sign of fraud. For Stoat, it’s just part of the slow progress of science as it has been done for the past century, business as usual.
SJT wrote:
This is untrue. For SM (and me too, for that matter), the point is that for major public policy decisions, “bullet proof” as you put it should be the goal – we may not be able to get there, but it should be the goal. And where it’s not reached, the limitations and caveats should be clearly enunciated. We find speculation and expert opinion instead – and while that’s not “bad”, speculation and opinion do not cut it for major policy actions IMO.
Anyway – what do you think of that paper and the critique? Please try not to change the subject or dance around it – just freaking say what you think!
SJT: “it’s just part of the slow progress of science as it has been done for the past century, business as usual.”
But you have stated explicitly here on numerous comments, you are scientifically ignorant – Care to explain, then?
SJT: “For McInytre, the idea that a paper may not be 100% bullet proof is completely baffling, and a sign of fraud. For Stoat, it’s just part of the slow progress of science as it has been done for the past century, business as usual.”
Your problem is you can’t recognise science from pseudoscience.
Jernnifer’s gardening leave isn’t a subtle message that this site, with you and Luke as primary clowns. failed in its goal of distracting we nasty denialists?
You are socialists for one simple reason – it’s the only means by which you can distinguish yourselves from sheep.
Anyway – what do you think of that paper and the critique? Please try not to change the subject or dance around it – just freaking say what you think!
I’m going with Stoat. IANAS, but Hansen is listing all the extreme possibilities that could happen, but are they likely. At least it’s where the debate really should be, and the scientists are quite active about it.
Your problem is you can’t recognise science from pseudoscience.
My irony meter just exploded.
Jernnifer’s gardening leave isn’t a subtle message that this site, with you and Luke as primary clowns. failed in its goal of distracting we nasty denialists?
Could it be that demanding a scientist should ‘explain or resign’, after reading McIntyre’s blog, only to find that McIntyre’s ‘quietly disturbing’ graph didn’t carry any implications of fraud at all, had anything to do with it? McIntyre stirred the pot, then left his supporters out to hang out to dry.
Of could it be that her blog attracts all the wacky weirdo’s, who think the sun is made of iron, or that AIDS is a scam, or that the ‘greenhouse effect’ doesn’t exist, or that plate techtonics is not true, and support astrologers? Could be a little embarrassing.
SJT:
You write:
“Could it be that demanding a scientist should ‘explain or resign’, after reading McIntyre’s blog, only to find that McIntyre’s ‘quietly disturbing’ graph didn’t carry any implications of fraud at all, had anything to do with it? McIntyre stirred the pot, then left his supporters out to hang out to dry.”.
That is nonsense. It does not matter whether or not McIntyre’s criticism of Briffa’s analysis is correct (incidentally, it is) when considering whether or not Briffa should “explain or resign”.
I remind that above at September 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm I wrote:
“SJT, Luke and Nick Stokes:
Your attempts at excuses do not wash. There are three issues which you are confusing, but you fail to answer any of them.
The first is the issue of scientific practice.
Briffa is seriously ill with kidney failure and it is to be hoped that he will soon be able to make a full recovery. Assuming he does recover then he will need to defend against a prima facie case of his serious scientific malpractice. That case is as follows.
Data which were in the possession of Briffa have been obtained for scrutiny by the scientific community. This revealed that there was a large data set and Briffa selected from that data set for conduct of his analysis. He published that analysis and its results.
But, importantly,
Briffa failed to state that he had selected from a larger data set
and
Briffa failed to state any criteria he used for his selection.
These failures invalidate Briffa’s analysis. Indeed, they are a severe scientific malpractice that is tantamount to fraud in that they misrepresent the analysis which Briffa conducted.
”
Nick Stokes attempted to address this matter and I refuted his response when at October 1st, 2009 at 12:15 am I wrote:
“Nick Stokes:
You wrongly assert to me:
“Richard “Briffa failed to state any criteria he used for his selection.”
This just isn’t true. He said
“Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) data from the area immediately east of the northern Ural Mountains, previously used by Hantemirov & Shiyatov (2002), were used as the Yamal regional chronology”
He’s using a data set which was previously used in the literature, and has made that clear. So you have to make a case that it was nonetheless necessary for him to use this alternative data. And I just can’t see it.”
Sorry, but your claim supports my statements that you dispute.
I said:
“Data which were in the possession of Briffa have been obtained for scrutiny by the scientific community. This revealed that there was a large data set and Briffa selected from that data set for conduct of his analysis. He published that analysis and its results.
But, importantly,
Briffa failed to state that he had selected from a larger data set
and
Briffa failed to state any criteria he used for his selection.
These failures invalidate Briffa’s analysis. Indeed, they are a severe scientific malpractice that is tantamount to fraud in that they misrepresent the analysis which Briffa conducted.”
It does not matter that Hantemirov & Shiyatov (or anybody else) had used that selection: perhaps that is all the data that was available to them.
But it does matter that Briffa had the full data and chose to use a sub-set of it for an unstated reason. His paper could, for example, have claimed that he used that sub-set for comparison to Hantemirov & Shiyatov (2002) but, of course, that comparison study would have been a different study for a different purpose than the paper Briffa published.
Clearly, you have not grasped the point, so compare these two statements:
“We analysed the available data”
and
“We analysed a selction from the available data but we are not stating our reason(s) for making that selection and we will not allow others to see the data we chose not to use.
Can you not understand the difference?
The statement of a prima facie case of scientific malpractice against Briffa is not – as you assert – “ridiculous”: it is simply fact.
Richard”
None of you have made any real attempt to address the prima facie case. There may be a reason for rejection of that case and Briffa’s unfortunate illness may be the reason why nobody has yet heard it.
However, at present the prima facie case exists against Briffa so he should explain or resign.
One can only hope that Briffa’s health recovers so he can explain. And, at present, one can only speculate as to whether that explanation will be sufficient to remove the prima facie case that demands Briffa should resign.
Additionally, it is extremely unfortunate that Briffa refused to release his data and kept it secret for a decade until forced to reveal it. These matters could have been addressed a decade ago but for Briffa’s refusal to reveal his data. Now, his fealings about the prima facie case of his scientific malpractice may hinder his fight against his illness, and his illness hinders his ability to defend against the prima facie case of his scientific malpractice.
Richard
Additionally, it is extremely unfortunate that Briffa refused to release his data and kept it secret for a decade until forced to reveal it. These matters could have been addressed a decade ago but for Briffa’s refusal to reveal his data. Now, his fealings about the prima facie case of his scientific malpractice may hinder his fight against his illness, and his illness hinders his ability to defend against the prima facie case of his scientific malpractice.
Richard
“McIntyre had the data all along”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php
“Data which were in the possession of Briffa have been obtained for scrutiny by the scientific community. This revealed that there was a large data set and Briffa selected from that data set for conduct of his analysis. He published that analysis and its results.
But, importantly,
Briffa failed to state that he had selected from a larger data set
and
Briffa failed to state any criteria he used for his selection.
These failures invalidate Briffa’s analysis. Indeed, they are a severe scientific malpractice that is tantamount to fraud in that they misrepresent the analysis which Briffa conducted.”
What it means is that someone has made that claim, based purely on their assumptions of what Briffa did or did not do. To jump straight to an assumption of fraud is sheer recklessnes.
SJT:
It seems that you have not read the item which you cited as attempted explanation for the prima facie case of scientific misconduct by Briffa.
I ignore that you cite Deltoid (which is almost as dubious a propoganda source as RealClimate.org) and accept the cited claims at face value.
Deltoid claims McIntyre obtained the data from the Russians in 2004, and Briffa told McIntyre to obtain it from them in 2006. It is strange that Briffa is asserted to have suggested McIntyre ask the Russians for the data two years after McIntyre is said to have obtained it from the Russians.
However, it is demonstrable fact that McIntyre had been asking Briffa for the data since 2000 because he reported each request on his blog each time he made it. And he reported Briffa’s rejections of his requests each time, too.
Importantly, if Deltoid’s claims are true then those claims provide more questions than answers.
Why did Briffa not provide the data when first asked?
If Briffa thought it proper to only allow “the Russians” to provide the data, then why did he not respond to McIntyre’s first request by forwarding McIntyre’s request to the Russians with a copy to McIntyre as information on what he had done?
Indeed, why in Briffa’s recent response on this matter from his sick-bed did Briffa not say, “I told McIntyre how to get the data when he first asked me for it” if that is what he did?
Why after repeated refusals to provide the data (i.e. the refusals that were copied on McIntyre’s web site at the times of their delivery) did Briffa suggest that McIntyre ask the Russians for it in 2006?
Which data did McIntyre get from the Russians in 2004?
Why could Briffa provide the data in 2009 when the RS demanded its disclosure if he was unable to provide it before?
Why … etc.
As I said, there may be a good explanation for Briffa having concealed the complete data set and his illness may be preventing him from providing that explanation. But the prima facie case exists.
And Deltoid’s attempted excuses for the case only serve to make matters worse for Briffa.
Richard
As I said, there may be a good explanation for Briffa having concealed the complete data set and his illness may be preventing him from providing that explanation. But the prima facie case exists.
And Deltoid’s attempted excuses for the case only serve to make matters worse for Briffa.
??? It wasn’t his data, he got it from the Russians. McIntyre had it all along anyway.
SJT: that last of yours is a travesty. The hockey stick goes back long before the Russians, as does the obfuscation of MBH and Briffa at all times.
Further to my last, refer to Mann Bradley Hughes et al in PNAS 2008 “Proxy based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia” 9 Sept 2008, communicated to PNAS by none other than Lonnie Thompson of Gore heroism. They cite Bradley & Jones 1993, Briffa et al. 1998 (2 different papers), Briffa et al.2001, etc. The Russians don’t get a mention. The paper develops GLOBAL (i.e. including Australia) temperature over 2 millennia; the main global source for 0-200 is a site in Tasmania where this country’s BoM cannot even maintain temperature records at its CO2 site at Cape Grim, but where an elderly gent named Bob Brown will for a suitable fee deliver global daily T records to 200 AD, the downside being having to listen to his incantations before his magic yields up its secrets. The PNAS paper contains copious SI including 4 Excel files which achieve a new first by yielding no data at all, only alleged summaries of the incantations of Bob Brown with amazing R2s of 0.02 – with what? you may well ask, they don’t say, presumably the well known instrumental record 0-200 at Rome. For the modern era the paper relies on incantations by Jones and Briffa at CRU (Norwich, UK) claiming (Figs.2 and 3) to have a NH instrumental record that covers all of Africa north of the equator & the NH tropics in the Americas and Asia between 1850 and 1910. Excluding those areas makes the NH look cooler than it was at that time. Moreover Jones has confessed to ‘homogenising” and “adding value’ to the Hadley-CRU data that makes it look like a refectory meal at UEA, bearing no relation to the orginal data he was sent.
The Mann et al PNAS paper says R2s are rubbish anyway (SI Table S2), on the back of their own article in Woman’s Own, oops, I meant J. Geophys.Res 2007, proposing CE and RE instead. When authors like Mann et al proposing new statistical methods and junking the ones used in the rest of Science, they should get it accepted by say the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society and not by Woman’s Own or similar.
With or without the Russian data, everything written by Briffa and mates is rubbish that would never makes it into JRSS, as Steve Mc has documented again and again.
Payback time for getting it wrong !
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php
It’s all just so tawdry.
And just remember chumps – all this Macca nonsense has zero point zero effect on the science effort. It’s just all noise on the vine. hahahahahahahahaha
Publish something useful or perish. And that’s not in E&E – hahahahahahahahahaha
Tim Curtin wrote:
Great stuff Neil! and there’s more to come.
Luke challenged me to show whether or not inland Queensland Met stations yield a correlation between temperature and rising atmospheric CO2 – [CO2].
Well the first 2, picked at random, Gatton and Toowoomba Airport both yield zero correlation between ther respective annual mean minimum Temperature and annual mean [CO2]. So we have two more black swans to add to the charming flight in Jen’s photograph at the beginning of her walkabout post.
The Gatton QDPI research station has a much longer run (1968-2007) than Toowoomba Airport (only 1996-2009), but evidently was closed down in 2007 in furtherance of Science because of their glaring failure to deliver politically correct correlations between their Temps and [CO2]). Moreover there were 2 years (1985-86) when like the emininent scientists at Mauna Loa Slope Observatory they could not quite summon the energy to keep up daily records. I inserted averages of the year before with year after for the months in question.
Result, same as my data for Mauna Loa at my thread here: NO correlation between Tmin and [CO2] even without going to 1st diffs to get rid of auto-correlation.
SJT, name your favourite location (how about sod’s Potsdam?) and I will show you another black swan. Achtung, back to the drawing board, you AGW guys!
Tim Curtin
Good article on Quadrant online : http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/the-wisdom-of-skepticism
I can see the AGW people dressed in their sack cloths monotoning their obeisance to the latest apocalypse – Luke would be the crazed leader in a scene that could have come from the Jabberwocky movie.
Luke
Publish ?
“There can be little doubt in the minds of those who are involved in attempting to disseminate research results among the entire scientific community that major problems exist. It is well documented that adopting certain stances will result in an inability to publish in the majority of the so-called high impact academic journals.
There are also well documented cases of people experiencing grave difficulties in their place of work and even, on some occasions, being driven out. Amazingly, there are even cases of attempts being made – some successful – to deny research students their doctorates because their theses contain material which may cause embarrassment for some person with an inflated sense of his/her own importance. Again, more and more academics, certainly in British universities, are coming under increasing pressure to draw funds into their establishments. Note the emphasis is not on good research, or even just research, but rather on attracting more and more money.”
and
“The religious nature of global warming hysteria becomes immediately obvious once research is undertaken into the history of similar NRMs and the many apocalyptic panics they have spawned over the past two millennia. And it is largely for this reason that the proponents of global warming insist that only ‘scientific’ contributions can be permitted and that any discussion that is allowed about their claims must take place within the very tightly regulated constraints of a highly specialized scientific field they themselves define and zealously control.”
No point giving you url’s as you won’t check them out. (But Quadrant on line and Thunderbolts post Science in Turmoil) for those wanting to read more.