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/
Advertisement
248 Responses to “Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign”
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Nick,
Also – I’m sure that Keith Briffa would have read HH Lamb’s “Climate Present Past and Future” (after all which climatologist hasn’t?) and so Keith Briffa should have been familiar with existing long Polar Urals tree ring chronology described in that book.
http://i37.tinypic.com/10z3biq.jpg
Given the above tree ring chronology was published in the 60’s, then it is likely that it finishes at the time the instrumental / thermometer records were at their highest (as confirmed in Briffa 2008 Fig 7 and GISS?).
If the thermometer temps to date did not exceed those in the middle of the last century, then I can’t see a hockey stick there – and in fact I see a distinct MWP that is as warm (if not warmer) than the current Polar Urals temp. This also completely contradicts the Briffa et al 1995 claim that 1032 was the coldest year in the last millennium. (NB: Same type of tree used!)
Whilst I would not go to the extent of calling for Keith Briffa’s blood as our host is doing, it nevertheless appears that he has been caught out not doing good science… and therefore some explanations are in order.
And if these aren’t satisfactory on the prima facie evidence – then this puts all the other studies dependent on this chronology in shadow of doubt… And then the fun really begins. :)
cheers
Soddy: “you folks sound a little bit too hysteric, for a “game set match” situation.
basically we are watching just another “the hockey stick is dead” euphoria fall apart.
Are we watching the believersphere turning into the denialosphere? This seems to happen every time a new AGW fraud is uncovered. Why not call up the Deny-A-Fraud hotline, where for a per-minute fee, attractive sounding AGW believer chicks will provide emotional assistance to distraught denialists.
Ah yes – the gentle rant of the denialist scum – like a steady hum from the denialist hive.
This sort of stuff is priceless “Why aren’t these wank magazines like Nature and Science getting their act together?” – who’s a looney tune then. Who’s popped a valve.
Of course you might like E&E standards.
“Rationalize away. Your side committed fraud, hid data, and lied about it.
Game, set match.”
“Your side” – you friggin goon ! “Your side”.
HEY Huntsbum – well ya gonna have to lock up most of the denialist scum with those charges. Don’t licence guns – licence denialists.
What amazing froth – what a mega-wank. The mechanism behind the tsunami is the sheer South Pacific density of Aussie and NZ denialists all getting into an onanist mantra at the same time.
Guys this is a 3rd order issue – as if it even matters in the scheme of things
0.0001% of the AGW territory. And as I said while you’re all off diverted having a froth here you’ve missed all the main news. But hey – denialists are always on the wrong horse.
Come on guys – you’re not angry enough – get yourselves really really worked up. Hey better still – don’t even ask any questions – form a lynch mob.
HEY WAIT A MINUTE !
Sod’s link – “It looks like the Yamal reconstruction published by Briffa is rather insensitive to the inclusion of the additional data. There is no broken hockeystick.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/more-broken-hockey-stick-fallout-audit-of-an-audit-of-an-auditor/
Ya got nuttin’
This sort of stuff is priceless “Why aren’t these wank magazines like Nature and Science getting their act together?” – who’s a looney tune then. Who’s popped a valve.”
Yes I confess it was a bit over the top, Lukey. Nobody in their right mind would expect these wank magazines to get their act together.
luke, sod is an idiot because he didn’t read the whole article where his ‘real’ merged graph is junked; didn’t you either?
Yep – I think the whole thing is a contorted stats wank. McIntyre needs to stop trial by blog with the latest thing he has dreamed up and start publishing – otherwise when it comes to the final analysis – all worthless.
So now they scream “anti-science” and the Meltdown Mann samples just don’t add up.
If he really wants to fake enthusiasm for peer review, when will the ones reviewing his original work speak out? Why did the “tree ring circus” get published?
Coho – the whole thing is too quick for words. And too slick. Tom P is still going. 90% of the ultra-stupid goons that have formed a lynch mob don’t even know what they’re supporting. They’d hump anything with anti-AGW painted on it. Zero discrimination. Moronic behaviour.
Yep I think all this paleo stuff has hairs on it. Very difficult. And remember – Macca himself does not know whether the MWP was warmer than today. It’s simply a case of proven or not enough. He essentially doesn’t know.
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
LoL…. Good grief. Sod, Luke, SJT, etc are completely spinning out of orbit over Steve McIntyre’s masterful Audit of Briffa’s Yamal series and it’s cherry picked data….
It is almost embarrassing to watch them doing their emotional meltdowns on this public forum…. But it is too entertaining not to read their childish responses….
….. Anyway, it looks as if the Hockey Team have really done themselves a mischief this time. Most of them rely on Briffa’s Yamal archive being in their results…. Now it’s gone poof!
And they tried to hide it from the public too…. tch tch.
Group (Luke), a note from an avid lurker. Recently your inputs have been really, really scientifically useless. Please get your act together so as to add some merit to your comments or just drop out of the discussions. I have just stopped reading your commentary. Why waste my time with blather?
As to the point of the article. This is not the end of the AGW issue, but is the end of the dendro-community alarmist inputs. I suspect it will also limit and significantly improve future proxy reports.
The real bottom line: The current peer review process is so flawed as to be useless for real science. Open submissions are potentially superior. (Please note the caveat)
SJT says:
The global economy is worth 70.65 trillion (2008 est.) (from wikipedia). over ten years, 700 trillion. You are saying that putting muc less than one percent of this to AGW will cripple the worlds economy?
You innumerate, it will have a massive impact over 100 years which is the standardized period people are looking at.
75.6 billion growing at 3.5% over 100 years means world GDP is $2,358 trillion in 2109.
Lower the projection to 2.5 % over the same period and it becomes $893 trillion.
The difference is a staggering $1,468 trillion.
It’s people like you that give alarmists a bad name.
I think resign will be the minimum. I would not be surprised if major lawsuits are initiated worldwide for damages etc… once the reality of this sinks in. I still think it will take a few more days or weeks. The AGW are of course hoping this will go away with time.. so no discussion on this allowed. Im sure this is their policy currently. There is no choice for them now.
Says CoRev and J Hansford (and must we be so formal) as slavish muppets who don’t even understand what’s being discussed. Just keep up the rhythm in the denialist conga line lads.
Cha cha cha – cha – cha – cha …. off you go.
“I have just stopped reading your commentary. Why waste my time with blather?” you’re still responding CoRev – you can’t help yourself. Stop trailing around in my wake like Hunter does.
And what a beauty “And they tried to hide it from the public too…. tch tch.” – yes we’ve got a direct line to Briffa and the WORLD Conspiracy Headquarters – as if – take a hike mate.
“The statement of a prima facie case of scientific malpractice against Briffa is not – as you assert – “ridiculous”: it is simply fact.” says the coal industry. Ho ho ho ho. Trust us ! Yea sure. The old wild west lynch mob mentality certainly sums up the denialist position.
Luke: Tom P’s work has been shown to be flawed. Th stick is still broken.
See: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/audit-of-an-audit-of-an-auditor/
It appears a vital part of the air supply to the little room the Luke ensemble inhabits has been compromised as they are reduced to babbling.
Yes, ‘Luke’, your side. The side of extremists and hyperventilation and fraud.
The side of idiocracy.
The side of profiteers.
The side of losers.
I am sure in government worker land, hiding data, losing data, and denying proper access is OK, but in in the world of ethics and science, it is not OK.
Check the O2 level, Luke. You all have been so worried about CO2, but seem to be suffering from anoxia.
No it’s not Jack M – you wouldn’t know. Citing a some partisan trash site as evidence . ho ho ho ho.
That’s right Hunts-bum – get yourself all worked up – let it all out. Every irrational mad thought – you can show us what denialists are like (even though Coho is cringing). Keep trailing around in my wake trying to keep up.
There is a big and brand new financial bubble behind, when carbon credits to natives amazon forests owners it is about US$3.-per hectare and carbon share share price is US$137500 per the same hectare.
The Hockey Stick is a fraud and as such it must be treated by the scientific community. I’m not talking against the scientists who committed fraud; I still give to them the chance of doubt for idiocy.
Luke
Citing a some partisan trash site as evidence . ho ho ho ho.
Real nice. So I suppose you also think it’s acceptable to perform a sensitivity analysis using ONLY the original data. Tom P’s work is meaningless.
BTW: The R code is turnkey or aren’t you able to figure that out.
Luke,
If your ensemble thinks I am the one letting out irrational thoughts, well, I will just let all of your gang keep pleasing yourselves in that, and in any other way, you please.
And do check the air feed. You might suffer the fate of David Carradine:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=7763422&page=1
And yes, of course your dismissals and denials are definitive. In AGW land it is OK to hide data, cherry pick, ignore data that does not support you, toss out evidence, and have only people who are your colleagues as reviewers. As if.
The Mann et al. hockey stick was not .0001% of AGW debate from the public policy point of view. It was one of the most persuasive and alarming indications that the current warming trend, at least until 1998, was not normal. And indeed the spike at the begining of the industrial period was also profoundly persuasive as to mankind’s contribution.
The criticism of the statistical methodology used to produce the graph was enough in my view to take Mann et al’s conclusions with more than a grain of salt. Even more suspicious, to me, was their dogged refusal to share the raw data.
Now we know why. The raw data included in the study was cherry picked either by agenda or an artifact of simple bias. The total data indicates the opposite conclusions, and the populace and policy makers need to be made aware of this before decisions are made that will have real world effects on their economies, their lifestyles, and their freedom.
“Comment from: Luke September 30th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Ah yes – the gentle rant of the denialist scum – like a steady hum from the denialist hive”
Spoken like the good little Warmonger you are. Reality must be such a bitch for you folks.
Go Luke go, your rants are just more proof that real data and verifiable science will,in the end, win out over hysterical religious beliefs.
Luke, SJT, etc,
What has become clear is that the Yamal proxy data set as used by Briffa et al is unbelievably small and as such it cannot be used to make any inferences about past climate. If I am building a taper function or a volume function for a localised area I must incude a far greater sample of trees, dispersed throughout the area in question, to ensure that I have a truly representative sample. A dozen or so trees without a representative spatial spread, is a pathetically small sample size and therefore renders the study of interest only, but not definitive as a proxy for the area in question.
Anyone who has any understanding of the variation that exists throughout a stand of trees understands this.
Mr Luke is really crapping his pants over this, and his panic is justified.
Today it feels really great to be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
(That’s denialist scum to you Mr Luke.)
sod, you’re an idiot.
a very good argument cohenite.
why don t you simply point out the error in my claim?
———————–
that is not the merged graph. this one is the real one:
http://img80.yfrog.com/img80/1808/schweingruberandcrud.png
that is the graph, that includes all the data. you might argue, that it is not a good idea, to include all the data.
the very same people, who accuse Briffa of massive fraud, for not including every single data point available on earth in his analysis, are completely silent, when Steve removes the most recent data from those 12 cores.
scepticism at its best!
Question: The hockey stick purports to represent global average temperature. How could a small sample of tree rings have any influence one way or the other? How do historical SSTs get approximated by Mann et al? Just wondering
hm, lost a line there:
that is not the merged graph. this one is the real one:
http://img80.yfrog.com/img80/1808/schweingruberandcrud.png
that is the graph, that includes all the data. you might argue, that it is not a good idea, to include all the data. BUT that does not change the fact, that it is the graph including all the data. the real merged graph.
Hi Luke,
Bet the team don`t publish any more studies in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
Talk about shoot yourself in the foot.
It appears Briffa is not very well or he is in hiding.
Question: The hockey stick purports to represent global average temperature. How could a small sample of tree rings have any influence one way or the other? How do historical SSTs get approximated by Mann et al? Just wondering
Nick did post a link to one of the Briffa papers above.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full
the abstract says:
This paper describes variability in trends of annual tree growth at several locations in the high latitudes of Eurasia, providing a wide regional comparison over a 2000-year period.
the paper is really interesting to read. a lot of detail and just nice to look at the work of real scientists, occasionally.
but to answer your question:
in short, denialists don t care all too much about global and local effects. anything showing not a hockeystick form must be global, to them.
CA also has a post about the effect of a change to Yamal data and the effect on the spaghetti graph of different reconstructions. take a look and don t get confused: the effect is mostly based on assumptions.
Sod wrote:
I just love how you alarmists dismiss any sceptical arguement that even hints at cherry picking, yet in alarmist papers, such cherry picking “doesn’t matter”. To extend that line of thought, it’s also appropriate to point out that the sceptical arguement also has a number of lines of evidence that also create a mosaic, and that “demolishing” any single line of evidence does not significantly reduce the content of this mosaic any more than “demolishing” a single alarmist paper significantly reduces the content of the alarmist mosaic. And while if I had to bet real money on it, I’d probably be more likely to back the alarmist position, it’s far from settled and I would not be surprised to see the consensus position change over the next decades and even centuries as more data becomes available and our understanding of this complex topic increases. A complete reversal is not unheard of in such situations, if history is any guide.
Nick Stokes wrote:
1) if you do not have an a priori reason for selecting these series as proxies from the population of other series of a similar nature (ie, this tree, but not that tree – and that seems to be the case here) then it is reasonable to assume that such proxies are poor indicators of the actual “real” measurement you are proxying.
2) if the number of such “selected” series is low in terms the total amount of series available (and that seems to be the case here), then it is reasonable to assume that the ones you have selected match your “real” data simply by chance.
3) if the “divergence” remains unexplained, or only tentatively rather than quanitatively explained (as seems to be the case here), then you would need to offer an explaination of why such divergence was not possible in the non-instrumental period – something that appears not to have been even attempted in this case.
Taken together, these facts indicate to me that such a reconstruction is very far from “robust” and reliable.
And keeping the part you like, while “chopping off” the part with the divergence problem, rather than showing all the data and explaining why the divergence “doesn’t matter” is highly misleading – some might say fraudulent.
[...] I am 100% behind this call for the scientists behind this bogus data to come forward and explain themselves. Mr McIntyre’s [...]
Ah yes “In denialist land it is OK to hide data, cherry pick, ignore data that does not support you, toss out evidence, and have only people who are your colleagues as reviewers.
Tell us lads – doesn’t that sound so denialist. You lot are so philosophically warped that you can’t even tell anymore. But hey froth and rant on – any diversion allows some serious work to get done.
Look – quick – over there – another 0.00001% rabbit.
put down that mirror Luke – you look stupid in it.
Good overview from Andrew Orlowski at the Register here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/, and referencing Bishop Hill’s modest background filler here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html
Sod, “Question: The hockey stick purports to represent global average temperature. How could a small sample of tree rings have any influence one way or the other? How do historical SSTs get approximated by Mann et al? Just wondering”
Is a very good question which I was thinking about even before I read it. Your answer?
“but to answer your question:
in short, denialists don t care all too much about global and local effects. anything showing not a hockeystick form must be global, to them.”
I’m actually spending far too much time lately reading everything on this site because it is not only very interesting but an excellent resource for someone like me who doesn’t have ready access to the quality of material that you guys do.
Having said that, I’m genuinely disappointed with yours and Luke’s responses to this topic because I do prefer to read both sides of the argument.
Perhaps Nick Stokes could supply an answer to the above question as he seems to be the most willing to provide detailed rational argument.
Thanks, Richard S Courtney September 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The “The second issue is the validity of dendrochronology studies of past climates……” section of your response was very helpful and answered a few nagging questions I had on the subject such as the one above.
Richard S Courtney:
Hantemirov & Shiyatov’s paper was about how increased CO2 boosted larch growth, NOT about increased temperatures. Briffa made the correlation that increased CO2 = increased temps without any evidence to support the claim, and thus claimed the CO2 boosted ring widths were temperature boosted ring widths. Briffa cherry picked 12 out of several dozen cores available in the 90’s, and when a lot more cores came available in 1999 they Briffa quietly ignored the new data because there were no sets worth cherry picking. Read “The Yamal Implosion” for a laymans view of the whole drama. I think this whole opera demonstrates that Briffa needs to go back to doing Jerry Garcia impersonations for a living.
A comment from CoRev on refereeing standards caught my eye. Having had a few intriguing experiences with referees, I have pondered the referee process, and wondered if we can’t do better. Wiki has an interesting article on The Wisdom of Crowds. Francis Galton, in the 1800s, noticed that, in a fairground guessing game, the weight of an ox was best estimated by the mean of the individual guesses. Yet not all crowds are wise. Independence of thought is an essential element. Where there is peer pressure, herd instinct, or even collective hysteria, group judgements can be wildly wrong. Any’ow, ‘ave a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
Sorry, I forgot to give credit to James Surowieki, the author of The Wisdom of Crowds.
Luke,
Please let our hostess call the emergency med techs for you. I think you all have been cooped up so long the anoxia may become life threatening. You are unable to string together complete sentences now. That implies a collective IQ approaching the ~90 range, and declining quickly.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/living_with_brain_injuries/45430
If any of you are twitching more than usual, it may be a seizure. That mans irreversible damage is possible, and you all have little to spare. Hurry! Get help fast!
I hope you all avoid your jobs in a well serviced place, because a large group of brain damaged bureaucrats may overwhelm a small ER.
Let’s hope we can look forward to the guilty parties being charged over this matter before very long.
That this data has provided support for those who would tax, close down industry, and profit from trading in ridiculous ‘offsets’, is sufficient to have its authors well and truly in court.
[...] I’ve have and continue to have a few… Try this entry from a lovely lady. As we all knew the “Hockey Stick” thesis was created by the [...]
Do any of the lawyers here know the grounds for bringing on criminal negligence charges?
El gordo – is that so we can stitch up all the lying denialists ?
SJT, Luke , sod et al.
I’ve been reading this blog for while now and have an open mind on AGW, but you lot do nothing to advance the argument. In fact, the tirades of abuse towards anybody daring to disagree with your position makes me wonder if you really have any argument to put forward. You are like a 5 year old in a supermarket who’s Mum won’t let him have a Mars bar.
Stop chucking the wobblies and engage in discussion or you will succeed in confirming there is no science to support your position.
In a nutshell, Steve McIntyre has discovered that only 12 trees have been used out of a much larger dataset of tree ring data. When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature for the late twentieth century, in fact it goes in the opposite direction.
Pretty damning stuff.
It is stunning that people like Keith Briffa would deliberately distort their chosen scientific field of study, for such short term and false accomplishments. I can’t see how this could be accidental or misguided.
…….. and if the skill base of science is so lowly in standard, then that in itself is grounds for condemnation and contempt….. Good hard working people have been driven from their livelihoods because of the politics that have been built on the foundations of this fraudulent science…. There will be a reckoning.
“When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature for the late twentieth century, in fact it goes in the opposite direction.” NO IT DOESN”T
again how little denialists really understand about what McIntyre is even saying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No right of reply from Briffa? Lynch mob mentality.
Nick Stokes,
disingenous to the end.
“Now you seem to be arguing that there’s some issue with calibration. OK, let’s see it.”
When are you going to provide us with studies that show that tree rings are a useable method for measuring temperatures in the past???? You appear to ignore that trees respond to abundance/limitation in nutrients in the soil also due to competition between trees for sunlight, water availability, CO2, and finally temperature. You apparently are studiously ignoring the recent research that showed plants regulate the temperatures of their leaves meaning that there would be an additional reduced sensitivity to temperature.
Of course, if you are arguing from authority, the authority of a group that has now been shown twice to publish work approaching fraud…
Remember I started by calling you disingenous???
“This is ridiculous. We’re talking about post-1976. We even have satellites.”
So, this Hocky Stick only goes back to 1976??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The shaft is just as much a fraud as the elevated blade. Tell me Nicky Baby, would you accept a study from me that was based on 12 Cores out of a hundred samples?? Oh yeah, I am not one of those in authority (The Team) that you unquestioningly accept!! The FACT that the number of cores used in the shaft having differing growth patterns that average to a reduced amplitude is as big a pile as the blade of the Hocky Stick. Again, you need to look at the graphs of the individual cores and their lack of correlation to understand this deception.
Back to the disingenuousness:
“Again it seems straightforward. The thermometer record is the reference for proxies. If you have proxies that diverge from it, that’s a reason for doubting them. If they actually told a different story, you might want to investigate that before discarding them. But they don’t.”
Of course they don’t. They are a hand picked hand full of cores that there is no way of telling whether they represent ANYTHING prior to the so called calibration period. I would suggest you look at the correlations of these Cores to each other over their entire length, which, just so happens, to only extend back to 1800 OR LESS!!!!!
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7241#more-7241
The 12 cores that calibrate at all only represent from about 1800 to present. The study purports to represent the temperature for over 2000 years!!!! Out of all the possible cores, Briffa only came up with 12 cores that calibrated, all YOUNG trees. With this poor ratio, exactly how do you come up with justification for using the rest that don’t extend into the calibration period AND ARE NOT YOUNG TREES???
Where is the science Nicky Baby?? Are you just becoming the typical apologist that will parrot anything the party tells you???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WHERE ARE THE STUDIES THAT GIVE US ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TREES, SPECIFICALLY THIS TYPE OF TREE, MAKES A USEABLE TEMPERATURE PROXY???