“telling McIntyre to contact the Russians…”

…oops.

SJT, you believed the meme. Briffa did not tell McIntyre to contact the Russians. Briffa told McIntyre that HE (Briffa) would contact them. He never got back to McIntyre.

The fact that Steve had some Russian data doesn’t in any way exonerate Briffa. You probably have a house key in your pocket. If you bought it at Home Depot, you might even have MY house key in your pocket. But how do you know unless I tell you?

I guarantee that on your computer you have the data that’s in my file DATA.TXT . So, please analyze the data and tell the world about it! What? You don’t know what data that is? Why not?

See… it is not enought to be told you have some data. What matters is to know the provenance: to have confirmation that what you have matches what I have.

Steve’s been burned by this before. Briffa has no defense.

There is an email from Briffa, telling McIntyre to contact the Russians, and to follow up if there was any problem. McIntyre seems to have forgotten about that, and started up his public pillory on the internet.

Had the data been archived as per the conditions of publication in Science, or had Science enforced it’s policy when SM asked them to in (IIRC) 2006, then the whole “issue” wouldn’t have arisen. Neither happened. This should never be “blamed” on someone who wants to replicate published research as SM does. And neither does suggesting that SM has better things to spend his time on “cut it” – it’s his time, he can spend it however he likes, and the whole point of such journals as Science is that such data is available so that others can both replicate and expand upon the work already done. It’s never sufficient to suggest that anyone “should have known” which data sets were used – the paper and the SI are supposed to describe everything required to replicate the research. They didn’t. How is this SM’s fault? Clearly it is not. How does pointing out this deficiency make SM the “bad guy”? Clearly, it does not. Why, if the research is as described, is this situation not corrected as soon as possible after it is discovered and the journal and the author of the paper informed? That such mistakes – or deliberate obfuscation, as some may see it – can happen in the first place is concerning. That when they are reported to the journal and NOTHING HAPPENS TO CORRECT IT is well beyond concerning, regardless of the motivations of the person who discovers it. The implication of allowing such things to happen unchecked and to remain uncorrected is that the science may be distorted – that others, all unaware of the situation, have relied on something that is incorrect or incorrectly specified in terms of confidence. This is completely unacceptable and should be deplored by anyone who has respect for the scientific method. Yet the RC crowd circle the wagons and suggest that SM is incompetant, lazy, stupid etc ad nauseum while singularly failing to address the issue itself – which is unconsciencable at best and willfuly deceptive at worst. And you and your ilk, SJT, are cheering them on! You’re defending them and denigrating the people who are asking for clarification of what was done and to what. And calling it science.

It is not “clear” SJT, it is only a possibility that needs to be measurably demonstrated before we all, as intelligent, free citizens, surrender our freedom and accept this mad global control of our future that will be the new Copenhagen Agreement.
We are no warmer now than we were 130 years ago. We are possibly a couple of degrees cooler than we were 1000 years ago. Sea levels are what they were 2000 years ago.
Climate will always change but it is always a very gradual process.
Six billion people are always going to have some additional effect no matter what CO2e they emit.

All settled yet?

You are confusing what was said. Science is never ’settled’, it’s never all “in”. The issue is, how do you speak to the public? Most people can’t understand the in depth technicalities of the issue, including my self, and you. How do you convey to the general public that the scientific evidence, on the balance, is clear that AGW will be a problem, without confusing them by also saying that science is never complete?

Wrong SJT,

it’s called “practice makes perfect” but doctors “practice” all their lives……

With this latest bit of “science”, do you think it’s all “in” now?

All settled yet?

Do ya reckon ol’ “One Tree Keith” can get it sorted now?

Why do you think they keep working on them? It’s called research.

There is an email from Briffa, telling McIntyre to contact the Russians, and to follow up if there was any problem. McIntyre seems to have forgotten about that, and started up his public pillory on the internet.

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues – will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith”

Ha ha ha ha. Is this guy really stupid enough to claim that describing the source of data equals actually providing the data? Only idiots like SJT would bite off on something so stupid.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/drnl-kni100909.php