Nations walk out on Canada

[waldo]

Are you actually saying that McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring - that they've stated/written as such? Are you actually saying that McIntyre's climateaudit blog is not a go-to source for AGW skeptics... how many times have you linked to it within this very thread? Are you actually saying that McIntyre presents an unbiased position... that's it's an absolute freaking coincidence that that he only investigates pro-global warming claims? As I don't frequent his blog, would you mind highlighting areas within it where McIntyre actually states his position on AGW... that should be easy for you given your previous statements - thanks in advance.

Yep. And so do all of the skeptics that I would link to. The fact that you do not know this demonstrates that you know nothing about the topic and all you are doing is regurgitating alarmist propaganda

Noted: your reply fails to provide any linked-to/supporting information validating your claims that both McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring. Nor have you provided any linked-to/supporting information to advise what McIntyre’s AGW position is. Nor have you provided any linked-to/supporting information to suggest, as you stated, that “McIntyre and McKitrick have said repeatedly that they do not believe their analysis denounces AGW”

Essentially… you’ve just said nothing – other than to throw out a typical skeptics accusatory charge of, as you state, “regurgitating alarmist propaganda”.

Dishonest and untrustworthy scientists can still be right. No where did I say I believe that the problems with the hockey stick mean that AGW must be false. All I have said that the problems mean the AGW scientists cannot be trusted and we cannot take their word.

You've not shown a single instance of dishonest scientists... do identified problems in methodology indicate untrustworthy scientists? Do you actually understand... recognize... appreciate... scientific methodology?

Mann and company have repeately misrepresented their work and ignored legimate criticisms. They constantly create strawmen which claim to "rebutt" the claims but do nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, their deceptions are enough to satisfy the AGW alarmists like yourself who do not know enough to understand their deceptions.

Again, you purposely ignore the original caveats and stated uncertainties attached to MBH98/99… you ignore/distort the enhancements to data & methodology within MBH2008. Unless you’re a working scientist in the “thick of it”, I’d suggest your authority to beak-off about the understanding of others is limited to your ability to parse – and understand - blog supplied information… I don’t believe I’ve yet to see you post anything that originates outside of a “skeptics” blog… I believe, to-date, I have not linked to a single blog… I believe I linked once to Mann’s Penn State website for a pdf document reply he archived there. Essentially, your knowledge base lies within the privy of what’s provided via your favourite “skeptic” blogs… and yet, you self proclaim as a studied expert and call down others that don’t agree with you. You hardly speak from a position of subject authority… you simply regurgitate “skeptic” blog provided misinformation/spin.

Since you asked… a few… of those studies that corroborate the original MBH98/99 reconstruction – studies that don’t completely rely on your stated proxy or MBH statistical method concerns. Your reference to 1000 years is a subjective criteria with disputed relevance in the overall debate... although some of the studies mentioned below meet that criteria point.

- Wahl and Amman – a study that factored the centered PC analysis concern raised by Wegman, additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series.

Bogus methods. Reconstructions have no statistical significance.

No. Methods have endured scrutiny and… the reconstructions are… the reconstructions. Perhaps you could qualify your regurgitation – just a tad.

- Rutherford – a study that completely eliminated the PC analysis step and effectively removed all statistically relevant tree-ring information.

Does nothing of the sort. Simply repeats Mann's claims which were previously debunked.

No. One of the results from the Rutherford study validates the MBH98 reconstruction simply by using individual proxies within MBH98 rather than the raised Wegman principal component concern you parroted and previously ranted on. Additionally, since the MBH98 principal component analysis step was used to encapsulate all of the statistically relevant tree ring information, eliminating it, per this Rutherford study, removes those patterns and their influence on the final reconstruction. From the Rutherford study:

The close reproducibility of the MBH98 reconstruction based on both (1) the use of an independent CFR method and (2) the use of the individual proxies used by MBH98 rather than the Multiproxy/PC representation used by MBH98, discredits the arguments put forth by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in support of their putative “correction” to the MBH98 reconstruction.

- Oerlemans – a study that reconstructed global temperatures from glaciers… entirely independent from paleoclimate proxy data used by MBH

Only goes back to 1600.

Oerlemans’ reconstruction of global temperatures relies solely on 169 separate glacier proxy data sets… and essentially replicates the MBH results. Care to provide your own interpretation to account for the Oerlemans’ reconstruction?

- Osborn and Briffa – a study that relies on proxy data related to tree-ring chronology, fossil shells and ice-core records and utilizes a very straightforward analysis that avoids the technical aspects of statistical calibration/methodology.

Reuses all of the garbage proxies used in Mann.

No. The Osborn and Briffa study is exactly as I state… however, your statement that the MBH98/99 proxies are “garbage” deserves an additional correction. When you originally challenged MBH98/99 via your Wegman diversion, I provided you a direct MBH rebuttal to the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick; as follows:

Yes... if you're going to reference dated, recirculated and already dispatched aspects of the AGW debate... it is getting ridiculous. As learned as you claim to be - perhaps - you might attempt to be reasonably topical.

Way back... when it actually came out... Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded directly to the McIntyre and McKitrick "audit"

A more lengthy/detailed response was also submitted to the journal Nature

Your “garbage proxies” reference needs to be changed to one that highlights the selective McIntyre and McKitrick censoring of MBH data by completely eliminating it or substituting other data for it… or to one that highlights the technical problems in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology in attempting to recreate the MBH reconstruction.

- Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang and Po-Yu Shen – a study that generated a global temperature reconstruction based on underground temperature measurements from over 350 bore holes in Australia, North America, Central Europe and Southern Africa.

Boleholes are dubious proxies.

No. Accepting that annual or decade resolution isn’t available via the geophysical methods used to generate bore hole temperature reconstructions, relying on the available century-scale trend in temperatures over the last several centuries, this study recreates a reconstruction as seen within MBH.

- Kaufman – a study that relied upon proxy data related to sediments from Arctic lakes, previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings calibrated against instrumental temperature records.

Used key proxies 'upside down'. Cherry picked proxies that provide desired response.

Again, it's you and the upside down Tijander proxy… one of 23 proxies used… had been truncated to AD1800 to negate affect; however, more significantly, re-worked with the appropriate orientation with full results supplied. You’ll need to corroborate your statement about cherry picking proxies… waiting.

MBH2008 – a study with significantly expanded proxy data sets (minus any reliance on tree rings) and an updated methodology

A completely bogus study that depends entirely on 2 proxies - one of which is bristlecones and the other was used upside down.

Wow – you actually can summarize… usually you just drop a link to your go-to deniers blog... like this following gem… that I previously responded to by providing you the actual PNAS published response from MBH. In any case, it shows you know little of MBH2008 since positive results are exhibited whether tree-ring data is utilized or not (as MBH state, “

Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats

”). Additionally, the Tiljander sediment proxies can be omitted to obtain the same results – notwithstanding MBH have rebuked the claim they were used “upside down”… also, you error as MBH 2008 also includes data from coral reef skeletons, cores from glaciers and ice sheets, other sea floor sediments and stalagmites and stalagtites.

Here is a link that describes why Mann 2008 is complete junk too:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

And Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded to the original …

responded to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

.

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

McIntyre and McKitrick raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available at www.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction.

In summary, their criticisms have no merit

.

From recall, you’ve used religious, criminal, zealot, incompetent, dishonest, and untrustworthy phrasings to characterize the “client science community”. Clearly you have personalized this beyond a straightforward layman’s attachment to interpreting the science. You clearly don’t draw from strength to question the confidence and objectivity of the “client science community”. You most clearly don’t interpret the Wegman Report in an appropriate perspective… you attach a disproportionate significance to the report, while purposely ignoring that others have genuinely considered it and taken it to heart with additional/revised studies. You’ll need to better articulate how that report speaks to, as you state, a lack of “confidence in their ability to assess science objectively”… otherwise, it’s just you adding to your long and growing list of personalized phrasings.

All well deserved labels for a group of people who remain silent or defend the junk science of Mann and his associates.

Even if one were to accept the claims you regurgitate about Mann/MBH… even if… you suggest a conspiracy of enablement – a conspiracy of complicity by thousands of dedicated climate scientists… individuals committed in their work to engage in legitimate science. You label the entire “client science community”… while at the same time… offering a disingenuous suggestion that, as you state, “AGW may or may not be true”. Really?

Here is a account of some of unprofesssional behavoir that climate scientists, the IPCC and jounral editors engaged in order to "defend the faith": http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

And… it’s still you and the “hockey stick”… by the way, how is the ill-informed opinion of some denialist blogger relevant – who is he, what qualifications does he have, what science does he do? But again, we’re pointed to something that originates via McIntyre’s climateaudit blog. In the same derisive manner I’ve just dispatched your blog link, I’ll give you the same opportunity with a humorous little ditty titled, “The Anatomy of a ClimateAudit Post”… make sure to check through the comments – quite humourous, indeed!

I was not as harsh with my criticisms until Mann 2008 came out. When it did I gave Mann the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he had learned something. I was frankly appalled at the level incompentence and/or dishonestly on display in that paper. It was at that point that I realized that if the climate science community is not willing to put an end to Mann and his nonsense then it does not deserve our trust.

One example of the incompentence in Mann 2008 is a test used to determine if the results could have occurred by chance. He did this by comparing the number of "hits" to the number of "hits" expected by chance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times you would expect 50 heads - any more or less and your coin is not random. But Mann loaded the coin. He did not simply flip a coin. He flipped it again if it came up tails and counted it as a head if a head came up the second time. This change means that in a 100 counted tosses (up to 200 actual tosses), heads should come up 75 times. Mann ignored this and pretended that only 50 heads were required to prove his algorithm was working.

If you’re really trying to offer up something Mann2008 methodology based… do you have legitimate… accepted… criticisms of RegEM/EIV… that can stand on their own? Rather than deal in your trivial simplistic coin toss parroting, perhaps you could point directly to… oh, say your stated incompetence directly within Mann2008 or even as applied within a recently published related paper where RegEM/EIV is discussed at length

[Riverwind]

That "club" though includes thousands of qualified scientists from all around the world.

Prove it. Please provide evidence of this group of "thousands of qualified scientists" that actually know as much about the topic as SteveMc and RossMc. You will need to provide evidence that they have actually investigated the issues enought to have an informed opinion. I know you won't be able to do it because these "thousands of qualified scientists" simply DO NOT EXIST. The majority of scientists have never even looked at the issue and only blindly accept the conclusions of others which means they are no more informed than you.

Is there a global conspiracy to trump good quality research, with not one of fellow scientists who could see it, speaking up?

There are scientists who so speak up by find themselves immediately smeared a "industry shills" by the self appointed "defenders of the consensus". The environment is so toxic that scientists like Judith Curry a Georgia Tech personally attacked for doing nothing more than inviting SteveMc to give a presentation at the university. The only thing more pathetic that the behavoir of climate scientists are the people who stick their heads in the sand and insist, despite the evidence to the contrary, that climate scientists are all honest professionals who only care about good science. Edited October 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

If you’re really trying to offer up something Mann2008 methodology based… do you have legitimate… accepted… criticisms of RegEM/EIV… that can stand on their own?

I have already referenced SteveMc detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008. All you did was cut and paste Mann's completely inadequate reply to SteveMc's criticisms as if it was the final word on the topic. By doing so you provide further evidence of how broken the peer review process is.

For example, Mann made this claim in his reply:

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

To which SteveMc replied (on his blog because peer review process does not allow him to submit a follow up in the journal):

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411#more-7411

These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can "get" a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be "avoided" in temperature reconstructions - and that was before Ababneh's bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be "bizarre", but it is true.

So please tell me how the "peer review" process is supposed to resolve the continued disagreement between SteveMc and Mann on Mann 2008? SteveMc followed the process and submitted a comment which passed peer review. Mann dismissed the criticisms with some hand waving. The last time this happened politicians got involved and convened the Wegman and NAS panels which ended up agreeing completely with SteveMc. Based on that record a reasonable person who knows nothing about the topic would assume that SteveMc is right this time too. Edited October 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Global warming=bad house keeping. As those ambitious and highly successful people gain more power - They create a mess..Much like a raging bull that shits as it walks. You would think that the successful human beings would take reponsiblity for wipping their own asses, instead of sticking us with their mess - We did not cause all the pollution - someone created useless product and systems that did - We do not profit - let those that profit clean up the mess.

[waldo]

I have already referenced SteveMc detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008. All you did was cut and paste Mann's completely inadequate reply to SteveMc's criticisms as if it was the final word on the topic. By doing so you provide further evidence of how broken the peer review process is.

So please tell me how the "peer review" process is supposed to resolve the continued disagreement between SteveMc and Mann on Mann 2008? SteveMc followed the process and submitted a comment which passed peer review. Mann dismissed the criticisms with some hand waving. The last time this happened politicians got involved and convened the Wegman and NAS panels which ended up agreeing completely with SteveMc. Based on that record a reasonable person who knows nothing about the topic would assume that SteveMc is right this time too.

Just what are you/he whining about? McIntyre was accepted to be a reviewer of IPCC AP4... and yet... he does no actual science... does no actual research... writes no actual papers... submits nothing for actual publication. It's a joke to consider McIntyre is an actual "peer" to real scientists doing actual climate science... and, by and large, real climate scientists have no time for him given their focus and time availability. Notwithstanding, McIntyre's abrasive and combative style.

Obviously, you ignored everything preceding within this thread concerning Wegman/NAS Reports. In spite of everything posted to show otherwise you still maintain the Wegman and NAS reports vindicated McIntyre and denounced Mann. I won't bother posting the same previous retorts/links as you'll simply ignore them (again).

You position McIntyre as some definitive absolute authority... this, your latest post, is indicative of your reverence to the "almighty auditor". In actuality, McIntyre has been shown to be wrong on many occasions... in situations where his bulldozing has wrecked havoc with the work/reputations of several imminent scientists. His minions seize upon his latest crusade and flood the deniersphere with his accusations... yet, his backpedaling corrections never undue the damage done. You can parrot the, as you state, "detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008 by McIntyre"; I'm quite comfortable accepting the work of Mann given insights into McIntyre's modus operandi and the corroborating support that Mann gets for his work. I could drop several links to showcase the bumbling incorrect McIntyre; however, I particularly like the following one since it parallels your oft repeated parroting of the phrase, "cherry picking"... additionally, it highlights both McIntyre and his sidekick McKitrick. Happy reading - with a few selected quotes added for interest

Let the backpedalling begin

The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently libelous accusations of scientific malfeasance). In previous posts, we discussed climate blogger Steve McIntyre’s scurrilous accusations of “cherrypicking” against UK dendrochronolgist Keith Briffa, and summarized a quick technical critique of McIntyre’s work by a dendrchronologist known as Delayed Oscillator.

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre’s accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa’s Yamal temperature reconstruction.

Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter of the National Post has decided to scramble to the front of the contrarian procession with yet another idiotic diatribe, entitled “The Myth of the Hockey Stick”. Among many passages requiring retraction would appear to be Gunter’s libelous conclusion

Let's set the record straight once and for all. Steve McIntyre has exactly one peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature (the GRL article co-authored with Ross McKitrick). One. Uno. That's it. He also has two comments in GRL related to that article. And finally there was the short commentary letter to PNAS which of course was not peer-reviewed.

Comments or corrections of others' work of course can be submitted to the original publication and certainly do not take years to appear. And these can be published at the authors' website in advance in any case. Case in point: the devastating critique of McLean et al's JGR article submitted within a month of publication by Foster et al.

As I mentioned, McIntyre has submitted only one of those letters or comments, as far as I know (the letter concerning Mann et al 2008 in PNAS

The truth is, after vanity publication in the industry front “Energy and Environment” McIntyre and McKitrick went journal-shopping. Nature turned them down flatly for being INACCURATE, and they LIED blatantly and claimed that it was because somehow there was a “lack of space.”

Finally they got their, already proven inaccurate, attack on Mann et. al in to Geophysical Research Letters, which has much looser standards – more, smaller, papers published, and that includes “frontier” research – another word for speculative or fringe papers.

[Riverwind]

It's a joke to consider McIntyre is an actual "peer" to real scientists doing actual climate science.

Yes it is a joke because unlike Mann and company he actually understands the statistics being used in Mann's papers. The fact is climate science community would likely still be pushing MBH98 today as if it was absolute truth if it was not for SteveMc work.

You position McIntyre as some definitive absolute authority... this, your latest post, is indicative of your reverence to the "almighty auditor". In actuality, McIntyre has been shown to be wrong on many occasions...

People make mistakes. I judge people based on how the deal with them. MBH98 could have been a long forgotten mistake but the hopelessly biased and unprofessionals climate science community have twisted themselves into knots trying to pretend that it has merit. As always it is the cover up that creates the scandal - not the action itself.

You see I don't need to rely solely on McIntyre's word since I have studied and used some of the statistics involved. There is no doubt in my mind that his criticisms of Mann 2008 are valid and that then people who refuse to acknowledge these problems in Mann 2008 are either incompentent or deceitful. Take your pick.

As for SteveMc - it downright civil compared to the yahoos at RealClimate. The latest dust up of the Briffa is another example of the generally dishonest nature of RC. As for the accusation of fraud. SteveMC never made any but Briffa made his own bed by refusing to release the data when it was first requested. If he had nothing to hide then he should have released it.

[jbg]

Use proper English and intelligent sentences and maybe then we can talk about logic okay?

I thought the languages up there were Canadian and French.

[jbg]

Global warming may indeed be happening, but only an idiot/liar would tell us that it's been proven. Take your pick.

In the case of he/she/it, both.

[jbg]

I think that I'll go with the opinion of leading experts in the subject field, who, in my understanding, indeed consider the matter proven. BTW and FYI, "proven" in science always means "to the best of our knowledge today", rather than an eternal, fixed in stone postulate.

What if the "leading experts" have an interest in receiving government funding and people who don't find a problem to solve don't get the funding.

[wyly]

Government departments compete for funding even if individual employees have a fixed salary. Same is true for independent agencies that rely on sub-contracts from the government.

which throws out all the bogus claims of greedy researchers chasing the CC dollar...

[waldo]

Just what are you/he whining about? McIntyre was accepted to be a reviewer of IPCC AP4... and yet... he does no actual science... does no actual research... writes no actual papers... submits nothing for actual publication. It's a joke to consider McIntyre is an actual "peer" to real scientists doing actual climate science... and, by and large, real climate scientists have no time for him given their focus and time availability. Notwithstanding, McIntyre's abrasive and combative style.

Yes it is a joke because unlike Mann and company he actually understands the statistics being used in Mann's papers. The fact is climate science community would likely still be pushing MBH98 today as if it was absolute truth if it was not for SteveMc work.

Although you continue to ignore anything thrown back at you... a previous quote, as follows. I've also given you examples of several independent studies that have validated the MBH98/99 reconstruction... studies that are diverse in terms of proxies and methodology. You chose to throw back regurgitated one-liners challenging the study examples... I followed up with a reply challenge on each... and it's "crickets" from you.

Again, you purposely ignore the caveats and stated uncertainties that MBH attached to their work. You ignore the revision update that MBH brought forward, factoring in your oft repeated PCA statistical concern (re. Wegman)... a revision update result that only acted to further corroborate their initial reconstruction. You continue to ignore that IPCC acknowledged the raised concerns of MBH and accepted MBH based on subsequent independent studies that, factoring the raised concerns of MBH, essentially reproduced the same reconstruction results as MBH. And you continue to highlight the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99, one of the first in the study field, that in the greater overview is essentially irrelevant to any consensus on AGW.

You position McIntyre as some definitive absolute authority... this, your latest post, is indicative of your reverence to the "almighty auditor". In actuality, McIntyre has been shown to be wrong on many occasions... in situations where his bulldozing has wrecked havoc with the work/reputations of several imminent scientists. His minions seize upon his latest crusade and flood the deniersphere with his accusations... yet, his backpedaling corrections never undue the damage done. You can parrot the, as you state, "detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008 by McIntyre"; I'm quite comfortable accepting the work of Mann given insights into McIntyre's modus operandi and the corroborating support that Mann gets for his work. I could drop several links to showcase the bumbling incorrect McIntyre; however, I particularly like the following one since it parallels your oft repeated parroting of the phrase, "cherry picking"... additionally, it highlights both McIntyre and his sidekick McKitrick. Happy reading - with a few selected quotes added for interest

Let the backpedalling begin

The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently libelous accusations of scientific malfeasance). In previous posts,

we discussed climate blogger Steve McIntyre’s scurrilous accusations of “cherrypicking” against UK dendrochronolgist Keith Briffa

, and summarized

a quick technical critique of McIntyre’s work

by a dendrchronologist known as Delayed Oscillator.

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre’s accusations were completely false

. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa’s Yamal temperature reconstruction.

People make mistakes. I judge people based on how the deal with them. MBH98 could have been a long forgotten mistake but the hopelessly biased and unprofessionals climate science community have twisted themselves into knots trying to pretend that it has merit. As always it is the cover up that creates the scandal - not the action itself.

You see I don't need to rely solely on McIntyre's word since I have studied and used some of the statistics involved. There is no doubt in my mind that his criticisms of Mann 2008 are valid and that then people who refuse to acknowledge these problems in Mann 2008 are either incompentent or deceitful. Take your pick.

As for SteveMc - it downright civil compared to the yahoos at RealClimate. The latest dust up of the Briffa is another example of the generally dishonest nature of RC. As for the accusation of fraud. SteveMC never made any but Briffa made his own bed by refusing to release the data when it was first requested. If he had nothing to hide then he should have released it

bullshit - McIntyre's method's have been shown for what they are... you want to talk about incompetent or deceitful... your highlighting the so-called Briffa data release issue is indicative. McIntyre most certainly implied fraud if not outright stating it. You have to be naive to ignore the results of anything emanating from McIntyre or his blog... whether right or wrong, most anything he writes gets picked up and expanded on a thousand fold within the blogging deniersphere - with subsequent reach into the mainstream. I've given you a quoted example of exactly that occurrence with the Lorne Gunter/National Post article that followed up on McIntyre's incompetence (re: this Briffa example). Let's see if Gunter eventually issues a retraction - want to take bets on ever seeing that Gunter/National Post retraction? Here, chew on this concerning the so-called Briffa data release issue... make that... the McIntyre fabricated Briffa data release issue, which you've just parroted:

McIntyre had the data all along

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.

[jbg]

which throws out all the bogus claims of greedy researchers chasing the CC dollar...

In the U.S. most universities are privately endowed and chase their dollars independently. Canadian research facilities are not the only places hyping a global warming panic.

[Riverwind]

McIntyre most certainly implied fraud if not outright stating it.

He did no such thing. He stated quite clearly that he felt that Briffa probably inherited the choice of cores from the Russians and that there was likely a procedure applied to choose the cores and it was not deliberate cherry picking. I read and understand that before RC posted anything on the topic so you can't claim it was an after the fact clarification. The only people who insist that McIntyre accused anyone of fraud are the prima donnas at RealClimate who are desperate to create distractions.

His point was always that the small number of of core means that Briffa's reconstructions have no statistical merit even if they were not cherry picked. The examples he provided illustrated how sensitive the reconstructions are to the choice of core. This criticism has merit no matter how much Briffa and RC whine.

McIntyre fabricated Briffa data release issue

He fabricated nothing. Briffa had a professional obligation to release all of the data required to replicate a study. SteveMc has no obligation to go chasing the Russians - that is Briffa's problem. If Briffa had no rights to the the data then he had a professional obligation to withdraw his papers. The fact that so called "reputable" journals like Science and Nature refused to enforce their own data disclosure policies is further evidence of how corrupted climate science has become. Edited October 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

Prove it. Please provide evidence of this group of "thousands of qualified scientists" ...

Climate Change

References: there's approximately fifty authors in these referenced publications, not including a number of collective works. From reading these one can follow to other references (follows the list of references from just one publication).

Enjoy your science!

m.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria", by P.G. Langdon1 , K.E. Barber2 and S.H. Lomas-Clarke

References

1. Aaby B. 1976. Cyclic climatic variations in climate over the past 5500 years reflected in raised bogs. Nature 263: 281–284.

Andersen S.Th. 1965. Mounting media and mounting techniques. In: Kummel B. and Raup D. (eds), Handbook of Paleontological Techniques, Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp. 587–598.

Andersen S.Th. 1979. Identification of wild grasses and cereal pollen. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse Årbog 1978: 69–92.

Andrew R. 1984. A practical pollen guide to the British Flora. Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide No. 1, QRA, Cambridge, 139 pp.

Baillie M.G.L. 1991. Suck in and smear: two related chronological problems for the 90s. J. Theor. Arch. 2: 12–16.

Bailey J. and Culley G. 1805. General View of the Agriculture of Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland Frank Graham, Newcastle upon Tyne (1972 facsimile of 3rd edn) 1805), 361 pp.

Barber K.E. 1976. History of the vegetation. In: Chapman S.B. (ed.), Methods in Plant Ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 5–83.

Barber K.E. 1981. Peat Stratigraphy and Climatic Change. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 219 pp.

Barber K.E., Chambers F.M., Maddy D., Stoneman R.E. and Brew J.S. 1994. A sensitive high-resolution record of Late Holocene climatic change from a raised bog in Northern England. The Holocene 4: 198–205.

10. Barber K.E., Dumayne-Peaty L., Hughes P.D.M., Mauquoy D. and Scaife R.G. 1998. Replicability and variability of the recent macrofossil and proxy-climate record from raised bogs: field stratigraphy and macrofossil data from Bolton Fell Moss and Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. J. Quat. Sci. 13: 515–528.

Barrow E., Hulme M. and Jiang T. 1993. A 1961-90 Baseline and Future Climate Change Scenarios for Great Britain and Europe. Part I: 1961-90 Great Britain Baseline Climatology. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, England, 50 pp.

Battarbee R.W. 2000. Palaeolimnological approaches to climate change, with special regard to the biological record. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19: 107–124.

Battarbee R.W., Cameron N.G., Golding P., Brooks S.J., Switsur R., Harkness D., Appelby P., Oldfield F., Thompson R., Monteith D.T. and McGovern A. 2001. Evidence for Holocene climate variability from the sediments of a Scottish remote mountain lake. J. Quat. Sci. 16: 339–346.

Battarbee R.W., Grytnes J.-A., Thompson R., Appleby P.G., Catalan J., Korhola A., Birks H.J.B., Heegaard E. and Lami A. 2002. Comparing palaeolimnological and instrumental evidence of climate change for remote mountain lakes over the last 200 years. J. Paleolim. 28: 161–179.

Bennett K.D., Whittington G. and Edwards K.J. 1994. Recent plant nomenclatural changes and pollen morphology in the British Isles. Quat. Newslett. 73: 1–6.

Bigler C., Larocque I., Peglar S.M., Birks H.J.B. and Hall R.I. 2002. Quantitative multiproxy assessment of long-term patterns of Holocene environmental change from a small lake near Abisko, northern Sweden. The Holocene 12: 481–496.

Birks H.J.B. 1995. Quantitative palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. In: Maddy D. and Brew J.S. (eds), Statistical Modelling of Quaternary Science Data, QRA Technical Guide, vol. 5, pp. 161–254.

Birks H.J.B. 1998. Numerical tools in palaeolimnology — progress, potentialities, and problems. J. Paleolim. 20: 307–332.

Birks H.J.B. and Gordon A.D. 1985. Numerical Methods in Quaternary Pollen Analysis. Academic Press Inc., London, 317 pp.

20. Birks H.H., Battarbee R.W. and Birks H.J.B. 2000. The development of the aquatic ecosystem at Kråkenes Lake, western Norway, during the late glacial and early Holocene — a synthesis. J. Palcolim. 23: 91–114.

Bond G., Showers W., Cheseby M., Lotti R., Almasi P., deMenocal P., Priore P., Cullen H., Hajdas I. and Bonani G. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257–1266.

Brodersen K.P. and Lindegaard C. 1999. Classification, assessment and trophic reconstruction of Danish lakes using chironomids. Freshw. Biol. 42: 143–157.

Brodin Y.-W. 1986. The postglacial history of Lake Flarken, southern Sweden, interpreted from subfossil insect remains. Int. Rev. Ges. Hydrobiol. 71: 371–432.

Brodin Y.-W. and Gransberg M. 1993. Responses of insects, especially Chironomidae (Diptera), and mites to 130 years of acidification in a Scottish lake. Hydrobiology 250: 201–212.

Brooks S.J. 2000. Late-glacial fossil midge stratigraphies (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) from the Swiss Alps. Palacogeo. Palaeoclim. Palaeoecol. 159: 261–279.

Brooks S.J. 2003. Chironomid analysis to interpret and quantify Holocene climate change. In: Mackay A.W., Battarbee R.W., Birks H.J.B. and Oldfield F. (eds), Global Change in the Holocene, Arnold, London, pp. 328–341.

Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2000. Chironomid-inferred late-glacial and early-Holocene mean July air temperatures for Kråkenes Lake, western Norway. J. Paleolim. 23: 77–89.

Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2001a. Chironomid-inferred Lateglacial air temperatures at Whitrig Bog, southeast Scotland. J. Quat. Sci. 15: 759–764.

Brooks S.J. and Birks H.J.B. 2001b. Chironomid-inferred air temperatures from late-glacial and Holocene sites in northwest Europe: progress and problems. Quat. Sci. Rev. 20: 1723–1741.

30. Brooks S.J., Bennion H. and Birks H.J.B. 2001. Tracing lake trophic history with a chironomid-total phosphorus inference model. Freshw. Biol. 46: 513–533.

Carter C.E. 1977. The recent history of the chironomid fauna of Lough Neagh from the analysis of remains in sediment cores. Freshw. Biol. 7: 415–423.

Chambers C. 1978. A radiocarbon-dated pollen diagram from Valley Bog, on the Moor House National Nature Reserve. New Phytologist 80: 435–453.

Cranston P.S. 1982. A key to the larvae of the British Orthocladiinae (Chironomidae). Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 152 pp.

Dark K.R. and Dark S.P. 1996. New archaeological and palynological evidence for a sub-Roman reoccupation of Hadrian’s Wall. Archaelogica Aeliana 5 Series 24: 57–72.

Dark K. and Dark P. 1997. The Landscape of Roman Britain. Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud, 192 pp.

Dark P. 2000. The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD. Ducksworth, London, 240 pp.

Davies G. and Turner J. 1979. Pollen diagrams from Northumberland. New Phytologist 82: 783–804.

Dickson C. 1988. Distinguishing cereal from wild grass pollen: some limitations. Circaea 5: 67–71.

40. Donaldson A.M. and Turner J. 1977. A pollen diagram from Hallowell Moss, near Durham City, UK. J. Biogeogr. 4: 25–33.

Dumayne L. and Barber K.E. 1994. The impact of the Romans on the environment of northern England: pollen data from three sites close to Hadrian’s Wall. The Holocene 4: 165–173.

Dumayne-Peaty L. and Barber K.E. 1998. Late Holocene vegetational history, human impact and pollen representativity variations in northern Cumbria, England. J. Quat. Sci. 13: 147–164.

Edwards K.J. 1989. The cereal pollen record and early agriculture. In: Milles A., Williams D. and Gardner N. (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture, BAR International Series, vol. 496, pp. 113–135.

Edwards K.J. and Whittington G. 2001. Lake sediments, erosion and landscape change during the Holocene in Britain and Ireland. Catena 42: 143–173.

Faegri K. and Iversen J. 1989. Textbook of Pollen Analysis, 4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, 328 pp.

Fowler P.J. 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 256 pp.

Francis D.R. and Foster D.R. 2001. Response of small New England ponds to historic land use. The Holocene 11: 301–312.

Grimm E.C. 1991. TILIA and TILIA.GRAPH. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Hann B.J., Warner B.G. and Warwick W.F. 1992. Aquatic invertebrates and climate change: a comment on Walker et al. 1991. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 49: 1274–1276.

50. Heinrichs M.L., Walker I.R. and Mathewes R.W. 2001. Chironomid-based paleosalinity records in southern British Columbia, Canada: a comparison of transfer functions. J. Paleolim. 26: 147–159.

Heiri O. and Lotter A.F. 2001. Effects of low count sums on quantitative environmental reconstructions: an example using subfossil chironomids. J. Paleolim. 26: 343–350.

Heiri O., Lotter A.F. and Lemcke G. 2001. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. J. Paleolim. 25: 101–110.

Heiri O., Lotter A.F., Hausmann S. and Kienast F. 2003. A chironomid-based Holocene summer air temperature reconstruction from the Swiss Alps. The Holocene 13: 477–484.

Higham N.J. 1986. The Northern Counties to 1000 AD. Longman, London.

Hofmann W. 1971. Zur Taxonomie und Palökologie subfossiler Chironomiden (Dipt.) in Seesedimenten. Ergebnisse der Limnologie, Archiv für Hydrobiologie Beiheft (International Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, Stuttgart) 6: 1–50.

Hofmann W. 1984. Stratigraphie suubfossiler cladocera (Crustacea) und Chironomidae (Diptera) in zwei sediment-profilen des Meerfelder Maares. Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 65: 67–80.

Hughes E. 1965. North Country Life in the Eighteenth Century: Cumberland and Westmoreland 1700–1830, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 426 pp.

Hughes P.D.M., Mauquoy D., Barber K.E. and Langdon P.G. 2000. Mire development pathways and palaeoclimatic records from a full Holocene peat archive at Walton Moss, Cumbria, England. The Holocene 10: 465–479.

Jackson S.T. 1990. Pollen source area and representation in small lakes of the northeastern United States. Rev. Palaeobot, Palynol. 63: 53–76.

60. Jacobsen G.L.Jr. and Bradshaw R.H.W. 1981. The selection of sites for palaeovegetational studies. Quat. Res. 16: 80–89.

Jones R.T., Marshall J.D., Crowley S.F., Bedford A., Richardson N., Bloemendal J. and Oldfield F. 2002. A high resolution, multiproxy late-glacial record of climate change and intrasystem responses in northwest England. J. Quat. Sci. 17: 329–340.

Korhola A., Vasko K., Toivonen H.T.T. and Olander H. 2002. Holocene temperature changes in northern Fennoscandia reconstructed from chironomids using Bayesian modelling. Quat. Sci. Rev. 21: 1841–1860.

Langdon P.G., Barber K.E. and Hughes P.D.M. 2003. A 7500 year peat-based palaeoclimatic reconstruction and evidence for an 1100 year cyclicity in bog surface wetness from Temple Hill Moss, Pentland Hills, Southeast Scotland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 22: 259–274.

Larocque I., Hall R.I. and Grahn E. 2001. Chironomids as indicators of climate change: a 100-lake training set from a subarctic region of northern Sweden (Lapland). J. Paleolim. 26: 307–322.

Larocque I. and Hall R.I. 2003. Chironomids as quantitative indicators of mean July air temperature: validation by comparison with century-long meteorological records from northern Sweden. J. Paleolim. 29: 475–493.

Lindegaard C. 1997. Diptera Chironomidae, non-biting midges. In: Nilsson A.M. (ed.), Aquatic Insects of North Europe — a Taxonomic Handbook, vol. 2, Apollo Books, Stenstrup, pp. 265–294.

Lotter A.F., Birks H.J.B., Hofmann W. and Marchetto A. 1997. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental change in the Alps. 1. Climate. J. Paleolim. 18: 395–420.

Lotter A.F., Walker I.R., Brooks S.J. and Hofmann W. 1999. title-child〉An intercontinental comparison of chironomid palaeotemperature inference models: Europe vs North America. Quat. Sci. Rev. 18: 717–735.

Mauquoy D. and Barber K.E. 1999. A replicated 3000 year proxy-climate record from Coom Rigg Moss and Felecia Moss, the Border Mires, northern England. J. Quat. Sci. 14: 263–275.

70. Mauquoy D., van Geel B., Blaauw M. and van der Plicht J. 2002. Evidence from North-West European bogs shows ‘Little Ice Age’ climatic changes driven by changes in solar activity. The Holocene 12: 1–6.

Moore P.D. and Webb J.A. 1978. An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 133 pp.

Moore P.D., Webb J.A. and Collinson M.E. 1991. Pollen Analysis, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 216 pp.

Morriss S.H. 2001. Recent human impact and land use change in Britain and Ireland: a pollen analytical and geochemical study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK, 320 pp.

Olander H., Birks H.J.B., Korhola A. and Blom T. 1999. An expanded calibration model for inferring lakewater and air temperatures from fossil chironomid assemblages in northern Fennoscandia. The Holocene 9: 279–294.

Oliver D.R. and Roussel M.E. 1983. The insects and arachnids of Canada, Part 11: the genera of larval midges of Canada. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, 263 pp.

Palmer S.L., Walker I.R., Heinrichs M.L., Hebda R. and Scudder G. 2002. Postglacial midge community change and Holocene palaeotemperature reconstructions near treeline, southern British Columbia (Canada). J. Paleolim. 28: 469–490.

Pellat M.G., Smith M.J., Mathewes R.W., Walker I.R. and Palmer S.L. 2000. Holocene treeline and climate change in the Subalpine Zone near Stoyoma Mountain, Cascade Mountains, south-western British Columbia, Canada. Arc. Antarc. Alp. Res. 32: 73–83.

Pinder L.C.V. and Morley D.J. 1995. Chironomidae as indicators of water quality — with a comparison of the chironomid faunas of a series of contrasting Cumbrian tarns. In: Harrington R. and Stork N.E. (eds), Insects in a Changing Environment, Academic Press, London, pp. 271–293.

Porinchu D.F. and Cwynar L. 2002. Late-Quaternary history of midge communities and climate from a tundra site near the lower Lena River, Northeast Siberia. J. Paleolim. 27: 59–69.

80. Praglowski J. 1970. The effects of pre-treatment and the embedding media on the shape of pollen grains. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 110: 203–208.

Quinlan R., Smol J.P. and Hall R.I. 1998. Quantitative inferences of past hypolimnetic anoxia in south-central Ontario lakes using fossil midges (Diptera: Chironomidae). Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 55: 587–596.

Quinlan R. and Smol J.P. 2001. Setting minimum head capsule abundance and taxa deletion criteria in chironomid-based inference models. J. Paleolim. 26: 327–342.

Quinlan R. and Smol J.P. 2002. Chironomid-based inference models for estimating end-of summer hypolimnetic oxygen from south-central Ontario lakes. Freshw. Biol. 46: 1529–1551.

Rieradevall M. and Brooks S.J. 2001. An identification guide to subfossil Tanypodinae larvae (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) based on cephalic setation. J. Paleolim. 25: 81–99.

Roberts B.K., Turner J. and Ward P.F. 1973. Recent forest history and land-use in Weardale, northern England. In: Birks H.J.B. and West R.G. (eds), Quaternary Plant Ecology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp. 207–221.

Rosén P., Segerström U., Eriksson L., Renberg I. and Birks H.J.B. 2001. Climate change during the Holocene as recorded by diatoms, chironomids, pollen and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in a sediment core from an alpine lake (Sjuodijaure) in northern Sweden. The Holocene 11: 551–562.

Sadler J.P. and Jones J.C. 1997. Chironomids as indicators of Holocene environmental change in the British Isles. Quat. Proc. 5: 219–232.

Seppä H., Nyman M., Korhola A. and Weckström J. 2002. Changes of treelines and alpine vegetation in relation to post-glacial climate dynamics in northern Fennoscandia based on pollen and chironomid records. J. Quat. Sci. 17: 287–301.

Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), 2001a. Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 3 — Terrestrial, Algal, and Siliceous Indicators. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 371 pp.

90. Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), 2001b. Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 4 — Zoological Indicators. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 217 pp.

Stace J. 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1130 pp.

Stuiver M., Reimer P.J., Bard E., Beck J.W., Burr G.S., Hughen K.A., Kromer B., McCormac F.G., van der Plicht J. and Spurk M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40: 1041–1083.

ter Braak C.J.F. 1991. Program CANOCO Version 3.12. Agricultural Mathematics Group: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 35 pp.

Tinner W., Conedera M., Ammann B., Gäggeler H.W., Gedye S., Jones R. and Sägesser B. 1998. Pollen and charcoal in lake sediments compared with historically documented forest fires is southern Switzerland since AD 1920. The Holocene 8: 31–42.

Turner J. 1979. The environment of northeast England during Roman times as shown by Pollen Analysis. J. Arch. Sci. 6: 285–290.

van Geel B., Buurman J. and Waterbolk H.T. 1996. Archaeological and palaeoecological indications of an abrupt climate change in The Netherlands, and evidence for climatological teleconnections around 2650 BP. J. Quat. Sci. 11: 451–460.

Walker I.R. 2001. Midges: Chironomidae and related Diptera. In: Smol J.P., Birks H.J.B. and Last W.M. (eds), Tracking Environmental Changes using Lake Sediments, Volume 4 — Zoological Indicators, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 43–66.

Walker I.R., Smol J.P., Engstrom D.R. and Birks H.J.B. 1991. An assessment of Chironomidae as quantitative indicators of past climatic change. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 48: 975–987.

Walker I.R., Smol J.P., Engstrom D.R. and Birks H.J.B. 1992. Aquatic invertebrates, climate, scale, and statistical hypotheses testing: a response to Hann, Warner and Warwick. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 49: 1276–1280.

100. Walker I.R., Levesque A.J., Cwynar L.C. and Lotter A.F. 1997. An expanded surface-water palaeotemperature inference model for use with fossil midges from eastern Canada. J. Paleolim. 18: 165–178.

Wiederholm T. (ed.) 1983. Chironomidae of the Holartic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol. Scand. Suppl. 19: 1–457.

Winchester A.J.L. 1987. The Farming Landscape. In: Rollinson W. (ed.), The Lake District Landscape Heritage, David and Charles, London, 76–100.

Edited October 26, 2009 by myata

[waldo]

McIntyre most certainly implied fraud if not outright stating it. You have to be naive to ignore the results of anything emanating from McIntyre or his blog... whether right or wrong, most anything he writes gets picked up and expanded on a thousand fold within the blogging deniersphere - with subsequent reach into the mainstream.

He did no such thing. He stated quite clearly that he felt that Briffa probably inherited the choice of cores from the Russians and that there was likely a procedure applied to choose the cores and it was not deliberate cherry picking. I read and understand that before RC posted anything on the topic so you can't claim it was an after the fact clarification. The only people who insist that McIntyre accused anyone of fraud are the prima donnas at RealClimate who are desperate to create distractions.

What kind of an accusation would you call it then... as for it not being, as you state, "an after the fact clarification", interesting what appeared chronology from McIntyre himself... a back-peddling "after the fact clarification", that appeared after the shit-storm he launched had already hit the denialsphere and rocketed into the mainstream. There's a lot of supporting detail but I particularly like this quote from his blog Sept 28... with his, uhhh.... clarification offered Oct 4 - is that enough "after the fact" for you? :

I'd be inclined to remove the data affected by

CRU cherrypicking

but will leave it in for now. [Note:

Oct 4

- as noted in other posts and comments, it was and is my view that the selection of cores was done by the Russians and not by CRU. In context, there is a statistical issue of the representativeness of combining a population from one site with a screened population from another site. In the present circumstances, the logical thing to do would be to either have the authors of Briffa et al 2008 provide the data on the complete population or to resample the site or both.]

Of course, CRU, is Briffa's Climate Research Unit... and, of course, given the raised profile of another "da da" McIntyre "breaking the hockey stick" that resonated across the denialsphere and into the mainstream, a Briffa response is pressured forward, where he speaks directly to the substantive implication of McIntyre's comment:

At the end of the day, McIntyre based his "critique" of Briffa's work on a test where he (McIntyre) randomly added in one set of data from another location (from the Yamal region)... data that McIntyre states he found on the internet. Well... ok... Blog Science triumphs once again!!!

Here, chew on this concerning the so-called Briffa data release issue... make that... the McIntyre fabricated Briffa data release issue, which you've just parroted:

McIntyre had the data all along

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.

He fabricated nothing. Briffa had a professional obligation to release all of the data required to replicate a study. SteveMc has no obligation to go chasing the Russians - that is Briffa's problem. If Briffa had no rights to the the data then he had a professional obligation to withdraw his papers. The fact that so called "reputable" journals like Science and Nature refused to enforce their own data disclosure policies is further evidence of how corrupted climate science has become.

Both Nature and Science responded... if I recall correctly, the Science response is up on McIntyre's blog. In each case, they indicated Briffa's "composite data" was deposited... as in, it had been deposited by Briffa... was available from both Nature and Science. As Briffa's study wasn't based on the raw data... and he didn't own the raw data (the Russians did)... he deposited the data his study was based on and the data he had ownership of. I've read quotes where Briffa advises McIntyre that he should contact the Russians directly - and yet, instead of McIntyre doing that, we get the, as I stated, "fabricated" data release issue. If you're going to attack such prestigious scientific journals as Nature... or Science... or PNAS... perhaps you could advise exactly which of their own disclosure policies they're failing to enforce.

[waldo]

...because "piling on" is certainly warranted!

With stated intentions to publish the related studies, it seems Briffa has just offered another updated response to the McIntyre "analysis"... or lack thereof:

Examining the validity of the published RCS Yamal tree-ring chronology

McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it.

.

.

McIntyre states "If the non-robustness observed here prove out .. this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies ...". We have shown here that the "KHAD only" example constructed by McIntyre itself represents a biased chronology, contradicted by the evidence of other chronologies constructed using additional and more representative site data. The evidence does not support a conclusion that our previous work was in any way seriously flawed.

.

.

This does not mean that these chronologies will not change as additional data become available and as the RCS processing technique evolves, but the results we show here do suggest that McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication for those other proxy studies that make use of the published Yamal chronology data.

Briffa also speaks to the so-called data release concerns that McIntyre fabricated:

Raw Data Availability

Briffa has also been attacked by McIntyre for not releasing the original ring-width measurement records from which the various chronologies discussed in Briffa (2000) and Briffa et al. (2008) were made. We would like to reiterate that these data were never "owned" by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals. When the Briffa (2000) paper was published, release of these data was specifically embargoed by our colleagues who were still working towards further publications using them. Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data. This was done in 2008 and 2009. Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004.

The Climatic Research Unit has never been a prolific producer of tree-ring records, focussing mainly on the collaborative analysis of data generously provided by other institutions. We will continue to respect restrictions placed upon the dissemination of data by those colleagues who provide them. All of the data produced at CRU (sampled from living oaks or pines at various sites around the UK and Scandinavia) have been provided on request. (All of the data used or produced in the analysis described here are provided on the Data page.)

Real Science trumps Denial/Skeptic Blog Science!

[Riverwind]

With stated intentions to publish the related studies, it seems Briffa has just offered another updated response to the McIntyre "analysis"... or lack thereof:

Here is McIntrye's rebuttal:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588

Consider a situation where a scientist has 10 measurements where two are about 1000 and the other 8 are about 10. The scientist calculates the average and claims the correct value is 208. Some else comes along a provides reasons why the two measurements of 1000 are wrong because of problems with data collection. A compentent scientist would acknowledge the criticism and remove those two measurements from the set and calculate a new average of 10.

However, a "climate" scientist does not do that. Instead a "climate" scientist calculates two new averages of 9 measurements - removing one of the bad measurements in each case. These two new averages are 120 which is close to the 208 so the "climate" scientist declares that the bad data makes no difference because removing it does not affect the results. The "climate" scientist then continues to insist that the average of 208 is the "correct" value because his calculations are "robust" since removing one of the bad measurements did not change the result.

Most readers will realize that the "climate" scientist's argument is absurd and the only reasonable way to deal with the bad data is to remove both measurements and calculate the average with the 8 good measurements. But we are not dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with people that believe they know what the "correct" answer is supposed to be and are willing to resort to any amount of obfuscation and manipulation in order to produce the "correct" answer.

Here is another more complex layman's description of why Briffa's argument is BS: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/regression-abuse.html

Real Science trumps Denial/Skeptic Blog Science!

Here are Nature's policies on data disclosure: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_po...ailability.html

An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission. Any restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript, including details of how readers can obtain materials and information. If materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, this should be stated in the paper.

First, no reasonable person can argue that the composite sufficient to replicate the author's claims. The underlying series are required. Second, Briffa's emails to SteveMc do not count as "disclosure in the submitted manuscript". Nature should have withdrawn Briffa's paper as soon as they found out that Briffa failed to disclose restrictions on the data required to "replicate and build upon" Briffa's work. The fact that Nature chose to let Briffa get away with such a blatent violations of Nature's own policies demonstrates that Nature is not an unbaised source of scientific information. Edited October 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

References: there's approximately fifty authors in these referenced publications, not including a number of collective works.

A list of papers that you do not understand does not constitute evidence that the authors know as much about statistics as SteveMc and RossMc nor does ite even demonstrate that the authors actually support the IPCC view. I provided a link to a survey that says that up to 20% of practicing climate scientists believe the IPCC is exagerrating the problem. That is a significant minority opinion than cannot/should not be ignored by policy makers. Edited October 30, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Here is McIntrye's rebuttal:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588

A rebuttal? To what? Certainly not to the following Briffa abstract commentary… McIntyre actually states he’ll need time to work through the expanded data set before commenting on the validity of the Yamal chronology… for whatever limited value McIntyre’s commentary is actually worth.

Steve McIntyre reports an analysis he undertook to test the "sensitivity" of the "Regional Curve Standardised" tree-ring chronology (Briffa, 2000; Briffa at al., 2008) to the selection of measurement data intended to provide evidence of long-term changes of tree growth, and, ultimately inferred temperature variation through two millennia in the Yamal region of northern Russia. It would be a mistake to conclude that McIntyre's sensitivity analysis provides evidence to refute our current interpretation of relatively high tree growth and summer warmth in the 20th century in this region. A reworked chronology, based on additional data, including those used in McIntyre's analysis, is similar to our previously published chronologies. Our earlier work thus provides a defensible and reasonable indication of tree growth changes during the 20th century and in the context of long-term changes reconstructed over the last two millennia in the vicinity of the larch tree line in southern Yamal. McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it.

For all the faith you place in your “vaunted” McIntyre, the so-called “slayer of hockey sticks”, perhaps you could answer a straight-forward question. If McIntyre really has substantive value-add input to the debate, why doesn’t he rise above the sceptics blog level and actually write a paper and attempt to get it published? What’s he waiting for… what’s he afraid of?

Consider a situation where a scientist has 10 measurements where two are about 1000 and the other 8 are about 10. The scientist calculates the average and claims the correct value is 208. Some else comes along a provides reasons why the two measurements of 1000 are wrong because of problems with data collection. A compentent scientist would acknowledge the criticism and remove those two measurements from the set and calculate a new average of 10.

However, a "climate" scientist does not do that. Instead a "climate" scientist calculates two new averages of 9 measurements - removing one of the bad measurements in each case. These two new averages are 120 which is close to the 208 so the "climate" scientist declares that the bad data makes no difference because removing it does not affect the results. The "climate" scientist then continues to insist that the average of 208 is the "correct" value because his calculations are "robust" since removing one of the bad measurements did not change the result.

Most readers will realize that the "climate" scientist's argument is absurd and the only reasonable way to deal with the bad data is to remove both measurements and calculate the average with the 8 good measurements. But we are not dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with people that believe they know what the "correct" answer is supposed to be and are willing to resort to any amount of obfuscation and manipulation in order to produce the "correct" answer.

Perhaps you could actually relate this little simplistic unrelated ditty to something… anything… that specifically associates to the particular Briffa studies under review/discussion in these latest posts. If you’re actually “trying” to speak to data selection/admission practices, perhaps you could correlate your piece of trivial arithmetic to specific data selection/admission undertaken within the Briffa studies. You tried one of these juvenile math exercises in the past and I called you on it then… same here… exactly what are you stating with specific objection that can be directly correlated to the Briffa studies? Specifically.

Here is another more complex layman's description of why Briffa's argument is BS: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/regression-abuse.html

C’mon… you’ve picked some generic regression commentary and expect that to be translated to, as you state, “Briffa’s argument”. What argument within Briffa are you speaking to – specifically… as relates to your linked commentary? You drop a link and expect others to weed through and attempt to interpret your one-liners back to your dropped link and on to the (presumed) actual substantive science/studies. Talk about Blog Science run amok – you’re certainly a capable delivery boy!

Here are Nature's policies on data disclosure: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_po...ailability.html

First, no reasonable person can argue that the composite sufficient to replicate the author's claims. The underlying series are required. Second, Briffa's emails to SteveMc do not count as "disclosure in the submitted manuscript". Nature should have withdrawn Briffa's paper as soon as they found out that Briffa failed to disclose restrictions on the data required to "replicate and build upon" Briffa's work. The fact that Nature chose to let Briffa get away with such a blatent violations of Nature's own policies demonstrates that Nature is not an unbaised source of scientific information.

Why continue the charade … McIntyre had the data as early as 2004. Since you’ve highlighted the journal Nature, perhaps you could supply the response McIntyre received from Nature when he requested the Briffa study data.

[waldo]

I provided a link to a survey that says that up to 20% of practicing climate scientists believe the IPCC is exagerrating the problem. That is a significant minority opinion than cannot/should not be ignored by policy makers.

for what the value of that unscientific "online poll" that you linked to actually is... it also stated that up to 20% of practicing climate scientists believe the IPCC is understating the problem. This, most certainly, is a... as you state, significant minority opinion that cannot/should not be ignored by policy makers.

notwithstanding your poll showing that "Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming." Whaaaaaa! No deniers there - hey?

[myata]

A list of papers that you do not understand does not constitute evidence that the authors know as much about statistics as SteveMc and RossMc nor does ite even demonstrate that the authors actually support the IPCC view. I provided a link to a survey that says that up to 20% of practicing climate scientists believe the IPCC is exagerrating the problem. That is a significant minority opinion than cannot/should not be ignored by policy makers.

I'm only saying that demonstrated amount and quality of scientific work (that is guaranteed by continuous peer examination, interdependencis and cross references among hundreds and thousands of qualified professionals) gives me, personally, much higher confidence in their work, than some pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo splashed around general Internet forums. The moment you have your findings reviewed and examined by qualified peers and published in the professinal media, they'll be worth serious consideration. Till then it can be very safely written off as a pseudo intellectual junk, probably not worth the time it takes to type it, and the bytes to carry it.

[Riverwind]

I'm only saying that demonstrated amount and quality of scientific work (that is guaranteed by continuous peer examination, interdependencis and cross references among hundreds and thousands of qualified professionals) gives me, personally, much higher confidence in their work

But that brings us back to the question of what happens if the peer review system is broken and it is allowing junk papers to be published and accepted as truth? Your blind faith in the system makes it impossible for anyone to show that the system is broken because you assume that the system cannot possibly be broken.

The moment you have your findings reviewed and examined by qualified peers and published in the professinal media, they'll be worth serious consideration.

A recipe for disaster because there is no reason to believe the system is infalliable and plenty of reason to believe that in fields like climate science is heavily politicized and that contratrian views are not given the consideration they deserve.

To be blunt your position is indistiguishable from a religious zealot who rejects all claims that god may not exist because they don't come from the official experts in god (e.g. the priests). It is an exercise in circular logic.

[waldo]

But that brings us back to the question of what happens if the peer review system is broken and it is allowing junk papers to be published and accepted as truth? Your blind faith in the system makes it impossible for anyone to show that the system is broken because you assume that the system cannot possibly be broken.

The moment you have your findings reviewed and examined by qualified peers and published in the professinal media, they'll be worth serious consideration. Till then it can be very safely written off as a pseudo intellectual junk, probably not worth the time it takes to type it, and the bytes to carry it.

A recipe for disaster because there is no reason to believe the system is infalliable and plenty of reason to believe that in fields like climate science is heavily politicized and that contratrian views are not given the consideration they deserve.

To be blunt your position is indistiguishable from a religious zealot who rejects all claims that god may not exist because they don't come from the official experts in god (e.g. the priests). It is an exercise in circular logic.

Regardless of the discipline... are you suggesting that peer review is infallible? Specific to climate science, do you imply the peer review process is subject to purposeful fraud/deceit?

It would be helpful for you to rise above your own circular logic exercise... within the climate science discipline, can you advise of specific "contrarian" views that have not been published... and the reasons why?

Of course... to have "contrarian" views published, it would presume that said "contrarian" views have actually gone beyond the denier blog level and have been substantively shaped into a so-called "paper submission format", inclusive of complete supporting scientific foundation processes/data. You avoided answering previously, so I'll ask again..... why hasn't your favourite go-to skeptic, McIntyre, formulated his "contrarian" views into published format? What's he waiting for - what's he afraid of? Why doesn't he rise above the skeptics blog level? Why does he rely on the denialsphere to push his unsubstantiated "contrarian" views on through to the media/mainstream... oh right... apparently, you have no problem with this type of, as you say, "heavy politicization".

[myata]

But that brings us back to the question of what happens if the peer review system is broken and it is allowing junk papers to be published and accepted as truth?

No human system is infallible in principle, but to make the judgement whether a particular one is "broken" or not, we'll have to put our trust either in the body of trained and qualified professionals, or untrained and unqualified posters on the Internet forums.

To be blunt your position is indistiguishable from a religious zealot who rejects all claims that god may not exist because they don't come from the official experts in god (e.g. the priests). It is an exercise in circular logic.

No, it is absolutely distinguishable, and I already explained the difference between confidence in a professional optionion, and blind faith of a religious zealot, right here and only a few posts back. That one don't seem to be able to either understand that simple difference, or keep it in their mind for not so extended period of time, sheds even more doubts on whatever claims toward science they could make.

[Topaz]

The Tories will never bring in a good policy on the environment, we all know that. The part of waiting for the US is just a stalling game because they know Obama's government is too busy with the health care issue and it will be months before he can get to it and before this it was China and India excuse. Its been reported even IF the Tories did their 20% by 2020, Alberta and Saskatchewan would still hurt their economy. The word "harmonizing" you will hear it a lot now and in the future for Canada and the US and it could be another way of saying "uniting" "joining". SPP.