ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

In any case - the sun increasing in intensity hasn't shown to be a cause of heating other parts of the atmosphere so what isn't "common sense" here ? I'm just trying to break the logjam in my own mind on what the point of disagreement is.

This is my understanding of the solar effect on climate:

1) The changes in the Sun's intensity over decades or even centuries is insignificant (<0.1% of the total).

2) The only way for the Sun to affect climate is if this effect is amplified some how.

3) There a few plausible mechanisms such as comic rays which could amplify the suns effects. However, we do not have the data that can either refute nor confirm these effects (note that alarmists take the position that if an effect other than CO2 exists it must be conclusively proven to exist before they accept it. sceptics take the position that the CO2 effect has not been conclusively proven so other plausible mechanisms cannot be ruled out simply because they have not been proven).

4) Both sides of the debate are guilty of cherry picking solar data to best suit their argument. For example, the IPCC view requires a significant direct solar effect to explain the warming between 1910 and 1940 yet solar scientists like Lief Svalgaard say that the sun's intensity did not change during that time so the IPCC models cannot be correct. The IPCC aligned scientists justifies their view by ignoring Svalgaard's data.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Roy Spencer's Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Debate (follow link for detailed explaination.

1. The term “climate change” itself.

2. “Climate change denier”.

3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research.

4. Appeal to authority.

5. Unwillingness to debate.

6. A lack of common sense.

7. Use of climate models as truth.

8. Claims that climate models have been tested.

9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased.

10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway.

[waldo]

To fair a lot of data has been online for a quite away and sceptics have used to demonstrate that the 'consensus' opinion is based on on arbitrary choices which happen to produce results that they like. They have shown that making different scientifically justifiable choices can result in a different picture of the data.

However, you forget that these emails we released because the scientists refused to release data key to some important analyses so RC's is quite disingenuous to imply that ALL of the data has been made public.

The disingenuous aspects relate to (some of) the accusations of refusing to release data... we went up and down the one previous example you blustered on about (re: McIntyre and Briffa) - and it was shown that denier blogger McIntyre, to his discredit or ignorance, actually had the data all along.

Of course, there are also other considerations at play - often ownership of data is a factor... who actually owns the data and has the rights/authority to release the data. The deniers will rant on if they are advised to seek the data from the original owner... or they'll scream about the peer-review process if a journal access allows them consolidated data (rather than raw data), even though the related study has relied upon consolidated data (provided from owners of the raw data).

How gratuitous of you to actually admit, as you state, 'a lot of data has been online for quite a while'. Your opinion of what the so-called skeptics have done with the available data is moot - the proof is in the pudding... within the scientific community, at large, the skeptics view is not prevailing, regardless of how often they come forward with the latest "ta da". That's the real issue - nothing from the skeptic-denier camp has shaken the foundation of current overwhelming views held within the scientific community toward climate change and the major cause of the relatively recent warming - anthropogenic influences. Despite what many within the skeptic-denier camp believe... are willing to accept... there is a lot of mutual respect for scientists on both sides... actual scientists - not "blog scientists". Of course there are competitive aspects involved, personalities at play, and many other influences... but at the end of the day, no legitimate scientist fraudulently backs a position that can't be represented within the body of work - within the supporting foundation.

... and RC has not implied that all data has been made available. It provides a reference point for available data that is available - that has been available... it then offers open solicitation for requests to add to the reference. Real scientists have no problem getting the data - typically... blog scientists who rarely know anything of the science - the actual climate science - are somewhat questioned as to their legitimacy - go figure. I'm reminded of a comment from one of the key RC guys who was asked what positive contributions he had directly received from the deniersphere, particularly in relation to some of the data&code he had personally been working on and had personally directed be made available online - something that was no small effort in terms of time and resources. Surprise, surprise... over the years since he made this most significant piece of data and related code available, he indicates, not once - not once... has he actually ever received feedback that might presume to better the code, processing, etc. But fear not... the (mostly) moronic blog-scientists will continue to rant and rail... while contributing little or nothing to actually advancing the science.

[waldo]

Roy Spencer's Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Debate

I asked previously, and made pains to imply I was attempting not to offer an ad hominem... given Spencer's most controversial positions (directly outside of the climate science debate), not the least of which is his advocacy for Intelligent Design (Creationism), how difficult is it for most scientists, for most laypersons, to give credibility to much (anything?) Roy Spencer has to offer/contribute?

[Riverwind]

Roy Spencer has to offer/contribute?

By resorting ad hom attacks on Spencer you demonstrate cannot actually repudiate his science or his academic credentials. You must also believe that Newton had "nothing to contribute" to the debate about physics since:

In the 1690s, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Henry More's belief in the Universe and rejection of Cartesian dualism may have influenced Newton's religious ideas. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published. Later works – The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) and Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733) – were published after his death. He also devoted a great deal of time to alchemy (see above).

In any case, Spencer's publication record speaks for itself.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

McIntyre, to his discredit or ignorance, actually had the data all along

It is amazing how lies in the alarmist echo chambers get repeated over and over until people think they are facts. Here is what SteveMc has to say on the data he received in 2004:

First, to clear a little underbrush. There is one other version of these series that readers may encounter: Hantemirov and Shiyatov archived a Yamal reconstruction at NCDC that has no hockey stick blade whatever. This version was promoted by a commenter (Lucy Skywalker) at Jeff Id's as being a priori more valid than Briffa's. Although the Hantemirov and Briffa chronologies have a very different visual appearance (especially the non_HSness of the Hantemirov version), there is an extremely high correlation between the very different looking Hantemirov-Shiyatov and Briffa Yamal chronologies. (If you regress the Briffa recon against the Hantemirov recon for the pre-1800 version, you get a huge r^2 of 0.81). The two series clearly have the same raw material.

Translation: he received the data but it was not the data Briffa actually used so he could not use it to analyze Briffa's reconstructions. I am sure Briffa and co knew this but they choose to let everyone believe it was the same data.

Of course, there are also other considerations at play - often ownership of data is a factor... who actually owns the data and has the rights/authority to release the data.

Actually this is an irrelevant point. If the data cannot be released then the paper should not be published. I know scientists whinge about this but I could not care less. If something cannot be replicated because the data is secret then it is not science and should be ignored. In fact, in many other disciplines the peer review journals explicitly state that papers based on secret data cannot be submitted except in extraordinary circumstances.

Surprise, surprise... over the years since he made this most significant piece of data and related code available, he indicates, not once - not once... has he actually ever received feedback that might presume to better the code

You mean the Gavin who reads climate audit, discovers errors reported on climate audit, reports those errors to the data custodians and then claims that he discovered the errors 'independently'? I am sorry but Gavin's claims on this point have zero credibility - especially since I have seen commentators claiming the submitted minor bug fixes to climate model code on RC that were never posted nor acknowledged. Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

It is amazing how lies in the alarmist echo chambers get repeated over and over until people think they are facts.

Translation: he received the data but it was not the data Briffa actually used so he could not use it to analyze Briffa's reconstructions. I am sure Briffa and co knew this but they choose to let everyone believe it was the same data.

nonsense - utter tripe... by the way, how is McIntyre progressing with his attempts to refute Briffa's reaffirmation of what actually transpired. You know, where McIntyre is left flapping in the wind, advising he'll need time to review what Briffa provided with his latest update

(note: since I make it a practice not to visit McIntyre's stink-hole site, if he's actually found the time (given his retirement luxuries), don't hesitate to update his analysis... after all, he is the infamous auditor - albeit, a guy who actually knows nothing of the science itself.)

[Riverwind]

nonsense - utter tripe.

So do you have evidence that the data that Steve received in 2004 was actually the same data that Briffa used? If so produce it. If you can't then you should acknowledge that Briffa and is RC buddies have been feeding you lies.

how is McIntyre progressing with his attempts to refute Briffa's reaffirmation of what actually transpired.

Actually, Briffa has agreed with McIntyre's criticisms and did not try to refute them. Instead choose to re-do his work using data that was not used in his papers and then argued that since he can reproduce the same results of his papers with the new data then his papers must be correct.

Of course, that such an argument is nonsense. His papers were based on a rediculously small sample size and did not support the claims made in his papers. But thats ok. In climate science if you are on the 'Team' you are allowed to correct bogus work after the fact and claim you were never wrong in the first place.

Here is the Yamal controversy as revealed by the leaked emails.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Actually this is an irrelevant point. If the data cannot be released then the paper should not be published. I know scientists whinge about this but I could not care less. If something cannot be replicated because the data is secret then it is not science and should be ignored. In fact, in many other disciplines the peer review journals explicitly state that papers based on secret data cannot be submitted except in extraordinary circumstances.

nice twist... cast your aspersion toward journals working within the peer review process... or the owners of the original data. Third parties don't own the data and unless explicitly given the transferred authority, can't release that data. Certainly, the author provides the data that supports the papers work... and sometimes it's so-called consolidated data - that's what the journals have, that's what's accessible to outside interests - outside of actually going to the owners of the original data and asking for it. Such a heavy burden!!!

... and, of course, as you're aware, but unwilling to admit/accept, that's exactly what transpired between McIntyre & Briffa. Frankly, to his credit, Briffa actually gave McIntyre the time of day... and in a most collegial manner advised he couldn't supply the related raw data and proceeded to point him to the actual owners - the 2 Russian guys. So, of course, McIntyre - as is his way - blew everything out of proportion and his minions rallied to their messiah... rippling McIntyre's fake outrage throughout denialblogworld. Of course, as we know, by his own words, McIntyre admitted he actually had the data (all along) - what a doofus!

McIntyre had the data all along

... on edit... btw, the "ridiculously small data size/sample" claim was blown away - by Briffa and others - attaining the same results with a much larger sample size.

Edited November 28, 2009 by waldo

[waldo]

You mean the Gavin who reads climate audit, discovers errors reported on climate audit, reports those errors to the data custodians and then claims that he discovered the errors 'independently'? I am sorry but Gavin's claims on this point have zero credibility - especially since I have seen commentators claiming the submitted minor bug fixes to climate model code on RC that were never posted nor acknowledged.

I have no idea what you're referring to - don't hesitate to provide real supporting detail - what a concept!

[Riverwind]

McIntyre had the data all along

Of course the clueless ones at RC forget that they severely critcized McIntyre for using the wrong version of a dataset in his analysis of MBH98 so it really does not make a difference whether Steve had a version from the Russians because there are many versions of the same data (as I noted in my earlier post). What SteveMc needed was Briffa to send him the data that Briffa has actually used. Here is SteveMc complete explaination for why he asked Briffa for the data even though he knew that he had a version that *might* be the same as the version used by Briffa.

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. What I didn't know until a couple of weeks ago was that this was the actual version that Briffa had used.

This is not a small point. In climate science, there can be different versions of an unarchived data set in circulation. For example, there have been a number of different versions of Thompson's Dunde ice core data in circulation, not all of which can be reconciled.

So once again your accusations simply do hold up to investigation and it is unforturnate that there are so many gulliable people in the alarmist echo chambers that accept claims without making any attempt to see what the counter argument is. The link you provided is quite pathetic since it did link to the full explanation but completely misrepresented it.

[waldo]

... it really does not make a difference whether Steve had a version from the Russians because there are many versions of the same data (as I noted in my earlier post). What SteveMc needed was Briffa to send him the data that Briffa has actually used.

So once again your accusations simply do hold up to investigation and it is unforturnate that there are so many gulliable people in the alarmist echo chambers that accept claims without making any attempt to see what the counter argument is. The link you provided is quite pathetic since it did link to the full explanation but completely misrepresented it.

McIntyre trolls the internet/FTP sites for data and continually updates about his latest "finds"... apparently, he could take the effort to find that data (however, he got it), but couldn't actually take the effort to contact the actual owners for that data... as was suggested by the papers author, Briffa. Instead, we ended up with another McIntyre based/initiated fiasco, that takes real scientists away from their actual work.

On top of all that... you're suggesting that even though McIntyre had the data (all along), and it proved to be the real source data, after all... you (and McIntyre) would have us believe he never took that data "for a spin", particularly since he knew it was a so-called "version" of the source data. McIntyre, who lives and breathes to attempt to break "the science"... whose bathes himself in adulation from his adoring minion base (guys like you)... he wouldn't actually use the data to allow him to bask in greater glory!!! What's more believable is that McIntyre did exactly that - he used and tested the data... and found he couldn't break it (Briffa's results)... so didn't initially acknowledge it and it took years to recognize that he did, in fact, always have the data!

You certainly echo a fine chamber yourself... in any case, McIntyre is a tool, who has absolutely zero credibility within the scientific community. He's had way too many 15-minute instances of undeserved recognition.

[waldo]

I asked previously, and made pains to imply I was attempting not to offer an ad hominem... given Spencer's most controversial positions (directly outside of the climate science debate), not the least of which is his advocacy for Intelligent Design (Creationism), how difficult is it for most scientists, for most laypersons, to give credibility to much (anything?) Roy Spencer has to offer/contribute?

By resorting ad hom attacks on Spencer you demostrate cannot actually repudiate his science or his academic credentials.

In any case, Spencer's publication record speaks for itself.

so in spite of my expressed reluctance to entertain ad hominem, shall we play - a bit...

there's certainly no shortage of referenced material that generally calls into question any scientist who would subscribe to Creationism... and, of course, much has been written about Spencer's rather brash and most controversial statements. Does it play into the actual science he does, the results he brings forward, co-authored, or otherwise? How could it not... when he gives support to the notion that scientific results are simply a function of ideology - at what delineating point does ideology determine, or not, the actual science he does, the actual results he brings forward?

in any case, Spencer's overall contributions have to be (also) tempered with the realization that Christy has carried him in many cases and that Christy now, it is stated, actually distances himself from Spencer, given his Creationist position and statements. BTW, what was Spencer's role/contribution to the several significant corrections required to their UAH data? And... who was it that used the erroneous UAH data in testimony before the U.S. Congress, testimony attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy and quality of GCMs (climate global models)... why... I do believe that was the infamous Christy/Spencer tag-team from the University of Alabama!

[Topaz]

You know its very confusing what is the truth about global warming, when you have so many views out there. We do know that the Canada north is going through changes and its not the good kind, as far as the animals living up there is finding out. Anyway, the Ottawa Citizen printing this about our climate and the myths and truths. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/From+Climategate+Copenhagen/2279430/story.html

[Oleg Bach]

The resisters to the idea of cleaning up the house (planet) are driven by gloom and doom and lets have a good time now mentality. What other evidence do we need - the earth used to have a hat made of ice--now that ice cap is just about gone - IN ONE HUMAN GENERATION! This is not cyclical or natural - it is due to an attack of greed and a loathing for nature and humanity...those that became super rich don't want to clean up the waste (shit) that they deposited while accumulating this mindless wealth..It's about power and money and those that want to take it and us with them when they go - I am not going anywhere - I suggest you turn the fridge back on after defrosting and cleaning....It's a simple house keeping issue and the rest of the debate is bull shit..we have to much shit already - we are wading in it...Time for some janitorial duty and diligence.

[Michael Hardner]

You know its very confusing what is the truth about global warming, when you have so many views out there. We do know that the Canada north is going through changes and its not the good kind, as far as the animals living up there is finding out. Anyway, the Ottawa Citizen printing this about our climate and the myths and truths. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/From+Climategate+Copenhagen/2279430/story.html

Unfortunately, that article mixes in Global Warming Versus human-caused Global Warming and confuses things right at the end.

For one thing, the computer modelling studies that have now been thrown into question aren't the only form of science behind the climate change crisis. Observational science -- witnessed evidence of melting glaciers, disappearing polar ice, rising sea levels and changing ocean acidity -- also inform the world's understanding of global warming.

(<aside> So this is a nice bit of evidence for your friends who say that mainstream newspapers will never be replaced by the internet for quality of information. This thread is better than the Ottawa Citizen article, with links directly to studies and critics and the opportunity to engage with those making claims. </aside>)

[Riverwind]

you're suggesting that even though McIntyre had the data (all along), and it proved to be the real source data, after all.

Ok genius please explain how you would be able to determine if a set of data was the same as the one used in the paper given:

1) There are often many different versions of the same data.

2) You had been criticized in the past for assuming you had the same version as was used in a paper.

I am pretty sure that anyone in McIntyre's position would realize that analysis would be a waste of time unless Briffa actually provided him with the data.

Also the fact that McIntrye was able to get a version of the data from the Russians demonstrates that Briffa's refusal was, in fact, a lame excuse and that Briffa could have easily got permission to redistribute the data. On the whole, this episode illustrates why Briffa and co cannot be trusted to do the right thing and we need to have strict data disclosure laws that result in legal penalities if prima donnas like Briffa refuse.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

How could it not... when he gives support to the notion that scientific results are simply a function of ideology - at what delineating point does ideology determine, or not, the actual science he does, the actual results he brings forward?

That is rich considering the fact we have concrete evidence that leading climate scientists deliberately manipulated data so it better conform to their ideology.

Spencer's role/contribution to the several significant corrections required to their UAH data? And... who was it that used the erroneous UAH data in testimony before the U.S. Congress, testimony attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy and quality of GCMs (climate global models)... why... I do believe that was the infamous Christy/Spencer tag-team from the University of Alabama!

The data was believed to correct at the time. When errors were found the datasets were corrected. This is how science is supposed to work. In fact, the willingness to acknowledge and correct errors is one of the reasons why Spencer and Christy stand out as true scientists compared to the loons like Mann who insist to this day that there was nothing wrong with his papers.

In fact, Spencer's recent blog post criticizing the recent sceptical paper by Linzden and Choi should illustrate what kind of scientist he really is and that slurs by alarmist crowd are quite shameful.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

One of the things that I noticed with leaks like the UAE emails is the initially leaked information not always the most damaging. It is the information that is forced to come out because of the leak which is the killer.

This story is one example.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

More commentary here.

[Argus]

global warming types

hey Argus, what type are you? What would you like to offer, particularly, about that particular post you speak of... you know, actually offer something of substance, other than simply pointing to it.

Would you like me to go to some web site, pluck something off it, post it triumphantly and then act like a midget waving his monster dick around?

I leave that sort of behaviour to you.

[Argus]

The doubters also learn on the idea that people are inherently evil and dishonest, that scientists can't be trusted across the board and ultimately that wide global conspiracies are not only possible but likely.

You are misstating things. I would say the doubters' point is that where careers and money are at stake, people will find a way to "prove" whatever is in their own best interests. The media, meanwhile, loves a good horror story, and it doesn't get much more biblical than fire, floods and the end of the world as we know it. Al Gore stating that the oil sands will end human civilization is a lot more interesting and will sell more papers than some guy we've never heard of saying that's silly.

And these things have their own momentum. Humans have a tendency to swim in schools and often don't like those who move in different directions.

It's funny but the IPCC crowd constantly insinuate ulterior motives to scientists who've ever taken a dollar from industry, yet rarely is it pointed out that their side is now a monster consumer of dollars into the tens of billions. Hell, Europe is proposing a $200 billion PER YEAR payment to the UN to be distributed abroad. You don't think THAT is going to get a lot of people scrambling to agree on the dire need to combat Global Warming - regardless of whether it exists in any fashion which can be combatted? One doesn't have to suggest an organized conspiracy in order to be skeptical about claims which are thus far unproven.

And what seems mainly lacking is the enormous doubt that we can actually do much about it anyway. Even if some portion of global warming is attributable to man-made CO2 there seems very little we can do about it without a change in energy sources. We are not going to beggar ourselves and live in mud huts no matter how much that would please the environmentalists.

[waldo]

Ok genius please explain how you would be able to determine if a set of data was the same as the one used in the paper given:

1) There are often many different versions of the same data.

2) You had been criticized in the past for assuming you had the same version as was used in a paper.

I am pretty sure that anyone in McIntyre's position would realize that analysis would be a waste of time unless Briffa actually provided him with the data.

Also the fact that McIntrye was able to get a version of the data from the Russians demonstrates that Briffa's refusal was, in fact, a lame excuse and that Briffa could have easily got permission to redistribute the data. On the whole, this episode illustrates why Briffa and co cannot be trusted to do the right thing and we need to have strict data disclosure laws that result in legal penalities if prima donnas like Briffa refuse.

It just keeps getting better... does McIntyre pay you for pimping him

What part of data ownership do you not understand and accept... again... Briffa did not have the rights to give the data to a 3rd party (McIntyre). Briffa received the consolidated data from the Russians - not the actual raw data itself. Full details of handling/manipulation of that consolidated data is provided within the Briffa paper. What you also fail to grasp is that, in some instances, authors have been required to attach a co-authorship to their paper when their data exists with others... wouldn't that be a hoot... having McIntyre, who knows nothing of the actual science, listed as a co-author of Briffa's paper! I'm not saying that possibility applied here... I'm simply highlighting, for comic relief (re: McIntyre), if nothing else, that attaching co-authorship has been an actual requirement in other data transfer scenarios.

As is the norm, accepting to aspects of legal ownership and possible infringement liabilities, the standard practice is to seek the data from the actual owner(s) of the data. Briffa suggested exactly that to McIntyre, and lo and behold, that's exactly what McIntyre did - he approached the Russians for the data that they provided to Briffa. Of course, he failed to disclose that fact for years, all the while taking every opportunity to disparage Briffa over that same period. There is no question of versioning at play... there were not various versions of data provided to Briffa... there was only one data exchange between the Russians and Briffa - only one. So, of course, the Russians provided McIntyre the exact data they provided to Briffa... the exact same data. Any bullshit McIntyre claim of concern over versioning is exactly that - bullshit. Of course, it eventually came to light that he had the actual data all along (since 2004). But don't let that fact deny McIntyre any opportunity to fuel the denier fires with claims of being denied data! As I also said:

On top of all that... you're suggesting that even though McIntyre had the data (all along), and it proved to be the real source data, after all... you (and McIntyre) would have us believe he never took that data "for a spin", particularly since he knew it was a so-called "version" of the source data. McIntyre, who lives and breathes to attempt to break "the science"... who bathes himself in adulation from his adoring minion base (guys like you)... he wouldn't actually use the data to allow him to bask in greater glory!!! What's more believable is that McIntyre did exactly that - he used and tested the data... and found he couldn't break it (Briffa's results)... so didn't initially acknowledge it and it took years to recognize that he did, in fact, always have the data!

but let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight further... once McIntyre actually works the data, he manipulates it either deliberately or through incompetence, to bring forward a different result - and then, of course, proclaims he's found a problem with the results/with the paper... and that gets blustered about the denialsphere. Once the real scientists engage, and get to the root of what McIntyre actually did with the data, he is once again exposed for the bumpkin he truly is.

[waldo]

That is rich considering the fact we have concrete evidence that leading climate scientists deliberately manipulated data so it better conform to their ideology.

let's get to it... support your claims of data manipulation. I'm heading out for dinner now but will certainly address your response, probably tomorrow morning. Thanks in advance.

[waldo]

Would you like me to go to some web site, pluck something off it, post it triumphantly and then act like a midget waving his monster dick around?

I leave that sort of behaviour to you.

Argus, like what you did with your hurricane pointing post - like that?

You're a troll - nothing else... your opinion is worth (less than) mice nuts.

[Riverwind]

Briffa received the consolidated data from the Russians - not the actual raw data itself.

So where does Briffa tell McIntyre that he never even received the raw data from the Russians? If he did not say that then he can hardly complain about McIntyre insisting that he provide the data. As McIntyre explained - he knows from experience that if he does not get the exact data used from the scientist then he will be accused of using the wrong data.

In any case, Briffa had no problems coughing up the data once he ran into a journal editor that did not accept his excuses.

As for your constant whinging about property rights to data I have one response: its no excuse.

If scientists want to get papers published in the peer reviewed literature then the should be required to make everything available that would be needed to replicate the study. If they cannot do that then they cannot submit the paper and they will have to find something else to write about.

This is the way it works in many other displines and journals like Nature and Science actually have policies that require this. So you can't argue that 'science can't get done without secret data'. It is a BS self serving argument used by climate scientists to prevent people from looking at their work.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Riverwind