Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:19:18 AM
hogsgeteaten -- look, quit trying to foist hogwash as legitimate while pretending to be some sort of guardian of science, and I'll quit pointing out, accurately, that you're trying to foist hogwash as legitimate while pretending to be some sort of guardian of science (this topic area being not new to this board, or to me) -- and this latest from you, in addition to not being responsive to my http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45807822 (which you obviously barely glanced at), hardly helps -- just more seriously dumbass hogwash emitted thanks to "the tireless efforts" of yet another properly laughable hack -- "a lone amateur researcher, Steve McIntyre" ( http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/new-book-the-hockey-stick-illusion-global-warming-and-the-corruption-of-science/ ):
=====
Hey Ya! (mal)
group @ 30 September 2009
Filed under:
Climate Science [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/ ]
Instrumental Record [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/ ]
Paleoclimate [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/paleoclimate/ ]
Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie [ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/ ]” (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?
Indeed, according to both the National Review [ http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg= ] and the Daily Telegraph [ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/ ] (and who would not trust these sources?), even Al Gore’s use of the stair lift in An Inconvenient Truth was done to highlight cherry-picked tree rings, instead of what everyone thought was the rise in CO2 concentrations in the last 200 years.
Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts” and “peer reviewed science” or the practioners of “Blog Science [ http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/ ]“? Surely, the choice is clear….
More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov [ http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/717 ], in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.
A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/ ] (pdf [ http://post.queensu.ca/~biol527/Briffa%20and%20Keith%202000.pdf ]) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.
Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won’t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).
****
So along comes Steve McIntyre [ http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/ ], self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2004-melvin/ ] about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.
The statement from Keith Briffa [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/ ] clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyre’s accusations. Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all – all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isn’t going to be clear until it’s done.
What is clear however, is that there is a very predictable pattern to the reaction to these blog posts that has been discussed many [ http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-shall-set-you-free.html ] times [ http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php ]. As we said last time [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/ ] there was such a kerfuffle:
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere.
Plus ça change…
The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.
Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we’re confident that the corrections will appear any day now…. Oh yes.
But can it be true that all Hockey Sticks are made in Siberia? A RealClimate exclusive investigation follows:
We start with the original MBH hockey stick as replicated by Wahl and Ammann [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/ ]:
Hmmm… neither of the Yamal chronologies anywhere in there. And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600 [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/ ]?
Nope, no Yamal record in there either. How about Osborn and Briffa’s results [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/ ] which were robust even when you removed any three of the records?
Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html ] perhaps?
No. How about the hockey stick of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements [ http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/cc.shtml (embedded link evidently inadvertantly omitted from original; found via url for this next graphic)]?
Err… not even close. What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009/ (and [items linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41232510 (and preceding)) Arctic reconstruction when you take out Yamal?
Oh. The hockey stick you get when you don’t use tree-rings [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/ ] at all (blue curve)?
No. Well what about the hockey stick blade from the instrumental record itself [by RealClimate]?
And again, no. But wait, maybe there is something (Update: Original idea by Lucia [ http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/baby-name-ometery/ ])….
Nah….
One would think that some things go without saying, but apparently people still get a key issue wrong so let us be extremely clear. Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/ ]. What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.
Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have.
So go on Steve, surprise us.
Update: Briffa and colleagues have now responded with an extensive (and in our view, rather convincing) rebuttal [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ ].
Copyright 2009 RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/ [with comments] [search for 'Steve McIntyre' http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=Steve+McIntyre&submit=Search&qt=&q=Steve+McIntyre+site%3Awww.realclimate.org&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66A%5C%0D%0AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site ]
=====
Steve McIntyre
last modified on 3 December 2009, at 10:22
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre
=====
Hey Ya! (mal)
group @ 30 September 2009
Filed under:
Climate Science [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/ ]
Instrumental Record [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/ ]
Paleoclimate [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/paleoclimate/ ]
Interesting news this weekend. Apparently everything we’ve done in our entire careers is a “MASSIVE lie [ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/ ]” (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?
Indeed, according to both the National Review [ http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q5ZGExZTc3ZTlmMTA5OTdhOGRjNzdlNmU4N2M4ZTg= ] and the Daily Telegraph [ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/ ] (and who would not trust these sources?), even Al Gore’s use of the stair lift in An Inconvenient Truth was done to highlight cherry-picked tree rings, instead of what everyone thought was the rise in CO2 concentrations in the last 200 years.
Who should we believe? Al Gore with his “facts” and “peer reviewed science” or the practioners of “Blog Science [ http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/ ]“? Surely, the choice is clear….
More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (called a chronology in dendro-climatology) that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov [ http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/717 ], in the late 1990s (and published in 2002). This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas. They used a subset of the 224 trees they found to be long enough and sensitive enough (based on the interannual variability) supplemented by 17 living tree cores to create a “Yamal” climate record.
A preliminary set of this data had also been used by Keith Briffa in 2000 [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/ ] (pdf [ http://post.queensu.ca/~biol527/Briffa%20and%20Keith%202000.pdf ]) (processed using a different algorithm than used by H&S for consistency with two other northern high latitude series), to create another “Yamal” record that was designed to improve the representation of long-term climate variability.
Since long climate records with annual resolution are few and far between, it is unsurprising that they get used in climate reconstructions. Different reconstructions have used different methods and have made different selections of source data depending on what was being attempted. The best studies tend to test the robustness of their conclusions by dropping various subsets of data or by excluding whole classes of data (such as tree-rings) in order to see what difference they make so you won’t generally find that too much rides on any one proxy record (despite what you might read elsewhere).
****
So along comes Steve McIntyre [ http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/ ], self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2004-melvin/ ] about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.
The statement from Keith Briffa [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/ ] clearly describes the background to these studies and categorically refutes McIntyre’s accusations. Does that mean that the existing Yamal chronology is sacrosanct? Not at all – all of the these proxy records are subject to revision with the addition of new (relevant) data and whether the records change significantly as a function of that isn’t going to be clear until it’s done.
What is clear however, is that there is a very predictable pattern to the reaction to these blog posts that has been discussed many [ http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-shall-set-you-free.html ] times [ http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php ]. As we said last time [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/ ] there was such a kerfuffle:
However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere.
Plus ça change…
The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the ‘real’ problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn’t want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip.
Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we’re confident that the corrections will appear any day now…. Oh yes.
But can it be true that all Hockey Sticks are made in Siberia? A RealClimate exclusive investigation follows:
We start with the original MBH hockey stick as replicated by Wahl and Ammann [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/ ]:
Hmmm… neither of the Yamal chronologies anywhere in there. And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600 [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/ ]?
Nope, no Yamal record in there either. How about Osborn and Briffa’s results [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/ ] which were robust even when you removed any three of the records?
Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html ] perhaps?
No. How about the hockey stick of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements [ http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/cc.shtml (embedded link evidently inadvertantly omitted from original; found via url for this next graphic)]?
Err… not even close. What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009/ (and [items linked in] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41232510 (and preceding)) Arctic reconstruction when you take out Yamal?
Oh. The hockey stick you get when you don’t use tree-rings [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/ ] at all (blue curve)?
No. Well what about the hockey stick blade from the instrumental record itself [by RealClimate]?
And again, no. But wait, maybe there is something (Update: Original idea by Lucia [ http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/baby-name-ometery/ ])….
Nah….
One would think that some things go without saying, but apparently people still get a key issue wrong so let us be extremely clear. Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’. There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/ ]. What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.
Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results. You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have.
So go on Steve, surprise us.
Update: Briffa and colleagues have now responded with an extensive (and in our view, rather convincing) rebuttal [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/ ].
Copyright 2009 RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/ [with comments] [search for 'Steve McIntyre' http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=Steve+McIntyre&submit=Search&qt=&q=Steve+McIntyre+site%3Awww.realclimate.org&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66A%5C%0D%0AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site ]
=====
Steve McIntyre
last modified on 3 December 2009, at 10:22
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
